Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba; Interview with The New York Times Magazine Staff Writer and "Rise and Kill First" Author Ronen Bergman; Interview with "Antidemocratic" Author David Daley. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 03, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DMYTRO KULEBA, UKRAINIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: So, I don't know how many more tragedies like this have to occur for all promises to be fulfilled and for
all new commitments to be made.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: A devastating Russian strike kills dozens in Central Ukraine. I speak with Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba straight after a meeting of the
war cabinet with President Zelenskyy.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think it's time for Prime Minister Netanyahu to do more on this issue? Do you think he's doing enough?
JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: No.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- tens of thousands of Israelis out on the streets. Will it be enough to make Benjamin Netanyahu budge?
Bianna Golodryga speaks to journalist Ronen Bergman. And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID DALEY, AUTHOR, "ANTIDEMOCRATIC": The Roberts court continuously puts its thumb on the scale to the advantage of the Republican politicians who
placed them there?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- Hari Sreenivasan speaks to "Antidemocratic" author David Daley about what he calls an effort by Republicans to undermine majority
rule.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in Kyiv, where the nation is reeling from yet another catastrophic Russian attack. As of
now, more than 50 people are dead in a ballistic missile strike on a military educational facility and a hospital in the central Ukrainian City
of Poltava, and there's much more than a hundred injured.
The Ukrainian defense ministry said that the time between the air raid alarm and the strike was so short that it caught people as they were trying
to get to shelter. It's one of the deadliest single attacks since Russia invaded February 2022. That's 30 months ago. And the Ukrainian government
said tonight that both civilians and servicemen were among the casualties.
President Zelenskyy has responded to this attack with a plea for more support, saying, quote, "We continue to urge everyone in the world who has
the power to stop this terror. Ukraine needs air defense systems and missiles now, not sitting in storage. Every day of delay, unfortunately,
means more lost lives."
Now, Dmytro Kuleba is Ukraine's foreign minister, and we spoke right after news of the mass killing in Poltava broke. At the time, the numbers were
coming in, and the numbers he gave were still being counted.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Foreign Minister Kuleba, welcome to the program. You've had an important meeting with the president and members of the war cabinet today.
Poltava was attacked and there have been scores of injured and dead. Can you confirm to us what happened, what was targeted, what are the
casualties?
DMYTRO KULEBA, UKRAINIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: Ballistic missiles, educational facility, the City of Poltava, a large city in Ukraine. I actually come
myself from Poltava region. My father is from there. So, this geography is very familiar to me.
And we had a very detailed briefing. And the main takeaway, the main lesson that I want everyone again to hear about, and we will not get tired of
reminding of it, this is just another reason why delivery of air defense systems to Ukraine must be expedited.
AMANPOUR: Do you think if you had them there, this would have been intercepted?
KULEBA: Well, ballistic missiles are very difficult to intercept, and Poltava is in the east of Ukraine, so much closer to the Russian territory.
According to what I know, the time range for the for the ballistic missiles to reach the target was very short. And the only way to intercept them was
to have to have a Patriot system or SAMP/T air defense system because they're the only one capable of intercepting ballistic missiles.
So, I didn't know how many more tragedies like this have to occur for all promises to be fulfilled and for all new commitments to be made.
AMANPOUR: From what we understand, and I'd like you to confirm, the education facility was targeted as was a hospital. This is a defense
education -- a military education center. Can you tell us what are the number of casualties?
[13:05:00]
KULEBA: Well, the most recent number that I heard was like 40 dead, but -- and more than a hundred wounded. But this numbers, unfortunately, are
growing. We started the meeting in the morning with one number, and the meeting lasted for hour and a half, and by the end of it, the numbers
increased.
AMANPOUR: In the last week, it seems that this barrage from Russia against Ukraine has really stepped up. I mean, there have just been a lot of
attacks. Just this week alone, on Monday, the first day of school, you know, there was a lot of incoming here in Kyiv and elsewhere. To what do
you attribute this -- not sudden, but this noticeable increase?
KULEBA: Winter is coming. Putin still has the same purpose, to freeze people, to destroy our economy. And this is his strategy. So, I'm afraid
that he will continue to -- he will continue with his barrage of missile and drone attacks in the course of the autumn.
But I want to set one thing straight, I don't want anyone to think that Ukraine is asking for air defense systems while sitting itself with hands
down. This is not the case. We are doing more than we can to use our mobile groups, shooting, intercepting drones to efficiently use air defense
systems available to us. So, we are doing our part of the homework. We are asking our partners to do their part of the homework, especially with
regards to those systems which were promised but have not delivered yet.
