The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, coverage of three major news stories: George W. Bush's selection of Dick Cheney as his running mate, with announcement excerpts, plus analysis by Mark Shields and Paul Gigot; the collapse of the Camp David summit, as seen by Secretary of State Albright and Israeli and Palestinian negotiators; and the crash of a supersonic Concorde outside Paris, killing 114 people-- we'll have a tape report. The other news of this Tuesday will be at the end of the program tonight.

FOCUS - THE RUNNING MATE

JIM LEHRER: Now in order: Bush chooses Cheney, the Camp David collapse, and the Concorde crash. Kwame Holman begins our coverage of the Cheney story.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: I believe you are looking at the next Vice President of the United States. (Applause)

KWAME HOLMAN: Governor Bush's choice for running mate is the man who led his search committee for the job.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Throughout the Vice Presidential selection process, my foremost goal has been to select an outstanding individual who is capable of serving as President of the United States. I wanted the selection process to be thorough and dignified. I reached out to a distinguished and experienced statesman to lead the search. For months, we worked closely together to review the qualifications of many impressive candidates. As we worked to evaluate the strength of others, I saw firsthand Dick Cheney's outstanding judgment. As we considered many different credentials, I benefited from his keen insight. I was impressed by the thoughtful and thorough way he approached his mission. And gradually I realized that the person who was best qualified to be my Vice Presidential nominee was working by my side.

KWAME HOLMAN: Richard Bruce Cheney is 59. He has been married for 35 years to his high school sweetheart, Lynne. They have two grown daughters. Cheney is chief executive officer of Halliburton Corporation, one of the world's largest engineering and energy companies. But before joining the private sector, Cheney spent two decades in public service in Washington. In 1975, President Gerald Ford tapped the then-34-year-old as White House chief of staff. In 1978, Cheney was elected to the House of Representatives from his home state of Wyoming, but he also suffered a mild heart attack that year at the age of 37. Over five House terms, Cheney racked up a conservative record, voting consistently anti- abortion and anti-gun control.

SPOKESMAN: The chair will now recognize Mr. Cheney.

KWAME HOLMAN: His Republican colleagues elected him minority whip, the second highest post in their leadership. But while in Congress, Cheney experienced two more mild heart attacks, and in 1988, he underwent quadruple coronary bypass surgery.

GEORGE BUSH: Welcome aboard.

KWAME HOLMAN: The following year, President George Bush named Cheney secretary of defense after the senate rejected Bush's first choice, John Tower. At the Pentagon, Cheney oversaw the invasion of Panama and the capture of dictator General Manuel Noriega. And Cheney helped mastermind operation Desert Storm, that saw a U.S.-led coalition drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait in 1991. Though Cheney was considered a defense hawk in Washington, he advocated some cost-cutting initiatives at the Pentagon, including closing down dozens of military bases. This afternoon in the Texas capital, Austin, Governor Bush praised Dick Cheney.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: I cannot wait for our delegates at our convention next week to hear from this good man, and I ask them to confirm him as our party's choice for Vice President. The fact that this outstanding man is willing to serve speaks to the power of our compassionate conservative message and to the promise of our country. I have to admit something. I didn't pick Dick Cheney because of Wyoming's three electoral votes... (Laughter) although we're going to work hard to earn them. (Laughter) I picked him because he is, without a doubt, fully capable of being the President of the United States. And I picked him because he will be a valuable partner in a Bush administration. (Cheers and applause)

DICK CHENEY: As I worked alongside Governor Bush, I heard him talk about his unique vision for our party and for our nation. I saw his sincerity. I watched him make decisions, always firm and always fair. And in the end, I learned how persuasive he can be. (Laughter) So this morning when the governor called and asked me to join him as the Vice Presidential nominee, I accepted with enthusiasm and with an eagerness to get to work. Governor Bush is seeking not only to win an election, but also to lead our nation. He's confronting the tough issues: Strengthening Social Security and Medicare, reforming our public schools, cutting taxes, and rebuilding America's military. He's shown an ability here in Texas to bring Republicans and Democrats together in the public interest. I've watched him put his compassionate conservative philosophy to work in this great state with tremendous results. He's proven himself a leader of consistency and conviction. I look forward to working with you, governor, to change the tone in Washington, to restore a spirit of civility and respect and cooperation. It's time for America's leaders to stop pointing the finger of blame and to begin sharing the credit for success. (Cheers and applause) Big changes are coming to Washington, and I want to be a part of them. And I want to thank my family for their love and their support and their willingness to join me in this campaign. It means more than they will ever know. We have a tough race ahead of us, but I look forward to this campaign, and I am absolutely confident we will prevail. (Cheers and applause) So Governor, Laura, we're proud to join you in the work ahead for these next three months and the next eight years. Thank you very much. (Cheers and applause)

JIM LEHRER: Now some analysis of the Cheney selection by Shields and Gigot-- syndicated columnist Mark Shields, "Wall Street Journal" columnist Paul Gigot. First, your overview of the reaction to the Cheney selection?

