>> rose: welcome to our program, we begin from a different studio this evening, and we begin with al hunt of bloomberg news, with a look at the government shutdown possibilities. >> i think what barack obama knows and what john boehner knows, actually too, is that this really is not very big stuff. it's not very big and a budgetary sense. and this is really the little skirmish, i call it small ball on your show before, it's not even spring training. it's really little stuff and big battles lie ahead starting with increasing the debt ceiling, probably in six to eight weeks. that's when the battles really are going to be joined. and paul ryan laid out a budget this week, that's the stuff of which the 2012 election will be fought over. >> we continue this evening with a conversation with

shimon peres, the president of israel. >> this is not-- it is a matter of a very dedicated balance. it's very complicated issues. and somebody is under the impression that it can make face, they cannot make face, cannot make face without-- the security problems, the economic situation and without having-- what is taking on in the whole middle east. >> rose: a program note we intended to show you this evening the two stars of acadia, that interview will be seen at another day, tonight al hunt on negotiations in washington about the budget, and shimon peres, the president of israel. next. >> funding for charlie rose was provided by the following: funding for charlie rose was provided by the following:

every story needs a hero we can all root for. who beats the odds and comes out on top. but this isn't just a hollywood storyline. it's happening every day, all across america. every time a storefront opens. or the midnight oil is burned. or when someone chases a dream, not just a dollar. they are small business owners. so if you wanna root for a real hero, support small business. shop small. additional funding provided by these funders: captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose.

. >> rose: we begin with a look at washington and the looming government shutdown. as of this taping at about 7:00 p.m. eastern daylight time, negotiations remain stalled. in statement today house speaker john boehner and harry reid offered very different reasons for the stalemate. >> all i can tell su is that almost all of the policy issues have been dealt with. and there is no agreement on the spending limit. and we're work og to try to get there. >> i've said it thousands and thousands of times, privately and publicly. our goal is not to shut down the government. our goal is to cut spending. thank you. >> the issue here is funding local health clinics, provide services like cancer screenings, to save women's lives. and save money down the road by catching diseases. they're expensive. expensive to treat and sometimes too far along to

treat. the fact that republicans have made this about women's health and not about money or anything controversial is really a shame. >> this follows tense negotiations that have continued throughout the week as tonight's midnight deadline approaches, many questions remain. will the government in fact shut down. what are the possible consequences, what will it take to reach an agreement. joining me now with some of the answers, al hunt executive editor of bloomberg news, welcome. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: just put it in context for me. >> charlie this is a kabuki dance of legislation it is costumed and choreographed. let me tell you what it's to the about. it's to the about fiscal policy. it's to the about social policy. and it's not about markets demanding something because they are not. it's about politics and saving party face. what john boehner faces is a very demanding caucus and he has to negotiate to the last minute. he might accept a deal at the last minute or midnight that he could have four or five days earlier but that would have been unacceptable. he has to convince that

caucus he fought and he also has-- that's the way he protects his back from the d party types and also from his number two republican eric kantor. >> rose: what game is eric kantor playing. >> well, eric kantor is playing the game that john bayneary sellables, there he is to take his place. i have had one boehner ally say that john has to have a food taster at leadership meeting. that's not true. it's not that bad. it's not open warfare but eric kantor is a bright, ambitious young man. and if boehner is-- loses the support of his caucus which he clearly has now, he would be waiting in the wings. the game the democrats have to play, and particularly the white house is on the small stuff and it really is relatively small stuff, the republicans won. the question of whether you cut 38 billion or 38.5 billion or whatever, it's a cutback. and so the republicans wonment the white house and democrats therefore love to stretch these riders, these extlanuous issues in like

