tavis: good evening from los angeles, i'm tavis smiley. with the u.s. military now engaged in three separate conflicts in three muslim countries, there is a growing concern tonight about u.s. policy in the region and the priorities of the obama administration and so first up tonight, a conversation about the latest intervention in libya with richard haass, president of the council on foreign relations. also tonight, acclaimed artist and filmmaker julian schnabel is here, the director of "the diving bell and the butterfly" is out with a new film called "miral." it is said against with the israeli conflict in the middle east. glad you joined us, richard haass and filmmaker julian schnabel coming up right now. >> all i know is his name is james and he needs extra help with his reading. >> i'm james.

>> e making a difference, you make us all live better. >> nationwide insurance supports tavis smiley. with every question and every answer, nationwide insurance is proud to join tavis in litter si and nationwide is on your side. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. tavis: richard haass is the president of the council on foreign relations and a noted author whose recent book is "war of necessity, war of choice: a memoir of two iraq wars." he joins us from new york. always an honor to have you on the program, sir. >> thank you, tavis, glad to be

back. tavis: we are engaged in three wars simultaneously in three muslim countries. does that disturb you? >> well, the answer is yes, but not because necessarily we're involved in three wars. i can imagine we could be involved in three wars and in each case you might say this was a good decision and it's being conducted in a good way. my problem here is i don't think applies. as you know, i did not support the 2003 iraq war. i thought that was a war of choice and a bad one. secondly, while i supported the original decision after 9/11 to go into afghanistan and remove the taliban, i do not support what we have decided to do over the past two years, which is triple our military footprint in the country and to essentially become a protagonist in afghanistan's, the war against the taliban. most recently as i expect you know, i do not support the decision to initiate a no-fly zone or a no-fly zone plus in

libya. essentially now we have become involved in another war of choice. in this case, we become a protagonist supporting the opposition in libya's civil war. tavis: you have just laid out your reasons why you are opposed to it. the obama administration sees it differently, obviously. the line out of the white house today is that a humanitarian crisis has been averted because we got involved. that's what they would say to you, richard haass. >> i know that argument. i can't role history back. of course, it's conceivable that that's the case, but i simply don't see it that way. this is a civil war. and in civil war when people take up arms against the government, they have to expect they're putting themselves at great risk. but this was not something, tavis, that was shaping up in my way say like rwanda. this wasn't a war in which one ethnic group was out to commit genocide against another. this was not iraq where you had all sorts of sectarian violence between and among sunni, shiah,

and kurds. rather this was something that was narrower, it was political. in that sense again, it was a civil war, so i do not believe that it was the intention of the government of gaddafi, and this is not to defend that government, but i do not believe it was their intention to essentially try to eliminate a large segment of the libyan population. i do not think this was a humanitarian crisis on anything like, say, the scale of arewanda, dull fewer or the balkans. >> since you mention darfur, it's clear to most americans, certainly to her that we, the u.s., have not stepped up in darfur as we could or certainly as one might argue should. i'll let you decide what word you want, but could or should, we have not stepped up as we might in darfur and yet we jumped right into libya. my radio partner on sthiley and west, professor cornell west said this on our show the other day, richard, where there are

artichokes in libya and not oil, is that cynical on his part. how did we decide to jump into libya so quickly but can't step up our game in a place like darfur? >> we don't want to have a long conversation on darfur. the united states could have gotten involved. what made it complicated was the splintering of various groups and the fact that you had two separate conflicts, one in the south and one in darfur in the west. and some of the things that you might have done to deal with darfur could have led to the unwinding of the north-south agreement. it was an awfully complicated agreement. i take the argument that obviously one of the reasons we care about libya is its oil. it produces about 2% of the world's oil. i don't think that's the real reason the united states is involved here. it's in part because some people did see this as a potential humanitarian crisis. i think they misread the situation. i also believe the administration is worried that if they don't act in libya, somehow that will lead to a

turning of the tide against progressive or pro democracy forces throughout the middle east. again, i think that's a misreading of the situation. i believe libya is essentially a one off and ironically enough, the only way you got that arab league support for the u.n. resolution to do something was because the arab league essentially doesn't like gaddafi. they don't respect him. they were willing to see the world take action against him because quite honestly, they didn't see him as one of theirs so to speak. tavis: in hindsight, the obama administration may be right that the humanitarian crisis is avoided. that is in hindsight. going into it on the front side, one of the things that concerned me, i'm curious as to your take, was a lack of clarity on what the goals were. i was clear on what we were going to do in terms of getting involved with our allies. i wasn't clear from my perspective what the end game was, what the goal was? was it removing gaddafi? you tell me. how did you read this on the front side, not the back side?

