Alan Keyes
May 14, 2002

ALAN KEYES, HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.

Late last night, a Baltimore priest was shot and wounded by a man who earlier claimed he had been abused by the priest. We begin tonight with this report from MSNBC's Robert Hager in Baltimore — Bob.

ROBERT HAGER, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Alan, police say the shooter, a 26-year-old named Dontee Stokes drove to the priest's home, confronted him on the sidewalk and then opened fire. Six hours later, he turned himself in, telling police he did it because the priest had molested him nine years ago.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): Tonight at this hospital in Baltimore, Father Maurice Blackwell is in serious but stable condition. Stokes is in jail charged with attempted murder. The shooting occurred here. Neighbor Melvin Mcgee...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We were back in the kitchen when we heard three rapid shocks.

HAGER: This afternoon Stokes' mother asked for mercy for her son.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I never believed he would do this. But it just leads up and it's a breaking point for everybody and I guess yesterday was his breaking point.

HAGER: Father Blackwell, seen here some years ago, had a history of trouble, had been sent away for psychiatric treatment after Stokes first accused him nine years ago. He was returned to his parish after police said they did not have enough evidence to charge him, but finally was completely stripped of his priestly duties four years ago after admitting to improprieties with another teenager nearly three years earlier.

Today the archdiocese 200 priests prayed for both Father Blackwell and the victims like Stokes. And there was this from Baltimore's cardinal, William Kidler.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am appalled that another act of violence has occurred in the city of Baltimore and that a tragedy touches a person that I have known personally.

HAGER: A former priest, now psychotherapist, Richard Sipe (ph) on the pain of those abused.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sexual abuse of a minor renders a life sentence to the victim.

HAGER: Today Cardinal Keeler said some priests here now hesitate to wear their collars in public.

(on camera): The accused had no prior criminal record. The Catholic church says this is the first act of violence against a priest since the current scandal began last January in Boston — Alan.

KEYES: We have got to look at a situation like this, with a combination of heartbreak and grief over the tragedy that has occurred and, of course, a sense of dismay as we see unfolding the terrible consequences of the scandal in which the church is embroiled.

Obviously I don't think there's anybody who would condone in any way the shooting of a priest or anyone else. That kind of an act of violence is abhorrent. But in a situation like this, folks, inevitable you look at the story behind it, a story that involved this young man who ended up being the shooter.

He was at the time 16, 17 years old. He brings an accusation. That accusation was, by the way, according to a newspaper report I saw, found credible by a commission that had been appointed by Archbishop Kieler, and yet it was not followed up on. The civil authorities did not respond. The priest went off to get some kind of help. But one does wonder what happened to help the young child. I know that an act of violence like this has to shock us all.

But I still am bothered continually when I think about these situations, by the fact that an act of moral violence is what is involved in this abuse of the young. And I watch Cardinal Kieler just now saying that he is shocked and appalled that somebody that he knows has been affected by this act of violence.

Well, somebody he should have known was affected by the act of moral violence. And what was the consequence, and I say he should have known him because Christ told us, didn't he, that everything you do for one of these fine children you do for me. And if you know Christ, you know them. And if they are being abused, then moral violence is being done to the savior and the lord. That is what the church represents. Yet so often, time and time again in the course of this crises, the response of the prelate has not reflected that sense of moral and spiritual priority. It's deeply dismaying.

Joining us now to talk about this terrible tragedy, Larry Cirignano, president of catholicvote.org, a political action group that is part of the Catholic Alliance and Barbara Blaine, founder of the survivor's network of those abused by priests known as SNAP.

Welcome both of you to MAKING SENSE. Barbara Blaine, I look at the situation today and I can't believe anybody would be willing to speak a word of any kind of condoning of an act of violence like this. What do you think? How do you react as you look at this situation where violence has struck out against a priest by someone reportedly who has been abused by the priest?

BARBARA BLAINE, SNAP: Well, Mr. Keyes, I think you are correct in saying that we could never condone this type of behavior. Our hearts go out to the priest and his family as well as the victim and his family right now. We wish a speedy recovery for the priest and we're glad the victim turned himself over to the police. Our organization, SNAP, survivors network of those abused by priests, we always encourage victims to go to law enforcement, to go to attorneys and support groups to get help. We would never condone any type of violence.

