Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Haaretz Diplomatic Correspondent and "The Gates of Gaza" author Amir Tibon; Interview with Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow and Former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues David Scheffer; Interview with INARA President and Founder Arwa Damon; Interview with "A Certain Idea of America" Author and The Wall Street Journal Opinion Columnist Peggy Noonan. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired November 21, 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]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
The International Criminal Court issues arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, and
Hamas' Mohammed Deif. So, what does this mean for Israel and its regional war? I ask Israeli journalist Amir Tibon. Then, former U.S. ambassador for
War Crimes Issues David Scheffer lays out the legal ramifications.
And as the death toll in Gaza surpasses 44,000 and civilians there face widespread hunger and disease, humanitarian Arwa Damon joins us from the
ground.
Also, ahead, a certain idea of America. Author Peggy Noonan tells Walter Isaacson about her collection of columns, exploring the essence of the
United States over the last 25 years.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga, New York City, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
In a groundbreaking move, the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former
Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. The court says both men bear criminal responsibility for
causing mass shootings. starvation in Gaza.
This is the first time the ICC has targeted the leader of a democratic country and a close ally of the United States. Every member of the ICC,
which includes the U.K. and many European countries, are now legally obliged to arrest Prime Minister Netanyahu if he sets foot on their
territory. That's more than 120 countries. The court also issued an arrest warrant for Hamas military leader Mohammed Deif for crimes including
murder, torture, rape, and hostage taking. Israel says he was killed during an airstrike earlier this year.
The court was also seeking warrants for Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh, but they are now dead.
Christiane broke in the news of the ICC's plans back in May. Here's what the chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, told her then.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Explain to me exactly what you're asking for and who you are charging.
KARIM KHAN, ICC CHIEF PROSECUTOR: Today, Christiane, we've applied for warrants to the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court in
relation to three individuals that are Hamas members. Sinwar, who's in charge on the ground.
AMANPOUR: That's Yahya Sinwa.
KHAN: Absolutely. Deif who's in charge of the Al Qasem Brigade. And Haniyeh, who's one of their political bureau based in Doha. The charges are
extermination, murder, taking of hostages, rape and sexual assault in detention. We'll apply for warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu, and also
Minister of Defense Gallant for the crimes of causing extermination, causing starvation as a method of war, including the denial of humanitarian
relief supplies, deliberately targeting civilians in conflict.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Netanyahu's office has responded saying that he utterly rejects the absurd and false actions and accusations, calling the body politically
biased and discriminatory. So, what does this mean for Israel? I'm joined by Israeli author and journalist for Haaretz Amir Tibon to dissect the
ramifications and the mood in the country right now.
Amir Tibon, welcome to the program. Definitely a dark day for Israel, given the historic nature of these charges and arrest warrants. But we do know
that Karim Khan sought the warrants back in May. So, how much of a surprise is this for the Israeli government, for the Israeli people? The last six
months, both Israel and the United States, we should note, have been putting extreme pressure on the ICC to avoid just this.
AMIR TIBON, DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENT, HAARETZ AND AUTHOR, "THE GATES OF GAZA": Well, Bianna, this is the kind of thing that, even if you expected
it, is such a gut punch that it's still a shock for Israel as a nation, obviously for the leadership of this country. And while these are arrest
warrants only, for now, against Netanyahu and former defense, Mr. Gallant, who Netanyahu himself had fired two weeks ago, there is an expectation in
Israel that it could lead to two things.
[13:05:00]
Number one, potentially more arrest warrants for other people involved in the conduct of the war in Gaza. And number two, that phenomena we have
already seen in other countries, particularly, you know, in European countries and others of attempts to issue local arrest warrants against
Israelis involved in the war in Gaza, even regular soldiers, not necessarily high-ranking officers, will receive a boost from this decision
today.
So, this is a cause for great concern for Israel as a country, and also for many, many Israelis individually you can say, people in the military and
even people who, like I said, played rather minor roles in the war in Gaza. But now look at this news coming from the Hague and ask themselves, can I
travel for Europe -- to Europe in the coming years?
GOLODRYGA: Yes, as we noted, there are more than 120 signatories to the ICC, the U.S. and Israel not being one of them. But just moments ago, the
Italian defense minister said that if Benjamin Netanyahu came to their country, they'd have to arrest him. France, Ireland, and Holland have also
said that they would be obligated to abide.
TIBON: The U.K., of course.
GOLODRYGA: And the U.K. by the ruling. So, talk about the response. We have the public statements made by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Yoav Gallant
also issued a tweet saying the ICC's outrageous decision will live in infamy. It places the State of Israel and the brutal terrorist organization
Hamas in the same equation. We have their responses, but what are you reporting and what are you hearing about what's being discussed within the
government now?
