July 17, 2025

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.

Exclusive from Brazil, President Lula da Silva responds to Trump’s threat of a crippling 50 percent tariff and defense of the right-wing former

leader, Jair Bolsonaro.

Then more despair in Gaza after Israel apparently strikes a Catholic church and 20 people are killed in a crowd crush at an aid site. Ami Ayalon, the

former head of Israel’s internal security service, Shin Bet, joins me from Haifa.

Plus, surviving apocalypse. Author Lizzie Wade tells Hari Sreenivasan how catastrophe transformed our world.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.

My first guest tonight is the Brazilian president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who’s come out fighting against President Trump’s extraordinary

threat of 50 percent tariffs unless. He’s due to address his own nation tonight, and he’s given us an exclusive interview while weighing his

response to this unprecedented threat from the U.S.

What’s more Trump’s, tariffs are mostly slapped on nations that have a trade surplus with the U.S., but Brazil has a trade deficit. So, why? Well,

Trump says, because I can. But he’s also settling scores for Jair Bolsonaro, who was Brazil’s president during Trump 1.0 and who’s facing

trial for allegedly attempting to stage a coup against the current president, Lula, trying to overturn his 2022 election.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: What they’re doing to their former president is disgraceful. I know the former president. He fought like hell for the

people of Brazil. That I can tell you. And I believe he’s an honest man. I think what they’re doing to him is terrible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Bolsonaro in turn says he’s, quote, “passionate” about Trump.

JAIR BOLSONARO, FORMER BRAZILIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): I have deep gratitude for him. We had an excellent relationship. We talked about a

lot of things around the world. We had — we made plans, it seems we were even dating with a lot of plans for Brazil. He treated me like a brother.

He treats me like a brother, and he put my name in the first line of that letter, right there, my name.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Amid this bromance, the current Brazilian president, Lula, says it’s unacceptable for the USA or any foreign government to interfere in its

internal affairs and judicial process. But when he joined me from Brasilia, he also said the best way to discuss any trade issues is around the

negotiating table.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Mr. President, welcome back to our program.

LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA, BRAZILIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): It’s my pleasure, Christiane. A great pleasure to talk to you again and direct

myself to the American people.

AMANPOUR: Well, that’s a good thing because I want to ask you first, what does it feel like to be slapped with a 50 percent tariff by the United

States, the world’s biggest economy?

DA SILVA (through translator): Well, Christiane, for me it was a surprise, not only the value of that tariff, but also how it was announced, the way

it was announced. I think we’re lacking a little bit of multilateralism on President’s Trump’s mindset, and he knows that a problem of this sort, it

is solved in a bargaining table, around the bargaining table.

So, what do we see? We were negotiating with the U.S. already for some months. My foreign affairs minister, the vice president of that Republic,

which is also the minister for industry and development and commerce were negotiating. And since March, we’ve sent a proposal to the U.S. government.

After 10 meetings, we sent a proposal on May the 7th, 16 saying what we wanted and what was a (INAUDIBLE) for us to reach an agreement.

For our surprise, instead of a response to the letter that we sent, we received the news published in the President Trump’s site. It was not a

letter said officially by diplomatic means. I think it was a mistake. A big mistake because the letter that President Trump is full of things that are

not true.

First of all, the justice system of Brazil is independent. The president of the report cannot interfere in the judicial branch of power. Second, is

that the trade deficit, that is not true. The United States in last 15 has a surplus of $410 billion vis-a-vis Brazil.

And thirdly, if we’re going to charge — tax of — big tax in Brazil, that’s a problem of the Brazilian government. If we charge a high tax and

they don’t agree, we can establish a negotiation with the government. This is how the world works with multilateralism. That’s how the trade — world

trade works and how Brazil acts.

What we cannot have is President Trump forgetting that he was elected to govern the U.S. He was elected not to be the emperor of the world. It would

be much better to establish a negotiation first and then to reach the possible agreement. Because we’re two countries that we had very good

meetings and we have good relations for 200 years. And so, he’s breaking away from any protocol, any liturgy that should exist between the relations

between two heads of state.