PAUL GIGOT: I think it's an excellent pick, Jim. I think he satisfies a t number one criterion, which is he is prepared to be President should something happen to George W. Bush. And this guy is somebody who has arguably the most experience in Washington and as an executive of any Republican in the last 30 years - been a CEO of a major company. He's been a defense secretary. He's been a leader in Congress. He was a White House chief of staff in his 30's. He knows politics. He knows how to be an executive. He's extremely loyal. He's extremely loyal. He's extremely competent. If you're talking about George W. Bush's judgment, him picking someone who could replace him, he's exercised good judgment.

JIM LEHRER: Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: Jim, there's a rhetorically obligatory line that every Presidential nominee says. I'm going to choose somebody who if anything should happen, the euphemism, should step in as President. Dick Cheney would be on anybody's short list of certainly the ten or five Republicans in the United States who could take over as President and was on that line before for the reasons that Paul cited and others. He's a grown-up. I mean, it's so refreshing. He is a true grown-up. And I think that's important. And the second factor is that Bob Teeter, the Republican pollster, has what he calls the 48-hour rule of Vice Presidential nominees. The first 48 hours someone's out there, the press and political consensus forms that this is a good choice or it's a choice that is open to criticism or question. There's no question that this is seen as a good choice. And Dick Cheney has passed the 48-hour rule. Just before Paul gets too euphoric, I point out that the best Vice Presidential nominees of our lifetime, consensus have been on losing tickets, Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, Michael Dukakis over Dane Quayle and certainly Ed Muskie in 1968 over Spiro Agnew. They were both excellent, superb choices, and both ended up giving concession speeches on election night.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Moving right along, the... it was said on our program last night, it's been said elsewhere, that the selection of the Vice Presidential candidate says as much about the man doing the choosing as it does the person chosen. What does this say about George W. Bush that is important that we should know?

PAUL GIGOT: I think it suggests he's not afraid to be surrounded by strong deputies. He doesn't feel that... He wants somebody like Cheney with his wealth of experience being able to talk to him. There's a certain modesty about that, healthy, particularly given George Bush's lack of foreign policy experience. You know, that's somebody you can count on. It tells me that Bush is confident of winning, that he thinks he can win on his terms, because he didn't make the overtly political choice, political defined as political calculation for the election. I mean, Cheney doesn't give him a state. McCain was the guy, John McCain, who if you look at the change in the polls and districts and states did the best for Bush on the ticket. But he didn't go for McCain. He didn't make a choice like Ridge or Pataki, the governors of Pennsylvania and New York, who you could say, well, there this is an abortion play or Elizabeth Dole who was a gender gap possibility, do something to get more women voting for Republicans. This is somebody who really, his advantages as a candidate are after the election more than before the election.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree there's not a lot of political capital here with Cheney?

MARK SHIELDS: There isn't. There's no political capital. I talked to a number of Republican members of the House, all of whom were pleased with Cheney, none of whom was excited. They don't see Dick Cheney as being a help or a boost in their effort, which many of them consider uphill at this point, to keep control and a majority of the House, which they think John McCain - even though they had misgivings about him -- would have provided.

JIM LEHRER: they don't believe and you don't believe that anybody's going to go and vote for George W. Bush because Cheney's on the ticket with him?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I think that it's reassuring. It's a solidifying. What it says about George Bush, the big question everybody asks about in the political business about a Presidential candidate, is he big enough? Is he heavy enough? Does he have the size? Does he fill the chair? Those are the questions that people ask about George Bush. This is a question that when he chose Dick Cheney said that he had a certain self-confidence, a certain level of self-confidence and a perceived need. He had to fill in the gaps -- those gaps in foreign policy and Washington experience and so forth, which dick Cheney does. And he picked somebody serious. He didn't... this is not your father's Vice Presidential choice in George Bush's case.

JIM LEHRER: Well, but I mean, that's one of the raps on this, though, is that, hey, wait a minute, all he did is pick a guy from his dad's cabinet. His dad clearly wanted this man, Dick Cheney, and is that going to hurt George W. Bush?

PAUL GIGOT: I would worry if it had been Dick Darman, somebody from -- the former budget director, somebody from the economic side. Remember, Cheney represented... he was defense secretary. He worked for the side of the shop that actually the American people liked when they didn't vote him a second term in 1992. He was a successful foreign policy President more or less. Cheney was from that part of the administration. So, I don't think it's a big liability. How you deal with your father's legacy is a delicate issue for George W. Bush. There's no question he has to walk a fine line. I don't think you want to see Jim Baker and a lot of other people popping up here in addition to this, but somebody like Cheney alone I don't think will hurt.

JIM LEHRER: What do you think of that, Mark? Is that a negative?

