The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

GWEN IFILL: Good evening. I'm Gwen Ifill. Jim Lehrer is off today. On the NewsHour tonight, the apparent terrorist attack on an American warship, Israeli and Palestinian reaction to the latest escalation of violence in the Middle East, excerpts from last night's presidential debate, plus analysis of the candidates' foreign policy positions. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday.

NEWS SUMMARY

GWEN IFILL: A U.S. Navy destroyer was attacked today in Yemen by an apparent suicide bomber. It happened as the ship was docked at the port of Aden. A small boat carrying explosives pulled alongside the U.S.S. "Cole," and blew up. At least five American sailors were killed, 12 were missing, and more than 30 injured. In Washington, President Clinton said if it was a terrorist act, it would not change U.S. policy.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: If their intention was to deter us from our mission of promoting peace and security in the Middle East, they will fail. Utterly. I have directed the department of defendants, the FBI and the State Department to send officials to Yemen to begin the investigation. Secretary Albright has spoken with President Sala of Yemen and we expect to work closely with his government to that effect.

GWEN IFILL: The Yemeni President told CNN the explosion was not the work of terrorists. He said his country does not harbor such elements. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. The two major presidential candidates joined in condemning the attack on the "Cole." In Langhorne, Pennsylvania, Governor Bush called it cowardly. In Milwaukee, Vice President Gore said it would not go unpunished.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: First our prayers go to the families. A constant reminder that people wear our uniform make sacrifices. I hope that they gather enough intelligence to figure out who did the act and take the necessary action. There must be a consequence.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: If it is determined to be the result of a terrorist operation, those responsible should know that the United States will not rest until the perpetrators are held accountable. This is... This is a situation that will bring a response. We will pursue any and all information and leads as to who was responsible.

GWEN IFILL: The candidates spoke as they resumed campaigning after their second debate. We'll have excerpts from that debate, and analysis later in the program tonight. Some of the worst violence yet erupted today between Israelis and Palestinians. A mob killed three Israeli soldiers, and Israeli helicopters struck back. Again, John Irvine of Independent Television News.

JOHN IRVINE: This was the trigger: The murder of Israeli soldiers inside a Palestinian police station in Ram Allah. The Palestinian security forces could not keep a lynch mob of their own people at bay. In a first floor room, the soldiers were beaten and stabbed to death. Their bodies were later dumped out of this window. The Israeli army responded swiftly, moving their tanks into firing positions on the outskirts of town. Minutes later, a combat helicopter stooped and released a missile. The target was the police station where just hours earlier the Israeli soldiers had been killed. Several Palestinians were injured in the attack, a few were lucky to escape death. The Israelis chose other specific targets in Ram Allah, including Yasser Arafat's West Bank headquarters, and Palestinian television and radio stations. The Israelis said their broadcasts had been inflammatory. The attack helicopters were also over the Gaza Strip -- the power base of the Arafat administration. Here Palestinian television shows one missile landing in the harbor at Gaza City. Here, Palestinians reply with anti-aircraft fire. The Israelis have struck at the Palestinian Authority that they accuse of not doing enough to end the violence that has blighted the Holy Land for two weeks now. It is in Ram Allah that the Israeli offensive has been most sustained. As dusk fell over the West Bank town, helicopters were sending in more missiles. The Israelis are calling this a limited strike. The Palestinians, however, are saying it's a declaration of war.

GWEN IFILL: In Washington, President Clinton said the killing of the Israeli soldiers was an act of murder, and he appealed for a cease-fire. He said the alternative to peace is now clear for all to see. We'll have more on this story later in the program tonight. The events in the Middle East helped cause jitters on Wall Street. Analysts said there were new fears of higher oil prices and inflation. The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 379 points, or 3.6% to close at 10,034. The NASDAQ Index dropped 93 points, or about 3%, to finish at 3074, its lowest close this year. President Clinton may become the first U.S. leader to visit North Korea. That word came today in a joint communiqu in Washington. It said Secretary of State Albright would visit the north soon, and the President might follow.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT: Our policy has been to explore through your diplomacy whether it's possible to remove, over time, the obstacles to a better and normal relationship. This is important to our own security, and to that of friends throughout the Asia Pacific region. It supports the engagement policy of our ally in Seoul, including President Kim Dae Jung's vision of a Korea moving toward permanent reconciliation and peace.

GWEN IFILL: Secretary Albright spoke at the end of two days of talks with North Korea's top military official. Congress sent an auto safety bill to President Clinton today. It won final approval last night. The legislation followed 101 traffic deaths linked to failures of Firestone tires on some Ford vehicles. It includes penalties for automakers who hide flaws and requirements of vehicle rollover testing. The President is expected to sign it. A Chinese novelist and playwright won the Nobel Prize for Literature today. Gao Shing-Zhahn has focused on the struggle for individuality in mass culture. He is the first Chinese to win the prize, but his work is banned in his Communist homeland. He has lived in self-imposed exile in France since 1988. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the attack on a U.S. Warship, new violence in the Middle East, and the candidates debate foreign policy.

