Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Washington Post Global Opinions Writer and "Prisoner" My 544 Days in an Iranian Prison" Author Jason Rezaian; Interview with B'Tselem Executive Director Yuli Novak; Interview with Adalah Legal Director Suhad Bishara. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired April 09, 2026 - 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.
A fragile ceasefire hanging in the balance after Israel killed and wounded hundreds in Lebanon. Our correspondent is in Beirut, where lives have been
shattered.
Then, bombs may fall silent in Iran for now, but the fate of the people is more uncertain than ever after human rights activist Nasrin Sotoudeh was
arrested. I speak to Jason Rezaian. He spent more than 500 days as a political prisoner in Iran.
Plus, relentless violence by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank. And after Israel passed a death penalty law for Palestinians, a discussion
on the deteriorating situation.
And in honor of Artemis II's historic mission, looking back at my conversation with the self-described space nut actor Tom Hanks about how
the Apollo missions led to this moment.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
European leaders are calling on Israel to stop its attacks on Lebanon, which threatened the shaky U.S.-Iran ceasefire. And now, Prime Minister
Netanyahu says that he is willing to enter direct peace talks with the government there, something the Lebanese government had proposed weeks ago.
This as a U.S. delegation led by Vice President Vance will go to Pakistan to engage with the Iranians on ceasefire talks.
Meanwhile, only a handful of vessels have so far been allowed to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. That is the state of play. But for all the
talk of peace on the ground in Lebanon, the scenes are dire. Digging for survivors after Israel unleashed the most deadly strikes of the war right
after the ceasefire was called yesterday. More than a thousand people were killed and wounded in just a single day. The Lebanese president calls the
attacks barbaric. Israel claims it was targeting Hezbollah sites.
Our correspondent Nada Bashir is in Beirut and she's joining me now. Nada, I know it's early and this news of, you know, the Israelis initiating
direct talks is fresh. But has it reached where you are? Has the government said anything? Have people said anything?
NADA BASHIR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Christiane, we haven't had an official response just yet from the Lebanese government. But as you
mentioned, the Lebanese government, its president, have been pushing for peace negotiations and talks for some time now, since the war began.
In fact, we have seen several moves by the Lebanese government to try to push the situation towards diplomacy. The Lebanese president said that the
government had written to the United Nations outlawing the military wing of Hezbollah. And of course, we have also heard just in the last day from the
Lebanese government saying that they have called on their security forces to rid the capital, Beirut, of non-state arms. Clearly, a push to target
Hezbollah forces that are perhaps operating in the capital.
There is a real hope here across the country that diplomacy may lead to a cessation of hostilities, may provide some respite for a country that has,
of course, seen deadly conflict once again for over a month now. As you mentioned, the staggering figures following yesterday's large widespread
attack by the Israeli military.
Of course, the Israeli military says it was targeting Hezbollah command and military targets. But we have seen on the ground for ourselves the civilian
impact of this widespread attack. And, of course, fresh warnings today of a broadening of that evacuation order in southern Beirut has raised concerns
that negotiations might not necessarily mean an end to airstrikes here in Lebanon. Take a look at the impact that we have seen firsthand on the
ground.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BASHIR (voice-over): Homes destroyed, the air filled with smoke, the site of yet another deadly attack.
BASHIR: This is the aftermath of an enormous Israeli military strike here in Beirut. This is one of the more than a hundred targets, according to the
Israeli military they believe to be Hezbollah targets struck today.
[13:05:00]
But you can see behind me, these appear to be residential buildings. Upon this, this is a very busy area full of shops and a busy roadway. There
would have been many people at this site and around the area at the time of the blast, and now emergency services are working to dig through the rubble
for victims.
BASHIR (voice-over): The Lebanese health ministry says hundreds have been killed and wounded, adding to the more than 1,500 people the ministry said
Tuesday have been killed in Lebanon over the course of this war. Hopes that the ceasefire between the U.S., Israel and Iran would extend to Lebanon
were quickly dashed just hours after it came into effect.
RASHA, LOCAL RESIDENT AND EYEWITNESS (through translator): We were sitting, drinking like normal, and then we heard a very loud noise, three
blasts at the same time, and then we saw the smoke, but we couldn't tell where it was coming from.
What kind of life is this? We don't know what will happen in the next hour. The last thing we could imagine is this kind of attack occurring in the
center of Beirut.
BASHIR (voice-over): In the neighborhood of Tallet el-Khayat, first responders attempt to rescue survivors after a section of a residential
building was completely leveled. Both the U.S. and Israel have claimed Lebanon was never part of the ceasefire agreement, despite claims to the
contrary from Pakistan's prime minister who helped broker the deal.