AMANPOUR: So, obviously, you're waiting for more deliveries, but you've also said the weapons that you actually have, you need to be free to use
them into its full capacity. The head of the E.U. Foreign Policy agrees with you, says, otherwise, these weapons are useless. You said that you are
fighting with your hands behind your backs.
I know that you have sent a delegation to the United States, to the administration. Where are you on trying to get these restrictions, and
they're mostly from the United States, lifted?
KULEBA: Well, my impression is that we are facing a last mile problem. And I wreckle (ph) my mind on how to cover that last mile. The decision -- the
capacity of Ukraine to strike military targets deep inside of Russia and diminish the Russian capacity for air attacks on Ukraine laced with the
United States, United Kingdom, France, and Germany, these are the countries who are close to us, who are friendly to us, and they have necessary
missiles.
So, they have to do two things, basically. First, to make a decision that allows us to strike these military airfields where strategic bombers take
off carrying missiles and bombs. And second, to provide us with the sufficient amount of those missiles. This is not a rocket science. This is
just a very banal issue of making the right decisions on time.
AMANPOUR: So, what would you say to them? Because you constantly hear that the reason is escalation. They don't want escalation with Russia.
KULEBA: What else has to happen for everyone in the world to understand that the escalation argument is flawed. It never worked in the last two and
a half years. It simply serves as an excuse not to do something.
AMANPOUR: Meantime, the Polish foreign minister said on Monday that they had to scramble fighter jets along their border with Ukraine because of the
incoming ballistic missiles. That's a NATO country. And, you know, it's taking its matters into its own hands.
Let me just read what Radek Sikorski -- he essentially said, membership in NATO does not trump each country's responsibility for the protection of its
own airspace, it's our own constitutional duty. When hostile missiles are on course of entering our airspace, it would be legitimate self-defense to
strike them.
So, have you talked to Poland or other NATO neighbors about this? Do you foresee more of the frontline states becoming involved like this?
KULEBA: Oh, we are talking to Poland extensively and they feel this threat on their skin. So, they are the most natural interlocutor for us to have
this conversation, but they cannot make this decision on their own because their air defense system is part of the integrated NATO air defense system.
So, there needs to be a decision that will be cleared, will be agreed upon by all parties involved.
AMANPOUR: To actually intercept these ballistic missiles?
KULEBA: To intercept these ballistic missiles.
AMANPOUR: Even in Ukrainian airspace?
[13:10:00]
KULEBA: Well, it's a piece of steel. It's -- I don't know, maybe aluminum, whatever it's made of. But let's get it clear, intercepting Russian missile
is not about killing Russian soldiers, which could theoretically be interpreted as an entry to the war or becoming a party to the conflict. But
this is just a piece of death that flights in the air and it has to be, must be intercepted in Ukraine if it is within the reach of the allied air
defense system.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you about the Kursk incursion? This seemed to come as a big surprise to everybody. You obviously have very good operational
security, but even your allies were surprised. Why did you do this? From the -- let's just say from the diplomatic perspective, which you are the
chief diplomat. What was -- what is the strategy behind this?
KULEBA: Well, first, every war of this scale that we are having is -- has multiple theaters of war. So, things happen simultaneously in different
directions. And you have to constantly think how to make the life of your enemy more complicated. How to impose your will on the enemy and not endure
the will of the enemy imposed on you.
Second, you remember we spoke like in the spring, I think, and everyone was talking about a stalemate in the war, and there is nothing Ukraine can do.
Ukraine cannot change the course of the war. Russia is moving, is advancing, and there is nothing Ukraine can do. And it had a direct impact
in capitals among our partners and their decision-making processes.
Now, we showed everyone, we defeated, not only we defeated the Russian army in Kursk, we defeated the argument so popular in -- among our partners,
that there was a stalemate. Because now, everyone sees that when -- everyone sees what we've been talking about all the time. When Ukraine has
everything it need, we do not lack courage and military skill to advance and win.
AMANPOUR: Was -- so, you know, this is something you wanted to show your partners. It's morale boost for your own people. Was it aimed at changing a
calculation in Moscow too around -- to Putin or people around Putin?
KULEBA: I don't believe in people around Putin. I think the -- I think what people of Russia saw is that Putin is more efficient in grabbing
someone else's land than in defending his own land. And I think this is a very important message. We -- that none of us can fully appreciate in the
sense of its impact on the people of Russia, but it's there. They're talking about it. They're asking themselves questions. And now, that the
Russians see how the Russian army is evening (ph) with the ground, Russian villages, Russian houses, that has a very negative impact on them as well.
AMANPOUR: Talking about grabbing territory, as you know, Russians are advancing on Pokrovsk on, you know, important logistical hubs. Was this
worth it, this trade-off? Because there is, as you can tell in the chatter around, there's some anger amongst Ukrainians. They say, hang on a second,
there's one thing going up there, but don't forget, we need to be able to defend the territory that we're trying to defend here. This is also really
important. Can you talk to that and to the trade-off if there is such one?