FOCUS - ATTACKED!

GWEN IFILL: Spencer Michels begins our look at today's attack on the USS Cole.

SPENCER MICHELS: The navy destroyer USS Cole was on a four-hour stop at what the Navy called the friendly port of Aden in Yemen to refuel when the attack occurred. The ship had come from the Mediterranean Sea, through the Suez Canal, down the red sea. It was on its way to the Persian Gulf. About 350 sailors were on board when the explosion ripped a hole about the size of a house in the warship at noon local time. The wounded-- about 30 of them-- are receiving treatment at a Yemen hospital. At the Pentagon today, Defense Secretary William Cohen described the blast.

WILLIAM COHEN, Secretary of Defense: According to an eyewitness account, the explosion occurred when a small boat that was participating in the mooring approached the USS Cole. I want to repeat that we do not yet know the cause of the explosion. If, however, we determine that terrorists attacked our ship and killed our sailors, then we will not rest until we have tracked down those who are responsible for this vicious and cowardly act. The United States is a global power with global responsibilities, and as a result, we face global risks. In the wake of this tragedy, I want to be very clear about one point. We will continue to protect our national interests around the world, in the Middle East, and elsewhere. No one should doubt our resolve to remain a force for peace and for stability, and no one should assume that they can force us to retreat. No one should assume they can attack us with impunity. Force protection is my top priority when I deploy troops, and it's the top priority of every commander. But we know that our vigilance cannot eliminate all risk. In the wake of this tragedy, we have increased the alert level of all of our forces around the world, at home and abroad. The navy has dispatched medical teams and additional security teams to Aden, and British and French officials have offered assistance to evacuate and to treat our wounded. The departments of state and justice have dispatched investigators to learn what was responsible for the blast.

SPENCER MICHELS: Admiral Vern Clark, the chief of naval operations, said he had no reason to think this was anything but a senseless act of terrorism. He showed pictures of the ship.

ADMIRAL VERN CLARK, Chief of Naval Operations:. And this is a picture of the damage to the hull, and you can see that it is generally mid- ships and the immediate damaged area is in one of the main engine rooms and in an auxiliary engine area and space. Now this is a close-up of the hull, and the hole in the hull. And you can see that the damage has occurred at the water line. And you can also get a picture of the nature of the damage in the way the metal is bent and so forth. The hole is generally 20 feet high and 40 feet across.

SPENCER MICHELS: The state-of-the-art destroyer, based in Norfolk, Virginia, is equipped with missiles capable of attacking land, sea, and air targets. It's part of a class of warships known as the Arleigh Burke. So far, no one has claimed responsibility for the blast.

GWEN IFILL: For more on today's attack, we are joined by three experts. Larry Johnson was deputy director in the State Department's Office of Counter-Terrorism from 1989 to 1993. He is now a security consultant. George Wilson is a defense columnist for the "National journal," and former defense reporter for the "Washington Post." And Juliette Kayyem was a member of the National Commission on Terrorism. She is now an associate at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

George Wilson, what can you tell us about how this happened?

GEORGE WILSON: Well, it happened in a way which would be very hard for the crew to detect. The small boats are needed for this particular mooring operation, to carry the lines from this destroyer, which is longer than a football field, into the mooring buoys, which are posted around the perimeter of the ship. So there was no reason to suspect that one of these boats, which was assisting the operation and was carrying ropes would be a terrorist inside.

GWEN IFILL: The men on board were helping to tie the ship to the dock.

GEORGE WILSON: The men in the little boat were helping to tie up the ship. So it looked just routine. And suddenly this small boat either rammed or sidled up to the side of the ship and unleashed these explosives. So there was no indication that this was going to be anything but a normal docking. And it was not at a pier, which would have been easier. It was at a floating dolphin they call it, which is like a ramp out in the harbor itself, not in a big pier.

GWEN IFILL: And they use that for refueling?

GEORGE WILSON: Right. They were going to refuel and then they were going to go on and patrol the Persian Gulf to see what contraband if any was getting into Iraq.

GWEN IFILL: You've covered the Pentagon for years. How would you gauge the U.S. response today?

GEORGE WILSON: I think that they told us what they knew. I think that they're still a little confused as to who did it and how it was done. But I don't have any sense of cover-up or any feeling that they're not coming through with what they know.

GWEN IFILL: They certainly didn't hesitate, Larry Johnson, to say that this was terrorism or to intimate very strongly that this was terrorism. From what you know of this, why would they leap to that conclusion?

LARRY JOHNSON: Well, this marks an unfortunate new milestone in the field of international terrorism. It's the first boat bomb we've had since we've been recording data on it going back to 1968. Because Osama Bin Laden has been making threats about killing Americans, when you go back over the last seven years, he is the only one talking about killing Americans. Boats like this just don't blow up. It's not like someone was smoking a cigarette or cigar and lit off a bunch of jet fuel. So, from this point forward it's an investigation. We should not accuse and then punish someone. We have to collect the evidence and determine who is responsible; and in that regard, the first step, they're going to go over photographic imagery from the satellites to find out, to see where the position of that boat was, to see if they can track that, all kinds of signal intelligence. They're going to talk to people both that are on the scene there as well as that may be in jails here in the United States who might have some connection that can tell them about what was going on. In addition, they're going to look for the forensic evidence. Unfortunately about the bomb scene, a lot of the debris has sunk or it's scattered in the water, but you have residue on the ship. They'll be able to step the type of explosive; they'll be able to tell the size of the explosive.

