issue one, israel, palestine background. >> i'm delighted to be back here again and to take this opportunity to thank you and your government for the tremendous support that you're showing jordan economically and again your continued interest in support on the core issue of this, which is the israeli/palestinian peace. >> the core issue to which king abdullah refers was laid out two days later by president obama. on thursday, the president

described his element of a viable palestinian/israeli coexistence as two fully independent states. >> the united states believes that negotiations should result in two states we believe the borders of israel and palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps. so that secure and recognized e both states. >> also, in his formal address within the u.s. department of state, on thursday the president emphasized that the state of palestine be fully sovereign and nonmilitarized. >> the full and phased withdrawal of israeli military forces should be done with the assumption of palestinian in a monomilitarized state. >> it was that of a dip low plattic preemptive strike on thursday whereby he would

outmaneuver prime minister netanyahu on friday. the two leaders met at the white house. the prime minister rejected outright president obama's >> while israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines. because these -- these lines are indefensible. because they don't take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground. demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. >> question is the israeli palestinian problem now back to square one? >> i and you -- >> the israeli palestinian peace process is as dead as its can be john. benjamin netanyahu in effect just trashed the obama suggestion. frankly, i think obama's been grossly misrepresented and he said obviously we started the

boardest and there's going to be -- borders and there's going to be swaps of lands. but benjamin netanyahu said we're going to keep troops in the jordan valley and we've got facts on the ground which means the settlements quite frankly john, there's no basis in what netanyahu said and laid down as his conditions that the palestinians or the arabs can accept as a peace. so what we're doing is we're headed straight for the u. n., general assembly in september where the hamas combination, palestinian government, i think will be seated as the government of the state of palestine. >> well, we don't want that. we don't want that. you know that? >> president obama will oppose it in the general assembly and in the security council, he will, but an overwhelming majority including most of americans will support it. >> eleanor? >> that's right. the u. n. will in effect blast the palestinian state and the u.s. will vote against it.

i think what the president was doing to head off or to create a new famework about what inevitable is going to happen at the u. n.. and what he puts forward is a statement of u.s. policy that has been well-known in private circles since 2002. it was -- 2000. it was the basis of the agreement that president clinton negotiated and that many leaders feel that arafat should have accepted and didn't. the reason that netanyahu was behavioring the way he is is he's a weak leader and he is a right wing leader who has an unmanageable governing coalition. he can't deliver on this. and the president made every concession and the land swaps would mean that there would be land for 400,000 of the 480,000 israeli settlers that have essentially gone into the disputed land. so you know, i think that you wonder why the president waded

into this politically at this point and what he said is defensible in many ways and admirable, but it's not going to move the ball forward at all. >> what are your observations on this? >> i think netanyahu's vision of peace will never be septembered by the palestinians or the arab world or the international community. netanyahu wants to have a truncated state, palestinian state at best. he will always insist on secular activities to continue and he will always insist on deploying israeli forces along the jordan river. and he would like to see a truncated state that's not essentially contiguous. this will make a mockery of any entity that can be called palestine. i don't think you can -- you're going to see peace reached between the palestinians whether they are hamas and the government or not. with the government led in israel by netanyahu. and i think the tragedy of israeli politics now is that

most of the governments, even those who wanted of the peace more than netanyahu, are hostages to the right wing and religious small parties in israel. that really dictating and push this kind of settlement activities. the president was extremely correct when he said israel cannot be a jewish state while maintaining permanent occupation of a palestinian community or palestinian people. they resist it. >> what are your observations on the prime minister of israel, the comments we heard? >> you have to put that in the context there because that's where he outlined the policy and frankly different from what happens just presented. >> you mean by the three participants? >> that's right. he said they want to maintain the settlement blocks which i might add was exactly what was proposed by george bush in 2004 in a letter to sharon. it was approved by both houses of the congress and i might say

that's all that bb netanyahu was asking when he came here. he wanted a confirmation of what had been promised by the previous president. >> if there were a promise -- who was fighting that? >> well, what he -- what that letter says is the 1967 boundar borders as the starting point, okay? neither i might add did resolution 242 of the united nations, which ended the '67 war. without going into the technical language, israel wouldn't have to go back to the 1967 boundary. you have a whole history and i might add these are boundaries that -- every single israeli prime minister including rubi nsaid these are neither secure, recognized nor defensible borders. and that's what he is talking about. he's gone back to the center of israeli politics on the issues