KULEBA: First, we do not think in terms of trade-offs. This is not our logic. We're not trading our territories. We are not trading our people.
There was a clear objective to make Russia's life more difficult, and this was one of the key goals of the Kursk operation.
Second, as President Zelenskyy stated on numerous occasions, we have taken many prisoners of war, which in Kursk, which will allow us to do a swap and
bring our soldiers -- more of our soldiers back. This is a very important issue. Very --
AMANPOUR: And the territorial swap possibly, is that also an issue? I mean, if you occupy however many square kilometers of Russian land, is that
also a bargaining chip?
KULEBA: No, we don't -- again, we don't think of it in terms of swapping territories, because that will imply that we have to swap something in
Ukraine, and we won't do that. But, again, if we were not doing anything, and Russia was still advancing near Pokrovsk, you know, the argument would
be why you're not doing anything.
We've done something. Something that is having an impact, but it does not undermine our efforts in Pokrovsk. Of course, our generals are better fit
to talk about this matter, but from what I see, again, this is a war of multiple theaters, and we should never waste an opportunity to inflict more
damage on the enemy.
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: So, as you spoke at the beginning, the Russians see winter coming. They want to attack your energy grid like they did the first winter
for sure. And you are also attacking their refineries. I mean, let's face it. And the west doesn't like that because it jacks up the price of oil.
But there has been a report that there was some diplomacy potentially underway to have at least some kind of localized ceasefire on energy
infrastructure for the winter that Qatar or someone else might mediate. Can you confirm that to us and tell us, this is before the Kursk incursion?
KULEBA: Well, ever since the large-scale invasion began, there were numerous attempts to do diplomacy against the background of the raging
frontline. Some initiatives were more successful than others. But first and foremost, the -- to think that, you know, Ukraine was attacked. Ukraine is
being attacked. It's in -- we lost half of our energy generation as a result of Russian attacks. You don't have to bargain with them on this.
They must stop it. This is, I think, clear to everyone.
So, I would -- what I can say is that rumors that Kursk operation killed the opportunity to defend Ukraine, to stop Russian attacks on Ukraine's
energy infrastructure, are largely exaggerated.
AMANPOUR: As I said, you have a delegation trying to persuade the administration to do many things. I also want to understand where you are
with NATO. You were hoping for an invitation to start the process during the summer summit. It didn't come. Do you think it's going to come anytime
soon?
KULEBA: If I didn't I wouldn't --
AMANPOUR: When do you think it might?
KULEBA: Well, I clearly see an opportunity for that to happen before the next summit -- NATO Summit in the Netherlands, in 2025. I think, you know,
when there is a will, there is a way. And the way is actually clear, you don't even have to look for it because, by all accounts, Ukraine can
receive an invitation, even now, even today.
Because we're not talking about imminent membership in the -- in NATO. This is just about clarifying the signal, about removing this -- the -- this --
there is a saying, the constructive ambiguity. It's not constructive anymore.
So, I think for us, the issue of the invitation is still on the table. We are bringing this point up in talks with our allies, of course, first and
foremost, with the United States. And we want to make it very clear, we're not talking about becoming NATO member tomorrow, we're talking about
extending invitation to Ukraine today.
AMANPOUR: Meantime, can you tell us about the four-point victory plan that you're also going to present to the administration? What is that?
KULEBA: Let's leave it to the president. He made a teaser about it and it's very short, but in my view, very efficient way if partners decide to
support it. President, will, himself, reveal all the details at the appropriate time.
AMANPOUR: Lastly, as we speak, and as these ballistic missiles keep raining down, President Putin is in Mongolia being received by the
president there. Mongolia is a signatory to the ICC. The president has been indicted for removing Ukrainian children. What's your reaction to that?
KULEBA: Well, if --
AMANPOUR: Did you talk to the Mongolians? Did you --
KULEBA: It's strong. Well, we told them -- we sent a very clear message ahead of the visit. It was ignored. We sent a very clear message after the
visit began. It seems to be ignored as well. We will be talking inside of Ukraine and also with our partners on how Mongolia's respect towards its
own international obligations under the Rome Statute.
AMANPOUR: But you don't expect President Putin to be arrested while he's there?
KULEBA: Well, I do, but from everything I've seen so far, it seems to me that Mongolia decided to blatantly violate its obligations under the Rome
Statute.
AMANPOUR: Foreign Minister Kuleba, thank you very much indeed for being with us.
