The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, late-term abortions, Elizabeth Farnsworth runs a debate between Senators Smith and Boxer; the gay rights referendum in Maine, Eliza Hobson tells that story; and the impact of the Rabin murder on American Jews, Jeffrey Kaye reports from Los Angeles. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday. NEWSSUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The Israeli government announced today it will definitely continue the peace process. Yitzhak Rabin's successor as prime minister, Shimon Peres, said the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the West Bank would go ahead on schedule. He also told reporters in Jerusalem he was not planning to call parliamentary elections in the wake of Rabin's death.

SHIMON PERES, Acting Prime Minister, Israel: For us, the main consideration is the peace process and not the term of the government. I said yesterday, and I shall repeat it, that for us to win peace is more important even than to win the elections.

REPORTER: So you won't go to an election now?

SHIMON PERES: I shall continue the process of peace as we have started, and we shall go on.

MR. LEHRER: The Israeli government today clamped down on right- wing extremists who have urged violence against public officials. One of those extremists has admitted killing Rabin. Yitzhak Rabin's widow said today she blamed the opposition Likud Party and its leader, Benjamin Netanyahu for creating a climate of extremism.

LEAH RABIN, Yitzhak Rabin's Widow: Surely I blame them. If you ever heard their speeches at the Knesset, you would understand what I mean. They were very, very violent in their expressions. We are selling the country down the drain. There will be no Israel after this peace agreement. I mean, this was wild.

MR. LEHRER: We'll look at how all of this has affected the American Jewish community in Los Angeles later in the program. An American sailor pleaded "guilty" today to kidnapping and raping a 12-year-old Okinawan girl. Two Marines also pleaded "guilty" to helping plan and carry out the attack. The three are on trial in a district court in Okinawa. The maximum sentence is life in prison. They were turned over to Japanese authorities after their indictments in September. The case has caused widespread public criticism in Okinawa of the U.S. military presence. Today is election day in several places around this country, including 11 states. There are governors' races in Kentucky and Mississippi. In Virginia, Republicans hope to win the few seats needed to capture both houses of the legislature. The GOP has not controlled both houses in a Southern state in more than a century. A number of ballot questions are also up for a vote today. One of them in Maine asks voters whether gays should be a protected minority. We'll have more on that story later in the program. The Senate began debate today on a bill banning so-called "partial birth abortions." Similar legislation has already passed the House. Senators Smith and Boxer made the opening arguments.

SEN. ROBERT SMITH, [R] New Hampshire: Can you imagine--could you possibly imagine the pain of this child, without any anesthetic, of having scissors put in the back of its neck and having its brains sucked out? Can you imagine the pain? This is the United States of America. Why are we doing this to our children? Could somebody please tell me why we're doing this. Why are we doing this? Give me a reason. I can't wait till I hear the other side. For what? Why are we doing this?

SEN. BARBARA BOXER, [D] California: Women in their late-term pregnancies do not desire, do not anticipate, do not want, do not even think about abortion. Women in the late term of their pregnancies are anticipating the joys of childbirth, the fulfillment of motherhood and family. Doctors know late-term abortions are dangerous and difficult. They're emergency medical procedures done in the most tragic and painful circumstances, and yet this bill would outlaw an emergency medical procedure.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have our own debate between Senators Smith and Boxer right after this News Summary. A statement released at the White House today said President Clinton will veto the legislation if it does pass. House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer today announced a Republican plan to extend the debt limit. It would give the President and Congress another month to work out a balanced budget. But amendments to the bill limit President Clinton's authority. Late today, House Speaker Newt Gingrich told reporters the Republicans are very close to agreement on how to link a debt limit to a final budget bill.

REP. NEWT GINGRICH, Speaker of the House: Given the absence of any serious negotiation with the White House, it will be very hard for us to go to our members and ask them to send an increase in debt on our children without having put in a down payment to begin to solve the problem. So we're trying to work out with the Senate an appropriate series of steps on both the continuing resolution and the debt ceiling, and I think we'll get there in the next few hours.

MR. LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to partial birth abortions, gay rights in Maine, and from Los Angeles, American Jews consider the Rabin murder. FOCUS - ABORTION POLITICS

MR. LEHRER: Now, the proposal to ban certain late-term abortions. Elizabeth Farnsworth has the story.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The legislation being debated in the Senate would impose criminal penalties on doctors who perform a certain type of a late-term abortion. Last week's House vote in favor of a similar bill was the first time a chamber of Congress voted to criminalize some form of abortion. Now, two different perspectives on the proposed ban. Republican Senator Robert Smith of New Hampshire is the chief sponsor of the legislation. Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California is leading the opposition to the bill. Thank you both for being with us. Sen. Smith, briefly, what specifically would this legislation ban?

SEN. ROBERT SMITH, [R] New Hampshire: [Capitol Hill] Well, it's going to ban the process or the procedure known as partial birth abortions, which involves the child coming down through the birth canal, with the exception of the head, and at that time, with roughly 75 to 80 percent of the child born, in the hands of the tending abortionist or doctor, he then, the doctor then uses a, a pair of scissors to open up the skull, in which he then inserts a catheter to suck the brains, literally, from the child's head, to crush, decompress the skull, and so that the child can be taken, can be taken completely out. So this is a brutal act that I don't think anyone, pro-choice or pro-life, should justify. And this legislation bans it, period.

MS. FARNSWORTH: And under the legislation, the penalty would be- -

SEN. SMITH: Well, there's no penalty on the woman whatsoever, absolutely no penalty.

