

October 21, 2025
10/21/2025 | 55m 38sVideo has Closed Captions
Jens Stoltenberg; Basel Adra; Yuval Abraham; Anthony Kennedy
Former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg discusses the upcoming meeting about trying to create peace in Ukraine and his new memoir. Basel Adra and Yuval Abraham, directors of "No Other Land," on the ceasefire in Gaza and violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. Former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy recounts his most impactful decisions and his judicial philosophy.
Problems playing video? | Closed Captioning Feedback
Problems playing video? | Closed Captioning Feedback

October 21, 2025
10/21/2025 | 55m 38sVideo has Closed Captions
Former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg discusses the upcoming meeting about trying to create peace in Ukraine and his new memoir. Basel Adra and Yuval Abraham, directors of "No Other Land," on the ceasefire in Gaza and violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. Former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy recounts his most impactful decisions and his judicial philosophy.
Problems playing video? | Closed Captioning Feedback
How to Watch Amanpour and Company
Amanpour and Company is available to stream on pbs.org and the free PBS App, available on iPhone, Apple TV, Android TV, Android smartphones, Amazon Fire TV, Amazon Fire Tablet, Roku, Samsung Smart TV, and Vizio.

Watch Amanpour and Company on PBS
PBS and WNET, in collaboration with CNN, launched Amanpour and Company in September 2018. The series features wide-ranging, in-depth conversations with global thought leaders and cultural influencers on issues impacting the world each day, from politics, business, technology and arts, to science and sports.Providing Support for PBS.org
Learn Moreabout PBS online sponsorship♪ >>> HELLO, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO "AMANPOUR & CO."
HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.
>> I COULD, OF COURSE, HAVE DONE MORE, BEEN MORE OUTSPOKEN ON THE NEED FOR MORE AND SUPPORT TO UKRAINE.
>> A RECKONING IN HINDSIGHT.
I SPEAK WITH FORMER NATO SECRETARY GENERAL JENS STOLTENBERG ABOUT GRAPPLING WITH RUSSIA, UKRAINE AND DONALD TRUMP.
>>> THEN -- >> THIS IS WHAT'S HAPPENING IN MY VILLAGE NOW.
SOLDIERS ARE EVERYWHERE.
>> AS THE TENUOUS CEASEFIRE IN GAZA HOLDS, BASEL ADRA AND YUVAL ABRAHAM, CO-DIRECTORS OF OSCAR-WINNING DOCUMENTARY "NO OTHER LAND" DISCUSS THE ONGOING CONFLICT IN THE WEST BANK.
> >> AND "LIFE, LAW AND LIBERTY. "
WATER ICE SOCK SON INTERVIEWS ANTHONY KENNEDY ABOUT HIS NEW BOOK AND HIS OWN LANDMARK DECISIONS.
♪ >>> "AMANPOUR & CO."
IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- THE ANDERSON FAMILY ENDOWMENT JIM ATTWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS CANDACE KING WEIR THE SYLVIA A. AND SIMON B. POYTA PROGRAMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTISEMITISM THE FAMILY FOUNDATION OF LEILA AND MICKEY STRAUS THE FILOMEN M. D'AGOSTINO FOUNDATION THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ COONEY FUND CHARLES ROSENBLUM MONIQUE SCHOEN WARSHAW KOO AND PATRICIA YUEN, COMMITTED TO BRIDGING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN OUR COMMUNITIES BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG JEFFREY KATZ AND BETH ROGERS AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.
THANK YOU.
>> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, EVERYONE.
I'M CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR IN LONDON.
EUROPEAN LEADERS ARE MEETING HERE IN ENGLAND THIS WEEK TO PUSH FOR 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 CONCERNED THAT RUSSIA'S POSITION, QUOTE, HAS NOT EVOLVED ENOUGH BEYOND ITS MAXIMALIST STANCE.
WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S UNPREDICTABLE POSITION ON UKRAINE, EUROPEAN LEADERS TRY TO HOLD THE LINE AGAINST A DEAL THAT COULD UNDERMINE KYIV AND WEAKEN EUROPE.
NOW FORMER NATO SECRETARY GENERAL JENS STOLTENBERG LED THE ALLIANCE FROM 2014 TO 2024.
GRAPPLING WITH RUSSIA SINCE IT FIRST ANNEXED CRIMEA, AND WITH DONALD TRUMP'S THREATS TO PULL OUT OF NATO.
NOW STOLTENBERG HAS PUBLISHED ALL OF THIS IN A MEMOIR CALLED "ON MY WATCH."
A CANDID LOOK BACK AT THE SUCCESS AND MISTAKES OF A CRUCIAL DECADE.
AND A NOTE.
WE SPOKE ON SUNDAY WHEN A TRUMP- PUTIN SUMMIT DID SEEM IMMINENT.
>> JENS STOLTENBERG, WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> SO PRESIDENT TRUMP IS GOING TO BE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN AGAIN, APPARENTLIES THAT 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?
>> WELL, 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 --I DON'T THINK HE 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 HAVE TO REALIZE THE PRICE 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 THE SITUATION ON THE BATTLEFIELD.
>> SO OBVIOUSLY HE TOOK NOTE OF THE IDEA THAT THE U. S. PRESIDENT WAS SORT OF DOING A FLIP AND SAYING HE WAS GOING DELIVER MAJOR WEAPONS THAT YOU JUST SAID TO UKRAINE.
AND HE TOLD TRUMP NOT TO.
>> NO.
BUT I THINK THAT WE HAD A DISCUSSION INSIDE NATO IN THE MOMENT AMONG ALLIES SINCE RUSSIA ANNEXED CRIMEA BACK IN 2014 ON WHAT KIND OF WEAPONS AND MILITARY SUPPORT WE SHOULD DELIVER TO UKRAINE.
AND AFTER FULL-SCALE INVASION IN 2022, NATO HAS STARTED TO DELIVER MORE ADVANCED WEAPONS.
AND I AS SECRETARY GENERAL PUSHED FOR MORE ADVANCED WEAPONS, F- 16s, BATTLE TANKS, LONG-RANGE MISSILES.
ON THE TOMAHAWKS, I THINK WE'LL LEAVE IT TO THOSE IN CHARGE NOW TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISIONS.