KULEBA: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And in Washington, reacting to the Russian strike today, the U.S. National Security Council spokesperson, John Kirby, offered
condolences to the people of Ukraine, calling it another horrific reminder of the extent of Mr. Putin's brutality. And reiterating, quote, "unshakable
U.S. support for Kyiv." Of course, that is something that this government would be very pleased to hear about. But they would keep saying, yes, we
appreciate your thoughts, but we need the weapons to defend ourselves.
[13:20:00]
Let's get back now to Bianna in New York for the rest of the day's news.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Such an interesting conversation and interview, and it's such a pivotal time there with that massive strike,
Christiane, the casualty figures continue to climb. I'm curious, what is the mood there in Kyiv today following this devastating strike?
AMANPOUR: So, this is yet another one in a -- I mean, the worst one that, as we say, for many, many months, perhaps since the beginning of the war.
But there has been a real uptick of very, very hard ballistic missile strikes all over the country, including here, including on the first day of
school, which was yesterday.
And of course, it upsets people, of course it shakes them. But we also know that they basically say, surrender is not an option. Capitulation, loss,
occupation, none of these are an option. And honestly, when I talk to people, whether they are citizens or whether they're in the realm of trying
to, you know, build up the military capability, try to -- you know, more in the organization sphere, they are prepared for this to be a long slog.
I think they know that whatever they might have hoped at the beginning, once they repelled the initial Russian invasion from around Kyiv, perhaps
they hoped that, you know, that momentum would bring them a much swifter victory. But now, they see that this is going to be in a really, really for
a long time. So, they really need not only to bolster their own defenses, bolster their own morale, bolster their conscripts and manpower, but also,
hope that their partners will give them the vital and quickly and in a timely manner, the vital things they need to defend themselves against
these kinds of missiles, for instance.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, it is a notable and understandable argument to make from Kuleba, where he says these air defense systems are not intended to kill
Russian soldiers, they're intended to protect Ukrainian lives. Christiane, really important interview at a pivotal moment. Thank you so much.
Meantime, to the Middle East, where Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was under pressure at home and around the world after the murders
this weekend of six hostages in Gaza by Hamas. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis flooded the streets this week to protest the government's failure
to secure a ceasefire and hostage deal. And in Washington, President Biden says flat out that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not doing enough to secure a
deal.
The prime minister, meantime, is defiant, saying any concessions by Israel now would empower Hamas to, quote, "kill more hostages." Critics of the
prime minister accuse him of sentencing the remaining hostages to death, while a source close to negotiations told CNN, quote, "This guy torpedoed
everything in one speech."
Now, this comes as the British government is now suspending some arms exports to Israel to prevent their possible use in violence of
international humanitarian law. Joining me now is Journalist Ronen Bergman, staff writer for The New York Times Magazine who's been closely following
this story for us. Ronen, welcome back to the program. It's good to see you.
So, in his speech yesterday, the prime minister made clear that he would not compromise on the Philadelphi Corridor, and that clearly is a
nonstarter for any serious negotiations and agreement regarding a hostage deal. And Israeli media claims that he hasn't mentioned the Philadelphi
Corridor for 15 years. It wasn't in the initial May proposal that the prime minister and President Biden agreed to. And I spoke to the mother of a
hostage, Meirav Leshem Gonen, whose daughter Romi remains held captive in Gaza. And here's what she said after the prime minister's speech.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MEIRAV LESHEM GONEN, MOTHER OF ISRAELI HOSTAGE: I think I wanted to speak to the International Community, which is important also in this agreement.
This is something that we're doing together. And I'm just asking why a fielder fee (ph) is so important. It wasn't important for eight months.
So, I asked the International Community to check if this is so important, how they will take responsibility over that? So, Israel will not have to
stay there and we will be able to take out the hostages and still remain this border as quiet as possible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Ronen, how did the Philadelphi Corridor become such a stumbling block? And why is the prime minister so defiant now at this point about it?
RONEN BERGMAN STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE AND AUTHOR, "RISE AND KILL FIRST": Thank you, Bianna. I think quoting one of the most senior
and veteran and experienced and knowledgeable people, Israeli officials who are -- who's deeply involved in the negotiation, he told me, this was weeks
ago, but he repeated that today, he said, people don't understand that the -- whatever, the Philadelphi Corridor or other obstacle that Netanyahu
inserted two months after he and Israel proposed the May 27th draft, it's all about sabotaging the agreement.
[13:25:00]
It's not about that graph or the other, that condition or that mechanism if they're so, you will come up with something else. It's all about the
agreement, making sure that there will be no agreement and not about securing safety, national security, because if this was so important --
yesterday, Mr. Netanyahu defined -- he called the Philadelphi Corridor something existential for Israel. While Israeli military intelligence and
Mossad, I think, will doubt much of the information that Netanyahu said about or claimed about the importance of the Philadelphi Corridor,
especially for Hamas and for the Hamas military buildup. If this is so important, why Netanyahu failed to mention that just months ago, when it
was clear, according to his version, that it is so important.
