The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

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

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Thursday, we have a joint Newsmaker interview with Republican congressional leaders Sen. Robert Dole and Congressman Newt Gingrich. Two experts explore the Islamic terrorist organization called Hamas, and Jeffrey Kaye reports on a dance craze with a purpose. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MAC NEIL: The Israeli cabinet sealed off the West Bank and Gaza Strip indefinitely today. It follows yesterday's suicide bombing that killed 21 in Tel Aviv. We have more in a report narrated by Richard Vaughan of Worldwide Television News. RICHARD VAUGHAN: They buried some of the victims of a suicide bombing that destroyed a crowded bus in Tel Aviv. Their government ordered a crackdown on Hamas, the militant Islamic group which claimed the attack. Security services were given undisclosed extra powers to deal with Hamas. Israel also ordered the indefinite closure of its borders with the occupied West Bank and Palestinian- ruled Gaza and Jericho. The ban will prevent tens of thousands of Palestinians from working in Israel, for them a harsh economic blow. Hamas released a video of a young man it said had carried the bomb onto the crowded No. 5 bus in downtown Tel Aviv. PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat blamed individuals outside his control for the outrage.

YASSER ARAFAT, Chairman, PLO: This is a part of attempts from outside, from outside, because groups are receiving their instructions, their training, their financing from outside.

MR. MAC NEIL: A PLO spokesman said today the actions taken by the Israeli cabinet constituted economic and social war against the Palestinian people. We'll have more on this story right after -- after the News Summary. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: A Pentagon official said today the crisis with Iraq had eased enough that the U.S. deployment to the Gulf could be halted. The number of forces there will stop at 13,000. Officials had planned to send nearly 40,000 troops to the region. An Iraqi opposition group claimed responsibility today for a bomb attack in downtown Baghdad yesterday. One person died, six others were injured in that bombing. A group known as the Islamic Iraqi Vanguards for National Salvation said the attack was a warning to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

MR. MAC NEIL: In an effort to rebuild the Haitian economy, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide's government today requested free access to the U.S. markets. Haiti wants U.S. tariffs listed on all Haitian imports and import quotas on some products eliminated for 10 years. The U.S. embassy said the request would be considered. A British deputy minister in Prime Minister John Major's government resigned today amid allegations he accepted bribes. Northern Ireland Minister Tim Smith was accused of taking money in exchange for asking questions in parliament that favored the company that owns Harrods Department Store. Three other conservative legislators are currently under investigation.

MR. MAC NEIL: President Clinton signed a bill today that gives states more control over their federal education funds. It provides $60 billion over five years for disadvantaged students, safe schools, and needy school districts. The President was in Framington, Massachusetts, for the signing ceremony.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: For 30 years, the federal government has shifted money to the states and the local school districts to try to help with problems that needed the money, but mostly they have done it in ways that prescribed in very detailed manner the rules and regulations your schools had to follow, the rules and regulations your states had to follow in applying for the money, and in complying with it. This bill says the national government will set the goals, but you will get to determine how you're going to meet the goals, because the magic of education occurs between the teacher and the students and the classroom, with the parents, with the principals, with the schools supporting it.

MR. LEHRER: In economic news today, the Commerce Department reported housing starts jumped 4.4 percent last month. It was the third straight gain in new construction. General Motors said it earned a $552 million profit in the third quarter of this year. It lost 113 million during the same period last year. Chrysler reported earnings of $651 million last week. Ford will release its profits next week.

MR. MAC NEIL: A gasoline pipeline exploded today near the Houston Ship Canal, igniting the flood-swollen San Jacinto River. The fire spread to two barges and several flooded homes. A second pipeline ruptured later in the day. At least five people were injured. The death toll is now fifteen, after four days of flooding in Southeast Texas. Floodwaters continued to recede today as residents returned home to clean up the damage. Federal officials are assessing property damage. Most schools and businesses in the Houston area have reopened. More than 20 inches of rain have fallen in some regions since Sunday.

MR. LEHRER: Parliamentary democracy took an unusual turn in Italy today. A budget dispute over funding for Italy's Public Broadcasting Network turned into a fist fight. The brawl was sparked by a charge of corruption from the opposition. The government was accused of taking bribes like the government it replaced. The speaker of parliament was forced to suspend the session which was broadcast on Italy's state-run television system. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to what a Republican Congress would do, the Hamas terrorists, and dancing with a purpose. NEWSMAKERS

MR. LEHRER: We go first tonight a joint Newsmaker interview with the two Republican leaders of Congress, Sen. Robert Dole of Kansas, Congressman Newt Gingrich of Georgia. Polls show the Republicans are in striking distance of winning control of the House and Senate in the November 8th elections, a happening that would make Sen. Dole the Senate Majority Leader, Congressman Gingrich the Speaker of the House. I spoke with them this afternoon about those prospects and what should be expected from a Republican-controlled Congress. Senator, Congressman, welcome.

SEN. DOLE: Thank you very much.

REP. GINGRICH: Good to be here.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Dole first, what are the prospects for Republican control of the Senate? What do they look like tonight?

SEN. DOLE: Well, I've been meeting with pollsters this afternoon, and, you know, I'm not willing to make a statement it's going to be certain, but I think it's better than 50/50 that we will have a majority in the Senate. We had a majority, as you know, from '80 to '86, the first six years of President Reagan's eight years. But -- so it looks good.

MR. LEHRER: It looks good.

SEN. DOLE: I've been all over the place. I've just been in six southern states the last two days, and we think our prospects are good.

MR. LEHRER: How does it look in the House, Congressman Gingrich?

