Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Amanpour Spoke In Doha To Foreign Ministers Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani From Qatar, Espen Barth Eide From Norway And Subrahmanyam Jaishankar From India; Interview With "The Bibi Files" Producer Alex Gibney; Interview With "The Bibi Files" Director Alexis Bloom; Interview With The New York Times Opinion Columnist Masha Gessen. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired December 11, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHEIKH MOHAMMED BIN ABDULRAHMAN AL THANI, QATARI PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: We have sensed after the election that the
momentum is coming back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: A key mediator in the Gaza ceasefire talks tells me about getting them back on track. My conversation with Qatar's foreign minister and his
Norwegian and Indian counterparts.
Then, "The Bibi Files." As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu takes the stand for the first time in his long running corruption trial, a new
documentary reveals the man behind the public image under police interrogation. Director Alexis Bloom and Oscar winning producer Alex Gibney
join me.
Plus, the Supreme Court and contempt for expertise, according to journalist Masha Gessen who talks with Michel Martin about care for transgender
minors.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Is there renewed hope and momentum for a ceasefire and hostage deal in Gaza? Both outgoing and incoming U.S. administrations want that to happen
before January's transfer of power on Inauguration Day. Since last month's ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Israeli foreign
minister says we can be more optimistic than before, but we're not there yet.
The families of the 100 hostages still inside Gaza have had to bear the loss and the constant cycle of dashed hopes since the last and only
negotiated deal brought the first batch home last year.
While inside Gaza, the appalling and consistent bombings, shootings, starvation, and evacuations and forced displacements of civilians, as well
as militants, has caused even a former Israeli defense minister to label them war crimes. More evidence pours in every day. Here, a father holding
and mourning his dead child. And these images. A few of more than 44,000 people who have now been killed in Gaza since the October Hamas massacre
inside Israel.
Qatar has played the central mediator role throughout. And this weekend in Doha, regional leaders gathered to discuss an end to this war, even as the
Assad dictatorship was falling. I spoke to foreign ministers Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani from Qatar, Espen Barth Eide from Norway, and
Subrahmanyam Jaishankar from India.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: What can you tell me about the state of a possible ceasefire right now and the impact of a Trump administration on the region?
SHEIKH MOHAMMED BIN ABDULRAHMAN AL THANI, QATARI PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: It's been through ups and downs since the
start of the war. And unfortunately, the negotiation -- the process itself being exploited for political reason from one party or another, and a lot
of scrutiny that we've been through because of, you know, some parties trying to score some political points.
Now, especially in the last days of just before the elections in the United States, we have sensed after the election that the momentum is coming back.
And now, when it comes to any differences between the previous administration or President Biden's current administration, the outgoing
one and the incoming one, of course, there will be some differences in the themes and the approach that -- and the way they are approaching things,
but I don't -- we didn't see or recognize any disagreement in -- on the goal itself to end the war.
We have seen a lot of encouragement from the incoming administration in order to achieve a deal even before the president come to the office. And
that's actually made us trying to move things back and trying to put it back on track. And we've been engaging in the past couple of weeks.
Now, in terms of where we are, you know, that this matter is affecting a lot, whether it's affecting the people in Gaza and the suffering that they
are suffer or even affecting the families in Israel. The families off of the hostages.
[13:05:00]
And unfortunately, given the way it's been managed throughout the year and everything being put out in the public domain, raising the hope for those
innocent people is -- has been counterproductive. If you look at the gaps in the disagreements, they are not something substantial that really affect
the agreement. It's all about the main questions. Is there a willingness to end the war? Yes or no? Is there a willingness to have an exchange deal?
Yes or no? Those are two very simple questions with very simple answers. If the answers are yes on both questions, then we have a deal.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, from your perspective in Europe, as you know, Prime Minister Netanyahu has not laid down any political plan for post-war in
Gaza. The allies, Saudi Arabia, the United States, Qatar, everybody says it must be also a Palestinian State and a withdrawal of Israel. Your country
is from Gaza.
Your country is one of those who's already recognized a Palestinian State. You were behind the Oslo Accords. So, you have a really central role. Where
do you think this is going politically?
ESPEN BARTH EIDE, NORWEGIAN MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS: That's the essential question. And for it I have to -- I want to commend the excellent
work of Sheikh Mohammed himself and his deputies and wonderful diplomats in working towards ceasefire. And this comes back to what to do with Gaza
afterwards.
And it must be the moment to really move towards a Palestinian State. We need a two-state solution, but not the three-state solution. We want an
integrated Palestine compromising, you know, the West Bank and Gaza, relevant parts of Jerusalem, you know, as was envisaged in the Oslo
Accords.
And the drama, the horror is so deep now that we cannot go back to 6th of October last year. That was not a stable lasting situation. It was like a
minefield. People might have not stepped on the mine, but you know, it was about to explode. It did explode.
