Obama Reflects: Domestic Problems, Wars Abroad, and the Difficult Middle East

In interview with Time Magazine this week , Barack Obama faced up to disappointments at home and abroad

After covering his health care proposals and underlining the importance of financial reform, Obama turned to foreign policy. He talked of the "Administration taking out more al-Qaeda high-level operatives". He admitted that the decision to increased the number of troops in Afghanistan was one of the toughest he had ever made, adding that his Administration is doing a good job in getting troops out of Iraq even though it is not an easy process. On Iran, Obama reiterated the dual-track approach of engagement and sanctions.

Perhaps the most striking Obama reflection, however, was on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process: "The Middle East peace process has not moved forward. And I think it's fair to say that for all our efforts at early engagement, it is not where I want it to be."

The interview in full:

Klein: I talked to a bunch a folks — friends, my kids — what should I ask the President? It was almost unanimous: the thing that people remarked on is just how crazy things are. How difficult it is. Focused on the health care process — what have you learned from that process, what's your takeaway? How is it going to influence the rest of your presidency?

Obama: Look, even if we hadn't tackled health care, this year was going to be a tough year. During the transition period last year, it became apparent very quickly that we were going to have to make some fast, tough and in some cases politically unpopular decisions to make sure the financial system didn't melt down and we did not spiral into a second Great Depression. We made those decisions and executed them, and I am absolutely convinced that had we not acted the way we did that the situation would've been far worse.

Having said that, we've still lost 7 million jobs over the last two years. People who are out of work or have seen their 401(k)s diminish or their hours reduced understandably are frustrated when they see big banks getting money for a problem that they helped cause. And when you see the unemployment rate spike to 10%, it was inevitable and justifiable that the political climate would become very difficult. So health care was done against the backdrop of what was already going to be a tough political climate.

Having said that, there is no doubt that the process for doing big, important things in this country has become far more difficult because of the way Congress is working right now. I came in expressing a strong spirit of bipartisanship, and what was clear was that even in the midst of crisis, there were those who made decisions based on a quick political calculus rather than on what the country needed. The classic example being me heading over to meet with the House Republican caucus to discuss the stimulus and finding out that [House minority leader John] Boehner had already released a statement saying, We're going to vote against the bill before we've even had a chance to exchange ideas.

So I understand the strategy that the Republicans decided to pursue. There is a good political argument for it. I don't think it has served the country well, and it hasn't served the process well. Health care then became caught up in that process. And I think that what's clear is that if you have an opposition party that is determined to say no [and] sees their political survival dependent on gridlock, things can get tied up in knots. So that's the second point.

And the final point is that health care was going to be hard in any environment with any Congress. There's a reason why seven Presidents and seven Congresses have failed to do it. It is a massive undertaking. It involves every special interest imaginable. The American people know that the status quo isn't working, and yet sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. So it is very easy to caricature any efforts at reform as negative.

Now, I've given you three big reasons why this was so tough. Having said all that, I think we're going to get it done. And I think this is going to be a framework that allows us to genuinely say that every American is going to have access to quality, affordable health care. And that people who have health care have security in the coverage that they've purchased. That is an enormous accomplishment, and the thing that I'm most proud of is that not only will we have dealt with access, not only will we have dealt with accountability when it comes to insurance companies, but when all is said and done, this offers our best chance at significant deficit reduction, of any of the other options that are out there.

Klein: But it comes with a high opportunity cost, given the political hot spot of the moment. Say you're sitting in Belmont, Mass., or Needham, and you're watching the unions get their deal and Nebraska get its deal and everybody else get their deals. What would you say to that person, who probably voted for you because you promised change and — I was just reading David Plouffe's book [The Audacity to Win] — the emphasis on going after the special interests? But you've made deals with all the special interests to get this done.

