Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira; Interview with Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon; Interview with Columbia University Professor of History Adam Tooze. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 23, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
President Trump lashes out, lambasting the United Nations and the world on climate and immigration, as he addresses its General Assembly. And here in
the corridors of power, a wave of Israeli allies join the majority formally recognizing a Palestinian State.
While in Gaza, dozens more are killed by the IDF, with Israel increasingly isolated. Tough questions facing their government. I'll put that to Danny
Danon, the Israeli ambassador to the U.N.
Plus, a showdown between the United States and Brazil, as the Trump administration targets those who led the Bolsonaro prosecution. Brazil's
foreign minister will join me.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour, here in New York at the United Nations, where Donald Trump has used his address to attack
the 80-year-old institution and his own European allies. With a MAGA-style rally speech, Trump started off by touting his own domestic achievements,
before laying into the United Nations and Europe on everything from migration to climate change policies. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: What is the purpose of the United Nations? The U.N. has such tremendous potential. I've always said it. It has such
tremendous, tremendous potential, but it's not even coming close to living up to that potential. For the most part, at least for now, all they seem to
do is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up.
It's time to end the failed experiment of open borders. You have to end it now. See, I can tell you. I'm really good at this stuff. Your countries are
going to hell.
Climate change. Because if it goes higher or lower, whatever the hell happens, there's climate change. It's the greatest con job ever perpetrated
on the world, in my opinion. Climate change, no matter what happens, you're involved in that. No more global warming, no more global cooling. All of
these predictions made by the United Nations and many others, often for bad reasons, were wrong. They were made by stupid people that have cost their
countries fortunes and given those same countries no chance for success. If you don't get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And on the war in Ukraine, the president again touted his relationship with Vladimir Putin, but also said that he was ready to impose
strong sanctions on Russia only if NATO countries first agree to stop buying Russian oil, ignoring the fact that since 2022 and the full-scale
invasion, European allies have imposed waves of sanctions on Putin.
And on Gaza, as his closest allies recognize Palestinian Statehood now, he again insisted the move rewards Hamas. Tradition dictates, of course, that
the first country to address the U.N. on every General Assembly is Brazil.
Meanwhile, Brazil and the U.S. are at loggerheads over the prosecution of the former president Jair Bolsonaro, a staunch Trump ally. Washington hit
Brazil with a 50 percent trade tariff in an attempt to stop Bolsonaro's trial, but he's now been sentenced to 27 years in prison for plotting a
coup against Lula. Brazil's legislature is currently debating whether to grant an amnesty, and the U.S. is again interfering, revoking visas and
imposing sanctions on the wife of the judge who oversaw Bolsonaro's conviction. Here's President Lula da Silva earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA, BRAZILIAN PRESIDENT: This interference in domestic affairs is aided by a subservient far-right who is nostalgic of
past hegemonies. False patriots plan and publicly promote actions against Brazil. Brazil sent a message to all aspiring autocrats and those who
support them. Our democracy, our sovereignty are non-negotiable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:05:00]
AMANPOUR: And while President Trump made some positive remarks about his Brazilian counterpart, he criticized the country saying it was doing,
quote, "poorly."
I'm joined now here by the country's foreign minister, Mauro Vieira. Welcome to the program.
MAURO VIEIRA, BRAZILIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: Thank you so much, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Do I dare ask you, on a public forum, how you respond to President Trump's speech in general and his specific attacks on Brazil,
saying that you're going to fail without him?
VIEIRA: Well, Brazil is a country of negotiation and very open. We are always ready to talk and to negotiate. And we have been approached by other
high officials of the U.S. government, and I myself said that the political issue is unnegotiable. There's no space at all, not even one inch to
negotiate.
But we are ready to negotiate the taxes, the tariffs that we can do, although they are illegal, they are not in the structure.
AMANPOUR: Structure?
VIEIRA: Yes, no, in the structure of WTO, of all the trade agreements that we have. But we are ready to talk and to discuss. The only thing is that we
cannot discuss the sovereignty or the independence of powers in Brazil, as President Lula said in his speech today.
AMANPOUR: That your democracy is sovereign and nothing can interfere with it?
VIEIRA: Yes, of course.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you, because everybody picked this up, so maybe you can clarify? President Trump said some nice things about your President
Lula. Apparently, you tell me how they met. But in front of the world, he said, and we're going to meet next week. What does that mean? Is this news
to you or how will that happen?
VIEIRA: Well, they never met before. And today, they have the occasion to shake hands and exchange a couple of words, maybe for 15 or 20 seconds, as
President Lula was leaving the podium. And they met at this room at the back of the podium. And it's true, President Lula told me that President
Trump said they should meet and they should talk.
I hope we can talk with President Lula -- with President Trump. President Lula will always be ready to talk to, as he has been in the past, to talk
to any chief of state that has interest to discuss issues with Brazil. And in this case, it will have to be via a phone call or video conference,
because unfortunately, President Lula is leaving tomorrow back to Brazil. He's very busy. He has a very busy agenda. So, it won't be possible to meet
personally. But they will speak and I'm very glad that it happened.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Do you think a meeting by video or whatever will manage to reduce the big thing that Trump has done, given that he's imposed 50
percent tariffs on your country?
