this is gps, the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. on today's show we start with the first television interview to israel's u.n. ambassador to the united states, michael oren. a previous historian previously in the military, now in washington. then we show you hilary clinton with yours truly in the moderator's role. finally in nairobi, the prime minister of kenya. when barack obama came into office, many in america and around the world hoped he would breathe life into the prospects between a peace deal between

israel and the palestinians. obama quickly appointed a man on the issue, former senator george mitchell, who had negotiated the peace accords in the islands. it is considered by some to be the most right wing in memory, as is the new government. the prime minister netanyahu had been fiercely critical of any kind of palestinian state. his former minister had called for what some had characterized as leaders from israel. obama and netanyahu have clashd to expand settlements over the west bank. there has been some forward movement. he did accept the idea of a palestinian state about a month ago. there were some caveats.

on the palestinian side, they are becoming somewhat less corrupt and more competent. they seem to have less support, even in gaza, where talks continue to be hellish. isn't the real story not these talks with the palestinians but military action against iran? the former u.n. ambassador john bolton predicted last week that sometime they would. they have cautioned that an isra israeli attack on iran could be detrimental. we ask him about all of this. let's get started.

and now i welcome michael oren, israel ambassador to the united states. >> fareed, good to be back here. >> let's talk about iran. john bolton has recently said that he believes israeli is likely to attack iran by the end of this year. is that true? >> i don't think it's true. i think we are far from even contemplating such things right now. the government of israel has supported president obama in his approach to iran, initially the engagement, the outreach to iran. >> you're just saying this, michael. little well kno it is well known the government of israel is uncomfortable about the president. >> littit is, but the prime minr assured him there would be a serious reassessment of the re-engagement policy before the end of the year.

we are reassured that that deadline has been moved up to september, we actually have a date when it's going to occur. we are kmfrcomforted that the administration in the aftermath in iran have considered great willingness to consider formulating a package of serious sanctions against iran even now in advance of the reassessment. >> there are many moderates both on the streets of tehran and the rest of the country. >> unquestionably. we know that the iranian people, even the iranian leadership, is not as monochromatic than we thought. what concerns us at the end of the day is not so much a change in personalities, but a change in policy. we would like to see an iranian

willingness to decyst from supporting terrorist groups. we've seen none of that. on the contrary, biusiness as usual. we'd like to see iranians willing to suspend enrichment of iranian. we'd like to see them stop resisting the subterfuges. we see none of that across the board. >> do you accept iran has a right to a civil nuclear program? >> we believe all countries have a right to nuclear energy. but there is a difference in that and the ability to enrich uranium on iranian soil. it's not in countries that have systemically lied about their

nuclear programs through the century. >> it doesn't say, by the way, if you've lied, you no longer have -- who decides that process? >> i think the international community has to decide and they already have decided because of a tremendous credibility problem with iran. even if iran agreed tomorrow and said, okay, we'll have this type of supervision over our nuclear program, certainly from israel's perspective, we would not be very much at ease with that. we've seen how iran has worked to subvert to side-step any type of division of its nuclear program. >> you're a military man, michael. soviets was detered, stalin was deterd, inflictingie norm ugs casualties. if these guys were deterred by the fact they would suffer

retaliation, why would iran not be deterred? >> because the stalinist regime were secular regimes. >> stalin talked about how happy he was to destroy half the world to allow communist regimes to flurish. >> but they were carrying out what they believed to be a devinely routine task. they have gone on record in saying they don't care how many people they lose in order to destroy the state of israel. iran is actively supporting terrorist organizations to seek to kill israelis that have fired missiles over our centers, that have connected suicide bombings in our civilian neighborhoods, schools and bus stops. it's not like this is something abstract going on over the

airwaves. this is literally happening in our homes and our neighborhood. >> if you don't believe you can deter a country, why did you build 250 million nuclear weapons yourself? >> israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weaponry in the mideast. i stand by that recognition. >> are you saying israel -- >> i'm saying israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weaponry in the united states. >> introduce? to actually have them? >> to introduce. >> but the common sense understanding of that word would be that israel does not have nuclear weapons. >> the idea is that israel will not be the first to introduce, deploy nuclear weaponry in the mideast. if you want me to take more time, i'd be happy to. >> there are books on the

