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

It has been a busy and eventful day in some respects. The president came out today in the context of a strong condemnation of terrorism as well as a call on Israel to withdraw its forces from Palestinian territory, he announced his decision to dispatch Colin Powell to the Middle East next week, an American gesture of involvement in the process, trying apparently to defuse that tense situation.

Of course, a lot of questions are left on the table in the context of Colin Powell's new mission to the Mideast. Was it, in fact the, result of a collapse of Bush administration's policy? Were they stampeded to it by signs that the Europeans were making a bid to take control somehow of the Middle East process? And what real substantive hope is there that there is a basis for some kind of success or progress for the secretary of state's mission?

Well, joining us up front tonight to talk about all of these things, Hasan Rahman, the Palestinian Liberation Organization's chief representative to the United States. And also with us, Mark Regev, the spokesman for the Israeli embassy to the United States. Gentlemen, welcome back to MAKING SENSE.

MARK REGEV, ISRAELI EMBASSY SPOKESMAN: Thank you.

KEYES: Let me start first with Hasan Rahman. With Colin Powell headed out to the Middle East, the president today issued a ringing denunciation of terrorism. He called not only on Yasser Arafat but the Arab nations and others to renounce and condemn terrorist actions and the actions of suicide bombers. He waxed eloquent, in fact, about the tragedy that this posed not only for the region, but for Palestinian people. Is Yasser Arafat prepared to, in fact, join the president in that denunciation of those he has to this point called martyrs to the cause?

HASAN RAHMAN, CHIEF REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED STATES, PALESTINIAN LIBERATION ORGANIZATION: We condemn terrorism, of course. We condemn Israeli terrorism against the Palestinians, because the only terrorism that the Palestinians are suffering today is at the hands of the Israeli army.

Remember that in the last 36 years, the Palestinian people have been subjected to a systematic terrorism by the Israelis. And in the last week, the whole world is outraged by this Israeli terrorism that is taking the lives of the Palestinian people. We have demonstrations all over the world denouncing Israeli violence against the Palestinians. So I'm glad that finally the president probably would join the international community in condemning Israeli terrorism.

KEYES: Well, I have a feeling, just a vague feeling that the president of the United States was referring to suicide bombers, going into public places during high holy days and blowing up innocent civilians, and that he was asking the Arab nations and Yasser Arafat to join him in denouncing those who are practicing and inspiring and inciting people to these terrorist tactics.

Now, is Yasser Arafat prepared to condemn actions that he has up to this point described as the actions of martyrs? Will he join the president, as President Bush has asked, and condemn these acts of terrorism by Palestinian suicide bombers directed against the Israelis? Simple question.

RAHMAN: Are you telling me the president of the United States supports Israeli terrorism against the Palestinian people and therefore he is not going to condemn it? Yasser Arafat has condemned terrorism. He's against it. We are opposed to it.

But you have to remember, there's a difference between terrorism and self-defense. Today, the Palestinian people are engaged in self-defense against a systematic war of terrorism conducted by the Israeli army against the Palestinian people.

We are opposed to any violence against civilians. But we hope that the president of the United States will join us and join the international community also to condemn this violence that is systematic overwhelming by one of the biggest armies in the world. That is the Israeli army directed exclusively against civilians. And I'm sure that, Mr. Keyes, you have been watching television to see how much violence has been inflicted on the Palestinian population.

KEYES: Well, what I've actually been watching, Mr. Rahman, for the last few minutes is I've been watching you fail to and refuse to answer my question.

RAHMAN: I did answer your question.

KEYES: I am asking a specific question.

RAHMAN: I said we condemn terrorism.

KEYES: Yasser Arafat has up until now — I'm asking for a condemnation of those individuals...

RAHMAN: We did.

KEYES: ... who have blown themselves up in order to take the lives of Israeli citizens. Do you condemn those suicide bombers?

RAHMAN: Sir, I said we are against any violence that is directed against civilians, whether they are Israeli civilians or Palestinian civilians. That's very clear position by us. My question is whether the president of the United States supports Israeli terrorism against the Palestinians. That's what you were implying.

KEYES: Mark Regev, the president called today for Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian territories, basically to cease Operation Defensive Shield. Are you anticipating that the Israeli government is going, in fact, to respond to the president's call and withdraw those forces?

REGEV: Alan, this operation started. And we said at the very beginning it was limited in scope and in time. And we said it was only going to last a few days, maybe a week, maybe a week-and-a-half. And we were going to wind it up anyway. We'll be doing so I believe shortly.