REP. GINGRICH: I think very similar to what Sen. Dole said about the Senate prospects. I would say right now we have a very real opportunity, maybe even money or better, of picking up enough seats to be in control for the first time since 1952. So it's very exciting about their campaign, and I'm very pleased at how much support I see developing all around the country.

MR. LEHRER: Well, Sen. Dole, in general terms, what would a Republican Dole-controlled Senate look like compared to the Mitchell Democratic Senate that we've been used to the last few years, just in general terms first of all?

SEN. DOLE: Well, I think in general terms, I'd like to think we're going to have the House too. It would be the first time since 1952, and so it's been 40 years since Republicans have had even an opportunity or possibility of gaining control, a real possibility. So I think it'd be working in concert --

MR. LEHRER: Sure.

SEN. DOLE: -- obviously with the Speaker. We'd try to work out - - we'd be doing pretty much the same thing. But first of all, I think you'd see us addressing some of the issues the Americanpeople are angry about, including some that we rejected in the late hours of Congress like lobbying reform and perhaps term limits and cutting staff and a whole host of things that people have suggested that they feel were out of touch with the American people. I think we need to address those issues. You'd have that difference. And, of course, the big difference is we would essentially run the place for a change. And we'd be working closely then with the White House, with President Clinton in the next two years, and I think you might see some good legislation, because I think President Clinton would recognize then that he had to come to us, you know, in the early days of legislation, not in the waning days of legislation.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Gingrich, how would you characterize the major difference between what you would have as a House under your control as Speaker compared with what we have now under Tom Foley?

REP. GINGRICH: Well, let me say, first of all, I want to emphasize what Bob Dole just said. I think we would want to sit down together and try to coordinate both the House and Senate Republicans. And then I would hope that shortly after the November elections, the President will be willing to sit down with Bob and me and talk about what could we get done in a positive way for America and hopefully help shape his budget and his State of the Union in the direction that the election returns indicate, because I think we ought to start with an idea that if we do for the first time in forty-two years have a Republican control of both the House and the Senate, I think that that's a pretty powerful signal from the American people that they want a change of direction from where the Democrats have been. Now, in the House, maybe the biggest difference is that we do have a contract with America that we offered on the House side that we would bring up on the House side in coordination with Sen. Dole and the Senate Republicans. It's in -- I brought a little prop -- it's in the TV Guide that just came out. We have a full page ad about somewhere around Wednesday in here which is designed to be torn out. And on the House side, we would feel a very strong commitment, frankly, to read the contract at the beginning of every day for the first hundred days to remind both the American people and ourselves what we said we'd do on the House side. The biggest and clearest single difference is that Speaker Tom Foley filed a lawsuit against the people of Washington State to block term limits, whereas we would have a commitment to bring term limits to the floor and get a vote on term limits. So I think that's probably the one where the direct contrast between the current Democratic speaker and what a Republican majority would be like is about as wide as you could possibly get.

MR. LEHRER: Is the -- Sen. Dole, do you support the contract with America that the House Republicans signed on?

SEN. DOLE: Well, we had a little different approach. We had seven different issues. Some are pretty much the same, the Balanced Budget Amendment, the real health care reform, doubling the tax exemption for children. I think they're parallel in many cases. I think the House was a little more extensive and more expansive, and certainly I think -- you know, it's one of these questions if you don't have something out there, they say, well, what's a Republican -- what are you going to do if you get elected? Then if you say, well, we're going to do this, they say, oh, you can't do this because of this or that. So I think it was a good idea. And we're out front. We've told the American people what they can expect, and they can now make the choice. They know what they can expect from Democrats. They've had it for about 40 years. And they don't like it.

MR. LEHRER: Do you support term limits, Sen. Dole?

SEN. DOLE: If they're universal. What I don't want is a patchwork, where you've got 20 states with term limits and 25 states with no limits. But I would support universal term limits.

MR. LEHRER: Doesn't that run counter to your own experience?

SEN. DOLE: Well, term limits were not an issue when I was -- you know, I've been here a long time, but I think the American people, again, have spoken. I'm not certain that's going to solve the problem. I think maybe some people are looking for a quick fix. I worry particularly on the House side of big states like California, New York, Texas, and Florida going together and squeezing out small state like -- a small state like Kansas. But if, you know, we have term limits on the President, and I think the American people have said, let's try it, let's give this a shot.

MR. LEHRER: And you feel the same way, Congressman Gingrich, you would be willing to leave the House and your position of leadership as House Speaker under term limits?

REP. GINGRICH: Sure. Look, I think that what Bob and I are both trying to say is the demand of the American people to somehow shake up the system is so great that the American people deserve to be heard. And I think George Mitchell, who's just now leaving, is living proof that you can arrive, serve six years, become leader, and he served eight years as leader, he left at the end of fourteen years. I don't think anyone in Washington would suggest that George Mitchell wasn't having an impact in a short 14-year career in the Senate. I think that people who are competent, Sen. Dole would have risen rapidly under a term limits environment. He might have ended up as governor part of that time. You know, back in the 19th century, people like Henry Clay and Daniel Webster had tremendous careers without ever serving longer than 12 years in any one part of the government. But they -- it was a much more fluid society. Today in the House it's hard to recruit somebody who's a mature adult, who's had a good career, get 'em to come in and serve as a freshman, because they think they've got to serve ten or twelve years even to begin to be heard in those committees, whereas, in a more open society, you know, or a more open Congress, you'd start getting former ambassadors, former generals, former governors like Mike Castle who is serving in the House now. It'd be a very much more fluid environment, and it would be different. And I think I agree with what Bob just said, when 78 percent of the country in referendum after referendum, overwhelming majorities, say the same thing, there is some obligation of representative government to try to at least look at whether or not that is an experiment that we ought to try. And I think all we're saying is we would schedule a vote, we would have the debate, we would make sure that everybody voted up or down, and that's a huge cry from the way the Democrats have bottled it up and refused to even deal with it.