GWEN IFILL: Juliette Kayyem, let's talk about this whole idea of this being a terrorist target. This is Yemen. Was this a dangerous place for this ship to be? Do we have reason to be worried about it? Were we on sufficient security alert?

JULIETTE KAYYEM: Specifically to Yemen, I don't think that we had any reason to be particularly concerned. That it is in the Middle East and close to Saudi Arabia is relevant, however, given what is going on with the Middle East conflict in the last two weeks. We do have to leave open a possibility it was not terrorism. But if it was, then two things flow from that. Is it specifically related to the events in the Middle East in the last two weeks?

GWEN IFILL: What do you think about that?

JULIETTE KAYYEM: Some sort of Palestinian terrorist group, --

GWEN IFILL: What do you think about that?

JULIETTE KAYYEM: -- or is it a third option which is a sort of distract and destroy. I mean -- did a different totally unrelated terrorist group know that we were so focused on the Middle East at this time that they sort of took it as an opportunity to go after us in an area that we were historically unsuspecting.

GWEN IFILL: So maybe it's not so much when you say there is a connection to maybe what's going on in the Middle East, maybe it's just a question of our eyes were turned elsewhere and not that Palestinians in Yemen, say, were trying to strike out.

JULIETTE KAYYEM: Right. Yemen does not have a large Palestinian population. And it's a very poor country. I think the most significant thing that should occur now in the investigation is going to be the biggest question is going to be how much cooperation are we going to get from the Yemen government. As we learned with the Kobar Towers investigation, we need cooperation from the hosting country. And I think a lot of people in the government felt we didn't get that from Saudi Arabia. We're going to have to interview people in Yemen. Clearly if this small boat took off from Yemen, people in port are going to know things. If we don't get full cooperation from the Yemenese government, then it is going to hinder what we know and what we can find out and presumably our prosecution.

GWEN IFILL: George, let's back up a minute. Tell me about the ship. As described, two fellows come up in the boat, put some plastic explosives on their side or whatever they did, blow themselves up and blow this huge hole in the side of the boat. How can that be? How does that happen? Are these ships not that strong?

GEORGE WILSON: Well, the ship is not as strong is a battle ship. There is not 16-inch steel in this Arleigh Burke destroyer, but it is a half-inch thick side of the ship, so it was a very big explosion to penetrate a hole that big. But it would be very normal to suspect that a series of small boats were doing what they were hired to do; namely, help dock the ship. So it was a very cleverly planned operation. It was not something thought of last night. And the next question is, well, how do we protect the ships in the future? And unfortunately I think it will happen again because this is the era of asymmetrical warfare.

GWEN IFILL: I heard you ask Secretary Cohen that very question today at the news briefing. What does that mean?

GEORGE WILSON: Well, if I can't match you gun for gun or ship or ship, I'll find another way to find the chink in your armor. And, attacking a ship covertly like this you don't have to buy an aircraft carrier or a jet fighter; you can make your point and much cheaper and more dramatically now that the world is all wired up together.

GWEN IFILL: Go ahead.

LARRY JOHNSON: There are things you can do to prevent this. It is uncomfortable and inconvenience for the crew but would I rather have the crew inconvenienced than dead. You put out security patrols that inspect those ships. It's like going through a metal detector at the airport. No ship, no boat gets close to a U.S. ship unless it's been screened and determined no explosives on board -- period. Is it an inconvenience for the crew, yes. Is it going to tax the ship and crew? Yes. But I'd much rather have them tired and cranky than dead, because they can go home tired and cranky and get happy. But when they're dead, they go home in a box.

GWEN IFILL: Juliette Kayyem we've come to expect claims of responsibility in cases like this. Should we expect that in this case?

JULIETTE KAYYEM: Actually, claims of responsibility have decreased in the last couple of years with terrorist incidents so it may be that we will never know exactly who did this. I mean, certainly the intelligence, we're going to have to go back from this moment and determine what intelligence we had leading up to this point that could help us in the investigation, and this is going to tax American agencies. We're going to have the FBI, the State Department, the CIA -- a lot of folks over there at this stage, and a lot of information will have to be shared to determine the best route or course for the eventual prosecution if it occurs.

GWEN IFILL: One of the things, obviously, we're hearing they are going to do is investigate. The other thing that both Secretary Cohen and Secretary Albright intimated today is that - and the President -- is that we would strike back.