and i might say, what -- what bush did, not only -- excuse me, what president obama did was completely inconsistent with the possibility of a good negotiation. because the one thing that the israelis have to deal with the palestinians, the principal card they have the play is the issue of borders. and the issue of territory. to get such things as an agreement on the jordan river. not in the jordan valley. on the jordan river. to protect arms from being smuggled in. to get a renunciation of the quote unquote right of return. >> politics -- >> and therefore, it seems to me what you have now is you take away the single most important issue that israel has to negotiate with the palestinians. you're going to make the negotiations much more difficult. my main criticism of the thing. not only shouldn't the president -- he shouldn't have said anything. >> i agree with mort. he should not have made the speech in my judgment, john.

but i think netanyahu has made a terrible mistake. he got up there and he bulled the president of the united states. the president was trying to be accommodating and he said this is it, we're not doing this or this and we're not doing this and he sounded like he was giving directives and orders to the united states. >> wait a minute, that's not fair. don't you think when the president laid down the -- this is the way it's going to be, was that almost that tone of voice on thursday -- [ overlapping speakers ] the president said the response -- >> let me talk. >> hold on. hold on. they sent the american government a representative to the israeli government and said to them don't worry. there's going to be nothing serious that you have to worry about in the president's speech. this was this whole issue was the 1967 borders and boundaries was added at the very end. and effect. they trapped -- netanyahu. and undermined the relationship. >> you know what that's called? that's called betrayal. >> exactly. >> betrayal of what? the israelis do not feel they

have the americans at their back for the first time since the founding of the state of israel. >> it goes beyond that. >> you want to speak? >> sure, sure, look, in february, of 2010, secretary clinton essentially made the same statement. '67 borders with mutually agreed upon swaps. in 2005, president bush who you know his proisraeli views, he said it should be based on the aftermistist lines, essentially '67 lines. this is nothing new. only that obama now is -- i think putting it at a time when you have a prime minister -- >> what's new is the settlement. >> but this is an israeli prime minister who insists on continuing settlement activities and the whole business that mort was referring to the letter from bush to sharon. that's not give the israelis the right to continue building settlements unopposed and if you go back and read dan kurtzer, the american

ambassador to israel, he debunks the whole argument. >> you practically have to be a scholar, but i must say as a reporter, when you talk to people who have worked this issue, the first thing they say to saw the president didn't say -- to you is the president didn't say anything new. the previous agreements have all been based on the starting points of those pre-'67 borders. he stood up and said it out loud. >> well, there were a couple of squishy words the president used. one was nonmilitarized state. what does that mean? a felon militarized state. it means the state did go to war. that's one of the alternate meanings. besides -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> hold on a second. >> let mort in here. what's -- wait a minute. that's not true. >> it's not true? >> everybody is a little squishy.

>> would that mean they can't have a military? they can't have a police? >> look. absolutely. one of the major issues here is how since if i may point out, fata just made a deal with hamas which treatens every bit of the -- threatens every bit of the existence of the state of israel. they are now making a deal with hamas that they are now threatened what government is going to exist. the israelis have to deal with the issue. that is critical to what's going on here. >> next question, earlier republican presidential candidate mitt romney said obama has quote unquote, thrown israel under the bus. is romney right? >> grossly unfair. grossly exaggerated. what the president of the united states did in my judgment, john, was restate our position basically and say land swaps are coming which is what's our position been for a long time. >> eleanor? >> sparring cheep pretty corral

points -- cheap political points, trying to reach out to the christian evangelical community and he should know better. >> you? >> this is the expected noise, very transparent. it remind me of you know, israel's main corner, let's put it bluntly. it's very cheap and transparent and doesn't add anything. and the president of the united states is not throwing israel under the bus. he's restating well-known american principles and on the arab israeli conference. >> you share his views? >> when the president ran for office, he gave a speech to apac in which he described a border that's pure, recognizable and defensible. nobody disagrees this does not mean the 1967 borders because they are neither secure, recognized nor defensible. so we changed his position after running for office and making that speech at apac. don't tell me -- >> did he throw -- >> you start from that point.