SEN. DOLE: I think one of the greatest indictments of Congress, and we're in Congress, Newt and I are part of it, is we don't listen to the people. They come out 80, 85 percent, and I don't suggest we ought to be directed by every survey that's taken. It may be popular, it may be unpopular, but when it's consistent and it's deeply felt as an issue like term limits and when there are term limits for others, this would not be an exception, so my view is if we're going to change the Congress, we're going to have to make some bold moves. Otherwise, I've told people, I've said, we're not perfect, the Republican Party is not perfect, but give us a chance, give us four years, six years, and if we don't do any better, well, throw us out for another forty years, but give us, you know, give us the responsibility. I think they may like some of the things they see.

MR. LEHRER: Is there going to be a joint -- Senator, is there going to be a joint Republican position on abortion?

SEN. DOLE: We haven't discussed that. I would hope -- I doubt that. I mean, it seems to me that's going to have to be a personal choice each member would make.

MR. LEHRER: What do you feel about that, Congressman Gingrich?

REP. GINGRICH: Well, I think great political parties that represent solid majorities bring together an amazing range of people. It takes about 160 million Americans to be a stable majority, and if we can get Bill Weld and Jesse Helms in the same party, if we can get Pete Wilson and John Engler in the same party, that's a good, healthy party of tremendous diversity that doesn't necessarily have a monolithic position. We're clearly going to be the party that wants the fewest number of abortions. The Democrats are clearly going to be the party that's most aggressively willing to use federal funds to finance abortions and to be pro-abortion, but I think in both parties you have to have room for differences because otherwise you can't run a political party that's big enough to be a majority in this country.

SEN. DOLE: And that's one issue where you're not going to have unanimity. I mean, on economic issues, and I think that's where we should have our focus, on economic issues, we are the "conservative" party in America when it comes to economic issues, and we ought to rally around the things where we can have 95 or 100 percent unity. We should avoid, where we can, the divisive issues, even though they're very important, very important to some of us. You're not going to get everybody on board on some of the social issues.

MR. LEHRER: What about gun control, which has been used by a lot of Republican candidates in this particular election, will there be a joint leadership, House-Senate position on that, Senator?

SEN. DOLE: Well, my own view is that we ought to try to control the criminal. That's where the emphasis ought to be, and that was one of the provisions we wanted to put in the crime bill on the Senate side, mandatory sentence for those who use a gun in the commission of a crime or possess a gun in the commission of a crime. But, again, here you're going to -- we're not going to agree up and down the line on every issue, but, again, on some of these fundamental issues that people are speaking out on, and these are issues that you hear all over the country, I think we have a responsibility to bring 'em up, have the vote, let the American people know we tried.

MR. LEHRER: How about gun control, Congressman Gingrich?

REP. GINGRICH: Well, let me comment on that for a second, because I want to talk about a specific aspect of controlling criminals that is overwhelmingly supported by the American people and which at least on the House side the liberal Democrats have deliberately blocked, and that is having the kind of appeal process where you have a one time unified appeal on the death penalty and you eliminate this process of ten and fifteen and twenty years on Death Row, and you have an effective, enforceable death penalty. 82 percent of the American people want an effective, enforceable death penalty, such a strong number that even Mario Cuomo has buckled and said he'd abide by a referendum. And I just think that one of the differences you'd see is that both in the House and Senate if you had Bob Dole as majority leader and you had Newt Gingrich as speaker and Republican control, you would see us very early, I think, actively scheduling a vote to send to the President a real reform of the death penalty to make it effective. We have 4,000 people currently serving on Death Row in some form of appeals process. The Democrats have actually tried to make it harder to have an effective death penalty. The crime bill actually weakened and made longer the process of appeal, so that would be an example we could work together very well I think early on, on something the American people strongly desire.

MR. LEHRER: The same polls, of course, show the overwhelming majority is in favor of bans on assault weapons and more gun control, but that would not influence the Republican leadership on that issue?

REP. GINGRICH: But, Jim, when you look at those polls and then say to people, do you think they would be effective, even the New York Times has conceded that the vast majority, while they're for them passively, don't think they're effective. When you ask them, do you want to have an effective death penalty, they say yes. When you ask them, do you want to lock up violent criminals, we had -- and I think Bob, it was put in on the Senate side -- we had a provision for a mandatory 10-year additional penalty if you used a firearm in the commission of a felony. The Democrats forced it out in conference, and yet, the Senate and House Republicans wanted to say, you want to control the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime, we're ready to lock 'em up a lot longer if they carry a gun, and we think that's a lot more effective than harassing law- abiding citizens.

SEN. DOLE: Well, plus, I think we know where the hot buttons are, and you've touched on a couple of 'em, whether it's abortion or whether it's gun control, but there are broader issues out there that the American people are wanting us to address. And one is truth in sentencing, where you don't have -- do twenty-five or thirty-five or forty percent of your time and you're out on parole. And some would want -- some would end parole. And the bill we passed in the Senate, in the crime bill, we had very tough truth in sentencing laws, and as Newt knows, they were watered down on the House side to a great degree. So there are broader issues than the ones that the media focuses on all the time. They're important issues, but the American people want us to address other issues too.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Gingrich, Sen. Dole said that he thought that there would be a Republican position and Republican action soon if you all take control on lobby reform. Now, you fought very hard to keep that lobby reform from being enacted at the end of this last Congress. Will you -- are you going to change your position on that, are you going to work with Sen. Dole, or what?

