Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former NATO Secretary General and "On My Watch" Author Jens Stoltenberg; Interview with "No Other Land" Co-Director Basel Adra; Interview with "No Other Land" Co-Director Yuval Abraham; Interview with Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice and "Life, Law & Liberty" Author Anthony Kennedy. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired October 21, 2025 - 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)
JENS STOLTENBERG, FORMER NATO SECRETARY GENERAL AND AUTHOR, "ON MY WATCH": I could, of course, have done more. Be even more outspoken on the need for
more and faster military support to Ukraine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: A reckoning in hindsight, I speak with former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg about grappling with Russia, Ukraine and Donald
Trump.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This what's happening in my village now. Soldiers are everywhere.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- as the tenuous ceasefire in Gaza holds, Palestinian Basel 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 & Liberty." Walter Isaacson interviews former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy about his new book and his own landmark decisions.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
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 Marco Rubio
is reportedly concerned that Russia's position, quote, "has not evolved enough beyond its maximalist stance." With President Trump's unpredictable
position 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, 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.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Jens Stoltenberg, welcome to the program.
JENS STOLTENBERG, FORMER NATO SECRETARY GENERAL AND AUTHOR, "ON MY WATCH": Thank you so much for having me.
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?
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 the battlefield.
AMANPOUR: So, obviously, he took note of the idea that the U.S. president was sort of doing a flip, and saying that he was going to deliver major
weapons, like you just said, to Ukraine. And he told Trump not to.
[13:05:00]
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 the full-scale invasion in 2022, NATO allies have
started to deliver more advanced weapons. And I, as secretary general, together with many others, pushed for more advanced weapons, F-16s, battle
tanks, long-range missiles. On the Tomahawks, 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 U.S. has made it clear that they will continue to
deliver substantial military support to Ukraine. And the Europeans, the other 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.
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.
STOLTENBERG: Yes, and I still believe that's a correct assessment. I think the big mistake was that after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and went into
Eastern Donbass, 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 a full-scale invasion in 2022. But maybe even we could have
prevented the full-scale invasion, because a more armed Ukraine would have been able to resist any Russian attack much better than they were in 2022.
AMANPOUR: And there were 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.
STOLTENBERG: Well, I think what you have seen is that not only the U.S. at that time, but almost all allies were afraid of delivering substantial
military support to Ukraine, because they were afraid that that could provoke a 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 a 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.
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?
STOLTENBERG: Yes, I did, but if -- I try in the book to also, as I say, be honest about my own mistakes, and I realize 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.
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?
STOLTENBERG: Well, I don't agree that I was wrong. I --
AMANPOUR: No, but you say in hindsight, you should have done more.
STOLTENBERG: Yes, 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, defense, and dialogue, meaning that we had to be stronger, we needed to increase NATO's collective defense to protect NATO
territory. But then on the issue of providing support to Ukraine, I pushed for more weapons, and I also pushed for allowing them to use weapons
delivered by us on military targets inside Russia.
[13:10:00]
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.
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?
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 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 be willing to sit down.
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.
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 the 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.
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?
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 in our defense, and based on that,
it's possible to talk to the Russians, even if they are rude in the way they are in some of those conversations.
AMANPOUR: 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 telling him?
STOLTENBERG: 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 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 of Norway to secretary general of NATO, but also because so much changed in the world with the
annexation of Crimea in 2014.
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.
STOLTENBERG: No, 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.
AMANPOUR: Who did? The NATO Council?
STOLTENBERG: NATO Council and NATO allies in a 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 2022, 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.
[13:15:00]
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 the
Ukrainians are as strong as possible around that table.
AMANPOUR: So, that also depends on how strong NATO is and how strong the U.S. 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.
STOLTENBERG: It's no secret that many of the people in NATO, they were skeptical, at least uncertain about what President Trump, in 2016, when he
was elected the first time --
AMANPOUR: Because he called it obsolete, by the way. Just before --
STOLTENBERG: Yes. 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 disagreed. We discussed climate, we
disagreed. And other issues. But on the NATO agenda, for instance, defense spending, we agreed. 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.
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. 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 you describe it.
STOLTENBERG: No. We were extremely concerned because we actually feared that President Trump was going to leave the whole meeting, and they have
packed their luggages and are 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. We had a kind of emergency meeting. We --
AMANPOUR: With him in the room still?
STOLTENBERG: 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.
But at the end -- and, of course, if the U.S. president had left a NATO summit and declared that he was no 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 the adversary, and if the biggest ally, say, will not defend, then the whole deterrence is a perish.
AMANPOUR: So, somehow you managed to finesse it. Somebody told you about $33 billion. That was then-prime minister of Netherlands, now your
successor, Mark Rutte. And you sort of saw this, and you mentioned that, 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 some sort.
