Alan Keyes
June 25, 2002

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

Up front tonight, we are going to examine one of the key elements in President Bush's proposal for the Middle East that no peace plan can go forward until a new Palestinian leadership is in place, one not compromised by terror. But are there people set to succeed Yasser Arafat who don't have the taint of terror upon them?

We're going to look at that at some length tonight. But first, today Arafat made his first public comment since President Bush's speech. For more on that, here is MSNBC's Martin Fletcher.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MARTIN FLETCHER, NBC CORRESPONDENT: "Who, me?" Yasser Arafat today claiming that President Bush's call last night for new Palestinian leadership didn't apply to him.

YASSER ARAFAT, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY PRESIDENT: Definitely not.

FLETCHER: Arafat in denial or spinning the speech? Either way, Arafat isn't going anywhere anytime soon, and certainly, no Palestinians are calling openly for him to resign. They see Bush's speech as Washington trying to bully the Palestinians, and that, says Palestinian cabinet minister Imad Faludji (ph), only strengthens Arafat.

IMAD FALUDJI, PALESTINIAN CABINET MINISTER: When Bush asked our people not elect Yasser Arafat, it gives Yasser Arafat more force.

FLETCHER: Key European governments also rejected Bush's push for new Palestinian leaders but did welcome the rest of his peace plan. As for Arab leaders, few rushed to Arafat's defense today, Egypt and Jordan, in particular, also calling for reform of the Palestinian authority.

Israel sees the speech as a green light to do anything to fight Palestinian terror. Today tanks moved into yet another town, Hebron. Despite the military and political pressure, Arafat today was defiantly saying his people will decide if he goes or not, not the American president.

ARAFAT: This has to be decided by my movement (ph) not by any person else.

FLETCHER: Brave words, but Arafat's unchallenged leadership of the Palestinians is under attack, not only from Bush. Palestinian Islamic militants, and some of Arafat's own militias are ignoring his appeals to stop terror attacks inside Israel. And there are loud calls from key Palestinians for Arafat to end the widespread corruption around him — Arafat increasingly looking like a leader losing his grip on power.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think that he's in miserable condition. He doesn't have power anymore. He doesn't have authority anymore. He doesn't have an administration anymore.

FLETCHER (on camera): Yasser Arafat is the ultimate survivor. He's outlasted 9 American presidents, and Bush will be his 10th. Still, the question increasingly is, "Where is he leading his people?" And at the moment, the answer appears to be to more violence.

Martin Fletcher, NBC News, Tel Aviv.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KEYES: Now tonight, NBC's Tom Brokaw asked Secretary of State Colin Powell the question on so many minds tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM BROKAW, NBC NEWS ANCHOR: If Arafat is reelected by the Palestinian people, you have no choice but to deal with him, do you?

COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: We will see what the Palestinian people do in the election, and I don't want to answer right now in a hypothetical and...

BROKAW: But why couldn't you answer that Mr. Secretary? I mean, after all...

POWELL: Because the election...

BROKAW: ... the democratic process...

POWELL: ... the election hasn't been held and let's see what happens after we put in place, as I believe the Palestinians are preparing to do, new constitutional procedures, hold elections which are free and fair, and let the Palestinian people make a judgment on the circumstances they find themselves in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEYES: Now who can come forward to replace the terror-tainted generation of Palestinian leaders? Yesterday, the president described his vision for the next generation of such leaders.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror. I call upon them to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEYES: Is that possible? Well, let's take a look at some of the likely choices to succeed Arafat. Forty-eight-year-old Jibril Rajoub, the West Bank Security Chief. His office has been linked to suicide attacks. He himself has spent time in jail for throwing a grenade at an Israeli military vehicle — hardly free of terror.

Sixty-five-year-old Sheikh Ahmad Yassin and the spiritual leader of Hamas, one of the key terror groups. This week, Israel placed him under house arrest. Sixty-seven-year-old Mahmoud Abbas, as the secretary general of the Palestinian Authority, he is Arafat's number two. He's considered a moderate and one of the few remaining founders of Fatah. Unfortunately, Fatah also implicated in terrorist activities.

Forty-two-year-old Marwan Barghouti, the senior Fatah leader in the West Bank who is currently being held in an Israeli prison on accusations of masterminding terrorist operations. Barghouti is very popular with the Palestinian people. Forty-one-year-old Mohammed Dahlan, the youngest of the group, former head of the security service in Gaza. He was a student leader during the intifada of the '80s and was deported by Israel.

There is one person on the list whose record is seemingly clean, 65-year-old Ahmed Qurei, speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council. He is a main author of the Oslo agreement, also. But it hails from an aristocratic family and it is said that he is not that popular with the Palestinian people.

