MSNBC show
Alan Keyes is Making Sense
Alan KeyesJune 19, 2002
ALAN KEYES, HOST: Welcome to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
Up front tonight, a second suicide bombing in Jerusalem in as many days, again, with fatalities. Israel has answered with missiles aimed at Gaza and tanks in Ramallah and once again, the recent events in the Mideast have put the brakes on the peace proposal that was expected to come out of the White House this week.
We'll get to that in a moment, but first we'll go live to Ramallah and before we do get the latest on the bombing from MSNBC's Martin Fletcher — Martin.
MARTIN FLETCHER, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Alan, Israel is running out of ideas how to stop the suicide bombers with the last two attacks in Jerusalem have provoked a rethink of Israel's anti-terror methods.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Jerusalem, the second suicide bomb in two days. Police spotted the bomber running from a car after being dropped off at a busy intersection. They ran after him, but he blew himself up at a bus stop, six Israelis killed, forty wounded, and Israel reeling from the daily slaughter.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We almost got killed for — for taking our kids to ice hockey practice.
FLETCHER: Israel's immediate response: Its warplanes fire missiles at targets in the Gaza strip, while tanks move on the towns of Qalqilya and Ramallah on the West Bank.
But there's more to come. Right after yesterday's bombing that killed 19 Israelis on a bus, Israel announced a tough new policy. It will occupy more Palestinian land. And within hours, tanks rolled into Jenin and took control of part of that West Bank Town. Under the new policy, quote, “Israel will respond to acts of terror by capturing Palestinian authority territory. Israel will hold it as long as terror continues. Every act of terror will lead to the taking of more land.”
A spokesman spelled it out.
ZALMAN SHOVAL, ISRAELI SPOKESMAN: We're going to stay there till Jenin becomes a clean town, from the point of view of terrorism.
FLETCHER: Palestinians say they're not surprised.
GHASSAN KHATEEB, PALESTINIAN MINISTER: Sharon's ultimate goal is to regain direct and permanent Israeli control and occupation to all Palestinian-occupied territory.
FLETCHER (on camera): Israel's tightening its grip on Palestinian land and on the Palestinian people, a creeping reoccupation of parts of the West Bank, Israel trying to stop the terrorists and to make the Israeli people feel safer.
(voice-over): Amit Meliach (ph) was supposed to drive the bus that was blown up yesterday, but he was late for work. The driver who took his place was killed. Now the passengers are scared.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (through translator): They are afraid. I see them in the mirror looking around nervously. They don't trust anyone.
FLETCHER: And Meliach? He says he's scared, just like everyone else, but he says it's his duty to keep on driving. He asks, what other choice is there?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(on camera): There are more reports of suicide bombers on the loose and tonight police sources say all police vacations have been canceled, all training stopped, all available officers will be on the streets, especially in Jerusalem, trying to stop the terrorists — Alan.
KEYES: Martin Fletcher, thank you. For the latest on the Israeli tank movement in the West Bank, let's go to MSNBC's Bob Arnot in Ramallah — Bob?
BOB ARNOT, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Earlier this evening, I was down the road watching this second suicide attack on television when an armored personnel carrier made its way up just about 100 yards short of our hotel, blocking the road off. Later this evening, there were nine tanks and then 10 armored personnel carriers that made their way up to what they call the western entrance to town, Petunia (ph). They stopped there.
I went over to Yasser Arafat's compound there and found that there were a number of guards around the compound, many of them tense, more tense than I've seen there recently because they've been given orders to fight to the death should the Israelis come in and try to take Arafat.
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) is they of course will not try and do that. Now just a few minutes ago there was a firefight across town. This is where there is an Israeli settlement. We could see flares overhead and hear brief bursts of submachine gunfire. At the compound we had an opportunity to actually take your question from last night's show and pose it to several of the senior Palestinian authorities.
What we asked them was what do you mean, there's a moral equivalency here between Palestinians being killed here in the West Bank and Israeli children being killed in the streets of Jerusalem. And what they said was that, of course, they condemn the bombing, but that the Israelis had killed children here as well.
They said, of course, that this is done on purpose. The Israeli Defense Forces completely deny that this could ever have happened. It is tense here. The streets have been completely abandoned. As tanks rolled into town, we did stand with some of the security forces and some armed men who had on just civilian clothing, were heavily armed, and were waiting for the Israelis to come back into town. What will transpire here, Alan, we're not sure over the next couple of days. But the Israelis after the first attack didn't touch Ramallah but after the second one, was just a little too much to be able to just stand by and do nothing — Alan.
KEYES: That was MSNBC's Bob Arnot. Thank you, Bob. I appreciate that very much.
Natan Sharansky is the deputy prime minister of Israel. He joins us tonight from New York City. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
NATAN SHARANSKY, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL: Good evening.
KEYES: First of all, in the face of the kind of violence that has been taking place daily, punctuated now by these terrible suicide bombings, it appears that the government of Israel has taken a decision to move back into the territory in the West Bank and pretty much remain there in an effort to contain that violence.
What effect do you think that is going to have on the kind of thinking that's been going on in the Bush administration about an interim Palestinian state?
SHARANSKY: So let's understand what we are doing. We're a small country, and every day dozens of innocent citizens are killed or injured. Just today this bus explosion, my secretary was — is among those who are injured. The explosion yesterday, my daughter was just near that bus which — where it happened. It's a very small country. Every day people are organizing because - agonizing because of these attacks.
No government or democratic country can be in such a situation. We have to act to protect our citizens. Until now in the last months, our objectives was to go after the terrorists. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the terrorists are in Ramallah or in Qalqilya or in Jenin. We went after these terrorists, to these cities, to cage them, to arrest them, to kill them, and so on.
Now the decision yesterday at night of the Cabinet in which I participated was to re-establish our military control over all those territories from which terrorists are coming. We are going now to Jenin not for one day and not for one and a half days. We are going there to re-establish our military control and to be there as long as there is the war of terror against us.
Unfortunately, we don't have a partner. Arafat is not our partner. Arafat is the one who built all this autonomy of terror. So we have to rely on ourselves. We do hope that at this moment, when the terrorists are attacking us practically every day, they will not get a prize for this. They will not be promised or guaranteed to have a state which will become a terrorist state.
KEYES: Now, it looks as if from the statements that have been made that, in fact, you all are doing just the opposite and trying to make the point that these suicide attacks will be counterproductive and will, in fact, lead to the loss of the kind of control that the Palestinian Authority has in fact gained over the course of negotiations in the past several years. Is that the case?
SHARANSKY: Exactly. It's not that they simply gained control over the territory. All what we did, we gave them control over 98 percent to the Palestinians. We gave them 40 percent of the West Bank land, and we are negotiating give them more and more. We gave them weapons. We gave them opportunity to build their police force.
We gave them the opportunity to build economical system, military and so on. All this was on one condition, that they will become our partners in stopping the terror, instead of this corrupt dictatorship of Yasser Arafat, used every penny, every dollar which they got from you and from us. They used it to encourage the terror, and that's why our message is that as long as the terrorists continue, they will be losing. They will be losing their power. They will be losing their control.
KEYES: Now...
SHARANSKY: They will be losing their territories.
KEYES: Now, Mr. Sharansky, isn't that also, though, a message to others in the world, people in Europe, people in the Bush administration, about what the possibilities are right now, because there have been speculation in the paper about possible peace conferences, a proposal for our provisional Palestinian state.
At the moment none of that really seems compatible with the kind of actions that the government of Israel is taking.
SHARANSKY: Well, I want to remind you that the proposal about peace conference was our proposal, as well as the proposal for Arafat to have a state on 97 percent of the West Bank was a proposal of our previous government. The response was terror. And America is leading the world — the world war against terror.
We are also fighting the terror and fighting terror in the Middle East means to be part of that war, which America leads. I don't think that it's in the interests of anybody, of Israel, of America or even of Palestinians that there will be another terrorist state at this moment.
That's why it was all our desire to have progress and peace process, with all our desire to reach peace, with all our desire to have new conference on Middle East, at this moment the most important thing is...
KEYES: Yes.
SHARANSKY: ... to defend our citizens, to fight the terror, and we will do it with all what we have in our hands.
KEYES: One of the things I think that I have been impressed with over the course of the last several weeks and punctuated by the last couple of days is the fact that there still seems to be a commitment on the part of the government of Israel, people in Israel, to move forward with negotiations to try to achieve some peaceful outcome in all of this, if this violence can be brought under control.
The question I would ask you — and you've had a lot of experience with all different kinds of oppression and repression - is where does the patience come from to respond to this kind of violence with a continued willingness to sit down and talk if that becomes possible?