Obama: Well, I'll tell you what, Joe. What I would say is, If you look at this bill when it is said and done — not where it was coming out of one committee or where it was coming out of another committee, but the bill that I actually sign. I think what you're going to see is that there have been very few instances where something of this magnitude had relatively few provisions in there that weren't for the broad public. Getting something through 535 members of Congress involves some trade-offs.

When I promised change, I didn't promise that somehow members of Congress weren't going to be looking to try to get a project in their district or help a hospital in their neighborhood. What I promised was that this White House was going to constantly be pursuing the people's interests. And this bill will pass that bar by a mile.

One last thing I'll say about this: There is no doubt that politically speaking, having this intense a focus on the sausage-making process in Congress is never helpful.

Klein: But it's impossible to avoid.

Obama: It's impossible to avoid if you're trying to do big stuff. Now it is even more difficult in a 24-hour news cycle. I have no idea what Lyndon Johnson had to do to get the Civil Rights Act done. Or if I have an idea, it's because I read Robert Caro's biography 40 or 50 years later. So that process is one that people have legitimate concerns about. And one of the things that I think is very important for us to do moving forward on financial reform, on energy legislation, on the jobs package that we're going to put forward, is we've got to do a better job highlighting what's good in these measures.

But I also think that I have to make sure that our team doesn't lose sight of our broader message. Which is that the American people have a right to see what's going on, understand what's going on. That there are some things you can compromise, but there are some things you shouldn't compromise. If you're dealing with the interest groups here in Washington, don't get too comfortable. That's something you have to constantly reinforce and remind.

Klein: What do you mean, "Don't get too comfortable"?

Obama: Don't get too comfortable in the sense that there's a culture in this town, which is an insider culture. That's what I think people outside of Washington legitimately can't stand. A sense that they're not being heard. I think we've done actually a pretty good job of working in this town without being completely consumed by it. But from the outside, if you're just watching TV and all you're hearing about is the reports, people may get the false impression that somehow [the insiders] are the folks we're spending more time listening to.

In fact, I spend most of my time listening to the people who — through their letters or through town-hall meetings or in my travels throughout the country — are telling me the stories of hardship and heartache. Losing their house because they don't have health insurance. That's what moves us here, but that's not always what comes across in the day-to-day combat that we're going through.

Klein: Well, it seems obvious that when you get through with this bill, you're going to be turning to some of the things that upset people and the perception that you're at one with Wall Street, at one with Big Government. And obviously that means financial reform and also I think budget and infrastructure are going to be big things this year. But let me ask you first about the financial reform part of it. One of your advisers, Paul Volcker, has said that none of the financial instruments that have been developed over the past 20 years have added anything to our economy. And I remember you and I talking during the campaign about how the economy was going to have to change. Do you agree with Volcker?

Obama: Well, what I agree with Paul about, and I agree with him on a lot of things, is that sophisticated financial tricks and fancy hedge instruments, etc., aren't valuable just because they're making somebody $100 million worth of bonuses. And I think it is very important that we understand first principles when it comes to our financial sector. The role of the financial sector is to raise capital for businesses that actually make things and provide services to people. To help grow this economy. They should make a profit doing it.

I think the fact that we have a diverse and sophisticated and innovative financial marketplace is a positive. It gives more businesses more tools to raise capital for good ideas, entrepreneurs to start businesses. But when you see more and more of the financial sector basically churning transactions and engaging in reckless speculation and obscuring underlying risks in a way that makes a few people obscene amounts of money but doesn't add value to the economy — and in fact puts the entire economy at enormous risk — then something's got to change.

Now, I want to go back to your initial premise of us being close to Wall Street. We knew that this would be a consequence of us managing TARP. It was inevitable. One of the things that we have to do is just remind people that having inherited this financial disaster as well as the TARP structure, this thing was managed in as prudent a way as any financial-crisis management has ever been managed.

Klein: I think they'll give you that.

Obama: And what we're now doing, for example, on the fee on these big financial institutions is not designed to punish; it's just designed to meet what was in the legislation originally, which was: This was not going to cost taxpayers a dime's worth of money. Something, by the way, that nobody believed, but something that we may actually be able to deliver on.