It was very unpleasant. We are trying to talk with the people there, but we’re also preparing ourselves to give an answer to that. What I’ve been

saying publicly is that we will use all the words that exist in the dictionary in trying to negotiate. If we don’t manage to reach an

agreement, you — I can reassure you that we will go to the World Trade Organization or we can gather group of countries to response or we can use

the reciprocity law that was passed at this bill by the National Congress. This is how it’s going to work.

I regret that two countries then have an extraordinary relationship of 201 years prefer to be fighting through judicial means because one president

does not respect the sovereignty of the other president.

AMANPOUR: Now, Mr. President, apparently President Trump is saying that he, you know, disagrees with Brazil’s investigation and court case against

your predecessor, President Bolsonaro. This is what President Trump said, this is nothing more or less than an attack on a political opponent,

something I know much about. It happened to me 10 times. What’s your response to that?

DA SILVA (through translator): Well, my answer to that is that the judiciary branch of power in Brazil is independent. The president of

Republic has no influence whatsoever with the Supreme Court and the justices. The justice are approved by the Senate. They took office and they

have independence and they take care of our constitution.

Bolsonaro is on trial not because he’s an opponent or political opposition, he — I won three elections in this country. It’s important to remember

that here the — every election that I won — I lost three previous elections and won another. So, we participated in five elections and never

before in this country someone would raise this issue to try to say — or tries coup d’etat attempt like Bolsonaro did.

He’s not judged personally. He is being judged by the acts. He tried to organize a coup d’etat. He threatened secretly the death — he planned the

death of vice president, myself, and the chief justice. He could be on trial just for that. And the general — the attorney general denounced

yesterday, he will be convicted of, and I believe in that.

Christiane, I like to say something to the American people. If Trump was Brazilian and if he did what was happening at the Capitol Hill, he’d also

be on trial in Brazil and possibly, and he would’ve violated the constitution. So, according to the justices, he could also be arrested if

he had done that here in Brazil.

AMANPOUR: Well, I have to say at this point, because I have to say that President Bolsonaro denies all these charges. But more to the point, his

son, Eduardo, who is a — I believe, a member of your parliament, he has been in the United States lobbying for sanctions, but he was calling for

sanctions against the Supreme Court Justice. Then Trump turns around, you know, having thought about it, and in fact put sanctions on your whole

country of 200 million people in terms of this 50 percent tariff.

You are opponents have been — well, Bolsonaro has been trying to get this result, and they want you to drop the charges.

DA SILVA (through translator): Well, first of all, it’s not the President Lula that is charging Bolsonaro, it’s the prosecutor’s office and the

Supreme Court is the one that will rule. It’s important to remember, Christiane, that I was put on trial with the same courts, the same Supreme

Court, that I lost three previous elections in this country, and I never raised any issue.

I prepared myself for the next election if I lost one. He knew that he was going to lose the election. When I was in jail, the poll said that I would

win the future election. Now, he’s saying that he was steeled (ph) and then he tried coup d’etat and then he cowardly (ph) fled to the U.S. He floored

my inauguration, without handing over power.

So, this is a country that deserves respect. And President Trump has to respect this country and the sovereignty of this country, the sovereignty

of the Supreme Court, the sovereignty of the legislative body of power, the executive branch of power, as I respect U.S. sovereignty.

It’s important to remember that the super tariff will also create the problems for the American consumer, for the American people, not only for

the Brazilians. I’m going to try to solve the problems here in Brazil. We’re talking with the business sectors, with the agricultural producers,

with the fishermen, with the trade units. We’re going to find a solution and we will give a response, not by sight, we’ll send an official letter

through diplomatic press, from the president of the Republic of Brazil to President Trump to know that respect is something very good. And I like to

show respect and I like to receive respect.

