Return to Transcripts main page


Steve Bannon on the National Security Council; New Study Finds Anti-Semitism on the Rise Around the World. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired February 5, 2017 - 10:00   ET



FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST OF CNN FAREED ZAKARIA GPS: This is GPS, the Global Public Square. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria. On the show today.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The world is in trouble but we're going to straighten it out, OK?

ZAKARIA: The travel ban and the backlash against it. Breitbart Chief Steve Bannon's new role on the National Security Council. All that with a democrat and a republican. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.

Then we will tackle the legal dimensions of the travel ban. Is it constitutional? Will it go all the way to the Supreme Court?

And swastikas, slurs and desecration, anti-Semitism seems to be on the rise in Europe and the United States. I will talk to (Frances Bernard) about what he is witnessing and why it's happening.

But first here's my take. After his spat with Mexico, after the travel ban, last week Donald Trump did something unexpected. He put in place a policy with which I agreed. He places a smart check on ever proliferating federal regulations. In fact, while I find much of Trump's worldview alarming, I agree in the main with some important points of his program, tax reform, infrastructure investment, deregulation, civil service reform.

But the larger question I keep asking myself is does Donald Trump want someone like me to agree with him? The Trump White House has decided that the best way to deal with any institution that might stand in its way is to relentlessly try to delegitimize it. This has led to a ferocious strategy of attack towards the media which the president says the media is now the opposition party. His chief strategist Steve Bannon urges the media to "keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." Sean Hannity, the Fox News Host who has become a kind of unofficial spokesman for the White House describes the media as a bunch of overpaid, out of touch lazy millionaires that have nothing but contempt for the people that make this country great.

At this point, one could know that if we are to listen to America, almost three million more Americans did vote for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump. And as for which of these groups makes America great, I'm not sure what criteria to use, but if is generating wealth and contributing to the GDP, it's not even close. According to Brookings, the 500 counties won by Hillary Clinton produced 64 percent of U.S. economic output while the 2,600 counties won by Trump produced just 36 percent of GDP.

The much maligned urban elites may be out of touch with the rest of the country but they still pay its bills. A few years ago, the economist compared how much each American state contributed to the federal coffers with the funds they received from Washington. The basic pattern is simple. It is blue states, which voted against Trump in 2016 that fund the red states that voted for him. But this is not the way I think we should look at America.

We're living through times in which economics and technology separate us. Some people in places prosper while others languish. The goal should be to use politics as a mechanism to bring us together through good public policy and enlighten public discourse. The truth is there are real Americans and fake Americans, just Americans. But there is real news and fake news. Most presidents begin their tenure by trying to reach out to their political opponents, signaling that they want to represent those that didn't vote for them as well as those that did and generally trying to bring the country together.

Donald Trump has made almost no effort in this regard. Simply asserting that the country was divided before he was elected and absolving himself of any responsibility for unifying it. The challenge for the media must be to ensure that we don't mirror Trump's own attitude of hostility. We cannot absorb and reflect that negativity. We are not the opposition. We are a private institution explicitly protected by the constitution that's meant to hold government accountable and to provide real information to the citizenry.

I hope to do that in a Trump tenure. Along the way, when I have to, I will disagree vigorously with the president. But just as important, when warranted, whether he likes it or not, I will agree with him. For more, go to and read my Washington post column this week, and let's get started.

On a Friday Night, James Robart, a republican appointed federal judge temporarily blocked president Trump's executive order, banning travel and immigration from seven Muslim majority nations. In response, Donald Trump, of course, tweeted. The opinion of this so-called judge which essentially takes law enforcement away from our country is ridiculous and will be overturned. As it turns out, not yet. Overnight the ninth circuit court denied an emergency appeal by federal government lawyers to overturn the decision. What happens next? How to make sense of this mess?