subject, i suggest otherwise. >> this has been the policy since the 1950s, by the way. it goes back to 1958, and israel maintains that policy to this day. this is not a case of wondering whether there is wmd in iraq. this is not a situation like that. the iranian regime is proud of its nuclear program. the iranian regime boasts -- they invite television cameras in to see their subterfuges. >> the question is weaponization. am i right in saying you are making an assumption not about iranian capabilities but about iranian intentions. and that's where i want to know what gives you such surety? >> what gives us surety is the context. the context of the regime's

rhetoric. it's practice in supporting terrorist groups, it's willingness to deceive, to lie, to dissemble the nature of it. all of this creates a picture of a regime that would want, if not to actually acquire nuclear weapons tomorrow, to be in what we would call a sneak-out or break-out capacity where once that government makes a decision to make a bomb, it can make a bomb very, very quickly. >> in other words, if the iranians were to abide by the law, have a nuclear program but not weaponize, but have the potential, in your view, to weaponize, that's already crossing a red line as far as this rule is concerned? >> under this regime, yes. iran under a different form of government, under a western-oriented, peaceful, passive government that's not seeking israel's destruction

would be a different story. and we will be back with michael oren, israel ambassador to the united states. >> we built the institutions around that state and created a national homeland. >> but you kept a large army. >> we had to keep a large army. i don't think we are threatening the pal stestinian states.

so what do you think? i think i'll go with the basic package. good choice. only meineke lets you choose the brake service that's right for you. and save 50% on pads and shoes. meineke.

the prime minister wrote a speech in which you finally, some might say, accepted the institution, and he did it when he was in his final months as prime minister. in that speech he said he accepted the prospect of a state as long as it was disarmed, there was no prospect of jerusalem as its capital and there was no air space. would you accept a state with those conditions? in other words, can you expect the palestinians to accept a state which would be unacceptable to israelis? >> israel's movement in 1947 accepted a two-state solution that had many institutions on it. it had an economic reunion with a proposed palestinian state. >> but it had no control over

its borders, no capital -- z >> israel is not saying control of its borders. i think a national movement that wants to create a state, accepts a state when it's offered to them and then moves on from there. it begins to build that state. that has been the lesson of certainly the movement in the state of israel. we took what was offered to us and we built the state. we built the institutions around that state and created a national homeland. >> but you kept a very large army. >> we had to keep a large army. >> wouldn't the palestinians say the same. >> i don't think we are threatening the palestinian states. this is not the fall of 2000, this is not even 1993 when the oslo accords were assigned. much has happened since then. there have been hundreds and hundreds of terror attacks in israel. we've lost hundreds of thousands of people, including close family members -- mine -- and i

think israelis are justifiably wary. i live in israeli jerusalem. the west bank begins 50 yards down the street from me, not very far away. >> but certainly palestinians would be as worried about the israelis, because the israeli army has killed more palestinians than palestinians have killed israelis. >> but it wasn't the palestinians that attacked the israel i see, the israelis attacked the pal stin yanestini. >> so this is, as far as you're concerned, non-negotiable? >> i think it's a demand that is supported by an overwhelming majority of israelis.

about 70% of israelis supported the prime minister's speech. and there's a reason for it. we are not telling the palestinians they won't have a means to defend themselves. they will have a police force, whatever they need to maintain law and order and fight terror within their borders. but we don't want them to have the means to shoot at air liners landing at our major airport, which is a couple meters from the west bank, it's not that far away. we don't want them to have the ability to make military packets with iran or any other terrorist groups. these are the type of limitations we're looking for and it's not without its president and international affairs similar to germany and japan after world war ii. but there is another important item in the prime minister's speech was the demand for mutual recognition of homelands. the prime minister stated that the palestinian state would have to recognize israel as the nation's state of the jewish people. >> you stated it there slightly differently than i've sometimes heard it.