SHARANSKY: Well, you know, because we are a democratic state — in fact, we are the only democratic state in that part of the world — and for democracy, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the war is always the last resort. But majority of the people don't want to die, don't want to have wars.
We are looking all the time for the peaceful ways. At the same time, we want to exist. As I always say, we want to give the Palestinians all the rights in the world except the right to destroy us. And that's why not only do we have patience and we hope to go back on the track of negotiations, but we also understand that the real peace will be when we first defeat the terror, and second, when Palestinians will even want better conditions, when they also will be able to enjoy democracy, when their leadership will be really dependent on the needs of their people.
That's why we need to fight the terror and that's why America has to help us to encourage democratic process on the Palestinian side.
KEYES: Mr. Minister, thank you for being with us tonight.
SHARANSKY: Thank you.
KEYES: I appreciate that insight into the thinking that you all are doing right now. I think it's going to prove very important in the weeks ahead. Thank you for sharing that with my audience.
Next, we're going to get to the heart of the dilemma that is facing President Bush. He has postponed release of his Mideast peace plan until next week at the earliest in light of the kind of events that we've been reviewing for the last several days. There are those who believe that only an interim Palestinian state will offer the kind of hope that might help to stem the tide of violence.
Others believe that that would amount to appeasement in the face of terrorism and would only encourage and further deepen the cycle of hateful violence.
We'll have a debate here on America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Since 9/11, an estimated 475,000 illegal immigrants have entered this country, and now some conservatives in Congress want the president to deploy thousands of troops along America's borders to keep them safe from terrorists. Should he do it? The debate in our next half-hour.
A reminder, too, that the chatroom tonight is busier than a Customs checkpoint in Tijuana and you can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com. But first let's take a look at the tough decisions that are ahead for President Bush. Following the violence today in the Middle East, MSNBC White House correspondent David Gregory has more — David.
DAVID GREGORY, MSNBC WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Alan, everything is on hold — the president's speech, his peace plan and the peace process itself. Bush's spokesman saying the president will now wait until he thinks his road map for peace in the Middle East can actually be acted on.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Today the White House appeared to give Israel a green light to retaliate against Palestinian attacks.
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: The president understands that the nation that is undergoing what Israel is undergoing has a right to defend itself.
GREGORY: But senior officials say the violence has exposed deep divisions within the administration. On one side is Secretary of State Powell, who argues the only way to stop the violence is to propose immediately conditions for the creation of an interim Palestinian state.
On the other side, the vice president and his staff, who are opposed to the appearance of rewarding the suicide bombers with such an announcement now. Politically, talk of Palestinian statehood at this point is increasingly unpopular in both parties.
REP. GARY ACKERMAN (D), NEW YORK: Rewarding suicide bombings by promising that there will be a Palestinian state only invites more terror.
GREGORY: Sources say the administration is also split over setting any deadline for a Palestinian state. Three years has been mentioned, but aides say the president is more likely to be vague. This week, administration officials have been meeting in Washington with both Palestinian and Israeli representatives to preview the president's plan.
The centerpiece: The creation of a provisional Palestinian state, only after Arafat's Palestinian Authority enacts a series of reforms, an end to violence, an overhaul of its security forces, and its political institutions, and greater oversight over how Palestinian money is spent.
WILLIAM BURNS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: Progress has to be performance-driven, that the parties must actually deliver on the responsibilities that they have.
GREGORY: Other issues? The fate of Palestinian refugees, Arafat's role in a state, and most sensitive of all, borders. But experts say the president must act quickly to avoid giving the terrorists control of the timetable.
JIM STEINBERG, FMR. DEPUTY NAT'L SECURITY ADVISER: I think it's precisely because of the violence that there's a more urgent need than ever for the administration to step forward and give its ideas.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GREGORY (on camera): The president who huddled with his national security team here at the White House today would like to set his plan into motion later this fall or perhaps before at an international peace conference, but everybody realizes as long as the violence goes on, that remains a distant dream — Alan.
KEYES: David Gregory, thank you.
Joining us now to get to the heart of the matter, Democrat Congressman Eliot Engel of New York and Charles Kupchan from the Council on Foreign Relations. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CHARLES KUPCHAN, FMR. NAT'L SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIAL: Hello, Alan.
KEYES: I want to address my first question tonight to Charles because in light of the really gruesome violence that we've been witnessing over the last several days, the Israeli response which I think is, as a lot of folks would expect it to be, serious questions exist about whether anybody on the Palestinian side can control what appears to be just a mad dog element in these violent groups.
In light of that fact, that this appears to be just an uncontrollable element that's at work out there like rabid beasts, what sense does it make to speak a language that says well, if you offer this or offer that, the violence will stop. This appears to come from a mentality where violence has become kind of a nihilistic end in itself.
KUPCHAN: Well, I think there are really two different types of violence that are emerging from the Palestinian community. One, from people that are opposed to Arafat, opposed to the existence of Israel, and want to scuttle any chance for peace, and then there's that which comes more from the tolerance of the Palestinian Authority, even from people that may be associated with Arafat, and that's I think where you can try to find a way to clamp down on that.
Perhaps in the long run, by offering a vision of peace, but I think in the near term you've got to crack down on the cells. You've got to have a Palestinian Authority, people within the Palestinian community, who realize that terror is nothing but an answer to their continued occupation, to their continued living in the conditions they live in. Only if you go after those people that are carrying out the terror attacks, and I think you get back to the negotiating table and then try to isolate Hamas, but I think in the near term, the key question is stopping the terror and getting to a position where you...
KEYES: Well...
KUPCHAN: ... can even begin to talk about a provisional state.
KEYES: So, let me get this straight, then, because as I understand it, the proposal that is coming forward or the mentality that is represented by sort of the Colin Powell approach to all of this is that you've got to put that idea of a provisional state on the table in order to create the environment that might induce a lessening of the violence. You don't agree with that logic?
KUPCHAN: No, no, I do. I think you have to have a light at the end of the tunnel that says to the Palestinians, if you reign in this violence, if you show that you can behave in a responsible fashion and have a legitimate government, you will be rewarded with a state of your own down the road, and then there'll be an interest, a self-interest for people not to join the terrorist movements, for one family to say to the authorities, I think the next family next door is a member of Hamas. So you have to have a pathway to some sort of end point...
REP. ELIOT ENGEL (D), NEW YORK: Well...
KUPCHAN: ... because if you don't, you end up simply with the status quo, which is untenable for both sides — continued violence, continued animosity from one generation to the next.
KEYES: Now, Representative Engel, when I'm listening to Charles describe that process, at one level I suppose it has a certain logic to it, until I remember the events of the last several years. In point of fact, doesn't what he's describing have a familiar ring to it, because I thought we had been through this process and that the end result of it was this very era of terrorism that we're going through. Am I wrong about that?
ENGEL: You're not wrong, and let's look at facts because I believe in living in the real world. Twenty-one months ago, Yasser Arafat was offered a state of his own, a Palestinian state, with billions of dollars of aid, mostly from the United States on 100 percent of Gaza, and 97 percent of the land in the West Bank. That was a Palestinian state. Israel said yes. The United States said yes, and the Palestinians and Arafat said no. Arafat walked away, turned his back and unleashed his reign of terror.
KEYES: Now where was this offer made?
ENGEL: Well this offer was made at Camp David, and then later on at Wye.
KEYES: At Wye.
ENGEL: Arafat said absolutely not, and he could have had his state. So this nonsense that somehow we have to offer the Palestinians something and they'll respond — you know for 10 years we have been talking, the State Department and American officials have been saying to Yasser Arafat, you have to do more to crack down on terror.
When are we going to finally understand that this man is the terror? Three quarters of the terrorist attacks carried out against Israel in the past 21 months have come from the Fatah faction, which Arafat controls. The bombing today which killed six people, Fatah took credit for it.
So Arafat is the terrorist. I think we ought to not reward terrorism. We ought not to talk about any kind of a Palestinian state, provisional or otherwise, because if you do that, then the terrorists think they can just keep killing innocent civilians and they'll get their reward.
We should say we're not talking to Arafat anymore. We're not talking to the Palestinians anymore, until they reform themselves, until they get new leadership, until they show that they're civilized and until they stop their reign of terror, and we ought to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Israel in fighting terrorism the way we're doing it in Afghanistan, they need to do it in their own backyard, and they need to be supported by the United States.