KEYES: I think that is clearly a universal sense and it's one of those things that has to be put up front in our discussion tonight. I know so many priests who are dear friends of mine who I think will feel overshadowed, not only by a feeling of grief over the scandal, but by the shadow of potential violence hanging over them.

Larry nonetheless, we have an obligation to look at what might be the significance of a terrible act like this in the larger context of what is being faced today by the church. What do you think is the significance and what might be the consequences of this kind of a tragedy?

LARRY CIRIGNANO, CATHOLICVOTE.ORG: Alan, these kinds of stories get coverage because it's a shooting, it's a priest. Anything dealing with a priest and sex is going to get news from now until who knows how long this will be dragged out.

I think we do a great disservice to the 46,000 priests who are not involved in this, because now they are, with a collar, a target. And that is a fear. I think we do a great disservice to the victims and to the children and parents of children out there if we only focus in on the priest who are the abusers.

In the courts, there's a problem with this of case settlements all the time. No rape victim, and there are rapes every hour every day all over America. We do a great disservice when we put these people back on the street without any type of punishment. If you're a victim or parent of a victim, you will never see — I don't think any parent or any victim will ever be happy, no matter what the punishment is, because, as that earlier segment said, these people will live with this for the rest of their lives.

KEYES: Barbara?

BLAINE: While the abuse — we, as victims, will deal with the effects of our abuse for our lifetime. But I believe that when victims have a sense that justice is done, that there is a sense of healing and people are able to move on. Unfortunately what has been happening in too many places is that the priests are not held accountable. They, in a sense, get away with the crime and are allowed to do so and then the victims look to the church authorities for some type of help and healing and that is not forthcoming. So there's a lot of pent-up frustration and anger among lots of victims.

KEYES: Larry, without in any way suggesting that anger and frustration condone an act of violence, which they obviously do not, as a matter of fact just looking at the world, doesn't one have to be prudent and take the steps that are necessary so that justice is done and seen to be done in order to avoid that kind of festering wound?

CIRIGNANO: Obviously I don't know all of the details here. But this priest had been removed. He is no longer a priest. I don't know what was done with the victim as to what type of settlements or counseling or other things that happened. Obviously, the legal authorities determined they were not going to do something. I don't know what the civil authorities or the church was able to do. I mean that seems to be...

KEYES: Unfortunately, Larry, from what I have been able to piece together so far in the reports that I have seen, the accusation that was made by this particular victim was not acted upon. The civil authorities did in fact drop the investigation due to insufficient evidence, they said.

The one note that I found in one of the stories was that there was a commission appointed by the cardinal that had looked at the case and concluded that there was consistent and credible evidence for the accusation. That would be again be supported, wouldn't it, by the fact that later on the same priest was then removed because of a confession of a past behavior. It's possible, I think, from what I have seen, that this was a victim who do not get satisfaction, didn't get closure, didn't get a church that took seriously what was happening.

And I — I think that what it illustrates is that if you don't look upon the act of moral violence, and that's what I call these abuses. It's time we started to look at this with the eyes, I believe, of the Christian doctrine that we believe in, and that Christian doctrine sees the assault of that young person as an act of spiritual and moral violence which Christ deeply abhorred.

And I say again, as I have said often on the program here, I am not convinced that the response of the prelates has had, at its heart, that sense of abhorrence for moral violence, which was of the characteristic attitude of Christ. Are you, Larry?

CIRIGNANO: No. You and I both agreed on this when we talked about it the other night, that the leadership has gotten bad legal advice, bad PR advice. They have lost their moral compass on a lot of this. I absolutely agree with you on that by playing some of the legalisms they're doing and ignoring their pastoral duties. There's no question about that. There's no excusing it. The moving around of predator priests, you can't excuse.

My objection is, as a lay Catholic, as we have talked, is this focus on, oh, they're homosexuals, oh, they're predator priests, oh, they're pedophiles, and we're ignoring all of the other good works that they're doing and we're trying to stereotype these priests.

KEYES: Barbara Blaine, I'm — go ahead.

BLAINE: At the same time, the church in cities all across the United States are leaving priests in ministry who have previously molested children. And different dioceses have different standards. Here in Chicago, the archdiocese believes that they are protecting the general society from these perpetrators by keeping them in the priesthood and monitoring them.

And from our perspective, what that does is that leaves the focus on the priest and not on the victims. And if the church authorities really understood how deep the pain and suffering is of the victims, they would not leave these priests in the priesthood who have molested, because what they're doing in a sense is leaving other children or adults at risk of abuse.