defunding planned parenthood saying we stood up to that right wing republican onslaught in the hopes that their base will forget the fact that they really did capitulate on a number of fiscal issues. >> rose: and where is the president? >> i think that's where the president is. i think he knows-- i think what barack obama knows an john boehner knows too is that this really is not very big stuff. it's not very big in a budgetary sense. and this is really the little skirmish. i call it small ball on your show before. it's not even spring training. it's really little stuff and big battle its lie ahead, starting with increasinging debt ceiling, probably in six to eight weeks. that's when the battles really are going to be joined. and paul ryan laid out a budget this week. that's the stuff of which i think in 2012 election will be fought over, not whether we cut 38 billion or 37.2 billion or whether, what kind of language we work in on planned parenthood. >> i see it go back and

forth. people say i think the government shutdown is going to take place, others say no i think it's moving in the other direction. is there a sense at 7:00 where it's trending? >> they will either avoid a shutdown all together, or if there is one it will be a very short shutdown. i don't think, there's no leader in either party without wants to have a shutdown. there may be some rank and file types. but it is not the wiser political heads certainly want to avoid a shutdown now. in part charlie because there may be as i say there may be times in the future where it's going to be very hard to compromise. so this is -- >> this is a time where they don't want to shoot all their wad because they have got a lot of places left. >> what happens if there is a shutdown, a partial shutdown and what does that mean. >> it will be a partial shutdown. all people who are essential will still be on duty so that kind of tells it you what you are like if you are not on duty. i'm told for instance when the white house is calculating who is essential,

the press office over there is not essential. which will come as a shock to some of their colleagues. but there will be dislocations. there will be some parks that aren't open. there will be some services that aren't provided. it's going to affect where i am in washington d.c., a lot more because that's a federal city and in the sense of a budgetary sense. but again i want to stress if there is a shutdown and i'm not sure there will be at all, it's going to be very, very short. >> rose: moving to the budget recommendations of paul ryan, what's the next step there? >> well, the next step is he's going to send that budget for 2012, the short-term budget. but still big. it's really big to the house. the gop controlled house will probably enact it. the senate won't. and they will begin that process again. but i think that will begin, then get enmeshed with the debt ceiling increase which

has to take place by late may or early june. that's the first, that's the opening salvo in this. but what paul ryan has done is lay out a road map, a game plan for the next ten years which involves some really, really stuff stuff of, including cutting back on medicare, turning medicare into a private system in essence. >> dramatic cuts in am do es particular spending. and taking taxes totally, not only takes tax increases off the table but just massive reduction. takes the corporate rate to the lowest level since 1931, and the top individual rate to the lowest level since 1941 which will be very tough to pay for. the republicans say it's finally a big idea, something that can be galvanizing for their base t will be a big issue in 2012. and what barack obama is saying privately is bring it on. our julianna goldman asked him about it at the white house news conference a couple days ago. and he said oh, no i don't want to talk about that, he

can't wait to pauk about the paul ryan budget. >> rose: is that the one thing they believe will be a killer item for them in the election? >> they think-- . >> rose: cutting medicare. >> yes. they, this is the democratic view. and republicans will dispute this. democrats think that medicare is something that is sacrosanct sank to most americans and saying you will turn it into a private system with a government sponsored premium support program will be very unpopular. the people that noñvó matter how often republicans say it only affects people who are under 55, if that's to the going to sell, that's going to scare people. that is a big third rail politics as social security is. and the second issue democrats will stress is there is no shared sacrifice. that the wealthy aren't being asked to do any hanging except get tax cuts. the republican argument will be we have a long-term crisis and if you want to have markets force to us do this, it will be something that looks more like greece rather than what paul ryan is talking about. >> rose: and will the president take a position on

bouls simpson? >> he has to. he will ultimately have to. and will find certain things, certain spots that democrats don't find acceptable and tweak them. but i talked to paul coburns very conservative senator from oklahoma today, who happens to be a personal friend of barack obamas. and they talk on the phone. sometimes a couple times a week. and he's talked to obama about boulles simpson and obama told him how much he appreciated the fact that coburn a conservative republican supported boulles simpson. >> rose: he was a member of the commission. >> he was, yes. and voted for it whereas paul ryan voted against it. >> rose: but liked certain parts of it. >> yes. but didn't like the tax increase parts. and look, charlie, you got to increase taxes and you have to cut entitlements. >> rose: that is a discussion for another day. thank you. >> it is. >> thank you, charlie. shimon peres is here, he is the president of israel. in a long and distinguished career he has been prime

