>> speaking of deja vu. thank you for watching "state of the union." i'm candy crowley in washington. look for today's interview, some analysis, and web exclusive at cnn.com/sotu for our viewers here in the united states, fareed zakaria gps starts right now. this is "gps, the global public square." welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. we have a driving show for you today. our main event, henry kissinger. we'll talk about the middle east, iran, russia, china, all the current hot spots, all

places he knows well. is that the drums of war we hear? certainly from some corners. how does the iran-israel showdown end? i've got a great panel. i'll also bring you an amazing story. free and fair electrics in china. i'll explain. first, here's my take. president obama has been trying to cool down the war fever that suddenly gripped washington earlier this month. prime minister benjamin netanyahu's visit and the flurry of statemen surrounding it have created a dangerous dynamic. it is easy to see how things move toward war. it is difficult to see how they don't. the pressure is building on iran, but there are no serious discussions of negotiated solutions. israel has already discounted the proposed new talks. republican candidates will denounce any deal no matter how presencive the inspections. either iran suddenly and completely surrenders or israel will strike. and bebe netanyahu knows that the window presented by the u.s. political season is closing. if he were to strike between now and november, he would be assured of unqualified support from washington. after november the american response becomes less predictable no matter who is elected president. the clock is ticking.

before we set out on a path to another middle eastern war, let's remember some facts. first, iran does not have nuclear weapons. the evidence is ambiguous, genuinely unclear, as to whether it has decided to make them. what if iran did manage to develop a couple of crude nukes several years from now? president obama says a nuclear raun would set off an arms race in the middle east, but a nuclear north korea has not led the two countries directly threatened, south korea and japan to go nuclear. egypt did not go nuclear. after all, egypt has gone to war three times with israel. by contrast, it has not been in a conflict with iran for centuries so why would it go nuclear in response to iran when it didn't in response to israel? obama explained that a nuclear iran would be a problem like india and pakistan with their nuclear weapons, but india and

pakistan went to war three times in 30 years before they had nuclear weapons. since they went nuclear, they have actually been restrained and have not fought a full scale war in 40 years. it's actually a case that shows the stabilizing, not destabilizing effects of nuclear deterren deterrents. if deterrents don't work in the middle east, why does it have a large nuclear arsenal, if not to deter its enemies? iran's weapons could fall in the hands of terrorists, says the president. but would a country that has labored for decades to pursue a nuclear program suffer huge sanctions and costs to do so then turn around and give it away when general martin dempsey explained last month on this show that he viewed iran as a

rationale actor, he drew protest. dempsey was making a good point. a rationale actor is not a reasonable actor or one who has the same goals or values that you or i do. a rationale actor in economics or international relations is someone concerned about his survival and prosperity. the one thing we know about

iran's leaders is that they are concerned about their survival. the question right now is not whether iran can be rationale, but whether the u.s. and israel can accurately reason through the costs of a preventive war and its huge consequences and weigh those against the modest and temporary benefits of a military strike. for more on this, you can read my column in this week's "time magazine. "i let's get started. everything old is new again. many of the trouble spots vehiclesing american foreign policy today, iran, russia, china, were just as problematic if not more so in the 1970s. that is, of course, when henry kissinger was secretary of state. i wanted to get his unique perspective on events today. welcome, henry. >> always a pleasure to be here. >> let's start by talking about iran because if we are to avoid a war with iran, and maybe that's a good thing or bad, if we were to avoid it, is t seems we have to have some negotiated solution, and i'm wondering as somebody who had to negotiate with the chinese at the time when the height of mao's craziness, he was running revolutionary guerrilla movements against the united states around the globe. he negotiatesed with the soviets and negotiated with the vietnamese at the height of the war. how do we get there? do you think there is a path forward that can get us to some kind of negotiated solution in

iran? >> i'm not against the principle of negotiation. in fact, i have practiced it when i had an opportunity. the question with iran is not whether we should negotiate, but nearly three-fold. there needs to be a time limit in which there is negotiation that takes place. the second can be a defined objective that really meets the need and third, can conceive that iran will as a result of all of this join an international -- in which they are a substantially responsible member. those are the three aspects that seem to be crucial. >> when you look at the situation with iran right now, do you think that the situation is so dire that israel would

