15/09/2012 Dateline London

watch us live on the web. Click on the link and we will be there. I

will be back at 1pm. But now Dateline London, live with Gavin

Hello and welcome to Dateline loneen. The murder of the US

ambassador to liba, what Saudi President Obama with Iran, plus the

US elections and another week, another dodgy photograph of the

member of the Royal family. My guests, are Saul Zadka, Nabila

Ramdani, a French Algerian writer, Janet Daley, and Jef McCalister.

You might think the people people of Libya and Benghazi should show

goodwill to people of the United States, but, whoever murdered the

US ambassador, had something other than gratitude on their minds. What

is going on in Libya, and demonstrations in countries. How

big a setback is this for President Obama. You were cautious about this

rebellion in the first place. No tears shed for Gaddafi but what

would replace it, you talked about this, for a long time. What have we

got now in Libya? I suppose what we have, is what we could call a

below-back, when you arm people to fight a common enemy and the people

you helped, turn against you, and that's exactly what we've seen in

Afghanistan with the Taliban for example. And there's no doubt, that

the huge support of the Americans was crucial, no only to protect

civilian lives in Libya, but also to topple Gaddafi. And, the people

who benefit fred that, are, most, definitely, armed group jihad haddy

militants who were driving the militants and ultimately, murdered

Gaddafi. And so, of course, the Americans, would see that as a form

of ingratitude, and the grim irony ,perhaps is that Chris Stevens the

former ambassador to America, was supportive of military intervention,

when a time the US were hesitant to intervene militarily. But, we live

in a real of real political, it is self-interested, pragmatism, and

jihady militants now, see that it is time to exploit a political

vacuum and unstable situation. you see, links with the film,

whatever it is, on YouTube, with video on YouTube, which portrays

the Prophet Mohammed in a terrible way do, you think there's a link

with that, or was this going to happen anyway, because people hate

the Americans? It seems, certain, that Chris Stevens died and three

members, died at the hands of jihady militants not a mob that was

offended by a film, and everything points towards that. There's no

coincidence it happened on the anniversary of 9/11 attacks against

the US, 24 hours before the murder, you heard the number one of Al-

Qaeda calling to avenge the death of his second-in-command who

happened to be a Libyan. So there's no coincidence. The ferocity and

clear coordination of the attack, everything seems to indicate. And

the history, the track record of a particularly for ferocious group,

who had been carrying out execution, in Benghazi in particular, all that

of points towards a clear murder. The thing that surprises, me, is

how little security he had. This is still, a very unstable area, he

must have known the risks, and was it surprising he put himself at

such risk? Absolutely. And it happened in Benghazi, the credible

of the revolution that, is supported by the Americans,

although by the back seat, but the Americans, brought about the

revolution, to be so successful. And the fact the Libyans did not

show gratitude, shows, the country, in the light of what was happening

after the revolution, is very Kay on theic, so armed militias, are

roaming free in the country, and the current Government does not do

anything about it. We all know where the group is based, they have

their own camp, no-one is making attempt to disarm them. And

statement the Americans as naive as they used to be, is did not give

him a sense of security, that's why his killing was so much possible.

The idea that the film, provokeed spontaneous protest, which ended in

the murder, is absurd. The protesters don't have rocket

launchers N a spontaneous demonstration. This was a co-

ordinated attack. Al-Qaeda if you like, in the view, in the sense,

planned to coincide with 9/11 and aimed victims who they knew to be

on the spot, it was a consulate, not an embassy, so the interesting

question about this though, is why haven't the consequences of this,

for Obama's foreign policy, been discussed in this last week? There

was a phenomenonally successful spin operation, to see to it that

the debate was conducted about Romney's gaff, as it was called.

That's all they've been talking about, on the American media for

the last week. Which what has to be asked, what happened to the new

beginning that Obama promised in his Cairo speech, about

conciliation, with the Muslim world. Clearly the bottom has fallen out

of the foreign policy, and this needs to be discussed. Is this a

Jim which Carter moment for him? Toif disagree with that, as much as

I dislie like this, this is not Jimmy Carter of the moment, or

seizure of the embassy. The idea that, Obama, promised

peace and wonderfulness would break out in the Middle East because of

what he did, and this, one incident, or the demonstrationness Cairo, or

elsewhere, somehow disapprove the Obama high poth sis, is impossible.