TIBON: So, like you said, on the surface, Israel is speaking in one voice. You hear the leaders of the opposition, Yair Lapid and Benny Gantz, also
denouncing this decision, and former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett joining rather strongly against the ICC.
But the question is, what can Israel do now? And on the legal level, there is an option to appeal. Maybe Israel will try that, of course, by appealing
you give legitimacy to the decision. So, that's a big question, if you even want to go down that route, and the chances of success are not very high.
The other option that Israel will certainly try is to get the United States to apply a lot of pressure and pain on the ICC. And the United States is
not committed to the ICC. And we've already heard senators from both the Republican and the Democratic Party in the U.S. is threatening to put
sanctions on the ICC as an institution and on individuals who were involved in this decision, whether it's the prosecutor, Karim Khan, or the judges
and others.
But there is a question of whether that pressure will actually lead to a change in the result, which is the issue of these arrest warrants and the
fact that more than 120 countries are going to respect them. That's a big if. You would need the U.S. to exert a lot of pressure on the court itself,
and that could also backfire. The court could say, well, we are not going to let anything ruin our independence.
And the other option is that the U.S. would approach these countries individually and tell them, if you respect the decision of the court and
you go along with respecting these arrest warrants, there will be consequences to your relationship with the United States. And then, what
would happen is that the ICC, as an institution, would no longer be relevant because if the arrest warrant for Netanyahu is not being honored
in France, for example, then the arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin, which was issued a year and a half ago, could not be valid in a different
country that wants closer relations -- closer relationship with Russia.
And I have to remind you, the ICC is also conducting investigations right now regarding Venezuela, Sudan. So, this is a very complicated situation.
And whatever, you know, happens next, it's not going to be an easy solution out of this for Israel. Even if you see massive American pressure, it could
take time to have an impact and it will have its own consequences on other priorities of the United States.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And you mentioned Vladimir Putin traveling. I mean, he did recently, I believe, travel to Mongolia, which is a signatory to the ICC,
and he was not arrested.
TIBON: Yes, yes.
GOLODRYGA: But I get the point.
TIBON: So, again, you know, this is part of the issue here. There's a big question that also has to do with the war in Ukraine, with this
investigation in Venezuela. And one option is, at the end of the road, this leads to the ICC completely losing its international standing. That is a
risk also for the court in issuing this arrest warrant.
[13:10:00]
GOLODRYGA: Well, and the point that you're making here also what differentiates Israel from, let's say, Russia or Venezuela, I mean, Russia
is a democracy by name only, whereas Israel is a democracy which has its own substantive legal and independent judicial system, which had been one
of the arguments that both Israel and the United States had been making against these charges and arrest warrants. And yet, that wasn't enough to
have the ICC come up with a different solution. These arrest warrants have now been made public.
What does Israel -- what are their legal options in terms of just appealing it? I mean, could Israel then -- because the -- I believe the attorney
general himself warned the government of this summer and there had been pressure on an internal investigation within Israel too.
TIBON: Yes. So, the debate here in Israel, before this news broke out for several months, revolved around the question of how does Israel actually
investigate the war in Gaza to prove to the ICC, and by the way, also the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, in the Hague that there is no need
for them to intervene because any reports of potential war crimes are being investigated very seriously within our system.
And while the urgency of this was presented to the government by our attorney general and by the head legal officer of our military, you didn't
really see action, at the end of the day, to try to convince the world that actually these things were being taken very seriously inside Israel.
And you can see, for example, the example that happened, I think, in March, when you had seven workers of the World Central Kitchen organization killed
in Gaza accidentally by the IDF. And back then, because most of them were foreign nationals, including, I believe, a British citizen, Australian
citizen, and there was a lot of pressure from the United States, Israel immediately took action, two officers who were involved in this incident
were removed from the IDF, there was a serious investigation, and that was a case that showed what Israel could do in order to try to push away
pressure or criticism around its conduct.
The attorney general was really pleading with the government to do much more on that front and to give many more examples like that and to set up a
National Commission of Inquiry into the October 7 failure, but also into the conduct of the war, there was a lot of debate about it, and eventually
it never happened. So, I think the attorney general will have a bit of a told you so moment in front of the government, but it doesn't really matter
at this point because the damage has been done.
GOLODRYGA: You know, earlier this year, following the announcement of the -- Karim Khan seeking these warrants, both Israel and the United States had
criticized the ICC for, among other reasons, stating that Israel had invited the ICC prosecutor and his staff to visit Israel for meetings with
officials about these very concerns and that that ultimately didn't result, that didn't happen.
Is there a legitimacy in this? What could they have possibly convinced him of otherwise?
TIBON: So, it's interesting, Bianna, because Karim Khan, the prosecutor, actually visited Israel in the beginning of the war, shortly after October
7th, and I even interviewed him at the time. He met the families of Israeli hostages, kidnapped and held by Hamas. He visited some of the communities
that were destroyed by Hamas terrorists on October 7th, and I got to interview him for Haaretz and ask him what he saw and what he thought about
the situation. And he said very clearly that he thinks Hamas, let's say, very likely had committed crimes against humanity.
