The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: A summary of today's news; the latest on the Powell peace mission to the Middle East, with some perspective on what next; a report from San Francisco on how the conflict is dividing American Jewish opinion; an update of the gone-today, back- tomorrow saga of Venezuela President Hugo Chavez; and a talk with author Louis Menand, winner of the Pulitzer prize for history.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Israeli troops will leave most West Bank cities within a week. Prime Minister Sharon made that promise today, in a series of broadcast interviews. He said the military would stay in Ramallah, around the headquarters of Palestinian leader Arafat, and in Bethlehem, where a standoff with Palestinian gunmen continues. In Ramallah today, the Israelis captured a key aide to Arafat. He's a leading figure in the al Aqsa brigades, a group that has claimed responsibility for dozens of attacks including suicide bombings. In Jenin, Palestinian medical teams began recovering bodies of their dead. The Palestinians claim Israeli forces carried out a massacre there; the Israelis deny that. Secretary of State Powell visited Syria and Lebanon today. He discussed a possible Arab- Israeli peace conference. We'll have more on the Middle East in a few minutes. President Hugo Chavez was back in charge of Venezuela today. He returned to the Presidential Palace on Sunday. Military leaders ousted him Friday, but thousands of protesters took to the streets, demanding he be reinstated. On his return, Chavez appealed for calm and promised to correct past mistakes. The unrest has disrupted oil production in Venezuela, the world's fourth-largest oil exporter. We'll have more on this story later in the program. Another video of Osama bin Laden surfaced today. The Arab satellite TV station al Jazeera broadcast parts of it. There was no word on when the video was made. We have a report from Gaby Rado of Independent Television News.

GABY RADO: Al Jazeera has, ever since September 11, been the TV channel of choice for Osama bin Laden. The video it broadcast today was of the best quality yet, but bin laden was silent beside his Egyptian deputy, Ayman al- Zawahiri.

AYMAN AL-ZAWAHIRI (Translated): The great thing has happened. In truth, it is because of God himself, only God himself. It is not because of our abilities or superpowers or great maneuvers but because of God.

GABY RADO: And al Jazeera had another, perhaps even more remarkable video. It showed a man it identified as one of the September 11 suicide bombers sending a chilling prerecorded message. Al Jazeera showed a will the man, Ahmed Alghamdi, had apparently written in the Afghan city of Kandahar before the atrocity. It also convincingly showed that the man was who al-Qaida claimed by superimposing an old picture of him over the new one.

JIM LEHRER: At the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said it appeared the bin Laden tape was a patchwork of old clips from last year, with more recent dialogue added.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Maybe they are anxious to inject some more energy into what they're doing. Maybe they're trying to let the world know that the senior people are still alive and well. Maybe they're trying to pretend to the world that they're still alive and well even though they're not. Maybe they're trying to take advantage of the concern about Palestinians in the Arab world by trying to play off that.

JIM LEHRER: In Afghanistan today, at least four U.S. soldiers were killed in an accidental explosion. One soldier was hurt; several were missing. It happened near Kandahar, as a group of ten Americans were trying to destroy old Russian or Chinese-made rockets. An Air China jetliner crashed in South Korea today. It hit a mountainside near Busan. At least 118 people were killed of the 166 onboard; most were Koreans. The plane was trying to land in rain and fog. Investigators said the tail hit first. The survivors were found mainly in the front section. Some were still strapped in, with only minor injuries. A South Korean air traffic official said it appeared to be a case of pilot error. Pope John Paul II has summoned American cardinals to the Vatican to discuss the growing scandal of sexual abuse by priests. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops confirmed that today. The meeting could be next week. There was no word on how long it might last. In Illinois today, a special commission called for major changes to the state death penalty laws. It did not call for abolishing capital punishment, but it did recommend reducing the number of circumstances that warrant a death sentence from twenty to five, videotaping interrogations in capital cases, and banning executions of retarded defendants. Commission members announced the recommendations at a news conference in Chicago.

THOMAS SULLIVAN, Panel Co-Chairman: In medical terms, our report calls for triage, an attempt to staunch the extraordinary rate of errors, reversals, and mistaken convictions in capital cases.

JIM LEHRER: Governor George Ryan ordered the study after he imposed a moratorium on executions two years ago. It will now be up to the state legislature to enact any changes. Retired Supreme Court Justice Byron White died today in Denver. He'd been ill for some time. In the 1930s, he was an all- American football player at the University of Colorado, and earned the nickname "Whizzer." In 1962, President Kennedy appointed him to the High Court. He sided with its liberal wing in civil rights disputes, but opposed the landmark decision legalizing abortion in 1973. He served 31 years before retiring in 1993. Byron White was 84 years old. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to: What now, what next for Colin Powell's peace mission; the divided American Jews; Hugo Chavez's return; and the Pulitzer history winner.

FOCUS - DIPLOMATIC CHALLENGE

JIM LEHRER: Terence Smith has our update of the Powell diplomatic mission.

TERENCE SMITH: The Secretary of State took his mission to Lebanon where he asked that country's leaders to help prevent a wider war in the region. But there was no talk of peace from thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese protesters who demonstrated near his meetings in Beirut. "Death to America," they chanted. "Powell out." Lebanon, Israel's neighbor to the north, is dominated politically by Syria. It's also home to the militant Hezbollah, which the State Department has labeled a terrorist group. Over the past two weeks, Hezbollah fighters have fired missiles into disputed territory along the Israeli border. Israel has responded in kind with warplanes. Today, Powell urged calm along the still-contested border known as the blue line.