REP. GINGRICH: I don't think either one of us are changing our position. We both said at the time we didn't want to see a director of lobbying appointed by Clinton for five years with sole power, including the power to decide whether or not a communication was religious. We both said that we didn't want to see grassroots lobbying organizations that never talk to the Congress but only talk to their own members have to come to Washington to file some lobbying form, and we said we didn't want to see a $200,000 fine on citizens while members of Congress would have no fine at all, and simply go to the Ethics Committee. We were trying to clean up a bill that we felt the liberal Democrats had frankly made a mess out of, and they were unwilling in conference to accept the kind of amendments that would have changed it. So I agree with Sen. Dole. I think sometime fairly early next year you'll see a lobbying bill that starts where the original lobbying bill started two years ago, a focus on foreign governments, foreign corporations, and registered foreign lobbyists, who have a great deal of influence without any kind of effective reporting system, and then builds on that in a rational way, without threatening religious organizations, and without threatening grassroots lobbyists.

MR. LEHRER: What about bans on gifts to members of Congress?

SEN. DOLE: In fact, we were ready to do that when the session closed. We want to change the Senate rules. We didn't need to pass a law. The gift ban is certainly no problem, I think certainly not with me, and I don't think it is with Newt. That was not the part of the bill that we had quarrels with. But it seemed to me that we could have accepted that. Sen. Mitchell didn't want to bring it up, because other members said, well, if we're going to change the rules on gifts, we want to change the rules in other areas, and he didn't have time.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Gingrich, you have said that one of the major priorities for you as Speaker of the House would be to investigate corruption in the Clinton administration. What's that all about?

REP. GINGRICH: I never said that, Jim. I never said that. What I said was I was asked the question, David Broder and Tim Russet have both reported that Clinton administration officials said they'd really like to have a Republican House and a Republican Senate because then Bill Clinton could play Harry Truman and run against the Republicans, and all I said, was, if you look at how effectively the Democrats have blocked investigations of Sec. Espy and Tyson's Foods, whether or not Sec. Cisneros lied to the FBI, questions involving Sec. Brown's role, questions involving Whitewater, you go down this long laundry list, I just said, it struck me as inconceivable that anybody at the Clinton White House would welcome a Republican Congress knowing that we're not going to block investigations, and we're not going to stifle 'em, and we're not going to do what Henry Gonzalez did in the Banking Committee and basically smother any effort to get at the truth, and that I couldn't imagine that a Clinton White House official, if they thought about it very seriously, would actually want to have a Republican Congress that had the ability to investigate legitimate things, not to go after any witch hunts, but the fact is there are some very legitimate questions of public impropriety and questions about whether or not things happened that were illegal, such as the health task force and Ira Magaziner's role, which now is a federal judge scolding the White House and demanding they turn over documents. We just think the public would deserve a right to know that. And I can't imagine the Clinton administration would welcome that kind of approach, and, therefore, I assume they secretly really want the Democratic Congress to smother the investigation process.

SEN. DOLE: And they've done a good job at it. In fact, you go back, in fact, we used to have a chart on the Senate floor showing that twenty-five times -- I think that's the number, twenty-five or twenty-four or twenty-seven, I can't remember -- where we have had investigations in the Reagan and Bush administrations by Democrats, at least twenty-five. And some of those I voted for. So -- but the point is when it came to Whitewater, we finally squeeze out about three days, very limited hearings, very limited guidelines. We gave a veto to the special counsel, in effect, and my view was that the American people had a right to know. Maybe there's nothing there, but -- if we have a majority, we're going to take a look at Whitewater, no question about it.

MR. LEHRER: And another thing, in other words, a Republican- controlled Senate we could expect many investigations of the Executive Branch, right?

SEN. DOLE: What I --

MR. LEHRER: Hearings and that sort of thing, more than there have been?

SEN. DOLE: Well, appropriate. We're not going to spend all of our time. We've got other things we need to do. One thing we want to do is go back and take a look at a lot of laws we've passed around the last ten, fifteen, twenty years, and re-examine our priorities, and I think Newt wants to do the same. We've got duplicate laws; we've got layer after layer of federal agencies on juvenile crime and welfare, agriculture. We want to try to streamline the government and streamline the process. But, obviously, we're going to have appropriate hearings when we should have when there's something that may be awry in the Executive Branch. That's what Congress is for, and we're -- we have a law. We have four laws that give us congressional oversight responsibility.

MR. LEHRER: Congressman Gingrich, in general terms, what would be -- as Speaker of the House -- what would be your attitude toward President Clinton and his administration?

REP. GINGRICH: Well, as I said a while ago, I think that Bob Dole set the right tone at the beginning of this interview. I would hope that shortly after the election the President would invite the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House to come down to sit down in an honest and open and frank way, and to talk out how could we cooperate. If for the first time in forty-two years - - and the polls that came out this morning certainly imply that you can see an extraordinary change underway -- if for the first time in forty-two years you have a Republican House and a Republican Senate at the same time, I think that's a message to all of us not to get involved in petty fighting, not to set up new forms of gridlock, but to sit down and work together, and to try to see aren't there some agreed upon ground rules for designing the budget, for reforming the government, for, for example, welfare reform, where the President has said he at least sounds like he wants to move in a direction that Senate and House Republicans agreed to. I would hope that we could have a positive relationship, and I don't think that it's necessarily inevitable that the Clinton administration would walk off a cliff and say, no, they don't care what the American people want, they're going to obstruct the Republicans. I think there's a very real possibility that they have been so sobered by the results of the last three or four weeks where they attacked our contract with America, they attacked me pretty heavily, the net result of all that wasn't that they scored any big win, it was a 12-point move in the Wall Street Journal poll towards the Republicans, away from the Democrats, and both the Times-Mirror poll and another private Republican poll have all indicated the same massive shift of vote pattern in the last two weeks. So I suspect that Clinton, when he gets back from the Middle East, may be in a mood to call the two of us and say, let's sit down and see if there's a way we can work together for America.