okay? and it's -- the israelis want to start from the defensible point. >> did he throw israel under the bus? >> i don't know thousand describe it. >> apac is having a meeting on day and netanyahu is speaking to the united states congress on tuesday, correct? what's netanyahu going to say to the united states congresses? >> he hasn't yet cleared it with me, but and me on tuesday. >> you know more than you're saying mort. >> there's nothing more i can say on the show with due respect. >> because it's so widely watched in israel? >> it's obviously going to be a very important speech and i don't know what he's going to do in terms of the final language based on what happe issue 2 -- imf angst. >> obviously, some shock and sadness over the vents of the past few day -- events of the past few days, but a very clear recognition of the important responsibilities that have been given to the fund.

>> john lipsky is the new acting managing director of the international monetary fund. the imf. dominique strauss-kahn has resigned. strauss-kahn is indicted on seven counts of sexual assault. the just installed managing director, lipsky, says the imf's 24 member executive board will move quickly to replace strauss-kahn. but the selection process may turn out to be long, rather than short. competition is building with notables such as former head of the uk, gordon brown, and french finance minister, christine lagarde. but a growing lobby of developing economies wants the new managing director to come from a non-european country particularly since europe has filled the job since the imf began 65 years ago in 1946. that lobby includes -- brazil, india, japan, and technically china. another growing lobby of developed countries from europe

want the tradition of a european managing director to be continued. they said that because of difficulties with debt, among western european economies, namely greece, ireland, portugal, spain, the european tradition should remain in place. question -- is a non-european imf director a wise idea at this juncture? pat? >> it certainly is not john. the reason is the imf is the mechanism through which the europeans are funneling american dollars to bail out greece, portugal, and the other countries of europe, ireland. which are in actuality bailouts of those banks. a lot of the third world countries or developing countries are saying you know the westerners have had the imf for a long time. they use it as their private piggy bank and don't give us the same deals they give to greece the portugal. the europeans have got to visit and they're going to keep it. -- have it and they're going to

keep it. christine lagarde is very able. she's first in line. >> what about gordon? >> he's been killed by cameron, he's gone and he ain't going to get it. >> lenos the science pretty well. >> he doesn't get along with the prim minister of -- prime minister of great britain january. >> what do you think? >> it's absolutely going to be a european. it's not just greece and portugal. it's italy and it's -- you know, any number of -- why am i drawing a blank? and they are in terrible shape and the german banks in particular are critical to germany and germany and england are critical for this and they're going to spend all that you are money, a huge amount of money because in fact as pat says, it is really bailing out the european banks. >> all of these post-world war institutions, international institutions, imf -- >> not the world bank? >> world bank. >> really? >> the security council should be reviewed because of the change in reality, political

and economic reality. now we have brazil and you have india and you have china and south africa. you have all of the nations, you have to accommodate -- i'm not saying that at this time the imf director is going to be from europe. probably the europeans who created all the mess -- >> you think also the tendency of the international institutions to bloat, to feed on themselves, to expands, to multiply with bureaucrats? >> but that's the world as it is today, not in 1946. >> you look at the five divisions of the royal bank for example. are they duplicating each other? >> of course they do that. the imf -- at the world bank, we do it in american bureaucracies. >> that's the whole issue. the of seer of the -- over seer of the international institutions. they answer to themselves? >> throngs -- >> ultimately it's their government because they don't -- the governments have to provide the funding. >> are they awarded to the candidates rather than the candidates who fill the job being able to filled? >> strauss-kahn was a brilliant

manager of the imf and -- >> he saved the imf. >> trying to save the european banking system. >> can he save himself? >> no, i think he's got a few problems. >> what makes you think that? >> well, since i'm involved with a tabloid newspaper, i've concluded he has a few problems john. i don't want to go into this because yours is a family show. but his as we shall say personal live is going to dominate. >> it's more like a map of your family. >> i wouldn't call it that. >> don't outlie? >> no -- >> who's the -- >> the question is, people who are doing -- >> you are, but because of strauss-kahn's really poor and gross behavior, the imf, everybody's now taking cheap shots at the imf. but they've been doing a very good job in injury and the europeans are overrepresented on the board and that will -- and the greeks are cheering at strauss-kahn's downfall because he really put together a package that's making them very

