orts never used to be this easy. now you can stream all your games like it's nothing. yes! [ cheers ] yeah! woho! running up and down that field looks tough. it's a pitch. get way more into what you're into when you stream on the xfinity 10g network.

this is "gps", the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria coming to you live from new york. today on the program, we'll bring you the latest from the middle east with cnn's jeremy diamond who was in gaza yesterday. then one of the burning questions of the war, who will run gaza when it is over? i'll talk to the former foreign minister of the palestinian authority nasser al kidwa. and will iran get more involved in the conflict than it is? the long time middle east reporter and analyst kim ghattas will weigh in. and finally exactly a year from today, americans will elect their next president. the 2024 race is top of mind for my guest, the ever so

politically incorrect bill maher, host of hbo's real time. but fiers here is my take. israelis are horrified by the attacks on their country. the results sense of trauma has fueled a desire for benjamin netanyahu called mighty vengeance. but intense emotions make it difficult to think carefully about one actions. watching israel's growing military operation in gaza, i'm reminding of another invasion. by another right-wing israeli government, also in response to terror attacks. and how it ended. which was very different from israel's hopes. in 1982, the main palestinian group the plo and some others had set up base in beirut and controlled parts of lebanon bordering israel. they had been fighting against the israeli defense forces and

killing israeli citizens. the defense minister decided to launch an invasion to root out once and for all all of the plo's infrastructure in lebanon and drive it out of the country altogether. to do this effectively, israel allied itself with the lebanon christian militia and after wiping out the plo, they hoped to install a christian dominated government in beirut. the invasion was big and bloody. israel attacked with almost 80,000 troops and more than 1,200 tanks. by one estimate, more than 17,000 people were killed and more than 30,000 were injured. in the end israel did achieve its goal of expelling the plo from lebanon. but the cost was a brutal escalation of violence which produced a horrific tragedy. a militia allied with israel and operating in a zone that israel

controls, massacres, perhaps thousands of civilians including many women, children and elderly people in the palestinian refugee camps of greater long-term significance israel's invasion galvanized nonchristian forces in that country and helped create the iranian backed shiite group hezbollah. since then hezbollah has bun within of the most potent threats to israel's security. on the day of the october attack, hamas claimed to have fired 5,000 rockets on israel. hezbollah has an estimated 150,000. the lesson is surely that war often has outcomes very defrn from those imagined at the outset. in many ways, the tension in the middle east are the unintended consequences of another invasion. the iraq war of 2003. that conflict toppled the sunni led government of sudd am

hussein. this brought them closer together. and that burgeoning alliance threatens the survival and strength of palestinian extremist groups like hamas when decided to burn the house down. and, of course, the american invasion created al qaeda in iraq which was the precursor to isis. so what can israel do? as the university of chicago scholar robert pate notes, the only way to create lasting damage to terrorists is to combine typically in a long campaign of years sustained selective attacks against identified terrorists, with p political operations that drive wedges between the terrorists and the local populations from which they come.

he suggests that alongside a military response, they should present some pathway to a palestinian state. david petraeus defeated a series of terrorist groups emphasized that separating the general population from the terror group is key. in addition, he adds, you have to offer the population something, some hope for a better future. in his and andrew roberts' new book "conflict", they contribute to to the political factors as the military ones. israel is not following pet rayas's strategy. there is an estimated 30,000 to about 40,000 fighters in gaza with a population of more than 2 million, half of which is children. as best we could tell, gazans have had mixed views toward hamas. it won one election in 2006, mounted a coup in 2007 and has

ruled since then with an iron islamic fist. but now as gazan suffers a cruel siege, experiencing hourly bombardment, watching thousands of civilian deaths, they could well rally around hamas. it is the opposite of what a well designed counter-terrorism strategy aims for. i realize it is easy to critique from afar. and israel is feeling deeply vulnerable. a vulnerability pead worse by the appalling rise of anti-semitism in so many parts of the world including the united states. but it is worth reflecting on whether policies forged in anger and retribution yield lasting gains. israel invaded lebanon and got hezbollah, it wore down the palestinian authority in the west bank which strengthened hamas. i did not know what this current campaign will in the long run