the way i had heard it earlier was that it should be recognized as the jewish state. are you making that distinction because you want to create space for arabs who live in israel? >> yes, but not only. there was -- it was -- the locution is deliberate, the distinction, and the prime minister made it in his speech as well. when we use the term israel as a jewish state, people immediately thought theocracy. it was very important we got across the notion that this was a nation state of the jewish people, and it didn't mean all the jews in the world had to move there, it didn't mean israeli arabs would have any distinction to right. the palestinians are living next door to us. >> but they would have as many of its internal investigation commissions, supreme court that would suggest there is a very

sharp in equality between the rights afforded jews and israelis and arabs. >> the israelis are human beings and there is prejudice and there may be discrimination. those issues are thought ofough the courts very, very often. >> and the court has said -- you know where i'm going -- supreme court commissions have said there is a persistent in equality, that ed indicational funding would earn the ability to acquire land. >> and in every case, the supreme court has ruled that in equality has been remedied. same process that goes on in this country. it's not a perfect environment. it's a work in progress just like the united states is a work in progress to guarantee the equality of all of its people, not just on paper but in reality

as well. going back to the question if recognition of israel is the nation's state of the jewish people. we are called upon to recognize the palestinians' fate as the nation states of the palestinians. not all the palestinians are going to live in that state, and we firmly believe, i firmly believe, that the only way that this treaty, this peace is going to work in the long run is if both sides recognize the permanent in answer a permanentence and legitimacy, that they're invited to share this house, and the only way we're going to co exist in the long run is on the basis of recognition. >> at the heart of israel, there is a very large number of ar ab who are living in israel and they are not jewish.

how should they feel about this demand, and how do they feel about, for example, singing the israeli national anthem? >> i would like them to sing the national anthem. there are jews in great britain, for example, who will salute and serve a flag that has not just one cross but three crosses on it. i would hope israeli arabs would also feel a sense of loyalty that has a m-- to a flag that hs a symbol on it for the jews and not just the arabs. if they want to feel it's a national homeland, they can have a palestinian state for that. if they have to move there, they can. >> but the prime minister thinks a large number should move there and in some cases he feels they

feel a cleansing to move the israeli arabs into the palestinian states. >> he's never spoken about that, that i recall. we understand if there is ever supposed to be a treaty ending this conflict, there will have to be some points under israeli sovereignties. there have been israelis created on the ground certainly since the 1970s war. >> what you're saying is you can envision some circumstance where israeli citizens who are now living in israel who are of arab ethnic background would be disenfranchised because the border would be shifted and they would now find themselves no longer israeli citizens? >> first of all, understand that the foreign minister's position on this is not the position of

the entire government. this is one party within this coalition. such a movement would have to achieve the approval of the konasit, it would have to go through the supreme court. my feeling is israel would never take such a step to force people to move. no, we're just trying to decide where the border is going to go. >> we will be back with michael oren, israel ambassador of the united states, after this. during his first visit to this country as prime minister met with the president, mr. obama, in the white house, and they agreed to differ about jerusalem. quaker chewy bars. give your kids the power of quaker throughout the day... with chewy bars made from whole-grain quaker oats. give your kids the power of quaker throughout the day... so, april... yeah? you know, your charger is still using energy when it's plugged into the wall, right? yeah, but that's not my charger. i don't even have a cell phone. [ballad ringtone playing] uh-oh.

um... [music stops] heh. announcer: millions of kids are using their energy wisely.

we are back with michael oren, israel's ambassador to the united states. you have been ambassador for two weeks, and i think you've set a record. you have sent someone to the state twice already to be told that obama vigorously disagrees with expansion settlements in the west bank. >> let me correct it. i was never summoned to the state department.

it was told to the press, and at one time i had a discussion with the secretary of state as a courtesy meeting and an issue came up about jerusalem, perfectly respectable and appropriate approach by the state department about an issue in israeli internal policy. the second time there was a phone call. i wasn't summoned at all. again, very, very soft-spoken. but there was an issue. israel and the united states have agreed to differ about the issue of jerusalem and the prime minister benjamin netanyahu during his visit to this country as prime minister in this term met with the president obama in the white house, and they agreed to differ about jerusalem. israel's position is that jerusalem should remain an undivided city under israeli sovereignty and israeli law holds in that city and that jews have a right to live anywhere in that city just as arabs have a

right. >> during negotiations with bill clinton, there was the possibility that jerusalem would become the property of the united states. >> it was reportedly a proposal to that effect, but the actual position of the government remained unaltered. there were disagreements over aspects in jerusalem, and all these issues are being worked out in a very constructive, very friendly atmosphere. >> so when the jerusalem post says the winds are clearly changing in israeli-u.s. relations. it talks about how boston has been summoned back, is this wrong? >> i think i take issue with the jerusalem post. i think that's inaccurate. you may find this strange, there are certain things in the press that are occasionally inaccurate.