minister twice and has served in 12 cabinets. in 1994 he shared the nobel peace prize with rabin and arafat for their work on oslo accord. 17 years later peace between palestinians and israelis still seems is out of reach. earlier this week he met with president obama at the white house. i very pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. >> great to see you. >> thank you. >> great seeing you. >> how were the meetings with president obama? >> i think i found the president very well informed on the world picture and details. and i have found him serious and willing, really, to give the push as soon as possible. >> rose: are you looking for an obama plan? >> that's a name, i'm looking for a solution to the remaining issues. >> rose: you want to see

what his strategy is, his plan is. >> no, i want to do more than that. i would like to see-- taken over without american involvement. i think the united states has the best view all around. and they're afraid that if america will go out of the picture, or remain aside, we should not be able to achieve it. >> rose: it can be no peace between israelis and palestinians without a direct u.s. involvement. >> yes. participation or involvement. you see, the peace has to two components. one is the independence for the palestinians and another is the security for israel. and from the united states it understands it fully, the united nation view that if the palestinians recognize israel they will be have peace f the palestinians be recognized without solving

the security issues we shall not have peace. it shall be like in gaza. and then in spite of all the criticism the united states is still the most trustworthy country in the middle east. with all the criticism and complaints, people understand it. because the united states historically did something that nobody else did. it made its greatness by giving, not by taking. by helping other people without asking for any return. and if will take out of the united states out of the picture, not only the middle east, you don't have a responsible view to where we are going to be lead. >> rose: what would you like to see happen at the quartet meetinging in berlin? >> i would like them to enable us to continue the peace in negotiation and not to create the illusion that they can make it a one-sided

peace. not create an illusion that if they will make it a creation, we shall have peace. peace is not just a matter of decollaration, it's a matter of a delicate balance. it's very complicated issues. and somebody under the impression that quartet can make peace, they cannot make peace. they cannot make peace without answering the security problems, the economic situation and without having a wider view about what's taking on in the whole middle east. >> rose: are you admiring though of what the palestinians are doing in ramallah and what president is doing there. >> yes, not only-- i was for it. >> rose: supportive of it. >> yes. because i will tell you, the palestinians in their history never have had a state. they had statements about a state but never a state itself. and when you don't have it, you don't know what it is.

you don't plant a tree and you don't built any house and you don't defend your border, it's a theory. in ramallah for the first time they have the tangible feeling what does it mean, what are the possibilities and what are the problems. and also the palestinian people for the first time are having a taste of the tang ability of a peace. until now they thought that peace was simply a-- you do some meeting, shaking hands and that's it. and the fact that they do a good job both a bass. >> rose: to build from the ground up and create a civil society in ramallah. >> exactly so. because. >> rose: therefore you have a bargaining partner. >> yes, the fact that there

are two camps among the arabs is an important one. without that everybody would be hamas. everything would be -- -- we wouldn't have a beginning to negotiate and pacify the situation. now we have to conclude i think the gap is rather psychological than material. >> rose: between. >> us and palestinians. >> rose: it's more psychological than material. >> right. >> rose: and what's the psychology of it. >> the psychology is suspicion. >> rose: or fear. >> fear, mistrust. everybody thinks that about it, doesn't want to make peace. >> rose: here's what is interesting. here we have the recent sort of proposal from a series of former security chiefs, assad and others, people you are familiar with and have served with. then there was the geneva accord, one of your closer colleagues was behind that and negotiated that. then there is what amir

almost did in his proposal to the palestinians. then there was what was negotiated at camp david with bill clinton. and ehud barack and yasser arafat. they all had the essential similarity, do they not? >> it's a similarity of the hospital. you try to cure every patient but every patient has a different temperature. and so they have a different character, for good and for bad. because the problem is negotiations is a double problem. not only how to answer the compensations of your opponent, but how to answer the criticism of your own people. your own people say why are you giving away so much. >> that is what they said so arafat and camp david.

