The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: A summary of today's news; three takes on the violence in the Middle East-- an update of what happened today, public opinion from the Israeli and Palestinian perspectives, and commentator opinion here in the United States; then, excerpts from the Senate Judiciary Committee's action to kill the nomination of Charles Pickering, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay about some war photographs.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Israeli tanks today began a phased pull-out from the key town of Ramallah on the West Bank; they seized it Tuesday in a hunt for gunmen. The Palestinian Authority said today a withdrawal there would not be enough. And, in Washington, a State Department spokesman called for a pull out from all Palestinian- controlled areas. A U.S. peace envoy, retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, arrived in the region today, but the violence continued. Nine Palestinians and three Israeli soldiers were killed. We'll have more on this in a few minutes. U.S. and Canadian troops killed three al-Qaida fighters in eastern Afghanistan today. The Canadian press news agency said a 90-minute battle broke out as U.S. and Canadian teams searched caves and bunkers. They were taking part in the mop-up to "Operation Anaconda." Helicopters also patrolled the area to prevent enemy forces from slipping away. The U.S. Commander said his troops were right on their backs.

MAJ. GEN. FRANK HAGENBECK, Commander, Operation Anaconda: We are currently in contact with the enemy in smaller numbers. We still have the momentum, and as far as we're concerned, this is not going to end even when they say Anaconda's over with, we're not going to let loose of these guys, I'm here to tell you. We've got good leads on them, we're tracking them 24 hours a day. We've got eyes on them; we have good leads. We know where they're going, and we're going to stay on them. And if I was an al-Qaida leader, I'd sleep with one eye open.

JIM LEHRER: Also today, U.S. forensics experts conducted DNA tests on the dead to make sure none were senior leaders of al-Qaida. Vice President Cheney promised greater U.S. military support to Yemen today. He visited the Arab state under heavy security to discuss U.S. aid in the war on terrorism. Security forces in Yemen have been hunting followers of Osama bin Laden in the country's rugged mountains. The accounting firm Arthur Andersen was indicted today on charges of obstructing justice in the Enron matter. It was the first indictment in the energy company's collapse. In Washington, Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson said Andersen auditors allegedly destroyed tons of papers.

LARRY THOMPSON, Deputy Attorney General: The obstruction effort was not just confined to a few isolated individuals or documents. This was a substantial undertaking over an extended period of time with a very wide scope. The Andersen firm instructed Andersen personnel in Portland, Oregon; Chicago, Illinois; and London, England, to join in the shredding.

JIM LEHRER: The indictment did not name any individual Andersen employees. Earlier, the accounting firm refused to plead guilty. In a letter to the justice department, it said such a plea would amount to the death penalty. The maximum punishment for the obstruction charge is a half- million dollar fine and five years' probation. The Senate Judiciary Committee today voted down the nomination of Charles Pickering to a federal appeals court. All ten Democrats were expected to voted against, all nine Republicans in favor. Democrats said he had a poor record on civil rights. Republicans said he'd been smeared by liberal interest groups. We'll have more on this story later. A federal grand jury today indicted the chief suspect in the murder of Daniel Pearl. The "Wall Street Journal" reporter was kidnapped in Pakistan in January; his death was confirmed last month. The Muslim extremist charged today is now jailed in Pakistan. Authorities there are trying to build their own case. In Washington, Attorney General Ashcroft was asked about the overlap.

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General: We think it's important to have the charges clear and in place so that, in the event for some reason, he would in any way be released by other authorities that we would be in a position to take him. And we are signaling our clear interest in trying him on these charges and bringing him to justice in the United States.

JIM LEHRER: The U.S. charges in the Pearl killing carry a possible death penalty. The suspect was also indicted in the abduction in 1994 of an American in India who was later rescued. Amnesty International said today the U.S. violated the rights of hundreds of people detained after September 11th. Some 1,200 immigrants were picked up in a nationwide sweep. In a new report, Amnesty said many were kept in unnecessarily harsh conditions, including solitary confinement. It said some were denied prompt access to attorneys, among other rights. Yugoslavia is no more-- in name, at least. The last two republics, Serbia and Montenegro, agreed today on a new joint state. It will be called "Serbia and Montenegro." The restructuring was meant to settle feuding between the two, and calm the Balkans. A long-time editor of the "Boston Globe" died today in Boston. Thomas Winship had been hospitalized for lymphoma. He edited the "Globe" from 1965 to '84, leading the paper to 12 Pulitzer Prizes. He was 81 years old. And that's it for the news summary tonight. Now it's on to opinions on the Middle East there and here; the Senate's Pickering vote; and a Rosenblatt essay on the pictures of war.

UPDATE - MAELSTROM

JIM LEHRER: The ever-escalating violence between Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East. We have three approaches to the story. First, a news update from Spencer Michels.

SPENCER MICHELS: Today was another day of ambulances and stretchers in the MidEast, where 17 months of attacks and reprisals have now killed at least 344 Israelis and 1,063 Palestinians. Among today's casualties, four Palestinians killed in gun battles, three Israeli soldiers who died when Palestinian militants blew up their tank in the Gaza Strip, and two Palestinians considered informants by Islamic militants who shot them and dragged their bodies through the streets of Bethlehem. The death toll mounted even as American envoy Anthony Zinni arrived in Jerusalem to try for a third time to bring the two sides to the peace table. His trip comes amid new diplomatic pressure on Israel. Earlier this week, Israel sent more than 150 tanks into Ramallah, the unofficial Palestinian capital in the West Bank. Today, Israel announced a gradual withdrawal from the occupation area, but both the European Union and the Bush Administration have criticized Israeli military actions.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Frankly, it's not helpful what the Israelis have recently done in order to create conditions for peace. I understand someone trying to defend themselves and to fight terror. But the recent actions aren't helpful.

SPENCER MICHELS: Before yesterday, the White House primarily had blamed the Palestinians for rising tensions. A new tone also came from Vice President Cheney yesterday. Traveling in Egypt, he said the burden of peace fell to both parties. There's also been a new push for peace from the United Nations. On Tuesday, the Security Council approved a U.S.- sponsored resolution endorsing an independent Palestinian state as part of the peace process.

SPOKESMAN: The resolution has been adopted.

SPENCER MICHELS: The resolution also endorsed resumed diplomatic ties between Israel and its Arab neighbors, and calls for a complete cessation of the violence. Besides the fighting, the two sides continued the war of words. Palestinians blamed Israelis for the continued bloodshed.

NABIL ABU RDEINEH, Arafat Chief Adviser: They are challenging the American administration, they are challenging the world community, even they are challenging the Security Council and refusing to stop their attacks.

SPENCER MICHELS: Israelis meanwhile said Palestinian leaders have failed to reign in Islamic militants.

ARIE MEKEL, Israeli Foreign Ministry Spokesman: Israel welcomes the United States' efforts to include in the Security Council's resolution a paragraph that calls for the immediate cessation of terror and incitement.

SPENCER MICHELS: General Zinni met with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon today. He meets with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat tomorrow.

JIM LEHRER: Now, how Palestinian and Israeli public opinion view what's going on. Ray Suarez has that.

RAY SUAREZ: For more on the situation in Israel and on the West Bank, we get two perspectives: Shai Feldman is the director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. He's written widely on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and on the phone is Khalil Shikaki. He directs the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, a nonprofit, independent think tank that focuses on domestic Palestinian issues, foreign policy and does public opinion polls. He's on the phone because he cannot get to a television studio.

Mr. Shikaki, how has the recent weeks of escalating violence affected Palestinian public opinion? What's the mood now?

KHALIL SHIKAKI: Well, there's no doubt that the level of violence has been intensifying. And with it, I would also say it has been deepening the hatred between the two people, increasing the support for violence and increasing support for factions that commit violence. And it is making people more determined to continue this fight until the occupation has ended. There's little hope that negotiations will pick up or that negotiations will eventually succeed in bringing about anegotiated outcome between the two sides.

RAY SUAREZ: I was wondering if one of the possibilities wasn't that exhaustion and death toll finally push people to be more willing to try something new, after the violence hasn't been working for a while?

KHALIL SHIKAKI: Well, fortunately, there is too much anger, too much frustration. The threat perception, I'm sure for Israelis as well, is so high that people at this point

find very little room for optimism about the future, very little willingness to seriously

think about reconciliation or going back to negotiations or supporting negotiations.

RAY SUAREZ: Shai Feldman, same question. How has the violence affected Israeli public opinion?

SHAI FELDMAN: Well, I think in some of the same manner that Dr. Shikaki described Palestinian opinion. I think there is a very great sense of insecurity in Israel throughout the country, a sense that nowhere is safe, where restaurants, coffee shops, shopping malls, the train stations, bus stations, all of these places have been subjected to either suicide bombings or gunmen shooting entire families and so on. And so there's a great sense of insecurity. There is, because of that, the hardening of positions. Our center is conducting an annual public opinion poll on national security affairs. The results of this year's poll was published only yesterday and shows a sharp turn to the right, a great sense of disillusionment about the peace process. For example, support for the Oslo process has gone down from 55% to 38% in just one year. The Israeli public perceives that all this violence came with a background of what they perceived to have been the most generous offer ever made by an Israeli prime minister for peace, which is to say the Barak-Clinton proposals that were rejected by Arafat. And so, there's a great disillusionment about the negotiation option. And at the same time, the Israeli government does not appear to be able to put an end to this violence. So there's a great sense of insecurity and frustration right now.

RAY SUAREZ: You talk about a turn to the right. Does that mean that Israeli public opinion is becoming more uniform, or are there still splits inside the national opinion -- rival factions, rival points of view?

SHAI FELDMAN: Well, I think that the... no, I think there is a big debate. I think that the big difference is that... I mean, what's unifies, I would say the large... the large... the two large political blocks-- which is Likud and Labor that comprise the government-- is the sense that we have to put an end to this violence. I think, however, there is a big difference between the two in the sense of what they are willing to offer to the Palestinians in case the Palestinians stop the violence and go back to the negotiation table. There is no question that there is enormous readiness among labor leaders and among labor followers to essentially offer the Palestinians statehood, and I would say a meaningful statehood. I don't think that the proposals that the last Labor prime minister has put on the table are dead. They can be rekindled if people go back to negotiation table. So I think there is clearly a debate among the... let's say the Sharon-led Likud, whose political horizon is to offer the Palestinians a long-term, interim agreement with the view that it is impossible to bridge the gap in a way that would allow us to end the conflict, and Labor that is willing to go much further than that in terms of offering peace proposals to the Palestinians.

RAY SUAREZ: Khalil Shikaki, how are... how is the debate going inside Palestinian circles? Are the splits regional -- inside the territories -- outside the territories? How does it break down?

KHALIL SHIKAKI: Well, the main split is along... is within the Palestinian national movement. The basic objective of the movement is to establish a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel. However, over time, and particularly over the last

several years, there has been a split within the Palestinian national movement; with the old guard, the founding fathers of the movement who have negotiated the Oslo process

with Israel, and who have been in charge of government in Palestinian areas since 1994.

This old guard is now being perceived by a much younger generation of Palestinian

leaders as a failure. The young guards believe that the old guard have failed to

deliver an end to occupation, something that they believe the old guard have promised when the Oslo process was signed, and that the old guard also has failed in terms of delivering good governments, clean governments, strong institutions for the Palestinian people. And therefore, the young guard are determined not only to find a new way to end occupation. In this sense, they view violence as the most effective way. Their model is the Hezbollah model in south Lebanon. But they want to force Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza. And at the same time they are determined to displace... replace the old guard of the national movement and take over. This is the main split. Of course, there are also forces that are... that have not shared the vision of the national movement in terms of the end game for the conflict with Israel. The Islamists, for example, want to continue the fight. However, while the Islamists

are gaining ground and have been gaining ground since the start of the Intifada, there

is very much... the national movement is still very much in control, and I do not think

that the Islamists pose an immediate threat to the hegemony of the nationalists at

this time.

RAY SUAREZ: What about the presence of Israeli tanks on the streets of major towns like Ramallah, where you are right now, whose hand does that strengthen in these dates that you describe?

KHALIL SHIKAKI: Well, there is no doubt that this is very much the end of the old guard of the national movement. In fact, it all started when Sharon came over and he banned all negotiations with the Palestinians a year ago. By doing so, he's basically

eliminated the old guards as an actor in the Palestinian politics. Prior to that, and particularly since the start of the Intifada about a year and a half ago, under the government of the former Prime Minister Barak, the old guard did their best to try and come up with a negotiated settlement even during the Intifada, and there... they indeed did very well, ending with the negotiations in January 2001, which made significant progress on all issues that were discussed. However, since then, there really has been no Palestinian-Israeli negotiations whatsoever, which in the eyes of the young guards, made the old guard redundant and not so useful. The old guard... the young guard really no longer believes that negotiations are useful and will probably do their best to oppose any serious return to negotiations with tanks in the streets of Ramallah and elsewhere now. I believe... and with the young guards, being the only forces that are resisting these Israeli tanks, I believe the message is clear for the majority of the Palestinians the future is for the young guards.

RAY SUAREZ: And Shai Feldman, who inside Israel is looking stronger because... there has to be a response in the view of the government to the suicide bombings, and thousand it's taken the form of reoccupation?

SHAI FELDMAN: Well, I think that there's no question that, again, the continued violence is strengthening those that are arguing that there is no other alternative to the efforts to end the violence but to put increased military pressure both on the Palestinian Authority, with an effort to change its views, to get it back to, first of all, to get it to stop the violence and to get back to the negotiation table, and also, to try to target those extremists, the Islamists and otherwise that are conducting these suicide bombings that are preparing the rockets that are fired, that are preparing these explosives and so on and so forth. In the Israeli perception, two things I think differ from the way that the reality has been depicted from the Palestinian side: The first is that, to place the issue on Sharon and his refusal to negotiate tends to forget the fact that when Sharon became prime minister, we had already had between four and five months of Palestinian violence. Sharon inherited, in fact Sharon was elected by a very large margin because the previous government's efforts to stem the violence was perceived as a failure and the population turned to somebody that they believed would restore personal safety and security. And the fact of the matter is that, after a year in office, this government, having exerted lots of different types of pressures on the Palestinians, have failed to deliver on that and therefore, the pressure is to increase the measures and the pressure.

RAY SUAREZ: Shai Feldman in Tel Aviv, Khalil Shikaki in Ramallah gentlemen, thank you.

FOCUS - PERSPECTIVES

JIM LEHRER: Our third take on the Middle East violence is that of American commentators. For that, media correspondent Terence Smith.

TERENCE SMITH: That American perspective comes from these commentators: Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor of the "Atlanta Journal-Constitution"; Lee Cullum, a columnist with the "Dallas Morning News"; Nolan Finley, editorial page editor of the "Detroit News"; and from John Diaz, editorial page editor of the "San Francisco Chronicle." Welcome to you all. Cynthia Tucker, given the attitudes that you just heard described on both sides in the area, what do you think the US role should be at this point?

CYNTHIA TUCKER: Well, Terry, I confess that the attitudes expressed made me feel a little bit more hopeless than I had previously. But I also think that it has become acutely clear that the United States has absolutely no choice but to be involved, very deeply involved, in helping find a peaceful settlement between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors. I think President Bush was elected thinking that he could ignore the conflict in the Middle East. In fact, I think that he had one foreign policy principle -- if Bill Clinton had done it, it was the wrong thing to do. And since Clinton had invested so much in the Middle East, President Bush was going to ignore it. It has become clear to him since September 11 that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians affects not just that small area, but affects the world more broadly and affects peace and security here within our borders in the United States. So I'm not sure what exactly the United States should be doing, but I think a step in the right direction was the Bush Administration's pushing for this United States resolution, which calls for a Palestinian state. That's a rather remarkable step forward for the Bush Administration, and I think it was certainly a step in the right direction.

TERENCE SMITH: Nolan Finley, what did you think of what you just heard -- the attitudes and the obvious difficulties?

NOLAN FINLEY: Well, I don't see what the United States can do until the two parties get weary of killing one another and get ready to talk peace. I think the United States, its only role can be assuring Israel that it has the green light to protect itself and its citizens. And also, pressuring the Palestinians to disavow terrorism as a tactic. I think the move this week was a horrible mistake, and it signals that, to terrorists, both in the Middle East and everywhere, that terrorism works, that there's a payoff.

TERENCE SMITH: Which move this week?

NOLAN FINLEY: The UN resolution. The UN resolution.

TERENCE SMITH: That's the U.S. support for the UN resolution calling for a Palestinian state?

NOLAN FINLEY: The U.S. Introduction of it.

TERENCE SMITH: Yes.

NOLAN FINLEY: And I think no steps should have been taken in that direction until the Palestinians stop their terrorist activity and prosecuted the terrorists.

TERENCE SMITH: Lee Cullum, what do you think?

LEE CULLUM: Well, I don't agree completely with what Nolan just said. I think the resolution was a good thing and a useful thing. I do share Cynthia's real dismay about what we've just heard earlier in the program and dismay about what we're reading in the papers and seeing on television every day. You know, there was a young man, a Palestinian, in Dallas the last three weeks who once was a Episcopal priest in Jerusalem, also a Palestinian, and he said, "I am not optimistic, but I do have hope." So I see no reason for optimism and I think our hope has to rest with new leadership on both sides. But listening to Mr. Shikaki in Ramallah just before us makes me wonder about this new guard. I hope very much they can come up, this new guard, with leadership that really can be constructive and productive.

TERENCE SMITH: Cynthia Tucker, why do you think it's important to step in now? You mentioned this before. I wanted to go back to it. At this point, given the realities, why do you think now?

CYNTHIA TUCKER: Well, I think the Bush Administration has a very practical reason for wanting to... for having decided to take an increased role at the moment. Vice President Dick Cheney is in the Arab world at this very moment trying to gain support among our Arab allies for some sort of crackdown on Iraq. And it has become very clear to the Bush Administration that we are unlikely... this is a tricky issue with our Arab allies anyway, but we are certainly unlikely to get any support from them for any increased pressure on Saddam Hussein as long as Arab television is filled every single day with these horrible images of Palestinians being, especially children, being killed in the streets. Now, it is certainly true that Arab television is biased, that they're only showing the images of Palestinians being killed and not of Israelis being killed. Nevertheless, it is a political problem for us that this violence has so escalated just at a time that we're seeking support for a crackdown on Saddam Hussein.

TERENCE SMITH: John Diaz, what did you think of both the attitudes you heard from the region and your colleagues?

JOHN DIAZ: Well, first of all, Terry, the images that we've seen in the past few days and red about in the MidEast make it abundantly clear that it is going to take some kind of outside force or third party to come in. And there's no question about it that the United States, for all the reasons that have been outlined, has to take the lead. The other, though, outside element that gives us some cause for hope is the Saudi initiative that's come through recently where the Saudis have talked about some kind of plan where, if we went back to the pre-1967 borders and the Arab world were to recognize Israel's right to exist, that then that could be at least the basic framework for some kind of peace agreement. Obviously, there's a lot of thorny issues that are unaddressed in there, things like Jerusalem or the right to return and the settlements certainly. But that... it is obviously going to take some kind of outside intervention, as Cynthia mentioned, not just for the President's possible ambitions in Iraq, but also for the very war on terrorism. We need that Arab coalition to stay together, and it's hard to imagine it happening as long as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to flair it has been.

TERENCE SMITH: Nolan Finley, is that, in your view, a reasonable position for the U.S. to pursue, the Saudi plan and the negotiation that would go with it?

NOLAN FINLEY: Well, the Saudi plan is hopeful if it's an entryway back to the bargaining table. If it's an ultimatum to Israel, take this or leave it, I think it'll do no good. I think what we can't forget that this 18 months of violence started when Yasser Arafat walked away from a very good peace proposal that was placed on the table by Bill Clinton and former Prime Minister Barak. So I don't know what more you can do. I don't know what's out there.

TERENCE SMITH: Lee Cullum, what's the next step, from your perspective?

LEE CULLUM: Well, I think the President outlined it very sensibly yesterday, Terry. The next step is to try to bring these parties together into the Tenet plan, the George Tenet plan developed when he was there several months ago, which is to accomplish a cease-fire -- this leading the way to the Mitchell program, which brings about true negotiations once again. I think that's what the President is trying to accomplish, I think he's absolutely right, and that's what we have to hope happens. Oh, as he said, if they can at least create an atmosphere where the Tenet plan could even be discussed, that would be wonderful.

TERENCE SMITH: Both Tenet and Mitchell predicated their plans on an end to the terrorist activity, and we haven't seen that yet.

TERENCE SMITH: Cynthia Tucker, there was a definite change in tone from President Bush yesterday as he discussed the situation on the ground there. He was more critical of Israel than he had been before. Did you think that was the right note to strike?

CYNTHIA TUCKER: I absolutely did. I think that, while it is absolutely true that one of the predicates for negotiations has to be an end to these terrorist attacks, it is also true that no one can expect that the PLO is going to come back to the bargaining table as long as there are Israeli tanks in Palestinian towns and in refugee camps. I think that, as Bush himself said yesterday, it is one thing to defend yourself, but Israel's latest actions have gone beyond that. I think it's also probably a good idea for President Bush to reiterate that with Sharon privately. What he said... what Bush said yesterday may be... may have been largely for public consumption, for our Arab allies to hear, and Sharon may interpret it that way, that he didn't really mean, that he was just saying that to placate our Arab allies. So I think President Bush needs to get on the phone to Israel and talk to Sharon and say, "I meant what I said. You've got to pull back some if we're going to get both parties back to the negotiating table."

TERENCE SMITH: John Diaz, what would you think of that?

JOHN DIAZ: I think that makes sense. I think we are at the point right now where President Bush-- and there's plenty of indications that he recognizes at this point he has to move increment ally, take it one step at a time. And one of the specific steps that I think that he can work for, especially with General Zinni in the MidEast right now, is to get Ariel Sharon to loosen up on the travel restrictions on Yasser Arafat so that he can attend this first meeting on the Saudi initiative in Beirut later this month. We're a long, long way from talking about any kind of comprehensive long-term settlement or going back to Camp David. Right now, the immediate objectives have to be the cease-fire and at least begin to get the parties to the bargaining table on this Saudi initiative.

TERENCE SMITH: Lee Cullum, one of the provisions of the Tenet plan, named after George Tenet, the head of the CIA, that you've mentioned would involve placing U.S. monitors on the ground in the West Bank and Gaza to monitor a truce. That gets U.S. personnel much more intimately involved. What do you think of that?

LEE CULLUM: I think it may be necessary, and as I understand it, Israel is now willing to accept or even entertain this idea. I think it's something we are going to have to do. I understand we're now leaving our forces in Sinai, of course they are observers there, we had thought of withdrawing them, Secretary Rumsfeld had thought of it. Now, that's not going to happen. That's a good thing. I do think, also, we have to recognize that Sharon has never had peace negotiations in mind from the moment he took over as prime minister. He wanted a cease-fire, he wanted calm, that's all he ever intended to accomplish. And it may be that's all he's ever willing to accomplish. So when I speak of the need for new leadership, I think on the Israeli side, it would be very helpful down the road, as well. But meanwhile, I see no way around these monitors from our own forces.

TERENCE SMITH: Nolan Finley, what do you think of that idea, of Americans as monitors, as playing a more intimate and direct role?

NOLAN FINLEY: I don't think we have any business being the police force there. I think Israel is perfectly capable of protecting itself and of putting an end to this terrorism. What we should do is give them the green light to do so.

TERENCE SMITH: Cynthia Tucker?

CYNTHIA TUCKER: Well, Israel's efforts to put an end to the terrorism simply aren't working. That's the problem with what's going on at the moment. It is not simply a matter of saying, well, Israel is much better armed and their occupation is unfair and immoral. From a very practical standpoint it's not working. Every week, every day, not only do Palestinians die, but Israelis die, also. And I don't think that's going to stop, no matter how many tanks Sharon chose to put on the ground there. So as for the idea of monitors, I really think it's come to the place where we don't have any choice. Of course the Bush Administration hesitates to get any more deeply involved there, to actually put Americans on the ground in the middle of this horrible violence, but I really don't think we have any choice at this point.

TERENCE SMITH: John Diaz, we can get a final word from you as to that and anything else you see we should do.

JOHN DIAZ: Well, just a quick point I would make on that, is I would think a pre-condition to having American monitors were to have the two sides agree that they're at least trying to get some common objective for peace because the situation as it is right now, and I think one of the reasons that the U.S. Has so much trouble with the Arab world is right now, in much of the Arab world what Israel does is indistinguishable in their mind from what the United States is doing. And I think, at least as the situation is going right now, that is at our peril as we try to achieve these other objectives in the world.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay, thank you all four very much.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: The Senate Judiciary Committee's Pickering vote, and a Rosenblatt essay on war photos.

FOCUS - THE PICKERING VOTE

JIM LEHRER: Now, the end of the Charles Pickering nomination. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Senate Judiciary Committee met this afternoon, having postponed for a week a final vote on elevating federal district judge Charles Pickering to the fifth circuit court of appeals. But, over those seven days, the expected outcome did not change. A majority, comprising the committee's ten Democrats, would vote "no," effectively killing the nomination despite support for Pickering from the committee's nine Republicans. Before the vote, Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy was among the first to speak.

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, (D) Massachusetts: I believe that that is a responsibility for any of the nominees, to be able to demonstrate that that nominee has a core commitment to the fundamental values of the Constitution, to civil rights, to the Bill of Rights, to the issues of privacy. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee just fails to meet the kind of criteria and his core commitment to these fundamental values that warrant and justify an affirmative vote. So I intend, at the appropriate time, to vote in the negative.

KWAME HOLMAN: The committee's top Republican, Orrin Hatch of Utah, had the opposite view of Judge Pickering.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH, (R) Utah: I know judge Pickering. I've had extensive conversations with him. He is truly a righteous decent man. He's a person who... who's applied the law, he's a person who has been reversed rarely, he is a person who has ability, he's a person who has a good judicial temperament and he's a person who, through his lifetime has stood up in so many ways that I know a lot of others would not have. And I think he ought to be confirmed, and we'll just see what happens here today.

KWAME HOLMAN: President Bush nominated 64-year-old Charles W. Pickering, senior, last year to the federal appeals court for the fifth circuit, which includes his native Mississippi. In the recent weeks, Mr. Bush stepped up his efforts to get the Senate to confirm him, bringing in multi-racial groups of supporters to counter the charge that Pickering has been insensitive to civil rights as a federal judge and earlier in his legal career. Pickering was appointed to the federal bench by President Bush's father. Judge Pickering is a close friend of the Senate's minority leader, Trent Lott, who also hails from Mississippi. The judge's son, Chip, is a member of congress. Yesterday at his news conference the President issued another statement of support.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Judge Pickering is a respected and well-qualified nominee who was unanimously nominated 12 years ago to the district bench. His nomination deserves a full vote, a vote in the full Senate. I strongly urge his confirmation. Unfortunately, we are seeing a disturbing pattern where too often judicial confirmations are being turned into ideological battles that delay justice and hurt our democracy. We now face a situation in which a handful of United States Senators on one committee have made it clear that they will block nominees, even highly qualified, well-respected nominees who do not share the Senators' view of the bench, of the federal courts. They seek to undermine the nominations of candidates who agree with my philosophy that judges should interpret the law, not try to make law from the bench.

KWAME HOLMAN: As the vote approached this afternoon, Judiciary Committee Republicans decried what they say is a false image of judge Pickering created by liberal interest groups.