BUT WE NEED TO BE COMMITTED FOR LONG-TERM MILITARY SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE.
AND THE GOOD NEWS IS THE U.S.
HAS MADE IT CLEAR THEY WILL CONTINUE TO DELIVER SUBSTANTIAL MILITARY SUPPORT TO UKRAINE, AND THE EUROPEANS, THE ORGANIZED ALLIES HAVE STATED THAT THEY'RE READY TO PAY.
SO ACTUALLY WE HAVE A SYSTEM IN PLACE WHICH IS MORE CREDIBLE, MORE LONG-TERM IN PROVIDING MILITARY SUPPORT TO UKRAINE.
>> 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, MORE UKRAINIAN LIVES COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED.
>> YES.
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 DONBAS, MOST ALLIES HESITATED TO DELIVER ANY MEANINGFUL MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE.
WE DELIVERED SOME TRAINING, SOME EQUIPMENT, BUT NOT LETHAL AID.
>> YES.
>> 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 THE UKRAINIANS TO CONTROL MUCH MORE TERRITORY TODAY AFTER FULL-SCALE INVASION IN '22.
BUT MAYBE EVEN WE COULD PREVENT THE FULL-SCALE ACTION BECAUSE A MORE ARMED UKRAINE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO RESIST A RUSSIAN ATTACK MUCH BETTER THAN THEY WERE IN 2022.
>> AND THERE WERE QUITE A BIT OF LEADERS THEN FRENCH PRESIDENT BELIEVES THE SAME AND 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 WE SHOULDN'T OFFER FALSE HOPE, UKRAINE WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO RUSSIA THAN THE WEST AND RUSSIA COULD BE WILLING TO MAKE GREATER SACRIFICES.
WRONG CALCULUS.
>> I THINK WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS NOT ONLY THE U.S.
AT THAT TIME, BUT ALMOST ALL ALLIES WERE AFRAID OF DELIVERING SUBSTANTIAL MILITARY SUPPORT TO UKRAINE BECAUSE WE WERE AFRAID THAT THAT COULD PROVOKE RUSSIAN INVADE.
WELL, WE DIDN'T SUPPORT TO HIM AND RUSSIA INVADED.
IT'S OBVIOUS THEY NEED SUBSTANTIAL MILITARY SUPPORT.
AND EVEN AFTER FULL- SCALE INVASION, TOO MANY ALLIES HESITATED BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT TO DELIVER BATTLE TANKS.
WE DIDN'T WANT TO DELIVER FIGHTER JETS.
WE DIDN'T WANT TO DELIVER LONG-RANGE ARTILLERY.
THIS HAS CHANGED AND WE ARE DELIVERING MUCH MORE ADVANCED WEAPONS NOW, AND THEREFORE I'M ACTUALLY MORE OPTIMISTIC WHEN IT COMES TO THE LONG- TERM COMMITMENT FROM NATO ALLIES TO SUPPORT UKRAINE MILITARILY.
>> SO JUST AROUND THE BEGINNING OF THE FULL-SCALE INVASION, ARE YOU ABLE TO SAY NOW 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?
>> YES, I DID.
BUT IF I TRY IN THE BOOK TO ALSO BE HONEST ABOUT MY OWN MISTAKES, AND I REALIZE TODAY WITH 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 RUNG UP TO THE FULL-SCALE INVASION.
>> SO I'M GOING ASK YOU WHY YOU DIDN'T DO THAT IN HINDSIGHT.
BECAUSE YOUR OWN SPOKESWOMAN GREW UP IN ROMANIA.
THERE THE SECRET POLICE 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?
>> WELL, AT THAT TIME -- >> YOU SAY IN HINDSIGHT YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE MORE.
>> 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, AS I PUSHED FOR MORE WEAPONS, I ALSO PUSHED FOR ALLOWING THEM TO USE WEAPONS DELIVERED BY US ON MILITARY TARGETS INSIDE RUSSIA.
THAT WAS ACTUALLY A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE.
BUT I COULD, OF COURSE, HAVE DONE MORE, BEEN EVEN MORE OUTSPOKEN ON THE NEED FOR MORE AND MILITARY SUPPORT TO UKRAINE.
>> 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?
>> YES.
RUSSIA IS PAYING A HIGH PRICE.
THEY HAVE LOST UP TO ONE MILLION MEN IN THIS WAR.
THEY HAVE ONLY GAINED MARGINAL TERRITORY OVER THESE AREAS.
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.
>> I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT SOME CHARACTER STUDIES YOU'VE DONE.
ACTUALLY, I FIND IT REALLY INTERESTING.
THERE IS A LOT OF THE BEHIND-THE-SCENES IN THIS BOOK THAT IS REALLY REFEEL VIELING.
AT ONE POINT YOU DECIDED WHEN YOU MET PRESIDENT ZELENSKYY AGAIN AFTER FULL-SCALE, THAT HE WAS ONE OF THE BEST LEADERS OF OUR TIME.
JUST GIVE ME WHY YOU THINK THAT.
>> I THINK NOT THE LEAST BECAUSE I UNDERESTIMATED HIM.
WHEN I MET HIM FIRST IN 2019, I LIKED HIM, BUT I DIDN'T PROVIDE HIM AS A BIG POLITICAL LEADER, A STRONG POLITICAL LEADER.
HE TURNED OUT TO BE AN EXTREMELY STRONG PERSONAL LEADER WITH PERSONAL COVERAGE AND ALSO THE SKILLS TO INSPIRE THE WHOLE NATION AND A WHOLE WORLD TO SUPPORT HIM.
AND IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE ANY POLITICAL LEADER THAT COULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING SIMILAR FOR HIS COUNTRY AS DOES ZELENSKYY.
>> 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.
YOU SAY ONLY WHAT YOUR BOSSES ALLOW YOU TO SAY.
>> IT IS NOT ONLY SHOCKING.
THAT HAD BEEN HIS STYLE FOR A LONG TIME.
THIS PARTICULAR MEETING WAS WORSE THAN THE OTHERS.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, I CONTINUED TO BE AT SOME STAGE NEED TO TALK TO RUSSIANS.
DIALOGUE SHOULD BE A SIGN OF STRENGTH.
