The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. I'm Robert MacNeil in New York.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Wednesday, Kwame Holman reports on NAFTA Day in the White House East room, we get four views of what now, what next in the Middle East, Charlayne Hunter-Gault has a conversation about religion and public life with Stephen Carter, and essayist Roger Rosenblatt speaks of peace between enemies. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Three of his predecessors helped President Clinton launch his campaign for the North American Free Trade Agreement today. Presidents Ford, Carter, and Bush were there with congressional leaders from both parties and Vice President Gore in the White House East Room. Mr. Clinton signed side agreements to NAFTA covering labor and environmental issues. He said the NAFTA debate was not a traditional fight between Democrats and Republicans.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: It is clear that most of the people who oppose this pact are rooted in the fears and insecurities that are legitimately gripping the great American middle class. It is no use to deny that these fears and insecurities exist. It is no use denying that many of our people have lost in the battle for change, but it is a great mistake to think that NAFTA will make it worse. Every single, solitary thing you hear people talk about that they're worried about can happen whether this trade agreement passes or not, and most of them will be made worse if it fails. And I can tell you it will be better if it passes.

MR. LEHRER: Presidents Bush, Ford, and Carter all spoke in favor of NAFTA and joined the call for bipartisanship. Mr. Carter also attacked NAFTA's most visible critic, Ross Perot.

PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER: Unfortunately in our culture now we have a demagogue who has unlimited financial resources and who is extremely careless with the truth, who is preying on the fears and the uncertainties of the American public. And this must be met because this powerful voice can be pervasive even within the Congress of the United States unless it's met by people of courage who vote and act and persuade in the best interests of our country.

MR. LEHRER: Perot claims the agreement will put 5.9 million American jobs in jeopardy. A spokesman for Perot dismissed today's attack as politics as usual and said he would stick to the issues. Congressman David Bonior of Michigan, a member of the Democratic House leadership, joined the AFL-CIO at a news conference this afternoon. He said the agreement was fundamentally flawed and can't be fixed. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Another step towards peace in the Middle East was taken today in Washington. Representatives of Israel and Jordan signed an agenda for future negotiations to resolve disputes over land, water, and other issues. The event comes on the heels of yesterday's White House signing of a peace accord between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization. Sec. of State Christopher presided over today's event at the State Department and had this to say about the agreement.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: Yesterday I expressed the hope that we could see progress toward a comprehensive peace settlement between Israel and all of her Arab neighbors. Today we take the very important step toward that very comprehensive peace with the initialing of the Israeli-Jordanian substantive agenda. We'll be working with these parties as well as the Israeli-Syrian parties, and the Israeli-Lebanese parties. We believe today's agenda which has been finalized will give a strong impetus, a strong momentum to the other negotiations as well as to this negotiation, itself.

MR. MacNeil: PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat went to Capitol Hill this morning in hopes of gaining political and financial support. He met with Senate, Republican, and Democratic leaders who promised to review U.S. laws that prohibit aid to his organization. Later, Arafat spoke to journalists at the National Press Club about the Israeli-PLO peace agreement. He said while differences still exist on issues like the future of Jerusalem, they could be resolved.

YASSER ARAFAT, PLO Chairman: We know there is a problem, and that we are not going to put our heads in the sand, inside the sand. But if there is a way, there is a way, and we canfind through negotiation and through the good permission the accurate solution for all our trouble and for all our political and morale problems.

MR. MacNeil: Israeli Prime Minister Rabin flew to Morocco today for a surprise meeting with King Hassan. Rabin told reporters he came to speak with the Moroccan leader about rapprochement between Israel and Arabs. He denied reports that Israel and Morocco would announce the establishment of diplomatic ties after the meeting, but he said the time was right and he hoped such an announcement would come soon.

MR. LEHRER: Croats and Muslims agreed today to stop their war in Central Bosnia and allow safe passage for all humanitarian convoys. The former allies against the Serbs have been fighting for territory over the past several months. The agreement came at a Geneva meeting between Bosnia's Muslim president and the president of Croatia. The Croat leader said both sides would also disband all prison camps. Formal peace talks among the three warring parties remain suspended. The president of the former Soviet republic of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze, quit today in a dispute with is parliament. He stormed out of a parliamentary session after lawmakers refused to impose a state of emergency he said was needed to combat ethnic conflicts and other problems. The parliament later relented and passed the emergency measure, but it was unclear whether Shevardnadze would reconsider his decision.

MR. MacNeil: Another foreign tourist was killed in an attempted robbery in Florida today, and his companion was wounded. It was the second such attack in less than a week and the ninth within a year. Authorities said the couple from Yorkshire, England, were asleep in their rental car at a highway rest stop in the town of Monticello, when they were approached by two youths demanding money. The tourists were shot as they tried to get away. Florida immediately suspended all domestic and foreign tourist advertising and offered a $10,000 reward in the case. Florida Governor Lawton Chiles spoke to reporters shortly after the attack.