We want to finish what we started. We're doing important work. We're arrested a lot of gunmen, a lot of terrorists. We're confiscating weapons. From an intelligence point of view, there's a bonanza of information that we are collecting, and we are getting a lot of good information.

We'll finish the operation shortly. We'll pull out. And then we're going to give the peace process a chance. Hopefully by the time that Secretary Powell arrives in the region, we will have a stabilized situation, and hopefully the peace process can kick in, the Tenet plan can start the cease-fire.

But it only work — it can only work if Chairman Arafat gives serious orders to his own forces — to the Al Aqsa Brigades, to the Tanzim, to the Fatah. And, of course, he has to come down hard on the Islamic extremist groups to stop the terrorism.

All the American goodwill and the Israeli restraint won't make a cease-fire work unless Mr. Arafat wants it to. And, unfortunately, up until now, we know that Mr. Arafat has done precious little to stabilize the situation.

KEYES: Mr. Rahman, do you anticipate that Yasser Arafat will respond to, for instance, a cessation in Israeli withdrawal by calling off the Al Aqsa, the Hamas, others who have been directing this kind of violence against Israeli civilians and others? Is that going to follow? He did say today that he accepted the president's statement without conditions. What did that mean?

RAHMAN: It means that we welcome President Bush's initiative for halting Israeli attacks against the Palestinians, the withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Palestinian towns and villages. And then we move for the implementation of the Tenet understandings and the Mitchell recommendations and work towards ending Israeli illegal military occupation on the Palestinian territories and the establishment of independent Palestinian state next to Israel living in peace with Israel.

That is what the president of the United States said today. And we are ready to go along and work with the president and with Mr. Colin Powell to implement what President Bush has called for. But, first of all, he said Israel must halt its aggression against the Palestinians and withdraw its Army from the Palestinian villages and towns. So the question is...

KEYES: No, Mr. Rahman, please excuse me. But I still haven't heard an answer to the specific question. When I ask Mr. Regev what the Israeli response would be, he said limited operation, we'll be out in a few days, we'll then cooperate with the peace process. He said that he hoped Mr. Arafat would be calling off those elements of the Palestinian organization that have been conducting terrorist activities and violent activities against Israeli civilians.

And I asked you a simple question. Al Aqsa, Hamas, these other elements that have been conducting these operations, will Mr. Arafat call them off? Will he tell them to stop their violent activities? Yes or no?

RAHMAN: Allow me, but you took the response of Mr. Regev as a fact. There is a lie there. It is not limited in scope. And it is very extensive. And I don't know how not allowing the Palestinian people burying their dead, how looting Palestinian homes by the Israeli soldiers, how imposing curfew on the Palestinian people, all of them, 3.5 million...

KEYES: Mr. Rahman...

RAHMAN: ... let me finish, 3.5 million...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: We have a limited time. Let's get the response.

REGEV: May I please respond?

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Go ahead.

REGEV: This stuff about that Mr. Rahman says it's just simply not true. This is a surgical operation. We've made a maximum effort to avoid civilian casualties. Most of the people being killed are in fact gunmen. They are armed Palestinian gunmen terrorists, members of gangs.

And the truth is we wouldn't be there in the first place if these areas under Arafat's control hadn't been turned into safe houses for terrorists. If the Hezbollah and the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad weren't allowed to function freely from these areas, launching suicide bombs, we wouldn't be there in the first place.

RAHMAN: But the Palestinian people...

REGEV: If Arafat had done his job, we wouldn't be there in the first place.

RAHMAN: ... the Palestinian people say...

(CROSSTALK)

RAHMAN: ... they are armed and engaged with the Palestinians. And we are fighting Israeli terrorism.

KEYES: Let Mr. Rahman have a word here.

RAHMAN: We are saying the same thing. We are saying that the Israeli army is engaged in terrorism against the Palestinians.

REGEV: We are not. We don't target citizens. We do not target civilians.

RAHMAN: The 1,500 Palestinians that you killed, 90 percent of them are civilians.

REGEV: That's rubbish. There were 200 suicide bombers. And they were not civilians. They were gunmen.

RAHMAN: Five hundred of them are children.

REGEV: That's not true.

RAHMAN: You know that.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: We are coming to the end of our time. I have to tell you, I'm listening to this discussion, a couple of things are problematic for me. But, Mr. Rahman, I have to say it clearly. I think part of the problem in dealing with this situation is what I felt from you this evening. And I'll be clear about it, because I like to be clear about it.