So here's the problem that we seem to face. You have some people who are identified out there as folks who might possibly be successors in some sense to Yasser Arafat. But most, if not all of them, bear the very taint that President Bush talks about. And the one prominent onewe mentioned who doesn't is somebody who's not exactly winning the hearts and minds of Palestinian public opinion.

That raises, of course, another issue, which we have unhappily and unfortunately been all too familiar with as we have looked at the situation, and that's the issue of Palestinian support for these terror activities. The mothers and fathers sending their kids out to die with a sense that this is the glorious way to do it, going to kill innocent people and the in the marketplace and other places.

When you have the possibility that a large element of the population actually looks upon this terror activity as a glorious martyrdom, that raises a very serious question about what might be the outcome of elections. I frankly think that if you could wave a magic wand today and hold a free and completely fair and open election among Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza, it is very likely that, if the candidates included an extreme supporter and representative of terror, that person would probably get elected. What do you want to bet?

I wouldn't want to bet against it, myself. I think that poses a serious problem for the future, some would say a problem for Bush's articulation of policy. I don't think so. Because I don't think the choice is a matter for George Bush. He can articulate what America is willing to work with. It's going to be up to the Palestinian people to decide whether they can, in fact, repudiate terror and violence.

If they do, there's hope for progress. If they don't, I frankly see no way out for anyone in the Middle East, since when one side is bent on killing innocent people, I don't see how you can end the violence until they stop. Well, we're going to debate that very question on the heart of the matter.

Are there Palestinians with clean hands? Do the Palestinian people in fact give preference? Would they give preference to people who were not involved in terror activity, or do they regard them in fact as the glorious martyr leadership that can lead them somewhere?

We're going to hear from a prominent American Rabbi, a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia and a spokesman for the Arab-American community right here on America's news channel. Stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: An interesting and contentious congressional primary in Alabama, where Congressman Earl Hilliard, a five-term congressman has gotten strong support from black liberal Democrats but tonight lost the political fight of his life. His opponent, also a black Democrat, branded him anti-Israel, citing his voting record.

Coming up in our next half-hour, is the Congressional Black Caucus anti-Israel. And if so, does tonight's results suggest that they're out of touch with the black community? We'll debate that.

A reminder that the chatroom is sizzling tonight, and you can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.

But now let's get back to our discussion, in depth, of the next generation of Palestinian leaders and whether, in light of President Bush's criteria, there's much hope that a generation not tainted by terror can actually come to the floor to move the process forward.

Joining us to get to the heart of the matter Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human rights organization; Hume Horan, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia; and Hussein Ibish, the communications director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Gentlemen, welcome to MAKING SENSE.

HUSSEIN IBISH, AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE: Great to see you again.

KEYES: Now first I'd like to...

HUME HORAN, FMR. U.S. AMB TO SAUDI ARABIA: It's my pleasure.

KEYES: ... start if I can, Ambassador Horan, with you. Looking at President Bush's speech last night, he threw a challenge down to the entire Arab world to reject terrorism and back the development of a new non-terror oriented leadership.

He threw a challenge down before the Palestinians themselves to come up with such leadership and for them to step forward. What do you think are the prospects that that challenge to the Palestinian people and the Arab world will produce some fruit?

HORAN: I think it was a very well-crafted and directed speech in asking that we needed a new Palestinian leadership. Of course, you're going to get it first. Arafat says no one pushes us around. The Palestinians make up their own decisions, "Yes, yes," and so forth.

But I can tell you, after reflecting upon the disastrous leadership of Yasser Arafat, in Jordan and in Lebanon and in Palestine and then having spurned the Camp David offer and then after two years go by, he says, "Oh, wait, I'd like to take that up again." His credibility must be zero with the Palestinians. And I don't think any Palestinians in Palestine are going to want to fall on their swords for Yasser Arafat.

KEYES: Well, the president's formulation, though, if I can take it one step further, said that you need new leaders not compromised by terror. Now that would seem to suggest that some of the folks who are sometimes pointed at as possible successors, but who are heavily involved in, or directly involved in, terror organizations, they would seem to be folks with whom the president is basically saying we can't work with those people. You need to find people who are not tainted by that background.

HORAN: I think the important thing is to get rid of the old leadership and then to get new leaders. Now the not tainted by terror — I imagine there's some room for maneuver there. But what you need is some young leadership that can perhaps make their words stick, and having seen the catastrophe that the fanatics have brought upon Palestine right now, I think once Yasser Arafat gets the word that people say, "Boss, you've done a great job, but how about moving off," I think you might see something quite hopeful coming out. If people can — if the Palestinians have not learned from the awful experiences they've had for the last couple of years because of Yasser Arafat, there isn't really much hope for human rationality. And I am an optimist.