without arafat he wouldn't-- that say different story. he has agreed peace on 67 borderline, the 47 borderline. we couldn't make peace. on the 67 he gave up 22% of the west bank. i shall never forget it. i think it was a real contribution. >> we have-- then it comes to the sizemore or less we can make a swap. >> are we further away today than we were. >> because. >> because one thing you have mentioned.

they blin to build a state. you believe in this year they can get a vote at the united nations, recognizing a palestinian state. >> the vote without answering the real question,. >> some of them understand it, and i think dns-- others think they have no choice. >> but this is not a choice. >> the other choice is to complete the negotiations. either with more patient, make decisions, be courageous and they will do it. this is the best bet today. >> but why will it be destructive to declare the palestinian state. >> because -- >> what is the negative of it. >> this state would not be able to prevent the west bank from becoming gaza. >> maybe taken over by hamas.

maybe serve as a base for firing missiles against us. it maybe a continuation after all. so what do they expect us to do? >> you have really to relate to the problems as they are, and as difficult as it is to offer a solution. >> to look at your career, why would i be, why would i not think that it's possible that you would be in favor of talking to hamas? >> i will tell you a story, charlie. i was in the-- organization, there were 15 vice presidents there. 14, i was the 15th14 asked that arafat will become a member. i was the minority of one. they didn't talk over me but they did ask the organization if he time, the chancellor of germany, they took me in the corner and

said look, gentlemen, you are a minority of one. you have to listen to battles. why do you object. i says i don't object. if you will tell me that arafat is a democrat and a socialist, i shall vote for him. but as a terrorist how can you be for him. they left me alone and they took arafat. they tell me you have to stop there, you have to declare a full peace. you have to start a negotiation. and the same should be done with hamas. to take hamas as it is, shooting group of people, having an ideology, how can we do it? >> bring me to today's news. you must know something about what is going on there. >> they continue today.

>> and -- >> i don't know yet the results. i just held it the moment. >> and there were some events. one of them was really shocking coming in the settlement. killing with a knife the mother, the father. three children and baby to set off the most recent attack. >> it shocked our people. >> what is the united states to the doing that you wish they would do? >> the united states at the given point thought maybe we cannot contribution too much any more. and there was a tendency to disengaging. >> at the beginning of the obama administration. >> yeah a little bit later. >> early beginning. i tooled the president you must engage, he doesn't want

to-- he thinks can open it but it should be negotiated by the two parties. and he wants to make sure this will happen. he's right. and i any it's possible. there is one change that is very important concerning the palestinians. they know if egypt will change they will be left alone. >> what about the iranians? >> what about. what about the people, the government of qatar. >> we cannot solve all the problems. egypt is a key player in it. >> because of their army or because of their history. >> because of because you can criticize mubarak with many issues. they did a great deal to

prevent. >> given that. >> they will go wild. >> understood and qatar doesn't have a choice. so the two of us have to help egypt to turn in the right direction. how can we help? >> good question. >> by bringing an end to the conflict so the conflict will not overshadow the elections. >> this is a powerful argument. but you were saying that the best thing that the united states and israel could do is find a way to reach an agreement between israeli and the palestinians and that would be the most productive thing you could do to see coming outing of the arab spring, specifically in egypt a strong state. >> i think the palestinians begin to understand it you cannot do it without the

palestinians. i quoted the poet who said i'm alone, are you a loan, let's been alone together. and if we shall make peace we shall free the young generation in egypt to address. >> it will be overshadowed by the conflicts and by the stories. we are really to enable this new development to take the direction and future of egypt. >> -- using economics, and economic support. >> right. >> as a carrot, as a meanses to develop a better relationship look, the basic

problem is-- in 1952 when they have a revolution there were 18 million-- 18 million egyptians. today there are 81 million the population grew at five times, nothing else. >> only poverty grew and now i'm asking myself how can egypt, if they weren't egyptian how can they escape or is it possible to escape poverty. they say yes there are several examples india, china, south corian, how did they do it, not by getting pun by by changing the system. >> entering the new world, and that is what egypt should do.

