>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with a conversation about business and politics with prince alwaleed bin talal. >> as i told you, america, yes, is down in many areas, but it is not out at all, and i think you have a lot of tailwind behind you. the even the classical oil and gas production increase will make the united states not only self-sufficient in energy, as the latest has shown, but they could be an exporter which would be a boost for the economy and also for the. >> rose: we conclude with naftali bennett, an israeli politician, and former business executive who is minister of economy in the government with some strong opinions about negotiations with the palestinians.

>> israel is not about conflict. it's about being a lighthouse nation. now in respect to the palestinian conflict, i'm well aware of what's going on. i'll tell you my thoughts. we're in discussions right now, and it's no secret, i oppose establishing a palestinian state within israel. i think it's a disaster. but having said that, i belong to a government whose prime minister explicitly said that he does want to achieve aitate a sd i joined his government knowingly so. >> rose: the middle east and israel from two different perspectives. next. l

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: alwaleed bin talal is here, the chairman of the kingdom holding company, a firm with substantial stakes in some of the world's leading companies -- news corp, citigroup, apexpel twit ejust a fiewf his sizable positions. they also have ownership in hotels, including the four seasons. "time" magazine has called him the arabian warren buffet. i am pleased to have him back at this table. welcome. >> pleasure to be here. >> rose: it's hard to keep up with you. with all those things true in

terms of your investment portfolio, or have you significantly reduced one or the other? >> no, they're true. >> rose: that confidence in the united states, reflected by your portfolio? >> there is no doit, the confidence in the united states economy is great and spectacular. no doubt, the political bickering in washington does not help the overall ambiance and attitude towards the united states, but really, long-term investors have no choice but to keep looking at the united states very hugely. >> rose: what about its treasuries, and its confidence in its future reflected by the treasury market? >> it's very clear that when the-- when the united states rating was row duced by moodies-- the direction of the stock market-- it shows the amount of confidence the people have in the united states. if the united states politicians get their house in order in washington, i think the united states to be on track very fast.

even unemployment could go down. >> rose: unemployment could go down. does this in any way impede what many believe will be the chinese century? >> if it's the chinese century, a century doesn't mean it will not only be the century of the united states and the whole world. the whole world is changing dramatically. yes, i agree, china is now the rising star in the whole world, and it's going to exert its power and hedge money, no doubt about that. but the united states is still way far ahead of china, india, and many other countries. if you look at the g.d.p. of the united states, it's still double of china. and although china eventually may overtake the united states in total g.d.p., can'titative, but qualitative, it will take decades for china to come near want united states. >> rose: when you look at the global economy are you reasonably confident now that we've survived and put in place things that will make it unlikely we run into another

kind of bubble like we found in the credit bubble? >> yeah, i mean, no doubt there are some challenges facing the world economy, but if the united states, we still have this general deadline where the budget deficit discussion will have to take place, and the international debt situation will also have to be discussed in february and she hopefully the two matters will be resolved, and hopefully both sides of the parties, the republicans and democrats have, learned their lessons and get their house in order. yes, i'm optimistic in general of the world economy and the united states. >> rose: people say two things-- there's a culture of innovation. there is a sense of if you look at all of the great companies-- twitter, for example, being the latest example, which you made a fortune. if you look at that, they say that's an-- that's in the american d.n.a. that's number one. number two, they say they have never on their side, and all

those combination of things-- the entrepreneurial climate and the energy. >>aise told you, america, yes, is down in many areas, but still it is not out at all. and i think you have a lot of tailwind behind you. the issue of shale gas being found in the united states and the classical oil and gas production increase will make the united states not only self-sufficient in energy, as the latest studies have shown, but also the united states could beab exporter which would be a very big boost for its economy and also for the many indises that are functioning in the united states. yes, i believe the united states has a lot of entrepreneurial mentalities, and all the big companies with breakthroughs, like google, facebook, twitter, and the hinovation of the united states, will not stop for sure. >> rose: and saudi arabia, your country, with the dependence on its oil, is it

going to have to change because the united states and other countries will become exporters, not net importers? >> although the united states will be an exporter, still other countries going to be importers. having said that, our country, saudi arabia, still fendz o dep- 90% of its budget depends on oil, which is a very high number-- actually it's a dangerous number. i am pushing very hard my country and the concerned politicians in my country to try to diversify the economy from not being only oil based. even the united states' dependence on oil diminishes, others still depend on it. having said that, it's not enough at all to be very much one commodity nation. >> rose: are they listening to you? >> they're listening because i'm not the only one talking. the whole nation is talking to them. i am only one person seeing the lights of the train from very far away but coming up in a fast