RAHMAN: Why?

KEYES: I asked you a couple of direct questions...

RAHMAN: And I answered...

KEYES: ... and I didn't get a single direct answer. You are not willing to simply declare that these martyrs are not martyrs at all, but that they are terrorists who ought to stop their activities. You have not simply declared that in response to an Israeli withdrawal Mr. Arafat will call off the forces of violence.

RAHMAN: I said that.

KEYES: Simply, yes or no, will he do that? Will he do that?

RAHMAN: Let me repeat what I said to you. First of all, I'm saying there is a difference between terrorism and resistance to foreign occupation.

REGEV: Suicide bombing will always be terrorism. Suicide bombing will always be terrorism. There's no excuses for it, Rahman. No excuses. If you go into a pizza parlor and explode your bomb...

RAHMAN: Listen...

REGEV: ... It's a despicable, murderous act. It shouldn't happen. And you're justifying that, and you're saying it's resistance. It's not resistance.

RAHMAN: No...

REGEV: It's murder. You're murdering the people around me, my neighbors, my family.

RAHMAN: I did not hear you condemning the Israeli army for killing civilians.

REGEV: But we don't kill civilians. It's a myth.

RAHMAN: Listen, are you saying to the whole world that you did not kill civilians?

KEYES: Gentlemen, excuse me...

RAHMAN: ... that the woman who was killed yesterday was not a civilian?

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: ... I want to thank you both for joining us tonight. Hold on. I want to thank you both for joining us tonight. As it is my prerogative, I will get the last word in this segment. And the last word is quite simple. Regardless, I know you feel strongly, Mr. Rahman, about what the Israelis have done. I think that the president came out today, called on them to stop their activities. From what Mr. Regev is saying, we will see a time when they will withdraw those forces at the end of this operation.

And what I'm wondering, based on what you have said is, with all the excuses and semantics you've thrown out here, does that mean that Mr. Arafat will simply continue to believe he can hurl these forces of violence into battle whenever he chooses and that there is, in fact, no reciprocity? That's a problem. And I'm not going to sit here and pretend that we all didn't see that problem this evening, because we did.

I want to thank you for joining me, though. Really appreciate your coming.

Next, we're going to continue this discussion, get to the heart of the matter about the hard realities that I think are facing Colin Powell on this trip. We're going to ask these questions. Did the president's trip today adequately — or the president's statement, rather — adequately address the needs, the underlying needs, of Israeli security? Are we really going to see an end to these attacks against Israeli civilians?

Did the president's statement address the underlying culture of violence that produces the suicide bombers? After all, they didn't just happen. In the schools and in other respects, education has formed whole generations of Palestinians to believe that that violence is, in fact, hollowed martyrdom. Is that going to change overnight?

And can any of the desired outcomes be achieved without a real change in Palestinian leadership the stubborn adherence to the belief that violence is somehow a legitimate tool, even when employed against the innocent? I think we saw it just now. And I think it's a huge obstacle to the idea that this process can end in a real cessation of hostilities. But we'll talk about that.

Plus, we'll have our open line segment. You can call me at 1-866-KEYES-USA, 1-866-KEYES-USA with whatever is on your mind.

But first, do you think this makes sense? There is a Minnesota newspaper that has basically said that they are not going to call the suicide bombers terrorists because they don't want to take sides. So they go in. They use bombs to blow up innocent civilians. But that use of force against the innocent to achieve your political goals, they're not going to call that terrorism. Well, if it's not terrorism, then I guess what Osama bin Laden did to us wasn't terrorism either because he said it was for a cause, too. Does this make sense?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No nation can negotiate with terrorists for there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEYES: That was President Bush from earlier today. Coming up in our next half hour, we're going to talk about whether President Bush's reluctance to label Yasser Arafat a terrorist is, in fact, muddying the American understanding and definition of terrorism.

Meanwhile, though, the chat room is humming tonight. You can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com. We're going to get back to the president's statement now and try to get to the heart of the matter with our two guests tonight.

Joining us, Raghida Dergham, senior diplomatic correspondent for “Al Hayat,” a daily Arabic newspaper. We also have an old friend of the program Frank Gaffney, the president of the Center for Security Policy and a former assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration.

Frank, I want to address my first thoughts and question to you tonight. And thank you both for joining me.

RAGHIDA DERGHAM, SENIOR DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENT, “AL HAYAT”: Thank you.

