>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with the israel/hamas conflict talking to martin indyk working with john kerry trying to find a peace agreement. >> i think they're caught between wanting hamas to stop firing not wanting to have a victory, wanting to close the tunnels but not knowing where all the tunnels are. and at this point, they are kind of caught in this dilemma of you know getting hamas to stop firing may require more military pressure on them, more military pressure, more international condemnation. so the israelis are in a very difficult place at the moment. >> rose: we conclude with

gerald levin who did the merger with time/warner and coping with the tragedy of the murder of his son. >> i had to reconstruct this wall to keep everything that was inside of me private. and i had to be somewhat in an isolation booth kind of superman. i'm walking to a board meeting, and i have to have an answer on strategic walking into a wall street present agent, i'd have to answer any questions, any financial questions. if i had walked into that board room and said you know what, i'm having a hard time, i don't have all the answers, can someone please hug me and give me some support with this. that would have been it. >> rose: martin indyk and gerald levin when we continue.

>> and by bloomberg. a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin tonight with the escalation of the ips/palestinian conflict. earlier this week president obama, pressed serious concerns about the growing number of casualties. according to the united nations a majority of more than 600 palestinians who have been killed have been civilians. 27 israeli soldiers and two civilians have lost their lives. u.s. secretary of state john kerry is in cairo to broker

cease-fire. he's met with president el-sisi. earlier today the federal aviation administration halted all flights to israel after a rocket fell near tel aviv airport. joining me is former u.s. ambassador to israel, martin indyk vice president and director of the foreign policy at the brookings institutions. he was up vey to the palestinian negotiations headed by secretary of state john kerry. i'm pleased to have him on this program at this time. let me begin by saying welcome first of all. >> thank you, charlie. >> rose: so what's the impact of the closing temporarily of the flights in from the united states and europe to tel aviv. >> well, i think it will give israelis a sense of being in a siege now, kind of being shut down. hamas will undoubtedly claim a

victory, i think, to even the israeli transportation minister criticizing the decision of the faa, said it was a prize for terror. so i'm sure the terrorists will consider it that way. but it's just one more case that as long as the fighting goes on, the situation will grow worse for both sides. >> rose: does it give hamas more leverage? if hamas were to claim a victory and go home, then it might give them another ground for doing so. today they also had the israeli verified the claim they made a couple days ago they have one israeli soldier. he's probably dead but they hauled one israeli soldier another one they're claiming a victory on, plus the raids into israel and now landing in

bengurion. and of course i should say the casualties they've inflicted something like 28 israeli soldiers have died now. so they have plenty of grounds for the victory that they always claim that they've made regardless of what the circumstances are. but they've got some things to point to. so maybe that will give them a justification for saying okay, let's accepted the cease-fire that the egyptian cease-fire terms that are now on offer. on the other hand, if the israelis now cease-fire, they will in effect be conceding the psychological grounds that hamas is claiming, that is to say that the victories. so we hear from the israeli side now saying that there's no cease-fire in prospect, we have to go on fighting. and so i fear that what's good

for one side is bad for the other in the zero-sum gain and it could fall apart again. so we're in the midst of the battle here. the hope is for cease-fire, that's certainly what secretary kerry's looking for and secretary-general bon of the un but i'm not at all sure at this moment it's going to happen. >> rose: is there admiration for hamas on the arab street? >> there seems to be a good deal of admiration for hamas on the palestinian street. that of course has affected weakening-who is against the use of violence who asked him what the point of these was. on the arab street there's a preoccupation. you don't see a lot of demonstrations. you see more demonstrations in turkey than you do in the arab

world. one of the thing that hamas is surely conscious of is that they in fact have almost no support in the arab world. qatar and turkey are the supporters and that's the extent of it. >> rose: but in palestinian places, notwithstanding the casualties. is there a sense of admiration for hamas for continuing the fight even though they're makig heavy losses. >> that's true. what is happening is that not good standing, the very heavy loss of life on the palestinian side. the desire to sock it to the israelis to stand up to them is something which is an immediate kind of resonance. and we also saw it when hamas announced they had one israeli soldier there was celebrations