i don't think there is a different wind. i think there is a dirchfferent administration with a different approach to that relationship and the administration never misses an opportunity -- and i stress this -- never misses an opportunity to talk about its commitment to i says rail's security, israel's survival, israel's survival as a jewish state, and overwhelmingly, the relationships are warm and positive. >> michael oren, best wishes, welcome as israel ambassador to the u.s. i'm sure you're taking notes as a great historian and one day you'll tell us your thoughts in writing. >> thank you very much. secretary of state? >> yes. >> i want to make a very, very strong statement.

america or anybody cannot help kenya change. announcer: what are you waiting for? all around the world, men with erectile dysfunction have asked their doctors about cialis. ask your doctor if a cialis option is right for you because in addition to 36-hour cialis, there's another dosing option: cialis for daily use, a low-dose tablet you take every day so you can be ready anytime the moment is right. man: tell your doctor about your medical condition and all medications and ask if you're healthy enough for sexual activity. don't take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. don't drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed back ache or muscle ache. to avoid long term injury, seek immediate medical help

for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision... stop taking cialis and call your doctor right away. announcer: 36-hour cialis or... cialis for daily use. so when the moment is right, you can be ready. aries who need assistance getting around their homes. there is a medicare benefit that may qualify you for a new power chair or scooter at little or no cost to you. imagine... one scooter or power chair that could improve your mobility and your life. one medicare benefit that, with private insurance, may entitle you to pay little to nothing to own it. one company that can make it all happen ... your power chair will be paid in full. the scooter store. hi i'm doug harrison. we're experts at getting you the power chair or scooter you need. in fact, if we qualify you for medicare reimbursement and medicare denies your claim, we'll give you your new power chair or scooter free. i didn't pay a penny out of pocket for my power chair.

with help from the scooter store, medicare and my insurance covered it all. call the scooter store for free information today. call the number on your screen for free information.

. last week we brought you my one-on-one interview with hillary clinton in kenya. it was hosted by the university of nairobi. it was filled with 100 people. they were free to ask this top official anything on their mind. also present in the room, the first african woman and first environmentalist to win the nobel peace prize. i asked her if she had a question for hillary clinton. >> thank you very, very much. secretary of state, what can a strong, powerful country like the united states of america do to persuade other strong countries like china to do business in africa with a consciousness that we must also

demand from our leaders' god governance? >> good question. good question. >> so that we do not allow ourselves to be exploited yet again by these upcoming economy giants but who come and want to do business with our leaders without wondering and being concerned about human rights issues, authority issues and government issues. >> thank you. look, i think that's one of the most important questions for africa. africa historically has been exploited during colonialism and post-colonialism by corporations and by your own leaders so that the fruits of this richness that

exists in the earth, in the waters of africa have not gone to the people. and i often use an example that i think is a good model: botswana. at the end of the colonial period in botswana, the people of botswana will tell you it was very fortunate, because the colonialists -- in that case it was britain -- left right before diamonds were discovered. right? and there was enlightened leadership in botswana who said, we have diamonds. what shall we do with them? and what they did was to create a mechanism so that funding and revenues from the exploitation of the diamonds went to build the infrastructure of the country. so those of you who have been to botswana know they have a very good network of roads, they have

potable water everywhere, they invested in their people. and it is a question as wangari so rightfully says of who is in charge and whether they have the best interests of not their own families in mind, everybody will take care of their own families, but of the people they are supposed to govern and lead. and i am just absolutely convinced that africa's best days can be ahead if we get ahold of this whole question of the use of natural resources and who benefits and where the revenues go. >> thank you very much, madam secretary. my name is grace, i would like to now direct your attention from politics to climate change. the united states of america is the biggest culprit of emissions that causes climate change, and in this country today, i've never had before that 10 million kenyans are facing familiar in,