GOV. LAWTON CHILES, [D] Florida: I join with the millions of law abiding Floridians today in a real sense of shock and anger. Another tragic, senseless, and cold-blooded act of violence has been committed on our streets. We are determined to turn this outrage into a determination to cease this. Violence and brutality have no welcome mat in Florida.

MR. MacNeil: Chiles announced that 540 auxiliary officers would be deployed at rest stops along Florida's interstate highways. He also said he would ask President Clinton for federal money to expand Florida's violent crime task force.

MR. LEHRER: In economic news today, the Commerce Department reported the U.S. trade deficit was up nearly 21 percent in the second quarter. The gap between imports and exports hit its highest level in almost five years. The Department also reported retail sales rose .2 percent in August, the fifth straight increase, and the Labor Department said consumer prices were up .3 percent, putting inflation at an annual rate of just under 3 percent so far this year.

MR. MacNeil: That's our summary of the news. Now, it's on to NAFTA Day at the White House, what's next in the Middle East, Stephen Carter, and essayist Roger Rosenblatt. FOCUS - BORDER FIGHT

MR. LEHRER: Three former Presidents of the United States joined the current one this morning at the White House to promote that thing called NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which would link the U.S. economy with those of Canada and Mexico. It was quite an event. Kwame Holman has our lead story report.

MR. HOLMAN: Selling the North American Free Trade Agreement might be more than one President can accomplish, so this morning, President Clinton recruited Presidents Bush, Carter, and Ford to help him out.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: These me, differing in party and outlook, join us today because we all recognize the important stakes for our nation in this issue. Yesterday we saw the sight of an old world dying, a new one being born in hope and a spirit of peace, peoples who for a decade were caught in the cycle of war and frustration, chose hope over fear, and took a great risk to make the future better. Today we turn to face the challenge of our own hemisphere, our own country, our own economic fortunes.

MR. HOLMAN: The occasion was the signing of side agreements to the NAFTA Treaty. They are designed to enforce environmental and labor standards and protect against surges in imports in the three participating countries. As a presidential candidate, Bill Clinton gave only a lukewarm endorsement to NAFTA, but today President Clinton said NAFTA with the new side agreements is crucial to the economic well-being of the country.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: In a fundamental sense, this debate about NAFTA is a debate about whether we will embrace these changes and create the jobs of tomorrow, or try to resist these changes, hoping we can preserve the economic structures of yesterday. I tell you, my fellow Americans, that if we learn anything from the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the fall of governments in Eastern Europe, even a totally controlled society cannot resist the winds of change that economics and technology and information flow have imposed in this world of ours. That is not an option. Our only realistic option is to embrace these changes and create the jobs of tomorrow. [applause] So I say this to you. Are we going to compete and win, or are we going to withdraw? Are we going to face the future with confidence that we can create tomorrow's jobs? Are we going to try against all the evidence of the last 20 years to hold on to yesterdays? Are we going to take the plain evidence of the good faith of Mexico in opening their own markets and buying more of our products and creating more of our jobs, or are we going to give into the fears of the worst case scenario? Are we going to pretend that we don't have the first trade agreement in history dealing seriously with labor standards, environmental standards, and cleverly, and clearly taking account of unforeseen consequences, or are we going to say this is the best you can do and then some? In an imperfect world, we have something which will enable us to go forward together and to create a future that is worthy of our children and grandchildren, worthy of the legacy of America, and consistent with what we did at the end of World War II. We have to do that again. We have to create a new world economy, and if we don't do it, we cannot then point the finger at Europe, Japan, or anybody else and say, why don't you pass the GATT Agreement, why don't you help to create a world economy? If we walk away from this, we have no right to say to other countries in the world, you're not fulfilling your world leadership, you're not being fair with us. This is our opportunity to provide an impetus to freedom and democracy in Latin America and create new jobs for America as well. It's a good deal, and we ought to take it. Thank you. [applause]

MR. HOLMAN: The three former presidents who attended today's ceremony, along with Presidents Reaganand Nixon who did not, also strongly support free trade across the Mexican and Canadian borders. They spoke of those who criticize NAFTA and of the dangers should NAFTA be defeated.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Skeptics abound, and many are taking the cheap and easy way out on this one, appealing to demagoguery and to interests that, that are very, very special. And that's been some longstanding feeling down below our border, oh, well, the United States will make a free trade agreement with Canada but when it comes to Latin America, it comes to Hispanics, see if they'll do the same thing for Latin countries. And if we fail, the losers will be those in South America, not just in Mexico, who want better relations with us. And the biggest loser, of course, in my view will be the good old USA.

PRESIDENT CARTER: If we fail, I think it will be the end of any hope in the near future that we'll have honest democratic elections in Mexico. The illegal immigration will increase. American jobs will be lost. The Japanese and others will move in, and take over the markets that are basically and rightly ours. So I'm not trying to be a foreseer of doom, but I do believe that we ought to think not only about the benefits to be derived from this agreement, but we ought to be deeply concerned about the well-being of our nation that will be in danger if we fail. We cannot afford to fail.

