Loading summary
Transcript117 lines
- [00:04]
Christiana Amanpour
Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpur. Here's what's coming up.
- [00:08]
Jens Stoltenberg
I could, of course, have done more, be even more outspoken on the need for more and faster military support to Ukraine.
- [00:18]
Christiana Amanpour
A reckoning in hindsight. I speak with former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg about grappling with Russia, Ukraine and Donald Trump.
- [00:27]
Yuval Abraham
And then this is what's happening in my village now.
- [00:30]
Christiana Amanpour
Soldiers are everywhere as the tenuous ceasefire in Gaza holds. Palestinian Basil Adra and Israeli Yuval Abraham, co directors of Oscar winning documentary no Other Land, join me to discuss the ongoing conflict in the occupied west bank. And life, law and Liberty. Walter Isaacson interviews former Supreme Court Justice Antony Kennedy about his new book and his own landmark decisions. Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiana Wanpur in London. You European leaders are meeting here in England this week to push for a just and lasting peace. They say in Ukraine they aim to ramp up pressure on Russia's economy and its military so as to strengthen President Zelenskyy's hand in future truce negotiations. The Europeans say current battle lines should be the starting point for any peace talks. Russia wants Ukraine to cede more territory first. Meanwhile, talks between Washington and Moscow towards another Trump Putin summit have come face to face with reality. Secretary of State Mar Rubio is reportedly concerned that Russia's position, quote, has not evolved enough beyond its maximalist stance. With President Trump's unpredictable position on Ukraine, European leaders try to hold the line against a deal that could undermine Kyiv and weaken Europe. Now, former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg led the alliance from 2014 to 2024, grappling with Russia since it first annexed Crimea. And with Donald Trump's threats to pull out of NATO now Swift Stoltenberg has published all of this in a memoir called On My Watch, a Candid look back at the Successes and mistakes of a crucial decade. And a note we spoke on Sunday when a Trump Putin summit did seem imminent. Jens Stoltenberg, welcome to the program.
- [02:40]
Jens Stoltenberg
Thank you so much for having me.
- [02:41]
Christiana Amanpour
So President Trump is going to be meeting with President Putin again. Apparently that's what he said in Hungary under the auspices of the illiberal Democratic leader Orban there. He's just had a conversation by phone with President Putin and it seems that President Trump again has moved from potentially being willing to supply Ukraine with tomahawks, offensive weapons and then talking to Putin, sort of stepping back from that. So now that you're out of office, what do you think is the risk of another summit knowing that the Alaska one didn't go as planned.
- [03:18]
Jens Stoltenberg
Well, fundamentally, I think it is important to talk to Russia not to demonstrate weakness, but to demonstrate strength. And the only way to end the war in Ukraine is to convince President Putin that he will not win on the battlefield. I don't think we can change Putin's mind. His aim, his goal, is to control Ukraine. But I do think we can change Putin's calculus, that he will realize that the price he has to pay to control Ukraine is too high. And the only way to do that is to deliver military support to Ukraine, because what happens around the negotiating table is so closely linked to the situation on Batovin.
- [04:01]
Christiana Amanpour
So obviously he took note of the idea that the US President was sort of doing a flip and saying that he was going to deliver major weapons that you just said to Ukraine. And he told Trump not to.
- [04:15]
Jens Stoltenberg
No, but I think that we have had a discussion inside NATO and among NATO allies actually since Russia annexed Crimea back in 2014, on what kind of weapons and military support we should deliver to Ukraine. And after full scale invasion in 22, NATO allies have started to deliver more advanced weapons. And I, as Secretary General, together with many others, pushed for more advanced weapons. F16s, battle tanks, long range missiles on the Tomacs. I think I will leave it to those in charge now to make the final decisions. But we need to be committed for long term military support to Ukraine. And the good news is that the US has made it clear that they will continue to deliver substantial military support to Ukraine and the Europeans. The older NATO allies have stated clearly that they're ready to pay. So actually we have now a system in place which is more credible, more long term in providing military support to Ukraine.
- [05:14]
Christiana Amanpour
In your book you write more than ever during the war, I felt a sense of inadequacy. Ukraine was in the midst of a life and death battle for its existence as a sovereign nation. And we hadn't managed to give them the help they needed. Had we provided more support earlier on, many Ukrainian lives could have been saved.
- [05:33]
Jens Stoltenberg
Yes, and I still believe that's a correct assessment. I think the big mistake was that our. After Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and went into eastern Donbas, most NATO allies hesitated to deliver any meaningful military aid to Ukraine. We delivered some training, some equipment, but not lethal aid. And of course nobody knows. But I believe that if we had delivered substantial military support to Ukraine from 2014, then at least we would have been able to help Ukrainians to control much more territory today after full scale invasion in 22. But maybe even we could have prevented the Full scale invasion because more armed Ukraine would have been able to resist any Russian attack much better than they were in 22.
- [06:24]
Christiana Amanpour
And there are quite a lot of leaders at that time. For instance, then French President Hollande believes the same. And some, you know, certainly British military leaders believe the same. But you write really interestingly about President Obama, who was president at that time. Obama and the United States were opposed to providing military aid because it was felt this might escalate the conflict to a level that we were not ready to handle. Obama was keen to emphasize that we shouldn't offer false hope, believed Ukraine was more important to Russia than to the west and Moscow would therefore be willing to make greater sacrifices. Wrong calculus.