Now, fears of a further escalation, including a possible retaliation from Hezbollah ally Iran, has left many fearful over what now lies ahead for the
people of Lebanon.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BASHIR (on camera): And of course, while we are still waiting to hear an official statement from the Lebanese government, we are also waiting to
hear any response from Hezbollah and whether they may continue to retaliate.
AMANPOUR: You know, Nada, it was really, for me, Nada, quite extraordinary when this started, to hear so many Lebanese raising their head above the
parapet and just saying enough to Hezbollah that they have brought this down on Lebanon's head for way too long, and also, enough of this permanent
war by Israel. What are you hearing from people? You know, who are they blaming for this, what's just happened to them just now?
BASHIR: Well, Christiane, we certainly are hearing a sense of division amongst the Lebanese people, but overwhelmingly the response is that people
want an end to this war, a peaceful end to this war. There are, of course, many who criticize Hezbollah for dragging Lebanon back into a conflict with
Israel. Many have accused Hezbollah of prioritizing the military goals of the Iranian regime and the IRGC over the security of Lebanon and the
Lebanese people.
But there are, of course, others in the country who support Hezbollah, who have argued and have said to us that they believe Hezbollah is the only
force in Lebanon defending the country's southern borders, defending the country from what has been ongoing Israeli attacks on southern Lebanon,
despite the apparent ceasefire that was in place. And, of course, both sides have clearly been in violation of that ceasefire that was brokered in
November 2024.
But there are many who are critical of the Lebanese government, the Lebanese army, for not, in their view, being strong enough to prevent any
further Israeli attacks. And you can really feel that division when we've been speaking to people on the ground. And, of course, the humanitarian
impact has left many in this country very desperate for an end to all conflict in this country.
We're not just talking about more than 1,500 now killed, but also more than a million people, some 20 percent of the country's entire population, now
displaced. And there are fears there aren't any clear signs of a long- standing off-ramp.
AMANPOUR: Yes, and as you say, and as you point out so well, it is always the ordinary people who suffer the most, whether it's in Lebanon or,
indeed, in Iran, where the future remains uncertain for ordinary civilians. Amid the bombs that fall and have been falling over the past six weeks, the
regime has continued to crack down, arresting pro-democracy activists and alarming many who want their freedoms. Among them is Nasrin Sotoudeh, a
famed human rights lawyer who's been a longtime thorn in the regime's side. She was arrested last week while all alone at her home in Tehran. Her
family fears for her health and her safety.
And in an exclusive message, Nasrin's daughter, Mehraveh Khandan, told us they don't know where she's being held.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MEHRAVEH KHANDAN, NASRIN SOTOUDEH'S DAUGHTER: I think this is especially concerning because she suffers from heart disease, and because of that, she
shouldn't be under any kind of pressure and stress.
[13:10:00]
Also, from last year, last summer, when Israel attacked Evin Prison, we know that the hospital of this prison was destroyed and it doesn't function
anymore. So, in case of emergency, prisoners don't have access to proper medical care.
I also wanted to take a moment here to remind everyone that my father has been also in prison since December 2024 for defending women's rights in
Iran. And I wanted to say that this is the first time that I feel this scared and this desperate because I think the war added so many layers to
the situation that we are in right now. Because I think in one hand, there was always this risk that the U.S. or Israel attacked prisons again.
And on the other hand, I do believe that this war helped the regime so much to distract minds from what's going on inside of Iran and overshadowed
human rights news and human rights activist news inside of the country.
So, I hope that with this ceasefire now, we can focus more on what's going on inside of Iran. And we can hope probably for a real change from the
people that comes from the people inside of the Iran.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, Nasrin Sotoudeh's daughter, 25-year-old Mehraveh Khandan. Let's bring in now Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian, who knows the
inside of an Iranian prison all too well. He was held on false charges by the regime back in 2014 for over 500 days. And he's joining us now from
Washington. Jason, welcome back to our program.
JASON REZAIAN, GLOBAL OPINIONS WRITER, WASHINGTON POST AND AUTHOR, "PRISONER" MY 544 DAYS IN AN IRANIAN PRISON": Good to be with you.
AMANPOUR: Just on a personal level, Mehraveh said a few things. One, you know, fear for her mother's safety and her health. They don't know where
she is. And also, for what might have been done to the human rights campaign of the Iranian people over these last six weeks. So, let's take
your reaction to her message.
REZAIAN: Well, I think, Christian, Ms. Khandan is 100 percent on point. As you and I both know, Nasrin Sotoudeh, her mother, along with Narges
Mohammadi, the Nobel Prize laureate, have both been in and out of prison over more than a decade of time.
And I think this war, in a lot of ways, was sold to the public as a war of liberation to support Iranian aspirations for democratic future, for human
rights in the wake of a massacre of thousands, potentially tens of thousands, of Iranian protesters back in January. What we're seeing,
though, unfortunately, more repression by the regime, a ramping up of executions, something that has never slowed down in the 47 years of the
Islamic Republic, calls from the judiciary to expedite trials and execute collaborators, supposed collaborators, protesters. So, I think the reality
is this sets back the clock for freedom in Iran more than moves it forward.