KUPCHAN: I don't actually disagree with most of the Congressman's analysis, but I do think that you have to ask a key question. What is best for Israel? How do you end up with an Israel that has security, prosperity, safety borders that are defensible? And the answer is not simply to occupy the West Bank from now until the end of days. It is to try somehow to move the ball down the road. I agree with you. Arafat said no at Camp David. I agree with you, the Fatah movement carries out terrorism. But you have to find some way, you look at the demographics, right? Israel holds on to these territories, they'll be more Arabs than Jews.
KEYES: Charles, now hold on a second, because one of the things that I think is a key here, and I've been seeing a couple of articles in the last couple of days, Jack Kemp wrote one. There was another piece, I think, in the “Wall Street Journal” where folks were pointing to what I think is the real key to this situation.
We talk back and forth about this or that that Israelis can do. Before any real progress can be made, doesn't the element of conscience, the decent people that have to exist in the Palestinian community, that have to be deeply revolted by this gruesome nihilistic violence, don't these folks have to take the fate of their people in their hands, step forward, demand an end to this and appeal for support and protection to an international community that will turn its back on the thugs, including Arafat, and begin to pay real attention to people who are rejecting this kind of an approach?
I mean, aren't we basically putting them in the shadows, even in the danger of death ,if we continue to treat with these thugs, Charles?
KUPCHAN: Well you know I basically agree with you, and there are people out there, Barghouti, Saeb Erekat, perhaps Dahlan (ph), who represent a younger generation of Palestinians who condemned Arafat for saying no to Camp David, and so we do need to find some way of trying to pass power on to them.
I'm not comfortable simply exiling Arafat at this time and simply getting rid of him because he would turn into a martyr, because he's still there, but I would begin to have more dialogue with the younger representative and try to shift power to them as we move toward some sort of negotiation.
ENGEL: Let the — let the Palestinians educate their own people. The latest poll taken by Palestinians show that 68 percent of the Palestinian population supports suicide bombing. I mean that's just a shocking statistic. When you have the encouragement and the incitement to hate and all the things and the rhetoric that Arafat talks about time and time again, this is what you get and ...
KUPCHAN: How do you change that, Eliot? How do you — how do you...
ENGEL: Well...
KUPCHAN: ... get a Palestinian view that's different? You try to move the ball along. I think if you just go for occupation...
(CROSSTALK)
ENGEL: You try to move the ball along, but you don't make the same old tired mistakes year after year after year. We need new leadership. We need to move beyond Arafat, and you don't reward Arafat by saying we're going to have a provisional Palestinian State.
You know, the killer who killed the Israelis, the 19 yesterday, I mean his words were shocking. His name is Ghoul (ph) and I think it's fitting. The words said how glorious it is, how wonderful he felt to kill and be killed. I mean, this is sick and the Palestinians have to start educating their people to stop the killing of innocent human life.
KEYES: Charles, it's hard I know to say maybe and the mentality that is natural, I think, to Americans in particular is always to look for a way to make a deal, but in a situation like this, don't you simply have to look all of those in the eye who are supporting, carrying out, making excuses for this gruesome nihilistic terror, and simply shut the door in their face?
Make it clear we're not going to listen to you anymore, not going to buy your excuses. We're sick to death of your rhetoric, and we simply aren't going to deal with it anymore. Until we do that, haven't we in fact facilitated their leadership and shut the door against what might be more decent consciences in the Palestinian community?
KUPCHAN: I wish the situation were that black and white. I would shut the door to those people who sponsor terrorist attacks or who carry them out. But at the same time, you have to show that you're willing to move toward some sort of situation where the Palestinians realize their aspirations for autonomy.
So to shut the door to terror and to open the door to some kind of end point where both sides live next to each other is key here, and I would not call for provisional state at this point. If I were the Bush administration, I would say these are the conditions that you need to meet. Stop the terror. Have a functioning state institution.
Stop the corruption. When you have demonstrated that, when the Palestinian security forces are actually out there doing what the Israelis are doing now, cracking down on the terrorists, that's when we'll talk about a state. So I would make strong conditions, but I would also make clear...
KEYES: Yes.
KUPCHAN: ... that at the right time, America will back strongly a Palestinian state.
KEYES: Eliot Engel, a quick last word from you. You have about 30 seconds.
ENGEL: Well, I don't disagree with what you've just said, but again, I think the responsibility is with the Palestinians. Let's remember that when the World Trade Center went down, you had the image of Palestinians cheering and dancing in the streets. I mean, at some point you've got to take personal responsibility for your own actions.
And I'd like to see some Palestinian leaders who rise up in revulsion and say enough is enough, but you know, Alan, there aren't any because if there were, they'd be killed, and that's just simply the way it is. Israel is a democracy and the Palestinians are corrupt dictatorship led by a terrorist, Yasser Arafat.
KEYES: I want to thank both of you tonight for your thoughts. I want to also share with the audience my last word tonight is in fact going to address the very question that Eliot and Charles were just raising and that we were just talking about in terms of the moderate leadership.
So stay tuned for that. Next, however, will putting troops on our border make us safer? We'll debate that next with one man who says it's a necessity and another who calls the idea un-American.
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
According to several groups that monitor immigration in this country, an estimated 475,000 immigrants have entered the U.S. illegally since 9/11. And some say President Bush's plan for the Department of Homeland Security would take too long to implement before we'd see those numbers decrease. So the solution, say some conservatives on the Hill, is beefing up our border with U.S. troops.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. VIRGIL H. GOODE JR. (I), VIRGINIA: The INS could certainly use the support of troops. Our border patrol could certainly use troops. Our future, the future of the United States of America, can't be dependent on acting swiftly in this regard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Joining us now to consider and debate this issue, Ira Mehlman with the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Also with us, Stephen Moore, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the president of the Club for Growth, an organization that contributes to political candidates known for cutting the pork out of politics. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
STEPHEN MOORE, CATO INSTITUTE: Hello, Alan.
IRA MEHLMAN, FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM: Thanks.
KEYES: Now, Stephen, I want to turn to you first tonight because obviously the whole issue of our security is on the minds of a lot of folks. If you've got 475,000 people coming across the border illegally, that's 475,000 folks we don't know who they are or what they're up to. Isn't it imperative, in light of the machinations of all of these terrorists against us that we get some kind of a handle on that flow?
Well, let me start by saying this, Alan. As you know, I'm very pro-immigrant. I think immigrants are really the backbone of our economy. And the thing that worries me about this proposal is that groups like FAIR, that want to shut off all immigration, are talking about this proposal in conjunction with national I.D. cards and building a wall around the United States and shutting off immigration.
And so my point here is I think that this is just one further step that the anti-immigration groups are trying to take to shut off all immigrants, not just the illegal immigrants.
KEYES: Now, realistically, though, we have a border that, in the present security environment, is porous partly because we've had a longstanding history and culture, friendly borders.
MOORE: That's right.
KEYES: As a matter of fact, I think it's been a great source of pride for this country, that we have unfortified borders with both our neighbors, the kind of relations that don't exist in many parts of the world (UNINTELLIGIBLE) don't characterize other places.
MOORE: I agree.
KEYES: But right now, bad, wicked folks could take advantage of the weakness of public institutions, authority and police forces elsewhere, including Mexico, get into their countries, and then drift across our border to do harm. Realistically speaking, don't we have to address that possibility?
MOORE: The truth of the matter, Alan, is that whether we put the troops at the border or not — by the way, I was thinking about this idea when you called me earlier about it, and it does make more sense to have U.S. troops at the border than to have them in Somalia and Europe and a lot of the places around the world that we've been putting troops under the Clinton administration.
But the fact of the matter is that whether we put the military at the border, whether we increase our border patrol, which I'd be in favor of, if terrorists want to get into this country, most of these terrorists, Alan, aren't coming in sneaking across the border at night in Mexico. They can come in on an airplane. They can come in with visas. In fact, many of the terrorists had legal visas when they were here. So I'm not sure this is going to do anything to reduce our threat of terrorism.
KEYES: Let me go to Ira, though, because I think, meaning no offense, that Steve's last remark kind of begs the point. We're basically trying to tighten up all those ports of entry, deal with those situations. And yet, if we left the border open and porous the way it is, it almost would seem as if all of that would be for naught. Wouldn't it, Ira?
MEHLMAN: Well, of course, Alan. We have to realize that the threat is going to be with us no matter what. But it doesn't mean that you don't take common sense steps to shore up the border.
The fact of the matter is that our border is wide open. At any given time, we have about 2,000 agents patrolling the entire border with Mexico and Canada, not counting Alaska, by the way. And it's an open invitation. And, you know, Stephen indicated what his true agenda here is. He wants to make sure that illegal aliens can continue to come to the United States.