way. >> rose: how is saudi arabia changed today. >> the king is a forward-minded person and he tries to do his best to reform the nation. you look at the nation five years ago, four years ago, three years ago and now, a lot of changes are happening right now. he clearly has several constituencies in saudi arabia-- the liberal constituency, the moderates and conservatives. he is on track to establish more reforms. >> rose: which one of those communities are you in? >> i'm really mainstream saudi arabia, very moderate, no extreme sides of the equation. >> rose: in terms of change-- and everybody talks about women and the role of women in the society-- how significant is the rhetoric about change? is it real? is it-- you have pushed hard for the role of women in the saudi society. >> it is very real, and as you

see, the government's reaction to the latest women driving movement has been very much subdued and has been very much relaxed, whereby all those women who drove the cars, they were just given some citations and were let to drive-- they were given their freedom. so i believe that this issue of women driving-- which is a very minimal situation. it's going to happen eventually. >> rose: so what worries you? >> i mean what, worries me, what worries the whole world is what's happening in our region, and the political turmoil in iran and syria and the-- iran's open willingness to have nuclear weapons. these are major issues that are affecting our region. >> rose: so where is it in terms of-- how do you see the change in bashar al-assad and his position in syria, vis-a-vis

the rebels? >> as it stands today, president bashard -- >> is stronger. >> his position is a lot stronger than it was a few months ago. clearly, when president obama has drawn the red line, and that red line was crossed, and the deal was proang b broken by put, whereby the chemical weapons were supposed to be given away and prevent the military strike, it created havoc and confusion among the groups counting and betting on having the strike diminish the power, the military power of bashar al-assad in syria. >> rose: the military strike, not withstanding conof the conflict would have benefitted them over all and had a fight over what follows assad. >> they are fighting among themselves right now. there are many parties, some left wing, some right wing, some

jihadists, they don't have a coherent plan. >> rose: but the jihadists and all-- of they-- what percentage of the rebels are they? and what remains of what was the beginning a sort of rebel force not principally populated by islamists? >> well, unfortunately, as it stands today, the majority of those rebel groups jihadist and afghani-type jihadists -- >> al qaeda affiliates. >> exactly. the united states understands it very well, and that's why the united states, mr. obama and mr. kerr, have been moving slowly but surely, not rushing the exit of assad from his position right now. >> rose: and do you think that was part of the reason they pulled back from the attack, that perhaps they can moderate and not rush him out of employer because they fear what will happen if he is eliminated? >> exactly. putin has seen this opening and he immediately, between the united states and syria, and

sure enough, president obama immediately grabbed that opportunity and instead of going and attacking syria militarily, he accepted to take the-- havi having-- to take out the chemical weapons of bashar peacefully. >> rose: it is said your government was very much opposed to that because they fear, most of all, iran, and the com compitition with iran for supremacy in the middle east, and it caused them-- because the president took that choice-- to have some reservations about him. >> yeah. if i can summarize to you, the position of saudi arabia and the united states in a very short sentence. the united states' position is to have the devil you know in syria, rather than the devil you don't know. saudi arabia's position is to have any def nil syria, than the devil you know. it's a major difference between saudi arabia and the united states in that position. the united states' position right now, i believe they have a contract with bashar al-assad to

give all his chemical weapons back. the doomsday scenario, if bashar falls right now, who is going to have possession of these chemical weapons. jihadists, afghani type rebel groups, and the united states knows that very well. >> rose: so we have an interest in assad stale staig in power until all the chemical weapons are eliminated, at least until then. >> sure enough, by the deadline of first november, where he was supposed to give back all his-- all the companies that manufacture such weapons were the day before the deadline. right now we have another deadline, which is june, to have all the chemical weapons destroyed. >> rose: let me turn to iran. what is the saudi position on iran and iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons development. >> the position of saudi arabia is like the position of the united states and everybody else in the world.

to have iran nuclear free. and we are very concerned from the position of the united states, britain, and france-- although france took a good position in the 5 + 1 discussions in geneva, but they went very far and fast, and they send their charge daaffairs to tehran. this gives the wrong message to iran, and united states loosening up the sanctions that brought them to the negotiation table is not prudent at all. ic they have to-- not to give any concession and no matter how small it is. >> rose: even though john kerry said among the people who were on the u.s. side, including the french and other european countries, were united and had one position, you're saying that is not true. you're saying france was opposed to where they were going-- and wanted tougher measures. >> they are the most aggressive among its five. >> rose: a new france, huh?