KEYES: Now, Rabbi Hier, I look at this situation in the speech, where the president talks about the need to have new leadership not compromised by terror, but also talks about elections and the fact that the Palestinian people themselves would have to choose new leadership. Given what appears to be the strong popular support for some of the leaders who are directly involved in the terror, the strong expressions of admiration for suicide bombers and others who are portrayed as martyrs. What's the likelihood that a Palestinian election would produce leaders not tainted by what the Palestinian people regard as this sort of glorious commitment to the struggle?

RABBI MARVIN HIER, SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER: Well, I think that's precisely what the president said to the world, and specifically to the Arab world. He said, "Look, you're turning to the United States and you're saying the United States is the only country that can make a difference in the equation of what's happening in the Middle East."

The United States, the president has spoken. The president says the United States is not going to become involved unless the Palestinians have a new leadership and get beyond Yasser Arafat. If they're unwilling to do that, then they're going to have to accept the status quo, and they'll never have a Palestinian state.

And, you know, it's kind of ironic. What happens if Arafat, for example, is elected? Well, the president won't deal with him, and there's going to be a stalemate. You know, it's remarkable, Alan, that the Palestinian authority, television, which has room for regular sermons urging all of their followers to kill the Jews in Israel and around the world, decided that it wasn't important enough to broadcast the speech of the president of the United States about the Middle East. That says everything about Yasser Arafat and the kind of regime he runs.

KEYES: Now, Hussein Ibish, I look at the president's speech and I know that the response is likely to be, "You can't dictate the leadership of the Palestinian people."

IBISH: You're right about that.

KEYES: And to be honest, Hussein, I don't think that's what he's trying to do. What he's basically trying...

IBISH: You don't?

KEYES: No. He's trying to say very clearly, neither does anybody else get to dictate who the United States will deal with and work with. So we're just laying down a question about, in a clear understanding, of the kind of folks we can work with to move toward a positive future, something that's entirely within our right.

Now, if the United States says that we can only work with leaders not tainted by terror, and the Palestinian people and elections and in other ways serve up a leadership deeply committed to terrorism, what do you think is going to happen?

IBISH: Well what I think is that it's wholly unrealistic to think that this kind of dictate (ph) is going to work. It's not going to work. It's not going to move people.

I think that there is a growing disillusionment with the leadership of Arafat in many quarters, but I think it would be perfectly easy for Palestinians and other Arabs to look at Ariel Sharon and say, "Look, Israel, until you get a new leader, one not tainted by war crimes, one who doesn't have all this blood on his hands, who isn't the author of the Sabra and Shatila massacre of hundreds of innocent civilians, we're not going to deal with you either."

But I mean, I think it's a wholly unconstructive position to take. What we need is a political process that's not based on personalities, because we have a conflict that is not driven by personalities. If Arafat died tonight and all the people you threw up on your screen tonight died tonight, there would still be in place the Israeli occupation army, the Jewish only roads, the Jewish only settlements, the checkpoints, the road blocks and 3.7 million Palestinians who live as non-citizens under Israeli rule determined to resist that occupation.

So the conflict would go on. You'd be back to square one. This is all besides the point. It's not only secondary, it's actually a tertiary issue.

KEYES: Well, the one thing that scares me about that is we have heard — now I had it denied by Mr. Kanafani the other night on the program here, but it was reported in "Al-Haaretz" (ph) that Yasser Arafat now has second thoughts about his rejection of Clinton's proposals at Camp David and again at Wye later on and that — and that he wishes, I guess, that he accepted them.

IBISH: Well, what happened was ...

KEYES: No, let me finish though.

IBISH: All right.

KEYES: Because I'm relating that to something else.

IBISH: OK.

KEYES: What I want to relate it to is the fact that here you have President Bush, he's not shutting the door on anything. He is, in fact, articulating a position that accepts a Palestinian state, that asks Israel to, in fact, withdraw from these territories, that addresses, in fact, the issue of settlements and so forth.

And he's basically putting that on the table and saying only one thing stands in the way here...

IBISH: Well...

KEYES: ... let me finish — and that one thing is a commitment to terror. Get rid of the leaders who are committed to terror, and we will move forward in all of these ways, and I am asking that Israel move forward in all of these ways. Now you're telling me that the Palestinians ...

IBISH: I wish he'd said that.

KEYES: ... are so attached to terror, that they aren't going to give it up to get back...

IBISH: I didn't say anything of the — I didn't say anything of the kind. I think it's clear to everyone who listened to the speech that Bush is talking about the personality of Yasser Arafat and not the mainstream secular leadership. But I think that if only President Bush had said what you just said — he didn't say anything of the kind.