KEYES: Because as I watch the events of the day, listened to the statement, I think one of the problems that often accompanies this kind of diplomatic action is folks feel pressured into doing something, but it's not clear that the realities of the situation are really susceptible to much action. And part of the problem, I think, that we're faced with is nothing in the president's statement — the words sounded pretty good — but in reality, addressed the serious security concern that led to this whole mess in the first place on the part of Israel, stopping attacks against innocent Israeli civilians. What will Colin Powell have to offer to Israel in terms of a structure, a result that can really assure against that kind of attack?

FRANK GAFFNEY, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: It's not clear to me, Alan. And I'm not sure that it's clear to Colin Powell. I think what the president laid out in much of the rhetoric of the speech was very sound. The clip that you just played a moment ago, he said very explicitly, you cannot — nations cannot negotiate with terrorists who are committed to the sort of code of death.

This is the fundamental problem that I'm afraid Colin Powell confronts as he's being asked to go restart negotiations between Israel and Yasser Arafat, a man who, I think, fits that profile perfectly. The problem at the end of the day is he has committed to this business of martyrdom and the destruction of the state of Israel as the other terrorists in the Palestinian-controlled areas. And I think the only thing that Colin Powell can wind up doing is legitimating Arafat, sort of rehabilitating him, bringing him back into a so-called peace process when he really shouldn't be eligible for that, according to the president's own language.

KEYES: I think it poses a real difficulty. Raghida Dergham, I have to tell you, I just got through, as you saw, an interview and exchange that included the chief Palestinian representative in the United States. I found it a little unsettling that when you put a direct question to him, “Will you call on the Hamas and the other elements that are practicing violence, will you tell them to stop?” I really didn't get a straight answer. Do you think we'll get a straighter answer from Yasser Arafat?

DERGHAM: I hope you don't mind me being very blunt with you now that you asked my opinion about that interview. I really think you're missing the whole point of the speech. I think the president's speech was a very important coherent policy. It's not against Israel, and it's not pro-Arab. It is in the national interest of the United States, which is to have a peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine.

What the president told us is that he believes in a two-state solution. He defined the outline for such a solution. He spoke the necessity to end settlements, end occupation, and have a Palestinian state viable politically and economically to live side by side with a secure Israel.

Now, I don't see why you like to bury this part of the equation. He asked to hold incursions of the Israelis and the cities that are reoccupied by the Israelis recently. And he really drew a very clear course for Mr. Powell when he goes to the region first by implementing the last resolution of the Security Council, which by the way tonight was again reconfirmed, calling on a cease-fire and asking the pullout from the cities.

And up until now, when the president spoke and the Security Council unanimously voted for resolution, Israel is still out of the consensus. It's still resisting it. And I think this is what we really need to look at.

KEYES: Raghida, I have to tell you...

GAFFNEY: The reason for that is fairly clear.

KEYES: ... listening to you and listening to — wait a minute — listening to the chief PLO spokesman, I think you're out of consensus because you're forgetting one part of what the president said clearly. He called on the Arab nations and Yasser Arafat and those around them to denounce and renounce this violence and to call on those who are going out and suicide — committing suicide and killing people to stop.

Will we get that clear demand from Yasser Arafat to Hamas and Al Aqsa and these other violent elements? Will he tell them to stop?

DERGHAM: I think he will. You just have to see. Alan, I think you have to really look at what's happening right now. There is a reoccupation. President Arafat is still under siege. Mr. Sharon, the prime minister of Israel, is still defying not only the international world, but the very will of the United States, which is his best friend and ally.

So, when you say this is going to be a quick operation, let us finish it, and we'll see that later, this operation includes violation of human rights. It includes killing civilians. And I want to be clear. I myself, I'm nobody's representative. I think targeting civilians by any party is terrorism. That's as far as I'm concerned. And I think the president...

GAFFNEY: That's not Arafat's view, though. That's not Arafat's view.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Just a second, Raghida. Let Frank have a word. Go ahead, Frank.

GAFFNEY: Al Aqsa, the president referred to in his speech as part and parcel of the terrorism that must be condemned, must be renounced, work for Yasser Arafat. They're part of several groups, the Fatah and Tanzim, for example, who have also taken credit for terrorism.

And what Raghida says is all well and good. But at the end of the day, we have in Israel a country like the United States in most respects that is under assault of a kind that we could not stand. We experienced it in a small form in terms of our population and their population, relatively small form on September 11. They're experiencing it every single day.

And the president, I think what we're hearing is sort of the Palestinian spokespeople talking about the parts of the speech that they liked. There are other parts that they don't like that they don't want to pay attention to. But I'm afraid that what the president really means is this terrorism must stop. And what the president is allowing to happen is a...

