The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Good evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Jim Lehrer is on vacation. On the NewsHour tonight three Newsmaker interviews: U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson on the latest conflict with Iraq; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on prospects for Middle East peace; and two-time presidential candidate Ross Perot on where his Reform Party goes from here; plus an update on affirmative action and the Supreme Court; and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay about modern women. It all follows our summary of the news this Monday. NEWS SUMMARY

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Iraqi authorities today barred a United Nations inspection team, which included an American from entering a weapons site. Hours later Iraqi officials agreed to meet with three U.N. emissaries who will arrive in Bagdad tomorrow to try to defuse the crisis. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said they would not negotiate but would discuss Iraq's failures to comply with weapons inspections. Iraq announced last Wednesday it would no longer allow American observers to participate in the U.N. inspections. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Bill Richardson spoke to reporters about the diplomatic approach.

BILL RICHARDSON: We believe that the objective of the envoys would be to get Iraq to comply with all U.N. resolutions, in other words to read Iraq the riot act that what they've acted on is irresponsible; that the nuclear inspection team, their safety should be guaranteed, and all ABSCOM personnel should be able to conduct their work. There is no negotiation. We don't believe the envoys should have any negotiating role, other than to get Saddam Hussein to comply.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH:Richardson also said Iraq had threatened in a letter to shoot down U.S. surveillance planes that fly over its air space as part of the U.N. inspections. We'll have a Newsmaker interview with Richardson right after the News Summary. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators resumed face-to-face talks today in Washington. U.S. mediators complained the three-man Palestinian delegation did not include experts needed to discuss issues such as airport and seaport construction. Secretary of State Albright convened the new round of talks. They are led by Israel's foreign minister, David Levy, and Palestinian Leader Arafat's deputy, Mahmoud Abas. We'll have a Newsmaker interview with Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu later in the program. At the U.S. Supreme Court today the justices let stand a California law that ends public affirmative action programs. The law, known as Proposition 209, was approved last year as a ballot initiative by 54 percent of the state's voters. It bars state and local governments from granting preferential treatment based on race or sex in public employment, education, and contracting. The court--without comment--rejected a constitutional challenge to the measure brought by civil rights groups. We'll have more on the Supreme Court's action later in the program. In economic news today U.S. stock markets got a big lift from strong performances in Asian and European markets. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose more than 232 points to close at 7674.39. In Denver today federal prosecutors said Terry Nichols was as guilty as Timothy McVeigh of the Oklahoma City bombing. That was their opening argument on the first day of Nichols' trial. They said it did not matter that he was home in Kansas when the 1995 explosion occurred. They said Nichols bought and hid bomb ingredients, and stole money to fund the attack, which killed 168 people. Defense lawyers countered that Nichols, who was McVeigh's army buddy, did not know of the bombing plan. Nichols faces the same murder charges for which McVeigh was convicted and sentenced to death. In France today striking truck drivers clogged highways and blockaded gasoline depots and oil refineries. Truckers are demanding more pay and shorter hours. They walked off the job last night when negotiations reached a stalemate. Last year a similar strike stalled French commerce for 12 days. Russian cosmonauts took a six-hour spacewalk outside Mir today. The two men dismantled an aging solar panel in their continuing effort to restore power to the space station. Inside, American astronaut David Wolf stood by at the controls. The cosmonauts are scheduled to walk in space again Thursday to install a replacement panel. Mir's power supply was cut in June, when the space station was struck by a runaway cargo ship. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to U.N. Ambassador Richardson, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, an affirmative action update, Ross Perot, and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay. NEWSMAKER

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: First tonight, another standoff between Iraq and the United Nations and United States. The issue, again, is U.N. inspections of Iraqi weapons programs. We start with some background from Tom Bearden.

TOM BEARDEN: The latest round of tension was sparked last week when Iraq refused to allow Americans on the United Nations weapons inspections team to continue their work. The Iraqis then set a Wednesday deadline for all American inspectors to leave the country. The move was immediately denounced by the United States and other nations on the UN Security Council.

JAMES RUBIN, State Department Spokesman: This is another case of Saddam Hussein shooting himself in the foot. The point here is that all members of the United Nations Security Council are united in demanding Iraqi compliance with this special commission.

TOM BEARDEN: Iraq has been subject to international inspections since the end of the Gulf War in 1991. The inspections were part of a program of sanctions and other measures designed to force the elimination of Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. But Iraq frequently evaded the inspections, which led to confrontation, and in two instances U.S. military action, including Cruise Missile attacks on Iraqi military facilities in January of 1993. As recently as last month the chief UN inspector reported that Iraq is continuing to hide information on biological arms and is also withholding some data on chemical weapons and missiles. Under the terms of the agreement ending the Persian Gulf War the sanctions against Iraq cannot be removed until UN investigators, now headed by Australian diplomat Richard Butler, certify Iraq has eliminated all weapons of mass destruction. Today Iraq turned back a United Nations weapons inspection team that included one American. Butler condemned the latest Iraqi move.

RICHARD BUTLER, Chief UN Arms Inspector: We will continue. What Iraq has done is illegal; it's wrong. The Security Council says so. We're not going to lie down and take that in the face of something that is clearly wrong.