And here comes to your question about the incoming U.S. administration, because Trump -- President-Elect Trump was very vested in the Abraham
Accords. I think the message now from this region is that is perfectly doable. There might actually be a major deal, but it has to happen with
Palestine.
And I think as long -- and this is also what the group that -- so the Arab, Qatar, Norway, the European Union, others are forming now is a very
collective message that this is the time to think big, to think political solution, to think that peace for Israel, peace for Palestine, regional
peace is connected because all these different conflicts, they are not the same, it's not one conflict, but there is a root conflict that connects to
all of them, which is the absence of a solution to the Palestinian question. And that has been the driver of Norway's and my own foreign
policy over this last year to really see that today.
It cannot be just a western country or two to come in to fix it. It has to be embedded seriously in this region, and we have to make sure that also
Israel becomes a country not only in the region, but off the region -- you know, region connected to its neighbors in peace, and that can only happen
with the Palestinian State.
And honestly, it might sound naive, but I think it's actually hard politics. There is no alternative. So, we have to move forward. We must
dare to think outside the box.
AMANPOUR: Yes, I'm going to come back to that because certain members of the incoming U.S. administration who've been nominated to work on this have
suggested alternatives, including annexation and the rest. So, I'll get back to that in a second.
But to you, Foreign Minister Jaishankar. It is said that certainly we know Prime Minister Modi had a very close relationship with President Trump in
his first term. We know that the Biden administration also, in fact, they were trying to hopefully drive a wedge or attract you from China and into
the U.S. sphere more.
But President-Elect Trump has also threatened BRICS, of which you are a member, with a hundred percent tariffs if this and that.
SUBRAHMANYAM JAISHANKAR, INDIAN MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS: Look, we had a good relationship, a very solid relationship with the first Trump
administration. Yes, there were some issues, mostly trade related issues but there were a whole lot of issues on which actually President Trump was
very international.
There's a certain personal relationship between Prime Minister Modi and President Trump, I would say in terms of politics. We don't really have
divisive issues in terms of our political outlook. As two countries, by and large, I think our convergences way outstrip any differences we have.
[13:10:00]
Where the BRICS remark was concerned, I think -- you know, I'm not exactly sure what was the trigger for it. But we've always said that look, India
has never been for de-dollarization. Right now, there is no proposal to have a BRICS currency.
But I just want to have -- make one remark on the -- come back to the Middle East. You know, the core issue undoubtedly is Palestine and Israel's
relationship. You know, how do they reach a modus vivendi? There's a larger issue side by side, which is the widening of this conflict, which is also a
major concern.
And you know, today we have -- I don't want to say we normalized it, but the fact is, two years ago, the prospect of Israel and Iran actually
fighting at each other would have been appalling. It's something which we couldn't have even contemplated. And yet, it's happened.
If you look at what's happening in the Red Sea and the impact for shipping in Asia, it's huge. So, I think, you know, there are different sort of
challenges, layers of them. I think this -- there is a greater case for more vigorous diplomacy, for more innovative diplomacy, for a more
participative diplomacy, and I think more countries need to have the boldness to bite that bullet.
AMANPOUR: I want to ask you, Foreign Minister, one last question on this topic. Veteran Norwegian diplomat, as you know, Tor Wennesland, is stepping
down as the U.N. Middle East Envoy. And he told The New York Times, politics failed, diplomacy failed, the International Community failed, and
the parties failed. Failed to bring about the permanent solution to the crisis that really affects this whole region, and so much of the world.
And I just want to ask you, because, again, the incoming Trump administration appointee is, let's say, Mike Huckabee, who's being
appointed as the ambassador has said this week that, of course, it's possible that the U.S. would back the Israeli government were it to try to
annex the occupied West Bank.
I'm sure all of you have ideas about that, but where do you think that would lead and do you think that's really something that the U.S. would
accept? Does Europe agree? Do you have any power to disagree?
EIDE: First, I think we should relate to the Trump administration for real when it's actually in office and when they are actually presenting real
policies from the position of power. So, not to preempt that too much by commenting directly on his comments. But I did say, and I will maintain
that, you know, we will not be able to start solving the intricate set of problems in this region without dealing with solution to Palestine, and the
solution is not to perpetuate the occupation and make it into annexation.
And this has also been very firmly put out by the International Court of Justice, which is everybody's court. It is the highest U.N. court and very
clear on the status of occupation as illegal. And I think we have to take that as a starting point as we move forward.
And I do also think, as I said earlier, that there are some opportunities in working on the Abraham Accords approach given the solid message that
that can happen, but Palestine is part of it.
Norway has a long tradition of peace mediation and dialogue facilitation, and we also very much share that vision that in order to get things done,
you need to speak to the people that matters. Even if those are people with blood on their hands and people you don't necessarily approve of, and
speaking is not approving, speaking is not endorsement, speaking is necessary in order to facilitate the dialogue with the people that can
actually change things. I think that's necessary.