What he said was that if Palestinians create a perfectly normal society under totally abnormal positions of foreign military occupation, then the United States might consider supporting a provisional state without delineating its borders or its capital or its sovereignty or anything of the kind.

And the whole thing is totally unrealistic, non-workable. It's a rude Goldberg design and I think it's all designed to change the subject from the real issue, which is ending the Israeli occupation. And we need to start a political process with the existing leaderships.

(CROSSTALK)

IBISH: I'm not a fan of — I'm not a fan of Arafat, but Sharon is no — is no angel here.

KEYES: Let me — let me go to, I think, Rabbi Hier...

HIER: Yes.

KEYES: ... you were trying to get in?

HIER: Yes, let me say something here, Alan. You know, this is the most remarkable mantra. Every time I listen to an Arab spokesman, they repeat this mantra as if it some kind of a prayer.

IBISH: It's the truth.

HIER: First of all, it's not the truth.

IBISH: Of course it is.

HIER: It's just a litany of lies. It's like the Jenin massacre, it's more of the same. Basically ...

IBISH: You don't believe there's an occupation?

HIER: There would be — there would be no occupation if the Palestinians produced an Anwar Sadat. It would all have been ended had they accepted Barak's offer.

IBISH: You know the Likud Party just voted...

HIER: Excuse me, I didn't...

IBISH: ... that there were never be a Palestinian state.

HIER: ... I did not interrupt you.

IBISH: Yes, but I was telling the truth.

HIER: Please — you're not telling the truth. You're just repeating Arafat's lies. Let me just finish my point, which is basically, you don't have to tell the state of Israel — the state of Israel has due process. It has judiciary process. When it came to faulting Ariel Sharon regarding Sabra and Shatila, it — we didn't have to listen to the Palestinians to hear that.

IBISH: You're an Israeli?

HIER: It was an Israeli commission — it was an Israeli commission...

IBISH: Yes.

HIER: ... that decided that, something that is absent in Arafat's regime...

IBISH: It may have escaped your attention that that is because Israel is a state that is independent...

HIER: Can I — can I finish my final...

(CROSSTALK)

IBISH: It doesn't live under foreign military occupation.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: I want to interrupt both of you I want to interrupt both of you on that point because that's not true, and I really have to say that's simply not true.

IBISH: What do you mean it's not true?

KEYES: The notion that things exist, in order to call people account for acts that are unconscionable before humanity, that's not a function of a state. That's not a function of a...

IBISH: Oh, we do.

KEYES: Let me finish. It's not. And the reason I say it's not is because I look back on a history in my own country, people deeply oppressed and lynched and murdered ...

IBISH: Yes, but they didn't live under foreign occupation.

KEYES: ... yes, in effect they lived under something far worse than foreign occupation.

IBISH: Well...

KEYES: Let me finish and...

IBISH: OK, and then I'll give you an example.

KEYES: They took responsibility for making sure that they didn't cross the line of conscience, that they didn't become in their actions the kind of abominations that they professed to be against ...

IBISH: Right.

KEYES: ... in their oppressors. And it seems ...

IBISH: In South Africa.

KEYES: ... to me that that's a responsibility that has nothing to do with statehood. It has to do with humanity, Hussein.

IBISH: In South Africa.

KEYES: And I think what the president is demanding ...

IBISH: Yes.

KEYES: ... is that you have folks on the Palestinian side who are going to repudiate those ...

IBISH: Yes.

KEYES: ... who cross the line from militants, even ...

IBISH: Right.

KEYES: ... from war-like struggle...

IBISH: Well and in fact Alan ...

KEYES: ... into terror ...

IBISH: Yes.

KEYES: ... conducted against the innocent.

IBISH: Fine. And, in fact, Alan, 55 leading intellectuals including Sardan Subbei (ph), the leading PLO representative in Jerusalem and Hanan Ashrawi, the former minister and former spokesman did sign a statement printed in "Al-Haaretz" (ph) demanding immediately an end to all attacks on Israel especially suicide bombings.

Let me remind you, Alan, also that in South Africa, the ANC, the Nelson Mandela's group, did not address its own human rights violations in dealing with collaborators and others until after the deliberation same. So I mean you know in other words, what needs to happen and the Israeli state did not dismantle its own terror groups, the Ergoon (ph) led by Menachem Begin and the Stern (ph) gang led by Yitzhak Shamir (ph) until after the state was consolidated, so there's a long history here of people not doing this ...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Rabbi Hier, you have something to say?

HIER: Yes.

KEYES: And then I want to hear from Ambassador Horan and put in a word myself.

HIER: Let me just say one thing. The difference — you keep mentioning Menachem Begin. Let me tell you something, the difference between Menachem Begin is that when Menachem Begin decided to join the state in 1948 and to end the Ergoon (ph) and become part of the state of Israel and the due process, he then went on to win the Noble Peace Prize. When Yasser Arafat...

