:00:02. > :00:10.watch us live on the web. Click on the link and we will be there. I
:00:10. > :00:20.will be back at 1pm. But now Dateline London, live with Gavin
:00:20. > :00:29.
:00:29. > :00:34.Hello and welcome to Dateline loneen. The murder of the US
:00:34. > :00:37.ambassador to liba, what Saudi President Obama with Iran, plus the
:00:37. > :00:43.US elections and another week, another dodgy photograph of the
:00:43. > :00:50.member of the Royal family. My guests, are Saul Zadka, Nabila
:00:50. > :00:57.Ramdani, a French Algerian writer, Janet Daley, and Jef McCalister.
:00:57. > :01:05.You might think the people people of Libya and Benghazi should show
:01:05. > :01:09.goodwill to people of the United States, but, whoever murdered the
:01:09. > :01:15.US ambassador, had something other than gratitude on their minds. What
:01:15. > :01:19.is going on in Libya, and demonstrations in countries. How
:01:19. > :01:23.big a setback is this for President Obama. You were cautious about this
:01:23. > :01:28.rebellion in the first place. No tears shed for Gaddafi but what
:01:28. > :01:33.would replace it, you talked about this, for a long time. What have we
:01:33. > :01:37.got now in Libya? I suppose what we have, is what we could call a
:01:37. > :01:41.below-back, when you arm people to fight a common enemy and the people
:01:41. > :01:44.you helped, turn against you, and that's exactly what we've seen in
:01:44. > :01:48.Afghanistan with the Taliban for example. And there's no doubt, that
:01:48. > :01:52.the huge support of the Americans was crucial, no only to protect
:01:52. > :02:00.civilian lives in Libya, but also to topple Gaddafi. And, the people
:02:00. > :02:06.who benefit fred that, are, most, definitely, armed group jihad haddy
:02:06. > :02:11.militants who were driving the militants and ultimately, murdered
:02:11. > :02:17.Gaddafi. And so, of course, the Americans, would see that as a form
:02:17. > :02:20.of ingratitude, and the grim irony ,perhaps is that Chris Stevens the
:02:20. > :02:27.former ambassador to America, was supportive of military intervention,
:02:27. > :02:32.when a time the US were hesitant to intervene militarily. But, we live
:02:32. > :02:38.in a real of real political, it is self-interested, pragmatism, and
:02:38. > :02:43.jihady militants now, see that it is time to exploit a political
:02:44. > :02:49.vacuum and unstable situation. you see, links with the film,
:02:49. > :02:52.whatever it is, on YouTube, with video on YouTube, which portrays
:02:52. > :02:56.the Prophet Mohammed in a terrible way do, you think there's a link
:02:56. > :03:04.with that, or was this going to happen anyway, because people hate
:03:04. > :03:11.the Americans? It seems, certain, that Chris Stevens died and three
:03:11. > :03:15.members, died at the hands of jihady militants not a mob that was
:03:15. > :03:20.offended by a film, and everything points towards that. There's no
:03:20. > :03:24.coincidence it happened on the anniversary of 9/11 attacks against
:03:24. > :03:29.the US, 24 hours before the murder, you heard the number one of Al-
:03:29. > :03:35.Qaeda calling to avenge the death of his second-in-command who
:03:35. > :03:39.happened to be a Libyan. So there's no coincidence. The ferocity and
:03:39. > :03:44.clear coordination of the attack, everything seems to indicate. And
:03:44. > :03:51.the history, the track record of a particularly for ferocious group,
:03:51. > :03:55.who had been carrying out execution, in Benghazi in particular, all that
:03:55. > :04:00.of points towards a clear murder. The thing that surprises, me, is
:04:00. > :04:05.how little security he had. This is still, a very unstable area, he
:04:05. > :04:11.must have known the risks, and was it surprising he put himself at
:04:11. > :04:14.such risk? Absolutely. And it happened in Benghazi, the credible
:04:14. > :04:18.of the revolution that, is supported by the Americans,
:04:18. > :04:22.although by the back seat, but the Americans, brought about the
:04:22. > :04:26.revolution, to be so successful. And the fact the Libyans did not
:04:26. > :04:30.show gratitude, shows, the country, in the light of what was happening
:04:30. > :04:33.after the revolution, is very Kay on theic, so armed militias, are
:04:33. > :04:38.roaming free in the country, and the current Government does not do
:04:38. > :04:43.anything about it. We all know where the group is based, they have
:04:43. > :04:49.their own camp, no-one is making attempt to disarm them. And
:04:49. > :04:53.statement the Americans as naive as they used to be, is did not give
:04:53. > :04:58.him a sense of security, that's why his killing was so much possible.