And I think when a new administration is in place and looks at the whole picture in its totality, I think they will form a more holistic policy on
this, and I very much look forward that we all can engage with them when they are there. I see opportunities. I see challenges, but I also see
opportunities. And I think that there are an opportunity here for what actually could become the deal of the century. I mean, this could happen
here, but it requires that some of these insights from the region are brought into the --
AMANPOUR: I mean, as you remember, the Trump -- President Trump did recognize Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights. So, it's not without
precedent. But anyway, I hear what you're saying. Let's wait until they get into office.
Foreign Minister Jaishankar, I want to ask you, and ask all of you in a moment, the major war roiling Europe. So, you get a lot of cheap oil still
from Russia, I believe. Cheap --
JAISHANKAR: I get oil, yes.
AMANPOUR: Huh?
JAISHANKAR: I get oil, yes.
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes, right.
[13:15:00]
JAISHANKAR: It's not necessarily cheap.
AMANPOUR: But it's Russian?
JAISHANKAR: You have a better deal, I'm willing to look at it.
AMANPOUR: But it's Russian and it's a good deal for you despite sanctions and all the rest of it. I want to know, does India have a role to play or
what do you believe will be the momentum on this Russia invasion of Ukraine and the resolution? What do you think is going to happen, particularly with
the Trump administration, who I know they're not in office, but they have very, very clearly telegraphed that they don't want to keep helping Ukraine
militarily?
JAISHANKAR: Well, two commits. One regarding the conflict, the war itself. You know, we've always held to the view that this war is not going to be
solved on the battlefield. That the -- at the end of the day, people are going to return to some kind of negotiating table. The sooner the better.
And our effort has been to facilitate that to the extent possible.
Now, to be honest with you, that's not always been the most popular thing, at least in some parts of the world. And -- but I do think today the
general sort of the needle is moving more towards the reality of a negotiation than the continuation of the war.
Now, we are really putting, in a way, our aircraft, our legs, where our mouth is. We are actually doing, you know, going to Moscow, talking to
President Putin, going to Kyiv, engaging President Zelenskyy, meeting them in other places, trying to see if we can encourage -- you know, find common
threads, which can be picked up at some point of time when the circumstances are right for it to be developed.
We're not attempting a peace plan. We don't -- we're not doing a mediation in that sense. We are doing multiple conversations and very transparent
about telling each party saying, look, at the end of the conversation, this is what we're going to tell the other party.
We think that, at this point of time, the most useful thing that any country wanting to see an end to that conflict can do diplomatically. We
also believe in this that we articulate the sentiments and the interests of the Global South, 125 other countries, who have found their fuel cost,
their food cost, their inflation, their fertilizer costs impacted by this, the war.
So, there is a constituency out there, which says please do this, please, you know, carry on with this. And quite honestly, in the last few weeks and
months, I've even seen this sentiment expressed by European leaders, major European leaders who are actually telling us, please keep engaging Russia
and engaging Ukraine. We welcome that.
AMANPOUR: Yes. I was coming to you on this because I think there'll be a lot more pressure from the Trump administration on Europe to take charge of
their own security more. And the idea of giving weapons to Ukraine was, OK, maybe they thought they could help them win, but they never gave enough to
help them win. But apparently, not even enough to put them in a sort of equal -- co-equal place at the bargaining table. So, how do you see an end
to this diplomatically?
JAISHANKAR: Well, actually, I think we're -- many were late, but we're giving much more now. We're also loosening restrictions for using advanced
missiles into Russian territory, for instance, and several European countries, including my own, have over the last weeks actually stepped up
quite a bit, both the quantity and quality of the contributions, because, of course, at the end of the day, somebody have to talk, but it has to be a
just peace, not just peace, it has to be something that can create a post- war order in Europe, post-Ukraine war order, which we can all live with, and which does not reinforce that you can change borders by military means,
and that you can try to undermine all the governments.
And remember, there are some principles out there and they are being violated big time. And when the Second World War ended, we got the U.N.
Charter. We got some key principles of relations between states, one of them being, the number one rule is, thou shall not invade and occupy other
countries, whereas self-defense is legal. We also created rules for how war should be fought. The Geneva Conventions, international humanitarian law,
and the human rights charter.
And when I criticize Russia, it's not because I happen to side with Ukraine, it's because they broke the fundamental principle in relations
between states, and that shall not happen. And when I criticize Israel in Gaza, it's because they are massively overstepping the rules of warfare,
meaning the distinction and proportionality principle in international law.
[13:20:00]
And sometimes we actually have to take a principled approach. And the problem now is that we have one part of the world who has highlighting
correctly Russia's violations of Ukraine sovereignty, but being wobbly on Gaza. And then, you have another part of the world who are correctly
criticizing Israel in Gaza, but rather wobbly on the principles that have been violated in in Ukraine. And I proudly say that I stand up for the
principles in both cases. I will demand behavior of Russia in Ukraine, and I will demand compliance with international humanitarian law in Gaza.
AMANPOUR: And finally, to you, Prime Minister Al Thani, what is another big threat that you're -- you know, that's on your plate right now?