>> well, if it's a lack of clarity, the united states has talked about the necessity of gaddafi going, but the u.n. resolution that the world signed up to does not talk about that. it simply talks about his not going ahead and pressing the attack on a principal libyan city in the east of their country and pulling back from a number of other cities. there is a disconnect, if you will, between the u.s. goals, which are more ambitious and the goals the international community has signed up to which are more limited. let me say one other thing, tavis, even if the administration was right, i'm not granting it, that it was a humanitarian crisis, again, there were lots of other things the united states could have done other than implement this no-fly zone. there were other things we could have done with sanctions. there are other things we could have done with diplomacy. now we have got the problem that we have begun a military operation and it's not at all obvious, not just to me, but i would say to anyone about what we do next. imagine gaddafi tomorrow complies with this u.n. resolution. he pulls back from these

critical libyan cities, then what? do we have to send in an international force to separate him from the opposition? what if you have the situation where he complies with the resolution and the opposition reads it as weakness and they decide to press the fight to him? what then? i can give you a dozen scenarios, but i simply don't think the military component of this was at all thought through. we simply haven't -- it's as if we're playing chess one more at a time rather than two, three, four moves at a time. tavis: i went into my vault to see when the last time was dodd appeared on this program, what we were talking about. as a tribute, i replayed a couple of nights ago a piece of my conversation with him where we talked extensively about diplomacy. this was a conversation about quite frankly, the lack of diplomacy of the u.s. in certain places around the globe. i was raising the question what happened to the question of real diplomacy. here we are tonight, you raise

this issue again. was it just me or was there really not the kind of effort at diplomacy on our part before we jumped in this thing so quickly? >> i believe we made a mistake by escalating our goals. by calling for the ouster of gaddafi and also initiating war crimes procedures against him, we removed what little incentive he had to compromise. very quickly we took diplomacy off the boards. we were left then with either sanctions which were never going to work fast enough to get the outcome we wanted or using military force. so i think we were unwise in escalating our goals and all of this against a backdrop where none of us, not you, not me, can sit here with any confidence and say we know exactly what the opposition would do if we succeeded in getting rid of mr. gaddafi, whether it was through diplomacy or anything else. we don't really know what would be the agenda or the character of the group we're helping. so, again, i really wonder about jumping in with both feet with

so much uncertainty about the consequences of what it is we're doing. tavis: obviously, nothing we do today is disconnected from what we did or did not do yesterday. that is to say that there are seven presidents that have had relations, one way, shape, or form with gaddafi, oftentimes normalized relations. what do we make of the fact that he now is a tyrant as if that happened overnight, but seven presidents have dealt with the situation? how do you read that? >> i read that as this is the real world. yes, he is a tyrant, but at times he was also willing to make some decisions that we liked. he was willing to give us his weapons of mass destruction. he was willing to work against al qaeda. we deal in a world, we may not like it, where we have shades of gray. you got people who are one and the same time evil but they could also do things that are in our interests. again, we got to sometimes deal with the world as it is rather than try to force it into an all black or all white setting. here now we're only dealing with

gaddafi as if he were simply evil incar in that and while he has that dimension, there are other dimensions as well. again, as you started out this conversation, this is all against the backdrop of two other conflicts in the region, a mounting budget deficit. we really got to ask ourselves, is this the right policy for the united states at this time as you can tell from what i have said tonight, i have my doubts. tavis: president of the council of foreign relations, richard haass glad to have you on the program. thank you for your insights and your time. >> thanks for having me. tavis: up next artist and filmmaker julian schnabel, stay with us. julian schnabel is a widely regarded filmmaker whose projects including "the diving bell and the butterfly" and "before night falls." his latest film is set against the backdrop of the israeli-palestinian conflict in the middle east. it's called "miral" starring freida pinto from "slumdog"

millionaire. here is a clip. >> there has been an uprising. we live in paradise every day. >> this school is the difference between you and the children. >> i understand your anger, but you must control your emotions. >> we cannot act independently. without unity, we can achieve nothing. >> i want to do something more. >> i have seen this before. our family was destroyed by this. >> if you have a problem, just remember you're 17, you're an israeli citizen. >> what are you doing here? >> do you understand who he is? >> he is a patriot. tavis: first of all, an honor to have you on the program. >> good to see you. tavis: good to see you. glad to have you. before i get in the movie, let me start with the news of the week, of course. as we sit at this hour, no one