:04:58. > :05:02.The idea that the film, provokeed spontaneous protest, which ended in
:05:03. > :05:06.the murder, is absurd. The protesters don't have rocket
:05:06. > :05:12.launchers N a spontaneous demonstration. This was a co-
:05:12. > :05:16.ordinated attack. Al-Qaeda if you like, in the view, in the sense,
:05:16. > :05:22.planned to coincide with 9/11 and aimed victims who they knew to be
:05:22. > :05:27.on the spot, it was a consulate, not an embassy, so the interesting
:05:27. > :05:32.question about this though, is why haven't the consequences of this,
:05:32. > :05:36.for Obama's foreign policy, been discussed in this last week? There
:05:36. > :05:40.was a phenomenonally successful spin operation, to see to it that
:05:40. > :05:44.the debate was conducted about Romney's gaff, as it was called.
:05:44. > :05:48.That's all they've been talking about, on the American media for
:05:48. > :05:53.the last week. Which what has to be asked, what happened to the new
:05:53. > :05:56.beginning that Obama promised in his Cairo speech, about
:05:56. > :06:01.conciliation, with the Muslim world. Clearly the bottom has fallen out
:06:01. > :06:07.of the foreign policy, and this needs to be discussed. Is this a
:06:07. > :06:12.Jim which Carter moment for him? Toif disagree with that, as much as
:06:12. > :06:20.I dislie like this, this is not Jimmy Carter of the moment, or
:06:20. > :06:23.seizure of the embassy. The idea that, Obama, promised
:06:23. > :06:30.peace and wonderfulness would break out in the Middle East because of
:06:30. > :06:36.what he did, and this, one incident, or the demonstrationness Cairo, or
:06:36. > :06:41.elsewhere, somehow disapprove the Obama high poth sis, is impossible.
:06:41. > :06:47.No-one understands the Middle East, and you can expect, to wave a wand
:06:47. > :06:54.and work it out. He's working against the consequences of the
:06:54. > :06:58.Iraq war. Romney did make a gaff, and not just a gaff, he intrudeed
:06:58. > :07:05.himself, in the crisis, without knowing what he is doing, and
:07:05. > :07:09.doubleling down and contradicting himself. Wait. The point was not
:07:10. > :07:14.that Obama promised peace and stable. He promised entirely new,
:07:14. > :07:20.anti-Bush approach to the Middle East. And the point is that, we now
:07:20. > :07:26.have precisely the same, anti- American, demonic demonstrations
:07:26. > :07:31.that we had before. I agree, at the heart of this proTesss is the role
:07:31. > :07:35.of the US, and its foreign policy, in relation with the Arab world and
:07:35. > :07:40.Muslim world. And the Arab Spring did an awful lot to strengthen the
:07:40. > :07:45.relationship, but it has to be said, there still remains suss suspicion,
:07:45. > :07:51.and distrust to the role of the US this. Is the case when the
:07:51. > :07:54.Americans, routinely use violence themselves, to further their own
:07:54. > :07:58.political ends. Drone attacks against alleged terrorists, and in
:07:58. > :08:03.the case of Libya, rendition programme. If this was an Al-Qaeda
:08:03. > :08:08.operation, then, what is he to do now, accept use the drone attacks
:08:08. > :08:15.to take out Al-Qaeda? What else can he do? He's caught in a dilemma,
:08:15. > :08:20.really, because he has to appear to be firm, and he can't remain, he
:08:20. > :08:25.has to be extremely firm in the face of murder against US officials,
:08:25. > :08:30.especially in a crucial year leading to an election. What is the
:08:30. > :08:34.firm consist of. If they fell, - felt we were stronger, they
:08:34. > :08:41.wouldn't attack, I don't know how you measure the strength. The crux
:08:41. > :08:46.is the hypocrisy, when you had the US administration's backing up and
:08:46. > :08:50.propping Arab dictators, and working hand in hands with Gaddafi
:08:50. > :08:54.to torture people on the Libyan side. That's a long time to get
:08:54. > :08:59.through, I don't think Obama can wave his wand and make it go away.