COLIN POWELL: There is a very real danger of the situation along the border widening the conflict throughout the region.

TERENCE SMITH: Powell then flew to Syria, Hezbollah's main financial backer. He asked Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for his thoughts on "a way forward" to peace talks. Yesterday, despite Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's objections, Powell traveled to Arafat's besieged Ramallah headquarters in an armor-plated car. In a three-hour meeting, the Palestinian leader complained about Israel's offensive against Palestinian towns in the West Bank. He condemned the recent suicide bombings, but said he could do nothing to stop them until Israel withdraws from the West Bank. After the meeting, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Israel must take the first step toward peace.

SAEB EREKAT: I'm sure the Secretary saw the situation. I believe that once the Israelis complete their full withdrawal, and we will carry out our obligations.

TERENCE SMITH: Late today, Powell's party returned to Jerusalem for more meetings with the Israelis, and a possible second encounter with Arafat.

JIM LEHRER: Earlier this evening, Terry talked to "New York Times" diplomatic correspondent Todd Purdum.

TERENCE SMITH: Todd Purdum, welcome.

TODD PURDUM: Hi, Terry.

TERENCE SMITH: This is now the ninth day of secretary Powell's mission, and I know you were in three countries today. Things are moving fast. Can you tell us where it stands as of this evening?

TODD PURDUM: Terry, we began the day by going to Lebanon and Syria so that Secretary Powell could press officials there to try to rein in Hezbollah militia groups that have been launching rocket and mortar attacks over Israel's disputed northern border with Lebanon. American and Israeli officials both fear that this could somehow spark a wider conflict that could engulf the whole region in what would really amount to a war. And he had hoped to go up there and do a little work on that today. In fact, when he got to both Beirut and Damascus, he heard an awful lot about the Israeli- Palestinian conflict that he's been working on negotiating here-- officials in both countries telling him that all of the problems in the region were linked, and that to make progress, he'd have to make progress in helping resolve the stalemate between Israel and the Palestinians.

TERENCE SMITH: When he went to Damascus, did he get any reassurances there, any suggestion that Syria might be helpful?

TODD PURDUM: He said officials told him in both countries that they'd do what they could. Frankly, this is something that the State Department has said "those officials have been telling us for a few weeks

now." He's hoping that they will give support. It's not exactly clear how much influence they can bring to bear. Iran is also active in supporting the Hezbollah, and Washington is hoping to-- through other channels, since we have no diplomatic relations with Iran-- exercise influence there as well.

TERENCE SMITH: We have some tape of the demonstrations that were going on in Beirut while he was there. Does that give the Secretary some sense of the passion in all of this?

TODD PURDUM: Yes, he was well aware of the demonstrations, although we did not see them as we left the airport in Beirut. In fact, every stop the Secretary makes-- and I believe we have now hit seven countries on this trip-- he feels the passion, sees the passion that people feel about this conflict that has so bedeviled the region. And he's well aware of the tensions inherent in a the whole thing.

TERENCE SMITH: What's the U.S. reaction to this idea that Prime Minister Sharon has put forward for an international peace conference on the Middle East? What do the American officials tell you about that?

TODD PURDUM: Well, of course, Terry, the sticking point there is that Prime Minister Sharon of Israel

has said that such a conference could not include Yasser Arafat, with whom he refuses to negotiate.

So secretary Powell today told us, on the way back from Damascus on his plane, that he thought a conference might involve foreign-minister-level officials. So Mr. Arafat, Mr. Sharon -- neither one would have to come. He says the conference in and of itself isn't a solution, but it's a way to get the parties

together and talking. And as this mission drags on with little signs of obvious progress, in fact it's pretty

clear that Washington is looking for an exit strategy to get Mr. Powell home, able to plausibly claim some forward motion, and a conference like this might be that sort of thing.

TERENCE SMITH: Indeed, because at this point, is there any reason to believe that he can achieve either a cease-fire or a political discussion?

TODD PURDUM: Not much at the moment, Terry. There's still some hope. Mr. Sharon said tonight that

Israel was preparing within a week or so to withdraw from most areas, but the Palestinians are still

insisting on a full withdrawal before resumption of real talks on a cease-fire. Mr. Powell's whole mission in coming over here was to try to jump-start the process of political negotiations, get the parties talking together about the bigger questions that divide them, get security negotiations back on track. And in fact, although of course we're not obviously sitting in the negotiating rooms, there doesn't seem to be any progress of real note so far, and if there is, the State Department has been keeping it a big secret from us.

TERENCE SMITH: But I gather he's certainly not giving up, and there's talk, is there, of a possible second meeting with Yasser Arafat?

TODD PURDUM: There is-- State Department officials telling us tonight that that is not by any means

confirmed. Mr. Sharon expects to meet with Secretary Powell tomorrow. Wednesday, Israel will virtually shut down for the celebration of the 54th anniversary of its independence. So that's not apt to be a

business day, at least on the Israeli side. There's a lot of speculation we might get to go home in the

next couple days, but Secretary Powell has also made it clear that he intends to stay involved in the Middle East, and in fact, President Bush's speech sending him here implied a commitment to keep working this process, both from a distance and by coming back to the region.