IBISH: Arafat has won the Peace Prize.

HIER: ... won the Noble — when Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize, he went into the terrorism business full time. That's how he honored his Noble Peace Prize.

IBISH: I don't think anyone was forced to do it, by forcing ...

KEYES: Wait, wait, Hussein. I want to raise a question with Ambassador Horan because I listen to both sides here and one of the things that strikes me is that everybody's talking as if American policy ought to be under somebody else's control than America.

I think what the president has made clear is that our policy is going to be under our control and that our control is going to reflect our principles, our conscious and our situation, which is that we are under assault by terrorists and we are, therefore, not going to have truck with terrorists. Can the president afford to abandon that position given all the effort we have to put in to defending our own security against these terrorists?

HORAN: Alan, you know the Palestinians are often asking us to do various things for them, to lean on the Israelis and so forth, but you know it's a two-way street. They ask us to do something, we've got a perfect right to ask them to do something. And when we look at what we want to get done in Palestine and when we look at the kind of leadership that they have been governed by, probably the worst leadership in the past 50 years of any peoples on earth.

Now the president has come through with a proposal that puts the ball on their side. You get rid of that awful leadership, or at least the worst elements of that awful leadership, and we will really do a lot for you. We'll help you produce a new constitution. We'll help you with elections. We'll help to reform your judiciary. We will improve your economy. We'll reform your security services. We will turn you into — with international help, not just the U.S. working at it. We're going get the Europeans, the IMF, the world bank, a tremendous amount of effort is going to go into making Palestine what Palestinians are capable of having, but they're not going to have it be under the types of people that — like Arafat and...

IBISH: Well, but Ambassador, he never said the magic words, that you will have full and complete independence in the occupied territories, the occupation will end. He didn't say that. He said if you do all those things, we'll create a provisional state, whatever that is.

No one knows. And then later on, we'll negotiate — you will have to negotiate with the mighty Israelis about borders and capital and sovereignty and all of this and so ...

KEYES: Hussein, wait...

IBISH: ... there's really nothing on the table.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Wait. Wait. Wait. No. No. Wait. I don't quite understand what you're saying. You are saying that somehow, by some dictate (ph) we are to impose a solution by fiat that doesn't come from negotiations?

IBISH: No. I'm saying that we have done it already.

KEYES: If we don't create the conditions for the negotiations, how are they to take place?

IBISH: No, we have to start negotiations in order to provide a political process...

KEYES: No.

IBISH: ... that can substitute...

KEYES: That's exactly what we're trying to do ...

IBISH: You cannot...

KEYES: The one condition — let me state it clearly.

IBISH: No, you cannot solve a conflict first and then negotiate. That doesn't make any sense.

KEYES: But, Hussein, the one thing — the one thing you are saying and that I hear from all of the Palestinian spokesmen is that the negotiations must take place while we on our side are going into places, killing Israelis ...

IBISH: No, I'm not saying that.

KEYES: ... killing children ...

IBISH: I didn't say that.

KEYES: ... killing innocent people. Because the only demand that the president has put on the table is no terror-compromised leadership.

IBISH: No, he didn't say that. No, he didn't say that at all.

KEYES: That's what he's basically...

IBISH: Oh, Alan, you didn't listen to him.

KEYES: So if that's going to happen — if that happens, everything you just described won't come about.

IBISH: He didn't say that.

KEYES: Yes, he did.

IBISH: No, he said there has to be capitalism. He said there'd have to be free elections. I don't know how those can take place under those conditions Israel is imposing. He said there has to be all kinds of things. It was a long laundry list of things that were needed. Now I agree attacks ...

(CROSSTALK)

IBISH: Hold on — I agree that attacks...

KEYES: So, you're not in favor of freedom for Palestinians?

IBISH: Of course I am, but I agree that attacks...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: No. Freedom doesn't just mean freedom from evil ...

IBISH: Let me finish ...

KEYES: No but let me finish. Freedom, I presume, means real self-government ...

IBISH: Yes, of course it does.

KEYES: ... real respect for individual rights...

IBISH: Of course it does, and the prerequisite ...

KEYES: ... freedom from thugs and despots who kill you because you disagreed with them ...

IBISH: Alan, of course not. The prerequisite for it is not having a foreign military occupation in place. And the problem with this formulation is that it asks the Palestinians to negotiate while occupation is going on, but without engaging any kind of resistance. Now I agree...

KEYES: No actually that's not true. That's not true.

IBISH: It is certainly true.

KEYES: No, give me the floor here ...

IBISH: Of course it is.

KEYES: ... because that what you just said is not a correct description.

IBISH: It absolutely is.