MR. LEHRER: But Sen. Dole, is it realistic to believe that you and your fellow Republicans are going to help President Clinton enact things that will make him look good and stand for re-election with a lot of programs passed?

SEN. DOLE: I think that's a responsibility we have. You know, we are -- we've been the loyal opposition. And I think even when it was the North American Free Trade Agreement, where did he get most of the votes, he got 'em from Republicans, because the Democrats took a walk. And the same is true with nominations. We haven't held up nominations. We passed all the appropriation bills in record time. We've had our differences, but I'll tell you what happened. They kept health care on the Senate floor so long it choked off a lot of other legislation that probably could have passed this year, whether it's telecommunications, superfund, whatever it is, but, you know, we have a responsibility to the American people, and that includes the President of the United States. And I think you'll find that we're capable of carrying out that responsibility, at the same time projecting our views and our agenda. I mean, you know, we're accused of gridlock. I think back in the Reagan and Bush years the Democrats had a majority. Some of the Reagan and Bush programs never got out of committee. Now, that may not have been called gridlock, but it certainly scuttled those programs.

MR. LEHRER: I hear you. All right. Well, gentlemen, thank you very much. Thank you very much for being with us today.

MR. MAC NEIL: Still ahead, the Hamas organization and a California dance craze. FOCUS - WHO IS HAMAS?

MR. MAC NEIL: Next tonight, we look at the Islamic militant organization Hamas, which claimed responsibility for yesterday's bomb blast on a bus in Tel Aviv that killed more than 20 people. In Israel, there were many calls for a crackdown on Hamas. We start with a report from Israel from Gaby Rado of Independent Television News.

GABY RADO, ITN: The Israeli cabinet met this morning knowing that a clamp down in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank would hurt its new partners, the PLO, but with little alternative to taking tough measures.

YOSSI SARID, Environment Minister: We have all the powers. The prime minister has all the powers, and I'm quite sure that the struggle against Hamas will be very effective.

BINYAMIN BEN-ELIEZER, Housing Minister: The only thing we can do now is to go for closure of all the territories, meaning from Gaza and the West Bank.

GABY RADO: Hamas released a video of a man assumed to be yesterday's suicide bomber. He said he was Saleh Abdel Rahime al- Souwi, age 27, and threatened further attacks. Though some doubt was cast on whether he was the right man, the Israeli defense forces appeared to believe he bore some guilt as they prepared to bull doze his family's home on the West Bank this evening. As well as stepping up punitive measures against anyone suspected of involvement with Hamas, Israeli forces increased security in all areas under their control. The now indefinite closure of the Palestinian heartlands will soon be accompanied by the most determined attempt yet to tear up Hamas from its home soil, root and branch.

DR. LESLIE SUSSER, Jerusalem Report: What the Israelis are going to do, I would expect, is to round up most of the Hamas leaders. These are the political leaders who are not on the ground. The Israelis know where they are. Many of these people will be detained, and Hamas institutions will be closed down. That's the reason for the new legislation. They'll close down Hamas schools, clinics, and all the places that Hamas has been using because of the vast sums of money that it has been acquiring from Iran and other sources to gain a very strong political hold in the territories, these will all be smashed, broken down, and the Hamas as an alternative to the PLO will no longer be as attractive as it is today.

GABY RADO: But then the fact that Yasser Arafat in a Gaza Strip refugee camp today was quick to offer his condolences to the Israelis after the bus massacre must have dismayed a number of his own people. What's more, the blunt weapon of the Israeli crackdown will further undermine his shaky control of the Palestinian National Authority.

AHMAD TIBI, PLO Adviser: I think that sealing the Palestinian territories is counterproductive. It is a collective punishment against the whole Palestinian people in those territories. I think it will increase the support of the Palestinians and it directly will increase the pressure on the Palestinian National Authority. That's what the attackers in Tel Aviv wanted. This is one of their goals, and that's why I think that it's counterproductive.

GABY RADO: The Israeli government's argument is to stress as it has done all through the latest Hamas terror campaign that the PLO must police its own backyard.

URI SAVIR, Director-General, Israeli Foreign Ministry: What acts against Palestinian interests now is a continuation of terrorism, and I think there are ways and means the Palestinian Authority has taken to put an end to it. I think it's very important for Palestinians to speak out against such violence.

GABY RADO: Yitzhak Rabin went on TV last night to prepare the country for the all out assault on Hamas. Mr. Rabin needs a quick success in his crackdown against Hamas to be seen to be responding to the Israeli public's outrage at the bloodletting here yesterday. The problem with implementing harsher measures against Hamas is in the short-term it'll play into the hands of the Islamic rejectionists who will thrive in an atmosphere of repression and instability.

MR. MAC NEIL: Now, two analysts who've studied the Hamas movement. Khalid Duran is an associate scholar at the Council on International Relations Middle East Forum, who specializes in radical Islamic movements. Steven Emerson is a journalist and author of a forthcoming book and documentary about the emergence of radical fundamentalist networks in the West. Mr. Emerson, what can the measures Israel is taking really do to Hamas?