VIEIRA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: President Lula told me, you know, he's had several interviews, he's written about it. He said, I think he used the word emperor. You know,
we are not going to bow to the dictates of an emperor. I'm paraphrasing. Can you just give me the facts about the trade deficit? Because Trump says
that the U.S. has a trade deficit and that's one of the reasons why he's slapping those tariffs on. But I think it's the reverse, isn't it?
VIEIRA: No, no. He's not well informed. Maybe his advisory didn't pass on to him the right numbers. But Brazil has a huge deficit and it's --
AMANPOUR: With the U.S.?
VIEIRA: With the U.S., yes. We have -- over the last 15 years, we have more than $410 billion of deficit with the United States. It's something
around $20 billion every year. And our tariffs, the average tariffs of Brazil to imports from the United States is 2.7 percent, which is very low.
The 10 most important issues we import, the products we import from the United States, out of 10, 8 enter Brazil tax-free. So, he's not well
informed and he repeated it once again. I think it's fundamental that they speak on the phone, that President Lula has the occasion to explain all
that to him.
AMANPOUR: And just one more question in response to President Trump, who said, without me, without us, the United States, Brazil will fail. But has
Brazil diversified its economy? Does it rely totally on the U.S. for its economy, or are there other countries that Brazil relies on?
VIEIRA: No, we have a very balanced trade with the world and with each continent of the world. We have something around 20 to 25 percent. The
second largest trade partner of Brazil is the European Union, the United States the third, and the first partner is China. And the trade with the
United States today represents something around 11 percent of our foreign trade, trade with other countries.
[13:10:00]
So, of course, it's an important country for Brazil. It's an important partner in terms of investments, of trades. We have also a lot of
investments. Brazilian business people invest in the United States. We export, we import. And those Brazilians who invest here, they generate
120,000 jobs in the United States, which is very important. So, we favor a very good climate of business between the two countries.
AMANPOUR: So, do you then think, as many Brazilians do, and many observers, that part of President Trump's reaction to you is pressure from
former President Bolsonaro's son, who came here to lobby for this administration to resist and try to get your country to stop the
investigation and the prosecution of the former president, Bolsonaro? And do you think the President is still trying to affect what's happening to
Bolsonaro -- I mean President Trump? Because even now that he's been convicted of attempting a coup against Lula's election, you see your
legislator is talking about amnesty. So, tell us where all this stands.
VIEIRA: Yes. Well, first of all, President Trump, of course, is a very busy man, being president of the United States, and he may not be well
informed. I don't know where he gets his information about the political scene in Brazil. I don't know if he has met personally the sons of the
former president or how this information gets to him, but they are distorted on the way he receives it.
The trial was very long. There are hundreds of thousands of proofs against Bolsonaro and the generals and people who worked with him. They were all
convicted, as President Lula said today, the first time in history in Brazil that a former President is trialed and condemned because he tried to
destroy Brazilian democracy, as well as very high-ranked military.
So -- and this is done because the powers are totally independent in Brazil, and there is no possible interference, not even in terms of
amnesty, especially with this, because the Constitution limits the power of the president to give amnesty, and democracy is fundamentally cannot be
amnesty.
AMANPOUR: Understood, but is your legislature able to vote for it or not? And it's --
VIEIRA: They --
AMANPOUR: Many of his supporters there?
VIEIRA: Of course, they are discussing. There is a huge -- there was a huge popular manifestation in the streets the last days against the
amnesty. They are discussing. But if they approve a very ample amnesty, it will be unconstitutional and it won't be applied.
AMANPOUR: So, as you know, others have said that what the Brazilian democratic and judicial process did after a former president refused to
recognize an election and refused to accept that he had lost an election, was in a way a lesson to how the United States should have done it. You
know, when President Trump didn't and still doesn't recognize that he lost the 2020 election, then there was the assault on the Congress, and now that
he is back in office, President Trump has pardoned almost all those who were convicted under the January 6th coup attempt. Do you think that Brazil
is showing how a democracy should stand up for itself or not?
VIEIRA: Well, I don't know if this is the interpretation of President Trump, if this is how he sees the problem, but we are not concerned with
the opinion of other countries. We are concerned in our democracy. We share a lot our democracy. We fought for it 40 years ago when we approved the
Constitution in 1988, and we have resisted different pressures, especially this one, which was very, very serious, with a plan to kill the president,
the vice president, and the president of the Supreme Court.
VIEIRA: So, I think -- and the proofs are clear. The trial was open. They had ample right of defense. It was broadcasted by television. So, there's
no doubt about it.
AMANPOUR: I just want to ask you because, you know, President Lula was doing not so well in terms of the economy, in terms of what people were
thinking before all this flared up. Now, he's doing a lot better for being, you know, somebody who's seen to be standing -- well, is standing up to the
greatest superpower. It's served him well, in a way, politically, this confrontation.