need to strike militarily in the next few months or even a year or year and a half? >> i think -- i am very uneasy with the so-called intelligence report that say we don't know whether they are actually working on nuclear weapons. i think we should start from the premise that they are undergoing all this in order to achieve a military capability. i don't think that is a disputable point. iran is more isolated than it has ever been. so i can can see why the

israelis would think that if they strike now, iran will not have a great deal of international support. >> you were always very good as a negotiator at understanding that the other side had to get something as well as our side getting what we wanted. how do you do that in the context of iran now with all the domestic politics around it? do you see what i mean? of course, they have to make

>> we are back with the only man that has been secretary of state and advisor at the same time. making sure there was no rivalry between these two positions. henry, you have met with vladimir putin probably more often than any senior american, including any senior american official. you have had something like 20 odd one-on-one meetings with him. who do you think of vladimir putin? if you look at your memoirs, one of the things that always strikes me is portraits of people. is he a thug? is he a modernizer? is he a pro-western, anti-western? >> i want the audience to understand that when i meet with putin, i always -- in any administration -- inform the white house first and i convey the substance of the conversation, and mr. putin knows this. >> i think that may be one of the reasons he is -- >> could well be.

i don't think he is anti-western. he is, above all, a russian patriot who feels humiliated by the experience of the 1990s, which were in the most formative period of his career. he is not anti-western. when i first met him, he was very anxious to have a kind of strategic partnership with the united states. he is very resentful of what he interprets as intervention in russian domestic affairs and even more, of course, in what he may interpret and does interpret as many american tendencies to support his political opponents

in order to encourage his overthrow, so -- but i believe that a dialogue is possible and on specific issues committee turn out to be a constructive partner. >> okay. so i have to ask you about the republican party and its foreign policy and its candidates because if you listen to candidates on the campaign trail now on issues like russia, on iran, on israel, they're taking very strident positions, very tough in ways that frankly i think make it difficult for the united states to pursue a bipartisan foreign policy. this is not a few nen no, ma'am nonfor you, the republican party in 1976, the reagan road to power criticizing you. that was one of his -- one of the most spirited attacks you would make on campaign trails and in the convention.

do you think that the republicans right now are putting forward just campaign rhetoric, or do they actually believe what they're saying? >> well, i don't normally like to discuss political things on television or publicly. i will support the republicans, but that doesn't mean advocating something on china which are the opposite of what nixon and i had done, but even before he came into office, he asked me to send

messages that he would stick to the commitments and as president he conducted a foreign policy that i totally supported, so i -- >> so you are saying what they say on the campaign trail doesn't mean -- >> i accept the republican candidates, the ones i know personally, that they will examine the issues from the point of view of americans having responsibility for the security of the country and the future of the world. and then i think they will come to conclusions around which a non-partisan and bipartisan consensus has evolved over the decades and that, of course, there are specific points on which they may be -- they have to be taken seriously, but on

the mainland of the foreign policy, as i described it here, i think there will be a consensus. not on every tactical point, and so i'm quite confident, even though some of the things that are being said i would not have drafted. >> you think it's just campaign rhetoric? >> i don't think it's campaign rhetoric. i think when you are a candidate the emotions of the moment and the emotions of yoo you are advisors have one set of impacts. when you are in the oval office and you know that you are part of a history and that the lives of millions of people are affected, you take a more comprehensive look, and the

point is not whether they agree with me, but on certain issues serious people on both parties have studied them for many decades, and while there is always a margin for change, there is rarely a margin for total reversal, and so in that sense i have every expectation that whoever emerges from the presidency will operate on that basis. on either side. >> henry kissinger, the one thing we didn't get to was china, and we're going to save that for another show. always a pleasure to have you on. >> good to be here. >> up next, what in the world sf real, clean elections in china. no? it's not a dream. i will explain. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 let's talk about fees.

tdd# 1-800-345-2550 there are atm fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 account service fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 and the most dreaded fees of all, hidden fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 at charles schwab, you won't pay fees on top of fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 no monthly account service fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 no hidden fees. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 and we rebate every atm fee. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 so talk to chuck tdd# 1-800-345-2550 because when it comes to talking, there is no fee.

imagine if you could always see life [music] in the best light. every time of day. outdoors, or in. transitions® lenses automatically filter just the right amount of light. so you see everything the way it is meant to be seen. maybe even a little better. experience life well lit, ask for transitions adaptive lenses. and then treats day after day... well, shoot, that's like checking on your burgers after they're burnt! [ male announcer ] treat your frequent heartburn by blocking the acid with prilosec otc. and don't get heartburn in the first place! [ male announcer ] one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn.