And I can tell you people in the Israeli government we're very positively surprised at the time by his approach during that visit. I believe it was
in November or December. And there was a sense that this was unprecedented, because Israel does not work with the ICC. And his visit was not official,
but it was with the knowledge and blessing of the Israeli government because they wanted him to see with his own eyes.
Now, what he would later say is that he also asked for arrest warrants against three leaders of Hamas, and therefore, he did take into
consideration what he saw on the ground in Israel, but Israel completely rejected the equivalence he was making here, trying to compare terrorists
like Sinwar and Mohammed Deif to the elected leaders of a democratic country. And that was really what it's all about.
I think there was a sense here that the prosecutor decided to put the two sides on an equal standing, which is something that Israel and the United
States completely rejected. And I think, by the way, many other countries also reject.
[13:15:00]
But once the arrest warrants are official, many of those countries will still have to respect them. I think I saw earlier a comment by the Austrian
foreign minister who criticized the prosecutor and the ICC for issuing these warrants, called them absurd, but at the same time said that his
country is going to respect international law because there are other interests involved, especially with the Russian case open and situation in
Ukraine.
GOLODRYGA: Amir, there is a sense that this will now cause a sort of rally around the flag or in this case, a rally around Netanyahu internally for
increased support among Israelis following this decision by the ICC. Dahlia Scheindlin, who is an Israeli expert, an international public opinion, told
the guardian this, she said, it will strengthen Netanyahu. Israelis are absolutely rock solid, convinced that the international system in general
basically exists in order to target and single out Israel unfairly. That kind of sentiment cuts across the board in the Jewish community.
Do you agree with that sentiment?
TIBON: I think in the short-term, definitely will. And it makes sense. I mean, I'm -- I've been a very strong critic of his, but I don't want him to
be arrested going to Italy. I mean, this is -- you know, this is not something that has to do with our own internal politics, that a lot of
Israelis look at this and say, OK, this is part of a broader attempt to, like you said, single out Israel as a country. So, that's -- I think there
will be some kind of a short-term impact.
But I think after that kind of cools down, there will also be a lot of hard questions about how did we get here and did certain statements, certain
decisions by our own politicians, especially the more far-right elements of this government contribute to this international attack, you can say, on
Israeli legitimacy. And there will be hard questions about the warnings from the attorney general and how they were treated by the government.
And in general, I think every Israeli is going to ask, how can -- a year after October 7, the biggest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, and
after the first few weeks when the whole world really stood up to support Israel and we had just an air train off world leaders coming here all the
time, how did we get to a place where today we are so isolated?
GOLODRYGA: It's a story we will continue to cover. Amir Tibon, thank you so much for joining the program. Good to see you.
TIBON: Thank you for having me.
GOLODRYGA: Well, as mentioned earlier, all 124 member states of the ICC are now legally obliged to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant if they set foot in their territory. But whether or not they will enforce it is another thing.
Vice president of the European Commission, Josep Borrell, says the ruling are not political and must be respected and implemented. Although the U.S.
is not a signatory, it has been previously welcomed the court's arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin over atrocities committed in
Ukraine.
Yet today, the White House National Security Council says that it fundamentally rejects the body's decision and will be discussing next steps
with their partners, including Israel. So, how much power does the ICC have? What are the legal ramifications here? David Scheffer is a former
U.S. Ambassador at Large for War Crimes and Issues, and he joins me from Washington, D.C. David, welcome to the program. First of all, your take on
this ruling. Are you surprised at all?
DAVID SCHEFFER, SENIOR FELLOW, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS AND FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR-AT-LARGE FOR WAR CRIMES ISSUES: Thank you very much, Bianna. I
am not surprised. However, I would've preferred to have seen this unfold somewhat differently from the court. The judges had the opportunity to take
a very a very thorough look, and they did look at the procedure by which this unfolded. And I think that's where the crux of the matter is for the
moment.
They decided that the arrest warrants should go ahead and be issued. Whereas under the Rome Statute there's something called Article 18, which
frankly, when I was negotiating the Rome Statute for the United States in the 1990s, I actually drafted Article 18 and got everyone to accept it,
which is you alert a country which is under scrutiny that they are being investigated and you give them at least a six-month period in which the ICC
backs off and the country demonstrates that it's taking it seriously and doing its duty under domestic criminal law to look at these types of
charges.
The problem with this case is that just putting the nature of the atrocity crimes aside for a moment or the alleged ones, that kind of notice was not
given to Israel. Why? Because an earlier notice in 2021 had been given to Israel when the court started to look at the situation in the West Bank.
And the prosecutor decided, well, you only get one shot at such a notice.