And this is, again, about other things. Netanyahu agreed to the May 27 proposal. Now, he says he accepted that, but he proposed that. Then when he
saw that Hamas, on July 2nd, gave an answer that had still many difficulties, but was seen as relatively positive by the Israeli
intelligence community and the Israeli negotiators, they thought this is the opening for signing an agreement.
Shortly afterwards, he wrote a document, which he called it a clarification, but they did many things except for clarifying where he
added the Philadelphi Corridor, he added the need to deal with the arrangements to open the Rafah Crossing, which is just another euphemism to
put the obstacle and many other things, that according to the experts of Israeli military establishment, could hold the green for years, because
there will be more, just more and more and more excuses.
Netanyahu, political analysts say, is afraid of the right-wing part, the ultra-right-wing part of his government. They already threatened that if
there is a deal, if there is a ceasefire, if there is a withdrawal from Gaza, where they want to re-establish the settlement and annex Gaza, they
will disassemble the coalition. And Netanyahu -- Prime Minister Netanyahu set up his priority, putting high above the hostage, their fate, dying
hostage and their fate, the integrity of his coalition.
GOLODRYGA: And this comes as Israel is now burying the latest six hostages who were discovered after they were murdered over the weekend by Hamas. By
all intents and purposes, it's three of them, if not five of them were expected to have been part of the initial phase of a deal to come home.
This comes just days, hours, perhaps, after a contentious meeting was leaked at a cabinet meeting in which the prime minister seemed to blindside
his cabinet by ordering that there be a vote on the Philadelphi Corridor.
You and I've discussed the increased daylight now between the defense establishment in particular, the defense minister, Gallant, who has said,
now is time for a deal. We do not need to maintain IDF troops at that Philadelphi Corridor in exchange for what could happen to these hostages.
It is pertinent to bring them home. And their strategy is strategic argument to be made to pause the war as well.
If that's not enough to convince the prime minister, in addition to some of the largest rallies we've seen in years, what is going to be the turning
point? Is it defections, resignations from his coalition from his cabinet, or will it likely be more increased pressure from the outside, in
particular, the Biden administration?
BERGMAN: I don't -- I cannot read his mind, nor I will try. But it seems that if the integrity of the coalition is what he cares about more than
anything else, then anyone who will defect the coalition will endanger that and maybe pose a real threat, a real price tag that would or could
influence. But I don't know -- nobody knows if this is going to happen.
The daylight is -- the day night difference is not just between him and the minister of defense, it could be just a different between politicians. The
whole of the military and intelligence establishment all say that it's not just about -- and it's very important, the fate of the hostages were dying
every day. Dozens of hostages died in captivity. They were taken alive from Gaza. They were not released because the previous ceasefire and the
exchange exploded in the middle. And then they died and they could have been home if there was a deal.
[13:30:00]
But it's not just about that. This is the opening of a new chapter, a new page in the Middle East. It will enable Israel to try to have some kind of
political solution in the north. It will stop Hezbollah from firing to Israel. It will enable maybe the reconciliation with Saudi Arabia, the re-
establishment, the rebuilding of Israel. It will start reconciliation and the inquiry panel, all of this, the election, all of this, these are the
things that Mr. Netanyahu is afraid of.
And I am -- I think that the only possible real pressure that is imminent that could happen is the United States, is the administration. But the
administration in the last few weeks seemed to be lowering the temperature. We saw different signs in the last two days, but before that, we saw an
administration that Israeli official was surprised to find very incoherent and in coordination with Mr. Netanyahu.
They thought that the administration -- Mr. -- the secretary of state said when he came to put pressure, it did not happen. They see that it is
connected to the elections. The last two days have brought a different approach with President Biden criticized Prime Minister Netanyahu harshly.
I think the Israeli administration, the military and the negotiators are now waiting for the U.S. to make a move together with Qatar and Egypt,
propose a deal, take it or leave it. And as much as they hope that Qatar and Egypt will pressure Hamas to accept, I think that they are hoping, the
Israeli seniors, are hoping that the United States will force -- will pressure Mr. Netanyahu to accept.
GOLODRYGA: What does that pressure look like? I mean, what exact leverage does the United States have except for saying, this is the final take it or
leave it deal? Do you think -- and I know you referenced the upcoming elections, but do you see a scenario where there could be more weapons that
are withheld? You've seen what is mostly described as a symbolic move, not necessarily related to the past four or five days or Netanyahu's speech
from the United Kingdom, but could it be threats along those lines from America's -- from Israel's top ally that could finally light a fire under
Netanyahu, or will it only increase his popularity at home?