AL THANI: Christiane, the most important thing that we go back to the first principles and what his excellency just mentioned now when we are trying to
apply international law, they need to be applied equally to everyone and to each and every conflict. Unfortunately, what we have seen, especially from
the lens of the people of this region, that a lot of countries that's considered, you know, the leading countries in international law, leading
countries in human rights and human rights law, they are just turning a blind eye from what's happening in the region and, you know, looking at
what's happening with Ukraine only from that lens while in the region it's different. It's -- we have other reasons. It's -- you know, there are
historical dimensions to this.
Yes, we know there are historical dimensions to this, but these historical dimensions can never give the license to kill innocent people like this.
Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers, thank you so much indeed. Really interesting.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And a lot of work ahead, hopefully, also some results. Now, while Israel carries out hundreds of airstrikes across Syria on what they call
military targets, Middle Eastern nations are accusing the Israeli government of exploiting the situation to execute a new land grab there.
Meantime, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is facing his own internal battle at home over allegations of corruption and bribery. This
week, he became the first sitting prime minister to testify in court against criminal charges. And now, a new documentary is offering an
extraordinary insight behind the scenes. "The Bibi Files" features leaked secret footage of the police interviews of Netanyahu, his wife, and his
son, and those accused of bribing him.
Due to strict Israeli privacy laws, the film can't be legally distributed in Israel. And we can't show the interrogation footage either. Netanyahu
denies all the charges, but I've been speaking with director Alexis Bloom and the Oscar winning producer Alex Gibney about what they found.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Alex Gibney and Alexis Bloom, welcome to the program.
ALEX GIBNEY, PRODUCER, "THE BIBI FILES": Thank you.
ALEXIS BLOOM, DIRECTOR, "THE BIBI FILES": Thank you.
GIBNEY: Good to be here.
AMANPOUR: So, you're the producer, Alex, and you're the director, Alexis. I want to know how this first came to you. And I believe, Alex, you were
given the tip off about these interrogation videos.
GIBNEY: Yes, I got a pop up on Signal, and I get a lot of those, and most of them are cranks, but this one appeared to be real. And somebody said
that -- my source said that there were these police interrogation videos, which formed the basis of the indictment of Benjamin Netanyahu on
corruption charges. And these are the police actually interviewing Netanyahu, his wife Sara, his son Yair, and all sorts of people who were
involved in the corruption case.
I don't speak Hebrew. So, it took me a moment to kind of reckon with them, but I figured they were probably going to be pretty potent. And the next
thing I did was to bring on a producer named Raviv Drucker, who is a very well-established investigative journalist in Israel, to help me kind of
understand the importance and value of this. And then I immediately turned to Alexis to direct the film, because she and I had worked together before
and I knew she had the journalistic chops and also filmmaking skills to make this what it needed to be.
AMANPOUR: So, Alexis, let me ask you, the trial is underway for the first time since this trial actually began in 2020. Netanyahu is in the
courtroom, so to speak. It's a jerry-rigged courtroom in the basement of a building in Tel Aviv. We're not seeing what's going on, but there are
reports coming out. It's pretty good timing for this film.
[13:25:00]
BLOOM: Yes, it is pretty good timing. I mean, we've been saying that for a year, every time you think something's going to happen or that he's going
to say something substantive or have to face the charges it turns out that he sort of shirks them. The first day of the court hearing was a little
disappointing in that he used it mainly for grandstanding, I would say. He was saying that there's a attempted coup against him. The media is out to
get him. That the judicial system is biased, and he used it very much to sort of attack what he calls the deep state.
AMANPOUR: Well, look, you say the deep state, it obviously all sounds very Trumpian as well, when he talks about the media against him, his domestic
enemies against him, and he uses those terms. And that is what's happening, certainly from the -- what you've reported and what we have seen in the
interrogation tapes. It was very much putting the burden on all his perceived enemies in House.
But here's the thing, Alex -- Alexis, and Alex, your film cannot be seen at this point inside Israel because of various laws and privacy provisions
that prohibit that kind of interrogation footage being shown at this time. Alex, how do you think it's going to get to the people who you want to see?
GIBNEY: Well, I do think that we wanted the international audience to see it, and they will see it in all of its Honesty and glory. The people in
Israel will see it, but almost certainly via pirated means. We already know that it's caused a big stir in Israel.
I mean, one of the things about these interrogation videos that I think needs to be clear is that you sort of see Netanyahu not exactly in an
unguarded moment, he's very much aware of the camera, but it's a very vulnerable moment or a series of moments. And then, you see Sara, his wife,
and his son, Yair, show this kind of unbelievable contempt for the rule of law and the state, which is, I think, for Israelis, really shocking to see.
And in the leaks that have happened outside of, you know, official channels, they're getting a look at it and it's causing quite a stir. From
an international perspective, I think, you know, for years and years and years, we've been fed, in part because, you know, Netanyahu controls his
image so assiduously, this idea that he is the grand statesman. Well, there's a kind of seamy, corrupt petty criminal underbelly to this man,
which these tapes really show in a way that I think many people will find shocking.