No-one understands the Middle East, and you can expect, to wave a wand

and work it out. He's working against the consequences of the

Iraq war. Romney did make a gaff, and not just a gaff, he intrudeed

himself, in the crisis, without knowing what he is doing, and

doubleling down and contradicting himself. Wait. The point was not

that Obama promised peace and stable. He promised entirely new,

anti-Bush approach to the Middle East. And the point is that, we now

have precisely the same, anti- American, demonic demonstrations

that we had before. I agree, at the heart of this proTesss is the role

of the US, and its foreign policy, in relation with the Arab world and

Muslim world. And the Arab Spring did an awful lot to strengthen the

relationship, but it has to be said, there still remains suss suspicion,

and distrust to the role of the US this. Is the case when the

Americans, routinely use violence themselves, to further their own

political ends. Drone attacks against alleged terrorists, and in

the case of Libya, rendition programme. If this was an Al-Qaeda

operation, then, what is he to do now, accept use the drone attacks

to take out Al-Qaeda? What else can he do? He's caught in a dilemma,

really, because he has to appear to be firm, and he can't remain, he

has to be extremely firm in the face of murder against US officials,

especially in a crucial year leading to an election. What is the

firm consist of. If they fell, - felt we were stronger, they

wouldn't attack, I don't know how you measure the strength. The crux

is the hypocrisy, when you had the US administration's backing up and

propping Arab dictators, and working hand in hands with Gaddafi

to torture people on the Libyan side. That's a long time to get

through, I don't think Obama can wave his wand and make it go away.

That's the problem. He is a different legacy from George W Bush,

a large war in the Middle East. made a beautiful speech in Cairo,

which inspired but it stopped there. When the President, offered the

opportunity to talk about Egypt as ally, didn't do it. How did that go

down in rail ril? President Obama said it enemy, in general, what

they think is he's too weak, in terms of attitude to changes in the

Middle East. He took a back seat to Libya, he doesn't do anything with

the massacre that takes place in Syria. He didn't assert, or

reassert over control in Libyan. you go awith Janet We are sobering

up were the illusion, that recent events in Arab Spring woorks bring

democracy. It translated into chaos, and we start asking, are we in the

process of missing Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein, I personally miss

Mubarak already. Is it the Arab world has to be between the deep

sea. Obama's not the going way, to talk about nation building this, is

the thing. He talks about conciliatory attitude, which can be

misread as appeasement, sorry, the Republicans are saying, but he's

not going in for nation-building, building democratic institutions

and he's leaving the Middle East in a high assets. He can't even get

the Israelis do anything about settlements, let alone the Arab

Spring. He can't make Syria a peaceful place, or invade, you have

to recognise, he thoos work with what he has. And the tone, the

shift, is in the long run, because these are big historical problems,

the right one, not everything there be Peaches and cream in the

meantime, but I don't see what alternative he has, from the

fundamental approach he's take. The Prime Minister, of Israel wants

the United States to draw what he calls a red line over which Iran he

dare not cross. Binyamin Netanyahu says he has a red light, preventing

action. Now, not all Israelis agree with their political leader, but is

Israel gearinging up for a unilateral attack on a nation which

could soon have a nuclear bomb. What do you make of what is going

on? Netanyahu, is embarking on a rhetoric, that would put not only

his thing in danger, some are saying, are you asking for a change

in Iran or Washington. And it seems to me, that the Israeli Prime

Minister is meddling in the American election campaign, by

appointing himself, so to speak, as Mitt Romney campaign manager,

because he comes across as somebody, who explicitly shows interest in

supporting Mitt Romney as the next American President. With regards to

the likelihood of an attack, against Iran, he is very, very

isolated in his tough attitude and rhetoric towards Iran. Most people

are against an attack, in Iran, at that very moment. The American

Defence Secretary, said all the time for us, imposing red line,

would be impossible, and rightly so. A red line is when the Iranians

would acquire the bomb, not how many, or what would be the quantity

of the uranium. And all former chief-of-staff, head of equivalent

of the MI5 in Israel came up against any attack against Iran, at

that moment, and without their assistance of the Americans. The

present chief-of-staff is shy about it. He doesn't say anything,

explicitly, but everybody knows he is opposing it. The it seems that

Netanyahu is playing the nuclear card in order to influence the

outcome of the American election, because he wants to see Mitt Romney

in the White House. How do you think this is viewed in the Arab

states, of both countries, because as you know, Privilegely many Arab

leaders are extremely concerned about one called the Persian bomb.

