♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." anthony: i'm anthony mason, filling in for charlie rose. we begin with politics. president trump campaigned on repealing and replacing the affordable care act, the signature legislation of the president obama's eight years in office. on monday, the trump administration and house republicans unveiled their plan to upend obamacare. the bills sixth to eliminate the individual mandate for most americans, in favor of a new system of tax credits to attract people to buy insurance on the

open market, among other provisions. the legislation faces stout resistance across the political spectrum including from within , the republican party. joining me from washington is jake sherman, a senior writer for politico and co-author of "playbook." jake, welcome. jake: thank you for having me. anthony to start with, the : american health care act is different fundamentally how from obamacare? jake: in many, many ways. as you mentioned at the top, it will eliminate the mandate to buy health insurance. it eliminates a whole host of provisions that democrats worked hard to pass. republicans would argue this is a free market solution but this is kind of where the divide is. republicans on capitol hill are positioning this as the largest entitlement program in perhaps american history, which is one of the big stumbling blocks that donald trump and paul ryan need to overcome. from a policy perspective, it

does keep the main structure, the main framework of the obamacare or the aca as it's officially called. "the wall street journal" editorial page actually conceded this. a very friendly forum for house republicans that frequently supports what house and senate republicans do. they said they are not looking to tear up the health care system, which is something that conservatives have seized on in capitol hill in expressing their opposition. anthony: some republicans are calling it obamacare-light. jake: this is mostly coming from the house freedom caucus, a group of 25 or so conservative lawmakers, many of them the same people who forced john boehner to resign just a few years ago. a lot of these people come from districts of that are extremely supportive of donald trump. the real question here from a political point of view is, what does donald trump do to break

the fever? republicans don't have a huge margin for error in passing the bill in the house or the senate. will donald trump hit the campaign trail aggressively to rile up these lawmakers, constituents in favor of the health care law? he is doing that on saturday, he's traveling to louisville, kentucky. most notably, senator rand paul is against this legislation. we'll see how donald trump positions himself in terms of the legislation in front of rand paul's constituents. anthony: paul ryan says he has the votes to pass this in the house. is he right? j: he might be at some point. i don't think he knows even at this point. it's very early. one thing we have seen that has become a continuing narrative of donald trump's administration, he is basically saying that he wants to repeal and replace the

health care law and rewrite the entire tax code by the end of july. i have been covering washington and congress for a decade. this is something that even the biggest optimist would say is a very rosy view of how washington works. we have 60-something legislative days. in the 1980's, it took a little more than a year to rewrite the tax code and that was without twitter and the cable news that we know today. i think that this situation that paul ryan is describing is probably going to be right at some but i don't think his point. leadership knows right now that they have the votes to pass. i think he is projecting a little bit. anthony: did the trump administration anticipate the backlash or at least the level of the backlash from within the party? jake: it's difficult to know because many of the people donald trump surrounds himself with have no experience in government.

stephen bannon was a media executive, gary cohn was from goldman sachs. his chief policy advisor, steven miller, was a communications aid on capitol hill. hardly somebody who is very seasoned in passing legislation. or, what it takes to get legislation across the finish line. it is difficult to know if they expected it. on capitol hill, the people i talked to last night, this morning, said that they are not surprised by the opposition from some of these outside conservative groups. the thorn in the side of republicans in washington. some of these groups that kind of exist to try to purify order -- adhereor it here the party to a strict ideological purity. i think they are not surprised the level of outside complaints. i think some people were caught off guard because we thought we were still in the honeymoon period with donald trump on capitol hill and clearly that is

over. anthony: they will need some of these votes. what do they need to do to get them? what compromises do they have to make and how do they proceed here? jake: this is a big divide between capitol hill republicans. they say, what you see is what you get. we have put a lot of work into this bill and we will not reopen this legislation to negotiation. once you do that, it unravels. it's like a ball of yarn. once you start pulling on it, the whole thing ends up all over the floor. the white house has signaled -- they are sending mixed messages. they are saying this is a working draft, let's talk, we are happy to horse trade. that needs to end according to capitol hill republicans. conservatives are being brought to the white house. the house freedom caucus is going bowling at the white house. we will see if they can do some bowling diplomacy. senator ted cruz of texas is dining with the president. the president is using the white house and the levers of power in

