MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesJune 5, 2002
ALAN KEYES, HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Up front tonight, Israel hit by the most murderous suicide bombing since the Passover attack in March.
As we speak, Israel sending tanks back into the West Bank towns of Jenin and Ramallah, reportedly striking directly against Yasser Arafat's compound.
MSNBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent, Dr. Bob Arnot, is in Jerusalem with the latest — Bob.
BOB ARNOT, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Alan. This is the first of what they call a maxi-attack here. That is, they've tried within the last month to blow up a major petroleum facility, which would have really been the equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction. They tried a cyanide gas attack which fortunately failed.
But they've succeeded today with 100 kilograms of explosives, when a car went past a main bus that goes from Tel Aviv up to Tiberia (ph), that it blew the bus into the air, rolled it over at least once, killing 17, including 13 Israeli Defense Forces troops, and injuring over 30.
Now, paradoxically, this is right outside of a prison where Palestinian prisoners were actually cheering. And the name of the town, translated into English, actually, is Armageddon, which is where the final battle between good and evil is supposed to be fought.
Now, the fear here throughout Israel is that there is a new age that they've entered in terms of terrorism, and that is the age of these maxi-attacks, will take out many, many more civilians. And so they felt that there had to be more than a measured response.
First, they were into Jenin today, which is where the suicide bomber came from. About midnight, right out here, we could hear artillery fire, the F-16's go overhead. We heard helicopters as they went near Yasser Arafat's actual compound.
They surrounded the compound, shot at the walls, made their way in, destroyed the bridge that connects the two buildings, and they also were able to destroy the stairway that goes up to his offices.
Now, we learned from inside that compound that there are five injured, one very seriously injured in addition to that, and that that stairway has been blocked off with cars that have been crushed by Israeli tanks.
The big question at this point is do they go further. Islamic Jihad, which took credit for this, is part of the fundamentalist faction of terrorists. There also is another faction which is more closely aligned with Arafat. Because they are based in Gaza, the question is, will there be any kind of a major incursion into Gaza.
The fear here is that, should there be a major military escalation by the Israelis, and that this is what the Palestinians are pushing them into, that there then could be a major outcry by the international community and impose peace on Israeli, which is the last thing that they want.
KEYES: What is your sense of the reason why they have attacked Arafat's compound? Obviously, they must question or not accept the disclaimers that have been there in terms of Arafat's condemning of these attacks and so forth.
Are they basically holding him responsible?
ARNOT: Well, they are holding him responsible. I spent the morning with a study group here, going over many of these documents in their original Arabic, linking Yasser Arafat to a variety of these terrorist groups.
Now, there are those that they say are more closely aligned with him, and the fundamentalist groups, which are not as closely aligned. But the Israelis are making the fundamental point that they believe that Yasser Arafat has at least a connection, if not commanding control, and they showed me documents that actually show signing off of Arafat of certain weapons, certain suicide bombers.
And they believe that this might be close enough to say that Yasser Arafat himself is actually responsible for these attacks, and they hold him accountable for that.
KEYES: One last question: Is there any indication that the objective of this attack is Arafat himself?
ARNOT: What we have learned here is that Arafat is in the compound, that there have been injuries, but that he has not been — there is no impetus now to try to injure or kill Arafat.
However, there are cabinet members, government officials here, who really believe that now is the time to sideline Arafat, but the last thing they want to do, Alan, is to make a martyr out of this man.
KEYES: Dr. Bob Arnot, thank you very much. Appreciate your help.
Today's bombing in the town of Megiddo, north of Tel Aviv, happened on the 35th anniversary of the war in which Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza.
Here's MSNBC's Martin Fletcher with more details on today's attack.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MARTIN FLETCHER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Bodies scattered on a highway in northern Israeli today after another suicide bombing.
7:00 in the morning, the rush hour, a crowded bus. A Palestinian drove up alongside in a car packed with 100 pounds of explosives and then a giant blast.
Of the 17 Israelis killed, 13 were soldiers traveling to their army bases. Some burnt to death, including a man and woman whose bodies were found in a final embrace.
The bus driver survived, and he can't believe his luck. He's lived through four bomb attacks on his route in the last six months.
“I always feel like a target,” he says, “But I am not afraid. I'll drive for another year and then retire.”
Militant Palestinians from Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility, saying the bomb was to mark the 35th anniversary of the Six Day War, when Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
(on camera): It didn't take long for Israel to retaliate. By noon already, Israeli tanks are moving into the area of the Palestinian town of Jenin, from where the suicide attacker came.
(voice-over): The army called the tank movement an initial response, and warns Israel will hit back hard.
DORE GOLD, ISRAELI SPOKESMAN: No country in the world can tolerate a situation where, in a neighboring area, there is a vast infrastructure of international terrorism, which is being used week after week, sometimes day after day, to murder its civilians.
FLETCHER: Egypt's President Mubarak said there is only one way to stop the killing.
HOSNI MUBARAK, EGYPTIAN PRESIDENT: Violence will never stop, unless there is political negotiations to give hope to the people on both sides, that peace is coming.
FLETCHER: The Israeli government says it wants to move ahead with peace talks with the Palestinians, but first some cabinet members are calling for vergence.
Martin Fletcher, NBC News, Megiddo, Israeli.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: Now, note today's attacks fell on the 35th anniversary of the Six-Day War. They also show another pattern, because we have seen over the course of the last several weeks that when U.S. officials are in the region, when important meetings are taking place involving American officials, these attacks also occur in a pattern that suggest the utmost contempt for the actions and aims of U.S. policy.
Today's attack followed two days of talks between CIA Dir. George Tenet and Palestinian and Israeli leaders, aimed at initiating reforms in a structure and effectiveness of the Palestinian Security Forces.
Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had to cut short his trip to the United States, after a Hamas suicide bombing at a pool hall in a Tel Aviv suburb. That occurred during his meeting with President Bush. Fifteen Israelis were killed.
And in April, a day after Secretary of State Colin Powell met with Yasser Arafat at his embattled Ramallah headquarters, at least six people were killed in a suicide bomb attack near a bust stop in Jerusalem.
Now, obviously, to suggest that these attacks occur in addition to everything else, in a pattern meant to express contempt for, opposition to, United States policy.
Also, the suggestion that whatever it is we think may be required in the way of stopping this violence, it is simply not going to stop in response to these United States demands.
Now, of course Yasser Arafat has issued statements that distance himself from these attacks and from the organization sponsoring them.
In fact, earlier this week both Hamas and Islamic Jihad rejected Arafat's offer to have seats in a reformed Palestinian cabinet.
Now, that invitation and the reaction could very well have been meant to establish a clear line of distinction between Arafat and the more militant, terrorist groups that are sponsoring these attacks.
I think it's pretty clear that the Israelis don't buy it. See the possibility of a double game, in which Arafat talks condemnation, acts the fiction of separation, while nonetheless continuing with these attacks, and benefiting from the violence.
Even the White House today had harsh words for the Palestinian leader.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECT.: The president would say that Yasser Arafat has yet to earn the president's trust. Our efforts will continue on a multi-level within the Palestinian. That includes Chairman Arafat, but the point of the president is what the people of Palestinian need and what the people of Israel need, is a leadership that is willing to take action to prevent violence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: I think it's pretty obvious that if this is in fact defiction (ph) and these attacks and this violence are part of a pattern in which Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians would both get to press for negotiations, see what they could get on the front of those negotiations, while at the same time keeping Israeli under the gun, continuing the bloodshed, even escalating the violence, that would kind of result in a no-fault approach to terrorism, wouldn't it?
The terrorist acts are curbed, but you know, things happen. Nobody is really responsible. This or that extremist group takes responsibility, but the negotiations continue in such a way that the Palestinians actually suffer no consequence for their addiction to terrorist violence.
That would be a kind of we've-got-it-both-ways policy that results in fact in kind of a no-fault terrorism situation in which the perpetrators of terrorism and those who benefit from terrorist acts would actually be able to reap the fruits at the negotiating table while their violence is going on.
Well, next, we're going to debate the consequences of such a no-fault approach to Palestinian terrorism with two journalists who have been covering this story all along — Raghida Dergham of “Al-Hayat” and Tom Rose of “The Jerusalem Post.”
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Dawn in Ramallah, and Yasser Arafat's compound currently surrounded by Israeli tanks.
Back to our discussion tonight. But on by these events in the Middle East, where some things appear to be coming to a head.
Joining us to get to the heart of the matter, Raghida Dergham, the senior diplomatic correspondent for “Al-Hayat,” a daily Arabic newspaper, and Tom Rose, the publisher and CEO of “The Jerusalem Post.”