DERGHAM: Can I come in, Alan?

KEYES: I want to ask a question.

GAFFNEY: ... rehabilitation through Colin Powell of the man who is in no small measure responsible for the terrorism. And that's Yasser Arafat.

DERGHAM: Can I come in, Alan?

KEYES: Talking about what the president said, though, just focusing on this for a minute, one of the difficulties I see is that he speaks as if the suicide bombers and the whole business were episodic, that they were simply episode measures that were taken in this context. Aren't we actually seeing a result of a culture of violence that's been spread in the schools? Is it going to be...

(CROSSTALK)

GAFFNEY: ... Yasser Arafat.

KEYES: But I'm saying is it going to be that easy to reverse that process among Palestinians that created these suicide bombers in the first place?

DERGHAM: Alan, I really think...

GAFFNEY: It won't be under the present leadership, Alan. That's the problem. You cannot do it under a leadership that calls these people martyrs, that rewards the families who allow their children to be killed, that encourages the children through uses of maps and other techniques to go be martyrs themselves.

DERGHAM: Alan...

GAFFNEY: This is the heart of the problem.

(CROSSTALK)

DERGHAM: Can I come in, Alan?

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Frank, let Raghida respond. Go ahead.

DERGHAM: Alan, I really object to your views of this culture of violence, associating it with the Palestinians only. It really is a very lopsided view. I understand if Mr. Gaffney takes that view. But I'm surprised — calling it a culture violence as if these people are born with brown skin to be just raised for a culture of violence.

GAFFNEY: They're being indoctrinated. That's the point.

DERGHAM: Can I please finish? I really don't like shouting and speaking on top of each other.

KEYES: Go ahead. Go ahead.

GAFFNEY: My point is, sir, that there is a culture of occupation. That is what's ugly. And it is very important to really not miss the forest for the tree here. Why are we talking about the past and what is this all about and Arafat?

And we have the president of the United States coming in to tell us we have a vision for American intervention in the area in the American interest in the region, in the interest of both Israel and the Palestinians. And really, I don't see what's wrong with us if we support the president when he comes out and he says, “I'm going to be balanced. I'm going to press both to do something.”

I, in fact, think Mr. Powell should do exactly what Mr. James Baker did a decade ago, to go in with a proposal...

KEYES: If I may respond...

DERGHAM: ... just to go with a proposal...

KEYES: ... one second, one second. Please, I have a word, if I may respond. First of all, I am simply tonight trying to explore what realistic basis there is. Words are fine. I have articulated on many occasions a vision much like what the president presented, two states and so forth. I don't think he's thought it through enough, though.

DERGHAM: Yes, it's clear.

KEYES: Let me finish, please. I let you talk. The West Bank and Gaza are not viable states. They're not going to have viable economic and political bases. That's not realistic. And he will have to realize that at some point, so leave that aside.

DERGHAM: So, what's your solution, Alan?

KEYES: The one — let me finish, please. The one I've been examining tonight, and you object to the word culture. Culture precisely means you're not born with it. It means that somebody taught it to you. It means that somebody took great pains to turn your mind in that direction.

And you may deny it if you like, but I know for a fact that in schools where young Palestinians are taught, they have been taught to hate. They have been taught to believe — we saw on American television a young girl who was asked what she would do when she grew up, she was going to grow up to be a suicide bomber and go amongst the Israelis and blow them up and blow them up and blow them up. That's not something that can be erased by a presidential speech or even a Yasser Arafat denunciation. That culture has to be reversed.

DERGHAM: I have two things to say to you.

KEYES: It has to be reversed under a leadership still committed to it.

DERGHAM: I have to say two things to you. I think you should also recognize what happens as a product of occupation and humiliation. I think you should also recognize there's been a terrible violation of human rights of the Palestinians as well, and I say as well.

Now, the point that you don't want the state, a viable state, in the West Bank and Gaza, I don't see what's your solution because a one-state solution would be perfect. But Israel cannot be...

KEYES: No, it's not. It's not a one-state solution. I have...

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: I'm up against the end of time. I appreciate both of you coming with us tonight and sharing your ideas.

DERGHAM: You have to tell me your idea later.

KEYES: We got a little farther in this exchange than we did in the first go around. So, I hope that that's a portent for the future that Colin Powell may face. But I think we still have the underlying problem left in front of us, part of which, my friends, we're going to continue to talk about in the course of this program. Thank you both.