AMANPOUR: Well, let's try to discuss that because, as you know, there's a very visceral argument about that. Many, certainly in the diaspora and even
from inside, have been calling for this bombing, believing that this was, as they said, their last chance to topple a regime that has been so
ruthless against them. Here's what Trump said. This is what he said about this. This is before the ceasefire, while the war was still on. Just take a
listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: They would be willing to suffer that in order to have freedom. The Iranians have -- you know, we've had numerous
intercepts. Please keep bombing. Bombs that are dropping near their homes, please keep bombing. Do it. And these are people that are living where the
bombs are exploding. And when we leave and we're not hitting those areas, they're saying, please come back, come back, come back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, there's quite a lot of truth to that because even today in, not intercepts, but in voice messages and text messages, some Iranians have
been saying, we've been betrayed again because we thought they were going to keep bombing until the regime fell. What are you hearing? And let's
discuss this really visceral divide over bombing or not to bomb.
[13:15:00]
REZAIAN: Christian, the reality is it's a country of 92 million people, one that you know very well and that I know well. There are a range of
desires and aspirations. I think that the calls for continued bombing are real and that they represent a portion of the population.
But what I've been hearing from people, especially over the last two, three weeks, is that, you know, the potential to target civilian infrastructure,
historical sites, hospitals, universities, schools. It's kind of a red line for people, the power infrastructure, because once you decimate those
things, it's very difficult to bring them back. It's not going to take a month or two to rebuild this country. It's going to take many years.
And I think the calls for continued bombing are an indication of the desperation that people feel, and one that they've felt in growing ways
over a period of decades, certainly more and more in the last five or six years as we've seen the pace and size of protests increase.
After the death of Mahsa Amini in custody in 2022, you know, the biggest protest in the most numerous number of cities and villages across the
country. It's not something that we can deny or ignore. People want change in Iran. It's just that whether or not that change can be brought about by
bombs, I don't think that hard power alone can do it.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, this --
REZAIAN: And I think --
AMANPOUR: Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you, but this is the heart of the matter, because once the bombs fall silent, the reality exists, as you
said, that the majority of the people, the vast majority, want an end to this regime, and they want their freedom. And who knows, they might, you
know, be able to go out into the streets and protest again.
But this is what, you know, Ray Takeyh and Suzanne Maloney, two very well- known Washington-based Iran experts, have advised previous U.S. administrations. I talked to them yesterday, and Ray told me the Iranian
people are in a losing situation, not, you know, trapped between cruelty of their government and the apathy of the International Community. And as Ray
said to me, their future is going to be only in their hands. How do you see it unfolding?
REZAIAN: I think that's right, but I think that there are ways that we can help, and one of the ways that Iranians have been asking for help is to be
brought back online. You can't organize if you can't communicate with one another.
For over 40 days, there's been a near total blackout of the internet in that country. Going back to 2009 and the Green Movement, the regime has
always used internet shutdowns to slow people's ability to organize, to communicate with one another, to communicate with the outside world, to
share images of what's happening inside the country.
And every single time, Christiane, the United States of America has promised that we won't let that happen again. We will do whatever it takes
to keep these people online. Every single time we've failed. And this time around, as we drop bombs on them, we haven't even been able to get them up
and running on the internet. And there are ways to do it, whether it's via Starlink or direct-to-sell internet access. These are things that --
AMANPOUR: Why haven't they done it? They talk a good game. Why haven't they done it?
REZAIAN: I think, and this is an unfortunate position to take, but I think that they don't care. And I think that that's where we are right now. And
the words of the president, the vice president, secretary of defense indicate a sort of a cold, calculated approach to this, that they just want
their strategic ends to be met. And at this point, it's to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which was opened before the bombing started.
So, you know, I think it's just a continuation of a failed policy and one that is having catastrophic results right now. Would I like to see a result
in a free Iran and a democratic one? 100 percent. Do I think that that's likely with the leadership that we currently have and the apathy that you
and others have spoken about? I think it's a long shot.
AMANPOUR: You know, I was there also in 2009. In fact, that's after covering those protests and basically running in the streets with the
protesters. They kicked me out and I haven't been back. But I remember, because I just saw some images, you know, certainly this one woman in
English said, we hate Ahmadinejad. The Iranian people hate Ahmadinejad. He was the president, very hardline president at the time.
But now, you know, the U.S. is even talking about a sort of a -- I don't know, I don't want to put words in their mouth, but a regime that's
changed, that's more amenable to talk, you know, about all these people, has it?