With respect to financial reform: This was always one of our top agendas. I started talking about this during the campaign, and I made a major speech about how we're going to move forward [last] March. My hope had been that health care wouldn't take this long. And that we would've teed up both energy and financial reform before the end of the first year. If there's one thing I have learned — you asked earlier about something I've learned about this process — it always takes longer than you think.

Let me just close on financial regulatory reform. This is going to be a top priority. You are already seeing the big banks and some of these other interests lining up in opposition to basic core reforms, like making sure that consumers know what the fine print is when it comes to their credit cards or their debit cards or their mortgages. You're already seeing them resisting the idea that they should have a regulatory regime that isn't full of loopholes.

And my attitude is that this is a fight that is entirely consistent with what we've done last year, it's entirely consistent with who I am and how I campaigned, and it's a fight that I welcome. And it'll be interesting to see how some who have tried to exploit legitimate anger at the big banks this year by trying to put it on us are going to position themselves when in fact they're going to want to protect all these financial institutions from the regulations that will prevent the kind of disaster that we've seen over the past couple of years.

Klein: They're going to have to vote yea or nay, aren't they?

Obama: Right.

Klein: During the campaign, the one program that you proposed that everybody from the left to the right loved was the infrastructure bank. And it seems to me that was another thing that kind of fell by the wayside this year.

Obama: You're wrong about that. Well, you're right that people liked it.

Klein: But that's the good government fight. That's the fight against the appropriators in Congress.

Obama: You're absolutely right, and look, one of the things we've got to do better is to tell the story of what was in the [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act]. That was the largest investment in research and development in our history.

Klein: And it's coming online this year?

Obama: And it's moving. One constituency that I know is happy with me are scientists, inventors, entrepreneurs who are in the high-tech sectors, because they are seeing already the incredible investments that are happening that are going to have 20-, 30-year payoffs. It was the biggest investment in education. And it wasn't just the usual formulas. Some of it was helping to make sure teachers didn't get laid off, but what [Secretary of Education] Arne Duncan is doing with our Race to the Top Fund — we've already had 48 states react by implementing reforms that had been resisted for years. And you're starting to see the teachers' unions really think through how can they be a partner in the process of reform. And when it comes to infrastructure, not only was it the biggest investment in infrastructure since the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System, but we actually introduced the infrastructure-bank concept in the Recovery Act.

Now, you are absolutely right that this seed that we've planted is going to have to be carefully nurtured. And for readers who aren't familiar, the basic idea is that we should not only fund the usual repaving of highways — although that's important — but we should also think, What's the 21st century infrastructure that's out there? And those decisions should be made by people who really have clear ideas about the kind of infrastructure we're going to need. As opposed to it being determined solely by, you know, "Who's the chairman of the transportation committee from what state?"

But I am sensitive to the fact that Congress has its prerogatives. We're trying to nudge them in the direction of rationalizing our transportation knowledge — particularly in a time of fiscal constraint. And by the way, that's a principle that's going to apply, Joe, to all of government. You mentioned earlier the pivot that we have to make. It's not driven by politics. We had to do what we had to do last year, whether it was politically popular or not. Now that we have begun the recovery process and the economy has stabilized, we have to deal with our long-term fiscal problems, whether it's politically popular or not. And some of those decisions are going to be just as unpopular.

But part of that pivot, then, is to say, "How are we going to make sure that we squeeze every ounce of value out of every dollar that we spend?" We began that process with Pentagon reform. And the victories that [Secretary of Defense Robert] Gates helped win are ones that this town completely discounted when we started. We are scrubbing the budget once again to make sure that every program that we're funding actually has some justification — it actually works. Yesterday we had a whole bunch of CEOs and innovators here to talk about modernization of government. The infrastructure bank falls in that broader category of, How do we make these dollars work better? Because we're going to have to make some very difficult spending decisions moving forward.