To discuss it, joining me here in New York is Timothy Naftali, is a presidential historian who teaches at NYU and then, Washington Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law scholar, professor at the GW University Law School. Jonathan, take us through this just procedurally so we understand what is happening here. Because as I understand, these are federal judges but now it gets appealed where, to the full -- first, they've got to issue real rulings. Then there has to be an appeal to the full bench of the circuit courts, then to the Supreme Court or -- you know, take us through.

JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR: Well, what the Ninth Circuit technically did is they say we're not going to issue an emergency order that you're seeking to stay the lower court. That's not too surprising because the other side really had not been heard. What they ended up ordered was expedited argument. They told for example the Washington State Attorney General to put in his opposition in a very short period and then for the United States Government to file their papers by Monday.

At that point, the court is prepared to rule on the merits, theoretically. But there is an issue here, this is Temporary Restraining Order, a TRO. Those are not normally appealed, that's called an interlocutory appeal. Those types of things are disfavored. So, it is possible for the court to say we don't want to rule on this record. The lower court hasn't given us a written opinion. But because this is such a matter of great national importance, the court could reach the merits. And Robart's decision could be reviewed without a written opinion.

ZAKARIA: Just let us understand it procedurally though. So that would be a circuit court reviewing an independent, you know, a federal judge's opinion. At that point does it go to -- what I'm -- I guess I'm trying to get at is how soon could this get to the Supreme Court and is that inevitable?

TURLEY: it depends on the parties. They could try to appeal from a panel decision to the full court, meaning an en banc ruling where instead of going for the en banc, they could go directly to the Supreme Court. It depends on which party is the loser is on the appellate stage. Because this is a TRO, it's procedurally a little bit odd. This is normally not the course that an appeal takes. But they could seek a full court in front of the Ninth Circuit if they lose or go directly to the Supreme Court. That's obviously going to happen very quickly. The Ninth Circuit judges gave both parties a very, very small window to file with them so that they can look at this and render a decision.

ZAKARIA: Tim, what do you make just politically of the President of the United States tweeting in response to, you know, this judge's decision?

TIMOTHY NAFTALI, NYU: You know, every presidency starts with problems. And there are always course corrections. The really great presidents are the ones who make it seem like the mistakes were made by other people. By tweeting, as he does, president Trump is taking away from himself the firewall, the mystery, the aloofness that has helped his predecessors skirt responsibility for course corrections. He may find himself -- I mean, It's hard to predict this man but he may find himself regretting the fact that he is always removing the plausible deniability of his own responsibility for these mistakes.

The fact the U.S. military pushes back about torture and water boarding and then he tweets that he still believes in torture. The fact that the independent judiciary pushes back against the executive order and he then goes against the judge, attacks the judge. If he's not careful, he's going to find himself with a King Lear problem where he is ranting and raving against the weather and seems to have no control over the actual policies followed by his administration.

ZAKARIA: And I think about the first point you made. So you look at president Eisenhower or President Reagan, they had this Teflon appeal but partly because they had this sense of aloofness and they could always blame any bad decision. Where that was bad advice I got after.

NAFTALIL: Ronald Reagan, he had an almost unworkable White House system where you had three chiefs of staff, Baker, Deaver, and Meese. And yet he managed, and had trouble with his budget director and yet he managed to convey the sense of confidence and leadership despite the course corrections. Despite the mistakes in first year of government. He then is -- was no natural, we get the term Teflon president.

Trump has to be very careful because if he continues to act this way and basically have tantrums, public tantrums on social media, it's going to be very hard for him to explain to anyone that the corrections made by his administration aren't anything but against his own wishes. And if it looks like he is losing his own battles inside the administration, he looks weak and incompetent.

ZAKARIA: Fascinating. Well, stay with us. We're going to talk about the substance and merits of the case but also does this all remind you of a president named Richard Nixon and his uses of power? As it happens, Tim was the former director of the Nixon presidential library. So he will tell us.


ZAKARIA: And we are back with Tim Naftali and Jonathan Turley. Jonathan, I want to ask you about the merits of this case because you were on last week and you -- your basic argument is the president has always had very broad authority to limit immigration. But when I looked at it and of course I'm not a lawyer, when I'm struck by his that the federal government's argument, the Trump administration's argument seems to derive from a 1952 statute.

