>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> we begin with president obama. the demands of the moment have disrupted longer-term planning.

for two thirds of his presidency behind him, many goals remain elusive. "the economist" has run stories critical of the president. joining me from london is john micklethwait. he recently interviewed the president aboard air force one. i made reference to the number of covers you have run of the president. you endorsed this president twice. you have raised critical questions. now you have an opportunity to talk to him on air force one. describe to me the optics of this before we talk about the content.

>> it was an odd interview. the original reason he wanted to talk to us was to talk about africa. he suggested talking about foreign policy. he himself made a pitch to talk about the economy and his attitude toward business. the second thing, as you say, a small group of people huddled over a microphone in air force one. we landed halfway through and he kept talking. the last thing is i lack your silky tongued interrogation skills. he does talk at length about how he feels about the world, about business, and about africa. >> what was most interesting about how he feels about the world and africa and foreign policy? >> if you are a critic of obama -- we have endorsed him but we have also done so somewhat grudgingly. he said, i love "the economist"" i said, he should because we had endorsed him. he pointed out that was rather grudging. we think he has been too tough

on business. we have been rude about his foreign-policy in terms of the issue of, what exactly would america fight for and stand for? the bit where the passion comes out is the issue on business. he comes back hard and tries to make the case that corporate leaders should love him. he has produced a wonderful economy. he doesn't understand why they don't entirely like him. >> did you reduce that question for him? >> he says companies have as their main priority to serve shareholders. that is what ceo's complain about. they actually spend half their

time doing socially responsible things. they have things to do with workers, different stakeholders. one of the things they get frustrated about with the obama white house is they are always seen as people trying to make a quick buck. his response was, yes they say that, but they don't do enough. every time they say that, i ask why their lobbyists are campaigning for certain things. i'm surprised he does not do more interviews like that. you give obama time to talk, he is an interesting, thoughtful man. that is the obama that americans first voted for and still do in large numbers.

he has learned a great deal. he was interesting about the idea, if you look at new developing countries like indonesia or south africa. these countries have not backed him in the way he would have hoped. he has run into problems with unreasonable people like vladimir putin. also the new emerging countries have not backed him. he has a theory of that. he talks about them coming of age. >> overall, you came away impressed with his intellect. >> he is a better communicator than i am. that is the side of obama which people will always respect. the question is whether he really follows through on things.

in africa, it is a huge test for american foreign over the next quarter-century. if it is a great emerging economy, and i think it is, you look at the way that america guided the last emerging economy, asia. you look at what henry kissinger did in china. he went to china. america spent a lot of blood and treasure developing asia. is it committed to do the same thing in africa? how far is america prepared to push that? that is a question that applies to barack obama. america has a lot of advantages in africa. it does not have a colonial history like other countries. it does not have the burden of all that. it has a lot of things going for it. is it really over the next 40 or 50 years prepared to push?

i don't know. if you look at trade, surely america could get behind african trade. america is a proponent of african trade. it could be undone by congress. african free trade, they are having difficulties with that. he could get undercut by congress not putting things when he is preaching the beauties of free trade. these things require sustained effort over time. that is where you test foreign-policy. that is where it is reasonable to hold obama up to questions.

>> there is this in terms of the overview of the president expressed in this recent profile entitled "the obama paradox." obama has always projected the aura of a deeply confident man, someone who is justified that -- in thinking that good luck happened to him. but when confronted with the limits of his power, he began to convey a sense that even hopeful news might be ephemeral, a mirage. >> i would have agreed with that before that week. he was in a good mood when he saw us. he had had good economic news which seems to justify his faith in the american economy. there is more optimism in creeping back. his presidency is one where he will look back at being frustrated by republicans and also missed opportunities. we have talked about simpson bowles. i would argue not punishing

assad in syria was also a mistake. the way he thinks about the world -- >> what would be kissinger's advice for obama and china? >> kissinger has a long record of trying to work out what the interests of countries are. coming up with new versions of an order iced around that. that is an interesting thing. the chinese talk about henry kissinger. they do not talk about people within the obama administration in the same way. they prefer slightly older people.