And if they really understood the pain, they would say that there's no child that we want to put at risk, so therefore, if we know someone has molested, we will remove him from the priesthood. There are many, many people who can become priests. There are lots of candidates. Among the priesthood, we do not need known child molesters. If someone has molested a child, they should be removed.

(CROSSTALK)

CIRIGNANO: Barbara, I agree. But under zero tolerance, they will no longer be priests. But to lead them in...

BLAINE: Well, it just depends though how you define zero tolerance and who is going to be the one to, quote, “be the umpire” to decide what is zero tolerance, because there's lots of different definitions that some of the cardinals are giving and they have different ideas what that means.

CIRIGNANO: Under what have I heard and seen, the zero tolerance means that anyone who abuses a child is no longer going to be allowed to practice his priestly duties. But as was...

BLAINE: But he is still allowed to remain a priest.

CIRIGNANO: No, no. Not as a priest.

BLAINE: And that's what we have here in Chicago.

CIRIGNANO: Not a priest.

BLAINE: Oh, yes. Here in Chicago they are. They are still allowed to remain in the priesthood.

KEYES: If I can interject, I think we don't have yet, Larry, as far as I can tell, any kind of uniform standard. I think that's part of what folks are hoping will come out of the meeting that they're supposed to have in June in terms of coming to some understanding of what some of this means that we've heard about in the verbiage.

That still leaves not only that, but an additional question that I think is given point by this tragedy about the attitude that is now being taken toward the process of settlement, toward the victims and folks coming forward and how you deal with their claims, especially in cases where those claims are based upon truth. There appears to have been a shift reported in the press recently toward a more legalistic approach by the church, fighting tooth and nail against these accusations.

When we get back, in the context of this terrible tragedy, we will be talking about what is the appropriate, quote, “strategy” for the church to follow in dealing with this whole crisis and especially in dealing with the victims of abuse. We will continue our conversation and bring in the author of the book, “Priests Are People Too.”

Stay right there. You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: By the end of this year, America will have sent more than $280 million to the Palestinian Authority. And one congressman believed that so much of this money is going to terrorist activities that he is calling for an end to all non-humanitarian aide to the Palestinians. We will debate whether that bill should pass in the next half-hour. A reminder that that the chat room is humming tonight, and you can join in at CHAT.MSNBC.COM.

But now, let's get back to our discussion about the terrible tragedy in Baltimore, the shooting of a Catholic priest and what it implies for the crisis ongoing in the Catholic church. Still with us, Larry Cirignano, president of catholicvote.org; and Barbara Blaine, founder of SNAP.

Also joining us, Thomas Kane, author of the book “Priests Are People Too.” Welcome everyone to this segment of MAKING SENSE.

I would like to go first to you, Thomas, as the newcomer to our discussion, and get your reaction to the shooting in Baltimore and what you think it implies in the context of this ongoing crises that has been faced by the Catholic church in America?

THOMAS KANE, AUTHOR, “PRIESTS ARE PEOPLE, TOO”: Well, I think it's clearly a devastating turning point, Alan. I think that my biggest fear here is that the 49,000 priests in this country still can hold their head up high and not be afraid to wear their clerics outside. I think clearly that Mr. Stokes was so bothered by this, he felt — I guess I don't know what he felt but that he had no other place to turn to.

But it's clearly a tragedy. As Larry said, we need to be remindful of just the tens of thousands of good priests in this country. And they can't lose their faith. They can't lose their hope that we are going to get by this as a faith community and we're going to get through this.

KEYES: What do you think, though, because I think all of us feel this way. On one side and the other, whatever may be the different reactions and views, people are praying hard that there will be a way to find a way through this and get to the other side in faith. We know that that is in God's power.

But the question I would put in front of you: What is the positive approach that can be taken that would reflect the contributions that are made by so many of the priests who aren't abusive, who are making a wonderful contribution in faith to the work of the church and to the communities in which they live, but would at the same time reflect the requirements of justice in the face of the sins and the wickedness that we have been hearing about? What do you think is the right approach, Thomas, to deal with this?

KANE: I think there's a couple of things, Alan. I think that the priests that are out there every week, every day of the week saying mass, not just on Sundays but every day of the week, those priests need to still focus on their mission, and that is bringing Jesus Christ into our life.