Both of you, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
RAGHIDA DERGHAM, “AL-HAYAT”: Thank you.
KEYES: I think we're looking, obviously, at what could be some very serious and portentous developments, both in terms of the heightened impact of these terrorist attacks, and the possible implications of Israel's assault now on Arafat's compound in Ramallah.
Let me start with Tom Rose, asking you what you think is the analysis that lies behind Israel's move against the compound in Ramallah. Are they basically holding Arafat responsible for these terrorist attacks?
TOM ROSE, “JERUSALEM POST” Well, Alan, this may be a case where you actually know more than we do on the ground here in Israel. It is 5:00 in the morning. No one's really answer their phones. The government press office is closed. Actually, as a government operation, you don't get a whole lot of information from them during business hours.
So we really don't know exactly what the scope of this operation is, but there are a couple of options.
Today, in an emergency cabinet meeting, P.M. Sharon convened his security cabinet, and there were basically two lines of approach.
Number one, from the more conservative right-wing elements was: it's enough. It's time for regime change. It's time for Yasser Arafat to go. There is no way this process can advance with Yasser Arafat in command and control.
As you indicated earlier, two days ago Yasser Arafat actually extended an olive branch to Hamas and Islamic Jihad to join the so-called quote/unquote “reformed Palestinian cabinet.”
That would be the equivalent, Alan, of Hamid Karzai, the Afghan leader, offering a seat at the table to al Qaeda in a new Afghan government.
So, I think from an Israeli perspective, really, the noose is tightening around Arafat, and there may be a national suicide as far as Palestinian leadership is concerned if they are unable to do anything to prevent these kinds of murderous attacks, because we will defend ourselves.
KEYES: Now, Raghida Dergham, what do you think was, first of all, the significance of that move by Arafat with respect to these two militant and, as I see it, terrorist groups?
Obviously, it could be interpreted as something that belies the notion that he is in fact distinct these groups. But it could also just have been a way of illustrating that they don't want to be part of what he is trying to do, or was professedly trying to do, with respect to the reform of the Palestinian Authority. What do you think was going on there?
DERGHAM: Well, I think that he was trying to say that there is a process here that is very — the reform and putting together a new direction for the Palestinians underneath the leadership of Yasser Arafat, and he was saying, come along, but play by the rule that have accepted, that you have to stop suicide bombings, and you have to accept my choice, which is a two-state solution.
And if you come along, you have to play by my rules, and if you don't come along, he was saying, then you have — I will have to treat you — crackdown — and treat you as an opposition. That's the endangering aspirations of the Palestinians.
So, whether Arafat or any other Palestinian leader of tomorrow tries their very best and utmost, Alan, to stop suicide bombings, they will never have 100 percent success so log as there is this mentality of refusal, of a political sentiment, of taking actually what the international community is saying to the Israeli government, which is come along to an international peace conference, come along and accept a two-state solution, because otherwise there will be no end to suicide bombings. This is the rejection of occupation and its consequences.
KEYES: Now, it sounded to me today as if it sounded to me today, as if the even the folks in the Bush administration, who I think have been up until now pretty insistent with the need to deal with Arafat as kind of reality in the situation.
I sensed today in the comments, perhaps some frustration or exasperation with that situation, and a willingness to consider a future in which there is an alternative. Did you see that as well?
DERGHAM: Not really, Alan. Maybe frustrating, I agree with you, but I don't think the administration has decided that, look, it's time to get rid of Yasser Arafat, because I think the administration realizes that it's not it's choice, the choice of the leadership of the Palestinians is up to the Palestinians, and there is no other Palestinian who will step in and say I'll take the place of Yasser Arafat because the United States wants to force him out or because the Israeli government decided it will not deal with him.
In fact, I read the general picture in another completely different way. That is to say that it is most important to speak about the principles which will guide a resolution of this conflict.
What are the options, Alan? I think there is two-state solution, and that would mean serious negotiation. None of this...
KEYES: But...
DERGHAM: Just let me finish this thought, if you'll permit me. Just this thought.
KEYES: No. One problem, though, with all the discussion of politics and everything else, and frankly I don't see it just here. I was raising it the other day with a spokesman for the Pakistani point of view.
Own can one expect that folks are going to sit down at a negotiating table, under the gun? In every situation where negotiation bears fruit, there has be a cease fire. You stop killing each other while the talk is going on.
And yet it seems to me what you and other Palestinians are saying is look, we just have to go on killing people.
How can we expect fruitful negotiations to occur if we table when there a has to be a cease fire you have to stop negotiations are going on. How can we expect fruitful negotiations to occur in an environment punctuated by this kind of violent attack?
It rouses emotions. It gets people angry. It calls for retaliation. It destroys the process of peace. It doesn't contribute to it.
DERGHAM: Look, Alan, the very notion adopted by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, that there can't be a security approach, a solution that's based only security and only on the military operation, has failed. Take a look. It has not resulted in further security for Israel, nor has it stopped the suicide bombing.
In fact, it's perpetuated the situation. There has to be a pattern approach, political as well as security.
KEYES: Tom Rose, let me ask you a question, because what Raghida is saying essentially, well, I dropped the military option, it's over with, it hasn't worked.
Now, my impression, to be quite frank, is that they were pulled off of various aspects of that military options, by pressure form the U.S. and others.
In the face of these renewed and actually more intense violent attacks, can we expect a sustained application now of that strategic approach?
ROSE: You know, Alan, sitting here listening to Raghida, it's almost like — it has this “Alice in Wonderland” quality.
Hosni Mubarak talked the other day about the need for a political process.
Alan, we're just out of an eight-year political process, the height of which was this unbelievable explosion of violence which came as the result of unprecedented generous Israeli offers to quit 97 percent of the West Bank, to redivide our capital, Jerusalem, to put 100 percent of Gaza.
One can make the absolutely opposite argument, and that is that the farther this political process develops, the more the Palestinian side, the more the Arab world, perceives and understands our offers of concessions, not as magnanimous attempts to try to resolve this issue. But actually as an expression of our weakness, our lack of resolve, our unwillingness to defend ourselves and fight for our rights and our country.
But this only encourages more violence. And I don't think it's an accident that George Tenet, just two days ago, according to a senior Palestinian official, allegedly told Yasser Arafat, “One more suicide bombing, and you can count us out. You can count the Americans out. We are not going to try to restrain the Israelis, and we may be seeing, finally, the end of the Arafat regime.
KEYES: Let me lay a scenario on the table for both of you for comment. And it is a little bit provocative, but it seems to me that this thing has been going on and on. My view is that, you see a set of Palestinian leaders, utterly addicted to a violent strategy. Whatever may be the feelings of other people in the Palestinian community. They can't stop themselves. This is what they know. This is what they do.
What if the Israelis now are responding by saying, “OK. We're going to move, we're going to do everything we can to eliminate that leadership. We won't work with them. They're at war with us. We intend to eliminate them by whatever means necessary.”
There would be an outraged reaction in the world. Some furor for awhile. But wouldn't it at least possibly open the door to the emergence of a leadership on the Palestinian side not addicted to these tactics?
(CROSSTALK)
ROSE: I think that's a hugely important point, Alan, because I think it's not a coincidence that for the very first time in 35 years, there's significant internal discussion on the Palestinian side about reform, about significant changes in the style and method of Palestinian leadership. And this comes after Operation Defensive Shield.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Tom. Tom. Let Raghida answer.
DERGHAM: First of all, I want to repeat once again, actually, whatever the Palestinians decide is their leadership is their business. It's none of the Israelis' business...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Let me just raise one point. Let me raise one point then you can continue. Because what you just said, you said it before, but when one is at war, you're not in control of what the other side does to you so. So if the Israelis decide that they're sick and tired of dealing with this violent leadership, and move, as one does in war, to eliminate them, then you will be stuck with a fait accompli and have to deal with it.
DERGHAM: Let me say a couple of things quickly, because I know your time is short.
One: the Palestinians are not saying to the Israeli public, although there is a majority that wants a peaceful settlement along the proposal by the Arabs — that is a two-state solution.
The Palestinians and the Arabs are not saying to the Israelis get rid of Ariel Sharon before we talk with you. Ariel Sharon has his own legacy of also war crimes and et cetera, and let's not pain him in a wonderful color.
Secondly, back to Mr. Rose's point. What do you want as a solution? There are only three possibilities. Either a two-state solution, or one bi-national state, which will have the Arabs and the Jews, one man/one vote. And that is not acceptable to the Israelis, because they want a Jewish state.
