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

We're expecting some breaking events at the Church of the Nativity with the likelihood that we're going to see, finally, action on the resolution of the standoff at the Church of the Nativity.

Tonight on the program, up front we'll be talking about whether it is fair in the context of the recent terrorist bombing, the Israeli response, the likely reactions, we'll be dealing with the question of whether it is fair to pursue negotiations without a cease-fire on both sides.

We know that tonight Israeli attacks are massing on the edge of Gaza as reserve soldiers are rushed to the front. All signs are that Israel will launch a major attack on Gaza by the weekend. That was the source, as you know, of the latest terrorist attack that claimed so many Israeli lives.

Today, the Israeli cabinet gave the Army the green light to respond to Tuesday's suicide bombing, which killed 15 Israelis. Already, Prime Minister Sharon is hearing rumblings from his Arab neighbors. Egypt warned today against military action in the Gaza Strip.

Egyptian sources said that Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher also telephoned Secretary of State Colin Powell and told him that any incursion into Gaza would be very dangerous. The sources said Maher told Powell such a move would be a serious setback to efforts to resume peace talks.

Obviously, that kind of reaction suggests that Israel is going to come under pressure. It's already under pressure. Don't respond. You were hit, people died, but you shouldn't move in respond to that act of violence.

Yet at the same time, we continue to hear voices that suggest that somehow or another on the Palestinian side, it's not really possible to put an end to violence, that occupation necessarily leads to frustrations and passions that must be expressed in terms of this kind of violence. Something like that we saw expressed yesterday at a luncheon at that the “Washington Times” sponsored with envoys from several Arab countries.

Describing their discussion, the “Times” said, quote: “Envoys from the PLO, Egypt, and three other Arab countries said yesterday they were open to a Bush administration proposal to reorganize Palestinian security services, but warned that unless Israeli occupation ended, suicide bombings were likely to continue.”

The Lebanese ambassador on the panel said: “Violence is resulting from the political situation, not the reverse.”

But the question is, if you start to give the priority to the political situation and say, “Well, the violence won't end until the political situation has ended,” don't you face yourself with a problem that in some ways you have to have the result of the negotiation while the violence is still going on? Can you really have meaningful negotiations without a cease-fire?

Consider also what a bureau chief for an Arab newspaper said on this program two days ago. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The way to end the violence is to end the occupation. Simple, period.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEYES: The way to end the violence is to end the occupation. Simple, period. That's it.

Well, think about this. Step back from the situation for a moment and reflect on what that kind of a stance on the part of the Palestinians and the Arabs actually means. We're confronted with folks who are telling the world, and in particular telling the Israelis, that they should sit down, conduct negotiations that will produce an end to Israeli possession of the West Bank.

And yet they're saying that while those talks go on, because of Israel's presence in those territories, the violence is going to continue. Suicide bombings and terrorism are going to continue.

I have heard folks on this program suggest that people who are under, quote, “occupation,” unquote, as they see it, are just naturally going to be expressing their anger and their resentment and their frustration in these acts of violence, and that they can't be expected to stop. We've had others who make to clear that Yasser Arafat, even if he has the will, isn't really able to contain the overwhelming need or whatever of people to go and express their anger and frustration in these acts of violence.

So, on the Palestinian side, we get this impression that, yes, we have to have talks. But there's just this irrepressible violence that arises from the situation, and Israel has to expect that and has to take the consequences while we talk.

But what I'd like you to reflect on for a moment is what that actually means for a negotiating situation. Imagine yourself, you're sitting across the table from folks you're trying to negotiate with. And you're in a situation where when they say no to you, everybody expects that, well, maybe that will be need for further thought. Maybe everybody should go home and sleep on it, and we'll get back to the table tomorrow morning and we'll go on with the discussion. That's what happens when they say no to you.

But when you don't give them what they want, then they're going to send somebody out. And there's going to be a loss of life on your side. Your children and your adolescents and your young people get blown up in some suicide bombing at a nightclub, or families will be killed by marauders coming through the house to kill the 5-year-olds.

Don't you think there's something slightly imbalanced about that situation? I hear all this talk of even-handed diplomacy. And yet if we're in a situation where the Palestinians get to keep killing people but Israel is expected to restrain its hand, that there should be no response, that situation then creates a negotiation that is anything but even-handed. It creates a negotiation in which the weight of violence and grief and conflict falls all on one side, where you have to endure the consequences of the violence brought against you but you can't respond with any violence against your interlocutor.