[13:15:00]
VIEIRA: Well, what I can tell you is that from the economic point of view, the country was doing very well. The unemployment rate is the lowest in
history. Inflation under control, and a growth, average growth of 3, 3.5 percent a year, which is good in the present circumstances around the
world. So, in terms of economy, it was going very well.
After all this, he defended very strongly, President Lula defended very strongly the democracy, the society, the sovereignty, and, of course, his
rates of approval raised. Yes, raised, and that's very good. And it's not only in Brazil, in other countries in the region, the same happens.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you another big international forum that you're going to be hosting in a couple of months is the COP. It's happening in, I
believe, Belem, in the Amazon region. First of all, your reaction to President Trump, well, you know, he proudly again stated that he had pulled
the United States out of the fake, what he said, Climate Paris Accords. He also said that green energy is a big con, that all countries who continue
with green and renewable policies will fail, and he said it's a huge scam. What is your response to that?
VIEIRA: Well, first of all, I'd like to make it very clear that although both presidents have never met before and they never speak one to the
other, President Lula congratulated President Trump through a posting in his social media when he was elected, and recently, maybe about a month
ago, he sent a letter to President Lula inviting him to come to COP30. This is very important.
The United States is the largest economy, has to be present too. We hope he will be present. If not, he will appoint a high-level official to represent
the United States and participate in this COP, which will be the COP of truth, as President Lula says, because it's the moment to take very
important decisions and to implement everything that was discussed so far. And it's a moment to try to save the planet and control climate change.
AMANPOUR: And just briefly, before I move on to the Palestinian issue, President Trump said renewables are rubbish, essentially. He said that they
don't work, that fossil fuel is the best, and countries -- do you find your use of renewables are net positive or net drag on your economy?
VIEIRA: Well, this is his opinion. We have a totally different opinion. Brazil is a champion of clean energy and energy transition. Electrical
matrix in Brazil is 92 percent renewable. And as far as energy, it's something like 50 percent or 52 percent. We believe in renewables and we
believe and we are fighting for energy transition. This is a contribution. This will save the planet. That's our position. Of course, he has a
different one, but this is up to him.
AMANPOUR: And finally, The United -- I know Brazil recognized a Palestinian State officially, I think, in 2010. I mean, you were very much
in the vanguard. But a lot of Israeli allies across Europe, Canada, Australia, elsewhere, have chosen to do so at this UNGA. What is your
reaction? Because President Trump has said that this is just a reward for Hamas, that they need to see, obviously, the hostages released. And that's
the only line that drew an applause when he said that they must be released. And obviously, the Israeli government is very against this and is
threatening retaliation.
Tell me why you think it's important, what it will do, and why -- and whether you think it is a reward for Hamas and terrorism?
VIEIRA: No, it's not. From our point of view, it's not a reward for Hamas. We condemned Hamas for his terrorist attack. That was terrible. We strongly
condemn till today. But this does not justify the vengeance against the Palestinian people.
The other day, there was a former high official from the IDF, the Israeli Defense Force, who said that the number of deaths is something like 10
percent of the population of Gaza. So, this is 200,000 people. And so far, the numbers we are working with is 60,000 or 70,000. So, it's very serious.
And that's why President Lula has been saying that it's a genocide. And that's why we joined South Africa in the International Court of Justice in
this question. And this discussion about genocide. For us, it's a genocide. You cannot use hunger as a weapon of war. You cannot do what's going on in
Gaza.
[13:20:00]
AMANPOUR: And we'll wait to see whether it makes a difference. And of course, we're going to have the Israeli ambassador on after this break.
VIEIRA: Oh, that's good.
AMANPOUR: But for the moment thank you, Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira for joining us.
VIEIRA: Thank you so much, a pleasure to be with you again.
AMANPOUR: And likewise.
VIEIRA: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Thank you. And stay with us because we'll be back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: While the powerful gather in the halls behind me in Gaza, people are dying. As Israel intensifies its offensive on Gaza City, it has killed
dozens more in the enclave today. The humanitarian situation worsens by the second and Israeli hostages are left to languish and in grave danger.
Trump's only applause line today was when he called for the release of the hostages. Here's what one hostage mother has said about Prime Minister
Netanyahu's existing plan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EINAV ZANGAUKER, MOTHER OF HOSTAGE MATAN ZANGAUKER (through translator): He knows the danger that lies on the heads of hostages and soldiers' heads
and decided with deliberate intent to sentence his citizens' death. Prime Minister is sentencing his citizens to death. For him, our children's blood
is a political instrument.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Now, as outrage mounts around the world, Israel is increasingly isolated, but its prime minister continues to defy warnings. Israel's
ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, is joining me now. Welcome to the program.
DANNY DANON, ISRAELI AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: Thank you for having me.
AMANPOUR: All right. So, would you dispute the fact that Israel is becoming increasingly isolated and increasingly viewed as a pariah around
the world? You have all these allies now from Canada to Europe to Australia and beyond joining the majority and recognizing a Palestinian State
officially.