Or the third option, Alan, what would it be. Let them eliminate each other. Well, I happen to opt for a two-state solution, and I think the roadmap is very clear. It's 67 borders, and never mind all these ploys of separation today and back to let's punish Arafat and let's take the compound over again, and let's try to find another leadership.
The fact of the matter, the bottom-line, is that the Israeli public must stand up and decide that it is for the benefit of Israeli to stop being an occupier and to really arrive at a solution.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Let me point out one thing. I think what you have just said, whatever sense it might make in substance or not make, becomes irrelevant when you have folks on the Palestinian side who continually go into Israel, kill people, arousing the defensive and necessary that then leads to a reaction and bloodshed.
You cannot seriously...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Let me finish. I didn't interrupt you. Ma'am, I didn't interrupt you. I didn't interrupt you. Now, let me finish.
DERGHAM: Go right ahead.
KEYES: Because it seems to me that what you are suggesting, and what a lot of the Palestinian people seem to imply, is that it makes sense for somebody to sit-down at the negotiating table, and talk to somebody who is basically looking at them, making a demand, and saying accept it, or I'll kill your brother. Accept it, or I'll kill your family. Accept it, or I'll kill your young people in their dancing clubs.
Nobody will negotiate under that kind of threat unless they're gutless cowards. And I don't think you're faced with gutless cowards in the Israelis. How can you realistically expect that they will accept this kind of ultimatum?
DERGHAM: May I come in now?
KEYES: Yes, go ahead.
DERGHAM: All right.
First of all, you're saying something, Alan, as if we are forgetting that the Israelis have been doing preemptive, as they call it, strikes. They have been going into the territories once again, and again, and again. So there has been Palestinians casualties, if you wish to remember.
The Palestinians are under the humiliation of occupation, and my bottom-line in this, where I disagree with you, is that there is already a bad need for both sides to really arrive at a conclusion, and the conclusion will have to be never mind which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Never mind who stopped and who talks the first step.
The fact of the matter is, both parties, both leaders, both constituencies, in my view, hurt enough — hurt bad enough that they really need to make the leap and really come together and make a transition.
KEYES: Tom Rose, I listen to this with a certain amount of, I have to confess it, exasperation, because it seems to me that Raghida is basically saying, and I look at the situation by the way, I don't see these preemptive things. I think every strike we've seen since we saw the rejection of the Wye accords, everything the Israelis have done has been in response to the kind of violence brought against them.
But I would have to ask you, Tom, do you think, realistically, the Israelis, the people or the government, will accept this kind of under the gun negotiating situation?
ROSE: Well, we can't, by definition, accept it. As a matter of fact, I mean, we've been very reactive throughout this entire process. And that is the subject of a great deal of internal debate and consternation, particularly on the right — people who look to Ariel Sharon, who wanted a 70 percent mandate just a year and a half ago, to deal with Palestinian violence, to set the stage for a political negotiation.
Raghida continues to talk about a two-state solution, as though that wasn't an Israeli proposal, as though that hasn't been the whole premise of the Oslo process, as though Prime Minister Ehud Barak, 18 months ago, 20 months ago, didn't offer to do precisely that.
DERGHAM: That is not true.
ROSE: This has very little, Alan, to do with creating a Palestinian, side by side with Israel, and has a whole heck of a lot to do with destroying the state of Israel, expelling all the Jews from here, and murdering as many of us as they can on the way out, and that is not going to happen. That's not going to happen.
The fait accompli is this, Alan. The fait accompli is that the minute the Arab world accepts the legitimacy and permanence of the state of Israel, in this region, there will be peace. The rest becomes...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: We have less than 30 seconds.
(CROSSTALK)
DERGHAM: For record, the Arab states have come up collective with a proposal, with an initiative, called the Abdullah initiative, in the Beirut summit, collectively said two-state solution. '67 borders. Coexistence with Israel. Normalization with Israel. I, you know, it just puzzles me — why on earth — and I know there is a very healthy debate within Israel, a very healthy one, to say...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: We are out of time. I've got to thank you both for being with me tonight.
We are obviously, as we have been doing, going to continue this discussion. And we're actually going to continue this very debate on the Mideast crisis here on the show today with Hussein Ibish of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily.
We'll be exploring further some of the issues that we have just heard raised between Raghida and Tom, and go a little further into what the possibilities and impossibilities might be.
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
We've been talking on today's program about the intensifying events in the Middle East: once again a flare-up, a major suicide bombing today, claiming the greatest number of lives since the Passover bombing; in response, an Israeli incursion again into Jenin and Ramallah. It looks like Yasser Arafat's compound may be, in fact, the objective of their activities and actions, suggesting that they are holding Arafat responsible for the violence.
Now, we have joining us now, to continue this discussion, Hussein Ibish, the communications director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and Joseph Farah, CEO and editor in chief of WorldNetDaily.com.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE, gentlemen.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Now, I want to start the discussion with perhaps a provocative thought, which I'm going to address, Hussein, to you first.
HUSSEIN IBISH, AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE: Certainly.
KEYES: Because, frankly, looking at the present situation, the thought has to occur to one that maybe Israel has decided that the time has come to move against Yasser Arafat and take him out. And, basically, war is war. And you go for the command structure and take out the commander.
Maybe, also, they are deciding that that violence-prone cohort of leadership which plans and executes these kinds of terror things, must be moved against decisively, and they're not going to stop until they have severely cut back that generation of leadership that is addicted to this violence.
Now, here's the question I have for you. Let us assume that that is their objective and they do it in some manner. Is it really an obstacle to peace, or does it move to the side elements in the Palestinian leadership that seem utterly incapable of giving up violence as their main tool in this sort of effort?
IBISH: I don't think it will actually change much of anything, to be absolutely honest with you, because once — let's say Arafat is killed tonight. And let's say, in fact, the entire Palestinian leader is killed, or exiled or something, removed from the equation.
You'd still have — you would be back to square one. You would still have the same basic problem. The 3.5 million Palestinians living under Israeli occupation would be there. The occupation army would be there. The Jewish settlements would be there, the Jewish-only roads and the checkpoints. Everything which has created a context, making this conflict all but inevitable, would still be there.
So, I think that you would really be back to square one. And, in the end, the only solution is going to be a political solution. So, I think this is not defined by the personal or political failings of one man, or even a group, whether on the Israeli side — because you know what we think about Ariel Sharon, with good reason — or on the Palestinian side, where there are plenty of criticisms one can level — and who doesn't? — against the leadership of Arafat.
It comes down to a conflict between societies. So, I don't think that's a solution.
KEYES: Let me ask you one follow-up question, though, because something that has been much on my mind as I've watched all of these events develop has been the fact that, as I analyze the situation and especially when I look at the history and background of Israel, the Jewish people, it seems to me that a militant, nonviolent strategy, such as one saw in South Africa, from Gandhi in India, Martin Luther King, and so forth, would in fact be highly effective in this situation.
And I do wonder all the time: why this addiction to violence when one is dealing with a people who I think would be very susceptible to a nonviolent approach? Killing people is precisely what causes the problem here.
IBISH: Yes. In fact, you made the very interesting point before, which I want to come to in just a second. But I think you're making a good point now.
The only — the counterpoint, really, to it is that the first intifada was largely nonviolent and it really — it didn't get very far either. But I think that you're on to a good point here. And this is maybe one of first times we have been in agreement. What you were saying to Raghida Dergham before was a very, I think, insightful thing, when you talked about the Israeli instinct responding to these suicide bombings.
And I think that that is one of the worst things about them. Of course they are terrible because they killed people, and mostly innocent people, when they are directed at civilians. But, also, they are very politically counterproductive, because they give the Israeli public a sense of legitimacy for what Israel has been doing and continues to do in the occupied territories, a legitimacy, a sense of — it's not self-defense, really, because Israel's posture isn't defensive — but it is rage. And it is revenge. And it is a sort of human reaction.
And it gives them the sense of legitimacy in all the things that they have been doing in the West Bank and are continuing to do. And it's a sense legitimacy they don't deserve, that no occupier deserves. So, I think you're right. And I think that these suicide bombings have got to stop immediately, both because they are immoral and because they are politically counterproductive.
KEYES: Now, let me follow up with Joseph Farah.
Same question: If that is in fact the Israeli objective and they pursue it, so forth, I happen to think that it is possible that would actually create a positive opportunity in this situation that might allow the emergence of a Palestinian leadership of a different character and variety, that not addicted to the violence strategies that Arafat and his friends have followed for — what is it now? — nearly four decades.
Is this a possibility, Joseph?