MS. FARNSWORTH: The doctor--the penalty is on the doctor.

SEN. SMITH: The doctor has, has the affirmative defense position. That means there is an opportunity if the mother's life is threatened that he, he may use--he or she may use that procedure. But that is not likely to happen, because most medical experts say that there is no need to perform this procedure under almost any circumstance.

MS. FARNSWORTH: But the penalty would be two years in jail, no more than two years in jail, and/or a fine, right?

SEN. SMITH: That's correct.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Sen. Boxer, what's wrong with this?

SEN. BARBARA BOXER, [D] California: [Capitol Hill] Well, first of all, there's no such thing as partial birth abortion. We're talking about a very tragic situation where a woman is told very late in a pregnancy that she faces death or severe consequences to her health. And we have women who are here, ready to talk to Senators, in the halls, begging them not to do this, because unlike my colleague says, this sometimes is the only procedure that can, in fact, be used to spare the woman's life. And we have to remember as reasonable people we wish that there was not a need for abortion ever, and certainly we pray that no one is faced with this agonizing choice, but it does happen, and this would be the first time in history that we can tell that the United States Congress would outlaw a specific medical procedure that is meant and used to save a woman's life. And before we do that, many of us are recommending--and I hope it will pass and it is bipartisan--that we send this bill to the Judiciary Committee. We have never had a hearing on it. We think it is very important. We are not doctors. We do not know the ins and outs of this. Let's hear from the doctors. Let's hear from the women. Let's hear from both sides. Then let's take this bill up.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Sen. Boxer, would you support this bill if there was language in it that explicitly made an abortion procedure like this legal to protect the life or the health of the mother?

SEN. BOXER: Oh, life and health of the mother exception makes this far more acceptable. The House did not do that, and although Sen. Smith says, yes, a doctor can go to a court and use as a defense that he did it to save the mother's life, it still is a criminal act on its face, and he would have to convince a jury. Now, that is not what we should be doing in the United States Congress. Where will this end? What new procedures will now come up if Congress decides it doesn't like a certain procedure to save an old person's life? Are we going to start going down that path? I think it is a slippery slope.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Sen. Smith, what about that? What's wrong with language in the legislation that would explicitly say this, this abortion procedure would be possible and would be legal to save a woman's--a mother's life, or her--protect her health?

SEN. SMITH: Well, first of all, through the affirmative defense procedure, which is very carefully outlined in the bill, the doctor has that right, obviously.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Excuse me for interrupting. What about the criticism that he's already in the dock, so to speak, at the moment that he can use that, he's already in court?

SEN. SMITH: Well, that is not exactly accurate. The point, the point that is not being made here by Sen. Boxer is that some 80 percent by the abortion doctor's own testimony, 80 percent of these cases have nothing to do--they have nothing to do with the life of the mother, they have nothing to do with anything other than elective, the elective option that a woman chooses. That's what's not being said here.

MS. FARNSWORTH: I'm going to come back to that.

SEN. SMITH: That's the issue here.

MS. FARNSWORTH: I'm going to come back to that in a second, but just briefly first, what about language in the legislation, would that, would you go for that, if there was explicit language that made it legal in the case of protecting the life of the mother?

SEN. SMITH: We have the language--the language is protected. There is no--we have medical experts all over the place who are saying that there is absolutely no justification for performingthis procedure. If you have to do an abortion to protect the life of the mother, there's certainly a more humane way to do it than that. Would you put your dog to sleep that way? It's bizarre. I mean, it's just bizarre.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay. Now on this point that you brought up, you disagree on whether this abortion procedure is performed very often and for what reasons. Could you state for us your understanding of when it's performed and why, and then Sen. Boxer too.

SEN. SMITH: Well, this is what the--you'll notice in the floor debate today this was not discussed. The procedure was never discussed by the other side, because it's, it's too horrifying to discuss. They've got to couch it in some other, some other way. The truth of the matter is that people could be--little children here can be aborted if they have Downs Syndrome, if they have some type of a deformity, you know, and I'd like to know how we define that deformity. Is it a missing hand? Is it a cleft palate? Just what is the reason? See, you can't get into that, because that's where they lose, they lose ground, they lose the integrity of the argument. This is an abortion that's the most brutal kind of an abortion. It is not necessary to save the life of the mother to do it in this manner, and everyone knows it. And that's the only thing we're trying to ban. That's it.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Sen. Boxer.

SEN. BOXER: Well, let me say what an insult it is to American families, to mothers and fathers, to suggest that they would go through an agonizing and, by the way, difficult late-term abortion because the child had a cleft palate. And I think Sen. Smith knows this just is not so. And he ducked the question as far as would he support it if it said clearly in the legislation, no, you cannot use this, except life or health of the mother. Now, I have the bill right in front of me. And it is very clear here--it says, "It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution or a civil action under the section which must be proved by preponderance of the evidence that a partial birth abortion was performed by a physician who believed it was necessary to save the life of the mother." They don't even talk about health of the mother. The fact of the matter is it is a criminal act on its face. This would be the first time in history Congress ever looked at a medical procedure, not a doctor over here, Sen. Smith, nor is the Senator, not a day in medical school, no real knowledge about what is at stake here, just the fact that he would talk about this as a partial birth abortion; this isn't a birth. This is a late-term abortion, which is undertaken in the most tragic of circumstances.

SEN. SMITH: It's not true.