produce. but i fear it will not be good for israel or the palestinians. go to cnn.com/fareed for a link to my washington post column this week. and let's get started. this weekend marks four weeks since hamas's stunning surprise attack on israel. and one week since israeli officials announced a second stage of war had begun with an extensive ground operation in gaza. yesterday cnn's jeremy diamond went into gaza on an idf inbed. i should note that journalists imbedded with the idf operate under the observation of israeli commanders in the field and are not permitted to move unaccompanied within the gaza strip. as a condition to enter gaza under idf escort, outlets have

to submit all materials and footage to the israeli military for review prior to publication. cnn has agreed to these terms in order to provide a limited window into israel's operations in gaza. jeremy joins me now. welcome, jeremy. let me ask you, you know, most of what we've seen about what is going on has been aerial footage and iphone footage. you actually went in there. describe to us what it looks like, because again just the reports are that the bombing has more intense than anything the united states did in iraq or afghanistan. what did you see when you went in? >> reporter: well, fareed,sa just mentioned, this was a limited view of what is happening in gaza. but it was still an opportunity for us to get a better sense of where the israeli military is positioning themselves and to see some of the destruction

around us inside of the gaza strip. we went in in armored personnel carriers with israeli troops into the gaza strip. we were overlooking gaza city from where we were, about a kilometer into the gaza strip and all around us the area was effectively rubble. demolished by israeli air strikes. but there was one building where israeli had positioned themselves and it was the home of a former hamas sympathizered and they said that they found multiple hamas tunnels all around this position. but certainly all of the area around this was effectively reduced to rubble. and these israeli forces, what they were trying to show us was both the extent of their positions inside of the gaza strip, we could see gaza city from this position. they said that the closest contact line with hamas fighter was about 100 meters away and during our visit there we could very much get a sense of both the firmness of the israeli position, the fact that they have control of certain areas above ground, but also the very

tenuous nature of those positions. as we were at this base for about an hour's time, we could hear ongoing fighting between hamas fighters and israeli soldiers all around us. we heard bullets, the kind of crackle of a bullet wizzing by us every times over our heads as we were standing on the rooftop of this command post and you could hear rocket propelled kb grenades and israeli forces in the area and as we driving into the gaza strip, the armored personnel carrier would make stops to look around for potential hamas fighters and that is one of the biggest challenges that the forces are going to face going forward. they have strieing to destroy all of the hamas tunnels that if he find. but they know that so many more remain. already israeli forces have been ambushed multiple times by hamas fighters using these tunnels. and they know that in

particular, if they decide to go deep into gaza city, hamas's strong hold in northern gaza, they will face a very acute and real danger of ambush from hamas fighters in very bloody, dense urban combat. >> jeremy, thanks for that terrific reporting. stay safe. next on "gps," as israel mounts its assault on gaza, what is the post war plan for the territory. i'll ask foreign minister nasser al kidwa about his vision for what could come next.

israeli officials have made clear that their goal in gaza is wipe out hamas. even they achieve this goal, what is less clear is what comes next? who will lead the gaza strip in its aftermath?

for a palestinian perspective on this, i'm joined by nasser al kidwa, he served as the palestinian authorities foreign minister and represented the palestinian liberation organization at the u.n. in addition, he is the nephew of the late yasser arafat, the palestinian authority first president. welcome on the show. tell me first, you wrote an essay in the economist saying this explosion in gaza was inevitable. briefly explain. what do you mean? >> well, absolutely. because what we see now is not frankly a war by israel against hamas. what we see is a war by israel against the palestinian people. again, it's gaza. gaza is destroyed an the palestinian people are suffering beyond any belief. it is a very inhumane situation and all of us know that. now to answer your question, all of the ingredients for the big