a way that barack obama was not successful at. whether he can make the case that the republican party has been promising this for years, this is what we can produce or this is what we can get the votes for this is what we need , to pass, this is what he really needs to say to congressional republicans to get it across the finish line. anthony: the democrats aren't really even in the conversation here. but this is ultimately their legacy that is being attacked. nancy pelosi's legacy in particular, isn't it? jake: it is. they really don't have power to do anything, especially in the house of representatives where democrats have been in the minority basically since they passed this law. most political prognosticators look at this law and say this is what cost democrats a majority in 2010, and republicans have had it for seven years since. they could complain they are slowing down the hearings.

the initial steps in getting this bill to the floor. they are trying to throw up procedural hurdles in the house. none of them are going to stick. in the senate, democrats have a bit more power. they are still not going to vote for this legislation and don't have a big formal role when it comes to this legislation's future. one thing we can say for certain, in one way, shape, or form, the american health care system will be different than it has been for the last couple years. that is an important thing for the future of the democratic party. anthony: one of the biggest changes was the elimination of the mandate and replacing it with a penalty if you don't maintain continuous coverage. the implications of that are not at all clear because some people believe that actually that will discourage people who have lost coverage to stay out of the system, drive down the numbers which of course drives costs higher. is the leadership able to sell that to their own party? jake: no, and they are not trying to talk too much about the specifics.

once you get into the specifics on this legislation, reshaping and reforming the health care system in a matter of a few months we don't know, the , republicans have not said how many fewer people have will be insured. they are not even saying they want to insure the same amount of people, they are just saying universal access. that is different than the way barack obama and democrats talked about their legislation back in 2010, up until a couple months ago. we don't know the cost of this bill. we don't know much about this bill and they expect it to be on the floor in the house and the senate before easter the next , couple of weeks. we don't know much about it. we understand the broad contours. the american people can look at the text, i can look at the text, we all have looked at it on capitol hill. but we don't know the implications and i'm not sure republicans do either, frankly. anthony: jake sherman from "politico," thanks for being

with us. ♪ anthony: "the sense of an

ending" is a new film from julian barnes's novel of the same name. jim stars of a man forced to reevaluate his life as he looks back at some of the most crucial relationships of his youth. variety writes it offers a poignant commentary of trying to find meaning in our lives.

here is a look at the trailer. >> good morning. >> could you come here, please? >> all right. >> have a nice day. >> dear tony. i think it right that you should have the attached. perhaps you'll find it an interesting if painful memento of long ago. they describe the item as a diary. >> a diary. >> hello, anthony. >> veronica and i were together. in my school days, i met my best friend. veronica formed a relationship with him. i wrote them both a very nasty letter.

>> what do you think you'll find in the diary? >> horrible. >> my best friend mysteriously died. >> who is to blame for this event? >> something is certainly going on. >> what is it? >> what is going on? up remembering isn't and always actually what you rehearsed. >> there was an accident. >> what were you doing there? >> we may never know the truth. >> are we going to address the fact that almost everything you told me last few days is for the first time? what really strikes me is your total inability to see what's right under your nose. such as your daughter. >> how often do we tell our own life story? do we adjust, embellish, make slight cuts, make a new reality?

and when everything was coming off the rails. how were we to know that our lives weren't intertwined forever? ♪ anthony: joining me now are two of the film's stars, jim broadbent and michelle dockery. i am pleased to welcome both of you to the table, thank you for joining me today. jim, let me start with you. won the booker prize. this is a well-known novel and a highly respected one. not, i would think, and easy novel to turn into a movie. it features a character his own daughter gives the nickname of "mudge" to, short for curmudgeon. not the most likable guy in the world. jim: it's one of the things that drew me to it. man, rathericult

self-centered. he claims he is happily divorced. which does not ring true. but he thinks he is. he is living a rather selfish life in his own retirement with his hobby of running a camera shot. his legacy comes from the mother of his lost love, his first girlfriend, which throws his life into turmoil. he actually finds out through that, or we find out, that he's not as happy and as content as he claims to be. a point,the film makes the narrator says that we in our lives end up writing our own stories. and sometimes not very accurately. jim: yes, the stories we tell ourselves are the stories we told ourselves first. they are like chinese whispers,

they get more and more remote from what really happened. he convinced himself that he's all right. when you dig a bit deeper, more is revealed. anthony: it's interesting because he had this little camera shop, like a hole in the wall. i love that little space. although i cannot imagine how he would spend the whole day there. it's almost like a metaphor for his life. there's one customer that comes in and he kind of scurries him out. apart from his ex-wife who sort of prods him, his only relationship is really with his daughter. and we don't know much about you in the film. michelle: we don't, and i love that. susie is a bit of a mystery. who's the father of this child she's about to have. i love that about the film that there are certain things within it that are unanswered. it leaves the audience to decide.