AMANPOUR: As you know, President Trump has threatened big tariffs, 50 percent at one point on China. Then they walked that back. 50 percent on

one point on Colombia. And Colombia then agreed to Trump’s demands on deportees.

People and countries do not want to provoke President Trump because they think that it will be even worse for themselves and their economies. What

is your economic plan B if you don’t agree to what President Trump is demanding, and if you get hit with a 50 percent? Who is your market? How do

you survive?

DA SILVA (through translator): Well, Christiane — well, first of all, if I resent to respond to you, what is my strategy? No, it’s not going to

work. So, I can’t tell you my strategy. What we’re discussing — I just wanted to tell you something, Christiane, in two and a half years of my

term, I created 379 new markets for Brazilian goods and service. I’ve been traveling a lot abroad and we’ll reach an agreement with the European

Union. We’ll have an agreement with the countries from ASEAN and an agreement with the Latin American country. We’ll talk with Mexico and we’re

going to try to seek for new trade partners.

But we will still take into account the importance that the U.S. has for us. I would never imagine to pick up a fight with the U.S. Never. You know,

very well I had an extraordinary relationship with all the former presidents since Clinton to Bush, Obama, and to Biden. And I hope to have a

good relation with President Trump too.

Now, what is important to take in account that is necessary to respect the sovereignty of each country. We have to respect what is happening inside a

country, to talk about deforestation in Brazil. Brazil is the country that takes more seriously the climate change issue. We have diminished 50

percent of deforestation in the Amazon tropical forest, and my commitment till 2030 is to have zero deforestation in the Amazon, and I hope that

President Trump will come to COP30 because it’s going to be in the heart of the Amazon. And so, he will come to get the rainforests of the Amazon.

And first of all, we want to find out if the leaders are talking seriously, if they’re really concerned when they come to COP30. I want to see if the

world leadership is understanding that the scientists are right when they say or they’ll think that it’s just a lie, and that’s not going to — and

that’s not happening.

This is what we have to find out at COP30 because the rich countries promised in Copenhagen in 2009 to create a hundred bid and fund per year to

help the developing countries, the poor country. And up till now, nothing came out from that fund. Now, it’s already 1 trillion — $300 million that

this fund, if it was updated.

So, Christiane, what I believe is that I — my political life was, I was born as a negotiator. I was a trade union leader. I went on strikes. I have

many workers assembly, but everything in it at a bargaining table. It’s at the bargaining table that we solved the issues and it’s at the bargaining

table, it’s much more cheaper than going to war. It’s much more cheaper to have confrontation.

You don’t destroy anything under a negotiation, but we won’t have any death tolls. No one dies under negotiation table. This country that is talking to

you is a peaceful country. We have no litigation, we have no whatsoever with any country in the world, and we don’t want to have litigation with

any country. We want to solve the problem under — around a negotiation. That’s why we sent on May the 16th the proposals for the U.S. government.

AMANPOUR: You know, you talk and you remind us all that you were a negotiator. So, is President Trump. He likes to call himself a great deal

maker. Surely that means the two presidents, you and he, should have room to be able to sort this out. But you know, you are left-wing progressive,

he is right-wing and all of that. Maybe your politics just don’t match, but there’s something that’s going on between you all.

You have said that Brazil’s trade with the U.S. represents 1.7 percent of your total GDP. It’s not like we cannot survive without the United States.

That’s what you told Brazilian television this week. Do you think that your country and maybe others like the BRICS and other countries are going to be

able to Trump proof. In other words, to set up an — you know, a separate market or whatever it is to protect against these kinds of unilateral

tariffs from the United States?

DA SILVA (through translator): Well, Christiane, let me say to you something very bluntly. I’m not a progressive president. I am the president

of Brazil. I don’t see President Trump as a right — a far-right president, I see him as the president of the U.S. He was elected by the American

people.

