>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> moshe lon is here.

he presided over this summer's 50-day war between israel and hamas, the islamic militant group that was in power in the gaza strip. more than 2000 palestinians were killed in the war, the majority of them civilians. on the israeli side, 65 died. were0 homes in gaza destroyed. the reconstruction efforts have begun, but they are concerned it will be in vain. ban ki-moon told reporters -- international pressure is building on israel for new peace negotiations. he latest talks collapsed in april. speculation is rising that the six powers negotiating with iran are negotiating to reach a deal. they are worried that the campaign against isil will come at the expense of curtailing iran's nuclear program. i am pleased to have moshe

ya'alon here at his table. i know there are some things that i say that you quarrel with . not me your assessment, from the perspective of what your government should do or wants to do, but as an analyst , ofational security issues the threat from isil. >> isil is a very extreme group generated by islam with the idea to create an islamic state. there is a claim to do it now in iraq or syria. foright be very dangerous the parties in the region, to the western interests in the region. there is an aim to create this caliphate, islam x state -- the islamic state.

far, they are deployed along the border with syria along with lebanon. the syrian armed forces or the kurds in kobani, in syria. they should be stopped anyhow. they are on the march. they attracted jihadists from all over the world to join them. the idea, we call it the awakening of the west, creating to deal with them , it might be successful. it will not include just air superiority, but supporting the ground elements, like the kurds ,n iraq, the kurds in syria

other moderate position elements in syria, supporting them against isis. >> what is the threat they told to baghdad today? >> they intend to take over baghdad and whatever is available, like damascus. they are already close to baghdad. this coalition is going to use our superiority in an effective way. they can be stopped. to help the iraqi armed forces to do the job on the ground. their superiority, support of the coalition, i believe that they can. what are the other options? they are there and they should be encouraged to fight. using their superiority, it

might be achievable. not onlyperiority coming from the united states, but turkey, is enough to stop isil? >> it is not enough. you need boots on the ground. wait -- iraqi forces are boots on the ground or not? >> they are boots on the ground. >> but they are enough? you do not need boots on the ground from the west or the united is to do the job? >> to support the current boots on the ground, whether it is the iraqi armed forces or the kurds. meaning to train them and encourage them to fight. they are not an element that .hould be exercised

other elements like tribal leaders, to get rid of isis and , the fundamental extremist group. >> what do you think the iranians are doing. let's just suppose they have their own interests in iraq as well as syria. protecting bashar al-assad's regime in syria. they are playing a nasty role in the region. they are very similar to an instigator. they support the instability in afghanistan and they supported the sunnis to kill each other and not allow them to stabilize a strong iraq. those other interests. -- those are their interests.

came in yemen using the shia -- anyhow, they play a very negative role in the region. >> but they are opposed to isil. oppose isis. it is in their best interest. >> if it is necessary to stop not sufficient with the iraqi ground forces, should they use militias supported by iran on the ground? >> in the current situation in , suffering for chronic instability for very long periods of time.

coalitions between different enemys, sharing a common -- so, it might happen. >> and it would not be such a bad thing if you could stop isil. it and we should watch allow them to do the job. >> what about assad? is it serious saying, let's not try to overthrow assad until we stop isil? historically, morally, bashar al-assad should step down. what today, he is controlling about 35% of syria. it is another reflection of the fragmentation in syria. interfere.do not we do not take any side.

border,ation across the army militias are operating. watch carefully as the other elements -- as long as the deal not deal with us, we do not deal with them. we are not going to decide about the future of syria, but we will keep our interests. the situation along the border because of that. >> because of your success with covert action when you need to use it, is it possible for the u.s. special forces or some other combination of forces to take out the leader of isis? >> yes, why not? if you are enjoying their superiority -- air superiority,

it should, you know, be done and it -- and he should be targeted. that kind ofhat mission is underway, they does have not been able to put it all together. wouldn't you venture? >> yes. >> thank you for your honesty. want to do? israel does it want to participate? does it think it can make a difference? does it appreciate the fact that israel is counterproductive? >> we have enough challenges apart from isis. we have a very good relationship with many parties. coalition asin the well as the united states.

emirates as well as -- >> saudi arabia? >> by having this bilateral relationship, this is our contribution to the operation. .e understand it is sensitive so you can do it covertly and privately, but not publicly? >> yes. president obama said it is a long effort against isis. what does he mean by that? why does it take 30 years? >> we should be ready for a very period of time. we should be patient, generally speaking. >> patient? because we want instant food, instant peace, instant solutions to everything.

we should be patient. this is a long process, to deal with these jihadists. money takes the time. we should be ready for a long operation. netanyahubeen said -- may have said that isis and hamas are branches of the same poisonous tree. or you believe that? >> yes. but we are talking about in the middle east is about radical islamic movements. they need to gain hegemony and a new caliphate. it is a claim that they try to syria, in afghanistan, in iraq, africa, wherever.