MOORE: No, legal. Legal immigrants.
MEHLMAN: And illegal, because if we really wanted to control illegal immigration, we'd have sensible domestic deterrents in place such as having a verifiable card when people come to seek employment in this country. We'd go after employers who hire illegal immigrants. Those are the kinds of things that discourage illegal immigration and give our resources, our troops at the border, an opportunity to catch people who are coming in to do real harm.
KEYES: Now, here is one question I have for you though, Ira, because it seems to me that when you're talking about dealing with the border problems, not only in terms of immigration, drugs, other things that flow across there, you're talking about something that isn't strictly speaking just a military challenge. And it's not strictly speaking either just a law enforcement challenge or a policing challenge.
Aren't we indeed talking about something — and these things exist in other parts of the world — where folks actually have a particular arm of their military that is properly trained to deal with the challenge of being the border guard for the country? We can't just take troops out of our present military and put them in this complex task. Don't we, in fact, have to put together the kind of force that would be specially structured and trained to deal with this challenge within our military structure?
MEHLMAN: Well, first of all, we do have that. It's called the border patrol. And I think what's important to recognize here is what is being proposed is not putting troops at the border, but using the military in auxiliary positions, to do back-up work, to do the kind of office work that now ties up people who could be out on the border, people who are trained to do this.
And, obviously, we're going to need more people on the border patrol. Two thousand people out there at any one time is simply not enough. But we also need to use the resources that we have available. You know, as you heard Natan Sharansky say a few minutes ago, it is an obligation of a nation to use whatever resources it has to protect its citizens and to protect its national security. And if we have military sitting there doing nothing, those people could be utilized in back-up positions so that the border patrol people, the people who are trained to do this, can do their job more effectively.
MOORE: Alan, I'm in favor of increasing the border patrol and this is something I've talked about for many years, that we should have more border patrol agents to protect our borders. I do not want to see illegal immigrants getting into this country.
But I object to the idea of militarizing the border. And the reason I do is a couple-fold reasons. One is that the countries that militarize their borders have tended to be the totalitarian countries that didn't want to let their citizens out, and I think there is something fundamentally un-American about saying that we're going to put, you know, people with submachine guns and rifles at our border. I don't want them shooting at illegal immigrants. I mean, this is not something that is in the national interest and I think it does play into this fear that we're overwhelmed with immigrants when we are not. The immigration...
KEYES: I detect, if I may say so, a certain confusion here that I'll try to clarify when we come back, because what I heard just now wasn't exactly militarizing the border. But I'm not sure it rises to the occasion either.
Anyway, we're going to have more with Ira and Steve right after this. And later, my “Outrage of the Day” about some of the Palestinians who are coming forward to condemn this violence and how we need to respond.
But first, does this make sense? Seven school parents whose children were given a controversial survey that asked questions of a sexual nature, intimate ones, they filed a claim against Palmdale school district, about 50 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles.
The survey asked youngsters intimate questions about their sexual thoughts and actions, 10-year-olds, mind you. These are people in fifth grade. Now, prompted by the parents' complaint, the district halted the survey. But you've got to wonder what is going on in this country when without consulting the parents, folks are going to introduce 10-year-olds to ideas that ought to be put forward, if at all, in the context of careful coordination with the families' beliefs and understanding.
I think that it makes no sense at all to disregard parental authority in a situation like this. What do you think?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We're back with Ira Mehlman and Stephen Moore talking about the idea that we need to reinforce the security along our border through the use of our military forces.
Now, I want to get back to a point though, Ira, because what I heard you describing a minute ago sounded to me like a function that doesn't particularly require the military. Say military to me and I think of a disciplined structure, a certain mentality that is envisaging the possibility that you'll have security situations that go beyond the usual law enforcement situation, and that therefore require the kind of responsive mentality that our military people represent.
I can see that in our present situation we might need that, but that doesn't strike me as back-up for the border patrol. You're actually talking about a function that's different than what the sort of law enforcement mentality of our border patrol represents. Now what are we talking about here?
MEHLMAN: Well, what is being considered now is using them in a back-up role. But as you point out, we are a nation that is facing a very serious threat of terrorism here in the United States, and we may need to use military to protect our borders, to protect us against the infiltration of foreign terrorists. That's something that ought to be considered and ought to be out there.
And we also have to make it very clear to both the Canadians and the Mexicans that this is not an offensive act against them, but rather a defensive act to protect the security of the United States and to protect the security of the American people. We are facing a very real and serious threat. And we saw it, you know, just before the millennium when a terrorist was attempting to come across the Canadian border. These are threats that are out there. We faced them before, and we need to use those resources, including the military if necessary, to protect our society.
KEYES: Now, Stephen Moore, you suggested that the idea of this kind of force is un-American, but borders used to be referred to as frontiers, right?
MOORE: Mm-hmm.
KEYES: And it seems to me that we do have experience from America's own frontier days of a mentality in which we had a military force that was precisely put in place in order to deal with security threats on the frontier.
You established a chain of outposts, the purpose of which was to allow for dealing with what would be security threats to the nation and to the people living in the area, using military forces. That's not un-American. That's precisely what we did in the country's frontier days. Maybe we need to take a lesson from that and apply it to our modern frontier, which is now becoming more of a security problem.
MOORE: Well, you know, Alan, it was the president that both you and I worked for, Ronald Reagan, who talked about tearing down these walls and take down these walls. And I do worry that there is this movement in the United States by groups like FAIR to militarize the border, to put up a wall around the United States. And I think that that will really ruin our immigrant heritage here.
If we need to put more border people at the border to make sure that illegal immigrants can't come in, I am all for that. I'm against the idea of putting people with machine guns at the border. And by the way, in response to something Ira said earlier, not too many of these Arab terrorists who are coming in to the United States are coming in across the Mexican border, Alan. If a terrorist...
MEHLMAN: We don't know that.
MOORE: If a terrorist...
MEHLMAN: We don't know that.
MOORE: But even if we put the military at the border and no illegal immigrant could get into this country, there are so many other ways that terrorists could come into this country. They can come in here on a plane, on a tourist visa, or they can come in here on a business visa. There are so many different ways. How are you going to keep them out?
KEYES: But, Ira, meaning no offense, you know, there are many different ways the bugs could get in your house, but that doesn't keep you from putting screens on your windows, you know what I'm saying.
MEHLMAN: Exactly.
KEYES: It's one of those things you do because you take the different steps that are needed to deal with the problem. Ira, a last word, very quickly.
MEHLMAN: The United States is facing a very serious threat here. We need to use the resources that are available. We need to — if necessary, to put troops to secure our borders, to make sure that terrorists cannot infiltrate the United States. This is simply a basic responsibility of government, to protect the safety of the American public. And clearly, we have not been doing it.
KEYES: Thank you both. Really appreciate it.
MOORE: Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: I think this is going to be a continuing subject of debate. And I really hope we'll think it through in its own terms because I am not sure that simply some amalgam of the things we already have available will be the answer. Thanks.
Next, my “Outrage of the Day.” Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Mow, time for my “Outrage of the Day.”
Dozens of prominent Palestinians made an unprecedented appeal Wednesday to Islamic extremist groups to stop attacks on Israeli civilians in a full-page ad in the “Al-Quds” newspaper. Legislator Hanan Ashwari and the Palestinian senior Jerusalem official, Sari Nusseibeh, were among dozens of prominent Palestinians to sign a full-page newspaper ad, urging groups behind deadly assaults on Israeli civilians to, quote, “stop sending our young people to carry out such attacks.”
The ad further said, quote, “we see no results in such attacks but a deepening of the hatred between both peoples and a deepening of the gap between us.”
I've got to say that this is one of the first hopeful signs I've seen in the course of the last several weeks, of hope on the horizon of the Middle East, because I think the key to the whole situation lies in the people of conscience on the Palestinian side stepping forward with the courage that will be required to say not to this violence. Not just because it threatens the peace process, not just because it kills Israeli civilians. But because of a lesson I learned especially in my upbringing from Martin Luther King, from the experience of black Americans.
When you are fighting against what you perceive to be evil and injustice, do you know the greatest harm that can happen to you? It's not death. It's the death of your own soul and conscience and spirit, when the evil you fight against mirrors itself in your own actions and ultimately corrupts and destroys your own soul and the evil you fear and fight becomes the evil that you become.
That I fear could be the destiny of the Palestinian people. But it will require the courageous, not only words, but leadership of people like those who spoke out in this ad to step forward and make the difference and it will be an outrage if we don't support and defend them when they do.
Thanks. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next. See you tomorrow.