MARK SHIELDS: I think there's a question is he looking back rather than looking forward. With Dick Cheney, if you looked at Dick Cheney today in Kwame's piece, here's a fellow who was 25 years ago the chief of staff at the White House. Now, we don't know --

JIM LEHRER: Now, think about, that 25 years ago.

MARK SHIELDS: It's off bounds to talk about where George Bush was.

PAUL GIGOT: In his 30's.

MARK SHIELDS: By contrast, we can't talk. It's off bounds to talk about where George Bush was 25 years ago. I mean, that is kind of a nebulous area. This is a guy who was grown up very, very early in the business. But, Jim, your original question is the key one, what does it tell about the man who makes the choice, does it say about his self-confidence, his judgment, his independence? I give you one quote by a Presidential candidate who said, "there is a mysticism about men. You look into their eyes, and you can see their soul, and you have to be able to sense it. If this has been a bum choice, then you have to blame Nixon for a bad choice. That is what Richard Nixon said in 1968 when he chose Spiro Agnew. I mean, it really was. It forever wounded Richard Nixon's judgment. He had chosen Henry Cabot Lodge eight years earlier, which was widely praised and he lost. He chose Spiro Agnew and he won.

JIM LEHRER: Yeah. What about the health thing, the fact he's had three mild heart attacks and a bypass surgery? Is that going to plague him in any serious way?

PAUL GIGOT: I think we have to have a discussion about that, but the doctors that have been quoted in the press have all said you can have a bypass and still lead a very active life. The fact, is if you've been running a major company for a half dozen years, is that more or less stressful than being Vice President? I'd argue it's more stressful, Jim. I say that. I mean, the down sides to Cheney, are there are a couple, he' not exactly a great speaker. He makes Bill Bradley look scintillating as a campaign speaker. The other thing is he's not a natural partisan. He's not... That's one of the roles of the Vice President traditionally - is to go after and make the case against the opponent, against Al Gore, to say, "this is what's wrong with him." Dick Cheney is not by inclination, temperament, somebody that does that easily. Jack Kemp didn't do that in 1996 for Bob Dole and it didn't help Dole.

JIM LEHRER: But Mark, the Democrats are going to run against Cheney as well as George W. Bush. What do you think their reaction is to Cheney on this ticket?

MARK SHIELDS: I mean, Democrats will tell you they respect Dick Cheney. I disagree with Paul. I think one Democrat said to me, he is the most fiercely partisan person I have ever known in the House. A total gentleman, always listened to the other side, totally civil, but he is a fierce partisan. I would say this, Jim, there's two roles for a Vice President historically, traditionally. One, is as Paul said, sort of the attack dog, but the other is the cheerleader, the guy who kind of gives you a credential and makes your best case for you. I think in this case, given the fact that George Bush has come across to some people as a little smirky and a little smug, I think the fact that Dick Cheney today in his opening statement made a positive statement about Bush, a positive statement, was -

JIM LEHRER: Very important.

MARK SHIELDS: -- very important.

JIM LEHRER: But in going after him, what do they say, hey, this guy is another... You know, they attack his record, 100% anti-abortion, 100% this, 100% that in terms of all of the conservative measurements, et cetera?

MARK SHIELDS: One Republican said to me today, there goes California. I mean, this is a man who represented Wyoming. No Republican candidate has to go anywhere near Wyoming, quite frankly. It's solidly in the Republican camp. Dick Cheney was never challenged. And so Dick Cheney turns out to be one of the 21 members of the House of Representatives who voted against banning cop-killer bullets. Those are the armor-piercing bullets that go through policemen's vests. He was one of four to vote against outlawing plastic guns, which every police official in the country had requested. So, I mean, it's going to be that sort of thing.

PAUL GIGOT: They like guns in Wyoming.

JIM LEHRER: But you're going to hear a lot of that.

PAUL GIGOT: Well, sure, they're going to say he's off in the fever swamps, he's a lunatic right-winger. But Cheney's demeanor will make that hard to stick, because as Mark pointed out, he's very calm. When he was arguing for the Gulf War, he was very reassuring to a lot of people on TV because he seems calm. He's not a maniac...

JIM LEHRER: He came on this program many times during that.

PAUL GIGOT: And he just presents himself in a way. I think in some ways he's like George Mitchell for the Democrats.

JIM LEHRER: Well, we have got a lot of time to talk about this new ticket. And thank you both very much.