TERENCE SMITH: Todd, I know from your piece in the paper that you were inside Yasser Arafat's compound yesterday in Ramallah on Sunday. What's it like?

TODD PURDUM: You know, it's not quite as bad as we've been led to believe, and apparently that's

because the Israeli forces cleaned it up a bit on Saturday before Secretary Powell went to visit.

It's grim enough. There's not enough water, not enough medical supplies, only a few mattresses that scores of people take turns sleeping on. It's definitely a compound under siege, and the Israeli

soldiers are stationed not 30 yards away from the front door, and they kept a watchful eye on

Mr. Powell as he walked in under heavy diplomatic security guards.

TERENCE SMITH: Did you feel a sense of danger going there?

TODD PURDUM: You didn't feel a sense of danger, but you felt a definite sense of tension. Israeli tanks pulled back just far enough to let the Secretary in. There were armored personnel carriers. The town of Ramallah itself, the streets were charred and ruined and torn up into chunks of mud. There was hardly any asphalt left on the streets. The dust was so thick, the drivers had to turn on their windshield washers to see their way through it.

TERENCE SMITH: Well, it's quite a mission you're on, and we appreciate you telling us about it. Todd Purdum, thanks very much.

TODD PURDUM: Thanks for having me, Terry.

JIM LEHRER: After that interview the State Department did confirm Powell would meet Sharon tomorrow and Arafat on Wednesday. Gwen Ifill has more on Middle East diplomacy.

GWEN IFILL: Now for an update on how the Powell mission is being viewed by the Israelis and Palestinians themselves, we are joined by: Hisham Melhem, Washington correspondent for the Beirut newspaper, "As-Safir." And David Makovsky, who was executive editor of the "Jerusalem Post," and diplomatic correspondent for "Ha'Aretz," Israel's leading daily. He is now a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

So Hisham, the latest development we hear today, this proposal for a ministerial-level conference, regional conference, how is that being perceived by diplomats on either side? Feasible?

HISHAM MELHEM: According to sources in Saudi Arabia and Palestine and Lebanon that I spoke with this afternoon, the proposal is being met with a great deal of skepticism. It's seen as a gimmick. It's seen as a maneuver by Sharon to avoid discussing, the pressing immediate issues, i.e., implementing Resolution 1402 that calls on Israel to withdraw completely -- to avoid dealing with Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian leadership by jumping over that leadership and saying let's have a regional or international conference whereby we have the Egyptians, the Moroccans and the Jordanians and what he calls the peace camp and exclude what he calls the war camp as he said today in his interviews. And that is seen really as an attempt to avoid dealing with the pressing issue of the siege.

GWEN IFILL: And not having Arafat there as a starter.

HISHAM MELHEM: Absolutely. I cannot imagine not only any senior Palestinian participating in any conference at the so-called ministerial level if the Palestinian leadership as a whole sees this as an attempt to exclude Arafat, I cannot even imagine the Saudis, let alone the Syrians or the Lebanese sending any representatives. And why would you meet with the Egyptians and the Jordanians if you have peace treaties with those two countries? So this is a non-starter... and I was a bit surprised that the Secretary of State -- actually one senior advisor to the Saudi government was surprised also -- why the Secretary of State is speaking up on this idea.

GWEN IFILL: And embraced it.

David Makovsky, how did it seem from the Israeli side, as a good-faith effort?

DAVID MAKOVSKY: I think let's give the Secretary of State a chance here and let's not, you know, pour cold water over everything. I think that things have been so bleak in the last few weeks, few months, that I think we've got to look a little bit here at what I would call a two-step approach by Secretary of State Powell. And the first step is kind of a diplomatic minuet, beginning with the statement over the weekend by Arafat on terrorism -- although he's made many and has not kept to them I may add-- and getting Sharon's statement today to CNN and others about pulling out of Jenin and Nablus within a week's time. And I think that that sport of synchronization of statements I think to my understanding of talking to people and from hearing even statements by George Mitchell by another effort by Secretary Powell to now take it to the next phase of this first step to get Arafat to talk about implementing the Tenet plan for some security, getting Sharon to be more explicit and then to take it, Gwen, to the next phase which would be a conference. I'd like to remind you and Hisham that the Madrid Conference in 1991 was also at the foreign ministerial level. It was Faruk Ashawar who was there; it was not Hafez al-Assad. And it could put pressure on Powell if this conference is going to happen in the next six weeks to shuttle and to find out what would be the basis of this conference.

GWEN IFILL: But given what has not happened so far during this week with Colin Powell in the region, is this playing for time on the part, as some critics say, on the part of both Colin Powell and Ariel Sharon perhaps?

DAVID MAKOVSKY: Well perhaps but not to be premature; the Secretary is still over there. It's clear whatever they've got it's a very close hold, as they say, and if they're working out this minuet to stop the hemorrhaging by not waiting, you know, Arafat, you go first, Sharon you go second but synchronize them together to get out of this, I think we should withhold judgment for the next 48-72 hours and see if he gets that and then to see if he can build on that by announcing this conference and see what will be the basis of this conference. So let's be very cautious here before we've already declared the Powell mission a failure. I think that's very premature.

GWEN IFILL: Hisham, Todd Purdum just said one of the things at work here is that the Powell... the White House is perhaps looking for an exit strategy for the Secretary of State to allow him to come home from the region. What do you make of that?