[ eves ] years ago, i hurt my shoulder drag racing. that's when i decided to take it easy, so i took up hang gliding. [ female announcer ] a grandpa who refuses to grow up. [ eves ] the pain was bad, but the thought of not being a hang glider pilot was worse. [ female announcer ] that's when eves turned to sutter health's palo alto medical foundation. [ eves ] the doctors that i dealt with, they got it, that this old guy wanted to return as a hang glider pilot. they got me flying again. [ female announcer ] palo alto medical foundation, and sutter health -- our story is you. now for our "what in the world" segment. you rarely hear the words chooirn and elections in the same breath. you see, unlike the u.s., france, and egypt, all of which do have elections coming up, china has a leadership transition this year. a planned event where handpicked

individuals are promoted up, but there were real electrics in china last week. of the people and by the people. a democratic vote with real ballots, real candidates, and real clean results. welcome to this small fishing village in southeast china just a few hundred miles from hong kong. the story began a few months ago when the villagers of waukon protested against a land grab. these are not so uncommon in china. corrupt officials often snatch privately held agricultural plots and then sell them to developers for high prices. protests are not uncommon either. it is said that tens of thousands of demonstrations just like this one here have taken place in china every year. two-thirds of those are because of land disputes. what made this different? for one, the people didn't give up. they were remarkably organized and holding noisy mass rallies

and they drove out the local leaders who were compolice it in the landscapes. what's unique is the response. the provincial government led by this man, party secretary, conceded to the villagers' demands. on his call the province returned some of the disputed farmland, released detained activists and allowed the villagers to hold their own elections. all that led to these scenes last week. 6,000 villagers voting in an organized fashion. the media both local and western were allowed full access, and the main winners were the same protesters who led the rebellion. so democracy is possible in china. this village is now being capped as a model for chinese villagers. the theory goes that this will sweep the country and create more uprisings making it harder for the government to crack down. that, in turn, will lead to a

larger democratic movement at the highest levels of government. i'm want so sure that's going to happen any time soon in china. for every village, there is a tibet. china's leaders know how to brand esh an iron fist just as they know how to use a velvet glove. the key here is to understand the way china functions. villagers, where rebellions are most likely, fall under the rule of provincial leaders. these leaders are immensely powerful and with great levels of autonomy, so they make their own independent decisions on a kiss by case basis, but the idea that central command in beijing would allow broader national moves towards democracy is probably a fallicy. try protesting a teen men square in central beijing, and you'll see for yourself. there is one larger potential trend here. watch china's leadership transition later this year very closely. the top posts seem to be decided. if reform-minded provincial leaders make the nine-member

bureau standing committee the group that actually runs china, then perhaps there may be a shift towards some loosening of controls. so this village is a hartening story, but remember one thing. change in today's china is rarely bottom-up and sweeping in nature. if there's going to be change for now, it's going to be incremental, and it will come from the top down. we'll be right back. up next, will israel attack iran, and where does washington fit in? i have an all-star panel. right back.

the other office devices? they don't get me. they're all like, "hey, brother, doesn't it bother you that no one notices you?" and i'm like, "doesn't it bother you you're not reliable?" and they say, "shut up!" and i'm like, "you shut up." in business, it's all about reliability. 'cause these guys aren't just hitting "print." they're hitting "dream." so that's what i do. i print dreams, baby. [whispering] big dreams.

today is gonna be an important day for us. you ready? we wanna be our brother's keeper. what's number two we wanna do? bring it up to 90 decatherms. how bout ya, joe? let's go ahead and bring it online. attention on site, attention on site. now starting unit nine. some of the world's cleanest gas turbines are now powering some of america's biggest cities. siemens. answers.