KEYES: As I understood what the president had to say, there's a security problem. As and when that security problem is addressed, Israel withdraws, since there will be no longer a necessity for Israel...

IBISH: No he didn't say anything of the kind.

KEYES: Yes, he did.

IBISH: No he didn't. He said he would be negotiated in three years time...

KEYES: No he didn't. That's not true.

IBISH: He said it will all be subject to...

KEYES: And I know this because some of the conservatives have criticized him, I think a little unfairly, for suggesting that Israel should simply withdraw, which he did not do. He said as and when the security issues are addressed, Israel should withdraw to the boundaries of September...

IBISH: Yes, but that's completely different than ending the occupation.

(CROSSTALK)

IBISH: That is not the same thing as ending the occupation.

KEYES: And then he said negotiations should go forward. Rabbi Hier...

(CROSSTALK)

HIER: May I get a word?

KEYES: Quickly.

HIER: What I would like to say, you know this is just amazing to listen to. The point is, let us take Afghanistan. Imagine every city in Afghanistan after the United States' attack on Afghanistan still has — would still have offices of al Qaeda in all the cities officially listed. Can you imagine that the United States would rebuild Afghanistan under those — under those circumstances?

(CROSSTALK)

IBISH: The United States is not occupying Afghanistan, stealing the land of Afghans ...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Wait a second. I want to give the floor for a second to Ambassador Horan. We're coming down — we have 30 seconds left. Ambassador Horan, the last remark?

HORAN: The Arabs and the Israelis need a time of healing, a time of cooling off. They need to get the security situation somewhat behind them, and then the international community led by the U.S. but with the Europeans, the IMF, the world bank can step in there and provide, quite frankly, a kind of mandated situation, until we can get an independent Palestine acceptable to the community.

KEYES: Gentlemen...

IBISH: There has to be a commitment to end the occupation...

KEYES: Thank you, gentlemen. We're at the end of our time. Thank you very much.

HIER: Thank you.

IBISH: Thank you, Alan.

KEYES: One last word from me, I don't think that occupation ends until the terror ends. I don't think the terror ends until the leadership changes. In that sense, President Bush has gotten it right. What the practical requirement is to effect that change of leadership, that's the question that's still on the table.

Next, is the Congressional Black Caucus anti-Israel? We're going to debate that question and look will very closely at a primary tonight that just ended, involving the very issue of anti-Israeli sentiment among the black leadership.

You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: I'm Alan Keyes.

Tonight, in Alabama, a hotly contested Democrat primary in which we have seen a stunning upset. It appears from the results that have been projected by the A.P. that Arthur Davis has in fact defeated five-term incumbent Earl Hilliard.

Now, Earl Hilliard got strong support from a number of people, including folks in the Congressional Black Caucus, some of the famous black actors. He had Al Sharpton down there and Walter Fontroy (ph).

Sharpton was very clear in his support and expressed his resentment against the what he called "Yankee-financed outsider," as he supported Congressman Hilliard.

Well, the "Yankee-financed outsider" was a former prosecutor who got strong support from pro-Israeli lobbies and made a big issue out of the fact that Earl Hilliard had taken stances that were not supportive of a strong United States-Israeli partnership and relationship.

Now, obviously this election results suggested that he found an issue that was salient with his voters in his district, the heavily Democratic, heavily black district where the incumbent was expected to be a shoo-in and where, in point of fact, the raising of this issue, the lack of commitment, in fact, to a strong United States-Israeli partnership, cost Earl Hilliard his seat, apparently.

Well, that raises a question, doesn't it, about whether that kind of a stand on Israel reflects the views of the black community, as it does quite often reflect, sadly, the views of the black leadership, or whether it is the consequence, as I have seen over the years, of the fact that black leaders responded at one time to a different dynamic, where the Arab nations were supporting stances on South Africa and the Yangtze in exchange for support for the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Arab cause.

Of course, in the context of the new war against terror, of people coming against us, supposedly because of the Middle East, to kill Americans, maybe there's a different take on this now.

Well, with us tonight, we have Joe Madison, a liberal radio talk show host who is also a friend and supporter of Earl Hilliard, and Roy Innis, an observer of the black community, a head of the Congress of Racial Equality and someone who has for a long time watched and observed this process and raised questions, in fact, about whether or not this kind of stance on the part of the black leadership really reflects what is on the hearts and minds of people in the black community and is really responsible.

Let me go first to Joe Madison. Joe, it looks like Congressman Hilliard has gone down to defeat. Does that suggest that this issue of the positions he was taking on Israeli, so heavily stressed by his opponent, did in fact make some salient inroads among the electorate in the district there?

JOE MADISON, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, it obviously did among those who lived in major cities, like Birmingham.