[13:20:00]
I think because of the character of what happened on October 7th, and the answer to that, in the right of self-defense by Israel, to respond to what
happened on October 7, 2023, that it would have been a reasonable exercise of the prosecutor's discretion to issue a new notice to Israel saying, OK,
this is serious stuff. This is a whole new background in the region. I'm investigating it afresh. I'm giving you my Article 18 notice. What is your
response?
And that goes to what your first guest really said, which I thought was so helpful, which is the attorney general's warning that, hey, we need to look
at this ourselves and prove to everyone that we're doing it ourselves as opposed to delaying it.
So, I just think it's important for me to point out that procedural issue that I do think there was some slippage in the court's reasoning in issuing
these arrest warrants, that's aside from the actual character of the alleged crimes.
GOLODRYGA: And is it under the prosecutor's discretion as to how many notices they can give a particular country for actions that they commit? As
you note that this involved two --
SCHEFFER: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: -- one was the West Bank and obviously, this is the war in Gaza following October 7th?
SCHEFFER: You know, it's -- you kind of have to apply a common law notion to the jurisprudence of the ICC. We didn't negotiate that back in the 1990s
as to how many takes he has or she has to launch an Article 18 notification. We actually didn't decide that. But I think we did give the
prosecutor discretion and I do think that the proper discretion would have been in May, give -- or even earlier, give Israel that kind of notification
and at least procedurally enable Israel to position itself with respect to what the prosecutor was investigating.
GOLODRYGA: And once again, to just remind our viewers of the alleged crimes here, it is both warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant's for crimes
they allegedly committed against humanity during the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip, including the use of starvation as a weapon and directing
attacks against civilians. The court said it didn't find grounds for bringing a charge of extermination. And the full contents of the arrest
warrants are classified as secret.
It's interesting that not only did the United States condemn these arrest warrants, one of the issues in that condemnation was they view a process
error leading to this decision. Do you know what that process error would be?
SCHEFFER: Yes, exactly what I just described. The United States issued an amicus brief to the court, and as did many governments and parties. The
judges invited a whole slew of friend of the court briefs during the summer. Israel submitted a brief, the United States has submitted a brief,
and many of those briefs pointed to the lack of full implementation of Article 18 as it should have been properly interpreted.
GOLODRYGA: OK.
SCHEFFER: So, that's a process issue.
GOLODRYGA: OK. OK. You have said in response to these arrest warrants that the travel itineraries of both Prime Minister Netanyahu and Former Defense
Minister Gallant will be greatly circumscribed. Do you really envision a scenario where they would be arrested among allied members in countries?
SCHEFFER: You know, I have to say I can envision it. I think we need to take seriously, here in the United States. We need to take seriously that
those European, Latin American, you know, some of the Pacific nations, which are party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,
actually take their responsibilities very seriously. Their publics expect them to do so.
So, I don't think one should sit here and say, oh, well, if he landed in Italy, how could Italy possibly arrest him? I can envision that happening.
And so, I think that needs to be taken very seriously by the Israeli officials.
GOLODRYGA: The significance, in your view, of these warrants coming to heads of states of a democratic country?
SCHEFFER: Yes. Well, that's the great issue, isn't it? And that's why Article 18 actually exists. Because if you're a democratic country like
Israel with a superb judiciary, a great Supreme Court, you can easily respond to such a notification that, you know, some of your leaders are
being investigated by saying, you know, back off. You know who we are. We're going to do our job and we're going to demonstrate to you that we do
our job under our national criminal law, et cetera, to demonstrate this.
[13:25:00]
And so, democratic governments can do that. The United States can surely do that if we fall into any particular situation where our military actions on
the territory of a state party to the court are called into question, we too can, you know, point to what we call under the Rome Statute
complementarity, that we have the capability to do this. And we're going to demonstrate to you that we're a rule of law, democratic nation, and we know
what we're doing to ensure that there's no impunity for the commission of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity.
GOLODRYGA: So, when Prosecutor Khan, as he said to Christiane back in May, says no one is above the law as it relates to the request for these
warrants that he was seeking back at that time, your response is what?
SCHEFFER: Yes, that there's -- there is no such immunity from it. There's no -- I mean, they are within -- I mean, Khan is speaking from a point of
view of he's got the jurisdiction to issue or seek the issuance of these arrest warrants. Israel, of course, disagrees with that because they don't
think they have -- the ICC has any jurisdiction over a nonparty state.
The problem here is that the Gaza war is on the territory of a state party, the State of Palestine, as recognized as such by the court and by, you
know, more than 140 countries, the State of Palestine. And so, therefore, he can, I think with considerable confidence, consider the actions of the
Israeli Defense Forces in Gaza and thus reach a decision that certain arrest warrants are merited with respect to that conduct. He has that
authority and discretion as he interprets it.
