“Netanyahu Has a Lot to Answer For:” says Thomas Friedman

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Next, to the war in Gaza. The International Court of Justice is expected to deliver tomorrow its interim ruling in South Africa’s case accusing Israel of genocide. In a rebuttal, Israel released more than 30 classified documents, which it says show efforts to minimize civilian deaths. Meantime, all but two of 51 Democratic Senators in the U.S. support a measure endorsing the two-state solution as part of a national security package that includes military age to Israel. Walter Isaacson spoke with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman about the latest and what he calls the Israeli prime minister’s failure of leadership.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And Thomas Friedman, welcome to the show.

THOMAS FRIEDMAN, FOREIGN AFFAIRS COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Walter, great to be with you.

ISAACSON: You know, about 40 years ago, you roped (ph) from Beirut to Jerusalem. Ever since then, you’ve been going back to the Middle East after the October 7th attack. You went to Israel, then you’ve been to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. And you’re now in saying something that actually makes my head snap a bit, and I want you to explain it, which is Netanyahu, Benjamin Netanyahu, is the worst leader in Israel’s history. And then you say, not only that, he’s the worst leader in Jewish history. Explain that to me. Why so strong?

FRIEDMAN: Well, he’s been prime minister, presided over, the worst loss of life for Jews since the Holocaust. Let’s start there. And a lot of what happened here is a product of his actions in several ways. One was the whole security structure on the border. He’s been prime minister for all these years. So, he is surely partly responsible for that. It was a complete failure. Secondly, his strategy was actually to divide the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank that has supported the Oslo Peace Process, and the Hamas militia in Gaza. And to do that deliberately so that Palestinians would never be united to be able to be a partner in any kind of peace process. That was a deliberate policy of Netanyahu, which included, you know, getting more than a billion dollars transferred from Qatar to Hamas, money it siphoned off eventually to build this incredible underground network and military machine. And most of all, you know, we are at a moment, Walter, which is so clear that Israel right now, if it had a leadership ready to engage — you know, it would have to be a long-term process on a two-state solution. Would actually solve three really important problems for Israel. One, although Israel was attacked by Hamas viciously to start this war, it somehow has lost the global narrative because of its retaliation and the massive loss of life of Palestinians. Secondly, Israel has no plan for exiting Gaza for the morning after. We’re having a Palestinian partner to rule Gaza, so Israel doesn’t have to do it forever. And lastly, Israel faces a regional onslaught right now from Iran and his proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Shiite militias in Iraq, that regional threat to Israel requires a regional alliance to counter, and it’s very hard to get that regional alliance without the cement of some kind of Israeli-Palestinian peace process. So, for all those reasons, I think, Netanyahu has a lot to answer for today and to Jewish history.

ISAACSON: You know, we talk about the phrase, from the river to the sea, as if it’s maybe saying, we should get rid of not only the State of Israel, but Jews from the region. And I think a lot of people find that horrifying. And yet, I’ve just heard Netanyahu, and he’s been on the social media posting X, saying things that seem slightly similar to me. I think he posted, I will not compromise on full Israeli security over all the territory west of Jordan. And this is contrary to a Palestinian State. Is that a mistake, and is that going to turn the world against Israel after this?

FRIEDMAN: You know, I don’t think anyone statement can do it, Walter. But basically, you know, what’s different about this Israeli-Palestinian conflict from previous ones, I would argue, is that it’s being driven by the worst of the worst on both sides. It’s actually being driven by the far-right, who Bibi is a captive of. He needs them to stay in power. So, he looks like he’s driving the car, but he’s actually not. His far-right partners are directing him where to turn right and where to turn left or where not to turn left. And the Palestinians are being led not by Abu Mazen, the Palestinian Authority that embraced the Oslo Peace Process by Hamas, which is dedicated to eliminating the Jewish State. What the far-right in Israel and Hamas have in common is something to which you just alluded, they both want it all from the river to the sea.

ISAACSON: In an interview with Christiane Amanpour on Monday, your old friend, the former prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, Salam Fayyad, said, and I want to quote it for you, “The Palestinian Authority, as currently constituted, cannot really continue to govern and certainly cannot assume the responsibility of taking care of the needs of the people in Gaza in addition to the West Bank.” What do you say to that?

