exclusive interview with the united nations secretary general antonio gutteres. he's the man in the hot seat right now. he's been on the receiving end of much anger from israel. meanwhile many are looking to the u.n. to do something to help diffuse the situation. >> gaza is becoming a graveyard for children. >> what can he do? i will ask him. and the democrats overperformed in this week's elections. but president biden's poll numbers hover near record lows for next year's presidential race. i'll ask poll ser kristin soltis anderson to read the tea leaves. but first here is my take. hamas's terrorist attacks against israel and israel's military actions in gaza have unleashed a firestorm of controversy in the united states and europe. watching it all, i do wonder, does anyone believe in free speech any more. now, to note, i have strongly condemned the attacks of october 7th and i think that those hamas in any way are blind to the reality that it has been the principle opponent of a two-state solution to the israeli palestinian question. but the question to grapple with is how to handle views that either side finds deeply offensive. and, of course, speech and assembly are not the same as physical intimidation and harassment, which prevent civil discourse. until very recently, most concerns about free speech on college campuses were related to conservative speakers from ben shapiro to condo liza rise being protested or disinvited. legislat legislators introduce laws and in 2021 they started a campus free speech caucus to protect free expression and association. and in january of 2021 florida governor ron desantis said the most important legislation issue was the protection of controversial speech. not any more. late last month, desantis revorces course directing florida state university chancellor to close down campus chapters of students for justice in palestinian. desantis agrewed the group of giving material support to terrorism but only organized rallies. vivek ramaswamy has made it clear that it is very different and constitutionally protected from sending money, material or arms. other conservatives have tried to publicly identify and shame students belonging to groups that voice support for hamas. a hedge fund manager proposed circulating lists of these students to ensure that they don't get jobs. many donors have demanded that universities issue statements either condemning hamas or supporting israel. some even insisting that certain rallies and speakers be banned. many college presidents issued follow-up statements when original responses were not seen as sufficiently strong and said their support of israel or denunciation of hamas. this is a far cry from where universities used to be. in 1967 in the midst of the passions of the vietnam war and the civil rights movement, a report by a university of chicago committee chaired by the legal scholar harry calvin, argued that the mission of the university could not be fulfilled if the institution formally took positions on controversial political issues of the day. the committee wrote, a university, if it is to be true to its faith in intellectual environment, must be hospital to the community but it is only a community only for the limited or great purposes of teaching and research. it is not a club, it is not a trade association. it is not a lobby. simply put, the university is the home and sponsor of critics. it is not itself the critic. the basic argument for free speech espoused by the report is that it is better to hear those who you violently disagree with than to ban them or silence them. that way debate happens out in the open and points are matched with counter points and to drive discourse into the shatters and gutters of political life where it festers and turned into conspiracy theories and often erupts into violence. growing up in india, i knew about the commitment to freedom of speech which was so strong that a group of nazis should be allowed to march in skokie, illinois, in a chicago suburb. they ran editorials praising poll pot. i went to school in the 80s when there would be communist revolutionaries to william shockley who made crude arguments about the racialin fiery ort of black people. i roo -- i recall very few statements about the iraq war or the terrorists attacks of 9/11. we're now in a different world. in recent years the pressure on universities to take political positions have grown. a turning point might have been the murder of george floyd. when many institutions decided to demonstrate their sensitivity and issue statements, once they took a stand on one political issue, it is perfectly understandable that they've been asked to condemn hamas's attack last month. but where will it end? a pandora's box has been opened with university administrators will have to decide whether to condemn or support it. will they find some standard by which they could explain why they denounced one terrorist attack or human rights abuse but not another. i'm not sure what it signified that many of us find the embrace of free speech outlined in the calvin report to be too cold in its neutrality. we want our institutions to endorse our own passions and points of view. but can they do that in a diverse society in which people disagree so strongly on so much? i fear that far from bringing us together, the path we are on will drive us further apart. go to cnn.com/fareed for a link to my washington post column this week. and let's get started. ♪ there is an intense focus on the hospitals of gaza as the international red cross warns that the health care system there has passed the port of no return. the situation of the largest hospital in gaza, al shifa, is dire. the idf said there is intense fighting in the vicinity and the director of the hamas controlled ministry of health tells cnn the hospital has no electricity and is surrounded now by israeli troops. joining me with more is cnn's nada bashir. nada, prime minister netanyahu just on cnn said that his suggestion and the israeli government's proposal is that the patients in all of the hospitals move, be evacuated to field hospitals that would have to be set up, i assume, by i think the french had sent a floating hospital. on the ground, how feasible is that? i mean, are there -- is there a capacity to take hundreds, perhaps thousands of patients quickly to places that could be set up? what are you seeing on the ground? >> reporter: well, look, fareed, we've been hearing from health officials and the doctors on the ground saying that it is impossible to evacuate some patients des pite the fact that hospitals are at the point