PRESIDENT FORD: We can't afford to make the stupid, serious mistake that was made in the 1930s and '31 to the passage of legislation that tried to put a protective ring around the United States with high tariffs and high tariff barriers. So I hope and trust that the Congress, House and Senate, will respond affirmatively. It's good for the United States. It's good for our people in the western hemisphere, and I'm pleased to be here this morning and join President Clinton and his associates on this occasion. Thank you very much. [applause]

MR. HOLMAN: Congressional leaders from both parties stood with the former presidents for the signing of the NAFTA provisions, giving the impression of strong, bipartisan support for the North American Free Trade Agreement. While that is, indeed, the case, bipartisan opposition to NAFTA appears to be even stronger, especially where it counts most, here on Capitol Hill. And the majority of that opposition is coming from the President's own party.

REP. WILLIAM FORD, [D] Michigan: None of the former presidents have ever been seen in a picture talking to an ordinary working person that say who retired on their federal pension. I submit that it's been too long since they have had any reason to talk to working people, ordinary people, and determine the depths of their feeling about their own aspirations.

REP. MARCY KAPTUR, [D] Ohio: And with all due respect to all of the former presidents of our country, I think it is fair to say that not one of them personally, in their own life, will be affected by this agreement.

REP. DAVID BONIOR, Majority Whip: The people that we presently represent, the constituencies that we come from, tell us loudly and clearly that they don't feel that this agreement is in their best interest. And I, I think the people's voice is the important voice in this debate. The people instinctively know a bad deal when they see it.

MR. HOLMAN: Michigan Democrat David Bonior is the House Majority Whip. On most occasions he would be arm twisting fellow Democrats to support the President. But as one of Congress's most outspoken NAFTA critics, Bonior is twisting those arms in the other direction.

REP. DAVID BONIOR: I believe that we will be helping the President by defeating this agreement, sending him, the new leader of Mexico, perhaps the new leader of Canada, back to the bargaining table to see if they can't work out something that is more reasonable and sane.

MR. HOLMAN: Republican support for NAFTA seems to be eroding as well. Still, 14 Republican Senators, all of whom voted against President Clinton at every turn of the budget process, say they're with the President on this one.

SEN. PHIL GRAMM, [R] Texas: I welcome the President's leadership. I believe Republicans are going to follow the President on this issue, and I believe with his leadership and our effort that we're going to go out and take the facts to the American people. And as they've done on so many other occasions of historic importance, I believe when the American people have the facts, they're going to make the right decision, and we are going to approve NAFTA.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Minority Leader: Well, I've had people saying, why are you doing this, why aren't you out trying to sabotage President Clinton? We're doing it -- I am -- because it's the right thing to do. And we find ourselves on the same side of the President, and we ought to be out supporting the President. I think that's going to be the attitude among Senate Republicans and I think among House Republicans. There may be some who will want to play games, but I don't see that happening.

REP. DAN ROSTENKOWSKI, Chairman, Ways & Means Committee: Today the Committee on Ways & Means begins its consideration of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

MR. HOLMAN: NAFTA will have to wend its way through several committees and subcommittees before a final congressional vote on implementing the treaty. House Ways & Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski says he hopes the process will change some minds.

REP. DAN ROSTENKOWSKI: While I intend to support the President on NAFTA, I understand that many members may still have questions and concerns about NAFTA. For that reason, I urge each member to provide the administration a full opportunity at this hearing and in the weeks to explain why the NAFTA should be supported.

MR. HOLMAN: Rostenkowski is known to run his committee with an iron fist, but shortly after he spoke, Green Peace demonstrators sneaked up behind the Chairman and unfurled their view of NAFTA.

REP. DAN ROSTENKOWSKI: What is this?

[DEMONSTRATORS STANDING BEHIND ROSTENKOWSKI HOLDING LARGE SIGN THAT READS: NIX NAFTA: FAIR TRADE NOT TOXIC TRADE]

SPOKESMAN: Not from any -- ask these people to leave.

[DEMONSTRATORS LEAVING]

MR. HOLMAN: On Capitol Hill, there's no telling where NAFTA opposition will pop up next.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, what now, what next in the Middle East, a conversation with Stephen Carter, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay. FOCUS - WHAT NEXT?

MR. MacNeil: Next, the hard part, translating yesterday's moving images of Middle East peace from the White House lawn into the reality of peace in a region better known for conflict. Across the region today there were signs of diplomatic follow-up to the Israeli-PLO Accords and also signs of opposition. Jordan and Israel signed an agenda for future relations, and Israel and Morocco were moving closer to diplomatic ties. There were demonstrations for the Israeli-PLO Pact in the West Bank town of Nablus and a demonstration against in Beirut by fundamentalists. We get four assessments now. They come from Raghida Dergham, senior diplomatic correspondent for the Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat; Nicholas Veliotes, a formerassistant secretary of state, now president of the Association of American Publishers; Amos Perlmutter, a professor of government at American University in Washington; and Adeed Dawisha, professor of government and politics at George Mason University in Virginia. Both professors recently returned from trips to the Middle East. Nicholas Veliotes, what's the significance of the Israel-Jordan agreement today? Sec. Christopher spoke of momentum. Is this evidence of momentum?