FOCUS - TROUBLED PATH TO PEACE

JIM LEHRER: Moving now to story two: the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks at Camp David. We start with statements from President Clinton, Prime Minister Barak, and a Palestinian negotiator. Here are excerpts:

PRESIDENT CLINTON: At Camp David, both sides engaged in comprehensive discussions that were really unprecedented because they dealt with the most sensitive issues dividing them, profound and complex questions that long had been considered off limits. However, while we did not get an agreement here, significant progress was made on the core issues. I want to express my appreciation to Prime Minister Barak, Chairman Arafat, and their delegations for the efforts they undertook to reach an agreement. Prime Minister Barak showed particular courage, vision, and an understanding of the historical importance of this moment. Chairman Arafat made it clear that he too remains committed to the path of peace. The trilateral statement we issued affirms both leaders' commitment to avoid violence or unilateral actions, which will make peace more difficult, and to keep the peace process going until it reaches a successful conclusion. At the end of this summit, I am fully aware of the deep disappointment that will be felt on both sides, but it was essential for Israelis and Palestinians finally to begin to deal with the toughest decisions in the peace process. Now the two parties must go home and reflect both on what happened at Camp David and on what did not happen. For the sake of their children, they must rededicate themselves to the path of peace and find a way to resume their negotiations in the next few weeks. They've asked us to continue to help, and as always, we'll do our best.

EHUD BARAK, Prime Minister, Israel: We were ready to end the conflict. We looked for an equilibrium point that will provide a peace for generations. But unfortunately Arafat somehow hesitated to take the historic decisions that were needed in order to put an end of it. A year ago, I stood here...in Washington, in fact, and told that we-- our government, my government-- will do whatever it takes, and we'll leave no stone unturned on the way to check whether it's possible to make a peace with our neighbors without violating our vital interest. But I emphasized that it takes two to tango. We cannot impose it upon them. And of course, I believe that we should not lose hope. We should prepare for every possibility. The vision of peace suffered a major blow, but I believe that with good faith, goodwill on all sides, it can recuperate. We'll have to take care of extremism and terrorism and to make sure that the next few weeks will not deteriorate the whole region into a new round of violence. We'll have to take care of extremism and terrorism to make sure that the next few weeks do not deteriorate the whole region into a new round of violence.

SAEB EREKAT, Palestinian Delegation: Jerusalem is unique, and the uniqueness of Jerusalem is that no one should be able to tell the difference between a Muslim stone, a Christian stone and Jewish stone because history tell us that once a stone decides to expand at the expense of the two others, you will are bloodshed. Jerusalem will be one day the capital of the state of Palestine and the capital of the state of Israel. I will not go into the prospects of failure. I will not go into t area of gloom and doom. I think we should really be hopeful, and I'm saying, after Camp David, after what was done between Palestinians an Israelis, the prospects of concluding a comprehensive agreement are real, are stronger than any time since 1991.

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner talked to Secretary of State Albright earlier this evening.

MARGARET WARNER: Welcome, Madame Secretary. Thanks for being with us.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Good to be with you, Margaret.

MARGARET WARNER: Was it the President who pulled the plug on this summit?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that what happened was early this morning it was evident that we were not going to be able to move it any further, and it was basically a mutual decision that it was time to look at what we had accomplished and take a break. And I think that it was just general agreement among the leaders. But the President and I think really -- he worked so hard, Margaret, on trying to pull this together and give it his all, but I think at a certain stage it was evident that we couldn't move further.

MARGARET WARNER: How critical - much has been made in some of the accounts that are coming out today about the 3 AM letter that Chairman Arafat sent to the President saying essentially no point continuing because the Israelis - their position on Jerusalem was just unacceptable. How crucial was that letter?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think it was kind of codifying a lot of the things that we had heard in the previous six or seven hours. I'm not sure I would agree with the characterization of how he put it, but it was evident in through that night that they had incompatible positions as far as trying to resolve the Jerusalem issue.

MARGARET WARNER: Last Wednesday, when things also seemed on the verge of breakdown, in fact, they did break down, they were revived, and the President felt and both sides felt that it was worth continuing while he went to this summit. What made last night different from last Wednesday night?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think we'd had an opportunity in the intervening time when the President left me there to deal with the delegations - we had spent a lot of time in a variety of informal meetings and settings fleshing out some of the issues that had not been fleshed out in the previous week, and I think it was a very useful period. And I think that having done that much, we knew where - or the parties - when I say "we" everybody that was up there understood better about where they could move and where they couldn't. So that intervening period I think was very helpful in fleshing things out and made it clear where there was progress and where we couldn't move at this time.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, Prime Minister Barak held a press conference today, and he said that he - essentially blamed it on Arafat - and he said that Arafat was unwilling or not able or afraid to take the necessary steps on Jerusalem. Is he right to essentially blame the breakdown on Arafat?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that the way the President put it is that he praised Prime Minister Barak for his boldness and his creativity. Chairman Arafat is dedicated to peace, but I think he comes at it from a different angle. I don't think it's really useful to place blame. I think it's important to understand how truly complicated the issues are and this is a debate and a dispute that has lasted - you know - hundreds of years and is literally of biblical proportions, and I think that it doesn't serve a purpose to blame.