imaginationbeyond to have a world according to their way. >> suppose they argue that hamas and hezbollah both participate in the government. that they are not only just interested in radical islam as a movement, but they are trying to do things within their own respective countries. >> that is right. it is the practical measures and what way to do it. impose muslim ideology all over the religion. in egypt, they support the muslim battle today. >> are those groups, in your judgment, and hamas, do they have -- do you feel this is the

same as isis? loser -- or al-nusra? >> the difference is the beheadings, the kidnapped civilians. generally speaking, the whole idea of al qaeda, isis, is to impose their way of islam all over the world. this is their intentions. operate -- they might cooperate in certain cases. in some way, they are exporting and imposing their way of islam. >> do you believe there is something in islam that motivates them or simply that these are radical jihadist ?errorists as other religious leaders have

said, they kidnapped the religion. there is nothing in islam that argues they should be this way. >> yes. i agree with that. this is an interpretation of islam. we cannot ignore the fact that in all -- that not all muslims are jihadists. but all jihadists are muslims. >> what does that mean? >> islam, in the recent history, has declined. poverty exploited by their leaders. not a relevant ideology like they adopted in the past. be solutions.s to this is the solution. they now -- they know how to

approach these frustrated people. them to become followers. it is a vicious circle. that, as alieve society, we sanctify this. deteriorating situation regarding the economy and everything. >> someone once said, i think it was edmund burke who said, "for evil to triumph, all that is necessary is for good men to do nothing." right. is that is why we feel there is an awakening now. we have the coalitions against isis. in our case, israel, we have been calling for the west not to

ignore it or escape from it. >> you said you are encouraging .he west to confront it has the west done enough? are you convinced that they now have come together to stop it? >> not enough. >> what should they be doing? they areow, instigating instability in the region. they were under pressure with political and economic sanctions. they were afraid of an uprising because of the situation. today, i would say they are quite happy. the economic sanctions are going to be lifted because they agreed to discuss the nuclear project.

so there is no chance for an international uprising. they are going to be very happy on the current negotiations. the missile delivery systems and so forth. westi am talking about the , the west should confront the evil elements, whether it is , they should be confronted by the west. situation?out the so yes, it is not enough. >> to do more is to do what?

>> first of all, to fight, hearts and minds. not to seek out democratic nation -- democratization by elections. , basicide the idea values that we believe in, like sanctity of life, education. and then to fight it by not allowing them the financial system. and of course, to fight it by military means as well. >> with troops coming from where? enjoying thell, air superiority technology and, of course, to use those elements on the ground to fight those elements.

this radical element is now everywhere. in syria, in iraq, in lebanon.

>> how close do you think iran enough material and a delivery system for a nuclear potential? >> it is about a year. not more than that. unimpeded, within a year, they can have the capacity, both in terms of delivery as well as -- >> delivery systems are not discussed in the current negotiations. keep is thent to indigenous capability to enrich uranium. it is keyed to the military nuclear options. that is why they insist. they just have to make the

decision. to enrich it, you have to have about 90%. it might take a couple of months. and then they have the capability to use it as a weapon. they might have a bomb within a year. israelhat moment would right? this netanyahu saider at the general assembly, there is a redline. it is the amount of enriched uranium which might be used by them. enough materials to make one bomb. >> and that is a year away. >> even less. it is all a process. it might take them a year.

>> there are those that argue that israel can only delay, it cannot take out their nuclear program. >> even members of the israeli cabinet argued in 1981. they said there might be a delay. they might get another from the french at the time. as well as we know, it has not happened. >> why do you even need to worry about this? president obama has said it is unacceptable that the united states not allow them. the president of the united states says he will take care of it. >> we have a common objective.

one way or another, this should be stopped. and he claimsaid that no deal is better than a bad deal. and letting deal the sanctions -- >> so israel prefers there would be no deal? >> if there is a deal, we will include any fuel cycle. it might be a good deal. >> a good deal for you is that they have no -- >> no indigenous capability to enrich uranium. >> that is the only thing that would -- >> it is the main issue now.

the terror activities generated by iran is not discussed. the main point we should focus on is the cycle. let's see what will happen. >> don't you trust the united states to do it? >> we understand the flavor of the discussions now. it is about the percent they should have. >> if you are discussing only the number of centrifuges they should have, that is, by definition, in your view, a bad deal? >> absolutely. absolutely. to deal with the consequences.