MR. VELIOTES: It certainly is. The Israelis and the Jordanians have been talking to each other for years. They've had to because there are so many common issues on their, their border. But this coming out publicly is very important. The timing is important. And also I think it's going to be important for the Jordanian domestic scene. There are very important elections coming up in Jordan, and even before these momentous events happened, the peace process was going to be front and center with the Islamic Parties rejecting it. Now, I see the Jordanian move as being extremely important for the peace process and also for the domestic future in Jordan.

MR. MacNeil: Raghida Dergham, will the Jordanian example give courage, or will it influence other Arab states?

MS. DERGHAM: It seems that what has been accomplished on the Palestinian-Israeli tract and on the Jordan-Israeli tract might slow that Syrian-Israeli tract, and also, of course, thus the Lebanese-Israeli tract. So in a way, because Mr. Rabin has said he does not want to overload the circuit and because Syrians might like to sort of take a step back and look at what will happen next to test what's going on on the Palestinian front, in particular, we might witness a slowdown of that particular front, and that shouldn't remain for a long time because if it is slowed for a short, temporary period then it's understandable. But if it stays for a long time suspended, then I think it's quite dangerous. I think it might lead to anarchy. It might inspire those in the opposition to sort of take heart and verbalize their opposition or make it, frustrating them into action, and I think it is too dangerous for the comprehensive peace between the Arabs and the Israelis that is aspired by the Madrid peace process.

MR. MacNeil: I'm not sure I follow you why Jordan signing this understanding today with Israel would slow down any progress with Syrian and Lebanese tracts, other tracts in the negotiation?

MS. DERGHAM: Because, as you know, there is a domestic problem for Mr. Rabin, as there is, of course, for Mr. Arafat and this agreement, and I meant to say, in fact, the Palestinian tract much more than the Jordanian tract, so I think because of the opposition to what Mr. Rabin has signed onto, I think to come out and say, look, we're going to ask you to give more.

MR. MacNeil: Oh, you mean, Mr. Rabin will slow it down, is what you're saying?

MS. DERGHAM: Yes.

MR. MacNeil: Do you think that's right, Amos Perlmutter?

MR. PERLMUTTER: Well, I cannot tell that, you know. I couldn't tell when I visited Israel for a long time, and I was in Norway, that Mr. Rabin will make the decision. After all, it's one man here in the situation. I'd say something about Jordan, which I think is very significant. The Israeli-Palestinian arrangement cannot be consummated without an Israeli-Palestinian-Jordanian arrangement. There is no way in which the Israeli and the Palestinians can achieve what they want to achieve each in its own term if without in the end a Jordanian arrangement. Simply, the Jordan River is Israel's security border, which ever state or entity will be between Jordan and Israel. And the other side of the Jordan's also important aspect of King Hussein, there is no way by which the Jordanians are not going to be part of that system. It's obvious. Otherwise, I don't think it will not be consummated. In addition to it, Shimon Peres talked about confederation, some sort of way by which it will ameliorate professional sentiments, Jerusalem, and the refugees, whereby different types of authorities will deal within this particular confederation which could be most similar to the Russian, ex-Russian, Soviet commonwealth. Anyway, the Jordanian thing is fundamental, in my view, and obvious.

MR. MacNeil: Adeed Dawisha, do you see the Jordanian signing today a sign of real momentum out of what happened yesterday?

MR. DAWISHA: Obviously, but you've got to take into consideration that King Hussein really did not have that many alternatives left for him. The whole game here was a Palestinian-Israeli game. And once the Palestinians signed, you found that immediately King Hussein coming to the fore, and I will agree with, with the speaker before me that in the case of Syria, while it might be slowed down initially, I think in the long-term this particular agreement will lead to a Syrian-Israeli condominium. After all, let's not forget - -

MR. MacNeil: A Syrian-Israeli? Did you say Syrian-Israeli condominium?

MR. DAWISHA: Yes, Syrian-Israeli, yes. Yeah. We must not forget that in the final analysis this is a Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The land that we're talking about is a land which is disputed between the Palestinians and the Israelis. And you can't be more royal than the king. And once these two have ironed out their differences, I think generally speaking and in the long-term maybe, and not too far in the long-term, you'll find that the Jordanians are going to come into it, the Syrians are going to come into it, and the whole momentum of the, of what we saw yesterday will, will lead to a comprehensive settlement.

MR. MacNeil: Well, let's talk about psychological momentum for a moment that doesn't require negotiations. The king of Morocco appears ready within a few days, according to the Israelis, to establish diplomatic relations, therefore, recognize Israel. Where do you -- do you see other people joining that quickly, or is the king of Morocco going to be by himself, Prof. Dawisha?