JULIETTE KAYYEM: Yes, I think we don't know yet if there was any state that sponsored this terrorist incident. I don't think that anyone has that information yet. Certainly if this was state sponsorship, we would clearly be able to attack that state. State sponsorship of terrorism has been decreasing though, and if we take away the last two weeks, a lot of the Arab countries are getting out of the business, especially with the new leadership in the Arab countries. So this may be a rogue group, a group that it would be very difficult to plan a targeted site. I've heard throughout the day, everyone mentioning Osama bin Laden as the sort of, you know, inevitable person that we go on to. And his movement right now, I would say, is probably severely restricted. And we should probably... might start to think of different possibilities.

GWEN IFILL: George Wilson, what are the possibilities that are open for the United States Government in terms of retaliation?

GEORGE WILSON: Well, it's much easier said than done. Our record in retaliating has not been all that grand. We bombed what we said was a chemical production plant; it may have well have been just a drug plant. So the evidence will have to be gathered and it will have to be very certain to find a linkage. But the problem with today's world is there is no nationality necessarily. It's like a bunch of wild snakes. And to locate which snake is sponsored by whom is really very difficult.

GWEN IFILL: And how long does it take to undertake the kind of investigation you're talking about or make the kind of changes, security changes you're talking about, Larry Johnson?

LARRY JOHNSON: Security changes can go into place tonight. It's very simple to put those security changes in place tonight. The investigation, they could go two or three years or longer without finding out who is responsible. In the case of Pan Am 103, we didn't really get the break in that case until 1990, almost a year and a half after the event. In the case of Dhahran, there is still a lot of suspicion about who was responsible, but no hard proof. So I think trying to retaliate without clear, convincing evidence is a stupid policy. We're better than that. We need to have clear evidence. And as George correctly noted, the retaliation after the bombing of the U.S. embassies in East Africa in August of 1998, it may have made us feel better, but we hit the wrong targets. And if we're going to be a great country, we can't afford do that.

GWEN IFILL: George, a final question, how off guard were we caught by this? How surprised did they all seem to be today at the Pentagon?

GEORGE WILSON: Well, they were astonished. And it is kind of a first, but you cannot do global operations on Navy ships without some risks. And they will tighten security, but we're vulnerable. There's all kinds of things terrorists can do to a great power in a covert way. So they were astonished at what happened... it happened, but they were warning that this is the new ball game and it could happen again.

GWEN IFILL: George Wilson, Larry Johnson and Juliette Kayyem, thank you all very much.

FOCUS - MELTDOWN

GWEN IFILL: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, renewed fighting in the Middle East and foreign policy as seen by the presidential candidates.

GWEN IFILL: Margaret Warner has the Middle East story.

MARGARET WARNER: The violence between Israelis and Palestinians entered a new phase today as a Palestinian mob murdered three Israeli soldiers, and Israel launched helicopter gunship attacks on Palestinian targets in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak warned of more difficult days ahead.

For perspective, we turn to, Tova Herzl, Minister for Congressional Affairs at the Israeli Embassy in Washington -- she has just been named Israel's ambassador to South Africa -- and Hassan Abdel Rahman, the chief PLO representative in Washington. Welcome to you both. I have, first of all for each of you in chronological order, a quick factual question about what happened today. Why were these three Israelis soldiers at the mercy of this mob?

HASAN RAHMAN: Well, first of all they were taken to a police headquarters for protection. But the crowd was so angry, so furious over the killing of over 100 Palestinians and wounding of 3,000 in the last 12 days, that they were uncontrollable. It is not that they did not want to protect them. But they could not protect them because of the anger of the crowd.

MARGARET WARNER: And what was the Israeli government trying to accomplish by these strikes today?

TOVA HERZL: The Israeli government, anybody who watched the shocking mind-boggling video that we saw of an Israeli soldier being lynched by a Palestinian mob, and the same... I assume that the boy's mother or wife saw that as well, as well as everybody in this country and people who saw the American reaction, from the President down, to the events of today, the United States will not allow anybody to get away with it. Israel sent a message; it was a short, limited operation. It was forewarned, to say that restraint should not be interpreted as weakness. Israel will protect its citizens and Israel will protect its soldiers. And the lynching of people by a mob, when they're under police custody, was very, very troubling. We could not allow people to get away with it.

MARGARET WARNER: Now several PLO officials today in the region called this, this Israeli strike a declaration of war. Do you share that view? And, if so, what do you mean by that?

HASAN RAHMAN: First of all, let me say this. There were a hundred Palestinians -

MARGARET WARNER: You're talking about -

HASAN RAHMAN: -- killed in the last two weeks by Israeli snipers, by Israeli sharp shooters and 3,000 were wounded. All are civilians. We did not bomb Mr. Barak's headquarters or the defense minister ministry. Why? Because we felt that we are supposed to be calming down and not the violence and not escalating. I believe Mr. Barak's ill-advised policy borders on a declaration of war. And it will have exactly the negative effect because after killing so many Palestinians, for 14 days, and the Palestinians cannot be bombed into submission -- he has to understand that. The only way to have peace with the Palestinians is by respecting the rights of the Palestinians and not by killing more Palestinians.

MARGARET WARNER: Is this a declaration of war? A whole new phase, the end of the peace process?

