>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> moshe ya'alon 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. 60,000 homes in gaza were destroyed. the reconstruction efforts have begun, but they are concerned it will be in vain. ban ki-moon told reporters -- there can be no peace in the middle east while this continues. 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 will extend the deadline 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. welcome.

>> it is good to be here. >> i know there are some things that i say that you quarrel with. we will come to that. give me your assessment, not from the perspective of what your government should do or wants to do, but as an analyst of national security issues, of 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. it might be very dangerous for the parties in the region, to the western interests in the region. there is an aim to create this caliphate, the islamic state.

so far, they are far away from israel. they are deployed along the border with syria along with lebanon. they fight hezbollah in lebanon as they 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 two coalitions to deal with them, it might be successful. it will not include just air superiority, but supporting the ground elements, like the kurds in 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. there is a need for the iraqi armed forces to do the job on the ground. >> can they do it? >> with 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.

>> air superiority not only coming from the united states, but turkey, is enough to stop isil? >> it is not enough. you need boots on the ground. >> but 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 states to do the job? is then't believe this right thing to do, to have western boots on the ground. to support the current boots on the ground, whether it is the iraqi armed forces or the kurds. themrt they need to equip to train them and encourage them , to fight. another element that should be exercised by supporting the triballements, like the

leaders, to get rid of isis and confront isis, the fundamental extremist group. >> what do you think the iranians are doing. >> they have their own areas in iraq as well as syria. protecting bashar al-assad's regime in syria. they are playing a nasty role in the region. it is still the main generator of instability in the region. they support the instability in afghanistan and they supported in iraq both shiites and sunnis to kill each other and not allow them to stabilize a strong iraq. those are their interests. they are involved in other places, like supporting

hezbollah. today, they came in yemen using the she elements. anyhow, they play a very negative role in the region. >> but they are opposed to isil. >> yes, they oppose isis. this is an immediate interest. >> if it is necessary to stop isil and it is not sufficient with the iraqi ground forces, should they use militias supported by iran on the ground? >> in the current situation in the middle east, suffering for chronic instability for very long periods of time. we might witness ad hoc

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

we do not take any side. the situation across the border, army militias are operating. watch carefully as the other elements -- as long as they do 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 intelligence superiority air superiority, in , the end, you know, it should be done and he should be

targeted. >> i assume that that kind of mission is underway, they does have not been able to put it all together. wouldn't you venture? >> yes. >> thank you for your honesty. >> what does israel want to do? does it want to participate? does it think it can make a difference? does it appreciate the fact that that many people say that if israel participates, it is so counterproductive it would not help us? >> we have enough challenges apart from isis. we have a very good relationship with many parties. participants in the coalition as well as the united states. the united arab emirates as well

as -- >> saudi arabia? >> by having this bilateral relationship, sharing intelligence and so forth this , is our contribution to the operation. we 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? >> i am not sure it will take 30 years, but we should be ready for a very long 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. as a matter of hearts and minds. dealing with the money takes time. we should be ready for a long operation. >> it has been said -- netanyahu may have said that isis and hamas are branches of the same poisonous tree. do you believe that? >> yes. what we are talking about in the middle east is about radical islamic movements. aiming to get hegemony and a new caliphate. whether it is an export to -- in revolutionexport the

they try to do it in syria, in , afghanistan, in iraq, africa, wherever. it might be beyond imagination 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. the muslim brotherhood way is to impose muslim ideology all over the religion. talking about hamas as an example. 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?

or al-nusra? >> the differences instead of 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. they might fight each other and 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 terrorists? 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 their interpretation of islam. we cannot ignore the fact that not all muslims are jihadists. but all jihadists are muslims. >> what does that mean? >> this is a clash between civilizations. islam, in the recent history, has declined. you can see poverty exploited by their leaders. lack of relevant ideology like they adopted in the past. today, it seems to be solutions. this is the solution.