DANON: It has been a very long war, also for us. You know, no one expected it to last for more than two years. And now, we're entering almost two
years. We didn't expect it to be so long. And I know that many countries want to show that they are doing something, but we are focused on the goals
of the war. And the goals are to bring the hostages back and to eliminate Hamas.
We have achieved a lot, but we haven't finished the job. And we are committed. And that's what we are telling our allies here. You know, it's
very nice to have all those declarations, the conferences, but let's face reality. And President Trump gave a very powerful speech, and he faced
reality. The reality is we have 48 hostages still in Gaza. We have to do everything we can, and we will bring them back home. And Hamas is still in
parts of Gaza. Still, they have control.
I think that we are moving forward, and we are getting close to the situation where we'll be able to defeat Hamas. So, it's not easy for us to
hear all those condemnations. But I would ask any leader that came here today, what would you do if you had 48 citizens of your own country now in
the tunnels in Gaza?
AMANPOUR: It is an awful situation for those hostages. There is no doubt about it. But many of the families say that it is your government's
policies that are, you know, lengthening their issues and their imprisonment and their captivity and mortal danger. Many of the hostages
have said that the latest offensive against Gaza City is essentially signing their death warrant, those who are still alive.
Qatar said when you bombed the negotiators in Qatar, in Doha, that this spells the death. This is a death warrant for those hostages. I see you
shaking your head. Why not?
[13:25:00]
DANON: No, no. Because -- we have no interest to prolong this war.
AMANPOUR: No, no, I'm talking about the hostages now.
DANON: So, I'm telling that also to the hostage families. And we meet them, we host them here. They will come to the U.N. the day after tomorrow.
But, you know, we're doing everything we can to bring them home. And sitting idly by and waiting for Hamas to accept the release of the
hostages, it's not going to happen. Only pressure on Hamas will move the needle. And that's exactly what we are doing. We are applying more
pressure. And I think it's moving to the right direction.
AMANPOUR: You know, I've covered many wars. And by the way, I'm going to make a formal petition to you right now to let us into Gaza. You can answer
me in a second. But what we've seen is that the United States, your closest ally, said that this time last year, in fact, more than a year ago, Israel
had accomplished its military objectives. You had defeated Hamas as a ruling entity, as a powerful entity. And you could have gone into more
negotiations to get your hostages back then. That's number one.
Number two, your own military officials, your former chief of staff of the military, Herzi Halevi, has said that this year he told a community meeting
in southern Israel that one in 10 Palestinians, i.e., 10 percent of Palestinians of Gaza, have been killed or injured since this war began.
More than 200,000 people killed or injured. And that Israel took the gloves off and faced no legal restrictions in its actions.
This has gone beyond what most people would admit was, at the beginning, your right to self-defense. You've achieved your military objectives. Now,
civilians are being killed by the thousands every day and starved to death.
DANON: I beg to differ with you about everything. And let's start with --
AMANPOUR: About what? Because this is your own people who are saying this.
DANON: But let's start with the idea about Hamas. You know, I think every leader that spoke in the General Assembly spoke about the day after without
Hamas.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
DANON: Even President Macron said it.
AMANPOUR: Correct.
DANON: And my question is, who exactly is going to remove Hamas? Hamas --
AMANPOUR: You've already --
DANON: Hamas -- no, it's not true.
AMANPOUR: They're saying so.
DANON: Hamas is not listening to the decision of the General Assembly. They are not taking orders from the Elysee Palace in Paris. The only way to
get rid of Hamas is what we do and what we are doing. So, the burden is on our shoulders. It's very easy to say Hamas will not be part of the
equation, but it's up to us to complete the job. And we have accomplished a lot, but we haven't finished the job.
You have areas today that Hamas is still in control. And if Israel today pull out of Gaza and allow Hamas to rebuild its power, it's a threat to
Israel. And the Palestinians are doomed with the regime of Hamas.
AMANPOUR: The latest facts say that Israel has now controlled and does control 75 percent of Gaza. And again, that Hamas is, you know, not the
major threat that it was and not the power that it was after October 7th. I want to ask you this. As we know, Trump did call for the release and
everybody has. Everybody has called for the release of the remaining hostages, but that has only come so far by negotiations and ceasefire.
You've had a few successes in rescuing them, but equally, military attempts have led to deaths of hostages.
Now, in the United States, in your most important ally, you are seeing public opinion plummet. And I've heard many of your main supporters here in
the United States say this is a danger for Israel, that 9 percent of young Americans, only 9 percent support you currently. A recent YouGov economist
poll says that 43 percent of Americans say Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Between 2018 and 2021, the share of evangelicals, some of your biggest supporters under the age of 30 who backed you over the Palestinians,
plunged from 69 percent to 34 percent. And an AP poll says 50 percent of Americans say the military response has gone too far. My question again is,
when will you go into a day after negotiation to talk about the end of the war?