SO WE HAD TO BE STRONG.
WE NEED TO BE UNITED AND STAND 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.
>> AND NOT CONSTRUCTIVE.
I DON'T SEE HOW YOU KEEP TALKING TO THEM.
YOU SAY WE SHOULD TALK, AS YOU SAY, EVEN THOUGH HIS MANNER WAS ROUGH AND OCCASIONALLY UNPLEASANT.
THIS TIME THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING CONSTRUCTIVE, NO MATTER WHAT TOPIC WE SWITCHED TO.
I COULD HARDLY COMPLETE A SENTENCE BEFORE HE BUTTED IN.
DO YOU THINK THAT'S HIM OR HIS BOSSES TELLING HIM?
>> NO, I THINK THAT'S HIS STYLE.
BUT HE DOES IT ON BEHALF OF HIS BOSSES.
BUT FOR ME, IT WAS A PAIRS DO.
I ACTUALLY SCANNED FOR MANY YEARS WORKED WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN, MR.
LAVROV, WITH MR.
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 GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THESE GUYS.
MADE THE AGREEMENTS.
AND THEN I CAME TO BRUSSELS AND EVERYTHING CHANGED.
PARTLY BECAUSE I CHANGED POSITION FROM THE PRIME MINISTER OF NORWAY TO SECRETARY GENERAL OF NATO, BUT ALSO BECAUSE MUCH CHANGED IN THE WORLD WITH THE ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA IN 2014.
>> SO PRESIDENT PUTIN TOLD TAAS AFTER YOU HAD CHANGED POSITIONS, AND YOU BECAME NATO HEAD THAT "I HAD GOOD RELATIONS WITH IM, ALTHOUGH I'M SURE HE WASN'T SUFFERING FROM DEMENTIA BACK THEN."
>> 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 ARE 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 WERE ACTUALLY OFFERED RUSSIA A PATH TO PEACE.
>> WHO DID?
THE NATO COUNCIL?
>> THE NATO COUNCIL, THE NATO ALLIES IN THE MEETING WITH RUSSIANS IN THIS HORRIBLE 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 RUSSIANS HAD ALREADY DECIDED TO USE MILITARY FORCE TO INVADE AND DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS FAILED.
BUT AGAIN, AT SOME STAGE, THIS WAR WILL END.
AND MOST LIKELY IT WILL THEN END AROUND THE NEGOTIATING TABLE, AND OUR TASK IS TO MAKE SURE THAT UKRAINIANS ARE AS STRONG AS POSSIBLE AROUND THE TABLE.
>> SO THAT ALSO DEPENDS HOW STRONG NATO IS AND HOW STRONG THE U.S.
COMMITMENT TO NATO IS.
LET'S TALK ABOUT TRUMP.
WE 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.
>> IT'S NOT A SECRET MANY PEOPLE IN NATO, THEY WERE SKEPTICAL, AT LEAST UNCERTAIN ABOUT WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IN 2016 WHEN HE WAS ELECTED THE FIRST TIME.
>> BECAUSE YOU CALLED IT OBSOLETE, BY THE WAY.
>> HE HAD DECLARED NATO IS OBSOLETE.
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 THOUGHT THE BEST THING WAS TO ISOLATE AND TO NOT DO ANYTHING.
I THINK THAT WAS WRONG, AND WE DECIDED TO ENGAGE.
AND ALSO TRY TO TRY TO FIND COMMON GROUND.
OF COURSE, IT'S NOT SECRET, AND ACTUALLY PRESIDENT TRUMP AND I DISCUSSED ISSUES LIKE TRADE AND TARIFFS.
WE DISAGREE.
WE DISCUSSED CLIMATE.
WE DISAGREE, AND OTHER ISSUES.
BUT ON THE NATO AGENDA, FOR INSTANCE, THE 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'S OBSOLETE, BUT NATO IS NO LONGER OBSOLETE. "
>> YOUR BOOK IS FULL OF VERY FUN ANECDOTES 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.
THIS MIGHT BE THE MEETING THAT NATO IS RUINED 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 IS 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.
>> WE WERE EXTREMELY CONCERNED BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY FEARED THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS GOING TO LEAVE THE WHOLE MEETING, AND THEY HAD PACKED THEIR LUGGAGES ALREADY TO LEAVE.
AND HE STATED THAT IF YOU DON'T PROMISE TO PAY MORE NOW IMMEDIATELY, I WILL LEAVE, AND YOU NEED NATO MORE THAN I DO.
AND THEN WE HAD TO REORGANIZE THE WHOLE MEETING, AND WE HAD A KIND OF EMERGENCY MEETING.
>> WITH HIM IN THE ROOM STILL?
>> WITH HIM IN THE ROOM, AND MOST OF THE OTHER PEOPLE LEFT.
SO ONLY THE HEADS OF STATE AND GOVERNMENT.
WE HAD A VERY OPEN DISCUSSION.
AND HE PINPOINTED EACH AND EVERY ALLY AND READ OUT EXACTLY HOW MUCH THEY PAY.
AND MOST OF THEM PAID, OF COURSE, FAR TOO LITTLE.
BUT AND OF COURSE, IF THE U.S.
PRESIDENT HAD LEFT A NATO SUMMIT AND DECLARED THAT HE WAS NOT LONGER WILLING TO DEFEND NATO ALLIES, THEN NATO WOULD HAVE CEASED TO EXIST.
SO ON PAPER, WE WILL STILL HAVE BEEN AN ALLIANCE, BUT IN REALITY, IT WOULDN'T LONGER DELIVER THE TERMS, BECAUSE THE TERMS IS IN THE MIND OF ADVERSARY.
AND IF THE BIGGEST ALLY WILL NOT DEFEND, THEN THE DETERRENCE DISAPPEARS.
>> SOMEHOW YOU MANAGED TO FINESSE IT.
SOMEBODY TOLD YOU ABOUT $33 BILLION, 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.
>> 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, ACTUALLY WENT OUT AND THAT SAID I THINK IT WAS 110% IN FAVOR OF NATO.
SO IT ENDED WELL, AND I REMEMBER YOU WERE THERE.
>> YES.
WELL, I DID AN INTERVIEW WITH YOU AFTERWARDS.