>> oh, yes, assertsive. >> assertive france. also, saudi arabia, there is much talkue feel its rels are getting closer, and would the sowldies like for the israelis to do something about whatever facilities the iranians have now. , the number of centsrifuges, whoops happening with those cents fiewjs, as well as the plutonium center. >> the united states position of not having a very disciplined policy, and very clear strategy towards iran is creating a lot of confusion and worries among the-- all its allies, whether israel or saudi arabia, our other countries in our region. i think it's very important for the united states to be assert 95 this matter and not blink whatsoever, because it is the economic pressures and economic sanctions that got iran to the negotiating table. >> rose: there is an opinion in some sectors of the world, expressed by prince bandar, as

well as the former head of intelligence, prince turki alfeisal, that the united states cannot be trusted, that they don't believe necessarily when push comes to shove the president will strike geens iran if negotiations fail. and you share that view. >> i mean, the perfect example is the red line that was drawn and crossed and nothing happened. >> rose: in syria? >> oh, sure. >> rose: so it leads to what conclusion in your own words? >> the niewts yoouts has to readdress its foreign policy. it has to have a very clear, well hedefined strategy towards the middle east. when a red lean is drawn and it's crossed, the united states has to abide by its commitments. >> rose: but you don't believe the united states can be trusted to live up to its commitments if, in fact, sanctions do not work and does not force the iranian to reduce their cent

fortunatelies. >> no doubt that the internal situation in the united states is influencing its foreign policy. the obamacare situation pup have the budget deficit situation. you have the national debt issue. all this is putting pressure on the administration, whereby they would like to finish very fast, and expeditiously, without any-- some of the foreign policy issues such as iran. and it's very dangerous because this is a time bomb pup cannot have iran with a nuclear weapon. >> rose: what do you mean, they want to push it on to the next administration and make the decision about what to do about iran? >> no, i am saying they are are in a rush to have an agreement with iran, even if it is not a very good agreement evening, if it is a lousy agreement, bad agreement. >> rose: let me turn to your businesses. twitter you had a 3 million investment that turned out to be a billion. what do you think the future of twitter is? >> i think the business model of twitter has proven itself to be successful. >> rose: if they can monetize it. >> yes.

the question right now is to look at the montization process. clearly, twit ser in the beginning of their journey. they went public right now, and it's in the $25, $30 billion range. they have a lot of money in the bank right now. and the penetration of twitter in the united states and the sworld really still minimal. there's a lot of potential to grow. >> rose: there's a lot of world out there. >> oh, yes. 2.4 billion users, and more than one-half billion smart phones, the potential is still great. that's spectacular. >> rose: let's walk through your investment. $300 million is not a whole lot of money for you. >> it's a lot story anyone. >> rose: indeed, i'm sure it, but when you look at your net worth and the other investments you have, you invested $300 million before it went public. you were convinced what? that the future of social media

was very good, and that twitter could be as big as facebook? >> when you look at our ininvestments, you look at the competition and the future aspectdz of the couple. clearly, we believed in the business mod model, and although montization was not fully baked into the price of the company, but that's where the risk is. that's where the calculated risk is. you bet on the company, that its future is bright, and you bet the monetization process will be successful. we're seeing indications of success in the montization process. >> rose: when you look at news corp what, do you see? it's going to split-- >> it's fox now and news corp. clearly, this is a conglomerate that is very diversified in media, and this is the only company-- especially fox-- is the only company right now that is present in five countries. yes, we have a lot of confidence in mr. murdoch and his family.

and i just visited him today, and he looks very good. >> rose: he's in good shape. >> he's in very good shape, yes. >> rose: what about succession? >> i think succession, god forbid something happens to mr. murdoch, there is a board of directors that has very able people that could really take over, and his son, james, is a very capable person. and as i told you last time on your show here, god forbid something happens to mr. murdoch, i think james is rupert number two. >> rose: he's your guy to succeed rupert if something happens? >> yes. >> rose: nothing has changed. >> no. consistent. >> rose: sta corp, how does that work? you met with the c.e.o. of citicorp. >> clearly the result of citi in the last two quarters have proven to be a success and the strategy of not increasing

revenues, maintaining revenues in this tough environment and controlling costs-- they're reducing costs, which makes the operating leverage positive. >> rose: what do you think of jp morgan and all the fines they're pay? >> jpmorgan is a giant bank, and to survive the crise of 2008, 2009, 2010, unfortunately, right now they have to pay the price of some of the acquisitions they have done. >> rose: exactly, washington mutual and bear stearns. >> and bear stearns, yes. >> rose: brought a lot of problems, and obviously jamie dimon said he would not have maid those deals if he had it to do over. >> for sure, at that time, what he did helped the economy, but also, they were beneficial to jpmorgan. jpmorgan made a lot of money out of these companies right now, but right now, i think we are

seeing the side effects of these two acquisitions. >> rose: looking to the future, is there a sector of the economy that you like a lot? is it technology and social media. is it financial institutions? is it hotels? is it all of those but one that i don't know about that seems very, very attractive to you? >> kingdom holding is a saudi arabia country and 14 industries, and these industries are regionally and in saudi arabia. it depend on each country, for example, real estate right now used to be a tabu a few years ago in the united states. and saudi arabia, it's really-- it's been a booming industry the last four, five years. >> rose: in saudi arabia. >> exactly, yes. although, the united states right now, we are beginning to see a plateauing of real estate, and that is going up. so it depends on whichq