Up front tonight, a second suicide bombing in Jerusalem in as many days, again, with fatalities. Israel has answered with missiles aimed at Gaza and tanks in Ramallah and once again, the recent events in the Mideast have put the brakes on the peace proposal that was expected to come out of the White House this week.
We'll get to that in a moment, but first we'll go live to Ramallah and before we do get the latest on the bombing from MSNBC's Martin Fletcher — Martin.
MARTIN FLETCHER, NBC CORRESPONDENT: Alan, Israel is running out of ideas how to stop the suicide bombers with the last two attacks in Jerusalem have provoked a rethink of Israel's anti-terror methods.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Jerusalem, the second suicide bomb in two days. Police spotted the bomber running from a car after being dropped off at a busy intersection. They ran after him, but he blew himself up at a bus stop, six Israelis killed, forty wounded, and Israel reeling from the daily slaughter.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We almost got killed for — for taking our kids to ice hockey practice.
FLETCHER: Israel's immediate response: Its warplanes fire missiles at targets in the Gaza strip, while tanks move on the towns of Qalqilya and Ramallah on the West Bank.
But there's more to come. Right after yesterday's bombing that killed 19 Israelis on a bus, Israel announced a tough new policy. It will occupy more Palestinian land. And within hours, tanks rolled into Jenin and took control of part of that West Bank Town. Under the new policy, quote, “Israel will respond to acts of terror by capturing Palestinian authority territory. Israel will hold it as long as terror continues. Every act of terror will lead to the taking of more land.”
A spokesman spelled it out.
ZALMAN SHOVAL, ISRAELI SPOKESMAN: We're going to stay there till Jenin becomes a clean town, from the point of view of terrorism.
FLETCHER: Palestinians say they're not surprised.
GHASSAN KHATEEB, PALESTINIAN MINISTER: Sharon's ultimate goal is to regain direct and permanent Israeli control and occupation to all Palestinian-occupied territory.
FLETCHER (on camera): Israel's tightening its grip on Palestinian land and on the Palestinian people, a creeping reoccupation of parts of the West Bank, Israel trying to stop the terrorists and to make the Israeli people feel safer.
(voice-over): Amit Meliach (ph) was supposed to drive the bus that was blown up yesterday, but he was late for work. The driver who took his place was killed. Now the passengers are scared.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (through translator): They are afraid. I see them in the mirror looking around nervously. They don't trust anyone.
FLETCHER: And Meliach? He says he's scared, just like everyone else, but he says it's his duty to keep on driving. He asks, what other choice is there?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(on camera): There are more reports of suicide bombers on the loose and tonight police sources say all police vacations have been canceled, all training stopped, all available officers will be on the streets, especially in Jerusalem, trying to stop the terrorists — Alan.
KEYES: Martin Fletcher, thank you. For the latest on the Israeli tank movement in the West Bank, let's go to MSNBC's Bob Arnot in Ramallah — Bob?
BOB ARNOT, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: Earlier this evening, I was down the road watching this second suicide attack on television when an armored personnel carrier made its way up just about 100 yards short of our hotel, blocking the road off. Later this evening, there were nine tanks and then 10 armored personnel carriers that made their way up to what they call the western entrance to town, Petunia (ph). They stopped there.
I went over to Yasser Arafat's compound there and found that there were a number of guards around the compound, many of them tense, more tense than I've seen there recently because they've been given orders to fight to the death should the Israelis come in and try to take Arafat.
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) is they of course will not try and do that. Now just a few minutes ago there was a firefight across town. This is where there is an Israeli settlement. We could see flares overhead and hear brief bursts of submachine gunfire. At the compound we had an opportunity to actually take your question from last night's show and pose it to several of the senior Palestinian authorities.
What we asked them was what do you mean, there's a moral equivalency here between Palestinians being killed here in the West Bank and Israeli children being killed in the streets of Jerusalem. And what they said was that, of course, they condemn the bombing, but that the Israelis had killed children here as well.
They said, of course, that this is done on purpose. The Israeli Defense Forces completely deny that this could ever have happened. It is tense here. The streets have been completely abandoned. As tanks rolled into town, we did stand with some of the security forces and some armed men who had on just civilian clothing, were heavily armed, and were waiting for the Israelis to come back into town. What will transpire here, Alan, we're not sure over the next couple of days. But the Israelis after the first attack didn't touch Ramallah but after the second one, was just a little too much to be able to just stand by and do nothing — Alan.
KEYES: That was MSNBC's Bob Arnot. Thank you, Bob. I appreciate that very much.
Natan Sharansky is the deputy prime minister of Israel. He joins us tonight from New York City. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.
NATAN SHARANSKY, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL: Good evening.
KEYES: First of all, in the face of the kind of violence that has been taking place daily, punctuated now by these terrible suicide bombings, it appears that the government of Israel has taken a decision to move back into the territory in the West Bank and pretty much remain there in an effort to contain that violence.
What effect do you think that is going to have on the kind of thinking that's been going on in the Bush administration about an interim Palestinian state?
SHARANSKY: So let's understand what we are doing. We're a small country, and every day dozens of innocent citizens are killed or injured. Just today this bus explosion, my secretary was — is among those who are injured. The explosion yesterday, my daughter was just near that bus which — where it happened. It's a very small country. Every day people are organizing because - agonizing because of these attacks.
No government or democratic country can be in such a situation. We have to act to protect our citizens. Until now in the last months, our objectives was to go after the terrorists. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the terrorists are in Ramallah or in Qalqilya or in Jenin. We went after these terrorists, to these cities, to cage them, to arrest them, to kill them, and so on.
Now the decision yesterday at night of the Cabinet in which I participated was to re-establish our military control over all those territories from which terrorists are coming. We are going now to Jenin not for one day and not for one and a half days. We are going there to re-establish our military control and to be there as long as there is the war of terror against us.
Unfortunately, we don't have a partner. Arafat is not our partner. Arafat is the one who built all this autonomy of terror. So we have to rely on ourselves. We do hope that at this moment, when the terrorists are attacking us practically every day, they will not get a prize for this. They will not be promised or guaranteed to have a state which will become a terrorist state.
KEYES: Now, it looks as if from the statements that have been made that, in fact, you all are doing just the opposite and trying to make the point that these suicide attacks will be counterproductive and will, in fact, lead to the loss of the kind of control that the Palestinian Authority has in fact gained over the course of negotiations in the past several years. Is that the case?
SHARANSKY: Exactly. It's not that they simply gained control over the territory. All what we did, we gave them control over 98 percent to the Palestinians. We gave them 40 percent of the West Bank land, and we are negotiating give them more and more. We gave them weapons. We gave them opportunity to build their police force.
We gave them the opportunity to build economical system, military and so on. All this was on one condition, that they will become our partners in stopping the terror, instead of this corrupt dictatorship of Yasser Arafat, used every penny, every dollar which they got from you and from us. They used it to encourage the terror, and that's why our message is that as long as the terrorists continue, they will be losing. They will be losing their power. They will be losing their control.
KEYES: Now...
SHARANSKY: They will be losing their territories.
KEYES: Now, Mr. Sharansky, isn't that also, though, a message to others in the world, people in Europe, people in the Bush administration, about what the possibilities are right now, because there have been speculation in the paper about possible peace conferences, a proposal for our provisional Palestinian state.
At the moment none of that really seems compatible with the kind of actions that the government of Israel is taking.
SHARANSKY: Well, I want to remind you that the proposal about peace conference was our proposal, as well as the proposal for Arafat to have a state on 97 percent of the West Bank was a proposal of our previous government. The response was terror. And America is leading the world — the world war against terror.
We are also fighting the terror and fighting terror in the Middle East means to be part of that war, which America leads. I don't think that it's in the interests of anybody, of Israel, of America or even of Palestinians that there will be another terrorist state at this moment.
That's why it was all our desire to have progress and peace process, with all our desire to reach peace, with all our desire to have new conference on Middle East, at this moment the most important thing is...
KEYES: Yes.
SHARANSKY: ... to defend our citizens, to fight the terror, and we will do it with all what we have in our hands.
KEYES: One of the things I think that I have been impressed with over the course of the last several weeks and punctuated by the last couple of days is the fact that there still seems to be a commitment on the part of the government of Israel, people in Israel, to move forward with negotiations to try to achieve some peaceful outcome in all of this, if this violence can be brought under control.
The question I would ask you — and you've had a lot of experience with all different kinds of oppression and repression - is where does the patience come from to respond to this kind of violence with a continued willingness to sit down and talk if that becomes possible?