And so when you sit at the negotiating table, you're under the gun, but they are free of that gun. Does that make sense?

It doesn't make sense to me. It seems that situation is inherently unfair to Israel. And yet, think about it. That's precisely the situation some folks are trying to set up here where you have a continuation of terrorist violence but a constant chorus saying Israel should not respond, and when it responds it is doing something illegitimate, something wrong, something atrocious, something terrible, something that interferes with the peace process.

So, I get it. When the Palestinians go out with suicide bombs and other things and kill innocent civilians and blow up nightclubs and blow up religious observances, that's just part of the process. Why don't I understand that?

But when Israelis respond to that with military action, that interferes with the process. That's going to call the whole thing to a halt. How can this be?

I think that all those folks who talk of even-handed diplomacy ought to realize that for the situation to be truly even-handed, if we want negotiations to take place in an environment of true even-handed equality, then the violence has to stop on both sides.

And I know some people have said, “Well, the Palestinians can't do that.” Well, if the Palestinians can't do that, my friends, they can make peace.

We do understand, don't we, that peace means that you stop violence, that you stop going after people you consider your enemy to kill them? If, in order for the negotiations to take place, you can't get your folks to down their arms and stop the killing, why on earth should anybody believe that when a peace agreement is signed you can get people to down their arms and stop killing, especially if there are grievances still left on the table, as there surely will be, in the complex situation — in such a complex situation as the Middle East.

This is the problem. And we're going to get to that problem on this program. That is the “Heart of the Matter.” We're going to talk about this issue of whether negotiating under fire is fair or foul.

We'll hear more on it from Raghida Dergham, the representative from the “Al-Hayat” newspaper, and from Israeli embassy spokesperson Mark Regev. You're watching America's news channel, MSNBC.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Coming up in the next half hour, the Bush administration is going to great lengths to placate the Arabs before going after Saddam Hussein. But does America really need the Arab OK to do this? A former Bush administration defense official says no. We'll talk about that in our next half hour.

A reminder that the chat room is humming tonight. And you can join in right now at chat.msnbc.com.

But first, let's get back to the Middle East, and the question on the table tonight, whether it is fair — fair, mind you — to conduct negotiations without a cease-fire on both sides, that is to say without a situation in which during the course of the negotiations both sides have stopped any kind of violence against the other.

Joining us to get to the “Heart of the Matter,” Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli embassy in Washington, and Raghida Dergham, senior diplomatic correspondent for “Al-Hayat” newspaper, a daily Arabic newspaper.

Welcome back to MAKING SENSE, both of you. Appreciate you coming on tonight.

Raghida, let me start with you because I think what I'm partly raising is just kind of common sense. And I look at the way that other negotiations in the past have proceeded.

And even when you've had shooting wars and things of this kind, when you get serious about the business of stopping and negotiating a peace, first thing you do is agree on a cease-fire. Everybody is going to stop the killing while we talk, because if it goes on, whichever side is getting killed is under unfair pressure. Don't we have to see the same kind of balanced mutual retreat from violence in this present situation?

RAGHIDA DERGHAM, “AL-HAYAT” NEWSPAPER: Mutual, indeed. And the idea is to have a commitment to negotiations so that you can get out of the status quo and you can really have a solution, a peaceful settlement, if the choice is, in fact, by both parties for a peaceful settlement. In that case, you cannot be run by the fact that there is somebody who defied the cease-fire, particularly in this case. There are so many players.

And, in fact, the commitment to negotiations should not be boxed and imprisoned, let's say, by what Mr. Sharon is saying. We need a cease-fire for seven days, if you remember that — or 10 days, or what have you — then we will see if we talk politics.

And I want to say one other thing because I have been listening to you, Alan, for the last 10 minutes. I am quite baffled by why you cannot grasp the occupation concept. I mean, you live in a country that says freedom is the very premise of what the people need and deserve. And it is justice, as you said, what's fair.

What's fair is to have a people decide what it does. People under occupation, they cannot decide what they can do. They cannot run their lives. They cannot — it is somebody else telling them how to run their lives. And it is very — it's the enemy doing that, if you will.

That is where the problem with occupation is. Yitzhak Rabin, late prime minister of Israel, understood that. He said for Israel to be a democratic state, it will have to be one man, one vote. And it cannot afford that because it's also to be a Jewish state. But to remain an occupier...

KEYES: Raghida...

DERGHAM: ... just let me finish what he said, if I may, whatever he said, Rabin said. But to remain an occupier is an ugly situation to be in.