Next, we're going to be dealing with the question of whether America's position on terrorism has lost some of its clarity as a result of these responses to the situation in the Middle East.

And later, we'll get to what's on your mind on any topic at all that's on your mind.

You can call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA, 1-866-KEYES-USA.

You're watching MSNBC, the best news on cable.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Welcome back to MAKING SENSE. I'm Alan Keyes.

Like a lot of Americans, I've been listening to the to-ing and fro-ing on the Middle East, and to President Bush's statements, and to the hemming and hawing about, well, is Arafat a terrorist? Isn't he a terrorist?

We condemn Iraq and Syria roundly because they support suicide bombers that Yasser Arafat is manipulating and exploiting and supporting and encouraging.

And yet we won't call him a terrorist. Now why is that? It's because, Secretary Powell has told us, he is part of the peace process. And therefore, we can't call him a terrorist, because he's part of the peace process.

Well, he's using terrorism to try to manipulate and abuse that process. At least that's possible.

And that means that he's not a terrorist, because he's using terrorists for some purpose that he hopes to achieve?

Well if that's going to be the case, that if you do it in the context of some purpose. And if that purpose, say, has to do with going against Israel, and fighting to stop Israel from killing Palestinians?

Well, I want you to listen to what Osama bin Laden said about why 9/11 happened.

He said, “Our terrorism is against America. Our terrorism is a blessed terrorism to prevent the unjust person from committing injustice, and to stop American support for Israel, which kills our sons.”

That's what he said.

Now, as I recall, we didn't find that a very convincing justification for his use of force to destroy the lives of thousands of innocent Americans.

Will somebody tell me why that same argument suddenly becomes a justification for the use of force and violence, when it's Israeli people who are being killed?

I thought we announced to the world that everybody of decent conscience had to react against terrorism. Well, if everybody has to react against it when it's directed against us, surely that same principle ought to apply when it's directed others.

And the people who exploit it and take advantage of it, and benefit from it politically and encourage and identify with it as martyrs, aren't they terrorists?

This causes a serious problem now that Colin Powell is going out to talk to Yasser Arafat, who distinctly has all the characteristics required for terrorism, except a willingness on our part to call him such.

What consequences will this kind of confusion have for our larger war on terrorism, and for the kind of coherence and cohesion and consistency of conscience we need?

Joining us now, two terrorism experts - Yonah Alexander, the Director of the Washington-based Terrorism Study Center, and Steven Emerson, MSNBC analyst and author of the book, “American Jihad.”

Welcome to MAKING SENSE.

Steven Emerson, do you think that there is in fact a problem here? Does it have implications for our larger effort against terrorism or not?

STEVEN EMERSON, MSNBC ANALYST, AUTHOR, TERRORISM EXPERT: Alan, I must tell you that today I've made some - a metamorphosis in my thinking, because when I first heard the President's speech, for the first few hours I thought that his focus on the issue of Arafat support for terrorism, on the issue of Islamic support - Islamic militancy and fundamentalist support for hatred of Israel, he was sending a very strong message about terrorist financing.

But then, over the day, as I've listened to more debates and focused more on the speech, I must tell you that I think that there is a disconnect between what he said and some of the policy recommendations.

For example, we didn't put a limitation on our troops when we went into Afghanistan to eradicate the bin Laden infrastructure.

He's putting a time limit on the Israelis right now. And I think that sends a message which was obviously seen by the previous guest, a woman who works for al Hayafa (ph), who's been really a very strong proponent of Palestinian views.

And what she said, the President's speech was right, because he called upon the Israelis to withdraw, and he called upon to stop cessation of all settlements.

The fact that they could perceive and extract that as the only message means that he has confused people about what the ultimate lesson should be from his speech.

KEYES: Yonah Alexander, do you see a problem here? I think that we are sending a message, that some people can practice terrorism in the context of a diplomatic process and basically get away with it. Isn't that a problem?

YONAH ALEXANDER, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR TERRORISM STUDIES, POTOMAC INSTITUTE: It is a problem. I think you're correct, and also Steve Emerson, the ambiguity of the statement.

Of course, the President should be commended for his leadership on the war against terrorism. There are no good terrorists, bad terrorists. Terrorism is terrorism. And this is the right message.

The problem is this. From the strategic point of view, I think the United States is taking the right steps and the right decisions. From the technical point of view, it seems to me, it sends the wrong message.

In other words, the truth is one, but people call it by different names.