Klein: It seems to me that these are ways — the Wall Street battle — to start building trust in a small way. People have had 30 years of propaganda telling them that government doesn't work.

Obama: And my theory, Joe, has always been, A) A lot of people's skepticism is entirely justified. B) There's no reason that government should inherently be inefficient. C) At a time when we've got such enormous problems and such limited resources, people are going to be looking to government for help. But they want to make sure that their dollars are well spent, because those are the same decisions that they're having to make in their own lives. They're looking for value. Whether they're shopping for a pair of jeans or they're going to a restaurant or they're buying a new car. And right now, they don't feel like they're getting good value out of their government.

Klein: Let me ask you one foreign policy question. My sense is that — just my own personal sense, but also from people I talk to — the overall conception of your foreign policy has been absolutely right. Necessary, corrective. Subtle, comprehensive.

Obama: We have a good team.

Klein: But there have been some problems in execution.

Obama: Well, I would not deny that, but let me say that given what's on our plate — and you know the list. I don't need to tick them off.

Klein: I've been to most of them in the past year.

Obama: I actually think that our execution has been sound as well. I'll give you the examples of where I think our foreign policy team has gotten the right strategy and has executed well even though the outcomes are still uncertain — because these are tough problems that aren't subject to easy solutions. I think that in Iraq, we are moving forward and on pace to get our troops out. It's messy, it's imperfect, but I think that our team has done a very good job managing that process.

I think in Afghanistan, as difficult as those choices were — and me sending in additional troops over the next two years was probably the toughest decision that I've made this year among a lot of very tough decisions, because it involved the lives of young men and women in uniform. We are monitoring very carefully how it's being executed. And I think that General [Stanley] McChrystal, General [David] Petraeus, [U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan] Karl Eikenberry and others are working double time to successfully implement this. I know that you've written, Joe, that there may be some questions in terms of pace of getting troops in. I can assure you that a fire is lit under them about making that happen.

Klein: That's one of the reasons I wrote that.

Obama: They want it to happen. And we are more or less going to be on schedule. We are probably ahead of schedule so far in terms of recruiting and training Afghans. Although I've said that we should set very modest expectations of what's sustainable to transfer to an Afghan government.

On Iran, one of our trickiest foreign policy challenges, we have held the international community together, both in our engagement strategy, but also now as we move into a dual-track approach. Which is, If they don't accept the open hand, we've got to make sure they understand there are consequences for breaking international rules. It's going to be tough, but I think the relationship we've developed with Russia will be very helpful. The outreach we've done to our traditional NATO allies will be very helpful. The work that we've done with China — including the work we've done with China to enforce sanctions against North Korea — will help us in dealing more effectively with Iran.

I mentioned North Korea — everybody was skeptical at the beginning of this year that we could get serious sanctions. Not only have we gotten serious sanctions, but they've actually been implemented. And finally — because this has been the area of most immediate concern — when it comes to counterterrorism, this Administration has taken out more al-Qaeda high-level operatives, has been more aggressive in pinning them down, not just in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but also working with our international partners in places like Yemen and Somalia, than a lot of what's taken place previously.

Having said that, there's no doubt, as I said, that I think our intelligence failures in picking up [Nigerian terrorism suspect Umar Farouk] Abdulmutallab shows how much more has to be done. I think everybody understands that this is an area where we have to be relentless regardless of what else is on our plate. The other area which I think is worth noting is that the Middle East peace process has not moved forward. And I think it's fair to say that for all our efforts at early engagement, it is not where I want it to be.

Klein: Why is that? My sense of it is that [U.S. special envoy to the Middle East George] Mitchell spent a number of months negotiating a settlement deal and saw some progress from the Israelis and kind of got blinded by that, because he didn't see that it wasn't sufficient progress for the Palestinians.

