tv Fareed Zakaria GPS CNN March 11, 2012 10:00am-11:00am PDT
roll, let me tell you that. >> and finally, the only candidate of the republican quartet who consistently preempts your deja vu. >> it's one of the things i say all the time. you talk about this in every speech. i've said it almost every stump speech i've given. that's about the fifth time i've mentioned the speech. >> so speaking of deja vu, thank you so much for watching "state of the union." i'm candy crowley. look for interviews, web exclusives at cnn.com/sotu. for our viewers in the united states, "fareed zakaria gps" starts right now. this is "gps," the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. we have a terrific show for you today. our main event, henry kissinger. we'll talk about the middle east, iran, russia, china, all the current hotspots, all places he knows well. also, is that the drums of war we hear? certainly from some corners. how does the iran/israel showdown end? i've got a great panel.
i'll also bring you an amazing story. free and fair elections in china. i'll explain. but first, here's my take. president obama has been trying to cool down the war fever that suddenly gripped washington early this month. but prime minister benjamin netanyahu's visit and the flurry of statements surrounding it have created a dangerous dynamic. it is easy to see how things move toward war. it is difficult to see how they don't. the pressure is building on iran, but there are no serious discussions of negotiated solutions. israel has already discounted the proposed new talks. republican candidates will denounce any deal no matter how comprehensive the inspections. so either iran suddenly and completely surrenders or israel will strike. and netanyahu knows that the window presented by the u.s. political season is closing. if he were to strike between now
and november, he would be assured of unqualified support from washington. after november, the american response becomes less predictable no matter who is elected president. the clock is ticking. before we set out on a path to another middle eastern war, let's remember some facts. first, iran does not have nuclear weapons. and the evidence is ambiguous. genuinely unclear as to whether it has decided to make them. but what if iran did manage to develop a couple of crude nukes several years from now? president obama says a nuclear iran would set off an arms race in the middle east. but a nuclear north korea has not led the two countries directly threatened by its weapons, south korea and that january, to go nuclear. saudi arabia and egypt did not go nuclear in response to israel's buildup of a large arsenal of nuclear weapons. after all, egypt has gone to war three times with israel by contrast it has not been in a conflict with iran for
centuries. so why would it go nuclear in response to iran when it didn't in response to israel? obama explained that a nuclear iran would be a problem like india and pakistan with their nuclear weapons. but india and pakistan went to war three times in 30 years before they had nuclear weapons. since they went nuclear, they have actually been restrained and have not fought a full-scale war in 40 years. it's actually a case that shows the stabilizing, not destabilizing, effects of nuclear deterrence. if israel genuinely believes that deterrence doesn't work in the middle east, why does it have a large nuclear arsenal, if not to deter its enemies? iran's weapons could fall in the hands of terrorists, says the president. but would a country that has label waited for decades suffer huge sanctions and costs to do so, then turn around and give away the fruit of its efforts to a gang of militants? this kind of reasoning is part of the view that the iranians
are mad, messianic people bent on committing massu side. when general mart. enen dempsey said he viewed iran as a rational actor, he drew protest. but he was making a good point. a rational actor is not a reasonable actor or one who has the same goals or values that you or i do. a rational actor in economics or international relations is someone concerned about his survival and prosperity. the one thing we know about iran's leaders is that they are concerned about their survival. the question right now is not whether iran can be rational but whether the u.s. and israel can accurately reason through the costs of a preventive war and its huge consequences and weigh those against the modest and temporary benefits of a military strike. for more on this, you can read my column in this week's "time" magazine. let's get started.