So, it doesn’t matter if I like him or not like him in terms of his ideology, what matters that he’s the president of the U.S. and I’m

president of Brazil. And it’s me and him. And so, the best thing in the world is for us to sit around the table and talk. That would be the best

thing in the world. But now, he has demonstrated that he’s not interested because he thinks he can do whatever he wants with the tariffs.

The second issue is that no one wants to break away from the U.S. No one wants to be free of the U.S. What we want is not to be a hostage of the —

we want freedom. We don’t want to be a hostage of the U.S. We want freedom for the trade. And so, it’s important to remember that we represent 40

percent of the international trade in the world, and it’s important to remember that we have 25 percent of the world GDP. And besides that, we

have almost half of the world’s population.

And so, we don’t want to pick up fight with anybody. The BRICS was not created to fight with any country. The BRICS was created so that we

consider ourselves equally discuss in a peaceful manner our issues. This is how we seek peace in Ukraine. That’s how we sought peace in Gaza. That’s

how we want peace in the African continent, especially in Congo. Brazil does not want to feed any war or participate in war. Brazil wants peace and

negotiate. It’s important that the U.S. government should know that.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, I want to ask you whether you might feel any sympathy or have any advice for President Trump when it comes to President Putin.

You’ve just talked about wanting peace in Ukraine, and you spoke to President Putin when you went to commemorate the end of World War II in

Moscow just this year.

You have suggested that you could mediate, but you have also seen that President Trump try to talk sense to Putin, try to look like, you know, a

negotiator and a mediator, and Putin has absolutely failed to respond. In fact, done the exact opposite. And Trump is getting very frustrated.

You haven’t had any success with Putin either in terms of ending this war. What advice do you have now to President Trump and to yourself and to

anybody else who wants to try to end this bloody war?

DA SILVA (through translator): I was very happy when President Trump said that he was going to negotiate with this war — the end of the war with

Putin. I was happy with that. Although, I have divergence for Trump, I was happy that President Trump was willing to stop the war.

Now, this week I heard that he’s going to sell more arms. The world is very strange, Christiane. The world has increased. The NATO country’s increased

in 5 percent of their GDP military spending it to buy arms. And we have 733 million people that are dying of hunger and others that don’t have medical

assistance, other (INAUDIBLE) don’t have water — drinking water and don’t have basic sanitation.

So, all this money that is being carried to buy weapons should be carried to end poverty, extreme poverty in the world. And when the extreme poverty

countries develop themselves, they can buy from the rich country. But not even this idea they can understand. So, I believe that it would be

important to understand there are no interlocutor to solve the peace issue.

It’s necessary that U.N. should take over the coordination, U.N. has to take the coordination and Putin and Zelenskyy agree with that to have a

coordination of a group of countries that are friends that could develop an alternative proposed to what they want. Otherwise, the war — this war will

not have an end.

And I hope sincerely that President Trump, instead of selling more weapons he be more careful to try to reach peace. He has the strength of force to

do that. The same thing, I think President Xi Jing, he can all be more active and more influential with Putin.

So, if you don’t have interlocutors, the war will continue. It’s like Gaza. What’s going on in Gaza? Netanyahu doesn’t show any respect for anybody. He

doesn’t respect the U.N. and the U.S. He doesn’t respect anybody, anything.

Netanyahu is now predestined to continuing government and to continuing government, he needs to go to war. He has to kill a lot of children. This

is the world that we want? Is this the world we want? The U.S. is part of the U.N. Security Council. China is part of the U.N. Security Council.

Russia is part of the U.N. Security Council. France and England. Where are they now? What are they doing? What is the U.N. Security Council doing now?

And the full members of the U.N. Security Council, what are they doing? They don’t solve anything. Who are they listening? Who are they talking?

Every day I read the newspaper, someone asks for ceasefire, and the next day, Netanyahu kills more women and children there. And now, he’s just

killed children there who were trying to — seeking for food and not for weapons. Where is the world governance that has to intervene?