BERGMAN: Yes, you take me out of my area of comfort to advise the administration. Although, I understand the administration, we have other
reporters in The New York Times to talk about that. But I think, as far as I understand, after the -- or during the Netanyahu visit, President Biden
approved all Israeli requests except for few or one, but at least most of them, the vast majority for weapon and ammunition were approved. And I
don't think that the administration will walk away from.
But, you know, Israel is so dependent in the U.S. And so, I would say entangled into the U.S. support. The U.S. I think will have, if needed, the
means to show Mr. Netanyahu the discomfort if the existing situation will continue to endanger the hostages. What they will do, I don't know. As I
said, Israeli officials are looking with concern at the administration for what they believe to be standing down and deciding not to have a public
quarrel, a public fight with the Israeli prime minister.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And it's hard to see this president in particular just backing out of these talks. There are four Americans believed to still be
held alive in Gaza as well. You mentioned the other potential fronts. Obviously, a lot of concern about the north and Hezbollah. Iran has yet to
respond following the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh. And now, we're seeing an increase in violence in the West Bank as well.
Just over the last several weeks, we've had the Palestinian officials there saying that 33 Palestinians have been killed in the last week. There have
been more raids, two car bombs, three Israeli police officers were killed.
[13:35:00]
How much of a concern is what's happening in the West Bank right now in terms of a potential third front opening up imminently?
BERGMAN: Well, it depends on who you ask. If you ask Israeli intelligence, if you ask the Shin Bet, the internal domestic secret service or the
military or COGAT, who's in charge of coordinating Israeli operations in the West Bank, they are very concerned.
They believe that the West Bank is on the brick of an explosion of the third uprising, the third intifada. They believe that the anger, the
frustration of the population for what has been going on since the Netanyahu government was sworn in, on the background, of course, of many,
many years of occupation, and especially on what happened in the West Bank since October 7th by police and The New York Times, Natan Odenheimer and
Mark Mazzetti, we described how the police is now standing down and not helping many, many Palestinians who are being attacked and compromised by
extreme settlers. And this is just one part of actions taken or not taken by this government.
That at least some of its ministers seem to be thriving, not concerned looking at the situation, but while the people who are in charge of the
safety of the citizens of Israel, the military, the intelligence are so concerned, they are sending letters and they are asking the prime minister
to intervene, some ministers are seeing this as the chance. They want founder (ph), they want havoc, they want up uprising that will force the
Israeli military to go in and take down the Palestinian Authority, leading to an annexation of the West Bank. This will change the face of Israel
forever, according to the chief of the Shin Bet in a recent letter he sent to the prime minister.
GOLODRYGA: And something you have reported on extensively as well. Ronan, I apologize for taking you out of your comfort zone. There are a few who
are as plugged in to domestic policies there and what that means from a geopolitical standpoint as well. So, appreciate you joining us. Thank you
so much for your time, Ronen Bergman.
BERGMAN: Yes. The pleasure is mine.
GOLODRYGA: And now, we turn to democracy in the United States, which our next guest believes is under threat.
In his new book, David Daley suggests that far-right actors, including within the Supreme Court, are controlling American elections. He describes
a 50-year plot to undermine voting rights. And he joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the implications as Americans head to the polls in November.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks, David Daley, thanks so much for joining us. Your most recent book,
"Antidemocratic: Inside the Far-Right's 50-Year Plot to Control American Elections." I've got to ask, look, when somebody reads 50-year plot,
they're going to be like, OK, this is a tinfoil material, you know, tinfoil hat material here. This is conspiracy theory. What makes this not a
conspiracy in your mind?
DAVID DALEY, AUTHOR, "ANTIDEMOCRATIC": This has been a very strategic effort at the heart of the Republican Party over the last 50 years. They've
understood, I think more effectively than the Democrats have, that there are pressure points within our democracy. And that if you can put your
finger on them, if you can control these little levers that sort of fly under the radar, whether we're talking about gerrymandered state
legislatures or whether we're talking in many -- about the constitution of the U.S. Supreme Court, that you are able to have outsized influence and to
win victories that you never could have won otherwise.
In many ways, Chief Justice John Roberts is the most effective Republican politician of his generation, because by controlling the Supreme Court as
Republicans have, they've been able, over the last 20 years, to win victories, on guns on voting rights, on the environment, on the regulatory
state that would simply not have been possible through the electoral process of outlooks (ph).
SREENIVASAN: What makes him a politician? He and lots of our -- other members of our audience would say, hold on, he's not elected. He's not --
you know, he's a presidential appointee. I mean, you go back into his history as a young lawyer at the Reagan DOJ.