TOM BEARDEN: But hours later Iraq accepted UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's proposal that a three- member UN mission go to Baghdad. Diplomats from Algeria, Sweden, and Argentina are already en route. Annan insists the mission is not to negotiate but to seek Iraqi compliance. The United States has also insisted Iraq comply to its UN resolutions and has pointedly refused to rule out military force. But other members of the Security Council, particularly Russia, have said they oppose military force. Today Iraq demanded the cancellation of flights by American U-2 spy planes over the country and warned they could be shot down by Iraqi anti-aircraft fire. Iraqi U.N. envoy Mizar Habdoon said in light of the current developments and as happened at previous times, Iraq expects a military aggression against it by the United States; therefore, the entry of an American spy plane into Iraq's skies cannot be accepted. Many Iraqis have demonstrated their support for Hussein in the streets of Baghdad.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now, a Newsmaker interview with the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson. I talked to him this afternoon before the U.N. Security Council began its latest session on the Iraqi situation.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ambassador, thank you for being with us.

BILL RICHARDSON, UN Ambassador: Thank you for having me, Elizabeth.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: As you go into the Security Council session, is this crisis escalating?

BILL RICHARDSON: Oh, it's escalating. It showing that Saddam Hussein is getting more excessive in his irresponsibility. The latest incident is that he is now stating that the U-2 plane, which a United Nations plane that conducts inspection, should not fly. That's another direct frontal assault on the United Nations and the Security Council, and the work of the U.N. inspection team.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And will the U-2 flight be canceled?

BILL RICHARDSON: No. This is the work of the United Nations. This is the work of the U.N. inspection team. It's very important that this flight take place. This is a flight that has a very important mission, and what Saddam Hussein is trying to do is not just hamper the work of the inspectors on the ground by picking and choosing who can and who can't inspect, but now he's dealing with the essential technological mission of the U.N. inspection team. He's making it impossible for them to do their work. He's defying the international system; he's shooting himself in the foot; this is backfiring on him, but you never know where this guy is going to go next.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ambassador, explain why it's so important from your point of view that the Americans be allowed to be part of the inspection team.

BILL RICHARDSON: Well, first of all, this is a U.N. inspection team. It's not an American inspection team. And Saddam Hussein should not have the right to pick and choose who conducts the inspections. Who's going to be next? The British because they voted against him in the Security Council? He is showing total favoritism, politicizing the mission, defying the international system. He's had a pattern of continuing to hide biological weapons, deny access to many of the inspection team, block essential work by, for instance, those involved in some of the inspections. And lastly, he is making by this incident with the U-2 plane virtually impossible for the U.N. inspection team to do its work consistent with U.N. Security Council resolutions after the Gulf War.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Why do you think this is happening now?

BILL RICHARDSON: Well, this happens periodically. Saddam Hussein tests the international system. He's testing whether the alliance, the Security Council is going to be united, and he has united the Security Council, besides the fact that the Security Council has kept sanctions on Iraq because they have not complied on all of the resolutions relating to the end of the Gulf War. He feels that perhaps because there was some abstentions in the Security Council last week these were just tactical differences; these weren't differences in policy that he wants to test the coalition; but what you see now is France and Russia making very strong statements that Saddam Hussein should cease and desist; that what he is doing is totally unacceptable; and he's once again uniting the international community against him. So it's backfiring on him but this is a man that doesn't seem to know what is sane and what is politically correct to do, and he's just shooting himself in the foot more and more times.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: France and Russia have said that this should cease; that he should allow the Americans to continue with the inspections, but they've also said they wouldn't support a military option, is that right? Doesn't that make it a little hard to pressure Saddam Hussein?

BILL RICHARDSON: Well, I think that when you reach a stage of decision-making within the allies, within the Security Council, it's very important that we put incremental pressure on Saddam Hussein; that we give diplomacy a chance to work; that we make sure that France and Russia, who have been very supportive, continue to feel that within the Security Council there's going to be perhaps a solution. It could be that Saddam backs off after these envoys go to Baghdad and read 'em the riot act. These envoys are not negotiating; they're simply saying you've got to comply with Security Council resolutions. You've got to comply with the presidential statement of the Security Council of last week that says that the inspection should reopen and be fully unimpeded; that this is essential work of the U.N.. What Saddam is doing is attacking the international system. He's just not attacking the United States. He's attacking the Security Council, the United Nations, and all law-abiding nations.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: If the envoys who are going are not able to get any kind of a backing off, would there be a timetable within which something has to happen, or something like military options would be taken?

BILL RICHARDSON: Well, we have not ruled out anything, including a military response, but what is clear here is that we first have to see how these envoys work. The United Nations Security Council has to act united, and we're heading in that direction. Forms of incremental pressure involving the Security Council will probably happen if the mission fails. What happens next we have to discuss with our allies. China is now present in the Security Council. They play a key role. France, Russia, Great Britain our allies--the British and us are a hundred per cent in sync, as are the French and Russians on this at this time. But there are ten other members in the Security Council, all of whom have supported us in our efforts to demonstrate to Saddam Hussein that he is violating the international system.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: When you say incremental pressure, what do you mean?