in parts of the west bank. he's on his way back to the west bank now, that's president abbas. he was in qatar, he was supposed to go to cairo but these gone back to the west bank because i think he's concerned about the situation getting out of control. >> rose: you mentioned qatar. do they have enough influence with hamas along with the iranians to get them to go for the cease-fire? >> i think they have some influence but it's the influence that comes from the checkbook, checkbook diplomacy. which is important to hamas because as i said before they're pretty much isolated now as they don't egypt on their side as they did back in 2012 when president morsi was around and worked out the cease-fire with hillary clinton. and morsi had a lot of influene with hamas because he was like

the big brother. but president el-sisi of egypt and the regime he runs is much against the province hood and they are cutting off the tunnels that were providing the smuggling routes for hamas. so egypt's influence is more limited and that's where qatar's influence can be important awe there's been some kind of rivalry between the qataris and the turks on one side and the egyptians on the other. i think that's pretty much sorted itself out. secretary kerry has played a hand in that. the qataris are supporting the egyptian initiative now which is for an immediate cease-fire and then a negotiation of the requirements that hamas is demanding for opening the passages allowing movement of

goods and people and those kinds of requirements. so the prior is hamas is saying we have to have agreement on all of those things first essentially what they call opening the siege and lifting the passages before the cease-fire and the egyptians are saying no, let's have the cease-fire and we will then negotiate all of that. the art of kerry's diplomacy here is to try to bridge the gap between those two positions. >> rose: why does hamas keep firing the rockets at israel? >> very good question. to show that they're there, station identification. to show that they can stand up to israel. to show that they can drive israelis into air-raid shelters across the country and not just tel aviv but jerusalem, all of its main cities now.

and that for them, even though they've been unable to kill i think maybe they had one israeli death as a result of all of those rockets. they fired more than 2000 of them. but nevertheless, it's a sign of resistance, and resistance the symbol of resistance is what matters to emthis. that's what he this live for. even though the effect is devastating on the palestinian people. the logic is very different to us. it's not about peace, it's about, it's about militant struggle to exact as much pain from israel that will eventually they think lead to israelis packing up and going home. not just home to israel but home away from the middle east is their basic ideology. and so this is an expression of it. and because the imbalance is so

great between israel that its credible arsenal therefore its tanks, its very powerful army. and hamas' homemade rockets they make out of sewage pipes. the fact they're able to keep this up despite the israeli air force's bombing attacks also 2000 air raids and now the ground invasion by the israelis and they're still firing rockets is seen as from their point of view a victory because they're able to resist. >> rose: i've had hamas leaders say to me the resistance ends when the occupation ends. does that have meaning? >> well, it's designed to suggest that, you know, the purpose is to liberate palestine but the problem is their

definition of palestine is different to the plo definition of palestine. plo back in 1988 accepted two-state solution in which israel in the 67 borders would be accepted. and hamas has not accepted that and wants to see the occupation of all of what they thought palestine removed. that's the heart of their ideology is the destruction of israel not most with israel. >> rose: they have not moved from that one bit. >> no. well hamas is a practical organization. they are tunnel builders. and so you know, they have from time to time said that they can accept a long term cease-fire with the zionist entity and the return of the west bank return of the occupation of the west

bank first just like israel withdrew from gaza. they accepted that and eventually took control there. so they'll take it step by step but their intention is to take it all. >> rose: what do you think the israeli objective is now other than to stop the rockets? given the fact that circumstances presented them with this challenge, do you believe that they simply want to go in and not only close all the tunnels but dessimate hamas. >> well, it's a kind of mission creep that we're witnessing at the moment. i think prime minister netanyahu cautious by nature did not want to get into this ground war. but now that he's in it, he's still talking publicly today about return to quiet. his defense minister is a strong