MARGARET WARNER: Were the Palestinians willing to move at all on the Jerusalem - their original negotiating position? The President did say - and we are running that tape - that Prime Minister Barak moved more. But did the Palestinians move at all?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that the Palestinians were - had certain ideas, but I think that one has to honestly say that Prime Minister Barak was the one that had the interesting perceptions and ideas. But, again, I think going into the details of this at this time is not useful. We had all kind of felt that it was better to talk about the value that had come out of the summit and a lot of very valuable things came out, Margaret, because, you know, everybody has talked about the permanent status issues at length over the last seven years as a result of the Oslo process, but you usually could kind of say things in three sentences, and what we did during these 14 days is really unpack those points, what should happen on borders and territory and refugees in Jerusalem. And both parties learned a great deal more about each other's needs, about their difficulties, and so I think there was a lot of value in talking about these things. And, as you know, the issues had kind of been taboo before, and as I understand it, the press and the public opinion, especially in Israel, is now talking about Jerusalem in a way that they hadn't. And it has created a vast public debate. And I don't think things are going to be the same after this summit because finally they are really talking about these crucial and essential existential issues for both of them.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me just - before we jump ahead - let me just ask you one more question about the atmospherics, because, as you say, especially Jerusalem has been sort of a third rail of Mideast politics. I mean, no one wanted to talk about it. Could you see that in the talks, when they finally came to grips with it? I mean, was the atmosphere different when they were dealing with say that issue than on so many of the other issues they dealt with?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, they're all very difficult, and each one has a particular significance to someone and they have been kind of the backbone of the whole process and the problems, but Jerusalem is a unique place, and it's a unique place for all religions and it's unique in its geographical placement, and I think there is an intensity about that discussion that doesn't exist about anything. And I tell you - as you well know - I've been involved in a lot of diplomatic discussions, but the intensity of this is huge, and I must say I am humbled by the issues involved here. They are stunning; they were dealt with, I think, truly in a sensitive way and a way of understanding the complexities of it, not only in terms of the holy places, but how living in a city like Jerusalem affects the daily life of ordinary people, how it affects diplomatic and political relations. So it's a very intense debate.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Now, what happens next?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, the President has said, as you know from running his tape now, is that it's very important for them to go back and take stock of - first of all - of what they heard from each other and then what they're going to be hearing from their publics. Obviously, each of the leaders will have a different set of issues that they have to deal with.Prime Minister Barak has explained that he has a political situation he has to deal with. Chairman Arafat has to deal with his people. We are always ready to help. The President asked in this trilateral statement that was released - was clear that they were to come back to the President, to me and to report really on how they are assessing things - and we're ready to help whenever we can because we do think it's essential that the process keep going.

MARGARET WARNER: If the reports are correct, Prime Minister Barak was ready to make - as you said - significant concessions on the Jerusalem issue. How fearful are you that he's going to come under unbelievable political pressure when he gets home to, in fact, back slide from those commitments, which, in fact, he said today weren't really - weren't final commitments at all?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think it's very important not to characterize what he did or did not do. What is very evident is that - and the President said this - is that ideas were explored, but none of the commitments are binding, or the ideas are not binding, and nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. That is true of various suggestions and ideas that we made or that both the parties made. And I think that Prime Minister Barak is the best judge of how he's going to handle discussions of what was on the table.

MARGARET WARNER: I guess what I'm asking is how confident are you that he won't come under the kind of political pressure that will make him less able to be flexible in the future?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that he is the best judge of that, and, you know, he's a very tough, brave, and imaginative man. He knew, I think, what he was getting into. He wanted to - you know - he was the one who really wanted to have a summit. We talked about this a long time. The President believed that it was good timing for a summit because we're all looking at this date of September 13th, which is like seven weeks away, and I think Prime Minister Barak is a truly courageous man. He is a - not only a great military man but a great leader of his people, and he is - he's the one that made - you know - made the decision to move forward to go to the summit to try to resolve these issues. I think he deserves a tremendous amount of credit, and we obviously will work with him, as we will with Chairman Arafat.

MARGARET WARNER: Is it fair to say that you believe that it is particularly incumbent now on Chairman Arafat and the Palestinians to find a way of moving on this issue? And, if so, what could induce him to do so?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Well, I think the important point here - we have said all along that the ultimate solution to the issues, these permanent status issues, have to come about comprehensively and should have international recognition and cannot be and should not be unilateral actions. And I think that we hope very much that both sides will really see the value of continuing a comprehensive negotiation, so that this is not a unilateral statement one way or another, not just on the state but on other aspects of these problems. So I think the inducement here is that unilateral action is not the solution and comprehensive internationally recognized actions are the ones that will ultimately bring the best situation for the people, the Palestinian people, who, as they think about forming a state, want to have it internationally recognized and have the support of the international community. When President Clinton went to the G-8, he already kind of spoke about the importance of having those industrialized nations support what was going to - what he hoped would happen in Israel and in a future Palestinian state, and they need that. They need the international support; that's the inducement.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. So you mean that's the inducement for him not going ahead with the threat to unilaterally declare the Palestinian state on September 13th?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I think that he is much better off - and this is what we've said - is to have an internationally recognized Palestinian state with - in partnership with Israel. The thing, Margaret, that was so evident in these last 14 days is how intertwined the interest and the people of the region are. They live with each other; they are dependent upon each other. And for them to go separate ways it's practically impossible. And so that's the inducement, is to try to sort out how they do things together with the support of the international community.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. And do you think that now that these talks are in hiatus that the political climate will change enough on the Palestinian side to enable him to have the flexibility? And that's what I'm trying to really figure out here -- your assessment, just as you gave an assessment about Barak - about Arafat.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: I think that one would hope that his public would understand as much as possible that there is no future in violence or unilateral action. I would also hope that other Arab leaders would understand that supporting Arafat, as he moves to having a peaceful relationship with Israel is in everybody's interest, and so I would hope as people assess the possibilities out of this summit, that's the part that's so amazing, Margaret. We touched every subject, and we worked day and night, and they worked together and saw each other and spoke in the most informal terms -- there weren't a lot of formal meetings -- and I think that when that story gets out and the possibilities are evident to the Palestinian people, I hope they understand the value of moving forward, as I hope also do the Israeli people.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Well, thank you very much, Madame Secretary, for being with us.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Now, the Israeli perspective, and to Gwen Ifill.