[13:20:00]
REZAIAN: It's the same people. It's the same people, Christiane. You know, with the killing of every Iranian official that we've heard about in in
recent weeks, whether it was a Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, or the head of the National Security Council, or Ali Larijani, the longtime nuclear
negotiator and speaker of parliament, what kept coming to my mind is how many more name-brand representatives of this regime are still alive, still
in their positions, still ruling over that country in a very repressive way.
This is not a sort of one-and-done, you take one person out, and it -- and the story is over. The same regime is in place, the same ideology is in
place, the same people are in control of the levers of power, and to uproot them is going to take a lot more than just bombing over a several-week
period, and I fear that the humanitarian toll of that is going to be more than anybody is even contemplating it at, at this point.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
REZAIAN: And that leads me to the conclusion that we might end up making some kind of arrangement with this regime, as we've seen from this wobbly
ceasefire, and if we did, if we made a more long-term one, that would be essentially the biggest betrayal of the Iranian people yet.
AMANPOUR: In the meantime, as we've talked about, of course, in light of Nasrin Sotoudeh, and the rearresting, and the executions, and the -- you
know, those who are in prison, I just want to share a moment, because it is 10 years since you -- over 10 years, since you were released. 10 years --
you know, over 10 years since you were taken, and I remember back then speaking to your mother, Mary Rezaian, here in London, and she addressed
these comments, speaking in Farsi, not her own native language, to then Ayatollah, you know, Khamenei, the supreme leader. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARY REZAIAN, MOTHER OF JAZON REZAIAN (through translator): Jason is not just my beloved son, but he is the son of Iran too. What mother can accept
her son being in jail? Release our son.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: It's really amazing to listen to, and you can imagine, hundreds of parents in Iran saying the same thing right now. Did you know then that
she was making these impassioned appeals for your release?
REZAIAN: I didn't know until months later, into my imprisonment. She was able to visit me, starting about a year into the imprisonment, for the last
several months, and when I came back to report out my story, my takeaway is that a family, my mother, my brother, of course, my wife, who was a
journalist, and was arrested with me, and released on house arrest, and continued to advocate for me, at great risk to herself, the support starts
with them, and it makes me think so much of the six Americans who are wrongfully detained in Iran right now, and others, like Ahmad Reza Jalali,
an Iranian-Swedish doctor, who's been on death row in Evin Prison for over nine years.
We need to do more for these people. And, you know, that moment in 2014 and '15, when my family was advocating for me, was one when there was more of a
diplomatic opening between the U.S. and Iran. But I hope that the political prisoners and hostages who are being held are not forgotten about, and that
every effort is made to bring them home.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Well, you, we, we all try to raise our voices for that. Jason Rezaian, thank you so much indeed. And stay with CNN, because we'll
be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: With the eyes of the world trained elsewhere, Palestinians continue to face a dire reality, both in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
Attacks by Israeli settlers have spiked in recent months, and it comes amid a new law that imposes the death penalty for those convicted of acts of
terrorism, quote, "with the intent to negate the existence of the State of Israel."
Now, for more on this, let's bring in Yuli Novak, executive director of the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, and Suhad Bishara, legal director at
Adalah, which is a Palestinian rights group.
Welcome both of you to the program. Can I just ask you both to tell me what you think this law means? What does that mean, a law -- let me ask you
first, Yuli, a law that is, you know, meant to go into effect, you know, if they find them guilty of negating Israel's right to exist. What does it
mean?
YULI NOVAK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, B'TSELEM: Right. Very simply, it means that Israel is continuing and widening its practice of killing and
executing Palestinians and adding another layer or formalizing this policy into its legal system. And that is very troubling because what we are
facing now is what we see it as another new phase of this system that is going a process of becoming more and more totalitarian, more and more
deadly, more and more unrestrained in its violence against Palestinians.
AMANPOUR: And let me ask you then, please, Suhad, you are an Israeli Arab or an Arab Israeli. I never quite know how to say that, but you lobby for
the rights of Arabs inside Israel and the West Bank, et cetera. Is it a two-track mechanism? Is it a dual track? Is this directed just at Arabs and
Palestinians or at everybody? What do you think the mechanism looks like?
SUHAD BISHARA, LEGAL DIRECTOR, ADALAH: Yes. I mean, definitely the death penalty law adopts very clearly a racial approach to the fundamental right
to life. It establishes a clear racial separation and apartheid like legal framework.
Now, we have -- and many others written a lot about the two-tiered system, legal system in the West Bank, including in Jerusalem, of course, and in
Israel in terms of how the law is applied and the two different legal frameworks. This law is an acceleration in this sense, because you have the
same law in a racialized wording, in a racialized designed wording, in a manner that the death penalty is imposed by hanging, by the way, is imposed
on Palestinians and on Palestinians only, whether we are speaking about the West Bank occupied territory, including East Jerusalem, whether we are
speaking about Palestinian citizens of Israel. This is why we call it as an apartheid like legal framework, because you have a distinction in the same
law and the wording of the same law.
