NEAL CONAN, host:

This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington.

Today and tomorrow we're going to talk about the Middle East, but we're going to do it in a slightly different format from what we usually do. Instead of hearing from all sides at once, we're going to talk with two prominent and controversial scholars on the Middle East, one at a time. One of them is from the Palestinian side of the conflict, the other from the Israeli side.

Today we have with us Professor Edward Said, a professor of comparative literature at Columbia University and a champion of Palestinian rights. Tomorrow we'll speak with author, editor and Middle East scholar Martin Kramer of Tel Aviv University. Edward Said is the author of, among many other books, "Orientalism," a landmark study of Western attitudes towards Arabs in the Middle East. He's a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Royal Society of Literature, a former president of the Modern Language Association and a former member of the Palestine National Council. He joins us from our bureau in New York.

And it's good to talk with you again.

Professor EDWARD SAID (Columbia University): Thank you.

CONAN: This hour we'll speak with Edward Said about the view from the Palestinian side. How have the atrocities of September 11th changed the dynamic in the Middle East? What is the true influence of Islamic fundamentalists? What is America's role in the war and its role in the world? And what should it be? If you have a question and like to join the conversation, give us a call in Washington at (800) 989- 8255. That's (800) 989-TALK. Our e-mail address is totn@npr.org.

But first a couple of personal matters. Professor Said, first of all, congratulations on the Lannan Literary Award, which was announced at the end of last month.

Prof. SAID: Thank you very much. That was a great honor for me. Thank you.

CONAN: And many listeners know that you're also fighting leukemia. How are you doing?

Prof. SAID: Well, this is a sort of in-between period. I'm waiting for a new treatment. But I'm OK basically.

CONAN: Well, good luck to you.

Prof. SAID: Thank you. Thanks.

CONAN: Where were you when the planes flew into the World Trade Center? And I wonder, what did you think at that moment?

Prof. SAID: I was at home. I live in New York, but I live way uptown. And somebody called me and told me to turn on the television, which I immediately did, and my immediate thought was, of course, worried about my family, my wife and my two children who--my wife used to work at the World Trade Center and goes there...

CONAN: Mm-hmm.

Prof. SAID: ...used to go there once a month. And then as I watched it, I mean, sort of the horror and the depression of the whole thing just overtook me. And I think, like most people, I spent the rest of the day glued to the television set trying to find out as much as I could.

CONAN: As we learned more about what was behind those attacks and the motivations for the attack...

Prof. SAID: Yes.

CONAN: ...I wanted to ask you about your opinions about whether you believe that the situation between Israel and the Palestinians, between Israel and the Arabs more broadly--is that central, do you think, to what brought us to September the 11th?

Prof. SAID: Well, it's a bit difficult to call it central in the direct sense of the word. I mean, I don't think those people who did the atrocity at the World Trade Center were thinking principally of alleviating Palestinian suffering. I really don't think that at all. I mean, I think they are, you know, sort of pathological fanatics who are leading a battle for Islam against the West. You know, a completely crazy idea in my opinion.

But in the overall background, I think, certainly for the general feeling in the Islamic and Arab world--there is a sense in which disappointment and perhaps anger at the United States for its support of Israel, particularly in the last year when so many people could see in the Arab world, through Al-Jazeera and other satellite channels, what Palestinians are going through on a daily basis in their, you know, this now 35th year of the military occupation certainly contributes to the general sense of unhappiness and perhaps even anger with the United States.

CONAN: Do you think that the events of September the 11th have provided an opportunity, a window (technical difficulties) for change?

Prof. SAID: Well, certainly, you know, it didn't require much sagacity to see that when President Bush announced a few weeks, or a couple of weeks, after September the 11th that the administration was thinking about support for a Palestinian state...

CONAN: Mm-hmm.