unhappy. >> exit question, given the global economic meltdown, we just experienced, can you make the case that the imf is ineffective and unnecessary? pat buchanan? >> we closed the gold window in 1971. it was established to maintain the values of currency and to loan money for people that had balance of payment problems. >> do those individuals feel the same way they did earlier? >> two of them are did. >> romaining three? >> -- remaining three? we'll go with what they've got. what are they saying? millton, what's he saying? >> talk to george wills. >> and the gold standard is dead too. you see -- the imf -- >> quickly. we got to get out of here. i'll give you five seconds. what do you think? >> i think it's still necessary, but it should be reformed. >> this conversation is dead,

john issue 3 -- hey newt, what's newt? >> i'm newt gingrich and i'm announcing my candidacy for president of the united states. >> newt gingrich former speaker of the house of representatives officially announced that he will seek the republican nomination for the 2012 presidential race 15 months from now. four days after the announcement on sunday, gingrich attacked wisconsin republican congressman and the chairman of the house budget committee paul ryan. gingrich criticized ryan's plan to reform medicare. under the current medicare system, the federal government uses tax dollars to pay for health care for the elderly. under the ryan plan, medicare pays for a portion of the premium for insurance that is sold by private insurance companies. ryan calls it quote unquote --

premium support. but gingrich calls it quote unquote -- radical. gingrich also likened the ryan plan to obamacare. >> i don't think right wing social engineering is any more desirable than left wing social engineering. i don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate. >> question -- why did gingrich malign paul ryan, eleanor clift? >> well, i don't know -- if i call it maligning, gingrich spoke the truth. the ryan plan is radical and right wing social engineering and the public hates it and now the republicans have made it a test of purity. you've got to support that. it's great politics for democrats because people do not want to end medicare as we know it. but actually, bigger fun story with gingrich is his $500,000 bill at tiffany's. >> $250,000. >> he whittled it down? >> i don't know, but that was the range i saw.

>> jon due wart it's because he's buying diamond -- stewart said it's because he's buying diamond wedding rings in bulk. >> is that fair? >> it's a story people will remember. we need to have some fun in politics. >> he's what happened to newt john. >> on the bill? >> tiffany's, i think that's been paid. but look, here's what happened to newt. he saw the polls showing that the medicare proposal is unpopular and he goes on television and he trashes the position. 235 republicans have put healths on the line for and -- themselves on the line for and then knocks the individual mandate which they are trying to get repealed. he said that's a pretty good idea. i've never seen a candidate have a worse opening week from a campaign. >> his campaign imploded before it began and i think he was playing to the crowds in iowa. he knew the seniors in iowa are opposed to this -- to the way ryan radical program is going to undermine -- >> what about the crowds across the united states? they don't want medicare -- >> that's right, sure and i think newt correctly sensed that and i think eleanor is

right. >> do you think that -- >> is radical unless the plan serves as the beginning of a serious that day, gingrich faced this uncomplimentary suggestion in iowa. do you ever have the nervous -- >> why don't you get out before you make a bigger fool of yourself? >> one day late every, tuesday, may 17, came the gingrich walkback. >> i made a mistake. and i called paul ryan today, who' friend and i said that. >> what do you think? >> what did you think of this criticism of that gentleman confronting -- >> a very, very tough thing to have on film. at a republican gathering john. doesn't get worse than that. >> you mean he's already demolished? >> i don't think -- well, i don't think he's going to win the nomination. i didn't think he had a great chance, but i think the chances are close to zero. >> has this been a demolition derby -- >> he really is a man of ideas

in politics, newt gingrich. very smart guy and i think he's just eliminated what persuasi force prediction, president obama will give an address before the -- before the end of this year. yes or no? >> no way. >> no, but he will go to israel before november 12th. >> quickly? >> no way. >> no way. >> the answer is yes. bye bye.