-- >> how about choina then? >> china itself is a continent, 1.3 billion people and growing. it's a very much controlled economy. it's a very much-- it's a controlled economy. although, its economy is a capitalistic economy, the country is very much a commystic and centralized. we have to see if these two cooshz survive for a long time-- long term. >> rose: and latin america? >> they're moving, they're moving slowly. >> rose: mexico? >> mexico right now isy a star in latin america. but mexico with the oil based industry that they have right now over there, it's really-- it's stronger terms than others. >> rose: forbe" magazine had a report on your net worth which you did not like and you thought was inaccurate, and you sued them? >> no, since kingdom holding

went public, some reporters in "forbes--" in the latest issue, they hit my integrity, and the integrity of saudi arabia, and the integrity of the stock market in saudi arabia. and that's when we didn't accept at all. and that's why we did not sue them for-- for -- >> you asked for a correction. >> we asked for a correction and retraction of their mistake, and accusing 7 saudi arabia of being a casino. how you can accuse saudi arabia and the stock market of saudi arabia being a casino. >> rose: said the stock market was a casino. >> exactly. and that's why-- my wealth is linked to the market capitalization of my company. so when they use-- underestimate my wel, i don't mind at all about that. i didn't care about it. but when they touch the integrity of saudi arabia, and the stock market of saudi arabia, which is regulated, that is tabu. >> rose: what does it matter

where a company stand? does is it of it affect what you can do? we look at what happened-- which is a totally, totally, totally different situation-- what happened in brazil, who talked about he was going to be worth $100 billion. >> to me, really, the issue of wealth 10, 20, $30 billion is academic. the moment it touched the integrity of saudi arabia, they touched the integrity of my company, kingdom holding, i asked them to correct that because there are many publications that talk about my wealth, in the far east, the middle east, and bloomberg, obviously, so three publications have all the facts. and saudi arabia's market is very regulated. because of that, they were able to withstand the crisis of twowt 8. because the tough regulations we have in saudi arabia. >> rose: there is this-- think about your legacy and what

imprint up to the have and where your sort of philanthropic interest might be. where are they? >> that's a very good question because i think 2014 and 2015 will be a major shift in our philanthropic situation where we will be announce something big announcement about that. we are involved with many u.s. entities, like the carter center, and certain projects in africa, eradicating some diseases. we're also involved with mr. bill gate and his effort to -- >> global health. >> yes, we are really involved with many u.s.-based entities in many good international causes. >> rose: what else do you want for your legacy? >> i would like to be remembered as a man who helped his nation, helped his country to make change in a time where change is needed, on the social front, economic front, and political front. >> rose: social frent, primarily women? >> women empowerment, and

eliminating poverty, increasing employment. in many areas. >> rose: in exw role that you want diplomatically, or somehow as an extension of the government, other than the private sector? >> if i were in the government i couldn't be sitting with you here today. >> rose: that's a point well taken, yes. it's greet to see you, thank you very much. >> it's a pleasure to be here. >> rose: back in a moment. stay with us. >> in 1948, we established the state of israel. in 1967, we liberated the united jerusalem. i say this to those who continue to claim that the jewish people do not have a historical, national, or religious link to our land, and there are such people. i show the coin so people who continue to call and work towards our destruction understand that they'll never succeed. we're here to stay. >> rose: naftali bennett is here. he is israel's minister of economy and head of the right wing jewish home party.

he is wildly considered the third most powerful politician in benjamin netanyahu's government. he is here about two issues, iran's nuclear program, and the palestinian statehood. the major washington powers resumed talks with iran in week in geneva in the hopes of agreeing on an interim nuclear deal, reaching a two-state solution, meanwhile, is a continuing priority for secretary of state john kerry. i am pleased to have naftali bennett at this table for the first time. welcome. >> it's great to be here, charlie. >> rose: let me say a couple of things first about you and we'll talk about things that interest me, which is iran and useless the palestinian negotiations. >> sure. >> rose: and domestic politics in israel. but you, first. you're a late-comer to politics, per se. you were very successful businessperson within the technology community. what did you decide-- what came-- help me tell the story of

how you end up as one of the most promising politicians in israel. >> i can actually trace is back to a single moment. i had been in the military, a major in the reserves of one of the commando units. after the army i built a company that you probably use it whenever you log on to chase.com or citybank.com, my rel company, make sure it's you and not someone who stole your pass word. 70% of american transaction go through that software today. i sold the company, and that's point where i ought to have been in the caribbean with a cocktail drink and the little umbrellas and the second war started. i was called in to command the team that searched for missile launchers that targeted israel. that war changed my path, a few things. first of all, it was the first time i fought while i'm a dad. i in hmy firstborn, was one year old. it's a whole different ballgame