explosions were there as a result of the policies of mr. netanyahu and his successive governments and especially the most recent one, the current one, the most fascist and extreme government in the state of israel. what we have seen was to maintain the split between gaza and -- to keep the siege on gaza, to go to war every few years to destroy gaza and gazans and too minimize any hope for them, that they might carry. and this way thei israelis, netanyahu, thought they would keep hamas under control and lower expectations and that was wrong and led to the current explosion of things and the tragic situation that we are all suffering. >> so, let us go to what comes next. of course, there is a

possibility that it turns into very brutal urban warfare and the insurgency lasts. but i want to get at what happens, let assume that this insurgency, that hamas is rooted out, presumably even more devastation. but who will come in and rule? people have floated the idea of an arab legion. and i'm skeptical that any such foreign force would have legitimacy to rule coming particularly on the back of israeli tanks as it were. am i wrong? do you think that you could imagine a saudi moroccan egypt force ruling gaza for a while? >> before that, let me tell you this. i think israel needs to change its strategy. i doubt very much that the israeli army will be able to obliterate hamas as they say.

hamas will remain there. they might be able to weaken hamas, militarily and politically. that is possible. and that is why i think we have to probably structure a new hamas as part of the national palestinian movement, as part of the plo, as part of the political program and coexistence in the region and of national independence. so that is necessary thing. now, with regard to the arab force, if we are going to have something like this, i think we need to have it only for a short time. we need to have a force that is not combative, that is not combative. this is very -- this is very important for a specific period of time. only to do certain tasks, take over from the israeli's to verify for instance the full israeli withdraw from gaza and then to hand over to the palestinians, because it is essential to have gaza governed

by palestinians. it is a palestinian and to be governed by a palestinian and as part of the overall governments for the west bank and gaza. >> now you were the foreign minister of the palestinian authority. but you've broken with them because of the -- what you called the lack of democracy and the corruption of the palestinian authority. so who -- what is left? hamas is being destroyed, the palestinian authority you believe has been delegitimatized, by its own actions. what palestinian authority will have both the legitimacy and the power to rule? >> i think we need a new beginning, fareed. we are going to have a new israeli government, i'm sure of that. mr. netanyahu is finished. but it the not for me to get into that. it is for theize ra-- the israe people to decide. and we need to have new

palestinian leadership. maybe with some compromise, maybe something like a new government that has full power without any interference by the current click that is governing now, the authority, with full power in gaza as well as in the west bank. and that government should include all political groups, including the new hamas and including new others as well. government that is accepted by the palestinian street, that is capable of upholding the task whether in gaza or in the west bank. it is very important also to have and that i think will help greatly if we are going to have a presence. it is very important to have a political framework that define the end result from the beginning. i mean, we should learn from the lessons, from the failure of oslo, we should learn and conclude the lessons and one of

them is to define the end result. i mean, we need to know where are we heading? maybe not immediately to do that. if we are going to say that we need to have a palestinian state and mutual recognition between israel and palestinian, maybe that does not happen now but it is very important to have a very clear commitment from the beginning. now, then when it is going to happen, that is a different matter. >> nasser al kidwa, pleasure to hear your perspective. thank you, sir. next on "gps," fighting hamas isn't israel's only problem. it faces other hezbollah and other groups. could it widen the regional war. ly speak to an expert in lebanon.

the power goes out and we still have wifi to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network. hezbollah's leader hassan

broke his silence in a speech this week praising hamas's attack on israel and warning the possibility of lebanese front escalating into a broad battle is a realistic option. the militant group mas been exchanging fire with israel and both sides have inflicted casualties on each other. could an all out war erupt between lebanon and israel. could iran get involved. kim ghattas joins me from bee route, the author that unraveled culture and religion and collective measure in the middle east. pleasure to have you on again. how did you read that speech in a he gave. because there were parts of where he seemed to be saying that the hezbollah does not intend to get involved and there were other parts in which he seemed to suggest he said at one