I also think that, you know, this — I've been told many, many times every week over the past couple of months that perhaps this is God's work in eradicating these bad priests out of the ministry. And we're clearly here at a historical turning point in the Catholic church. And I think we all need to keep focus that there's just a very, very small percentage of priests. It doesn't make it right. And I don't condone any of the behavior. But I think that these guys need to keep the faith and hold their heads up high and still go out and do the work that they're called to do.

KEYES: But isn't part of the problem, and I guess I continually get back to this, the transgressions of the individual priests are bad, but I think the reaction to those individual transgressions is that individual sin and then it becomes a matter of how one deals with those sins.

I think that the more devastating problem, and the one that has probably most deeply shaken the reputation and image, as well as, I think, of the real sense of credibility of the church, are the reports that the prelates, the people that represent the church's authority and integrity, somehow connived at and covered up this kind of wrongdoing. And I still am not satisfied that anything is properly being done.

Larry, I read reports in the press that they're now giving their lawyers free reign to go after the families of victims and make all of these kinds of things that lawyers do. Can the church, in fact, adopt the world's legal approach? Doesn't it have to be held to a higher standard and shouldn't they be trying to think through what that implies for their reaction to this crisis?

CIRIGNANO: It's a difference, Alan. But I think you have to remember of the 174 priests who have been charged this year, most of them will not go to prison, unfortunately — or fortunately — I don't know how you want to look at that. I think many of them will not go to prison either because there's not enough evidence or whatever the reason will be.

What do we do with those people, even if they go to prison? There are 236,000 people in prison for this type of offense, 38 of them are Catholic priests. At some point, those people get out. If we are no longer going to have them be priests, they're going to be unemployed, uninsured, untreated and unmonitored. They should not be able to practice as priests, but they do need to be monitored. They need to be treated, they need to be insured and they need to be employed some place.

KEYES: But, Larry, we're still not quite addressing, I think, what I'm trying to get to here because, again, I will say it, and, Barbara, maybe it came clear to you what I was trying to get at here, but I think that the real problem is not about the individual priests. I'm sorry.

I think the integrity of the church is put on the line in the response of the prelates, in the response of the church to the victims, in the response of the church to the challenge morally and in terms of justice that is presented by this whole situation. Barbara, do you think that that response, up to now, has been adequate?

BLAINE: No doubt, the church leaders have failed miserably. They have allowed — they have covered up for these priests. They have just transferred them from one place to another. And even to today, they keep their focus on the priests and on protecting the reputation of the church and on the priests themselves. They are not focusing on the victims.

And in reality, what the victims are doing is bringing a great gift to the church by naming the evil that exists and by trying to protect other potential victims. But the church authorities still are leaving men in positions of ministry, even though the church leaders know that they have abused children.

And the other thing is that these legal hardball tactics are so disgraceful. They are so unfair. And they just beat down the victims. And I will tell you, because I'm meeting with victims and we are meeting all across the country in city after city, where survivors are coming together. And most survivors have never come forward, have not been public.

So what you see is just a small percentage coming out in the media today. There are so many of us who are hurting. And if the church could create an environment that offered some type of healing for victims, a place where victims would be respected and where they would be embraced, I think that that would offer some real true healing.

CIRIGNANO: And, Alan, they absolutely have to be, on a legal basis, defending themselves because if it was only the individual priest, there's no money there. They're going after the church as a deep pocket for millionaires and this is why we have had false charges against Cardinal Bernadine (ph), Cardinal Mahoney (ph)...

BLAINE: And you know what, though? There is no other...

KEYES: Larry, wait a minute here.

BLAINE: There's no other recourse. There's no other recourse for victims to take because the only thing — the only thing that has held the church accountable at all has been victims filing lawsuits.

(CROSSTALK)

CIRIGNANO: And victims took hush money to keep them away. Victims took hush money and didn't protect the other children that were out there. Victims took the money and are suing because of that.

BLAINE: And victims are mostly given assurances that they won't allow that to go on.

KEYES: Let me introduce a possibility here because I think one of the difficulties is, shouldn't we just have a simple — let me articulate — simple standard of truth here? OK?

CIRIGNANO: Absolutely.