:08:59. > :09:03.That's the problem. He is a different legacy from George W Bush,
:09:03. > :09:09.a large war in the Middle East. made a beautiful speech in Cairo,
:09:09. > :09:16.which inspired but it stopped there. When the President, offered the
:09:16. > :09:26.opportunity to talk about Egypt as ally, didn't do it. How did that go
:09:26. > :09:27.
:09:27. > :09:33.down in rail ril? President Obama said it enemy, in general, what
:09:33. > :09:39.they think is he's too weak, in terms of attitude to changes in the
:09:39. > :09:44.Middle East. He took a back seat to Libya, he doesn't do anything with
:09:44. > :09:51.the massacre that takes place in Syria. He didn't assert, or
:09:51. > :09:57.reassert over control in Libyan. you go awith Janet We are sobering
:09:57. > :10:01.up were the illusion, that recent events in Arab Spring woorks bring
:10:01. > :10:07.democracy. It translated into chaos, and we start asking, are we in the
:10:07. > :10:12.process of missing Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein, I personally miss
:10:12. > :10:17.Mubarak already. Is it the Arab world has to be between the deep
:10:17. > :10:21.sea. Obama's not the going way, to talk about nation building this, is
:10:21. > :10:25.the thing. He talks about conciliatory attitude, which can be
:10:25. > :10:29.misread as appeasement, sorry, the Republicans are saying, but he's
:10:29. > :10:36.not going in for nation-building, building democratic institutions
:10:36. > :10:40.and he's leaving the Middle East in a high assets. He can't even get
:10:40. > :10:43.the Israelis do anything about settlements, let alone the Arab
:10:43. > :10:47.Spring. He can't make Syria a peaceful place, or invade, you have
:10:47. > :10:53.to recognise, he thoos work with what he has. And the tone, the
:10:53. > :10:57.shift, is in the long run, because these are big historical problems,
:10:57. > :11:01.the right one, not everything there be Peaches and cream in the
:11:01. > :11:05.meantime, but I don't see what alternative he has, from the
:11:05. > :11:10.fundamental approach he's take. The Prime Minister, of Israel wants
:11:10. > :11:14.the United States to draw what he calls a red line over which Iran he
:11:14. > :11:19.dare not cross. Binyamin Netanyahu says he has a red light, preventing
:11:19. > :11:23.action. Now, not all Israelis agree with their political leader, but is
:11:23. > :11:27.Israel gearinging up for a unilateral attack on a nation which
:11:27. > :11:36.could soon have a nuclear bomb. What do you make of what is going
:11:36. > :11:41.on? Netanyahu, is embarking on a rhetoric, that would put not only
:11:41. > :11:47.his thing in danger, some are saying, are you asking for a change
:11:47. > :11:51.in Iran or Washington. And it seems to me, that the Israeli Prime
:11:51. > :11:56.Minister is meddling in the American election campaign, by
:11:56. > :12:03.appointing himself, so to speak, as Mitt Romney campaign manager,
:12:03. > :12:07.because he comes across as somebody, who explicitly shows interest in
:12:07. > :12:12.supporting Mitt Romney as the next American President. With regards to
:12:12. > :12:19.the likelihood of an attack, against Iran, he is very, very
:12:19. > :12:23.isolated in his tough attitude and rhetoric towards Iran. Most people
:12:23. > :12:27.are against an attack, in Iran, at that very moment. The American
:12:27. > :12:32.Defence Secretary, said all the time for us, imposing red line,
:12:32. > :12:38.would be impossible, and rightly so. A red line is when the Iranians
:12:38. > :12:43.would acquire the bomb, not how many, or what would be the quantity
:12:43. > :12:48.of the uranium. And all former chief-of-staff, head of equivalent
:12:48. > :12:51.of the MI5 in Israel came up against any attack against Iran, at
:12:52. > :12:56.that moment, and without their assistance of the Americans. The
:12:56. > :13:03.present chief-of-staff is shy about it. He doesn't say anything,
:13:03. > :13:06.explicitly, but everybody knows he is opposing it. The it seems that
:13:06. > :13:10.Netanyahu is playing the nuclear card in order to influence the
:13:10. > :13:14.outcome of the American election, because he wants to see Mitt Romney
:13:14. > :13:20.in the White House. How do you think this is viewed in the Arab
:13:20. > :13:27.states, of both countries, because as you know, Privilegely many Arab
:13:27. > :13:31.leaders are extremely concerned about one called the Persian bomb.