GWEN IFILL: Joining us is Oded Eran, a member of the Israeli delegation to the Camp David talks. Welcome.

ODED ERAN, Israeli Delegation: Good evening.

GWEN IFILL: In your opinion, why was no agreement reached?

ODED ERAN: I think that we discussed all the issues for several months, and we reached at Camp David with one issue, which is probably at the heart of the conflict, and that is the issue of Jerusalem. Not that on all the other issues there was full agreement, but I suppose that we could reach an agreement at Camp David once the issue of Jerusalem had been settled. Now, as it appeared in the statement by the President and the interview of the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister of Israel was willing to go deeper in touching the raw nerve of this issue and was willing to, and I quote the President, "be courageous, to have a vision," and that pertains mostly to the issue of Jerusalem. And I feel sad that this sort of attitude was not matched by the Palestinian delegation and by the Palestinian leader, and therefore, we couldn't reach an agreement.

GWEN IFILL: There was an agreement, as Secretary Albright just alluded to, that everything would have to be settled or nothing would be settled. Was there a possibility of a partial agreement? Is there some reason why that wasn't pursued?

ODED ERAN: It is possible, of course, to reach a partial agreement with deferring some of the issues to future negotiations, but I believe that most of the issues... all of the issues are known to us. There isn't anything that we were revealing that are not known to us today. And therefore, there was an historic opportunity here, after almost a year of negotiations, after the summit, or within the summit, given the dedication of the American President. He really invested two weeks or more into this effort. There was no point in deferring the issues or some of them, and I think that...

GWEN IFILL: Not even just to be able to claim some sort of victory?

ODED ERAN: It's not a question of victory, and especially when you miss the issue of Jerusalem or if you defer the issue of Jerusalem. This is the heart of the conflict. And so you could say, question, we solved three quarters or five eighths of the conflict, but if you leave the heart of the problem unsolved, the question is whether this would have been very positive attitude.

GWEN IFILL: Whether there's anything you could have really taken home and sold, for instance, domestically?

ODED ERAN: Well, we'll have to continue the talks. We'll have to continue the dialogue. We co-exist in this region. I am very disappointed, and the whole Israeli delegation is very disappointed that this opportunity was missed. And I'm reminded by that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. So it was another missed opportunity. But eventually... there's no solution by force. There's in solution by violence. We need to continue the dialogue, and eventually we'll come back to it.

GWEN IFILL: You think the Palestinians dropped the ball on this?

ODED ERAN: I think that they did not rise to the historical occasion that came our way.

GWEN IFILL: When you take this non-agreement home, what begins, a constructive debate about what's been on the table, or a debate between the extremes?

ODED ERAN: There is going to be a soul-searching debate in Israel. It already started by, as I said, we touched a raw nerve, both on the Palestinian side and on our side. The proposals, especially those that concern Jerusalem, obviously are going to and they have opened a serious, a deep debate in Israel, and I don't know on what side they come out, what will be the final results. I'm not so sure that all the results are necessarily positive. Obviously debating the issues internally on both sides and among ourselves is a positive and may lead to a constructive, but it may take us back.

GWEN IFILL: Is there anything on your par that you can take back and say to the Knesset, this much is off the table. We've basically agreed on this, and this is what we have to figure out?

ODED ERAN: Well, as the secretary of state said, there were no written documents.

GWEN IFILL: Nothing written?

ODED ERAN: Nothing written. There were ideas that came, mostly from the American side. Obviously one side reacted to them positively to some extent, as I feel was the Israeli attitude. And some sides tackled it differently. So there's nothing written.

GWEN IFILL: So are these peace talks now in hiatus? Are they in collapse? Will we look back on them one day as having set the foundation for a lasting peace?