believer in keeping hamas in control in gaza so it can be deterred. so he's saying well, we just need to go in there and mow the grass, destroy the tunnels and then we can pull out and hamas will stay in control but it would be deterred from additional action by the devastation brought against it. and so that's essentially the objective here. it still is the objective, status quo. but others in the israeli security cabinet like the fraud ministry lieberman and the leader bennett, are pushing for broader objectives for taking over gaza, for toppling hamas, for creating a new order there. they don't define what that order would look like but they're pushing through what's called going all the way. and the argument against that

that i understand is being made in the curator cabinet by the prime minister defense minister is we don't want to leave ungoverned areas there like syria and iraq, we're not going to stay there so going all the way is a real problem for us. so i think they're caught between wanting hamas to stop firing, not wanting it to have a victory, wanting to close off all these tunnels but not knowing where all the tunnels are. and at this point, they're kind of caught in this dilemma of you know getting hamas to stop firing may require more military pressure on them, more military pressure, more international condemnation. so the israelis are in a very difficult place at the moment. >> rose: do they want to while this military invasion is taking place capture and kill the hamas leadership. >> yes. that speaks to the same dilemma.

do they want hamas to control gaza or do they want to topple hamas. they've been going after the harms of some of the leaders. >> rose: exactly. >> but they well know that the leaders aren't there. the leaders have gone underground. there's talk of their main underground headquarters being under the main hospital, the shiva hospital. i don't know whether that's true but they're certainly underground. they've got a whole vast underground network there. and so the ability to actually find and kill the leaders is much. but there's also this question they have to answer for themselves, do they want to topple gaza and then who do they withdraw in favor of or do they want to keep hamas in control. >> rose: if they wanted to topple, could they? >> yes. i believe that they certainly have the capability to go in. but bear in mind, it's 1.6

million palestinians some of the most densely populated parts in the world. it's a somalia-like situation. they will have to kill a lot of innocent civilians and a lot of soldiers, israeli soldiers will be killed in the process. and so it's an expensive operation all around, not one that i would advocate for a moment. but it's one that the circumstances may drive them to in which case if they do go that distance. and one thing to bear in mind, it's interesting i look back at what the casualties were in 2012. i think there's 600 palestinians killed now which is horrific. but it was 1200 in 2012. and the fighting went on for

three weeks then. so it's conceivable that we could see this, if the cease-fire efforts break down that we could see this escalate for another week or so with heavy casualties. but such pressure on hamas at that point that they decide, it's better for them to stop. >> rose: i've heard this idea expressed and it gives me an opportunity to move into the kerry mission which you were such an important part. it is the following. that hamas believes in some quarter that i cannot get a negotiation that it would find acceptable to its leaders or its members or the palestinians that they represent. and so therefore, their objective is worldwide condemnation of israel to isolate israel. does that argument have any resonance in terms of the people you have met with talk to,

negotiated with. >> i don't see any evidence and we did not see any evidence in the time we were negotiating for the nine months of intensive negotiations. but hamas wanted to be part of that, that hamas was worried that the peace train was leaving the station, that they needed to climb on board. they have long argued that these negotiations have never led anywhere, will never lead anywhere, that it's just an illusion. and a mirage for the palestinian people. and that the only way to get israel to do anything is to struggle, terrorism, kidnappings and that. and their objectives in this conflict that they have enumerated all relate to opening up gaza, enabling gaza to breathe, lifting the siege up in the passages, getting their

prisoners released. it's all related to easing the conditions for their control of gaza, rather than making peace with what they regard as -- >> rose: let's assume those are their demands or their conditions or their interest. are they legitimate interest on their part? >> i think that the people of gaza need to have a transformation in their circumstances. ever since hamas took control there, their lives have been bound in misery. unemployment is beyond 40%. the u.n. refugee relief agency is providing food to i don't know, i think something like 47% of the population.