FRIEDMAN: Yes, they — you know, they have an 87-year-old leader in, Mahmoud Abbas, who presides over a corrupt and ineffective Palestinian Authority. Anyone who’s worked this story for a long time knows the kind of talent you actually have in the Palestinian community. You see it in the business community. You see it among academics and artists. There is real talent there, like in America and a lot of other countries. Unfortunately, they’re not running the show. But you need a much more serious, credible, new generation of Palestinians on their side. And what people like Salam Fayyad have been talking about is maybe the PLO, the umbrella organization for the Palestinians, sort of only legitimate umbrella organization, appoint a technocratic government, the best of Palestinians, that would actually run the West Bank and Gaza, you know, in partnership, obviously, with Israel, to some degree, for the next couple of years. And then, once the situation is truly stabilized, then you have elections within the Palestinian community for a truly legitimate government that could actually negotiate a legitimate peace deal with the Israelis. So, some variation of that is what we need. Whether we can get there, I don’t know.

ISAACSON: You say we have to have even a broader plan for the morning after the morning after. Israel doesn’t have that. What would be your plan and what do you think that President Biden is doing in terms of sort of a dual track to try to get a plan for the morning after this?

FRIEDMAN: Yes. Well, what Biden is trying to do, Walter, is actually present Netanyahu with a choice, but a very public choice. And that is, you can do nothing and go down the track you’re going to nowhere on, or if you’re ready to engage with the Palestinians on a plan, it would have to be a long-term plan, but where there are two-states for two people at the end of it, we can actually deliver for you, in partnership with Saudi Arabia, normalization with Saudi Arabia, and an opening really to the rest of the Muslim world, which would be huge for Israel. So, what Biden is trying to do is actually — I have a lot of Israeli friends calling me up saying, hey, would you tell Joe Biden to get rid of Bibi Netanyahu? And I say, guys, it doesn’t work that way, except in the movies, OK? What Biden’s trying to do is present a choice that all Israelis will see. Here’s a real opportunity for the future to bury the past, and here’s a way for the past to bury the future. You choose. My one concern, I’m a big Joe Biden fan. But one thing I’ve learned, Walter, in 45 plus years of covering this region, what people tell you in English in private is irrelevant. All that matters is what they will defend in public in their own language called Hebrew and Arabic. So, I get a little frightened when I hear Biden say, well, you know, yes, I know Bibi’s saying this in public, but he told me something else. Oh, my God, if I had a dime for every dime for every time Bibi told an American president, diplomat, or secretary of state that, I would be a — I could retire a long time ago. So, we have to be very careful. What people tell you in private, in English is irrelevant. All that matters is what they’ll defend in public in Hebrew or Arabic. And that’s all I listen for.

ISAACSON: Well, you say that Netanyahu will be presented with a choice by the Biden administration. Can and should President Biden put pressure on him? And I go back, you wrote about it to Henry Kissinger in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, well, very subtly, I think the U.S. withheld some resupply for the Israeli military in order to put pressure on Israel. Should Biden do that?

FRIEDMAN: You know, I honestly believe, Walter, I’m not trying to avoid your question, I think if Biden could engineer that choice, the pressure you would get is the most meaningful pressure of all, and it’d be from the bottom up inside the Israeli system. I can’t tell you exactly where it would come out. But I think if he were able to present that choice, the most important pressure has to be from Israelis, and I think it would manifest itself. You know, that — so that’s what I’m thinking about right now.

ISAACSON: Netanyahu, is he motivated by going down in history and getting this solved for the State of Israel? Or is he mainly motivated by saving his skin and his own politics?

FRIEDMAN: Well, if there’s anything we know about Bibi Netanyahu, his number one priority is Bibi Netanyahu. Look, even in the middle of this war, I think where we are now, this war started October 7th. His government still cannot tell you what their plan is for the morning after. He can’t even hold a cabinet meeting to discuss that with his cabinet and senior military and security people because his far-right simply refuses to have any Palestinian Authority or a Palestinian State component as part of that discussion. Can you imagine being in a war and your army’s exposed, your people are exposed, and you can’t even hold a cabinet meeting? Now, instead of saying to that far-right, too bad, bring down the government, OK? If that’s what you’re going to do. I don’t believe you’ll do it. But if you want to bring down the government with that, that’s a hill I’ll die on. Netanyahu said, OK, there’ll be no cabinet meeting. And, you know, then he’ll tell Biden something and, you know, if you scratch your ear with your left hand, you know, somehow, it will all be — we’ll figure it all out. And so, this is a — it’s just an impossible situation for Israel to navigate its way out of when you have a prime minister whose first priority is his political survival.

ISAACSON: But if Netanyahu keeps doing that, should the U.S. continue to have unalloyed support and send munitions?