TOVA HERZL: You know, these statements ignore the fact that Prime Minister Barak and the government of Israel have been actively engaged in a peace process. Mr. Barak has made offers and concessions, which would have been inconceivable by anyother Israeli administration. They would have been inconceivable I think to most of the Palestinian leaders, and certainly to the American authorities. And yet Mr. Barak, because he wanted to break the cycle of violence, because he wanted to promise a better future to our children and to your children, made concessions, which would have been inconceivable. He risked his political future. I think we cannot ignore what he has been willing to do. And we felt that we were this close to achieving peace. And it seems that Mr. Arafat cannot take yes for an answer. Why are we talking about bombing the Palestinians into submission? We were talking about making concessions on strategic issues, on political issues, on historical landmarks, which it would have been inconceivable six months ago. And Mr. Barak was willing to go not the extra inch or the extra foot -- the extra mile. We were this close and Mr. Arafat apparently, I'm not sure why, was not willing to go that extra inch, to go that extra little bit and reach final resolution. Israel has no interest in violence. What interest do we have? If we would have interest in violence, why would we go to make these concessions?

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Well, let me turn around these mutual accusations. Now, there are Israelis who say just as minister Tova Herzl did, that he put this offer on the table and that for some reason Arafat has decided he can get more through violence or that he thinks perhaps as Hezbollah managed to do in Lebanon, that enough resistance, enough fighting, Israel will get tired and leave.

HASAN RAHMAN: I believe that's totally not true for the very simple reason that on the 26th of September, two days before the events, the massacre that Israel committed against the worshipers on Friday afternoon, that's after the visit, provocative visit of Mr. Sharon to the Sharif. We were here negotiating in Washington, because the Americans and the Israelis realized what was offered in Camp David was not sufficient for an agreement. And that's why we were pursuing negotiations. The problem with our partners, the Israelis, that they negotiate with each other -- she is telling us, Ambassador Herzl, that Barak gave more than Netanyahu. But what Barak gave is much less than what the international community set as the basis for reaching an agreement. On Jerusalem, on the territories on the refugees, what Israel offered was unacceptable.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay, but explain, with all due respect, I don't want to rehash the entire peace negotiations but explain to the rest of the world or at least to our viewers, why the absence of agreement on the peace deal means violence.

HASAN RAHMAN: No, we did not initiate the violence. The violence started as follows: Mr. Barak gives a permission to Mr. Sharon to go to Haram al-Sharif, one of the holiest places of Islam with 1,000 Israeli soldiers guarding him, and declaring that he is there to reaffirm Jewish sovereignty over Haram al-Sharif, which he calls Temple Mount. Now, the next day the Palestinians demonstrate peacefully. Mr. Barak orders his police and kills six Palestinians and wounds 200. That's where the violence started.

TOVA HERZL: You know, I don't think it would be appropriate to have a long historical discussion about the relative sanctity of the Temple Mount -- Haram al-Sharif --to Jews, to Muslims, to other people, but I think the visit of Mr. Sharon to the Temple Mount, I think we're a little beyond using that as an excuse for what happened. I think freedom of religion and freedom of access does not entitle people to veto about the political opinions of one visit or another to the Temple Mount. I also think it does not include burning Joseph's Tomb and turning it into a mosque. So I think we should look at where we are now. May I remind you, and you and the viewers, that Mr. Barak, despite the very, very terrible scenes we saw today, something which is very difficult to forget, of the soldier being thrown out of the window and lynched, and the glee of the crowd, Mr. Barak on this network said "I want to go back to the peace negotiations." To go back and say Mr. Sharon went on the Temple Mount, alleged Temple Mount, I think that that is avoiding the issue of are we willing to go to peace, are we willing to discuss the issues, are we willing to stop the violence? Israel is willing to stop the violence. Israel has no interest in violence. If Israel would have had interest in violence, it would not have made the offers for the concessions which were so far reaching by anybody's standards.

MARGARET WARNER: What will it take to stop the violence?

HASAN RAHMAN: You know, when the Israelis start viewing the human life of the Palestinians as precious as theirs, when they start respecting the Palestinians as their equals and not as their subjects, when Israel starts dealing with the Palestinians not as vanquished people, but as their partners in peace, that's when we will have peace. But as long as the Israelis care about their dead and they do not care about the 100 Palestinians that were killed by Israeli bullets, we will not have peace.

MARGARET WARNER: But what do you think, what will it take to stop this cycle of violence right now?

HASAN RAHMAN: We made it clear from day one. Mr. Barak, withdraw your troops and your tanks from Palestinian territories.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let me get an answer to that.

HASAN RAHMAN: Stop shooting at Palestinians and let's have an international commission of inquiry.

MARGARET WARNER: What about those two ideas? Withdraw all Israeli troops from the occupied territories and the international commission?

TOVA HERZL: We are part of... we are part of a peace negotiation. I think what my colleague has just said, my counterpart, is that in order... you have chosen let Israel withdraw, let's determine the final results of the peace process through violence, rather than through negotiation. We were in a process of negotiation. The Palestinian violence stopped the process of negotiation. Now you are saying let's withdraw from the territories, let's do, a, b, c, d, e. Which territories are we talking about? This is a term... You're predetermining...