everything old is new again. many of the trouble spots vexing american foreign policy today, iran, russia, china were just as problematic if not more so in the 1970s. that is, of course, when henry kissinger was secretary of state. i wanted to get his unique perspective on events today. welcome, henry. >> always a pleasure to be here. >> let's start by talking about iran because if we are to avoid a war with iran, and maybe that's a good thing or bad, but if we were to avoid it, it seems we have to have some negotiated solution, and i'm wondering, as somebody who had to negotiate with the chinese at the time when the height of mao's craziness, he was running revolutionary guerrilla movements against the united states around the globe, negotiated with the soviets,
negotiated with the vietnamese at the height of the war. how do we get there? do you think there is a path forward that can get us to some kind of negotiated solution in iran? >> i'm not against the principle of negotiation. in fact, i've practiced it when i had an opportunity. the question with iran is not whether we should negotiate. but really threefold. can we conceive some time limit with which the negotiation takes place? secondly, can we define an objective that really meets the need? and third, can we conceive that iran will, as a result of all of this, join an international system in which they are a substantially responsible
member? those are the three aspects that seem to be part of it. >> when you look at the situation with iran right know, do you think that the situation is so dire that israel would need to strike militarily in the next few months or even a year, year and a half? >> i think -- i am very uneasy with the so-called intelligence report that say we don't know whether they are actually working on nuclear weapons. i think we should start from the premise that they are undergoing all debts in order to achieve a military capability. i don't think that is a point. but iran is more isolated than it has ever been. so i can see why the israelis
would think that if they strike now, iran will not have a great deal of international support. >> you were always very good as a negotiator at understanding that the other side had to get something as well as our side getting what we wanted. how do you do that in the context of iran now, with all the domestic politics around it? do you see what i mean there? of course, they have to make concessions, but presumably we would have to, in some way, move as well. >> for the proliferating countries will always argue that it is a threat. and that they needed to protect themselves. and we should certainly be prepare prepared to meet those concers s
if in response to the nuclear program is, in fact, irreversibly ended, and the second aspect is -- >> let me spell out what you're saying. you're saying if the nuclear -- if they end the nuclear weapons program and they want some assurances from the united states about their security, if they want to kind of re-enter the international community, we should facilitate that. >> yes. now, this government, the current ayatollah government in iran has made known to the united states the organizing principle of its existence. so they can bring themselves to do this, they can survive in the world that i have described.
ey,, doesn't it bother you that no one notices you?" and i'm like, "doesn't it bother you you're not reliable?" and they say, "shut up!" and i'm like, "you shut up." in business, it's all about reliability. 'cause these guys aren't just hitting "print." they're hitting "dream." so that's what i do. i print dreams, baby. [whispering] big dreams. i care about my car because... i think it's a cool car. i think it's stylish and it makes a statement at the same time. and i've never had a car like that. people don't totally understand how the volt works. when the battery runs down the gas engine operates. i don't ever worry about running out of battery power... because it just switches over to my gas engine. i very rarely put gas in my chevy volt. i love my chevy volt and i've never loved a car.
♪ with diabetes to finish the indy 500. i live in the fast lane. i need on-the-go insulin delivery. that's why i use novolog® flexpen®. flexpen® is prefilled with my fast-acting insulin. i dial my exact dose. inject by pressing a button. flexpen® is insulin delivery my way. novolog® is a fast-acting insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults and children with diabetes. do not inject if you do not plan to eat within 5 to 10 minutes
after injection to avoid low blood sugar. tell your healthcare provider about all medicines you take, and all of your medical conditions, including if you are pregnant or breastfeeding. the most common side effect is low blood sugar. other possible side effects include reactions at the injection site. get medical help right away if you experience serious allergic reactions, body rash, trouble with breathing, fast heartbeat or sweating. flexpen® is there when i need it, just like my pit crew. ask your doctor about novolog® flexpen. covered by 90% of insurance plans, including medicare. find your co-pay at myflexpen.com.
