this is "gps, the global public square." welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria coming to you live from new york. today on the program, an exclusive interview with the united nations secretary-general, antonio guterres. guterres is 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 pollsters anderson to red the tea leaves, but first, here's my take. hamas' terrorist attacks between israel and israel's military action against gaza have unle unleashed firestorms in the united states and europe. watching it, i do wonder, does anyone believe in free speech anymore? now to note, i have strongly condemned the attacks of october 7th and i think those that praise hamas in any way are blind to the reality that it has been the principle opponent of a two-state collusion to the israeli-palestinian question. but the question to upongrappleh is to have sides that the two find deeply offensive and 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 condoleezza rice being protested and disinvited. conservative state luthors preserved dozens of laws to protect free speech. in 2021, house republicans started a campus free speech caucus to protect free expression and free association. in january 2021, florida governor ron desantis said the most important legislative issue to get right in the next couple of years was the protection of controversial speech. not anymore. late last month, desantis reversed course directing florida university's chance tor to close down chapters of students for justice for palestine. desantis accused them of giving materiel support to terrorism and though i can tell these groups have only organized protests and rallies, as vivek ramaswamy has pointed out, courts have made clear that verbal support for extremist groups 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 and many follow up statements when their original responses were not seen strong as in support of israel and denunciation of hamas. this is a far cry from where universities used to be. >> in 1967 in the midst of the pags of the vietnam war and the civil rights movement, a report by the university of chicago committee chaired by the eminent legal scholar argued that the commission 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's to be true to its faith and intellectual inquiry, must embrace, be hospitable to the views within its own community. it is a community, but only for the limited or the 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. basic argument for free peach is that it-- to balance and silenc them and that way debate is out in the open and points match with counterpoints and the alternate sif to drive this point to the shadows and gutters of political life where it festers, turns into conspiracy theories and often erupts into violence. growing up in india i read with wonder about the united states' commitment to freedom of speech which were so strong that in 1977 a court ruled that a group of nazis should be allowed to march in skokie, illinois, a chicago suburb. in the 1970s, the harvard crimson ran editorials praising pol pot's takeover in cambodia. i went to college in the early '80s, an era in which it was not unusual to hear incendiary views to campus from communist revolutionaries to the nobel prize winning scientist william shockley who made cruel arguments about the racial inferiority of black people. i recall very few colleges making official statements about the iraq war or even the terrorist attacks of 9/11. we are now in a different world, in recent years the position to take positions has 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 have been also asked to condemn hamas' attack last month, but where will it end? a pandora's bockx has been open with every major political event, university administrators will have to decide whether to condemn or support it. will they find some standard by which they can explain why they denounced one terrorist attack on human rights abuse, but not another. i'm not sure it signifies the embracement of free speech 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 ney 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 point of no return. the situation of the largest hospital in gaza, al shifa, is dire. the idf says there's intense fighting in the facility and the hamas-control ministry of health tells cnn the hospital has no electric electricity and is surrounded now by israeli troops. joining me is nada bashir. prime minister netanyahu just on cnn said his suggestion that the israeli government's proposal is that the patients in all these hospitals move, be evacuated to field hospitals that would have to be set up, i assume there's the french have sent a floating hospital. on the ground, how feasible is this? are there -- is there a capacity to take hundreds, perhaps thousands of patients quickly to places that can be set up? what are you seeing on the ground? >> well, look, fareed, we've been hearing from health officials and doctors on the ground for some time saying it is absolutely impossible to evacuate some of these patients despite the fact that you mention quite rightly, hospitals are either at the point of collapse or nearing collapse particularly in central gaza. we've heard from the idf focusing on the al shifa hospital. they have said they have opened an evacuation route. as we know, some 600 patients are still at the hospitals and newborn babies and hundreds of other civilians hoping this would be a sanctuary for them where they can take shelter from