- [06:59]
Jens Stoltenberg
Well, I think what you have seen is that not only the US at that time, but almost all allies were afraid of delivering substantial military support to Ukraine because we were afraid that that could provoke Russian invasion. Well, we didn't support Ukraine and Russia invaded. So at least now it's obvious that what they need is substantial military support. And even after full scale invasion, too many allies hesitated because we didn't want to deliver battle tanks, we didn't want to deliver fighter jets, we didn't want to deliver long range artillery. This has changed and we are delivering much more advanced weapons now. And therefore I am actually more optimistic when it comes to the long term commitment from NATO allies to support Ukraine militarily.
- [07:43]
Christiana Amanpour
So just around the beginning of the full scale invasion, are you able to say now whether you, did you encourage leaders to provide more of these long range, important weapons at the time or did you not think that was your role?
- [07:57]
Jens Stoltenberg
Yes, I did. But I try in the book to also be honest about my own mistakes. And I realized today in hindsight that I could have done even more to be even stronger in trying to convince allies to provide more military support to Ukraine in the years running up to the full scale invasion.
- [08:19]
Christiana Amanpour
So I'm going to ask you why you didn't do that in hindsight because your own spokeswoman, Oana, who we know grew up in Romania, there the secret police, as you write, tried to recruit her. She advised you early on not to be naive with the Russians. The Kremlin understood only one language, she said, the languages of power. She was absolutely right. Why were you wrong?
- [08:40]
Jens Stoltenberg
Well, I don't agree that I was wrong, no.
- [08:43]
Christiana Amanpour
You say in hindsight.
- [08:45]
Jens Stoltenberg
Yeah, but we're discussing two different things. First of all, my main message to NATO and what we started to do in 2014 when I arrived, was to do deterrence, defence and dialogue. Meaning that we had to be stronger. We needed to increase NATO's collective defence to protect NATO territory. But then on the issue of providing support to Ukraine, as I pushed for more weapons and I also pushed for allowing them to use weapons delivered by us on military targets inside Russia, that was actually a controversial issue. But I could of course have done more, be even more outspoken on the need for more and faster military support to Ukraine.
- [09:33]
Christiana Amanpour
Do you think, because they have done a lot of targeting inside Russia now and on energy installations. Do you think that's having an impact?
- [09:41]
Jens Stoltenberg
Yes. Russia is paying a very high price. They have lost up to 1 million men in this war. They have only gained marginal territory over these these years. And they are paying a high economic price. So of course we cannot say how long Russia is willing to stay in this war. But the only thing we can say is that the higher price they have to pay, the sooner they will to sit down.
- [10:11]
Christiana Amanpour
I want to ask you about some character studies you've done. Actually, I find it really interesting. There's a lot of the behind the scenes in this book that's really revealing. So at one point, and I think you said this publicly, you decided in your when you met President Zelenskyy again after the full scale, that he was one of the best leaders of our time. Just give me why you think that.
- [10:32]
Jens Stoltenberg
I think not least because I underestimated him when I met him first in 2019. I liked him, but I didn't regard him as a big political leader, a strong political leader. He turned out to be an extremely strong political leader with personal courage and also the skills to inspire a whole nation and a whole world to support him. And it's hard to imagine any political leader that could have done anything similar for his country as President Zelenskyy.
- [11:02]
Christiana Amanpour
You call Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov a unique combination of an elegant diplomat and a bully. And you also write that he insulted you at one point in a meeting. Why am I even sitting here? He said, you have no opinions of your own, Stoltenberg. You say only what your bosses permit you to say. How shocking was that?
- [11:20]
Jens Stoltenberg
It was not very shocking because that had been more or less his style for a long time. But this particular meeting was a bit worse than the others. But on the other hand, I continue to believe that at some stage we need to talk to Russians. Dialogue should not be a sign of weakness. Dialogue should be a sign of strength. So we have to be strong. We need to be united. We need to invest our defense. And based on that, it's possible to talk to the Russians, even if they are rude in the way they are.
- [11:48]
Christiana Amanpour
In some of those conversations, and not constructive. I mean, I don't understand how you keep talking to them. You say, you know, we should talk. As you say, Even though his manner was rough and occasionally unpleasant, this time there was nothing, absolutely nothing constructive. No matter what topic we switched to. I could hardly complete a sentence before he butted in. You think that's him or his bosses.
- [12:08]
Jens Stoltenberg
Telling him no, I think that's his style. But he does it on behalf of his bosses. But for me, it was a paradox because I also described in the book how I actually, for many years, worked with President Putin, with Foreign Minister Lavrov, with Prime Minister Medvedev. The first time I met Putin was back in 2000. He was a newly elected president. I was a newly elected, elected Prime Minister of Norway for 14 years. I had a kind of good working relationship with these guys. And we made agreements. And then I came to Brussels and everything changed, partly because I changed position from being Prime Minister in Norway to Secretary General NATO, but also because so much changed in the world with the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
- [12:52]
Christiana Amanpour
So President Putin told Tass after you had changed positions and you became NATO head, that I had good relations with him, although I'm sure he wasn't suffering from dementia back then.