And it seems to me that congress passed the immigration and naturalization act in 1965 expressly to override that 1952 law and say you cannot discriminate against people on the basis of a nationality. Meaning, you can't have a blanket bend hold on a whole category of people like that. And this executive order does seem to me unlawful in that sense. And this is what the attorney general felt, this is what a series of federal judges now seem to have felt. Why don't I -- why don't I have a strong case? Why didn't the ACO or you have a strong case?

TURLEY: Well, as I've said before, there are compelling arguments on both sides. There's no question about that. And please keep in mind that even if a single provision is struck down by a federal court, there's long standing doctrine that they have to minimize a degree to which they set aside legislation or an executive order. So the rest of the executive order could well be upheld but the law in my view does still favor President Trump. A judge in Boston seemed to reach that same conclusion. We have a division between these two courts. The problem with the 1965 law is that it really doesn't override the 1952 law. It -- what it was meant to do is to get rid of numerical quotas that favored Europeans. And it did as you correctly noted, you say that you cannot discriminate on the basis of nationality. The problem is threefold. First, the law has no applicability to refugees. It applies to visa holders.

Second, the law was amended again later to say that procedural changes do not fall under discrimination provisions. And they crafted this as a vetting procedure change. And then finally, it's important to keep in mind that non-citizens outside the country really don't have standings according to the supreme court to raise many constitutional questions. I -- and -- so that would be a barrier for many of them. What does that mean at the end of the day?

It means there's compelling arguments on both sides. But I do believe that President Trump has the upper hand in terms of the president, but it's also important to keep in mind this is procedurally a little bit wicked. I mean, a TRO is not how we usually look at these issues on the -- on the court of appeals. So the first thing --

ZAKARIA: So it does -- yes, so it does feel like, Jonathan, this is likely to go to the Supreme Court. Tim, I want to you a point, you know, shades of Nixon. There was a point in which where Nixon said if the president does it, then it cannot be illegal.

TURLEY: Right.

ZAKARIA: And I think he was expressing, I mean, these people forget Nixon was a highly skilled lawyer. He was expressing this view that the president has actually incredibly broad latitude.

TURLEY: Yes, he does in National Security policy. But you remember that Cheney got a lot of criticism for the unitary executive theory. The problem for Trump is that he has a unitary government theory. He doesn't recognize the three branches of government. Richard Nixon knew that there were three branches of government. In the end, he attempted sneaky (INAUDIBLE) but in the beginning he tried to lead while maintaining respect for the branches of government.

The challenge for President Trump and his team is to figure out a way to work within the American constitutional system. In the end, Richard Nixon couldn't. But it didn't happen fast. Richard Nixon's great crime against the constitution took about a year and a half to start.

ZAKARIA: So what -- bottom line, what does this tell us? You look -- you look at this as a historian.

TURLEY: The bottom line this tells us that our institutions are strong in the United States. If this were some kind of banana republic, President Trump would have no pushback from any institution. The courts would have just followed or he would have removed the judge. The U.S. Military pushed back on torture. For people viewing from around the world, this is a test of our institutions and so far the American institutions have passed the test. This was a great week for the U.S. Constitution.

ZAKARIA: Tim Naftali, Jonathan Turley, fascinating conversation. Next on GPS. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Former National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley assess the first two weeks of Donald Trump's foreign policy. The decisions, the phone calls and the tweets.


ZAKARIA: There is so much to talk about with my guest mad line Madeleine Albright and Stephen Hadley. We'll get right to it. Madam Albright was of course secretary of state under Bill Clinton and Mr. Hadley was the National Security advisor under George W. Bush. Madeleine, let me ask you. Just -- what do you make of this first two weeks of Trump's foreign policy? What's your general reaction?

