but first up -- the chances of peace in the middle east after the latest round of speeches by prime minister netanyahu and president obama. i'll be joined by tom friedman of "the new york times" who is just back from the middle east. now, here's my take for this week. we've just gone through an arcane debate about whether barack obama said anything new when he called for an israeli/palestinian settlement based on 1967 borders with mutually agreed upon land swaps. in fact, that has been the working assumption of all negotiating parties, america, israel and the palestinian authority, for over 20 years. it is what the camp david talks of 2000 were based on. it's what elmerit's talks were based on. the real shift in u.s. policy was president obama publicly condemning the palestinian strategy to seek recognition as a state from the u.n. general assembly in september. instead of thanking obama for this, prime minister netanyahu chose to stage, in the words of the former israeli diplomat, pinkus, quote, nothing less than a bizarre tirade at the white house on friday, educating the president about the plight and the problems of jews throughout history, end quote. so why did netanyahu do this? does it help israel's security or strengthen it otherwise to stoke tensions with its strongest ally and largest benefactor, washington? does such behavior further the resolution of israel's problems? no. but it helps netanyahu stir up support at home and maintain his fragile coalition. the real revelation, which has been picked up by many in the israeli press, is that it shows finally that netanyahu simply doesn't want a deal. he always has a new objection, a new problem, a new delaying tactic, because at core, he has never believed that the palestinians should have a state. here is the young bibi 33 years ago at a forum in cambridge, massachusetts. >> i think the united states should oppose the creation of a palestinian state for several reasons, the first one being that it is unjust to demand the creation of a 22nd arab state and a second palestinian state. at the expense of the only jewish state. there is no right to establish the second one on my doorstep which will threaten my existence. there is no right whatsoever. >> prime minister netanyahu's references to the indefensible borders of 1967 last week also reveal him to be mired in a world that has really gone away, the chief threat to israel today is not from a palestinian army. israel has the region's strongest economy and military by far complete with an arsenal of nuclear weapons. the chief threats to israel are from new technologies, rockets, biological weapons, and from demography. its physical existence is less in doubt than its democratic existence as it continues to rule millions of palestinians who are entitled to beneath err vote nor a country. ironically, the young bibi understood that it was impossible to keep the palestinians in such serflike conditions forever. listen to him advocating that palestinians should be given citizenship, either in jordan or in israel. >> in the event that this negotiation process will continue, i am sure that what we're talking about is, in fact, eventual citizenship of some kind, either jordanian or israeli or any other arrangement. >> if the palestinians were smart, they'd take the prime minister up on citizenship in israel, and then bibi would wish he'd been for a two-state solution all along. let's get started. so what does it look like to thomas friedman, the author of "from beirut to jerusalem," winner of two pulitzer prizes, "new york times" columnist. tom, this week, whatever criticisms you may have or i may have, bibi netanyahu goes back to israel and he's hail adhere row. >> there's no question when you stand up to foreign power, you inassert your demands, there's going to be a constituency that's going to support that. it's good work if you can get it. but what happens next week? i think we have to step back and really ask the big strategic question, why is israel popular? why has this been an enduring relationship all these years? why is that cameraman and that sound person support israel, whether they're jewish or not jewish? it's because we see them like us, we see them as a country that shares our values. and most importantly, we see israel as a bastion of democracy in the middle east. that's israel's greatest strategic strength vis-a-vis the united states. and what those of us who have been critical of prime minister netanyahu on this issue are basically saying is that's precisely what is imperilled if there is no peace agreement that allows israel to cede the west bank to a palestinian authority in a safe and secure way so it doesn't absorb all those palestinians so we don't end up with a situation where a jewish minority is ruling over an arab majority between the mediterranean and the jordan river. we know where that goes. that's called jewish apartheid. that would be the biggest strategic threat to israel. and the way you know that is if you look at the strategy of hamas, hezbollah and iran. what is their strategy? it is to make sure israel must never leave the west bank. okay? because as long as israel's there, that is the key to their strategy for globally delegitimizing israel. why play into that strength? >> he gets 29, 28 standing ovations in congress. >> you know, there's a parallel between what the palestinians could get at the u.n. and what the israelis can get in congress. they can both stand up and read the phone book and be assured that a bunch of knuckleheads in the audience will stand and give them a standing ovation. so, but let's think about how bb bibby could have gotten a standing ovation. that would also have been in his long-term interest. let's say bibi had stood before congress and said, you know, my fellow friends and my american friends, your president, president obama, has come to me and said that he believes that there's an opportunity here to break through with the palestinians. i have to tell you, i personally don't believe it. but i know one thing. when our best friend, our oldest ally, our most important strategic partner in the world, comes to me and makes the request, there's only one right answer. mr. president, yes. you want a six-month moratorium on settlement building? i've already got 500,000 settlers in jerusalem and the west bank. you know what, mr. president? that's not really a strategic risk for me. the potential payoff of that is so great, i don't believe it. i'm skeptical. but when you, president obama, ask me that, there's only one right answer. yes, sir. we will do that. barack obama, this bud's