DANON: Maybe you have a short memory, but I don't.
AMANPOUR: I don't have a short memory.
DANON: I haven't forgotten what happened on October 7th.
AMANPOUR: Nor have I, sir.
DANON: And I haven't forgotten the hostages.
AMANPOUR: Nor have I.
DANON: And with all the respect to all the leaders and the declarations, we have a commitment. And the commitment is to bring the hostages back.
AMANPOUR: Correct.
DANON: We believe that if we will stop the war now, we will not get the hostages back and Hamas will stay in power. And actually, all the deals
that you mentioned were brought because we used military power. Calls from the U.N. will not release the hostages. It's only the military and the
might of the IDF that actually brought Hamas to a position to negotiate with us. And that's what's going to happen. We're going to put more
pressure. And I believe that we will bring Hamas to a position that will have to accept the deal, that will release all the hostages and deliver the
keys to somebody else.
[13:30:00]
You know, and we had many people speaking about allowing the Palestinians to rule in Gaza and a demand to give them the keys. We gave them the keys
20 years ago, exactly 20 years ago. Prime Minister Sharon handed the keys for Gaza to the Palestinians. He uprooted the Jewish communities, took out
the military out of Gaza. And we told them, go build your future. Let's live together with coexistence. We are not going to be there. We even left
the border with Egypt and we left it to them. And we saw what happened. So, we will not make that mistake again.
AMANPOUR: Many people say that Prime Minister Sharon, with due respect, pulled out hastily with no negotiations with the International Community or
with the Palestinian Authority and just basically left this place to them. Now, you know what happened.
DANON: Exactly.
AMANPOUR: And I covered the elections and I know what happened since. But Israel has had control of that place ever since. And my question to you is,
now, what is your reaction going to be because to the recognition and to the other things? Because we hear, we know that Benjamin Netanyahu, your
prime minister, has slapped another siege on the West Bank in the last few days, closing the last available in and out place into the West Bank.
That's the Allenby Bridge into Jordan.
We hear some of your more extreme ministers, Ben-Gvir, Smotrich and the others, talk about zero ever Palestinian State, so does the prime minister,
and the expulsion of all Palestinians. Can you tell me, what is it? Is it the expulsion of all Palestinians? Is it trying to get them to voluntary
leave? Is it besiege both the West Bank and Gaza? What is it?
DANON: There was no decision of the government of Israel about expelling anyone. That's a lie. The only thing that the prime minister said that once
he will come to the U.N. to speak here on Friday, meet President Trump on Monday, then he will come back to Israel and discuss what Israel should do
following what we saw here at the U.N., this charade.
AMANPOUR: What do you think?
DANON: I think what happens here --
AMANPOUR: What do you think the reaction will be of your government?
DANON: I will get to that. But why it's important? Because we believe in negotiations. We are a peaceful nation. We signed peace treaties with
Egypt, with Jordan, with Morocco --
AMANPOUR: Egypt is now calling you the enemy.
DANON: -- with the UAE, with Bahrain. We are a peaceful nation. And also, by the way, we had negotiations with the Palestinians in the past. In that
negotiations, you have some key issues to discuss. The issue of statehood, borders, refugees, Jerusalem. What's happening here, this show, they're
trying to bypass direct negotiations. Basically, President Macron believes that he will come and recognize the Palestinian State and it will happen
tomorrow morning. It doesn't work that way in our region. You need both sides to sit and negotiate.
AMANPOUR: He talks about a ceasefire. All of them talk about the return of the hostages. They talk about phases. Nobody is ignoring what's important
to you. But many Israelis, including hostage families, saying this is not the way to get the hostages back. And they don't think that's your number
one goal anymore.
DANON: Peace in the Middle East will come from direct negotiations, not from U.N. resolutions --
AMANPOUR: Then why do you think --
DANON: -- or U.N. conferences. Regarding to your question, I think there should be a response to what happened here.
AMANPOUR: So, what will that be?
DANON: The government will have to sit down and discuss it. And there are different ways. You can enhance the Jewish community in Judea and Samaria.
AMANPOUR: That means more settlements. The E1.
DANON: You can take action against the PA, which orchestrated this charade. You can show what we really think about President Macron and his
initiative. You know what he said --
AMANPOUR: It's not just President Macron. It's a lot of allies. It's every member, the permanent members of the Security Council, except for the
United States. This is a big thing. But I want to ask you, because you said that only direct negotiations will lead to peace. And yet, I assume you
supported or asked the president of the United States to deny the PA, again, the only body that's legitimately recognized Israel and is
recognized as the representatives of the Palestinian Authority. You've denied them visas. Mahmoud Abbas cannot come here. So, how does that go to
your point?
DANON: Well, it was a U.S. decision. I think it was the right decision, by the way.
AMANPOUR: Apparently, it's against the U.N. Charter.
DANON: And I tell you why it was the right decision. Because, you know, people make the distinction between Hamas and the PA. But the PA, they
continue to pay terrorists. They have the pay-to-slay policy. There was a terror attack in Jerusalem a few weeks ago. Six Israelis were massacred.