and we are back with the only man who has been secretary of state and national security adviser, simultaneously. a very good way of making sure there was to rivalry between those two positions. henry, you have met with vladimir putin probably more often than any senior american including any senior american official. you've had something like 20-odd one-on-one meetings. what do you think of vladimir putin? if you look at your memoir as one of the things that strikes me as always the portraits of people, is he a thug? is he a modernizer? is he a kind of pro-western, an anti-western? >> i want you to understand that when i meet with putin, i always, in any administration,
inform the white house first. and i convey the acceptance of the conversation. and mr. putin knows this. >> i think that may be one of the reasons he's meeting with you. >> probably. could well be. i don't think he's anti-western. he is, above all, a russian patriot who feels humiliated by the experience of the '90s which was the formative period of his career. he is not anti-western. had i first met him, he was very anxious to have a kind of strategic partnership with the united states. he is very resentful of what he interprets as intervention in russian domestic affairs and
even more, of course, in what he may interpret and does interpret as some american tendencies to support his political opponents in order to encourage his overthrow. but i believe that a dialogue, it's possible, and on specific issues he can turn out to be a constructive partner. >> okay. so i've got to ask you about the republican party and its foreign policy and its candidates because if you listen to candidates on the campaign trail now, on issues like russia, on iran, on israel, they're taking very strident positions, very tough in ways that frankly i think make it difficult for the united states to pursue a bipartisan foreign policy. this is not a new phenomenon for you, the republican party in 1976, you know, reagan rode to
power criticizing you. that was one of his -- one of the most spirited attacks he would make on campaign trails and in the convention. do you think that the republicans right now are putting forward just campaign rhetoric, or do they actually believe what they're saying? >> well, i don't normally like to discuss partisan things on television or publicly. i will support the republicans, but that doesn't mean that i support every argument that every candidate makes. and when you mention reagan, during the campaign, he was advocating some things on china which was the antithesis of what
nixon and i had done. but even before he came into office, he asked me to send messages that he would stick to the existing commitments. and as president, he conducted a foreign policy that i totally supported. so i -- >> so you're saying what they say on the campaign trail doesn't mean anything? >> the republican candidates, the ones i know personally, that they will examine the issues from the point of view of americans having responsibility for the security of the country and the future of the world. and then i think they will come to conclusions around which a nonpartisan and bipartisan consensus has evolved over the
decades and that, of course, there's specific points on which they may be neuralgic and they have to be taken seriously. but on the main points as i've described it here, i think there will be a consensus, not on every tactical point, and so i'm quite confident, even though some of the things that are being said, i would not have drafted. >> you think it's just campaign rhetoric? >> i don't think it's such campaign rhetoric, but i think when you are a candidate, the emotions of the moment and the emotions of your advisers have certain impacts. when you're in the oval office and you know that you're part of a history and that the lives of
millions of people are affected, you take a more comprehensive look. and the point is not whether they agree with me, but on certain issues, serious people of both parties have studied them for many decades. and while there's always a margin for change, there is really a margin for total reversal. and so in that sense, i have every expectation that whoever emerges from the presidency will operate on that basis. on either side. >> henry kissinger, the one thing we didn't get to was china. and we're going to save that for another show. always a pleasure to have you on. >> good to be here.
up next, what in the world? real clean elections in china. no, it's not a dream. i will explain. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 let's talk about the cookie-cutter retirement advice ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 you get at some places. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 they say you have to do this, have that, invest here ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 you know what? ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 you can't create a retirement plan based on ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 a predetermined script. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 to understand you and your goals... ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 ...so together we can find real-life answers for your ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 real-life retirement. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 talk to chuck ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 and let's write a script based on your life story. ttd#: 1-800-345-2550 imagine if you could always see life [music] in the best light. every time of day. outdoors, or in. transitions® lenses automatically filter just the right amount of light.
so you see everything the way it is meant to be seen. maybe even a little better. experience life well lit, ask for transitions adaptive lenses. in here, the landscaping business grows with snow. to keep big winter jobs on track, at&t provided a mobile solution that lets everyone from field workers to accounting, initiate, bill, and track work in real time. you can't live under a dome in minnesota, that's why there's guys like me. [ male announcer ] it's a network of possibilities -- helping you do what you do... even better. ♪ i don't want a plunger anywhere near my coffee. not in my house. with maxwell house french roast, you let gravity do the work. [ male announcer ] maxwell house french roast. always good to the last drop.