HASAN RAHMAN: Palestinian territories I'm talking about.

TOVA HERZL: But Israel has withdrawn from the bulk of them.

HASAN RAHMAN: No you have not because....

MARGARET WARNER: Let me ask a factual question here. Are these territories still the subject of negotiation?

HASAN RAHMAN: Yes, but Mr. Barak moved tanks into the entries of the cities and he stationed soldiers at borders. And that's where the points of contact, you know, the Palestinians do not have tanks and do not have vehicles and do not have long-term weapons. They have stones.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let me ask you -

HASAN RAHMAN: Why don't Israel move those troops from there so we have a disengagement and then we can go back to the negotiating table?

MARGARET WARNER: The other issue is this commission. Why is Mr. Barak so opposed to this?

TOVA HERZL: Mr. Barak is not opposed to an investigation under American leadership to find out exactly what happened. And Mr. Barak objects, given our long and unfortunate history with some international institutions for an --

HASAN RAHMAN: Do you have a problem with France?

TOVA HERZL: -- an international commission of inquiry. Mr. Barak has expressed willingness at the very beginning at the outset of this, should American lead this, we would be interested to go along with this.

HASAN RAHMAN: But we want some balance. We want with the United States that's the strategic ally of Israel, have some European countries. What is the problem with that?

TOVA HERZL: Well, you know, I think the United States... it's not my job to justify....

MARGARET WARNER: We're out of time.

TOVA HERZL: I think the United States has given its auspices to the peace process from the beginning.

HASAN RAHMAN: Fine, but for this idea we need balance.

TOVA HERZL: And these auspices have been acceptable to both sides from the beginning of the peace process. I think it's a matter... it's not a matter that we can say for this America is good, for this America...

HASAN RAHMAN: We want America but we want always countries also.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Rahman, we have to leave it there. Thank you for coming in.

FOCUS - PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

GWEN IFILL: Finally tonight, the second of three presidential debates, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: Almost half of last night's 90-minute session was devoted to foreign affairs. The conversation began with a question on fundamentals from moderator Jim Lehrer.

JIM LEHRER: One of you is about to be elected the leader of the single most powerful nation the world-- economically, financially, militarily, diplomatically, you name it. Have you formed any guiding principles for exercising this enormous power?

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: I have. I have. The first question is what's in the best interest of the United States? What's in the best interest of our people? When it comes to foreign policy, that will be my guiding question. Is it in our nation's interests? Peace in the Middle East is in our nation's interests. Having a hemisphere that is free for trade and peaceful is in our nation's interests. Strong relations in Europe is in our nation's interests. I've thought a lot about what it means to be the President. I also understand an administration is not one person but an administration is dedicated citizens who are called by the President to serve the country, to serve a cause greater than self. And so I've thought about an administration of people who represent all America, but people who understand my compassionate and conservative philosophy.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: I see our greatest natural... national strength coming from what we stand for in the world. I see it as a question of values. It is a great tribute to our founders that 224 years later, this nation is now looked to by the peoples on every other continent, and the peoples from every part of this earth as a kind of model for what their future could be. And I don't think that's just the kind of exaggeration that we take pride in as Americans. It's really true. Even the ones that sometimes shake their fists at us --as soon as they have a change that allows the people to speak freely, they're wanting to develop some kind of blueprint that will help them be like us more.

RAY SUAREZ: There was broad agreement on many issues, small distinctions made in several others.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us; if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we've got to be humble, and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: I think that one of the problems that we have faced in the world is that we are so much more powerful than any single nation has been in relationship to the rest of the world than at any time in history, that I know about anyway, that there is some resentment of U.S. power. So I think that the idea of humility is an important one.

RAY SUAREZ: But in the midst of Governor Bush's general agreement with the Clinton administration and the vice President over the bombing of Kosovo, the two candidates began to show their contrasts more clearly.

JIM LEHRER: Governor, new question. Should the fall of Milosevic be seen as a triumph for U.S. military intervention?

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: I think it's a triumph. I thought the President made the right decision in joining NATO in bombing Serbia. I supported them when they did so. I called upon the Congress not to hamstring the administration, and in terms of forcing troop withdrawals on a timetable, it wasn't in necessarily our best interests or fit our nation's strategy. I am also on record as saying in some point of time, I hope our European friends become the peacekeepers in Bosnia and in the Balkans. I hope that they put the troops on the ground, so that we can withdraw our troops and focus our military on fighting and winning war.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: Maybe I've heard the previous statements wrong, Governor. In some of the discussions we've had about when it's appropriate for the U.S. to use force around the world, at times the standards that you've laid down have given me the impression that if it's something like a genocide taking place or what they called ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, that that alone would not be... that that wouldn't be the kind of situation that would cause you to think that the U.S. ought to get involved with three troops. There have to be other factors involved for me to want to be involved. But by itself that to me can bring into play a fundamental American strategic interest because I think it's based on our values. Now have I got that wrong?