BILL RICHARDSON: Well, the Security Council has a variety of resolutions that can be taken that range from what are called presidential statements to condemnations to tough actions, to sanctions--a number of options that we will have to weigh jointly with some of our allies, and in those options nothing is ruled out.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Let me go back a minute to why this is happening now. As you know, Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz has said that Iraq is doing this because as long as America's involved with the weapons inspections that Iraq can never comply enough because the real goal he says is to overthrow Saddam Hussein, not to get compliance. How do you respond to that?

BILL RICHARDSON: Well, that's totally false. That's a consistent pattern of deception that the Iraqis have used. Richard Butler, the head of the UN inspection team, an Australian, Rolf Ekeus, a Swede, previously headed the UN inspection team, have documented clear patterns of violations on biological weapons, on many other weapons of mass destruction, obstructing the work of the inspectors, hiding the weapons. They must have something to hide. So, again, that is not a justification because the inspection team is multi-national. They're technicians; they're scientists; they're doing their work, and right now they're prevented from doing so by once again Saddam Hussein pushing the envelope, showing how irresponsible he is, and testing the will of the alliance and testing the Security Council, and it's not working for him.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The London Observer, newspaper, reported today that inspectors were on the verge of finding a very and especially lethal nerve gas, and that that's why this is happening. Is there any truth to that?

BILL RICHARDSON: Well, it could be that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis have something to hide, as ugly as that report may be, Richard Butler, the head of the inspection team, may answer this question in the days ahead. It could be that they're hiding something. I don't have that documented but what the Iraqis have shown is clear patterns of obstruction, of hiding weapons, of denying access to inspectors, especially in the biological weapon area.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: When you said that Saddam Hussein had made a big mistake and you were referring especially to the way that the alliance is responding now, tell us more about that. There had been--it seems some people called this sanctions fatigue, I think, some of the countries saying that they wished sanctions could end for various reasons, humanitarian, or because they wanted to do business, what about now, has that changed?

BILL RICHARDSON: I don't believe it's changing, Elizabeth. When there were some abstentions on the last sanctions review issue, these were tactical differences, how do you define compliance; who, for instance, if there are travel sanctions, gets denied access from the Iraqi government? We have renewed sanctions on Iraq. What we were talking about then were additional sanctions. And the Security Council has 15 members. It's not just the permanent five. And we've always had a coalition of 10 countries wanting strong sanctions and additional sanctions, so what is happening here is that the French and the Russians have made very strong statements, pushing Saddam to pull back. What has also happened is the United Nations Security Council in the last week has passed a number of resolutions urging support for the team to reopen, finding ways to condemn Saddam Hussein, urging that the inspectors be treated properly, they not be harassed. The secretary general has weighed in very strongly with a mission that is going to go there and basically define for Saddam Hussein what it means that he has to do, and that is he has got to comply with the U.N. resolutions; he has got to find a way to pull back; he has got to find a way to literally totally back off. There is no negotiation. We made this clear, that we supported this mission only--only if there were no negotiations; if they were there basically to read Saddam Hussein the riot act.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Mr. Ambassador, thanks very much for being with us.

BILL RICHARDSON: Thank you, Elizabeth. NEWSMAKER

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now, our Newsmaker interview with the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. Charles Krause has that.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Today's talks in Washington opened against a backdrop of growing pessimism and recrimination in the Middle East. Dr. Akhmad Tibi is one of Yasser Arafat's closest advisers. This weekend on the West Bank he expressed skepticism there would be progress in Washington, blaming Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

AHMAD TIBI, Yasser Arafat Adviser: I am not optimistic. I think that Benjamin Netanyahu is a hopeless case.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Today, Arafat himself was quoted saying the talks are a waste of time. Meanwhile, in Israel, Uzi Landau, the powerful chairman of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and other members of Netanyahu's Likud Party, are also saying the Oslo process has failed and should be abandoned. Netanyahu was elected last year on a platform of peace with security. His victory reflected the perception of Israel's voters that Arafat, despite his promises and the Oslo accords, had not done all he could to stop terrorism against Israel. But the Palestinians say that since taking office, Netanyahu has used the security issue as an excuse to poison the atmosphere. They point to a series of decisions from the opening of a tunnel in East Jerusalem to continuing construction of housing and settlements on the West Bank, to the recent assassination attempt against an alleged Palestinian terrorist in Jordan as evidence that Netanyahu has deliberately tried to undermine this process. Today's talks began a week late because Netanyahu and his cabinet did not agree on what positions Israel should take on a number of sensitive issues. We interviewed the prime minister this afternoon in Jerusalem several hours before the talks began this morning in Washington.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Prime Minister Netanyahu, thank you very much for joining us. There seems to be a growing sense among the Palestinians and even among some members of your own coalition that the Oslo process is dead. From your perspective, is it in Israel's interest that this process continue?

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, Prime Minister, Israel: Well, we undertook a commitment to fulfill the Israeli commitments under the Oslo accords, and we expect the Palestinians to do the same. I think if Oslo is seen as a one-way street where Israel gives and the Palestinians receive, that is not in the cards. But if both sides keep their commitments and the Palestinians especially keep their commitments to nullify their charter that still calls for Israel's disappearance and especially to fight terrorism, then I don't see any reason why we can't go ahead. And, in fact, I've been arguing that we should move forward much more rapidly to a final settlement to achieve an historic peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

CHARLES KRAUSE: You say that the Palestinians have not made good on their commitments, but they say that you've deliberately raised the bar so high that the process is never going to work.