world" segment. you rarely hear the words china and election in the same breath. unlike the u.s., france and egypt all of which do have elections coming up, china has a leadership transition this year, a planned event where hand-picked individuals are promoted up. but there were real elections in china last week. of the people and by the people. a democratic vote with real ballots, real candidates and real clean results. welcome to wukan. it's a small fishing village just a few hundred miles from hong kong. the story began a few months ago when the villagers of wukan protested again a land grab. these are not so uncommon in china. corrupt officials often snatch privately held agricultural plots and then sell them to developers for high prices. protests are not uncommon either. it is said that tens of thousands of demonstrations just like this one in wukan have taken place in china every year.
two-thirds of those are because of land disputes. so what made wukan different? for one, the people didn't give up. they were remarkably organized in holding noisy, mass rallies. and they drove out the local leaders who were complicit in the land grabs. but what's unusual here is the response. the provincial government, led by this man, party secretary, conceded to the villagers' demands. on his call, the province returned some of the disputed farmland, released detained activists and allowed the villagers to hold their own elections. all that led to these scenes last week. 6,000 villagers voting in an organized fashion. the media both local and western were allowed full access. and the main winners were the same protesters who led the rebellion. so democracy is possible in china. wukan is now being touted as a model for other chinese
villagers. the theory goes that a wukan effect will sweep the country and create more uprisings, making it harder for the government to crack down. that, in turn, will lead to a larger democratic movement at the highest levels of government. i'm not so sure that's going to happen any time soon in china. for every wukan, there is a tibet. china's leaders know how to brandish an iron fist just as they know how to use a velvet glove. the key here is to understand the way china functions. villages where rebellion is most likely fall under the rule of provincial leaders. these leaders are immensely powerful and with great levels of autonomy. so they make their own independent decisions on a case-by-case basis. but the idea that central command in beijing would allow broader national move towards democracy is probably a fallacy. try protesting at tiananmen square in central beijing, and you'll see for yourself. there is one larger potential trend here.
watch china's leadership transition later this year very closely. the top posts seem to be decided. but if reform-minded provincial leaders like yan make the nine-member standing committee, the group that actually runs china, then perhaps there may be a shift towards some loosening of controls. so wukan is a heartening story. but remember one thing. change in today's china is rarely bottom up and sweeping in nature. if there's going to be change for now, it's going to be incremental, and it will come from the top down. we'll be right back. up next, will israel attack iran, and where does washington fit in? i have an all-star panel. be right back. [ baby crying ] ♪ what started as a whisper ♪ every day, millions of people choose to do the right thing.
♪ slowly turned to a scream ♪ there's an insurance company that does that, too. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy? ♪ amen, omen the other office devices? they don't get me. they're all like, "hey, brother, doesn't it bother you that no one notices you?" and i'm like, "doesn't it bother you you're not reliable?" and they say, "shut up!" and i'm like, "you shut up." in business, it's all about reliability. 'cause these guys aren't just hitting "print." they're hitting "dream." so that's what i do. i print dreams, baby. [whispering] big dreams.
with my vial and syringe. me, drawing my insulin dose. and me the day i discovered novolog flexpen. flexpen is pre-filled with your mealtime insulin. dial the exact dose, inject by pushing a button. no vials, syringes or coolers to carry. flexpen is insulin delivery my way. novolog is a fast-acting insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults and children with diabetes. do not inject if you do not plan to eat within five to ten minutes after injection to avoid low blood sugar. tell your healthcare provider about all medicines you take and all of your medical conditions, including if you are pregnant or breastfeeding. the most common side effect is low blood sugar. other possible side effects include reactions at the injection site. get medical help right away if you experience serious allergic reactions, body rash, trouble with breathing, fast heartbeat or sweating.