HISHAM MELHEM: It makes a lot of sense. Definitely the Secretary of State doesn't want to look as if he has embarked on another third mission and he failed, although I would argue that the seeds of failure have been planted before he arrived to the region. The problem is now we are dealing with vintage Sharon. He created facts on the ground and now he's forcing all the players including the American mediators to play and to deal with the immediate facts that he created on the ground when he reinvaded, with the reinvasion of the Palestinian territories. The problem is we really don't need another peace plan. We really don't need another big conference. There are many mechanisms out there from the Tenet to Mitchell and then we all know what are the contours of the final peace: Two states living side by side along the lines of the '67 borders. So we are wasting time. People are dying -- Palestinians. If the situation remains like that, I would bet you that there would be attacks on Israelis, whether Israelis soldiers or Israeli civilians. Therefore, we should not be caught with the immediacy of the conditions that were created by the invasion and try to really get Ariel Sharon to commit himself to a political process after a withdrawal. The Palestinians did commit themselves into Tenet and Mitchell and a two-state solution. I think Arafat when he finds out that there is a withdrawal, he will be under tremendous pressure not only from the United States but also from the Arab states to deliver on what is required of him although he needs a great deal of support and I'm sure with each passing day Arafat, although his symbolic stature has increased tremendously, his control over the situation on the ground in the Palestinian territories is diminishing with each passing day especially now with the arrest of Marwan Barghouti.

GWEN IFILL: Which brings me right to my next question, David Makovsky, the arrest today of Barghouti, how significant is that?

DAVID MAKOVSKY: For Israel it's probably the most significant arrest that's happened in these last 18 months. I mean the hope was originally that a guy like Barghouti will be future leader of the Palestinians but when he talks about leading homicidal bombings inside Israel proper and a bar mitzvah celebration, this is not Hamas or Jihad, people wonder. He should have been part of the solution. And right now leading this he's been part of the problem.

GWEN IFILL: Can he be part of the solution behind doors?

DAVID MAKOVSKY: Well, maybe ultimately when things cool off it could look differently. But right now it's hard to see how he's a part of the solution when we now have documents showing how he's paying off suicide bombers. They have the belts... at Arafat's compound and part of the glorification of homicide bombing. All we're missing is Barghouti putting the belt around his own waist at this point.

GWEN IFILL: Hisham, do Palestinians walk away from any prospects for negotiations because of this arrest? Do they use this as a reason?

HISHAM MELHEM: No. Definitely the West -- it will be seen as a blow to the Palestinians. Barghouti has a tremendous following. He is a charismatic figure. He's been talked about as one of the successors to Arafat. He represents that new radicalized, younger Palestinian generation that is willing to live with Israel but not under humiliation. He was very explicit. He said the attacks will continue on the Israelis until they withdraw to the '67 borders. And he was very consistent. He's been consistent in that regard. Barghouti grew up under occupation. And he became influential in the 1990s when that process of radicalization was taken over. He tolerates Arafat as a leader. He doesn't tolerate anybody around Arafat. This is part of a culture of defiance -- defiance against occupation, as well as defiance against the old Palestinian leadership. And they blame Arafat and some of the senior leadership for accepting the limitations that are inherent in Oslo.

GWEN IFILL: David Makovsky.

DAVID MAKOVSKY: As I understand, Gwen, part of the Barghouti's popularity has been that he's been leading the charge against corruption among people around Arafat. You know, again Israel - gives 97% of the West Bank and the answer is give us 100% or we'll blow your brains out. That makes people in Israel that there's no land-for-peace equation. They want to know it's land for peace and not land for war.

GWEN IFILL: Colin Powell began his day today in Syria, Lebanon and Beirut and Damascus attempting to calm things down along those borders. How much of a risk does that continuing fight or potential for a fight there bring to the entire possibility, the most optimistic possibility of peace?

DAVID MAKOVSKY: I agree that I thought it was great that the Secretary of State went to Damascus; he went to Beirut. I think it's very important. I think the Secretary of State understands very well that if this spins out of control into a regional conflagration, everybody's in trouble. And I think he tried to calm it down. I wouldn't be surprised if he raised the idea of a peace conference in these countries and he came back with this creative formula of a foreign ministerial level. I just want to say one word about the Lebanon and the issue of the blue line. That was the UN demarcated line, and it's very important, Gwen, that the U.S. and the UN stand behind its own line that it demarcated. There's no disputed areas that the Hezbollah can use to fire rockets on.

GWEN IFILL: Okay. We're running out of time and I want to get Hisham's response to the prospect of a wider conflict along the other borders.

HISHAM MELHEM: I mean there is a concern of course that one party would miscalculate and the situation would degenerate into a hot war involving Syria and Lebanon. The Lebanese government is not interested in that. The Syrian government cannot afford to enter into war with Israel but the Lebanese never recognized that the Israelis withdrew completely from their territory. That's why Hezbollah has been concentrating its efforts on Israeli soldiers in that sliver of territory... There was no fighting on the Israeli settlements. A number of Palestinians were arrested that were engaged in these activities. This issue is moot and should be contained obviously. There is room for miscalculation. I think the Secretary was correct in going to Damascus and to Beirut. In fact, you're not going to have a comprehensive peace unless you get the Syrians and the Lebanese on board.

GWEN IFILL: Hisham Melhem, David Makovsky, thank you both very much for joining us.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: Divisions among American Jews, the fast return of Hugo Chavez, and the Pulitzer winner for history.