- [13:04]
Jens Stoltenberg
And that's the way they have spoken to me after I came to NATO. And I regret that because of course, that's just a way to demonstrate that they are not interested in talking to NATO. We were actually able to have some diplomatic contacts with them. Also in the weeks leading up to the full scale invasion, it was a meeting in the NATO Russia Council at the NATO headquarters. And they actually offered Russia a path to peace.
- [13:33]
Christiana Amanpour
Who did?
- [13:34]
Jens Stoltenberg
The NATO Council, NATO Council and NATO allies. In the meeting with the Russians, in this formal framework of what we call the NATO Russia Council that was established after the end of the Cold War to have an institutionalized dialogue with Russia. And in January 2020, two weeks before the full scale invasion, we met in NATO at the headquarters with the Russians and we offered them a process. But in that meeting, it was obvious that the Russians had already decided to use military force to invade and the diplomatic efforts failed. But again, at some stage, this war will end, and most likely it will then end around the negotiating table. And our task is to make sure that Ukrainians are as strong as possible around that table.
- [14:24]
Christiana Amanpour
So that also depends on how strong NATO is and how strong the US commitment to NATO is. So let's talk about Trump. We've talked about the Russian leaders and the Ukrainian leader. You made a rule as soon as Trump was elected the first time that no staffers would ever be allowed to mock or disparage Trump behind the scenes. You regarded it as an important precedent and you didn't want leaks. Tell me about the psychology of managing President Trump, the most important NATO ally. Given how strong the United States is.
- [14:52]
Jens Stoltenberg
It'S not a secret that many of the people in NATO, they were skeptical, at least uncertain about what President Trump in 2016 when he was elected first.
- [15:03]
Christiana Amanpour
Time, because he called it obsolete, by.
- [15:05]
Jens Stoltenberg
The way, he had in the election campaign declared that NATO is obsolete, we don't need NATO. But at the same time, he was elected president of the biggest NATO ally. And my message to all of us was that we need to then engage with him. Some allies actually thought that the best thing was just to isolate and to not do anything. I think that was wrong. And we decided to engage and also try to find common ground. Of course, it's not secret. And actually President Trump and I discussed issues like trade and tariffs, we disagree. We discussed climate, we disagree. And other issues. But on the NATO agenda, for instance, defence spending, we agree. And his message was the same as President Obama and President Biden later, that European allies have to spend more. The style of President Trump was different, but the core message was the same. And therefore we worked on that and we found common ground. And I remember the first press conference that President Trump and I had, he said, I used to say that NATO is obsolete, but NATO is no longer obsolete.
- [16:13]
Christiana Amanpour
Your book is full of very fun anecdotes about behind the scenes. One of the most important moments was the NATO summit in Brussels in 2018. You write now everything's going to fall apart, I thought, I look around the room. All the leaders wore grave expressions. Everyone understood things were on the brink of collapse. And the entire summit, all the declarations of agreement, this might be the meeting at which NATO is ruined. I thought, and it's happening on my watch. The alliance had managed to operate successfully for 70 years, but not after 12th of July 2018, which was this summit. So this was because Trump said, unless you put up this amount of money, I'm walking out. Just tell us how chilled you felt. What was everybody feeling at that summit right now? A lot has been written about it, but it's interesting to hear your response.
- [17:01]
Jens Stoltenberg
No, as we were extremely, extremely concerned because we actually feared that President Trump was going to leave the whole meeting and they had packed their luggages and ready to leave. And he stated that if you don't promise to pay more now, immediately, I will leave and you need NATO more than I do. And then we had to reorganize the whole meeting. And we had a kind of emergency meeting with him in the room, still with him in the room and most of the other people left. So it was only the heads of state and government. And we had a very open discussion. And he pinpointed each and every ally and read out exactly how much they paid. And most of them paid, of course, far too little. And of course, if the US President had left a NATO summit and declared that he was not longer willing to defend NATO allies, then NATO would have ceased to exist. On paper, we will still have been an alliance, but in reality it wouldn't longer deliver deterrence because deterrence is in the mind of an adversary. And if the biggest allies say will not defend, then the whole deterrence, its affairs.
- [18:13]
Christiana Amanpour
So somehow you managed to finesse it. Somebody told you about $33 billion. That was then Prime Minister of Netherlands, now this, your successor, Mark Rutter. And you sort of saw this and you mentioned that there had been 33 billion more spent the previous year. What was Trump's reaction and how did this get diffused? He passed you a note of something?
- [18:34]
Jens Stoltenberg
Yeah, he passed me a note where he asked me to state publicly that he has made European allies spend more and mentioned 33 billion euros. And of course I agree to that, no problem. So after that meeting, he actually went out and said that he was, I think it was 110% in favor of NATO. So it ended well. And I remember you were there.
- [18:56]
Christiana Amanpour
Yes.
- [18:57]
Jens Stoltenberg
Yeah.