We need a world governance. That should be done — made or done by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. All these five countries,

they have weapons, nuclear weapons, and all of them were involved in wars. And the U.S. invaded Iraq without consulting the U.N. France and England

invaded Libya without consulting the U.N. And Putin invaded Ukraine without consulting U.N. And the Gaza War, there’s no consultation with the U.N.

either.

So, Christiane, we’re lacking world governance. We’re lacking global governance. I think that the five permanent members of the U.N. Security

Council should gather and say, we have to change the U.N. Security Council because we’re not having the competence to solve the issues. Let’s have

another governance that’s — and then we have to have representation from Latin America, from Asia, from the Middle East and in Germany. Japan has to

join the U.N. Security Council.

Let’s change. Let’s change to see if we can establish, at least hope that the world will have more peace than war.

AMANPOUR: I understand, we want more peace. There’s no doubt about it. So, I want to ask you finally, what are you going to tell your people when you

speak to them in a national address about the current crisis? It’s been described as the worst crisis between the United States and Brazil in more

than a decade. What are you going to say to your people?

DA SILVA (through translator): Well, I don’t see a crisis yet. Sincerely, I think that in negotiation, that’s how it works. Each one says what they

want and each one listens what they listen — have to listen. But it’s — what is important is that the relationship between the two countries cannot

go on like this.

I don’t consider myself an emperor to make a decision and publish on the newspaper. That’s not how I’d work. That’s impossible. And now, President

Trump to write a letter and putting as a condition — a preconditional negotiation, no. And that’s very discretionary. I can’t even believe in

that.

When I read the letter, I thought it was fake news when I saw the letter through the media. And then I thought it was a true letter that was signed

by President Trump. So, I can reassure you that Brazil, in the right moment, will give the right answer to President Trump’s letter.

And in my address to the Brazilian people, I’m going to tell the Brazilian people what I’m thinking about all this. And sincerely, I can reassure you

that Brazil does not enjoy troublemakers and trouble. Brazil likes to negotiate in peace. And that’s how I act and I think that’s how all

presidents should act.

And this is — I think about President Trump too, that Brazil is an historic ally of the U.S. Brazil praises the economic relations that Brazil

has with the U.S., but Brazil will not accept anything imposed on it — on the country. We accept negotiation and not imposition.

AMANPOUR: President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil, thank you very much indeed for joining us.

DA SILVA (through translator): Well, thank you, Christiane, and I hope — sincerely, I hope, Christiane, that President Trump make a review and

revise his opinion.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And we’ll be right back after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: In Gaza, disaster piles up on disaster with no ceasefire in sight, an apparent Israeli strike hit the enclave’s only Catholic church

today. The one Pope Francis used to call almost every night before his death. Two people were killed and his successor, Pope Leo, says that he is

deeply saddened by the news. This follows a deadly crowd crush on Wednesday where at least 20 people were killed at an aid distribution site run by the

controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.

Meanwhile, in Syria, a fragile ceasefire seems to be holding after Israel struck Damascus this week saying it was defending the minority Druze

population. The actions of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government are becoming increasingly controversial even inside Israel.

In April this year, Ami Ayalon, the former head of the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service, spoke out along with multiple other former

security officials saying that the ongoing war in Gaza threatened, quote, “the very fabric of the State of Israel.”

And Ami Ayalon is joining me now from Haifa. Welcome back to our program. I want to ask you about that letter and about what you think of the current

Gaza, you know, war. But first I want to ask you about Syria.

I think a lot of people sort of suddenly turned up and said, oh, my God, another country that Israel is bombing. Israel says it wants to protect the

minority Druze population. What do you think about that? What do you think about opening yet another front here?