with flexpen, vial and syringe are in the past. ask your doctor about novolog flexpen, covered by 90% of insurance plans, including medicare. israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu gave president obama a gift in washington this week. it was a copy of the book of esther which tells the tale of a benevolent king who saved the jewish people from an enemy that wished to destroy them. a persian enemy, not very subtle. so where does the israel/iran conflict end? i have an excellent panel to talk about that and much more. daniel levy is co-director of
the middle east task force of the new america foundation. bret stephens, of course, is the foreign affairs columnist for "the wall street journal." an israeli-arab journalist who has also worked as an anchorwoman in italy and egypt. and elliott abrams was deputy national security adviser in george w. bush's administration. so elliott, tell us what you think netanyahu took back from his visit to washington. what do you think he -- how did he read the mood, and what did he tell his cabinet when he went back? >> i think he would have read a desire on the part of the president that he not bomb iran. but i don't think things changed much during the visit. he knew there was the president's view. certainly in the public discourse, the president did not offer him very much more than he had previously done. in terms of what the united states would do about iran. a slight toughening of the american rhetoric. but not enough, i would think, to change the fundamental
israeli view that they're probably going to need to take care of themselves. >> but you don't think that by saying containment is not our policy, that was a big shift that was a kind of unequivocal explanation that, you know, we are going to try and prevent this from happening? i thought that was further than either your administration or obama had gone. >> obama, in 2009, used the "p" word, prevent. and in the state of the union message, he was pretty tough. to say now, yes, it's good that he said containment is not an option, but when you say things like it's unacceptable or it is my policy to prevent, that still falls short, i think, of saying this will not happen. and saying it to the ayatollahs as well. this will never happen. >> well, there's some subtleties here. first, there's an issue of timing. i think what the president really wanted from the prime minister was, don't bomb between now and the first tuesday in november. i think there was an aspect of a political calculation.
there's also a strategic nuance that's very important between israel and the united states. for israel, an iranian nuclear breakout capability is tantamount to a nuclear capability. that's to say if the iranians have part of their nuclear program here and another part here and another part there and can rapidly assemble it, that gives them a de facto nuclear capability. the united states is saying that breakout capability isn't quite the same thing as being a nuclear power. and that's a distinction that i don't think a lot of people got except at fairly high levels of policy-making. it's the distinction that matters most of all for israeli decision-makers pondering whether to strike, whether to strike iran. can they allow iran to get to that breakout point, not the point where they can actually test a bomb? >> are you the only one here with an israeli passport. >> there's two. >> sorry. two people with israeli passports. interestingly, the israelis are, shall we say, a little less ego
as far as i can tell to am bo the americans on this table. what do you think the people in israel will take from this trip? >> well, a newspaper said yesterday that 58% of the israelis today are against any decision are actually against any attack towards iran without the u.s. backing it. and without the u.s. actually starting it. israelis are today actually very worried about the economy in their country especially, you know, after last summer, we had huge protesting in the streets for the high cost of living. and netanyahu, you know, tried to calm down the things, but the prices are living are becoming very high. the iranian issue is not the first concerns of the israelis today. >> would you agree that most israelis -- do you think -- i think what rula is saying that in a way netanyahu is trying to change the subject from a topic where israelis are really concerned, which is social unrest? >> this is a fantastic distraction issue.