- [18:58]
Christiana Amanpour
Well, I did an interview with you afterwards and you say it ended well, but there was a confusion. And I tried to get through the confusion. Trump was saying one thing, President Macron, Chancellor Merkel was saying another thing about this extra spend. And I try to get you to give it to me straight. Have the allies agreed specifically to figures demanded by the President today?
- [19:23]
Jens Stoltenberg
The allies have heard his message loud and clear. And his strong message on defence spending is having a real impact.
- [19:31]
Christiana Amanpour
So let me be specific again, I want a clear answer from you, please. President Macron denies that the allies agreed to up their spending beyond the 2%. Can you confirm to us what are the facts? We need to know the facts you write now in your book. I couldn't of course, confirm the facts. There was no new agreement, no new pledges beyond the 2014 resolution. But I couldn't simply come out and say that, because then I would be contradicting Trump and risk him withdrawing support. And so we went on several confusing rounds. Amanpour asked clear and precise questions and received vague and unclear clear answers from you. As you know, that's been a big complaint of mine through your 10 years of NATO. But now you're going to be frank.
- [20:16]
Yuval Abraham
What were you thinking when I was.
- [20:17]
Christiana Amanpour
Trying to get the truth out of you? You were obfuscating.
- [20:20]
Jens Stoltenberg
But I thought that actually you saw the contradiction in the messages.
- [20:25]
Christiana Amanpour
Yeah, but you still didn't clarify.
- [20:26]
Jens Stoltenberg
No, but the reason is that when you're Secretary General, NATO, there is one main responsibility and that is to keep this alliance together. And then I cannot say that Trump is wrong, that there is no new agreement, and I cannot say that the others are right either. So I need to find a way to paper over those disagreements. And I felt was a bit strange or stupid, but that was my task to keep these alliance together and we succeed.
- [20:55]
Christiana Amanpour
So you're proud of your watch. Your book is called On My Watch.
- [20:58]
Jens Stoltenberg
Well, I'm trying to be very honest in the book and I believe in it.
- [21:02]
Christiana Amanpour
You say we succeeded, we kept it together.
- [21:04]
Jens Stoltenberg
Yeah, Fundamentally, I'm proud of what we achieved, that we kept NATO together. And not only that, that we ensure that NATO is stronger now than it has been for many, many years, with more defence spending, higher ends on forces. But the purpose of the book is to be transparent, because I believe in transparency, I believe in openness, and I think in the long run that builds trust to a democratic institution like NATO, because we are so dependent on the trust of the 1 billion people living in NATO countries. And therefore I'm honest about our achievements. Unprecedented support for Ukraine, but also the failure to deliver enough support Ukraine fast enough. About how NATO allies succeeded in defeating Daesh, but also isis, but also how we failed in Afghanistan and how we were united in inviting Finland and Sweden into the alliance, but also all the disagreements within the alliance. So I tried to be nuanced. And of course it's easy to be transparent and open when I step down than when I was in position.
- [22:12]
Christiana Amanpour
Jens Stoltenberg, thank you very much indeed.
- [22:14]
Jens Stoltenberg
Thanks so much for having me.
- [22:16]
Christiana Amanpour
Frankness depends on perspective. Stoltenberg jumped from the fire into the fat, or whatever it goes, from NATO Secretary General to Norway's finance minister. But his center left Labour Party has just won an election against an insurgent Norwegian populist party. We'll be right back after a break.
- [22:39]
Walter Isaacson
I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast.
- [22:44]
Antony Kennedy
Dr. Elizabeth Rosenthal I see some things that are hopeful and some things that are not.
- [22:50]
Walter Isaacson
We're mostly going to be discussing the US health care system and how the crisis at the center of the shutdown could impact you.
- [22:56]
Antony Kennedy
The question is, will they be addressed before the system just really falls apart? Because I think it's pretty close to doing so.
- [23:07]
Walter Isaacson
Listen to Chasing Life Streaming now, wherever.
- [23:09]
Jens Stoltenberg
You get your podcasts.
- [23:17]
Christiana Amanpour
Next to the Middle east, where a high level American delegation led By Vice President J.D. vance is shoring up Israel's commitment to the fragile truce in Gaza. Along with Trump's main negotiators Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, Vance said the ceasefire in Gaza, quote, is doing well, very well. Meanwhile, in the occupied west bank, violence is on the rise of so far this year more than 3,200 Palestinians have been injured in attacks by Israeli settlers, according to the UN's humanitarian office. That number includes even one of our next guests, Basil Adra. He was attacked earlier this year as his village community at Musafayatta has come under repeated attack by both settlers and Israeli forces. Together with Israeli journalist Yuval Abraham, he co directed the acclaimed movie no Other Land, the documentary which won the Oscar Wilde for best documentary but has failed to find a US distributor. Now they plan to self distribute and both join me from the beleaguered village Masafayatta. Welcome both to the program. Can I just start by reflecting on where you actually are? You're sitting right in your village there and it looks like an amazing sight. But what has been going on over the last several days and weeks there?