Prof. SAID: ...that he and his administration saw the connection and that this may be a good time, you know, to reconsider American policy. But since that time, of course, nothing very much has happened, and the situation inside Palestine has gotten a great deal worse. I think the Israelis took this as an opportunity to, I think, manipulate the situation and to keep saying, you know, 'Now you understand what we are going through.' The United States and Israel are really not in comparable positions because the Israelis are in military occupation of an entire people and have been carrying on the most cruel, collective punishment for, well, the longest period in modern history, almost 35 years. And whatever response Palestinians come up with is nothing compared to what Israelis are doing. I mean, Palestinians are defenseless. They don't have a state. They don't have an army. They certainly don't have an air force. They don't have helicopters. They don't have tanks. They don't have missiles, all of which have been used by Israel against Palestinians.

So that quickly gave out, I think, after the 11th of September, and people began to see that there may be some other things to be seen there. And that was the long-festering problem because I think of all the issues in the Middle East that bring people together, Palestine, I think, is the single most potent one for religious reasons, for political reasons, for humanitarian reasons and for symbolic reasons.

CONAN: In addition to statements that the United States was considering, you know, the idea...

Prof. SAID: Yeah.

CONAN: ...of a Palestinian state...

Prof. SAID: Yes.

CONAN: ...we have also seen more recent statements from an assistant secretary of State saying that, you know, Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations and that it is the responsibility of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority to either shut them down or turn them over.

Prof. SAID: Yeah. They've been saying that for some time. Of course, in the eyes of most Palestinians, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad--were those the two you mentioned, or did you mention...

CONAN: Mm-hmm. No, I threw in Hezbollah, too.

Prof. SAID: Oh. Hezbollah's a Lebanese organization.

CONAN: Yes. That's right.

Prof. SAID: Well, I mean, both of the Palestinian ones, and certainly the Hezbollah people in Lebanon, have been, you know, directing their--all, in fact, of their attention against Israel and Israelis', you know, occupation. Certainly the Hezbollah were fighting the Israeli army, which occupied south Lebanon for 22 years. To call them terrorists, you know, stretches it somewhat.

The Hamas and the other Palestinian organization, which have done suicide bombing, I mean, I think that's condemned by nearly everyone because, you know, it's not only criminal to attack civilians, but it doesn't do much good. On the other hand, all Palestinians, myself included, who, you know, denounce or are critical of Hamas and the others in that kind of action, are far more critical, obviously, of the Israeli style, which is to, in fact, terrorize with military means--I mean, massive military means, Palestinian civilians. I mean, when you shut down whole villages. When you go in as they did last week to small a village, Beit Rima, and destroy most of it with tanks and kill 10 or 15 people, you know, point blank and saying, 'We're killing militants,' with no proof except their own statement, the army saying that, and make life hell for the average Palestinian who can't move. Schools and universities are all closed. Work has stopped. And this has been going on for a year, plus the 33 or four years before that of just very, very stringent military occupation. I mean, that has to qualify as state terrorism, too. So I think people are unhappy with the invidiousness of, you know, the things that we like and by the allies that we support, calling that, you know, self-defense and everything else is terrorism.

CONAN: You say, and quite correctly, that yes, of course it's terrorism to strap explosives around your body and go into a pizza place and blow...

Prof. SAID: Yeah.

CONAN: ...yourself up. Is Israel not justified in trying to go after the people who are going to do that--they think, they have reason to believe are going to carry out such attacks?

Prof. SAID: Yeah, I mean, the people who are going to do these attacks are not doing them just because they don't like Israelis. They are, in their own minds, resisting military occupation. So if the military occupation ended--not only the military occupation but the endless settlements--I mean, don't forget that since the peace process began in 1993, the number of settlements has doubled and the population of settlers, which was at about 90 or 100,000, is now 400,000 people on Palestinian land in the occupied territories. So if those provocations were removed, then there would be no excuse. There would be no occasion. There would be no incentive at all for that kind of desperate weapon of the weak and the hopeless. So I think the real--I mean, one has to see this is a causal thing. I think that if you have this kind of, you know, very, very harsh and deliberately punitive and sadistic military occupation, you're bound to get responses of the kind that have gone on. I mean, I don't think it, you know, requires any great leap of the imagination to understand why.

CONAN: Our guest is Edward Said. Our telephone number is (800) 989-8255. That's (800) 989-TALK. Our first caller is Jim, who's on the line with us from Minnetonka, Minnesota.