The PA, President Abbas, will pay the families of the terrorists a monthly salary of $1,000 a month for life.
AMANPOUR: From what I gather, that is no longer the case.
DANON: No, no, that's the case. And you can ask President Abbas next time you interview him.
AMANPOUR: I will.
DANON: And he will tell you --
AMANPOUR: I will. I'll ask his representative tomorrow, actually.
DANON: And they will tell you that's for them, that's part of their ideology. And President Abbas said it in the General Assembly last year
when he came here, even if it will be the last dollar he has, he will use it to pay for the families of the murderers.
AMANPOUR: OK.
DANON: That's how he called the terrorists.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you a question. Do you see the pictures? OK. So, we've just had the foreign minister of Brazil. And he said, he used the
word vengeance, this vengeance that Israel is taking after the terrible crimes of October 7th. And everybody knows that they were terrible crimes.
But this vengeance is gone overboard.
[13:35:00]
DANON: It's not a vengeance. It's not a vengeance.
AMANPOUR: And even President Biden, your strongest collaborator, ally, came from the United States to Israel and said to the Prime Minister, don't
do what we did in vengeance after 9/11. Don't do what we did, because look where it ended.
DANON: It's not a vengeance. I'm looking at you and I'm telling you, it's not a vengeance. We want -- and it can be over tomorrow morning. Once the
hostages are released, Hamas gives these weapons. You remember what happened in Beirut when the PLO was deported to another country. It's going
to be over in one day. But it will not be over with hostages in Gaza and Hamas in power in Gaza. And we want it to be over.
You know, my father, my late father fought in Gaza. I myself served in Gaza. My son was in Gaza as an officer. We have no desire to be there. We
don't want to send our boys to risk their lives. Every day we have Israeli casualties in Gaza. We want to pull out, but we will pull out when we know
that we got the hostages back and that Hamas is out of the game.
AMANPOUR: As you know, President Biden and his secretary of state told me as they were leaving, his secretary of state, that because of this war,
even more Hamas are being recruited, almost the same as you say you're killing. And I guess in the end, I want to know whether for you and for the
Israeli government, the death of so many children and women can ever be a justification.
You're going after, you say, Hamas. But the interim, the collateral damage, the horrible word, the civilian casualties and -- are huge. And I wonder
how Israel, which has suffered such horror in its past, will be able to get over this and answer to this. Because even now, some of your reservists,
they don't want to go. They're writing letters. They're saying that we've achieved our aims. We don't want to go to this.
DANON: No, it's not true. It's not true.
AMANPOUR: But we see the letters, and so do your former defense and intelligence people. They say it.
DANON: We have a strong nation. We regret the loss of lives of any civilians. But the blame is on Hamas, period. They started this war. We had
a ceasefire before October 7th. They came into our communities, kidnapped our babies, raped our women. Don't blame us for what we are doing. It's a
war of self-defense.
AMANPOUR: Not blaming.
DANON: When the U.S. attacked Osama bin Laden and there were casualties among civilians, no one blamed the U.S. Same with many other wars. But we
regret it, and I will tell you that. We regret it. And I think we care more about the future of the Palestinians in Gaza than Hamas. We want to have a
future for them, but there will be no future for them if Hamas will stay in power there.
AMANPOUR: I think the question is, is where does legitimate self-defense begin and end? Anyway, you've answered the question, and we will continue
to watch it, and we will invite you back on the program as the Israeli response becomes more apparent.
DANON: I hope that we will do it after the hostages are back.
AMANPOUR: I hope so, too. And I hope you will let, on behalf of the global press, who has petitioned your government to allow us to go and to report
on what's going on so we can see all sides of the story. Why do you keep us out?
DANON: We want to keep you safe.
AMANPOUR: We're war correspondents. We'll continue this conversation.
DANON: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Thank you, Ambassador. And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, as we said, in his lengthy speech here at the United Nations today, President Trump repeated again and again how strong the U.S.
economy is under his leadership. But does this reflect reality?
[13:40:00]
The Federal Reserve is lowering interest rates in an effort to lift up the deteriorating U.S. labor market. But it's the first time since December
that it's taken any action. So, how can the Fed become more responsive to the needs of democracy? In his latest New York Times essay, Adam Tooze is
trying to answer that question by taking a deep dive into the American Central Banking system and exploring the challenges it faces today. He
joins Walter Isaacson now to explain.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And, Adam Tooze, welcome to the show.
ADAM TOOZE, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Thank you, glad to be here.
ISAACSON: In a Supreme Court ruling this past May, which had allowed the president to dismiss a lot of employees from independent agencies, it had a
carve-out for the Federal Reserve, and it said it was a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity with a distinct historic tradition.
Explain that to me.
TOOZE: Yes, this is an extraordinary fact that is true, that this central agency of government, I think everyone generally, when they follow the
news, thinks of the Fed as a bona fide agency of the American state, of the government, does indeed have origins in 19th century banking politics. And
this makes it like other Central Banks. Central Banks are banks to bankers, and bankers are a very powerful lobby group.