when you're a dad and leaving kids behind. more profoundly, i realized something i didn't get until that war, that we're in a neighborhood, and there are people who don't want us there. now, that sound pretty obvious now, but for my generation, charlie, who grew up-- i was born in 1972. as a child in the 80s, i never experienced an existential threat, and we sort of thought if we try hard enough we'll just have peace and all will be okay. and in fact, i was in lebanon, and these guys, hezbollah, are shooting thousands of missiles at my parents' house in haifa, in the northern city of haifa. and they don't have any territorial claim. they're not saying give thus city and we'll make peace. nay just said we want to kill you. we don't want your state to be there. and then i realized that i'm not going to go back into high-tech, which actually is my passion-- i always had a vision of building an israeli nokia, which is no longer a good idea. and then i joined

then-opposition leader benjamin netanyahu as his chief of staff for a couple years, went back to high-tech, and then ultimately, formed this party and ran in the elections and we did fairly well. >> rose: but not as well as expected. some people thought you'd do better. >> i'm very pleased. actually, i sort of took over an existing party -- >> you you were the talk of the campaign and then lapid did much better than people expected him to do. he became the story. >> that's correct. and the party the that i led exs already 100 years, predates israel. it was the religious people, you know, those with the yarmulke, and i came and i-- and it was down to three seats in the kinesset which is nothing. --t used to have 12, nine, seven, six, three-- it was about to evaporate. i changed the mission tieb mission of restoring jewish identity in israel and i opened it up to secular rells, to

nonreligious. five out of the 12 seats we got are from secular voters and part of our m.k.s are secular. it's a whole new vision. >> rose: what do you think they're voting for? >> they're voting for a strong jewish heritage. lots of kids in will have never been to the westernll so we need to strengthen our spirit and open up the economy so these are some of the things we're doing. and i'm minister of economy and i think we're going through a historic change in israel's economy. >> rose: what's the difference between the minister of finance and the minister of economy. >> the finance minister is the fiscal guy responsible for the budget, and i'm the executive branch who actually executes the policies-- employment, industry, high-tech, all of that stuff. >> rose: tell me what you worry most about with respect to israel and its future? there are those who worry that the idea of a two-state solution may be slipping away, and that's not a good thing. because that's not what israel wants to be. there are those who worry that

the idea of an occupier has done great damage to israel's own psyche. tell me how you feel about those things and people-- >> you asked two different questions. >> rose: agreed. but these are people who love the country, who love israel. >> oh, yeah, oh, yeah sphwhri just did a-- gli just did a show here, the promised land-- >> and i admire his writing. though i don't agree with much of what he writes, still i admire the man and his writings. you asked two different questions. my main focus-- i'm not that worried. i'm not complacent. we have a lot of work. we're an pim perfect state. my main drive right now is turning israel into what i call a lighthouse nation. we have this going on from libya to tunic, it is here to stay. it might be 10 years, 50, 100.

i don't know. my vision of israel is a lighthouse in the storm. i mean a lighthouse-- we have to have a strong economy, a strong military but that's not enough. we need to actually project lights lite and do good, "fixing the world. it's sort of this jewish obsession we've had since moses, abraham, jesus, the works. sometimes while trying to fix the world, we sort of screw it up a bit. but i view our mission as doing good. and i'm tired of being defined by a conflict. we have conflicts. there are 50 other countries with conflicts. we're not the only ones. israel is not about conflicts. it's about being a lighthouse nation inspect. in respect to the palestinian conflict, i'm well aware of what's going on. i'll tell you my thoughts. we're in discussions right now, and it's no secret i oppose establishing a palestinian state within israel. i think it's a disaster. but having said that, i belong to a government whose prime

minister explicitly said that he does want to achieve a state, and i joined his government knowingly so. so here's what i did with netanyahu. we agreed that he can go ahead, do the negotiations, if push comes to shove, or if a deal is reached, we'll bring it to a national referendum, and the people will vote. whatever they decide, i'll respect. at the same time, i am seeking peace with the palestinians. you know, charlie, i fought in five different wars and conflicts. i don't want this. wars are bad. my friends died. i buried them. here's what i think we need to do. and here's what's going on, on ground. on ground, in the west bank-- what you call the west bank, there's a positive trend. there's more joint palestinian-israeli businesses. 30,000 palestinians work with israelis. >> rose: so what's the end game for you then? the end game is israel should never give you what i call the