Hello, Jim. Are you there?

JIM (Caller): Hey.

CONAN: There. There you are. Can you hear me?

JIM: Good. I can hear you.

CONAN: Good.

JIM: My question is it seems Ehud Barak took great political risk in making the concessions at the Camp David talks in the fall of 2000. Shouldn't Arafat have stayed and counteroffered? Why did he walk, after all those years of the peace process, and the most concessions offered in the peace process at one time by Barak at that time? I'll hang up and listen.

CONAN: OK, Jim. Thanks for the call.

JIM: (On home radio) ...concessions offered in the peace process...

CONAN: Go ahead Professor Said.

Prof. SAID: Yeah. Sorry. Well, I mean, I think the question is better asked of Arafat, who was there. I wasn't there.

CONAN: Mm-hmm.

Prof. SAID: But what I did hear was that, you know, the so-called concessions are really--first of all, I dispute the use of the word concession. He was talking about Palestinian land that had been taken illegally by Israel, so to say that he's making concessions and giving it back, or giving some of it back, as it turned out, is, I think, the wrong word for it. Number two, there were a lot of conditions attached, unacceptable conditions, from what I understand--that is to say, he was offering land back, but not contiguous land so that in order to have a Palestinian state, you would have to solve a problem, which was not solved, of getting from one bit of land that he was willing to give back to another, which was separated. The idea was to divide them into cantons, separated by Israeli roads and settlements. Third, the idea was to keep some of the land because they insisted on keeping some of the larger settlements. And fourth, there would be no--and I think this is the most important thing of all, there would be no common boundary between this Palestinian territory and any other Arab country in that area so that Israel would control the entrances and the exits and surround this territory.

Now where I think Arafat was wrong--again, I wasn't there, but having read everything that was available--I would say that why he was wrong was not just to refuse it, which I think he was probably right to do, but to come back with a counteroffer. I think he could have addressed it. But one should remember, which is a very important point, that he didn't want to have this Camp David summit. It was an idea of Barak's. I don't think even Clinton was ready for it. And there was an idea that somehow they could finish the whole question of Palestinian-Israeli dispute in one massive settlement and leave out issues like refugees and Jerusalem. I mean, you know...

CONAN: Mm-hmm.

Prof. SAID: ...the nitty-gritty on that to some other occasion. Well, I don't think you can do it. It's too long a dispute involving too many people and too many refugees.

CONAN: This is the first part of a two-part discussion on how the terrorist attacks on the United States have affected the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Today we're speaking with professor, writer, cultural critic and well-known Palestinian advocate Edward Said. Tomorrow we'll speak with Israeli scholar Martin Kramer to discuss his perspective. And, of course, we're taking your calls at (800) 989-TALK, (800) 989- 8255, or send us an e-mail: totn@npr.org.

I'm Neal Conan. This is TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

(Soundbite of music)

CONAN: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington.

Today we're speaking with professor, author and Palestinian rights advocate Edward Said about the Middle East conflict in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. Tomorrow we'll speak with Israeli scholar and editor of the Middle East Quarterly, Martin Kramer, to hear a different perspective. If you have a question for Professor Said, give us a call at (800) 989-TALK; (800) 989-8255. Our e-mail address, totn@npr.org.

And one of the things we wanted to do was give you listeners a chance to talk with Professor Said. And let's go back to the phones. And Edward is on the line now with us from Miami.

EDWARD (Caller): Good afternoon.

CONAN: Hi.

EDWARD: Professor, I wanted to ask if you could comment on your opinions on the fact that many Islamic fundamentalists have taken up the cause of the Palestinians, for example, Osama bin Laden, and have marginalized a lot of the secular or Christian Palestinians who, in the past, have been in the forefront of the cause for a free Palestine?

Prof. SAID: Can I answer right away?

CONAN: Please. Yeah.

Prof. SAID: Oh. Sorry. Yeah. OK. I just didn't know about the time delay.

CONAN: Oh, no. That's all right.