GOLODRYGA: And now, the question is, what, if anything, will the United States do? Obviously, we had President Biden, and we read the statement
from his administration condemning these arrest warrants, and President Biden had done so earlier. But we're now seeing Republicans, and they will
have control of the Senate, and there's an incoming Republican administration who are saying, let's take this a step further and actually
threaten sanctions against the ICC. Is that something you would support?
SCHEFFER: I would express extreme caution about that. And the reason is this, first, back in the early 2000s, under the George W. Bush
administration, the law, the American Servicemembers' Protection Act was adopted, which had all sorts of sanctions against countries that even dare
to join the ICC. We found that in our relationships with those countries that was so damaging to our own national security interests that those
sanctions were lifted under the law. There are no longer any economic or military sanctions under that particular law because it was determined it's
simply a losing proposition for the United States and all of its many security equities and economic equities that it has around the world.
In this case, if there are sanctions, let's say, you know, just as was earlier, you know, years ago against the prosecutor, Bensouda, at the time
of the ICC. The problem with doing targeted sanctions like that against individuals, for example, is that so many governments, which the United
States is allied to, is a friend to, they will oppose those sanctions and it complicates our interests with those countries. It's a sort of
superfluous unnecessary irritant in the relations between the United States and so many countries around the world, which are party to the Rome Statute
of the United -- of the International Criminal Court. So, you have to be extremely careful. What is -- you have to determine, well, what do we gain
ultimately?
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and that is the point that Amir Tibon was making earlier in our conversation as well.
SCHEFFER: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: David Scheffer, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for expertise. We really appreciate it.
SCHEFFER: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, meantime, the bloodshed in Gaza continues with no end in sight. Israeli strikes in Northern and Central Gaza have killed at least 87
Palestinians in the last 24 hours. The death toll in the enclave now surpassing 44,000 according to the health ministry there. This after the
U.S. blocked the latest U.N. draft ceasefire resolution earlier this week, saying that it does not tie an immediate ceasefire to a hostage deal.
[13:30:00]
Joining me for more is former war correspondent Arwa Damon, who is on the ground with her charity, INARA, providing critically needed food and
medicine to children.
Arwa, great to see you. Great to have you on the ground there. And as we noted in the introduction, no real end in sight to this conflict. Barak
Ravid from Axios says that Israel sent a letter to the U.S. administration saying that they have no intention of starving Palestinians or of
implementing the controversial so-called Generals Plan in the north. Walk us through the humanitarian situation and what you are seeing there in your
current visit.
ARWA DAMON, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER, INARA: Look, this is my fourth time back in Gaza since this all began, and each time I leave, I think that it
quite possibly could not get worse and yet, it somehow does. And the sense really is that Israel, from the onset, has been saying that its intention
is not to collectively punish the population or to starve the population or to kill civilians and yet, that is exactly what we see happening on the
ground.
We're in a situation right now where the humanitarian sector in and of itself is on life support. And look, we're not going to put our tools down
on our own, but we might end up forced into that position quite simply because we're not going to have any tools left. We're not going to have
anything left to be able to offer the population here.
The U.N. actually sent a letter to COGAT highlighting that insecurity, the lack of supplies, and the impact of Israeli strikes on certain locations
right after humanitarian missions have carried out activities. There are dropped off supplies are severely damaging and is strongly urging, you
know, Israel to take this very seriously, but it's not -- you know, no one's really all that optimistic that it's going to make that much of a
difference, because where do I start to even begin to try to describe this situation if we take even the simplest thing?
You know, school books for children, notebooks and pencils. You think that that would be easily brought into Gaza so that we can provide kids with at
least basic supplies in these makeshift tents that they're attending, you know, classes in, but we can't. Bringing in a notebook and a pencil is
extraordinarily difficult. Bringing in tarps or even finding tarps in Gaza to be able to provide extra protection against the rains that we're all
expecting to have coming is extraordinarily difficult and very, very hard to find.
And speaking of the rain, we're expecting flooding to happen when the rains do come. And a lot of these, you know, makeshift tented areas in these
camps that have cropped up are in low lying areas. So, they're going to get flooded. Only they're not going to just be flooded with rainwater, they're
going to be flooded with sewage and waste.
And we've been asking the Israelis and locating different alternative sites that, you know, sewage and waste could potentially be moved to, but all of
those sites get rejected. There are water wells in Gaza City that could potentially be brought back online. But, you know, organizations are unable
to do that because the well also happens to feed an area like Jabalya, which Israel has effectively been besieging, a siege within a siege, and
bombing very, very intensely.
I mean, I could go on and on and list all of the examples of just how Israel is crippling humanitarian operations here. And one of the big
concerns, which I'm sure, you know, you and a lot of our viewers may have been hearing a lot of organizations talking about is the looting that has
been happening.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
DAMON: It's very important to point out here that this looting takes place in areas that have been under evacuation order that Israel fully controls,
and we have repeatedly been asking for alternative and safe routes.