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE UNDER BILL CLINTON: Well, I have to say, my general reaction is that it's been fairly chaotic. That it is unclear in terms of what some of the bilateral diplomacy that's taken place. What this effect has been in terms of the telephone calls and also then the tweeting. And then also, I think, in many ways, the big issue from a foreign policy perspective has been the immigration question which I have to say was not -- was really unprepared and didn't look into the unintended consequences of it and was based on untruths. So I'm having some trouble with this first few days of the Trump presidency.

ZAKARIA: Steve, teething troubles or more than that?

STEPHEN HADLEY, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER (GW BUSH ADMINISTRATION): Well, I think the role out of some of these executive orders has not been as smooth as it should have been. The mechanics were not worked out. It's pretty clear. I think you need to step back and ask what was the Trump administration trying to do. And we have to recognize this was a populist movement. A political insurgency that captured the White House.

We haven't had this happen before in our history. And I think what they wanted to do in this first week or two is through the executive orders, roll out a set of policies that were consistent with the program on which they campaigned to send the message to those who supported the administration that they were true to their word and they really were going to shake up the situation in Washington because that's what they feel they were elected to do.

So I think the mechanics left a lot to be desired, but I think what they were trying to do was get out those policies. Send the message to the country, business is going to be done differently and send a message to those who rallied to Mr. Trump's cause that they are true to the commitments and to the issues that he raised during the campaign.

ZAKARIA: Madeline, you know, lot's been said about the bans. But let me ask you about the next big one strikes me as the idea of putting Iran on notice. You know, I was always taught in graduate school, Thomas Schelling (INAUDIBLE) two things are very expensive in international relations, threats when they fail and promises when they succeed. So, if you put Iran on notice, what does it mean exactly?

ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that' the real question. By the way, I can't visualize my friend Steve Hadley running into the press briefing and all of a sudden just saying we're putting Iran on notice. That's more than mechanics. So, I do think that the question here is what does it mean because they're talking about some more sanctions. Congress is also talking about that and then saying that nothing is off the table. But I think the question is what is really meant by this, have they in fact coordinated some plan?

Is it about just the missile firings? Where are they on the nuclear deal? A number of questions that simply were not answered in that rather rapid entrance by the National Security advisor into the press briefing room.

ZAKARIA: Steve, do you think there's a kind of return to normalcy taking place. Because if you look at statement on Israel, the Israeli settlements, the White House statement was frankly same kind of statement the White House has made for 40 years, you know, we don't think settlement activity helps the peace process. On Russia you look at Nikki Haley, the U.N. Ambassador's statement, very tough condemning Russian aggression. So, are we now beginning to see a kind of return to normalcy or consistency and foreign policy?

HADLEY: Well, I think we're seeing some modifications to some of the statements that were made during the heat of the campaign. I think that's been a process that has been going on for a number of weeks. President Trump has modified some of his statements, particularly about things like alliances and NATO. And of course his cabinet appointments have made in their confirmation hearings, statements that are much kind of in line with orthodoxy.

But I wouldn't go too far about that. Two examples, one, on Iran they campaigned that they wanted to push back against Iranian hegemonic activity in the region. And I think what Lieutenant General Flynn was doing was putting that marker down in response to the Iranian ballistic missile test that it is going to be a different attitude toward Iran of this administration. And they began to give some content to that with the sanctions that they announced.

And on the settlements, it's interesting. His formulation was they're not a barrier to peace, which is a formulation they have used before and is different from what, for example, the Obama administration said. But then they talked about no new settlements and no expansion of existing settlements beyond build-up areas, beyond their current boundaries. That is a formulation that goes back to a formula of settlement freeze that we developed during the Bush administration that, quite frankly, the Obama administration rejected, going for a much more ambitious freeze.

So I think, within the context of that statement, there's actually a suggestion of a new approach, given what we've been doing for the last eight years. And I would hope, maybe, a return to the approach we had under the Bush administration.

ZAKARIA: Both of you, stay with me. We're going to come back. Next we're going to talk about the fact that Steve Bannon now has a seat at the table on the National Security Council. Is that appropriate for a man whose job is purely political?

We'll discuss that and more when we come back.