for you. then he would have gotten a standing ovation that would have not just included the u.s. congress, it would have included europeans. it would have included arabs. it would have included people all over america who said hey, there's a guy who's going the extra mile. and that's my point, fareed. i have no idea whether there is a palestinian partner for a secure peace with israel. along the lines of president clinton has laid out. i just know one thing. given the implications for israel, if it gets stuck permanently holding the west bank, it is in israel's overwhelming interest to test, test and test again, okay? because that would be a huge strategic threat to israel if it has no choice but to absorb the west bank. >> but you travel there a lot. and you know the american jewish community here, both those crucial constituencies, it's always struck me that to get peace, you're going to have to convince a majority of israelis because they have the land. they have the land and the guns, in a sense. they're the power on the ground. it's drifting to the right. they are less interested in the kind of deal you're describing. >> well, you have a more conservative on this issue right wing, whatever you want, nationalist population in israel now between the growing orthodox population and the russian jews. there's no question about that. you know, as far as american jews, you know, to me, the question, fareed, is yes, bibi netanyahu, because of political reasons and campaign donations and apac's influence, can get standing ovations in the u.s. congress anytime they want, seven days a week, 24/7. how many standing ovations do you think he could get at the student government at the university of missouri? at stanford? at harvard? at the university of virginia? at the university of texas? if you went to those student governments, they're the future. they're the future of voters. they're the future of people who will maintain the strategic relationship with israel. and there i can tell you, as anyone who goes to college campuses knows, that people don't get israel, what israel is doing right now. some are alienated. some more -- and this is the bigger part, more -- i don't know. it's messy. i don't want to get involved in this at all. you know, that's where -- don't worry about me. i grew up, you know, identifying with israel very strongly, believing in a two-state solution, that the right of the jewish people to a state in the middle east next to a palestinian state. you're not going to lose me, you know. but what i don't see is people like me, jews or non-jews, being emotionally involved in this issue, growing up and caring about it. so that's the long term. that's israel's strategic strength. again, fareed, i understand, this is complicated. palestinians have missed a million opportunities including with the last israeli government. and there's a really legitimate question to ask, can they get their act together? forget for a hard-line deal, for the deal that president clinton put out, that olmert, the previous minister, but i don't know. i just know one thing, you've got to test, test and test again because the implications of not are strategically enormously dangerous. >> when you look at israel today, what i'm struck by is that some level it's so secure. there's booming economy. its powerful military. it's gotten more powerful every year. nuclear arsenals some of which are on submarines. >> they behave like a disarmed costa rica. and this is not a disarmed costa rica. this is a powerful country with a powerful society, a powerful economy. but, again, i understand nine miles wide at its narrowest. i wouldn't ask israel to take any risks that seem unreasonable. but, boy, if they could strike a deal now with the palestinians, when you do have actually a decent palestinian authority, that has actually built a security force, that the israeli army will tell you has been effective. you know, this is what i've been saying from the beginning of the arab revolt, fareed, which is when is the time to make big decisions in life? it's when you have all the leverage on your side. you see farther. you think more clearly. what did hosni mubarak do? he had 30 years of leverage vis-a-vis the egyptian people to democratize his people. he department do it. he didn't use it. then in one week he tried to do what he should have over 30 years. he failed. completely. people didn't believe a word he said. you don't want netanyahu to be the hosni mubarak of the peace process where they look back, we had all this time, decent palestinian authority to test -- i'm not saying cut a deal -- i don't know whether there's a deal -- but to really test whether they can deliver and do what we can to embolden and encourage and empower them. and we didn't use it. we sat back and said, look, i got a good poll from my week in washington. well, la-di-da. we threw you a fish. what is that good for, you know? ultimately, you want to anchor this in a really secure relationship. you don't want to be the hosni mubarak of the peace process where people say what did you do when you had all that leverage? you cited a poll? when we come back, we'll talk to tom about what's going on in egypt, lebanon and syria. he's back from the region in a moment. what's this option? that's new. personal pricing now on brakes. tell us what you want to pay. we do our best to make that work. deal! my money. my choice. my meineke. we are back with "new york times'" tom friedman, who is back from the middle east. you were in egypt. you were in lebanon. let's first talk about syria because it's the place that everyone's trying to figure out. and none of us can get into syria, but lebanon is the closest you can get. what's your sense? >> a couple things strike you when you're in beirut. the first thing is how incredibly brave the syrian people who have been resisting their authoritarian government have been. you know, when egyptians gathered in tahrir square, one thing they knew for sure. after the initial effort by government thugs to put them down, when the army stepped in, they knew they were safe. they knew they could go down to the square. and they gathered there by the tens and hundreds and thousands and even over a million. syrians, when they walk out the door to protest, they know they're dealing with a government and regime that will gun them down, and has killed somewhere between 900 and 1,000 already, wounded we don't know how many and jailed. stadiums being used and big facilities to hold all these people. and yet they still come out. and that's -- that is quite remarkable, and it shows you, again, this