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Where do you live?

CHARLES KRAUSE: Washington.

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Do you know Bethesda?

CHARLES KRAUSE: Of course.

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Suppose you had terrorists basing themselves in Bethesda, under the authorities in Bethesda, openly making rallies calling for your destruction, organizing killer gangs to leave from Bethesda to Washington, to bomb your neighborhood, to blow up buses, to kill people in markets. I think the first thing you'd say--if you wanted peace with Bethesda--is, stop these terrorists, stop these killings. That's exactly what we are saying. That is not a rough or a very high barrier. It's the minimal standards of peace. And that's all we're saying: fight the terrorists. You know, my predecessor, the late Yitzhak Rabin, put it very simply. He said, Oslo is a very simple deal: We give the Palestinians territory; they give us a promise to fight the terrorists from within that territory. Well, fight those terrorists. Then we can proceed to negotiate the remaining issues.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Would you anticipate any significant progress will be made this week in Washington?

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: I hope so. It's certainly our purpose and our--the mandate that we have given our delegation. I think the crucial factor for us is that so far terrorists are being released by the Palestinian Authority; there was an attempt by the United States to place a monitoring mechanism on the proverbial revolving door where Hamas terrorists are put in jail and released the next day. That hasn't been done. We want to see the infrastructure, the institutions that give money and organizational cover to the Hamas terrorists shut down. Some have been. Many of them reopen. We'd like to see a consistent, concerted, and continuous effort on the part of the Palestinian Authority against the infrastructure of terror, and so far we haven't seen it. If it happens, we'll be able to move on all fronts with the peace process. If it doesn't, this is a theoretic talk. When the bombs burst, when people die, when you have to pick off parts of bodies from treetops and from buildings, peace is not going to move ahead. What we expect of the Palestinian Authority is what you would expect, what anyone would expect of any peace partner: Fight the terrorists so that we can move on towards peace.

CHARLES KRAUSE: In that case, is there going to be any progress now or in the next six months?

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Well, there can be, and I think that progress should be based on reciprocity and on the performance of the Palestinians on this crucial issue of fighting terrorism both now, both for the immediate coming months, and also as an indication for the durability and stability of a final settlement. My own view is that we should accelerate the negotiations to cut to the heart of the matter. You know, everybody says it's a very complicated negotiation. It is. Everybody says it deals with basic existential issues for us: borders, settlements, water, air space, and, above all, Jerusalem. Absolutely right. But you're not going to get there faster by getting their slower because the slower the process, the more erosion takes place of the confidence in the parties with each other. We fight over every little thing because every little thing is seen in the context of that final settlement that we're all eyeing. I say something else: Put it all on the table. Take all the pieces. Put them in place, and then try to cut the Gordian knot by having a comprehensive deal, if you will, a package deal, in which we can give something and get something. Arafat can give something and get something. And at the end of the day we can each present to our respective peoples: Here it is. We've brought you something that is bigger than the sum of its parts, and it's called peace. That's what I think we should do--get to the final settlement because that is the peace. Don't shirk away from it; get to it.

CHARLES KRAUSE: But at the same time, of course, Arafat and other Palestinians we've talked to say that why should they trust you, why should they go to the final negotiations, when you're not willing to make good on Israel's commitments under the current agreement?

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Well, I have made peace, and I have made good on my commitments. In fact, if you look at what happened since I took office, I fulfilled all those commitments that the previous labor government refused to do. I redeployed in Hebron. I released women prisoners that they had made commitments to release. I pretty much lifted until very recently the closure of the Israeli cities to Palestinian workers. I've done all these things. What did we get in turn? No revocation of the Palestinian covenant; continuous incitement to violence of the controlled Palestinian media; the release of terrorist prisoners; no extradition of terrorists that are supposed to come under the agreement to Israel--and so on and so on. In fact, there is a paradox here that I call Netanyahu's paradox. It is that Israel, which keeps the Oslo Accords, is accused of violating them, and the Palestinian Authority, which violates the Oslo Accords, is credited with keeping them.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Why is that then? Why is that perception out there?

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: I can give you the easy answer and the harder answer. The easy answer is settlements, and the argument is, well, but you're building in settlements; you're violating the agreement, or you're building a neighborhood in Jerusalem, you're violating the agreement. Of course, no one reads the agreement when they say that. Again, the late Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the Oslo Accords, stood proudly before the Knesset when he presented the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians. And he said we can build; there's no limitation, not in Jerusalem. No government would accept limitations in Jerusalem, and not in the settlements. The Labor government refused to accept any contractual limitations on building anywhere, just as the Palestinians build in the Palestinian towns and villages; both sides build, pending the outcome of a final settlement. So we are asked to stop things that are outside of the agreement in exchange for Palestinian compliance with things that are in the agreement. And I think that bugaboo, you know, that all inclusive catch of settlements, clouds people's minds. And, by the way, the settlements altogether account for maybe 1 percent of the whole area of the West Bank.