and they are facing famine because the greenhouse has no boundaries. our regions are drying up. what can we do if climate change is not addressed? for example, from a well-endowed country like yours, endowed financially, technically to combat climate change. we are going to suffer and continue to suffer. is america ready to assist africa to do that? thank you. >> the short answer to that question is yes, we are, and it is one of president obama's highest priorities. as you know, we passed a bill through our house, and, of course, this was after eight years of our prior administration denying that it was a problem, but you've now had four years of drought. you have 10 million people facing hunger. africa will be one of the hardest hit places in the world because of climate change. the united states is now under president obama's leadership

accepting our responsibility for having been historically the world's largest green gas emitter. >> hold on, hold on, secretary of state? >> yes. >> i want to make a very, very strong statement. america or anybody will not help kenya to change. that help will come from us. >> yes. >> what you can do is one thing, help us change our attitude. change our attitude. and i'm coming to that. the selfishness that we suffer -- i mean, the impunity that we suffer, the corruption that we suffer, the bad governors that we suffer, the poverty we suffer is all because of one thing, that our leaders think of nothing other than them themselves. what i would like to ask you is this. we need to change our attitude because we support bad governments because the people

we elect we are hoping will help us. what i would like to ask is this. the aid that you give, could you direct the civic and education so that kenyans will change their attitudes? >> we spend a lot of aid for all sorts of society, civic he had kag -- education, but we will see what we can do more to help that situation. >> we thank nairobi, the government of kenya and our affiliate. thank you so much. the nobel peace prize winner is well known for saying, save the world, plant a tree. after the town hall meeting at university of nairobi meeting ended, secretary of state hillary clinton went outside and planted a tree. we will be right back.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

hello, i'm melissa long on the the cnn center on suchbd. here's a quick check on some of the top stories. president obama's health secretary now suggesting a government-run public option is not essential for the

administration's health care reform. this morning on state of the union program, secretary sebelius indicated the white house may be willing to accept non-profit insurance cooperat e cooperatives instead. she doesn't believe the state-run is critical. see the president with the first lady, family close behind. visiting the grand canyon today before tomorrow, the president will be addressing the foreign wars convention going on in phoenix. a tropical depression returning to the florida panhandle is picking up the pace. it is expected to make landfall this evening. meanwhile, tropical storms ana and bill still well out into the atlantic ocean, possibly creating some trouble to be the caribbean. we will return to fareed zakaria gps in just a moment.

when i was in nairobi last week, i heard a quote about the continent. number one, the loseer does not accept the results and then we move on. that quote comes from the prime minister of kenya.

he is a well-known disdent who struggles for his country. in 2007, odinga ran for president. it was a close elections, but official tallies indicated that odinga had lost. those results were widely disputed, and almost everyone agrees something had gone wrong. a riot erupted across the country. an estimated 200 people were killed. odinga did an about face. he made an agreement with the new leader. last week while i was in kenya, i interviewed prime minister odinga. i asked him about americans lecturing him about democracy, about corruption and much more. >> thank you so much for joining us. >> i'm happy to join.

>> recently you had secretary of state hillary clinton visit you as a guest, and after she made some remarks, you publicly said we do not need lectures on governance from outsiders. i was struck by that because, of course, you were a political dissident, a political prisoner and urgently screamed for political assistance when you wanted to bring democracy to kenya. >> i am saying we need to talk more about trade and attrition to africa. we know ourselves we are not doing what we are doing for africa because we want to please somebody, we are doing it because it's right for us. and africans have paid a bigger price for democracy.

i'm saying that this partnership, we want to accept that no patronage, we don't want to be lectured on the democracy, america is not perfect. the event between bush and al gore. >> this is a call to adhere to international standards and rights, and as you say in your point, there are obstacles in this process. why not have the american secretary of state mention it? >> i don't mind her saying it, but i don't want to be lectured to. like students. if she went to ryhad in saudi arabia, would she lecture there? how about jordan?