they are unable to move in or out except in medical emergencies. now i'm talking about normal situations, not in the midst of this war. egypt won't let them come across the passage there into egypt. israel controls the passages allows and goods that comes in and restricts what goes out. they don't want concrete in because they use concrete to build tunnels. they can't build there. construction is best for employment. it's just fraught and indianapolis rule. and -- miserable. and it's going to be ten times more so. something has to be done for the people of gaza. the fact that opening the passages, allowing fishermen to fish up to 12 miles, allowing people to come and go from gaza,

the goods to flow, is critical to changing the lives of the palestinians in gaza. shouldn't be confused with hamas is trying to do. hamas is making those claims but the best way to achieve those transformational circumstances is to do a deal where hamas agrees to disarm mow longer has a rocket arsenal to fire at israel. and so israel no longer needs to worry about that, that the palestinian authority should come back and take control of gaza. that gaza and the west bank should be united politically under the leadership of an arsenal. and that in those circumstances the disarmament of hamas should be exchanged for opening gaza. and allowing life to return to a

real normalcy there, with major international assistance to rebuild gaza. and so that's the kind of transformation that is necessary. unfortunately i don't see hamas willing to give up its rockets and military capabilities. and as long as that's the case, i don't see israel agreeing to anything more than kind of marginal changes that allow the palestinians in gaza to breathe but not to rest easy or have a normal life. >> rose: not a very hopeful situation. >> no, i'm afraid it's not. and it's worse than that, charlie. it's because as i tried to think about how do you improve it, how do you change it to the way to the end state that i was just talking about, a disarmed hamas and a normal life for gazans

there. it doesn't come with the cease-fire. in order to stop the flood shed we need a cease-fire now. the cease-fire is just resumption of the status quo and i don't see then not the circumstances are in which hamas disarms as much as israel will demand it. the alternative is israel for its own reasons in order to try to stop hamas goes in and effect toppals hamas. that's to get israel out to get a mandate and create a new situation there. in other words, i fear that that it will get a whole lot worse in that it can get a whole lot better. i'm not recommending that, i'm just saying that that's the only

dynamic that i see that can actually produce a break through. >> rose: there's also this, the new republic magazine which i'm sure you read called the explosive inside story about john kerry built an israel/palestinian peace plan and watched it crumble. did they get the story right? >> you know the part of the story they got right. i would give it for accuracy a seven out of ten. there are are some things they didn't get right but on the whole it's an accurate reflection of part of the story. >> rose: what didn't they know? >> i set myself up for that one didn't i. >> rose: yes. >> i can't tell you, i'm sorry.

i'm sworn to secrecy. the most important that they didn't know is what we have been determined to keep a secret which is the bridging ideas that we developed as a result of these intensive negotiations. got between the israelis and the palestinians and between the secretary of states with prime minister netanyahu and president abbas. and those bridging ideas which came out of the negotiations, they were american ideas which we were working with both sides and which we were unable to complete that process we put them on the shelf, the president said let's pause this for the time being. obviously the gaza situation has to play itself out. but i think that worse it is the

more people are likely to say look it's not enough just to maintain the status quo to go back to a situation in which hamas will build its rockets and tunnels and there will be another outbreak two years maybe only one year down the road. how long do israelis and palestinians have to be part of this chronic conflict. i hope people will come out saying it's time to resolve this conflict not to continue. if that is the attitude on both sides then the ideas of the new republic for resuming the negotiations. >> rose: why don't we get that idea out there. >> we have the parties ready to come back to the table and then the secretary of state can put

them forward for finalling the agreement. that's the best way of getting out. until then we're not going to talk about it. >> rose: the president this article said in march 20 of 2013 went to see shimon peres. he says everywhere i go in the world people talk about it they waited for the elections to be over and now the election in israel leading towards an effort of peace. i want to go for it. obama going for it would require little time and little capital. kerry he had someone eager to expand his own. kerry recognizes about netanyahu but also the merits in the former kerry was ahead of the public and who at age 77 might not be around much longer and he saw an uncontested prime minister only to make a compromise most of his country men were willing to accept is

through the land mines of israel politics. so there you were john kerry secretary of state and you his envoy. did you believe it was possible or was it a hail mary pass? >> it wasn't a hail mary pass but it was a determination on the part of the secretary of state backed by the president exactly as you red out. gave it the real shot because of his concern 20 years after the oslo agreement was signed in 1993, if we weren't able to shake things loose get too an agreement it would get too difficult. and the future for israel and the palestinian would be exactly what we're looking at today. that's exactly what he feared and now it's come true. so he was determined to give it