GOLODRYGA: Nearly 100 trucks, we should note, carrying food for Palestinians were violently looted just this past weekend after entering
Gaza. It was one of the worst aid losses in 13 months of the war in the enclave. Did you witness any of this? I mean, I would love to hear from you
and that you documented so well and in such detail on your Instagram account and on social media, just the relationships that you've built with
people there on the ground, the connections that you've made, what they are telling you. Can you give us a bit more anecdotally and personally what
you've experienced from speaking with people?
DAMON: There's a lot of frustration. There's a lot of anger. There's a lot of desperation. And you see this in the adults and you also see this in the
children. You know, yesterday was World Children's Day. Thursday was World Children's Day. And we had this big event at one of the camps. And we had
clowns and jugglers and people entertaining the kids. And it was there that you really began to sort of see the way that some of the trauma was
manifesting itself, especially among the children, because some of them just weren't interacting at all.
[13:35:00]
And you look at them, and it's like, you know, they're there, but their mind is somewhere else. Their eyes are blank. And no matter how the clowns
would try to draw them out, they just couldn't. And then, you also hear, you know, the children's laughter, some of the other ones, and it just
sounds like pure magic. And this one mother came up to me and she said, you know, my son, he's just -- he hasn't been the same since two of his
siblings were killed and he doesn't want to engage because he keeps wanting his two siblings to be there with him and he keeps asking me, you know,
where are they and why did they have to go?
Earlier I was at one of these makeshift learning sites that were supporting and one of the mothers there came up and said, you know, my son is not able
to join these classes because he is completely withdrawn after everything that he has witnessed and whenever he has to leave the tent, he starts to
panic because he tells me that even though he knows the tent isn't safe, he believes that outside is even less safe.
And when we talk about -- you know, you were mentioning the looting there on the 100 aid trucks, it's important to point out that, you know, the
population here is very aware of these criminal elements that, you know, are looting the aid. And there is this sense, especially if we look at
where that aid is being looted, that it's, again, happening in these areas that were under evacuation order by Israel. So, it's areas that are fully,
you know, hypothetically speaking, under Israeli military control. And there is a lot of evidence that is pointing to the fact that these aid
trucks that were looted have ended up in warehouses in areas under Israeli control.
And so, there's a lot of questions being asked as to, you know, why is Israel allowing this looting to happen? There's a complete and total
breakdown of any form of rule of law. There have been attempts by aid organizations to use the police force to secure sections of these routes,
but they've actually been bombed.
And, you know, people come up to you and they say, you know, we're hungry. Do you have anything to give us? You know, I need diapers. I need this. I
need that. And there's nothing that we can offer.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. You mentioned how hard it is just to even bring school supplies into the enclave. And as you mentioned that the weather is only
going to get more dire now as rains are expected and we're just weeks away from cold temperatures -- colder temperatures as well. Arwa Damon, as
always, thank you for the work that you continue to do and the stories you continue to bring us. We appreciate it.
Well, Donald Trump's return to the White House comes at a divisive time in American society and politics. Back in the '80s, Pulitzer Prize winning
columnist and author Peggy Noonan was President Ronald Reagan's speechwriter, and she reflects on how the nation has evolved, in her new
book, "A Certain Idea of America." And she joins Walter Isaacson to discuss.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And Peggy Noonan, welcome to the show.
PEGGY NOONAN, AUTHOR, "A CERTAIN IDEA OF AMERICA" AND OPINION COLUMNIST, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Thank you, Walter. It's wonderful to be here.
ISAACSON: This collection of columns reminds me how when you're writing your columns, you're almost thinking out loud, talking to yourself, talking
to us, and then processing information. You take it step by step through it. So, let me understand. How are you processing the current moment in the
current election?
NOONAN: I am processing the current moment as in Mar-a-Lago, the new incoming president is surrounded by people who are afraid to leave his line
of sight. And so, they are staying all around him and giving some sort of physical sense of the new administration. And it's an interesting picture.
In a different way, I think it's very funny, but sometimes White Houses or incoming White Houses are not quite conscious of the fact that they can do
something that is disturbing to people. Here's what it is. It's like they've got a chef's kitchen and a chef's stove and they've got eight
burners and they decide to put eight pots on each burner and put them up to full boil and steam the windows and give a sense of holy mackerel, what the
heck is happening here? If I were to give them advice or they asked for advice, I'd say, gosh, with these cabinet appointments and these
pronouncements, lower the heat.
[13:40:00]
America's just been through a dramatic election. What it would love to do, love to feel, and what would be very good for Mr. Trump, is to make them
feel reassured, that mature, non-dramatic people are in charge.
ISAACSON: Wait, wait. Reassure that mature, non-dramatic people are in charge? I mean, Trump is based on drama. That's his entire persona. You're
asking him to be something totally different?