- [24:38]
Basil Adra
Well yeah, I'm in my village with Yuval, it's called Tuani Village, one of the 20 small communities here in the South Hebron area called Masafiryata Town. What have been going on for the last three weeks and months? Actually very crazy settlers not stopping creating illegal outpost today. Actually they just stole one of the caves belonged to one of the families not far from here and they started a new illegal outpost. Israeli occupation forces joined them and kick away the families and the neighbors that gathered there try to protest against these illegal outposts. At least nine illegal Israeli outposts have been built in Masafir Yata just in the last two years. On the other hand, Israeli army continue to destroy Palestinians homes, water wells and other constructions.
- [25:35]
Christiana Amanpour
Yuval, you're there with Basild and you both are wearing exactly the same shirt and I believe it refers to one of your colleagues who has been killed. Tell me about the T shirts.
- [25:47]
Yuval Abraham
Yeah, so this is our dear friend and our colleague Gauda Hadalin, who is a resident of one of the villages right next to us, and he was really killed in cold blood. He was murdered by an Israeli settler who was invading his village. He was documented as he was shooting him from close range. Awda was filming actually the last moments of his life. And as almost always in these cases, the settler today is not only free in on Levi, but he is actually always coming again to the village where there is now another, as Blasil said, illegal outpost that is being built there. And it was important for us to wear this shirt in solidarity with our colleague, but also to say, I mean, anybody can think how it must feel like if you see your loved one being murdered in front of your eyes. And the person who did that faces no justice and no accountability. And unfortunately, this is how these things happen here in this place that we are in, under Israel's military occupation for, for a very, very long time.
- [26:49]
Christiana Amanpour
And of course, the colleague who helped also, on no other land, Hamdan Bilal, he was attacked shortly after you all received the Oscar. And Basil, you've had raids on your own house. Can you both tell me, Basil, you first. What has your treatment been like there in the occupied west bank, in your villages there since having won the Oscar? And why do you think it's.
- [27:17]
Basil Adra
Well, they, you know, Israeli occupation forces is targeted Palestinians who speak out loudly against the occupation. You know, in Gaza, they've been, they killed systematically over 250 journalists and activists who've been documenting the genocide for the last two years, risking their life. And they have been targeted by the Israeli forces here in the west bank. The same, many of our colleagues and friends, Palestinian journalists, are thrown in the Israeli prisons and jails with no charge, you know, just because they are documenting and they're talking out loud against the occupation. Me and Hamdan, after winning the Oscar, you know, Hamdan has been attacked by both Israeli settlers and soldiers in front of his home. And they have been abducted after then by Israeli soldiers for at least 24 hours in an Israeli military base. And they've been like attacking him, beating him, cursing him there. For me, myself, you know, my home had been invaded at least three times, harassing me. You know, they detained my wife in the home, searching her home and like, just to provocate us and just to make, as they call it, like their presence felt in our community and in our houses here as a Palestinians and just to show us who's the boss. And they say this out loud, you.
- [28:39]
Christiana Amanpour
Know, Yuval, you are obviously An Israeli journalist for the online magazine 972. You know, what Basil is talking about is Israelis, whether it's IDF or settlers attacking Palestinians. But you're an Israeli. What is it like for you? And do you ever try, as an Israeli, to ask them what they're doing to. I'm sure you do, to try to intervene? How do they treat you as a fellow Israeli?
- [29:07]
Yuval Abraham
Yeah. So, you know, much of our work and of course, our film, is based on the realization that Israelis and Palestinians, Basil and myself, are living under a system which privileges Jewish Israelis in every way. And there is a group of Israelis and international activists who try to leverage that privilege to come to places like this, to Masafiryata and other areas now in the west bank, especially in the olive harvest season, where the attacks are, you know, happening on a daily basis, these pogroms. And yes, to try to do protective presence, to try to document, to try to be first in line so that, you know, to somehow have some pushback against what the settlers and the army are doing. And I've had many Israeli friends of mine who come here. They were assaulted as well. Like Ta', er, a good friend of mine, her head was fractured recently, and she was attacked by settlers. And still, of course, it's not the same as for the Palestinians, because at the end of the day, we can go back home. I can go back to Jerusalem, a city that Basel cannot enter as a Palestinian, like millions of other Palestinians. And so we are trying to do what we can to use this privilege to show that there are Israelis who are opposing this occupation. But we are very little. And honestly, we don't have a lot of power. And it's becoming less and less effective, unfortunately, because the violence is so crazy. And whatever you do, I mean, it's very, very hard to feel like it has an effect. But we are continuing. We are continuing to do what we are doing, which is to be on the ground, to document and to try to change this reality. And we need the help of the international community. Honestly, Christian, I feel like the international community, by not taking action, is weakening people like us, people from the Israeli and Palestinian human rights community. And we really need this because things are really severe on the ground right now.
- [30:50]
Christiana Amanpour
Yes, I hear you. You know, the peace contingent is not really being heard. But when you say the international community and the message, something good has happened in that you have now found how to distribute no other land in the United States. Basil, tell me what you're doing in order to get it aired finally and distributed in the United States, because even winning the Oscar, and we interviewed you before and after you won the Oscar for no Other Land, all of you, and yet no official distribution in the U.S. so what is the situation now?