>> several things would happen. response and retaliation against israel, perhaps from the united states. all of a sudden, all the people in iran will become nationalistic and support the regime. many argue it is more counterproductive than productive to do that. reprisal that the they might do? >> we do not want to deal with certain scenarios. >> you have to. that is your job. my job is closed off, not publicly, because the developing situation in the middle east is surprising. can you remember isis two years ago? >> no. >> developing situations.

let's exploit developing situations to our advantage. >> how do you do that? >> let me put it this way -- we geopolitical region and we are opportunistic and we look interests, common enemies by certain parties in the region. we have opportunities to cover it with them. whole geopolitical situation has been changed. a whole different division. you know the radical shia's, the muslim party led by turkey and qatar. stop -- wait, stop.

erdogannt heard a gun -- and his party are part of the muslim brotherhood? >> are they not? who supported hamas last? turkey and qatar. this is the case. interests,heir own very different from ours. this is the case. ,ut you know, it matters finding common interests with others. it, the developing situation is producing opportunities and risks. we believe that we know how to exploit it.

>> where does that lead you to? you are saying you have friends, new friends. tell me what the impact of that on the ground is. >> we can go back to the prime minister's speech in the general summit. iso.s talking about political horizon. it is via some other capitals in the region. in order to reach it, it is another problem. when we talk about a peaceful official, formal ineements, we do not believe it. we believe in interests.

sharing common interests, common enemies. that is the best way to limit the situation in the region. >> if we are forced to attack iran, we think we can count on the aforementioned countries to be supporting what we did. >> i do not want to discuss this scenario. just iran is a common enemy. what about isis, al qaeda? they are supported neither by egypt nor jordan, so it is interesting. >> do you think of the united states as in the same place as all of the above-mentioned

countries? because after mubarak and damascus, there was some questioning of america's commitment. seethe president's trip to king abdullah and other events caused those countries to say, we are reassured now. whatever questions we had, we know america is prepared to do the right thing. be, but anyway, the united states is our best ally. >> israel's best ally. >> yes. the relationships and the corporation -- and the corporation -- cooperation. forces anddefense the --

>> the forces led by you. >> led by me, yes. that the united states is our best ally. partys the most powerful all around the globe. military might, economic power and political power. , we share assues couple of disputes. >> what is the dispute on issues? there was a dispute as to how far you went. you did things that they did not want you to do. it does not seem to stop you. if the president of the united states publicly at knowledges --

acknowledges your differences and privately urges you to stop -- >>-itis -- i prefer to discuss the issues -- the relationship is too important. >> publicly, you and others say that, on the national security level, the cooperation has never been better. >> that is right. >> so what are you worried about? >> another issue, what should be done on the israeli-palestinian track. you said something about john kerry. i'm not sure if you denied it or f you said -- >> nobody heard me saying it. >> you have not denied saying it, you just said nobody heard me say it.

>> we have, as i said, a very good relationship. appreciate the u.s. stance on every issue. it does not mean that we have dispute -- that we do not have disputes on issues. >> john kerry, what was wrong with him saying they were trying to get a piece between palestinians and israelis? a peace treaty they gave the palestinians their own state, it and if israel's national security was secure, that is a good thing. >> you are right. but i have the palestinian -- the spirits with the palestinians for more than 20 years. >> which tells you what? discourseernational is dominated by too many misconceptions. -- what is as

proper instability in the middle east? denied it. syria -- let's leave it alone. the muslim conflict, what is it all about? but when i found that we do not have a partner on the , we organize -- why organize a nationstate of the jewish people within any boundaries?

they enjoy political independence. wo political entities. one in gaza and one in the west bank. >> but it is changing. --nevertheless just nevertheless, they enjoy political independence. >> you seem to be saying that you no longer believe in a two-s tate solution. they have their independence already so they do not need a state. the syrian empire is going to be an autonomy. it is going to be demilitarized. --order to encourage them they are not competent to govern themselves. >> your prime minister says he solutionin a two-state

. >> what does it mean? it is going to be an autonomy. >> but why can't you call it a state? >> not talking about hamas, they 67 lines are just a .tate plansn. partition proposal, they rejected all of it because their aim is not to have a palestinian state, it is to destruct the jewish state. that is why we do not say to states for two people. >> do you believe that is the decision of hamas? >> absolutely.

we considered compromise. you are saying it. this is a tricky way. >> let me ask you this. david, when they were negotiating, was the recognition of a jewish state part of the negotiations? >> no. >> but you added that later. >> we did not add it later. he failed. get a sideon was to rafat in which he was committed to engender a toestinian charter in a way recognize the jewish state. he did not do it. -- ecause

>> because he did not want to recognize our rights to a jewish state. just to demonstrate their ideology. this is their ideology. why is he not ready to stay -- to say two states for two people? what's he came to an agreement which they later failed to go then-primewith the minister. >> he escaped it. >> because they do not want to deal. >> absolutely. in a way where we would be able to see the conflict. cede the 67 line. but he is not in the position because it is not well-understood.