If I'm not mistaken, it was anticipated that he would lose Birmingham and he would lose probably Tuscaloosa. He would be strong in the rural areas. I don't — I have not seen the results.

But I think your initial question, does the Congressional Black Caucus not support Israel, quite honestly, is not true. The majority of them have voted for the $3.5 billion funding for Israel for many, many years. Even Earl Hilliard told me on his program that he was pro-Israel, he was not anti-Palestine, and that in the traditions of Martin Luther King, he was hoping to find a nonviolent approach to the situation in the Middle East.

He also indicated to me on my program that he refused to vote for the resolution that I think ended up targeting him for what now appears to be a defeat, because he simply did not want to vote for a resolution where there weren't any hearings.

So I don't know if this is a shift or change. I think most of the people were saying that he hadn't done enough for his district. I find that hard to believe. He helped bring two automobile plants and a lot of employment. He brought 25 million dollars in aid for farmers. He is — he was the fourth-ranking member on the Agricultural Committee.

So now what happens to this district, with the outside influence, the outside funding, is that this district now has a freshman congressman who will now be, what, 435th on the list, and that's going to be a problem for them.

KEYES: Well, but what I find intriguing is — and I was looking at a quote that came from Al Sharpton, I believe. He referred to a "Yankee-financed" fellow. And I found that very strange, Joe.

I mean, after all is said and done, in the history of America, for black people, the term Yankee is usually not used as a derogatory term. The Yankees were the ones who fought to end slavery, remember?

And I had to conclude that was kind of a code word for of the pro-Israel money, the Jewish money, that flowed into the district in support of his opponent.

MADISON: Well, there was no question that there was a tremendous amount of money by Jewish political organizations that targeted Earl Hilliard because they didn't like his no vote on the resolution. They didn't like him going to Libya, even though Libya is an African country and he sits on the African subcommittee.

KEYES: But, Joe, one of the problems, and actually, Roy, I'd like to raise this with you, if I can. One of the problems that I see is that in the current environment, I think it's kind of harder for people to sustain this idea that somehow or another one can be at ease with some of these folks, like Libya, like Sudan, that some other black leaders have cozied up to, when these are regimes that have clearly been identified with terror, and terror has now claimed the lives of Americans, black and white, in large numbers.

Roy, what do you think this tells us about the relationship between the stances taken by some of the black leaders and the sentiments in the black community?

ROY INNIS, CONGRESS OF RACIAL EQUALITY: Let me say that I am put in the strange position of being a defender of the Black Congressional Caucus, which I have had great differences with over the past decades.

I do believe that the Congressional Black Caucus is not anti-Israel. And they must have the right to express differences of opinion.

I might not agree with them on many things, but they cannot be slavish in their policy positions.

I am particularly concerned about this vote against Earl Hilliard, the apparent target of — and again, I'm dealing with appearance here — Earl Hilliard. Black folks and Jews managed and organized the greatest sociopolitical revolution in the history of mankind and with the least amount of violence: the civil rights revolution.

I see a serious threat to that partnership because of the appearances that will be gathered from this particular election. One election or two should not threaten that historic partnership.

KEYES: Well, does that serious threat come from one election, or does that serious threat come from the fact that over the course of the last several years, we have seen a pretty consistent unwillingness on the part of many of the black liberal leaders to take on the existence of anti-Semitism in the black community, to stand against some outrageous expressions of that anti-Semitism, to show — let me finish, please.

INNIS: Well, I'm sorry. You took a breath, that's all.

KEYES: ... to show proper sensitivity. Let me finish, please. I didn't interrupt you.

INNIS: Oh, come on.

KEYES: To show a proper sensitivity toward what is the strong sense, especially right now, that Israel is under threat from exactly the same ugly influence of terror that is threatening the people of the United States. And all of that seems to be something that's gone right over the head of the many of the black leaders.

Now, I want to leave that statement on your mind, because we've got to take a break here, and we will come back right after the break, and y'all have a chance to respond to what I think is my sense that this has come about, at least in part, because black liberal leaders haven't been acting responsibly to take on the elements of anti-Semitism that exist in the black community, and that's something that needs to be done.

We'll be right back after these words here on America's news channel, MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes, here with my guests Joe Madison and Roy Innis, talking about the stunning upset that has just taken place in Alabama, where Arthur Davis has defeated Earl Hilliard, primarily with a campaign that emphasized Hilliard's position on Middle East issues. That was characterized by Arthur Davis as not supportive of Israel.

And, Joe, whether or not that characterization — and you have disagreed. You think it's not a true characterization — the fact that it proved salient politically in the district, I think, does raise some suggestions.