MR. EMERSON: I think there will be a certain amount of containment of Hamas by the closing of the territories and by the new inspections, but I think there's a limitation as to how far the Israelis can crack down. It requires the full cooperation of Yasser Arafat in the Gaza Strip, because that's where Hamas has its major central headquarters of operations. And more importantly, it's going to require the cooperation of the West and other countries where Hamas gets most of its millions of dollars annually to sustain its operations.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mr. Duran, what can these measures do to Hamas, do you think?

MR. DURAN: Well, I think as long as the evil is not grabbed by its roots, nothing much can change. Hamas is supported by an international network of Islamist parties called here usually Muslim fundamentalists. It has in the past received enormous financial support from Arab Gulf countries. Some of that continues, perhaps not through governments but through private sources, funding by millionaires from the oil rich Arab countries, and it has also the support of Iran, that has recently, very clearly decided to take Hamas as its partner among the Palestinians and only two days before this most tragic incident now happened, again, restated its goal of seeing to it that the PLO will not achieve its goal, and that it will be overtaken by the Islamist movement Hamas.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mr. Duran, an Israeli security official is quoted by the Associated Press today as saying that although Hamas has thousands of supporters, there are only about 50 actual terrorists, and they operate in cells of one or two, very difficult to penetrate, people who actually do the bombing or the terrorist attacks. Would you agree with that?

MR. DURAN: Well, I think there's certainly more than that. Moreover, you see, the important thing over here is the strategies and tactics have very well been outlined, we have them in writing. I mean, this incident that happened was to be foreseen because they have literature where they say very clearly the only weapon that we have that is left to us that can really be effective is to use truck bombers and such suicide operations. And nothing else can help us, we have no other effective weapon, but we are going to use that.

MR. MAC NEIL: The same official, Mr. Emerson, said that most orders for action come from abroad usually by fax from Britain or from the United States. What can you -- what light can you throw on that?

MR. EMERSON: Well, in fact, in the investigation that I've pursued and, in fact, in some of the documents and videos I've obtained, that statement by Israeli officials has been proven to be correct. I can tell you that there are places in the United States very unsuspecting-looking hideouts or safe houses such as bakeries or gas stations or little mom and pop grocery stores, but, in fact, they're used as command centers where they actually issue instructions by fax or by telephone to carry out specific terror operations in the territories or in Israel. I've obtained a letter that actually shows that a certain grocery store in Illinois was used for several years where Hamas commanders actually instructed who to kill, when to kill, and who to torture. And I think what's interesting even in the beginning part of this segment when there was a film of this young Hamas terrorist who made a video that he had filmed making a statement before he went on this operation. It's not known widely. In fact, I don't even know if the FBI knows it that extensively, but, in fact, some of those films showing Hamas terrorists taking credit for operations are actually produced and released in the United States.

MR. MAC NEIL: Rep. Charles Schumer, the New York Democrat, said today that the Justice Department should begin investigating Hamas activity in the United States. Prof. Duran, how much U.S. funding is there? How is it raised, by whom, what organizations? Do you have the sense of that?

MR. DURAN: Well, you all have to keep in mind that the Hamas is not just Hamas by itself; it's not alone. It -- Hamas is part of the worldwide movement of the network of Islamist organizations. When I say Islamist, it's a clear distinction to Muslims. It's not the common Muslims in the United States, the vast majority does not support this fanaticism and this terrorism, but nevertheless, the network that they can fall back upon is fairly large, and people from all kinds of national origin contributing to it. And, you know, you don't have to look for Palestinians. I would not say that Hamas is the -- is a particularly genuine expression of Palestinian national aspirations, no. It is a movement that subscribes to a particular ideology that we find just as much in Afghanistan among certain sections over there. We find it particularly in Sudan, and Sudan is one of the countries that is very actively supporting Hamas activities.

MR. MAC NEIL: Can you summarize that ideology very clearly and distinguish it from regular Muslim religious observance?

MR. DURAN: Well, you see, every Muslim believes that his religion is not a creed or a faith or an ethic that's also politics in the sense that whenever you act politically, you are supposed to take your religious ethics into politics. That's one thing, but this new ideology, Islamism, means that Islam is first and foremost a political ideology and religion second, and that there has to be a state, transnational state, and that state has to be an ideological state, not a state of Muslims, because Muslim can be a cultural Muslim, he can be less pious, and not pious at all, he may even be an atheist, but of Muslim parents and so on, or he may be of a very special type of religiosity. That is not important to them. What they want is people who follow the party line. It's an ideological state that in many ways you may call totalitarianism, the European totalitarianism of the 1940's now expressing itself in the regional version in the world of Islam, but very dangerous because in the meantime we have large minority communities in the United States, in Latin America, in Western Europe, and these are being infiltrated against their will by emissaries of these movements. There Hamas is certainly these days I would say the leading factor, the most active one.

MR. LEHRER: Did you mean to suggest by minority communities that they're infiltrating the black Muslim movement in this country, is that what you meant by that?

MR. DURAN: Absolutely, although I would say the African-American Muslim community in its mainstream version is very much alert to these kinds of tendencies, and they are used to all kinds of attempts at infiltrating them. They're very independent, and they follow their own course. But, no doubt, they're fringe groups that provide human material for terrorist actions.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mr. Emerson, do American supporters who may be raising money for Hamas, do they know what their money goes to, and do they -- to do -- and do they approve?