it's interesting a highly educated people. >> and you see those companies profiteering from the people so they give money. foundations, but i would recommend to them is that a foundation will not give it in a way of charity but in a way of destiny. they should be able to take care of their own situations. >> but israel has a long time been a dem -- >> a proud democratic state so i would think that if, in fact, the arab spring is about democracy dignity, self-esteem, free expression

all of the things that you have in israel that you would welcome arab states moving in that direction. even if some of the to the tall tarrian regimes had been your friend because in the end democracy. >> they won't accept democracy. >> you don't accept democracy can come. >> through the main door t can come through the rear door. by introducing science and technology you would introduce-- openness but not democracy. they think democracy is a foreign religion. and you know who are the opponents of democracy, husbands. that are them self-s rulers. final rulers in the family. they won't say it, are all the rulers will go and resign and go for elections. it's like inviting a turkey to attend a-- nonsense. the young generation, yes. that's the difference. so it can be done in two

stages. first of all, introduce the economic system, the proper economic system will carry with it. >> so you think the economic change has to come before the political change. >> yes. >> the political change has already happened. >> the change of the young generation that didn't yet succeed. it's an opening but not a winning. >> but the opening should be, let me hear you out. with respect to the arab spring from tunesia, to egypt, to libya, to bahrain so far. >> right. >> and yemen. >> and yemen, syria too. >> syria, yes. >> and you think that it is an important development that should be supported but it needs to be followed soon with an economic model that will raise the standard of living and united states and israel should participate with that with all your

technology. >> they won't accepted it because there is still a great deal of suspicion but i think this is -- >> i think historically they will win but on the way, they'll have to overcome a great deal -- >> with respect to syria, i mean there has always been the feeling that there was possibility back to assad and conversations that you and others had with him. extending all the way through recent governments, through turkey, with bashar assad, where does that stand? where does israel stand with respect to syria and what do you think is happening in syria today and do you think it will topple the assad regime? >> the syrians will-- is one

revolt and assad. >> to kill 20,000 people. >> it's normal. >> one town. >> finished. >> and-- was broken today and people are not afraid any more. it's a situation not yet decided and in syria,-- also some appearanceses of corruption, of family favouritism and so on. so it's not over. but it's a different situation already. and i don't know what to do with the result. but that's-- can turkey play a role or do you worry that turkey is moving the other way. >> what role can they play.

i mean if you -- >> they were serving as a conduit as a meanses to talk to the syrian, that's one role. another role is because it's an islamic state. i mean because of its large muslim population it may be a bridge to islamist, hamas and others. hamas is located in part in damascus. >> i'm not sure. >> i am not sure they look upon them as this sort of muslims they are. don't forget that the middle east is 400 years and the-- of turkey. >> rose: turkey changed a lot as you know. >> the memos didn't change and turkey is changing still. i think that turkey should solve their own problems and conflicts. but we don't need an

intermediary. >> then why were you using it? >> i'm not sure it was right to do. because you know, when are you intermediary, we were well-- friend of the turks. the minute he becomes an intermediary he loses his friendship and goes to the center. and then you create disappointment. >> so you lost a friend and gained an intermediary. >> we lost a friend and are supposed to gain an intermediary. we didn't gain it because we wanted to gain the confidence of that-- so finally broke down. it's the case of the united states wanted to be an intermediary. united states wants to give an umbrella for the negotiations. >> but basically say you have to negotiate. we are not-- we are go tk to take sides. >> you and i are sitting here talking about the possibilities of israe israel-palestinian agreement.

yet at the same time you would talk to your prime minister, we say the biggest problem i have is not that. the biggest problem i have is iran. >> i agree but if you have a problem that has a solution immediately, and iran needs an anne of a different nature. iran is dangerous because o of-- as well because of being a center of terror. and the problem is what should be the right answer to iran. and i would say first of all we must be careful not to make-- a problem uniquely for israel. >> yes, i think it's a danger to the rest of the world. we shall be mistaken. we shall adopt iran as our problem. the problem says it's a problem to us. the secretary thing is there is a security manner. you can handle it, either by a military strike or by a military defense.