MR. DAWISHA: I think Morocco, Jordan, I think Tunisia is a candidate for a reasonably quick agreement with the Israelis, and the countries of the Gulf will, will follow through soon. There'll be obviously the odd countries like probably Libya, certainly Sudan, countries like that who might spend some time before they make, make a decision on that, but generally speaking, yesterday was the -- putting your foot in the door. The door is now half open, and you find that very quickly a lot of countries are going to come to the fore simply because, as I said before, the Palestinians, themselves, have now agreed with the Israelis. There really is very little left for the rest of the Arabs to stand behind and say, no, to put their foot down and say, no, not me.

MR. MacNeil: You report a lot to and from the Arab world, Raghida Dergham. Do you agree with that? Is there going to be a quick parade now of countries recognizing Israel?

MS. DERGHAM: No, I don't believe so. I think there -- a majority of the countries, though they would be willing to have some dialogue, of course, as far as king of Morocco is concerned, he's had contacts with the Israelis all across, and he's received Israelis before. But I think they will wait till there is a clearer view as to what's happening on all the other fronts of the negotiations. And I don't think the Gulf states will be -- as they say Tunisia for example -- will rush to recognition, a formal recognition of Israel, before the clearer picture is established on the Palestinian tract, on the Israeli tract. I will say, however, I will agree to what was mentioned earlier as far as the Palestinian cause, as it was perceived, and it was accorded, and it has been neutralized to a large extent in Arab thought and mind. So it's not central, and with Mr. Arafat recognizing Israel, of course, it removes of a very important obstacle, but I think in terms of interstate relations, they will wait to find out what happens on a clearer level and all tracts.

MR. MacNeil: What do you see, Nick Veliotes?

MR. VELIOTES: I don't think you're going to see a rush towards formal recognition, but we will see a lot of important contacts, public contacts that were impossible heretofore. Let me address something that Amos Perlmutter said. From the Jordanian perspective, the Jordanian leaders have for years talked about a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli-Arab problem in terms of a Benolux solution. So what he is suggesting will not come as a --

MR. MacNeil: Referring to the Belgium-Netherlands-Luxembourg arrangements.

MR. VELIOTES: Right. The three entities, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, will compliment each other with respect to the economy essentially, so I think that this will not be a great shock as an idea across the Jordan. I, myself, am not sure what the Syrian reaction is going to be. Those of us who have had opportunities to meet with the Syrians occasionally in Washington have been struck by how far they've come with respect to moving towards making peace. But I don't think in the near future, whether it's because of the need for people to digest what they've already bitten in Israel, or because Assad has not made up his mind, that we're likely to see much in the way of direct Syrian movement. I wonder if any of our other guests would comment on the possibility that we could learn something about Syrian intentions with respect to Syrian actions, or Lebanese government actions supported by Syria in Lebanon that would seem supportive.

MR. MacNeil: Amos Perlmutter.

MR. PERLMUTTER: Well, I would like to still address myself to the Jordanian thing. I think that the play of personalities is so fundamental in the Israeli case this unlikely duo of Peres and Rabin, Peres is weaving the web, the diplomatic effort, the idea man; Peres is dedicated to the idea of a Jordanian-Palestinian solution, not exactly Benolux. Knowing Peres, I assure that he is going to knock on all doors to see things rush in the direction. And what I think is that maybe one of the participants in New York, he's saying he's still a residue of some Palestinian thinking that everybody's going to wait to see till the Palestinians are going to make decisions. I think Prof. Dawisha is right. Two years to three years is too long a time in the Middle East for anybody, and I think the people in the Gulf, especially, Morocco, et cetera, would like to have the burden back. It is true the Palestinians said, fine. Maybe Assad for his reasons may decide, you know, to wait and see what happens in the West Bank and Gaza, et cetera, in the next two years. I have great doubts. I think that we should, we should overthrow the residue of this belief that if the Palestine issue is not completely resolved tomorrow, the rest of the Arab countries are not ready to come to terms. I think that Mr. Peres will work very, very hard. I don't know which country he's in now, but I bet you that he's already beginning the negotiations with the Gulf states, which already begun, in my view, yesterday.

MR. MacNeil: Your point is that if Arafat, himself, has prepared for a partial or phased solution, those who support him should be prepared for a phased solution too?

MR. PERLMUTTER: Not only that, but you look, Arafat has made the most important decision.

MR. MacNeil: Yeah.

MR. PERLMUTTER: The decision is moving toward a Palestinian entity, a Palestinian state. The, the rejectionist front is dead. The question as to whether you're going to do it because you don't trust the Israelis do it and, therefore, you wait is a residue of the past. The past is over.

MR. MacNeil: Prof. Dawisha, with, with Arafat now having taken away their, their excuse in a way, what about people like the Saudis that have not been mentioned, I don't think, and what about Washington calling in the chips? I mean, President Clinton said today he really hoped that Arab leaders would follow Morocco in making conciliatory gestures. Is, has Washington, the influence, especially since the Gulf War, to really bring some pressure in this regard?