SEN. BOXER: We have Vicky Wilson here, a registered nurse, a practicing Catholic. She was the parents of two and planning for a third. In the eighth month of pregnancy, an ultrasound showed the baby's brain was growing outside her skull. If she gave birth to that baby, she would have died, or in any event, had the most severe impacts because there would have been massive hemorrhages. This woman is a religious woman. She is putting her statement forward, and she's begging the Senators, please, think of the real- life circumstances here, make an exception for life and health of the mother.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Sen. Smith.

SEN. SMITH: May I respond to that?

MS. FARNSWORTH: Yes.

SEN. SMITH: I would just like to ask Sen. Boxer if there were no medical problems, there were no incidents of any medical problems with the baby and it was strictly elective, would you oppose it?

SEN. BOXER:I would vote for this bill if it had an exception for the life and the health of the mother.

SEN. SMITH: And we have that.

SEN. BOXER: That is what Roe V. Wade says. I think it's important to note that--

SEN. SMITH: We have it.

SEN. BOXER: --Roe V. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision, said that in the last two trimesters, i.e., in the late terms of an abortion, the states will govern the rules. And every single state in the United States absolutely has rules impacting the performance of late-term abortions. And here we have Senators from the Republican Party who are always saying let the states decide, who voted to cancel federal regulations for nursing homes, saying, let the states do it, suddenly say, we're going to outlaw a procedure. And they do not even support the concept of making an exception for life and health of the mother.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Excuse me, Sen. Boxer.

SEN. SMITH: May I quickly make one point.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Yes. And then I have another question for you, Sen. Smith.

SEN. SMITH: First of all, there were many people on the Democrat and Republican side, many Democrats in the House, pro-choice, liberal Democrats who voted against this horrible procedure. That's No. 1. No. 2, real quickly, saying that we've never voted on a medical procedure is wrong. Sen. Boxer knows it, because she supported one particular ban, which was put forth by, by Congresswoman Schroeder, which banned female genitalia mutilation. So there is precedent for having--for having medical practices, medical procedures, being voted on or being introduced as legislation. So it just depends on how you want to debate the issue.

SEN. BOXER: We've never--

MS. FARNSWORTH: Excuse me, Sen. Boxer.

SEN. BOXER: --banned a medical procedure--

SEN. SMITH: That's not a medical procedure?

SEN. BOXER: --to save the life of the mother.

SEN. SMITH: You didn't say that in your last--

SEN. BOXER: To save a life.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Sen. Boxer is proposing that this go to the Judiciary Committee. Do you oppose that, Sen. Smith?

SEN. SMITH: Yes, I do, because it's--it's simply a dilatory action that the only reason why Sen. Boxer and others want to move it to the Judiciary Committee is to kill the bill, so that they don't have to vote on this procedure. When the debate was going on the floor of the Senate, all we heard about were things that were just totally away from the issue that this child, this little baby, with moving hands, moving feet, is brought into the birth canal, held by this doctor, and then killed with scissors to the back of the head, with no anesthetic. That's what they don't want to talk about.

SEN. BOXER: Let me talk about another--

MS. FARNSWORTH: Sen. Boxer--

SEN. SMITH: Surely, we have better things in America to do than that.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Sen. Boxer, we have only very few seconds.

SEN. BOXER: Okay, in these few seconds. The other child is my daughter, is your daughter, is the Senator's wife. A call comes in the middle of the night to save that child, somebody's baby, who happens now to be a grown-up. You have to use this procedure. Do we want to be in a position where we don't even allow the doctor to use it if it's necessary to save her life? I hope we're honest with ourselves, because if it happened to us, we would say to the doctor, with the grace of God, save "my" child.

MS. FARNSWORTH: Okay, Sen. Smith, in the remaining five or ten seconds.

SEN. SMITH: Well, of course, that's not the issue. The issue is the brutality of the procedure used. That's what we're talking about here. This is not--this is not the issue, as Sen. Boxer has outlined.

SEN. BOXER: Well, that's how you framed it.

SEN. SMITH: Whether or not you support taking a child's life in this manner, that's the issue.

MS. FARNSWORTH: All right. Well, thank you both very much.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, gay rights in Maine and Rabin and American Jews. FOCUS - GAY RIGHTS

MR. LEHRER: Next tonight, the story of the question. Are gays entitled to special consideration as a minority group? Voters in Maine are giving their answers today in a ballot referendum. Eliza Hobson of New Hampshire Public Television reports.

ELIZA HOBSON, New Hampshire Public Television: Blackstones is a gay bar in Portland, Maine. William Clark is a regular customer here. He says one evening last summer he was getting some air outside the bar when a group of young men approached him.

WILLIAM CLARK: And three individuals that patrons had seen passing the bar two or three times came up to me, said, get off the steps, you fag, and everything, we live here, and you know, other gay derogatory comments that I'm, I'm not going to mention, but, umm, words were exchanged and everything. And I got up to leave. And the next thing I knew I got a punch in the head from somebody on my right.

MS. HOBSON: Clark received a beating that night which broke his nose and one eye socket. Authorities are treating the incident as a hate crime. Two men have been charged with the assault. Law enforcers for the state of Maine warn that hate crimes against gays will be harder to prosecute if Referendum Question No. 1 is approved by voters November 7th. Question 1 asks voters to restrict the number of groups which get protection from discrimination in state and local laws. Paul Madore heads the Coalition to End Special Rights, which supports the referendum.

PAUL MADORE, Coalition to End Special Rights: This is an opportunity for Maine citizens to go to the ballot and to--and to express their sentiment, their will regarding special rights legislation for homosexuals, and other classes, who choose to ask for their status.