Prof. SAID: Oh, yeah. No, I don't think it's a case of marginalizing, but it's a very good question because I think the impression one gets from the media is that the Islamic world has become equal to Osama bin Laden. One has to remember that we're talking about a billion and about 400 million Muslims who are really quite different and quite diverse, you know, from the Philippines to Morocco, in Europe and Asia and Africa. And there is a very wide variety of people--I would say the majority of whom are not at all represented by the ideas of Osama bin Laden, which represents, you know, a vocal and, in some countries, an important voice in that country.

But in general, I think that the attention, which is, you know, part of bin Laden's scheme--obviously he's a very clever man. He speaks with a great deal of conviction. And if you know Arabic and have heard his speeches, you will attest to this. He's trying to divide the world into Muslims and Christians, basically, or Christians and Jews. And I don't think he's succeeding because there are a great many secular Muslims in the Islamic world. There are people, like myself, who come from a Christian background but who consider themselves to have the same culture because of the language. And I think in that respect he's not succeeding.

A lot of it depends on what the US does and the conduct of the war and how diplomacy and politics play out. But it's very easy to fall into his trap. But I think that, you know, it's also easy to focus only on him and make him the representative of the Islamic world, whereas, in fact, he isn't. Most Muslims, I think, see him with some horror and a great deal of trepidation as somebody who has hijacked the religion and turned it into a, you know, completely bloody-minded, destructive and angry kind of faith, which in its essence, I believe, it really isn't. So I understand the danger, and I think you're pointing to something very important. But I don't think one should be confused between sort of media perceptions and what we tend to focus on, and the fundamental and far more complex reality.

CONAN: I wonder, do you think that Osama bin Laden fits into a lot of the stereotypes of Islamic fundamentalists that have been developed in this country?

Prof. SAID: Well, I think, yeah. I mean, I think he himself is a kind of--and he's trying to use that stereotype and manipulate it. I mean, he's a remarkable orator. I just happened to see his last speech last night...

CONAN: Mm-hmm.

Prof. SAID: ...on this Arabic channel. And, you know, one of the things that you feel is this is a man who speaks with a great deal of conviction. He has great sort of rolling eyes and he speaks with the accents and the kind of authority of a prophet. But I don't think most people are easily taken in by that because it's obvious that he represents a kind of apocalyptic view of the world, which most people are either too poor or too busy to accept. But certainly the way he's been framed and presented, he does seem to represent--I think this is one of the most disastrous aspects of the war--he seems to represent what, in our worst nightmares, we in the West think Islam is. You know, somebody with a beard who's threatening destruction and who seems to be able to produce it, and who means us no good at all and every kind of evil and damnation and is perfectly prepared to bring the house down on him. So I think one has to be very careful in knowing how to take him and how to understand him.

CONAN: Edward? I guess Edward has left us.

Prof. SAID: Edward has left us.

CONAN: Thank you very much.

Prof. SAID: Good luck with this, Edward.

CONAN: There you go.

A question. This is an e-mail question from Lucas in Jacksonville, Florida. 'What has the Arab community of the world done about the plight of Palestine besides criticizing the United States?'

Prof. SAID: Oh, quite a lot. I mean, you know, Palestinians have gone through a lot, and obviously complained to a great degree that not enough has been done for them. But I would say you'd have to distinguish between two levels. One is the official and, you know, sort of at the level of the state. And the other is at the level of the people. And I think, in general, there's been very, very strong support for the plight of Palestinians on the level of non-governmental organizations, on the level of, you know, people- to-people help, community help, sympathy, a large amount of charitable donations, tremendous amount of that, actually, going on, lots of financial contribution. But at the level of, you know, getting Palestinians a home--you know, there are seven and a half million Palestinians today of whom most now live as stateless refugees in surrounding Arab countries. Unfortunately, only one country, Jordan, has given Palestinians citizenship. But in places like Lebanon, where there are about 400,000 Palestinians, Palestinians live in camps. They're not allowed to work. They're not allowed to travel. They're not allowed to move around and change their residence. I mean, there are a whole series of laws that keep Palestinians in this terrible position.

CONAN: We have...