- [31:27]
Basil Adra
So, unfortunately, you know, major distributors in the US did not want to pick Northern Land and to show it in the US I think they are politically trying to block us from reaching the American audience. So now finally, we decide to release the documentary after two years of releasing it, after six months of winning the Oscars. So just we're releasing it by our own, with other, like, activists who's helping us with social media, using our accounts, and we try to push it by ourselves, basically, and with the social media colleagues and friends who's in solidarity with the Palestinian cause, who's supporting and supporting Northern Land.
- [32:12]
Christiana Amanpour
Okay, Yuval, tell me more about it, because apparently you're going to donate 100% of the proceeds to Musafayatta. But explain where people will see it. And do you think you'll get enough word of mouth?
- [32:25]
Yuval Abraham
Yes, we decided to, you know, we made this film from the community and for the community, and it made sense for us that all the profits that we make from this release in the United States will go back to the community, which could use it for many different reasons. To rebuild houses, to have access to water, to stay on their lands. And we're basically selling the tickets, like, we're making it available on the different kind of platforms, like, you know, the big. Like Apple and Amazon and Gather and Kinemat, the different ones where you can just Google Northern Land and watch it online. And I hope that people do. I think there's a lot of interest to. To watch the film. I mean, somehow we won the Oscar. I don't know. Like, we didn't expect it, and it happened. And I guess people in the United States have heard about it and they want to watch it. And we've spent so many years working on it together, and we really hope people watch it. The reason why we made it is that it reaches people, not necessarily the people who agree with us. We want to show people who might not understand really how brutal life is under this military occupation to see it, to understand it, to spend an hour and a half in the shoes of the people who live here. And I think that is really important for anyone in the United States to watch specifically in this moment where we, you know, the underlying messages of the film, speaking about a political solution, speaking about how this is not sustainable, this military occupation, are more relevant than ever, I believe.
- [33:43]
Christiana Amanpour
And Just quickly, before I turn to Basil again, do you agree that it's a deliberate attempt so far by the distributors in the US just not to get that message out?
- [33:51]
Yuval Abraham
Yeah, I think, I mean, I think. I think it is. I mean, we've been in touch with several big streamers. You know, you can imagine the names. And we were always told, wait, like, you know, if. If you get nominated for the Oscar, we will take the film. And we were nominated. Nothing happened. If you win, we will take the film. We won and nothing happened. And yes, we did hear that. It's political considerations. Like, they. I don't know why they don't want to show a film which is critical of Israel's military occupation, but as an Israeli, I want to tell them we need to be critical of this. It cannot go on. And people need to see the reality on the ground. They need to see the truth so that it changes. And that's what we want. And I hope that even though we are doing this independently, people go to Google, search no other land, and they watch it and they can reach out to us and speak with us. And I hope that that happens.
- [34:35]
Christiana Amanpour
I hope so too, because, I mean, obviously I've seen the film and it's a great film, but it's also a wonderful work of journalism and it's really very, very, very powerful in the depiction of the reality. So, Basil, if you get any money, what will you or whoever gets the money, what do you think you'll rebuild first?
- [34:59]
Basil Adra
Well, there are a lot of. The need is very big for the community here, for the education, for the students, to pay their fees for them books to help the schools. For me is a priority also to supply water to communities here because very hard for many people to get water or electricity. So the need is really very big and I hope we will get to help at least the minimum to what the community here needs to survive and to steadfast in front of this brutal occupation and settlers.
- [35:34]
Christiana Amanpour
So I want to ask you both first, Yuval, what hope do you have for the Gaza ceasefire? And as bad as it is where you are, it is just flattened in Gaza. I mean, the reports of people coming back to nothing is quite dramatic.
- [35:48]
Yuval Abraham
Yeah, you're right, it is flattened. And I think it's not flattened by coincidence. I mean, as someone who has spoken to many Israeli soldiers who've actually flattened homes in Gaza, it's clear that this is intentional. It was done house after house, city after city. Rafah is gone, Khan Yunis is largely gone. Entire areas are gone. And that's why I think Netanyahu, the government, I mean, they view this as some sort of accomplishment from the same perspective that is going on here, that by making the life there miserable, people will leave, it'll be a form of ethnic cleansing. And I think they won't quickly give up on that horrific dream. And I am very worried. I think part of the reason why we got this very fragile ceasefire, which of course I'm very happy that we got, is because there was internal and international pressure. But it's important that people understand this is just the beginning, it's not the end. And we need that kind of pressure now to move towards a political solution. It won't happen otherwise. So I am very worried that we will see Gaza as a, as you said, much worse version of what is happening in the west bank, where Israel retains control of 53% of the Strip. The other 47% is constantly bombed. People will not, you know, the reconstruction will not begin. I think it has been Netanyahu's interest for a long time before October 7 to keep Gaza and the west bank separate so there is no pathway towards a Palestinian state.
- [37:02]
Christiana Amanpour
And finally, Basil, your final thought and do you have any hope that the ceasefire will hold?
- [37:10]
Basil Adra
I hope that the ceasefire will hold. And will this massacre that we have been watching like on our phones and TV channels for the last two years, and I want to, my words, want to send them to the people who were protesting in the street, to Sumud flotilla, all these actions, like the boycott actions to continue because we need them now more than ever to hold this ceasefire, but also to end this apartheid and brutal occupation. Because our ethnic cleansing here in Massafiyap and all over across the west bank is not stopping. It's going on in daily basis and nobody is talking about it, not even the American government. They're talking about the ceasefire, which is like good that we have ceasefire in Gaza, but here in the west bank, nobody talks about what's going on on daily basis. So we need like the people who are protesting in the street, politicians to do more, as Yuval said, to have political solution for the future.