SHARANSKY: Well, you know, because we are a democratic state — in fact, we are the only democratic state in that part of the world — and for democracy, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the war is always the last resort. But majority of the people don't want to die, don't want to have wars.
We are looking all the time for the peaceful ways. At the same time, we want to exist. As I always say, we want to give the Palestinians all the rights in the world except the right to destroy us. And that's why not only do we have patience and we hope to go back on the track of negotiations, but we also understand that the real peace will be when we first defeat the terror, and second, when Palestinians will even want better conditions, when they also will be able to enjoy democracy, when their leadership will be really dependent on the needs of their people.
That's why we need to fight the terror and that's why America has to help us to encourage democratic process on the Palestinian side.
KEYES: Mr. Minister, thank you for being with us tonight.
SHARANSKY: Thank you.
KEYES: I appreciate that insight into the thinking that you all are doing right now. I think it's going to prove very important in the weeks ahead. Thank you for sharing that with my audience.
Next, we're going to get to the heart of the dilemma that is facing President Bush. He has postponed release of his Mideast peace plan until next week at the earliest in light of the kind of events that we've been reviewing for the last several days. There are those who believe that only an interim Palestinian state will offer the kind of hope that might help to stem the tide of violence.
Others believe that that would amount to appeasement in the face of terrorism and would only encourage and further deepen the cycle of hateful violence.
We'll have a debate here on America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Since 9/11, an estimated 475,000 illegal immigrants have entered this country, and now some conservatives in Congress want the president to deploy thousands of troops along America's borders to keep them safe from terrorists. Should he do it? The debate in our next half-hour.
A reminder, too, that the chatroom tonight is busier than a Customs checkpoint in Tijuana and you can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com. But first let's take a look at the tough decisions that are ahead for President Bush. Following the violence today in the Middle East, MSNBC White House correspondent David Gregory has more — David.
DAVID GREGORY, MSNBC WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Alan, everything is on hold — the president's speech, his peace plan and the peace process itself. Bush's spokesman saying the president will now wait until he thinks his road map for peace in the Middle East can actually be acted on.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice-over): Today the White House appeared to give Israel a green light to retaliate against Palestinian attacks.
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: The president understands that the nation that is undergoing what Israel is undergoing has a right to defend itself.
GREGORY: But senior officials say the violence has exposed deep divisions within the administration. On one side is Secretary of State Powell, who argues the only way to stop the violence is to propose immediately conditions for the creation of an interim Palestinian state.
On the other side, the vice president and his staff, who are opposed to the appearance of rewarding the suicide bombers with such an announcement now. Politically, talk of Palestinian statehood at this point is increasingly unpopular in both parties.
REP. GARY ACKERMAN (D), NEW YORK: Rewarding suicide bombings by promising that there will be a Palestinian state only invites more terror.
GREGORY: Sources say the administration is also split over setting any deadline for a Palestinian state. Three years has been mentioned, but aides say the president is more likely to be vague. This week, administration officials have been meeting in Washington with both Palestinian and Israeli representatives to preview the president's plan.
The centerpiece: The creation of a provisional Palestinian state, only after Arafat's Palestinian Authority enacts a series of reforms, an end to violence, an overhaul of its security forces, and its political institutions, and greater oversight over how Palestinian money is spent.
WILLIAM BURNS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: Progress has to be performance-driven, that the parties must actually deliver on the responsibilities that they have.
GREGORY: Other issues? The fate of Palestinian refugees, Arafat's role in a state, and most sensitive of all, borders. But experts say the president must act quickly to avoid giving the terrorists control of the timetable.
JIM STEINBERG, FMR. DEPUTY NAT'L SECURITY ADVISER: I think it's precisely because of the violence that there's a more urgent need than ever for the administration to step forward and give its ideas.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GREGORY (on camera): The president who huddled with his national security team here at the White House today would like to set his plan into motion later this fall or perhaps before at an international peace conference, but everybody realizes as long as the violence goes on, that remains a distant dream — Alan.
KEYES: David Gregory, thank you.
Joining us now to get to the heart of the matter, Democrat Congressman Eliot Engel of New York and Charles Kupchan from the Council on Foreign Relations. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
CHARLES KUPCHAN, FMR. NAT'L SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIAL: Hello, Alan.
KEYES: I want to address my first question tonight to Charles because in light of the really gruesome violence that we've been witnessing over the last several days, the Israeli response which I think is, as a lot of folks would expect it to be, serious questions exist about whether anybody on the Palestinian side can control what appears to be just a mad dog element in these violent groups.
In light of that fact, that this appears to be just an uncontrollable element that's at work out there like rabid beasts, what sense does it make to speak a language that says well, if you offer this or offer that, the violence will stop. This appears to come from a mentality where violence has become kind of a nihilistic end in itself.
KUPCHAN: Well, I think there are really two different types of violence that are emerging from the Palestinian community. One, from people that are opposed to Arafat, opposed to the existence of Israel, and want to scuttle any chance for peace, and then there's that which comes more from the tolerance of the Palestinian Authority, even from people that may be associated with Arafat, and that's I think where you can try to find a way to clamp down on that.
Perhaps in the long run, by offering a vision of peace, but I think in the near term you've got to crack down on the cells. You've got to have a Palestinian Authority, people within the Palestinian community, who realize that terror is nothing but an answer to their continued occupation, to their continued living in the conditions they live in. Only if you go after those people that are carrying out the terror attacks, and I think you get back to the negotiating table and then try to isolate Hamas, but I think in the near term, the key question is stopping the terror and getting to a position where you...
KEYES: Well...
KUPCHAN: ... can even begin to talk about a provisional state.
KEYES: So, let me get this straight, then, because as I understand it, the proposal that is coming forward or the mentality that is represented by sort of the Colin Powell approach to all of this is that you've got to put that idea of a provisional state on the table in order to create the environment that might induce a lessening of the violence. You don't agree with that logic?
KUPCHAN: No, no, I do. I think you have to have a light at the end of the tunnel that says to the Palestinians, if you reign in this violence, if you show that you can behave in a responsible fashion and have a legitimate government, you will be rewarded with a state of your own down the road, and then there'll be an interest, a self-interest for people not to join the terrorist movements, for one family to say to the authorities, I think the next family next door is a member of Hamas. So you have to have a pathway to some sort of end point...
REP. ELIOT ENGEL (D), NEW YORK: Well...
KUPCHAN: ... because if you don't, you end up simply with the status quo, which is untenable for both sides — continued violence, continued animosity from one generation to the next.
KEYES: Now, Representative Engel, when I'm listening to Charles describe that process, at one level I suppose it has a certain logic to it, until I remember the events of the last several years. In point of fact, doesn't what he's describing have a familiar ring to it, because I thought we had been through this process and that the end result of it was this very era of terrorism that we're going through. Am I wrong about that?
ENGEL: You're not wrong, and let's look at facts because I believe in living in the real world. Twenty-one months ago, Yasser Arafat was offered a state of his own, a Palestinian state, with billions of dollars of aid, mostly from the United States on 100 percent of Gaza, and 97 percent of the land in the West Bank. That was a Palestinian state. Israel said yes. The United States said yes, and the Palestinians and Arafat said no. Arafat walked away, turned his back and unleashed his reign of terror.
KEYES: Now where was this offer made?
ENGEL: Well this offer was made at Camp David, and then later on at Wye.
KEYES: At Wye.
ENGEL: Arafat said absolutely not, and he could have had his state. So this nonsense that somehow we have to offer the Palestinians something and they'll respond — you know for 10 years we have been talking, the State Department and American officials have been saying to Yasser Arafat, you have to do more to crack down on terror.
When are we going to finally understand that this man is the terror? Three quarters of the terrorist attacks carried out against Israel in the past 21 months have come from the Fatah faction, which Arafat controls. The bombing today which killed six people, Fatah took credit for it.
So Arafat is the terrorist. I think we ought to not reward terrorism. We ought not to talk about any kind of a Palestinian state, provisional or otherwise, because if you do that, then the terrorists think they can just keep killing innocent civilians and they'll get their reward.
We should say we're not talking to Arafat anymore. We're not talking to the Palestinians anymore, until they reform themselves, until they get new leadership, until they show that they're civilized and until they stop their reign of terror, and we ought to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Israel in fighting terrorism the way we're doing it in Afghanistan, they need to do it in their own backyard, and they need to be supported by the United States.