MR. DAWISHA: Washington has a lot of influence, and there is no doubt that the Saud -- King Fahad's response to President Clinton, which was very positive and was very immediate given the residue of the Gulf War, was very indicative of this kind of relationship, and the Gulf people, the Gulf government's own concern about the Palestinian problem. This -- the Gulf -- I think that the Gulf countries will be some of the countries that will be at the forefront of this normalization with, with Israel.

MR. MacNeil: How quickly, would you say?

MR. DAWISHA: Certainly within the two to three year, the two to three year limit that has been going on -- that has been talked about in terms of, of Palestinian, Palestinian entity.

MR. MacNeil: Not tomorrow or next week?

MR. DAWISHA: No, of course not. I did say in the very beginning that in the short-term it might slow down, but in the long-term we must have some very positive results. See, it will all depend again, and it's contingent upon how successful the Palestinian- Israeli relationship is going to be over the next two to three years. If it is successful and if it is moving along on that front, I don't see, quite honestly, what kind of alibi or excuses other Arab leaders might have for not normalizing relations with Israel. And that has been my argument. It is the Palestinians, it's the Palestinians game, and if they play it well with the Israelis, then the Arabs cannot stand back and put their foot down and say, no, I'm not going to go ahead, go along with that.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. Perlmutter said a moment ago, Raghida Dergham, that the rejectionists are dead. Prime Minister Rabin told us last night his reason for going to the PLO, agreeing to talk to the PLO, was the growing danger of what he called the extreme Islamic movement increasing power and terrorism in the country. Can the fundamentalists or rejectionists or Islamic extremists, whichever you call them, can they still stop this? Can they stop this process under the influence of Iran or Iraq or whoever?

MS. DERGHAM: Number one, in my opinion, those who are saying -- the opponents of this process, the Gaza, Jericho first process are not all the traditional rejectionists, the traditional nay sayers. There are some moderates who have fears of its failure, thatare worried that it might not lead beyond the first step, so they're not all rejectionists, and they're not all Hamas. Secondly, when we see -- when we here Mr. Dawisha mention the fundamentalists, it is, it is telling us that they were growing. The problem that Arafat is facing now are -- and Mr. Rabin said, all right, it is now Arafat's problem -- he will go in with Gaza and he will control the Palestinians, including the elements of Hamas and others, or if he favors his failure. The problem is right now that the challenge that is facing Arafat at this point is reconciliation with -- amongst the Palestinians. I understand he's supposed to go from here to Sinai and Yemen. I understand he's supposed to meet with some Hamas leaders and that he is going to attempt to have reconciliation. I think it is terribly essential to move the opponent from negative opposition from the idea of assassination, the idea of challenge through violation through a positive opposition to participate into making this Gaza first a successful first step towards the solution.

MR. MacNeil: Well, thank you. I'm sorry, but that is the end of our time. Thank you, Ms. Dergham and gentlemen, for joining us. CONVERSATION

MR. LEHRER: Now, Charlayne Hunter-Gault's Tuesday night conversation. It's with a man who is worried about public life attitudes about religion.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: On the face of it, there's no dearth of religious expression in public life. Take yesterday's historic ceremony at the White House, where Arabs and Israelis signed the peace pact ending 30 years of bloody conflict.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: We must realize the prophecy of Isaiah that the cry of violence shall no more be heard in your land, nor rack, nor ruin within your borders. The children of Abraham, the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael have embarked together on a bold journey together. Today with all our hearts and souls, we bid them shalom, so long, peace. [applause]

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Writer and Yale Law Professor Steven Carter [The Culture Disbelief by Stephen L. Carter] applauds President Clinton's use of biblical references, but at the same time he worries that public leaders who express religious convictions risk being labeled as fanatics or enemies of the constitutional separation of church and state. During a visit to New York's Riverside Church, Carter told us about his ideas which he spent seven years developing and which are now captured in his new book, The Culture Disbelief. Stephen Carter, thank you for joining us.

STEPHEN CARTER: Thank you for inviting me.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you mean by a "culture of disbelief?"

STEPHEN CARTER: What I'm concerned about the increasing tendency in our political life by commentators and politicians alike to presume that somehow people who want to talk publicly about religion want to make their views of basic policy, that they are presumptively right wing or perhaps even doing something that's un- American, that religion should be centering, i.e., kept quiet, kept private, in the sense of not being brought out as a justification for public policy stances. I think one of the reasons for this is that for the last 12 years during the Reagan and Bush presidencies we've seen an era when religious rhetoric in public was largely a captive of the right wing in American politics, the people who were willing to talk publicly about religion seemed to be excited about, tentatively fighting for conservative causes, sometimes for what I would consider very dangerous causes. I think that liberalism, if it's going to survive as an important political force in America, has to be able to accommodate the very deep spiritual values that move tens of millions of Americans when they're making moral and political judgments. The mistake is to assume that since many people on the right make arguments in religious terms, it must be the religious terms that are the enemy.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, let me ask you this, because you've been accused of being both a liberal and a conservative, before we go further, tell me through what lens you're viewing this issue, so we can have that at least clarified.