MS. HOBSON: Attorney General Andrew Ketterer is urging a "no" vote on Question One. He's part of the movement called "Maine Won't Discriminate."

ANDREW KETTERER, Attorney General, Maine: We need to stop the hate against those who are perceived as being different. We need to stop the violence against those perceived as being vulnerable. The purveyors of bigotry and discrimination are the ones who are different. They do not represent the views of the mainstream here in Maine.

MS. HOBSON: Supporters of Question One say they do not represent bigotry, that they're seeking fairness under the law. At public debates, they argue that Maine is a safe place for homosexuals who need no more legal protection than anyone else. Jonathan Malmude is a member of Concerned Maine Families, the group which crafted Question One.

JONATHAN MALMUDE, Concerned Maine Families: Certainly, hate exists. Certainly, minority groups are persecuted many times, but the real issue here is what are the objective, empirical criteria to determining when a group is persecuted?

MS. HOBSON: Malmude says there's no proof that homosexuals suffer discrimination and the head of Concerned Maine Families, Carolyn Cosby, says it's impossible even to prove that someone's homosexual.

CAROLYN COSBY, Concerned Maine Families: We don't think that there should be a minority class instantly called into being simply by the people who want to identify themselves as being oriented in some particular sexualway. We simply are saying that protect those groups that are identifiable, that we can legitimately know who are receiving these benefits.

MS. HOBSON: Cosby maintains homosexuals want minority status in order to gain special government treatment, like affirmative action. Maine's governor, Angus King, disagrees. He wants citizens to vote "no" on Question One.

GOV. ANGUS KING, Maine: It's a scare tactic to talk about affirmative action. That's not the issue here. The issue is: Can somebody be fired from their job simply because of what they do on their own time in their private life? It's as simple as that.

MS. HOBSON: Supporters of Question One don't believe people are fired because they're gay. They point to statistics which indicate that homosexuals have higher than average income levels.

ADELE DEMERS, Question One Supporter: I don't think they're discriminated at all. We well know that they are among the class of a group of people with higher level of incomes. Why do they think they're being discriminated against? They obviously have jobs.

MS. HOBSON: The city of Portland is the only community in Maine with a local ordinance against discrimination based on sexual orientation. It and sections of state laws will be repealed if the referendum is approved. Steven Addario of Portland claims there is job discrimination here. He says he lost a job offer from a longtime business associate when he revealed that he is gay.

STEVEN ADDARIO: And I have to say that it was very much of a shock, to have him then and turn around say, because you are gay, that we can't do this, because--because he felt there was some kind of fear or, or discrimination that might end up happening which would hurt his business.

MS. HOBSON: Addario and others say homosexuals have no legal recourse if they experience discrimination in the job or housing markets. To refute this, supporters of the referendum ask why more lawsuits have not been filed since Portland passed its ordinance three years ago. There has been a handful of suits, and none has gone to court.

JOHN CLIFTON, Question One Supporter: If there was a hotbed of discrimination, and the ordinance has now been passed, you would think that they would now be in the courts with that ordinance seeking redress. If there have not been any cases, then obviously it wasn't that great a problem.

MS. HOBSON: In other states, voters have rejected similar referendum attempts, except in Colorado. And its law has never taken effect. It was ruled unconstitutional in Colorado's highest court, and it's now on appeal in the United States Supreme Court. To try to avoid troubles like these, the authors of the main referendum have come up with language that they hope will be legally bulletproof.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: We took a look at the Colorado language. We considered it. It really wasn't what we wanted to do, but we didn't know what else we could do.

MS. HOBSON: To improve on Colorado's legal language, Concerned Maine Families brought in Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer from Virginia with a national reputation. Fein says Colorado created an unfair obstacle to the political freedom of homosexuals by amending its constitution and specifically targeting gays. The measure he wrote for Maine doesn't mention gays. It sets a limit on what groups can be protected. And it's non-binding. The legislature can overturn it at any time.

BRUCE FEIN, Question One, Author: It would not mean we're attempting in any way in Maine to exclude gays, lesbians from civil rights protections in the future if they can make a substantial claim of need and harm. What it is suggesting, if it was passed, I think, is that the Maine people believe that there really hasn't been that showing, certainly at present.

MS. HOBSON: Opponents predict the referendum language will create legal problems. By restricting protected groups to those listed in the Human Rights Act, they say groups besides gays, like veterans or health care workers, protected in other laws, will no longer be protected. Dale McCormick is a state senator.

DALE McCORMICK, State Senator, Maine: Smokers' rights will be obliterated. Protect--civil rights protections for hunters, you can't harass a hunter hunting in Maine, that will be wiped off the books by this.

MS. HOBSON: Support has come in to Maine from national groups on both sides of the issue, but one group which was expected to back Question One has not. The influential Christian Coalition declines to comment on the referendum. Some think they want a low profile on homosexual issues as the presidential elections approach. Doug Hattaway is spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a national lobbying group for gays.

DOUG HATTAWAY, Human Rights Campaign: They have tried to push this issue under the table because they know it turns off voters. Anyone who watched the election in 1992 when the Republicans turned over their convention to gay bashing and that sort of extreme rhetoric, most observers agree that that cost them crucial votes. And they're smart enough not to let that happen again.

MS. HOBSON: Referendum Author Bruce Fein dismisses the importance of the Christian Coalition's support for Maine's initiative.