AMANPOUR: And of course, we have to say that he denies all the charges against him. Having said that, Alexis, describe for us, since we cannot,
and on this platform, international viewers will not see the clips, could you tell us -- describe what Alex is talking about, because I've seen the
screener, obviously, and I agree, it's a very different Netanyahu under interrogation, albeit aware of the camera, than it is in his usual public
posture.
BLOOM: Well, the interrogations were lengthy, even though he controls when the police come and they have to come to him, to his office, unlike the
other interrogations where people go to the police station, but they're lengthy. So, some of them are four hours long. And if you look -- I always
tended to look at the end of the interrogations first when he gets tired.
And when he gets tired, the mask slips and he gets angry, he gets sweaty, he gets defensive. There's a lot of arm crossing. The denials get more
repeated. He gets exasperated. So, you do see him on the defensive. Occasionally, he loses his temper and he bangs the table. Most often when
he's played the recordings of other people.
So, occasionally the police will play a recording where -- or another witness says, you know, this happened, Netanyahu asked me to do this, he
asked me to approach this person, he asked me to sign this paperwork, and then Netanyahu will get angry and say, he's lying, he's lying, or multiple
people are lying, they're all lying, and then, he does get quite enervated.
GIBNEY: I think the other thing that's interesting, there's a very interesting sequence in Alexis' film, in which a number of people close to
Netanyahu recall what an extraordinary memory he has for everything. And then, you see a series of clips in which he says over and over and over, I
can't remember, I can't recall, I don't remember, I can't recall.
And at which point the police -- at some point, the police just laugh. It's like if I was to tell you that light over there, which is on is off, that
would be a lie. But it's so evident that he's lying throughout these interrogations, shamelessly, but in ways that are clearly very practiced.
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: And it is actually very interesting because he does use that device, which many defendants do use or many people who are being
questioned use, I don't recall, I don't recall, or in this case, I was surprised because he was very petulant. He was -- he appears very petulant.
I might have done it, I might not have done it. There was a lot of that kind of stuff.
And I just wonder, there's a sense of l'etat, c'est moi, I am the state. You are attacking Israel when you so, you know, impudently ask me these
questions. Did you feel that, Alexis? Certainly, when you saw the Sara Netanyahu, because she really is like that. She said, how dare you talk
about my husband who's done nothing but good for the State of Israel.
BLOOM: I felt that very strongly, but not only from the material, from everybody that I spoke to in Israel, both on the record and off the record.
It was a theme that came up again and again and again, regardless of the political spectrum. You know, the people that I was talking to, some very
right-wing people would say he thinks he's King David. It came up so often. I went into this film not being as critical of Netanyahu as I ended up
being just because people -- I mean, the number of people I can't count who said there should be a term limit in Israel. He's in power now. It's coming
up to 17 years. And many, many people said that.
AMANPOUR: Interesting. And just about Sara Netanyahu, throughout the film, and you talk to principals as well, you don't just have the interrogation
footage, you talk to those who have been interrogated. As you said, Raviv Drucker, who helped you produce it, is also very, you know, copiously
interviewed. You've got Hadass Klein, who's the personal assistant of one of those people who is accused of paying off Netanyahu with champagne and
cigars and this and that. Again, he denies all of this.
But what a lot of people sort of expressed to you, what is the hold that Sara Netanyahu has on him? She's in every meeting. She's with him all the
time, whether he's meeting with hostage families, whether he's, you know, doing political meetings. She's a major player in the Netanyahu political
couple. What did you think, after your interviews, about her influence on him?
BLOOM: Well, I don't know. I can't speculate. It's sort of dangerous to be a psychologist and say this is her holdover.
AMANPOUR: No, I sort of mean --
BLOOM: She has -- yes.
AMANPOUR: I sort of mean what people told you about it because -- and then -- because there was this hot tape where apparently he had admitted having
an affair, et cetera. It just seems like a very convoluted, I don't know, partnership.
BLOOM: I'd say they're co-dependent, certainly. They are a power couple. Everybody in Israel says they rule together. She has an enormous amount of
power. She knows his schedule. I mean, generally, the pattern was that Benjamin is very smart, knowledgeable in a cerebral way. And she has the
instincts, the emotional intelligence. She scopes people out for loyalty. That's her department.
So, they sort of -- they unify in this way. He turns to her on questions of loyalty, who can I trust and who do I not trust? Who's good for the family?
And that's known to be her contribution to their partnership. But they -- you know, it's his third marriage. It -- the optics of them getting
divorced at this stage, I think, would be very bad politically for him. So, they're sort of bonded, you know, come hell or high water.
GIBNEY: Yes, it's very human. She caught him in an act of infidelity. And ever since then, according to people Alexis spoke to, you know, she's had a
very tight hold on him. And I think he's afraid that she'll leave him. This is very human stuff.
