Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former U.S. Ambassador to Japan, Former U.S. House Democrat and Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel; Interview with Environmentalist Bill McKibben; Interview with "The Odyssey" Translator, "Crossing the Wine-Dark Sea" Author and University of Pennsylvania Professor of Classical Studies Emily Wilson. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired July 28, 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.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Frankly, we're being very nice to a lot of countries that would not survive without us. And you know who wouldn't
survive without us? Israel.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Netanyahu meets an aggravated Trump in Washington. Is this a low point for the U.S.-Israel relationship? I asked Rahm Emanuel, as he weighs
up political ambitions for 2028.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENT (through translator): The situation we are dealing with today is the most severe we have ever recorded. The
toughest since the Second World War.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- France says it's at war with devastating wildfires. They rage in Spain too. Its capital Madrid is under threat. Renowned environmentalist
Bill McKibben joins me.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMILY WILSON, TRANSLATOR, "THE ODYSSEY", AUTHOR, "CROSSING THE WINE-DARK SEA" AND PROFESSOR OF CLASSICAL STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: One
of the many reasons why "The Odyssey" is having a moment in the 21st century is the fact that it is -- the original poem is so much concerned
with these questions about what does it mean to be a good host and what does it mean to be a good guest.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- "The Odyssey" still capturing imaginations 3,000 years later. Walter Isaacson speaks to Emily Wilson, the first woman and the latest to
translate the epic into English.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Two high stakes meetings at the White House today, as President Trump met with Ukraine's President Zelenskyy and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, both in town for Senator Lindsey Graham's funeral.
For the Israeli leader though, the Washington reception of today will be very different to the last one. Polling now consistently shows a huge drop
in support for Israel over the past few years, in reaction to the Gaza War and increasing attacks in the occupied West Bank. The Jewish advocacy
group, J Street, issued a statement that, quote, "The bipartisan consensus Prime Minister Netanyahu once claimed to have built has been fractured, not
despite his policies but because of them. And he no longer speaks for millions of us."
Now, the relationship with Israel is also emerging as a new litmus test for the Democrats. Rahm Emanuel, formerly a U.S. ambassador to Japan, a White
House chief of staff and a congressman, has been a longtime supporter of Israel. He himself volunteered to serve in the IDF, but he now says the
U.S. should not provide its long-term ally with unconditional military aid, arguing Israel should be treated like any other country.
And Rahm Emanuel is joining me now from Chicago. Welcome back to our program. We've got a huge delay, so I'm not going to wait for you to say hi
back, but let me ask you this, do you agree with how I framed my introduction to you that Netanyahu comes to Washington at a time of
maximum, let's say, peril for relationships between Israel and the United States?
RAHM EMANUEL, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO JAPAN, FORMER U.S. HOUSE DEMOCRAT AND FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: The truth is yes and no. It is a
maximum peril from that perspective. What I said was, and I've always believed, Israel can buy weapons like any other ally, not any other
country, that with the same rules, same restrictions, and same requirements as any other. Pay full price if it. Just won't receive U.S. taxpayer
support. As I said in my speech, it will maintain its qualitative edge.
Third, which is very important for the context, in 2021 Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, came out for this same position.
Now, the prime minister has adopted it. So, that was a piece of it. And then I laid out a 23-state peace solution and also the India-Middle East-
Europe economic corridor. So, there was a way of breaking out of Israel's isolation. And I said it also as an American patriot, the final point that
I think is important.
America has fought two very stupid wars that have cost us thousands of lives, trillions of dollars in the region. I'm not looking for a third war.
And as a principal ally, that means we have to have an understanding, because we're at a breaking point, as I said in the speech, we're at a
tipping point in recalibrating what this alliance is about and what we have to do to secure Israel's sovereignty and security, but not at the expense
also of America's interest. It has to be complementary.
[13:05:00]
AMANPOUR: So, now that you've laid out that table, that's good to know. I want to know what you think, because there's been a lot of back and forth
about who was really responsible, who is the father of the war on Iran. President Trump says, it was me. I'm the leader of the free world. It's not
Netanyahu. Others believe that it's Netanyahu who had convinced him with what turns out to be faulty intelligence, that it would be an easy once in
a lifetime, once in a generation slam dunk.
What do you think? And what do you think -- we haven't had all the details yet from the meeting with President Trump, but what do you think President
Trump is and should be saying to Netanyahu now?
EMANUEL: Yes. Well, one is, look, I never give a president United States a pass. I know one thing, having been served two presidents in the Oval
Office, spent eight years in and out of it. The only decisions you get in the Oval Office, like a mayor of a big city, are bad and worse. And you
have to have the judgment to distinguish bad and worse.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has been talking to four different presidents who rejected this idea. President Bush 43, President Obama, President Trump
1.0, and President Biden all said no to this. So, President Trump doesn't get a pass. Did Netanyahu finally get him to say yes? He did say yes. And
that's on the president.