Obama: I'll be honest with you. A) This is just really hard. Even for a guy like George Mitchell, who helped bring about the peace in Northern Ireland. This is as intractable a problem as you get. B) Both sides — the Israelis and the Palestinians — have found that the political environment, the nature of their coalitions or the divisions within their societies, were such that it was very hard for them to start engaging in a meaningful conversation. And I think that we overestimated our ability to persuade them to do so when their politics ran contrary to that. From [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud] Abbas' perspective, he's got Hamas looking over his shoulder and, I think, an environment generally within the Arab world that feels impatient with any process.

And on the Israeli front — although the Israelis, I think, after a lot of time showed a willingness to make some modifications in their policies, they still found it very hard to move with any bold gestures. And so what we're going to have to do — I think it is absolutely true that what we did this year didn't produce the kind of breakthrough that we wanted, and if we had anticipated some of these political problems on both sides earlier, we might not have raised expectations as high. Moving forward, though, we are going to continue to work with both parties to recognize what I think is ultimately their deep-seated interest in a two-state solution in which Israel is secure and the Palestinians have sovereignty and can start focusing on developing their economy and improving the lives of their children and grandchildren.

Palestine: Abbas to US "Represent Us in Border Talks with Israel"

According to Haaretz, an aide to Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas has claimed that the PA has asked Washington to represent Ramallah, replacing Palestinian negotiators in border talks with Israel, since the Netanyahu Government has refused to accept Abbas's demand of a total halt to Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory. The aide alleged that U.S. negotiators would be given clear parameters: the Palestine state would have to be established in the territories Israel captured in the 1967 Six-Day War (the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem), but the Palestinians would agree to swap up to 3 percent of the territory to accommodate some Israeli settlements.

It is reported that there has been no official response from Washington, but Abbas is hoping to discuss the proposal during U.S. Mideast special envoy George Mitchell's visit this week.

Israel-Palestine: Netanyahu’s New Condition “Israeli Presence in West Bank”
Israel-Palestine: An Economic Platform for the Peace Process?
Israel-Palestine: US Envoy Mitchell Asking for Temporary Halt to Settlements

Israel-Palestine: US Envoy Mitchell Asking for Temporary Halt to Settlements

U.S. Mideast special envoy George Mitchell, coming to the region on Wednesday for four days, is reportedly raising the Palestinian Authority's proposal to re-start negotiations . This proposal, modifying Mahmoud Abbas's previous demand for a total halt to construction of Israeli settlement beyond 1967 borders, asks the Israeli side for a freeze in the West Bank and also in the East Jerusalem for three to six months.

Israel-Palestine: An Economic Platform for the Peace Process?

However, senior Israeli officials say Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will not agree to this demand. "This is not going to happen; it goes against everything Netanyahu says and believes in," one source in the Prime Minister's Office said. This follows Sunday's statement by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman that Israel had emptied out its "arsenal of gestures" and was now waiting for concessions from the Palestinians.

Israel-Palestine: An Economic Platform for the Peace Process?

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and the Secretary-General of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, Angel Gurria, signed an agreement on Tuesday paving the way for Israel to become the 32nd member of  the OECD this May.

Israeli President Shimon Peres stated that membership in the organization would enable Israel to show the world its technological and scientific ability.

However, a West Jerusalem official was cautious: "In politics, nothing is final until it's final, and today there are more countries angry with Israel." Earlier Tuesday, Israeli Arab MK Ahmed Tibi urged the OECD to reject Israel's request for membership, saying state-led discrimination against the Arab sector ran counter to the group's regulations. On the economic side, the OECD is concerned about the country's high level of national debt relative to gross domestic product, as well as its heavy spending on security.

Meanwhile, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad received 158 million euros from the European Union as part of the 500 million euros in  aid to the Palestinians for 2010. However, the EU representative to the Palestinian Authority, Christian Burger, warned PA that this support would not continue without clear progress in the peace process with Israel.