west bank. and any palestinians in the area will not have a state of their own. they will be living in israel. >> no. so here's my-- you know, saying the end state, i don't know. but i can tell you where i think -- >> but you don't want a perpetual state of what exists today, do you? >> i agree, i don't. here's what i suggest. charlie, in the west bank, there are two types of areas. there are the palestinian-controlled areas and the israeli-controlled areas. in the palestinian-controlled areas, you have 2 million palestinians and no rells. in the israeli-controlled areas, you have 400,000 israelis, and 70,000 palestinians. so here's what i suggest. in the palestinian-control areas, let them have full self-governance-- elections, pay your own taxes, build your own homes, have your own economy-- do whatever you want. we don't want to govern you, barring one thing-- we have to have overall security responsibility. otherwise, it will become a

terror state like gaza. now, in the israeli-controlled areas i would apply israeli law and sovereignty. i would offer full, equal citizenship to those 70,000 palestinians. they would be offered to be an equal israeli citizen like myself, like 1.7 million israeli arabs, vote are if the the kinesset. to that degree we would separate. they would have their own intity. it's not a state in the sense they don't have their own army because i'm not willing to risk my kids again, charlie. i'm not willing to do that. >> rose: if you were a palestinian would you accept that? >> absolutely. >> rose: you would, without-- there is a limit. your limits on your own freedom. there's a limit on terms of what you can do that is defined by another state. >> no, so, i-- there's also alzheimer's this discourse of diplomatic agreements. and it ain't going anywhere. you know .

>> rose: but basically you just said-- what kerry is trying to do ain't going anywhere in your judgment. >> i think not only in my judgment. i think if you ask any reasonable palestinian, any reasonable israeli, some may at the present time to go, but no one thinks it's actually going to -- >> does the prime minister, whose government you serve, think? >> i was surprised. when we met postelections and started negotiations, i asked him, "what is your goal?" >> rose: and is exactly what i asked you. >> he said he wants a palestinian state. i get it. and i think he's wrong. >> rose: he's wrong to want a palestinian state. >> in the heart of israel. >> rose: under any circumstances. >> charlie, let me ask you i mean, in the past 20 years, we advocated three places-- vacated three places. southern lebanon, we're out, and they shot over 8,000 missiles at us, and today they have 100,000 missiles in a place we vacated and the u.n. security council said not one missile will enter. we vacated the best waning in

oslo, and from the very areas that we vacated, they sent over hundreds of suicide bombers into my city of haifa, of tel aviv, of jerusalem, and over 1,000 israelis were butchered and murder in coffee shops and buses. then we tried it again, a third time. we vacated gaza. it's a jew-free land. >> rose: also you vacated sinai. >> hold on. we'll talk about sinai in a moment. the egyptians never talked about wiping out the jewish nation, certainly not over the past years prior to their goal was to restore sinai. here we have people who are explicitly saying we want to wipe out israel. we advocated the gaza strip. and they've shot thousands of missiles days after we left. president paris said it's going to become the singapore of the middle east. it became the vietnam of the middle east. so howmentz do we have to hand

over land to people that minutes later shoot missiles from my children? i live five kilometers from the green line in smaller israel. i have four kids. i'm not going to put them in harm's way. >> rose: what does that say to you, the palestinians are different kinds of people? the palestinians are what? what does it say to you? >> well, it says that the palestinian leadership is day in, day out, educating their children to hate while we learn all these peace songs. if you turn on right now, the palestinian "sesame street yet qts you'll see them talking about how the the jews are bad. how the israelis don't have a right to exist. when you educate your kids and poison their minds, well, yeah, then they, indeed, grow up hating israel. so the first step that needs to happen, the palestinians need to recognize israel as the jewish homeland, and stop educating their kids to want to kill israelis. that's the deal. >> rose: let's suppose that--

this is a hypothetical-- let's suppose that it would be possible and that what you have just listed as experience in lebanon, south lebanon, experience in gaza and experience on the west bank could be different and that israel's security at the 1967 borders was guaranteed it could happen, would you be prepared to accept that? meaning that your argument for having to extend to a greater israel, is that-- if we don't do that, all we'll have is missiles raining in on us. i'm saying take that out, as a hypothetical, and your security in '67 borders, and the capacity to do all the things you want israel to do and is doing was given even more impetus. would you be prepared to be for

a palestinian state in that circumstance? >> first of all, israel is doing-- is fulfilling its vision as we speak. >> rose: i'm not arguing that. >> in any case. and -- >> but it can't, if you're in a permanent state of war, there has to be some-- >> look, you know, we've been -- >> just in terms of how you spend your national-- >> yeah, but still, it's been 65 years since israel's established and we don't have peace, yet we're doing amazing things. >> rose: nobody denies that. i'm staying would it be better if you didn't have to live with the constant threat to your security. >> of course! charlie, my oldest is eight years old, named yoni. >> rose: the brother of netanyahu. >> that's right. the one thing that keeps me weak at night is what happens 10 years from now. i'm willing to go fight, but i really fear the day that yoni will be a soldier. we want peace. i think it's a different