:13:31. > :13:37.The US are not in a position, to draw any red lines, or indeed to
:13:37. > :13:42.give any red lights to anyone, in the region of the moment. Given the
:13:43. > :13:49.extremely strong anti-American sentiment. Israel hasn't been
:13:49. > :13:53.discussed much, but it is part of the problem. You said that, when
:13:53. > :13:56.you're missing Mubarak already, that's what the about, propping up
:13:56. > :13:59.stable dictatorships, to protect their interest in the region, and
:13:59. > :14:05.the interest of the major ally, which is Israel. That's part of the
:14:05. > :14:08.problem. The moment you give, democratic freedom to the
:14:08. > :14:12.populations, not the dictatorships, you say, hang on a minute, we have
:14:12. > :14:16.to be tough about the Israeli Government, if we, manage to get
:14:16. > :14:22.rid of, oppression, then we want the Palestinians to also be able to
:14:22. > :14:27.get rid of the Israeli oppression. I've always thought, even
:14:27. > :14:30.proZionist, that I am, it is a mistake for Israel and America to
:14:30. > :14:36.give impression they're standing in the way of democratic revolutions,
:14:36. > :14:41.that's standing in the way of history. For to embrace freedom, is
:14:41. > :14:45.embrace the modern world. Keeping people in the Middle Ages, because
:14:45. > :14:49.of your shorm benefit is a mistake, the democratic institutions have to
:14:49. > :14:53.be the answer, to these problems. And I don't think Israel should put
:14:53. > :14:57.itself on the wrong side of that argument. The trouble is America,
:14:57. > :15:02.has now, officially, put itself on the right side of the argument and
:15:02. > :15:06.it is still getting the ambassadors killed which is a difficult problem.
:15:06. > :15:11.The specific, issue of Iran, which I'm sure the Obama administration,
:15:11. > :15:15.shops to go away until November, perhaps forever. But, certainly
:15:15. > :15:19.until after the election, they don't want to deal with Iran, and
:15:19. > :15:26.they don't want problems with Israel right now, do they? It's a
:15:26. > :15:33.night mare scenario, in terms of the, if the Israelis attacks, I
:15:33. > :15:37.don't want to be complicity in it, for the general of chiefss to get
:15:37. > :15:42.that clear. It cannot do the job, they don't have the fighters,
:15:42. > :15:45.drones, all the teerns material necessary to pull it off. It will
:15:45. > :15:51.take weeks, the Iranians will attack back with rockets, against
:15:51. > :15:56.Israel. Then comes a moment for Obama, do I intervene on Israel or
:15:56. > :16:01.stand there, and let our great ally be pummeled by rocket attacks? Do I
:16:01. > :16:05.attack Tehran, enough for the Iran, to take out the rockets attacking
:16:05. > :16:10.Israel this. Is a terrible, dilemma for him. He does not want a war in
:16:10. > :16:19.the Middle East, or an tagise the Iranians, the regime change is the
:16:19. > :16:25.only solution to the problem. And that will be retarded by Iranians
:16:25. > :16:28.against Americans. He saw the attempt to change the grass roots,
:16:28. > :16:34.and bruetedly put down? I don't think the likelihood of regime
:16:34. > :16:38.change is very near. In fact, I would be clear, to be fair to the
:16:38. > :16:45.Prime Minister, he has arguments to think about, because it is the
:16:45. > :16:53.Iranian Government, that keeps standing all the time, that Israel
:16:53. > :16:58.should be eradicated. Maybe, a speech was said, his audience is
:16:58. > :17:01.supported by supreme leader in Iran. Janet's point, that it is wrong for
:17:01. > :17:05.Israel to say we're a democracy, but it is good for us to have
:17:05. > :17:08.authoritarian states on our borders, because it keeps things quiet?