And the question is, what are the answer (ph) you're talking about? To the Palestinians, it is the success of terrorism. It is attractive. It is effective. It works, because it does force the United States to send the Secretary of State to the region.

And, of course, the United States has been very active, very intensively active in the Middle East, I mean, with George Tenet and George Mitchell, General Zinni. And even the Vice President went to the Middle East. He was willing to meet with Arafat.

So, I think from the Palestinian point of view, this is their success.

And clearly from the victimization point of view, those potential victims of terrorism, it really is quite confusing. We cannot have double standards, for example. We have to be very credible about our mission.

And I believe that we ...

KEYES: Well, but ...

ALEXANDER: I'm sorry. Go ahead.

KEYES: No, I was just going to say, but it seems to me that in a way we have already established a double standard.

And that double standard is one that has excluded Yasser Arafat from the rubric of terrorism, that has basically given him a number of advantages - results, if you like - from this war of terrorism that he has conducted, including, as you point out, the re-engagement, if you like, pretty much on his terms, of the U.S. government.

But doesn't that send a signal that under certain circumstances, this resolve we have against terrorism isn't so great.

And one of the problems I have - and maybe Mr. Emerson, you can help me with this - I look at that and I say, well if other countries find themselves in similar circumstances, won't that mean that their resolve against terrorism will be muddled by their diplomatic judgments, and we won't get the kind of cooperation we need against Iraq and other places where they see similar kinds of complications.

Doesn't that pose a problem for us?

ALEXANDER: Absolutely. And the bottom line, Alan, is whose ox is being gored and whose blood is being shed?

Because, we have to understand that terrorism against one is terrorism against all. No buts, no ifs, no ayes (ph). And therefore, I think we have to communicate the message that it's not a question, what level of U.S. delegation or emissaries are going to the region.

It is really the fundamental fact that the Palestinians are actually looking at this situation differently than the Israelis and the others. And it really means that we don't learn from history.

In other words, we learn from ...

EMERSON: Alan, let me add something to Dr. Alexander's comments.

I think, unfortunately, since 1993, we have constantly, you know, pushed the marker back. Every single time Yasser Arafat violated the terms of Oslo and empowered terrorists to carry out its acts, he had sponsored them himself or allowed Hamas and Jihad.

The President of the United States in the previous administration definitely said, well, we're going to ignore it, turn the other cheek. We're going to keep allowing him to be part of the process.

And he learned throughout these last eight years that he could get away with murder.

Now, I think that right now the opportunity is for the President to lay down the markers in a concrete way.

In other words, he has said, no more suicide bombing. No more support for terrorism. No more incitement in the Palestinian media. No more terrorist financing.

OK. These are clear visions. Now the question is putting them into action.

Clearly, we can measure whether the Israelis withdraw or not. That's a clearly defined marker.

Will the President definitely put the same markers on all of these other objectives, which he enunciated very ...

KEYES: Didn't we hear him state ...

EMERSON: ... articulate.

KEYES: Didn't we hear, though, and it's one of the reasons I pressed so hard in earlier segments.

Because with the PLO representative who was in the first segment, I got the sense that he was reading this in such a way that there wasn't a big burden on Arafat to come out and denounce and to take steps to curtail this violence, and so forth.

I mean, don't we have to insist that actions be taken? Otherwise, what kind of security are we offering to the Israelis?

It doesn't seem very balanced to me if they withdraw, but Arafat does not have to, in fact, take steps to prevent further violence against them.

EMERSON: You're 100 percent right. Look, if he doesn't collect weapons demonstrably in front of cameras and denounce terrorism and start arresting those that have carried out attacks, and really dismantle the infrastructure, then everything that the President has suggested is really part of Alice in Wonderland.

It won't work. It'll be relegated to the same Clintonian speeches that talked about a great vision in the Middle East, of Arafat getting along with Peres and Rabin, and it didn't work, because Arafat wasn't interested in laying down the weapons.

So the question right now is, will the President - who I think really is sincerely - sincerely believes in his heart of hearts that Arafat is a terrorist. I really believe that.

He hasn't said it. He won't say it because of diplomatic objectives and diplomatic constraints. But the bottom line is, he can make the reality come into fruition by demanding that these benchmarks be adhered to.

KEYES: Well, we will see. I think that's exactly right, that the only way, in fact, that the speech given today has real substance is if that kind of hard and fast requirement is placed over the process, and one sees what the response is.

And if it doesn't measure up, it seems to me, that's the point to declare definitively that those who are refusing to give up terrorism as an instrument must be excluded from the process.