BRUCE FEIN: If anything, I think that's an--it's an advantage politically because it suggests that this is, indeed, a moderate, enlightened, sensible approach that doesn't have the earmarks of, of right-wing dogmatism efforts to paint homosexuals as condemned from the Bible or otherwise and should be read out of our, of our political system.

MS. HOBSON: In Portland, William Clark fears the passage of Question One. Though his wounds have healed since he was beaten in front of Blackstones Bar last summer, he says he's still suffering. With a conservative Congress in Washington, homosexual activists are unlikely to gain federal legal protections. Supporters of Question One say that's why it's critical for voters to rebuff gay activists on the state level.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: If the Maine initiative stops them, they have nowhere to go, and it's very likely that we will see other states around the nation copy the Maine initiative.

MS. HOBSON: Supporters and opponents appear to be neck-in-neck on Question One. That's been the pattern in other states, where measures were narrowly defeated. The question here is whether the new approach will tip the balance. FOCUS - COMING TO TERMS

MR. LEHRER: Now, how the Rabin murder has hit Jews in America. Our vantage point is the Jewish community of Los Angeles. We'll take its pulse right after this report from Israel by Gaby Rado of Independent Television News.

GABY RADO, ITN: This morning, the tributes of countless ordinary Israelis have joined the official wreaths at Yitzhak Rabin's grave in Jerusalem. As the Jewish traditional seven days of mourning began, the late prime minister's widow voiced the sense of insecurity unleashed on the whole country by her husband's assassin.

LEAH RABIN, Yitzhak Rabin's Widow: It's not just a lunatic who did it. It would have been different, but he did it clear-cut, with cold blood and planned it. He had planned it before. This is one of the things that you keep wondering, why didn't they--why weren't they alert--more alert about this character, because they had seen him before.

MR. RADO: There are signs everywhere of increased security precautions, and public figures are admitting they've been too lax about their personal safety.

YOSSI BEILIN, Economics Minister, Israel: Well, I think that we have to take seriously now these threats. They have been there all the time against individuals. I must admit even personally that I dismissed them, and I will not do it anymore. There are legal steps which should be implemented. I'm sure that they were implemented in the past, but I think that will take it now much more seriously. But the most important thing is not necessarily this part of taking measures against the extremists but to go on with these and to create the fait accompli.

MR. RADO: It was the peace process which right wing and ultra religious protesters had vilified in regular demonstrations before Yitzhak Rabin's murder. These became increasingly sinister, and threats were received against his life. Last month, outside his own home, a group of rabbis laid a death curse on him. Chillingly enough, it was due to last till early November. This man, Avigdeor Eskin, had met the assassin, Yigal Amir, a number of times but denies having influenced him. The murder hasn't blunted Eskin's extreme views.

AVIGDEOR ESKIN: As you see, the Jewish mysticism works very well. This prayer was basically to ask angels to ask the Almighty not to let this man continue his destructive policies of transgression, of turning the land of God, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to the hands of Palestinians.

MR. RADO: The extremists' most popular cause among ordinary Israelis is the continued existence of the Jewish settlements on the West Bank. The oldest, Karyat Arba, is overlooked by the Arab city of Hebron, soon to be handed over to Palestinian control. The settlers' religious conviction of their absolute right to remain on these territories is still the greatest threat to the peace process and fuels the deepest rift inside Israeli society.

BARUKH MARZEL, Jewish Settler: Killing him is easier punishment than staying alive and seeing how much harm he did to the Jewish people.

MR. RADO: In Karyat Arba, dismay at Yitzhak Rabin's murder is mixed with a conviction that his policies were wrong.

CELIA OFER, Karyat Arba Settler: He made a sincere effort to bring a better future for the country, but I believe that he went about it wrongly. I think he went about it much too fast. I think he didn't take into account that there were many people whom he scared and who didn't know what was going to happen to them, people like my friend, Sari, and myself, whose only home is here in Karyat Arba and has always been here in Karyat Arba.

SARI COHEN, Karyat Arba Settler: I feel very bad, what happened to Mr. Rabin. But, but look, we don't believe in this way, but if you remember what he said about us, I don't care.

MR. RADO: Today an artist from Tel Aviv carried out a one-man protest against Karyat Arba's most controversial site, the grave of Baruch Goldstein, the settler who gunned down 29 Muslim worshipers at a Hebron mosque. The grave had stood there untouched for more than a year. The inscription called Goldstein a saint, whose hands and heart were clean. The protesters saw a link between Yitzhak Rabin's killer and Goldstein.

AURAM PESO, Artist: He was influenced from the support that Baruch Goldstein got from the city, got from all over the country. Those people cannot live freely in our country.

MR. RADO: Others looking for the causes which lay behind the assassination blamed the main right wing opposition leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, for not condemning the violent rhetoric against Yitzhak Rabin.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, Likud Party Leader: In the age of electronic recall it's perfectly possible to take out, retrieve all the tapes, all the videotapes, all the audiotapes, all the interviews on numerous times, time after time, in which I stood in front of these people, a handful, who come into a crowd of tens of thousands, and shouted them down and told them to get away and told them to stop. No one has more forcefully, more repeatedly, more vigorously condemned them than I have.

LEAH RABIN, Yitzhak Rabin's Widow: Unfortunately, today too many people regret that they haven't spoken up loud, when it might have been very necessary. When every Friday afternoon there were people coming here on a regular basis, 3 o'clock in the afternoon they were here, yelling, "traitor," "killer," the last Friday it was the worst.