KUPCHAN: I don't actually disagree with most of the Congressman's analysis, but I do think that you have to ask a key question. What is best for Israel? How do you end up with an Israel that has security, prosperity, safety borders that are defensible? And the answer is not simply to occupy the West Bank from now until the end of days. It is to try somehow to move the ball down the road. I agree with you. Arafat said no at Camp David. I agree with you, the Fatah movement carries out terrorism. But you have to find some way, you look at the demographics, right? Israel holds on to these territories, they'll be more Arabs than Jews.
KEYES: Charles, now hold on a second, because one of the things that I think is a key here, and I've been seeing a couple of articles in the last couple of days, Jack Kemp wrote one. There was another piece, I think, in the “Wall Street Journal” where folks were pointing to what I think is the real key to this situation.
We talk back and forth about this or that that Israelis can do. Before any real progress can be made, doesn't the element of conscience, the decent people that have to exist in the Palestinian community, that have to be deeply revolted by this gruesome nihilistic violence, don't these folks have to take the fate of their people in their hands, step forward, demand an end to this and appeal for support and protection to an international community that will turn its back on the thugs, including Arafat, and begin to pay real attention to people who are rejecting this kind of an approach?
I mean, aren't we basically putting them in the shadows, even in the danger of death ,if we continue to treat with these thugs, Charles?
KUPCHAN: Well you know I basically agree with you, and there are people out there, Barghouti, Saeb Erekat, perhaps Dahlan (ph), who represent a younger generation of Palestinians who condemned Arafat for saying no to Camp David, and so we do need to find some way of trying to pass power on to them.
I'm not comfortable simply exiling Arafat at this time and simply getting rid of him because he would turn into a martyr, because he's still there, but I would begin to have more dialogue with the younger representative and try to shift power to them as we move toward some sort of negotiation.
ENGEL: Let the — let the Palestinians educate their own people. The latest poll taken by Palestinians show that 68 percent of the Palestinian population supports suicide bombing. I mean that's just a shocking statistic. When you have the encouragement and the incitement to hate and all the things and the rhetoric that Arafat talks about time and time again, this is what you get and ...
KUPCHAN: How do you change that, Eliot? How do you — how do you...
ENGEL: Well...
KUPCHAN: ... get a Palestinian view that's different? You try to move the ball along. I think if you just go for occupation...
(CROSSTALK)
ENGEL: You try to move the ball along, but you don't make the same old tired mistakes year after year after year. We need new leadership. We need to move beyond Arafat, and you don't reward Arafat by saying we're going to have a provisional Palestinian State.
You know, the killer who killed the Israelis, the 19 yesterday, I mean his words were shocking. His name is Ghoul (ph) and I think it's fitting. The words said how glorious it is, how wonderful he felt to kill and be killed. I mean, this is sick and the Palestinians have to start educating their people to stop the killing of innocent human life.
KEYES: Charles, it's hard I know to say maybe and the mentality that is natural, I think, to Americans in particular is always to look for a way to make a deal, but in a situation like this, don't you simply have to look all of those in the eye who are supporting, carrying out, making excuses for this gruesome nihilistic terror, and simply shut the door in their face?
Make it clear we're not going to listen to you anymore, not going to buy your excuses. We're sick to death of your rhetoric, and we simply aren't going to deal with it anymore. Until we do that, haven't we in fact facilitated their leadership and shut the door against what might be more decent consciences in the Palestinian community?
KUPCHAN: I wish the situation were that black and white. I would shut the door to those people who sponsor terrorist attacks or who carry them out. But at the same time, you have to show that you're willing to move toward some sort of situation where the Palestinians realize their aspirations for autonomy.
So to shut the door to terror and to open the door to some kind of end point where both sides live next to each other is key here, and I would not call for provisional state at this point. If I were the Bush administration, I would say these are the conditions that you need to meet. Stop the terror. Have a functioning state institution.
Stop the corruption. When you have demonstrated that, when the Palestinian security forces are actually out there doing what the Israelis are doing now, cracking down on the terrorists, that's when we'll talk about a state. So I would make strong conditions, but I would also make clear...
KEYES: Yes.
KUPCHAN: ... that at the right time, America will back strongly a Palestinian state.
KEYES: Eliot Engel, a quick last word from you. You have about 30 seconds.
ENGEL: Well, I don't disagree with what you've just said, but again, I think the responsibility is with the Palestinians. Let's remember that when the World Trade Center went down, you had the image of Palestinians cheering and dancing in the streets. I mean, at some point you've got to take personal responsibility for your own actions.
And I'd like to see some Palestinian leaders who rise up in revulsion and say enough is enough, but you know, Alan, there aren't any because if there were, they'd be killed, and that's just simply the way it is. Israel is a democracy and the Palestinians are corrupt dictatorship led by a terrorist, Yasser Arafat.
KEYES: I want to thank both of you tonight for your thoughts. I want to also share with the audience my last word tonight is in fact going to address the very question that Eliot and Charles were just raising and that we were just talking about in terms of the moderate leadership.
So stay tuned for that. Next, however, will putting troops on our border make us safer? We'll debate that next with one man who says it's a necessity and another who calls the idea un-American.
You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.
According to several groups that monitor immigration in this country, an estimated 475,000 immigrants have entered the U.S. illegally since 9/11. And some say President Bush's plan for the Department of Homeland Security would take too long to implement before we'd see those numbers decrease. So the solution, say some conservatives on the Hill, is beefing up our border with U.S. troops.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. VIRGIL H. GOODE JR. (I), VIRGINIA: The INS could certainly use the support of troops. Our border patrol could certainly use troops. Our future, the future of the United States of America, can't be dependent on acting swiftly in this regard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEYES: Joining us now to consider and debate this issue, Ira Mehlman with the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Also with us, Stephen Moore, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the president of the Club for Growth, an organization that contributes to political candidates known for cutting the pork out of politics. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.
STEPHEN MOORE, CATO INSTITUTE: Hello, Alan.
IRA MEHLMAN, FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM: Thanks.
KEYES: Now, Stephen, I want to turn to you first tonight because obviously the whole issue of our security is on the minds of a lot of folks. If you've got 475,000 people coming across the border illegally, that's 475,000 folks we don't know who they are or what they're up to. Isn't it imperative, in light of the machinations of all of these terrorists against us that we get some kind of a handle on that flow?
Well, let me start by saying this, Alan. As you know, I'm very pro-immigrant. I think immigrants are really the backbone of our economy. And the thing that worries me about this proposal is that groups like FAIR, that want to shut off all immigration, are talking about this proposal in conjunction with national I.D. cards and building a wall around the United States and shutting off immigration.
And so my point here is I think that this is just one further step that the anti-immigration groups are trying to take to shut off all immigrants, not just the illegal immigrants.
KEYES: Now, realistically, though, we have a border that, in the present security environment, is porous partly because we've had a longstanding history and culture, friendly borders.
MOORE: That's right.
KEYES: As a matter of fact, I think it's been a great source of pride for this country, that we have unfortified borders with both our neighbors, the kind of relations that don't exist in many parts of the world (UNINTELLIGIBLE) don't characterize other places.
MOORE: I agree.
KEYES: But right now, bad, wicked folks could take advantage of the weakness of public institutions, authority and police forces elsewhere, including Mexico, get into their countries, and then drift across our border to do harm. Realistically speaking, don't we have to address that possibility?
MOORE: The truth of the matter, Alan, is that whether we put the troops at the border or not — by the way, I was thinking about this idea when you called me earlier about it, and it does make more sense to have U.S. troops at the border than to have them in Somalia and Europe and a lot of the places around the world that we've been putting troops under the Clinton administration.
But the fact of the matter is that whether we put the military at the border, whether we increase our border patrol, which I'd be in favor of, if terrorists want to get into this country, most of these terrorists, Alan, aren't coming in sneaking across the border at night in Mexico. They can come in on an airplane. They can come in with visas. In fact, many of the terrorists had legal visas when they were here. So I'm not sure this is going to do anything to reduce our threat of terrorism.
KEYES: Let me go to Ira, though, because I think, meaning no offense, that Steve's last remark kind of begs the point. We're basically trying to tighten up all those ports of entry, deal with those situations. And yet, if we left the border open and porous the way it is, it almost would seem as if all of that would be for naught. Wouldn't it, Ira?
MEHLMAN: Well, of course, Alan. We have to realize that the threat is going to be with us no matter what. But it doesn't mean that you don't take common sense steps to shore up the border.
The fact of the matter is that our border is wide open. At any given time, we have about 2,000 agents patrolling the entire border with Mexico and Canada, not counting Alaska, by the way. And it's an open invitation. And, you know, Stephen indicated what his true agenda here is. He wants to make sure that illegal aliens can continue to come to the United States.
MOORE: No, legal. Legal immigrants.