his best shot. i personally when he called me in and discussed it with me had grave doubts because it's 20 years old. because there's so much skepticism in cynicism and so much distrust between the leaders. but i was infected by his determination and felt that it was my obligation to help him in every way i could. so he went at it, and what you read out about the assumptions about are president abbas and prime minister netanyahu were in our going in assumptions. they were reinforced by the fact that both leaders, in order to get to the negotiating table had to do something that was politically costly for them. netanyahu had to agree to give up to release to abbas 104 prisoners who had done terrible,

committed terrible crimes against israelis, murderers and terrorists. and they had to agree to give up any resort to the u.n. to signing international conventions, things that were very popular with his people. so they both paid a political price for coming back to the table. and so that was seen by us as an indication that they were serious, they were prepared to put skin in the game. as were we. and so it was worth the effort and we certainly as i said, we gave it our best shot. >> rose: and ready to start again if the president gives te go ahead. >> that's right. the president himself is ready to go ahead. and can i address one thing related to this about the president. which is a lot of people said his heart wasn't in it, he really didn't believe in it, it

was just kerry's daring dove. but that was not my experience at all. the president definitely was skeptical about the two leaders because of his only experience in the previous four years. but he was willing to give his secretary of state the time and the support to go at it. and at every step of the way, he was fully behind the effort to the point where he was willing to put political skin in the game, his own. and that's not commonly understood but it was very important at the time. when it came to these bridging ideas, some of them would have been highly political controversial for him because he would have been the one to put the ideas forward. and when it came to trying to get the extension of negotiations through a very

complicated prisoner release deal, he was prepared to mute the sentence of jonathan po lock a convicted israeli spy. and again that would have been politically controversial. so at every step of the way, president obama was behind this and even though it was president obama who said let's take a pause now, he said it's a pause and he will come back to it when the parties show that they are willing to reengage. >> rose: martin thank you so much. thank you for coming. >> it's always a pleasure to be with you charlie. thank you. >> rose: gerald leach is -- levin is here. he is form ce holt of time/warner. in 2000 he was a key force in the merger between time/warner and america on-line. that deal was valued at a

stunning $350 billion. .com bust and a clash of corporate cultures lead to the swept resignation of the shareholder value. he left time/warner in 2002. he is currently presiding director of moonview sanctuary founded by his wife dr. lori ann levin. i'm pleased to have him backer in this program. give me a sense how you saw jerry levin as the ceo of time/warner. who was that guy. >> that guy was conflicted and had several components. one was i did want through storytelling and the traditions at the combined really impact people. but at the same time in order to succeed and get to that position, i had to reconstruct this wall to keep everything

that was inside of me private. and i had to be some somewhat n isolation booth kind of like superman. i walk into a board meeting i need an answer on wall street, walking into a presentation i needed to answer questions, financial questions. if i had walked into that board room and said do you know what, i'm having a hard time, i don't have all the answers would someone please hug me and give me some support, that would have been it. so it's a male-oriented highly competitive survivalist kind of life. and at the detriment of your soul, your family, your health and all of the awe do trawments of power and success became

valuable for me. >> rose: even when your enjoying them at the height of power and the boats and the planes. >> it wasn't that. what i loved was being in the company of journalists and film makers and musicians. i would try to find as much time as possible to get out of the cockpit up stairs and go and just be within in the creation, you know, like music is the harmony of the gods, the storytelling and movies. and the journalists i would follow along. that was the good part. the isolationist part, the mall that was constructed so that everything i did related to that company. if you and i met at a party, i would take your measure very quickly by your title. if it had nothing to do with the business of time/warner, i would move on.