they are both at a point in their life where things are about to change quite drastically. certainly for susie but also for tony. he's about to become the grandfather. and margaret. whether it is consciously in , the neck pain, the producers actually kind of put it in their that she was expecting the child. it's very different from the book because of course she's married with two children. it builds to that point toward the end. this discovery .hat he goes on to unravel it builds to this moment which connects them as a family in a very different way than before.

anthony: was a moment almost when tony becomes like a different person. it all of a sudden opens up for him. jim: yes, it is beautifully constructed in julian barnes's novel and in the film. the balance of the school days being a schoolboy, and the , adult, tony. the school days and the history lessons particularly. i identified with the school. i identified with tony webster from the word go exactly the , same age, exactly the same cultural background. all boys school, sixth form, a clique of about four or five of us who thought we were cleverer than anybody else. fairly unpleasant schoolboy behavior. he hasn't changed much. he's got older but he has a grown-up, hasn't really matured.

he's still the slightly lost child trying to find love and being unpleasant and rude. i love the fact that as adults, we don't actually know anything. we are still struggling with life. anthony: one thing i was struck by in watching this film and i'm often struck by in watching british films and tv series is that they're unafraid to go more slowly through a story and to let you feel it more. i don't know if you noticed that as actors in making films? michelle: i certainly do. jim: you take a lot of time. he's a very patient man, anyway. patient's. he allows us to take our time. anthony: does that change the

acting experience? michelle: i certainly felt very relaxed on set. from the get-go, felt like a very calm, just being allowed to breathe, actually. i felt that when i was watching it. the first time i watched the film, i thought it was so wonderful to watch a film where there are moments where you can kind of take a breath. where it slows down. anthony: but something is happening in that nothingness. michelle: exactly. it also allows the audience to form their own opinions. anthony: we are so worried we will lose people's attention that we're afraid to stop and -- michelle: i think that's a very good point. i was completely in it when i watched it. on the page, of course you were jumping from the past to the present. there were moments when i thought, how are they going to do this? even in the theatrical trailer

how they sort of split the screens. the editing is amazing. you never once go, wait a second, where are we, which world are we in? it is very, very clear. on the page it is quite complicated, a plot in the way. way. a anthony: you have become known in such a different fashion throughout your careers. you are known because of one part, lady mary, which everybody knows you as. and jim, you've never really had one part that defined you. i don't know which is a better course for an actor. jim: michelle's works best for her. anthony: it is working well both ways. you did have extraordinary year one in 2001 when you won the

oscar, the bafta. the british film award for "moulin rouge." nd you were in "bridget jones' diary." did that change your life? jim: i think it did. the beginning of that process was "topsy turvy." that was the first time i got an award. i played gilbert. that was the first time i got an award. after that, you are sort of awardable. once you have one, you are allowed to have more. anthony: is that true? [laughter] jim: that was wonderful. then "gangs of new york" wasn't far after that. it all came together. i think probably if there is one job that really changed how i was perceived, it might have been getting a part in woody

broadway."llets over for a british actor to be in a woody allen film, it was very unusual. it was so exciting. that was a door-opening job, i think. anthony: the success of "downton abbey," did it take you by surprise? michelle: it did. nothing can prepare you for that. we all felt we were onto something exciting. it was a scripted that friends of mine had heard about and were reading for. of course it was julian, she had already been cast. and maggie. it was exciting from the very start but you can never predict how an audience will take it. anthony: it just kept building. michelle: of course, when it hit america, everything changed. anthony: what changed?