And from the late 19th century onwards, after years of dispute about this question, it was clear that America, as it entered the 20th century, was
going to need a Central Bank. And this was a hugely controversial issue in Gilded Age America, with populists in the agrarian parts of the U.S.
protesting and wanting easy money. And Wall Street, which at the time was very remote from other parts of the U.S., anchoring itself on the global
gold standard that was centered on London at the time.
ISAACSON: So, that begins in 1913 with the Fed. And it's a time when William Jennings Bryan running for president, is saying that we shouldn't
be crucified on the cross of gold. They want easy money. They want -- you know, they don't want tech. Is that why the Fed was started, so that the
bankers could have a more stable currency?
TOOZE: It's a compromise. So, de facto, the U.S. after the Civil War was on the gold standard, which was punishingly austere, right? To get back to
the gold standard after the U.S. Civil War, there was a severe deflation. American federal government at the time is a tiny, tiny fraction of the
American economy. So, effectively, it was tied to the British-based gold system. And that's what provoked the populist backlash of the 1890s.
Think of this in terms of negative equity. If you've got a mortgage on a property now, if you're in the suburbs, or then if you're a farmer, and all
of a sudden, the price of everything starts falling, including the value of your property, you're in a pickle because you're basically going to end up
in deeper and deeper negative equity.
William Jennings Bryan's great run for the Democratic Party nomination, and then he's won for the presidency several times, was all about trying to
loosen that cross of gold that was being pressed down. Now, from the point of view of Wall Street, the moneyed interest there is a cause of huge
panic. So, what do you do by 1913? Under the stewardship of the very coolly, progressive, southern, you know, quite aristocratic figure of
Woodrow Wilson, you end up with a compromise.
And it has elements of the Wall Street banking interest, and it has elements of populism, and a struggle then ensues, and in a sense, has never
stopped over the last 110 years of what the Fed's priorities are, and what it should give the centrality to. Should it be monetary stability? Should
it be connections to the wider world, or should it be the interests of America's domestic political economy, as diverse as those are, right? So,
that's the setup. And indeed, we're still living in that argument, that ongoing argument.
ISAACSON: Well, the current argument about the Fed, really, it seems to begin in 1979 with Paul Volcker, where he really jacks up interest rates to
fight inflation. And you have a two-pronged system. You're trying to fight inflation, but you're trying to keep unemployment from going too far up.
Tell me how that defines the Fed today.
TOOZE: I think I might roll it back another decade to the late '60s, or indeed the '60s, and take people to the civil rights movement, because
that's really where the debate about full employment takes center stage. The '60s are thought of as a period of big government, great society. We're
all Keynesians now. We're doing the manipulation of the U.S. economy, but America being a society of racialized inequality, the really cutting
question, the canary in the gold mine, is black male unemployment.
And no one understood this better than the Martin Luther King wing of the civil rights movement. The March on Washington was a march for votes and
jobs. And so, from the '60s onwards, there's an argument going on on the American left about what the priorities of economic policy should be.
[13:45:00]
And those are written in the '70s, while the battle is still going on for the hearts and mind of American politics, the last really great struggle,
into the Humphrey Hawkins Federal Reserve Act, which gives it the dual mandate that you refer to. Only shortly thereafter, for the Carter
appointed hard money board of the Fed coming out of Wall Street with Paul Volcker at the helm, we now think of him as a lovely centrist, Cuddly
Grandpa, but in fact, he was a hard man of money to yank up interest rates, and fundamentally tilt America's political economy away from the American
working class. Unemployment shoots up.
There's an argument about how Paul Volcker himself intended this, but there are key moments in his various speeches where he makes pretty clear that he
understands that breaking trade union power is key to shifting America's political economy. And just from a technocratic point of view, once you've
done that, it's much easier to manage the inflation rate, because you don't have the flywheels in American society that take a cost-of-living increase
and say, right, I want a wage adjustment for that reason, right? The big trade unions in the '70s are all about indexing. That's broken in the '70s
by the Volcker shock.
And so, then we emerge in this new world of independent Central Banking with technocratic leadership by the '90s and the 2000s, right? PhD in
economics is the minimum qualification.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Gave them everything, gave them $350 billion worth of money and weapons. It's a lot of money and a lot of weapons that
we got really not much for it. We gave we gave the money to Ukraine to fight. And we've -- they've proven they're very brave.
I mean, look, they're fighting. And this is a war going on three and a half years. And people thought it would be over quickly because Russia is a big
military power. And Ukraine, I tell you, they are good fighters that are headed to they have a lot of courage, a lot of guts. Thank you very much,
everybody. Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, guys.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Some really interesting news there. President Trump was asked if he thinks that NATO countries should shoot
down Russian jets if they're in NATO airspace. Quote, "Yes, I do," he said. All the more newsworthy because this morning, Secretary of State Marco
Rubio indicated the United States would not shoot down Russian jets that enter NATO airspace, but said the alliance would continue to intercept
them. So, just really interesting topic that has been discussed today. And that's the word from the president.