Prof. SAID: And that, I think, is not good, has not been good.

CONAN: In fact, we had another e-mail, this one from Theresa in Kansas City, who says she is confused and hopes that you could clarify a few points...

Prof. SAID: Yeah.

CONAN: ...for her, one of which some of these points you were just talking about. 'What is the citizenship status of the Palestinian?'

Prof. SAID: Well, except for the Palestinians who went to Jordan--I think what you have to remember is that 1948, which we call Nakba in Arabic, the year of the catastrophe, was the year when Israel was founded, but it was founded on the ruins of Palestinian society. And two-thirds of the population, at that time almost 800,000 people, were driven out and became refugees. About 120,000 stayed and are now Israeli citizens, and they amount to about 20 percent of Israel. They are Israeli citizens, but because they are not Jews, they don't have the same rights as Israeli Jews. The rest are the ones on the West Bank and Gaza, which is about three million people under Israeli military occupation. And they still have the status either of refugees or the ones on the West Bank--some of them have Jordanian citizenship. The rest, in the other parts of the Arab world, have Palestinian identity cards, which means that they are also stateless, except for the ones in Jordan who have become Jordanian citizens.

But in every country they are discriminated against. That is to say they have--perhaps that's the wrong word, but they are kept apart from the rest of the population, the idea being that if they are naturalized and become citizens, that will then take Israel off the hook. The result has been a very unfortunate, in my opinion, deeply cruel, punishment. They are unable to go back to their homes in what is now Israel, and they're unable to remain as normal citizens in the countries in which they find themselves. A small minority of Palestinians are, you know, in North America and Canada and the United States, and, of course, have become citizens here.

CONAN: So why aren't Arab countries held accountable for this?

Prof. SAID: Well, I mean, it's difficult to hold a country accountable for its own pol--I mean, look at our--in this country, the United States, how stringent we are about immigration, you know? And if vast numbers of refugees--I mean, refugees are a problem in every country.

CONAN: Mm-hmm.

Prof. SAID: No country in the world wants large numbers of stateless people who come in and are miserable and have no immediate prospects of repatriation. That's a worldwide problem. The Palestinians are the oldest refugee population in the world. They've been around the longest. And their lives, I think, have been made more difficult, principally by Israel, which refuses to take them back, in spite of the fact that every year the UN votes on Resolution 194 in the General Assembly, saying that Palestinians have a right either to repatriation or compensation.

And one of the great tragedies, in my opinion, has been that Israel has said, 'Neither will we allow them back, nor will we recognize that we have any responsibility for them.' You know, so that's a very inhumane policy. I can understand they're not wishing to have them back, but at least offer them a chance to get some money back and, you know, compensation for what they lost. They lost everything. And it's very difficult for Palestinians in Israel now and on the West Bank and Gaza to see their former homes now transformed, their names called different things, their homes being used by Israelis. During the events of 1948, 400-and-some villages were destroyed by the Israelis and kibbutzes and towns were built in their place so that it was the replacement of one population by another, which has made it so cruel.

But you can't force sovereign states to accommodate large refugee populations. And very often, in the case of Lebanon, for instance, a refugee population will upset the demographic balance, particularly when there's so many different religions and so on, so they would prefer that they were not there. It's as simple as that. And I've always criticized--and, I mean, I--you can understand the reasons for that kind of policy, but it certainly, in my opinion, doesn't excuse it.

CONAN: Our next caller is Geyer(ph)--I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly--who's on the line with us from Stavanger in Norway.

GEYER (Caller): That's correct. I have a question in regards to whether the excess force that has been used in recent times in regards to targeted killings and so on has generated the same--or, well, prior to September 11th--media coverage in the US. I mention this because in Norway it would appear that...

Prof. SAID: By targeted killings you mean the targeted killings of Palestinians by the Israelis. Yeah.

GEYER: That's correct. That's correct. In Norway, the media coverage now offered for the plight of the Palestinians are receiving less coverage than they normally would, after September 11th. And I have not done a study on it. But it appears so, that economic issues, as well the--what could be construed as anti-Arab sentiment in the population here, as well as in other places, are now dulling out the previous compassion that was earlier reported to the Palestinian people. Is this the same in the US?