of collapse or nearly collapse across northern and central gaza. we've heard from the idf focusing on the al shifa hospital which is the largest hospital in gaza. they have said that they have opened an evacuation route on the eastern side of the hospital as we know some 600 patients are currently still at the hospital including more than 30 newborn babies and thousands of other civilians who have flocked to its hospital, hoping that this will be some sort of sanctuary for where they could take shelter from the bombardment. and the red cross can't confirm that any evacuations have taken place and we've been hearing from health officials and doctors who have described the situation as being desire. they say that the hospital has faced near constant bombardment and have described people around the outskirts of the vicinity of the hospital being targeted by live fire if they try to move between hospitals buildings and the idf has denied this claim but we have heard from other doctors saying this they haven't been able to reach the bodies of people who have been killed outside of the hospital because of the fear of fighting on the outskirts of this hospital complex. this is a large hospital complex with multiple buildings. the idf has acknowledged that fighting with hamas is taking place in the vicinity. and as we've been hearing from doctors on ground, it is not just the orn going bombardment that is concern, the primary concern, describing this as a constant barrage of bombardment focused on this hospital. the situation in the hospital is dire to say the least. this hospital has almost entirely run out of supplies and medications and doctors are performing surgery without anesthesia. overnight they've had to move a number of babies, premature babies from the neonatal unit. this is a hospital most certainly near the point of collapse. but as we know, the vast majority of hospitals are not operational. we have learned in the last 24 hours that the hospital, the second largest hospital in gaza is now out of service. the idf has continued to call on civilians to evacuate northern gaza to move southward. but as we've heard from the u.n. own human rights chief saying there is nowhere safe for civilians in gaza to turn to. so the evacuation orders, really are quite impossible for many, particularly those reliant on hospital care who cannot move because they are dependent on the care they are receiving in these besieged hospitals. fareed. >> nada bashir. in jerusalem, i misspoke, not in gaza. coming up next on "gps", my interview with the united nations secretary general antonio gutteres, we'll be back. a graveyard for children. that is how gaza was described this week by my guest the united nations secretary general antonio gutteres. he's sounding the alarm on the humanitarian crisis in gaza. they called it a living nightmare. the head of the u.n. said hell is settling in there and the leader of the world health organization told the security council on friday that in the strip nowhere and fno one is safe. so what could the u.n. do to stop it. secretary general antonio gutteres joins me now. bibi netanyahu was on just on and he had said i would like to see the u.n. secretary general who laid the blame on israel and these savages to demand that they obey international law because israel is fighting according tonight law. what is your reaction? >> well that is simply not true. if you face a situation that is as audible and as messy as this is, you must think two principles. and since the very beginning, i have condemned hamas. what hamas did is horrific. terror attacks, slaughtering women and children. and i've been very clear in the condemnation of hamas. but there is a basic principle for me, is that hamas is not the palestinian people. and you need to be able to distinguish hamas from the palestinian people. and so, you cannot use the horrific things that hamas did as a reason for collective punishment of the palestinian people. and then there is a second that i mentioned that is very important. and what i've been saying has been completely distorted. and i've been saying, there are grievances of the palestinian people. of course, there are. >> you said, let me quote you. it is important to recognize the attacks by hamas did not happen in a vacuum. so tell us what is the context -- >> of course there are grievances. grievances related to 56 years of occupation and settlements being constructed. the evictions. the progressive lack of the palestinian people that there will be a two-state solution. but in the same sentence, i said, but none of these grievances justify the barbaric attack of hamas. and it is very interesting, because when this is commented by the israeli government or the ambassador, through put the first part of the sentence but they take out the second part of the sentence. and obviously the barbaric attacks do not collective the punishment of the people and they do not justify the barbaric attacks of hamas. we must stick to principles. and another principle if i may, in the face of god, the life of any person has the same value, be it american, portuguese, israeli, or palestinian. >> do you believe that the siege of cutting off, food, electricity, food and fuel and these bombardments, this is punishment of 2.2 million people? >> well, the truth is that we have witnessed in the israeli response in gaza and relentless bombardment and we're seeing a dramatic number of civilian casualties. and the international humanitarian law is clear. law forbids to take hostages and i strongly, strongly appeal for the immediate end and conditional release of hostages by hamas and i've been very clear on that. international humanitarian law says that human shields should not be used by parties and i strongly condemn the fact that hamas uses human shields. but it is humanitarian law. it also gives a privacy to the protection of civilians and this is what is not ethnic. you used the expression graveyard for children. every year i publish a report about children killed and maimed and used -- victims of conflict. and the countries that do it are listed. and this usually generates a -- remember the past situations of saudi arabia, of israel, of russia, et cetera. now, in the seven years i've been secretary general, in the reports that have been presented, the maximum number of children killed during one year by any party to the conflict was about 600. 600 by the taliban in one of the years. 600 by the syrian government in another of the years. if you remember, the uproar about the saudi bombardments in yemen. 