FOCUS - SPLIT SENTIMENTS

JIM LEHRER: American Jewish reaction to Middle East events. On Capitol Hill today, thousands of American Jews rallied in support of Israel. There have been similar demonstrations elsewhere, but Jewish opinion is split, as Spencer Michels reports from San Francisco.

SPENCER MICHELS: While most members of the nation's fastest-growing Jewish community, in the San Francisco Bay Area, express support for Israel, some hold sharply divergent views on the violence in the Mid-East. At temple Sherith Israel, Rabbi Martin Weiner calls the differences "tremendous."

RABBI MARTIN WEINER, Temple Sherith Israel: There are folks on one side who would say the Israelis are all wrong, and they totally support the Palestinians. There are some folks on the other side who would say that the Palestinians will never make peace; not a drop, not an inch of land should ever be given up.

SPENCER MICHELS: Weiner, who heads the National Group of Reformed Rabbis, says in San Francisco and elsewhere, most Jews, like him, are in the middle: Desirous of peace, horrified by the suicide bombings, and reluctantly supportive of Israeli military action. Today, of the six million Jews in America, about a million live in California-- 300,000 in the Bay area-- with new immigrants and high-tech workers arriving constantly. Now, with Palestinian suicide bombers attacking Jews in Israel, and Israeli defense forces attacking Palestinian towns, American Jews like Rabbi Weiner are speaking out, and in some cases, reassessing their positions.

RABBI MARTIN WEINER: I was meeting with Palestinian leaders here in the San Francisco community when it wasn't fashionable, when people almost called us traitors for doing so. I was always opposed to the settlements. I supported a Palestinian state.

SPENCER MICHELS: In the past, Weiner would have opposed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who encouraged the Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian land. Now Weiner is a supporter.

RABBI MARTIN WEINER: The turning point for me was frankly the summer of 2000, when Prime Minister Barak offered the Palestinians a Palestinian state. It was an incredibly generous offer, and then they rejected it -- and not only rejected it, but began this campaign of terror, bloodshed, that has lasted now 19 months.

SPENCER MICHELS: Some Jewish groups, including Jewish Voice for Peace, vocally oppose Israel's military policies. While a distinct minority in the larger Jewish community, the peace groups have prominently joined Palestinian activists in anti-Israeli demonstrations. Mitchell Plitnick, a leader of the group, wants the U.S. Government to pressure Israel to withdraw from former Palestinian territory.

MITCHELL PLITNICK, Jewish Voice for Peace: By ending the occupation, we start moving towards peace. And I think that just by ending the occupation, right away... right away we will see a sharp decline in the loss of Israeli lives, as well as Palestinian.

SPENCER MICHELS: He resents what he considers efforts by the organized Jewish community to present a united front.

MITCHELL PLITNICK: As a child, I was raised orthodox. Now I am not, but I have always been very Jewish, and I think that this has taught me to always question. And I very much resist being told that just because Israel does it means that I have to agree with it. Rather, my goal is to promote peace in the region.

SPENCER MICHELS: Adam Gutride, another member of Jewish Voice for Peace, is a San Francisco attorney who has marched side by side with angry Palestinians.

ADAM GUTRIDE, Jewish Voice for Peace: And I share that anger. As a Jew, I am extremely distressed at what Israel is doing to the Palestinian people.

SPENCER MICHELS: At the American Jewish Committee, executive director Ernest Weiner deplores what leftist Jewish groups are doing.

ERNEST WEINER, American Jewish Committee: It's easy for those people to sit on the sidelines in a smug and self-righteous way and denounce particular acts or particular people in Israel. It's also easy for someone to view them as simply misguided, but many of them are not. Many of them are absolute ideologues, mostly from the left, who have decided that Israel, in this condition of a strong democracy, is not the Israel that they want.

SPENCER MICHELS: Such sentiments disturb those like Marcia Freedman. American-born, she's a former member of the Israeli Knesset, and a leader of Women in Black, a Jewish feminist peace group.

MARCIA FREEDMAN, Women in Black: It's important to understand that this Israeli government is the most extreme government that Israel has ever had. It's the most right-wing government that Israel has ever had. Its declared policy is to dismantle no settlements whatsoever and to hold on to as much territory in the West Bank and in Gaza as possible. That is not going to lead us to a peaceful negotiation settlement with the Palestinians.

SPENCER MICHELS: Ernest Weiner says Israel must take military action or be destroyed, which, he says, the leftists don't understand.

ERNEST WEINER: My simple judgment on these people is that many of them have no sense of the crushing determination of many in the Arab world that Israel must be destroyed. You have offensive tactics being used by the military of Israel in order to root out and extricate, if they can do it, those terrorist networks where these people have said point-blank they will not make peace with Israel; they're looking forward to its destruction.

SPENCER MICHELS: A handful of students at the University of California at Berkeley support that point of view to the extent that they have announced publicly they intend to join the Israeli defense forces, or IDF. Oren Lazar is a senior, with relatives in Israel; Chris Silver, a freshman. Both are from Los Angeles.

OREN LAZAR, College Senior: I'm planning, after graduation, to go join the IDF and spend some time in Israel, supporting my family and trying to defend the citizens of Israel against the terrorism that they are now facing.

SPENCER MICHELS: Are you an American citizen?

OREN LAZAR: I'm an American citizen, yes.

SPENCER MICHELS: So you're going to go to Israel and fight for Israel.