AMI AYALON, FORMER DIRECTOR, SHIN BET AND FORMER COMMAND-IN-CHIEF, ISRAELI NAVY: Well, the way I see it, and in a way I believe that this is the way

that most Israelis understand our, I don’t know, interference in — or military interference in Syria, it is — which — we are defending some of

the Druze communities that have been attacked. And many of them, probably, I don’t know, dozens or hundreds, were killed by — presumably, I believe

that, you know, units that were sent by the Syrian president.

So, you have to understand that we have a big minority of Druze citizens in Israel. We owe them. They feel that their brothers are assassinated in

Syria and we find so ourself in a very sensitive situation. Now, it is a problem. The way I see it, personally, I hate the idea that the only way

that we understand the reality and the only way that we act is by the use of military power.

I feel that we entered only because this is the only languages we speak without understanding the how complicated is the situation. I have to

remind myself, I’m probably too old to the audience, Druze, they have minorities in Lebanon, in Syria, in Israel and in many other places. And

usually, they feel that they are loyal to the state, to the country in which they live. This is a case in Israel. This is a case in Lebanon. And

in a way, this was a case in Syria.

Syria — or the Druze were part of the of the Assad regime. They were defended by the Alawites minority. And they participated in the wars — or

in the civil war. So, there are three major groups — communities in Syria, one which is totally against our interference. They have several thousands

of warriors who are loyal to the Syrian president. And others, they are looking for our assistance.

AMANPOUR: Yes.

AYALON: So, we entered without understanding probably complexity, and I hope that we should be able to look around ourselves, there is a major

American interest, a major Turkish interest, and we should try diplomacy as well.

AMANPOUR: OK. Well —

AYALON: Something that we didn’t try.

AMANPOUR: Yes. Well, actually, in the aftermath, the president of Syria, al-Sharaa, said that he is withdrawing his forces from that area, and he

does vow to protect the Druze. We’ll see what happens.

Now, let’s move on to Israel and Gaza and, you know, drill down into, you know, your concerns when you wrote that letter with your other

intelligence, you know, and military colleagues. But I want to first ask you, because there’s a big article, behind the scenes article written by

The New York Times that essentially, he — the allegation are that he has continued the war, Bibi Netanyahu, in order to keep his coalition together

and stay in power. Much of it, as you know, has been reported in the Israeli media. But how do you react to that, if you’ve read it?

AYALON: Well, it’s — I read the article. I think it’s a very, very important article, but I didn’t anything new. Most of the Israelis will

agree. And in a way, when you see the polls, majority — even among people who voted for Netanyahu believes that his policy is led, you know, in order

to make sure that his coalition will not fall apart. And the interest — or the future of Israel, our democracy and our security is not what he care

about.

This is the way most Israelis understand this war, and this is why the majority of the Israelis believe that this war should all must end

immediately. And unfortunately, there is a major rift between majority of Israelis and our government. And yes, I totally believe that what was

described in this article are many details that prove what most Israelis understand.

AMANPOUR: Yes.

AYALON: This war is a political war. It started, by the way, in the beginning of the just war, we responded to a massacre. We didn’t have any

other option. But after 10 months, when most of the military goals were achieved, we have to end this war, to bring back all the hostages and to

start the most important issue, to deal with the day after, because without the day after, without a clear description of the reality, political

reality on the day after, we cannot say that we achieved a victory. We achieved a major unpredictable military achievement, but we did not win

this war.

AMANPOUR: Yes. Well, that’s really interesting because I want to ask you then, why do you think it’s continuing and what do you think, for instance,

when we see video, like, I think we’re going to play it now, but you know, these military shooting at Palestinians who are clearly hungry and starving

and trying to come, you know, to get food every day. There’s dozens of Palestinians, men, women, and children who are killed by those Gaza

humanitarian areas, and we have these pictures.

As a former general in the IDF, what do these images say to you? I mean, soldiers who are kind of the — like the ones you used to command are doing

this stuff right now.

AYALON: Well, first of all, former admiral, not general. But yes, I’ll give you an answer. I cannot justify. I cannot defend what we are doing in

Gaza. In a way we said it several months ago, when we, you know, publicly said exactly that we cannot justify this war because what we are doing in

Gaza is something that nobody can justify. And especially — and this is why it’s so important.