Prof. SAID: Yeah, I think so. I mean, I think the main focus of the media--I mean, I haven't done a survey of it, but one's impression is that unless it's something very dramatic that occurs, like the invasions of Palestinian territory last week and the week before, you know, by tanks by the Israeli army, that's reported, but far less than it would have been if there was no war in Afghanistan and if September the 11th had never occurred.

I think in general is a difference between Europe and the United States--I mean, I just came back from Europe three days ago. And I was in Switzerland, in Austria and in France. The difference is that there is, you know, a more balanced coverage simply because none of these countries is at war. You know, so they're able to show more of the situation of Palestinians. But I think that was also true before September the 11th.

What is missing from American media coverage of the Middle East is the sense of what Palestinian daily life is like under occupation. You don't get a sense of it. And in fact, you don't really get a sense that these are militarily occupied territories. You get the impression that these are two countries fighting each other, whereas in fact they're not. There's a tremendous asymmetry in the power of Israel, which has all of these, you know, tremendously complex and sophisticated army, and the Palestinians have none of it. They don't have a state. And so in things like targeted killings, which are--you know, I think the real word for it is assassinations...

GEYER: I agree.

Prof. SAID: ...people concentrate on the one that occurred a couple of weeks ago when the former Israeli minister of Tourism was killed by Palestinians and forgot that at least 60 Palestinians had been killed by Israel in the last--I would say, what?--six or eight months in the same way. So...

CONAN: Geyer, thanks very much for your call.

GEYER: Thanks.

CONAN: OK. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION coming to you from NPR News.

Just wanted to remind you that this conversation is the first in a series. Tomorrow at this time, we'll be speaking with Israeli scholar and the editor of the Middle East Quarterly, Martin Kramer.

We'd also like to take a moment to remind you of a new feature here on TALK OF THE NATION: your letters. Every Thursday, we'll read a few of your comments and questions about our program, and from time to time we'll give one of you a chance to ask a follow-up question. Often we only come up with that really interesting question after the show is over; we suspect you're the same way. So send us that question. We'll do our best to get our guest back so you can ask it directly. Of course, we're also interested in your comments and thoughts about everything you've heard, even if it's not a question for a guest. We'll read some of those letters too. One word of logistics: e-mail is the best way to reach us. If you'd like to submit a follow-up question, put the words 'follow up' in the subject line, and, please, don't forget to give us your daytime phone number. If you have a comment or a question about the show in general, put the word 'letters' in the subject line. And as always, the e-mail address is totn@npr.org. Again, that's totn@npr.org. Be sure to tell us how to pronounce your name and where it is you're writing from.

And the--actually, we did not get to Theresa in Kansas City's other questions. This, just sort of informational. 'What is the Palestinian right to vote and hold office both lawfully and de facto?' And I guess that would depend on what country they were in.

Prof. SAID: That's right, where they are. So that if they're--since the Oslo agreement, in the Palestinian territories on the West Bank and Gaza, which are about--oh, about 18 percent of the West Bank and where most Palestinians live, and in about 60 percent of Gaza, they have the right to vote. And in Israel they have the right to vote also. But in other places like Lebanon--and in Jordan they do as well, but in places like Syria, in Lebanon, in Egypt, in the Gulf states where there are many Palestinians, they're not allowed to vote.

CONAN: This is part of a two-part discussion on the Middle East in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the United States. Today we're speaking with Professor Edward Said of Columbia University, where he's a professor of comparative literature, an expert, among other things, on Joseph Conrad. He's also an advocate of Palestinian rights. Tomorrow at this time, we'll be hearing from Middle East scholar Martin Kramer, who will join us from Tel Aviv University.

You can continue this conversation online. Just go to npr.org, click on the discussion section, and then scroll down to TALK OF THE NATION. Or you can give us a telephone call if you'd like to get in on the conversation; (800) 989-8255; that's (800) 989-TALK. Our e-mail address is totn@npr.org. One more time: totn@npr.org.