:17:08. > :17:13.is a short-term thinking, we all know about T Israel fails to
:17:13. > :17:16.embraceity gofplt in the Arab world, because they saw it as a threat
:17:16. > :17:22.against thai existence N the violent neighbourhood. And also,
:17:22. > :17:27.because they see, so many militias R operating, not only in Sudan, or
:17:27. > :17:33.Yemen or Libya, and in Afghanistan but Gaza, so they feel certain
:17:33. > :17:36.about it. But, yet, we have to think, and be worried about the
:17:36. > :17:42.rhetoric, adopted by the Israeli Prime Minister, because he is
:17:42. > :17:48.trying to put Obama in the corner, and by doing, so, making the
:17:49. > :17:53.Iranians, laughing all the way. While we're still laughing about
:17:53. > :17:58.that. And Obama's problems, there's good news on the he com, in terms
:17:59. > :18:04.of the stock market. What do you think of quantitative easing and
:18:04. > :18:08.purchasing in money, the stock markets liked it. And Germany, the
:18:08. > :18:13.Supreme Court in Germany, said the rescue bit can go ahead. Perhaps
:18:13. > :18:23.things will settle down for the next six or eight weeks, that's
:18:23. > :18:25.
:18:25. > :18:31.what Obama needs? The economic news is not dreadful. He is up in the
:18:31. > :18:35.closest swing states, and in eight of them, Ohio are off the table for
:18:35. > :18:40.Romney. It seems difficult to see if Romney can put the number of
:18:40. > :18:46.electoral votes he needs to get to the White House. All of this, ka
:18:46. > :18:51.fulfil. It is pretty much, 50-50. Six point advantage for Obama. The
:18:51. > :18:58.polls are not reliable and things can happen. The Trent line seems to
:18:58. > :19:02.be good for Obama. The Romney, is not making things happen his way.
:19:02. > :19:09.What his intervention on foreign policy was attempt to grab hold of
:19:09. > :19:14.the news and make something happen. It anti-hasn't been happening.
:19:14. > :19:17.polls are all over the place, but this week was a week in which
:19:17. > :19:22.polling suggested, that actually Obama on the economy is slightly
:19:22. > :19:27.more trusted than Ramdani, which is an interesting phenomenonan, given
:19:27. > :19:32.how rocky the economy is? America is a Conservative country with a
:19:32. > :19:35.small C, it tends to re-elect the President, unless something goes
:19:35. > :19:38.horribly wrong. The interesting thing about this election S not,
:19:38. > :19:43.obviously, it is interesting who wins, but the election campaign
:19:43. > :19:47.itself, and the debate that goes on within it is tremendously important.
:19:47. > :19:51.Debate the Republicans are trying to force on the economy, about,
:19:51. > :19:57.whether the entitlement society, that has grown up in America, can
:19:57. > :20:00.be afforded, whether the market can produce enough wealth to allow for
:20:00. > :20:06.the redistributeive economy, that Obama seems to be establishing.
:20:06. > :20:10.That's a serious argument and one we ought to be having here. Maybe
:20:10. > :20:17.it will become infectious, as a sequence of the American
:20:17. > :20:24.presidential election. I wanted to ask whatever you might thin of
:20:24. > :20:28.Prince Harry's escapade at a party. Most people think a Princess should
:20:28. > :20:34.have a degree of privacy, so will the topless photographs of one day
:20:34. > :20:40.a woman who will be Queen, shows that privacy is dead? What do you
:20:40. > :20:44.think? I'm remarkablely, uninterested in this. I am a
:20:44. > :20:49.rebellion colonial, so I am half- hearted anti-Monarchist, anyway.
:20:49. > :20:56.The Middle East is blowing up, all the news, headlines, and all the
:20:56. > :21:02.news coverage, has to be the top story as this, it seems Ruhr
:21:02. > :21:07.tainian to me. This is the last item in the programme? Is there
:21:07. > :21:15.anything, is there a serious possibility of having privacy in
:21:15. > :21:19.the modern world. If you're famous, probably not. Get used to it.