We know that Palestinians are tried in the military courts in the West Bank. Settlers are not. Settlers are excluded from the definition of
residents of the West Bank to the purposes of the law. They are tried in Israel, and they are exempt from the applicability of the law in Israel
because of the wording that you have just mentioned, that the crime needs to be committed of the conviction with the aim of negating the city of
Israel. And this is explicitly an intent to exclude Jewish Israelis, including settlers in this regard.
And I do agree that we need to read this law in a wider context. We're speaking about a longstanding policy of extrajudicial executions by Israeli
security forces, also in Israel, also in the occupied territories, along a side with policy of impunity and almost no accountability. The impunity and
even support granted by officials to crimes committed by settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank, either to drive them out of their
communities or to terrorize them.
[13:30:00]
So, it's sending a clear message, not just that Palestinian lives don't matter. It goes further to add legal tools to expand the killing of
Palestinians.
AMANPOUR: So, let me let me play this, because the police minister, the security minister, Ben-Gvir, he's been talking about this. As you know,
there have been images and videos of him popping champagne corks, celebrating, essentially executing Palestinians. And I know that you,
Suhad, but I'm sure, Yuli, you're also into this, leading these petitions against this law in the high court.
This is what Ben-Gvir said to a right-wing outlet that work has commenced to start executions already. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ITAMAR BEN-GVIR, ISRAELI NATIONAL SECURITY MINISTER (through translator): I want to tell you that they have already begun to order red uniforms.
They're opening a death row wing. We're laying the foundation for what you call a facility, because you need a facility here. It won't be tomorrow
morning. It won't be two to three days. It takes a few months. But yes, we have begun work. And everyone who knows me knows this. There have been many
who just talked. I do, and I do, and I do, and I do.
And by the way, do you know what the prison authority is telling me? They see what has been going on since the law passed. They're telling me the
terrorists aren't sleeping at night. They're worried. And they should be worried. The terrorists should be worried. Blessed be God.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: It is quite hard for me to hear this, Yuli. I wonder what you think. I mean, it's very bloodthirsty, in fact. I mean, that's my opinion.
I know that you all are trying to take it to the court. What is your reaction?
NOVAK: So, Adalah is taking it to the court. And Suhad can tell you more about it. But one thing that I think we need to -- you get just the point.
I mean, you hear what he said, and things are so clear at the moment.
You know, one thing that has changed in Israel is the lack of need to hold this facade of liberal, democratic, human rights-respecting country. And we
see it everywhere, right? It's not only in regard to Palestinian prisoners and to the death penalty and the execution of Palestinian prisoners. The
reality in the prisons today is already devastating. It is -- we're talking about ongoing abuse, about Israel detention centers that have practically
become a network of torture camps. Because close to 10,000 Palestinians are being held right now, when we're talking, in these detention centers, each
and every one of them are going through abuse, a lack of medical treatment, starvation, and basically ongoing torture.
So -- and Ben-Gvir is not only bragging about it, he's also getting the support of the Israeli government. And I have to say, and this is maybe one
of the most tragic things for me as an Israeli to say, a large part of the Israeli Jewish society is also supporting these practices and this
mentality of ongoing abuse and violence and deadly treatment of Palestinians.
So, the notion of dehumanization of Palestinians that characterize, you know, that is being led by the most far-right hardliners, politicians
Israel ever had is basically become the norm here and become normalized. And maybe it's not, it shouldn't surprise us after two years of ongoing
genocide and after the violence that we see in the West Bank and the fact that more than 80 prisoners, the Palestinians have died in Israeli prisons,
and we can talk about that as well. But it is devastating.
AMANPOUR: Let me just ask you, before I turn back to Suhad and the court case. It was passed, as you say, by a majority, 62 members of parliament of
the Knesset. Netanyahu himself voted for it, but apparently against the explicit objection of the military establishment and the National Security
Council. Why do you think they told him not to? Why do they object to this law?
NOVAK: Yes. I think that we have this kind of complex situation in which Israel is now being led by a very, very clear and direct ideological and a
sentiment, which is to basically to break apart the Palestinians, to ruin the Palestinians.
[13:35:00]
Now, there are fraction within Israeli apparatus that are still trying to hold on to some, I would call it a facade and fake notion of, you know,
liberal values, of democracy, of kind of respect to international law. But I call it a facade because again, a nation, a country, a state that
conducted genocide, a state that holds thousands of people under conditions of torture, a state that legislate this kind of legislation is very clear,
none of these things.