MEHLMAN: And illegal, because if we really wanted to control illegal immigration, we'd have sensible domestic deterrents in place such as having a verifiable card when people come to seek employment in this country. We'd go after employers who hire illegal immigrants. Those are the kinds of things that discourage illegal immigration and give our resources, our troops at the border, an opportunity to catch people who are coming in to do real harm.
KEYES: Now, here is one question I have for you though, Ira, because it seems to me that when you're talking about dealing with the border problems, not only in terms of immigration, drugs, other things that flow across there, you're talking about something that isn't strictly speaking just a military challenge. And it's not strictly speaking either just a law enforcement challenge or a policing challenge.
Aren't we indeed talking about something — and these things exist in other parts of the world — where folks actually have a particular arm of their military that is properly trained to deal with the challenge of being the border guard for the country? We can't just take troops out of our present military and put them in this complex task. Don't we, in fact, have to put together the kind of force that would be specially structured and trained to deal with this challenge within our military structure?
MEHLMAN: Well, first of all, we do have that. It's called the border patrol. And I think what's important to recognize here is what is being proposed is not putting troops at the border, but using the military in auxiliary positions, to do back-up work, to do the kind of office work that now ties up people who could be out on the border, people who are trained to do this.
And, obviously, we're going to need more people on the border patrol. Two thousand people out there at any one time is simply not enough. But we also need to use the resources that we have available. You know, as you heard Natan Sharansky say a few minutes ago, it is an obligation of a nation to use whatever resources it has to protect its citizens and to protect its national security. And if we have military sitting there doing nothing, those people could be utilized in back-up positions so that the border patrol people, the people who are trained to do this, can do their job more effectively.
MOORE: Alan, I'm in favor of increasing the border patrol and this is something I've talked about for many years, that we should have more border patrol agents to protect our borders. I do not want to see illegal immigrants getting into this country.
But I object to the idea of militarizing the border. And the reason I do is a couple-fold reasons. One is that the countries that militarize their borders have tended to be the totalitarian countries that didn't want to let their citizens out, and I think there is something fundamentally un-American about saying that we're going to put, you know, people with submachine guns and rifles at our border. I don't want them shooting at illegal immigrants. I mean, this is not something that is in the national interest and I think it does play into this fear that we're overwhelmed with immigrants when we are not. The immigration...
KEYES: I detect, if I may say so, a certain confusion here that I'll try to clarify when we come back, because what I heard just now wasn't exactly militarizing the border. But I'm not sure it rises to the occasion either.
Anyway, we're going to have more with Ira and Steve right after this. And later, my “Outrage of the Day” about some of the Palestinians who are coming forward to condemn this violence and how we need to respond.
But first, does this make sense? Seven school parents whose children were given a controversial survey that asked questions of a sexual nature, intimate ones, they filed a claim against Palmdale school district, about 50 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles.
The survey asked youngsters intimate questions about their sexual thoughts and actions, 10-year-olds, mind you. These are people in fifth grade. Now, prompted by the parents' complaint, the district halted the survey. But you've got to wonder what is going on in this country when without consulting the parents, folks are going to introduce 10-year-olds to ideas that ought to be put forward, if at all, in the context of careful coordination with the families' beliefs and understanding.
I think that it makes no sense at all to disregard parental authority in a situation like this. What do you think?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEYES: We're back with Ira Mehlman and Stephen Moore talking about the idea that we need to reinforce the security along our border through the use of our military forces.
Now, I want to get back to a point though, Ira, because what I heard you describing a minute ago sounded to me like a function that doesn't particularly require the military. Say military to me and I think of a disciplined structure, a certain mentality that is envisaging the possibility that you'll have security situations that go beyond the usual law enforcement situation, and that therefore require the kind of responsive mentality that our military people represent.
I can see that in our present situation we might need that, but that doesn't strike me as back-up for the border patrol. You're actually talking about a function that's different than what the sort of law enforcement mentality of our border patrol represents. Now what are we talking about here?
MEHLMAN: Well, what is being considered now is using them in a back-up role. But as you point out, we are a nation that is facing a very serious threat of terrorism here in the United States, and we may need to use military to protect our borders, to protect us against the infiltration of foreign terrorists. That's something that ought to be considered and ought to be out there.
And we also have to make it very clear to both the Canadians and the Mexicans that this is not an offensive act against them, but rather a defensive act to protect the security of the United States and to protect the security of the American people. We are facing a very real and serious threat. And we saw it, you know, just before the millennium when a terrorist was attempting to come across the Canadian border. These are threats that are out there. We faced them before, and we need to use those resources, including the military if necessary, to protect our society.
KEYES: Now, Stephen Moore, you suggested that the idea of this kind of force is un-American, but borders used to be referred to as frontiers, right?
MOORE: Mm-hmm.
KEYES: And it seems to me that we do have experience from America's own frontier days of a mentality in which we had a military force that was precisely put in place in order to deal with security threats on the frontier.
You established a chain of outposts, the purpose of which was to allow for dealing with what would be security threats to the nation and to the people living in the area, using military forces. That's not un-American. That's precisely what we did in the country's frontier days. Maybe we need to take a lesson from that and apply it to our modern frontier, which is now becoming more of a security problem.
MOORE: Well, you know, Alan, it was the president that both you and I worked for, Ronald Reagan, who talked about tearing down these walls and take down these walls. And I do worry that there is this movement in the United States by groups like FAIR to militarize the border, to put up a wall around the United States. And I think that that will really ruin our immigrant heritage here.
If we need to put more border people at the border to make sure that illegal immigrants can't come in, I am all for that. I'm against the idea of putting people with machine guns at the border. And by the way, in response to something Ira said earlier, not too many of these Arab terrorists who are coming in to the United States are coming in across the Mexican border, Alan. If a terrorist...
MEHLMAN: We don't know that.
MOORE: If a terrorist...
MEHLMAN: We don't know that.
MOORE: But even if we put the military at the border and no illegal immigrant could get into this country, there are so many other ways that terrorists could come into this country. They can come in here on a plane, on a tourist visa, or they can come in here on a business visa. There are so many different ways. How are you going to keep them out?
KEYES: But, Ira, meaning no offense, you know, there are many different ways the bugs could get in your house, but that doesn't keep you from putting screens on your windows, you know what I'm saying.
MEHLMAN: Exactly.
KEYES: It's one of those things you do because you take the different steps that are needed to deal with the problem. Ira, a last word, very quickly.
MEHLMAN: The United States is facing a very serious threat here. We need to use the resources that are available. We need to — if necessary, to put troops to secure our borders, to make sure that terrorists cannot infiltrate the United States. This is simply a basic responsibility of government, to protect the safety of the American public. And clearly, we have not been doing it.
KEYES: Thank you both. Really appreciate it.
MOORE: Thank you, Alan.
KEYES: I think this is going to be a continuing subject of debate. And I really hope we'll think it through in its own terms because I am not sure that simply some amalgam of the things we already have available will be the answer. Thanks.
Next, my “Outrage of the Day.” Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
Mow, time for my “Outrage of the Day.”
Dozens of prominent Palestinians made an unprecedented appeal Wednesday to Islamic extremist groups to stop attacks on Israeli civilians in a full-page ad in the “Al-Quds” newspaper. Legislator Hanan Ashwari and the Palestinian senior Jerusalem official, Sari Nusseibeh, were among dozens of prominent Palestinians to sign a full-page newspaper ad, urging groups behind deadly assaults on Israeli civilians to, quote, “stop sending our young people to carry out such attacks.”
The ad further said, quote, “we see no results in such attacks but a deepening of the hatred between both peoples and a deepening of the gap between us.”
I've got to say that this is one of the first hopeful signs I've seen in the course of the last several weeks, of hope on the horizon of the Middle East, because I think the key to the whole situation lies in the people of conscience on the Palestinian side stepping forward with the courage that will be required to say not to this violence. Not just because it threatens the peace process, not just because it kills Israeli civilians. But because of a lesson I learned especially in my upbringing from Martin Luther King, from the experience of black Americans.
When you are fighting against what you perceive to be evil and injustice, do you know the greatest harm that can happen to you? It's not death. It's the death of your own soul and conscience and spirit, when the evil you fight against mirrors itself in your own actions and ultimately corrupts and destroys your own soul and the evil you fear and fight becomes the evil that you become.
That I fear could be the destiny of the Palestinian people. But it will require the courageous, not only words, but leadership of people like those who spoke out in this ad to step forward and make the difference and it will be an outrage if we don't support and defend them when they do.
Thanks. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next. See you tomorrow.