FRIEDMAN: Yes. You know, for me, that’s very context related, and I’m always weary of making some general statement that we should be, you know, withdrawing military support because who knows what’s going on in the ground. I think the much more effective thing is for Joe Biden to give a speech directly to the Israeli people about just what their prime minister is doing and just what the implications will be for Israel’s relation with its closest friend, some days it’s only friend in the world.

ISAACSON: After the October 7th attacks, after the retaliation, you went to Israel and you said, I have never been to this Israel before. What do you mean by that?

FRIEDMAN: I meant two things, Walter. It was an Israel that had truly lost confidence in its army and intelligence services. This was not a surprise attack by another state like Egypt and Syria. This was a surprise attack by a militia in Gaza that lives literally right under Israel’s nose that did just enormous damage. So, on the one hand, there was this really — a real profound loss of confidence. And the other, because of the attacks from Hezbollah in Lebanon, in parallel with the Hamas attacks from Gaza, basically had shrunk Israel. Some 80,000 Israelis had to move off the northern border. Some, 40,000, 50,000, I don’t know the number of Israelis have now we have to move off its western border. And the Israel that we had all known had actually shrunk almost down to the size of its 1947 partition map, if you thought about it, especially if you added parts of the West Bank that had become no go zones. And so, this has been extremely disorienting for Israel. And the trauma of the hostage taking has been really profound. And that’s why I’m so focused on getting the hostages back for Israel, because I don’t think Israel will be able to think straight. I’m not saying this in any light way, until it gets the hostages back. And I think only then, God willing, they get their hostages back. Only then I think can they maybe have a more rational discussion about the future and their future relationship with the Palestinians.

ISAACSON: One metric in a situation like this is, are you creating more terrorists than you’re killing? Do you think the response by Israel is proportionate, or do you think it is actually going to cause Israel harm?

FRIEDMAN: Yes, I very much worry that the amount of civilian casualties in Gaza, that the long run implications of that, it will be very serious and troubling and problematic for Israel. That said, we have to remember one thing, you know, Walter, we can ask the Israeli government any question we want, any day, and you’ll get an answer from the military spokesman or the prime minister spokesman, you may not like the answer, it may not be full or complete, it may not even be straight, you know, but you’ll get an answer. No one has asked one question to, Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader. He hasn’t had to answer one question. Why did your men — they actually raped people. You know, this is — we have independent reports of this. They shot parents in front of their kids. They shot kids in front of their parents. They abducted infants and grandparents. Was that on your orders? What was that about? And so, man, I have — I’m deeply disturbed by the amount of civilian casualties in this war. I repeat, it will be, I think, a real stain on Israel in the long run. But let’s remember that Hamas basically built its military infrastructure underneath and alongside civilians, launched this war knowing what the Israeli response would be and that they bear enormous culpability in this as well. And so, I think we have to ask, what’s going to be the reaction for Hamas in the long run from that as well.

ISAACSON: Former President Donald Trump now seems, after New Hampshire, to be pretty clearly on the way to the Republican nomination. During his administration, there was the Abraham Accords, which started the rapprochement with the Saudis and perhaps a road to a two-state solution. Do you see any merit into where he was going? And how do you think he would handle this?

FRIEDMAN: Well, let’s ask ourselves, Walter, what’s the biggest problem we have today? The biggest problem we have today is we’re actually in a proxy war with Iran. And Iran has enormous leverage on us because we have two aircraft carriers in the region. Iran has four, what I call land craft carriers. The Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Shia militias in Iraq. And like our aircraft carriers, they are platforms through which Iran projects power with what I call implausible deniability that it’s actually involved. OK. And so, it’s in a very strong position. But the reason it’s in such a strong position is because Iran is now just weeks away, a few screws of the term — of the screwdriver. A few turns of the screwdriver away from a nuclear weapon. Now, how did it get there? It got there because Donald Trump tore up Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, which was working, which kept Iran a year away from a bomb. And Trump did that without — talk about no plan for the morning after, with no diplomatic plan to get a better deal or any military plan to deal with Iran, if it then went ahead and did just what it did, which was continue to enrich at a much higher level and bring itself to the threshold of a bomb. That is Donald Trump and Bibi Netanyahu. They did this together. That is their doing. It put Israel and America in a much more difficult position, putting Iran in a much stronger position. So, for Donald Trump to say, none of this would be happening if I were in charge, he’s right. We’d be in so much better position today if he were had not been in charge.

ISAACSON: Tom Friedman, thanks for joining us.

FRIEDMAN: You bet, Walter. Thank you.