ODED ERAN: They were a very important milestone in the attempt to solve the Middle East conflict. I don't know when we will have a second opportunity with the same magnitude as we just ended this morning. But as I said, the peace process or the dialogue between the two people, the Palestinian people and the Israeli people,must go on. We cannot leave under the conditions-- we cannot live under the conditions of terror and violence, not the Israeli people, not the Palestinian people. So eventually, and I cannot tell you right now this evening when, but I am certain that the only way to solve this conflict between us is by dialogue, through discussion of the issues between us. There has been a very serious setback today. I cannot underestimate it. But I'm not saying...

GWEN IFILL: Is the setback enough, do you think, to bring on violence do you think at home? What's the prospect of that?

ODED ERAN: There is a danger; there is a danger. I don't want to dismiss it, but I hope that the moderates, the ones who pursue the dialogue will prevail, and I'm sure that this is the only way.

GWEN IFILL: And the potential for a unified government - just before Ehud Barak came here, obviously, he had left behind a pretty much fractured coalition. Now what happens?

ODED ERAN: I think that when the Prime Minister arrives in Israel tomorrow night, he will start looking at the domestic, political situation. This is one of the possibilities, formation of a national unity government. The other possibility is reshaping the government - the existing government - with parties just left the government. These parties may say, well, now that Camp David is over we can come back. So I think that the Prime Minister will weigh all the options, and I wouldn't rule any one of them out.

GWEN IFILL: Oded Eran, thank you very much.

ODED ERAN: You're very welcome.

JIM LEHRER: And the Palestinian perspective, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: Joining us is Saeb Erekat, a member of the Palestinian delegation. Well, you just heard Mr. Eran refer to a serious setback, and the President of the United States talk about significant progress. From your delegation's point of view, what was accomplished in the last two weeks?

SAEB EREKAT, Palestinian Delegation: I think a lot of significant developments. I have been listening to the negotiations since they began in Madrid. Today after the completion of the two weeks negotiations at Camp David, I feel Palestinians and Israelis are much closer to a peace agreement than any time before. No one expected that we'd come here in two weeks and we would see the white smoke coming out of Camp David. These are issues that relates to our history, our religion, our psychology. This is the past, our present, and our future. And I'm talking about Israelis and Palestinians. A lot was achieved. I don't see any point trying to assign blame as I heard Mr. Eran say. I don't think it will serve any purpose. I agreed with Mr. Eran in your studios that I will meet him next Sunday back home, and we have no option but to continue these negotiations, and never in nine years of negotiations have Palestinians and Israelis been more clear and more focused on issues, and I believe the prospects for an agreement today are stronger, bigger than any time in the last nine years.

RAY SUAREZ: Prime minister Barak himself said that the delegation, his delegation was ready to make peace. Secretary of Albright said the Palestinians were not ready to rise to the challenge. First, do you agree with that description?

SAEB EREKAT: I don't think I will get into an argument trying to assign blame. I think we need Mr. Barak as a partner. We need to bring President Arafat and Mr. Barak to the level of full trust. I think the days ahead of us will witness the continuation of the negotiations. I don't think this in any way, and I didn't like the term you used actually, collapse. It didnot collapse. The peace process will go on. I think what happened at Camp David must be viewed in terms of the complexities of all these issues. Now, for the first time, for the first time in our history, we have sat down and negotiated Jerusalem. For the first time in 53 years of conflict, we negotiated refugees, we negotiated a border; we negotiated security. And honestly, we met the expectations that were so high. But at the same time, when someone says that Barak came in more than Arafat, what kind of measurements they're using? If they mean July 11, I don't know, maybe. But if they mean October, 1991 until now, all this peace process, I think, as Palestinians, we came a long way. I will not get into scoring points or assigning blame. This will not serve any purpose. We need to capitalize on what we did at Camp David. We did a lot. A great deal was achieved. I'm not undermining the gaps that remain on the issues and the major issues, but once again, I say, that today, July 25, Palestinians and Israelis stand on a stronger ground that will enable them to reach a comprehensive agreement on all permanent status issues no later than September 13.

RAY SUAREZ: Let's take your description of this as a foundation for the eventual comprehensive settlement. Is it still being done on the deadline of September 13, the declaration of Palestinian statehood?

SAEB EREKAT: Let me explain what September 13... September 13 is an article that appeared in a magazine which was signed by President Arafat and Mr. Barak and signed also by Madame Albright and the Egyptian President, Mr. Hosni Mubarak and the King of Jordan. It specified that both sides would reach an agreement no later than September 13. That's an agreement between the Palestinians, the Israelis, and signed with the Americans, the Egyptians, and Jordanians. I believe the seven weeks ahead, we must exert every possible effort in order to continue what we began. I said the foundations today are much stronger than any time before. I believe, as someone who negotiated since Madrid until now, Israeli positions have never been more clearer to me than what they were in the last two weeks -- thanks to the brilliance, the dedication of President Clinton and his team. I think they did a superb job. I don't know how long it would have taken me as a Palestinian negotiator to sit in front of my Israeli colleagues and discuss what was discussed in the last ten days or 14 days.