- [38:07]
Christiana Amanpour
Well, Basil, Adre Yuval Abraham, thank you so much indeed both of you for being with us.
- [38:12]
Basil Adra
Thank you.
- [38:12]
Yuval Abraham
Thank you, Christian.
- [38:15]
Christiana Amanpour
Yes, indeed, the political solution is much needed. And we'll be right back after this short break. Now there are only two living retired Supreme Court justices and our next guest is one of them. Antony Kennedy stepped down in 2018 and he joins Walter Isaacson now to talk about the major cases of his Career, the top court today and his new book.
- [38:46]
Walter Isaacson
Thank you, Chris. John and Mr. Justice Anthony Kennedy. Thank you for joining us.
- [38:52]
Antony Kennedy
It's an honor and a pleasure to be with you, Walter.
- [38:55]
Walter Isaacson
We're gonna be talking about your great new book, Life, Law and Liberty, which is a combination of a memo and a look at the cases you decided when you were on the Supreme Court. But I want to start at the beginning, at the very beginning of the book you write. To understand ourselves, we should understand the time and place of our birth and origins. My own view of the world was defined by the West. Sacramento, California. Tell me how that defined your view of life, law and Liberty.
- [39:28]
Antony Kennedy
Well, for 100 years, beginning around the Gold Rush, 1845 and then 1848, people came west. And before they came to California, they came to what we now call the Midwest. And the unsettled parts of our country always had great allure for our population. You went to a place where you could define your future, you could define your property, you could make your life, you could see new horizons beyond where you are. And the question is, when you get to California, can you still go west? Well, I suppose you could go to Hawaii. And Steinbeck wrote, the east of Eden. We're always just east of the perfect world. Well, in California. Are you in Eden? Not quite. But you are in a place which is so rich in so many ways and so satisfying in so many ways that you can find yourself and see the world beyond.
- [40:40]
Walter Isaacson
Let me take two cases, one in which you were considered to be on the more liberal side, the other, the more conservative side, and that's. You were on the side of allowing people to burn the American flag as part of free speech. But then you also, I think, wrote the decision in Citizens United that allowed corporations and big money to be used in campaigns that seems conflicting because one was sort of more liberal, one was more conservative. But the through line seems to be a defense of free speech. Is that something that motivated you?
- [41:14]
Antony Kennedy
The flag burning case was interesting. The court divided on unusual lines. Those who dissented, who would have allowed the prosecution for burning the flag, who would have said the flag burning law or the flag burning prohibition was unconstitutional. They fought in World War II, White, Rehnquist, Stevens, and they had put their lives on the line protecting the American flag, and some of their colleagues had lost their life protecting the American flag. But for us, it was a difficult case because the flag is a beautiful flag and it symbolizes our history in many ways. And to say that you could burn the flag we knew would be controversial after the opinion came out, something, Walter, like 80 senators, US senators, got to the floor of the Senate to denounce the court and denounce the opinion. And there were newspaper articles about what's the matter? They call it burning the flag. Well, to begin with, it was a difficult case. If you can't burn the American flag, what about the Texas flag, the Lone Star State? What about the California flag, the Bear Republic? Do you include those? Now you have 50 states plus the United States. Where does this stop? Secondly, people said burning something is speech. Well, yes, it was expression in a very powerful way. And it was interesting to me, Walter, that over the course of about three months, many of the people read the opinion. When you write an opinion in a case like that, you want to write it so that the public at large can read the case and understand its reasoning. And in just those few months, we noticed that the attitude toward the opinion, the understanding of the opinion began to change.
- [43:30]
Walter Isaacson
Now, that concept of free speech, you apply it not only to donations to political campaigns, but to corporations and businesses donating to campaigns. That seems like a whole different way of looking at free speech. Why do you see those as consistent?
- [43:49]
Antony Kennedy
Well, if somebody said speech is spending money, are you crazy? Well, what about the New York Times? What about the Washington Post? What about the Wall Street Journal? They're controlled by corporations, and it seems to me that they have a tremendous influence on campaigns and political debates and political dialogues.
- [44:14]
Walter Isaacson
Citizens United, which was the case that you wrote the opinion of, that allows these contributions, allowed big businesses to act as if they were individuals. Do you see any bad effects now from that Citizens United decision?
- [44:33]
Antony Kennedy
It was a difficult decision. The idea of millionaires, or maybe billionaires pouring money into campaigns in a state where they don't even live, the idea that the candidate who gets the most money is going to win the election is truly troubling. But what is the answer? Are you going to say that a small corporation, a grocery store or a Chamber of commerce, chambers of commerce or USA corporations, that they can't participate in campaigns? Where's the stopping point? The answer is an informed public. The voters ought to know who is giving money. And if they see tons of money being poured into a campaign and they're offended by it, they should vote for the other person? You need informed voters for democracy to work.