the relentless bombardment and we've heard about the committee for the red cross and they say that any evacuations have, indeed, taken place and in fact, we've been hearing from health officials and doctors on the ground who have described the situation as being dire. they say 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 hospital buildings and the idf has denied this claim, but we have heard from other doctors have said they haven't been able to reach the bodies of people who have been killed because of the fears of fighting on the outskirts of this hospital complex with multiple buildings. the idf has acknowledged that fighting with hamas is taking place within the facility and as we've been hearing from doctors on the ground, it's not just the ongoing bombardment that is a point of a concern, and the primary concern of doctors without boards, again, describing this as a constant barrage of bombardment. the situation in the hospital is dire to say the least. this hospital has almost entirely run out of supplies and they're performing surgeries without anesthesia. they've had to move a number of babies from the neonatal unit because they've run out of oxygen supplies and this is a hospital that's most certainly near the point of collapse, but as we know, the vast majority of gaza's hospitals have now completely closed up and are now operational and we've learned in the last 24 hours that is the second largest hospital in gaza is now completely out of service. the idf, the israeli govern am, has continued to call on civilians to evacuate, but as we've heard from the u.n.'s own human rights saying they were simply nowhere safe for civilians in gaza to turn to. so these, evacuation orders, really are quite impossible for many particularly those who are reliant on hospital care who cannot move because they are dependent on what they've received from these hospitals, fareed in. >> thank you so much. stay safe. coming up next on "gps" my exclusive interview with the u.n. secretary-general antonio guterres. 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 guterres. he is just one of the u.n. officials sounding the alarm on the humanitarian crisis in gaza. the u.n. rights chief called it a livingity in mare. the u.n. agency 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 no one is safe. so what can the u.n. do to stop it? secretary-general guterres joins me now. >> it's a pleasure to be here. >> let me ask you to begin with bibi netanyahu, the prime minister of israel was just on cnn and he says, quote, i'd like to see the u.n., the u.n. secretary-general who basically laid the blame on israel, lay the blame on these savages to demand that they obey international law because israel is fighting according to international law. what is your reaction? >> that's simply not true. i mean -- anyone in the u.n. that can facing the situation, you must stick to principles and since the very beginning, i have condemned hamas. when hamas did is horrific, terror attacks slaughtering women and children, and i've been very clear in the condemnation of ham as, but thee is a basic rinsprinciple, that have to distinguish hamas from the palestinian people and 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 i mentioned that i think is very important, and what i've been saying is completely distorted and i've been saying there are grievances of the palestinian people. of course, there are. >> let me quote you, you said it's important to recognize the attacks of hamas did not happen in a vacuum. tell us what is the context. >> of course, there are grievances, there are 56 years of occupation and settlements being constructed, evictions. the progressive hope 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's very interesting because when this is commented by the israeli government and the ambassador, whatever, they put the first part of the sentence, but they take off the second part of the sentence and obviously, the barbaric attacks of hamas do not justify the collective punishment of the israeli people and the grievances of the palestinian people do not justify the barbaric attacks of hamas. we must stick to principle. >> do you believe -- >> if i may -- >> yeah. >> in the face of any person has the same value, be it american, portuguese, israeli or palestinian. >> do you believe that the siege, cutting off fuel, electricity and fuel is a collective punishment to 2.2 million people? >> the truth is that we have witnessed the israeli response in gaza and relented bombardments and a dramatic number of civilian casualties and the humanitarian law is clear. the international humanitarian law forbids to take hostages, and i strongly, strongly appeal for the immediate and unconditional release of hostages by hamas. i have also been very clear on that. international humanitarian law says human shields should not be useded by parties and i condemn the fact that hamas uses human shields and it gives privacy to civilians and you mentioned the graveyard of children, and the expression that i used. now, as you probably know, every year i publish a report about children killed and maimed that are victims of conflict, and the countries that do it are listed and this usually generates a pol emic, remember the past situations of russia, et cetera. now in the seven years that i've been secretary-general, in the report that i've been presented, the maximum number of children was about 600. 