KEYES: Raghida, the problem — nobody disputes this. I have often stated my belief that Israel cannot, in my opinion, rationally hold on to the West Bank without endangering its own future. It's not just a question of the Palestinians. So there's no disagreement there.

The problem here is one of looking at a situation where there has been violence going on, killing and so forth and so on. If one is seriously going to talk about how to get to the end result, which is an Israeli withdrawal from the territories that it has held as a result of the '67 war, the final territories it holds on to, Palestinian state established where there's real self-government for the Palestinian people, those are the issues at stake in the discussion.

DERGHAM: Yes...

KEYES: To ask — let me finish. To ask that those issues be resolved before the killing will stop strikes me as an effort to get what you want while leaving the other person under the gun of your violence.

DERGHAM: I don't...

KEYES: And I don't see that that's a fair negotiating situation. That's what we're focused on right now. What is a fair negotiating situation? And if the shooting doesn't stop on both sides, how can that negotiating situation be considered fair?

One final point. I let you speak. One final point. A little bit of this business of sitting there and saying, “Well, yes, but we can't be responsible for some people who go off and kill Israelis and do this and that.” How can anybody trust that situation?

You can easily say to me, “That person is out of my control, the one that killed you yesterday, and the one that killed you the day before, and the one that killed you the day before that. And we can't stop that, so let's go on talking while they kill you.” Anybody could see, Raghida, that that's potentially...

DERGHAM: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...

KEYES: ... let me finish now. That's potentially a double game where somebody shows up at your front door promising peace while they send their folks around the back door to kill your family...

DERGHAM: All right, are you finished?

KEYES: ... and nobody in their right mind — no — you need to listen.

DERGHAM: No, I don't need a lecture...

KEYES: ... nobody in their right mind, Raghida, nobody in their right mind would accept that situation.

DERGHAM: ... I thought you invited me on the show to share some thoughts. I know it's your show, but...

KEYES: You had a long time to open. I don't appreciate that. We gave you two minutes to open up...

DERGHAM: ... (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

KEYES: ... And then I talk for a little while, you don't want to listen. Go ahead.

DERGHAM: All right. Take a look at the situation. Right now what happened, this despicable act of Tel Aviv yesterday, the terrorism that took place and took the lives of 16 Israelis, now it's somebody's agenda. This is an extremist. These are extremists opposed to the Palestinian Authority. Their agenda happens to meet with the agenda of the extremists on the Israeli side that happen to be in power, in government.

Now, these extremists feed on each other. And what we have, they meet on two things. They don't want Arafat in the picture, and that's fine. They don't want a peaceful settlement along the 1967 borders, and that is a problem.

In fact, they both are escaping what the international community, including our government, the United States administration, is saying, that the way to do this is actually to arrive at an understanding that negotiations will conclude in a Palestinian state, end of occupation, end of occupation. This is our policy. No settlements, and could existence. Coexistence.

KEYES: Let me now go to Mark Regev. Mark, I wanted to go back and forth with Raghida a little bit about this because I think it's critically important, in fact, as an issue. I've heard so many Palestinians spokespeople imply that somehow it's a tolerable situation to have this negotiating process move forward, while on the Palestinian side there are these uncontrolled elements of violence that — I don't know — either people can't or won't take responsibility for.

I think that when you sit down to negotiate, whether it's a contract or a peace treaty, you have to bring a certain competence to the table. Otherwise, you can't make peace. And I've never understood why or how Israel can be expected to make peace if the other side isn't competent to keep the peace by controlling all their people and keeping them from violence. Is this possible? Can you tolerate that?

MARK REGEV, SPOKESMAN, ISRAELI EMBASSY: Well, I think there's a fundamental fallacy here, Alan. Some people say Arafat can't control the violence. And if he can't, so, why are we dealing with him? Because he's an ineffectual leader. He can't control the situation. He can't deliver. And, of course, if he can control the violence and the violence is continuing, then we have to ask very serious questions about what does this man want and what are his ambitions.

But about occupation, I think there could well have been a Palestinian state already today if the Palestinian people had a more moderate, a more realistic, a more open leadership, a leadership ready for some compromises and not always asking Israel. And I'd say even more strongly that if anyone suffers under occupation, maybe the Palestinian people suffer under a regime which is a one-man regime, a regime where they live by the whims of a dictator who unfortunately is stuck in the 1960s in an ideology of hatred, an ideology of extremism.

I'd remind you that Arafat formed Fatah, which is the major part of the PLO, in 1958, before there was any Israeli control of the West Bank or Gaza. He formed it as part of a desire to destroy Israel. And I think that's still part of his agenda.