JOSEPH FARAH, WORLDNETDAILY.COM: Alan, none of us can predict the future, but I will tell you that I think it's the right thing to do, for two reasons. It would be justice if Arafat was taken out, because this man is responsible for hundreds and hundreds of Israeli casualties, just in recent months and years. But he's also responsible for approximately 100 American deaths, including the deaths of our diplomats. It would be justice.
The other reason I think it would be a good idea is because it would end the charade. This is not about a Palestinian state. And I think it's very clear now. Arafat has had many opportunities to establish his Palestinian state. Going way back to 1970, King Hussein of Jordan offered Arafat a partnership and political power in Jordan, which really is the Palestinian state, when he offered him the job as prime minister. Hussein was prepared to take more of a ceremonial role as king. And Arafat turned Hussein down flat in 1970.
And he has rejected all of the very, very generous offers that Israel has made to establish his state.
IBISH: Two quick points in response.
KEYES: Yes, go ahead.
IBISH: Jordan is not a Palestinian state. Jordan is Jordan and Palestine is in Palestine.
The second thing is, there haven't been generous offers. I do think there's been some failings in Palestinian diplomacy, but Israel has never conceded that Palestinians should have full sovereign independence in the occupied territories. And that is what is really promoting this war. That is what is forcing the war to continue.
One further quick point is that there is another leadership for Palestinians waiting in the wings, which right now doesn't command a majority, no more than 20 percent, but still is there. And that's the religious fanatics. And Arafat does represent a broad, mainstream, secular leadership of Palestinians. And it is possible that, if you not only get rid of him, but crush the Palestinian secular leadership, you might get religious fanatics like Hamas and Islamic Jihad becoming the leadership.
KEYES: Before I accept that, though, am I to assume that, different than I think every other people that I have seen in human history, am I to assume that there is no courageous, dedicated nonviolent element in the Palestinian community that would push its...
IBISH: No.
KEYES: Let me finish, please — that would push its way forward in order to demand a leadership role on behalf of the peace-loving element that exists in every community, that it's got to be one form of violent fanaticism of another? I don't believe that about the Palestinian people.
IBISH: Well, I'm not saying that.
What I am saying is that, if you open a leadership vacuum under the current circumstances, where things have gotten so extreme, and where extremists both in Israeli society and in Palestinian society have moved towards the center, and where the centers have become more extreme — in both societies, frankly — and where both societies are relying almost elusively on violence in confronting the other, that it's possible, it's more likely that you'll get further radicalization by the destruction of the existing secular leadership.
You and I, I think, might agree that there are better options. But I think one has to be realistic. Israeli society is not turning to more rational leadership. They have embraced a totally irrational leader in Sharon, who believes in a violent military solution that is a complete fantasy.
(CROSSTALK)
IBISH: And then he has got at least as much blood on his hands as Arafat does.
KEYES: Frankly, I don't think he does believe, in fact, in a violent solution, because I don't think that a rational person sees a solution exclusively through violence.
IBISH: He is not rational.
KEYES: And he has said so.
But the question I have: If you have a violent leadership on one side or the other pushing constantly that violence to the extreme — which, sadly, I think has been the case with the existing Palestinian leadership.
IBISH: I think it's the case with both.
KEYES: I refuse to accept the notion — you have seen it — in Northern Ireland, we have seen it. We have seen it in African countries. We have seen it in the context of colonialism. There were always courageous folks willing to step forward, sick to death of the killing, simply, to say that it was time that a different approach was tried.
I can't believe there are not such people in the Palestinian community.
IBISH: There are and there have been. And they continue to speak up.
The problem is, the history of anti-colonialism is mainly a violent history. The Gandhis, the Mandelas, who — even he did he have his army — the total nonviolent people like Martin Luther King are quite unusual. And the norm is, even when you have got a Gandhi in India, you have also got a Subhas Chandra Bose, who leads the Indian National Army. You've also got communal rioting and a lot of deaths and a lot of bloodshed.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Hussein, we're going to have to stop. We'll be right back.
But we also know, in both those cases, who actually provided the successful impetus that led both to independence and a constructive basis for the future of the country.
Anyway, let us talk and think a little bit more about this after we come back from this break.
And later: “My Outrage of the Day,” in which I'll be looking at this very subject.
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We're back with the latest the Mideast with Hussein Ibish and Joseph Farah.
Joe, I would like to direct my question to you. And it's kind of a version of the same question, but I would just like you to think with me for a moment here. And it's a hypothetical, to be sure.
But what do you think would be the response of the Israeli government and people if they were faced with a nonviolent, but militant Palestinian leadership, that, without resorting to violence and killing, nonetheless insisted, by various means which have been tried in the world, on negotiations that respected Palestinian demands and aspirations? How do you think the Israelis would deal with that?
FARAH: Well, nothing would delight the Israelis more.
And, you know, Hussein likes to play this moral-equivalency game. We're talking about Yasser Arafat killing innocent people. And he wants to suggest that Ariel Sharon only wants a violent solution to this conflict.
IBISH: That's right.
FARAH: And it's simply not true.
IBISH: Of course it's true.
FARAH: You know, Hussein, that Sharon and the Israelis have the military power, any time, to utterly destroy the Palestinian infrastructure, to take out Yasser Arafat, all of his lieutenants. And they have never done it. They have had ample opportunities to do it.
In fact, it was the Israelis who resurrected Arafat from, really, political obscurity in 1993, when he had really lost his base and he had lost power. And they resurrected him, because they want to believe so much that he can be a partner for peace. Well, we've seen all the attempts at making Yasser Arafat a partner for pace. And they have never worked. And, sooner or later, you have got to realize it and move on and not worry too much about what might happen afterwards.
IBISH: Well, it's a bit of a caricature to describe the Israelis as so peace-loving.
Let me just say, we know what the Israeli reaction would be to a Palestinian nonviolent uprising, because we had one from...
FARAH: No, you didn't.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Hold it. You made this point, Hussein. Utter balderdash and nonsense.
IBISH: No, it's not.
KEYES: That intifada — I was, in fact, actively involved in the government and all kinds of discussions that involved the Middle East at the United Nations. I know the characteristics of that first intifada.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Excuse me. Excuse me, sir.
Nonviolence wasn't one of them. I simply have to challenge it.
But put aside...
IBISH: Well, I believe it was.
KEYES: Still, I want to ask you another, though, tough question about...
IBISH: Please.
KEYES: ... this whole issue of nonviolence, because, in addition to the possibility of an Israeli response, the thing that deeply worries me and that often comes up in these situations, I would ask you — honest answer now.
IBISH: Yes.
KEYES: If such a leadership began to emerge on the Palestinian side and gained support from people who are sick and tired of seeing their children killed in destructive ways and so forth, and just wanted to find a peaceful, nonviolent, but militant way to pursue these negotiations, what would be the response of the violent extremist Palestinian leadership?
IBISH: Well, I wouldn't say that the leadership is violently extremist. But I would say that there are violently extremist groups.
KEYES: Huh.
IBISH: Yes. No, no. Hold on. You ought to make a distinction. I'm saying, those who are violent extremists, right, will not like it, all right? But...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: We only have 30 seconds.
IBISH: Let me finish my point.
KEYES: I need a blunt answer. Does that mean that they would move to kill these people?
IBISH: I don't think that...
FARAH: Alan, we've seen it happen before.
IBISH: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.
I don't think that you would see a spate of inter-Palestinian assassinations, frankly. If it gains popular momentum, what you'll see, I think, are political moves to try to diffuse it.
Let me just throw one other thing into the mix here, though.
KEYES: We have to do it very quickly. We have about 15 seconds.
IBISH: Sure.
I think the Israelis are in no position to lecture anyone about using violence and terrorism to establish their state, because it's exactly what they did. And you just showed a clip of Sharon sitting underneath a picture of Begin.
KEYES: Understood.
But, Hussein, you missed my point. I am not talking about Israelis lecturing anybody. All I'm talking about is what might actually begin to create a cycle of progress instead of violence. Sometimes people who see themselves as victims have to have the courage to take responsibility for peace. I think that's what Martin Luther King taught me.
Thank you both.
IBISH: Always a pleasure.
KEYES: Really appreciate your coming today to discuss these ominous and could-be momentous events.
Next: “My Outrage of the Day.” Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: And now for my “Outrage of the Day.
Every time Arafat and leaders like him in the Palestinian community are in danger, people try to suggest that there's no alternative. I think it's deeply insulting to the quality, ought to be insulting to the pride of Palestinians, to suggest that these violence-prone, terror-addicted leaders are the only ones who can be produced by the Palestinian people. I doubt it. I think there are sincere and peace-loving people in that community. We need to give them a chance.
That's my sense of it. Thanks.
“THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next.
I'll see you tomorrow.