has taken on the palestinian side has taken credit for this, as a matter of fact, to the category. every palestinian that i have been able to read so far on line decries what happened in jerusalem with regard to this bombing. your thoughts about the bombing? >> well, it's counterproductive and it's a tragedy and violence begets violence. the whole point of the film is that this has to stop, the insanity on both sides. anybody that kills a child is a murderer, whether it's a palestinian child or an israeli child. so it's grim. that being said, somehow i feel some moment civil society in both camps will just stand up and have a nonviolent revolution

somehow and these fanatics on both sides will just -- their voices will get, what is it, squelched taurds democracy and freedom and civil rights on both sides. it's a mess. >> you said a few things now they want to unpack if i can in no particular order. >> sure. tavis: i'm fascinated by a phrase you use, i have used this many times in my conversations and lectures relative to this particular peace process or lack thereof in the middle east. it is this notion that it oftentimes seems to me that there is not the same value places on babies on both sides here. if you believe that all life has equal value, that all life is precious, then it makes this thing so much more difficult to understand to wrap your brain around it if you really believe that all life has equal value.

since you said something similar to that, tell me more about your sense as to whether or not in this ongoing conflict in the region and beyond the region, you believe that politically, politically, people truly do believe that all life on both sides has equal value. >> well, i think that there is a lot of people that don't believe that, unfortunately. when i read the book -- tavis: the book on which the movie is based? >> it's a diary of the author's experience growing up as an orphan child in east jerusalem. after reading the book, i wrote the author a note. in the note i said if there is one thing that everybody on this planet has in common, we all have been a child once where we weren't responsible for our destiny and a child is something that can be nurtured or

discouraged. and that's what the movie will be about. so what has happened since, for 63 years, things have been in this prolonged state of war. the people in the middle somehow they didn't pick their destination. the girl didn't design this landscape she is growing up in. it's not just her life of it tells the story of this person that found 45 children in a war zone and drew a line around them. you're safe in here. this is a school. at its height, there were 3,000 girls in this school. with the war, there are less than 100 girls in this school now. it's still open. but the wall can't stop

terrorism. the bomb blew up in jerusalem because people will get somehow, somehow they will get through a wall, whatever will happen. you can't do it like that. you have to do it by opening the hearts of people, not building a wall around them. tavis: so you can't legislate morality. if you could have drawn lines away, and to your point about getting to the heart, there is a morality issue here at play. how do you wrestle with that? >> i think as a jewish person, i am very proud of the democracy, i mean, my mother was the president of hadass in brooklyn in 1948. i had a dream of building a jewish homeland. it's a dream that all jewish people have. i think that palestinians have to have the same rights as jewish people.

and in the united states if i criticized the government, you think i was a patriot or maybe i might be a politician because there is debate going on all the time. but if you criticize the policy in israel, you're seen as anti-israeli or -- if you love the country, you want to improve it. you want people to embody the values that you think are inalienable rights, dignity, respect, for every human life. so this insanity has to stop. i think that the civil society on both sides is being held hostage by fanatics. so i think we have democracy in this country, i think, i mean, we have -- i thought i was free to say -- my parents made me feel like i was free to say what i wanted and i think i am, but

this was a great idea, but the man was killed because he wanted to stop the settlements and that's unfortunate. now we have to learn the word forgiveness. instead of being both sides, we have to think of palestinians as partners because the thing that everybody in that region lives with is they all want their kids to come home at the end of the day. everyone, whether they're palestinians or israelis, they don't know if their kids are going to come home at the end of the day when they go to school. how can people live like that? tavis: how can you put out a movie, even though it's clear, you made it clear, the advertisements make it clear, this is a movie based on a novel, the story of one particular person. >> exactly. tavis: that's clearly what it is. and yet when you put it out, you know where i'm going with this, all political hell breaks loose, even though you're clear on what

the movie is, all political hell breaks loose because even putting out a movie telling one person's story gets people are chetted up on -- rashetted up on both sides of this. as a filmmaker, how do you put it out there and not get sucked in and pulled into the politics of it when you're just trying to tell a story? >> i appreciate that. the thing is that you cannot separate the way a story is told from the story also. so many times we end up talking about the issues of the politics rather than the movie itself. if the movie is boring, it doesn't matter how important the topic is, people won't be moved by it. now if the job of the movie is to make you care about the characters and you have empathy with these characters, then is that, is there something wrong

with that? is there something wrong if we care about these characters? are we supposed to hate these characters? so when people say like the a.j.c. didn't -- there was a screening at the united nations. tavis: i know it well. >> i'm telling the audience that we showed the movie in the general assembly and the president of the general assembly was asked not to show the movie and that it was anti-israeli thing to do and the birth of the state of israel occurred in the united nations and there have been, i thought that obama was so courageous to tackle this issue of the settlements at the beginning of his administration and then i think the jewish lobby and so much pressure was put on him so he backed off of it. he did go to cairo and make a speech and encouraged all of those people and treated them with respect and treated them

with dignity and these people took him at his word. i think there is a extraordinary revolution going on where people just want to be treated with respect. they want to have a right to partake in their government. i think that is spreading all over the region and i think something has to happen in israel also because we can't have a democracy that's based on some kind of leaseson way guy like mubarak who was a tyrant and it's ok for us to have a democracy here and not for everybody around us. here i am talking about politics because somehow -- but the problem is that people feel like i need to testify or they need to testify for their group. they need to represent their group. they're losing i. this is this girl's story. this is her perspective.