STEPHEN CARTER: I like your use of the word "accused," you know. I --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, it was done in an accusatory way, in both instances.

STEPHEN CARTER: I'm not a great fan of labels. I think of myself as just an observer. I don't think I'm a detached observer. I have political views. I have religious views. But I think that the problem of how to deal with religious rhetoric in public life is a problem that which liberals and conservatives should both be concerned, and I think we're seeing more and more of that. I think we've seen a lot of people who are usually identified with the left rather than the right expressing very similar concerns in recent years, expressing concern that just maybe, just maybe the left has gone a little bit too far in worrying that religious rhetoric implies a kind of, of right wing mentality. There's a lot of talk nowadays about the politics of meaning. And I'm a great believer in a meaningful politics, but it's very important, I think, to bear in mind that politics can't supply meaning for people. People have to supply meaning to politics. Surveys tell us that not only are most Americans very religious, but most very religious people rely heavily on their religious traditions in making more on political judgments. That means that a politics in order to be meaningful for them has to seem open to them, has to not treat them like intruders if they want to bring religion into public discussions.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But where do you see the evidence that there is this move against people who are, as you describe, who are religious and who want to express their views?

STEPHEN CARTER: Let me give you a general point and then a couple of examples. There is a, a kind of instinctive reaction that I think many people have when they hear say Pat Robertson preaching against abortion or homosexuality, that he's violating the separation of church and state by trying to make this the basis of state policy. Now, I think that his preaching against abortion, against homosexuality, is quite misguided, and I think policies he would advocate are quite wrong, but I think we make a terrible error. We, academics such as myself, we journalists, politicians, activists, and others who suggest that the problem with Robertson preaching in this area would be that he is being religious instead of that he is supporting the wrong positions. If we think for a minute about a lot of the commentary after the 1992 Republican Convention, the newspapers and the television screens, the air waves were full of suggestions, that what was wrong with the 1992 Republican Convention was the effort to invoke religious rhetoric, particularly the name of God, in support of secular political programs.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: I think a lot of the criticism also was that the right wing was using religion as, as the way of excluding rather than including.

STEPHEN CARTER: I agree with that. I agree with that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Using the religious rhetoric.

STEPHEN CARTER: Yes. I agree with that entirely. I criticized the rhetoric on exactly the same ground. But just to complete the point that the problem was the way religion was being used, I think it's very important to preserve the distinction between condemning the Republicans for allowing a lot of religious rhetoric in their convention, and condemning the Republicans for allowing the religious rhetoric that was very divisive. And they went very much against the notion of an inclusive and ecumenical politics, for that matter an inclusive and ecumenical religion, I'm not one to suggest, as some critics do, that we as a nation are hostile to religion. I don't believe that. I do think though that in our increasing worry about the capture of religious rhetoric buying the right wing, we are in danger not of being hostile to religion but as trivializing it, trying to keep it as something that's relatively unimportant in people's lives, whereas, in fact, it's something that's tremendously important in many people's lives.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But how do you separate what you just described as something you deplore, you know, using that kind of rhetoric, religious rhetoric? How do you separate that from, from religion, itself?

STEPHEN CARTER: My distinction is as follows: The fact that the politician is using religious rhetoric is not what should be objectionable. It's the cause the politician is supporting that should be objectionable. The fact that the politician cites religious rhetoric shouldn't make it more objectionable. After all, in 1964, during the debates over the Civil Rights Act, a lot of politicians, including on the floor of Congress, used religious rhetoric to justify the bill for which they were about to vote. I think that's a good use of religious rhetoric. I think there's nothing wrong with that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So who's, who's at fault here, for this?

STEPHEN CARTER: I don't think it's a matter of fault, and I'm not try to suggest a conspiracy or to blame anyone or anything like that. I'm simply trying to sound a warning that more and more the way many of us, perhaps most of us, who are, as I said, academics or politicians and commentators, talk about people like Pat Robertson, tends to suggest that the problem with the Christian Coalition, to take one example, is its religionosity. Whereas, I would argue that it's vitally important to preserve and nurture the roles, the historical roles of religion as important players in policy debates on history as they always have been.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why do you, why do you think this is important to, to address? I mean, what is it that you hope to achieve by sounding this alarm, as you say?

STEPHEN CARTER: My hope is that we as a nation, but particularly many people who are fighting for some of the progressive causes I think are dearly important can try to learn, oddly enough, from say Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. You see, people like Falwell, I think, had many more supporters or followers than people who supported their positions. And what made them attractive, and what made someone like Ronald Reagan attractive to voters who did not share his positions, what made someone like George Bush attractive to voters who did not share his positions, was precisely the sense I think many voters had that this was a welcoming presence, that this was a person who was interested in and willing to talk in spiritual, rather than materialistic terms. I think what Bill Clinton put on in 1992 was the ability to combine a clearly liberal social agenda, the kind of things the conservatives thought they had sort of abolished from American government, to combine that with an ability to talk in the same spiritual things that made people of deep religious conviction feel welcome rather than repulsed. I think we need more of that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Michael Kinsley in the New Republic commenting on your ideas says that, that bias against religion which you write about is just vigorous disagreement with a line of argument that you exaggerated the proportion of the problem.