Up front tonight, Israel hit by the most murderous suicide bombing since the Passover attack in March.
As we speak, Israel sending tanks back into the West Bank towns of Jenin and Ramallah, reportedly striking directly against Yasser Arafat's compound.
MSNBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent, Dr. Bob Arnot, is in Jerusalem with the latest — Bob.
BOB ARNOT, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Alan. This is the first of what they call a maxi-attack here. That is, they've tried within the last month to blow up a major petroleum facility, which would have really been the equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction. They tried a cyanide gas attack which fortunately failed.
But they've succeeded today with 100 kilograms of explosives, when a car went past a main bus that goes from Tel Aviv up to Tiberia (ph), that it blew the bus into the air, rolled it over at least once, killing 17, including 13 Israeli Defense Forces troops, and injuring over 30.
Now, paradoxically, this is right outside of a prison where Palestinian prisoners were actually cheering. And the name of the town, translated into English, actually, is Armageddon, which is where the final battle between good and evil is supposed to be fought.
Now, the fear here throughout Israel is that there is a new age that they've entered in terms of terrorism, and that is the age of these maxi-attacks, will take out many, many more civilians. And so they felt that there had to be more than a measured response.
First, they were into Jenin today, which is where the suicide bomber came from. About midnight, right out here, we could hear artillery fire, the F-16's go overhead. We heard helicopters as they went near Yasser Arafat's actual compound.
They surrounded the compound, shot at the walls, made their way in, destroyed the bridge that connects the two buildings, and they also were able to destroy the stairway that goes up to his offices.
Now, we learned from inside that compound that there are five injured, one very seriously injured in addition to that, and that that stairway has been blocked off with cars that have been crushed by Israeli tanks.
The big question at this point is do they go further. Islamic Jihad, which took credit for this, is part of the fundamentalist faction of terrorists. There also is another faction which is more closely aligned with Arafat. Because they are based in Gaza, the question is, will there be any kind of a major incursion into Gaza.
The fear here is that, should there be a major military escalation by the Israelis, and that this is what the Palestinians are pushing them into, that there then could be a major outcry by the international community and impose peace on Israeli, which is the last thing that they want.
KEYES: What is your sense of the reason why they have attacked Arafat's compound? Obviously, they must question or not accept the disclaimers that have been there in terms of Arafat's condemning of these attacks and so forth.
Are they basically holding him responsible?
ARNOT: Well, they are holding him responsible. I spent the morning with a study group here, going over many of these documents in their original Arabic, linking Yasser Arafat to a variety of these terrorist groups.
Now, there are those that they say are more closely aligned with him, and the fundamentalist groups, which are not as closely aligned. But the Israelis are making the fundamental point that they believe that Yasser Arafat has at least a connection, if not commanding control, and they showed me documents that actually show signing off of Arafat of certain weapons, certain suicide bombers.
And they believe that this might be close enough to say that Yasser Arafat himself is actually responsible for these attacks, and they hold him accountable for that.
KEYES: One last question: Is there any indication that the objective of this attack is Arafat himself?
ARNOT: What we have learned here is that Arafat is in the compound, that there have been injuries, but that he has not been — there is no impetus now to try to injure or kill Arafat.
However, there are cabinet members, government officials here, who really believe that now is the time to sideline Arafat, but the last thing they want to do, Alan, is to make a martyr out of this man.
KEYES: Dr. Bob Arnot, thank you very much. Appreciate your help.
Today's bombing in the town of Megiddo, north of Tel Aviv, happened on the 35th anniversary of the war in which Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza.
Here's MSNBC's Martin Fletcher with more details on today's attack.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MARTIN FLETCHER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Bodies scattered on a highway in northern Israeli today after another suicide bombing.
7:00 in the morning, the rush hour, a crowded bus. A Palestinian drove up alongside in a car packed with 100 pounds of explosives and then a giant blast.
Of the 17 Israelis killed, 13 were soldiers traveling to their army bases. Some burnt to death, including a man and woman whose bodies were found in a final embrace.
The bus driver survived, and he can't believe his luck. He's lived through four bomb attacks on his route in the last six months.
“I always feel like a target,” he says, “But I am not afraid. I'll drive for another year and then retire.”
Militant Palestinians from Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility, saying the bomb was to mark the 35th anniversary of the Six Day War, when Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
(on camera): It didn't take long for Israel to retaliate. By noon already, Israeli tanks are moving into the area of the Palestinian town of Jenin, from where the suicide attacker came.
(voice-over): The army called the tank movement an initial response, and warns Israel will hit back hard.
DORE GOLD, ISRAELI SPOKESMAN: No country in the world can tolerate a situation where, in a neighboring area, there is a vast infrastructure of international terrorism, which is being used week after week, sometimes day after day, to murder its civilians.
FLETCHER: Egypt's President Mubarak said there is only one way to stop the killing.
HOSNI MUBARAK, EGYPTIAN PRESIDENT: Violence will never stop, unless there is political negotiations to give hope to the people on both sides, that peace is coming.
FLETCHER: The Israeli government says it wants to move ahead with peace talks with the Palestinians, but first some cabinet members are calling for vergence.
Martin Fletcher, NBC News, Megiddo, Israeli.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEYES: Now, note today's attacks fell on the 35th anniversary of the Six-Day War. They also show another pattern, because we have seen over the course of the last several weeks that when U.S. officials are in the region, when important meetings are taking place involving American officials, these attacks also occur in a pattern that suggest the utmost contempt for the actions and aims of U.S. policy.
Today's attack followed two days of talks between CIA Dir. George Tenet and Palestinian and Israeli leaders, aimed at initiating reforms in a structure and effectiveness of the Palestinian Security Forces.
Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had to cut short his trip to the United States, after a Hamas suicide bombing at a pool hall in a Tel Aviv suburb. That occurred during his meeting with President Bush. Fifteen Israelis were killed.
And in April, a day after Secretary of State Colin Powell met with Yasser Arafat at his embattled Ramallah headquarters, at least six people were killed in a suicide bomb attack near a bust stop in Jerusalem.
Now, obviously, to suggest that these attacks occur in addition to everything else, in a pattern meant to express contempt for, opposition to, United States policy.
Also, the suggestion that whatever it is we think may be required in the way of stopping this violence, it is simply not going to stop in response to these United States demands.
Now, of course Yasser Arafat has issued statements that distance himself from these attacks and from the organization sponsoring them.
In fact, earlier this week both Hamas and Islamic Jihad rejected Arafat's offer to have seats in a reformed Palestinian cabinet.
Now, that invitation and the reaction could very well have been meant to establish a clear line of distinction between Arafat and the more militant, terrorist groups that are sponsoring these attacks.
I think it's pretty clear that the Israelis don't buy it. See the possibility of a double game, in which Arafat talks condemnation, acts the fiction of separation, while nonetheless continuing with these attacks, and benefiting from the violence.
Even the White House today had harsh words for the Palestinian leader.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECT.: The president would say that Yasser Arafat has yet to earn the president's trust. Our efforts will continue on a multi-level within the Palestinian. That includes Chairman Arafat, but the point of the president is what the people of Palestinian need and what the people of Israel need, is a leadership that is willing to take action to prevent violence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: I think it's pretty obvious that if this is in fact defiction (ph) and these attacks and this violence are part of a pattern in which Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians would both get to press for negotiations, see what they could get on the front of those negotiations, while at the same time keeping Israeli under the gun, continuing the bloodshed, even escalating the violence, that would kind of result in a no-fault approach to terrorism, wouldn't it?
The terrorist acts are curbed, but you know, things happen. Nobody is really responsible. This or that extremist group takes responsibility, but the negotiations continue in such a way that the Palestinians actually suffer no consequence for their addiction to terrorist violence.
That would be a kind of we've-got-it-both-ways policy that results in fact in kind of a no-fault terrorism situation in which the perpetrators of terrorism and those who benefit from terrorist acts would actually be able to reap the fruits at the negotiating table while their violence is going on.
Well, next, we're going to debate the consequences of such a no-fault approach to Palestinian terrorism with two journalists who have been covering this story all along — Raghida Dergham of “Al-Hayat” and Tom Rose of “The Jerusalem Post.”
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Dawn in Ramallah, and Yasser Arafat's compound currently surrounded by Israeli tanks.
Back to our discussion tonight. But on by these events in the Middle East, where some things appear to be coming to a head.
Joining us to get to the heart of the matter, Raghida Dergham, the senior diplomatic correspondent for “Al-Hayat,” a daily Arabic newspaper, and Tom Rose, the publisher and CEO of “The Jerusalem Post.”