So, we have some kind of elements within the system while trying -- still trying to hold on and kind of to play the not entirely ideological and
racist playbook. But they are very weak and we see the results on the ground, right? So --
AMANPOUR: Yes. And, Yuli, you use the word genocide because that is what your organization and other human rights organizations in Israel determined
is what took place in Gaza. So, I want to move on, move back to Suhad because you're taking this into the court system. You've explained to me
why the courts are not fair to Palestinians in general, in military courts and the Supreme Court, we know, is under pressure from the Israeli
government.
What is your realistic expectation for what might happen to this execution law as you take it through the court to try to get it struck down?
BISHARA: Yes, no, definitely. Our aim is to declare the laws unconstitutional, null and void. And it's based on very good legal grounds
in terms of international law and constitutional law. First, the part of the law that applies to the West Bank clearly violated the fundamental
principles of laws of war and occupation because the Israeli parliament is not the sovereign entity and the occupied territories.
Under the circumstances, it has no authority to enact such laws in the West Bank. And the law, in fact, goes against decades of international and U.N.
member states efforts to abolish death penalty worldwide. It is considered inhuman, violates absolute prohibition and torture and violates democratic
principle as stated by some of the E.U. countries.
And then it contradicts Israel's obligation under international human rights law. We're speaking about nearly mandatory death penalty which is
inherently arbitrary, violate E.U. process principles. And we all know that military courts in the West Bank lack fundamental guarantees for any kind
of fair trial in this regard.
The mere fact that we're speaking about mandatory or nearly mandatory death penalty is inherently arbitrary by itself. And by many jurisdictions, it
was declared as unconstitutional, including in the U.S. And basically, a lot of legislatures spoke about the fact that it will, or they expect that
it will deter violence or future crimes in this regard.
However, it should be noted that all along the legislation process, no such evidence were even discussed or brought before the committee or the Knesset
members that discuss it. And in fact, we bring with our petition, expert opinion saying exactly the opposite, not that only there is no evidence, a
lot of research, scientific research, legal research show in fact the opposite.
So, the petition is well-founded and I hope that this will result in declaring it null and void. Again, there are many problematic aspects. It's
racially designed. We are speaking about a death penalty that is inherently unconstitutional and it has many other flaws in the law itself in terms of
due process and much more. And I'm hopeful that it will be declared null and void.
AMANPOUR: All right. Well, listen, both of you, Yuli Novak, Suhad Bishara, thank you very much for joining me on this important issue.
[13:40:00]
Now, after venturing further into space than ever before, the Artemis II astronauts are nearly home, and we revisit our conversation with superstar
actor and space fanatic Tom Hanks to hear why the moon landings meant so much to him. That's after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: And finally, wherever you are, whoever you are, look up and we all see the same moon. The astronauts of Artemis II have just traveled
farther beyond Earth than ever before, seeing and capturing the moon in a whole new way. The images are reminiscent of the striking Apollo era photos
taken over five decades ago. From their shuttle, astronaut Victor Glover told CNN, all the good stuff is coming back with us, bringing NASA one step
closer to establishing a lunar base. But the race is on to get there first as China seeks to outpace the United States.
Now, let's revisit the immersive documentary, "The Moonwalkers," that was produced for the Lightbox studio here in London a few years ago by none
other than actor Tom Hanks and writer Christopher Reilly.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Tom Hanks, Chris Riley, welcome to the program.
TOM HANKS, CO-WRITER AND NARRATOR, "MOONWALKERS": Good to see you.
AMANPOUR: This is a quintessentially American story. And the two of you wrote this together. What did it take to write this? What were you trying
to achieve? What was it about the moon, the story that's been told so many times?
HANKS: That's a good question. Why?
CHRISTOPHER RILEY, CO-WRITER AND DIRECTOR, "MOONWALKERS": Well, yes. I mean, it's not entirely about the moon. The story is actually a story of
hope, of course. It's about hope, of humanity, of what we can do when we work together. Apollo really epitomizes that. It was the work of half a
million people for a decade, all pulling together for one particular quest. And it was driven by curiosity in part. And when we are curious, we
discover unexpected things. And that's essentially the message we wanted to try and convey in part, isn't it, Tom?
HANKS: You know, the interesting thing is why and why now. And I think that if you took the headlines of 1969, and the headlines of 2023, they
actually match up in quite -- what's the word I'm looking for?
AMANPOUR: Synchronicity.
HANKS: Yes. And it's not great news. It's actually quite troublesome and it is very much sort of like defining of this era that we're in right now.
And at the same time in 1968, and same time in 2023, people were going to the moon. I mean, we do make a big deal about the Artemis missions that
will be going back around the moon within the next year, which is an incredible step for humankind.
For myself, when I was 13, the Apollo missions were this example of the -- it was an evolutionary place in the consciousness of humankind, because the
only reason to go to the moon was because we're human beings and we desire to figure out what is on the other side of the hill, and that affected me
very much then. And if we're human beings, do we not have to remain curious, and do we not have to strive in order to see what is on the other
side of that door?