Israel and Gaza: Tzipi Livni "For Israeli Soldiers, I Will Go to Europe"

On Monday, the former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni appeared on CNN's Amanpour guest. Livni defended the Gaza War Operation Cast Lead because it "regained deterrence" to Israel and stated that the blockade on Gaza will continue as long as there is no official representative of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip:  "Gates are open to Gazans when it comes to humanitarian needs".

Speaking about the arrest warrant issued for her by a British court because of Gaza, Livni said that she is willing to travel to any part of Europe as a "test case" for IDF soldiers to travel and see the free values of the free world.

AMANPOUR: Tonight, on the one-year anniversary of the end of the war in Gaza, we look at the troubled Middle East peace process, which President Obama has also made a center point of his foreign policy.

And from Jerusalem, we have an exclusive interview with Tzipi Livni, head of the Israeli opposition party Kadima. She had served as foreign minister during the previous Israeli administration throughout the Gaza war.

Ms. Livni, thank you for joining us from Jerusalem.

TZIPI LIVNI, FORMER FOREIGN MINISTER, ISRAEL: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: Let me ask you, it's a year since the Gaza war. There's still a huge amount of controversy over it. What about lifting the Israeli blockade on Gaza? How come that hasn't happened one year later?

LIVNI: The idea of the military operation was in order to stop terror. And there is no dispute today, especially not in Israel, that the operation in Gaza regained deterrence. And Israeli civilians that couldn't live in the places which are close to Gaza Strip can live and have peaceful life.

AMANPOUR: So does that mean that the blockade will stay on?

LIVNI: The blockade on Gaza -- yes. But it's important to say that, when it comes to humanitarian needs, the gates are open.

AMANPOUR: Obviously, there's some humanitarian aid getting in, but there's, for instance, construction materials, all sorts of things that it needs to stand on its feet are not getting in. But I want to ask you, should Israel now, a year later, negotiate a full cease-fire with Hamas in exchange for lifting the blockade?

LIVNI: No, I don't think so. Basically, Hamas doesn't represent the national aspiration of the Palestinians. I believe that Israel needs to re-launch negotiations with Fatah, with the legitimate Palestinian government, with those who represent the legitimate aspiration of the Palestinians for a state of their own.

Hamas represents extreme religious ideology. Religious conflicts are unsolvable. And in this region, when the division is between extremists and moderates, we need to act in a dual strategy, on one hand, to act against terror, not to give legitimacy directly or indirectly with Hamas, to Hamas, and to continue the dialogue with the moderates, with the pragmatic leadership of the Palestinians.

AMANPOUR: You know the Palestinians say that a complete halt to settlement activity is -- is vital. You know the president, Barack Obama, and this U.S. administration started by saying that a condition would be a complete halt to Israeli settlement activity. What do you make of the fact that the U.S. President Obama made that his initial condition? Now it's no longer a condition.

LIVNI: Listen, it's not for me -- you know, to make opinions on this. But just to give you an example about the situation that we had about a year ago, we had negotiations with the Palestinians. We built trust. They understood that the Israeli government -- anyway, the former Israeli government -- wanted to achieve peace, and we are willing to make the concessions which are needed in order to do so.

And we believed that this is -- this is the same -- or this is what the Palestinians are standing, also, in order to end the conflict.

AMANPOUR: Do you think it could be done in two years?

LIVNI: So talking about...

AMANPOUR: If it starts, do you think negotiations can end in two years?

LIVNI: Less than that. Oh, yes.

AMANPOUR: Like Mitchell said?

LIVNI: Oh, yes. I think that -- I don't want to -- to refer to timeline. I mean, I negotiated with the Palestinians for nine months. And we had some achievement in this negotiation.

[15:20:00]

So it's not a -- not a matter of time. It's a matter of an understanding of by both sides, by both leaders, that time works against those who believe in two states for two peoples, that we cannot afford a situation in which the conflict transfers from -- or being transferred from a national conflict to a religious one, that we cannot afford to give excuses for radical elements in the region to recruit or to have more support in different part of this -- of this region.