>> which would you choose? >> well, i would start with the defense, clearly. i mean the greatest danger -- >> are you making some progress in that, aren't you? >> no. it's beginning. we have to have an anti-missile defense, not only for israel but also for the saudis, for the egyptians, for the arab countries. they are worried. they are afraid. they see me run. >> the wiki leaks. >> yes. >> gave us some indication of that. >> you have to have a combination of three attempts. one you did, the economic sanctions, the other is necessary. and the third in my judgement is not less important is a mole position. >> a moral position. >> a moral position. >> rose: what is the moral position in this case. >> the moral position is that iran is corrupting the

moral cause of the world. they kill, they plant, they shoot they menace. >> not the only country in the world that does this. >> iran is not the only country in the world that does that. >> no, i beg to differ. >> dow. that that is the only country that kills and shoots. look at what is going on in libya right now. >> first of all nobody is satisfied with libya, they are fighting against libya. there is a military-- iran is the only country that threatenses to destroy another country. >> by active state. >> no, by declaring. by declaring. >> to wipe israel off the face. >> destroy israel, deny the holocaust. they stand arms theyed whether ter -- >> i know a lot of irans that don't believe that and as part of the government and say they don't believe that. >> in what. >> rose: they don't believe that they are not part of the holocaust denier.

>> you said it publicly. >> not ahmadinejad. i'm saying other. that's one man who has said that about the holocaust that is not a whole collection of iranian leaders. >> but it's enough -- >> indeed t bad enough. >> and he is a member of the united nations and this is against the charter of the united nations. and nobody has mentioning to him. so if it's being accepted, it will ininvite more. >> two important questions. number one, you at the time of his death and i interviewe intervieweddities ago rabin about ten days before his assassination, ten days here in new york. and at the time of his death you two had become very, veries close, shared the nonel prize along with a ar rat. >> right. >> if that israeli assassin had not succeeded and not even had the opportunity, how different do you think

the world would be today? >> different, very important way. >> and you, it was a teen. >> yes. >> i don't-- it was remarkable. and you know,. >> if two people are working together. >> businesspeople call it synergy. >> that's right, synergy. and finally we came together and employed the same policy because you have to work on two fronts at the same time, the domestic and external. >> here's my point though. >> he had the courage to take a risk. does the present israeli leadership have the courage to take the same kind of risk that yitzhak rabin was prepared to take. >> that's my hope. >> but is it the reality? >> i mean speak to this. you should have no reason not to -- >> i tell you, there were some courageous steps taken by the government and they

want to be fair. for example -- >> by this government. >> by this government. to declare the peace the two state solution. >> and that for him too. >> yes. >> i mean i it enables the palestinians to have a free economy in the west bank. >> suppose you were palestinian. i mean all of a sudden israeli leader says i'm prepared to accept a palestinian state. you know, after whatever negotiations. >> if you were a palestinian would you say of course you should accept a palestinian state, wouldn't you? >> i will tell you, i'm telling the palestinians. we are a state, we are a successful state. please learn a little bit from our experience. when-- started to build his-- we didn't have borderses. we didn't have recognition.