KEYES: If you look at a situation and the accusation is true, right, you are under an obligation in justice to respond not with legal hardball tactics or anything else that the world requires, but to respond in justice in a way that reflects that truth. If the accusation is not proven true, then you fight in defense of that priest's integrity no matter what.

You don't buy off people. You don't hush it up. You get out in the open and you fight it because of the truth. Now, when are we going to see a consistent standard of truth applied in this rather than some phony worldly standard protecting a reputation that is in fact being destroyed by the process that they think is protecting it? This is what I need to understand. Thomas, why not, just simple truth making a difference here?

KANE: Alan, I agree with you 100 percent, but I'm going to equate the cardinals that you're referencing to the good bishops that are across the country. And this Friday, I believe, you are going to meet Bishop Donald Whirl (ph) in Pittsburgh. And Bishop Whirl has been such an advocate here in Pittsburgh of a zero tolerance.

This guy, this bishop here in Pittsburgh does not mess around with — if there's any, even a slightest allegation, that priest is removed, he is investigated, and Bishop Whirl has personally gone to Rome against the Vatican's wishes to remove a priest because he felt so strongly about it.

So there again, you know, we need to have a uniform policy straight across the board with all the bishops. But we can't lump Law, Egan and any other cardinal in that entire group of bishops because, you know, you have to keep in mind, there are over 400 bishops in this country as well, and, you know, they are all suffering through this crisis as well as to what the proper thing is to do. And hopefully in June, we are going to come out of this thing a much stronger and a better church.

KEYES: Well, I think that that's quite possible...

BLAINE: But at the same time — at the same time, we do not have any diocese in the United States where victims feel that they are being respected and being responded to appropriately at all times...

KANE: And, Barbara, you're right.

BLAINE: ... where there is a real sense of healing offered to victims. That is just not coming forward.

KANE: And you're right, Barbara. And that needs to be addressed. There are clearly, you know, possibly thousands of victims out there. And I commend you and I commend your organization of SNAP and your whole life work for this project. And I understand your past history as well, and I pray for you and for all of the past victims. And there clearly has to be a mechanism set up that if a person feels he is being victimized or she is being victimized, that they can come forward and get the help and get these priests out of that ministry. But again, it just...

BLAINE: And so, what we're asking then is people we're asking people like you and all of the bishops and the church leaders to join victims in seeking changes in legislation so that we can change the statute of limitations and these priests can be held accountable in our court system and that victims can find some sense of justice, because the way it is now, the victims are out there on their own and it would mean to a lot to have the support helping.

KEYES: Doesn't all of this imply, Larry, that one of the things they need to do, if these reports in the press are true — I think they're making a huge mistake with these, let's-take-the-gloves-off legal tactics. I don't think the church can do that.

I think in the case of Christ, for instance, he accepted unjust punishment, didn't he?

CIRIGNANO: Absolutely.

KEYES: And turned the other cheek. If the punishment being brought against you is just, all the more reason why a Christian person would bow humbly to the will of God and the justice of God. The church cannot adopt the standard of the world as it responds to this crisis and tell the lawyers take the gloves off, send the investigators out, find the dirt on the families, do whatever you have to do to defend us. The church can't behave that way because it is held to a higher standard than the world standard. Can they afford to forget this, Larry?

CIRIGNANO: No, Alan. But they have an obligation to protect the assets that protect Catholic hospitals, Catholic schools, Catholic Charities and all of the other works. These charges from one single person can bankrupt an entire diocese. And that's not right either.

KEYES: Well, see, the sad truth is though — step number one, I think truth has to be our guide, doesn't it?

CIRIGNANO: Absolutely.

KEYES: First, truth. First, you do what corresponds to truth and right and justice and integrity. And then I think it's quite obvious that you leave the rest in God's hands. We're supposed to walk by faith, not by some calculation of our assets, whether as individuals or as a church.

And I think we need to start showing the courage of that faith, to simply look for truth, acknowledge it, act according to it. I think God will take care of the church's assets if the most important spiritual and moral assets are preserved. The rest of them won't mean a thing if we destroy that which is the heart of our faith. And I feel it very strongly. And I think there are some prelates who aren't showing that priority right now. And that's part of what's damaging the church.

CIRIGNANO: We have to take care of the victims. There's no doubt about that. It's a question of to what level.

BLAINE: But we're not. We're not doing that. We're not taking care of victims at all.

CIRIGNANO: That's not true. That's absolutely not true. We are taking care of many victims.