MR. LEHRER: The Israeli Justice Minister said today he's planning to introduce legislation banning protests at the homes of elected officials. Now to the reaction of an American Jewish Community. Jeffrey Kaye of public station KCET-Los Angeles reports and discusses.

JEFFREY KAYE: Yesterday in Los Angeles, 2,000 people gathered for a memorial service to pay tribute to Yitzhak Rabin. The ceremony was held at a center named for Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal. California Gov. Pete Wilson recalled his longtime friendship with Rabin.

GOV. PETE WILSON, California: How privileged I have been to enjoy the friendship of a great and courageous leader. Blessed are the peacemakers; how blessed, my strong friend, must you be.

MR. KAYE: There are about 600,000 Jews in Southern California. Their religious practices are varied. They range from strictly observant to non-existent. Most Jews are not affiliated with synagogues. Their political beliefs also span a wide spectrum, from support of the Israeli government to opposition to the peace process. But religious and political divisions have been put aside as Los Angeles Jews have mourned the killing of the Israeli prime minister. Last night, hundreds of mourners attended a candlelight vigil in front of the Israeli Consulate. Irwin Field, president of the Jewish Federation Council, sounded the theme of unity and peace.

IRWIN FIELD, Jewish Federation Council: The Los Angeles Jewish community has stood with the people of Israel for 48 years. We have been with them in times of calm, in times of stress and strain. We are with them in this--in these days of mourning.

MR. KAYE: In Los Angeles, opponents of the Israeli government have been publicly silent on that issue. Politics has been overshadowed by grief. Last night, rabbis from Judaism's three main branches: orthodox, conservative, and reform, led mourners in the Jewish Prayer for the Dead. But mixed in with the religious was the secular and, in particular, support for Israel. And before mourners left, they joined in the singing of the Israeli National Anthem, Hatikva, which in Hebrew means "Hope." [Group Singing Hatikva]

MR. KAYE: Joining me now are Marlene Adler Marks, managing editor of the "Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles;" David Eliezrie, an orthodox rabbi who disagrees with the peace process; Gerald Bubis, past national co-chair of Americans for Peace Now; and John Fishel, executive vice president of the Jewish Federation Council of Greater Los Angeles. Thank you all very much for joining us. Marlene Marks, let me start with you. In the taped piece from Israel, we saw extraordinarily deep and abiding political divisions. Are those deep political divisions in Israel a fundamental part of the Jewish community here in Los Angeles?

MARLENE ADLER MARKS, L.A. Jewish Journal: Well, the first thing to say is that many people in Los Angeles, a proportionate number, have relatives in Israel, and they have taken sides based on family connection. Others have what's called a vestigial yearning for Israel, which has now become awakened, having nothing to do with previous politics. And that's the thing that I probably would stress more, what's going on now, is the healing coming from this re-connection and the politics that I see played out will be brand new based on that whole new connection that many, many Jews are feeling.

MR. KAYE: That's what you expect might happen in the future, but traditionally, what have we seen in the last few years in the Jewish community in America? Are those divisions from Israel reflected in the Jewish community here?

MS. MARKS: Clearly they are. There were people sitting out in front of the Israel Consul General's Office after there was a sit- in at a settlement in Israel. I mean, we see almost an immediate effect. We have certain synagogues that are very actively involved in the settler movement, and others that have taken pro-Likud Party positions years and years ago, and then others that are quickly aligned with the Labor Party as well.

MR. KAYE: Gerald Bubis, would you agree with that, and do you see that as healthy?

GERALD BUBIS, Americans For Peace Now: I would agree with it. I think it's incomplete, because I think for the most part there was a high level of indifference about all of this among most Jews and Los Angeles. I do think that I agree very strongly that this will stir up feelings of concern and review of where a given person was politically as a result of what's happening.

MR. KAYE: When you said indifference about this, you're talking about the peace process in general, or are you talking about Israeli politics?

MR. BUBIS: I think about Israeli politics. I believe most Jews really don't know very much about Israeli politics, just as most other Americans don't. And I think this will bring much more interest and focus to this whole matter of the future of the Middle East than was formerly the case.

MR. KAYE: John Fishel, as an executive director of an organization that--as an umbrella group for many Jewish organizations, would you agree, have Jews been particularly politically active in Los Angeles from where you stand?

JOHN FISHEL, Jewish Federation Council: Well, politically active in the sense that they're concerned about politics, politics in this country and politics in Israel. But I would agree with Jerry Bubis. I think that most Jews are not that well informed necessarily of the specifics in Israeli politics. They follow the general newspapers. They read the Jewish press. They're aware, but they don't have a profound understanding.

MR. KAYE: Do you believe that the--for those Jews who are politically active--and I think everyone seems to agree that those would be in the minority--but has--to what extent has the Jewish community here in the United States affected what's been going on in Israel?

MR. FISHEL: I don't think directly it affects what's going on in Israel. I think what's going on in Israel does have some circular effect on what happens in the American Jewish community. I think it has created some polarization in the last number of years. I think that that does have an impact on how--

MR. KAYE: Polarization in this country, or--

MR. FISHEL: Polarization in Israel certainly but polarization in this country as well, among those who are more politically active, more politically aware. Where it has had an impact is in perhaps a lowering in the inhibitions of some American Jews to involve themselves in the political process in Israel.

MR. BUBIS: I think there's an anomaly that this recent change has brought forth. Up until the Labor Party was elected, those of us who were moving as strongly as we could in a responsible manner against the Likud government were accused of being disloyal to Israel and also accused of speaking when we had no right to speak as American Jews. Those who attacked us the most and were the most vociferous are those now who are at the heart of the most vociferous attacks against the Labor Party, including supporting some of the most extreme elements within Israel, itself, and elements here in the United States.

MR. KAYE: To what extent? Let me turn to you, Rabbi Eliezrie. You've been opposed to the, the current peace process. And how have you and, and people who were--would be affiliated with you made their points of view known in Israel? To what extent have you been affected?

RABBI DAVID ELIEZRIE: I think that it's been really a debate which has gone on here and gone on there. The fact that Jews here in America--many feel that this process could endanger security of the Jewish state, is a reflection of the way Jews feel there. And I think that the fact that we express our opinion here, it is an impact over there, and Israel's also sensitive to American public opinion. And when Jews stand up in this country and they say they question that maybe this could bring danger to Israel, this could establish a terrorist state adjacent to Israel, that I think it also strengthens the opposition in Israel.

MR. KAYE: But you've heard some of the strident views that have continued to come out of Israel.

RABBI ELIEZRIE: And that really--this peace really bothers me for another reason. You have 2 million Jews in Israel, about 50 percent of the population who is opposed to the present process not just because of the holiness of the land, because they're very concerned about their own personal security. And you can take a camera and you can find a few people--and you can call theme extremists--but there's a significant portion of this population which is deeply troubled, including myself, because the risks are very great. Even Prime Minister Rabin, before this tragic event that happened this week, said there's risks for peace. It could go one way; it could go another. And the fact that these risks are there are very real, and to take and to paint extremists is one of the dangerous things which is happening right now. You have a man who did a terrible act. This was an act of an individual. The whole United States society was not responsible when somebody assassinated President Kennedy. And 2 million Jews in Israel, who support--who have questions about this peace process, or a million orthodox Jews in Israel who a great percentage, majority of them also don't support the process are not responsible for the act of an individual.

MS. MARKS: But let's talk honestly, Rabbi.

RABBI ELIEZRIE: But there's one--there's also one point, you can go further. You can go to Karyat Arba and you can find one fellow or two people who are quite extremist, and they're a very small percentage, but they're not the mainstream of the religious community.

MR. KAYE: Marlene Marks.

MS. MARKS: Well, my feeling is that my three subdued colleagues here, my friends here, all of you are my friends, are, are much too modest about how anxious our communities have been. I've been on the phone with you, Rabbi Eliezrie, any number of times after small moves or big moves, and, umm, you're, you're very heated about this subject. And you, in particular, have been known to tell me precisely what you think about a policy which would eliminate Jews from the settlements, and you call it word, may I suggest, that has a certain kind of a Nazi ring to it. You get very, very angry, and very heated. I'm not holding you responsible. What I'm saying, if we're talking about, you know, how a community gives permission for violence, ever-rising violence, we're--we all have a responsibility here.

MR. KAYE: And do you think that rhetoric helped create a climate in Israel? Is that what you're saying?

MS. MARKS: There's no question.

MR. KAYE: Mr. Bubis, I'll come back to you in a minute.

MR. BUBIS: I think there's absolutely no question that there was- -there was no set of boundaries set here or there that declared certain kinds of rhetoric to be beyond the pale. And to say that one person pulled the trigger, it's probably true, but to take it out of the context of the nourishment of that person's position, outlook, belief, fanatic, toxic, willful, destructive belief is to ignore what was going on there in ways that I had not seen in the 30 years or so that I've been going to Israel.

RABBI ELIEZRIE: The tragedy here, though, I think it's an important point to mention, the tragedy is, and I think Marlene is right, and I think Jerry is correct, there has been a rhetoric. There has been a rhetoric of the right and a rhetoric of the left. And they have both been two extremes. There's many Jews in Israel who felt deeply disenfranchised because words of government ministers that had been very hostile to their needs. And there's been people in Israel on the right, that there's no question they have gone beyond the norms of, of public discourse. And what we have to ask ourselves the question as Jews here in America and Jews in general is because this tragedy, the taking of the prime minister, and I got up yesterday at 4 o'clock in the morning in California to watch this terrible event and attend its services, memorial service, it must cause us to pause and ask a question. We stand on different sides of many of the issues but we have to begin a sense of a dialogue and a discussion which is rooted in decency and dignity.

MR. KAYE: Does that mean for you to take up the point that Marlene Marks made, that you now might pause before you use what she described as heated rhetoric?

RABBI ELIEZRIE: Well, I have paused in the past, and I will continue to pause, because I never, ever would, would have supported a statement and an action of violence of one Jew against another Jew. In fact, when Baruch Goldstein did that terrible deed a year and a half ago, I wrote an op-ed piece in the L.A. Times condemning him.

MS. MARKS: That's absolutely true. He did.

MR. KAYE: You're talking about killing--

RABBI ELIEZRIE: Killing. And I, I believe till today that even though I disagreed with Prime Minister Rabin in many of the policies, as many--as half the population in Israel does-- nevertheless, he was a man who dedicated his life to the Jewish people for fifty, sixty years, and for that, he deserves great respect from all of us. But we must, as Jews, begin to seek a way of discourse which is much more with respect and dignity from both sides.

MR. KAYE: John Fishel, let me ask you this. Has, has the character of the American Jewish relationship with Israel changed? It used to be that American Jews would support the Israeli government right or wrong, no matter what. Do you see a change, and what do you think, if you do see a change about whether that's healthy or not?