The US are not in a position, to draw any red lines, or indeed to

give any red lights to anyone, in the region of the moment. Given the

extremely strong anti-American sentiment. Israel hasn't been

discussed much, but it is part of the problem. You said that, when

you're missing Mubarak already, that's what the about, propping up

stable dictatorships, to protect their interest in the region, and

the interest of the major ally, which is Israel. That's part of the

problem. The moment you give, democratic freedom to the

populations, not the dictatorships, you say, hang on a minute, we have

to be tough about the Israeli Government, if we, manage to get

rid of, oppression, then we want the Palestinians to also be able to

get rid of the Israeli oppression. I've always thought, even

proZionist, that I am, it is a mistake for Israel and America to

give impression they're standing in the way of democratic revolutions,

that's standing in the way of history. For to embrace freedom, is

embrace the modern world. Keeping people in the Middle Ages, because

of your shorm benefit is a mistake, the democratic institutions have to

be the answer, to these problems. And I don't think Israel should put

itself on the wrong side of that argument. The trouble is America,

has now, officially, put itself on the right side of the argument and

it is still getting the ambassadors killed which is a difficult problem.

The specific, issue of Iran, which I'm sure the Obama administration,

shops to go away until November, perhaps forever. But, certainly

until after the election, they don't want to deal with Iran, and

they don't want problems with Israel right now, do they? It's a

night mare scenario, in terms of the, if the Israelis attacks, I

don't want to be complicity in it, for the general of chiefss to get

that clear. It cannot do the job, they don't have the fighters,

drones, all the teerns material necessary to pull it off. It will

take weeks, the Iranians will attack back with rockets, against

Israel. Then comes a moment for Obama, do I intervene on Israel or

stand there, and let our great ally be pummeled by rocket attacks? Do I

attack Tehran, enough for the Iran, to take out the rockets attacking

Israel this. Is a terrible, dilemma for him. He does not want a war in

the Middle East, or an tagise the Iranians, the regime change is the

only solution to the problem. And that will be retarded by Iranians

against Americans. He saw the attempt to change the grass roots,

and bruetedly put down? I don't think the likelihood of regime

change is very near. In fact, I would be clear, to be fair to the

Prime Minister, he has arguments to think about, because it is the

Iranian Government, that keeps standing all the time, that Israel

should be eradicated. Maybe, a speech was said, his audience is

supported by supreme leader in Iran. Janet's point, that it is wrong for

Israel to say we're a democracy, but it is good for us to have

authoritarian states on our borders, because it keeps things quiet?

is a short-term thinking, we all know about T Israel fails to

embraceity gofplt in the Arab world, because they saw it as a threat

against thai existence N the violent neighbourhood. And also,

because they see, so many militias R operating, not only in Sudan, or

Yemen or Libya, and in Afghanistan but Gaza, so they feel certain

about it. But, yet, we have to think, and be worried about the

rhetoric, adopted by the Israeli Prime Minister, because he is

trying to put Obama in the corner, and by doing, so, making the

Iranians, laughing all the way. While we're still laughing about

that. And Obama's problems, there's good news on the he com, in terms

of the stock market. What do you think of quantitative easing and

purchasing in money, the stock markets liked it. And Germany, the

Supreme Court in Germany, said the rescue bit can go ahead. Perhaps

things will settle down for the next six or eight weeks, that's

what Obama needs? The economic news is not dreadful. He is up in the

closest swing states, and in eight of them, Ohio are off the table for

Romney. It seems difficult to see if Romney can put the number of

electoral votes he needs to get to the White House. All of this, ka

fulfil. It is pretty much, 50-50. Six point advantage for Obama. The

polls are not reliable and things can happen. The Trent line seems to

be good for Obama. The Romney, is not making things happen his way.