michelle: for me, it was being suddenly recognized. that was a huge change for me. anthony: what is that feeling like? michelle: it's amazing and terrifying at the same time. it really depends -- to me, it depends where i am. it still does, now. i can go completely unnoticed in some parts of the world, some other country. it all depends on when the show was airing. it's not something i would never -- would ever complain about because it has brought so much to my life and my career going forward. it has opened so many doors. they don't come along very often. anthony: no, that is true. people do not realize at the

time that you think you will have another one and you don't always. michelle: you can't take it for granted. anthony: you spent six years. a long time. michelle: it is. we became like family. you're living your life, you're living with the character and your life is going alongside it. things change for people. anthony: do you have time to prepare for the ending of something like that? michelle: i did a film right after "downton." it was a month later after we wrapped on "downton" that we started on this. anticipation building up of those last few weeks. we were devastated to let it go. but it felt like the right time. anthony: i get the sense that both of you always wanted to the -- wanted to be actors. jim: i did really. it took a while to own up to it.

i went to art school for a year but i realized that wasn't what i wanted to do. if i was honest with myself, i really wanted to act. michelle: i knew really young. anthony: you went to drama school, didn't you? michelle: i did. i went to a local stage school from the age of five. it was a hobby my parents found for us. for me and my sisters take grow confidence and make friends. i was dancing and singing, sort of a musical theater route i could have gone down. when i was 16, i had an encouraging drama teacher. she really encouraged me. in fact she wrote all my , applications to drama schools. that was it, i went to drama school and i knew i was hooked.

jim: when you get into drama school you think, i'm home. this is the world i want to be in. anthony: everybody loves what you love. michelle: that was it. i knew that i was home. anthony: would you ever do broadway? michelle: i would. i would love to. i'm actually dying to get back on stage. anthony: you played eliza doolittle but not in "my fair lady," in "pygmalion." they are casting a new "my fair lady." michelle: i am itching to get back. anthony: you've done theater too, jim. jim: i did. i did a tremendous amount to start with and made a decision not to do until i got used to cameron so i was not frightened. they have the lens. i thought i had to do enough and

so i forget about it. that led into more and more films. i did "scrooge" the christmas before last. you have to keep it going. you get a bit rusty. anthony: it feels so different to me. michelle: i felt the same. i felt like i did theater for a long time before "downton" and had done a few small tv roles but i found it very intimidating at first. cameras and the crew. i had spent so long doing theater. i feel like i'm at that point now where i'm used to it. anthony: when did you figure out how to carve out a role into very small, little parts that you did over the course of three months of shooting as opposed to one night of the performance? that's something i marvel at, how you come in and out of character so quickly.

in between all that chaos around. michelle: it took getting used to for me. televisiontheater to -- of course, for three hours, you're playing the character constantly. and you are only going offstage for a change. but having those hours in between, i've gotten used to it now. i find it hard kind of having , less control. on stage, you have the control. but anything can happen on a set. jim: when filming, the easiest bit is when the cameras going and filming and you have something to do and all you have to do is make it sound as real as possible, get in character and make it sound natural and real. the boredom can really do your head in. you can go in for a whole day and not be used because things have gone wrong technically.

that is the challenge, keeping that patience. anthony: good luck to you both. thanks for being here. the film is "the sense of an ending." it opens in theaters march 10. ♪ ♪

dan: good evening. this week, the senate foreign relations committee is expected to vote on president trump's nominee for ambassador to israel. questions abound about the

future of u.s. policy in the middle east, the peace process, and the changing dynamics of israel and the region. each made as have new contribution to the timeless discussion about the history of israel. shimon ditan is an award-winning israeli film director screenwriter and producer. , his newest film, "the settlers," premiered at the sundance festival and is in theaters now. daniel gordis is the author of "israel: a nation reborn." year from book of the the national jewish book awards. thank you for being at this table. a movie about the settlements. a perplexing problem, the settlements that has been around , for a while. why now? what is you choose to do this now? >> and now is as good as ever.

especially now because it is constantly at the center of discussions whenever anybody talks about israel and the region. in many cases, that conversation is missing. i thought it would embark on a project that would present the history of the settlements, the ideological and religious elements that drove it. i hope the documentary is on the screen and has a proper representation of israel. dan: daniel gordis, your book, "a precise history of israel." one could say, another book about the history of israel -- what was missing from the discussion that sparked your interest in another book on israel? daniel: there are not as many as one would think but there are a number of others. he is right, everyone is talking about the settlements, a critical and complex -- complicated program.