AND YOU SAID IT ENDED WELL.
BUT THERE WAS A CONFUSION, AND I TRIED TO GET THROUGH THE CONFUSION.
TRUMP WAS SAYING ONE THING.
PRESIDENT MACRON AND CHANCELLOR MERKEL WERE SAYING ANOTHER THING ABOUT THIS EXTRA SPEND.
AND I TRIED TO GET YOU TO GIVE IT TO ME STRAIGHT.
>> HAVE THE ALLIES AGREED SPECIFICALLY TO FIGURES DEMANDED BY THE PRESIDENT TODAY?
>> THE ALLIES HAVE HEARD HIS MESSAGE LOUD AND CLEAR AND HIS STRONG MESSAGE ON THE DEFENSE SPENDING IS HAVING A REAL IMPACT.
>> SO LET ME BE SPECIFIC AGAIN.
I WANT A CLEAR ANSWER FROM YOU, PLEASE.
PRESIDENT MACRON DENIES THAT THE ALLIES AGREED TO UP THEIR SPENDING BEYOND THE 2%.
CAN YOU CONFIRM TO US WHAT ARE THE FACTS?
WE NEED TO KNOW THE FACTS.
>> YOU WRITE NOW IN YOUR BOOK, "I COULDN'T OF COURSE CONFIRM THE FACTS.
THERE WAS NO NEW AGREEMENT, NO NEW PLEDGES BEYOND THE 2014 RESOLUTION, BUT I COULDN'T SIMPLY COME OUT AND SAY THAT BECAUSE THEN I WOULD BE CONTRADICTING TRUMP AND RISK HIM WITHDRAWING SUPPORT.
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 THROUGH THE TEN 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 AND YOUR WERE OBFUSCATING?
>> I THOUGHT THAT YOU SAW THE CONTRADICTION IN THE MESSAGES.
>> BUT YOU STILL DIDN'T CLARIFY.
>> NO.
BUT THE REASON IS 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 IS NO NEW AGREEMENT, AND I CANNOT SAY THAT THE OTHERS ARE RIGHT EITHER.
SO I NEED TO FIND A WAY TO PAPER OVER THOSE DISAGREEMENTS.
AND I FELT IT WAS A BIT STRANGE OR STUPID, BUT THAT WAS MY TASK, TO KEEP THIS ALLIANCE TOGETHER, AND WE SUCCEEDED.
>> SO YOU'RE PROUD OF YOUR WATCH.
YOUR BOOK IS CALLED "ON MY WATCH. "
>> I'M TRYING TO BE VERY HONEST IN THE BOOK.
>> BUT YOU SAY WE SUCCEEDED.
WE KEPT IT TOGETHER.
>> YEAH.
DEFINITELY.
I'M PROUD OF WHAT WE ACHIEVED, THAT WE KEPT NATO TOGETHER.
AND NOT ONLY THAT THAT WE INSURED THAT NATO IS STRONGER NOW THAN IT HAS BEEN FOR MANY, MANY YEARS WITH MORE DEFENSE SPENDING, HIGHER 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 YOUR SOLE BEING DEPENDS ON THE ONE BILLION PEOPLE LIVING IN NATO COUNTRIES.
I'M IMPRESSED ABOUT OUR ACHIEVEMENTS UNPRECEDENTED SUPPORT OF UKRAINE, BUT ALSO THE FAILURE TO DELIVER ENOUGH SUPPORT TO UKRAINE FAST ENOUGH, ABOUT HOW NATO ALLIES DEFEATED IN DEFEATING ISIS, BUT ALSO HOW WE FAILED IN AFGHANISTAN.
AND HOW WE WERE UNITED IN INVITING FINLAND AND SWEDEN INTO THE ALLIANCE, BUT ALSO THE DISAGREEMENTS.
OF COURSE IT'S EASY TO BE TRANSPARENT AND OPEN WHEN I STEP DOWN THAN WHEN I WAS IN POSITION.
>> JENS STOLTENBERG, THANK YOU VERY MUCH INDEED.
>> THANKS MUCH FOR HAVING ME.
>>> 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 IS, QUOTE, DOING WELL, VERY WELL.
>> LOOK, RIGHT NOW, I FEEL VERY OPTIMISTIC.
CAN I SAY WITH 100% CERTAINTY IT'S GOING TO WORK?
NO.
BUT YOU DON'T DO DIFFICULT THINGS BY ONLY DOING WHAT'S 100% CERTAIN.
YOU DO DIFFICULT THINGS BY TRYING.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS ASKED US TO DO.
>> 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 HAS COME UNDER REPEATED ATTACK BY SETTLERS AND ISRAELI FORCES.
TOGETHER WITH ISRAELI JOURNALIST YUVAL ABRAHAM, HE CODIRECTED THE ACCLAIMED MOVIE "NO OTHER LAND," THE DOCUMENTARY WHICH WON THE OSCAR FOR BEST DOCUMENTARY, BUT HAS FAILED TO FIND A U. S. DISTRIBUTOR.
>> THIS IS WHAT'S HAPPENING IN MY VILLAGE NOW.
SOLDIERS ARE EVERYWHERE.
>> NOW THEY PLAN TO SELF-DISTRIBUTE, AND BOTH JOINED ME FROM THE BELEAGUERED VILLAGE MUSAFFA YATA.
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 --IT LOOKS LIKE AN AMAZING SIGHT.
BUT WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON OVER THE LAST SEVERAL DAYS AND WEEKS THERE?
>> WELL, YEAH, MY VILLAGE WITH YUVAL, IT'S ONE OF THE 20 SMALL COMMUNITIES HERE IN IS THE SOUTH HEBRON AREA CALLED MUSAFA YATA TOWN.
WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR THE LAST THREE MONTHS VERY CRAZY.
SETTLERS CREATING ILLEGAL OUTPOSTS.
TODAY THEY JUST STOLE ONE OF THE CAVES BELONG TO ONE OF THE FAMILIES NOT FAR FROM HERE, AND THEY STARTED A NEW ILLEGAL OUTPOST, ISRAELI OCCUPATION FORCES JOINED THEM.
AND KICK AWAY THE FAMILIES AND THE NEIGHBORS THAT GATHER THERE, TRY TO PROTEST AGAINST THIS ILLEGAL OUTPOST.