I'm Neal Conan. This is TALK OF THE NATION, which is coming to you from NPR News.

(Announcements)

CONAN: This is TALK OF THE NATION. I'm Neal Conan in Washington.

Tomorrow we'll speak with Middle East scholar Martin Kramer from Tel Aviv University, as we continue our two-part discussion on the Middle East in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on America. Today with us, Edward Said, professor, writer, Palestinian rights advocate. If you have a question for him, please give us a call: (800) 989-TALK. Our e-mail address, totn@npr.org.

And, Professor Said, as we're speaking, American aircraft are dropping bombs in Afghanistan in pursuit of--I guess toppling the Taliban and in pursuit of Osama bin Laden. And I wonder how you respond to that. Is this a, do you think, legitimate right of self-defense for the United States to go after Osama bin Laden?

Prof. SAID: Well, I think certainly to go after Osama bin Laden, but I'm not sure that the best way to do it is to bomb a country as poor, as basically defenseless and as ruined, in a sense, after 20 years of civil war as Afghanistan. I mean, I think the people who are really suffering are the people and not so much the military Taliban. I wish--you know, I was very happy that there was this fairly long period of waiting before October the 7th, before the American bombing began. But--and that--you know, what I was afraid of was going to be kind of a massive, perhaps even a nuclear strike to wipe the place out. So that I was glad about caution and hesitation.

But I wish it hadn't been called a war. I wish it had been called a police action, and that we would have kept Osama bin Laden to his proper proportions and not treated it as an all-out, you know, display of might of the United States. I feel it should have been a smaller response, even given the understandable anger that, you know, even--I mean, I'm a resident of New York and of this country so I felt as angry as anyone at what had happened. But as I say, I think the complications in the future are going to be vast. And perhaps the wisdom of this kind of giant effort on behalf of so small a target is perhaps unwise. I don't think it's--I think even the members of the coalition are beginning to be critical. And I think it's a far harder thing to do this way than we had thought at the outset.

CONAN: Well, what would be the best way to apprehend him then?

Prof. SAID: Well, I think a pol--you know, a United Nations police action perhaps led by the United States. I mean, I'm not a strategist or a military planner, but I certainly think that, you know, bombing an entire country to capture what is in effect a gang is going about it with disproportionate means. I certainly feel that the United States in self-defense has a right to stop and dismantle and apprehend the members of al-Qaeda--this group of his--but I think, you know, now the military--or, I'm sorry, the political goals have increased.

Now we want to replace the Taliban and we are counting on the Northern Alliance, which had been, you know--which is another gang, in my opinion. If you know anything about Afghanistan...

CONAN: Well, a bunch of gangs, perhaps.

Prof. SAID: ...a bunch of--yes, probably. Thank you. A bunch of gangs. I mean, they're scarcely a hope for the future. And the repercussions in places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and elsewhere are over the long run going to be far more negative than they are positive, even if there is the satisfaction of finally getting Osama. I'm sure he'll kill himself before he's taken. But I mean, the organization might be destroyed. But I think--you know, I think it's not creating more--I mean, I think it's putting the coalition under threat. And I think there's going to be a great deal more, you know, criticism, of the United States.

CONAN: Our next caller is Don, who's on the line with us from Miami.

DON (Caller): Thank you very much, Neal, for taking my call.

CONAN: Sure.

DON: My question for Dr. Said, I'm afraid, is an admittedly controversial one. I've been trying to get on TALK OF THE NATION with this question since before September 11th. But since Christians have long ago given up the idea of having a religious state in the holy land, why should there be any religious state in the holy land, be it Islamic or Jewish? It just seems like there's this unending controversy and violence that will never end until we address this issue. I think if the United Nations with the backing of the United States has waved a magic wand creating a state of Israel, the United Nations with the backing of the United States can wave that wand again and make the holy land an international land-- maybe the United Nations. And is it possible for Islamic people to ever accept something like this?