that's terrible but that's the mind set where it's 25 hours of giving your soul to it. now i thought i could be different and i could myself and see what was happening and try and do some things like change the nature of the charter of a corporation good and public interest and not for the benefit of shareholders. >> rose: you knew shareholders wanted a quarterly increase and appreciation in their stockholder volume and their market cap. >> yes. the wall street push after 911 and everything that happened in my own family i remember getting up after one wall street presentation after 9/11 said we're going to have time and new york one and aol's going to give things away to try to enlighten people and help these people who

can't even find their relatives. and somebody stands up and said well isn't that going to affect your margins. and i lost it. i literally lost it. >> rose: what did you do. >> i used some words that are not appropriate even today and walked out. and i knew at that point that i had had it. i had had it. and all the things -- >> rose: this was before the merger. >> this was after the merger. it was right after 9/11 when we were supposed to have a board meeting the next week, i couldn't believe. i mean -- >> rose: mergers were 98, 99. >> no. it was 2000 announced and took effect in 2001. but you know, some of our journalists that went down to ground zero and it was so shocking so stunning and i had

been at the inception of the world trade center, i was working with a fellow at the time in 1966 i think it was, and i saw the cornerstone being laid. they had a helicopter that was going to be the height of the tower and everybody was oohing and aweing and i was going down to see all of these first responders passing parts one another. i mean it was like the news reels we used to see, i'm not presuming age, the world war ii bombed out buildings. here it was in new york city. and so the emotions of the family affected me again because they had a family member who just showed up at work that day and was gone. >> rose: in some cases never to be seen. >> never to be seen. i mean so the trauma, and that's

why i felt companies should be about the community. i've done some writing recently, it was never seen the light of day talking about something called spiritual equity where in addition to having compensation and 401(k) plans and stock, it's spiritual equities, well what the president was talking about today, taking care of the family. i mean at moonview, thanks to my wife, we would show up in the morning first day of meeting. instead of going through an agenda we would ask charlie what's going on for you today. and we'd find out and we'd all get together and try and help each other before we got to the business a general de. that's what i would like to see koargz do. it wouldn't be hard to change charters for the public good and

interest. years ago we had a company called dnr. this was built into the charter and harry loose said in his will he wanted timing to be operated not only in the interest of shareholders but in the public interest. i realize it sounds he ever vestent but it's important four our companies to have humanity and unfortunately i should say this, it's mostly men and can't express their emotions as i was having this wall. >> rose: there are an increasing number of women who are ceo's, not enough obviously. >> not enough but it's coming. >> rose: the running of pepsico for example, running ibm for example. >> right. hp. >> rose: running all of the, hp, for example. yahoo for example. >> yes. >> rose: do you think they have, you know, in the context

you've been talking, different values and a different sense of what a corporation ought to be and their decision-making is somehow different? >> i think that the nurturing qualities of a woman are extremely beneficial in a corporate environment. without commenting on them, they're all very good, very bright and i'm really delighted to see it, what we're really talking about is taking a hold of men and let them get balanced with their feminine side and be able to express their feelings. because if you did that, they would have more of an open sense for what their role is. and also, at some point you realize that the problem is keeping together family, your family, your personal life and your business life, keeping them in some kind of balance. if you do that at work, keeping

your feminine and masculine in balance, it has to help. it would have helped me. i don't think there's any question about it. i'm not the same person. i meditate every day, i'm looking for the more universal consciousness somewhere in there. that's the question. you're trying to get to the top. and the old saw, is that all there is. but who are you, why are you here, what's your purpose, what's your mission. is it to make money, is it to be powerful, is it, isn't it just to make a better world, do something about it, make a contribution. and look inside yourself. so i happen to have been fortunate that some of the people i worked with had this spirit.

and it was contagious. and as much as i tried at time/warner, i gave speeches on this subject, they're not the speeches that you read when you talk about the start up of hbo or putting time and warren together, turner and aol, what happened there. but underneath that was a drive and a desire to kind of transform what a company does. i mean look at the inequal tear we have right now. >> rose: income inequality. >> income inequality. >> rose: this is the question people v you presided over one of the biggest mergers soon to become considered the worst merger in the history of business. >> yes. >> rose: would you have done that if the real jerry levin was functioning as the ceo, would that have been any different.