ZAKARIA: Stephen Bannon, the president's chief strategist, formerly the head of Breitbart, a media outlet that has been roundly criticized for being white nationalist and generally outlandish -- as of last weekend, he has a seat at the immensely important National Security Council meeting, the Principals Committee.

At the same time that President Trump put Bannon on that committee, he took the same status away from the top intelligence official in the U.S. government and the president's top military advisor. What is going on?

Let's bring back former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Advisor Steve Hadley.

Steve, you ran this -- this group. Is it significant -- this is the first time, to my knowledge, that a political advisor has been placed at the table. Sometimes they have -- they have sat and watched the discussion, but the first time an advisor like this has been put at the table.

HADLEY: Well, it -- you know, the precedents are mixed. Karl Rove asked to be part of the NSC process under President Bush. President Bush said he didn't want Karl at those meetings because he did not want to suggest that national security decisions were made based on domestic political considerations.

On the other hand, Mr. Axelrod, under the Obama administration, President Obama's political advisor during the first term, sat in, I'm advised, on a variety of NSC meetings. Now, he didn't have a formal seat at the table, but he certainly was in the room and was able to observe what was going on and comment.

So presidents do this differently. And I think, in defense of what President Trump has done, Mr. Bannon is not just his political advisor. He is his chief strategist. And we need some strategy in terms of national security decision-making. So I think -- I'm less concerned about it than a lot of folks. I -- I think it is a broad table that -- that Mr. Trump has set.

ZAKARIA: Madeleine, what do you make of it?

Because it does strike me that some of the -- the actions of the administration, for example, the combative tone with Australia on the issue of refugees, that does come out of Steve Bannon's worldview, which, of course, the president might share, which is, you know, there's been a very combative, populist view that views America's allies as often as much a problem as its foes?

ALBRIGHT: Well, I have many more problems with it than Steve does. I think that it is a very unfortunate image because, clearly, Mr. Bannon is more than a strategic advisor. I think he's the person that's pulling the strings. And to have him be in this kind of meeting, especially the Principals Meeting, where, in fact, there is supposed to be pre-discussion and also a real sense of respect for dissent and having people in there that are experts as, for instance, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the intelligence people.

And so it depends also on the fairness and the stature of the national security advisor. And I think that the questions about how these people all relate to each other is something that is very important and very different from Mr. Axelrod sitting in occasionally.

And I think that the influence, generally, of Mr. Bannon is passing strange, if I may say so, given his background and his approach to national security policy, his admiration for Lenin, a number of things that trouble me a great deal about having him be in these all- important national security meetings.

ZAKARIA: Let me ask you about the policy that comes out of this process, though, Steve Hadley.

When you look at something like the -- this travel ban, the temporary ban, the seven countries, among them is Iraq. Now, you know very well because you negotiated so many of those --these treaties with Iraq. What that means is that the Iraqi army that is fighting ISIS and allied with the United States, in coordination with American advisors is being told that they cannot visit the United States, that people who are putting their lives on the line to fight ISIS and support American foreign policy are banned from even visiting the United States.

That seems like a pretty screwed-up policy, and there surely should have been some process by which you said, OK, here are general objectives, but it's probably a bad idea to have a blanket ban on Iraq, given that they are fighting ISIS with us right now?

HADLEY: I completely agree, completely agree -- terrible mistake to put Iraq on that. You know, this is a group of people that are fighting and dying every day to fight ISIS for our common security. And I think it shows the problem. You know, the problem is, in the opening days of an administration, the only entity of government that's actually staffed is the White House.

You know, you don't have Cabinet secretaries in place. You don't have the deputy secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries below them in place. And when you do that and run it strictly as a White House operation, you're going to make mistakes. And this one was a doozy. And if it had been vetted around in a fully staffed State Department or Defense Department, I can't imagine the Defense Department wouldn't have come in and said, "Hey, wait a minute, you don't want to put Iraq on that list."

So it was clearly a mistake, no question about it. And it's the kind of thing you're going to have until this administration gets fully staffed and starts having a set of processes that are inclusive and includes the departments of agencies. And the sooner that happens, the better.