Prof. SAID: Well, I--you know, it's quite a question you raise. It's been very much on my mind, that what is often forgotten is that here is bin Laden and his supporters, the so-called Islamists, throughout the Islamic world in places like Egypt and elsewhere, who want to overturn governments and establish instead an Islamic state. Being somebody from the holy land myself--I'm Palestinian--I'm not Muslim, I'm Christian--I'm not anything, but I was born in the Christian church--you know, I sort of resent the idea that if I'm not a member of one faith and I happen to be in that country then I'm at a disadvantage. But that's precisely the whole point of Israel. It's a state for Jews. And you know, they make no secret of it. Jews in Israel have more rights than any other citizens.

And so the whole idea of religious states is not at all an Islamic--is something that begins with an Islamic state or the idea of an Islamic state. It began in the Middle East with the founding of a Jewish state in 1948, and hence was resisted by the majority, which was not Jewish, which was then forced out so that more Jews could be brought in from elsewhere. And I must say, you know, in a place like that, which is so important to all the three great monotheistic faiths--Islam, Judaism and Christianity--that's a recipe for unending conflict.

I think what we need is not to wave a magic wand, but to have a state of rational negotiation whereby people are citizens of a country on the basis of citizenship and residence rather than on the basis of their religion. I mean, Palestinians happen to be both Muslims and Christians, but they have less rights than people who are Jewish. Now that is religious discrimination of a sort that in a sense Osama bin Laden is practicing. He is saying that we want to drive out all the Christians and the Jews and we want to establish Islamic states in the land of Islam. But unfortunately, the world isn't made of pure places where there are only Jews or only Christians or only Muslims and certainly not in the Middle East, which is a very diverse part of the world. So I think the root of the problem are these ideas of having exclusively-- states of exclusive religions, which are the seeds of unending conflict for the other religions who happen to be there and have--maybe equal rights.

I mean, what is to prevent a Christian from saying, 'Well, I won't recognize Israel because Palestine for Christians is after all the land of Christ. He was buried and he was born and he rose from the dead right there, and Jerusalem is our holy city, etc., etc.' I mean, you can see how the argument goes. It goes for the discrimination or banning of the others. And that's why I've always said that the basis of any peace in the Middle East has to be equality between citizens, not on the basis and residence--not on the basis of their religion or their race or their ethnic origin, but on the basis of their residence and they're belonging to the place.

CONAN: Don, thanks very much for the call, and I'm sorry we couldn't locate that magic wand for you.

DON: OK. Well, that still has the open question of what are we going to do? I mean, what is going to be accepted? Certainly not a splintered Palestinian state with the Golan Heights over here and, you know, all split up. I don't think that's ever going to be accepted by Palestinians.

Prof. SAID: No. No, but I think what Palestinians would accept is an evacuation of their territories where the occupation occurred. In other words, a return to the 1967 lines and the removal of the settlements, which is what the Mitchell Report last June precisely recommended, but, of course, Sharon and his government have been resisting all along. It's not that difficult to do. I mean, you enter, you conquer with a massive army. You can just as easily withdraw. And you can't keep on using security as an excuse, because by being there--I mean, this is the great irony of the Israeli situation. Here is a people that has suffered the insecurity and the terrors of persecution for centuries. They come to the Middle East, they destroy a society, they create a state, fine. They make it a viable state for Jews. But in the process, everything that they do after that by occupying, by displacing more people, by destroying, by using military action--they create more insecurity for themselves and more hatred. I mean, it's very difficult to say to a Palestinian, 'Well, you've got to really accept Israel the way it is,' just as Israel is destroying his house and has torn down all of his olive trees and has made his land impossible to plant. So I...

CONAN: You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

Prof. SAID: Yeah. So anyway, I really think what we want is a disengagement, which would get Israeli military out of Palestinian homes and territories.

CONAN: Edward Said, thank you so much for being with us.

Prof. SAID: Thank you.

CONAN: Edward Said is professor of comparative literature at Columbia University, the author of more than 20 books including "Orientalism," "Covering Islam," and "Peace and Its Discontent: Essays on Palestine in the Middle East Peace Process." His latest book is called "Power, Politics, and Culture: Interviews with Edward Said," and he spoke with us from our bureau in New York. Tomorrow, a different perspective from Martin Kramer of Tel Aviv University.