it still shows something. you have to develop these relationships. the point about obama, and he talks about china in the interview, he gives china a good hand in africa. he goes on about, the more, the merrier. in foreign-policy more generally, he thinks bringing china into the international order will be a great test. if he ends the second term of his presidency without having done that, that will be difficult. he talks about the need to be tough with china as well. >> let me read this from his mouth to your years. you have to be pretty firm to them, talking about the chinese, because they will push as hard as they can until they meet resistance. they are not sentimental or

interested in instructions. -- interested in abstractions. that could come right out of the mouth of kissinger. >> he is talking about fundamental interest of what the chinese want. a lot of the obama presidency has been learning that. you have to have some somebody with him. -- some sympathy with him. he has a country not enthusiastic about foreign entanglements. that is different. it is interesting the way you have conservatives trying to prove you could run a moralistic foreign-policy. now you have the obama crew take an approach to foreign-policy as do no harm. >> first, don't screw it up. >> is that the way you want to look back on it? he is beginning to realize just how big and complicated the world is. it has been based around the idea that a group of reasonable

people will come together and back things. that is how he imagined the arab spring. he has tried to do more than a coalition of the willing. a coalition of the reasonable people. he runs into two problems. one is the unreasonable people. vladimir putin is one. netanyahu has been unreasonable. beyond that, all the allies that have not come to support him. he realizes it is a more coveted world if people don't quite know -- it is a more complicated world if people don't quite know what your interests are. >> to answer the questions you posed in your magazine cover, what would america fight for, part of my job is to persuade countries that the u.s. will always shoulder a greater burden

than others, but we cannot do it alone. assess that for me. >> he talks about the idea that americans can never get it right. it is either too much or too little. people miss it. in terms of the gulf states. all those people feel that america is not there enough. i think he is still wrestling with that. that is part of the element of letting him talk. to give him time to say what he thinks. i think he does find this world both absorbing and strangely, beginning to analyze it, the more he does.

>> he calls working-class families his obsession. >> it is interesting. he comes at the end. i talked about his attitude toward business. he deals with the rich. he doesn't like the idea that he is seen as a class warrior. there is a bit where he says, to hedge fund managers, you can keep your yacht and house in the hamptons. but it is not the rich who should be complaining. they have done pretty well. he talks about the voting, the fighting for people lower down. that is a bit of obama, a

passionate domestic bit that waits to come out. there are at least two big debates going on in the world any moment. one has to do with inequality. and that is where he begins to veer towards. that pulls people to the left. it is difficult to fall about -- to follow that without thinking about redistribution. on the other side, the issue of reforming government -- that bring society to the right. he's prepared to look at how you examine government. his focus will be on inequality. he keeps on using the word fair a lot. that is the trend throughout the entire world in terms of left of center politicians. in britain and france.

you are seeing it a lot in terms of the center-right. it is a big issue. >> i thank you. well done. we will be right back. stay with us. ♪

>> joining me now to talk about the palestinian conflict, a fellow at the brookings institution. rula jebreal in new york. yousef munayyer is the executive director of the jerusalem fund. i am pleased to have them here to talk about the way they see the events in the middle east from the palestinian perspective. is the palestinian community supportive of hamas in terms of the conflict?

>> thanks for that question. one of the biggest misunderstandings is the militants in the gaza strip were just hamas. that is not the case. every palestinian political party with a military wing was engaged in the resistance to the israeli attacks. that reflects a broad will among the palestinian population to resist. and of course the siege, which does not discriminate between members of hamas and members of the young and old. it is the indiscriminate, collective punishment of 1.8 million people in the gaza strip. it is about the people in the gaza strip and everywhere pushing back against this ongoing occupation. the seas which for the past several years has put a huge toll on the civilian population.