BLAINE: No, we're not. Not most.

KEYES: Forgive me tonight. I know that this is a very emotional issue. We will obviously be revisiting it. And we'll have you all back.

Next, should America cut off all non-humanitarian aide to the Palestinians? We'll be debating that next. You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Did you know that since 1999, the United States has given more than $480 million to the Palestinian Authority — more than $200 million slated for this year alone? But if the Palestinian Authority has funded suicide bombers, then Palestinian terrorism could be partly funded with our tax dollars.

Now a proposal is being put forward in Congress to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority, unless the P.A. publicly renounces and takes action against violence in the West Bank and Gaza, and unless that violence actually subsides. Should Congress pass such a bill?

Joining us now is Congressman Anthony Weiner, the author of the bill. And also with us is Hussein Ibish, the communications director for the Arab-American anti-discrimination committee.

Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

REP. ANTHONY WEINER (D), NEW YORK: Thank you.

HUSSEIN IBISH, ARAB-AMERICAN ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE: I knew you couldn't live without me, Alan.

KEYES: Always a pleasure, even though it's a challenge, Hussein.

But, Representative Weiner, what has motivated you to put this bill on the table at this juncture?

WEINER: Well, Alan, I'm a supporter of foreign aid. It's relatively pennies in the budget. It's also is a way for us to export our democracy, to improve world health and the like. So I should say that I'm not someone who came to Congress saying we've got to stop foreign aid.

But I think it should do certain things that clearly the money for the Palestinians is not doing. One, it should further peace. Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, and we've seen an explosion of violence against civilians.

Secondly, it should further democracy. You can say a lot of things about the administration of the Palestinian Authority, but it's certainly not a democracy.

Third, it should mean a country that supports us. No one remembers better than you how, on September 11th, while the world was shedding a tear, the people of Nablus were cheering and distributing candy, celebrating the attacks on our country.

And finally, there should be some accountability attached to it. One of the things seized in the raids in the last few weeks have been documents that show that essentially all money in that region of the world seems to be fungible. Money that the Saudis were giving, claiming it was for humanitarian purposes, was being used to pay suicide bombers.

A better question than why cut off aid, is why should any taxpayer dollars be going to the Palestinians?

KEYES: Hussein Ibish, what do you think of this idea?

IBISH: Well, I think it's pandering of the most crude variety. Because really, this aid that we give the Palestinians is totally symbolic. None of it goes directly to any Palestinian group. It all goes to U.S. NGOs, who then use it for dedicated projects. It's not as if we're handing the P.A., you know, what is in foreign aid terms, a paltry few million dollars here and there. We're not doing that, even.

What we do is we give it to American nongovernmental organizations who do some various different projects that the State Department has already approved of. So there's no possibility that this money has been used for any purposes that the P.A. wants to use it for, other than what it's given for. I think this is all just purely symbolic aid and cutting it would be purely symbolic. And we'd only be harming ourselves, frankly.

KEYES: Representative Weiner, is that a correct justification? Because it seems to me, money is fungible, right? At the end of the day, you help people do one thing. Then they can use money they might have employed for that purpose for something else.

But is Hussein making a god point, do you think?

WEINER: Well, listen, one of the things that we learned from some of the documents seized by the Israeli military during their raids, is that, frankly, Yasser Arafat has control of many more pots of money than we thought that he did.

And you can make the same argument, that it's NGOs funding it, it's for humanitarian purposes. We make decisions as the American taxpayer, do we want to help fund these NGOs in Iraq, let's say, or Iran, or any other country that we find to be contemptible? We usually say no to those things.

Give me a reason why we should support the Palestinian Authority, even indirectly? I mean, frankly, we have learned that the Saudi Arabians who claim they were giving money for humanitarian purposes as well, we learn that those dollars were being approved by Yasser Arafat for homicide bombings.

I think a good thing for us to be asking now is where should we be spending our money? And I don't think anyone can make a compelling argument that our goals are being furthered by providing, literally, $232 million last year to the Palestinians.

IBISH: You know, you can go ahead and cut it off, really. I don't think any Palestinian is going to lose any sleep, any Palestinian is going to shed any tear. It's purely symbolic as it is.

The effect of this very small amount of aid spread among 3.5 million people is really not felt. So you can cut it off. The only thing you'll be doing, really, is making the United States look even worse in the eyes of the world, taking sides even more with Israel, and cutting off this very limited amount of humanitarian aid we give to American NGOs to help Palestinians.