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: If I think it's in our nation's strategic interest, I'll commit troops. I thought it was in our strategic interests to keep Milosevic in check because of our relations in NATO, and that's why I took the position I took. I think it's important for NATO to be strong and confident. I felt like an unchecked Milosevic would harm NATO. And so it depends on the situation, Mr. Vice President.

RAY SUAREZ: The two candidates supported nearly all the major American military actions of the last 20 years. But again and again they returned to the whens, and whys, of American intervention.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: I thought the best example of a way to handle a situation was East Timor, when we provided logistical support to the Australians, support that only we can provide. I thought that was a good model. But we can't be all things to all people in the world, Jim. And I think that's where maybe the Vice President and I begin to have some differences. I'm worried about over committing our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission. And it was not very successful. It cost us a couple billions of dollars and I'm not sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before.

VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE: Like it or not, we are now...the United States is now the natural leader of the world. All of the other countries are looking to us. Now just because we cannot be involved everywhere, and shouldn't be, doesn't mean that we should shy away from going in anywhere. And we have a fundamental choice to make. Are we going to step up to the plate as a nation, the way we did after World War II, the way that generation of heroes said, okay, the United States is going to be the leader -- and the world benefited tremendously from the courage that they showed in those post-war years.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be. We can help. And maybe it's just our difference in government, the way we view government. I mean I want to empower people. I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you.

RAY SUAREZ: And now to assess all this are three foreign affairs columnists: Jim Hoagland of the "Washington Post," Trudy Rubin of the "Philadelphia Inquirer," and Fareed Zakaria, managing editor of "Foreign Affairs" Magazine and contributing editor of "Newsweek.."

Well, Jim Hoagland, after last night's confrontation, do you come away with a pretty good idea of what a Gore foreign policy is and what a Bush foreign policy is?

JIM HOAGLAND: I think it was a very informative exchange. I think we had a sense that both of these men are internationalists, they're both committed to an American presence in the world, and using American power to defend national interests. I think in the excerpts that you've just shown, you do get a sense that Vice President Gore has a somewhat more optimistic view of history and of the use of American power abroad to change things. And he's more willing to be engaged in different places. Whereas, Governor Bush sounded a more traditional Republican theme of using power really only when you really have to, and then using it in a big way.

RAY SUAREZ: Trudy Rubin, what did you make of last night's confrontation?

TRUDY RUBIN: I was really surprised that the differences between the two men didn't come out more strongly. In fact, given that Governor Bush's probable future national security advisor Condolezza Rice, if he's elected, has said that we should not be 911 for the world, I was surprised that the Governor agreed with practically all of the interventions that were listed for him by the moderator. And the only one he didn't, Haiti, was not really nation building as a domestic intervention to keep refugees off of our shores. So it's still not clear to me what the Governor's principle is for intervention, and I thought that Vice President Gore also muddied his thesis, and in a sense, didn't sound- that0 different from Governor Bush.

RAY SUAREZ: Finally, Fareed Zakaria.

FAREED ZAKARIA: First I think the prize should go to Jim Lehrer for having that extraordinary exchange on national television. It was probably the most informative exchange about foreign policy that I've seen in a presidential campaign for a decade. I think if Lehrer won, the runner up decisively was Bush because his answers were simple, direct, tough, straightforward. Vice President Gore seemed oddly sort of wishy-washy. He went into long historical asides. There was something almost tentative, oddly tentative about a man who knows so much about foreign policy, whereas Bush came across much firmer, I thought, and had a sort of simple commonsensical line about most of the interventions, most of the issues that were being discussed. Gore seemed almost on the defensive, occasionally agreeing occasionally being slightly different but Bush set the agenda, even on foreign policy and that's remarkable.

RAY SUAREZ: Were there turning points in the conversation where you heard things that just didn't match your knowledge of various international situations or where the candidates seemed not to understand all that was involved in assessing?

FAREED ZAKARIA: No, I thought it was a fairly intelligent discussion in that sense. I didn't think there were any real gaffes on either side. I think as Jim Hoagland said, they were true to form in the sense that Bush represented more the kind of hard headed Republican school, and Gore seemed a little bit more values-based and somewhat more optimistic or idealistic. But basically it was an intelligent discussion with a very broad area of agreement.

RAY SUAREZ: Trudy Rubin when the conversation moved away from the very easily grasped, do we send troops, do we not send troops sort of conversation to things like the use of international financial institution, the granting of foreign aid, did the conversation take a turn for you? Did it become more diffused, more incisive?

TRUDY RUBIN: No, I don't think... There was talk about reforming the IMF, but nothing specific was discussed. There were generalities thrown out on foreign aid. But actually just to come back to the question of intervention, I mean what surprised me a lot is that there should be, if you take what the advisors say, real differences between these two men. And the question is what do you do about intervention in the murky areas? And that's something that was never illuminated. Neither man talked about the role of the United Nations, whether there should be support for any kind of standing force or standing units. There was very vague talk about regional groups and Governor Bush talked about Nigerians going into Rwanda, or being used in a situation like Rwanda which was never in the cards. Nigerians would just be used in West Africa, if then. So nothing about those many cases of small wars, which are going to come up in the future, and who is supposed to do the dirty work.