>> all the things separate ,srael and the palestinians now the right of return can be fixed. i'm not sure about a center of government for the palestinians. could you ever accept that? intention is not a palestinian state. -- ing as this is the case , this is a saying strategic early warning. reconciling arafat for existence with us.

i realized it not because of my sophisticated intelligence sources. this is the thing now. looking for a way to educate the young generation. kids are educated to hate the jews. i am not talking about hamas. this is the case that we are talking about. this is a way to encourage and promote peace and that is the way we should concentrate in. we have decisions on the security council and the general assembly. up.hould be from the bottom we do not want to rule them or govern the. >> answer me the question -- do you want them to have a state?

>> whatever they call it, it will be an autonomy. >> you do not want to call it a state. you do not want to say, the palestinians have a state. >> really, it is going to be autonomy. state.autonomy of a i do not understand. call it a state with membership in the united nations. if you want to deal with palestinians, you go to the state to deal with them and where the capital is. ready to discuss it when they recognize the extent of the jewish people. be reallyss, can they independent? us.dependent on -- notcity, water

dependent on us. that is fine. >> some would argue that when , you couldere there have find a way to find an then.ent we could have had an agreement and built on it. all kinds of developing relationships. israel and the palestinians would be in a much better place today. >> again, it is not going to be the way you are imagining it. this agreement means that the shekel is a money, the official currency. you cannot have such a tiny

place with all of the problems for your own economy. they are not going to have an economy without our dependence or not. recently, hamas, 96 terrorists, we saved them. this kind of cool operation -- ,his kind of cooperation municipalities enjoyed already political independence. it is not a state as you imagined, but a way to live together. >> israel is losing its friends in the world again. misconceptions. >> absolutely.

we already compromised. this experience with the become a safeas haven for terrorists. we suffered homicide bombings all over the country. .ockets launching doh this experience in mind -- believe that the only way what do we get? all of the areas which we .elivered we discuss all issues and gave

and b.as a i cannot imagine any restrictions to our freedom. see -- e, we want to >> suppose you are a young thestinian and you hear defense minister, a man with a distinguished career who supported oslo, willing to do things, say what you just said, does that give any hope to them? >> yes. they enjoy geopolitical independence. >> they elect people who support hamas. it is their choice. voteey have the right to -- heir parliament

>> that is what happened in gaza. they elected hamas. >> nevertheless, we are encouraging, promoting the economy. allowing them to leave in dignity. that is not the case with thomas in the gaza strip. that is the case in the west bank now. and we encourage it. this is a way to have hope in the future. otherwise, their intentions are different. to destroy us, to kill us. case, it is not going to be useful. >> there are arguments about what happened in gaza. some would argue, notwithstanding all the damage and casualties, that hamas won because they survived.

know, the white flag of hamas and hezbollah is something like that, victory. they accept the initiatives that they rejected from the very beginning. why reject the egyptian initiative? it is in favor. nevertheless, they paid a very heavy price. launching rockets and mortar shares -- mortar shells. and we had to respond to defend our people. they did it from a densely-populated area in the gaza strip. >> everybody recognized your right to defend yourselves. the question was whether you .ent further than you had to go

but they recognize your right to defend yourself. but they survived and they are rebuilding. nations tofrom donor rebuild. the infrastructure in gaza and moving the economy of gaza. >> what about the airport? >> not at all because we cannot touch them. it would be very easy for them to smuggle, to import rockets and missiles from iran and other parties in the region. gaza.engage from i rejected it as chief of staff at that time. they wanted to create an islamic state. what does it mean to leave gaza

question -- gaza? we had the gazans living in gaza. we did not deploy there. they enjoy their autonomy. , isolated,lements .ctually providing work 3700 people were employed. 4500 enjoyed the industrial zone. it is another fact which demonstrates the willingness to live together, coexistence. we had the option to spend the or not tohe economy

manufacture and export rockets. that is why we have to keep them , to take some security measures. on the west bank is informed by what you saw happen. >> absolutely. in other cities in the west bank -- just when we moved the defense operation, we enjoyed the freedom operation because of our activities. >> what could change of mind so that you would be supportive of a palestinian state along the 67 lines? what could change your mind?

reform, looking seeing thatooks, there is no more education for hatred but there is education for peace, like on our side. political leadership according to this change which is needed. and education. trust the start to option. otherwise, we should be cooperating but ready to fight anything generated from the gaza strip or west bank. >> thank you. it was a pleasure to meet you. ♪

>> i am john heilemann, and i am marc halperin. with all due realize to all y'all in nashville. >> howdy! ♪ >> shalom sports fans and tonight's lineup, chris christie does the bare minimum. and charlie crist will debate without his number one fan. first, josh was on this show a couple of weeks ago shortly after president obama, saying his policies are on the ballot this fall.