NOW AT LEAST NINE ILLEGAL ISRAELI OUTPOSTS HAVE BEEN BUILT BY JUST IN THE LAST TWO YEARS.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ISRAELI ARMY CONTINUE TO DESTROY HOMES, WATER WELLS, AND OTHER CONSTRUCTIONS.
>> 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.
>> YEAH, SO THIS IS OUR DEAR FRIEND AND OUR COLLEAGUE 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.
I WAS FILMING ACTUALLY THE LAST MOMENTS OF HIS LIFE, AND AS ALMOST ALWAYS IN THESE CASES, THE SETTLER TODAY IS NOT ONLY FREE, BUT HE IS ACTUALLY ALWAYS COMING AGAIN TO THE VILLAGE WHERE THERE IS NOW ANOTHER ILLEGAL OUTPOST THAT IS BEING BUILT THERE.
AND IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR US TO WEAR THIS SHIRT IN SOLIDARITY WITH OUR COLLEAGUE, BUT ALSO TO SAY, I MEAN, ANYBODY CAN THINK HOW IT MUST FEEL LIKE IF YOU SEE YOUR LOVED ONE BEING MURDERED IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES, AND THE PERSON WHO DID THAT FACES NO JUSTICE AND NO ACCOUNTABILITY, AND UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS HOW THESE THINGS HAPPEN HERE IN THIS PLACE THAT WE ARE IN UNDER ISRAEL'S MILITARY OCCUPATION FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME.
>> AND, OF COURSE, THE COLLEAGUE WHO HELPED ALSO ON "NO OTHER LAND," HAMDAN BILAL, HE WAS ATTACKED SHORTLY AFTER YOU ALL RECEIVED THE OSCAR.
AND BASEL, YOU'VE HAD RAIDS ON YOUR OWN HOUSE.
CAN YOU BOTH TELL ME, BASEL, YOU FIRST, WHAT IS 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?
>> WELL, THEY, YOU KNOW, ISRAELI OCCUPATION FORCES HAS TARGETED PALESTINIANS THAT SPEAK LOUDLY AGAINST THE OCCUPATION.
IN GAZA, THEY KILLED SYSTEMATICALLY OVER 250 JOURNALISTS AND ACTIVISTS AND HAVE BEEN COMMITTING THE GENOCIDE FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS RISKING THEIR LIFE, AND THEY'VE BEEN TARGETED BY THE ISRAELI FORCES.
HERE IN THE WEST BANK, WE'VE SEEN MANY OF OUR COLLEAGUES AND FRIENDS, PALESTINIAN JOURNALISTS ARE THROWN IN ISRAELI PRISONS AND JAILS WITH NO CHARGE, JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE COMMENTING AND THEY'RE TALKING OUT LOUD AGAINST THE OCCUPATION.
ME AND HAMDAN, AFTER WINNING THE OSCAR, HAMDAN HAS BEEN ATTACKED BY BOTH ISRAELI SETTLERS AND SOLDIERS IN FRONT OF HIS HOME, AND HAVE BEEN ABDUCTED AFTER THEN BY ISRAELI SOLDIERS FOR AT LEAST 24 HOUR IN ISRAELI MILITARY BASE, AND THEY'VE BEEN LIKE ATTACKING HIM, BEATING HIM, CURSING HIM THERE.
FOR ME, MYSELF, MY HOME HAVE BEEN INVADED AT LEAST THREE TIMES, HARASSING ME.
THEY DETAIN MY WIFE IN THE HOME, SEARCHING HER HOME AND LIKE JUST TO PROVOCATE US AND TO MAKE AS THEY CALL IT LIKE THEIR PRESENCE FELT IN OUR COMMUNITY AND IN OUR HOUSES HERE AS PALESTINIANS.
AND JUST TO SHOW US WHO IS THE BOSS.
AND THEY SAY THIS OUT LOUD, YOU KNOW.
>> 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?
I'M SURE YOU DO, TO TRY TO INTERVENE.
HOW DO THEY TREAT YOU AS A FELLOW ISRAELI?
>> YEAH, 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 AND OTHER AREAS NOW IN THE WEST BANK, ESPECIALLY IN THE OLIVE HARVEST SEASON WHERE THE EFFECTS ARE, YOU KNOW, HAPPENING ON A DAILY BASIS, THESE POGROMS, AND YES, TO TRY TO DO PROFITIVE PRESENCE, TO TRY TO DO DOCUMENTS, TO TRY TO BE FIRST IN LINE 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 A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE, HER HEAD WAS FRACTURED RECENTLY AND SHE WAS ATTACKED BY SETTLERS.
AND STILL, OF COURSE, IT'S NOT THE SAME AS FOR THE PALESTINIANS, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE CAN GO BACK HOME.
I CAN GO BACK TO JERUSALEM, A CITY THAT BASEL CANNOT ENTER AS A PALESTINIAN, LIKE MILLIONS OF OTHER PALESTINIANS.
AND SO WE ARE TRYING TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO USE THIS PRIVILEGE TO SHOW THAT THERE ARE ISRAELIS WHO ARE OPPOSING THIS OCCUPATION, BUT WE ARE VERY LITTLE.
AND HONESTLY, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF POWER, AND IT'S BECOMING LESS AND LESS EFFECTIVE UNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE THE VIOLENCE IS SO CRAZY.
AND WHATEVER YOU DO, IT'S VERY, VERY HARD TO FEEL LIKE IT HAS AN EFFECT.
BUT WE ARE CONTINUING.
WE'RE CONTINUING TO DO WHAT WE ARE DOING, WHICH IS TO BE ON THE GROUND, TO DOCUMENT, AND TO TRY AND CHANGE THIS REALITY.
WE NEED THE HELP OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, HONESTLY, CHRISTIANE.
I FEEL LIKE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY BY NOT TAKING ACTION IS WEAKENING PEOPLE LIKE US, PEOPLE FROM THE ISRAELI AND PALESTINIAN RIGHTS COMMUNITY.
AND WE REALLY NEED THIS BECAUSE THINGS ARE REALLY SEVERE ON THE GROUND RIGHT NOW.
>> YES, I HEAR YOU.