STEPHEN CARTER: Michael Kinsley is a very smart fellow. I do think he got my argument a little bit wrong. I don't think that there is a bias against religion so much. As I said, I don't think there is any hostility toward religion in American life. It's not that. It's rather that there is a reluctance to come to grips with the simple truth that for most Americans it's one of the most important motive forces and for many the most important motive force in their lives. I think vigorous disagreement is great. I think argument is great. The difficulty is not in vigorous disagreement. The difficulty, rather, is in the sense that the mere expression of a religious basis for an opinion is by itself enough reason to end debate.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Why is this important?

STEPHEN CARTER: It depends on what --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And what motivated you to perceive this idea?

STEPHEN CARTER: How important is I think depends a lot on where you stand. If you travel extensively, as I'm sure you have in the Midwest, in the South, even to some extent in the Far West, you'll find a lot of people who feel instinctively whatever their politics may be, that somehow their deep religionosity and their desire to use religion in public debate marks them as outsiders. I think for our politics this is a crucial question, and it's going to be a crucial question as long as there are tens of millions of Americans who feel, who want to feel a resonance between the kind of spiritual values that move them and the kind of rhetoric that's welcomed in public debate and is used by politicians.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Stephen Carter, thank you.

STEPHEN CARTER: Thank you very much. I've enjoyed it. ESSAY - CIVILIZED ENEMIES

MR. MacNeil: Finally tonight, essayist Roger Rosenblatt on talk between enemies.

SPOKESMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Arafat, Chairman of the Executive Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization, His Excellency Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister of Israel, the President of the United States.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: The act of recognizing one's enemy is complicated and is as likely to lead to war as to peace. On the one hand, recognition is a movement toward companionability, and that one party admits openly to the legitimate existence of the other. But doing that is also a way of concretizing the enmity between them. What was once mythological is now turned real. Borders, armies, embassies, governments are real. Having enmity clear cut in reality, is one then creating a situation that solidifies hostility, or one that, because it is recognized, represents, instead, the first stage of peaceful coexistence? The reference, of course, is the prospective Israel-PLO Agreement which sanctions the establishment of an autonomous land for the Palestinians in Jericho and the Gaza Strip and secures from the PLO the acknowledgment that Israel has the right to exist. By the pact, both parties declare the right of the other to exist, which means that each has conceded shape and substance not to a friend but to an enemy. The prime minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin, put it logically and anti-logically. "Peace is not made with friends," he said. "Peace is made with enemies." The logic goes you would not need to make peace with anyone but an enemy. The anti-logic goes, if you give legitimacy to your enemy, how are you ever going to have peace? For Israel, which has been at war all its life, the question is hardly abstract. Israel has suffered a 45- year chain of wars, terrorist bombings and attacks without legitimizing Palestinian autonomy. Palestinian raiders did not need to recognize the state of Israel to blow up a school bus or a house. For its part, Israel did not need to recognize the PLO to drop bombs on southern Lebanon or to attack Beirut. In other words, each side knew who its enemy was and acted accordingly without declaring that the enemy existed as a legitimate entity. By what sort of thinking would formal recognition improve the situation? Here is where I think a certain psychology comes in which might be reduced to personal terms. If I say to you that I do not recognize you as part of the organized world, then I can make you into a monster in my mind and blast away with impunity. I give you no human dignity. But if I say that I see in you a normal, if hostile, member of the world I share, if I see you as living under the same conditions as I do and in the same general territory, then I must face the choice of blasting away or not at someone just like me. Not a monster, but a man. I must consider my enemy in human terms. And now the rest of the organized world joins in and scrutinizes our behavior toward each other. We are suddenly in the open, if not in the clear. This is what Israel and the PLO have decided to do, it seems to me, not to ensure peace, but to establish a legitimate enmity which oddly translates not into an act of aggression but a conciliation. What is conceded is, you are there, I am here. Now let us see where we go from where we are. Given the harsh and terrible history from which this agreement emerges, it is a sophisticated decision these two have made, a civilized decision. Civilizations are tested by how well people do not get along. I'm Roger Rosenblatt. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, former Presidents Ford, Carter, and Bush joined President Clinton in supporting NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Mr. Carter referred to NAFTA critic Ross Perot as a demagogue with unlimited resources. On Middle East peace, Jordan and Israel signed the frame work for a future peace treaty. Israeli Prime Minister Rabin visited King Hasan of Morocco to discuss Israel-Arab relations, and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat made the rounds on Capitol Hill seeking political and financial support. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Jim. That's the NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow night with a sample of the upcoming debate over NAFTA. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.