DALEY: That's right. I mean, John Roberts, in many ways, his life's work has been curtailing the Voting Rights Act. John Roberts grew up in an
extraordinarily white town in Indiana. This was a town that even after America banned discrimination and housing laws was still advertising itself
in vacation brochures as a home where only Caucasian gentiles lived.
[13:40:00]
He clerks on the U.S. Supreme Court for Bill Rehnquist, who -- it has been well documented in his days in Arizona was personally harassing and
intimidating voters back in the 1960s. And Roberts, in his first job at the Department of Justice, it is really his job to try and derail the
bipartisan reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act with significant changes that would have enhanced it and made it better. Roberts, in his
memos, writes over and over again that it should not be too easy to prove a Voting Rights Act violation.
His side lost that fight back in 1982, but Roberts would have the last word on this. I think the lesson of what happened in 1982 in that first defeat
for John Roberts was that you could never derail something as American as the Voting Rights Act, something as American as motherhood and an apple pie
and jazz through the electoral process, but it would be a whole lot easier to do this, you would not need 218 in the House, 51 in the Senate, you need
a smaller number of five on the U.S. Supreme Court, and he would become 1 of them. 23 years later.
SREENIVASAN: OK. So, fast forward, one of his first cases at the Department of Justice under Ronald Reagan is about the Voting Rights Act.
And then, in 2013, he is writing the opinion for a really important decision, Shelby County versus Holder. And for people who might not have
been paying attention, there's a concept in there called preclearance. What was it? Why is it so important?
DALEY: Preclearance is so important because it was the muscle, it was the teeth, it was the enforcement mechanism within the Voting Rights Act. Prior
to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 there had been many efforts to try and bring equality and to put an end to a racial voting depression across the
south and in other parts of the country. None of them really worked. It took too long to catch these that these efforts and all this skullduggery.
And so, when Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965, and when it reauthorized it again in 1982 in 2006, it insisted on preclearance that
told these localities and states that had the worst history, you're not going to be able to get away with this anymore. You're going to have to run
any change you want to make pass the Department of Justice or a court in Washington, D.C. first. And this effectively put an end to much of those
efforts, because states were not allowed to do things without pre-approval.
SREENIVASAN: Tell me why is it so important to understand this attack that you say is an attack on the Voting Rights Act, you know, it's been a long
plan? Why is that crucial to understanding not just the power of the attacker but the consequences to be attacked?
DALEY: In this decision, John Roberts says that things have changed in the south and that the protections of the Voting Rights Act were no longer
necessary, that we lived in a different country. It was not 1965 anymore. The trouble with that is that the attack on the vote began that very
morning, that states across the south and elsewhere were waiting for this decision and immediately began implementing things like voter ID pushes and
voter roll purges and precinct closures that they could not have gotten away with prior to the court's decision.
So, when Robert says that things have changed in the south, all he had to do was open his eyes to what was happening before the court's decision. And
immediately afterwards, very little had actually changed in the south, except now, thanks to the court, these dark forces that the decision and
Shelby County unleashed we're able to get away with it again.
SREENIVASAN: So, give me an example. The first federal election after that decision would have been Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump. Was there an
impact of the Shelby decision on that election?
DALEY: Yes. I think that absolutely. We can see the impact of Shelby County across American elections. We can see it in the 2024 election right
now. So, much of the election chicanery underway in the State of Georgia right now in which a state election board is attempting to change laws
around how elections are certified and credentialed would not have been possible under Shelby County. It would have had to have been precleared
first.
[13:45:00]
So, many state legislatures across the south that are enacting these new laws, those maps would have had to have been precleared to ensure that they
were not racial gerrymanders. So, in states like Texas and states like Georgia, where the population growth has been almost entirely driven by
black Americans and Latinos, and yet, their representation has not gone up. In fact, in many cases, it has gone backwards, that would not have been
possible.
The court's decision in the Dobbs case that effectively put an end to abortion in many parts of the country. In this case, the justice who wrote
the decision, Samuel Alito, ensured Americans that the court was not taking away a right, it was simply returning a contentious issue to the people in
the electoral process, except the court knew full well that they were returning this issue to gerrymandered, oftentimes racially gerrymandered
state legislatures that they had allowed to be rigged in advance and the outcomes were entirely predictable and the outcomes were opposed,
oftentimes diametrically opposed to the wishes of the people of the states.
And yet, voters had little recourse at the ballot box, thanks to the decisions that the court had made over the course of the previous decade.
It's as if they planned it that way.
SREENIVASAN: Well, if Shelby County's decision, Shelby County versus Holder, that decision had an impact on the next federal election, I think a
lot of people are also wondering, what does the recent Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity do to the elections that we have coming
up?