At the same time, we're giving Israel $5 billion a year and all of the military hardware they need, to maintain tens of thousands of troops in someone else's country, steal their land and destroy their cities. We're really going to be doing a great damage to ourselves, to no benefit in my view.

KEYES: One of the problems, though, that I see with that reaction — I can understand it, OK, take your money, be done with you and so on. I had that reaction today when somebody told me that they were proposing — I think, the Kuwaitis or somebody — they were pushing the idea that they were going to boycott American tourism, and so forth and so on.

And I said, fine, stay home. You know, the folks with Saudi passports flying planes into buildings, not a recommendation for their tourist trade. But, leave that aside. I can understand the cavalier attitude.

But there's one problem. A lot of folks have come forward, now, and I think with some goodwill, saying that they acknowledge and recognize the problems with the Palestinian Authority. It's tyrannical nature, its arbitrariness, its lack of, you know, sort of the real characteristics of a representative, democratic kind of government that respects human rights and so forth and so on.

Isn't it actually helpful if the world starts to put some pressure on, to move that authority in a direction that's more serviceable for the Palestinian people, instead of wasting money on suicide bombings and murder?

IBISH: Well, look. What you need to recognize is that the P.A. only makes sense as an institution as a transitional body, which is what it was set up to be back in 1993. And the term was supposed to expire in 1998, and it was supposed to transition from direct Israeli military rule to Palestinian independence.

What's happened is, the P.A. has become a quasi-permanent or permanent structure. And now we're talking about reforming it, as if it made any sense as a permanent institution. Any government that rules an area under foreign military occupation, in collaboration with the occupier, is by definition a Vichy regime. Of course it's going to be corrupt.

Of course it can't be a representative democracy, or representative government of a sovereign state, because it's not a sovereign state. This is a very odd institution, with limited powers in a very small area. Of course it cannot be what we want it to be.

KEYES: I frankly don't understand your reasoning, though, Hussein. Because you just reasoned that because it's not this and not that, it therefore must be corrupt and nasty and despotic, and run about killing people.

There are lots of independent governments. All the state governments in America don't have absolute sovereignty. But they don't spend their time killing the citizens.

IBISH: None of them live...

KEYES: The point I'm making, though, is that deponent governments aren't necessarily committed to terrorism and murder. That seems to be a function of personalities, of the actual individuals staffing those governments.

And wouldn't something like Representative Weiner's approach be aimed at — maybe symbolically — but getting a point across to Yasser Arafat and his cohorts, that they must be serious about rejecting terror?

IBISH: The only point that's going to be made here is that we side even further with Israel than we already do, and members of Congress are not willing to stop at any level, to pander to the pro-Israel community, to search for votes and funding and money.

And we're willing to debase ourselves continually, in order to hug Israel and identify with its colonial occupation. I don't think it's in our interests.

KEYES: Let him respond.

WEINER: Let me just say to that, I think we have to make decisions about where we spend our foreign aid money. It's not infinite. I can tell you that, when we send foreign aid to Israel, what we get. We get a military ally. We get an intelligence ally, someone who's working closely with us in the war on terrorism.

And we get support for democracy in a sea of tyrannical regimes all around her. That, to me, makes a lot of sense. Now, you can say it's pandering because they take away the funds from the Palestinians. I frankly see none of our foreign policy objectives being met by that $232 million.

And you say, fine, take it back, it's symbolic. So be it. Very often the money we spend in foreign policy is to give symbolic support or symbolic opposition to regimes we either think are worthy of support or worthy of opposition.

(CROSSTALK)

WEINER: You know, we put the money on the table during the Wye River process. We increased the amount of funding. It was asked for by they Israelis, asked for by President Clinton. Frankly, many of us in Congress who never thought we'd be going to Congress to vote for aid for the Palestinians, voted for it and helped rally support for it.

(CROSSTALK)

WEINER: But part of what was supposed to come from that was peace.

KEYES: Just a second, gentlemen. We are going to have to take a break, here.

We will come back with more of our guests after this.