DERGHAM: Mark, you know what? I wish that you had a prime minister you can brag about. I really wish you had a prime minister sitting in Israel that you can say, “This is a man who has taken this country into the right path. This is a man who's never been associated with massacres or war crimes. This is a man committed to a political settlement.”

REGEV: Raghida...

DERGHAM: ... Mark, I don't see — where is your position that says you will accept a peaceful settlement based on the 1967 borders by this government? Never mind yesterday. Let me say, mistakes were made by all. Let me just even go to that. And, by the way, I think Arafat needs to be more decisive. I think he's asking and he's ready to be more decisive with the extremists. He's asking for help, and it's about time. And you know that I...

REGEV: Raghida, maybe it's time he left.

(CROSSTALK)

REGEV: How many leaders have been there since 1958? I think only Fidel Castro has been around since 1958 leading his people...

DERGHAM: Listen...

REGEV: But I want to answer your question about Sharon. Please allow me to respond. I would remind you that the only Israeli leader who has removed settlements for peace was Sharon. He as defense minister bulldozed those settlements in northern Sinai for peace, for a real peace with Egypt.

I would remind you what role Sharon played in peace talks with Jordan. And the water deal, you know very well how he was generous and how he got a deal on one of the most important issues, how he built a relationship of confidence with the Jordanian leadership.

I would remind you, Raghida, about how Sharon negotiated the Y (ph) deal with the Palestinians...

DERGHAM: Well, you know...

REGEV: ... it's very easy for you to say Sharon is against peace. But if you look at Egyptian track, the Jordanian track, and even the Palestinian track, Sharon has been there. He's not willing for the phony peace, the peace that Arafat wants.

KEYES: Mark, let Raghida respond.

DERGHAM: That's absolutely not true. And you know the legacy of Sharon is also the invasion of Lebanon, the massacres in Sutra (ph) and Shatirah (ph).

REGEV: He never did those massacres, and you know that.

DERGHAM: I do know otherwise. Let's not — I really think this is not beneficial for us. I really feel that the Israelis deserve a man better than Sharon...

KEYES: Wait a minute...

(CROSSTALK)

DERGHAM: ... Having said that, I don't really think that we should put the whole peace process...

KEYES: Raghida, understood. Can I ask you a question? Wait, wait, wait, hold on a second because there's one question, because what I see going on here, before we get into who is the most evil leader and all that...

DERGHAM: Exactly. I don't want to do that.

KEYES: ... no, let me ask a simple question, though, because I didn't raise a question about who was wicked and who was good. That's not the question I'm asking tonight.

The question that is on the table is one very simple question. If I asked Mark Regev, Mark, if tomorrow Ariel Sharon tells Israelis to stop killing, will the killing stop on their side, yes or no? Mark.

REGEV: Of course. Sharon is a democratically elected prime minister.

KEYES: Yes it will. That's all I need. Yes or no. Yes, right?

REGEV: Yes.

KEYES: Raghida Dergham, if tomorrow our friend Mr. Arafat, as he already apparently has done, tells all the Palestinians to stop the killing, will the killing stop? No. No, it won't, because it hasn't.

(LAUGHTER)

DERGHAM: This is funny.

KEYES: Go ahead. Go ahead.

DERGHAM: This is really funny.

KEYES: No, but go ahead. The facts speak for themselves on this, but go ahead.

DERGHAM: But you see, Arafat is right now weaker. And he may not succeed fully because he has opposition that I spoke about a little earlier, the extremists who are trying to actually take power away from him — the Hamas, the Jihad Islamic. I hope that he succeeds, and I hope that his cry for help from the United States, his police, the reforms needed in order to be more decisive, I hope this comes true.

So I'm not going to say I want anybody to go ahead and tumble this whole thing over. I actually want peaceful settlement.

KEYES: I understand. One problem, though. I have to be absolutely frank with you about this, and I don't know if Mark would share this view or anybody else. Apparently, President Bush doesn't share it, but that's his naivete.

I frankly look at this situation where you're telling me there's that nasty, bad Hamas, and they want to kill people, but Arafat doesn't. That good-cop...

DERGHAM: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

KEYES: ... Let me finish, please. Let me finish, please. That good-cop-bad-cop routine ain't going to fool nobody anymore. It doesn't work. I think it's all a sham. I think that that argument is simply intended to allow the Palestinians to have it both ways.

DERGHAM: That's an argument you...