point, hezbollah would not allow hamas to be defeated in the gaza. those to things seem somewhat contradictory. you could square them? >> it is great to be an the show, fareed. i think there was a general but cautious sigh of relief in lebanon after the speech on friday. because there were some who expected he would declare all out war. that is not quite how hezbollah or iran operate. my assessment from about a week after the october 7th attack by hamas on israel, was that neither hezbollah nor iran wanted an all out war. they were keen to avoid an escalation. that is the assessment that i had to speaking to era officials, and officials and including in tehran. and that is why he waited for four weeks to speak. because he had to calibrate the speech very carefully. he will to sound like a warrior,

without declaring war. he had to reassure his base and explain to them why although it is not all out war and it is quite low intensing fighting there are already 50 hezbollah fighters who have been killed. and he needed to show that they were doing just enough for hamas. by keeping the israeli army busy on its northern -- on israel's northern front. crucially, he distanced himself, hezbollah and iran, from the attack on october 7th saying this was 100% palestinian operation. and i thought that was really interesting. we know iran is complicit. but to hear it from hezbollah, saying we had nothing to do with this is going to feed further dismay within hamas. but they already said we expected more from hezbollah. what struck me most about his speech, fareed, is that to me it was mostly directed at the u.s. and it was a message from iran

to the u.s. addressing the united states, the biden administration and beginning a kind of negotiation about the phase after the war in gaza. >> and what do you think they want that phase after to look like? >> well, obviously, the urgent need now is to spare civilians in gaza and release the israeli hostages. that is what everybody busy in diplomacy is focused on. but i see there are two wars. there is the war in gaza, but there is a war that is on the periphery, whether it is low intensity between israel and lebanon and or between israel and the houthis who are also busy in yemen. that is a war that iran is waging. because for the longest time, for decades, in fact, the irans have used the palestinian cause as a card to advance their own interests in the region and i think that that strategy has run

its course. they need to look at other angles now. and for them, the key point is the sort of the yousurvival. and they want to ensure the survival of the regime. so their going to be very calibrated in how they signal to the united states the kind of leverage they have in the region and how they're going to make themselves heard. but the risk of miscalculation remains there, absolutely. >> what i'm struck by is the iranians seem to be trying to continue the kind of -- they have had with the arabs, that their continue to be meetings between top iranian officials and saudi officials, and emiratis, so talk about that. what is going on there? >> well, my assessment from speaking to earab officials is

that the iranians may have been complicit over the years in supporting hamas and giving weapons and financing and therefore are complicit in the october 7th attack. but there is a sense that they didn't expect this kind of large operation and we can debate whether they're bluffing or lying, that is -- that is a separate discussion, but they seem not to have had a plan for what comes after. and they seem not to have anticipated the world's reaction or even israel's reaction. perhaps they thought if hamas had a few hostages in gaza, it could lead to some negotiations and more leverage but not an all out war and u.s. warships in the mediterranean. and so their channel to the saudis has become quite important. in a way to signal that their open to dialogue. we heard from the emirati officials yesterday saying they see that there is a need to keep

iran at the table as well in the future. so, these channels are there to in a way maintain the escalation, keep it contained. but as i said, there are so many flash points at the moment, so many things that could go wrong, whether it is west bank, which is a tinder box or the pressure on jaordan and egypt which are worried about palestinians being forced out of the west bank or gaza. so the key now is to, i think bridge the gap between thei israeli position which is no cease-fire unless all of the hostages are released and hamas is defeated and we need a cease-fire to be able to bring in humanitarian aid in. >> we need to -- i need to cut you off. i'm so sorry, we are out of time. we will of course be back with you. this is really fascinating and it will get more complicated. thank you, kim gat as.

when we come back, bill maher on the presidency.