approach. there is one thing that is vacred, and that's jerusalem. and if any sort of raeblgment-- and i don't care what-- requires to device dwooid our eternal capital when whichwe've been in for 3,000 years straight, the answer is no. under no spaerngz we will always keep jerusalem united under israeli sovereignty. but i think there's another approach which is called peace between the people, and i'm not talking about it. i'm doing it every day. i'm building industrial centers for palestinians and rells. we've got shopping centers joint. we've got better infrastructure. instead of wasting our time endlessly in oslo, annapolis, and all these camp david places >> rose: all those things were bad? >> i'm not saying they are bat. >> rose: what you think is a futile exercise for they, then, forever. they, then, forever. >> you know what, charlie, if we took the money we spent on all these efforts and instead just

built better infrastructure for palestinians and israelis, man, life would be better. that's way, way more important. >> rose: but you know the reality. even in cases of withholding money that should be gog palestinian-- >> i oppose that. i vehemently oppose that. >> rose: it happens, doesn't it? >> sometimes it happens, primarily in the gaza strip and i oppose and vote against it. by the way, it's not happening much. and i'm-- but just keep one more thing in mind. there's two palestinian. entities. there's west bank rub by p.l.o., or p.a., and gaza run by hamas. now, all these discussions are being done with only half of the palestinians. let's even assume tomorrow there is a deal. they have the perfect deal. but 1.5 million palestinians say this does not mean anything to us. we-- we're not part of the deal. so we give up everything, but we're left with bonn.5 palestinians still determined to wipe out israel. what kind of deal is that?

this is all charades. these are all charades. >> rose: what kind of deal is it-- >> i know it's common wisdom. i know it's an uphill battle what i'm doing now. i know most people think there has to be a palestinian state within israel, but that doesn't make it right. i'm a student of history and i've seen time and again mao common wisdom was wrong. this is one of those cases. >> rose: how far are you prepared to see the extension of settlements? as far as you can go? >> there is no as far-- look, all of israeli charlie, from tel aviv to the green line, our whole width is 15 minutes, 15 minutes. if you get in a car, dreef eastward. it's not that very far. >> rose: it's often cited as the reason for security concerns. >> yes, but i'm saying, if anyone suggests to divide jerusalem or places that are part of the judeo-christian ethos, the bible, these-- all these areas -- >> and islamic as well. >> well, that-- that was way,

way later, if you know history. un, the palestinian people who came about roughly 100 years ago as a reaction to zionism. if you look at history, there was never a palestinian people. >> rose: can we move to iran for a second? >> absolutely. >> rose: the prime minister has one point of view and i presume you support his point of view or maybe have a different one. he has vocally and vociferously in argument against the possibility of an interrism agreement which would freeze iranian nuclear activities. in exchange for, in exchange for the reduction of some of the sanctions, but not on oil,aise understand it. what's wrong with that? >> okay. i'll explain what iran has, what's their plan, and then what's wrong with it. iran has 18,500 cent

fortunatelies of of which 1,000 are the-- mblg a pipe that's generating it uranium, that is poured into a pool. this pool-- this pipe can produce enough uranium for a bomb now, ever six weeks. you need 3,000 centrifuges spinning for a year for one bomb. run the numbers, every six weeks, the existing pipe can produce that. iran doesn't want to produce a bomb right now. they could-- they don't want it, and they make it their business each time the pool gets filled to a certain red line, they drain it and let the uranium out. they don't want to cross a certain threshold that netanyahu set a while ago. their goal is it not to break out with a bomb today. their goal is to break out with a bomb tomorrow. what i mean is, here's their plan. any way they've reduced production. we don't need the deal. their plan is keep the machine, ease the sanctions, and wait for an opportune moment when the

world is bis bizy with some conflict eight months from now, 12 months from now, and quickly break out within six weeks, set a fait accompli, we're a nuclear nation. >> rose: your argument is you've got to get them to not be at a breakout place. >> their current breakout time frame is six weeks. we need to get it back to three years. >> rose: you're saying today in six weeks they could have not only a bomb but the capacity to deliver the bomb? >> no, no, no.. >> rose: in six weeks. that's the breakout you're saying. >> no, in terms of uranium, they could produce enough uranium for a bomb, but there are other arct sphects-- the delivery, and ignition of the bomb, the metal-- there are other elements but those are very hard to track. it could be done in a small room that you'll never know and you can't really control. so where we differ, we're not-- a bad deal is a deal that halts the production because any way

they've haltedly the production. right now the i.a.e.a. has said they've already althalted because they don't want to cross that line while the world is looking at them because they'll turn into a north korea. they don't want to be a north korea. they have a very advanced nation. the persians are wonderful people. by the way, we jews owe them a lot. they're the folks two 2500 years ago let us go back to israel and form our second nation, our second commonwealth. so their goal is not to-- they don't care. a bad deal is one where you stop production but let them keep it. a good deal is one where you dismantle the machine. charlie they had 164 cent fortunatelies in 2006, when security council resolved, but they cannot add one and they breached three our foreu.n. security council resolutions. we need to dismantle the machine so the breakout period will be three years and not roughly six weeks.