KEYES: Let me finish. I don't see — Raghida, let me finish my statement. Why should anybody, given the record, trust this situation, this apparent double game, not to be exactly what it is?

DERGHAM: You're creating it, and you're running with it. What I'm saying is — let's go back to the basics here. Ariel Sharon came here to meet with our president. The administration is saying we want an international conference to bring about a peaceful coexistence between Israel and its neighbors, including a Palestinian state.

Mr. Sharon comes here not ready to take care of the settlements. He wants to keep them. He wants a Palestinian state that is like a pseudo-state that will be 40 percent of only the West Bank and Gaza. He is someone who doesn't want the international community to play a role. And he wants to keep the land and kick the Palestinians out.

Our policy is otherwise. You differ with our president. I happen to agree with the policy of our administration because one Israeli friend said to me the other day something that frightened me. His opinion, he said, if there is no imposed settlement by the United States to bring about a peaceful coexistence, he said his fear was of mutual holocaust between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Double holocaust, he said. And he was looking at me in a very serious way, and I got rather frightened. I think that's enough to frighten anybody.

KEYES: Yes, but frankly I think the source that have fear — and let me go to Mark Regev — is very simply this. I look at this situation right this minute as it stands, and I believe, just Alan Keyes believes, that if it could get to the negotiating table, Ariel Sharon can stop the violence on the Israeli side right now. He can just tell his troops to down arms, and he can control and police the activities of Israelis.

I frankly don't understand, Mark, what there is to hope for if there is never going to be on the Palestinian side an authority, a leadership that can do the same thing. How can you deal with that situation? I ask it again. What are the possibilities here?

REGEV: Well, I think, Alan, what the president and Prime Minister Sharon talked about on Tuesday was precisely to deal with that issue. And what we're talking about today is, is it possible now that people are going to talk? We're talking about rebuilding the Palestinian society, rebuilding the Palestinian economy, about how the Americans and the CIA will help rebuild the Palestinian security services.

The idea is, are we going to rebuild once again a one-man regime, a dictatorial regime, under the whims of this dictator? Or are we going to make an effort not to choose Palestinian leaders for the Palestinian people? We don't want to do that.

DERGHAM: You are...

REGEV: But are we going to try to create a Palestinian civil society, to create an independent legal system, to create an independent financial system? Are we going to try to build a society where there are more checks and balances, where there isn't just a dictatorship of one man but rather that you have a civil society with courts and with the rule of law?

And this is the sort of thing that I think Europeans want. This is what the Israelis want. This is what the Americans want because, that way...

DERGHAM: Mark...

REGEV: ... we can have a more responsible Palestinian leadership.

KEYES: Let Raghida answer. Go ahead.

REGEV: Mark, that would be wonderful. It is what the Palestinians want, what the world wants, a civil society in Palestine. What you need to do is tell your government, end occupation. Give those people the land to have.

REGEV: We're open to a negotiated solution, but Arafat doesn't want one. Arafat doesn't want one.

DERGHAM: You go back to Arafat. You talk about...

REGEV: But he's the problem, Raghida. He's the problem. He's the reason we didn't get peace in 2000.

DERGHAM: So is Sharon.

REGEV: Not true.

DERGHAM: Let's get out of the siege mentality. It is about two people. They need to make peace.

REGEV: It is not about two people. We've had 12 Israeli prime ministers, and it's always Arafat. And you tell me it's about Arafat and Sharon.

(CROSSTALK)

KEYES: Both of you hold on. No, we've come to the end of our time. And I think that this discussion, by the way, and this I just want to address to both of you, is kind of illustrative of the problem that I'm talking about.

And, Raghida, I've listened to you say that somehow or another there has to be an end to, quote, “occupation” and all. But the problem is this. If I were sitting in the Israeli shoes and you were asking me to back away from a territory which then is not going to be under the kind of control that can keep the people on that territory from killing my people, I wouldn't do it.

And I think that thinking about everything that you said tonight points to a certain responsibility, not just among Palestinians, but on the Arab side, to sit down and work out the kind of things that will actually result in a situation among the Palestinians where there is a regime in control of all the elements that can do violence.

Without that, you are not valid interlocutors. Without that, you can't offer anybody peace because the war continues out of your control. And that's not fair. It's just not right.

DERGHAM: One quick thing, Alan, here. I agree with you. However, I really wish that you would look at both sides and say what the Israelis need to do. It is really about justice and fair solution. You're a man — your own background begs to say — we need to be just.