But in this case, it has a dramatic effect on the state. And there's one sort of appalling moment in the film where families of, you know, hostage
families, Israeli hostage families are sort of brought in to kiss the ring of Sara Netanyahu in order to hope that maybe she'll, you know, exert some
influence on her husband to try to get them back. It's really very a disturbing episode.
AMANPOUR: But I want to finally ask you, Alex, you know, this had quite a lot of obviously re
al world implications. The -- his preoccupation with the trial and then the -- you know, trying to stamp out the democratic protests against his so-
called judicial overhaul to even increase the power of the prime minister. And he was warned about it, that, quote/unquote, "the enemies are watching
our internal dysfunction at the moment." And he didn't pay attention.
[13:35:00]
And one of the clips that we are able to play is about those warnings and what people, whether they were in intelligence or ordinary civilians, felt
about that that, you know, preceded the October 7th massacres by Hamas.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMI AYALON, FORMER HEAD OF SHIN BET: And after the catastrophe, the 7th of October, the war became another instrument to stay in power. He survived in
a state of war. He survived in a state of instability. He survived when we fight each other. He survived when our enemies fight each other.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A forever war is beneficial to Netanyahu. This makes people feel like they are always in danger, like they always need him.
There's always some huge threat. I think that that helps him remain prime minister.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I mean, that's quite dramatic, that testimony. The first was Ami Ayalon, member of the security establishment. I've interviewed him many
times. That essentially, Netanyahu puts his own political and physical self ahead of the national good.
GIBNEY: Yes. And I think this is the most appalling thing about the Netanyahu story. This film starts with examples of petty corruption, of
entitlement. You know, going back to your idea of l'etat, c'est moi. But it ends with the most appalling and huge corruption, which is the idea that
you will carry on an unbelievable amount of carnage in order to be able to safeguard your own personal political position. That's a kind of corruption
that really is staggering in its venality and destruction.
AMANPOUR: Of course, as you all know, he, we have to say, denies that. Nonetheless, here we are. Alex Gibney, Alexis Bloom, thank you so much.
BLOOM: Thank you.
GIBNEY: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And "The Bibi Files" is out today in New York on the online platform jolt.film. And here in the U.K. on Friday.
Now, to the U.S. Supreme Court and a case from Tennessee over medical care for transgender minors. Masha Gessen, opinion columnist for The New York
Times, listened to the oral arguments and tells Michel Martin what stood out.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Masha Gessen, thank you so much for joining us once again.
MASHA GESSEN, OPINION COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: It's good to be here.
MARTIN: You've been writing a lot about this case that has recently had an oral argument before the Supreme Court. The United States versus Skrmetti.
Could you just walk us through the facts of the case?
GESSEN: So, Tennessee is one of the states, one of the 26 states, that in the last couple of years have placed restrictions on gender-affirming care.
In the case of Tennessee, it's a blanket ban on any gender-affirming care for minors, right? So, regardless of what their parents want, regardless of
what the patients themselves want, regardless of what the doctors recommend, Tennessee bans gender-affirming care for minors.
MARTIN: How did this case come about?
GESSEN: In this case, after the ban was instituted, the ACLU, several other rights groups, sued on behalf of three teenagers and their families, three
transgender teenagers, all of whom had been receiving gender-affirming care, and under the ban would have to stop receiving the care.
And the case -- they sued on two sets of grounds. This is where it gets a little technical, but I think it's super important. Right. So, they sued on
due process grounds, basically that means that they were arguing that it's the parents and the doctors who should be making the decisions and not the
state. And they sued on equal protection grounds, claiming that that the ban constituted sex discrimination, because depending on whether you're
assigned male or female at birth, you have different access to different medications.
They won in district court, they -- then it was reversed on appeal in the appeals court, they appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court
agreed to hear the case, but only on equal protection grounds. So, the only thing that was supposed to be argued in the Supreme Court last week was
that it constituted sex discrimination. That's not exactly how it went down.
MARTIN: Well, let me just sort of back a little bit to the origins of the case, because it's not exactly a secret that sometimes legislators and
sometimes, you know, different groups, organize a case for the purpose of bringing it before the Supreme Court. Did you have the sense that Tennessee
advanced this law in order to get it before the court, thinking that this would perhaps lead to a nationwide ban?
[13:40:00]
I guess what really what I'm wondering is why was gender-affirming care for minors such an emergency that the state felt it had to act so expeditiously
to ban it?
GESSEN: You know, it's not clear to me that that it was strategic on the part of the State of Tennessee. Separately though, there's a huge movement
and as a coordinated movement to pass to pass legislation restricting or outright banning gender-affirming care for both children and adults all
over the country. It's no accident that more than half the states have passed some sort of legislation in this area just in the last two years. I
mean, think about it. It's like an epidemic of these bills.