>> let me understand the notion of who was fighting. what other palestinian groups are you speaking of engaged in the fighting? >> there are a lot of them. hamas has a military wing, the brigade. islamic jihad has a similar situation. the popular front and the democratic front for the liberation of palestine. there is also a martyrs brigade. the party of the president. what you are seeing is not simply about hamas. >> i disagree on this point. it was clear that hamas was leading. islamic jihad was following. i don't think fatah and the pa agreed or even participated in most of the operations. they don't agree on a fundamental point. how to achieve a palestinian

state, by which means. the palestinian in the west bank under the prime minister told the palestinians and promised them they can achieve a sovereign state through negotiations. what happened, the moment they didn't get anything through the negotiations, their credibility was undermined. at the sometime, hamas's credibility was undermined. they were forced to form a unity government. people did not believe in hamas's message anymore. they were seeing a thriving economy in the west bank. seeing the situation can improve and their livelihood could improve. sooner or later, israel would have to give in. the perverse message that israel sent one israeli soldier, if you use violence, sooner or

later we will negotiate with you. if you accept the conditions and demand and negotiate peacefully, we neglect you. that was a turning point for hamas. >> when i was there talking to -- i raised the issue that has been raised often. was the beginning of this conflict impacted by the fact that hamas had come to a tough point? they had lost friends in the region. where are the complex and the push and pull within the palestinian community? >> everything that you said is true. that falls into the bigger question of the arab spring. because of the loss of the

muslim brotherhood in egypt, they had a natural ally with him. that forced them to come into a coalition government with the palestinian authority. for the pa and the president, he needed hamas. i disagree in terms of the thriving economy. it is not thriving at all. they live on donations. the moment israel cut down the money, the civil servants are not paid. they live on donations from the international community. despite the fact that the palestinian authority chose negotiation, the israelis gave them nothing.

for them to look at the west bank as a good example, that is not the case at all. it is also wrong to dismiss hamas as a terrorist rotation. is a political organization that won an election. it is not analogous to isis. they chose violence as a message to gain the same aim. -- as a method to gain the same aim. the only difference is they use it as a bargaining chip. the fact that they call for the destruction of israel in their charter, but they said 1967 could be acceptable. in this case, they are a calculated organization. they are not reckless. but many blame them for the rocket attacks.

we have a situation where the unity government, which is not formed by hamas, a government of technocrats -- basically the agreement was, number one, to call for the government and elections. to unify the government under one government and one gun. that will be the most difficult issue we will see. disarming hamas will be like disarming hezbollah and lebanon. that will be tough. >> i agree with the essence of what -- palestinians are basically united. that has been a long time to mean.

you see a closing of ranks. of the fighting forces in the gaza to. you see a closing of ranks in the west bank. there are mass protests with the participation of all palestinian factions. and in fact many independents, who have no factional affiliation. what the conflict has done is consolidated palestinian unity in a way we have not seen it in many years. it is the only positive development i can see coming out of this conflict. i think it is also true, and i think the others touched on this, there is a fundamental paradox when it comes to the two separate agendas of conflict negotiation with fatah on one hand, and the track of armed struggle or resistance on the part of hamas on the other.

the paradox is, when there is calm and quiet in the occupied territories, the israelis become complacent and the americans as well. palestinians are ignored. the occupation continues. the status quo continues. it is only when violence occurs, unfortunately, that people stand up and say, i yes, there's a blockade, an occupation that needs to be addressed. >> did the palestinians in gaza on this an opportunity -- >> how can you have an opportunity when you live in an open air prison? i don't see any opportunities when you force 1.8 million people to stay in an open air prison. block them from all sides.