KEYES: We are up against the hard break. We've got to go. But I am looking at both sides.

But what we need to begin with on both sides is an equal authority that can stop the violence. This is one on the Israeli side now. There is not yet one on the Palestinian side. And without it, I don't think negotiations make sense.

Thanks, Mark and Raghida.

In the next half hour, does America really need Arab support to go after Saddam Hussein? We'll be talking about that with a former Bush I official who says, no, we don't need it. And I'll talk about whether Cardinal Law of Boston still has the spiritual authority to lead.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

Now I think all of you are aware of the fact I've been kind of critical of the Bush administration's approach on the Middle East, the need to do certain things that seem to undercut our understanding of what terrorism is about in order to do what?

Well, we are told, the best argument I think that is made for it, is that a lot of these things are happening in order to gain Arab understanding, in order to remove what might be possible obstacles to Arab cooperation as we undertake what some argue is the next stage of the war on terror, which is to depose Saddam Hussein and get a regime in place that is not a terroristic regime in Iraq.

Well, that's a question. The other night, I have Dick Morris on the program, and you might remember that he said he didn't think that was necessary, that, in point of fact, we could depose Saddam Hussein and deal with the situation in Iraq on our own.

Joining us now is a Jed Babbin, a former deputy undersecretary of defense and columnist for “The Washington Times.” Along with him, Ian Williams, the United Nations correspondent for the magazine “The Nation.”

I want to welcome you both to MAKING SENSE.

And, Jed, I was especially led to call on you this evening because of the column you wrote in which you argue that we really don't have to go to all this trouble to get Arab support and cooperation because this is something that we could, in fact, undertake in our own interest and on our own without it. Why do you think that is the case?

JED BABBIN, FORMER DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, really, Alan, it's not just that we don't need this support. Frankly, we don't want it. We can do the Iraq operation ourselves. We do not need Arab support. All we need to do is to figure out some way of stabilizing the country so it is not partitioned and, thereby, live up to the agreement that I understand we have with our Turkish allies.

The fact of the matter is we don't want this kind of support. We tried to get it, we got it in 1991, but we had to buy it at too high a price. We would have to purchase it again at an equal or even greater price. We cannot let the Arab nations control what we do in Iraq because, as we did in 1991, it's going to end up really with the status quo.

What we need to do is take out Saddam Hussein, make sure that his regime is replaced entirely, and do so in a way that the country remains stable and that our very good ally in the area, Turkey, is not destabilized by another million Kurdish immigrants fleeing into their country.

We don't want, we don't need Arab support.

KEYES: Now, Jed, you have actual hands-on experience, though, and, you know, I look at folks in the administration — they don't strike me as particularly incompetent, any of them. Why do you think it is that they are going to such pains to follow a policy that is based on the premise that we're paralyzed if somehow or another the Arabs aren't on board and approving of what we do?

I mean, it seems to me that they've taken a lot of steps in terms of recent Middle East policy, including the tolerance for terrorism in forms that undercut our overall position in the war on terror, to achieve this kind of Arab support. Why do they think it's so important?

BABBIN: Well, I think they think it's important because they're following some very bad advice. They are thinking, for example, that we have to stabilize the Palestinian-Israeli conflict before we take on Iraq, and that's just simply not the case. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict, while very important, while very bloody, is something we need to help resolve, is not priority one. It's really a sideshow.

The people in the administration, for whatever reason, have been following the advice of our quasi allies, the Saudis, the Egyptians, and others, who really don't have our best interests at heart. In that case, they are delaying the disposition of Saddam Hussein, which cannot help us in the long run. I don't know why they're doing this.

KEYES: Ian Williams, what do you think of that? Do you think that, in point of fact, we should be going after Iraq on our own?

IAN WILLIAMS, “THE NATION”: I think you should look at the map. Where are you going to invade Iraq from? Iran? Iran isn't on our best friends list at the moment either.

All of the Arab countries — they're the only ones you can use as bases for any serious military action against Iraq. It's not going to happen.

I'm sorry. If I were Saddam Hussein, I would be sending — blowing kisses in the direction of Ariel Sharon because I think Ariel Sharon has blown any serious plans the administration could have for attacking Iraq.

BABBIN: I think that is just so bizarrely incorrect, Alan. I just have to comment on it. The fact of the matter is we can do Saddam Hussein, we can take him out probably within 36 to 48 hours, without having very many soldiers on the ground. We don't have to do Son of Desert Storm. General Tommy Franks has...

KEYES: Well, what would we stage — what would be our staging area?