STOLTENBERG: Yes, he passed me a note where he asked me to state publicly that he has made European allies spend more, and mentioned the 33 billion
euros. And, of course, I agreed to that, no problem. So, after that meeting, he actually went out and said that he was -- I think it was 110
percent in favor of NATO. So, it ended well, and I remember you were there.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
STOLTENBERG: Yes, yes.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Well, I was -- 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 were saying another thing about this extra spend. And I
tried to get you to give it to me straight.
[13:20:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Have the allies agreed specifically to figures demanded by the President today?
STOLTENBERG: The allies have heard his message loud and clear, and his strong message on defense spending is having a real impact.
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 percent. Can you confirm to us what are the facts? We need to know the facts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: 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'd 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 answers from you. As you know, that's been a big
complaint of mine for your 10 years of NATO, but now you're going to be frank. What were you thinking when I was trying to get the truth out of
you? You were obfuscating.
STOLTENBERG: No, but I thought that actually you saw the contradiction in the messages.
AMANPOUR: Yes, but you still didn't clarify.
STOLTENBERG: No, but the reason is that when you're secretary general of 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's no new agreement, and I cannot say that the others are right either. So, I need to
find a way to call the paper over those disagreements.
And I felt it was a bit strange or stupid, but that was my task, to keep this alliance together and we succeeded.
AMANPOUR: So, you're proud of your watch. Your book is called "On My Watch."
STOLTENBERG: Well, I'm trying to be very honest in the book. And I believe --
AMANPOUR: No, but you say we succeeded, we kept it together.
STOLTENBERG: Yes, fundamentally, I'm proud of what we achieved, that we kept NATO together. And not only that, that we ensured that NATO is
stronger now than it has been for many, many years, with more defense spending and higher end armed 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 you 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 to Ukraine fast enough. About how NATO allies succeeded in
defeating Daesh, but also --
AMANPOUR: ISIS.
STOLTENBERG: 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 try to be nuanced, and of course, it's easy to be transparent and open when I step down than when I was in
position.
AMANPOUR: Jens Stoltenberg, thank you very much indeed.
STOLTENBERG: Thanks for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
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 Centre-left Labour Party has just won an election against an insurgent Norwegian populist party. We'll be right back
after a break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:25:00]
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. So, far this year, more than 3,200 Palestinians have been injured in attacks by Israeli
settlers, according to the U.N.'s humanitarian office. That number includes even one of our next guests, Basel Adra. He was attacked earlier this year,
as his village community at Masafer Yatta 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 for Best Documentary but has failed to find
a U.S. distributor.
Now, they plan to self-distribute, and both join me from the beleaguered village Masafer Yatta.
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?
BASEL ADRA, CO-DIRECTOR, "NO OTHER LAND": Well, yes, I'm in my village with Yuval. It's called Tuwani village, one of the 20 small communities
here in the South Hebron area called Masafer Yatta town.
What has been going on for the last three weeks and months is actually very crazy. Settlers are not stopping creating illegal outposts. Today,
actually, they just stole one of the caves belonging to one of their families not far from here, and they started a new illegal outpost. Israeli
occupation forces joined them and kicked away the families and the neighbors that gathered there, trying to protest against this illegal
outpost. At least nine illegal Israeli outposts have been built in Masafer Yatta just in the last two years.
On the other hand, the Israeli army continues to destroy Palestinians' homes, water wells, and other constructions.
AMANPOUR: Yuval, you're there with Basel, 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.
YUVAL ABRAHAM, CO-DIRECTOR, "NO OTHER LAND": Yes. So, this our dear friend and our colleague, Aouda Halaline (ph), 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. Aouda was filming, actually, the last moments of his life.
And as almost always in these cases, the settler today is not only free in Yinon Levi, but he is actually always coming again to the village where
there is now another, as Bassem said, illegal outpost that is being built there. And it was important for us to wear this shirt to -- 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 how these things happen here in this place that we are in under Israel's military occupation for a very, very long time.
AMANPOUR: And of course, the colleague who helped also on "No Other Land," Hamdan Ballal, he was attacked shortly after you all received the Oscar.
And, Basel, you've had raids on your own house. Can you both tell me, Basel, 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 like this?
ADRA: Well, the, you know, Israeli occupation forces is targeted by the Syrians who speaks out loudly against the occupation. You know, in Gaza,
they've been -- they killed systematically over 250 journalists and activists who have 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 into 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 he has been abducted after then by Israeli soldiers
for at least 24 hours in Israeli military base. And they've been like attacking him, beating him, cursing him there.
[13:30:00]
For me myself, you know, my home has 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 (ph) us and just to make as they as they call it, like their presence felt on our community and in our houses here
as Palestinians. And just to show us who's the boss. And they say this out loud, you know.
AMANPOUR: Yuval, you are obviously an Israeli journalist for the online magazine 972. You know, what Basel 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?