MR. FISHEL: I think that there has been a change. I think that clearly the vast majority of Jews who have strong feelings for Israel continue to support the policies of the duly-elected government of Israel, but I think that perhaps it's this stridency that has been a by-word in Israeli politics, it certainly is known in our own country.

MR. KAYE: Is there a lesson here?

MR. FISHEL: I think the lesson is that the boundaries of civility need to be established. The elimination of vilification and demonization from the political process need to be moved upon immediately, and for American Jews and for Jews throughout the world, Jews in Israel, we need to think that through.

MR. KAYE: Mr. Bubis, do you see a lesson, because you've been accused on the left of being just as strident as the people on the right?

MR. BUBIS: I think it's an overly-drawn accusation, and it ignores what happened here in the United States, which is where I want to have our focus be. This is a discussion about us here. Those of us who are active in the peace movement and in the advocacy of the peace movement and trying to move forward in a context of security were put beyond the pale I think for two reasons: the criticism of the right, on the one hand, and the silence of the center on the other. And in an attempt to have symmetry, in an attempt to have fairness, there was a false pairing, where peace now, for example, which has always represented a substantial minority in Israel, was seen here to be some kind of kooky fringe group until after the Labor Party and the coalition came in. So my point would be that it is for the center to understand that where and as they see extremism there's no need to match and pretend that there has to be a balancing act, there's every need to decry--

MR. KAYE: Let me give you the last word. Do you see these groups coming together, coalescing, having more of a dialogue than in the past?

MS. MARKS: Well, for one thing, the center is now awake, so to that extent, neither one of them need to go to the extremes that they had to before to get the attention. Yes, I do believe that they will come together because we're going to force them to see it. The standards of decency are being established even as we speak.

MR. KAYE: Ms. Marks, gentlemen, thank you very much. ESSAY - SATURDAY HEROES

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, essayist Jim Fisher of the Kansas City Star talks about an unusual group of teachers.

JIM FISHER: Big-time college football. The crowds, the cheers, the spectacle of autumn. Saturday's heroes. Then there's this: the Sam Hughes Elementary School in Tucson.

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: [teaching] Who knows what a fossil is?

JIM FISHER: Athletic young men and women, football and baseball players, women's basketballers, swimmers, heroes and heroines all, when you're seven through ten years old, working one on one with first through fourth graders. Tutoring? In a way, yes, but much more. Be a kid for a minute again and imagine say Olympic runner Wilma Rudolph, Gold Medal Winner Mark Spitz--

ANNOUNCER: A world record every time he hits the water.

JIM FISHER: --football legend Joe Montana, or Phoenix Suns Superstar Charles Barkley showing up at your school. Would you ever forget? Would words difficult to read or write be a little easier knowing some guy only slightly smaller than a mountain was helping you? Wouldn't incentive rise from just being around somebody like that? It wouldn't have to be Wilma or Sir Charles. Compete in this sports crazy country, and you're likely a hero to any child--not that their regular teachers aren't. But, face it. Kids need heroes in this society where some have made a shibboleth, an easy grade, of getting by. So it gets down to basics.

MAN: [talking to child] I think it's a girl. A woman, you don't want a book about a woman do you?

LITTLE BOY: No.

MAN: No.

JIM FISHER: Part of the university's game plan is taking kids to, of all places, an honest-to-goodness bookstore and letting them buy $30 worth of books of their own choosing. The athletes go along. It's a big time for everybody.

LITTLE GIRL: This is a good book too.

ATHLETE: All right. We'll get these three for sure.

JIM FISHER: Maybe the books aren't War and Peace, but the point, at the age these kids are, is to get them to read--anything. Dr. John Bradley heads the program.

JOHN BRADLEY, Literacy Program Director: This course helps the student athlete build character. I mean, they are responsible--or all the students in the course are responsible for working with a child for a semester. It's not just like writing a term paper. They have a real child that they have to work with, and that means that they have to be there when they promise to be there. They have to go to the school. They have to be dependable. They have to be reliable. They have to plan their lessons. They have to interact with the child.

JIM FISHER: Yet there's something more subtle working here. Athletes aren't dumb. You don't play big-time football without something between your ears. Academics, though, can be intimidating, especially for those from backgrounds where sports have been a way off mean streets but who arrive at college with what educators call internalized stereotyping about their own academic achievements. What better way to make a young man or woman part of the system than embrace him not only as a student but also as a teacher? And if they can teach a kid, what does that tell them about themselves? Plenty. Listen to Strong Safety Kurt King, who plans to be an elementary school teacher.

KURT KING, Tutor: Personally, I think it helps my patience, 'cause whenever you work with kids, you know you have to have patience. It gives you responsibility. If you miss this class, your student cares because you're, umm, you're not only dealin' with your education, you're dealing with someone else's. Even if you're gonna let yourself down, in your own classes, you can't let the child down.

JIM FISHER: Still, the athletes and the kids work together, young adults, that magic moment of life, where everything seems possible, and their charges, not even on the cusp of adolescence, it's a sight to see. What comes to mind is an old saying, "To teach is to learn twice." I'm Jim Fisher. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again the major stories of this Tuesday, Israeli officials said they would move forward with the Middle East peace plan worked out by slain Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Israeli police have detained four people in a crackdown on Jewish militants. In Japan, an American sailor pleaded "guilty" to raping a Japanese schoolgirl. Two other servicemen pleaded guilty to lesser charges. And on Capitol Hill, the Senate debated a ban on a late-term abortion procedure. We'll see you tomorrow night with full analysis of today's election results around the country, among other things.I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.