OREN LAZAR: Absolutely. But I feel that fighting for Israel is also protecting American interests abroad. We're really fighting a very similar war against very similar enemies.

CHRIS SILVER, College Freshman: I want to become a citizen of Israel. I want to move there. I feel it's the... the only place where a Jew can really be a Jew. And if I have to join the army, then I'll join the army.

SPENCER MICHELS: The presence of activist Jews of various stripes, plus a large number of Palestinians and supporters, has brought tension to the campus, and several arrests. The specter of Palestinian groups demonstrating in the Bay area, and of Jewish peace groups joining them in blocking streets and agitating, brought a reaction from the organized Jewish community. In just a day, they put together this counter-demonstration at the Israeli consulate. Jewish historians say San Francisco once had a strong anti-Zionist movement within the Jewish community. But these days, support for Israel is exceptionally strong. Jews filled up one side of the main street in San Francisco's financial district, while police directed Palestinians and their supporters to the other side. The Jewish Community Relations Council, which represents 80 Jewish groups, sent out e-mail messages to thousands of Jews affiliated with various organizations.

YIZACK SANTIS, Jewish Community Relations Council: Because the other side, you know, they're having this rally. They are claiming that they're for peace, but they support terrorism. They say nothing against the Passover massacre, other massacres against Israelis. And this voice, our voice, needs to be heard. This is the grassroots of the Jewish community.

SPENCER MICHELS: Marcia Freedman says her concern is that such support for Sharon from mainline Jewish groups does nothing to curb the cycle of violence.

MARCIA FREEDMAN, Women in Black: The major organizations, the federations, they have always seen their role vis- -vis Israel as supporting the government in power. When it was the Rabin government, they supported the Rabin government. When it was the Netanyahu government, they supported the Netanyahu government. We cannot blindly support Israel by supporting its government. We Jews don't need to be monolithic in our support for Israel and our love for Israel.

SPENCER MICHELS: Jews have always prided themselves on their differences and their proclivity to disagree. Now, while they argue over the Middle East, all factions publicly espouse peace, and all claim to support Israel, if not its government.

UPDATE - BACK IN POWER

JIM LEHRER: Gone Friday, back Sunday -- the swift comeback of Venezuela's President. We begin our coverage with this report narrated by Kwame Holman.

KWAME HOLMAN: Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez wasted no time thanking those who helped return him to power. Yesterday, he spoke at a base commanded by one of several military officers who over the weekend championed Chavez's restoration to the presidency.

HUGO CHAVEZ (Translated): Despite everything, looking back at the past years, I told myself early that morning, of course, things are not going to remain this way. Now is when they are really going to get to know the Venezuelan people, the Venezuelan soldiers, even if they may not really want to know the truth.

KWAME HOLMAN: Chavez was forced out of the presidency early Friday by a group of military commanders. They claimed Chavez had resigned after ordering a deadly attack on opposition demonstrators. On Saturday, after word spread that Chavez had not agreed to resign, thousands of Venezuelans took to the streets demanding their President be returned to power. There was looting during the night, as demonstrators protested the coup. Meanwhile, the man installed as interim President, Pedro Carmona, resigned. Later he was arrested. Carmona, the head of the country's largest business association, had been sworn in on Friday. Before dawn Sunday, Chavez triumphantly reclaimed the presidential palace. After an emotional greeting by his ministers and aides, Chavez addressed the nation in a conciliatory tone.

HUGO CHAVEZ (Translated): We need a lot of spiritual peace at this time for the whole country for every section. I make a call for peace, I make a call for calm, I make a call for common sense from all, I make a call for the whole country to reunite. These events that bought blood and pain are nevertheless, and should be, a huge lesson for all of us.

KWAME HOLMAN: The newly restored President also appealed for calm as thousands of Venezuelans celebrated on the streets. Since Chavez's return, more than 100 military officials have been detained in connection with the failed coup. While many Latin American nations welcomed Chavez's reinstallation as an affirmation of democracy, top officials in the Bush Administration said the Venezuelan President should be more responsive to his people.

DR. RICE: I hope that Hugo Chavez takes the message that his people sent him, that his own policies are not working for the Venezuelan people, that he's dealt with them in a high-handed fashion.

KWAME HOLMAN: Venezuela is the world's fourth largest oil exporter. Strikes at the country's state-owned oil company fueled the unrest leading to Chavez's ouster last week. Oil prices, on the upswing during that turmoil, rose sharply again today after Chavez's surprise return.

JIM LEHRER: Elizabeth Farnsworth takes the story from there.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: For more on the return of President Hugo Chavez, we turn to Andres Oppenheimer, a syndicated foreign affairs columnist for the "Miami Herald." His most recent book, "Ojos Vendados," or "Blindfolded Eyes," is about corruption in Latin America. Andres, Pedro Carmona was in power from 4:00 AM Friday to 10:30 PM Saturday. What happened in the interim that brought Hugo Chavez back?

ANDRES OPPENHEIMER: Several things, Elizabeth. First, it was obvious that there were cracks in the military. The Venezuelan military were not as solidly behind the coup as the coup plotters thought. Second there was an immediate reaction from Latin American countries. The change of government, as you mentioned, happened at 4:00 AM Friday, like at 9:00 or 10:00 AM in the morning, the Latin American presidents who were meeting in San Jose, Costa Rica - it was a long scheduled meeting -- came out immediately condemning what they called a coup. And the third thing that happened is that Carmona, the interim president, obviously went overboard like three or four hours later he dissolved the National Assembly, which is the Venezuelan congress. He declared... he fired the Supreme Court. And that turned the tide because it was obvious that the new government would not get international recognition and that it would not survive.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Andres, this is a fairly unique events in Latin American history, isn't it?