BABBIN: We don't need a staging area. We have a staging area in the United States Navy fleet. We have a staging area in Turkey. We have a staging area in Israel. And that's all we need. These guys are bringing a box cutter to fight the United States Air Force. We know how that's going to come out.

KEYES: Ian Williams, we seem to have — I mean, Jed Babbin has some defense experience. We do have Turkey as a possibility. Why would you think that the Arab states are so indispensable, given our power of projection capabilities?

WILLIAMS: Because sheer geography. I mean, they are there. We are not. I'd just go on to one point. I mean, Jed's speaking as though you can just go and get one person with all the technology. Please show me the head of Osama bin Laden. Three months after...

BABBIN: We don't need to get one person. We can take out his command structure, we can take out his eight presidential palaces which are the places he's hiding his weapons of mass destruction, we can take out his command centers, and we can get that Iraqi army to surrender to us like they were doing in 1991.

KEYES: I've got to...

BABBIN: These elite troops were surrendering to unmanned aerial vehicles and camera crews.

KEYES: Well, Jed, I have to say, when I read your piece, I was a little bit skeptical, but, listening to the case that you're making, I think it's something that would be worth serious thought, and it would especially free us from what appears to be the paralyzing effects right now of what I think is a wrongheaded approach to the Arab-Israeli situation.

Gentlemen, thank you both for joining us tonight. Really appreciate it.

Next, Cardinal Law under oath. He gave a deposition. Given what we've learned from that deposition, does he still have the spiritual authority to lead his diocese and be a leader in the church?

And later, my outrage of the day about some of the things that the Palestinian — that are being taught, rather, about the Palestinians in an American university.

But, first, does this make sense?

In California last week, a California state committee, the legislators passed a bill mandating that tailpipe emissions be reduced after 2009. Well, guess what? More than half of the people on the committee actually own SUVs. This bill is going to drive up the price of those SUVs. You'd think these folks would care about that, but, apparently, they don't practice what they legislate.

Does that make sense?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

Cardinal Law is expected to continue his testimony in the John Geoghan case in Boston tomorrow. Tonight, we'll examine what he said during yesterday's deposition and ask whether he still has the spiritual authority to lead the Boston archdiocese.

MSNBC's Michelle Franzen (ph) has more on yesterday's events.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MICHELLE FRANZEN (ph), MSNBC CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Cardinal Bernard Law walked into a Boston courtroom to answer questions under oath about his role in the sexual abuse scandal that has rocked the Catholic church.

The lawyer representing 86 plaintiffs in a civil suit against the recently convicted former priest John Geoghan will ask the questions.

MITCHELL GARABEDIAN, VICTIMS' ATTORNEY: He has to be honest. He has to be straightforward. He has to come clean. It's time.

FRANZEN (ph): One victim representing the group was also allowed to sit in.

MARK KEENE, VICTIM: I just want some closure. That's all. I just — I've been doing this for a long time, almost four years, and I just want it to be done.

FRANZEN (ph): Geoghan is one of several priests at the center of the scandal. The Reverend Paul Shanley, who was arraigned Tuesday on charges of child rape, is another.

JUDGE DYANNE KLEIN: You are to have no contact with any child under 16.

FRANZEN (ph): At the same time Law's deposition was taking place, a new legal case against another priest was taking shape. Former priest Ronald Paquin was arraigned on charges of raping and abusing a boy over a two-year period. He was arrested in his home after police received a tip he was moving out.

WILLIAM FALLON, PROSECUTOR: I suggest to the court that when the state police arrived, there was, in fact, some type of U-Haul outside. Furniture was being put in.

FRANZEN (ph): Prosecutors told the judge Paquin posed a flight risk. The judge set bail at $100,000.

In Boston, Michelle Franzen (ph), NBC News.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KEYES: Here's some more of what Cardinal Law said under oath.

“QUESTION: OK. What was the practice that you had in place in 1984 when you were archbishop to deal with this kind of allegation when it comes in?

“ANSWER: I viewed this as a pathology, as a psychological pathology, as an illness. Obviously, I viewed it as something that had a moral component. It was, objectively speaking, a gravely sinful act, and that's something that one deals with in one's life, in one's relationship to God.

“But I also viewed this as a pathology, as an illness, and so, consequently, I, not being an expert in this pathology, not being a psychiatrist, not being a psychology, my — my modus operandi was to rely upon those whom I considered and would have reason to consider to have an expertise that I lacked in assessing this pathology, in assessing what it is that this person could safely do or not do.”