the conversation about israel in government, college campuses, has become conflict-centric. they want to know if trump is good or bad for israel, is obama, the settlements, whatever the case may be. when people think about israel they think about the conflict. but imagine somebody came to us and said, i do not understand what america is about. i know it is a great republican -- republic and i know there are profound ideas at the core. can you tell me what makes america great? war in 1776,was a 1812, first world war, civil war, iraq, afghanistan. there are others. but i haven't told them anything about what makes this country great. i haven't told them anything about thomas jefferson and his dream of a new government and democracy. they haven't got a whiff of what's in the federalist papers. they haven't read about the worries on the rule of the mob or martin luther king's letters

from the birmingham jail. israel is definitely mired in a conflict and the settlements are a part of that conflict. israel is a dream come true for the jewish people. it has been an extraordinary human accomplishment. i thought it was time that someone tried to tell the story with the settlements and conflict in the book but not to make the whole story about that. dan: i want to show one clip of your film, shimon. this is the cofounder of a jewish settlement talking about the treatment of the early settlers. let's take a look. [speaking foreign language]

dan: do you think she is representative of the settler movement at large? that they almost proudly regard themselves as obstacles to any kind of accommodation with the palestinians? shimon: she definitely represents the early settlers. at the time she was talking about, it was really a handful

of settlers and they forced their will on the israeli government. however, the reality today is much more complex, and a completely different population. of the 400,000 settlers are so into west bank today, about 20% of them are ideologically, religiously motivated. and the vast majority are there for economic reasons. dan: was it 2005 when israel did the disengagement from gaza? shimon: yes. dan: august, 2005. the israeli government orders to go into gaza and forcibly remove thousands of settlers. shimon: 7500. dan: what you think that tells us about the israeli people and their representative government's attitude toward the settlers? if there is a possibility, one would argue, to achieve some kind of peace, that they would

challenge those settlers. shimon: let me put it this way. to my knowledge, there was no point in time when the israeli government did an analysis and a strategic evaluation of the benefits that the settlement enterprise yielded to the state of israel. on the contrary, when somebody did something out of government, -- what happened in gaza, it was in good part because it had become too costly to maintain the settlements over there so they decided they had to take them out. i would say this is proof to the fact that it's possible to remove the settlements. the israeli government if it has , the will, they can do it. the settlements in the west bank, it is an act of the israeli government. it is too easy to vilify the

settlers and say it is they're doing. the government has to be willing to leave this bone stuck in his throat. that is how it behaved. dan: but the israeli government took a risk. will, aerial -- ariel sharon, to pull out of gaza. but then there was a hamas takeover of gaza and thousands of rockets being rained on southern israel. shimon: israel did not create an environment that would allow the population of gaza to engage in any progress vis-a-vis israel. quite the contrary.

the lack of any political horizon, you cannot expect anything different. i am not in any way defending hamas or the gaza government. but i do think it is within israel's power, to change the set of preconditions that would allow progress on the political horizon. dan: daniel, could israel have done more? daniel: israel did strengthen the blockade but that did not allow gaza to elect hamas. hamas was elected quickly after the disengagement. the egyptians wanted it back when they were working on a peace treaty. the more pressing question for peace is the west bank. the question is really, is there a possibility of creating what most people i think still want, which is a two state solution. when shimon talks about the israeli government on roiling -- being unwilling to take a stand,

i think it is really the people not willing to take a stand. what fills the vacuum? israelis are worried. they saw the experiment in 2005. i was in favor of the disengagement. i thought it was a good idea. in the end, i would say it was a failed idea but it's good that we tried. we learned something from it. israel's international popularity plummeted following the disengagement. it didn't go up as many thought it would. it is a strange thing i don't understand to this day. there's a very interesting comment in the clip of the movie we just saw. the gentleman speaking before the interview says that the settlers turned into a monster that is standing in the way of peace. i think it is interesting what is really standing in the way of settlers,se 500,000 which israel could remove it -- if it wanted to. or is what is standing in the