What his intervention on foreign policy was attempt to grab hold of

the news and make something happen. It anti-hasn't been happening.

polls are all over the place, but this week was a week in which

polling suggested, that actually Obama on the economy is slightly

more trusted than Ramdani, which is an interesting phenomenonan, given

how rocky the economy is? America is a Conservative country with a

small C, it tends to re-elect the President, unless something goes

horribly wrong. The interesting thing about this election S not,

obviously, it is interesting who wins, but the election campaign

itself, and the debate that goes on within it is tremendously important.

Debate the Republicans are trying to force on the economy, about,

whether the entitlement society, that has grown up in America, can

be afforded, whether the market can produce enough wealth to allow for

the redistributeive economy, that Obama seems to be establishing.

That's a serious argument and one we ought to be having here. Maybe

it will become infectious, as a sequence of the American

presidential election. I wanted to ask whatever you might thin of

Prince Harry's escapade at a party. Most people think a Princess should

have a degree of privacy, so will the topless photographs of one day

a woman who will be Queen, shows that privacy is dead? What do you

think? I'm remarkablely, uninterested in this. I am a

rebellion colonial, so I am half- hearted anti-Monarchist, anyway.

The Middle East is blowing up, all the news, headlines, and all the

news coverage, has to be the top story as this, it seems Ruhr

tainian to me. This is the last item in the programme? Is there

anything, is there a serious possibility of having privacy in

the modern world. If you're famous, probably not. Get used to it.

Princess Diana, it is not as privacy instantly dead, it is dying

for a considerable time. The reason we don't have pictures for the

Queen, is for the entire life, she's had the discipline to make

sure no long-ranged photograph would be that interesting. You know,

you don't speak for the entire French press, or Closer magazine.

The thing that strikes me is the French press over the past 20-30

years, have failed to uncover, so much stuff about Khan and Chirac, I

can give you a list, and yet they are boldly go and stick a camera

over a wall, and get a picture, of woman sun bathing top snls It's a

fair point. But there's a disstaink between sober, quality, press in

France, and indeed, glossy celebrity magazines like Closer. It

is very true, politicians or celebrities in general, tend to

take advantage of strict privacy law, and which are backed up by,

not so serious punishments, and it makes it difficult for journalists

to indeed write forcibly, or expose, I'm talking a serious publication

of ending up in court, and it is not pleasant. Closer, clearly, and

unambiguously, breached privacy laws in France. This matter will go

in court. No doubt the Royal family will win their case, there's a

diplomatic, principle, almost, imperative behind it all. As Janet

said, it is, you have to just live with t and the view in France, is

that they see the Royal family, not so much as part of the

establishment, we don't have have the references attitude, we see

them stars, celebrities, almost, and therefore, as fair game. And,

if the royal institution is to survive, then there has to be a

certain, perhaps, sense of decorum, and resource to etiquette to

sustain the fact that the business... The French took the

high moral ground, and looking at the brick newspapers, look at the

tabloids, but they are going through a process of tabloidisation,

the French themselves, and they're not in the position to preaching to

the British. I can detect hypocrisy both sides of the channel. The

British invented tabloid journalism, and when you xaer the - compare the

two scandals of Harry and Kate Middleton, nobody is thinking of

naked Prince, because he is on a Apache in Middle East. But maybe

the solution, is put Kate on an Apache in Libya. I will attempt to

make a serious point, which is the background the Leveson Inquiry, and

there are those, including former head of the Press Complaints

Commission, who said this proved the British system, is actually

better than the French system, because the French system is

supposed to be, a legal statutory obligation to do certain things T

doesn't work. And in Britain, no newspaper, I suspect, will publish

this? And privacy laws, are - freedom of spaech has to be

invisible. The idea of a privacy law, means every powerful person,

could buy privacy, and others could not. That's the long and short of

it. In that context, if Leveson goes for that kind of thing, all

the press, and journalistness this country, will be pretty much united

against that kind of thing? I would think so. Also the Berlusconi's

family owns the magazine in France, and the one in Italy. Can we not

pick up the phone to Berlusconi and say please. A fascinating