i was on hbo's real time with bill maher on friday night. and after we finished that taping, as has become our tradition, we turned the cameras around and i interviewed mayer for gps. i wanted to get his stake on how the 2024 presidential race is shaping up and much more. i should also note, hbo and cnn are both owned by warner br brothers discovery. bill maher, a pleasure to have you on. >> i love our annual chat after you're on my show. >> it is a tradition. >> it is. and i love it. >> the thing i want to ask you is something i get asked a lot and i don't have a good answer for. what do you think explains after january 6, after all of the craziness, after 91 indictments, you look aptt the polls and tru

seems as strong, as competitive as he ever was. >> i think the people who like him resent that question. why don't you look at your own side. the comment i hear many times from conservatives is what you don't get about trump is we don't like him either. now many republicans do. obviously there is a fan base there and a cult even. but there is a lot -- you mean you don't get to be president with just that. it is they think that there is even greater craziness on the left. >> right. >> and it is closer to home. it is in the schools, it is that kind of stuff. like trump, yeah, he was bad and he probably shouldn't have done what he did when he got impeached for ukraine and this other stuff with democracy, but that is -- those are kind of ethereal. the stuff that they don't like about the democrats are a lot closer to home.

and i think that is a lot of what it is. and they see trump as standing between craziness and -- that is -- he's the bulwark for them. >> when you look at what they run against, to confirm your point, like ron desantis is not running against inflation. he's running against cancel culture, and woke and school, and it is all of the cultural issues. >> he's just doing it badly. >> exactly. but there is polling which says those are the put ones to press. >> this college issue that beef seen with the attack on israel and the jews, i see that sam bankman-fried was convicted thnd i'm reading about his parents who are two stanford professors. ten, 15 years ago, i would have said, boy, the kid from two stanford professors, how could this had a happened and i see that and i say, i see how this

happened. it is that kind of stuff. >> you were saying on your show, actually on "overtime, i was making point that biden will win the popular vote, he might lose the electoral college. you think that biden could actually lose badly to trump? >> absolutely -- well, i don't know badly. but he could definitely lose. when people say he beat trump before. yeah, things change. this is not 2020. and he's not the same guy. no, i've made this point as many times as i've talked about this issue with biden and calling him ruth bader biden and i do still think he could do the job. absolutely. because the job of being president is done in quiet rooms. it is done in the oval office making decisions. other people carry them out. you do n't have to be energetic you just have to be wise. those who revere their elders unlike the way we do. i've been a big rallier against ageism. but could he win the job. i don't think -- running takes a

lot of energy. it is not 2020 whether there was a pandemic and he could run from zoom in his basement. you have to be out there. and you have to go to the debates. and i don't think he's going to look good in the debates. f trump, for whatever reason, he's about the same age but he is more rebust. he puts on the wig and the makeup an it is 1978 again. he's the same iconic figure. love him or hate him. biden, i just don't think he could win and some of the polling results, i think people need to look at them. trump is winning under 30. i mean, that one -- >> he's winning all of those swing states right now. arizona, wisconsin, georgia. >> and yet when you're the incumbent, you wear it whatever bad things happens. if there is a bad recession, which is possible, our economy as we were talking about is good right now, compared to the rest of the world.

but it is also precarious. we did spend $6 trillion so we could all stay at hope and get free money from the government. we seem to have been able to weathered that, but maybe it doesn't last. i don't know. >> do you have a candidate instead of biden that you would like? >> i keep saying our governor gavin newsom. i have some issues with him and too far to the left. but i would -- i think if he ran, he would be tacked to the center as good politics do and i think he's a strong forceful kind of a -- he's good at his job. he's just a good politician. and you have to be a politician. and like i said, i know this is a li a little indelicate, but for whatever reason, the kamala harris situation has not worked out. people don't think she did the job well and very afraid part of the biden age issue is that she's next in line and he could easily go. >> but gavin newsom solves that. >> because the kopresident and e

vice president can't be from the same state. it is a delicate way of getting out of that situation. next on "gps," what is going on on american college campuses. bill m maher has some very stro feelings about it when we come back.