way of peace the fact that the palestinians on the west bank are not really willing to negotiate? as recently as john kerry 2014 himself has said that in private conversations happening between him and netanyahu and abbas. abbas just pulled the plug. he expected the u.s. to push through what the palestinians was an obamase it administration, to force that on israel. when he realized that he wasn't going to get everything that he wanted, he just basically pulled the plug on the negotiations. kerry said the israelis made some accommodations in these negotiations and the palestinians didn't budge. tragically, that has been the bottom line story. the palestinians have done an exceedingly good job of telling a very different tale and weaving a different narrative. i actually would like the palestinians to have a state, a democratic state, a thriving economic state. i would like their kids not to have to patrol the border because of my kids and my kids not to have to patrol the border because of their kids. to do that, both sides will have

to make far-reaching accommodations. shimon: i will say that i disagree with you in principle. yes, we agree on the end results. we both want the end results. we appreciate that two states is the only solution. but to put the blame on the palestinians, on one side, is ignoring the fact on the ground. israel is the authority in the region, the strongest power. israel does not face any military threat whatsoever in the region. because of that, its responsibility to extend a hand, take initiative. the west bank, the reality is 2.7, 2.8 million palestinians. in the midst of them, more than 400,000 israelis. this reality is terrible from the standpoint of israel, not only from the palestinians. to ignore that and to wait for the palestinians to somehow

appease the demands is shortsighted. israel must recognize it is upon her to extend a hand, to come up with a proposition out of a position of power. stop trying to present itself as a victim in the region. it will never change. it lasts for paternity and eternity starts to feel quite long. daniel: eternity has always felt quite long. you're right in the sense that i think this has a much wider process. barack obama would tell you that he did extend a hand but it was rebuffed. a subsequent prime minister would say he made an overture to the palestinians that was rebuffed. and bill clinton would tell you that that was exactly right. you have sort of a third-party who would ignore knowledge that's the case. i don't buy the idea that israel has never reached out.

i think israel does reach out. israel has no military threat in the region, that is not entirely the case depending on what fills , the vacuum in the west bank. that's why israel is insisting on a military presence along the jordan river. which the palestinians are unwilling to do. israel is insisting on that for the same reason. it is hard to know what comes across the syrian border. you and i want the same thing so let's talk for a minute about why we do not have the world that you and i want. we're both israelis, we both care very deeply about the future of the country. we would both like the palestinians and israelis to live side-by-side. really, why has this not happened? here is part of the reason i wrote the book. the book tries to explain that this conflict has a very long history. we're coming on almost a century of conflict beginning in 1929 when, over the course of one weekend, arab rioters destroyed a jewish community which had been in place for literally centuries. then there was a riot in 1936

and a commission came from britain. they looked at a map and in 1936 said the jews in the arabs are , not going to be able to live together, we had a radical idea, let's divide the land. the jews thought they were getting all of that land plus something on the other side of the jordan river. the british said you are getting a small east of what is actually israel. the zionists back then were very unhappy and they said yes. the arabs were very unhappy and launched the riots of 1936-1937. in 1947 when the u.n. partition commission discussed whether or how to divide it up. the jews who saw this as their national liberation movement, this was not just about a state, this was about ending the tenuous nests -- tenuousness state of life for jewish people around the globe.

we don't want to live in spain in the highest echelons of culture, philosophy, art, and close to political power and then they decided in 1492 that they can either be burned at the stake, leave, or convert. we don't want to be in berlin in 1933 thinking we are in the ultimate home for the jewish people to find ourselves eradicated a few years later. i think what the jews are saying is that this was about transforming that essential condition of the jew. that is why israel's first president when the jews were , debating whether or not to take this much smaller map, he said, if it's the size of a tablecloth, you take the deal. we need just someplace to call our own. i have to say, if somebody on the palestinian side would have said, if it is the size of a tablecloth, take the deal, and we have offered much more, because we want more than anything else to establish our own national sovereign roots. , my read of the history is that at the end of the day, whether it was the five standing armies that attacked israel in 1947,

1948, whether it was the egyptians and jordanians and syrians in 1973, they have not been willing to say once and for all, the jewish state has a right to exist. this land is our native land but also the jewish people's native land and we ought to split it. dan: do you think it is reasonable for any israeli toernment, left or right, accept a settlement policy, the territories in dispute, that the palestinian leadership in the arab world recognize israel's right to exist as a jewish state, formally declare an end to the conflict, and understand that israel may need to keep some security presence on the border between the west bank and jordan? are those reasonable expectations? they seem to transcend party lines in israel. shimon: i would say yes but they are not the precondition.