We'll see, in fact, if the United States has the grit to take that position and apply it consistently. Because if we do, I think we might be able to see some real progress.

Thank you both. Really appreciate your coming with us tonight.

Next, I want to hear what's on your mind. Call us at 1-866-KEYES-USA, 1-866-KEYES-USA.

And later, my outrage of the day. Never occurred to you, did it, that child molestation was good for kids.

Well, a book is out published by a university in this country saying just that. You think about it.

We'll be back with more.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Now let's hear what's on your mind.

We're going to go first to Thomas in Pennsylvania. Welcome to MAKING SENSE.

THOMAS, PENNSYLVANIA: Thank you. My comment has to do with terrorism.

al Qaeda is a true terrorist organization, because they are using violence to make, or try to make, an intangible thought real, which will never happen.

Palestinians simply want to live as a free people on their own land, so they're using violence.

The Israelis blew up British soldiers and innocent civilians to live freely on their own land, as well.

KEYES: Actually, you know, that's a statement that's made about the Israeli so-called terrorism, and all that. But they directed their activities against the British military.

THOMAS, PENNSYLVANIA: Yeah, they also blew up a hotel.

KEYES: And (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the attack on the famous hotel, and so forth. No. The hotel was at the time the headquarters of the British military. So don't let's try to give a lot of disingenuous nonsense to the public.

The terrorism doesn't consist in what your objective is. Whatever your objective, if you consciously target innocent civilians in order to achieve fear and intimidation in the name of that objective, you're a terrorist.

And the notion that what you're pursuing excuses you if you're slaughtering innocent people, is evil itself, I've got to tell you.

Let's go to Susan in Illinois. Susan, welcome ...

SUSAN, ILLINOIS: Hello, ...

KEYES: ... to MAKING SENSE.

SUSAN, ILLINOIS: ... hello, Alan? My comment is, given the definition of terrorism, all acts of terrorizing innocent people, why does Israel and the U.S. choose to ignore Israeli terrorism toward Palestinians?

Israel has terrorized Palestinians for many years, other than the King David Hotel massacre.

There's Sabra and Shatila massacre. There is the massacre of Kafr Kassem. There is the massacre of Qibya. And there is the massacre of Deir Yassin.

They have terrorized Palestinians for many years, and they have been fighting for their freedom.

You keep comparing Palestinians to Osama bin Laden. First of all, America was not occupying Afghanistan. America was not killing Afghanistani people and depriving them of their freedom and independence.

Israel has deprived Palestinians for years of their freedom and independence.

Also, you're saying that Palestinian schools ...

KEYES: But, see, you're doing it again, ma'am.

SUSAN, ILLINOIS: ... are teaching - no. You're saying ...

KEYES: I'm going to have to, ...

SUSAN, ILLINOIS: ... Palestinian children ...

KEYES: ... I'm going to have to stop you.

SUSAN, ILLINOIS: ... are learning ...

KEYES: Because you're doing it again.

SUSAN, ILLINOIS: ... hatred in their schools. I ...

KEYES: And you're doing something that I'm afraid is unacceptable.

Terrorism isn't about your objective. It doesn't matter whether your objective is good, bad or indifferent. If you are consciously killing innocents in order to achieve it, you're a terrorist.

And yes, I believe that applies to governments. I even characterize the strategy we pursued in Bosnia, where we were directing our force to intimidate the civilian population to overthrow Milosevic, I called that a terrorist policy, because it satisfied the same principle.

So, yes. If governments do it, they should be condemned for it. And if you can show me a case in which Israel did it, that would be the case, as well.

And I wouldn't stop and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) at condemning it. But it is not the case, as a general rule. And when they find that kind of activity, they actually punish the people responsible for it.

Thanks for your feedback. Really appreciate it.

Next, my outrage of the day. And an outrage it is, too. One of those outrageous ideas that seeks to justify - can you believe it - child molestation as good for your kids?

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Now, for my outrage of the day - a new book, “Harmful To Minors: The Perils of Protecting From Sex.”

Many publishers rejected the manuscript until the University of Minnesota Press accepted it.

The author, Judith Levine, says that children are often deprived of realistic advice about sex, and that the taboos that prevent adults and children - well, you get the idea - that those taboos somehow deprive children of loving relationships, where they could learn the true meaning of sexual fulfillment.

So child molestation is good for you?

So outrageous, I wish no publisher had ever touched it, but certainly, nobody else should.

That's MY SENSE of it. Thank you for being with us tonight