:21:19. > :21:24.Princess Diana, it is not as privacy instantly dead, it is dying
:21:24. > :21:28.for a considerable time. The reason we don't have pictures for the
:21:28. > :21:33.Queen, is for the entire life, she's had the discipline to make
:21:33. > :21:38.sure no long-ranged photograph would be that interesting. You know,
:21:38. > :21:41.you don't speak for the entire French press, or Closer magazine.
:21:41. > :21:49.The thing that strikes me is the French press over the past 20-30
:21:49. > :21:53.years, have failed to uncover, so much stuff about Khan and Chirac, I
:21:53. > :21:58.can give you a list, and yet they are boldly go and stick a camera
:21:58. > :22:03.over a wall, and get a picture, of woman sun bathing top snls It's a
:22:04. > :22:09.fair point. But there's a disstaink between sober, quality, press in
:22:09. > :22:13.France, and indeed, glossy celebrity magazines like Closer. It
:22:13. > :22:18.is very true, politicians or celebrities in general, tend to
:22:19. > :22:28.take advantage of strict privacy law, and which are backed up by,
:22:28. > :22:34.not so serious punishments, and it makes it difficult for journalists
:22:34. > :22:42.to indeed write forcibly, or expose, I'm talking a serious publication
:22:42. > :22:45.of ending up in court, and it is not pleasant. Closer, clearly, and
:22:45. > :22:50.unambiguously, breached privacy laws in France. This matter will go
:22:50. > :22:54.in court. No doubt the Royal family will win their case, there's a
:22:54. > :22:59.diplomatic, principle, almost, imperative behind it all. As Janet
:22:59. > :23:03.said, it is, you have to just live with t and the view in France, is
:23:03. > :23:07.that they see the Royal family, not so much as part of the
:23:07. > :23:11.establishment, we don't have have the references attitude, we see
:23:11. > :23:16.them stars, celebrities, almost, and therefore, as fair game. And,
:23:16. > :23:25.if the royal institution is to survive, then there has to be a
:23:25. > :23:34.certain, perhaps, sense of decorum, and resource to etiquette to
:23:34. > :23:38.sustain the fact that the business... The French took the
:23:38. > :23:42.high moral ground, and looking at the brick newspapers, look at the
:23:42. > :23:48.tabloids, but they are going through a process of tabloidisation,
:23:48. > :23:53.the French themselves, and they're not in the position to preaching to
:23:53. > :23:59.the British. I can detect hypocrisy both sides of the channel. The
:23:59. > :24:05.British invented tabloid journalism, and when you xaer the - compare the
:24:05. > :24:11.two scandals of Harry and Kate Middleton, nobody is thinking of
:24:11. > :24:15.naked Prince, because he is on a Apache in Middle East. But maybe
:24:15. > :24:20.the solution, is put Kate on an Apache in Libya. I will attempt to
:24:20. > :24:23.make a serious point, which is the background the Leveson Inquiry, and
:24:23. > :24:26.there are those, including former head of the Press Complaints
:24:26. > :24:29.Commission, who said this proved the British system, is actually
:24:29. > :24:33.better than the French system, because the French system is
:24:33. > :24:37.supposed to be, a legal statutory obligation to do certain things T
:24:37. > :24:43.doesn't work. And in Britain, no newspaper, I suspect, will publish
:24:43. > :24:50.this? And privacy laws, are - freedom of spaech has to be
:24:50. > :24:54.invisible. The idea of a privacy law, means every powerful person,
:24:54. > :24:58.could buy privacy, and others could not. That's the long and short of
:24:58. > :25:02.it. In that context, if Leveson goes for that kind of thing, all
:25:02. > :25:08.the press, and journalistness this country, will be pretty much united
:25:09. > :25:14.against that kind of thing? I would think so. Also the Berlusconi's
:25:14. > :25:19.family owns the magazine in France, and the one in Italy. Can we not
:25:19. > :25:23.pick up the phone to Berlusconi and say please. A fascinating