>> this was true from the very beginning? >> it has been eight years that gaza has been under blockade. >> i was part of the team that worked on the gaza disengagement in 2005. i was there at the time, working on it from the west bank. the sequence of events is the israeli withdrawal took place in august. the israelis insisted it be unilateral. it means one side will not have their interests addressed. the recognized there had to be security coordination and the borders had to be open. there had to be arrangements on the borders. there was an agreement on movement and access brokered by the world bank president. the americans were also

involved. that was in the fall of 2005. there was a narrow window between then and when hamas was elected in january 2006. once hamas was elected, actually before hamas was elected, it was already clear the provisions to allow u.n. monitors on the border with egypt and to allow access between gaza and the west bank, to allow the borders to be open with israel, none of those were implemented. then you had a government of the government by the international community when hamas was elected. then hamas forcibly took over gaza. after that, it became a full-blown blockade. it began with an israeli plan to separate gaza from the west bank. the closer on gaza's borders has gotten increasingly tighter and the conflict has gotten more violent.

hamas's weapons have gotten more sophisticated. there is a causal relationship between the closures, the violence, and the intensity of the violence. >> you are nodding your head. >> yes. let me tell you something also. there is an entire generation born in gaza who were not able to visit their relatives in ramallah or jerusalem. it is at maximum an hour drive. gaza is a big jail. to give you another personal example, i was born in gaza.

to say israel has handed over gaza to the palestinians and they could have turned it into singapore but they screwed up, is not true. 30 years later, to enter ramallah in the west bank, i need to coordinate a military permit from the israeli military. the israelis still control everything to do with gaza. they withdrew the settlers and the army, but they still controlled the air and. if you are a palestinian from gaza, you cannot go live in the west bank. even though you are under the authority of the palestinian authority. basically the israelis control everything. the israelis, it is a common complaint to say we cannot negotiate with them because he has no control over gaza. every two years, they lose

something and hamas starts sending primitive rockets into israel. hamas themselves, they seek consultation with the palestinian authority. it is important for the palestinians poured -- post indians. -- it is important for the palestinians. it is important that whatever the president calls for, it includes hamas. >> let me stay with that point. i have a couple of other points i want to raise. is it possible that in a unity government, hamas would modify? is that the likelihood of hama'' as they should -- hamas's participation with fatah? >> hamas has called for the

destruction of israel. it refused to recognize israel. if it wants to be part of the plo, it has to accept israel's right to exist. if they managed to do that, it will help bring them into the fold. they can negotiate with one voice. >> many people have been very quick to cite the charter of the hamas party. very few people can also cite any language from any charter of

israeli parties. the reality is the likud party, the party of the prime minister, flatly rejects the existence of a palestinian state anywhere west of the jordan. there are plenty of parties to the right of likud as well. >> is the west bank. >> absolutely. exactly. >> they expressed it many times. under any circumstances, we will never give them a state. >> palestinians cannot choose israeli leaders. if you're going to have an agreement, it has to be between parties who legitimately represent the stakeholders. that will not be served by keeping palestinians divided. the notion that any parties cannot participate in a government is aimed at keeping the palestinians divided and keeping the occupation going on so the colonization of palestinian territory can continue.

>> i think hamas is a savvy movement using violence to get something. we are seeing a military arm is strong. but the political arm is strong and fully in charge. they can get technical improvement of the situation. in the long run, they realize they have to recognize israel. and they well, i have no doubt about it. >> you mean people who are part of hamas today. >> absolutely. privately, they tell you they are using this as a bargain. so they can have a palestinian state, and they are using this -- the point out the fact that abbas recognized israel and got nothing. we are keeping the conversation at moments when we have rocket launchers.

we are avoiding the bigger question. this is why we are not challenging israeli officials. >> the president of the u.s. said no country would accept this. >> what about palestinian security? palestinian legislator said we are the only nation on earth asked to guarantee the security of their occupiers? how can that be? if you don't address the major issue which is the occupation, and challenge palestinians, but

also challenge israelis? i don't see this happening on television. they are never asked about it. are you ok asking about the militarization or not? these are the two things absent from the conversation. >> you think benjamin netanyahu wants to see a two state solution? >> based on what he has said and done, to the extent he does accept a palestinian state, it bears no resemblance to anything palestinians think of or most people think of as a sovereign state. he has talked about israel retaining control of air land and sea borders. there would be an israeli presence in a so-called palestinian state. >> along the banks of the jordan river.