they know how to approach these frustrated people. and to mobilize him to become isis followers, al qaeda followers. it is a vicious circle. i do not believe that, as a society, we sanctify this. and our deteriorating situation regarding the economy and everything. they sanctified death instead of sanctifying life. >> 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." >> that is right. that is why we feel there is an awakening now. creating 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 the 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? >> you know, let's discuss the arabian decide -- iranian side. you know, they are 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. there is no political lies to relation anymore. -- politicized relation anymore. 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. when i am talking about the west, the west should confront the evil elements, whether it is isis, al qaeda, they should be confronted by the west. all over the region -- and what about the situation? 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 democratization by elections. to provide the idea, basic values that we believe in, like sanctity of life, education. by education and not by election. 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? >> first of all, enjoying the air superiority technology advantages 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 is to having enough material and a delivery system for a nuclear potential? >> it is about a year. not more than that. >> so unimpeded, within a year, they can have the capacity, both in terms of delivery as well as -- >> absolutely. they have already delivery systems are not discussed in the current negotiations. what they want to keep is the indigenous capability to enrich uranium. it is critical for them to keep the military nuclear options. that is why they insist. if they have the capability to enrich uranium they just have to

, make the decision. to enrich uranium to 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. >> at what moment would israel we have to strike? >> i believe that prime minister netanyahu put it very clearly at the general assembly a year ago. there is a redline. it is the amount of enriched uranium which might be used by them to have enough materials to make one bomb. that is 255 kilograms of 20% uranium. >> and that is a year away. >> even less. it is all a process. to have a bomb 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 reactor 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 will not allow them. the president of the united states says he will take care of it. >> we appreciate very much the common objective. one way or another, this should be stopped.

we are not afraid and he claims that no deal is better than a bad deal. having a bad deal in lifting the sanctions, not having more of the politicized relations -- >> so israel prefers there would be no deal? >> rather than a bad deal. if there is a deal, we will of any full cessation fuel cycle. it might be a good deal. >> a good deal for you is that they have no -- >> no indigenous capability to enrich uranium. >> no capacity in iran to enrich uranium. that is the only thing that would -- >> it is the main issue now. a delivery system should be discussed as well. >> it is not discussed. >> 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. we will have to deal with the consequences. >> several things would happen. there would be 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. >> i don't want to go into detail -- >> don't you fear the reprisal that they might do? >> i don't 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 did not name what we call the geopolitical region and we are opportunistic and we look for common interests, common enemies by certain parties in the region. we have opportunities to cover it with them. iran's whole geopolitical situation has been changed. you have a radical shia access led by iran. the muslim party led by turkey and qatar. >> wait, stop. president erdogan and his party are part of the muslim

brotherhood axis? a muslima -- they are brotherhood follower, and you know what. who supported hamas last? turkey and qatar. this is the case. looking to the turkish strategy and policy regarding the coalition they have their own , interests, very different from american interests. this is the case. we suffer from it. manage,know, we can finding common interests with others. so by saying it, the developing situation is producing opportunities, not just risks. we believe that we know how to exploit it. >> how can you exploit it? cooperation -- >> 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 assembly. when he was talking about political horizon. he did talk -- the way to political horizon in the region is via some other capitals in the region. in order to reach it, it is another problem. when we talk about a peaceful situation, we have to look through official, formal agreements, done by lawyers. we do not believe in 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. not 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 mubarak and damascus, there

was some questioning of america's commitment. and the president's trip to see 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. >> it might be, but anyway, the united states is our best ally. >> israel's best ally. >> yes. we enjoy the relationships and the cooperation. the israel defense forces and the -- >> the forces led by you.