NOONAN: Well, I am asking them to be shrewdly self-disciplined for once, and that's not too much to ask.
ISAACSON: You know, you with Reagan, you did all of his great speeches. Compare and contrast Ronald Reagan and his rhetoric, which -- a lot of
which you helped him write, to Donald Trump's rhetoric.
NOONAN: Well, Ronald Reagan was a man who loved words and their concrete meaning and their ability to suggest. So, both sides of what a word is,
what a sentence is. He had then, something that Reagan had that Trump does not have, is that Reagan, since the 1960s, actually -- meaning 20 years
before he was president, was seriously emerging as the conservative voice of the brand-new conservative movement in America.
So, he knew his stuff. He knew what he wanted to say. He knew what quote from the founders he wanted to use. You well know, Donald Trump, of course,
has been none of that and has done none of that. He is a man with a completely different background who now and then showed an interest in
politics and now and then would go make a speech, but he was not the voice of a real philosophical thing.
And mostly his sound. I mean, you have to give credit where it's due, his sound is utterly genuine to him. He doesn't try to hide much in a way, you
know, he tells you, this is what I'm going to do. This is why. We'll figure out the details later, but this is what we're doing. He has more the blunt
and perhaps uncontexted sound of modern America.
ISAACSON: The book is called "A Certain Idea of America." Great title and sort of derived from Charles de Gaulle. Explain why.
NOONAN: Decades ago, I read Charles de Gaulle's "War Memoirs" and I found it a little masterpiece, actually, not quite in the league of U.S. Grant's
"War Memoirs" but an impressive book from a deeply impressive man who had an almost mystical -- I think a mystical attachment with his nation, with
his country and its meaning and history.
And what struck me when I read the famous first sentence of his memoir is, all of my life, I've had a certain idea of France. It was so simple. And he
explained that it was in one part emotional, and in one part based on rational thought. And I will never forget seeing that sentence and
thinking, do you know that's -- not to compare myself to De Gaulle, of course, which I don't, but that was true of me also.
All of my life, I've had a certain idea of America of it's for all its problems, all its flaws, all its failures it was a good nation, a unique
force in the world, a new thing in the history of man based on a new thought, all people are equal here under the law, and wherever you start
does not dictate where you will wind up.
And to me, this is not a benign -- a gauzy feeling about America, this is a truthful, factual feeling about America. And I do think -- not to go too
long here, I think the balance of our national conversation about our country has, in the past 10 years, skewed more towards the painfully
shamed. And I just think, whoa, guys, we got to reorder this a little bit. We got to rebalance here. I feel very protective about America.
ISAACSON: And the America that you've talked about, the America that Ronald Reagan spoke about was fundamentally optimistic the morning in
America feel. And you've just said that America now kind of feel shamed, there's almost a dystopian vision, and that's everything is going wrong.
[13:45:00]
NOONAN: Yes.
ISAACSON: Explain. Yes. Unpack that.
NOONAN: Well, I'll tell you what one of my great worries is. There are a lot of families in America that don't work and are not so successfully
bringing up kids with order and love, this has always been true in America. We're an America of displaced people, always pushing off somewhere else.
And we've had interesting parenting styles.
But when I was a kid in America in the '50s and '60s, coming from a somewhat turbulent family, I always was allowed to have the feeling,
Walter, that what is in the family is this, but when I open the front door, I go into America, and it's a good place and it won't be unkind to you
based on your sex or your race. It will be accepting of you, and good to you.
What I fear is that, in the past, I don't know how long, 10 or 20 years, we have left kids from turbulent homes thinking, I am not safe here. And guess
what? I just opened the front door to go out, and I'm not safe there either. It's a rather wicked place.
This is actually something that has been on my mind as a working writer for decades. And I feel we're selling those poor kids short and we've got to
give them a different vision so that they understand they can have a chance here and they can rise here and they can be accepted here and they can be
part of this big project that we have. So, that has been very much on my mind.
ISAACSON: You've written often about the need, specifically, to teach as a culture, we need to learn how to teach again how young boys should fit in
and young boys should live. Why are you particularly worried about young boys other than the fact that you have a son and now a new grandson?
NOONAN: Because boys need masculine models. IN some special way, boys need to be taught through the modeling of others how to be a boy and how to be a
man and what the masculine virtues are and how to be a gentleman and how to be kindly and strong at the same time. This too has been a matter of real
concern to me. And I feel like we're getting it wrong a bit, and I don't like it that we make -- sometimes these days, boys feel like they're
nothing, they have no special place, they've lost their place, and it disturbs me.
ISAACSON: We've done that to women for centuries. Isn't this just about a rebalancing?
NOONAN: Yes. It is about a sensitivity. Can't you help everybody at the same time? Do you have to really help the girls at the expense of the boys
or the women at the expense of the men? We can do it all. We shouldn't ever be categorizing and defining and limiting people by what they were born as.