But one point before I hand the floor back to y'all. The notion that somehow we've got outside influence and that's bad — we have unions. We have the NAACP. We have all kinds of groups in this country that, when things that they disagree with, people who are not sufficiently strong on the environment, people who are not sufficiently strong in terms of their commitment to racial justice and so forth, and they pour in money to support people who will speak against that and run against that and defeat those people they like.

We don't hear a lot of screaming and yelling about outside influences in that case. I think there's a little code word here that suggests that people who are doing what everybody else does, to advance what they believe to be important interests in politics, are somehow behaving badly. Why is there this implication? Pro-Israel people are simply doing what everyone else does, trying to make sure people get elected who reflect their views. Why the suggestion that this is somehow inappropriate?

MADISON: Can I talk now?

KEYES: Yes, please.

MADISON: All right. Just wanted to make sure I'm not interrupting.

Let me make something very clear. All those issues you talked about are domestic issues, and we all have a vested interest in this country when it comes to those issues: health, education, employment, justice, are domestic issues that impact us all, whether you're in the 7th congressional district of Alabama or whether you're in a district up in Brooklyn, New York.

The bottom line here, Al, and you know this, is that they were targeted. I have been in the meetings, and I have seen the letters, the campaign letters, the finance letters, that said, "He must go because he didn't vote the way we wanted him to do on Israel."

Now, again, most of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the vast majority of them, have supported to finance Israel. They have supported Israel. They have expressed in their public statements pro-Israel positions. But whenever an individual in the Congressional Black Caucus decides to take an independent stand, they find themselves being targeted, and I think — I think what...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Joe, wait a second. What I find — hold on...

MADISON: What he said — I think what Roy Innis said was very clear. We are not going back to the days of slavery and childhood politics, where we're going to have our international position dictated to us.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: What I find peculiar here — what I find peculiar in this argument, I can remember a very large campaign that was championed by black liberal leaders all over the country, in which they worked against and targeted folks who were not supporting sanctions on South Africa and who were speaking on behalf of a strong and deeply felt interest that they had in international politics, and when they got involved in elections and raised money for people who were supporting the position on sanctions, nobody suggested this was outside influence.

Suddenly if Jewish people do it, it's a stigma.

(CROSSTALK)

MADISON: Oh, come off of it Alan...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: I think that that — let me finish...

MADISON: Alan, Alan Keyes, you know better than this.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: I'm sorry. I think that the notion that everybody in America — let me finish...

MADISON: You are the person who was against those people in the ANC...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Let me finish, sir. I have to tell you that the notion...

MADISON: Oh man, you are a man who was against Nelson Mandela.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: The notion, sir — the notion, sir, that somehow or another it is appropriate for black folks or other people to get involved in international issues, but when Jewish people stand forward and do it, that's something wrong. I think that notion itself starts to raise some questions about...

MADISON: All right. All right. I hope you take a breath, because I'm going to say this. Most liberal...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Roy Innis — no, just a minute — we're coming down to the wire. We're going to give Roy a chance...

MADISON: Oh, man. Most liberal organizations are...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Roy, I think this is disturbing, the suggestion that Jewish folks don't have the right to act in politics.

INNIS: Would Jews have a right...

MADISON: Of course they have a right to...

INNIS: Jews have the right to spend their money to support their interests.

MADISON: Yes.

INNIS: But they must look at the bigger picture, the consequences of that, in terms of black-Jewish relations. Jewish...

MADISON: And if I can say, most — I served on the board at the NAACP for 14 years. Don't tell me about liberal organizations not being pro-Israel.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: I mean you no offense.

MADISON: They are pro-Israel. Don't make this a liberal conservative.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: We've come to the end of our time. We've come to the end of our time.

(CROSSTALK)

INNIS: The problem we have is a lack of diversity in black America.

KEYES: But before you tell me that a stance not supportive of Israel is somehow going to lead to some big rift between black folks and Jewish folks, I think you'd better look at the rift that occurred in this Alabama district among black folks...

INNIS: Exactly.

KEYES: ... who booted Mr. Hilliard out on the strength of the notion that he was standing against the a policy that, apparently, contrary to some views, a lot of black Americans do in fact share, and I certainly share that commitment to Israel.

We've got to go. Thank you both for being with me tonight. Thanks, that's...

Next, of course, my "Outrage of the Day," where I'll be talking about these Arizona fires and what might be the real cause of them.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: We've all been seeing the stories about the devastating fires raging in Arizona. Well, a lot of the local politicians and figures in Arizona are saying that this may be the result of extreme environmentalism, where they refuse to allow the kind of fires that would have burned out the undergrowth and helped to keep these fires under control.

Well, it looks like that extreme environmentalism has resulted in the kind of devastation that will leave us no more trees to hug. Think about it.

That's my sense of it. Back with you tomorrow.

"THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS" is up next. I'll see you tomorrow.