he built without borders. i told him, start building, start building. >> but they are doing that, you just said that. fayyad and ramallah is doing that. >> 40 years too late. if they would do it at the beginning they would have a different situation. i welcome the building. >> but i think most of them whoop understand thats was a tragic mistake they made in 48y. >> but they continued for a very long time. and today, too, i believe that you can reach a pragmatic agreement without solving all the problems. you begin a negotiation because you have a disagreement and you cannot accept that at the beginning of the negotiation, would you have the fullback situation. >> but i want you to speak to what you think, what is necessary for israel beyond the you need somebody to negotiate and beyond the fact you need the kinds of thingses that have taken place in gaza in the last

several days to stop, beyond that, do you sense that time is running out? >> do you sense that there is -- >> time is demanding, not running out. >> it's what. >> demanding to take a test step because of other developments. not to disturb the new-- i don't believe it is the end of the world. i don't speak in those terms. >> rose: but are you also aware of the demographics. >> we are aware of but-- . >> rose: you were, sharron was, that is why he made the initiative he did. olmert made the same kind of initiativeses. >> the palestinians understand it too. and they are not insisting any more the way they used to about the right of-- refugees, they understand that for israel it means suicide. and they softened their language.

the solution of the palestinian refugees should be down in a just and a great way. but when i talk with them, they understand. i talk with them openly. and it's difficult but it is a change of mind on both sides. it's very hard to overcomed intervention of bombs and acts of violence which make the people angry, what you can do. the anger against the incidents like happened. >> it is. >> so you have to overcome many herd et-- hurdles and difficulties. >> to the israeli people or to the -- >> i'm saying it to the israeli people too. >> patience. >> i'm saying the best solution for security for israeli should include peace. but peace can add to our

security. nothing else can do. >> here is also part of that security argument. you can't go to israeli as somebody wanting to, whether it is the prime minister or the member of the ken es et or the defense minister or the president. have you look at the geography. and see how close the palestinian state is. what can the palestinians do to convince you israeli security is not threatened. >> we have specific demands. >> does it have to do with borderses. does it have to do with no-fly zones. >> it's interesting enough. it can be done with borders. for example -- >> bordens without sovereignty. >> yes, i mean the sovereignty would be handed over to the palestinians. for a certain time allowing them to remain on the border so the sovereign teen can be

given but the security be guarded. you know, you have to find imaginative and creative solutions. >> were you in favor of the proposal that prime minister olmert offered and that was not acted on by the palestinianses? >> olmert. >> rose: right. >> i wouldn't say so. i wouldn't commit myself. i am not in a position to do so. but the fact is-- . >> rose: because are you president. >> because i am president and because it didn't become a fact. and it was interrupted. >> but it soundses to me like if you look at that and you look at the geneva accord and you look at this proposal by the former ministers. >> in principal i'm for an agreement and they do it different versions. i don't have to commit myself for a version that is not alike that is what i mean. so i don't have to relate to it. but i can say that there is a solution, one version and another version. and we are quite close.

>> are you looking though, looking at the long span of your history going back to the establishment of the state of israel, and your relationship with ben-gurion, you have said thingses to me in the greatest conversation, maybe the greatest israeli you've ever known. >> right. >> rose: you say to yourself in the morning when you look in the mirror give me the strength and courage and opportunity to help be part of finally making this deal. is that you what would like to see, as a kind of crowning achievement to your service to israel. >> our crowning achievement, you have to continue with your life. there is no one achievement. but i want to tell you i a am-- ben-gurion there were 15 or 20 years. >> i think his most unusual and man one can think of. . >> the state which i would

never think is possible, i think is too small. and the time the think the dream is a miracle. now i look back i'm telling you the reality so in order to correct the mistake i tell myself, don't be afraid. don't look with regret. we had problems, good people, we lost life. but all told, israel is an exceptional opponent. for 62 yearses in a desert, going through seven walls, we made a country which is successfully economic, which is unique in its composition, that came back to the land that assembled the people, that returned to the language and still fighting an keeping its destiny.