So I believe that this needs to be started now, and the question of timeline is less important, as long as the two leaders -- two leaderships understand that time is of the essence.

AMANPOUR: OK.

LIVNI: There is no need to -- you know, to waste more time or to have a dialogue for a dialogue. It's time for decisions.

AMANPOUR: Let's go back to the Gaza war a year ago and the fallout from that. You've said the blockade will continue. As you know, the Goldstone report has said that Israel used disproportionate force and has called for an inquiry and has called for Israel to -- to -- to sort of hold accountable those who were responsible. Why is it that Israel will not hold a public inquiry? And do you think that it should?

LIVNI: Basically, I cannot accept any comparison between Israeli soldiers and these terrorists. I mean, there is no -- and this is something that Goldstone made in his report.

During the operation in Gaza -- and, as you mentioned, I was a decision-maker there -- and we took all the necessary steps in order to avoid civilian casualties, even though it's not easy when this is highly populated place, when terrorists hiding among civilians.

AMANPOUR: Ms. Livni? Why is it that Israel has not held and has not made any move to hold a public inquiry, a public investigation into these allegations? Even your own ex-justice minister, Barak, is saying that there should be such a probe of some sort. Why not?

LIVNI: There are -- there are different views on this in Israel, and I think that there is now a process of decision-making in the current Israeli government whether to take this or not.

But since I was there during the operation and I know what was done and the -- well, it's the military, and it's not public inquiry, but they checked all the different cases that also Goldstone referred to. And it's important for me to say whether there's going to be or not going to be an inquiry. The morality of the Israeli soldiers, for me, it's not in question.

Since I'm not going to accept all these comparisons between Israeli soldiers and terror, I think that this is part of the answer that Israel needs to give publicly.

LIVNI: But as I said before, there is now the internal discussion on this, in Israel, and the only question for me is whether this kind of an inquiry can give the support and can defend Israeli soldiers when they leave the state of Israel and visiting other places.

AMANPOUR: Well, I was going to ask you -- let -- let -- let me ask you, because there was an arrest warrant potentially out for yourself. Israeli leaders, even Defense Minister Barak have been likened to war criminals. There's a controversy going on in Turkey right now. Are you worried that, if you leave Israel and come to London or other such places in Europe, that you could be arrested?

LIVNI: Well, yes, this -- it's not -- it's not my worry on a personal basis. In a way, I would like this to have, in a way, maybe even a test -- a test case, because I'm willing to speak up and to -- to speak about the military operation in Gaza Strip to explain that Israel left Gaza Strip, we dismantled all the settlements, we took our forces out, Israel was targeted, we showed restraint, and at the end of the day, we needed to act against terror, and are willing to say so, including any court in London or elsewhere. But...

(CROSSTALK)

AMANPOUR: So you're saying you're willing to be arrested as a test case?

LIVNI: For me, this is not a question. I mean, yes, the answer is yes. I am -- I know that the decisions that we made were crucial to give an answer to Israeli civilians that couldn't live in the south part of Israel and later or even also in different parts of Israel. It was part of my responsibility, and this was the right answer. And I'm willing to spend for (ph) these reasons and to explain this to -- to the world and to any court.

But part of our responsibility is also to give -- or to defend the Israeli soldiers and officials that worked according to our decisions in the government. And if an inquiry helps them, this is fine, so I can support an inquiry, as long as this helps them.

It's not about me.

[15:25:00]

It's about the Israeli soldiers, because I want them to leave Israel and to feel free to visit different parts of the world according, you know, to -- like any -- like any other citizen of the free world and any other soldier...

AMANPOUR: OK.

LIVNI: ... and fight for the values of the free world in different parts of the world.

AMANPOUR: On that note, Tzipi Livni, head of the Kadima Party in Israel, thank you so much for joining us.

LIVNI: Thank you. Thank you.