i'm candy crowley in washington. fareed zakaria "gps" returns in a moment, but first, a check of the top stories. this is video from the scene where a u.s. soldier opened fire on civilians in afghanistan's kandahar province. the afghan government says the soldier shot and killed at least 16 people. a nato spokesman expressed deep regret and called the incident appalling. the spokesman said the shootings were not a part of any military operation and that an investigation is underway. the soldier is in custody. the u.n. special envoy to syria, kofi annan, held a second round of talks today with syria's president about a deadly crackdown on anti-government

protesters. annan met with bashir assad yesterday. 16 people have been killed in syria today. another win for republican presidential candidate rick santorum. the pennsylvania senator won the kansas caucuses racking up twice as many votes as mitt romney who won caucuses in guam and the northern mariy a.m. island. hawaii and american samoa have caucuses. those are your top stories. now back to fareed zakaria "gps." israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu gave president obama a gift in washington this week. it was a copy of the book of esther which tells the tale of a benevolent king who saved the jewish people from an enemy who wished to destroy them. a persian enemy. not very slgts. where does the conflict end? i have an excellent banal to

buck that much more where daniel levy, brett stevens, of course, the foreign affairs columnist for the "wall street journal", rula jab ril is an israeli-arab journalist who has worked as an anchor woman, and elliott abrams was national security advisor in george w. bush's administration. so elliott, tell us what you think netanyahu took back from his visit to washington? what do you think -- how did he read the mood and what did he tell his cabinet when he went back? >> i think he would have read the desire on the part of the president that he not bomb iran, but i don't think things changed much during the visit. he knew that it was the president's view. certainly in the public discourse, the president did not offer him much more than he had previously done in terms of what the united states would do about iran. a slight toughening of the american rhetoric, but not

enough, i would think, to change the fundamental israeli view that they're probably going to need to take care of themselves. >> you don't think that by saying containment is nott our policy, that was a big shift. that was a kind of unequivocal explanation that, you know, we are going to try to prevent this from happening. >> i thought that was further than either your administration or obama had gone. >> obama in 2009 used the p-word, prevent, and even in the state of the union message he was pretty tough. to say now, yes, it's good that he said containment is not an option, but when you say things like it's unacceptable or it is my policy to prevent, that still falls short of saying this will not happen, and saying it to the ayatollahs as well. this will never happen. >> well, there are some subtlies here. first, there's an issue of timing. what the president really wanted from the prime minister was don't bomb between now and the first tuesday in november. i think there was an aspect of

the political calculation. there's also a strategic nuance that's very important between israel and the united states. for israel an iranian nuclear break-out capability is tanta mount to a nuclear capability. that's to say if they have part of their nuclear program here and another part here and another part there and can rapidly assemble it, that is -- that gives them a de facto nuclear capability where are the united states is saying that break-out capability isn't quite the same thing as being a nuclear power, and that's a distinction that i don't think a lot of people got except that fairly high levels of policy making, but it's the distinction that matters most of all for israeli decision makers pondering whether to strike, whether to strike iran. can they allow iran to get to that break-out point, not the point where they can actually test a bomb. >> you are the only one here with an israeli passport. what -- the two people with israeli passports.

interestingly, the israelis are, shall we say, a little less eager, as far as i can tell, to bomb than the americans on this table. what do you think the people in israel will take from this trip? >> well, the newspaper in israel said yesterday that 58% of the israelis today are against any decision or actually against any attack towards iran without the u.s. backing it and without the u.s. actually starting it. israelis today are actually very worried about the economy in their country. especially after the last summer we had huge protests in the streets for the high cost of living, and netanyahu, you know, tried to calm down the things, but the prices of living are becoming very high. iranian issue is not the first concerns of the israelis today. >> would you agree that most israelis -- do you think -- i think what you are saying is that in a way netanyahu is trying to change the subject from a topic where israelis are really concerned, which is