The president of the United States is required to -- as a commander-in- chief, to secure America's national security interests and also the men and women who serve that interest and look out for them. So, I don't give a
pass to the President of the United States.
Now, I also believe if you put this war up against President Obama's JCPOA for all the goods and bads, here's how you juxtapose it. China and Russia
were enforcing with the United States, Iran's ending of its nuclear or limiting of its nuclear capacity. Today, they're funding Iran and supplying
Iran in its war against the United States, killing Americans. Two, the JCPOA had the uranium out of Iran. Today, the uranium is in Iran.
Third, the uranium was down to 3 percent purity. Today, it's at 90 percent purity. Fourth, the Strait of Hormuz was open. Today, it is closed. And
fifth, the world was part of isolating Iran and making realize the cost of that nuclear project versus then. There were nothing in politics is
perfect. Go to another profession if you want perfect.
In the balance of equities, the JCPOA was the right decision versus this decision. The president of the United States has now got the United States
in a war with Iran that has not only he doesn't have leverage, you now having replaced the proxies, Iran's using the Strait of Hormuz as its
leverage on the world and trying to achieve its ultimate goal, push America out of the region, which is why it's bringing the cost to the Gulf
countries from Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq to be too burdensome and Qatar too burdensome to have the United States.
So, to me, this was on the president. He has the agency as a commander-in- chief of the United States of America and the responsibility. Prime Minister Netanyahu sold that to four presidents and all of them said not
buying. This is the president that bought it and it was a mistake then and it's a mistake now.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And clearly, you can see the dramatic loss of public support even from the beginning, very rarely in the United States do wars
not have public support at the beginning, not this one, and the oil prices keep rising and the Republicans are in a bit of a tizzy over all of this.
I just want to correct you just because it's a fact Iran has 60 percent enriched uranium because 90 percent is actually over the top. So, I know
you meant 60 percent, I'm just going to make it clear that it's 60 percent.
EMANUEL: That's fine.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
EMANUEL: Thank you. Thank you for the clarification.
AMANPOUR: Let -- OK.
EMANUEL: But before it was under the JCPOA, it was 3 percent.
AMANPOUR: I know, I know, it's nuts, I know. So, let me ask you this, going back to Israel because this has now become a big deal in the United
States and politicians are sort of -- kind of trying to be on what they consider the right side of this issue, particularly for future political
ambitions.
Now, I want to go back to your speech that you gave in Tel Aviv where you actually called Israel, I mean there's plenty of context, but a territorial
pariah. You warned again about unconditional U.S. support and you proposed sanctioning those Israelis who attack Palestinian civilians. Here is a
piece of your speech that I'm going to play and then you can describe it.
[13:10:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMANUEL: The prime minister and his government have led Israel into a dead end. For too long American policy towards Israel operated under the
assumption that the best thing Washington did do for Jerusalem is to blindly, to silently stand behind your government, without conditions,
without demands, without consequences, even when we disagreed. That has been our mistake and it's been not a favor to you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Rahm Emanuel, you know that the leading Jewish elected politician in the United States, the -- you know, the Senate minority
leader, Chuck Schumer, back in 2024 made a similar plea from the floor of the Senate. Please Israel don't do this because you are going to alienate
America and, and, and. And you need America for your security et cetera. What do you -- do you think more politicians should have taken that up that
rallying cry back then?
EMANUEL: Well, hold on. Christiane, when I was President Obama's chief of staff in 2009, 18 years ago, I confronted the prime minister directly that
I said that the housing what you're doing in the West Bank is not only against a two-state solution is not in Israel's interest. It will lead to
its isolation and perpetual conflict. If there was a prediction I wanted to be wrong on 18 years ago, that was it. Now, that's what led him to publicly
call me a self-loathing Jew.
I was there 18 years ago. Everybody else caught on. I didn't need the Gaza War to realize that the policies vis-a-vis in the West Bank and
specifically the housing and settlement were going to be provocative and lead to something like this moment. And I said it not to the out behind the
prime minister's back, to his face, which is why he attacked me not only publicly but also in his book.
Number two, I also there -- and I want to repeat this, many members of the Israeli security establishment and that members of the prime minister's
government who joined after October 7, quit because there was no day after plan in Gaza. You've never used the military to then create strategic
opportunities and fill them with political persuasion, diplomatic success, economic statecraft or cultural attraction, the other tools of your
national security toolbox.
So, you know, I happen to not only also said that to the Prime Minister, I was I think a persuasive voice of President Obama to fund the Iron Dome
because this protected Israeli citizens from missiles targeting citizens, not military targets. And I have no room for anybody that on October 8th
was celebrating the death of 1,200 people, the sexual violence to those people, the taking of 250 people in that same speech that you just cited. I
called those people who were celebrating October 8th morally bankrupt and I think they're morally bankrupt. I also criticized the Palestinian
leadership for its corruption for turning down three times 98 percent of what they wanted and responding with violence. I got the cynicism.
But to break out of what I call the Israel that was once known as a startup nation that has now wanted to buy the prime minister's own term become
Sparta, a policy of a 23-state solution which was the Arab League's offer in 2013. Saudi Arabia was the principal backer. They need the comfort of
numbers today. They will give full recognition to the state of Israel for coming to an agreement on sovereignty and security.
Israel wants the comfort of numbers because they break out of their pariah status. The Palestinian people get the sovereignty they need and America
has -- would have brought together the stability the Arab world requires, the security that Israel requires, and the sovereignty that the Palestinian
people require. That makes the politics work towards the policy.
And I don't think the United States was doing any favors by being so silent when it was against our interests and our purpose. And it was so -- not
only the prime minister called me, you can read about it in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's book. The most vocal voice against the
housing policies on the West Bank was myself as President Obama's Chief of Staff.
So, I've been consistent for 18 years. I'm sorry everybody else is a little late catching up.
AMANPOUR: Regarding what you said about October 7th, I think most right- thinking people would agree with you on how to reflect on what happened on October 8th.
EMANUEL: I want to call this out.
AMANPOUR: I know, I know.
EMANUEL: Look, Christiane --
AMANPOUR: I know.
EMANUEL: No, no. I'm not going to let you get passed on this. No, no. There's a lot of people in public life in America and around the world who
were cheering on October 8th after 1,200 people died.
AMANPOUR: I know. I know.
[13:15:00]
EMANUEL: Well --
AMANPOUR: I know. And that's why I'm agreeing with you.
EMANUEL: I'm not giving it a pass.
AMANPOUR: Correct.
EMANUEL: It's morally bankrupt.
AMANPOUR: No, you're right. It's morally bankrupt. You're right.
EMANUEL: As is what the Israeli settlers are doing on the West Bank. And is what -- I'll take it again, one more time.
AMANPOUR: That's right. OK. So, let's move that now.
EMANUEL: As the Israeli settlers are doing right now, the violence, that is morally empty.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, let me ask you this. We've got an Israeli election coming up on October 27th. I want to ask you how you think that could
change this view on October 27th. But in the meantime, some 600, I think they're former Israeli, you know, military, IDF, intelligence and all the
rest of it, have written an open letter saying that only the president of the United States or the United States can tell Netanyahu to stop what's
happening on the West Bank right now and possibly also in Gaza.
What would you advise President Trump to say to Netanyahu about what you've just raised, the settler violence, the other government-enabled violence on
the West Bank right now?
EMANUEL: Yes. To some elements of the Jewish community that criticized my speech, I said, look, man, there is 100 Israeli IDF generals and members of
the Shin Bet leadership who said the same thing. What do you know that they don't know about Israel's security? That the settler violence is not in
Israel's security interests. And you're going to perpetuate a type of conflict. This is not in Israel's interest.
You said 600, about a month ago it was 100 names. So, to all the people that -- again, getting back to the core tape you played, being silent about
something we disagree with. Remember, there are voices inside the security establishment in Israel. Generals who held the highest position in Israel,
who believed in the security, have criticized this decision.
Second thing I would say to Israel, you have a president in Syria, not an Assad, which has been a leader, the family has been a leader for over 40
years. He has called for the security agreement with Israel. Not a peace, but security. You have a peace with Jordan, you have a peace with Syria.
You get Syria worked out. That's a major security plank. Europe would be part of that, France for sure, and others would be supportive of that. And
you have now basically taken the country that Iran used as Route 66 to Hezbollah's weapons, you would take them out of the commission of being
that route. And that is in Israel's both Golan, northern Galilee security, as well as eliminating the route that Iran has used to get Hezbollah the
weapons. Let's work on that and make that a public part of Israel's profile to the world working on peace.
In Lebanon, we now have a unique partnership and capability. We have an oil agreement in the Mediterranean. Now, they want to take over squeezing
Hezbollah out, so making sure Israel's northern border and the people living in Qiryat Shemona and other parts are secure. We're going to make
that a priority.
And I would tell the prime minister, you have to work on these as part of the security for Israel, but more importantly also for the security of the
United States. And we will be your partner going shoulder to shoulder, but we're not going to go off on some journey. And as it relates to the
settlements, right now those are cease and desist. You made a pledge not to undermine the West Bank. You made that pledge as part of the Abraham
Accords with the UAE, with Bahrain, and you are undermining them.
And the other thing that's part of this, Christiane, is the prime minister, when he first got elected, said, you know, I'm going to control my
government. Because of his political standing, the very, very far-right wing elements of his government are controlling him, and it's detrimental
to Israel's security. That's why those 600 generals, former generals, wrote a very public letter, and nothing I ever said measures up to the criticism
they have said of this prime minister and his government.
AMANPOUR: Yes. I may have misspoken on the 600. You're right on the hundreds of, nonetheless.
EMANUEL: Yes. I think it's 100, yes. I was going to say that really grew.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
EMANUEL: We're both being corrected on two different things.
AMANPOUR: Yes. We do. All right. Rahm Emanuel, thank you for being with us, and we'll keep following this conversation.
EMANUEL: Thanks.
AMANPOUR: And stay with CNN, because we'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:20:00]
AMANPOUR: Now, to Europe burning. Hundreds of thousands of people across France and Spain have been evacuated from their homes in recent days as
wildfires across those countries have continued to blaze. Temperatures will soon soar in both countries this week with no rain in sight. Most of France
is now suffering from poor air quality too. Listen to the Spanish prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, and the French president, Emmanuel Macron.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PEDRO SANCHEZ, SPANISH PRIME MINISTER (through translator): This is no longer an exception. It is the new reality. Summers are becoming
increasingly difficult, destructive, and therefore deadly.
EMMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENT (through translator): The situation we are dealing with today is the most severe we have ever recorded. The
toughest since the Second World War. More than 160,000 hectares have already burned, and the season is far from over.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Now, Bill McKibben is a globally recognized author and environmentalist. His latest book is called "Here Comes the Sun," and he's
joining me from Vermont. Bill McKibben, welcome back to the program.
Just a reaction to what Prime Minister Sanchez and Emmanuel Macron said. I mean, I was really horrified when I heard Macron say they're facing the
worst crisis since World War II.
BILL MCKIBBEN, ENVIRONMENTALIST: Well, of course, he's correct. And he's joined by leaders by now in virtually every part of the world. We're living
out this story in place after place after place. Where we live here in Vermont, we spent the last week with our air just turned orange by record
fires in Ontario pouring smoke down upon us.
It's going to get worse before it gets better. But the only way out of it is the way that, ironically, Spain has been starting to pioneer the rapid
adoption of clean energy technology. It gives us some hope of staunching the flow of carbon into the atmosphere from fossil fuels.
AMANPOUR: So, that's what I want to talk to you about, because you have a lot of amazing facts and experiences for us to look at from countries and
others that are actually doing the right thing on trying to mitigate climate change. But first, I want to ask you, because the next big event, I
think, is going to be El Nino. Tell us what that is and what that will affect after this summer of wildfires.
MCKIBBEN: Yes. I'm afraid this is the appetizer and we're headed for the very main course over the next 12 months. The heat now building in the
Pacific, which is what an El Nino is, will be expressed into the atmosphere over the next year. And it's almost certain now that we will set new
records for the hottest year in human history.
And in fact, there's increasing speculation studies yesterday that show we may, for a month or two, go past that 2.0 degrees Celsius mark that the
Paris Conference of 2015 was supposed to do everything to keep us away from. We're going to get a foretaste over the next year of what the weather
from 2035 or 2040 will be like. And I'm afraid what it'll be like is even more chaos on the scale that we're seeing in France, in Spain, in so many
places right now.
AMANPOUR: Again, before I get to some of the solutions, let's just point it out that right now is what actually matters. In February of this year,
the E.U. science advisers said that the E.U.'s current efforts to adapt to these rising temperatures are, quote, "insufficient, largely incremental,
and often coming too late."
[13:25:00]
And in the United States, paradoxically, some 61 percent of American voters believe that extreme weather is getting more frequent. But many of them,
according to another study, think that they're alone in their concern, that it's not, you know, generally accepted as a major issue that has to be
dealt with. Talk us just a little bit through European and U.S. policies and politics on this.
MCKIBBEN: I think you could say that the Europeans are going too slowly, but at least they're moving in the right direction. And I think you could
say that America is making a concerted effort to make the problem worse as fast as it possibly can. Donald Trump has explained that he thinks global
warming is a hoax, a scam.
And we've shut down wind farms that are 90 percent finished off the Atlantic seaboard, put the federal land off limits to solar panels, done
every possible thing we could to buck up 18th century energy technology, new subsidies for coal, instead of joining the future, being led now
unmistakably by China.
And increasingly, Christiane, by the rest of Asia, you've talked a lot about all the different ramifications of the war in Iran. One of the most
important of them is going to turn out to be the realization from leaders everywhere that those sunlight has to travel 93 million miles to reach the
earth, and none of those miles go through the Strait of Hormuz.
AMANPOUR: That's a really good way of putting it. So, now I want to ask you, you mentioned Asia. Obviously, Australia is all the way over there.
And you have talked about how Australia is really doing it right in that they have renewables, the sun, and that they have a lot of hours of the day
where all their electricity and power is free. Tell us how they figured that out.
MCKIBBEN: Australia, let's begin by saying, is somewhat schizoid in this regard. They're importing -- exporting huge amounts of climate wrecking
coal and gas to the rest of the world. But domestically, they've decided that the sun is the way to go. They've put up so many solar panels, 40
percent of Australian solar houses have panels on the roof, that they now have a great excess of electricity at parts of the day. All Australians,
solar panels or not, can now get free electricity from noon to 3:00. It's half the country right now. And by next year, it'll be the entire country.
This thing, energy, that humans have worked hard to pay for for hundreds of thousands of years, whether it's the time spent gathering firewood or the
time spent working to pay the power bill, all of a sudden, the sun is delivering this extraordinary bounty, if only we will take it. And in the
process, giving us the only escape route we have from the climate crisis that we're in.
We're not going to stop global warming, too late for that. But we're not too late to start shaving tenths of a degree off how hot the planet
eventually gets. And at this point, every tenth of a degree that we raise the temperature moves 100 million human beings from a relatively safe
climate zone to a relatively dangerous one. It's the biggest task that humans have in front of them.
AMANPOUR: So, you know, when we read and when I research for this interview, there is obviously good news. And I think it's really important
to put the good news out so that people can see exactly what you're saying, that there are methods to actually keep it under control, even if we can't
stop it.
And I was really taken by the report that in -- sorry, 2025, all new electricity demands around the world were met by green power. That's pretty
amazing. I don't think many people know that. And I just wonder, you know, what you think about -- or how you think, for instance, the United States,
could they have this solar powered free electricity for most of most of the day daylight hours?
MCKIBBEN: The U.S. is where we invented solar panels. 1954 at Bell Labs in New Jersey. We could, of course, be doing this. We're just not because, as
candidate Trump said to the oil industry during his campaign, give me a billion dollars in donations and I'll give you anything you want. What they
wanted was to get rid of Joe Biden's efforts to build out clean, green technology.
But the rest of the world is moving in different speeds in the right direction. And some of the stories are remarkable. Look at Pakistan, a poor
country that suffered grievously from climate change, but has the geographic advantage of a border with China. No government program, just
individual Pakistanis importing cheap Chinese solar panels and going on YouTube to figure out how to put them together. They've built the
equivalent of half the country's national electric grid in 18 months.
[13:30:00]
I mean, it is amazing what this technology is capable of if we really got behind it and pushed. We have an obvious group project as a world if we
chose to adopt it and that is to, in very short order, build out sun and wind and batteries such that the planet runs on something other than coal
and gas and oil. And, A, we can begin to ameliorate the climate crisis and, B, we can stop fighting some of these stupid wars. No one's going to fight
a war over sunshine, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Let's hope not. Let's hope not. But Bill McKibben, how do you create -- I mean, it takes political leadership. I know you mentioned the
sort of grassroots, you know, work in Pakistan with people taking matters into their own hand.
But if we go to China, for instance, you've explained how they essentially, I think this is what you were saying in your podcast with Ezra Klein, that
they created -- they spent a lot of political capital and time and energy creating a market, a domestic market for these amazing climate mitigation
technologies. And the United States tends to do exactly the opposite. It hasn't created the market, but it has the technology after all. Tell me
about what China did.
MCKIBBEN: Well, I mean, China's its own story. China decided early on what they were going to do, and they put all the force of a command-and-control
economy behind it. The U.S. and Europe are obviously going to be different in degrees. Here in America, even with the federal government in the firm
control of anti-environmental zealots.
My colleagues and I at Third Act, our organization that organizes old people like me for action on climate and democracy, we managed to get 10
American states this spring to approve the legislation to allow residents of those states to put up the balcony solar or plug in solar schemes that
you've seen across Europe. These are small, inexpensive solar panels that just plug directly into the wall and provide 20 percent of the power an
apartment uses. That's not everything, but it's not nothing.
And we've been able, even in the face of determined resistance from the fossil fuel industry, to really get a head of steam here. That's because
people love solar power. People across the political spectrum understand that this is the future. We need to do that kind of organizing in order to
give it the chance that it requires.
AMANPOUR: And for a long time, renewables seemed to be more cumbersome, required more, quote, "sacrifice to use," may have been more expensive than
good old, you know, fossil fuels. What is the reality of the price right now? People who use renewables as much as they can, are they paying more
for their energy or less?
MCKIBBEN: Five years ago or so, we passed some invisible line on this planet where it became cheaper to produce energy from the sun and the wind
than from fossil fuel. Now, the cost of renewable energy is all up front. You have to buy the solar panel. But once you have, then the energy is
delivered for free every morning when the sun rises above the horizon. And now, we have cheap battery technology to allow us to store the afternoon
away and use it at night.
So, that's what's been so transformative. And frankly, that's why the fossil fuel industry is so terrified and why they're working so hard and so
corruptly to game the system to keep it from getting even more of a foothold.
AMANPOUR: Tell me your story about President Carter back in the '70s. There was the oil crisis there and he did all sorts of things, including
putting solar panels on the roof of the White House. What did he tell people back then, tell the American people?
MCKIBBEN: What he told people was that the sun was, in fact, the future. And in his last budget, he put aside enough R&D money that the plan was for
America to be producing 20 percent of its power from the sun by the year 2000. Had we done that, we would live in a very different world today, a
much cooler one, because this renewable revolution would have been pushed forward several decades.
Instead, of course, Ronald Reagan was elected over Mr. Carter and he took down those solar panels from the White House roof. More importantly, he
took that money out of the budget and locked us into this cycle of endless drilling for more oil that's come to define not only America's economy, but
America's politics.
[13:35:00]
As you know, Donald Trump has said his plan is to exert energy dominance across the earth by America's control of oil and gas. I don't think that's
going to work, but I do think it runs a very strong risk of turning America into a kind of theme park of internal combustion while the rest of the
world gets its act together very quickly.
We're being left behind and I'm not sure there's ever been a kind of active national economic self-sabotage to compare with the last 18 months. The
country that invented the solar panel and the industrial wind turbine and the lithium-ion battery is now the country ceding all of that advantage to
our theoretical chief adversary.
AMANPOUR: But just to be clear, it's not too late to stop and take the right path.
MCKIBBEN: Not at all. We're obviously wasting time now. We can and should be building out renewable energy in all the places that are possible.
America needs America is going to be the caboose for all here, but we need to join that train and fast.
AMANPOUR: Yes. OK. Bill McKibben, thank you so much for being with us. And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, Christopher Nolan's cinematic rendition of "The Odyssey" is a massive box office hit. Let's take a quick look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because King is coming back.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, he's not.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What would he do if he came back here and find all these suitors in his house?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're pining for a daddy. You didn't even know. Like some snickering bastard.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who's looking after your wife and son?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you see?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My dad is coming home, bringing vengeance.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bringing it all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Now, she's not a movie director, but our next guest has spent much of her career with the original text of Homer's great poem. She even
wrote the English translation that influenced Nolan's film and has now sold over one million copies. Emily Wilson is a professor of classical studies
at the University of Pennsylvania, and she's joining Walter Isaacson to discuss how her translation differs from others, including Nolan's telling
of the tale.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And, Emily Wilson, welcome to the show.
EMILY WILSON, TRANSLATOR, "THE ODYSSEY", AUTHOR, "CROSSING THE WINE-DARK SEA" AND PROFESSOR OF CLASSICAL STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Thank
you so much for having me. It's great to be here.
ISAACSON: So, you have this great translation of "The Odyssey". It's becoming a bestseller again because of you. And it's, of course, the movie.
But let's start at the beginning, the opening of Homer's epic. You know, I'm old enough that I got to study it under Robert Fitzgerald, who did a
great translation of it. And he would read it to class. And he begins with, sing in me, muse, and through me tell the story of that man skilled in all
ways of contending.
And then probably up until you, the most popular was Robert Fagle's translation for people. And he says, sing to me of the man, muse, the man
of twists and turns. Why don't you tell me, say for me, those Greek lines and why you picked a translation different from that?
WILSON: Sure. So, I'll just do the first two lines of the Greek and then I'll do my first, my version of those lines and then we can talk about it.
[13:40:00]
So, this is the Greek. It's in dactylic hexameter, so I hope people will be able to hear that there's a regular metrical rhythm to it. So, this is the
beginning of the poem in Greek.
So, my version of those two lines is, tell me about a complicated man. Muse, tell me how he wandered and was lost when he had wrecked the holy
town of Troy.
ISAACSON: Now, the big issue on your translation, you've written about it in "Crossing the Wine-Dark Sea," is that word, complicated man. Not just a
man of twists and turns. It comes from the poly that you quoted in Greek. But that seems like an internal, emotional feeling you're saying. Why did
you pick the word complicated man, which seems so modern to us?
WILSON: Yes. I mean, I think it's impossible, really. Translation in general is impossible. A word such as polytropos, which clearly has
multiple different meanings, as well as referring to Odysseus's multiplicity, his many turns, his many disguises, and also his multiplicity
of wanderings and the many turns that the poem itself will take in the course of its narrative. How exactly can we do that in a single word in
English that will also fit the traditional meter that I'm using in my translation to echo the traditional meter of the original?
It's inevitably tempting, I think, to do what many translators have done and translate a single word of the Greek by a phrase rather than a single
word, a man of twists and turns, which to me sounds less pellucid in terms of it actually sounds like it means something. I think I know in some ways
what complicated means, but it also has a gesture towards I don't know exactly in which way this character or this poem or this journey will be
complicated.
And so, it's, I hope, an enticement, as I think the original polytropon is an enticement to keep listening, because we're going to learn things we
didn't already know about these layers and twists and turns in the protagonist and his story.
I mean, to me, it doesn't necessarily seem internal. A situation can be complicated, a story can be complicated, a political issue can be
complicated. So --
AMANPOUR: Wait, let me stop you there, because in your "Crossing the Wine- Dark Sea," you say you worry that it did seem like it would be too internal.
WILSON: I've worried about it, yes. But I also that -- I think it's definitely been a concern of mine, but it's -- I also tend to think that
with so many compromises in so many areas of life, but including translation, it's like how democracy is the worst possible political
system, except for all the others.
I think complicated is not the ideal choice. It's not exactly the same as the original. But I also think it's quite a lot closer to the original
than, say, resourceful is, which doesn't actually convey anything about the twists and turns and layers, which is what's conveyed by the metaphor of
the many turns, the many twists, the many layers of polytropos.
ISAACSON: In "The Odyssey", what do you think are the emotions driving this complicated man?
WILSON: I mean, I personally think that the primary desire of Odysseus in "The Odyssey" is to is the same as the primary desire of Achilles in the
Iliad is to generate eternal chaos, eternal fame. But this is paradox about Odysseus, because whereas in the Iliad, the warriors are generating eternal
fame by risking their lives in warfare, Odysseus generates eternal fame by these very paradoxical means, by his ability to inhabit spaces that are
very, very different from the battlefield, to interact with giants and goddesses and even the enslaved members of his household and the suitors
who have been hitting on his wife for the last however many years.
So, he has this capacity to find fame in strange places. But I think that desire to generate fame through a long period of being nameless or being
named no man is the primary narrative of the poem.
ISAACSON: You say it came together in the 7th century BCE when they started putting it down. That's a golden age of Greek expansion. How did
that affect the poem?
WILSON: Yes, that's a really good point. So, these poems, the Iliad and "The Odyssey", were drawing on much, much, much older myths, older stories
about the fall of Troy, the age of heroes, the times gone by, which in a way were folk memories of the Mycenaean civilization, which people will be
talking about a lot because of the movie.
But they're not composed in the Mycenaean age, they're composed in this archaic period, which, as you say, was a time of massive expansion of Greek
speakers all across the Mediterranean world, a time of Greek colonization, migration.
[13:45:00]
And, of course, "The Odyssey" itself is engaged with those themes of how do Greek speakers engage with those who are not Greek? How -- what's the
relationship between strangers and friends? How do Greek speakers either band together or battle against one another? And also, what's the role of
technology and new kinds of technology, new kinds of cleverness in this new age? Odysseus is a sort of culture hero who crosses time from the Bronze
Age to the Iron Age.
ISAACSON: And you talk about the culture of the time in which it was composed, helping shape what it is. But let me ask you the question about
you. To what extent does the culture of the time of the translator, whether you go back to, you know, Chapman, you know, the great poetical in, I
guess, 16-something, 1660, to today, how does the culture of a translator affect the poem?
WILSON: I think it inevitably affects the poem, even if you're trying to evoke this very, very different time from your own, which, of course, to be
a responsible translator of a very ancient text, I want in some ways to offer the reader something like a time machine, where you're going back
over 2,000 years to this very ancient, very alien cultural representation.
And yet, at the same time, the questions that modern Homerists or modern translators of Homer are bringing to the text are inevitably informed by
our own culture. As you say --
ISAACSON: Wait, wait. Give me an example for yourself.
WILSON: So, for me, I would say that, like many of my colleagues, I approach the Homeric poems with much more questions about how do these
poems represent social hierarchies and social inequalities and how do they think about things like enslavement and the relationships between male and
female characters?
I don't approach the poems in quite the same way as, say, George Chapman, the first translator of the poems, who's coming to "The Odyssey" with a
sense of this must be a bit like a Christian journey or pilgrimage towards redemption and grace. And I don't approach them with quite the same
approach as Alexander Pope, whose wonderful verse translations from the 18th century are bringing ideas about enlightenment to how he thinks about
"The Odyssey". So, I think much more about these modern 21st century ideas about society.
And I'm also informed by an awareness that Homer is proto-dramatic, and this links to an awareness of these are poems that are rich in what they
say about society. All of the characters, in my opinion, have their own perspectives, and the narrative flips around through different
perspectives. That applies to scenes where there's a female character speaking to a male character.
I don't assume ahead of time one of these characters will be interesting and the female one won't be. But I also don't think Homer thinks that
either. But I also bring that same perspective if it's two male characters. I actually don't think that my primary focus is on women characters have
got to somehow be amped up. I think that would actually be irresponsible.
ISAACSON: I saw the movie, which I really liked, but it's been caught up in the culture wars, both your translation, now, of course, the movie. What
do you make of that?
WILSON: I mean, Homer has always been about culture, about society. I mean, what we said before about how this is a poem that is drawing on very,
very ancient pre-existing myth, but also engaging with its own society. People also love to have culture wars. And in some ways, I want to try to
celebrate people coming together over this movie and over this poem, even if they're coming together in ways that sometimes involve, in my opinion,
pretty simplistic kinds of conversations. At least there's a common cultural ground for people to talk about. So, I'm trying to turn my frown
upside down about culture wars. But I do think quite a lot of it is really not based on a very serious reading of Homer.
ISAACSON: One of the themes in the movie is Zeus's law, which seems to be causing the complexities to the extent that are there in the movie for
Odysseus. I think the word in the poem is Xenia, which is more like hospitality. Explain to me whether Homer has Zeus's law in his epic poem
and how you would describe the concept of Xenia, as you've seen both in the poem and in the movie.
WILSON: Yes, great question. So, Xenia in Greek, so that's the abstract noun, the whole concept of the relationship between guests, hosts,
strangers. And then there are nouns referring to an actual stranger that are cognate with that, that whole social institution of Xenia is in Homer
understood to be ratified and blessed by Zeus. Zeus takes a particular interest in the needs of strangers and in the relationship between those
who are not related to each other by kin.
[13:50:00]
"The Odyssey," in the original is all about exploring what does it mean for Xenia to go right and also what does it mean for Xenia to go wrong.
Odysseus in his wanderings is constantly encountering all of these bad hosts, the kind of host who eats the guest. You're supposed to actually
give the guest food, the kind of host who doesn't let the guest go, like Calypso. She's great at everything else, but you're supposed to let the
guest go on his way.
Xenia in Archaic Greece is a way for elite men to form long-standing relationships with each other beyond the bounds of kinship. So, again, it
relates to this time period when Greeks were expanding beyond their own little villages to have relationships with those who are not like them,
including other Greeks, but also including non-Greeks.
In the movie, it seems to be very much reinterpreted within, I mean, I would say within the norms of American ideas about charity and
philanthropy. So, it's about being kind to beggars and the poor, who we have always with us, and also about being nice about who you give gifts to.
Gift-giving is certainly a part of Xenia, but I don't think the movie has that sense of Xenia is about forming lasting, multi-generational
relationships.
ISAACSON: You talk about Xenia, and you talk about being about foreigners, people coming from the sea. And that seems to resonate with some of our
issues today, which is, how do we treat people who come to our home from the sea? What duties do they owe us? What dangers do they bring us? What
duties do we owe them? Did that resonate with you at all?
WILSON: Yes. I think that's one of the many reasons why "The Odyssey" is having a moment in the 21st century, is the fact that it is, the original
poem is so much concerned with these questions about what does it mean to be a good host, and what does it mean to be a good guest? That it explores
both sides of these complex political, social questions about immigration, and about immigration law, immigration attitudes towards immigrants,
attitudes towards the migrations of peoples from one place to another.
Of course, it focuses on one man who is both a guest and a host. And "The Odyssey" is constantly reminding us that, in most cases, people are not
just one thing or the other. I think we tend, in the more simplistic kinds of modern discourse, to sort of imagine there are some people who are
always the host, and some people who are always the guest or the stranger. But, of course, actually, I think the poem is more truthful than that,
insofar as it shows us how the same person can be both.
ISAACSON: One of the lines that hit me in the movie is, we are the people from the sea. In other words, they're worried about the people from the sea
coming in, and they realize that, oh, it's us. We're our own worst enemy, in some ways. The threat to our society comes from within, not necessarily
from without. We are the people from the sea.
And that, in some ways, seems very resonant to today, as well. Is that part of what Homer is trying to say? And do you feel that in the poem?
WILSON: Yes. I mean, that hit me as one of the many relentlessly expository elements in the dialogue of this film, but I'm going to be very
kind about it. I think it's really a very interesting issue, both in modern culture and also in the poem, insofar as Odysseus is presented as a warrior
who's coming back from Troy, having sacked the holy citadel of Troy, as we learn in those first two lines. And then when he comes back to Ithaca, on
some level, he's coming back as the husband of Penelope, the father of Telemachus, the householder, the king. But the final moments of the poem,
he comes back as a warrior. He's going to start a whole new war back on Ithaca.
So, insofar as the poem may partly lead us to think maybe this is a journey from war to peace, but maybe not. Maybe it's a journey from war to war.
ISAACSON: Emily Wilson, thank you so much for joining us.
WILSON: Thank you so much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, it may not be Ithaca, but it is Normandy, and it's remembered as one of the most consequential battle sites in European
history. June 6, 1944, D-Day, marked the pivotal turning point in the Allied fight against the Nazis. And now, UNESCO has designated the beaches
and surrounding memorials as a World Heritage Site, recognizing the quote, "exceptional cultural landscape that was shaped by this war and how we
remember it."
Now, back in 2019, I spoke with the late U.S. veteran, Jake Larson, in the American cemetery there in Normandy. He was one of the many brave Allied
soldiers who fought in that campaign. Here's what he told me about that day.
[13:55:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAKE LARSON, D-DAY VETERAN: Well, I remember when I hit the beach, machine guns were opening up and firing at me. And I found this little, what I call
a berm of a sand kind of limestone that sits in a powder, and it was about six to eight inches high. And it was a protection from those machine guns.
So, I lay behind it thinking, how am I going to get out of this plane without being shot at me?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Jake Larson coming up to his 100th year. He's now no longer with us, but boy, are his memories incredibly important for us to always, always
savor.
That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. 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