Both of you, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
RAGHIDA DERGHAM, “AL-HAYAT”: Thank you.
KEYES: I think we're looking, obviously, at what could be some very serious and portentous developments, both in terms of the heightened impact of these terrorist attacks, and the possible implications of Israel's assault now on Arafat's compound in Ramallah.
Let me start with Tom Rose, asking you what you think is the analysis that lies behind Israel's move against the compound in Ramallah. Are they basically holding Arafat responsible for these terrorist attacks?
TOM ROSE, “JERUSALEM POST” Well, Alan, this may be a case where you actually know more than we do on the ground here in Israel. It is 5:00 in the morning. No one's really answer their phones. The government press office is closed. Actually, as a government operation, you don't get a whole lot of information from them during business hours.
So we really don't know exactly what the scope of this operation is, but there are a couple of options.
Today, in an emergency cabinet meeting, P.M. Sharon convened his security cabinet, and there were basically two lines of approach.
Number one, from the more conservative right-wing elements was: it's enough. It's time for regime change. It's time for Yasser Arafat to go. There is no way this process can advance with Yasser Arafat in command and control.
As you indicated earlier, two days ago Yasser Arafat actually extended an olive branch to Hamas and Islamic Jihad to join the so-called quote/unquote “reformed Palestinian cabinet.”
That would be the equivalent, Alan, of Hamid Karzai, the Afghan leader, offering a seat at the table to al Qaeda in a new Afghan government.
So, I think from an Israeli perspective, really, the noose is tightening around Arafat, and there may be a national suicide as far as Palestinian leadership is concerned if they are unable to do anything to prevent these kinds of murderous attacks, because we will defend ourselves.
KEYES: Now, Raghida Dergham, what do you think was, first of all, the significance of that move by Arafat with respect to these two militant and, as I see it, terrorist groups?
Obviously, it could be interpreted as something that belies the notion that he is in fact distinct these groups. But it could also just have been a way of illustrating that they don't want to be part of what he is trying to do, or was professedly trying to do, with respect to the reform of the Palestinian Authority. What do you think was going on there?
DERGHAM: Well, I think that he was trying to say that there is a process here that is very — the reform and putting together a new direction for the Palestinians underneath the leadership of Yasser Arafat, and he was saying, come along, but play by the rule that have accepted, that you have to stop suicide bombings, and you have to accept my choice, which is a two-state solution.
And if you come along, you have to play by my rules, and if you don't come along, he was saying, then you have — I will have to treat you — crackdown — and treat you as an opposition. That's the endangering aspirations of the Palestinians.
So, whether Arafat or any other Palestinian leader of tomorrow tries their very best and utmost, Alan, to stop suicide bombings, they will never have 100 percent success so log as there is this mentality of refusal, of a political sentiment, of taking actually what the international community is saying to the Israeli government, which is come along to an international peace conference, come along and accept a two-state solution, because otherwise there will be no end to suicide bombings. This is the rejection of occupation and its consequences.
KEYES: Now, it sounded to me today as if it sounded to me today, as if the even the folks in the Bush administration, who I think have been up until now pretty insistent with the need to deal with Arafat as kind of reality in the situation.
I sensed today in the comments, perhaps some frustration or exasperation with that situation, and a willingness to consider a future in which there is an alternative. Did you see that as well?
DERGHAM: Not really, Alan. Maybe frustrating, I agree with you, but I don't think the administration has decided that, look, it's time to get rid of Yasser Arafat, because I think the administration realizes that it's not it's choice, the choice of the leadership of the Palestinians is up to the Palestinians, and there is no other Palestinian who will step in and say I'll take the place of Yasser Arafat because the United States wants to force him out or because the Israeli government decided it will not deal with him.
In fact, I read the general picture in another completely different way. That is to say that it is most important to speak about the principles which will guide a resolution of this conflict.
What are the options, Alan? I think there is two-state solution, and that would mean serious negotiation. None of this...
KEYES: But...
DERGHAM: Just let me finish this thought, if you'll permit me. Just this thought.
KEYES: No. One problem, though, with all the discussion of politics and everything else, and frankly I don't see it just here. I was raising it the other day with a spokesman for the Pakistani point of view.
Own can one expect that folks are going to sit down at a negotiating table, under the gun? In every situation where negotiation bears fruit, there has be a cease fire. You stop killing each other while the talk is going on.
And yet it seems to me what you and other Palestinians are saying is look, we just have to go on killing people.
How can we expect fruitful negotiations to occur if we table when there a has to be a cease fire you have to stop negotiations are going on. How can we expect fruitful negotiations to occur in an environment punctuated by this kind of violent attack?
It rouses emotions. It gets people angry. It calls for retaliation. It destroys the process of peace. It doesn't contribute to it.
DERGHAM: Look, Alan, the very notion adopted by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, that there can't be a security approach, a solution that's based only security and only on the military operation, has failed. Take a look. It has not resulted in further security for Israel, nor has it stopped the suicide bombing.
In fact, it's perpetuated the situation. There has to be a pattern approach, political as well as security.
KEYES: Tom Rose, let me ask you a question, because what Raghida is saying essentially, well, I dropped the military option, it's over with, it hasn't worked.
Now, my impression, to be quite frank, is that they were pulled off of various aspects of that military options, by pressure form the U.S. and others.
In the face of these renewed and actually more intense violent attacks, can we expect a sustained application now of that strategic approach?
ROSE: You know, Alan, sitting here listening to Raghida, it's almost like — it has this “Alice in Wonderland” quality.
Hosni Mubarak talked the other day about the need for a political process.
Alan, we're just out of an eight-year political process, the height of which was this unbelievable explosion of violence which came as the result of unprecedented generous Israeli offers to quit 97 percent of the West Bank, to redivide our capital, Jerusalem, to put 100 percent of Gaza.
One can make the absolutely opposite argument, and that is that the farther this political process develops, the more the Palestinian side, the more the Arab world, perceives and understands our offers of concessions, not as magnanimous attempts to try to resolve this issue. But actually as an expression of our weakness, our lack of resolve, our unwillingness to defend ourselves and fight for our rights and our country.
But this only encourages more violence. And I don't think it's an accident that George Tenet, just two days ago, according to a senior Palestinian official, allegedly told Yasser Arafat, “One more suicide bombing, and you can count us out. You can count the Americans out. We are not going to try to restrain the Israelis, and we may be seeing, finally, the end of the Arafat regime.
KEYES: Let me lay a scenario on the table for both of you for comment. And it is a little bit provocative, but it seems to me that this thing has been going on and on. My view is that, you see a set of Palestinian leaders, utterly addicted to a violent strategy. Whatever may be the feelings of other people in the Palestinian community. They can't stop themselves. This is what they know. This is what they do.
What if the Israelis now are responding by saying, “OK. We're going to move, we're going to do everything we can to eliminate that leadership. We won't work with them. They're at war with us. We intend to eliminate them by whatever means necessary.”
There would be an outraged reaction in the world. Some furor for awhile. But wouldn't it at least possibly open the door to the emergence of a leadership on the Palestinian side not addicted to these tactics?
(CROSSTALK)
ROSE: I think that's a hugely important point, Alan, because I think it's not a coincidence that for the very first time in 35 years, there's significant internal discussion on the Palestinian side about reform, about significant changes in the style and method of Palestinian leadership. And this comes after Operation Defensive Shield.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Tom. Tom. Let Raghida answer.
DERGHAM: First of all, I want to repeat once again, actually, whatever the Palestinians decide is their leadership is their business. It's none of the Israelis' business...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Let me just raise one point. Let me raise one point then you can continue. Because what you just said, you said it before, but when one is at war, you're not in control of what the other side does to you so. So if the Israelis decide that they're sick and tired of dealing with this violent leadership, and move, as one does in war, to eliminate them, then you will be stuck with a fait accompli and have to deal with it.
DERGHAM: Let me say a couple of things quickly, because I know your time is short.
One: the Palestinians are not saying to the Israeli public, although there is a majority that wants a peaceful settlement along the proposal by the Arabs — that is a two-state solution.
The Palestinians and the Arabs are not saying to the Israelis get rid of Ariel Sharon before we talk with you. Ariel Sharon has his own legacy of also war crimes and et cetera, and let's not pain him in a wonderful color.
Secondly, back to Mr. Rose's point. What do you want as a solution? There are only three possibilities. Either a two-state solution, or one bi-national state, which will have the Arabs and the Jews, one man/one vote. And that is not acceptable to the Israelis, because they want a Jewish state.
Or the third option, Alan, what would it be. Let them eliminate each other. Well, I happen to opt for a two-state solution, and I think the roadmap is very clear. It's 67 borders, and never mind all these ploys of separation today and back to let's punish Arafat and let's take the compound over again, and let's try to find another leadership.