why come here? if there is truly good similar language. >> would you say the same thing with this video message to the president? he said a very similar thing. >> see, kenya is not a class state. we also recognize that we have weaknesses. what we're working on, which we must improve. i speak very candidly on this issue. kenyans know that, so i've known to be speaking my mind all the time. i spoke very strongly to mugabe until he declared me a persona non grata. i was talking on the issues of

the form and violations of human rights on the african continent. and i say we, as africans, do not need to be told by foreigners what we they'd to do for africa. i'm a pragmatist. i believe in the ability of the african people to develop the african continent. >> let me ask you, finally, prime minister, a question we alluded to earlier. you are a political dissident. you spent 18 years in jail. do you ever look around the prime minister's office and picture yourself, this is very different from what you expected when you were in jail? >> well, you know when you're in jail deprived of everything, and surrounded by every condition,

you think about a number of things, but when you come out and you continue the struggle like we did and we arrived here, you see that this is a stage, a stop, and so i do not consider this -- i sas a destination. >> what is the destination? >> the complete democratization of the kenyan society. complete democratization of our people. i believe in the kenyan dream. which you will find is to make this country free, independent, democratic and first class, and i think that we're far away from that. i wanted to make continues

movement toward that destination. >> prime minister odinga, a pleasure to have you. >> thank you. ( music, kids playing ) quaker chewy bars. give your kids the power of quaker throughout the day... with chewy bars made from whole-grain quaker oats. aries who need your kids the power of quaker throughout the day... assistance getting around their homes. there is a medicare benefit that may qualify you for a new power chair or scooter at little or no cost to you. imagine... one scooter or power chair that could improve your mobility and your life. one medicare benefit that, with private insurance, may entitle you to pay little to nothing to own it. one company that can make it all happen ... your power chair will be paid in full. the scooter store. hi i'm doug harrison. we're experts at getting you the power chair or scooter you need.

in fact, if we qualify you for medicare reimbursement and medicare denies your claim, we'll give you your new power chair or scooter free. i didn't pay a penny out of pocket for my power chair. with help from the scooter store, medicare and my insurance covered it all. call the scooter store for free information today. call the number on your screen for free information.

now for our what in the world segment this is what got our attention this week. a roll of toilet paper. certainly not the normal subject for "gps" this is special toilet paper, cuban toilet paper it turns out cuba may be running out of the stuff.

they are facing a toilet paper shortage and we added the pauseity of paper could last until the end of the year when they expect a shipment to come in. how did this happen? the cubans blame it on the global financial crisis and the hurricane that hit last year. i have yet to hear shortfalls of toilet paper in other places. what i really think is at the bottom of the toilet paper crisis is cuba's continuing commitment to bizarre socialistic government. they want to make sure that capitalism doesn't return in a world of flux, i suppose it's comfortington that some things stay the same. cuba's disastrous economy would be a joke if it wasn't for the prov errity it perpetuated among the cubans. 60% of its field are going unfarmed.

first and second year college students work one month out of the year in agriculture. it's insane policies lead to frequent shortages in basic food needs, shortages even more basic than toilet paper. and this all held up for the communist revolution. through college, and up versal health care, raul castro says they have to make cuts. and the average cuban earns less than $20. capitalism has problems as we have all seen, but at least we're not running out of toilet paper. our question of the week. last week you recall i interviewed secretary of state clinton and wanted to know what you thought about her performance in that job. you guys were bullish. many viewers gave her an a, even an a plus. several had been skeptical when obama chose her for the job and

been won over by her diplomatic skiffs. she did get a few fs. some were unhappy about the comments about north korea. these were the minority. i'm not going to ask you a question because we here at "gps" are going to take a few days off. keep tuning in. and i'd like to recommend a book this one by my guest today. a terrific book of history. called "six days of war: june 1967 and the making of the modern middle east" an intimate telling of the '67 war and the changes to the middle eastern landscape. some may disagree, but it's about as fair of a book as you can expect from one side of the conflict. he interviewed many arabs, looked at a lot of documents and talks about his short comings. a great way to understand one of the critical turning points in

this