AMANPOUR: And do we not have to be stirred? Because you say correctly that this unbelievable 360 experience puts you in the moment. And the opening
words we've heard, and you have the opening narration.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HANKS: Every human being who ever lived on the planet Earth looked up at the moon, and it's given us our seasons, it's given us our day, the length
of our month, and we've been moved by it, you know, spiritually.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:45:00]
AMANPOUR: How did you come up with, I mean, what's really curiosity, human, you know, connection to your opening statement? How did that come
out?
HANKS: If we are going to become interplanetary beings from "Star Trek" and all of the great wonderings of great science fiction, theoretical
fiction now and in a lot of ways, we will be doing so based on what we learned as space faring beings when we went to Apollo.
There's only there's only 12 human beings that have walked on the surface of another planet, only 12 of us in the 50,000 years of human behavior.
When we do it again, and we will, we will be doing it because these were the pathfinders who showed that it was possible in the first place.
It's not just a matter of the technology, certainly that is, but it's also as a question, as you yourself said, it's wherewithal. Do we want to? And
the answer is, yes, we do. So, then the how is, well, we already have kind of like a template of how, we just have to follow it through to whatever
the next chapter is going to be.
AMANPOUR: And, Chris, you -- I don't know whether you wrote the opening statement, but the idea of looking up and always seeing this moon, and it
is a repository of all our dreams and all our hopes. Tell me about that.
RILEY: Yes. The moon is a beacon, of course, and it's something we're all familiar with in our lives. It's always up there, ever changing, you know,
as well. And wherever you're traveling on Earth, it's different too.
And in many ways, it's pulled us off the planet. We dreamed about it, first of all, as Tom says, for centuries, we wrote about it. We invented gods up
there, as Tom's words explain at the beginning. And it's tugged us off Earth, because without the moon, there was nowhere to reach to. Neil
Armstrong, I think, I recall, saw it in the same way as the islands just off the coast of China that tugged us as a species into the Pacific,
because if you couldn't see something to reach that wasn't over the horizon, you wouldn't have the courage to go. And that's what the moon
symbolizes for us as well, I think.
AMANPOUR: You saw the -- when you were a kid, you watched on television and I watched on television, Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. And I guess
that it's inspired you ever since because you've also played, you know, Jim Lovell in "Apollo 13."
HANKS: Yes, yes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, we've got a problem here.
HANKS: What did you do?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nothing. I stirred the tanks.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whoa. Hey. This is Houston. say again, please.
HANKS: Houston, we have a problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Has that been something that stayed with you ever since then? Why did you choose the "Apollo 13" film?
HANKS: I was -- first of all, the "Apollo 13," Jim Lovell, Fred Haise, Jack Swigert, they are Jason and the Argonauts. That is a story that is
ripped right out of the great sagas of all of humankind. This is what it comes around. I'm sitting at home -- actually, it was 1968 on Apollo 8. Jim
Lovell was orbiting the moon with Fred Borman and Bill Anders. And on my mother's couch, I saw a live broadcast of, what, oh, the planet Earth, in
black and white on my television in my mom's house over Christmas vacation.
Something in my feeble little brain could not quite fathom that I was watching us on Earth from an orbiting spacecraft that was around the moon
pointing a television camera back at us and there were -- the only three people that were not in that photograph were the crew of Apollo 8 or the
crew that in that broadcast.
There was -- I had some sort of cranial plate shift, some sort of like sense of out of body experience, which I thought we were magnificent human
-- we are magnificent creatures if we can make this happen.
And look, to be 12 years old and watching that on TV and have a spiritual, artistic sight in light moment of enlightenment, that's an impactful thing,
and I've carried it with me for ever since because I still quite can't fathom that the guy named Jack Schmitt was walking around on the moon just
like that and brought home some rocks for us to study.
AMANPOUR: Would you ever go? I mean, obviously space travel is becoming more and more, you know, Proletarian, if you like, as long as you've got a
billion dollars.
HANKS: That's a go.
AMANPOUR: As long as you've got a billion dollars and you're Elon Musk or something like that. Would you want to go?
HANKS: I mean, you'd go, right? Given the opportunity?
RILEY: Well, we did kind of go, didn't we, Tom? Do you remember when we went to Houston to meet the Artemis crew?
AMANPOUR: No, no, but I mean really, would you get into it?
HANKS: Oh, in the suborbital stuff that goes, then I'd say no. I think that would be a lovely rollercoaster. But we just talked to the Artemis
folks last night. And they are looking -- they are hoping that private enterprise will build rotating space stations around the Earth. So, you
could go up and live in space as, what is it, Proletariat, for a few days or maybe a couple of weeks. That would be intriguing, just to go up and
come back down. I'll ride a roller coaster.