both in terms of domestic, social, economic issues and of course in terms of internationally the palestinian issue. for an israeli leader to come to the united states, make a lot of speeches, not mention the palestinians. a dramatic success in his terms for his right-wing coalition. this is top-town driven. not bottom up inside israel. and the kind of speech that the prime minister gave in washington, holocaust analogies everywhere, he hasn't made that speech in tel aviv or jerusalem. he was criticized for doing that. the opposition leader, livni, said it was hiysteria and shameful use of the holocaust. but i think the important outcome of the visit this week is that the israeli security establishment folks who are not enthusiastic about an israeli solo mission vis-a-vis iran, i think they got the kind of assurances that they wanted to hear from the american
president, or enough of them, because the israeli and american positions are actually rather close. rolling out of containment, ruling in at some stage of a military option. in fact, the critique that should be heard, perhaps, of president obama's position is not that it's not hawkish enough, but perhaps that given everything going on in the region, given that the iranian regime is actually weakened now, we're not right-sizing the iranian threat. we're not looking at how do you shift the balance by not focusing nuclear by focusing on other issues. >> that's certainly not the view of the arabs with whom i speak in the middle east and particularly the gulf era. >> non-democratic, don't have to answer to their public gulf arab. >> you know that opinion polls in those countries are very grim when it comes to their views of iran. >> no, sorry, opinion polls put the palestinian issue first, but america is a greater threat than iran. that's what the opinion polls say. >> they have people responsible for their security, and those people are extremely worried
about the iranian threat. as is the president of the united states. put yourself nicely to his left, that's fine. but our leadership is convinced that iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. >> and also convinced that iran has not made the decision to cross the threshold to get a nuclear weapon. that's what dempsey said, the chief of staff. >> whether they've made the decision yet as long as they have the opportunity to make it next week. then the question is what is the united states going to do about it? >> let's listen to the ia -- i mean, we already made this mistake. and i'm sorry, and i understand your position working with the ex-administration. i mean, we already made this mistake ten years ago. we didn't listen to the secret service. we had confused information from intelligence about iraq. we had -- we went to iraq. we spent trillions of dollars killing thousands of soldiers, american soldiers, and thousands of iraqis, and in the end outcome, they didn't have reconstruction. plus you are talking about saudi arabia and qatar. honestly, i mean, if you go to the real arab main street, the
streets and you ask the people, shall we attack iran? do you think today they don't have any sympathy after the arab spring. do you think they'd support that attack? i'm not sure. >> part of the problem here, if i may say so, you're making this out to be an argument against shady intelligence sources vis-a-vis iraq. that dog won't bark because the argument you have is with the international atomic energy agency, and i'm sure you read its report. >> they just claim -- they claim it's ambiguous. they're saying we can't certify because they're not cooperating. they do not say there's any kind of smoking gun. it's hardly a trigger for war, bret. anyway, i've got to take a break. when we come back, we're going to talk more about potential war and the palestinian issue when we get back.
and we're back with daniel levy, bret stephens, rula jabrael and elliot williams. elliott, i was struck by a piece in "the new york times" pointing out with all this talk about iran and the way in which the subject has been, as dan was saying, redefined by bb, the palestinian issue has just fallen by the wayside, and the article described how the
palestinian leadership was almost kind of so marginalized, they didn't quite know what to do. >> well, it's true. if you look at the obama/netanyahu white house appearance together in the oval office, the word "palestine" did not escape the lips of either man. nor did it get mentioned by netanyahu in his big speech. i think this is partly because they're expecting, not only the american election this year, but a possible israeli election this year, nothing is going to happen till 2013. so i think there is a certain satisfaction that they're off the front page because if they were on it, they would not know what to do. >> and dan, isn't it fair to say that obama kind of miscalculated, whatever your position on the palestinian issue, he got outmaneuvered by the israelis, by the israeli government. >> well, of course, opposing settlements which is what i think you're referring to is a position that every administration has taken. i think it wasn't that he made settlements an issue.