>> he has also talked about other sensitive areas. he says jerusalem will not be divided. all that suggests what ever -- you can call it a state. it doesn't fit the definition according to the most basic definition of statehood. it is another way to repackage the occupation. >> you think the israelis want to occupy the west bank? >> i don't think they want to rule the palestinian people, but they want to control the palestinian land. they are sort of stuck. they are stuck because they are inseparable. you can try to push the people off, but that is against international law.

there is this problem of people and land. israel wants to keep as much land as possible without any responsibility for the people. that is what happened in gaza. they realized the colonization experiment in gaza was a failure. you had 7000 settlers amid 1.5 million palestinians. that wasn't going to work. they abandoned gaza but did not give up control. the vision for the current government is similar for the west bank. we will give up ruling over the lives of palestinians. but we won't give up control. that is what lies at the heart of the conflict.

>> how do you create two states, a palestinian state that controls its own state and recognizes israeli concerns? >> their are many initiatives. kerry's proposal was clear. an international force can help monitor the borders. palestinians are basically looking, and they are realistic, they understand israel has one of the strongest armies in the world. they understand they are sitting over 500 atomic bombs. why would they fight? >> if the israelis were genuinely concerned about their security, they would not be embedding hundreds and thousands of their citizens into belligerently occupied territories. the problem is decision makers

have made the calculation that it is politically profitable to continue the occupation. >> you win support among your own voters. >> particularly among the settler constituency. which is like the cuban vote in florida. which will force you to maintain a policy that does not make sense but is politically profitable. the costs of occupation have dropped, including militarily. defense consumption is half of what it was prior to the start of the oslo process. the peace process has made the cost of occupation drop for the israelis. as far as they are concerned, why should they end it? >> they want to continue it

because it is politically advantageous. >> and economically profitable. they exploit the water and natural resources. >> nadia bilbassy-charters, i will begin with you. where are we today? with this conflict and the graphic analyst rations of how many palestinians and civilians have died -- how has it changed the circumstances of the search for peace in two states? >> for many israelis, i'm especially disappointed with the peace camp. israeli society has shifted to the right. i think the peace camp has not

been outspoken against the end of the occupation. the occupation has no costs. for most of the israelis, who live close to gaza, they can sit on beaches and enjoy life. they might as well live in a different setting. they don't see the other side of how the palestinians live. for them, there is no political pressure to take action. the palestinians pay the highest price. in gaza, we have seen with all the horrific statistics of the dead and wounded, the refugees, they pay the price every time israel attacks. israel will never have security without justice. this is a fact. israel morally cannot sustain a military occupation.

even in places like south africa, where we believed it would never happen.

it did happen and apartheid ended. they should put pressure. now is the time. what has happened in gaza should be a catalyst for a broader peace negotiation. prime minister netanyahu -- hopefully it will be a longer cease-fire -- should sit down and make a courageous decision for peace. now is the time to negotiate a two state solution according to the 1967 borders. >> there was a piece in the new york times that says arab friends, egypt and other countries, jordan, saudi arabia, were acquiescing. is that your understanding of how those countries -- with respect to hamas, they are more with israel than they are with palestinians? >> one thing the middle east has taught us, there is a huge gulf between the way the arab public thinks and arab leaders think. >> between the kingdoms and the street. >> we don't like to say street. there is a huge gap. the palestinian issue is the bleeding heart of the arab and muslim world. even the king of saudi arabia, who was very much in the so-called moderate access, had to come out with a statement condemning what he called

israeli war crimes. they know the arab public will not sit by and watch as palestinians continue to be butchered in the gaza strip. this is not something they can continue to keep a lid on for ever. i wanted to make one very important point. after 2008-2009, during those wars on gaza, the world was watching gaza. the may took their eyes away. what message do we send to palestinians -- then they took their eyes away. what message do we send to palestinians if the only time we pay attention is when they are attacking israelis? we have to change the incentive structure. it can go through armed struggle, negotiations, or nonviolence. all of these avenues have been closed off to palestinians.