[13:50:00]
RILEY: It's also worth remembering, I think, that in the next two years there's going to be 25 missions to the moon. I mean, that's way more than
the where we were in the '60s.
HANKS: Between India and China and the United States and the European Union.
AMANPOUR: Well, that's what brings me to the next --
RILEY: It's going international.
AMANPOUR: You raise an interesting point. Because India's done a biggie, on the south side, China's done a biggie landing on the dark side. There is
a fear in the United States, at NASA, that unless an -- even a -- you know, a SpaceX executive has said, unless we get our act together, whether it's
Artemis or whoever next, we are going to be beaten by China, by India, by Russia, by whoever. Does that -- do you think that that matters?
RILEY: Well, the thing about leaving Earth and exploring beyond Earth is that it has to be an endeavor that we do collectively. And so, there's room
up there. The moon is huge, as Tom says in the show, you know, the size combined of Brazil and the United States and Russia. There's a massive land
mass. There's room there for us all to explore. We really shouldn't be restricting it to one or two countries.
AMANPOUR: But do you believe watching what's happening in the world right now. And it is true, the space program is one of the only international
cooperative events that carries on right now. But all these countries are at loggerheads.
RILEY: I don't know if loggerheads is the right word when it comes to beyond Earth exploration. Yes, there's loggerheads, things going on, of
course, in foreign policy and that sort of stuff, but not when we talk about leaving the Earth.
I mean, the International Space Station is up there still functioning despite troubles between the partners back on Earth. And that's because
space needs that collaborative approach.
HANKS: And you know, the Russian crews and the international cruise, the Americans, they get together for karaoke night on the International Space.
They watch movies together up there. There's going to be no losers in going to the moon.
Certainly, when I was a kid, we had to beat the communists. We had to do it before the decade was out. And if we didn't, we were going to lose. And
there was no way America can lose to the reds. That's just the way. There's going to be no losing in whoever goes up to the moon now.
I talked to somebody -- I held one of the rocks that Neil Armstrong brought back from the moon. It was in plastic and I had gloves on. It was a very
safe atmosphere. So, it wasn't like picking it up. And I asked the geologist at NASA, I said, is it true that there's water on the moon? And
they said, there is evidence that there is water on the moon.
If there is water on the moon, it is a game changer, and let's just say it's going to be there for everybody. And more power to anybody who has a
wherewithal and the will and the money and the drive in order to get up there and start finding else what else -- find out -- finding what else
we're going to do.
AMANPOUR: So, you say more power to anybody. So, that leads me to the question of Elon Musk and SpaceX. And frankly, Elon Musk's politically
dubious qualities and his kind of hate speech on X, and he's been in a lot of trouble for promoting antisemitism and this and that.
So, when you think. of the idealism of President Kennedy that's -- you know, who he said that we will, you know, make it to the moon for all the
right reasons, does it worry you, actually, that some of these people who are able to do this may not have, you know, the best interests of
collaboration?
HANKS: Well, that's interesting. Look, it turns out a bunch of tycoons can be really kooky people. I mean, you know Henry Ford was a vicious anti-
Semite. We still drive Ford trucks around, though, a while back.
If anybody is going to be as shortsighted as they're going to turn going into the moon for some brand of personal gain, that's just simply wrong. It
doesn't exist in that way. And we kind of like the U.N. and people have said, you know, there shall be no conquering of territory in outer space. I
don't know how anybody could go to the moon and get rich doing it. It's just going to be the opposite. It's going to cost them an awful lot of
money.
But I think eventually their ego might be solved by doing something other than putting a flag that has a copyrighted logo up on the moon. I think
there's other ways that they can -- their ego can be, you know, buttress.
AMANPOUR: And you also think -- because again, we live in a very polarized world right now, we're in the middle of a terrible war, several terrible
wars. People have lost faith in institutions. People are completely polarized and tribalized on so many issues, even on climate. Do you think
the moon is kind of maybe the last institution and space travel and the exploration that the people can trust in?
HANKS: Going to the moon requires a default setting that is not cynicism. It requires just the opposite. It actually requires faith at each other,
trusting one's own abilities to be improved by working with other people. And that is good.
It can't help but be international. I mean, every one of the plaques that are existed up there were unveiled all say for all mankind. For all
humankind. We cannot go there unless we do it all together. And I think -- you know as well as anybody, that yes, a faith in institutions or a belief
in institutions, or what's the other -- I -- just an understanding that, yes, all we really need is enough of us to work together and we can truly
change the world.
[13:55:00]
Right now, it seems as though not enough of us can work together. Let's find an example of when that happens, and I'm sorry, but going back to the
moon is that very example writ large.
AMANPOUR: Tom Hanks, Christopher Riley, thank you both very much indeed.
HANKS: There you go. How about this?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And of course, Artemis has blasted that way. That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it
airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye
from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