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?
>> SO UNFORTUNATELY, MAJOR DISTRIBUTORS IN THE U.S.
DID NOT WANT TO PICK "NO OTHER LAND" AND TO SHOW IT IN THE U.S.
I THINK THEY'RE 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 IS HELPING US WITH SOCIAL MEDIA, USING OUR ACCOUNTS.
AND WE TRY TO PUSH IT BY OURSELVES, BASICALLY.
AND WITH SOCIAL MEDIA COLLEAGUES AND FRIENDS WHO IS IN SOLIDARITY WITH SUPPORTING AND "NO OTHER LAND. "
>> OKAY, YUVAL, TELL ME MORE ABOUT IT.
BECAUSE APPARENTLY YOU'RE GOING TO DONATE 100% OF THE PROCEEDS TO MUSAFA YATA.
DO YOU THINK ENOUGH PEOPLE WILL SEE IT AND YOU'LL GET ENOUGH WORD OF MOUTH?
>> YES.
WE MADE THIS FILM FROM THE COMMUNITY AND FOR THE COMMUNITY.
AND IT MADE SENSE FOR US THAT ALL THE PROFITS 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.
WE'RE MAKING IT AVAILABLE ON THE DIFFERENT KIND OF PLATFORMS LIKE THE APPLE AND AMAZON AND GATHER AND THE DIFFERENT ONES WHERE YOU CAN GOOGLE "NO OTHER LAND" AND WATCH IT ONLINE.
AND I HOPE THAT PEOPLE DO.
I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF INTEREST TO WATCH THE FILM.
I MEAN, SOMEHOW WE WON THE OSCAR.
I DON'T KNOW.
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 SPENT SO MANY YEARS WORKING ON IT TOGETHER.
AND WE REALLY HOPE PEOPLE WATCH IT.
THE REASON WHY WE MADE IT IS THAT IT REACHES PEOPLE, NOT NECESSARILY THE PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH US.
WE WANT TO SHOW PEOPLE WHO MIGHT NOT UNDERSTAND REALLY HOW BRUTAL LIFE IS UNDER THIS MILITARY OCCUPATION, TO SEE IT, TO UNDERSTAND IT, TO SPEND AN HOUR AND A HALF IN THE SHOES OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE.
AND I THINK THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR ANYONE IN THE UNITED STATES TO WATCH SPECIFICALLY IN THIS MOMENT WHERE THE UNDERLYING MESSAGES OF THE FILM SPEAKING ABOUT A POLITICAL SOLUTION, SPEAKING ABOUT HOW THIS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE, THIS MILITARY OCCUPATION ARE, MORE RELEVANT THAN EVER, I BELIEVE.
>> AND QUICKLY, BEFORE I TURN TO BASEL AGAIN, DO YOU BELIEVE IT'S A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT SO FAR BY THE DISTRIBUTORS IN THE U.S.
JUST NOT TO GET THAT MESSAGE OUT?
>> YEAH.
I THINK IT IS.
WE'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH SEVERAL BIG STREAMERS.
YOU KNOW, YOU CAN IMAGINE THE NAMES, AND WERE ALWAYS TOLD WAIT.
IF YOU GET NOMINATED FOR THE OSCAR, WE WILL TAKE THE FILM.
AND WE WERE NOMINATED.
NOTHING HAPPENED.
IF YOU WIN, WE'LL TAKE THE FILM.
WE WON, AND NOTHING HAPPENED.
AND YES, WE DID HEAR THAT IT'S POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS.
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 A 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 WAS.
AND I HOPE THAT THAT HAPPENS.
>> I HOPE SO TOO.
OBVIOUSLY, IOWA 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 REALITIES.
SO BASEL, IF YOU GET ANY MONEY, WHAT WILL YOU OR WHOEVER GETS THE MONEY, WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU'LL REBUILD FIRST?
>> WELL, THERE ARE A LOT OF --THE MONEY IS VERY BIG FOR THE COMMUNITY HERE FOR THE EDUCATION, FOR STUDENTS, TO PAY THE FEES FOR THEM TO BUY BOOKS, TO HELP SCHOOLS.
FOR ME IS A PRIORITY ALSO TO SUPPLY WATER TO OUR COMMUNITIES HERE, BECAUSE IT'S VERY HARD FOR MANY PEOPLE TO GET LIKE WATER.
THEY NEED THIS MONEY VERY BIG, AND WE HOPE TO GET TO HELP AT LEAST THE MINIMUM TOWARD THE COMMUNITY OF NEED TO SURVIVE AND TO STAND STEADFAST IN FRONT OF THIS BRUTAL OCCUPATION AND SETTLERS.
>> I WANT TO ASK YOU BOTH, FIRST YOU, 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.
THE REPORTS OF PEOPLE COMING BACK TO NOTHING IS QUITE DRAMATIC.
>> YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT.
IT IS FLATTENED.
AND I THINK IT'S NOT FLATTENED BY COINCIDENCE.
AS SOMEONE WHO HAS SPOKEN TO MANY ISRAELI SOLDIERS WHO ACTUALLY FLATTENED HOMES IN GAZA, IT'S CLEAR THAT THIS WAS INTENTIONAL.
IT WAS DONE HOUSE AFTER HOUSE, CITY AFTER CITY.
RAFAH IS KHAN YUNIS IS ESSENTIALLY GONE.
FROM THE SAME PERSPECTIVE THAT IS GOING ON HERE, THAT BY MAKING THE LIFE THERE MISERABLE, PEOPLE WILL LEAVE.
IT WILL BE A FORM OF ETHNIC CLEANSING.
I THINK THEY WON'T QUICKLY GIVE UP ON THAT, YOU KNOW, ON THAT HORRIFIC DREAM.
AND I AM VERY WORRIED.
I THINK PART OF THE REASON WHY WE GOT THIS VERY FRAGILE CEASEFIRE, WHICH OF COURSE I'M VERY HAPPY THAT WE GOT, IS BECAUSE THERE WAS INTERNAL AND INTERNATIONAL PRESSURE.
BUT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING.
IT'S NOT THE END.
AND WE NEED THAT KIND OF PRESSURE NOW TO MOVE TOWARDS A POLITICAL SOLUTION.