ZAKARIA: Madeleine?

ALBRIGHT: I hope they have learned from the mistakes they made on all of this and that there really will be a process that does what Steve has been talking about. Because these decisions are too important to, kind of, be half-managed in a way, and too many people's lives are affected by it.

The question is, have they learned?

And I was very surprised, in listening to the press briefing, how proud the White House is about all the actions that they took this week. I would say they should be very nervous about many of them that they took that has created a fairly chaotic situation. And I so hope that Steve Hadley's advice will be taken on how this should be done.

ZAKARIA: And you, of course, had much bigger problems with the travel ban. I saw your tweet, Madeleine Albright, about volunteering to register as a Muslim even though you were raised as a Catholic and discovered you were Jewish halfway through your life?

ALBRIGHT: And an Episcopalian.


So -- but I really do think that this is not America, where we ban people by religion and make it so difficult to come here. This is a country that is based on diversity, and you and I are actually proof of it.

ZAKARIA: Thank you.

And thank you both for a fascinating conversation. Always an honor to have you on.

Up next, a new study says anti-Semitism is on the rise around the world and in America. What is going on? We will be back in a moment with Bernard-Henri Levy.


ZAKARIA: John Podhoretz, the editor of the arch-conservative Commentary magazine offered up the following analogy to the New York Times. "The campaign turned over a rock and a lot of stuff began crawling out from under it."

He was referring to Trump's bid for the presidency and the simultaneous rise of anti-Semitism in America, especially online. The Israeli government is out with a study that details what it says is a world-wide rise in this brand of hate.

My next guest, Bernard-Henri Levy, says he has seen a similar rise in recent years in his country, France, and Europe more generally. "The Genius of Judaism" is his eloquent new book. I wanted to hear his take on what was happening in America. I do want to note Bernard talks about something called BDS, which might not be familiar to all of you. It stands for "Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions." It's the rallying cry for those, usually on the left, who want to use those tactics to punish and put pressure on Israel for its occupation of what they see as Palestinian lands.

Bernard-Henri Levy, pleasure.


ZAKARIA: You talk about the rise of anti-Semitism in America.

LEVY: Yeah.

ZAKARIA: I was -- I say I've frankly been surprised by it. Tell me how you -- how you see it.

Why and how has it risen?

LEVY: I saw, in America -- I'm sorry to say that as a foreigner, but please accept my witness, the witness of a friend of this country, two examples, on the left and on the right.

On the right, a lot of things which has been said and liberated during the last campaign, not necessarily by the president, except that when he reminds, when he recalls the Jewish name of one of your colleagues, Jon Stewart, it is not far, this way of unmasking a man by revealing the Jewish name...

ZAKARIA: This he did with the...

LEVY: Jon Stewart.

ZAKARIA: Jon Stewart of The Daily Show.

LEVY: Oh, it was The Daily Show...

"Why don't you -- why don't you talk about your real name?

LEVY: "Why don't you speak about your real name?"

After that, he said, "Why don't you take pride of your Jewish roots" and so on.

But not only that, around him, among his voters or a part of his voters, there was something like a return of the repressed.

On the left side, the campaign, the world campaign called BDS -- and I want to say to the sincere followers of this BDS campaign, I want to tell them from the bottom of my heart, because I'm not sure they know it, this is an anti-Semitic campaign. This BDS campaign takes its roots a long time ago, 60 years ago, in the fringes of the dying Nazism.

The first time when boycott was recommended against Israel, occupied territories of Israel, was by Nazis escaping Germany, taking shelter in Iraq or in Syria and building this campaign of BDS.

So BDS exists in France, exists all over the world, but has so much strength also on the West Coast of America. So this is to say that this tide of anti-Semitism, alas, is not reserved to my country. I would love to, because in my country, I know more or less how to fight it. It is much more worldwide.