So, yes, the goal is very much to make it a nationwide sort of ban and whether it takes it ultimately takes the form of a federal ban or just a
collection of disparate but similar state bans, we don't know and I don't know that necessarily there is an articulated goal, except to make it as
difficult as possible for transgender Americans to access care.
MARTIN: I'm really interested in why you think now -- I mean, the estimates that we see so far suggest that maybe 1 percent of the population in the
United States identifies as transgender, when you talk about youth, maybe 1.4 percent.
GESSEN: So, actually, Michel, it's an even tinier minority if you think about it, because, yes, barely 1 percent of Americans identifies as trans.
If you talk about children, let's be super generous and call it 1.5 percent. But only a tiny fraction, somewhere around 15 percent of that 1
percent actually seek medical transition, right?
So, we're really talking about an infinitesimally small minority, which makes it a perfect minority to scapegoat.
MARTIN: But why? But what's the point? What is the point? What is it --
GESSEN: The point, I think -- you know, I think the point is there, and we can say sort of on the very surface level that autocrats, aspiring
autocrats always target minorities, always designate small minorities as the enemy. But I think there's more to it than that. They're really playing
into real anxieties, right? There's like the biggest fear that any parent has is that their child will turn into a stranger.
And so, this anxiety that has really permeated the culture in the last few years and, you know, we've seen Trump talk about this a lot and to great
effect. Your child will go to school, they will perform surgery, they come back without parental consent, they left a girl, they came back a boy, or
the other way around, right? I mean, these are completely fantastical scenarios, right? It doesn't work like that. But it reflects the fear,
right? It reflects what every parent's worst nightmare.
And then, of course, the barrage of Trump ads before the election, that Kamala is we're for you, Kamala is for they, them, that idea that this is
the stranger, this is the other, this is the other that's encroaching on your family, on your community, on your politics. I think this is very
effective because there is real fear. There is real anxiety that the way we organize the world, which is by gender, by age, is getting completely
upended.
MARTIN: You have some interesting things to say in a number of the columns that you've written about how this is also about a kind of loathing or
resistance to expertise. Say more about that, why you say that.
GESSEN: I think that's what we really saw in the Supreme Court hearing, right? It was supposed to be an Equal Protection Clause hearing. So, it was
all supposed to be about whether it constitutes sex discrimination. But in fact, the justices kept going back -- and this is true for both
conservative and liberal justices, they kept going back to the merits of the care itself.
And if you think about it, that's quite extraordinary, because the justices -- I mean, they kept -- both sides, kept completely getting lost in the
weeds. They can't tell the difference between puberty blockers and hormone treatment, nor should they, they're justices. They're not doctors. But,
doctors, every single professional medical association, including every single pediatrics association in this country filed an amicus brief with
the Supreme Court, arguing that this ban is harmful, that children should - - some children should have access to gender-affirming care, that it is correct, it is needed, it is in some cases lifesaving.
[13:45:00]
And so, the fact that justices on both sides think nothing of sort of -- instead of saying, OK, well, the doctors say that this is necessary, what
is the state's compelling interest in going against medical expertise? Instead of posing the question like that, they started debating the merits
of the actual care. And, you know, Justice Kavanaugh said, oh, there are harms on both sides. What if people regret it or what if they commit
suicide? Both things are dangerous. We have actual experts for that.
And I think that this is a real symptom of the times, right? We have RFK. Jr. as our Secretary of Health and Human Services designate. Somebody who
not only has wacky opinions, that's half a problem, but has wacky opinions in contravention of expertise, has utter contempt for expertise, right? And
that is a very Trumpian kind of thing. We don't need experts in government. We know everything that they're -- that we need to know. We can make all
the decisions.
MARTIN: OK. Masha, I have to ask though, you're a parent yourself. In other cases where you have people who come from marginalized backgrounds, like if
you're African American, you have African American kids, you know the ropes. I mean, you know what it's like to be African American. But not that
many, you know, trans kids have trans parents.
And so, do you ever have any sympathy for people who are trying to say, well, gosh, there are things that we allow adults to do that we don't allow
kids to do because we just don't think they're ready to make those kinds of decisions? And I just wonder if you have any sympathy for people who say,
well, you know, when it comes to kids, we need to slow our role.
GESSEN: Well, two things. I do have a lot of sympathy for parents who are dealing with kids who require a lot of sort of new understanding. I think
it's probably a much more common experience for parents than we sometimes let on. My children are not trans or really queer, as far as I can tell.
And yet, sometimes they're total strangers to me. And I think that's everybody's experience.
But I think the fear that you will not speak the same language as your child, that you will not exist in the same culture as your child, that you
will not be able to help your child through the most difficult or challenging moments in life, that fear is real, like that is a universal
parental fear, but that's not what this case is about. This case is about the state deciding and overriding parental decisions.
And, you know, I think it's actually -- the tragedy of this particular case is that the Supreme Court refused to hear this part of the argument. So, in
effect, the Supreme Court said, we're not going to allow you to question whether the state has the right to override parental and medical decisions.