600 people in one year. now, i'm not going to enter into this discussions about the courtesy of the numbers provided by the de facto numbers that exist this gaza but it is clear that the number of children killed in a few weeks in gaza is in the thousands. now it is clear that the protection of civilians is paramount in national humanitarian law is not paramount in the strategy that is being applied by the military operations in gaza. >> why do you think the israelis are not making that a prime objective? >> because the logic has been in many situations to raise neighborhoods and i presume it is to facilitate the movement of troops for any other reason. but the question is the protection of civilians that is required is not there. and then the second aspect, and it is not with humanitarian law, is that you must get into the access to humanitarian aid to all areas where the conflict is taking place. and what we've seen until now is a drop by drop in the increase of humanitarian aid. after today we have about 900 trucks in this 22 days. 930 something trucks. before in the past, there were 500 trucks every day supplying gaza. you can't imagine what this means. in situation to water and medicine and food. and food is not authorized. and that is why in many hospitals you have problems with incubators and dialysis, and you have lack of anesthesia. and many other things that transform the situation into an extremely horrendous situation for the people of gaza. and as i said, you cannot make a confusion between hamas, that you must condemn, and the people of gaza that you must protect. >> stay with us, mr. secretary general, when we come back, i'm going to ask the secretary general what the solutions are. how do we get out of this? how do you create some degree of peace and stability in the area when i come back. and we are back with u.n. secretary general antonio gutteres. mr. secretary general, when the israeli campaign is over, first of all, let me ask you, how long has the government -- has they given any indication of how long this will go out and they will have cleared out the space enough to feel like they've rooted out hamas. >> the only honest answer is i have no idea. >> and when it -- when it gets done, presumably there will be the question of who governs gaza. a lot of people want the u.n. to get involved at that point. >> well, i think we need to look for what could be a best case scenario. usually politicians transform opportunities into problems. i hope that it will be possible to transform this problem into an opportunity. the best case scenario would be that the palestinian authority would be able to assume the leadership also in gaza. and then that israel would accept to seriously negotiate a two-state solution. with the support of the international community. that is the best case scenario. for the best case scenario to be possible, the question of how does the military operation end and how is the establishment of an authority by the palestinian authority is the complex one. and that is where a transition is necessary. i understand it will be very difficult for palestinian authority or for a group of arab counties to come to assume responsibilities in the gaza in the presence of an israeli army. i understand the difficulty. politically to be very sensitive. so to organize the transition is something that is very important. and i have to say that there is a country that in my opinion has particular capacity and particular responsibility to contribute to it and that is the united states of america. and i have to pay tribute and in the government we have many other aspects in relation to putting israel for humanitarian aid to be delivered in gaza in the west and in support of that. >> do you think the u.n. could play a part in that transition? because you're right, i can't imagine that the palestinian authority or arab countries would be willing to as if it were going on the back of israeli tanks and say we're now the government of gaza. is there a role for the u.n. in a transition, would you be willing to do something like that? >> i mean, i don't see a u.n. protector in gaza. but the international community needs to come together and the u.n. could play a part on that. the community needs to come together to find a transition that is acceptable from israel and i understand the concerns of security of the state of israel. but at the same time, that allows for the transfer to an effective palestinian authority. how this transition is organized, it is a problem at the present moment. i think it will have to involve the whole of the international community, the countries of the region, the u.n. and the u.s. but, it is essential to make it happen. and it is essential to take profit of this situation to finally create the possibility of a two-state solution. i don't believe there is any other solution. what will be a one state solution with such a large number of palestinian people inside of that state without any rights. that would be unconceivable. so the two state solution is in my opinion the only way out. to build the two-state solution israel must understand that they have to accept it, which is not obviously at the present moment. but at same time we need to create a position that gives israels that their security will not be in question. now this is complex. we have not a solution here just in the pocket. but i am ready to put the u.n. at the service of the international community for what needs to be multi-stakeholder involvement for allow for the best case scenario to be possible. for the worst case scenario, we need to see it transformed into a permanent solution, and the two-state solution to be buried and the peace to be lost forever. >> do you worry about an escalation in lebanon, in other places? >> i'm very worried. first of all, in the west bank, we've seen things getting worse by the day and we're witnessing levels of violence that are extremely dangerous. but of course, the most complex situation is in relation to lebanon. we've been doing everything that we can with those that have influence over the parties, both hezbollah and israel. to make sure that -- >> have you spoken to iran. because they have a lot of -- >> i have spoken to iran. and i've asked two things for iran. one is to put pressure on hamas, to have the immediate and unconditional release of hostages and to tell hezbollah that lebanon will not be completely engulfed. because if hezbollah will launch an attack, it will create i don't know what kind of impact, but i'm sure lebanon would not survive. >> do the iranians seem re responsive to that? >> i do not know. >> they did not