>> look. i am today-- how old. >> 88. >> 88. >> i started when i was 24. i remember the whole process. i remember the first day i come to work with him. we don't have a single gun, a single train. >> as opposed to everything. he didn't have answers so what do you want from me. i'm going to lose my house because we don't do everything. >> we have nothing. >> so dream big and count your blessings. >> dream big and bigger. i think the coming in ten years and that is also when i look about the debate, about the economy in the united states. the united states actually was all the time the greatest dreamer in the world. for a short while you have more money that i-- and that

you went wrong. look at the future not as a balance of today. you have to be up to more, not up to date in the economy. the coming ten yearses is sensational in the research and the development. a totally different world. so don't be so pessimistic and short tempered. and america still have the best institutions for innovations, for penetrating the secrets of nature. go ahead. so there are some difficulties. difficulties, i believe-- of shortages. >> rose: but are you also an expert on optimism too, aren't you. >> why shouldn't i regret. i don't regret my opportunities. what is called optimism-- are facts of life. >> rose: you don't look at a campaign that you have lost and say-- with pain. >> i never lost because-- it's a different-- . >> rose: you never lost a

cause but you lost a campaign. >> yes. >> rose: that the israeli people have had a chance to make a choice and they rejected me. >> i look at it differently. i think a leader is mistaken if he wants to be on the top, that he has to be ahead. and then you are ahead of the people, you are in the minority. it takes time. so i think i was as i should have been, on some occasion ahead. people weren't ready. but i continued to work. and most of the things that i was fighting for became a reality. saved my own satisfaction in my heart. and i thinks that's the future too. don't give up. the british are saying quitters are not winnerses and winner don't quit. i don't see why you should don't quit. and i remain an optimist with a-- in my heart at least. and i tell young people, don't give up.

difficulties, part of life f you want to arrive at the promised land. you have to negotiate 40 years in the desert. so what? >> when you speak of these aspirations do you-- you know, it clearly one who was part of the founding of israeli state, as a young aid to ben-gurion, as you said, do you feel, can you identify with the same as operations of young palestinians. >> yes. >> i think that they have to get off a different past, a long past. we started from a different point, they started from a different point. but i will tell you something, which maybe i am exand rating. but i feel the palestinians,-- i can speak with them. and they know what position i become a palestinian. and the young israelis, you know, i was 60 years in politics.

i have 25 years as the president. in the 60 years i was the most controversial politician in israel and now i'm the most popular one. >> rose: why is that. >> i don't know. why was i controversial. basically, because i moved a little bit too fast, too much ahead. and i think fighting is better than satisfaction. >> used to be said, used to be said, even though you had been defense minister, that shimon was not a general. he was not a man of the military even though he had been defense minister. do you believe that and therefore he might be soft on you? >> defense, and security. >> the generalses are fighting every day, and this sort of things. rabin said you are a builder of-- the two of them. and i think since we did

have anything building was the first priority. and that was my responsibility. i wanted to go and fight. he wouldn't let me. he says look, we have to build, we have nothing. >> thats was the need, the priority vlt nation. i didn't think in terms of credit or legacy. i don't work for history, i work for people. and you have to at a given time the right thing, the most demanding one. and look, they praise everything i did. so what. i am afraid. the greatest contribution of the jewish people in the world. >> a good yoou cannot be satisfied. the minute are you satisfied

you became lazy. and you search, you create, you change, you are engaged. and that's a great thing. so i don't see an end, and i don't think history is a judgement. i think we have to judge history, not history has to judge us. because history is basically still blindness. and previously generation we were blind than we are today. so what do you want to know. we want to open our eyes better to see longer, deeper. to see a long distance, what do you want to learn from this. >> probably the greatest men in history. he didn't have-- didn't have a telescope. we have it. at that time, the expectancy of life was half. all the kings, the crying like a baby, they didn't have anti-biotics, running

water, didn't have a look differently. really. >> and each of us has a given time to contribute. his contribution to the rest, contribute and there will be an end to the contribution. >> don't waste it. >> and so what do you hope the epitaph will say? >> i don't care. for me if somebody will say that they saved the life of one child through if is the greatest compliment, i hope to be remembered. >> save the life of one child. >> yes. >> you probably save the life of many children. i thank you tore coming. it's always great to see you. >> thank you very much. >> a pleasure. captioning sponsored by rose communications

captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org funding for charlie rose was provided by the following: additional funding provided by these funders: provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.