>> led by me, yes. no doubt that the united states is our best ally. this is the most powerful party all around the globe. regarding military might, economic power and political power. on certain issues, we share a couple of disputes. >> what is the dispute on issues? there was a dispute as to how far you went in gaza. 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 acknowledges there differences and privately urges you to stop -- >> i prefer to discuss the

issues behind closed doors. the relationship is too important to do it publicly. >> 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? >> there might be disputes 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 if you said -- >> nobody heard me saying it. -- youefore, no one has have not denied saying it, you just said nobody heard me say it. >> we have, as i said, a very

good relationship. >> you have already said that. >> we appreciate the u.s. stance on every issue. it does not mean that we do not have disputes on issues. >> what was wrong with secretary kerry trying to find a way to get a peace agreement between palestinians and israelis? you accept the idea that there could be a peace treaty between israel and palestinians that gave the palestinians their own state, it would -- and if israel's national security was secure, that is a good thing. >> theoretically you are right. , but i have experience with the palestinians for more than 20 years. >> which tells you what? >> the international discourse is dominated by too many misconceptions.

one of them is -- what is a proper instability in the middle east? we strongly denied it. tunisia, egypt, syria -- let's leave it alone. the next misconception -- what is it all about? when i found that we do not have a partner on the palestinian side, why organize a nationstate of the jewish people within any boundaries? i realized we should find another way, not just talking about a palestinian state.

they enjoy political independence. there are already two political entities. one in gaza and one in the west bank. >> but it is changing. >> nevertheless, they enjoy political independence. we don't want to government. -- governor them. >> you seem to be saying that you no longer believe in a two-state solution. they have their independence already so they do not need a state. are you saying that? >> you might call it a state. you might call it the palestinian empire. is going to be an autonomy. it is going to be demilitarized. in order to encourage them -- we do not want to govern them -- they should be competent to govern themselves. >> your prime minister says he believes in a two-state solution. >> i believe in the palestinian empire. what does it mean?

it is going to be an autonomy. >> but why can't you call it a state? >> are they ready to recognize our right to exist as a jewish state? not talking about hamas, they believe the 67 lines are just a state. their ambition is not to have a palestinian state, otherwise they would have had it. the u.n. partition plans 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. at camp 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 tried to put it in oslo. he failed. osloondition to agree to was to get a side letter from arafat in which he was committed to change the palestinian charter in a way to recognize the jewish state. he did not do it. >> because -- >> because he did not want to

recognize our right to exist as a jewish state. their other maneuvers to avoid it just demonstrate their ideology. this is their ideology. why is he not ready to say two states for two people? he does not recognize the people -- >> he came to an agreement which they later failed to go forward on with the then-prime minister. >> he escaped it. mike they escaped camp david. >> because they do not want to deal. >> absolutely. in a way where we would be able to see the conflict. we cede the 67 line. but he is not in the position because it is not well-understood.

>> all the things separate israel and the palestinians now, the right of return can be fixed. i'm not sure about jerusalem as a center of government for the palestinians. they want part of east jerusalem as part of the government. could you ever accept that? >> no. their intention is not a palestinian state. as long as this is the case -- i served as head of the intelligence in 19 five and i came to him saying, this is a strategic early warning. i do not arafat preparing his people for reconciliation for existence with us. i realized it not because of my

sophisticated intelligence sources. you just have to look at the palestinian -- 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. if this is the case, what are we talking about. this is a way to encourage and promote peace and that is the way we should concentrate in. is not going to come by decisions on the security council and the general assembly. it should be from the bottom up. we do not want to rule them or govern them. >> answer me the question -- do you want them to have a state? >> whatever they call it, it will be an autonomy.