the settling numbers in the west bank alone have tripled since the beginning of the oslo process. this is an extremely serious obstacle to any potential of a future two-state solution. i think he didn't back it up. well, he didn't back it up by being able to win that argument with the israeli prime minister. i think that what you're seeing at the moment -- and the president said quite clearly in his aipac speech, this isn't about me being a supporter of israeli. the israeli president said there's been unprecedented assistance under this presidency. he said if you're going against me, either it's pure politics or it's because you don't like the fact that i'm pursuing a two-state solution. and we have to recognize that this is a changing israel, an israel in which the majority of the members of parliament of the ruling party don't support a two-state solution. and you increasingly have a shrill debate inside the jewish
community where you have the majori majority, people who represent the majority of american jews, who are of a liberal predisposition. the tom friedmans, the jay streets, the new israel fund trying to walk a tightrope which says we're trying to save israel as a democracy, we're trying to prevent what israeli prime ministers what they have called a south africa apartheid reality. we need the help of the american president to do that because there are those of us who won't support apartheid, and i imagine there are other people who will. >> that was a beautiful five-minute speech, and thanks for no interruption, but i wish, daniel, i wish, and i say this as a guy on the other side of the debate, that it could be solved d as easily as removing settlements. if that were the only obstacle, the settlements would have been gone long ago. in fact, they never would have been put there in the first place. it would have been lovely to see gaza turn into a showcase and what their tl ealents are.
it turned into a source for war. that is why they believe that settlements are the primary issue here. this is a nice idea because it makes it easy, but the reality is not as easy as you would suggest. >> i am not sure -- i'm not even sure that you've ever seen a settlement or how it works. unless you see the facts on the ground. remember, it's the one that actually destroyed any chance of two-state solutions. and you know what? they have to hold back and thank him which would be one solution which is one state for available. i'm not sure that state would be a jewish state in the future. that state will be demographically impossible to hold together everybody. and it will be -- it will not be a jewish state. one other thing. the oslo agreement was signed in 1993. since then, there's 200 settlements. there were 60. there was, you know, he's right of saying that most of the steps that were made on the ground,
look at even the wall. the wall -- the borders between israel and palestine are 380 kilometers. the length of that wall is 680 kilometers. what does that mean? it's just about annexing more land. these are the facts on the ground. you don't like them. the problem is with -- not only with settlements, with gaza, you cannot say i left gaza, but then you left it so close. >> there's an open border to egypt now. >> america put pressure on the egyptians. i'm sorry, you were in the administration that put pressure on them. >> it's scary. >> the use of the word "terror." terror built the wall. there was no wall for years and years after 1967, and sharon built it when they were killing israelis in buses and cafes week after we're after week. we're not talking about terrorism. >> there's a difference between building a wall on an internationally recognized armistice line and building a
wall deep inside of the occupied territory. >> it's the only country in the world today that is under daily attack, rockets and missiles. >> israelis not under daily attack, elliott. i'm glad it's not under daily attack. i'm delighted. the israeli security establishment acknowledges it. >> because you denounce it and the war i suspect you also denounce. it's precisely -- >> one question to rula because i was struck by one other piece in the newspapers which was a controversy in israel that the one arab on the supreme court -- >> yes. >> -- did not sing the israeli national anthem. do you think -- and this caused a huge controversy. now, you are an israeli/arab. >> yes. >> do you think it was okay for him? do you think that his basic -- i think the basic view is that israeli/arabs are actually second-class citizens, and so they have reasons to dissent. what do you think? >> i think the man was standing there respectfully holding his hand.
he was listening to everybody else. he didn't attack anyone. he didn't feel like singing it. it didn't represent his really deep value. what the state should be and what it stands for, and he was attacked honestly because today in israel, either with or you know what, there's one side because we're all movers there. all moversñi -- >> and i agree there is no questionw3 that israel needs a w deal, a newñi compact between i arab citizens and the --lp and e majority. it needs a new deal also with itsñiñi ultra-orthodox communit. israel's a democracy that has to do a lot of work to perfectw3 i democracy like every other democracy. that's a perfectly normal and healthy conversation for israelis to have. they need to have more of it. that being said, my basic contention is that if it were -- if tze character of the palestinian state comes into not goin'ñá to have a problem.