ABRAHAM: Yes. So, you know, much of our work and of course, our film is based on the realization that Israelis and Palestinians, Basel 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 Masafer Yatta 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 documents, to try to be first in line so that, you know, so -- 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 Tahir
(ph), 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, you know, there are Israelis who are opposing this 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 we are continuing. We are continuing to do what we what we are doing,
which is to be on the ground, to document and to trying to change this reality.
And we need the help of the International Community, honestly, Christiane. Like we -- 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.
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.
Basel, 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?
ADRA: So, unfortunately, you know, major distributors in the U.S. did not want to pick "No Other 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 "No Other Land."
AMANPOUR: OK. Yuval, tell me more about it, because apparently, you're going to donate 100 percent of the proceeds to Masafer Yatta. But explain
where people will see it. And do you think you'll get enough word of mouth?
ABRAHAM: Yes, we decided to -- you know, we made this film from the community and for the community. And we -- 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 Kinema, the different ones where you can just Google "No Other Land" and watch it online. And I hope that people do. I think
there's a lot of interest 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, you know, working on it together. And we really hope people watch it. Like the reason
why we made it, you know, is that it reaches people, not necessarily the people who agree with us.
[13:35:00]
We want to 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
not sustainable, this military occupation are more relevant than ever, I believe.
AMANPOUR: And just quickly, before I turn to Basel again, do you agree that it's a deliberate attempt so far by the distributors in the U.S. just
not to get that message out?
ABRAHAM: Yes, I think -- I mean, 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 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.
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, Basel, if you get any money, what will what will you or whoever gets the money, what do you think you'll rebuild first?
ADRA: Well, there are a lot of -- the need is very big for the community here. You know, for the education, for the students, to pay the fees, to
buy for them books, to help the schools. Like it's -- for me as a priority also to supply water to communities here, because very hard for many people
to get like 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 stay fast in front of this brutal occupation and settlers.
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.
ABRAHAM: Yes, 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 have actually flattened homes in Gaza, it's clear that this intentional. It was done house after house, city after city. Rafah has
gone. Khan Younis 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 -- you know, on that horrific dream.
And I am very worried. You know, 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 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 you said, much worse version of what is happening in the West Bank, where Israel retains control
of 53 percent of the strip. The other 47 percent 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 7th to keep Gaza and the West Bank separate. So, there is no pathway towards a
Palestinian State.
AMANPOUR: And finally, Basel, your final thought? And do you have any hope that the ceasefire will hold?
ADRA: I hope that the ceasefire will hold and will this massacre that we've 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 are protesting in the street to the 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 Masafer Yatta 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 is 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 a daily basis. So, we need like the people who are protesting in the street, politicians to do
more. As Yuval said, to have a political solution for the future.
AMANPOUR: Well, Basel Adra, Yuval Abraham, thank you so much indeed, both of you for being with us.
ABRAHAM: Thank you.
ADRA: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Yes, indeed. The political solution is much needed. And we'll be right back after this short break.
[13:40:00]
AMANPOUR: Now, there are only two living retired Supreme Court justices, and our next guest is one of them. Anthony 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.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And Mr. Justice Anthony Kennedy. Thank you for joining us.
ANTHONY KENNEDY, FORMER U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE AND AUTHOR "LIFE, LAW & LIBERTY": It's an honor and a pleasure to be with you, Walter.
ISAACSON: We're going to be talking about your great new book, "Life, Law & Liberty," which is a combination of a memoir 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.
KENNEDY: Well, for a hundred 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, you know, 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.
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?
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 that lost their
life protecting the American flag.
[13:45:00]
So, it -- 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 percent senators, a U.S. senator 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 with the court
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, you know, 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.
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?
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 --
ISAACSON: But Citizens United, which was the case that you wrote the opinion of that allows these contributions, allowed, you know, big
businesses to act as if they were individuals. Do you see any bad effects now from that Citizens United decision?
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 usually 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.
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?
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.
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?
KENNEDY: Well, it affected it in the long-term. My father, who was an attorney, this was the day before the internet and the facts, he was able
to get a copy of the opinion in just a couple of days and he had me read it, and we read it together. And he told me that this was 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 that's the end of it. We can go on to some other things.
[13:50:00]
This was totally naive. Brown was just the beginning, not an ending. Racial minorities, particularly in other parts of the country, had hurt and
discrimination and insult every day. And it took -- and it still takes a sensitive, decent, caring society to recognize this and try to do better.
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?
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 should try to wait for at least a couple of 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.
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 Tulane 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?
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 and intense, informed, respectful debate, but it has to be respectful. And we have to
understand this. And this the way we learn is free -- 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.
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 write that? And is there
something today that worries you in that regard?
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 or 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.
[13:55:00]
And it's simple. 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.
ISAACSON: Mr. Justice Kennedy, thank you so much for joining us.
KENNEDY: Well, thank you so much for your questions and for saying that you've read the book without falling asleep.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: That's a good question. That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episodes shortly after it airs on our
podcast. And remember, you can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