The fact of the matter, the bottom-line, is that the Israeli public must stand up and decide that it is for the benefit of Israeli to stop being an occupier and to really arrive at a solution.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Let me point out one thing. I think what you have just said, whatever sense it might make in substance or not make, becomes irrelevant when you have folks on the Palestinian side who continually go into Israel, kill people, arousing the defensive and necessary that then leads to a reaction and bloodshed.
You cannot seriously...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Let me finish. I didn't interrupt you. Ma'am, I didn't interrupt you. I didn't interrupt you. Now, let me finish.
DERGHAM: Go right ahead.
KEYES: Because it seems to me that what you are suggesting, and what a lot of the Palestinian people seem to imply, is that it makes sense for somebody to sit-down at the negotiating table, and talk to somebody who is basically looking at them, making a demand, and saying accept it, or I'll kill your brother. Accept it, or I'll kill your family. Accept it, or I'll kill your young people in their dancing clubs.
Nobody will negotiate under that kind of threat unless they're gutless cowards. And I don't think you're faced with gutless cowards in the Israelis. How can you realistically expect that they will accept this kind of ultimatum?
DERGHAM: May I come in now?
KEYES: Yes, go ahead.
DERGHAM: All right.
First of all, you're saying something, Alan, as if we are forgetting that the Israelis have been doing preemptive, as they call it, strikes. They have been going into the territories once again, and again, and again. So there has been Palestinians casualties, if you wish to remember.
The Palestinians are under the humiliation of occupation, and my bottom-line in this, where I disagree with you, is that there is already a bad need for both sides to really arrive at a conclusion, and the conclusion will have to be never mind which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Never mind who stopped and who talks the first step.
The fact of the matter is, both parties, both leaders, both constituencies, in my view, hurt enough — hurt bad enough that they really need to make the leap and really come together and make a transition.
KEYES: Tom Rose, I listen to this with a certain amount of, I have to confess it, exasperation, because it seems to me that Raghida is basically saying, and I look at the situation by the way, I don't see these preemptive things. I think every strike we've seen since we saw the rejection of the Wye accords, everything the Israelis have done has been in response to the kind of violence brought against them.
But I would have to ask you, Tom, do you think, realistically, the Israelis, the people or the government, will accept this kind of under the gun negotiating situation?
ROSE: Well, we can't, by definition, accept it. As a matter of fact, I mean, we've been very reactive throughout this entire process. And that is the subject of a great deal of internal debate and consternation, particularly on the right — people who look to Ariel Sharon, who wanted a 70 percent mandate just a year and a half ago, to deal with Palestinian violence, to set the stage for a political negotiation.
Raghida continues to talk about a two-state solution, as though that wasn't an Israeli proposal, as though that hasn't been the whole premise of the Oslo process, as though Prime Minister Ehud Barak, 18 months ago, 20 months ago, didn't offer to do precisely that.
DERGHAM: That is not true.
ROSE: This has very little, Alan, to do with creating a Palestinian, side by side with Israel, and has a whole heck of a lot to do with destroying the state of Israel, expelling all the Jews from here, and murdering as many of us as they can on the way out, and that is not going to happen. That's not going to happen.
The fait accompli is this, Alan. The fait accompli is that the minute the Arab world accepts the legitimacy and permanence of the state of Israel, in this region, there will be peace. The rest becomes...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: We have less than 30 seconds.
(CROSSTALK)
DERGHAM: For record, the Arab states have come up collective with a proposal, with an initiative, called the Abdullah initiative, in the Beirut summit, collectively said two-state solution. '67 borders. Coexistence with Israel. Normalization with Israel. I, you know, it just puzzles me — why on earth — and I know there is a very healthy debate within Israel, a very healthy one, to say...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: We are out of time. I've got to thank you both for being with me tonight.
We are obviously, as we have been doing, going to continue this discussion. And we're actually going to continue this very debate on the Mideast crisis here on the show today with Hussein Ibish of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily.
We'll be exploring further some of the issues that we have just heard raised between Raghida and Tom, and go a little further into what the possibilities and impossibilities might be.
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
We've been talking on today's program about the intensifying events in the Middle East: once again a flare-up, a major suicide bombing today, claiming the greatest number of lives since the Passover bombing; in response, an Israeli incursion again into Jenin and Ramallah. It looks like Yasser Arafat's compound may be, in fact, the objective of their activities and actions, suggesting that they are holding Arafat responsible for the violence.
Now, we have joining us now, to continue this discussion, Hussein Ibish, the communications director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and Joseph Farah, CEO and editor in chief of WorldNetDaily.com.
Welcome to MAKING SENSE, gentlemen.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Now, I want to start the discussion with perhaps a provocative thought, which I'm going to address, Hussein, to you first.
HUSSEIN IBISH, AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE: Certainly.
KEYES: Because, frankly, looking at the present situation, the thought has to occur to one that maybe Israel has decided that the time has come to move against Yasser Arafat and take him out. And, basically, war is war. And you go for the command structure and take out the commander.
Maybe, also, they are deciding that that violence-prone cohort of leadership which plans and executes these kinds of terror things, must be moved against decisively, and they're not going to stop until they have severely cut back that generation of leadership that is addicted to this violence.
Now, here's the question I have for you. Let us assume that that is their objective and they do it in some manner. Is it really an obstacle to peace, or does it move to the side elements in the Palestinian leadership that seem utterly incapable of giving up violence as their main tool in this sort of effort?
IBISH: I don't think it will actually change much of anything, to be absolutely honest with you, because once — let's say Arafat is killed tonight. And let's say, in fact, the entire Palestinian leader is killed, or exiled or something, removed from the equation.
You'd still have — you would be back to square one. You would still have the same basic problem. The 3.5 million Palestinians living under Israeli occupation would be there. The occupation army would be there. The Jewish settlements would be there, the Jewish-only roads and the checkpoints. Everything which has created a context, making this conflict all but inevitable, would still be there.
So, I think that you would really be back to square one. And, in the end, the only solution is going to be a political solution. So, I think this is not defined by the personal or political failings of one man, or even a group, whether on the Israeli side — because you know what we think about Ariel Sharon, with good reason — or on the Palestinian side, where there are plenty of criticisms one can level — and who doesn't? — against the leadership of Arafat.
It comes down to a conflict between societies. So, I don't think that's a solution.
KEYES: Let me ask you one follow-up question, though, because something that has been much on my mind as I've watched all of these events develop has been the fact that, as I analyze the situation and especially when I look at the history and background of Israel, the Jewish people, it seems to me that a militant, nonviolent strategy, such as one saw in South Africa, from Gandhi in India, Martin Luther King, and so forth, would in fact be highly effective in this situation.
And I do wonder all the time: why this addiction to violence when one is dealing with a people who I think would be very susceptible to a nonviolent approach? Killing people is precisely what causes the problem here.
IBISH: Yes. In fact, you made the very interesting point before, which I want to come to in just a second. But I think you're making a good point now.
The only — the counterpoint, really, to it is that the first intifada was largely nonviolent and it really — it didn't get very far either. But I think that you're on to a good point here. And this is maybe one of first times we have been in agreement. What you were saying to Raghida Dergham before was a very, I think, insightful thing, when you talked about the Israeli instinct responding to these suicide bombings.
And I think that that is one of the worst things about them. Of course they are terrible because they killed people, and mostly innocent people, when they are directed at civilians. But, also, they are very politically counterproductive, because they give the Israeli public a sense of legitimacy for what Israel has been doing and continues to do in the occupied territories, a legitimacy, a sense of — it's not self-defense, really, because Israel's posture isn't defensive — but it is rage. And it is revenge. And it is a sort of human reaction.
And it gives them the sense of legitimacy in all the things that they have been doing in the West Bank and are continuing to do. And it's a sense legitimacy they don't deserve, that no occupier deserves. So, I think you're right. And I think that these suicide bombings have got to stop immediately, both because they are immoral and because they are politically counterproductive.
KEYES: Now, let me follow up with Joseph Farah.
Same question: If that is in fact the Israeli objective and they pursue it, so forth, I happen to think that it is possible that would actually create a positive opportunity in this situation that might allow the emergence of a Palestinian leadership of a different character and variety, that not addicted to the violence strategies that Arafat and his friends have followed for — what is it now? — nearly four decades.
Is this a possibility, Joseph?
JOSEPH FARAH, WORLDNETDAILY.COM: Alan, none of us can predict the future, but I will tell you that I think it's the right thing to do, for two reasons. It would be justice if Arafat was taken out, because this man is responsible for hundreds and hundreds of Israeli casualties, just in recent months and years. But he's also responsible for approximately 100 American deaths, including the deaths of our diplomats. It would be justice.