the israel-gaza conflict has ignited a firestorm on college campuses but bill maher has been railing on about what goes on on those campuses for a long time. i wanted to talk to him about it. >> let me ask you about what is going on in college campuses, in general. do you think that there is something different about today's college student? because the one area where i listen to you and i always listen very carefully, i feel like college kids have always

had extreme whacko puritan views and when i was in college, there was still a revolutionary reel over the federal government and they used to write editorials in favor of philpot when he took over cambodia. is it different. >> yes, it wasn't coming from the professors. the kids were a little crazy, because kids are a little crazy an the professors were not. they kept the kids in line and said could i educate you on this. these kids aren't even interested in learning. they walked out on hillary clinton. she spoke at columbia. i guess it was getting dangerously close to learning something, maybe if they sat and kept listening to her. i think they just, it is just they like the identity of being warriors. they think their social justice

warriors so they want a cause so they don't bother learning is israel an apartheid state. we know what that looks like. there was no blacks in the parliament of south africa or blacks in the judiciary. the arabs have more rights -- >> but they're referring to the palestinians who are not citizens of israel. >> okay. but it is not the same thing. they throw around terms like that, colonizers. >> is it the flip side of the warriors on the right who just want to own the libs? is that our culture now where that is what it is all about? >> certainly those people on right who just want to own the libs are intolerable also. but it is coming from a different place. to me it comes from bad parenting. that is the root of all of our evil. i just keep thinking that. because parents don't tell kids ever that they're not perfect and they give them trophies for

just showing up and they -- they treat little kids just like they're adults and their ideas have just as valid and they remind me of medieval european where a 5-year-old would ascend to the throne and all of the courtiers would pretend whatever brain fart came out of his mouth was valid and worthy of debate. that is what our children and parents are like today. and so the kids go off to school and nobody tells them everything. and again, their professors are sometimes leading the way in the insanity. >> but then the kids get out of college and they all go and work for goldman sachs and google and they are very bourgeois in that sense. >> we were talking about the phone and the social media and talking about how that affects this because of the misinformation. but i said, it is a little more basic than that. i think the phone has made kid

news different kind of people. this makes you shady, needy, mean and fake and passive aggressive and lazy. and in -- if it is doing that all to them and i think it is, this is going to be the chickens coming home to roost. >> so, you've said this often, do you have a way of not engaging with technology and with the phone? does that preserve your sanity? >> it is not a problem for me because it is not native to me. i remember when phone machines came in and that was a new thing. and i remember holding up a beeper to the phone to get your outgoing messages. i remember all of the technology changes. and i just don't abide the ones that -- >> but you don't find yourself addicted to your phone? >> oh, god no. no. i mean, i tweet once every blue moon. if something is worthy, i will -- but as i always said

about twitter and i refuse to call it x, anything i really want to say on twitter, i can't say on twitter. because it would just be attacked. and it would start out as a fun place where this is a fun thought and now it is just like where would i open myself up and walk through this minefield. so you have to say something banal or anything horrible about the people on the right because the people on twitter will attack back. but you can't be honest. and then when you are -- so, i don't really bother with that too much. and instagram, that is pictures, forget that. i'm too old for pictures. occasionally i engage, we all do it to prothmote things and let people know what is going on. but i don't find great value there. i don't watch much cable news any more. i watch your show. i read people i like, like you and george will and andrew sullivan and barry weiss and her

group over there. ian bremer, there is just a group of centrist thinking smart and not politicized people. that is what i want to listen to. everybody else is just annoying and just talking points and it is just -- i'm never getting the full story which is what i find the most annoying. i know what you're saying isn't exactly wrong, it is just your not giving me the whole picture and that is really bugs me. because i'm going to have to do extra work now to find out -- oh, okay, i see the other half of this and that is what i'm trying to avoid. >> are we at peak woke? do you think that people like you and others -- because it does feel like that you've gotten much more traction? >> everybody keeps saying that month and month, year after year. i think we've had the worst of it and now it is backlash. it is never going to go away. because again we're raised differently. i was hoping that after the first week of the demonstrations on campus in praise of hamas,

that people would -- this would be the turning point. but of course it just got worse. so that is my view on pretty much everything. if you're going to bet on it, it's going to get worse. but who knows. >> always a pleasure to have you. >> pleasure to see you. thanks, man. >> my thanks to bill maher and all of today's other guests. and thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week.