We're granting the state that right. We're just going to ask whether the state is exercising that right in a discriminatory manner. And that tacit
sort of granting of that right to the state to override the millennial decisions, I think is absolutely terrifying.
MARTIN: Do you know how the due process question was separated from this case or that the court decided not to take up that question? And the reason
that that's so intriguing is that, you know, parental rights has been a big rallying cry for the conservative movement.
GESSEN: Well, that's one of the problems with the Supreme Court is that we don't know. It's an opaque system. The Supreme Court rarely bothers to tell
us why it's taking up a case or why it's not taking up a case or why it's not taking up one argument or the other. So, we're just left to deal with
this fact, the fact that the Supreme Court let stand the appeals court decision that rejects the due process argument.
So, the Supreme Court -- and you're absolutely right, parental rights have been the banner under which conservatives have marched in this country. But
what is actually happening in the case of Tennessee is that state legislators, most of whom, possibly none of whom, are medical professionals
or know anything about trans care, have decided that this particular kind of medical treatment should not be available to people under 18 regardless
of what their parents and doctors think. And the Supreme Court already let that stand.
MARTIN: You've written about the fact that, you know, for people who might be wondering, well, you know, this doesn't affect me, this has nothing to
do with me. You make the argument that it is. That this has broader resonance than simply about, you know, trans care per se. Can you talk
about that?
[13:50:00]
GESSEN: So, I think two things that we can already take away from this particular case, and there is a lot more in the larger battle against trans
rights. But in this particular case, we have the state overriding doctors and parents, and we have justices basically saying that, you know, medical
expertise doesn't matter, right? And these are two things that I think are incredibly dangerous.
I'm going to use the word precedent not in the judicial sense, but in the sort of vernacular sense. It sets a horrible precedent for establishing
contempt for expertise as our baseline. It doesn't matter what the doctors say, the justices know better because they have lifetime appointments on
the Supreme Court, which does not make them doctors and does not make them understand trans rights.
The other argument that I've been making about the battle against trans rights in general is that it is largely a question of reproductive rights.
Because if you really listen to the arguments that the proponents of these bans on trans care make, one of their strongest arguments -- one of their
leading arguments, rather, is that children, teenagers assigned female at birth should not be able to make decisions that might later render them
infertile.
And this is -- it probably doesn't render them infertile, but even if it did, we're talking -- the fact that this is the absolute biggest point that
they make should really make all women and all supporters of abortion rights sit up and pay attention. Because this is men who are deciding
whether and when people reproduce. And this is part of a much larger sort of framework of thought and framework of law at this point.
MARTIN: What sense did you get when you -- as you sat through the argument and how did you feel when you left? It's not just an intellectual argument
for you.
GESSEN: It's not just an intellectual argument. I'm obviously not a child. In fact, my children are grown, but I am trans. I know that these bans on
medical treatment for children will proliferate and will probably turn into bans for adults or at least greater and greater restrictions for adults.
So, I'm obviously concerned about being able to access care.
And this is -- you know, this is care -- it's not for somebody my age, and with my medical history, it's not just gender-affirming care, it's actually
healthcare that I need to survive. And, intellectually, I felt diminished. There's something that has happened in the Supreme Court that I don't think
we have really talked about enough, because there's such a strong tendency to normalize anything that has actually become normal, right?
There are three Trump appointees on the Supreme Court. Two of them really much less qualified, much less intellectually rigorous than the standard
had been in the Supreme Court, and I think we're seeing that. I think that's not the only reason we're seeing what we're seeing, but I think that
we're seeing a kind of moral and intellectual diminishment.
I think the only moment of real searching that I observed in the court was when Justice Jackson was trying to figure out whether the parallels that
she was seeing between this case and Loving Dear Virginia, which is the interracial marriage case, whether those perils helped. And you could see
that she was struggling sort of intellectually and morally with the arguments that she was hearing on both sides.
You didn't see that through the rest of the proceedings, right? It's like, you know, whatever, three hours of arguments and questions. And what's
happening is a kind of narrowing, kind of diminishment that, in this case, is almost certainly going to lead to a loss of rights.
MARTIN: Masha Gessen, M. Gessen, thank you so much for talking with us.
GESSEN: Thank you for having me. It's always a pleasure.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, tonight, two inspiring stories of resilience. First, a warning from a survivor of mankind's darkest moment. 92-year-old Terumi
Tanaka, who survived America's atomic bombs on Japan in 1945, accepted his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo this week.
[13:55:00]
He's a leader of Nihon Hidankyo, a grassroots anti-nuclear movement led by survivors of the attack. He called out leader's new threats to use nuclear
weapons in Ukraine and Gaza, expressing anger that the nuclear taboo may be broken.
And nature has also delivered a more hopeful note on the power of survival. In recent years, the vividly colored monarch butterfly has seen a steep
decline in population, but now it has a chance to bounce back if it makes the endangered species list. Because, as one expert says, despite its
fragility, the monarch is remarkably resilient. That's nice.
And that's it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