CHARLES KRAUSE: But even if the settlements issues is not in the--

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: I think actually there's a deeper issue I told you that. I don't think it's the--oh, by the way, the fashionable thing is to compress a thousand years of Middle Eastern obstinacy--radicalism and fundamentalism--into one new villain, if you will--me--I am the problem of the Middle East. Well, aside from this jocular view of the situation, I think there's a much deeper reason for what we've been describing, and that is that I think most of the countries in the West have a colonial or expansionist past. And the model is very simple. If they had a colonial past, colonial in the sense of overseas adventurism, of being--colonizing in Africa or in Asia or in the United States' case "colonizing" in Vietnam--then Israel too must be a colonizing power that took away this land from the Palestinians, and now we're in this strange land that we have expropriated from its rightful native inhabitants. This is the model. This is supposed to be Algeria for us. We're France. This is not Algeria. This is the heart of the Jewish homeland and it's in our back door. It's not an ocean away.

CHARLES KRAUSE: But are you saying then that because if it is the Jewish homeland, you are not prepared ever to reach some sort of agreement that would give or allow the Palestinians to have a state on the West Bank?

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Well, No. 1, I'm saying that in this very small space between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, between the river and the sea, which is all of 50 miles wide, including the West Bank, including Israel, we have two peoples living. And the solution that I have is that we must find a way that will satisfy the Palestinians' need to govern themselves, administer their own lives, with minimal interference from us, but for us to protect our lives. It's very hard to reconcile that with sovereign powers. And most Israelis would agree with that.

CHARLES KRAUSE: There is also--former Secretary of State Baker was on our program--Dr. Brzezinski was on our program--and there is a growing perception, though, that it is Israel; that your government is not willing to make the kinds of concessions, get involved in the kind of serious negotiation that would lead to something that the Palestinians could live with.

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: On the contrary; I think that it is only our government, it is only a government center right that can achieve a peace that will hold in Israel. What we will do in the final settlement will hold because we can bring inner unity to our decisions. And the only question is: Do we want to? And the answer is: We want to, and we can. This is why I'm saying to the Palestinians, let's stop wasting time on all these interim issues that are consuming our energies,causing friction among us, causing us not to move forward to a final settlement that can give a comprehensive and lasting peace to our children and to your children. We're wasting a lot of time.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Is it your understanding that the administration--the U.S. administration--is backing your view, or backing the Palestinians' view?

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Well, you can ask them, but I think that any objective examination of the facts would--I think would bring two conclusions--one, the Palestinians must fight terrorism, something they haven't done, and must dismantle the terror infrastructure in their midst, just as we don't have terror attacks from Egypt or from Jordan or from--we won't have them from Lebanon and Syria, if we make peace with them, it's obvious. The idea that we can have terror attacks against us from Palestinian-controlled territories and continue with the peace process, we won't achieve the peace, and we won't sustain the peace, unless that is dismantled. I think the United States fully agrees with that.

CHARLES KRAUSE: There are reports of tension between the administration and your government, specifically you. How would you characterize your relationship with the administration at this point?

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: I think that Israel and the United States have abiding interest to achieve peace here, to fight terrorism, to achieve regional stability, and I think we see eye to eye on all those things. We can and we do have occasional disagreements, as have most Israeli governments in the last 30 years, on specific issues. I certainly don't tend to personalize these things. I think they're a product of different viewpoints.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Finally, Jordan; King Hussein gave an interview to the Washington Post this weekend where he criticized you. He said you had betrayed him and that you were the obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Well, I know it's a very fashionable thing to say. And I suppose if you repeat it ad infinitum from the various quarters, people will begin to believe it. I respect King Hussein. I like him, but I can't agree with this particular statement. I think that--I think that he also made a distinction between the people of Israel and the leadership of Israel.

CHARLES KRAUSE: He certainly did.

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Well, in the Middle East at least; in the Middle East I can say Israel is the only country that one can definitely say that the people choose their leader. So I can say that the majority of the Jewish people and of the people of Israel chose me. That's what I can say about Israel. As far as the recent problem we had with Jordan, we have only one expectation--and I said that before--that neighboring states at peace with Israel will fully fulfill their obligation to prevent the organization or launching or incitement of terrorist attacks against us from their territory. That is a just and reasonable expectation and one that we hope will be continuously fulfilled.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister.

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Thank you.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: That was the first of several reports Charles Krause will send from the Middle East. He requested an interview with Palestinian Leader Yasser Arafat but was turned down. Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: affirmative action, Ross Perot, and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay. UPDATE - SUPREME COURT WATCH

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Next, the Supreme Court and affirmative action and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: Today the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to California's Proposition 209. The 1996 initiative bans race or gender from being a factor in state hiring or contracting decisions and state college or university admissions. We get more now from NewsHour regular Stuart Taylor, senior writer with National Journal and contributing editor to Newsweek. Stuart, first, just explain what exactly did the court do today?