It's not good.
ISAACSON: One of the other things you say in the book is you talk to some traditional Republicans, even during the tumultuous first term of Donald
Trump, and they were looking to sort of the post-Trump era. We get back to real conservatives. I think you said that Reagan's old conservatism was
philosophically right, but it's not fully in line with the crises of our times. Why is that?
NOONAN: Yes. You know, I'm a little impatient with the what would Reagan do? What would Reagan say? These policies are not Reagan-esque. Look, if
it's 1962 and John F. Kennedy is president, people around him should not be running around and saying he's doing things different from FDR. FDR's age
and the immediate political demands of his age were different from John F. Kennedy's. Donald Trump's age and issues are different from Ronald
Reagan's.
[13:50:00]
I am not really -- I'm not a fan of, OK, philosophically, we've worked out where we stand on this issue, and we will stand there unvaryingly forever,
no matter what the reality outside. Ronald Reagan -- to give you one example of a difference is that Ronald Reagan, in 1980, was dealing with an
essentially -- and addressing an essentially healthy country, healthy in its ways and ways of living, I guess. Donald Trump's America is a very
different America in which people are very disturbed and tormented by a lack of particular kinds of jobs by drugs, by families that seem to cohere
less.
So, you know, as -- what did Lincoln say, as our times are new, we must think anew. I have no problem with thinking anew. But certainly, keep your
kind of -- whatever kind of conservative you are, Berkian or whatever, keep that present and applicable, because philosophies matter the grounding for
everything.
ISAACSON: One of the things that echoes through your book is COVID because you've written about it, from the very beginning, early on in COVID, you
were writing about it. I have a theory about COVID, which is that it turned into a class divide, and there was certain class of people, usually the
working class people, who had to go to work and were appalled by all the lockdowns and the restrictions. And then, there was sort of an overclass, a
meritocratic class who said, follow the science. And that divide became a political divide as well that was reflected in this election.
NOONAN: Yes, I think it became a political divide, but also reflected and underlined a political divide that had already been happening. I wrote
about this somewhat in some very controversial columns. You know, in one I said, and I actually just think this, working class folk who have tough
lives and have to stock the shop right and drive the truck, they can be pretty tough about life, you know? In part, because they probably came from
a certain amount of toughness.
So, they see this terrible germ coming and they know it's trouble and they're wearing the mask, but they're also seeing the lap top class, that's
me and you, staying home and, what, being detached from their real lives and detached from their need to simply live their lives, and I think maybe
detached from a certain commonsense and attached too much to this sort of, we know the science, we're the superior folk stuff, and I thought it was
painful and I didn't like it. And yes, we're still working it out.
I think part of the story of the 2024 election, I've never seen it reflected in a poll, it's only my hunch, is that the American people, a lot
of them wanted to say, to look at the years 2020, 2024 and say goodbye to all that. Goodbye. We're going to reorder things.
ISAACSON: One of the toughest columns in your book is right after the January 6th attack on Capitol Hill. And you called it a sin against
history, and you said that Trump was the chief instigator of it, and you said he should be removed from office.
NOONAN: Yes. Whichever comes first, yes.
ISAACSON: After all this, how are we supposed to now make of January 6th and the fact that it rebounded?
NOONAN: Look, I know what I think of January 6th, it was a terrible sin against history, and an American president ginned up these angry young guys
and said to them, oh, I'll meet you at the Capitol. Oh, we'll catch up with the bad guys there. It was deliberate and mischievous to the point of
malice, and then as the story played out on our airwaves, on the internet, and on cable TV live, he sat and watched it. It was grossly irresponsible,
just grossly so.
Now, if I were a Trump supporter, I'd say, can you guys relax about this? It was a thousand guys in a nation of 335 million. They weren't all armed
with guns and looking to shoot somebody, they were acting out and acting up, and the law came down on them. Man, the book was thrown at them. They
all went to jail. Relax, there are bigger problems. So, that is the answer I often get.
[13:55:00]
ISAACSON: And which do you believe?
NOONAN: Mine. I'm sorry. You cannot do January 6th. You just can't.
ISAACSON: You're fundamentally optimistic in this book, in the speeches you wrote, other things. What is making you, if anything, optimistic these
days?
NOONAN: Oh, optimistic. I have faith. I think always prepare for a bad time, but live through each day in a happy way. You're lucky to be here.
Just lucky to be here. Lucky to be alive. So, enjoy this thing that we have. Have faith in other people. I meet Americans throughout America on my
travels. They are such a good people. So, I worry about us a lot, but I love us a lot. And there you are.
ISAACSON: Peggy Noonan, thank you for joining us.
NOONAN: Thank you, Walter, very much. It was an honor.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And that is it for now. Thank you so much for watching. and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