ANDRES OPPENHEIMER: It is but unfortunately it isn't quite because in December, remember, we had the president leaving and we had like four or five presidents within a week. Now we have three presidents in Venezuela within three days. It's a sad scene.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: But I mean when somebody comes back, when somebody comes back.

ANDRES OPPENHEIMER: That is very, very unique, yes.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: That's what I thought. I want to go back through these different problems and different factors that you mentioned that made this happen. You explained the mistakes that you thought that Carmona made. Explain more about the international reaction. Why was that so important -- especially the Latin American reaction?

ANDRES OPPENHEIMER: That was critical, Elizabeth, because it came very early in the morning and the Latin American president invoked a charter called the Democratic Charter. This was a treaty that was signed late last year, on September 11 last year, the same day as the attacks on the Towers whereby Latin American countries pledged to enforce a collective defense of democracy. In simple words, that means that if one country breaks democratic rule, all the other countries will not recognize the new government. So they did. They jumped immediately, and they declared this interim government an unconstitutional government, and said we are going to apply the new Organization of American States, democratic charter, signed recently, because this government has to go. And that was a critical thing because among other things, it convinced those in the Venezuelan military who were sort of wondering which way to go that this interim government would not survive and they, therefore, you know, turned back and remained loyal to Chavez.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Did the military leaders that were against Chavez have active troops under... combat troops under their command? Was that a factor?

ANDRES OPPENHEIMER: We still don't know because, remember, Chavez... one of the things he did since he took office three years ago was he doubled the number of generals. Now there are like 250 generals in the Venezuelan army so it's not yet clear how many of them supported the coup, how many of them supported Chavez and how many of them were in the middle sort of waiting to see who would win.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And where does this leave Hugo Chavez now, a lot stronger or not?

ANDRES OPPENHEIMER: Let me tell you a little story. Somebody was reminding me today that in 1973 when Salvador Allende, another populist left-of-center if not leftist president was president of Chile, there was a coup attempt like in April or May and the tanks were on the street and the coup was defeated. The next day this president appointed a general who he trusted to be the new commander in chief of the armed forces. Three months later, that general, who was Augusto Pinochet toppled Salvador Allende. So this is not the end of the story. More is to come. I don't think Chavez is out of the woods yet.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What about the conciliatory gestures he made today and the words, the conciliatory words that he spoke? He called for rectifying past mistakes.

ANDRES OPPENHEIMER: The consensus in diplomatic circles at least the three or four ambassadors that I talked to today is that this is a tactical move. Chavez has to do it because the same democratic charter of the Organization of American States that the president applied to the coup plotters may be applied to him, because -- remember -- he may have broken constitutional rule as well when he allowed his troops to fire on the peaceful demonstrators on Thursday and when he pretty much took over the television stations and, in fact, you know, abolished freedom of the press. So he's under observation. That's what one ambassador to the Organization of American States told me this morning. Chavez is under observation. If he takes extra constitutional powers, if he abolishes freedom of expression, if he closes down the Congress, this ambassador said we will apply him the same rule we applied to the other one and we'll isolate him from the Latin American and inter-American diplomatic community.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Andres Oppenheimer, thanks for being with us.

ANDRES OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.

SERIES - WINNER

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, another of our conversations with winners of this year's Pulitzer Prizes in the arts, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: This year's Pulitzer winner in history went to Louis Menand for his book, "The Metaphysical Club." It's an account of the intellectuals who helped create modern America. Menand is Professor of English at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, and a staff writer at the "New Yorker" Magazine.

Well, welcome and congratulations.

LOUIS MENAND: Thank you very much, and thank you for having me on the show.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, you've taken a big bite out of a huge topic: The evolution of American thought over a 60-70-year period. What pulled you in? What got you into this project in the first place?

LOUIS MENAND: I must have been crazy. It was a huge topic, and I had no idea when I started out how huge it would be. I really got interested in this club called the Metaphysical Club, which is a rather elusive event in American intellectual history. It's supposed to have met about ten months in 1872 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. And the reason that it's famous is because it's supposed to have been in the discussions of the group of young men that the philosophy of pragmatism first emerged. So when I started out, I thought I would write the story of the club, and what I found out is there's very little information about what actually went on in the club, but that the club represented a kind of hinge in American culture, a hinge between the intellectual era before the Civil War and the intellectual era of the post- Civil War period, which is really our period, the period of modern America.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, you talk about the Metaphysical Club and its sort of brief, spit-on-a-griddle moment, but the orbit that you describe these men being in, sort of being involved in each other's intellectual lives and pursuits over the course of decades, was fascinating. They knew each other, spoke to each other, wrote letters to each other, reviewed each other's work, argued with each other.

LOUIS MENAND: Yeah, well, that was one of the reasons it became such a fun subject. I found that you could... over the period of 30 years, 40 years after the club met in 1872, you still found people who had relations with one another that went back to those years. They still, as you say, read one another's work, they bounced ideas off each other, and they had many students and disciples. And together, I think, they created, as I say, the intellectual culture of modern America.