negotiations have been going on for 20 years. palestinians have seen nothing but continued settlement expansion. when we see nonviolence in the west bank, and it is repressed by israeli forces, the world is silent. there is no condemnation. >> i think that is changing. is social media. in 2009, israel did not allow foreign journalists in gaza. 2014, independent media and social media are taking the lead. whatever the talking point of the idf, they are challenged by diverse voices and views. backed by evidence, pictures and videos in real time. this is pushing all of us, especially young americans relying more and more on these avenues for information, even in

polling we can see this. young americans today, relying on these alternative avenues of news, are dropping their support for israeli policies in the west bank. unlike older viewers relying more and more on mainstream media. >> what does hamas have to do, and what do the palestinians have to do? >> go ahead. >> hamas is a political organization. when they decided to contest the election, it is because they believed politics or a political process would get them somewhere. therefore, they are willing to participate in the process.

bring them over, i will say. make them part of the solution, not part of the problem. israel has said they are using this card as a bargaining chip. they want them -- israel to give them something in return. they wanted to talk about lifting the siege on gaza. opening the crossing. let them be on the table. let them discuss all the issues and be part of a palestinian unity government. they cannot have it both ways. say they want to negotiate with the pa and give them nothing in return. continue settlement. you cannot say you decided to be in a strategic alliance with the terrorists. the only way is to allow them to be in the negotiations, directly or indirectly. in whatever shape or time or whatever. we can be speaking in one voice and recognizing the reality on the ground. they have no friends in egypt. they are not very popular in gaza. many believe hamas would lose if

there was a free election. they know that. for their own political survival -- we have to recognize they are not going to go away. israel tried to demolish them militarily and they cannot. the situation is very similar to

the sinn fein in northern ireland, the anc. organizations that use terror or violence to achieve political means. they are not targeting interests abroad. they use violence to achieve their mains. -- means. let us disarm them and take the balance away. like most palestinians, who have been calling for nonviolent methods to end the occupation. the solution to the hamas and israeli question is the occupation. hopefully we can get them to the negotiating table. we can get a deal. >> last word to you. >> i want to touch on these points. i agree with nadia and yousef. the central issue is the occupation. this is where american leadership comes in.

we have seen from the obama administration is a moral and political failure. i think what is needed is a sense of the linkage, the relationship between violence and occupation. this linkage was well-established by ironically enough the previous administration. they put forward a roadmap for middle east peace. that roadmap established a clear link between security and the occupation, decolonization. if you want security, you have to provide a horizon that shows palestinians israel is really pushing -- relinquishing control over post man lives. -- palestinian lives. this and this ration has skipped

over that and try to resolve permanent status issues without any safety net for how you deal when things get out of hand. you can't leave the parties to themselves. the bottom line, and i know this has been stated, israeli security cannot be achieved at the expense of palestinian security. the message is that it sends is that one israeli or two or three israeli civilian lives are worth more than almost 2000 palestinians killed over the last month. even if you have no empathy for palestinians and gaza, it is basic common sense when you cause that death and destruction on people, they will try to revisit it on you. you get a constant escalation. that is where american leadership has been absent. to focus on israeli security while ignoring palestinian security is a failure. >> thank you. see you next time. ♪

>> live from pier three in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg where we cover innovation, technology, and the future of business. first, a check of top headlines. zynga suffers from a delay of games. the company says some new titles will be delayed as revenue falls 34% in the quarter and the company cut its forecast. much more on zynga, coming up in a moment. news corp. spun off from 20 century fox last year. it is struggling as it transitions from print to digital. revenue fell 3%. ad sales at "wall street journal" and "new york post" fell 6%.