>> well certainly there was hubris on my part. i saw the power of the internet and inability to turn around a media battleship. what i didn't see and i think this would have been different is the humanity, the disparate cultures and getting them to work as a family, not in a competitive environment. so yes, i think it would have been different. would i have not done the deal? i probably can't say that because i believe so strongly in the power, the destructive power. >> rose: if so much of it was in secret, did you hear from people who might have opposed the deal and said jerry you're crazy to do this deal and to do the deal you did in which aol

had 50% of the stock and you had, time/warner had, and yet their earnings and everything else was exponentially better. the only thing that was different was the market cap. >> well, it was the valuation at the time of the stock market and the advice that came but it's my responsibility. the advice that came was that valuation would translate into a combined multiple that would take not only the market cap but the growth potential of the bottom line to a point where the valuations were justified. should i have seen the disruption. the irony here is that it was digital disruption that caused aol not to succeed because it didn't take advantage of search

and all the other things google did and successor did. >> yes the it was really a human torch that went off. and i wasn't, i just wasn't sensitive enough to what was going on. the other thing is that at the time, it's not that it was done in secret. there were quite a few people that knew. i think the argument -- >> rose: the means between you and the beginning meetings between you and steve were rather private to a large extent to conceal. >> well, the boards knew exactly what was happening. >> rose: how much push back, i mean ted turner are, have you spoken with ted or what's your relationship with ted turner. >> it's not what i would like. ted i think is -- >> rose: not a forgiving mood

about this. >> yes. >> rose: he says he lost $9 billion. >> yes. he went for it because the stock valuation at the time looked like it was going to translate. everybody voted for it, that's not certainly not a justification. but at the time it was presented and the construct was made there was no dissent. because remember, we were living in a time where the valuation, this was a reputable company, a significant board, and you know, from a humanistic point of view, it was a misfire. there's no question about it. >> rose: indeed we can talk about that for a long time. books have been written about that. what's interesting to me is the journey that you have taken.

i mean, you have been through huge tragedy. none more than losing your son the way he lost his life. what impacted that in terms of the man you are today. >> rose: i think people know this but your son who was jonathan was 21. >> no he had just turned 30. >> rose: he was brutally murdered. people came in put duct tape on him and then left and then came with his car to go get his money and then came back and shot him. and killed him. >> he was my hero. he was a teacher in the bronx. one of the roughest schools. something that early on in my life i wanted to do and i was living through my son.

and he used all of our media to reach these kids and gave them self-esteem. and i just returned from another new york event, and got a call at night from downstairs that could i come down. and there were two policemen there. and they want to know whether i was john's father and when they told me that he died, i, from that point on, i can't tell you even what happened. it was like i was taken out of my life.

and what happened was obviously you don't know how to deal with something like that. and i didn't, the wall got sturdier and my emotions further inside and to

the detriment of myself and my family. i was committed to my family at that point. after 9/11 and i left and remarried, i finally came to some terms that my son's death, it took me a while, blew open my heart. and i saw the life i was leading and the kind of person that i was. and i had to change and go into myself, be real, be authentic. recognize how important family is. how your personal mission is. and i got guidance from not just his life but from him on a continuing basis. it's like he's here with me and helping me in ways that i wouldn't have been able to help myself.

so i've dug much deeper and i think he became a symbol for teachers to go into difficult parts of the cities and do something. so it's a magnificent legacy but the legacy is not a legacy, he's alive in my being. every day. and i, through his guidance want to be a better person, a better husband, father, grandfather. and do something that's important to try and help people. help them get in touch with what's really important. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> thank you charlie.

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

>> and by bloomberg. a provider of multimedia news and information services a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

larriva: it's like holy mother of comfort food.ion. woman: throw it down. it's noodle crack. patel: you have to be ready for the heart attack on a platter. crowell: okay, i'm the bacon guy. man: oh, i just did a jig every time i dipped into it. man #2: it just completely blew my mind. woman: it felt like i had a mouthful of raw vegetables and dry dough. sbrocco: oh, please. i want the dessert first! [ laughs ] i told him he had to wait.