ZAKARIA: What would you say to somebody who says, "Look, I don't think of myself as an anti-Semite; I -- you know, I don't have any such feelings, but I don't like what Israel does in the occupied territories; I don't like the occupation; I don't like Israel's persistent persecution of Palestinians?"

I ask you this because I know that you yourself have often spoken eloquently in favor of a two-state solution?

LEVY: Yes. To say this woman or man telling me that he or she does not like the policy of the state of Israel, this is -- this means democracy. This means a normal political quarrel, and you have inside Israel a lot of brave female and male militants who say that.

But I would ask to the person you are arguing to, do you think that there is space in the Middle East for a Jewish state or not?

The question is do we demonize; do we delegitimize; do we stigmatize Israel as such?

ZAKARIA: Do you think that the -- that this explosion of anti- Semitism -- is it a flare-up that you think will die or is it the sign of a new and worrying trend?

LEVY: It is the sign of a trend. And the real hope is not that it will vanish. The real hope is that the decent democracy will find a way to contain it. The real problem with racism in general is not to eradicate, is to contain, is to resist, is to oppose.

And the great democracies like America, like France, are mature enough to build these walls. And this is one of the messages which I tried to convey in "The Genius of Judaism." What are the walls? What are the ways of containment?

So Jews in the world are strong, strong with values, strong because of their memory, strong because of their habit of study. This gives an incredible strength which is stronger than the anti-Semites. And I often say, in my country there is a debate to know if the Jews have to leave France or not. My reply is always to say that those who are to leave are not the Jews. The Jews took such a part to the building of France. They built its political system, its language. Those who have to leave are the anti-Semites who want nothing except to de-build and destroy this country. They will leave before I leave, for sure.

ZAKARIA: Bernard-Henri Levy, pleasure to have you on.

LEVY: Thank you, Fareed.

ZAKARIA: Next on "GPS," the Arctic, why one nation is extremely interested in expanding there. Hint: there is something under all that snow and ice and tundra.


ZAKARIA: President Trump's travel ban on seven Muslim-majority nations has sparked protests across the U.S. and the world. It brings me to my question. Roughly what percent of legal immigrants arriving in the U.S. are Muslim: 40 percent, 25 percent, 15 percent or 10 percent?

Stay tuned and we'll tell you the correct answer.

This week's book of the week is Michael Lewis's "The Undoing Project." Everything Michael Lewis writes is compulsively readable and this book is no exception. It's the story of two men who remade economics, recognizing that human beings are highly irrational in how they understand the world. It's also what Lewis calls a love story, shedding light on the mysterious ways that a partnership works. As I say, it is compulsively readable.

And now for the last look. Take a look at these Russian troops clads in all white conducting military drills in a remote northwestern region of Russia. They aren't using typical training tools like tanks or choppers. Instead these soldiers are working with reindeer and huskies on skis, sleds and snowmobiles.

It's not the first time the Russians have conducted snowy exercises with these animal friends, but they may have increasing significance. You see, Russia is currently engaging in the largest military expansion in the Arctic region since the fall of the Soviet Union, Reuters reports.

Moscow has invested heavily in its Arctic infrastructure, according to the State Department, with a fleet of ice breakers, new ports and other facilities, and the State Department says the region is vital for the Russian economy. Twenty percent of the nation's GDP and exports already come from the Arctic. It's a region that contains an estimated 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its undiscovered natural gas.

So Russia's recent actions there have not gone unnoticed. Reuters reports America's new secretary of defense has called Russia's Arctic moves "aggressive steps." It's a reminder that relations between Moscow and Washington have a ways to go before they truly thaw.

The correct answer to the "GPS" challenge question is D. The Pew Research Center published some interesting facts about Muslims and immigration last year. About 10 percent of legal immigrants coming to the United States are Muslim. Of the 85,000 refugees who entered the United States in the fiscal 2016 year, about half were Muslim. By 2050, Pew projects, the American Muslim population will climb from 3.3 million to 8.1 million people, or 2.1 percent of the population.

Interestingly, about as many Americans convert to Islam every year as current Muslims leave the Islamic faith in America.

Thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. I will see you next week.