i would say there is one thing that is a precondition that will resolve this thing. the victors should record -- it is that israel matters, it is not a palestinian matter. it is not our place to recognize the nationality they want to call themselves. i want for a moment to go back to what dan mentioned. you are very eloquent and i appreciated your comments on the virtues of remembrance and forgetting. you gave a very elegant speech on that. when i generally do not believe that israel is facing a military threat, and we bring up memories of victimhood and make it an article in the political maneuver. zionism started at eight -- as a secular movement. it came with a wonderful idea to create a national state for the

jewish people for only one reason, to provide safe haven for persecuted jews. at no point in time did zionism aspire to fulfill prophecies or hasten the return of the messiah. the main sources that brought us into the west bank with the settlement were those two forces. we have to recognize that. any retreat from the west bank or allowing the palestinians to have their own state in the west bank is the fulfillment of zionism, not the negation of zionism. i would suggest that the settlements in the west bank are the negation of zionism. dan: the region seems to be changing in a way that is much different from the status quo that has existed for all of my adult life until now. you have a 100 year order in the region collapsing before our eyes. failed states left and right, borders being erased, massive refugee flows we haven't seen at any time since the fall of the ottoman empire.

possibly the end of world war ii. in any given day, you don't know what government will be in power in these arab countries, even jordan. how does that reality drive the exact debate you two are having right now? daniel: i don't think that it drives it all that much. i think it drives israel's concern about iran, about watching its northern border very carefully with russian planes, syrian planes, turkish planes. but i don't think that's what's actually motivating us. i think it would be motivating israel wanting a military presence along the river. of course, it's a concern. every israeli understands that we're not going to move anywhere unless we're willing to take some risks. i do not think the issue -- syria melting down is a huge problem because you have hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of refugees potentially making their way into jordan which is desperate for israel's

help to stay stable. king abdullah is a closet zionist in a way, he won't say that but he knows he's in power because of that. he is afraid of iran. the saudi's and egypt is worried about iran. there is actually a changing map emerging in the middle east. in the war of 2014, if anyone would have told you when israel and egypt were at war in 1973 that in 2014, egypt would be israel's biggest ally. somebody would have told you you really had it wrong. but egypt was very helpful in -- to israel in the 2014 war. if people said israeli and saudi officials would be in close discussion because of iran they would've said, that is crazy. of course, all those things are happening. but i don't think that is specifically an issue of the settlements. yes, israel needs a buffer and the protection of the wider space. fundamentally, i was going back to the history not because of the history of victimhood but because it suggests what is the instinctive nature of the people

with whom we have to make the deal. they so far have not been recognizing what we are. herzl was in favor of israel as a kind of haven for jews who needed haven but he is not the last word on zionism. david ben-gurion, the israel prime minister had a more robust view on what zionism would be, bringing the language back to life, embodying a new national culture. but it is to transform the jewish people. that is what i wanted to show in this book. this is not just a bunch of people who moved from europe or north africa, came to palestine and got into a war. this is a group of people who in many ways came to a new place, rebuilt an entire people, one of the grandest, most extraordinary human stories of all time just , needs the other side to recognize we're also here to stay and put this behind us. shimon: that worked well until 1967. in the war of 1948, the war of

independence, he said, we can take the west bank, we can do that. no military problem there. ben-gurion he rejected it. he said, what am i going to do with 700,000 palestinians? now we have 2.7 million palestinians, the west bank, and the question is the same question. the answer is a two state solution. daniel: there we agree. dan: i would say it is a reflection of the health of the israeli public debate that you can have two such talented and spirited individuals who don't exactly see eye to eye trying to hash this out. it kind of tells you about the soul of israel. thank you both for being here. "the settlers" is the film by shimon dotan. the book by daniel gordis. ♪ >> welcome back, it is noon in

hong kong. let's get an update of south korea. the country has hooked to the military on high alert after the constitution court held -- upheld the impeachment of president park geun-hye. park loses her powers and immunity. an election must be held within 60 days. china, the upcoming pboc governor says president trump is one of the reasons for -- across the market. they are speaking to the