social unrest. >> this is a fantastic distraction issue. both in terms of domestic, social, and economic issues and, of course, in terms of internationally the palestinian issue. for an israeli leader to come to the united states, make a load of speeches, not mention the palestinians, a dramatic success in his terms for his right wing coalition. this is top-down driven. not bottom-up. inside israel. the kind of speech that the prime minister gave in washington, holocaust analogies, everywhere, he hasn't made that speech in tel aviv or jerusalem. he was criticized for doing that. the opposition leader said it was scare mongering, it was hysteria, it was shameful use of the holocaust, but i think the most important outcome of the visit this week is that the israeli security establishment folks who are not enthusiastic about an israeli solo mission, visa vi iran, i this i they got the kind of assurances that they wanted to hear from the american

president or enough of them because the israeli and american positions are actually rather close, ruling out of containment, ruling in at some stage of a military option. in fact, the critique that should be heard perhaps of president obama's position is not that it's not hawkish enough, but perhaps that given everything going on in the region, given that the iranian regime is actually weakened now, we're not right sizing the iranian threat. we're not looking at how do you shift the balance by not focussing nuclear, by focussing on other issues. you know it's very grim when it comes to issues of iran. >> the palestinian issue first, america is a greater threat than iran. >> these countries have people that are responsible for their

security, and those people are extremely worried about the iranian threat. as is the president of the united states. put yourself nicely to his left. that's fine. our leadership is convinced that iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. >> it's also convinced that iran has not made a decision to cross the threshold to get a nuclear weapon. that's what dempsey said, the chief of staff. >> whether they've made the decision yet, as long as they have the opportunity to make it next week. then the question is what does the united states going to do about it? >> let's listen -- we've already made this mistake, and i'm sorry, and i understand your position working with the ex administration. we made this mistake ten years ago. we didn't listen to the secret service. we had cob fused information about iraq. we had -- we went to iraq. we spent trillions of dollars killing thousands of soldiers, american soldiers, and thousands of iraqis, and in the end the outcome, they didn't have any weapons of mass destruction. plus, you are talking about saudi arabia and qatar. honestly, the -- if you go to

the real arab mainstream, the streets, and you ask the people shall we attack iran, do you think today they don't have any sympathy for iran after the arab spring, but do you think really they would support that attack? i'm not sure. >> part of the problem that you have here, if i may say so, is you are making this out to be an argument against shady intelligence sources, visa vi iraq. that dog won't bark because the argument you have is with the international atomic energy agency and i'm sure you read the report -- >> it was ambiguous. >> they claim it's ambiguous. they say we can't certify because they're not cooperating. they do not say there's any kind of smoking gun. >> but, far media -- >> i'm going to take a break. when we come back, we're going to talk more about the potential war, but also the palestinian issue when we get back. [ male announcer ] if you were building the perfect laptop,

you'd use carbon fiber and machined aluminum, to make it more beautiful, and more durable. you'd use edge-to-edge gorilla glass for a stunning display in a more compact form. and you'd choose an intel® core i7™ processor for maximum processing power. everything that you could ever want in a laptop. introducing the dell xps 13 ultrabook™ everything. and more. ♪ but when she got asthma, all i could do was worry !

specialists, lots of doctors, lots of advice... and my hands were full. i couldn't sort through it all. with unitedhealthcare, it's different. we have access to great specialists, and our pediatrician gets all the information. everyone works as a team. and i only need to talk to one person about her care. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. completely out of the blue... i was so young... you just don't think that that's something that can happen to you. i'm on a bayer aspirin regimen. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. first line of defense, right?

and we're back with daniel levy, brettsteins, rula jibrail, and elliott abrams. i was struck in the "new york times" this week that with all this stalk about iran and the way in which the subject has been -- as dan was saying, redefined by bebe, the palestinian issue has just fallen by the wayside and the

article described how the palestinian leadership was almost kind of so marginalized they didn't know what to do. >> well, it's ru. if you look at the obama-netanyahu white house appearance together in the oval office, the word palestine did not escape the lips of either man. nor did it get mentioned by netanyahu in his big apaic speech. i think this is partly because they're expecting not only the american election this year and a possible israeli election this year. nothing will happen until 2013. i think there is a certain satisfaction that they're off the front page because if they were on it, they would not know what to do. >> dan, isn't it fair to say that obama kind of miscalculated, whatever your position on the issue, he got out maneuvered by the israeli government. >> of course, opposing settlements which i think is what you are referring to is a position that every