What's wrong with that answer? I think everything's wrong with it. I think, if that answer were coming from somebody who was the manager of a big corporation or a government official or somebody else, I might be able to understand what was going on. But this was coming from Cardinal Law, a prelate, preeminently a spiritual leader in the church, an institution that is the body of Christ, a spiritual institution.

One of the first things one expects from spiritual leaders is spiritual judgments. Among Christians, it is common to say that you can judge according to the flesh, that is the world, and its priorities, or you can judge according to the spirit. One expects spiritual leaders to judge according to the spirit. That is to say the priorities of the kingdom of heaven, not the earthly kingdom in which we temporarily reside.

Cardinal Law's statement was just the opposite. He says, first of all, not “I saw this as a sin, I saw this in the moral, spiritual context.” No. “I saw this as an illness,” a material thing, “with a moral component,” subordinate. It's almost as if his priorities were the worldly priorities. He didn't look at it with a spiritual eye because, if he had, he would have understood, I think, that the nature of the sin wasn't just about the individual committing it.

It was about the harm done to the individual suffering the sin, about the moral and spiritual attack upon their welfare, and, oddly enough, that didn't enter in in this response, didn't enter into his consideration. Not a word was spoken about the other side of this grave sin, about the assault on the moral and spiritual life of the young, about the scandal given to them.

That does not suggest a heart and mind that is looking at the world with spiritual and moral discernment, looking at the world in the light of God's priorities rather than human priorities. And that, I think, is the heart of the matter here. That's what I think a lot of folks aren't seeing. They see the harm being done by these individual priests. They see the scandal. They see the money in those terms.

But, unfortunately, what I keep seeing is the fact that serious doubt is being raised about whether or not someone who was in a position of spiritual leadership was actually making judgments according to spiritual priority. This is the terrible problem.

And I think, in answers to other questions, the cardinal actually gave responses that suggested, as people often do in these situations, “I don't know,” “I don't remember,” “I don't recall” and so forth and so on.

Again, it kept occurring to me as I listened to this, if somebody had reported to him that a priest was guilty of physical murder, do you think he'd be sitting there saying “I don't recall that day. I don't remember anybody telling me that. I don't think about that,” so forth? I don't think so.

I think physical murder would have been shocking. I think it would have been seared into his mind. I think he would have remembered it because, according to the flesh, that physical death is the most horrible thing you can suffer.

But he's a spiritual leader. He's supposed to judge according to the spirit, and, according to the spirit, according to what Christ told us is the priority, it is the one who harms and destroys the soul, not the one who harms and destroys the flesh, that really does the great, the permanent harm, and someone molesting a child is a seducer, leading him down a path of spiritual and moral destruction.

For a spiritual mind, that moral destruction of the young would have been of deep, great concern, but it wasn't on his mind. And if it's not on his mind — and it wasn't on his mind — it's not just a question of his particular judgment in this case. It's a question of whether or not there was present the kind of spiritual priority that ought to characterize a high spiritual leader in the Catholic church.

Next, my outrage of the day, a course being taught that seems like it really wouldn't belong at any university.

If you want to make even more sense, you can sign up for our free daily newsletter at our Web site, keyes.msnbc.com. Each day in your mailbox, you'll get show topics, my weekly column, and links to my favorite articles of the day.

I'll be right back with the outrage of the day. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEYES: Now time for my outrage of the day. Comes to us from Berkeley. Yes, that is still a university. I know some of you don't think so.

The Berkeley English Department's fall course catalog has this description of a course. “The politics and poetics of the Palestinian resistance,” which will earn students four units toward their degree.

The course description says, quote, “The brutal Israeli military occupation of Palestine, ongoing since 1948, has systematically displaced, killed, and maimed millions of Palestinian people, and yet, from under the brutal weight of the occupation, Palestinians have produced their own culture and poetry of resistance.

“This class will examine the history of the resistance and the way it is narrated by Palestinians in order to produce an understanding of the intifada. This class takes as its starting point the right of Palestinians to fight for their own self-determination. Conservative thinkers are encouraged to seek other sections.”

See, I don't think that the course content is outrageous, but I do think it's outrageous at a university to tell folks that, if they have a different point of view, “Don't come in here. Don't get exposed to something that might teach you anything. Don't raise any questions about what I'm saying.”

Is it teaching or indoctrination at Berkeley? It's obvious.

Thanks. “THE NEWS WITH BRIAN WILLIAMS” is up next with the late news on the church standoff in Bethlehem.

See you Monday.