He was asked, does he trust Vladimir Putin? He said, I'll know in a month from now. That's frequently punts a month, a couple of weeks. And he was
asked if he would pressure Viktor Orban to stop using Russian oil after he came down so hard on European countries for not reducing their reliance on
Russian energy. Actually, a lot of them really have. But some countries in Europe that have not have close personal relationships with President
Trump. And that was a very pointed question to point that out.
I want to bring in former Defense Secretary under president Obama, Leon Panetta. Secretary, what did you think about what you heard there
specifically about the shooting down of Russian jets, considering we've seen some of these incursions here recently?
LEON PANETTA, DEFENSE SECRETARY UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, you know, it's the way the president talks and usually goes ahead and says, shoot
them down, without thinking about all of the consequences. I would prefer that the president would make clear to Zelenskyy and make clear to our NATO
allies that what we really need to do is to form an air defense system over Ukraine and the other European countries that basically protects them from
those kinds of incursions. I think that would be the right way to go.
But obviously, at least hearing the president say what he said, the one thing I feel comfortable about is that he seems to be making clear that the
United States is going to stand with Ukraine in its war against Russia. And that's an important point to make.
KEILAR: When he was talking about has he seen progress on ending the war, he's pointing to the Russian economy. What did you think about that?
PANETTA: Well, the reality is the Russian economy is falling apart as a result of Russia's efforts to continue this war. Everybody knows that. And
it makes a great deal of sense right now, very frankly, for the president to stand up and push for additional sanctions against Russia.
[13:50:00]
This would be the appropriate time to do that, because Russia is hurting with regards to its economy. The president recognizes that. To some extent,
he may be bobbing and weaving in hope that the Russian economy will collapse without having to push him.
But the reality is that it would be important right now for the president to do two things, to move forward with additional sanctions, to make clear
that we're going to continue to put pressure on Putin, to basically either agree to a ceasefire or negotiations. And secondly, I think it would be
really important for the United States to provide the weapons necessary in order for Ukraine to be able to defend itself.
I -- you know, we established an Iron Dome for Israel. It's effective over 90 percent in terms of knocking down drones and missiles. We ought to do
the same thing for Ukraine right now and give them the kind of defense system that would stop these constant incursions by drones and missiles
from Russia.
KEILAR: Secretary Panetta, if you can stand by for us, we'll be having more with you here coming in the next hour. We're going to get in a quick
break. A big day today in New York as we are watching the U.N. General Assembly. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:55:00]
KEILAR: A 107-day sprint to Election Day. Former Vice president Kamala Harris's new book on her failed presidential bid is out today. And she's
making the rounds sharing details on what's in it. And here's what the former vice president told ABC's The View on the historic challenge that
she faced running a shortened campaign after President Biden left the race.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: This is unprecedented. Think about this. That there's a race for president of the United States. The
current sitting president is running for re-election. Three and a half months from the election, he decides not to run. The sitting vice president
then takes the mantle, running against a former president of the United States who had been running for 10 years with 107 days.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEILAR: We're joined now by CNN National Politics Correspondent Eva McKend. Eva, talk to us about what didn't stand out in this book. Honestly,
because so often these political books, they can be boring. But this one is not. It's kind of like a barn burner with the bombshells.
EVA MCKEND, CNN NATIONAL POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: It is. But she's in a much different position now. As vice president, by her own telling, she was
really restrained. In her view, this was not a White House that was all that interested, at least in the beginning, in seeing her shine. And now,
she can say whatever she wants to uninhibited.
And listen, she has a lot of regrets about not distinguishing herself more from President Biden on the campaign trail. But she's also immensely
grateful to him for making her his vice president. And so, you see that constant tension there. She also recounts the vice-presidential candidate
interviews that she had with folks, including Governor Shapiro of Pennsylvania, in which she reminded him that being a vice president is not
a co-president. And that really was enlarged because of her own experience.
And then also, I think that she views herself as an important voice in this book to continue the voice of the resistance, continuing to sound the alarm
about President Trump. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: I think it's important as we move forward to realize that they did what they said they were going to do. I heard a story about a friend of
mine was telling me about a Cuban-American whose partner was being deported to Sudan. And that person was a big Trump supporter and thought, well, why
is this -- well, but they -- he said he was only going to go after criminals. I think there are lessons about you've got to listen to what
they tell you. And this is bigger than Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCKEND: And she also says that ultimately, she knows that this race came down in many ways to the cost-of-living issue and that Trump has not held
up his end of the bargain when it comes to that critical point.
KEILAR: What has she said about her political future? And I'm so curious about this because it's not often that someone with designs on a grand
political future would write a book like this.
MCKEND: Exactly. And I wish she was as candid about her political future as she is about everything else. But she remains true to form on that
front, saying that that is not her focus right now. But listen, I mean, she still views herself as an important voice --
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