MR. EMERSON: It's a good question. First of all, I'd like to reiterate one comment made by Khalid Duran, which is to say that the overwhelming majority of American Muslims do not support terrorism, don't support Hamas. It's only a fringe minority, but a fringe minority that could consist of ten, fifteen, twenty, fifty thousand, even a hundred thousand. As far as those that donate to actual Hamas charities, and I say Hamas charities because there's no charity, there's no organization that says we are Hamas, they go under different names, there are front groups, and those groups give money in turn to other charities in the West Bank and Gaza the types of which the Israelis said they would close down. Many of the contributors openly give, knowing that it's going to a larger Islamic radical movement. They don't know in particular that some of the money may be siphoned off for terrorist acts, but then, again, the whole problem of defining Hamas is that it can't simply be defined as only a terrorist group. It is a large, social, religious phenomena, the expression of which is making itself felt throughoutthe world.

MR. MAC NEIL: Now, what can American authorities do about it? Congressman Schumer said they could be prosecuted under a new law or investigated under a new law which enables the government to prosecute anyone raising money for terrorist groups. Now, is that an effective weapon, do you think, against this?

MR. EMERSON: I think it's going to provide some effective weapon, weapons for the FBI. I mean, let me give you an example of where the FBI has been hamstrung. If the FBI finds out today that a known terrorist is coming into the United States, and he's attending a certain conference, a radical Islamic conference, the FBI is not allowed to send anyone to do covert surveillance unless they have evidence ahead of time that an actual criminal conspiracy is being planned, or an act of violence is being planned, even though they know that a major terrorist is there. Now, this legislation might provide them with some legal mechanism to send someone under cover. It also will provide them with a legal hook to look at this many, many groups that operate in the United States under tax exempt status and under cover of front organizations that openly proclaim their support of radical movements but still say they're only involved in providing charities.

MR. MAC NEIL: Just to conclude this, Prof. Duran, if Israel and the PLO succeeded, despite Hamas, in their peace process, will the brighter hopes and economic progress kill the appeal of Hamas say in the Gaza Strip, for example?

MR. DURAN: I would say certainly so, but I doubt if this can be achieved because it's a bit late for that, and Hamas has gained a momentum among the Palestinians that makes it very, very difficult for the PLO-Israeli peace effort to succeed.

MR. MAC NEIL: So you're pessimistic about that, are you?

MR. DURAN: I'm rather pessimistic, because I expect more such things to happen. As I say, I see very much attempts by other all such forces like Iran and Sudan behind that. They use this issue, the Palestine issue, to further their own process. They want to take certain pressure on the United States, and --

MR. MAC NEIL: Excuse me interrupting, but we're just coming close to our time. Even if they were -- the Israelis were able to make a deal with Syria now, that would still leave you pessimistic about suppressing Hamas and making it work?

MR. DURAN: Syria, right, would be one factor less, but you then still have the Iranian factor.

MR. EMERSON: And there's also the Sudan -- the Sudanese factor, and there's also the factor that in the larger Islamic fundamentalist movement in Egypt and in Jordan, it's the middle class and upper class that supports it, the engineers, the doctors, the lawyers. Even in the United States, much of the support from Hamas comes from the middle class fringe, and that means that the allure of Hamas and that ideology is truly one of ideology and not economically based.

MR. MAC NEIL: Well, thank you both very much. I'm afraid we have to leave it there now, but thank you both. FOCUS - FLASH DANCE

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, a new dance that's so popular some teenagers are leaving gangs to get in the swing. Jeffrey Kaye of public station KCET-Los Angeles reports.

MR. KAYE: La banda: It's one of the biggest music crazes to hit Los Angeles since disco.

[MUSIC IN BACKGROUND]

MR. KAYE: On any given weekend, thousands of Latinos, young and old, crowd into la banda clubs and private parties. La banda means "the band." The music has its origins in a combination of polka, flamenco, and country western influences. The dance, associated with the fad, called "Quebradita," means "little break." The marketing of la banda-related merchandise has become big business in a city where the Latino population exceeds 40 percent. Consumers are buying up the cowboy-style clothes identified with the music. Boots, hats, and belts are in demand. The music is so popular that KLAX, a Spanish-language radio station with a la banda format, is "the" most listened to radio station in the area. But more significantly, according to gang counselor Manuel Velasquez, the fad is attracting troubled kids away from gangs.

MANUEL VELASQUEZ, Gang Counselor: We've seen a lot of youngsters, a lot of young men go from hard core gang members to human beings again. It's providing an alternative for a lot of young people. I deal with a lot of kids who are at risk or are gang members, and la banda has come in as a rites of passage for a lot of young people who in other terms would look to a gang to fulfill those rites of passage needs.

MR. KAYE: Police estimate there are approximately 150,000 gang members in the Los Angeles area. This year, authorities have responded to more than 19,000 gang-related crimes. In some neighborhoods where gangs mark their territory with graffiti, gang involvement and drive-by shootings have become a way of life. It is a lifestyle that former gang member Alex Navarro decided to substitute with music. The 17-year-old changed his style of dress, quit the violent Salvadorian gang he belonged to, and moved to a new neighborhood.

ALEX NAVARRO: I just said, I don't think this gang stuff is taking me anywhere. I was right there laying down in my bed, and my sister next to me, and she said, do you think we're going somewhere by becoming gang members or by dancing Quebradita? And I think it's better if we dance Quebradita.

MR. KAYE: Leaving the gang was no easy matter for Alex, seen here in earlier days holding a knife and flashing his gang sign. Gang ritual requires departing members be courted out or beaten up.

ALEX NAVARRO: They broke my ribs when I got out.

MR. KAYE: They broke your ribs?

ALEX NAVARRO: Uh-huh. They broke my ribs. And I got blood all over my face, bumps and everything on my head. They bent my pinkie and everything. It just -- they -- sometimes they kill you when they're courting you out.