>> rose: how would you do that? >> well, there's only one way. put them at a junction where it's an either/or. either you keep the machine or you have a good economy. you can't have it both ways. they're almost there. it's like in a boxing match, the other guy is on the floor, the referee is counting eight, 9, and the west it pulling them up -- >> you want them counted out. >> yes, and force them to make the tough gligz do you assume they're rational and will make that decision? >> they are marshall. >> rose: so you assume they're make-- >> they are rational. >> if there is enough to their economic life they will give up whatever you want them to give up. >> yes. >> rose: they will cry, "uncle." >> yes, because as a politician there's one drive and it's call survival. they want their regime to survive. >> rose: there is much

speculation that there's growing pressure on the leadership in jerusalem to order a military strike. do you believe that is an accurate portrayal, the mindset, in jerusalem today? >> israel has the ability to protect itself. and israel will protect itself in event. we view these days as the most fateful since the yom kippur war to israel's existence, and not only to israel's existence but to the west. if iran acquires a weapon, the problem isn't they'll drop it on israel right away. the problem is right away, saudi arabia, egypt, sirria, the whole region will have a-- many bombs -- >> everybody accepts that idea. >> and-- yeah, the question is do you have the political will and determination to actually

act? i was told by someone that ruhani is considered a potential gosh shove. >> rose: the president of iran. >> yes, and we have to power him and talk to him and get him into a corridor of discussions. i just want to turn out one thing. gosh shove turned into gosh shove. he didn't vol tour. it was america, after the 1986 reykjavik summit with reagan, he came with a bad deal, reagan walked away, ratcheted up the pressure, and only then he was gorbachev identified, if you will, and he was faced with survival or the arms race. >> rose: it had to do with strategic defense initiatives and star wars morso than the overall arms program that gorbachev was-- >> you read the books. you were around. i was too young to realize all of that.

my point is now fateful days, if a bad deal is signed, it will ultimately increase chances for, you know, an action and a war. a good deal will prevent war-- we want a deal. >> rose: what you just said. >> we want a deal. >> rose: a bad deal will likely increase the chances for war, meaning a bad deal will cause israel to be more likely to strike. that's what you just said. >> a bad deal that allows iran essentially to retain its nuclear program will inevitably increase chances for a military option. >> rose: and what's the timeline on that? >> i will keep it at that. >> rose: but it's sooner rather than later? >> you know, certainly, as i said, israel is prepared for everything. >> rose: each month-- >> i'm in the going to share all our -- >> i'm not asking for national secrets here. i'm trying to understand a mindset. >> absolute that-- you know, the people whoment the deal most are us-- who want the deal most is

us. i'll get 100,000 hezbollah missiles . >> rose: you're saying a bad deal will make it more likely israel will be forced to sight. >> a bad deal will increase chances for the need of a military option, that's correct, yes. our assumption as an independent state is that we will never outsource our security and our existence to anyone, including america. i'll point out one last thing. if a deal is signed -- and it looks right now like some deal is going to be signed-- i urge, i urge the p5 + 1, to focus on two main questions: what happens at the end of the six months if we don't achieve the specific objective, and what needs to happen is a reversal and reaffirmment of the sanction, automatically, and be what defines a successful end or not. and the answer should be dismantling those 18,500 cent rifortunatelies that were

criminally acquired over the past decade, and not keeping that machine. in other words, if you go down a deal, at minimum, define what is good and bad, and what happens in the bad outcome? >> rose: it's good to have you here. >> charlie, it was great being here. thanks so much. thank you. >> rose: thank you for joining us. see you next time.

captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org 

. this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and susie gharib brought to you in part by. >> thestreet.com. up to the minute stock market news and in depth analysis. our quant ratings service provides objective independent ratings daily on over 4300 stocks. learn more at the street.com/nbr. end of an era, steve balmer, microsoft ceo and chief sales meeting, bill gates gets emotional. what is next for the software maker and who will lead it? >> do it yourself. more people are and home depot is reaping rewards raising the outlook for the third time this year. it's not the only company profiting by the trends. >> pinched by