>> i'm not trying to play games with you, i'm trying to understand where you are. you do not want to call it a state. you do not want to say, the palestinians have a state. >> it should be discussed in the negotiations. really, it is going to be autonomy. >> the autonomy of a state. >> it does not matter. >> call it a state with membership in the united nations. if you want to deal with palestinians, you go to the state of palestine to deal with them and where the capital is. >> i will be ready to discuss it when they recognize the extent -- the right to exist as a nationstate of the jewish people. this is not the case and i am not ready to discuss it. nevertheless, can they be really independent? i'm talking about the economy. they are dependent on us. a chastity,re,

water, they are dependent on us. that is fine. >> some would argue that when his folks were there, you could have find a way to find an agreement then, after rabin and arafat came over to the white house, clinton, that if we could have had an agreement and built on it, now because of economic reasons and all kinds of developing relationships israel , and the palestinians would be in a much better place today. >> again, it is not going to be a state in the way you are imagining it. agreement means that the shekel is a money, the official currency. you cannot have such a tiny place with all of the problems to have their own economy.

they are not going to have a viable economy without being dependence on us. this is a case of security. recently, hamas, 96 terrorists, we saved them. this kind of cooperation, municipalities enjoyed already political independence. it is not a state as you imagine, but this is the only way to live together. >> israel is losing its friends in the world again. misconceptions. >> absolutely. we already compromised.

i personally supported oslo. this experience with the palestinians in which any piece of territory delivered to their responsibility has become a safe haven for terrorists. we suffered homicide bombings all over the country. more than 1000 casualties. pads.cket launching with this experience in mind do you believe that the only way -- is to withdraw what do we get? >> you do not ever want to give up the west bank? up the areas which

are now considered areas a and areas be. i cannot imagine any restrictions to our freedom of operation regarding our situation in the west bank. otherwise, we want to see -- >> suppose you are a young palestinian and you hear the 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 political independence. >> they elect people who support hamas. it is their choice. >> they have the right to vote for their parliament, to let

their government -- >> that is what happened in gaza. they elected hamas. >> nevertheless, we are encouraging, promoting the economy. allowing them to leave in dignity and enjoy well-being. that is not the case with hamas 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. not to live independently, but to destroy us, to kill us. if this is the 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.

>> yes, you 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. provocations launching rockets and 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 went further than you had to go. but they recognize your right to defend yourself.

but they survived and they are rebuilding. $5 billion from donor nations to rebuild. >> we support any idea of improving infrastructure in gaza and moving the economy of gaza. >> what about the airport? >> not at all because we cannot trust them. if they have a seaport and an airport, it would be easy for them to smuggle an import rockets and missiles from iran and other parties in the region. we disengage from gaza. 2005. i rejected it as chief of staff at that time. understood they wanted to create an islamic state. >> you did not want to leave gaza. >> what does it mean to leave gaza?

what we have in gaza is another misunderstanding. we had the gazans living in gaza. we were not involved there. we did not deploy there. they enjoy their autonomy. we had settlers, isolated, actually providing work. 3700 people were employed. 4500 enjoyed the industrial zone. they decided to destroy it. it is another fact which s the willingness, whether it is to live together, coexistence. we had the option to spend the money on the economy or not to manufacture and export rockets.

they choose the way of the rockets. that is why we have to keep them, to take some security measures. >> your opinion on the west bank is informed by what you saw happen. >> absolutely. --t i saw on the west bank in other cities in the west bank which had become to be a homicide bomber launcher. when we moved the defense operation, we enjoyed the freedom of operation. >> what could change of mind so that you would be supportive of a palestinian state along the 67 lines? what could change your mind?

>> educational reform, looking to the textbooks, seeing that there is no more education for hatred but there is education for peace, like on our side. i educate our kids of israel. -- this is the way we educate our kids in israel. political leadership according to this change which is needed. and education. that is the first signal, for me to start to trust them. otherwise, we should be cooperating but ready to fight generated letter from a gaza strip or west bank. >> thank you. it was a pleasure to meet you. ♪ >> live from pier three in san

francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west," where we cover innovation, technology and the future of business. u.s. stocks extend their rebound with the s&p 500 rallying the most in a year. the s&p closed up. the nasdaq gained nearly 2.5%. the dow was up 1.3%. earnings wereate nude european bond buying fueled the gains.