administration has taken. i think it wasn't that he made settlements an issue. the settle in numbers in the west bank alone have trebled since the beginning of the oslo process. this is an extremely serious obstacle to any potential of a future two-state solution. i think he didn't back it up by being able -- well, he didn't back it up by being able to win that argument with the israeli prime minister. >> i wish -- >> i think that what you are seeing at the moment and this -- the president said quite clearly in his apaic speech, this isn't about me being a supporter of israel. i have given the military support. the israeli says president said there's been unprecedented assistance under this presidency. he said if you are going against me, either it's pure politics, or it's because you don't like the fact that i'm pursuing a two-state solution, and we have to recognize that this is a changing israel and an israel in which the majority of the issues of partly inlt in the ruling party don't support a two-state solution, and you increasingly

have a shrill debate inside the jewish community where you have the majority -- people who represent the majority of american jews, who have a liberal predisposition. the tom friedmans, the jay streets, the new israel fund. trying to walk a tight rope that says we're trying to save israel as a democracy. we're trying to prevent what israeli prime ministers have called a south africa apartheid reality. we need the help of the american president to do that because there are those of us who won't support apartheid, and i imagine there are other people who will. >> that was a beautiful five-minute speech, and thanks for brooking no interruption, but i wish, daniel -- i wish, and i say this as a guy who is on the other side of the debate, that the -- it could be solved as easily by removing settlements because i think any serious person understands that if that were the only obstacle to peace, the settlements would have been gone long ago. in fact, they never would have been put there in the first place. it would have been lovely to see gaza put into a showcase of what the palestinians with their

talents are capable of. they turn into a group of terrorism and a source for war. that is why israelis no longer believe, much as they would like to, that settlements are the primary issue here. this is a nice idea because it makes it easy, but the reality is not as easy as you would suggest. >> i am not sure that's how -- i'm not even sure that you ever have seen a settlement or how it works. unless you have seen the facts on the ground. this prime minister, we remember, the heads of israel is the one that actually destroyed any chance of two-state solutions, and, you know what, palestinians have to hold back and thank him because there would be only one solution, and that's one state for everybody. i'm not sure that one state would be a jewish state in the future. it will be -- that state will be demographically impossible to hold together, everybody, and it will be -- it will not be a jewish state. one other thing, the oslo agreement was signed in 1993. since then, there's 200 settlements. there were 60. he is right in saying that most

of the steps that were made on the ground, look at even the wall. the wall -- the borders between israel and palestine are 380 kilometers. the length of that wall is 680 kilometers. what does that mean? it's just about amnexing more land. these are the facts on the ground. you don't like them. you like them. the problem is not only with settlements. with gaza. you can't say, okay, i left gaza, but then you left it so close that it became -- >> it has a border with egypt now. >> it's scary. >> he says the word terror. terror built the wall. it was a wall for years and years and years after 1967, and sherone built it when the second intifada was killing israelis in buses week of week after week. we are not talking terrorists. >> they not a wall on an

internationally recognized armistice line, and building a wall deep inside of the territory. >> it's the only country in the world that is under daily attack. rockets and missiles. >> it is not under daily attack, elliott. it's not under daily attack. i'm delighted. the israeli security establishment acknowledges it is not under attack. >> it's because of the wall you denounce and because of the wars you denounce. it's -- >> i want to ask one question because i was struck by one other piece in the newspapers, which was a controversy in israel that the one arab on the supreme court did not sing the israeli national anthem. do you think -- this caused a huge controversy. now, you are an israel-arab. >> yes. >> do you think it was okay for him? do you think that his basic -- i think the basic view is that israeli-arabs are actually second class citizens in israel, and so they have reasons to be -- to dissent.