RAY SUAREZ: And it wasn't parochial, it seems. I mean, scientists read what social writers and thinkers had to say, and people who were writing basically about social and political things were reading Physics and reading Biology. It was a very yeasty, constantly boiling pot, wasn't it?

LOUIS MENAND: Yes, it felt like a yeasty thing when I was writing it because I found that I had to learn about a lot of different subjects, way more than I imagined when I started out. Of the four thinkers I concentrate on in the book, one, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., was a Supreme Court Justice and a legal thinker. Almost all of his thought was exclusively about the law. Another, William James, was a psychologist. He was the first modern American psychologist. The third, Charles Sanders Purse, was a practicing scientist, as well as the inventor or the founder of the field of the study of semiotics, the founder of the field of the study of signs. And the fourth, John Dewey, was a political philosopher as well as a philosopher of art, religion, logic, and many other fields. So, yeah, it was very interdisciplinary. People crossed many fields, and you could describe the intellectual movement as a movement that took place in many fields at once and seemed to come to a climax, really, around 1900.

RAY SUAREZ: A lot of things were happening all at once: The Industrial Revolution, a tremendous burst in immigration to the United States, the country's borders run all the way out to the Pacific. And the men that you profile-- because they are almost exclusively men-- are very much engaged in all of these topics, talking about what an American is, what kind of country it's going to be. Did you constantly get shades of today's debates in the work you were doing then?

LOUIS MENAND: Well, in many ways I did. In other ways, this was a period a long time ago, and there are many things that are strange and unfamiliar about it, which were also interesting. The book begins with the Civil War. And one of the things that surprised me when I started out was the extent to which the Civil War really was the catalyst for this moment of intellectual change, because it really changed the way people thought about ideas, the way people thought about beliefs and principles, the way people thought about the organization of American life, the way people thought about almost everything. But also the Civil War, just as a sheer political moment, changed the direction of the country, because once the war was over, the country unleashed this tremendous territorial expansion which, of course, had been held up for decades by the quarrel over the spread of slavery. And with that expansion was an enormous burst of extension of industrial capitalism, and with it the whole modern way of life. So all these thinkers were struggling to come to terms with a social environment which was characterized by uncertainty, by constant change, by advanced ideas in science, by the spread of Darwinian thought or evolutionary thought. All these things really changed the standard ways that people had believed and thought about that. So that's what I ended up trying to describe. It was... as you say, it became a huge project because I was attempting to weave together the personal stories of these four thinkers I concentrated on with a national story.

RAY SUAREZ: And they hold the stage for a long time, don't they? I mean, John Dewey, because of his very long life-- he dies at 93; he's working almost until the end-- either they or their students continued to influence this country well into the 20th century.

LOUIS MENAND: They really dominated American intellectual life for the first half of the 20th century. John Dewey died in 1952. He was born in 1859. So he was born the year that Darwin published "The Origin of Species," and he died in the year of the hydrogen bomb. His was a tremendously long life, and he was productive for almost all of it. He had many disciples. So did William James and Oliver Wendell Holmes. One of the interesting things that happened, though, is that after 1950, the influence of these thinkers really waned for a long period, the period of the United States was in the Cold War. And I started working on the book about 1990 and at the end of the Cold War, and just about that time, the whole resurgence of interest in these thinkers and the philosophy that most of them are associated with, the philosophy of pragmatism, began to come about. So my book was greatly aided by a lot of work that was being done and a lot of letters and biographies that were being published about these thinkers, because once again, they had come into recognition as important figures in American life.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, you're a university professor. When you look at the constellation of colleges and universities in today's America, so radically different from the period you're writing about, could there be a group like the one that you profile in that sort of intimate, intellectual cross-pollenization you saw in the late 19th century?

LOUIS MENAND: I have a short answer: I don't think so. The reason is that 1872 was really the last time I think in American intellectual life when you could have a group of people who came from various disciplines but shared a common interest in certain kinds of ideas, who could get together and talk to one another and communicate with one another. The reason is because after 1872 you really get the rise of the modern university system, which is based so much on specialization, which people have a very hard time talking to people in other specialties and other fields. So the Metaphysical Club also stands for a very old-fashioned thing, which is a time when intellectuals from all different areas of thought could get together and have the kind of conversations that these characters did.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, we're deep into spring semester. We're back from spring break. Has your life at the university changed by now being able to append your name with "Pulitzer Prize Winner" in front of it?

LOUIS MENAND: Everybody has been really great about it, so yeah, it's been wonderful.

RAY SUAREZ: And now your papers are coming in on time and your students are treating you any differently?

LOUIS MENAND: I don't know if that will change or not. We'll have to do an update on that.

RAY SUAREZ: Any other projects in the pipeline? What do you want to get to work on next?

LOUIS MENAND: Well, I am interested in the Cold War period, because I think it makes an interesting counterpoint to the period I wrote about. As I mention, the Cold War period was very different intellectually from the period in which these thinkers flourished. So I would like to do something about the intellectual life of that time.

RAY SUAREZ: Louis Menand, thanks for being with us.

LOUIS MENAND: Thank you for having me on.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of this day: Israeli Prime Minister Sharon promised troops will leave most West Bank cities within a week. In Ramallah, the Israelis captured a key aide to Palestinian leader Arafat. And another video of Osama bin Laden surfaced on an Arab satellite TV station. There was no word on when it was made. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.