May 28th, 2011
11:18 AM ET

This week on GPS: Tom Friedman and Saudi Prince Al-Waleed

Tom Friedman of the New York Times opens this week's GPS with fascinating insights into current events in the Middle East.  He analyzes the dueling speeches of Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama, assess the chances of peace in the Middle East and thinks through future scenarios in Egypt, Syria and Libya.

Perhaps the biggest question mark in the Arab world is what happens next in Saudi Arabia. Obama didn't even mention that country in his “Arab Spring” speech. So Fareed sits down with Saudi Prince Al-Waleed this week. Will the revolution reach the House of Saud? Will it be crushed? Bribed away? Al-Waleed has some fascinating answers.

According to Forbes, Al-Waleed is also the 26th richest man in the world with significant investments in the U.S. So Fareed asks whether he is confident about investing in America.

Finally - the price of oil. If there was ever a "central banker of oil" it's the Saudis. Fareed asks: Will prices continue to go up?

Finally, Fareed sits down with the President of the Central Bank of Kansas, Thomas Hoenig. A rare contrarian on the Fed, Hoenig explains why he thinks the Fed is making a mistake by keeping interest rates low.

Tune in this Sunday at 10a.m. ET/PT.

Post by:
Topics: Conflict • Economy • Egypt • Environment • Europe • GPS Episodes • GPS Show • Iran • Israel • Libya • Middle East • Military • Oil • Palestinian Authority • President Obama • Revolution • Syria • United States

soundoff (64 Responses)
  1. Howard Hoffman

    I am a huge fan of Fareed's and a huge fan of Tom Friedman's agreeing with the great majority of what they say and write. However, the review of Netanyahu and his speech before Congress was a travesty. Fareed shows ONLY Netanyahu speaking 33 years ago! No excerpts from the speech to Congress. I recommend that everyone here listen to the original. You can find it on Youtube or (with transcript). Here are a couple of things that Netanyahu said:

    "The peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan are vital. But they’re not enough. We must also find a way to forge a lasting peace with the Palestinians. Two years ago, I publicly committed to a solution of two states for two peoples: A Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state.

    I am willing to make painful compromises to achieve this historic peace. As the leader of Israel, it is my responsibility to lead my people to peace.

    This is not easy for me. I recognize that in a genuine peace, we will be required to give up parts of the Jewish homeland. In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. We are not the British in India. We are not the Belgians in the Congo.

    This is the land of our forefathers, the Land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one God, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw a vision of eternal peace. No distortion of history can deny the four thousand year old bond, between the Jewish people and the Jewish land.

    But there is another truth: The Palestinians share this small land with us. We seek a peace in which they will be neither Israel’s subjects nor its citizens. They should enjoy a national life of dignity as a free, viable and independent people in their own state. They should enjoy a prosperous economy, where their creativity and initiative can flourish."

    These words completely contradict Netanyahu of 33 years ago. Fareed could have noted the difference. Instead, he just played the 33 year old video. Also, shame on Tom Friedman for not saying anything about the change in Netanyahu's positions. Fareed, did you actually listen to the speech or just read reports about it?

    I was disappointed that Netanyahu made a big deal about his differences with Obama. In reality, Obama agrees with about 90 percent of what Netanyahu has publicly stated in recent weeks. Fareed was correct that this must have been done, in part, for consumption at home. Even so, I was more disappointed that Fareed was so negative about Netanyahu and his speech to Congress, a truly great speech, that deserved many standing ovations.

    June 2, 2011 at 6:55 pm | Reply
    • J


      June 2, 2011 at 7:09 pm | Reply
  2. Paula from Canada!

    HI MR Hoffman...........I want to thank you for your comments you; I too was appaalled with Farred and his "take" on this whole Israel/Palestine situation.....and I agree with you that FOR SURE Fareed has shown his true colours..........ANd yes 33 years ago that's all he can come up with is an old video of BB from then to back up his own opinion? Friedman as well is IM thinking; he is a self loathing Jew..........and hey IM surprised Friedman isnt taking advantage of the next boat to Gaza (sponsered I may add by the union of Canada Post employees; Disgraceful!) for a big photo-op!!

    June 4, 2011 at 9:04 am | Reply
  3. Jungle Shooter - Bubble Shooter

    Heya, Thank you for this brilliant post! I must bookmark this website. Thanks.

    January 26, 2012 at 12:21 am | Reply
  4. john carter

    Thanks , I've recently been searching for information approximately this topic for ages and yours is the greatest I've found out till now. However, what in regards to the bottom line? Are you positive about the source?|What i don't realize is in fact how you're no longer really much more neatly-preferred than you may be right now. You are so intelligent.

    May 24, 2012 at 9:16 pm | Reply
  5. Kelsie Romag

    Wow, awesome blog layout! How long have you been blogging for? you make running a blog look easy. The overall look of your website is fantastic, as smartly as the content material!

    August 10, 2012 at 4:22 pm | Reply
  6. Gladis

    Great blog here! Also your site lots up very fast! What host are you using? Can I get your affiliate link in your host? I desrie my web site loaded up as fast as yours lol

    July 5, 2014 at 4:17 pm | Reply
  7. Philip

    I am confused about how demnad and internal economic variability fit into this argument. Certainly we didn't shed millions of jobs in 2008 because of a loss of effort, resources, or innovation. I suppose under your definition of wealth we could chalk it up to a loss of luck, but that doesn't seem too insightful. If weakening demnad for goods and services amplified by some positive feedbacks can lead to a loss of millions of jobs, why does that not factor into our discussion of how we gain jobs?

    July 21, 2014 at 10:54 am | Reply
1 2

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.