this is her memory. these are the people that formed who she was. tavis: you explain this remarkably well, the battle on both sides of this film being seen. i noted, i'm sure as others have, in the advertising campaign, the company knows how to take the controversy and make it work. in the ads they're suggesting that this the movie they don't want you to see, the movie they tried to stop from coming. i raise that to ask if there is in all of this controversy, perhaps something good for the film because it is being talked about and it is controversial and you are smart enough to use that controversy to drive people to go see it. in the end, isn't that a good thing? >> i love the ad. i don't like the word they. someone says who is they? i would have to say they are the ones who don't want to open their hearts. they don't want to empathize or would shut down the notion of dialogue. she is the person that put a

bomb in a bus to kill innocent people, people that don't -- there has got to be a way other than violence to solve this problem and another thing is that i'm just thinking, it's not just about one person actually in the movie because she doesn't represent all palestinians. there is one palestinian that tries to blow up a movie theater and there is another palestinian who is a father who is trying to protect his daughter and prevent her from getting involved in a political mess. there is a teacher saying to her student the difference between you and the kids in the refugee camp is the school. tavis: one person's story. >> exactly. i think that in the same way that the diary of anne frank was one person's story, i think thi. it's really my job as an artist

was to portray or portrait, make a portrait of her and portray her reality, not of my 20-20 omnishent view of the whole inexhaustable view of the palestinian-israeli conflict. tavis: you have done it well. there is a lot of controversy. it is one person's story, but a power story, it's called "miral" brought to you by julian schnabel. the best to have you on. >> thank you very much. tavis: that's the show tonight. thanks for tuning in, until next time, keep the faith. >> for more information on today's show, visit tavis smiley at pbs.org. >> hi, i'm tavis smiley join me next time with t.c. boil and actress anne heche. that's next time, see you then. >> all i know is his name is james, and he needs extra help with his reading. >> i am james. >> yes.

>> to everyone making a difference -- >> thank you. >> you help us all live better. >> nationwide insurance supports tavis smiley. with every question and every answer, nationwide insurance is proud to join tavis in working to improve financial literacy and remove obstacles to economic empowerment, one conversation at a time. nation wide is on your side. >> and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.

i took it into a shop once and they said-- they thought it was probably worth perhaps £100 but i ought to get it looked at by such as yourself to get a value on it. so you really would like to know the value? well, i think it is for me something that really appeals. this reminds me of when i wake up in the morning, i have a big fig tree in my garden full of birds. but of course i don't see little things like these parakeets which are absolutely, beautifully done, with their little pink cheeks. and what's so nice about this is you've got all the shading in the leaf, which is extraordinary when you think this is actually made of bronze. it's bronze, bronze birds, bronze leaf,

- cold painted. - yeah. and there's one factory that really comes to mind when you look at something like this, which is the bergman factory. now normally things like this you'd expect it to be marked. if you turn it upside down, there is a mark. and many people fall into the trap here. and all this says is "patent applied for." - oh, right. - so that's not the mark. and bergman things are very collectible. - yes. - this is-- has got all that appeal, it's got real sex appeal in my view. well, i think there are many people who would like something like this-- the vibrancy, the sheer delight of it. and a conservative estimate for this would be somewhere in the region of £1,200 to 1,500. really? gosh. that's a bit more than £100, isn't it? yes. my husband thought it was the top of a walking stick. - what do you think it's made of? - i don't know. horn, a horn of some kind. you're right. it is a horn. that's absolutely spot-on.

it looks a bit like plastic, doesn't it? but it is horn. this is actually inlaid in ivory, those pieces and stained. and it's in the form of a cicada, i think. and it's japanese. and it dates from probably the middle of the 19th century. and those two holes are the clue as to what it is. it's actually a netsuke. it's worn at the waistband like that. i think it's a very unusual and rare object. i think you wouldn't have much trouble getting around £1,000 for it. good heavens. - bit of a shock? - good heavens. well, it is a big shock. good. - thank you. - i'll look at it with different eyes. well done.