what do you think? >> i think he was holding his hadn't, and he was respectfully listening to everybody else. he didn't feel like sing it. it didn't represent his really deep value what the state should be and what it stands for, and he was attacked honestly because today in israel you have to be -- like on this table, polarized either with or against. you know what, there's one side. we are all losers there today. all losers. >> i agree with rula. there's no question -- >> thank you. >> there's no question that israel needs a new deal, a new compact between its arab citizens and the majority. it needs a new deal also with its ultra orthodoxed communities. israel is a democracy that has to do a lot of work to pre perfect its democracy like every other democracy, and it's a perfectly normal and healthy conversation for israelis to have. they need to have more of it. that being said, my basic contention is that if it were -- if the character of the palestinian state that comes into being is liberal and

democratic, israel is not going to have a problem. if the green line is the 49th parallel, that is the line that divides the united states from canada, there is not a problem. the issue that you have now among the palestinians is not territorial. it is a state in which a party like hamas with the charter that it has calling on the things that it has -- >> it's a state that these people -- >> i'm delighted to use barack obama in suggesting that the 1967 lines should be the future line. >> i am saying that the -- >> you just did. >> excuse me. i'm happy with the 1967 lines if the state on the other side of those lines, the palestinian state, is a liberal democracy. >> i'm with you. >> that has offered its minorities the same opportunities that israel offers theirs. >> it's what people elect. whatever people elect, that should be a democracy. not what we suggest for them to elect. you know what, today we have to accept what egypt is and what syria is. >> we are going to have to go. daniel levy, brett stevens,

rulia jab rail. you know that imitation is the best form of flattery. up next, proof positive that the chinese love us. when you have diabetes...

your doctor will say get smart about your weight. i tried weight loss plans... but their shakes aren't always made for people with diabetes. that's why there's new glucerna hunger smart shakes. they have carb steady, with carbs that digest slowly to help minimize blood sugar spikes. and they have 6 grams of sugars. with 15 grams of protein to help manage hunger... look who's getting smart about her weight.

[ male announcer ] new glucerna hunger smart. a smart way to help manage hunger and diabetes. it's this... the etrade pro platform. fast. beautiful. totally customizable. finds top performing stocks -- in three clicks. quickly scans the market for new trading ideas. it can even match options strategies to your goals and lets you see the potential risk and reward. and, it also comes with a dedicated elite service team. got it? get it. good. introducing new etrade pro elite. ♪

...we inspected his brakes for free. free is good. free is very good. my money. my choice. my meineke.

world oil prices are up around 10% this year, and here in the u.s. prices for a gallon of gas hovered around $3.75. americans as they might say are freaking out, but how does that price compare to the rest of the world? that brings me to my question this week from the gps challenge. what is the approximate price of a gallon of gasoline in norway? one of the world's great oil producing nations. is it, a, $1.50? b, $3.75? c, $6.60? or, d, $9.90? stay tuned, and we'll tell you the correct answer. go to cnn.com/fareed for more of the "gps" challenge and lots of insight and analysis, and follow us on twitter and facebook. this week's book of the week is by last week's guest bruce bartlett. it's titled "the benefit and the burden, tax reform, why we need it and what it will take." if you caught last week's show, you know bartlett is in favor of a value-added tax, a v.a.t., and

he lays out his case eloquently, but the book is much broader than that. now, if you missed bartlett on last week's show, remember, you can go to itunes where you can get the audio podcast for free or buy the video version. go to itunes.com/fareed. now for the last look. if imitation is the highest form of flattery, we should be very flattered, and by we i guess america's movie poster artists. it seems china likes america's movies. likes them a lot. likes them so much that they sometimes use them quite liberally as guides for their own work. take a look. here's the poster for the american movie "daddy day camp." i somehow missed that film, but here three years later the chinese movie. is that head photo shopped on? how about this one? valentine's day in the u.s., and then "hot summer days" in china. hour vantage point. their "721." >> one dame i'll be rich and

famous. >> in april 2010 american kids caught "diary of a wimpy kid." two months later china's "welcome to sharma town." two different posters, two uncanny recommend re-sem blenss, and, finally, this one, they not only seem to have taken liberties with the poster, but with a great american image. what's next? mao crossing the delaware? thank to the blog off beat china, a fun read for the great legwork on this story. see more on our website. the correct answer to our gps challenge question was, d, norwegians are paying almost $10 for a gallon of gas, and brits are paying just a little bit less. that is, of course, because almost all european countries have high gas taxes. even at $4 a gallon, americans have very cheap gas compared with the rest of the world. now, a quick programming note before we go. next sunday in addition to the regular show you are watching now, you can also catch a great new gps special about how to fix america's health care system.