And later, my “Outrage of the Day.” The tape of Pearl's murder is being used to recruit terrorists. Think about that. You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Still with us, Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York and Hussein Ibish of the Arab-American Anti-discrimination Committee. Now, Hussein, if the aid is just symbolic, if it doesn't matter, and so forth and so on, they you think the congressman is right in cutting it off, right? I mean, something that doesn't matter, nobody really cares for it anyway. So if we stop giving it, we will no longer be complicit in any respect in possible terrorist activities? Isn't that a plus for America?

IBISH: We're not complicit in any way in terrorism. As I say, the only thing we'll accomplish is in further stigmatizing ourselves and making our role in the region much more difficult.

But let me challenge the congressman on what we get for our $5 billion a year in aid to Israel. We have gotten not a military ally, but a military albatross that we have to worry about every time we go into any kind of conflict, about them not doing anything.

We have had the largest intelligence operations in the United States, including not only Jonathan Pollard, but (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the tip of the iceberg in a massive Israeli, anti-American intelligence operations, which are ongoing, I have no doubt.

We have gotten the reputation of funding the only foreign military occupation in the world today/ And our weapons, which we sent Israel, have killed over 1,400 Palestinians, most of them unarmed civilians. Many of them, you know, killed by American weapons, our Apache helicopters, our Black Hawk helicopters, tank shells made in the United States and other things.

This constant giving of aid to Israel when our money is being used to slaughter people living under occupation has really destroyed our reputation in the Middle East. That's what we've gotten.

WEINER: We have also gotten a military that took out an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1982, a nation that is the foremost practitioner of the Bush doctrine right now in the Middle East, doing, frankly, a lot of the dirty work for us in the United States by fighting terrorism on the ground right there.

And they've also done something that you dismiss. They set up a democracy in a sea, an oasis, of despotic, totalitarianism regimes. They're a beachhead for democracy, and hopefully that will extend to your friends, the Palestinians.

IBISH: The least democratic place in the world, I'm sorry.

WEINER: The fact of the matter is, that we use foreign aid to export our values. And frankly, the democracy that exists in Israel, not to mention the intelligence connections that we have with that country, they're an ally. No one accused the Saudi Arabians of being our ally. Fifteen of the 19 suicide bombers attacked my neighborhood.

I happen to believe that it's obvious that Israel, we get a great bang for our buck. We get an ally in that part of the world. You can't say that about the Palestinians. Frankly, even you are having trouble defending the aid to the Palestinians.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: I have a word to put in here, because I think that it is important, from my point of view, to reinforce the truth as well. We're supposed to be (UNINTELLIGIBLE) with the Saudi Arabians, who have been doing everything in their power to reinforce the hatred and resentment against America, using moneys that fund schools in which this hatred is taught and supporting activities in which people are encouraged to become the very kind of terrorists that killed thousands of people in America.

IBISH: That's completely unfair.

KEYES: It is totally fair and totally proven now. And the simple fact of the matter is...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Let me finish, now. I didn't interrupt you.

IBISH: Sure.

KEYES: The simple fact of the matter is, I think, that we're looking at a situation with Israel where, as far as this war on terrorism is concerned, the only reliable ally we have in the Middle East, the only one who hasn't been dancing in the street at terrorist suicide bombers and people killing Americans. The only ally that doesn't show evidence of that is Israel.

And right now I think you ought to realize, the rest of the Arab world you seem to think we ought to care about so much? A big question mark is behind all of those countries, with respect to their attitude in the war on terror. And that's a problem.

IBISH: Look, the last thing we've seen from the Saudi Arabians is them, the Egyptians and the Syrians, once again committing themselves to peace with Israel, once again stretching their hand out and saying the world Arab would have peace with the Israelis if they would only put their troops back inside their own country, and being rebuffed.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Thank you. I really appreciate both of you being on tonight. Thank you for coming on.

Next, my “Outrage of the Day,” the terrible abuse of the shocking tape of the death of Daniel Pearl, and what it ought to imply with respect to our attitude toward the terrorists. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Time for my “Outrage of the Day.” Enemies of the United States are spreading on the Internet the videotape of “Wall Street Journal” reporter Daniel Pearl's bloody execution. It is being used by terrorists to recruit new soldiers for their cause.

Comes forward, left-wing actress Susan Sarandon, who said the U.S. and Israel should show some understanding toward suicide bombing terrorists. Now, tell me, do we really need to show understanding toward people who would be attracted into a movement by this kind of repugnant and disgusting abuse of another human being? I hardly think so.

That's my sense of it. Thanks. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next. See you tomorrow.