RAY SUAREZ: But with September 14 so close, if you continue to make progress on the issues, does this become a confining thing, or a useful thing to have this deadline still waiting?

SAEB EREKAT: I think we must continue with maximum effort, and I believe we can reach an agreement before September 14, I really do.

RAY SUAREZ: On the issue of Jerusalem, you've referred to this as the future capital of the Palestinian state and the future capital of the state of Israel. In the view of many people, these are reconcilable visions of the same plot of land. How do you work that?

SAEB EREKAT: I've seen lots of things happening at Camp David. I believe at the end of the day, this is the issue that will either make or break the process. I believe that we can do it. I believe that, as I said earlier today, you know, Jerusalem is unique. Jerusalem... We agreed we want to maintain Jerusalem as an open city. We want to have free access to religious places. We want to maintain the integrity of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. But that's the uniqueness of Jerusalem. No one should be able to know the difference between a Muslim stone, a Christian stone, and a Jewish stone. And, historically speaking, once a stone like this decides to expand, we're going to have bloodshed. And I believe we will reach an accommodation that will enable us to see Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Palestine and the capital of the state of Israel.

RAY SUAREZ: During these negotiations, did you have conversations with Israeli counterparts that you couldn't have imagined having about Jerusalem three years ago, five years ago, ten year ago?

SAEB EREKAT: Well, listen, I'll be fair; they've heard certain things from us they could not have imagined three years ago. We heard things from them that we could not have imagined three years ago. It was a somewhat hard work, dedication. I think both sides did everything they can. I think the complexities of the issues on both Arafat and Mr. Barak were enormous. And I think those who put the high expectations of solving all the issues in ten days must reassess, and I think they were told to do so before the summit-began. I believe this will go on to history, Mark my words, July 1st-- July 11, July 25, under the auspices of President Clinton, the Palestinians and Israelis have planted the seeds for comprehensive and major peace in the region.

RAY SUAREZ: Saeb Erekat, thanks for joining us.

SAEB EREKAT: Thank you.

FOCUS - CONCORDE CRASH

JIM LEHRER: And finally, today's third big story, the crash of a Concorde jet outside Paris that killed 113 people. Our report is from Julian Rush of Independent Television News.

JULIAN RUSH: Concorde Flight AF-4590 had been chartered by the German tour operator Deilmann. All the passengers and the nine French crew are dead. Killed too: Four people on the ground as the plane smashed into a field close to the Hotel Relais Bleu in the small town of Gonesse. Laden with tons of fuel for takeoff, the smoke and flames could be seen for miles. It took firefighters an hour and a half to douse the flames. "First there was a huge explosion," he said, "then a second huge blast that rattled the windows of my office. I saw the flame shooting up above the trees. I went outside, and there was a part of one of the plane's seats on my car." (Speaking French) This man was sitting eating his meal. "I heard a noise," he said. "It was Concorde making a turn as if it was trying to get back to the airport. It had an engine that was on fire. I can't tell you which one." Other eyewitnesses report seeing an explosion in the left-hand engines immediately after takeoff that may have broken off a section of wing. The plane tipped over as the pilot fought for control.

SID HARE,, Pilot/Eyewitness: There's four engines on the Concorde, and the left side number one and number two engines, one of those obviously had a catastrophic failure because it was trailing flames 200 to 300 feet behind the airplane, and it probably wiped out the other engine next to it. So the airplane was then trying to climb on only two out of four engines, and it just couldn't gain altitude. And he kept trying to get the nose up to gain altitude, which eventually caused a stall. The nose pitched straight up in the air, and the airplane just started rolling over and backsliding down toward the ground.

JULIAN RUSH: The French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin has gone to the crash site. Britain is sending experts to join the crash investigation. The question now is why did it fall out of the sky in flames? Concorde has had just one accident in its 31-year history. A tire burst on landing in 1979. No one was injured. But there will inevitably be speculation that today's disaster may be connected to recent reports of cracks in the planes' wings. Only yesterday Air France said they posed no danger to passengers.

JIM LEHRER: Later in the day, Air France said the passengers included 96 Germans, two Danes, one Austrian, and one American. There was no word on the nationalities of the crew or those killed on the ground.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: In other news today, Vice President Gore said he has narrowed his list of possible running mates. He met with former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who's been advising him on the matter. Gore said he was trying to keep the process very private and dignified. Reducing school class size and spending more on poor children can affect student test scores. That's the conclusion of a study released today that compared state approaches to education. It was done by Rand, a California-based research organization. It found also that simply paying teachers more did not make much difference. Overall, schoolchildren in Texas did better than kids in other states, regardless of race or family income. California students did the worst.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening, as we will provide additional coverage and analysis of today's three major stories: The Cheney selection, the Middle East talks collapse, and the Concorde crash. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.