level of incredible not only the tyranny of these regimes but this deep desire for dignity, justice and freedom, which just transcends everything and spreads across that region. and so that's what's most impressive. now, syria, of course, this is complicated. it's the keystone of really the whole area. you change egypt, you have a big impact in the middle east, but mostly you change egypt, you change libya, you change libya. you change bahrain. egypt implodes. libya implodes. bahrain implodes. syria explodes. because if the government came down, it's not like egypt. egypt, you had the regime and the army, a totally separate institution. syria, they are basically one and the same. so if syrian regime goes down, the whole state collapses. the syrian state collapses, that affects power relationships in lebanon, with hezbollah, syria's main client. it affects turkey, which has -- syria has a big kurdish population, a big alloway population, as does turkey. there are huge issues there about order. it affects iraq and the stability of the iraqi/syrian border. it affects israel, iran, jordan. so basically the whole middle east would potentially change. >> egypt, we did the show from egypt last week, and i was struck by how unfinished that revolution seems. i mean, we've stopped paying attention, but you go there, and it's still very much an ongoing question about what's going to happen. >> we're in a critical moment, fareed. and it's one that has to be dealt with not by speech and not by writing a check but with really active, smart and subtle diplomacy. what is this moment? the egyptian army, which is the authority now, mubarak having been ousted, has basically set a pathway forward of how egypt progresses from tahrir square. first we have parliamentary elections. then the parliament will write a new constitution or sign people to do it. and then we'll have presidential elections. sounds good on paper. here's one problem. the only people organized now for the parliamentary election, which has been set for september, are the muslim brotherhood because they've had a party living underground. basically i went to their headquarters. they inaugurated last week. beautiful building. they're happy to give you a tour. they're all ready to go. but the whole strength of the tahrir movement was that it never had a leader. it was broad based. deliberately they did so there was no within to arrest. you had to arrest all the egyptian people. wonderful for a revolution. not good for running an election. that's where we really need to weigh in. leading egyptian figures, you interviewed mohamed elbaradei, amir moussa have come out to generals to postpone the elections so everybody has a chance to get organized. i think quietly, subtly, we need to let the generals know that that is where we are going to be. i have a motto about the middle east, when it comes to elections. the arab world has had so few fair and free elections is that when they have one, everybody wants to vote. not just the people in that country. you can bet people in saudi arabia will want to vote with their donations and qatar and uae. a lot of those will go to the muslim brotherhood. all i say is we need to vote, too. >> there is a powerful role for the united states. this is one of those crises we were talking about earlier which was unexpected. but this is going to be a very important defining moment for obama's foreign policy. >> yeah. you know, i've had a chance to cover many secretaries of state. and every one of them has a moment, you know, which in baker, it was the fall of the berlin war, with colin powell, the fall of the iraq war, kosovo, warren krisz fer, bosnia. you never see it coming when you go into office. they never saw it coming. but ultimately they are defined by how well they manage it. as much as control they have over it. i think that would be true for secretary clinton. i think this whole arab spring not only her but for president obama as well, how they manage it is going to be very central to how they're perceived in foreign policy. and i don't want to hold the bar up too high. as i said earlier, events on the ground or in the cockpit, but we need to understand that with a little voice here and a little voice there, like maybe you guys should delay this election three months until the progressives and all the parties get organized can be hugely decisive because this bus, fareed, is not going to come around again. you're not going to get another egyptian election. oh, you missed this bus. this is really important. >> tom friedman, a pleasure, as always. >> thank you. >> and we will be back. ♪ it's true. you never forget your first subaru. years ago, my mother taught me. and over the years, i've taught my family. we've created so much here together. so when my doctor said that over those years my high cholesterol was contributing to plaque buildup in my arteries, i listened. and that's why i'm fighting my cholesterol with crestor. [ male announcer ] when diet and exercise alone aren't enough, adding crestor does more than lower bad cholesterol and raise the good. crestor is also proven to slow plaque buildup in arteries. crestor is not right for everyone -- like people with liver disease or women who are nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant. simple blood tests will check for liver problems. tell your doctor about other medicines you are taking or if you have muscle pain or weakness. that could be a sign of serious side effects. ask your doctor about plaque build up. and if crestor is right for you. [ woman ] i love what we've created here together. [ male announcer ] if you can't afford your medication, astra-zeneca may be able to help. time now for "what in the world" segment. what caught my eye this week was a classic flip-flop. no, newt gingrich hasn't changed his mind about the ryan plan once more. once upon a time, as recently as a year ago, there was a country desperate to have membership in an organization formed by its neighbors. the country's president said that his country needed to be included without delay. today, one year later, the tune is very different. a top official from that country saying this week there's no reason to join. can you guess the country and the group? it is poland and the euro zone. it seems that warsaw no longer wants to exchange for euros. there's surely no greater sign of the euro's plummeting reputation. just a few years ago countries like britain and denmark that had chosen to keep their own currency rather than adopting the new euro were seen as old fashioned, parochial, reactionary, and out of sync with th