MR. KAYE: Today instead of a gang, Navarro belongs to a Quebradita dance group. He says that because of his dance skills, his new friends call him "El Principe," which means "Prince."

ALEX NAVARRO: I get respect because I got my own pride because I know how to dance. From my club, I'm the best dancer.

MR. KAYE: Some youngsters like Tony Razo are straddling two worlds; one obsessed with gang symbols, another with music and dance steps. Razo, Cleo Almendarez, and Betty Hernandez say they are spending less time with their gang friends and more time dancing Quebradita.

TONY RAZO: The gang really didn't offer me nothing, except, as I said earlier, protection and respect, and Quebradita was just offering me fun, places to go to get away from all the, you know, the other kind of gang violence that I used to be in.

MR. KAYE: But even with the prospect of violence, Razo is ambivalent about retiring from gang life.

MR. KAYE: Can you explain to me something I don't understand. For you, is the dilemma, there's a question as to whether one night you may go dance or you may do a drive-by.

TONY RAZO: It could be a question because one of my home boys could come and say they shot so and so, it could be really close to me, and it's like, we're going to go back, are you going to come, are you going to go do it, and I'm going to have to stop and think, should I?

MR. KAYE: But you still have feet in both worlds in a sense, right?

TONY RAZO: Yeah.

MR. KAYE: Gang member Betty Hernandez was afraid her younger sister, Rebecca, would also be drawn to gangs, so she chaperoned here to Quebradita parties. As a result, Betty Hernandez began to follow in her younger sister's dance steps.

BETTY HERNANDEZ: When I got into Quebradita, I wanted my sister to be safe and everything, and I wanted to take care of her, so I started going out with her and stopped using drugs. I drink but not to the extreme like I used to.

MR. KAYE: And do you think you would have changed anyway just because you got older, or was it the dancing that made, that changed?

BETTY HERNANDEZ: It's the dancing.

MR. KAYE: The Hernandez sisters started their own Quebradita dance group. They call themselves "The Diablitas."

MR. KAYE: Diablitas means what?

HERNANDEZ SISTERS: Devils.

MR. KAYE: Little Devils?

HERNANDEZ SISTERS: She devils.

MR. KAYE: She devils.

BETTY HERNANDEZ: Yes.

MR. KAYE: The Diablitas set themselves apart from other Quebradita groups by performing their own distinctive, slightly pornographic, doggie dance, but like other dance groups, they have also adopted trappings common to gangs. Each girl in the group has a dance nickname similar to a gang moniker. The group also has a gang-style hand sign.

MR. KAYE: What does that mean?

GIRL: Diablitas. This is the D and this is the horns.

MR. KAYE: And the little horns.

BETTY HERNANDEZ: In the club party -- because you get your respect because, you know, what club are you from, Diablitas, oh, really, yeah, oh.

MR. KAYE: Other Quebradita groups proudly sport their symbols on caps, shirts, and fliers. But in addition to group identity, gang counselor Velasquez says the music also fosters a sense of cultural awareness.

MANUEL VELASQUEZ: The kids into Quebradita, they're identifying with the roots, the music that they've been breast fed basically from birth, the music that they've heard.

UNIDENTIFIED GIRL: It's our kind of music.

MR. KAYE: It's your kind of music?

UNIDENTIFIED GIRL: Latinos' kind of music. It's the music that our parents used to hear before.

MR. KAYE: Experts say the music evokes Latino nationalism reminiscent of the political civil rights struggles waged by Mexican-Americans or chicanos some 20 years ago. La banda is more than a music and dance craze, according to UCLA music historian Steve Loza.

STEVE LOZA, Music Historian: I've remarked to people that this almost seems to be one of the most incredible or strongest social movements since the chicano movement of the late 60's and early 70's among the chicano Mexican people of Los Angeles.

MR. KAYE: But there is increasing concern by police that instead of fostering cultural awareness, Quebradita dancers are attracting gang members and violence.

ADRIAN PUNDERSON, Los Angeles Police Dept.: We have seen the gang members dressing in the typical cowboy-style fashion.

MR. KAYE: Detective Adrian Punderson of the Metro Gang Task Force monitors Los Angeles gang activity.

ADRIAN PUNDERSON: Well, sure, there's a lot of good kids and great kids that are just pillars of the community as far as the youth are concerned and adults, as well, that are just great people that enjoy the traditional Mexican-type music by getting intermingled with our narcotics traffickers, lots of gang members, and so on and so forth, so it's beginning to present a problem. There have been shootings. What we refer to as a beef or a conflict on the dance floor will turn into a gang rivalry and is becoming more common as the weekends go by.

MR. KAYE: Last May, three teenagers were killed and three others wounded when gang members thinking they were firing on rival gangsters mistakenly shot Quebradita dancers at a party. At a recent dance attended by hundreds, Alex Navarro and others were frisked for weapons by off-duty military police. While some gang members were in attendance, there were no serious problems. Gang counselors say they have no way of knowing how many kids have actually abandoned gang life in favor of dance groups, or whether or not it's all just a passing fad. But they hope if the craze continues to grow, more youngsters will be persuaded to take a step in the right direction. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: Again, the main stories of this Thursday, Israel sealed off the West Bank and Gaza Strip indefinitely. The move followed yesterday's bombing attack on a bus in Tel Aviv. A PLO spokesperson said the Israeli action constituted economic and social war against the Palestinians. And Haiti's government requested free access to U.S. markets, including the lifting of tariffs on Haitian products. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night with Shields and Gigot, among other things. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.