The other reason I think it would be a good idea is because it would end the charade. This is not about a Palestinian state. And I think it's very clear now. Arafat has had many opportunities to establish his Palestinian state. Going way back to 1970, King Hussein of Jordan offered Arafat a partnership and political power in Jordan, which really is the Palestinian state, when he offered him the job as prime minister. Hussein was prepared to take more of a ceremonial role as king. And Arafat turned Hussein down flat in 1970.
And he has rejected all of the very, very generous offers that Israel has made to establish his state.
IBISH: Two quick points in response.
KEYES: Yes, go ahead.
IBISH: Jordan is not a Palestinian state. Jordan is Jordan and Palestine is in Palestine.
The second thing is, there haven't been generous offers. I do think there's been some failings in Palestinian diplomacy, but Israel has never conceded that Palestinians should have full sovereign independence in the occupied territories. And that is what is really promoting this war. That is what is forcing the war to continue.
One further quick point is that there is another leadership for Palestinians waiting in the wings, which right now doesn't command a majority, no more than 20 percent, but still is there. And that's the religious fanatics. And Arafat does represent a broad, mainstream, secular leadership of Palestinians. And it is possible that, if you not only get rid of him, but crush the Palestinian secular leadership, you might get religious fanatics like Hamas and Islamic Jihad becoming the leadership.
KEYES: Before I accept that, though, am I to assume that, different than I think every other people that I have seen in human history, am I to assume that there is no courageous, dedicated nonviolent element in the Palestinian community that would push its...
IBISH: No.
KEYES: Let me finish, please — that would push its way forward in order to demand a leadership role on behalf of the peace-loving element that exists in every community, that it's got to be one form of violent fanaticism of another? I don't believe that about the Palestinian people.
IBISH: Well, I'm not saying that.
What I am saying is that, if you open a leadership vacuum under the current circumstances, where things have gotten so extreme, and where extremists both in Israeli society and in Palestinian society have moved towards the center, and where the centers have become more extreme — in both societies, frankly — and where both societies are relying almost elusively on violence in confronting the other, that it's possible, it's more likely that you'll get further radicalization by the destruction of the existing secular leadership.
You and I, I think, might agree that there are better options. But I think one has to be realistic. Israeli society is not turning to more rational leadership. They have embraced a totally irrational leader in Sharon, who believes in a violent military solution that is a complete fantasy.
(CROSSTALK)
IBISH: And then he has got at least as much blood on his hands as Arafat does.
KEYES: Frankly, I don't think he does believe, in fact, in a violent solution, because I don't think that a rational person sees a solution exclusively through violence.
IBISH: He is not rational.
KEYES: And he has said so.
But the question I have: If you have a violent leadership on one side or the other pushing constantly that violence to the extreme — which, sadly, I think has been the case with the existing Palestinian leadership.
IBISH: I think it's the case with both.
KEYES: I refuse to accept the notion — you have seen it — in Northern Ireland, we have seen it. We have seen it in African countries. We have seen it in the context of colonialism. There were always courageous folks willing to step forward, sick to death of the killing, simply, to say that it was time that a different approach was tried.
I can't believe there are not such people in the Palestinian community.
IBISH: There are and there have been. And they continue to speak up.
The problem is, the history of anti-colonialism is mainly a violent history. The Gandhis, the Mandelas, who — even he did he have his army — the total nonviolent people like Martin Luther King are quite unusual. And the norm is, even when you have got a Gandhi in India, you have also got a Subhas Chandra Bose, who leads the Indian National Army. You've also got communal rioting and a lot of deaths and a lot of bloodshed.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Hussein, we're going to have to stop. We'll be right back.
But we also know, in both those cases, who actually provided the successful impetus that led both to independence and a constructive basis for the future of the country.
Anyway, let us talk and think a little bit more about this after we come back from this break.
And later: “My Outrage of the Day,” in which I'll be looking at this very subject.
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We're back with the latest the Mideast with Hussein Ibish and Joseph Farah.
Joe, I would like to direct my question to you. And it's kind of a version of the same question, but I would just like you to think with me for a moment here. And it's a hypothetical, to be sure.
But what do you think would be the response of the Israeli government and people if they were faced with a nonviolent, but militant Palestinian leadership, that, without resorting to violence and killing, nonetheless insisted, by various means which have been tried in the world, on negotiations that respected Palestinian demands and aspirations? How do you think the Israelis would deal with that?
FARAH: Well, nothing would delight the Israelis more.
And, you know, Hussein likes to play this moral-equivalency game. We're talking about Yasser Arafat killing innocent people. And he wants to suggest that Ariel Sharon only wants a violent solution to this conflict.
IBISH: That's right.
FARAH: And it's simply not true.
IBISH: Of course it's true.
FARAH: You know, Hussein, that Sharon and the Israelis have the military power, any time, to utterly destroy the Palestinian infrastructure, to take out Yasser Arafat, all of his lieutenants. And they have never done it. They have had ample opportunities to do it.
In fact, it was the Israelis who resurrected Arafat from, really, political obscurity in 1993, when he had really lost his base and he had lost power. And they resurrected him, because they want to believe so much that he can be a partner for peace. Well, we've seen all the attempts at making Yasser Arafat a partner for pace. And they have never worked. And, sooner or later, you have got to realize it and move on and not worry too much about what might happen afterwards.
IBISH: Well, it's a bit of a caricature to describe the Israelis as so peace-loving.
Let me just say, we know what the Israeli reaction would be to a Palestinian nonviolent uprising, because we had one from...
FARAH: No, you didn't.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Hold it. You made this point, Hussein. Utter balderdash and nonsense.
IBISH: No, it's not.
KEYES: That intifada — I was, in fact, actively involved in the government and all kinds of discussions that involved the Middle East at the United Nations. I know the characteristics of that first intifada.
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: Excuse me. Excuse me, sir.
Nonviolence wasn't one of them. I simply have to challenge it.
But put aside...
IBISH: Well, I believe it was.
KEYES: Still, I want to ask you another, though, tough question about...
IBISH: Please.
KEYES: ... this whole issue of nonviolence, because, in addition to the possibility of an Israeli response, the thing that deeply worries me and that often comes up in these situations, I would ask you — honest answer now.
IBISH: Yes.
KEYES: If such a leadership began to emerge on the Palestinian side and gained support from people who are sick and tired of seeing their children killed in destructive ways and so forth, and just wanted to find a peaceful, nonviolent, but militant way to pursue these negotiations, what would be the response of the violent extremist Palestinian leadership?
IBISH: Well, I wouldn't say that the leadership is violently extremist. But I would say that there are violently extremist groups.
KEYES: Huh.
IBISH: Yes. No, no. Hold on. You ought to make a distinction. I'm saying, those who are violent extremists, right, will not like it, all right? But...
(CROSSTALK)
KEYES: We only have 30 seconds.
IBISH: Let me finish my point.
KEYES: I need a blunt answer. Does that mean that they would move to kill these people?
IBISH: I don't think that...
FARAH: Alan, we've seen it happen before.
IBISH: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.
I don't think that you would see a spate of inter-Palestinian assassinations, frankly. If it gains popular momentum, what you'll see, I think, are political moves to try to diffuse it.
Let me just throw one other thing into the mix here, though.
KEYES: We have to do it very quickly. We have about 15 seconds.
IBISH: Sure.
I think the Israelis are in no position to lecture anyone about using violence and terrorism to establish their state, because it's exactly what they did. And you just showed a clip of Sharon sitting underneath a picture of Begin.
KEYES: Understood.
But, Hussein, you missed my point. I am not talking about Israelis lecturing anybody. All I'm talking about is what might actually begin to create a cycle of progress instead of violence. Sometimes people who see themselves as victims have to have the courage to take responsibility for peace. I think that's what Martin Luther King taught me.
Thank you both.
IBISH: Always a pleasure.
KEYES: Really appreciate your coming today to discuss these ominous and could-be momentous events.
Next: “My Outrage of the Day.” Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: And now for my “Outrage of the Day.
Every time Arafat and leaders like him in the Palestinian community are in danger, people try to suggest that there's no alternative. I think it's deeply insulting to the quality, ought to be insulting to the pride of Palestinians, to suggest that these violence-prone, terror-addicted leaders are the only ones who can be produced by the Palestinian people. I doubt it. I think there are sincere and peace-loving people in that community. We need to give them a chance.
That's my sense of it. Thanks.
“THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next.
I'll see you tomorrow.