IT WON'T HAPPEN OTHERWISE.
SO I AM VERY WORRIED THAT WE WILL SEE GAZA AS YOU SAID MUCH WORSE VERSION OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE WEST BANK WHERE ISRAEL RETAINS CONTROL OF 53% OF THE STRIP.
THE OTHER 47% IS CONSTANTLY BOMBED.
PEOPLE WILL NOT --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.
>> AND FINALLY, BASEL, YOUR FINAL THOUGHT.
AND DO YOU HAVE ANY HOPE THAT THE CEASEFIRE WILL HOLD?
>> I HOPE THAT THE CEASEFIRE WILL HOLD BEEN WATCHING 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, 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 OURETH KNICKS CLEANSING HERE ALL 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 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 IN DAILY BASIS.
SO WE NEED LIKE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PROTESTING IN THE STREET, POLITICIANS TO DO MORE.
AS YUVAL SAID, TO HAVE POLITICAL SOLUTION FOR THE FUTURE.
>> WELL, BASEL ADRA, YUVAL ABRAHAM, THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH INDEED FOR BEING WITH US.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
>>> 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.
>> THANK YOU, CHRISTIANE, AND MR.
JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY.
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.
>> IT'S AN HONOR AND A PLEASURE TO BE WITH YOU, WALTER.
>> WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT YOUR GREAT NEW BOOK LIFE, LAW, AND LIBERTY, WHICH IS A COMBINATION OF A MEMOIR AND A LOOK AT THE CASE AS YOU DECIDED WHEN YOU WERE ON THE SUPREME COURT.
BUT I WANT TO START AT THE BEGINNING.
IN 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.
>> WELL, FOR 100 YEARS, BEGINNING AROUND THE GOLD RUSH, 1845 AND THEN 1848, PEOPLE CAME WEST.
AND BEFORE THEY CAME TO CALIFORNIA, THEY CAME TO WHAT WE NOW CALL THE MIDWEST.
AND THE UNSETTLED PARTS OF OUR COUNTRY ALWAYS HAD GREAT HONOR FOR OUR PROCLAMATION.
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 CAN GO TO HAWAII.
STEINBECK WROTE "EAST OF EDEN. "
WE'RE ALWAYS JUST EAST OF PERFECT.
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.
>> WHEN READING THIS BOOK, I WAS REMINDED OF JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNER TOO WHOSE EXPERIENCE IN THE WEST, EXPERIENCE AS A LEGISLATOR TURNED HER IN SOME WAYS INTO A SWING VOTE ON THE COURT.
SOMETIMES WE DON'T LIKE USING THE WORDS "SWING VOTE" BECAUSE IT'S THE LAW THAT SWINGS, NOT THE JUSTICE.
BUT YOU ALL WERE BOTH PRAGMATIC WESTERN PEOPLE WHO COULD GO EITHER WAY ON IDEOLOGICAL ISSUES.
IS THAT TRUE?
>> WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME EITHER WAY IT SEEMS THAT MY PHILOSOPHY WAS CONSISTENT.
AND AS YOU HAVE INDICATED IN THE CASES, THE ONES THAT WENT EITHER WAY.
THE CASES WERE SWINGING.
I WASN'T SWINGING.
BUT THE DUTY OF A JUDGE, OF COURSE, IS TO --OR A JUSTICE IS TO LOOK AT EVERY CASE AND TO ASK IN EVERY CASE WHAT IS MOTIVATING ME, WHAT INSTINCTS, WHAT PRINCIPLES?
IS THERE SOMETHING UNKNOWN TO MYSELF THAT'S MOTIVATING ME?
AND SO EVERY JUDGE IN EVERY CASE, JUST LIKE PEOPLE IN OTHER PROFESSIONS AND OTHER PURSUITS MUST HAVE ASKED THEMSELVES WHY AM I ABOUT TO DO THIS.
BUT WE HAVE THE SWORN DUTY TO DO THAT.
AND EVEN SUPPOSE YOU DECIDED A CASE THREE WEEKS AGO, AND YOU HAVE ANOTHER CASE THAT PRESENTS ALMOST THE SAME ISSUE.
WELL, IN THE LAW, WE WANT TO BE CONSISTENT.
SO THERE IS A RULE THAT YOU SHOULD FOLLOW PRECEDENT IF NECESSARY.
I MEAN, IN MOST CASES, BUT YOU STILL OWE IT TO THOSE PARTIES WHO WERE IN FRONT OF YOU TO LISTEN TO THEIR ARGUMENT AND TO THINK ABOUT IT AGAIN.
AND MAYBE YOU'LL FIND THAT YOU WEREN'T RIGHT THE FIRST TIME.
>> 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 IS MORE CONSERVATIVE.
BUT THE THROUGH-LINE SEEMS TO BE A DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH.
THAT SOMETHING THAT MOTIVATED YOU?
>> THE FLAG BURNING CASE WAS INTERESTING.
THE COURT DIVIDED ALONG UNUSUAL LINES.
THOSE WHO DISSENTED, WHO WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE PROSECUTION FOR BURNING THE FLAG, WHO SAID THE FLAG BURNING LAW, 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.
SO WHEN THEIR COLLEAGUES THAT LOST THEIR LIFE PROTECTING THE AMERICAN FLAG.
BUT FOR US, IT WAS A DIFFICULT CASE BECAUSE THE FLAG IS A BEAUTIFUL FLAG, AND IT SYMBOLIZES ART 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 U.S.
SENATORS GOT TO THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE TO DENOUNCE THE COURT AND DENOUNCE THE DECISION.
AND THERE WERE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THE COURT, BURNING THE FLAG.
WELL, TO BEGIN WITH, IT WAS A DIFFICULT PLACE.
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?
SECOND THESE PEOPLE SAID BURNING SOMETHING IS SPEECH?
WELL, YES, IT WAS EXPRESSION AND IN A VERY POWERFUL WAY.
AND IT WAS INTERESTING TO ME 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.
>> 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?
>> WELL, IF SOMEBODY SAID SPEECH IS SPENDING MONEY, ARE YOU CRAZY?
WHAT ABOUT "THE NEW YORK TIMES"?