RAY SUAREZ: Jim Hoagland do you agree with Trudy Rubin that this is an area of high contrast where we didn't get to see that on display?

JIM HOAGLAND: Well, I think both men achieved the objectives they set out and that affected to some extent what they were able to do. Vice President Gore, I think, succeeded in reducing his negatives picked up from the first debate, and Governor Bush certainly showed a command of foreign affairs that I think surprised a lot of people. He dealt well with general themes. He dealt well with the ideas that put Gore on the defensive on Russia and on intervention, and that surprised people because Governor Bush had been mugged on a foreign policy quiz journalistically earlier in the campaign. The one surprising moment for me was when Governor Bush started talking about debt relief for third world countries. This is not a traditional Republican theme. And I think what he was trying to do there and succeeded to some extent, was to show that he is a different kind of Republican; that he is a compassionate person. He did not lay out, nor did Vice President Gore lay out, any specifics on that. Neither of them have really addressed in the campaign the bit changes you have to make in international financial institutions before you can have effective debt relief. But at least the Governor was trying to say, I'm different on this score. And I think that Vice President Gore didn't really respond on a number of those points. The one area that I thought Vice President Gore could have done better in, too, was in drawing the contrast on intervention in Bosnia, where he asked a question. Governor Bush responded really with his support for Kosovo, rather than on the question of intervention in Bosnia in the early 90's, when Dick Cheney was the Secretary of Defense, and went along with a non-intervention policy. I thought that the Vice President could have done a better job perhaps in nailing that down.

RAY SUAREZ: There was also an intimation, or appeared to be, perhaps in the press of answering the questions they didn't clarify this enough, the Governor seemed to imply that there were a lot of Americans in both Kosovo and Bosnia and that the United States was carrying the weight almost on its own, and this didn't get clarified. Trudy Rubin?

TRUDY RUBIN: I think that's a very interesting point because it brings me to what I thought was one of the more interesting phrases that came up in this debate, and it was humility. Governor Bush talked about America needing to have more humility. That I think comes from something that General Brent Scowcroft said during the Republican Convention here in Philadelphia about America being seen as too arrogant and too unilateral. And I would I have loved to have seen that fleshed out because if the Republicans are not interested in a unilateral, an arrogant America, what exactly does that mean in terms of working with allies? You brought up troops in Bosnia and Kosovo. If America would pull out its troops, which are less than the Europeans have there, then the Europeans would be extremely unhappy. If America went forward with national missile defense, the Europeans would be unhappy. They're unhappy about non-payment of U.N. dues. When Governor Bush talked about humility, a theme picked up by the Vice President, I really would have loved to know what he meant by a more humble America being required.

RAY SUAREZ: Fareed Zakaria, did you take note of the use of humility and the agreement by the Vice President?

FAREED ZAKARIA: I did. It was one of many areas where they agreed. But again I think what was interesting that Bush set the agenda. And what he said I think Trudy is right, was quite interesting because it isn't a traditional Republican theme, certainly not in Congress. Congress is failing unilaterally, certainly on the Republican side more so than the Democratic side. But this I think comes from his father and his father's administration. If you look at the Bush administration, it was a very multilateral foreign policy. It was a foreign policy that dealt with allies all the time, consistently, engaged them, Jim Baker managed to assemble that extraordinary coalition in the Gulf War. In fact Clinton used to sort of parody Bush for spending time in the White House telephoning his buddy, Helmut Kohl and people like that. But I think that there is something there. George Bush -- George W. Bush seems to believe that the Clinton administration has been too arrogant, too assertive in sort of trumpeting America's economic might, trumpeting America's military might. The Secretary of State has called the United States the indispensable nation. The Secretary of Treasury has gone around to countries like Japan and lectured them on how they should run their economies. And I think there is a sense in the Bush camp that this has been counterproductive and that given America's extraordinary power in the world, one of the key dangers is producing abacklash to that power. So I think it's a more general feeling than one directed at any particular policy, but I do think it derives from the elder Bush.

RAY SUAREZ: Did you see any indication, Jim Hoagland, that a George W. Bush administration would be less interventionist, given his stated support for many of America's overseas activities in the last 20 years, even while he was saying I don't want to be the world's policeman?

JIM HOAGLAND: Not much. There were indications that he would try to put pressure on the Europeans to do more in the Balkans, although they're doing about 80% of the financing and the majority of the troops in the Balkans are now Europeans, of course. I don't think he would preside over a retreat from abroad, and I think the real importance of this whole campaign and the debate last night is that we see that there is no strain, no important strain of isolationism in the American politics today.

RAY SUAREZ: Guests, thank you all very much.

RECAP

GWEN IFILL: Again, the major stories of this Thursday: A U.S. Navy destroyer was attacked today in Yemen by an apparent suicide bomber. At least six American sailors were killed. And a Palestinian mob killed three Israeli soldiers. Israel struck back with helicopter attacks. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with Shields and Gigot, among others. I'm Gwen Ifill. Thank you and good night.