600 by the taliban in one of the years, 600 by the syrian government and then in another of the years and i should remember the polemices of the bombar bom bombardments, and i'm not going to enter into the accuracy, 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 that is paramount in the 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 issue? >> because the logic has been in many situations to raise neighborhoods and it is for the removal of troops and the question is the protection of civilians that is require side not there and the second aspect of humanitarian law, and you must restrict the humanitarian law and what we are seeing now is the drop by drop in the increase. after today we have about 900 trucks in these 22 days and 930-something trucks. before, in the past there were 500 trucks every day. you can't even imagine what this means and the situation two, water, situation 2, food and it's why in sow many -- we have problems with incubate, and policies like a lack of ennis thesia and that transforms the situation in 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 am going to ask the secretary-general what the solutions are. how do we get out of this? how do we create some degree of peace and stability in the area when i come baback. nice footwork. man, you're lucky, watching live sports never used to be this easy. now you can stream all your games like it's nothing. yes! [ cheers ] yeah! woho! running up and down that field looks tough. it's a pitch. get way more into what you're into when you stream on the xfinity 10g network. we are back with u.n. secretary-general antonio guterres. mr. secretary-general, when this -- when this israeli campaign is over -- first of all, let me ask you, how long has the israeli government given any indication how long this can go on? at what point will they feel that they have cleared out the space enough to feel like they've rooted out hamas? >> the honest answer is i have no idea. when it gets done, presumably there will be the question of who governs gaza. a lot of people will want to have the u.n. to get involved at that point. >> what could be a best-case scenario. usually politicians transform opportunities into problems. i hope to transform this problem into an opportunity. best case scenario would be a reinvigorated palestinian authority that would be able to assume the leadership also in gaza and then that israel would seriously accept 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 ends, and always the establishment of an authority by palestinian authority is the complex one and that is where a transition is necessary. i understand it will be very difficult to the palestinian authority or for a group of arab countries to come to assume responsibilities in gaza in the presence of an israeli army. i understand the difficulty, politically to be very sensitive so i'll organize the transition and it is something that is very important, and i have to say that there is say country that in my condition, that there is a capacity and contribute to it and that is the united states of america, and i have to pay tribute independently of many other aspect, in relation to putting pressure on israel for humanitarian aid to deliver in gaza, the u.s. has been consistently in support of that. >> do you think though 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 as they were going on the back of israeli tanks and say we are 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 the u.n. protecting gaza, but the international community needs to come together and the u.n. can play a part on that. the international community needs to come together to find a transition that is acceptable to israel from the point of view of the guarantee of security of 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. all of this transition is organized at the present moment, and i think it would have to involve the whole of the international community and of course, the countries of the region, the u.n. and the west, but it is essential to make it happen and it's 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 would be a one-state solution with such a large number of palestinian people inside that state without any rights? that would be unconceivable. the two-state solution is, in my opinion, the only way out. to build a two-state solution israel must understand that they have to accept it which is not obvious at the present moment, but at the same time we have to create the conditions of a transition that gives israel the guarantees that security would allow people to question. now we have not a solution here just in the pocket, but i am ready to put the u.n. at the service of international community for what needs to be a multi-stake holder involvement to allow for the best case scenario to be possible because the worst-case scenario we need to avoid at all costs and the worst-case scenario would be gaza to be transformed into a permanent permanent nightmare, the two-state solution in the middle east to be lost forever. >> do you worry about an escalation in lebanon, in other places? >> i am very worried. first of all, in the west bank where things are getting worse by the day, and we are witnessing levels of violence that are extremely dangerous, but of course, the most complex situation that we face is in relation to lebanon. we have been very active in doing everything we can with those that can have influence over the parties and hezbollah and israel -- >> have you spoken to iran? i have spoken to iran, and i've asked two things to iran. one is to put pressure on hamas, t