DALEY: It's a great question and a really important one. What the court did in that decision was effectively give President Trump immunity for the
actions that were taken on January 6th and that Americans deserved to have some sense of completion there before this next presidential election,
there were trials underway that would have gotten at the heart of a question as to whether or not president acting in ways that helped block
the peaceful transfer of power would be held accountable for that. And this court ensured that that verdict would not come until after this
presidential election, which I think is very dangerous.
What this does is when you add this case to the larger picture of what this court has done on questions of democracy, campaign finance, and voting
rights over the last 15 years, the Roberts court continuously puts its thumb on the scale to the advantage of the Republican politicians who
placed them there.
Now, the court looks at the kinds of reforms that many have offered and they say that, well, those reforms would threaten the court's judicial
independence, which to, I think, many of us feels a little bit rich that the court has brought on this crisis of credibility itself through decision
after decision that harm voters and advantage their own ideological side.
SREENIVASAN: I can hear conservators right now saying, what are you talking about? The Roberts court is the one that upheld Obamacare, it made,
you know, same sex marriages, the law of the land. You know, you can kind of go through the list of other ideas and look, they upheld Section 2 of
the Voting Rights Act.
I mean, is John Roberts really this kind of sinister character that you paint him out to be?
DALEY: Yes. When you look at the America that we lived in in 2005, when you look at the America of 2024, our constitutional rights have been
dramatically changed and there's been a dramatic shift in constitutional law over the period of that time.
[13:50:00]
A Roe versus Wade simply no longer exists. Question of guns, conservative pickles and the NRA's agenda has really been allowed to run roughshod over
any effort by states and localities to control the safety of their own citizens.
When you look at the court's decisions on the regulatory state, what we have seen is a court that has placed itself again and again above the
checks and balances of our system, which is supposed to have three coat equal branches. The -- this court has placed itself above the other
branches and the American people see and recognize this. The court's approval ratings are at all-time lows, huge majorities of Americans back
the idea of ethics codes and term limits, oftentimes above 70 percent of Americans.
So, I think that the court would like us to think that they are simply neutral arbiters of the law, but we don't have to close our eyes to what we
see. This is a court that is unelected that, makes its decisions in private that is bound by no ethics code, that has lifetime appointments, and it has
behaved in ways that has turned itself into a super legislature in many ways.
And Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural talked about how if the decisions of the entire people are to be fixed by the Supreme Court, the
people have ceased to be their own rulers. I think we're dangerously close to experiencing that moment.
SREENIVASAN: President Biden recently called for a binding ethics code and even term limits for the Supreme Court. And I'm wondering, are those
proposals enough? What would you say is necessary to reform the court?
DALEY: I think that the packages that have been proposed so far are a good start. That they have the backing of the American people. Sometimes people
like to say, oh, this is too difficult, that the road here is too long. I think that's nonsense because I think the American people back these kinds
of reforms that they already see this court acting as a political branch of government, and they would like to see it reigned in.
The idea of term limits, of giving every justice 18 years, the idea of giving every president two selections onto the court, the idea of a binding
ethics code that would tell us who is buying these justices, the Houses that belong to members of their family, who is sending them on vacations?
Who is sending them on super yachts? Who is responsible for their lavish lifestyles? And do they have interests before the court? Those seem to me
to be entirely fair questions.
But I do think we also are going to have to get to the point of talking about a larger court, about expanding the numbers, and about shrinking its
jurisdiction and the number of and the areas in which it is able to rule.
When you have an unelected court that is repudiating the elected branches, the elected branches has the responsibility to reign it in, and to not do
so would be allowing the court to put itself above all the other branches.
SREENIVASAN: If President Trump wins another term, what do you see as the future of the Supreme Court?
DALEY: Well, I think that President Trump already, in his first term, was able to put three justices on the court, and we've seen the direction in
which that has gone. The Democrats have a number of justices on the court who are probably approaching retirement age, whose health is known to not
be in the best shape. It is entirely possible that the President Trump, in another term, would have the ability to add another justice on to the
court. It's possible that, you know, several members of the current conservative super majority could retire and that Trump would be able to
replace them with younger, more extreme versions of themselves.
Right now, the current conservative super majority is probably locked in place as far as the 2050s, some political scientists say, which is well,
past our lifetimes, perhaps, and deep into our children's lifetime. A second term by President Trump would probably push that date even further
into the future.
[13:55:00]
His most recent book is called "Antidemocratic." David Daley, thanks so much for joining us.
DALEY: A pleasure. Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, for us, take a look at the world's largest salt flat in Bolivia, and then imagine running across it. Well, that's what
nearly 80 runners did this weekend, competing in the Buff Skyline Tunupa race. For anyone thinking, well, at least it's flat, well, you're in for a
surprise. Some runners also climbed a volcano as part of a 42-kilometer route. One said they found the salt flat endless but beautiful at the same
time. Wow. Good for them.
That does it for now for us. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