STUART TAYLOR, National Journal: Strictly speaking, all they did was nine simple words; the petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. What that means is we're not going to hear this case. They issued it without comment and without dissent. They didn't say why they weren't going to hear it. Typically, they do that hundreds--thousands of times each year, and it's usually not--it's never a precedent, a national precedent when they do it, and it's usually not much of a news event. This time, I think, because of the vast importance of this case it is a substantial news event.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Explain what you mean when you say it isn't a precedent?

STUART TAYLOR: That means that in lower courts that lower courts around the country are not bound by what the court did today. The U.S. Court of Appeals from the 9th Circuit upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 209, and in the western states that are within its jurisdiction that is now law. But let's say if Florida- -which has thought about adopting a similar measure--does so--and there's a challenge there, the federal courts in that part of the country will not be banned by what the Supreme Court did today. They will at least theoretically have the option of saying, well, we think it's unconstitutional. In that sense the argument is not resolved for all time.

MARGARET WARNER: And what is the significance of the court not making any comment whatsoever? They could have made some written comment.

STUART TAYLOR: They rarely make any comment when they refuse to hear a case, and so that would be exceptional. I think what it shows in a practical sense, if we can get away from the technicalities of the law for the moment, is that there were not a majority of the current court that was troubled by what California had done in a legal sense? It seems that a majority of this court was not ready to say that's unconstitutional and was prepared to defer to the voters of California when they said for the first time--the voters of any state have ever said--no more state affirmative action racial or gender preferences, which is what Proposition 209 said.

MARGARET WARNER: And what did this court of appeals say in upholding that? What was the basis on which the court of appeals in April said this is constitutional?

STUART TAYLOR: In essence, the court of appeals said, here we have a law that says it's illegal for the state to discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to people in state programs on the basis of race or gender. And it is challenged under the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection clause, which basically says you're not supposed to discriminate on the grounds of race or gender, among other things, with some exceptions. The court made it clear they thought the argument was a little bit absurd for why a law that says you can never discriminate on grounds of race--in California--would violate a state constitutional provision--a federal constitutional provision that's been construed to mean you can almost never discriminate on grounds of race and gender. And they used strong language to demonstrate that they thought that the argument--and these are their words--teeters on the brink of incoherence. So the 9th Circuit basically said, of course, it's constitutional. Why would anybody think it wasn't?

MARGARET WARNER: So now what is--back to the practical effect--what's the practical effect of this, first of all, in California?

STUART TAYLOR: The practical effect--nothing dramatic will happen tomorrow because the law had--the Proposition 209 had already been allowed to go into effect this summer when a stay was allowed to expire. And there are lots of technical battles to be fought as to whether the city of San Francisco, for example, which hates this proposition, its government, and wants to continue granting preferences to minority contractors, will have to stop doing so. There will be lots of foot-dragging. There will be lots of arguments, some rather technical, some rather substantial, about how far this reaches and what its actual impact is. In the long run it means that racial preferences of the kind that have been testified in the name of affirmative action for many years and gender preferences are illegal in California.

MARGARET WARNER: And does it also mean they're illegal in the other states covered by this ninth circuit?

STUART TAYLOR: No, it does not. And I should amend what I just said a moment ago. I spoke a little too broadly. Racial preferences by the state are now illegal in California.

MARGARET WARNER: And when you say by the state, do you also include county and city governments, or just state?

STUART TAYLOR: Yes. County and city governments but a private employer, for example, is just as free tomorrow as they were yesterday, or before 209, to hire on a preferential basis if they want to, if they think, gee, we ought to have more people of color here, and we think that we've had a past discrimination, we ought to remedy it. They can do that. The state and the local governments no longer can do that. It only affects California unless or until other states' electorates adopt similar measures.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Now, does this preclude a legal challenge by say an individual who has a very specific case? You know, we've got to work for the fire department or didn't get a job with the fire department and wants to sue the state on this basis. I mean, does it preclude all of that, or could an individual still bring an action?

STUART TAYLOR: It does not. It certainly has nothing to do with whether an individual can sue or say I've been the victim of discrimination and, therefore, I want a job. They can still do that. What it does do is it says that unless federal law says you're entitled to a racial preference as a remedy, then that's not a remedy available to the state courts. In theory, if a federal court says we think the only way to remedy some pervasive pattern of discrimination at the XYZ Police Department, for example, is to have a racial quota for hiring, which the court did once in its history in a case in Alabama, that would override the state law.

MARGARET WARNER: You mean they could do that, or they could not do that?

STUART TAYLOR: Federal law overrides state law and, therefore, if a federal court finds that federal law requires a racial preference, than that would override 209; however, the Supreme Court is not likely to find that that happens very often.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Stuart, thanks very much.

STUART TAYLOR: Thank you. NEWSMAKER

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Now, a Newsmaker interview with Ross Perot and to Phil Ponce.

PHIL PONCE: The Perot Party held its convention in Kansas City, Missouri, this past weekend. Ross Perot founded the Party and was its presidential candidates in 1996. He also ran for president in 1992, when he won 19 percent of the vote, the best third party showing in 80 years. But last year he received just 8 1/2 percent. He keynoted the Reform Party Convention Saturday night and he's with us now from Dallas. Mr. Perot, thank you for joining us. First of all, for the past year or so it seems like you've maintained a fairly low profile not seen very much. Where was that?

ROSS PEROT: Well, that's another question. If you're not invited to go on anybody's television show, you can't go. And if the television ad works won't sell you time--I tried to buy time on campaign finance reform; I've tried to buy time on the balanced budget, and they wouldn't sell time. So you can only have a high profile if you have the opportunity. So we have had a chance now here recently to speak out and we are. And while you're on these percentages that I got in the two elections, remember that the reason we didn't get that far in '96 is that the two presidential candidates, not the debate commissioners--Clinton and Dole--decided that I should not be in the debates and cut a deal. Now, if that has anything to do with politics, as it should be in America--I don't think it does--if that is constitutional--and I'm sure it's not--and we're going to test that to see. The whole system is set up now so that only the two parties totally control, they totally control the Federal Election Commission; they totally control the Debate Commission; and they allow the candidates to blatantly come in from the two parties and tell the commissioners what to do.

PHIL PONCE: And, sir, when you say--

ROSS PEROT: That's what we're working on now. We're going to clean up this rotten mess that they've got in Washington.

PHIL PONCE: And, sir, when you say that you're going to test that, what exactly do you mean?

ROSS PEROT: That means we have already filed a court case in Washington, for one. There's going to be another major event on Wednesday of this week in San Francisco. We'll have a press conference Wednesday at the Sheraton Palace Hotel on Market Street and announce our next major effort. It's obvious the two parties are not going to solve our country's problems. We've got to go about it in another way. In this first case I just mentioned we obviously have gone to court. We want to take this to court; it will be a constitutional question and no ifs, ands, and buts. There's no way that any judge could say that having two presidential candidates from the two major parties decide who gets in the debate makes any sense at all. And when you look at how the FEC runs and the way the system is set up now, when we didn't get in the debate, we went to federal court, and the federal court said under the law you have to first go to the FEC.

PHIL PONCE: The Federal Election Commission.

ROSS PEROT: The Federal Election Commission. And guess what they said? We don't have to rule for 120 days. That knocked us totally out. Now that sounds like something that might happen in a third world country, not the greatest country in the history of man. We're going to clean that up. And we're going to do that one through the courts. We're going to go different ways and different places, but we're going to nail these things. We will get campaign finance reform. We will get our budget balanced. We will get our country's financial house put back in order, and we will never quit until we have done it.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Perot, getting back to the issue of the Reform Party, itself, what do you say to people who look at the Reform Party as being fairly weak at this point and perhaps not able to do the kinds of things you're talking about?

ROSS PEROT: Well, let's take a look at that. Twelve hundred people--delegates from all across the United States--were in Kansas City. They didn't go to Buddhist temples to get the money for this party. They didn't go over and cut deals with Asian countries. They didn't go to big corporations and make deals, and by the way, the Federal Debate Commission is paid for with big corporations putting up the money for the debates. These people bought their own tickets, came at their own expense. It was as clean and as pure as democracy could be. I wish every American could have seen it on C-Span. They were just good, honest, decent, patriotic people who love their country, love their children, who want to make it a better place. They're working together, and believe me, that is not a weak showing. That was a tremendous display of grassroots democracy. CHARLES KRAUSE: You talked about campaign finance reform. Are you the least bit encouraged that the Republican congressional leadership has said they will now allow a vote on it next spring?

ROSS PEROT: No, because it is the McCain-Feingold bill. Now only in America would you have one of the Keating 5 offering campaign reform. The only reason the guy wasn't thrown out of the Senate is that Democrats and Republicans were both guilty under the Keating Five and they always cut a deal, just like they did this year on all these investigations because both the Democrats and the Republicans spent tens of millions of dollars illegally in the presidential campaign; they both got caught, and all they could do was just kind of make a truce and walk away. We're not going to let that happen. Let's go back to an earlier time when we set a much higher standard. Jim Wright had to leave the House of Representatives for a book deal that was a few thousand dollars. Spiro Agnew had to leave as vice president, and the total amount of money there was a fraction of what was spent in a criminal way this year. And I can go on down the list of people in the past who had to leave the Congress for relatively minor matters. And let's take Richard Nixon and Watergate. The worst thing they did was break into the Democratic headquarters. Here they spent tens of millions of dollars. These are things an ordinary citizen would go to jail for. And yet we just sort of sweep over it. We're not going to let that happen. We're going to nail that, and you'll see this unfold in the next few weeks, and it's going to be a really big interesting chapter of it unfold this Wednesday.

PHIL PONCE: Mr. Perot, if we could look at internal party matters, according to reports about 96 activists from 23 states gathered in Illinois last month to form a splinter group, the American Reform Party. How seriously are you concerned about this group that stands in opposition to your personal leadership?

ROSS PEROT: What you really have here, there weren't 96 people there. There were about 40 people there that had nothing to do with the Reform Party. We're not aligned or related to them in any way but the press loves to find anything that's negative. All of the wonderful, positive because a huge part of the press is tied to the Democrat and Republican Parties--and we accept that--and the facts are these people are not tied to us in any way. We have no relationship with them, and you also need to tell the American people the truth. Again and again and again the two parties send people into our party to do destructive things like this, and we just have learned now for the first time, after several years of wondering why these strange people come and go, to realize what's really happening, and we're a lot more street smart than we used to be. But they come in--they broke into Watergate in a criminal way. Now, they infiltrate and bring people in, try to be disruptive, and then leave. And that's all part of the dirty part of American politics, and that's another reason why things don't work in Washington. This week, as we sit here tonight, Congress is trying to sneak through a law that will destroy a provision in the USS Constitution that gives inventors patent rights. You can't circumvent the Constitution with laws legally. If they do that, we're going to nail them on that one. And the reason that's being done is this was promised to all these foreign countries that gave money. If a new inventor has a patent under this new law, it's immediately published all over the world; these third world nations can grab it; mass produce it over there, and guess who's lobbying for it in this country--the who's who of our biggest corporations; they won't have to pay the inventors; they'll manufacture it overseas, and guess what this poor young inventor's only recourse is--to go to the World Trade Organization, not the U.S. court--if he could even afford a lawyer--but to go to the World Trade Organization, where each nation has an un-weighted vote. In other words, we don't have any extra weight on our vote. There are a hundred and some odd nations. We will lose every time. Now what could be more wrong than that? And when you think back, you know, what if Edison had not invented the electric light, or Alexander Graham Bell the phone, and on and on and on, and come right up to modern times, Jack Kilby and Robert Norris, the integrated circuit. And it's right there, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, about patent rights, but all the special interest money now has got Congress trying to do a little shell game, and they're so embarrassed about it they won't even debate it or discuss it on the floor, and they're trying to sneak it through. And we've got that little skunk pulled up by the tail in broad public now, and if they do it, they're going to regret it in '98 and 2000 when they're running.

PHIL PONCE: And, Mr. Perot, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I'm afraid we're out of time. Thank you so much for joining us.

ROSS PEROT: Great to be with you. ESSAY - REAL WOMEN?

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Finally tonight, our Monday night essay. Anne Taylor Fleming considers the myth and the reality of modern women.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: How was it possible 25 years had passed? I couldn't imagine--standing there at my local newsstand and staring down at the 25th anniversary issue of "Ms. Magazine." How well I remember holding the first issue in my hands--my friends and I all lit up by its bold message of anger and hope. Again I heard the voices, remembered the images, the noisy, bumptious parade of agitating women as I flipped through the slender anniversary issue and saw again the old buzz phrases: "Marriage is a patriarchal institution;" "the empowerment of women;" "reproductive freedom." As the parade passed on down the street and out of memory I turned back to the news rack and confronted another kind of women's magazine, the fashion tomes, dense this time of year with the new fall finery and attendant ads for lipstick and lingerie. My desire for equality never precluded my interest in clothes or skirt lengths, or eyeliner. It always seemed to me, in short, that the "Ms." in me could coexist with the "Vogue" in me, a magazine I picked up with regularity over the years. I've seen it all--from the mini-skirted baby dolls of the 70's to the poofily-dressed party girls of the 80's, to the grunge-garbed kids of the early 90's, to the recent ghoulish trend of so-called heroin-chic--pale and drugged-out looking models, swaddled in designer duds, arguably a low for the fashion world, itself apparently rife with drugs--all to say that it's hard to be shocked by anything the fashion designers and magazine editors come up with. Increasingly, though, they do seem to be engaged in some sort of perverse and rarified spectator's sport that shows women at their skinniest and spookiest, a scary, starving female specter hanging over the landscape. This year they've really done it, coming up with some wittily-named new trend called the heroin chic, which sorry to say turns out to be a bizarre cavalcade of glossy giantesses in spike heels and leather mini-skirts, their cleavage ever apparent. In short, woman as sexual predator, as dominatrix. The magazine features page after page of these glaring amazons, with skirts hugging their thighs and war paint smeared over their eyes, a tough, hostile breed, enough to scare a full-grown, mid-life woman. 90's sexiness is hard; violent-- the magazine quotes Gucci designer Tom Ford as saying. Oh, please, that's just irresponsible clap-trap, I found myself muttering. I'm tired like so many people of ugly sex, the kind that stalks through all too many a movie or TV show. Making women the "hurters" instead of the ones being hurt doesn't change the equation in my book. Surely this isn't where liberation led. Surely, this isn't what "Ms." had in mind. Everywhere around me I see terrific women, real, complicated, vital, sensual women leading real lives, raising children, opening businesses, running marathons, being tender towards the men in their lives, and yes, buying clothes and makeup. And yet, these magazines keep pushing further out into some ghoulish netherland, where the women are menacing freaks in black leather. I don't mean so sound so un-hip. Well, maybe I do. Something in these pictures just hit a nerve, reminding me of how far we've come in 25 years to end up back here, where the models de jour are teetering around in track gear, while some fashion designer opines about 90's sex being rough and violent. Sorry. I'm just not buying it. I'm Anne Taylor Fleming. RECAP

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Again, the major stories of this Monday, Iraq threatened to shoot down U.S. spy planes on United Nations missions. It also blocked a U.N. team that included an American from inspecting a weapons site. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators resumed face-to-face talks in Washington, and the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a California law that ends state and local government affirmative action programs. We'll be with you on-line and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Elizabeth Farnsworth. Thank you and good night.