parallel,frd the line that divi thexd united states from canada there is not añr problem. the issue that you have nowñr among the palestinians idp&otc tearessional trritoria territorial. it is a state like hamas that calls on -- people -- >> are -- >> do you support barack obama in suggesting that the 67 lines should beçó the future lines -- >> no. excuse me. i'm happy with the 67 lines. it's thejfxd state on the othere state,xú%s a democrat -- >> the same opportunity that israel should have -- >> it's what people elect. whatever people elec-cq!q should be a democracy. elect.i] you know what, today egypt and syria -- >> we have to go. daniel levy, elliot abrams,
thank you, everyone. we will be back. we know that imitation is the best form of flattery. next, proof positive. my friends say that it's like i'm driving a spaceship. the body style and the interior design... everything is really cool, but more than anything i love the gas mileage. i don't even know what it's like to really stop and get gas. i am probably going to the gas station about once a month. probably less. you should get a volt because it's going to save you a crap load of money. [ laughs ] ♪ i don't want a plunger anywhere near my coffee. not in my house. with maxwell house french roast, you let gravity do the work. [ male announcer ] maxwell house french roast. always good to the last drop.
[ male announcer ] engine light on? come to meineke now for a free code scan read and you'll say...my money. my choice. my meineke. world oil prices are up around 10% this year, and here in the u.s., prices for a gallon of gas hovered around $3.75. americans, as they might say, are freaking out. but how does that price compare to the rest of the world?
that brings me to my question this week from the "gps" challenge. what is the approximate price of a gallon of gasoline in norway? one of the world's great oil-producing nations. is it, a, $1.50? b, $3.75? c, $6.60? d, $9.90? stay tuned, and we'll tell you the correct answer. go to cnn.com/fareed for more of the "gps" challenge and lots of insight and analysis. and follow us on twitter and facebook. this week's book of the week is by last week's guest bruce bartlett. it's titled, "the benefit and the burden: tax reform. we why we need it and what tell take." he's not in favor of a value-added tax and lays out his case eloquently, but the book is broader than that. if you missed last week's show, you can go to itunes where you
can get the audio podcast for free or buy the itunes version, itunes.com/fareed. if imitation is the highest form of flattery, we should be very flattered. by "we," i guess i mean america's movie poster artists. it seems china likes america's movies. likes them a lot. likes them so much that they sometimes use them liberally as guides for their own work. take a look. here's the poster for the american movie "daddy day camp." i somehow missed that film, but here, three years later, the chinese movie -- is that head photo-shopped on? how about this one, "valentine's day in the u.s." and "hot summer days in china." our vantage point, their 721. >> one day i'll be rich and famous. >> in april, 2010, there was "diary of a wimpy kid." two years later, china's version. two posters, two uncanny resemblances. and finally in this one, they
not only seem to have taken liberties with the poster but with a great american image. what's next? mao crossing the delaware? thanks to the blog offbeat china, thanks for the great legwork on this story. see more on our web site. the correct answer to our challenge question was d. norwegians are paying almost $10 for a gallon of gas. brits paying just a little bit less. that is, of course, because almost all european countries have high gas taxes. even at $4 a gallon, americans have very cheap gas compared the rest of the world. now a quick programming note -- next sunday in addition to the regular show you're watching now, you can catch a great new "gps" special about how to fix america's health care system. we travel around the world for ideas. it's called "global lessons: a gps roadmap for saving health care." it airs in north america at 8:00 and 11:00 p.m. next sunday, march 18. go to our web site for
international airtimes. thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. hello, everyone, i have the top stories. nato now confirms that an american soldier went on a shooting spree in afghanistan today, reportedly killing as many as 16 civilians in their homes. the afghan president just released a statement saying nine of the victims were children, and three were women. a military spokesman says the soldier acted on his own, then turned himself in. we'll take you thrive kabul in 30 minutes in the newsroom so stay with us. in politics here, in the u.s., rick santorum is coming off a win in yesterday's kansas secauc caucuses, picking up 43 of the state's 46 delegates. he still trails front-runner mitt romney in the overall delegate count. romney leads the pack with 458 delegates. santorum trails in second place
IN COLLECTIONSCNN (San Francisco) Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service The Chin Grimes TV News Archive
Uploaded by TV Archive on