WHAT ABOUT IF "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 - - >> BUT CITIZENS UNITED, WHICH WAS THE CASE THAT YOU WROTE THE OPINION OF, THAT ALLOWS THESE CONTRIBUTIONS, ALLOWED BIG BUSINESSES TO ACT AS IF THEY WERE INDIVIDUALS.
DO YOU CECI ANY BAD EFFECTS NOW FROM THAT CITIZENS UNITED DECISION?
>> IT WAS A DECISION 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 WHERE IS THE ANSWER?
ARE YOU GOING SAY THAT A SMALL CORPORATION, A GROCERY STORE OR A CHAMBER --CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE ARE USUALLY A CORPORATION, THAT THEY CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN CAMPAIGNS?
WHERE IS THE STOPPING POINT?
THE ANSWER IS AN INFORMED PUBLIC.
THE VOTERS OUGHT TO KNOW WHO IS GIVING MONEY.
AND AS THEY SEE TONS OF MONEY BEING POURED INTO A CAMPAIGN, THEY SHOULD VOTE FOR THE OTHER PERSON.
YOU NEED INFORMED VOTERS FOR DEMOCRACY TO WORK.
>> DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS, THOUGH, THAT THESE SUPERPACs THAT PEOPLE CAN DONATE TO ANONYMOUSLY IS NOT BE COVERED BY THAT SUPREME COURT DECISION YOU WROTE?
>> 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 IS GIVING THEM MONEY, AND THEY DON'T WANT TO TELL YOU WHO'S GOT THE MONEY, THAT'S A REASON TO VOTE AGAINST THE CANDIDATE AS WELL.
>> BACK WHEN YOU WERE JUST GRADUATING FROM HIGH SCHOOL, ONE OF THE MOST SEMINOLE CASES IN OUR COUNTRY WAS DECIDED, WHICH WAS BROWN VERSUS THE BOARD OF EDUCATION.
WHICH OVERTURNED A LONG-STANDING PRECEDENT OF PLESSIV FERGUSON.
HOW DID THAT AFFECT YOUR THINKING ABOUT LIBERTY?
>> IT AFFECTED IT IN THE LONG-TERM.
MY FATHER WHO WAS AN ATTORNEY, AND THIS WAS DAYS BEFORE THE INTERNET AND THE FAX, 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 THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT OPINIONS IN THE HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT.
AND IT SEEMS TO ME AS A TEENAGER, WELL, WE'VE SETTLED IT.
WE SAID YOU CAN'T DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MINORITY RACES AND THAT'S THE END OF IT.
WE CAN GO ON TO SOME OTHER THINGS.
THIS WAS TOTALLY NAIVE.
BROWN WAS JUST 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 TO TRY TO DO BETTER.
>> 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?
>> YES.
IT'S CALLED THE SHADOW DOCKET, A NEW TERM FOR US.
AND 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.
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 IS A GROUND THAT THEY SHOULD TRY TO WAIT FOR AT LEAST A COUPLE OF WEEKS SO THEY CAN GIVE A RECENT OPINION.
BUT THE COURT IS STRUGGLING WITH THAT AND THE COURT FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE NECESSITY OF GIVING REASONS WHENEVER IT CAN.
>> 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 IN EACH NEW GENERATION HAS TO UNDERSTOOD 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.
>> IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT PROTEST IS A PART OF FREE SPEECH.
IT'S NECESSARY.
THE HOME WITH IDEA OF FREE SPEECH IS THAT YOU AND I CAN DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER AND HAVE AN EARNEST, INTENSE INFORMED RESPECTFUL DEBATE.
BUT IT HAS TO BE RESPECTFUL.
AND WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THIS.
AND THIS IS THE WAY -- THIS IS THE WAY WE LEARN, IS 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 HAVE 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 --THERE'S THIS BALANCE WHICH IS ONE IN WHICH AN EDUCATED REPUBLIC WHO RESPECTS THE IDEA OF SPEECH MUST FIND, MUST STRUGGLE TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE.
>> 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?
>> 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 LEGISLATURE OR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS THE DUTY TO OBEY THE CONSTITUTION AND TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTION AND TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION IN ALL THEIR OFFICIAL ACTS.
AND SIMPLY JUST BECAUSE A QUESTION CAN'T BE PUT INTO THE CONTEXT OF THE 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.
>> AND WHAT WORRIES YOU ABOUT THAT TODAY?
>> IT'S JUST NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT EACH --THAT ALL OFFICIALS ARE CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT NUMBER ONE, THEY SHOULDN'T EXERCISE THEIR POWERS TO THE EXTREME, BECAUSE THAT INTRUDES ON OTHER BRANCHES.
>> MR.
JUSTICE KENNEDY, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.
>> WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR QUESTIONS AND FOR SAYING THAT YOU'VE READ THE BOOK WITHOUT FALLING ASLEEP.
>> AND THAT'S IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.
IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT'S COMING UP EVERY NIGHT, SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER AT PBS.ORG/AMANPOUR.
THANKS FOR WATCHING AND GOODBYE FROM LONDON.
♪ >>> "AMANPOUR & CO."
IS MADE POSSIBLE BY --THE ANDERSON FAMILY ENDOWMENT JIM ATTWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS CANDACE KING WEIR THE SYLVIA A. AND SIMON B. POYTA PROGRAMING ENDOWMENT TO FIGHT ANTISEMITISM THE FAMILY FOUNDATION OF LEILA AND MICKEY STRAUS THE FILOMEN M. D'AGOSTINO FOUNDATION THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ COONEY FUND CHARLES ROSENBLUM MONIQUE SCHOEN WARSHAW KOO AND PATRICIA YUEN, COMMITTED TO BRIDGING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN OUR COMMUNITIES BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.
THANK YOU.
Do Free Speech and Protests Have Limits? Fmr. Supreme Court Justice Explains
Video has Closed Captions
Clip: 10/21/2025 | 16m 46s | Fmr. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy discusses his book "Life, Law & Liberty.” (16m 46s)
Providing Support for PBS.org
Learn Moreabout PBS online sponsorship- News and Public Affairs
Top journalists deliver compelling original analysis of the hour's headlines.
- News and Public Affairs
FRONTLINE is investigative journalism that questions, explains and changes our world.
Support for PBS provided by: