June 11, 2024

♪♪♪ >>> HELLO, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO "AMANPOUR & COMPANY."

HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.

>> THIS COUNCIL SENT A CLEAR MESSAGE TO HAMAS, ACCEPT THE CEASEFIRE DEAL ON THE TABLE.

>> FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE U.N.

BACKS A CEASEFIRE PROPOSAL FOR GAZA.

WE BREAK IT DOWN WITH FORMER U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO ISRAEL DANIEL KURTZER AND TERRORISM EXPERT AUDREY KURTH CRONIN ON WHETHER NEGOTIATING WITH HAMAS COULD BRING ABOUT ITS DEMISE.

>>> THEN THE WAR OVER WORDS.

HARVARD'S NEW POLICY ON SPEAKING OUT ON ISSUES LIKE GAZA -- DON'T.

LAW PROFESSOR NOAH FELDMAN JOINS ME.

>>> ALSO AHEAD -- >> IT WAS A RANGE OF POSTINGS, BUT ALL OF THEM KIND OF PROMOTING THE ISRAELI NARRATIVE OF WHY THEY'RE AT WAR IN GAZA.

>> "THE NEW YORK TIMES'" SHEERA FRENKEL TELLS HARI SREENIVASAN ABOUT EXPOSING AN ALLEGED ISRAELI INFLUENCE CAMPAIGN DIRECTED AT AMERICAN LAWMAKERS AFTER OCTOBER 7th.

>>> "AMANPOUR & COMPANY" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- THE ANDERSON FAMILY ENDOWMENT JIM ATTWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS CANDACE KING WEIR THE FAMILY FOUNDATION OF LEILA AND MICKEY STRAUS MARK J. BLECHNER THE FILOMEN M. D'AGOSTINO FOUNDATION SETON J. MELVIN CHARLES ROSENBLUM KOO AND PATRICIA YUEN, COMMITTED TO BRIDGING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN OUR COMMUNITIES BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG ADDITIONAL SUPPORT PROVIDED BY THESE FUNDERS AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

>> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, EVERYONE.

I'M CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR IN LONDON.

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MORE THAN EIGHT MONTHS OF WAR, THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL HAS PASSED A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PERMANENT CEASEFIRE IN GAZA.

14 OUT OF 15 MEMBERS VOTED IN FAVOR, AND ONLY RUSSIA ABSTAINED.

THE RESOLUTION CALLS FOR THREE PHASES, INCLUDING THE RELEASE OF HOSTAGES AND ULTIMATELY THE FULL WITHDRAWAL OF ISRAELI FORCES FROM GAZA.

THE SECURITY COUNCIL SAYS ISRAEL HAS ACCEPTED THE PROPOSAL, AND U.S. OFFICIALS ARE NOW PRESSURING HAMAS TO DO THE SAME.

SECRETARY OF STATE ANTONY BLINKEN IS IN THE REGION.

>> EVERYONE'S VOTE IS IN, EXCEPT FOR ONE VOTE, AND THAT'S HAMAS.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE WAIT FOR.

IT IS ON HAMAS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROPOSAL OR NOT.

>> HAMAS SAYS IT WELCOMES THE U.N.

RESOLUTION AND IS READY TO ENGAGE, BUT THERE ARE FEW SIGNS OF CONCRETE COMMITMENT TO ENDING THE WAR.

ISRAEL'S AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N. HAS VOWED THAT MILITARY OPERATIONS IN GAZA WILL CONTINUE.

MEANWHILE, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL" IS REPORTING IT'S SEEN LEAKED MESSAGES FROM THE HAMAS LEADER YAHYA SINWAR WHERE HE SAYS, QUOTE, WE HAVE THE ISRAELIS RIGHT WHERE WE WANT THEM.

OF COURSE, THE DATE OF THAT MESSAGE IS UNCLEAR.

SO WHAT IS REALLY ON THE TABLE?

DANIEL KURTZER IS THE FORMER U.S.

AMBASSADOR TO ISRAEL AND EGYPT.

HE JOINS US FROM WASHINGTON.

ALSO TO DISCUSS NEGOTIATING WITH HAMAS IS AUDREY KURTH CRONIN, AUTHOR OF "HOW TERRORISM ENDS."

WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, BOTH OF YOU.

CAN I FIRST START BY ASKING YOU, AMBASSADOR, ACTUALLY BOTH OF YOU, BUT AMBASSADOR, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND STARTING, TELL ME THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION AND WHY IT IS OR IT ISN'T MORE OF THE SAME.

>> WELL, GIVEN THE BREAKDOWN IN CONSENSUS INTERNATIONALLY, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN HARD TO GET A SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION PASSED.

AND WE'VE SEEN THAT OVER THE PAST EIGHT OR NINE MONTHS.

SO THE FACT THAT THE COUNCIL HAS NOW SPOKEN WITH NEAR UNANIMITY IS QUITE IMPORTANT, AND EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, THAT IT BACKED A PROPOSAL THAT WE UNDERSTAND ISRAEL HAD SUBMITTED TO THE UNITED STATES AND QATAR AND EGYPT TO HAMAS.

SO NOW THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY HAS SAID BASICALLY HAMAS, IT'S UP TO YOU.

YOU ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD INTO THE FIRST OF THE THREE PHASES.

BUT IF HAMAS SAYS NO, THEN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY WILL KNOW WHERE THE ONUS LIES FOR NOT ACHIEVING THIS FIRST PHASE OF A CEASEFIRE.

>> AND AUDREY CROCRONIN, CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU MAKE OF HAMAS' RESPONSES TO THESE CEASEFIRE PROPOSALS SO FAR AND THE FACT THAT IT WELCOMES THIS U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION.

>> WELL, I THINK THAT HAMAS HAS FOUND ITSELF IN A SITUATION WHERE IT WANTS TO BLOODSHED ON ISRAELI HANDS AS POSSIBLE.

THEREFORE, THE POTENTIAL FOR A CEASEFIRE WITH HAMAS MEANS THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT WE CAN SHIFT THE BLAME FROM STRICTLY THE HORRENDOUS MILITARY ATTACKS AND THE KILLING OF SO MANY PALESTINIAN CIVILIANS AWAY FROM STRICTLY WHAT ISRAEL IS DOING AND INSTEAD TOWARD HAMAS AND ITS UNWILLINGNESS TO TRULY REPRESENT THE WELFARE OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE.

SO I SEE THIS AS A WELCOME STEP AND POTENTIALLY SOMETHING THAT COULD HELP LEAD TO THE END OF HAMAS IN A WAY THAT MILITARY REPRESSION COULD NEVER DO.

>> WE'LL GET INTO THAT IN A BIT.

BUT FIRST, I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT A KIND OF A REALITY CHECK, BECAUSE WHILE THE ISRAELIS ARE -- AND CERTAINLY SECRETARY OF STATE BLINKEN SAID, AND I'LL TELL YOU, THAT HE HAD RECEIVED EXPLICIT ASSURANCES THAT NETANYAHU SUPPORTED THE DEAL.

OF COURSE, HIMSELF, NETANYAHU LAST WEEK CALLED THE IDEA OF A NEGOTIATED PERMANENT CEASEFIRE A NON-STARTER, AND TODAY AN ISRAELI OFFICIAL SAYS ISRAEL WILL NOT END THE WAR BEFORE ACHIEVING ALL ITS WAR OBJECTIVES, DESTROYING HAMAS' MILITARY AND GOVERNING CAPABILITIES, FREEING ALL THE HOSTAGES, AND ENSURING GAZA DOESN'T POSE A THREAT TO ISRAEL IN THE FUTURE.

THE PROPOSAL PRESENTED ENABLES ISRAEL TO ACHIEVE THESE GOALS, AND ISRAEL WILL INDEED DO SO.

SO AMBASSADOR KURTZER, YOU KNOW THESE PEOPLE AND INDIVIDUALS AND GOVERNMENTS VERY WELL.

WHAT EXACTLY DOES THAT STATEMENT SAY?

>> WELL, IT SUGGESTS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH TWO VERY DIFFERENT LEVELS OF DISCOURSE.

THE PUBLIC LEVEL IS WATCHING BOTH SIDES ARTICULATE THEIR MAXIMALIST POSITIONS.

BECAUSE EVEN AFTER HAMAS WELCOMED PRESIDENT BIDEN'S SPEECH, IT REITERATED ITS MAXIMUM DEMANDS.

AND NOW WE'RE SEEING THAT PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU IS REITERATING ISRAEL'S MAXIMAL DEMANDS.

WHAT'S DIFFERENT, HOWEVER, THE SECRET LEVEL OF DIPLOMACY WHICH IS BEING UNDERTAKEN IN WHICH THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID AND NOW CONFIRMS THAT ISRAEL ACCEPTS THE PROPOSAL THAT HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED.

AND SO NOW WE'RE WAITING TO SEE WHETHER AT THAT LEVEL OF DIPLOMATIC DISCOURSE, HAMAS ALSO IS READY TO DO SO.

IT MAKES IT VERY CHALLENGING BECAUSE THE PUBLIC DISCOURSE HARDENS POSITIONS ON BOTH SIDES, AND IT RAISES EXPECTATIONS ON BOTH SIDES.

>> AND JUST BEFORE I MOVE ON TO AUDREY, I WANT TO ASK YOU, IF THE GOVERNMENT DOES IN FACT ACCEPT THIS, AND IT'S NOT A PROPOSAL THAT CAME OUT JUST YESTERDAY, THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR THE LAST TEN DAYS.

IF THAT IS THE CASE, WHY, THEN, WOULD THE OPPOSITION LEADER BENNY GANTZ, WHO IS IN THE WAR CABINET, QUIT, SAYING IN FACT THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT -- I MEAN, THAT'S HIS POSITION, IS THAT HE BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS NO REALISTIC POST-WAR PLAN, AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT WASN'T ENGAGING IN THAT REGARD.

NETANYAHU WASN'T.

IF NETANYAHU IS SO BEHIND THIS NOW, WHY WOULD GANTZ HAVE QUIT?

>> I THINK THERE ARE TWO ISSUES.

THE FIRST IS THAT THE PROPOSAL RECEIVED THE SUPPORT OF THE WAR CABINET.

WHEN HAMAS COMES BACK WITH ITS RESPONSE, THAT PROPOSAL WILL GO TO THE FULL CABINET.

AND I THINK GANTZ IS COUNTING VOTES AND IS QUESTIONING WHETHER OR NOT NETANYAHU WILL BE FIRM ENOUGH AT THAT TIME TO PUSH THIS THING THROUGH THE FULL CABINET.

SECOND, THIS PROPOSAL DOES TALK ABOUT IN PHASES 2 AND 3 THE KIND OF DAY AFTER AND THE DAY AFTER THE DAY AFTER, AND GANTZ HAS BEEN WATCHING NETANYAHU RULE OUT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY'S RETURN TO GAZA, RULE OUT A TWO-STATE SOLUTION.

AND I THINK THOSE ARE THE ISSUES THAT ARE IN PART MOTIVATING GANTZ'S DEPARTURE.

>> I SEE.

OKAY.

AUDREY KURTH CRONIN, LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT SINWAR HIMSELF, BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT EVEN THOUGH HE MAY BE UNDER SOME TUNNEL TEN STORIES BELOW WHEREVER IN GAZA, HE APPARENTLY HAS THE FINAL SORT OF -- I GUESS ISMAIL HANIYEH DOES AS WELL, SAY.

AND HE HAS BEEN SAYING LET'S CONTINUE THIS WAR.

AS I SAID, THE "WALL STREET JOURNAL" SAYS IT HAS THESE LEAKED TEXTS ABOUT HOW THEY HAVE ISRAEL WHERE THEY WANT THEM.

WE DON'T KNOW THE DATE ON THAT.

CNN CANNOT INDEPENDENTLY CONFIRM IT.

BUT HE ALSO HAS SAID CIVILIAN DEATHS, QUOTE, ARE NECESSARY SACRIFICES.

APPARENTLY HE ALSO SAID ABOUT OCTOBER 7th THINGS WENT OUT OF CONTROL, AND THAT WAS DISCUSSING CIVILIANS WHO WERE TAKEN HOSTAGE.

SO WHAT DO YOU GATHER, HAVING STUDIED HAMAS, ABOUT THEIR REAL INTENTIONS AT THIS POINT?

>> WELL, I THINK THAT HAMAS HAS BEEN VERY KEEN ON HAVING COLD DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ORDER TO BLAME THE ISRAELIS FOR THE DEATHS AND HORRIBLE FAMINE AMONG PALESTINIAN CITIZENS THAT THEY'RE MEANT TO BE REPRESENTING AND CONCERNED ABOUT THE WELFARE FOR.

BUT HAMAS HAS NEVER SHOWN CONCERN FOR THE PALESTINIAN CIVILIANS.

THEY BUILT TUNNELS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THEIR FIGHTERS AND BROUGHT ON AN ENORMOUS MILITARY REPRESSIVE RESPONSE BY THE ISRAELIS THAT THEN KILLED SO MANY OF THE PEOPLE THAT THEY CLAIMED THAT THEY'RE REPRESENTING.

SO IF WE'RE REALLY TO GET TO THE END OF THIS HORRIBLE WAR AND THE SUFFERING THAT IS HAPPENING ON BOTH SIDES, I THINK THAT THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS TO HAVE THIS KIND OF AN AGREEMENT AND TO BE ABLE TO SEPARATE HAMAS FROM THE PALESTINIANS.

WE'LL SEE IF SINWAR IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO CONSIDER THE WELFARE OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE AND AGREE TO THIS CEASEFIRE.

I'M NOT OPTIMISTIC, BUT IT MIGHT BE THAT HE GETS ENOUGH PRESSURE FROM EVEN OTHER PARTS OF HAMAS THAT HE WILL EVENTUALLY DO SO.

>> YOU KNOW, THE ISRAELI MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT CABINET, OTHERS IN ISRAELI PUBLIC LIFE HAVE ESSENTIALLY BASICALLY SAID THAT ALL GAZANS ARE HAMAS AND THAT THERE IS NO DISTINCTION AT ALL.

NOW WE KNOW FROM POLLING AND FROM TALKING TO PEOPLE AND FROM ARTICLES AND PALESTINIANS THAT HAVE BEEN TRICKLING OUT SINCE OCTOBER 7th THAT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

WE KNOW THAT HAMAS HAS RULED WITH AN IRON FIST, THAT IT IS A VERY SOPHISTICATED SURVEILLANCE MECHANISM.

IT BROOKS NO DISSENT INSIDE GAZA, AND ITS POPULARITY, EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT HAVE SURGED OCTOBER 7th IS NO LONGER SURGING.

IN FACT, THE OPPOSITE.

SO MY QUESTION, LET ME JUST ASK YOU, DANIEL KURTZER.

DO YOU THINK THAT BODES -- HOW DO YOU THINK THAT BODES FOR ANY KIND OF NEGOTIATIONS THAT HAMAS MIGHT ENTER IN TERMS OF TRYING TO END THIS WAR?

OR AGREEING TO THE CEASEFIRE?

>> LOOK, IT'S AN IMPORTANT PROPOSITION TO TEST.

THE ISRAELI REACTION TODAY IS STILL REFLECTIVE OF THE TRAUMA OF OCTOBER 7.

BUT THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT REALLY SHOULD HAVE TESTED THIS PROPOSITION, AS DR. CRONIN HAS INDICATED IN SEVERAL OF HER CARLS.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE KEY AFTER OCTOBER 7th WAS CERTAINLY TO FIGHT BACK AT HAMAS, BUT IT WAS ALSO TO SEPARATE HAMAS FROM THE PALESTINIAN POPULATION IN GAZA AND TO BUILD UP THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY IN THE WEST BANK SO AS TO SEND A MESSAGE TO THE PALESTINIANS THAT THERE IS A CHOICE YOU HAVE TO MAKE.

YOU CAN CHOOSE TO SUPPORT HAMAS, TO SUPPORT THIS RESISTANCE, THIS KIND OF BARBARIC RESISTANCE, OR YOU CAN SEE A BETTER FUTURE THAT WE IN ISRAEL HAD THEY MADE THIS CASE WOULD BE WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU ON.

BUT ISRAEL CHOSE A STRATEGY FROM THE BEGINNING WHICH CONTINUES UNTIL TODAY OF BELIEVING THAT IT CAN, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, DESTROY HAMAS.

BUT IT HAS ALSO PUNISHED THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY AND THROUGH THIS CHOICE OF MILITARY TACTICS HAS PUNISHED THE CIVILIAN POPULATION IN GAZA.

IT DOESN'T MAKE FOR A GOOD STRATEGY, AND IT DOESN'T TEST THE PROPOSITION, CHRISTIANE, THAT YOU SUGGESTED THAT THE PALESTINIAN POPULATION WOULD BE WILLING TO DIVORCE ITSELF FROM HAMAS IF IT SAW A BETTER ALTERNATIVE.

>> WELL, ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT'S WHAT CERTAIN REPORTING AND POLLING IS SAYING.

I DON'T KNOW HOW DETAILED A PICTURE YOU CAN GET AMIDST THIS WAR, AND AS INDEPENDENTS AREN'T ALLOWED INTO GAZA.

BUT CLEARLY, NOT ALL GAZA IS HAMAS.

I MEAN, THAT WAS A STRAWMAN FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

AND SO I WANT TO KNOW FROM YOU, DR. CRONIN, WHETHER YOU THINK THESE POLL RESULT, AS THEY ARE, KATE A BACKLASH AGAINST HAMAS, AND HOW DOES THAT FIT INTO THE PREMISE OF YOUR LATEST ARTICLE, WHICH IS HOW HAMAS ENDS.

>> YES.

I THINK THAT THERE ARE THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST HAMAS.

I THINK IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO MEASURE IT ACCURATELY RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE EXACTLY AS YOU SAY, CHRISTIANE, WE CAN'T GET A LARGE NUMBER OF INDEPENDENT JOURNALISTS IN THERE TO BE ABLE TO REPORT ACCURATELY.

SO THERE IS A CERTAIN DEGREE TO WHICH NO ONE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION RELIABLY.

HOWEVER, THERE HAS BEEN GOOD POLLING BY PALESTINIAN-BASED POLLS THAT HAS SHOWN THAT SINCE 2007, THE POPULARITY OF HAMAS HAS GONE DOWN DRAMATICALLY AND THAT EVEN TODAY IN THE AFTERMATH OF OCTOBER 7th, IT WENT UP TEMPORARILY, WHICH IS THE PATTERN THAT TENDS TO HAPPEN IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE HAMAS ATTACK ON ISRAEL, AND NOW IT IS ALSO GOING DOWN.

SO I THINK THAT THERE IS A GREAT NEED TO HAVE BETTER POLLING OF PALESTINIANS, BUT EVEN IF WE DON'T HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF PALESTINIANS THAT ARE SEPARATE FROM HAMAS, WE HAVE TO SUPPORT THOSE WHO ARE, BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY OTHER HISTORICALLY PROVEN WAY TO END A TERRORIST GROUP LIKE HAMAS.

MILITARY REPRESSION DOES NOT WORK AGAINST THIS KIND OF GROUP.

WE HAVE 150 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH TERRORISM THAT SHOWS THAT THIS IS NOT THE PROFILE OF A GROUP THAT CAN BE CRUSHED THROUGH MILITARY REPRESSION.

>> WELL, I WANT YOU TO -- I WANT YOU TO, YOU KNOW, FILL US IN A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THAT.

SO WHAT DOES THE HISTORY OF TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS AND EVENTUAL ENDING THAT AND SOMETIMES MOVING TO PEACE NEGOTIATIONS, WHAT DOES IT SHOW US THAT HISTORY?

WHAT ARE THE MAIN EXAMPLES?

AND HOW DO YOU THINK ANY NEGOTIATIONS WITH HAMAS COULD BENEFIT THE END OF THIS ORGANIZATION?

>> SURE.

>> WHAT I MEAN, TO LEAD TO THE END OF THIS ORGANIZATION.

>> RIGHT, YES.

I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO END IT IMMEDIATELY.

SO THERE ARE TRADITIONAL PATHWAYS FOR ENDING SOME GROUPS.

I'LL GO THROUGH THEM VERY QUICKLY.

BUT THE FIRST ONE IS FOR A GROUP TO SUCCEED.

IT'S VERY RARE.

ONLY ABOUT 5% OF GROUPS END THAT WAY.

THE SECOND ONE IS REORIENTATION TO SOMETHING LIKE AN INSURGENCY WHICH WOULD BE A VERY BAD OUTCOME AND NOT LIKELY FOR HAMAS.

THIRDLY IS MILITARY REPRESSION.

THE PROBLEM WITH USING MILITARY REPRESSION IS IN THE CASES THAT IT HAS SUCCEEDED, YOU'VE HAD TO BE ABLE TO SEPARATE THE POPULATION THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO TARGET AWAY FROM THE BROADER POPULATION, AND THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE EASILY IN TERMS OF TARGETING WITH RESPECT TO HAMAS.

AND IT ALSO STRAINS CIVIL LIBERTIES IF YOU'RE A DEMOCRACY THAT'S TRYING TO ENGAGE IN REPRESSION.

OFTENTIMES WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU FIND THAT WHAT YOU'RE DEFENDING FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGES, AND THAT'S NOT A GOOD STRATEGIC APPROACH.

SO THE LIKELIHOOD OF ENDING HAMAS THROUGH MILITARY OPPRESSION, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S A DEEPLY NETWORKED GROUP AND IT HAS A CONNECTION TO A TERRITORY, THAT IS NOT A LIKELY ENDING FOR HAMAS.

THE GROUPS THAT HAVE ENDED THAT WAY ARE QUITE DIFFERENT, SUCH AS THE LTTE, TO SOME DEGREE THE CHECHENS WITHIN CHECHNYA.

HAMAS IS A VERY DIFFERENT ORGANIZATION THAN THOSE.

SO THEN THE FOURTH WAY IS DECAPITATION, WHICH IS TARGETED KILLING.

AND THE ISRAELIS HAVE BEEN TRYING TO USE DECAPITATION WITH HAMAS FOR SOME YEARS NOW.

AND I WILL ONLY SAY THAT IF DECAPITATION COULD END A GROUP THAT IS AS DEEPLY NETWORKED AND CONNECTED TO A TERRITORY AS HAMAS IS, IT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED LONG AGO.

IT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED WHEN THE FOUNDER OF HAMAS, FOR EXAMPLE, SHEIK YASIN WAS KILLED, AND ALL OF THE HUNDREDS OF TARGETED LEADERS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN KILLED IN THIS WAR.

IT'S NOT ENDING HAMAS.

NEGOTIATIONS IS THE NEXT PATHWAY, AND NEGOTIATIONS OFTEN WORKS TOGETHER WITH A DYNAMIC THAT BRINGS ABOUT FAILURE, WHICH IS THE LAST PATHWAY.

SO NEGOTIATIONS SHOWS THAT A TERRORIST GROUP DOES HAVE ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE, BECAUSE ONE OF THE BIGGEST ARGUMENTS FOR CARRYING OUT TERRORISM IS THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE.

CLEARLY, BY PROVIDING THIS OTHER CHOICE FOR HAMAS, WE COMPLETELY OBLITERATE THAT ARGUMENT.

AND THEN FINALLY FAILURE, AND THERE ARE TWO WAYS THAT GROUPS END THROUGH FAILURE.

ONE IS THROUGH IN-FIGHTING AND THE OTHER, WHICH IS FAR MORE LIKELY WITH HAMAS IS LOSING POPULAR SUPPORT.

HAMAS DOES NOT HAVE POPULAR SUPPORT AMONG THE PALESTINIANS, ACCORDING TO ALL OF THE POLLS THAT WE CAN ASSESS.

AND THEY'RE PRETTY GOOD POLES IF YOU LOOK OVER THE PERIOD OF TIME SINCE 2007.

>> IT'S REALLY FASCINATING HOW YOU BREAK THAT DOWN.

AMBASSADOR KURTZER, I SPOKE TO FORMER ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTER LIVENY LAST NIGHT.

SHE IS PARTICULAR THAT IT MUST LEAD TO A POLITICAL SOLUTION FOR ALL SIDES.

THIS IS WHAT SHE TOLD ME.

AND SHE RELIVES VERY HEAVILY ON THE UNITED STATES AND THE ARAB STATES AS WELL.

>> WE CAN TURN THIS HORRIFIC SITUATION INTO AN OPPORTUNITY, AND A BROADER DEAL THAT IS NOT JUST CONNECTED TO THE HOSTAGES THAT IS ON THE TABLE, THAT REFLECTS THE DAY AFTER HAMAS IN GAZA, HOPEFULLY ALSO NORMALIZATION WITH SAUDIS THAT CAN CHANGE THE SECURITY STRUCTURE IN THE REGION.

>> SO I KNOW YOU HAVE HEARD THAT BEFORE, AMBASSADOR KURTZER IS ESSENTIALLY THE INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED PEACE PLAN FOR THAT AREA.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT AT THIS POINT THAT'S POSSIBLE AND THAT CERTAINLY PRESIDENT BIDEN COULD PUSH IT THROUGH?

YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY'S WATCHED BENJAMIN NETANYAHU BASICALLY SNUB THE PRESIDENT, AT LEAST PUBLICLY EVER SINCE THIS WAR BEGAN.

>> WELL, I'VE WORKED WITH TZIPI LIVNI FOR YEARS.

AND HER DEDICATION TO A TWO-STATE SOLUTION IS UNPARALLELED.

SHE WOULD AGREE TODAY, TOMORROW, THE NEXT DAY IT'S UNLIKELY THAT WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FROM THIS SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN TODAY INTO A NEGOTIATION ON TWO STATES.

I THINK WHAT SHE AND OTHERS WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT, INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATION IS A PATHWAY TO GET US BACK TO A POINT WHERE WE COULD BRING ALONG THE ISRAELI POPULATION, BRING ALONG THE PALESTINIAN POPULATION TO SUPPORT LEADERSHIP READY TO TAKE HARD DECISIONS.

AND THAT REQUIRES POLITICAL CHOICES IN ISRAEL.

ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES THAT MAY OCCUR AS A RESULT OF GANTZ LEAVING THE GOVERNMENT IS THE POSSIBILITY OF EARLIER ELECTIONS.

AND THAT WOULD GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO TEST THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ISRAELI PEOPLE ARE READY TO LOOK BEYOND THIS WAR WITH HAMAS TO AN END OF THE CONFLICT OVER A PERIOD OF SOME YEARS.

SO, YES, I THINK WHAT SHE TALKS ABOUT IS REALISTIC AND NECESSARY.

IT MAY NOT BE IMMEDIATELY POSSIBLE, BUT CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT THE UNITED STATES, THE WORLD COMMUNITY, AND THE ISRAELI PUBLIC, AS WELL AS THE PALESTINIAN PUBLIC NEED TO BE FOCUSED ON.

>> AND VERY BRIEFLY, DR. CRONIN, DO YOU BELIEF THE P.A.

CAN BE REFORMED IN THE WAY THAT THE PEOPLE LIKE TZIPI LIVNI AND THE UNITED STATES SAY HAS TO HAPPEN?

>> I THINK ESPECIALLY IF IT HAS NEW LEADERSHIP, YES, THE P.A.

COULD POTENTIALLY BE ONE AVENUE.

I DON'T THINK IT'S THE ONLY POSSIBLE AVENUE.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LOT MORE CREATIVE PROPOSALS ON THE PART OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT AS TO WHAT THE DAY AFTER MEANS WITH RESPECT TO GOVERNANCE IN BOTH PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES.

I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT THE BROAD REGIONAL SITUATION FOR ISRAEL IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND HAS BEEN DEGRADING.

AND SO IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF THEIR WAR WITH HAMAS.

WE ALSO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE BROADER PICTURE FOR ISRAEL.

>> REALLY FASCINATING INSIGHTS FROM BOTH OF YOU.

AUDREY KURTH CRONIN AND AMBASSADOR DANIEL KURTZER, THANK YOU BOTH VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US ON THIS.

>>> AND NOW THERE IS, OF COURSE, THE WAR ITSELF, AND THEN THERE IS THE WAR OF WORDS OVER HOW TO TALK ABOUT THE WAR.

IN THE UNITED STATES, YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR DISSENT BY PROTESTING ON CAMPUS.

ON ONE HAND, SOME WERE DEMANDING THEIR UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES SPEAK OUT ON ISRAEL'S CONDUCT OF THE WAR AND DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF PALESTINIANS.

ON THE OTHER HAND, SOME SAID THE OCTOBER 7th ATTACK BY HAMAS HAD NOT BEEN SUFFICIENTLY CONDEMNED BY THEIR INSTITUTIONS.

AT HARVARD, OFFICIALS FOUND THEMSELVES ALL OVER THE PLACE, ISSUING ALL SORTS OF STATEMENTS TRYING TO MAKE THEMSELVES CLEAR.

BUT NOW THE UNIVERSITY HAS ADOPTED A NEW POLICY TO DO THE OPPOSITE, STAY SILENT, EXCEPT ON ISSUES THAT DIRECTLY RELATE TO THE UNIVERSITY'S CORE FUNCTIONS.

HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR NOAH FELDMAN CO-CHAIRED THAT REPORT, AND HE IS JOINING ME NOW FROM NEW YORK.

NOAH FELDMAN, WELCOME BACK TO THE PROGRAM.

LISTEN, CAN I JUST TAKE A QUICK LEFT TURN BECAUSE OF THE DAILY NEWS, AND YOU ARE A LEGAL EXPERT AND SCHOLAR.

AS YOU KNOW, HUNTER BIDEN HAS BEEN CONVICTED ON THREE FELONY CHARGES OF USING DRUGS WHILE ALSO FAILING TO DISCLOSE HIS DRUG USE WHILE PURCHASING A GUN.

CAN YOU GIVE ME YOUR STANCE ON THE VERDICT AND ON HOW THE BIDENS HAVE REACTED TO IT.

>> WELL, THE VERDICT IS COMPLETELY EXPECTED, BECAUSE AS THE CHARGES WERE PRESENTED, THERE REALLY WAS VERY LITTLE EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT HE WASN'T GUILTY OF THEM, WHICH IS WHY THE VERDICT CAME BACK THE SO QUICKLY.

I THINK THE FAMILY HAS TO STAND BY THEIR FAMILY MEMBER, AND THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE.

BUT THE REAL TRAGEDY HERE IS THAT THE PLEA BARGAIN THAT WAS EARLIER OFFERED WASN'T ABLE TO BE TAKEN UP.

I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE PUT BIDEN HIMSELF, HUNTER BIDEN HIMSELF IN LESS CRIMINAL JEOPARDY, AND IT ALSO WOULD HAVE MADE THE STORY DISAPPEAR AT AN EARLIER TIME IN THE POLITICAL CYCLE.

>> AND JUST UNPOLITICALLY, BUT IN TERMS OF DEMOCRACY AND RULE OF LAW, PRESIDENT BIDEN HIMSELF ISSUED A STATEMENT WHICH I'M PARAPHRASING NOW, BUT I ACCEPT THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE.

HE IS OBVIOUSLY STANDING UP FOR THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, BUT ALSO MAKING A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIM AND WHAT TRUMP DID.

>> YES.

AND FUNDAMENTALLY, THERE IS A WAY.

IT'S NOT IDEAL EVER TO HAVE THE PRESIDENT'S SON CONVICTED OF A CRIME.

BUT IT DOES SHOW YOU THAT THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS CAPABLE OF FUNCTIONING OBJECTIVELY IN THE SENSE THAT TECHNICALLY IN THE UNITED STATES, THE PRESIDENT IS PROSECUTOR IN CHIEF.

HE OBVIOUSLY DELEGATED THE PROSECUTORIAL DECISIONS TO SPECIAL COUNSEL HERE, AND THEY PROSECUTED HIS OWN SON.

SO, YES, IN A KIND OF SHAKESPEAREAN HENRY V WAY, IF THE SON OF THE PRESIDENT CAN BE CONVICTED IN COURT, THEN THE LAW IS OPERATING.

>> IT'S REALLY FASCINATING.

NOW LET'S GO TO WHAT WE WANTED TO TALK TO YOU MAINLY ABOUT TODAY, AND THAT IS THE NEW POLICY AT HARVARD THAT YOU HAVE CO-CHAIRED REGARDING HOW TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO SAY PUBLICLY ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE WORLD.

AND I ASSUME YOU DECIDED TO DO THIS BECAUSE OF THE HULLABALOO INCLUDING THE RESIGNATION OF HARVARD PRESIDENT AND THE OTHER IVY LEAGUE PRESIDENTS, YOU KNOW, CAUSED YOU TO THINK DEEPLY ABOUT THIS.

>> SO WHAT I WAS DOING WAS CO-CHAIRING A FACULTY COMMITTEE, AND WE WERE ASKED TO CREATE THIS COMMITTEE TO COME UP WITH A POLICY ABOUT WHEN THE UNIVERSITY SHOULD SPEAK AND WHEN IT SHOULDN'T SPEAK, AND FOR SURE, BACKGROUND CONDITIONS TO THAT INCLUDED THE DISASTER OF THIS LAST FALL IN WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE PRESIDENT OF HARVARD WAS PUT IN A POSITION WHERE SHE HAD TO RESIGN OVER A WIDE RANGE OF MATTERS, BUT MANY OF THEM CONNECTED TO STATEMENTS.

THE REAL REASON, THOUGH, THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A POLICY IS THAT THE WORLD OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND INTENSE POLARIZATION IS STILL A RELEVANTLY NEW PHENOMENON.

THOSE EVENTS SHOWED WE LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE IT'S NOT CREDIBLE FOR A UNIVERSITY NOT TO HAVE SOME POLICY WHEN WE MAKE STATEMENTS AND WHEN WE DON'T.

AND THAT'S WHY THE PRESIDENT AND THE PROVOST OF THE UNIVERSITY ASKED US TO FORM THE COMMITTEE, AND WE MADE A RECOMMENDATION AND THEY TOOK IT UP.

>> AND WHAT IS THE HEART OF THE RECOMMENDATION?

>> THE HEART OF THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE UNIVERSITY DOES ITS BEST WORK WHEN IT SPEAKS WITH EXPERTISE.

AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, IF ANYONE EVER LISTENS TO WHAT PROFESSORS THINK IT SHOULD BE, ONLY BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

AND IF WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THEY SHOULDN'T LISTEN TO US.

SO FOLLOWING THAT PRINCIPLE, THE UNIVERSITY'S LEADERSHIP IS DEEPLY EXPERT IN A QUESTION OF HOW TO RUN A UNIVERSITY.

AND INDEED, THE CORE MISSION OF A UNIVERSITY IS TO CREATE A PLACE FOR STUDY, RESEARCH, TEACHING, AND LEARNING.

AND SO THE PEOPLE WHO RUN THE UNIVERSITY SHOULD SPEAK OUT PUBLICLY WHENEVER THAT CORE MISSION OF THE UNIVERSITY, OF PURSUING THE TRUTH IS DIRECTLY THREATENED.

AND THAT HAPPENS A LOT TODAY.

YOU KNOW, FREE SPEECH AT UNIVERSITIES IS UNDER ATTACK, THE INDEPENDENCE OF UNIVERSITIES IS UNDER ATTACK, THE ENDOWMENTS OF UNIVERSITIES ARE UNDER ATTACK.

SO OUR REPORT RECOMMENDED THAT THE PRESIDENTS, PROVOSTS, DEANS SHOULD SPEAK OUT TO PROTECT THOSE CORE VALUES OF THE UNIVERSITY.

A THE SAME TIME, JUST TO ADD THE PUNCH LINE, AT THE SAME TIME, WHEN THE TOPIC IS NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE CORE FUNCTION OF THE UNIVERSITY, THE UNIVERSITY'S LEADERSHIP SHOULD NOT SPEAK OUT, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT EXPERTS ON THOSE QUESTIONS.

>> YOU MEAN, IE, NOT ON THE POLITICS OF THE DAY, WHETHER IT'S RUSSIA-UKRAINE, WHETHER IT'S ISRAEL-GAZA.

IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

THE UNIVERSITY IS NOT A GOVERNMENT.

AND ITS LEADERS ARE NOT ELECTED BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

THEIR JOB ISN'T TO HAVE CREDIBLE DEFENSIBLE, EVEN MORALLY CORRECT POSITIONS ON THE WHOLE RANGE OF ISSUES OUT THERE.

THE UNIVERSITY SHOULD NOT HAVE A FOREIGN POLICY.

IT SHOULDN'T HAVE A DOMESTIC POLICY.

IT SHOULD FOCUS ON WHAT IT DOES BEST, WHICH IS CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THE PEOPLE IN THE UNIVERSITY CAN EXPRESS THOUGHTFUL AND I HOPE INTELLIGENT OPINIONS ON THINGS.

FOR THAT THEY HAVE ACADEMIC FREEDOM THAT GUARANTEES THE RIGHT TO SPEAK WHETHER THEY'RE RIGHT OR THEY'RE WRONG.

>> IS THAT ACTUALLY REALISTIC IN TODAY'S WORLD?

BECAUSE YOU YOURSELF BROUGHT UP THE IDEA AND THE PRESSURE OF SOCIAL MEDIA.

AND WHAT ABOUT THE STUDENTS?

YOUNG PEOPLE DO HAVE VIEWS BECAUSE OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND BECAUSE OF ALL SORTS OF OTHER THINGS.

THEY'RE BEING EDUCATED AT THESE STUGTSS ABOUT THE WORLD AND BEING TOLD TO FORM, YOU KNOW, CRITICAL THINKING ABOUT EVERYTHING.

IS IT REALISTIC, THEN, THE UNIVERSITY WOULDN'T MAKE ANY STATEMENT?

AND ARE YOU SAYING, THEN, THAT THAT MIGHT AVOID WHAT WE SAW ON CAMPUS, OR ARE PROTESTS GOING TO HAPPEN NIWA?

>> FIRST OF ALL, YES, THE ANSWER IS REALISTIC BECAUSE THE UNIVERSITY LEADERSHIP CAN REPEAT, AND IT WILL HAVE TO REPEAT IT MANY TIMES UNTIL PEOPLE GET THE MESSAGE, WE DON'T ISSUE STATEMENTS ON CONTROVERSIAL, OR REALLY ON ANY ISSUE, CONTROVERSIAL OR OTHERWISE THAT AREN'T WITHIN THE CORE FUNCTION OF THE UNIVERSITY.

BUT WHEN SOMEBODY SPEAKS FROM WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY, A FACULTY MEMBER OR STUDENT OR STUDENT GROUP, THE UNIVERSITY CAN SAY THEY DON'T SPEAK FOR HARVARD.

ONLY WE GET TO SPEAK FOR THE UNIVERSITY THAT WILL HAVE TO BE REPEATED.

NOW, THAT'S NOT GOING TO LEAD TO EVERYBODY IN THE UNIVERSITY, STUDENTS, FACULTY OR WHOEVER ALL AGREEING WITH EACH OTHER, AND IT SHOULDN'T.

THE WHOLE POINT OF UNIVERSITY IS PEOPLE HAVE DIVERGENT POINTS OF VIEW, AND THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO EXPRESS THOSE POINTS OF VIEW.

BUT THEY'RE NOT SPEAKING FOR THE UNIVERSITY WHEN THEY DO SO.

SO THE EFFECT IS TO TAKE THE UNIVERSITY OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF ISSUING OFFICIAL STATEMENTS AND TO ALLOW STUDENTS TO SAY WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND WHAT THEY THINK AND FACULTY TO SAY WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND WHAT THEY THINK AS WELL THAT WON'T MAKE PROTESTS END, AND IT SHOULDN'T.

IT WON'T MAKE DISAGREEMENT END.

IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE DISAGREE, BUT IT WILL TAKE THE UNIVERSITY'S ADMINISTRATION OUT OF THE PROCESS OF DECIDING WHAT HARVARD WITH A CAPITAL H BELIEVES.

>> I WANT TO COME BACK TO HARVARD WITH A CAPITAL H IN A MOMENT.

PROTEST YOU BASICALLY SAID IS A FUNDAMENTAL FACT OF LIFE AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE.

AND I HAD AFWA HIRSH, ALSO A BROADCAST JOURNALIST, THEIR.

SHE HAS VERY WELL THOUGHT-OUT VIEWS.

SHE IN THE MIDST OF ALL THE CAMPUS HULLABALOO THE END OF SEMESTER, AND THE CANCELLATION, YOU KNOW, OF COMMENCEMENTS, ET CETERA, WAS IN THIS STUDIO.

AND THIS IS WHAT SHE TOLD ME ABOUT PROTESTS AND THE INSTITUTIONS.

>> THE POINT OF FREE SPEECH IS THAT PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY THINGS THAT YOU MIGHT FIND UNCOMFORTABLE OR INCONVENIENT.

THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH IF IT WAS ONLY SAYING THINGS WE WANTED TO HEAR.

AND THE ACCUSATION THAT IS IT IS DISRUPTIVE.

THEY DON'T HAVE MUCH POWER IS THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO DISRUPT.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF PROTESTS, ITS AIM HAS BEEN TO DISRUPT WITH THE INTENTION OF FORCING PEOPLE TO HEAR DEMANDS AND THINK ABOUT WIDER INJUSTICES.

>> SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT, HOW DO YOU THINK PROTESTS CAN -- HOW DO YOU THINK YOUR NEW POLICY WILL AFFECT PROTESTS THAT ARE BOUND TO BREAK OUT OVER SOMETHING?

>> WELL, I AGREED WITH THE FIRST HALF OF THAT COMMENT AND STRONGLY WITH THE IS SECOND -- DISAGREED STRONGLY WITH THE SECOND HALF.

IT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THAT EXPRESSING YOUR VIEWS IS LEGITIMATE AND IS PROTECTED ACADEMIC SPEECH AND FREE SPEECH.

IT'S NOT TRUE THAT DISRUPTING THE ORDINARY FUNCTIONING OF THE UNIVERSITY IS PART OF FREE SPEECH.

AND THAT'S WHY ALL FREE SPEECH SYSTEMS HAVE WHAT ARE CALLED TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE BUILT IN.

SO IT WILL BE THE CASE GOING FORWARD THAT STUDENTS WILL BE ALLOWED TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS PEACEFULLY.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO DISRUPTING THE FUNCTIONING OF THE UNIVERSITY, STUDENTS AREN'T PROBABLY GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT AT A LOT OF UNIVERSITIES, AND THAT'S PERFECTLY CONSISTENT WITH THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

THE FREEDOM TO SPEAK IS NOT THE FREEDOM TO DISRUPT THE OPERATION OF A UNIVERSITY ANY MORE THAN IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A BUSINESS.

SO PROTESTS WILL CONTINUE, BUT THEY HAVE TO BE SUBJECT TO REASONABLE RULES, LIKE EVERY SINGLE UNIVERSITY I HAVE EVER HEARD OF ACTUALLY HAS.

IT SAYS YOU CAN PROTEST HERE, YOU CAN PROTEST UNDER THESE CONDITIONS, BUT YOU CAN'T INTERFERE OR INTERRUPT THE FUNCTIONS OF THE REST OF THE UNIVERSITY, NOR CAN YOU HORSE OR BULLY PEOPLE AS PART OF YOUR PROTEST.

>> AND ALSO, LET'S NOT FORGET THAT CALLING IN THE POLICE WAS A SINGULAR TRIGGER MOMENT, AS WE SAW AT COLUMBIA, AND THAT CAUSED THE PROTESTS TO SPREAD.

>> I WILL SAY THAT AT HARVARD, FORTUNATELY WE DID NOT HAVE TO CALL IN THE POLICE.

VERY FORTUNATELY AT HARVARD, THE STUDENTS AGREED TO PEACEFULLY WALK AWAY FROM THEIR ENCAMPMENT.

>> I THINK THAT WAS THE CASE AT BROWN AS WELL.

DON'T MISQUOTE ME.

BUT I THINK THEY CAME TO AN AGREEMENT AT BROWN UNIVERSITY AS WELL.

BUT WHAT I WANT TO KNOW, DO YOU THINK, AND HAVE YOU HEARD THAT OTHER UNIVERSITIES WILL TAKE UP THIS POLICY?

>> YES.

I THINK LOTS OF UNIVERSITIES JUST LIKE HARVARD HAVE BEEN THINKING HARD OVER THE LAST MONTHS ABOUT HAVING A POLICY.

AND I THINK THERE IS REAL MOVEMENT OR CONVERGENCE IN THIS GENERAL DIRECTION.

I WILL SAY THAT IT'S NOT A POLICY OF INSTITUTIONAL NEUTRALITY, BECAUSE NEUTRALITY IMPLIES THAT THE UNIVERSITY DOESN'T STAND FOR ANYTHING OR DOESN'T HAVE ANY CORE VALUES OR SHOULDN'T SPEAK ABOUT EVERYTHING.

THAT'S NOT RIGHT.

THE UNIVERSITY DOES HAVE CORE VALUES.

IT'S THAT THOSE CORE VALUES HAVE TO DO WITH AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND NOT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IS OUT THERE.

SO THIS POLICY THAT YOU MIGHT CALL INSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINT OR INSTITUTIONAL EXPERTISE I THINK HAS LEGS, AND OTHER UNIVERSITIES ARE TALKING SERIOUSLY ABOUT THEIR VERSIONS OF IT.

AND I EXPECT WE'LL SEE LOTS OF THEM ADOPTING IT.

>> AND JUST FINALLY ON THIS, BECAUSE I WANT TO MOVE ON TO ANOTHER QUESTION, DO YOU THINK THIS POLICY WILL PROTECT THE UNIVERSITY AGAINST VERY VOCAL AND, YOU KNOW, CHECK-WAVING ALUMNI AND DONORS.

THEY WERE INCREDIBLY POWERFUL.

A LOT OF THESE DONORS SPOKE PUBLICLY ABOUT HOW THE UNIVERSITY MUST SAY THIS OR THAT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.

>> WITH TIME, THE ANSWER SHOULD BE YES.

IF THE UNIVERSITY'S POSITION IS COMMITTEE WE CANNOT SPEAK ON THE ISSUE YOU WISH US TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT, THEN EVENTUALLY DOANLERS SEE THAT THAT IS REALITY AND THAT IS THE CASE, AND THEY WILL CEASE TO DEMAND STATEMENTS.

NOW, THEY CAN STILL CHOOSE TO DONATE THEIR MONEY SOMEWHERE ELSE, AND OBVIOUSLY UNIVERSITIES NEED DONATIONS, LIKE OTHER ALL PUBLICLY FUNDED INSTITUTIONS AND PRIVATELY FUND AND INSTITUTIONS DO.

BUT IN THE END, YOU ONLY WANT DONATIONS FROM DONORS IF THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'RE DONATING TO SUPPORT EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND NOT TO ACHIEVE SOME POLITICAL OBJECTIVE.

THOSE ARE THE DONATIONS THAT YOU WANT.

>> OKAY.

SO NOW I WANT TO SWERVE OVER TO THE SUPREME COURT IN LIGHT OF ALL THESE TRIALS THAT ARE GOING ON AROUND THE PRESIDENCY, AROUND THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN, TRUMP, BIDENS, ALL THE REST OF IT.

SO AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, THERE WAS A REPORT, IT CAME OUT THIS MORNING ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT WHERE A LEFT-WING ACTIVIST POSING AS SOMEBODY AT A CHRISTIAN RIGHT-WING SORT OF CONVENTION PRETENDING TO BE A DEVOUT CATHOLIC RECORDED JUSTICES ALITO, HIS WIFE, AS WELL AS CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, AND, YOU KNOW, WAS SAYING ALL SORTS OF THINGS TO ALITO ABOUT THE COUNTRY, GETTING HIM TO TALK ABOUT HIS VIEWS ON FAITH AND WHERE THE COUNTRY SHOULD BE.

HE SEEMED TO AGREE WITH HER PREMISE THAT THEY NEED TO FIGHT FOR CHRISTIAN COUNTRY.

JUSTICE ROBERTS DID NOT.

HE SAID THE OPPOSITE, THAT THE LAW IS THE LAW ABOUT IT BEING THE HOME OF ALL PEOPLE.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT THAT REVELATION MEANS ABOUT THESE JUSTICES, ESPECIALLY WITH THE FLAG CONTROVERSY WITH THE ALITOS AND THEIR -- I MEAN, DO YOU THINK THEY HAVE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WHEN THEY COME TO DEALING AND THINKING AND RULING ON A LOT OF THESE TRUMP TRIALS THAT ARE GOING ON RIGHT NOW?

>> SO I WAS ACTUALLY RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF WRITING MY BLOOMBERG COLUMN ABOUT THIS TODAY WHEN I CAME ON YOUR SHOW.

SO I'LL TELL YOU WHAT IS VERY FRESH IN MY MIND IS MY OWN ANALYSIS.

I DON'T THINK THESE THESE RECORDINGS, WHICH VIOLATE EVERY PRINCIPLE OF JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY THAT I CAN THINK OF, TAKEN SURREPTITIOUSLY WHILE PRETENDING TO BE SOMEONE YOU AREN'T AT A PRIVATE EVENT.

I DON'T THINK IT TELLS US ANYTHING WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE JUSTICES.

WE KNOW FROM THE RECORDINGS THAT JUSTICE ALITO IS A RELIGIOUS MAN, TRUE.

WE KNOW THAT HIS WIFE REALLY LIKES TO FLY FLAGS WITH POLITICAL MESSAGES ON THEM.

THAT CAME UP IN THE RECORDINGS AS WELL, AND HE WOULD PREFER SHE NOT DO SO, WHICH WE ALSO KNOW FROM PUBLIC STATEMENTS HE HAS MADE.

AND WE HEARD CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS REPEATING HIS KIND OF MINI STUMP SPEECH ABOUT HOW THE JUSTICES SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MORAL JUDGMENT, BUT SHOULD JUST CALL BALLS AND STRIKES.

THERE IS ACTUALLY NOT MUCH IN THE WAY OF REAL REVELATION HERE.

NOW THERE IS A SEPARATE QUESTION OF WHETHER JUSTICE ALITO SHOULD RECUSE HIMSELF FROM JANUARY 6th-RELATED CASES, INCLUDING THE TRUMP PROSECUTION BECAUSE HIS WIFE FLEW VARIOUS FLAGS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE STOP THE STEAL ELECTION DENIAL MOVEMENT.

THERE MY ONLY VIEW IS THAT UNDER THE RULES OF RECUSAL, IF A REASONABLE PERSON MIGHT THINK THAT THE CONDUCT WAS EVIDENCE OF BIAS, THEN YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO RECUSE YOURSELF.

SO I THINK IT'S REASONABLE THAT A REASONABLE PERSON MIGHT HAVE THOUGHT THAT WITH THESE FLAGS FLYING OVER HIS HOUSE, ALITO HAD A STRONG VIEW ABOUT THIS AND HE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF.

I WOULD, HOWEVER, JUST ADD THAT I'D RATHER LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE TWO PARTNERS WHO LIVE TOGETHER IN THE SAME HOUSE DO NOT THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS ATTRIBUTED TO ONE ANOTHER.

WE ALL KNOW IN A RELATIONSHIP WE DON'T ALWAYS AGREE ON EVERYTHING.

IT MIGHT BE BETTER IF WE TAKE EVERYTHING INTO ACCOUNT.

BUT UNDER THE RULES AS THEY EXIST, YEAH, I THINK JUSTICE ALITO SHOW PROBABLY RECUSE HIMSELF.

BUT HE HAS EXPLAINED HE IS NOT DOING DO THIS.

HIS EXPLANATION IS MY WIFE FLEW THE FLAGS, I DID NOT.

I BELIEVE HIM WHEN HE SAID IT WAS NOT HIS CHOICE.

THE SECRET RECORDINGS WE JUST HEARD ACTUALLY BEAR THAT OUT.

>> NOAH FELDMAN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH INDEED.

>>> NOW, AI-GENERATED CONTENT HAS OPENED A NEW FRONTLINE IN THE ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR.

IN A "NEW YORK TIMES" INVESTIGATION, REPORTER SHEERA FRENKEL DISCOVERS HOW AN ALLEGED ISRAELI CAMPAIGN ON SOCIAL MEDIA ATTEMPTED TO INFLUENCE AMERICAN LAWMAKERS.

AND THE NARRATIVE AFTER THE HORRORS OF OCTOBER 7th.

SHE SPEAKS WITH HARI SREENIVASAN NOW ABOUT THIS NEW FRONT IN THE PROPAGANDA WARS AND ITS EFFECT ON AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY.

>> CHRISTIANE, THANKS.

SHEERA FRENKEL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

YOU HAVE A RECENT REPORT OUT THAT SHOWED THAT THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT WAS WORKING WITH GROUPS TO TARGET U.S.

LAWMAKERS IN AN INFLUENCE CAMPAIGN.

EXPLAIN.

>> SO THIS WAS A CAMPAIGN THAT RAN JUST IN THE WEEKS FOLLOWING OCTOBER 7th, AND IT WAS ORGANIZED BY THE ISRAELI MINISTRY OF DIASPORA AFFAIRS.

IT WAS SEEN AS AN EFFORT TO TRY TO GET MORE AMERICANS, SPECIFICALLY AMERICAN LAWMAKERS ON BOARD WITH ISRAEL'S POINT OF VIEW REGARDING THE WAR.

AND THEY USED THESE FAKE ACCOUNTS THAT ESSENTIALLY POSTED AS COLLEGE STUDENTS OR PARENTS ON FACEBOOK, TWITTER, INSTAGRAM, AND, YOU KNOW, JUST FILLED THE COMMENT SECTION OF SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WITH COMMENTS LIKE WELL, DO YOU KNOW THIS ABOUT THE U.N.?

OR ARE YOU AWARE ABOUT ISRAEL'S HISTORY ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR THING, JUST TRYING TO KIND OF SEW A NARRATIVE THAT THEY HOPED WOULD SWAY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

>> WERE THERE HUMAN BEINGS BEHIND EACH OF THE ACCOUNTS ALTHOUGH THAT MIGHT NOT BE THEIR IDENTITY?

OR WAS THIS A COMBINATION OF AI USE AS WELL?

>> YEAH, IN SOME WAYS IT WAS A REALLY INNOVATIVE CAMPAIGN.

WHILE THERE WERE HUMAN BEINGS MAKING THE TOP-LINE DECISIONS ABOUT WHO GETS TARGETED OR WHAT KIND OF MESSAGING THEY USE, THE ACTUAL WORDS, THE TEXTS WERE BEING GENERAL RATED BY AI, SPECIFICALLY BY CHATGPT.

AND SO IT'S THE KIND OF PROGRAM WHERE YOU CAN PUT IN, YOU KNOW, GIVE ME TWO SENTENCES THAT WOULD GIVE THE ISRAELI POINT OF VIEW OR PRO-ISRAEL PERSPECTIVE ON THIS MOMENT IN HISTORY, AND THAT CHAT PROGRAM WILL WRITE IT FOR YOU AND TRY TO MAKE IT SOUND AUTHENTIC.

IF YOU'RE NOT A NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER, THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD WORKAROUND TO TRY TO GET SOME TEXTS THAT YOU CAN THEN COPY AND PASTE INTO FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM OR TWITTER.

>> SO HOW WIDESPREAD WAS THIS CAMPAIGN?

DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA OF HOW MUCH MONEYS WE SPENT ON IT, OR HOW MANY DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?

>> SO SOME OF THE INTERNAL EMAILS THAT WE WERE GIVEN NAMED A BUDGET OF UP TO $2 MILLION.

THAT'S AS MUCH AS WE KNOW.

WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH WAS SPENT.

WE KNOW THAT'S WHAT THEY KIND OF DEDICATED TOWARDS IT.

AND THE KIND OF THING THAT A LOT OF PRIVATE COMPANIES ARE RUNNING NOW.

AND SO WE SEE SOME OF THESE COMPANIES OFFERING TO RUN CAMPAIGNS FOR AS LITTLE AS 15, $20,000 UP TO THE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

>> AND WHO WERE THE TARGETS?

I MEAN, WERE THERE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, ON IMPORTANT SUBCOMMITTEES, OR WAS THIS KIND OF A BLANKET TOWARDS ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS?

>> WE DID SEE THEM TARGETING A FEW MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, IN A MORE CONCENTRATED WAY THAN OTHERS.

YOU KNOW, FOR INSTANCE, THEY SEEM TO BE PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN BLACK DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

AND WE SAW QUITE A FEW OF THOSE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS RECEIVING A GREATER PERCENTAGE OF COMMENTS ON THEIR FACEBOOK PAGES AND ON THEIR TWITTER ACCOUNTS.

>> TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE TYPES OF POSTS THAT WERE BEING CREATED IN THIS CAMPAIGN.

WHAT WERE THEY SAYING?

>> SO SOME OF THE POSTS WERE IMITATING COLLEGE STUDENTS, JUST SAYING I GO TO COLLEGE AT X UNIVERSITY AT NYU OR WHATEVER AND FACING ANTISEMITISM.

THIS IS THE REALITY OF BEING A COLLEGE STUDENT TODAY.

SOME OF THE POSTS JUST KIND OF POINTED TO "WALL STREET JOURNAL" ARTICLES, FOR INSTANCE, THAT DESCRIBED THE U.N.

HIRING MEMBERS OF HAMAS TO WORK FOR THEIR ORGANIZATION IN GAZA.

SO IT WAS A RANGE OF POSTINGS, BUT ALL OF THEM KIND OF PROMOTING THE ISRAELI NARRATIVE ABOUT WHY THEY'RE AT WAR IN GAZA.

AND WHY THEY FEEL THEY SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE AT WAR THERE.

>> AND WAS ANY OF THIS SPECIFICALLY DISINFORMATION OR FILLED WITH SOMEONE THAT WAS NOT FACTUAL?

>> SO MOST OF WHAT WE SAW WAS -- IT'S HARD.

I THINK IN THIS PARTICULAR CONFLICT, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE CERTAIN SETS OF FACTS TO SUPPORT THEIR POSITION.

A LOT OF WHAT WE SAW WAS THE PUSHING OF NARRATIVES THAT WE FELT WERE MORE FAVORABLE FOR ISRAEL.

SO FOR INSTANCE, TAKING NEWS ARTICLES THAT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN SOME OUTLETS AND REGURGITATING THEM AND WELL, DON'T YOU SEE THE LIZ POINT OF VIEW ON THIS REGARDING HOSTAGES OR REGARDING THE WAY THE U.N. HAS SOME ISSUES IN THE WAY IT FUNCTIONS IN GAZA.

THE PORTRAYAL OF WHO WAS BEHIND THAT ACCOUNT WAS THE PART WAS FAKE AND THAT THEY WERE PRETENDING TO BE AMERICAN COLLEGE STUDENTS WHO WERE FACING ANTISEMITISM ON CAMPUS, FOR INSTANCE.

THEY WOULD TAKE SOMETHING LIKELY TRUE THERE HAVE BEEN AMERICAN STUDENTS TALKING ABOUT FACING ANTISEMITISM ON AMERICAN CAMPUSES.

BUT THEY WOULD POSE AS STUDENTS AND PRETEND AS IF IT HAD HAPPENED TO THEM SPECIFICALLY.

>> IS THERE ANY WAY TO MEASURE I GUESS WHETHER IT'S SENTIMENT ANALYSIS OR WHETHER IT'S THE NUMBER OF LIKES OR RETWEETS, WHAT THE REACH WAS OF THIS CAMPAIGN?

>> SO I THINK ONLY THE COMPANY, ONLY META AND TWITTER CAN REALLY TELL US HOW MANY PEOPLE SAW THESE TWEETS AND TRACKED WITH THEM.

THE ONES I SAW DID NOT SEEM TO BE PARTICULARLY EFFECTIVE.

IN FACT, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF TIMES ON TWITTER WHERE I WOULD SEE ONE OF THESE FAKE BOT ACCOUNTS WRITING SOMETHING AND JUST UNDERNEATH IT, IT WOULD SAY THIS DOESN'T SOUND REAL.

THIS SOUNDS LIKE A BOT.

THIS DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A HUMAN BEING.

SO I THINK META AND TWITTER HAVE KIND OF RAISED THEIR EYEBROWS A BIT AND SAID WE DON'T KNOW IF THIS WAS VERY EFFECTIVE.

WE DON'T THINK IT WAS.

BUT IT'S THE KIND OF THING TO ACTUALLY DO A THOROUGH ANALYSIS ON.

>> AND HOW LONG HAD META OR I GUESS NOW X KNOWN ABOUT THESE KINDS OF CAMPAIGNS OR ACCOUNTS AND DID THEY DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?

>> SO META REGULARLY PUBLISHES REPORTS ABOUT THESE KINDS OF CAMPAIGNS.

THEY CALL THEM COORDINATED INAUTHENTIC BEHAVIOR.

BASICALLY WHAT IT MEANS IS A COUNTRY OR COMPANY IS RUNNING SOME KIND OF CAMPAIGN ON FACEBOOK OR INSTAGRAM.

SO WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD SENSE OF HOW REGULARLY META TAKES THESE DOWN.

AND THERE IS LOTS OF THEM.

I'D SAY EVERY THREE MONTHS WE HEAR ABOUT A GOOD SIX OR SEVEN OF THESE CAMPAIGNS.

WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT TWITTER.

TWITTER USED TO DISCLOSE IN A SIMILAR KIND OF REPORT, BUT SINCE THE COMPANY WAS TAKEN OVER BY ELON MUSK, WE DON'T HAVE THAT SAME VISIBILITY.

SO WE'RE NOT SURE HOW MANY OF THESE CAMPAIGNS THEY'RE NOW FINDING.

>> AS LONG AS THERE HAVE BEEN WAR, THERE HAVE BEEN SORT OF PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGNS TO TRY TO JUSTIFY THE WAR OR ACTIONS, RIGHT.

SO THAT'S NOT PARTICULARLY NEW.

AND WE KNOW THAT GOVERNMENTS HAVE BEEN TRYING TO INFLUENCE ACTIONS BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, SAY, AROUND U.S. ELECTION OR AROUND JANUARY 6th.

SO WHAT WAS DIFFERENT?

WHAT WAS INTRIGUING TO YOU THIS TIME ABOUT WHAT ISRAEL WAS DOING?

>> YOU KNOW, I'VE COVERED MISINFORMATION, DISINFORMATION, INFLUENCE CAMPAIGNS REALLY SINCE 2016.

THIS WAS REALLY UNIQUE IN THAT WHILE WE SEE THESE CAMPAIGNS ALL THE TIME, AND IRAN, CHINA, RUSSIA, THE UNITED STATES, THEY ALL DO THIS.

THIS IS JUST PART OF MODERN WARFARE.

IT'S REALLY, REALLY UNUSUAL FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DOCUMENT IT FROM START TO FINISH.

AND SO THROUGH REPORTING, I WENT TO ISRAEL SEVERAL TIMES, I SPOKE TO MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENT THERE.

I SPOKE TO PEOPLE AT THESE COMPANIES LIKE META.

WE WERE ABLE TO SEE FROM START TO FINISH HOW A CAMPAIGN BEGAN.

A COUPLE OF PEOPLE HAVING AN IDEA OF LET'S TARGET THESE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

HERE IS HOW WE'RE GOING PAY FOR IT.

HERE IS WHAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

WE GOT A RARE CHANCE TO KIND OF SEE THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF HOW THESE EXAM PAINS UNFOLD.

AND THAT WE VERY RARELY GET A CHANCE TO SEE.

>> I WONDER, WHAT WAS THE REACTION FROM MEMBERS OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT WHEN YOU ARE POINTING THIS OUT, SAYING HEY, WE HAVE THESE DOCUMENTS.

THIS IS A CAMPAIGN THAT'S BEEN GOING ON.

IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WERE TARGETING THESE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

WAS THERE A RESPONSE?

>> YEAH, I'LL NOTE THE MINISTRY OF DIASPORA AFFAIRS ISSUED A DENIAL OF THE STORY AND SAID THEY WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS CAMPAIGN.

ALSO NOTE THAT WE DID SPEAK TO FOUR PEOPLE WITHIN THAT MINISTRY THAT CONFIRMED THE CAMPAIGN TO ME PERSONALLY.

SINCE THE STORY CAME OUT, I'VE HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ACROSS THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT WHO ARE CALLING FOR AN INQUIRY.

THEY WANT TO KNOW IF THERE ARE OTHER CAMPAIGNS LIKE THIS.

THEY WANT TO KNOW WHO EXACTLY ORDERED THIS TYPE OF CAMPAIGN TO HAPPEN.

AND THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS BEING RAISED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT ANYONE MORE SENIOR KNEW ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN.

>> THERE WAS ONE GROUP THAT WAS KIND OF THE CENTER OF THIS NAMED STOIC.

TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT, AND WHAT WAS THE RESPONSE TO YOUR REPORTING?

>> STOIC DID NOT RESPOND TO OUR REQUEST FOR COMMENT FOR OUR STORY.

THE EMAIL ADDRESS THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN OTHEIR WEBSITE WAS TAKEN DOWN, AND THE LINKEDIN POSTS TALKING ABOUT THEIR USE OF AI WAS ALSO TAKEN DOWN.

THEY'RE A PRIVATE ISRAELI COMPANY WHO ADVERTISE KIND OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS ON THEIR OWN LINKEDIN PAGE, THEY TALKED ABOUT USING AI TO RUN CAMPAIGNS.

>> SO THE OFFICIAL ISRAELI RESPONSE SAYS THAT THEY DENY THIS.

THE COMPANY THAT WAS KIND OF AT THE CENTER OF THIS CAMPAIGN, THEY KIND OF GONE DARK, AND THEY'RE NOT RESPONDING TO YOU.

BUT THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS, RIGHT?

>> YES.

AND I'LL NOTE THAT IN THE COURSE OF MY REPORTING, I WAS SHOWN EMAILS.

I WAS SHOWN MESSAGES FROM WITHIN THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT DISCUSSING COORDINATING THIS CAMPAIGN.

YOU KNOW, IT IS IN THE MIDST OF WAR.

AND THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT MINISTRIES, A LOT OF DIFFERENT GROUPS WERE MEETING TO DISCUSS HOW TO ADVANCE ISRAEL'S AGENDA.

I THINK THE LINGERING QUESTION THAT I'VE HEARD FROM MANY MEMBERS OF ISRAELI GOVERNMENT IS HOW HIGH UP DID IT GO, AND EXACTLY WHO ORDERED THIS TYPE OF CAMPAIGN TO HAPPEN.

>> ARE THERE WAYS TO FIGURE OUT HOW THESE DIFFERENT TYPES OF INFLUENCE CAMPAIGNS, YOU KNOW, ARE WE ONLY GOING TO FIND OUT AFTER THE FACT IF WE GET LUCKY, IF SOME SOURCES START TO LEAK INFORMATION?

OR ARE THERE WAYS FOR US TO SEE IN CLOSER TO REALTIME HEY, WE'RE BEING MANIPULATED HERE, THAT THERE IS A CONCERTIVE EFFORT.

>> SO I'LL TAKE THIS CAMPAIGN AS AN EXAMPLE.

IN REALTIME, PEOPLE WERE RESPONDING TO SOME OF THESE ACCOUNTS AND SAYING THIS DOESN'T FEEL REAL.

THIS LANGUAGE FEELS STILTED.

I'M NOT BUYING IT WAS THE RESPONSE THAT MANY PEOPLE HAD ON TWITTER AND ON FACEBOOK AND INSTAGRAM.

AND SO I DO THINK THAT IN REALTIME YOU SOMETIMES JUST HAVE THAT SENSE THAT SOMETHING IS FISHY.

BUT TO PROVE AS A CAMPAIGN TAKES MONTHS AND MONTHS OF RESEARCH, A AND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE DEDICATED TO DOING THIS RESEARCH IS QUITE SMALL.

SO WE CERTAINLY DON'T HEAR ABOUT EVERY SINGLE CAMPAIGN THAT HAPPENS.

AND IT TAKES THE COMPANY, META, X, TWITTER, ET CETERA, IT TAKES THEM EVEN LONGER TO COME OUT WITH THEIR REPORTS WHEN THESE CAMPAIGNS HAPPEN.

SO WE DO SEE QUITE A BIT OF LAG OR DELAY ABOUT THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY.

>> WHAT SURPRISED YOU ABOUT THE INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS, THE EMAILS THAT YOU SAW ABOUT THE IMPETUS FOR THIS, I GUESS THE -- JUST HOW THEY WERE THINKING ABOUT THIS PROCESS?

>> I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THEY NECESSARILY SURPRISED ME IN THAT WHAT THEY WERE AFTER SEEMED QUITE TYPICAL OF THESE KINDS OF CAMPAIGNS.

LET'S TRY TO INFLUENCE A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, LET'S TRY TO INFLUENCE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

THAT'S SOMETHING EVERY COUNTRY WANTS TO DO IN MODERN WARFARE.

FOR ME AS A REPORTERS IT'S ALWAYS SUPER INTERESTING TO GET THAT MOMENT OF OH, IT WAS PAID FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT.

IT WAS ACTUALLY IN FACT PART OF AN AGENDA THAT WAS SET BY THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT.

IT'S SOMETHING WE OFTEN SUSPECT WITH THESE KINDS OF CAMPAIGNS WHEN WE TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHO IS DEDICATING MONEY TO THEM.

BUT WE VERY RARELY GET THAT INSIDE LOOK.

>> DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA WHETHER THIS CAMPAIGN IS OVER?

WHETHER IT'S BEEN STOPPED?

>> SO I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT SOME OF THE ACCOUNTS THAT WERE ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

AND AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, META REMOVED ALL OF THEM FROM FACEBOOK AND INSTAGRAM.

X, THE COMPANY FORMERLY KNOWN AS TWITTER HAS REMOVED SOME OF THOSE ACCOUNTS, BUT I ACTUALLY JUST CHECKED YESTERDAY, AND I SAW ONE OR TWO OF THEM STILL ACTIVE.

I SEE THEM TWEETING AT, POSTING AT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, AND THOSE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS DON'T SEEM TO BE RESPONDING.

AND, YOU KNOW, THE LINES ARE QUITE THE SAME.

I THINK ONE THING THAT EVERYONE SHOULD KEEP IN MIND IS THAT IN ALMOST EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE CAMPAIGNS THAT HAS BEEN RUN IN THE PAST BY RUSSIA, IRAN, CHINA, EVEN WHEN THE ACCOUNTS ARE TAKEN DOWN, IT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAC-A-MOLE.

AND THEY'RE BACK WITHIN DAYS, WITHIN WEEKS, WITHIN MONTHS WITH A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT HANDLE, A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT AI-GENERATED PROFILE PIC.

SO IT'S VERY, VERY UNUSUAL FOR THESE ACCOUNTS TO BE TAKEN DOWN AND TO GO AWAY FOREVER BECAUSE THERE IS HONESTLY TOO MUCH MONEY AND INTEREST IN KEEPING THESE TYPES OF INFLUENCE OPERATIONS ALIVE.

>> SO IF THIS CAMPAIGN HAD TARGETED MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN SPECIFIC, DID IT WORK?

WHAT WAS THE RESPONSE?

WHAT HAS BEEN ANY OF THE RESPONSE FROM MEMBERS OF CONGRESS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN TARGETED?

>> WE HAVEN'T SEEN A LOT OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS RESPONDING DIRECTLY TO THE BOTS THEMSELVES ON TWITTER.

WE DIDN'T MANAGE TO SPEAK TO ANY OF THEM BEFORE THE STORY PUBLISHED THERE WAS ONE MEMBER RITCHIE TORRES WHO DID TWEET CALLING THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE CAMPAIGN BLITHERING IDIOTS AND SAYING THEY NEEDED TO BE EXAMINED FOR THEIR ROLE IN ALL OF THIS.

>> THERE WAS JUST A RECENTLY REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP MIKE McCALL, MIKE TURNER SAID RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA HAS INFILTRATED THEIR PARTY.

THERE ANY METHOD, IS THERE A PLACE FOR GOVERNMENT OR ANYTHING GOVERNMENT CAN DO TO TRY TO DECREASE THE INFLUENCE OPERATIONS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES?

>> YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A PERIOD OF TIME FOLLOWING THE 2016 ELECTIONS WHERE WE ACTUALLY SAW SEVERAL MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENT, LARGELY IN THE NATIONAL SECURITY SPHERE TALK ABOUT LET'S GET ORGANIZED ON THIS.

LET'S FUND RESEARCHERS THAT CAN HELP WAS THIS KIND OF WORK.

LET'S PUT TOGETHER AN INTERNAL GROUP WITHIN GOVERNMENT THAT CAN COME UP WITH RECOMMENDATIONS.

WE ALSO SAW THE HIGHLY UNUSUAL STEP OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TAKING ACTION AGAINST SPECIFIC RUSSIAN HACKERS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THE 2016 ELECTION, THE CAMPAIGN, SORRY, TO SWAY AMERICAN VOTERS IN THAT ELECTION.

SO THERE HAVE BEEN MOMENTS IN TIME WHERE THE GOVERNMENT HAS SHOWN MORE OF AN INTEREST IN ACTING.

I WOULD SAY THAT IN RECENT YEARS, THAT'S KIND OF DROPPED OFF, AND WE HAVE FEWER RESEARCHERS AND CERTAINLY IT SEEMS FEWER BODIES WITHIN GOVERNMENT THAT SEEMS TO BE WORKING IN A CONCERTED EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THAT AT THE VERY LEAST FOREIGN NATIONS ARE NOT TRYING TO INFLUENCE AMERICANS.

>> HOW SIGNIFICANT HAS THIS CONFLICT BEEN WHEN IT COMES TO MISINFORMATION AND DISINFORMATION?

HOW DO WE, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE EVEN START TO MEASURE THE AMOUNT OF KIND OF PAID FOR INFLUENCE THAT'S IN THE SOCIAL KIND OF ECOSYSTEMS?

>> YOU KNOW, AT THE VERY START OF THE WAR, WE DID A STORY LOOKING AT HOW COUNTRIES, INCLUDING IRAN, RUSSIA, AND CHINA WERE USING THE EVENTS IN ISRAEL AND GAZA TO PUSH THEIR OWN NARRATIVES.

SO FOR IRAN, IT WAS A WAY TO PUSH A NARRATIVE THAT THE U.S. AND ISRAEL WERE UNITED FRONTS, AND THAT BY OPPOSING ZIONISM, YOU'RE OPPOSING AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.

RUSSIA TOOK A FAIRLY SIMILAR TIME.

CHINA SLIGHTLY ADJACENT.

THEY SPOKE MORE ABOUT AMERICAN IMPERIALISM GLOBALLY.

SO YOU SAW A NUMBER OF COUNTRIES USING THIS MOMENT IN TIME, THIS ONGOING CONFLICT I MYSELF HAVE COVERED THE LAST THREE WARS THAT HAVE BEEN FOUGHT BETWEEN ISRAEL AND GAZA.

AND EVERY SINGLE WAR WE HAVE SEEN MORE AND MORE MISINFORMATION SWIRLING AROUND IT.

NOT I WILL NOTE, NOT ACTUALLY NECESSARILY BETWEEN ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS.

WHEN I LOOK FOR IT IN ARABIC OR HEBREW, IT'S NOT NEARLY NEAR THE AMOUNT I'M SEEING IN ENGLISH AND OTHER LANGUAGES.

SO THE INTEREST OF GROUPS ALL OVER THE WORLD TO USE THIS ONGOING CONFLICT FOR THEIR OWN AGENDAS IS CERTAINLY INCREASED IN RECENT YEARS, AND I THINK LIKELY TO THE GREAT DETRIMENT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE THERE.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I MENTIONED TO FRIENDS ABOUT SOCIAL MEDIA IS SOMETHING MAKES YOUR BLOOD BOIL, TAKE A DEEP BREATH.

DON'T START SHARING IT RIGHT AWAY.

I WONDER, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A FORMULA THAT OUTSIDE ACTORS KNOW ALMOST HOW TO REVERSE ENGINEER THE ALGORITHM AND SAY WELL, LET'S CREATE THIS TYPE OF CONTENT.

LET'S MAKE IT AS INCENDIARY AS POSSIBLE.

LET'S MAKE SURE PEOPLE GET THEIR BLOOD BOILING.

BUT THIS SORT OF THIS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE NUANCED.

IT'S NOT JUST TRYING TO REALLY GET YOU IRATE AND FILL YOU WITH ANGER.

IT'S JUST SEEMS LIKE A MORE TARGETED APPROACH WHEN IT'S TRYING TO BE PERVASIVE IN THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS' MINDS.

>> IT IS.

BUT IT ALSO PREY ON THEIR EMOTIONS.

I THINK THAT IS BASIC HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY.

YOU'RE GOING TO SHARE SOMETHING THAT HITS OUT AT YOU.

IF YOU'RE A MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND SOMEONE CLAIMS TO BE FROM YOUR DISTRICT AND THAT THEY ARE A COLLEGE STUDENT AND THEY AS AN INDIVIDUAL ARE FACING ANTISEMITISM ON CAMPUS, THAT COULD FEEL AT YOUR HEART STRINGS THAT COULD MAKE YOU FEEL BADLY FOR WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THAT SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL AND THEY CALL ON YOU TO CONTINUE FUNDING ISRAEL'S WAR EFFORT OR CALL ON IN THE WAR.

THEY DO PREY ON EMOTIONS.

AND THAT'S JUST BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WORKS ON SOCIAL MEDIA, APPEALING TO A PERSON'S EMOTION HAS BEEN SHOWN TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO WORK ACROSS SOCIAL MEDIA, WHETHER YOU'RE A HUMAN BEING TRYING TO SELL SOMETHING AT A GARAGE SELL OR AN INFLUENCE CAMPAIGN TRYING TO MOVE A MEMBER OF CONGRESS.

>> SHEERA FRENKEL OF "THE NEW YORK TIMES," THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>>> AND FINALLY TONIGHT, IT IS FAST AND FURIOUS, BUT INSTEAD OF TIARAS AND ROADS, IT'S PADDLES AND RIVER BENDS.

CRUISING PAST TIGHT CORNERS WITH PACKED CROWDS, ROWERS RACE FOR GOLD IN A SOUTHERN CHINA PROVINCE THAT HOSTS THIS ADRENALINE-PACKED CONTEST.

BELIEVED TO ORIGINATE IN ANCIENT CHINA, DRAGON BOAT RACING HAS GROWN INTO AN INTERNATIONAL SPORT, BUT CONTINUES TO HAVE STRONG ROOTS IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE COUNTRY, WHICH CELEBRATES THIS TRADITIONAL FESTIVAL.

AND THAT'S IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.

IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT'S COMING UP EVERY NIGHT, SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER AT PBS.ORG/AMANPOUR.

THANKS FOR WATCHING AND GOOD NIGHT FROM LONDON.