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY, (R) Iowa: They're using the same plots, the same employs and talking points to destroy the career of a decent and well-qualified man. They've simply pulled out their model complaints and have just written in, filled in the blank with Judge Pickering's name. Again, these groups are trying to highjack the Senate -- all this because they want the committee to evaluate judicial nominees with a pre-ordained, established litmus test, and that's what's wrong.

KWAME HOLMAN: Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold answered the argument of some Pickering supporters that because the Senate approved him as a federal district judge, he clearly is qualified to be elevated to the court of appeals.

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD, (D) Wisconsin: Judge Pickering has also expressed troubling views in some voting right cases, including even mounting some criticism of the concept of one person, one vote. That concept is the bedrock of constitutional freedoms of our political system, and I am somewhat disinclined to elevate to a higher court a judge who seems not to take this principle sufficiently seriously.

KWAME HOLMAN: After more than three hours of statements, members voted first on whether to report Judge Pickering favorably to the full Senate. All 10 Democrats voted no; all nine Republicans, yes. Then, in two other votes requested by Republicans, committee Democrats also refused to move the Pickering nomination forward even without a favorable recommendation, apparently ending the Charles Pickering nomination.

ESSAY - THE TRUE PICTURE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, essayist Roger Rosenblatt looks at an exhibit of photographs in New York.

(Speaking in German )

ROGER ROSENBLATT: One of the curious things about photography is that the picture does not lie, even when you want it to. And nobody wants pictures to lie as much as propagandists. Leni Riefenstahl made her dark and demonic reputation by taking glorifying pictures of Nazis. Hers was art used for politics as never before. And yet, a Nazi is a Nazi, and the falsification of the Hitler gang-- the fake superiority, the corruption of power, the brutality-- came through in every polished jackboot. So it is, in a slightly different way, with an exhibition of photographs at the International Center for Photography, called "Another Vietnam: Pictures of the War From the Other Side." The title is misleading. These are not pictures of the Vietnam War. They are propaganda shots-- pictures not from the other side, but rather from one side of the other side. We have a woman Viet Cong guerrilla posing with her rifle as a symbol of courage and duty. We have the camaraderie of the undaunted Viet Cong soldiers -- youth volunteers -- attending villagers -- the ferocity of the fighters. Victims of American bombing. Jane Fonda-- how could we do without her? Surrender of the enemy, the South Vietnamese. Capture of the enemy, us. Compare such photographs to Eddie Adams' street execution, or to the photo of the young girl running toward us after a napalm attack, or to a Buddhist monk setting himself on fire. Or, to make the point most harshly, My Lai. The photos americans saw of the war were of the war. The photos in this exhibit were meant to inspire a war. And yet-- and here is where it gets interesting-- these, too, have an independent power. In spite of their propagandist intentions, they do show what happens in a war: The faces of the wounded. The mixture of pain and hardship. The unfathomable weariness. The madness. An especially arresting picture is of a dance troupe entertaining an artillery unit in the middle of the jungle. The thing is a setup, but unintentionally it conveys the craziness of the enterprise. Even posed, people are always people. Between disapproval of its propaganda cast and wonder at the fact that the pictures seem to rebel against it, stands the modern American observer, who-- here I speak for myself-- does not quite know what to make of these pictures. The use of art for politics usually ruins art, and very few of these shots do anything for me. What one does take away is that, even in this rally-the-troops mode of art, there is always another side. And on that other side in Vietnam were photographers who, in spite of their assignments, in spite of themselves, did-- as all artists do-- find beauty. See beauty here: The beauty of the makeshift medical station in the jungle, with the water gleaming and the heads covered for different reasons, and the folds of the tent, and the flow of the vines... and the faces, of course-- the human faces. I'm Roger Rosenblatt.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of this day: Israeli tanks began a phased pull-out from Ramallah on the West Bank. The Arthur Andersen accounting firm was indicted on charges of obstructing justice in the Enron matter. And the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected the nomination of Charles Pickering for a federal appeals court. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening with Shields and Brooks, among others. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.