- [45:30]
Walter Isaacson
Do you think that means, though, that these super PACs that people can donate to anonymously should not be covered by that Supreme Court decision you wrote?
- [45:40]
Antony Kennedy
Well, it seems to me that we can look closely at disclosure to see if Our disclosure laws are adequate. And again, if you don't know who's giving the money and they don't want to tell you who got the money, that's a reason to vote against the candidate as well.
- [45:55]
Walter Isaacson
Back when you were just graduating from high school, one of the most seminal cases in our country was decided, which was Brown versus the Board of Education, which overturned a longstanding precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson, that we could have racial segregation. How did that affect your thinking about liberty?
- [46:20]
Antony Kennedy
Well, it affected it in the long term. My father, who was an attorney, this was the days before the Internet and the facts. He was able to get a copy of the opinion in just a couple days, and he had me read it, and we read it together, and he told me that this is one of the most important opinions in the history of the Supreme Court. And it seemed to me as a teenager, well, we've settled it. We've said, you can't discriminate against minority races, and that's the end of it. We can go on to some other things. This was totally naive. Brown was just a beginning, not an ending. Racial minorities, particularly in other parts of the country, I had hurt and discrimination and insult every day. And it still takes a sensitive, decent, caring society to recognize this and try to do better.
- [47:24]
Walter Isaacson
In the first nine months of this current President Trump's term, there have been so many things on the emergency docket that have enabled him to do things where the Court is not explaining the reasoning. Does that bother you?
- [47:38]
Antony Kennedy
Yes, it's called the shadow docket, a new term for us. In my years on the court, we had probably three times as many cases as the present court does. And we had emergency motions where we get a call in the middle of the night in death penalty cases. But we didn't have as many, nearly as many motions now with respect to executive orders. And that is different. And the time factor is important because the order goes into effect right away. People's rights and privileges are affected right away. What's the Supreme Court supposed to do, wait for a year? Well, it seems to me there's a ground that they think they should try to wait for at least a couple weeks so that they can give a reasoned opinion. But the Court's struggling with that, and the Court fully understands the necessity of giving reasons whenever it can.
- [48:51]
Walter Isaacson
From the gay marriage case, you had written that the nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of rights and the 14th amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions. And that implies that the Constitution is a living thing, that the concept of liberty keeps expanding and each new generation has to understand it better, that it's not carved in stone from 250 years ago. I sometimes ask my two lane students here to try when they're wanting to take down some monument or some statue, say, what is it that 50 years from now people will say we did not understand about liberty and maybe they should take our statues down because of it? What do you think we may not be getting about liberty?
- [49:45]
Antony Kennedy
It seems to me that we have to understand that protest is a part of free speech. It's necessary. The whole idea of free speech is that you and I can disagree with each other and have an earnest, intense, informed, respectful debate. But it has to be respectful, and we have to understand this, and this is the way we learn. Protests are an important part of free speech, but it's a very difficult area of the law. Can you block traffic for five minutes while you have a protest? If the answer is yes, can you block it for five days or five weeks? The answer to that has to be no. You can't protest in a way that injures other people. Can you stand on my front lawn? Answer no. Can you stand in front of my house? Probably yes. There's this balance, which is one in which an educated public who respects the idea of speech must struggle to find the right balance.
- [51:14]
Walter Isaacson
You have written this. Let me read it to you. Presidents have the duty and personal obligation to make judgments based on a good faith interpretation of the Constitution, but they must give proper deference to Supreme Court rulings. What motivated you to. To write that, and is there something today that worries you in that regard?
- [51:39]
Antony Kennedy
Well, in teaching constitutional law, it seemed to me important to discuss with the students that every government official, whether that official is in the legislative or the executive for the judicial branch, has the duty to obey the Constitution and to understand the Constitution and to follow the Constitution in all of their official acts. Just because a question can't be put into the context of a case that goes to the court doesn't mean that the Constitution doesn't apply. It's even more important to apply the Constitution. When the case can't come to the courts. That's when it's really important.
- [52:28]
Walter Isaacson
Mr. Justice Kennedy, thank you so much for joining us.
- [52:33]
Antony Kennedy
Well, thank you so much for your questions and for saying that you've read the book without falling asleep.
- [52:46]
Christiana Amanpour
That's a good question. That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can also always catch us online on our website and all over social media. Thank you for watching and goodbye from London.
- [53:19]
Yuval Abraham
Tav, I Got News for your Ears.
- [53:21]
Christiana Amanpour
The podcast. I am your host, Michael Ian Black. He's never saying no, he didn't take the $50,000. He's just calling it he didn't take.
- [53:29]
Jens Stoltenberg
A bribe because he has the audacity to want to enforce the country's immigration laws.
- [53:34]
Walter Isaacson
You said he didn't take a bribe, but I'm not sure you answered the question.
- [53:36]
Christiana Amanpour
Are you saying that he did not accept the $50,000?
- [53:39]
Antony Kennedy
Thank you, George.
- [53:40]
Christiana Amanpour
JD's take is basically you're jealous because he's so pretty. Have I Got News for your Ears Releases new episodes every Wednesday. Don't miss an episode. Follow us wherever you get your podcasts.