You know, it came to my understanding five days after the 7th of October, because five days after the war, the war cabinet was created, when Benny

Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot joined to Netanyahu in order to, you know, create a different type of government and to overcome to win this war.

But they decided after probably two or three hours not to touch and not to deal with the most important issue, the day after. Because it was clear to

them that once they will touch or will try to discuss the day after, the coalition will fall apart. Because this coalition that Netanyahu created,

when he was elected two years ago, is formed by people who really dream not only to conquer the West Bank and Gaza, but you know, to go back to build

settlements in Gaza and to annex most areas in the West Bank. So — which is totally unacceptable by most Israelis and by the International

Community.

So, this government will not survive once this debate, which is a totally Israeli debate, but it’ll shape the region and it’ll create a major impact

on the International Community. So, if you ask me, this is a time for us —

AMANPOUR: Can I —

AYALON: — to — not to postpone anything and to end the war and to start the negotiation, or the Israeli debate on the day after.

AMANPOUR: Can I ask you again, as an admiral, sorry, but somebody who’s led forces?

AYALON: No, it’s OK. It’s OK.

AMANPOUR: There are, you know, statistics about soldiers who’ve been taking their own lives. In the last two weeks alone, four soldiers, in last

year 21 soldiers, since the beginning of this year, at least 15 more have taken their own lives. This is very tough. And Haaretz says that it’s a lot

due to mental issues apparently caused by this military service or military service.

What does that make you feel about what these soldiers and military are being — are being told to do? And secondly, do you agree with former

officials like Moshe Ya’alon, Ehud Olmert, who’ve publicly described what they are doing, what Israel is doing in Gaza as amounting to ethnic

cleansing and war crimes?

AYALON: No, I’m not going to use terms which have a connotation of a legal aspect of this language. Yes. I think that every war, without a clear and

achievable definition of the end of the war and the day after, is not a just war. And in a way, yes, it is something that I cannot defend. Whether

I will call it a criminal act or any other terms that everybody can use.

Again, what I’m saying, unless we shall understand what and why are we fighting for. And when you mentioned, you know, soldiers who are committing

suicide, we see it in every war without a clear end. We saw it in Afghanistan and Iraq, in the American case. We saw it in — we see it, by

the way, in Russia today in the war against Ukraine.

AMANPOUR: Yes.

AYALON: You know, a war without a clear end and without a clear political goal is something that, as a soldier and as a commander, I find it very,

very, very difficult —

AMANPOUR: Yes.

AYALON: — to send people to the battlefield. So, it is something that we see in every never-ending war or this war that we are fighting today.

AMANPOUR: Well, let’s hope. Ami Ayalon, thank you very much indeed for joining us. And we’ll be right back after this short break.

AMANPOUR: Now, in times of war, crisis and disaster, it can be hard to find any optimism. But our next guest urges us not to give up. Author

Lizzie Wade’s new book, “Apocalypse,” retrace his human history, reflecting on human resilience, and the ability to rebuild after experiencing

catastrophe. From the black plague to the COVID pandemic, she tells Hari Sreenivasan and that despite the pain and destruction, there are valuable

lessons to be learned from this history.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HARI SREENIVASAN, CORRESPONDENT: Lizzie Wade, thanks so much for joining us. Your book is called “Apocalypse.” And you start the

book out, you know, saying, life in the 2020s is not for the faint of heart, climate change, a novel pandemic, state collapse, unexpected

invasions, and brutal wars. It feels like history suddenly sped up, leaving a scrambling for a foothold. But you’re actually kind of optimistic. What’s

the silver lining here?

LIZZIE WADE, AUTHOR, “APOCALYPSE”: Yes. I think the silver lining for me researching this book, and one of the reasons I wanted to write it was

because however feared I am of what we’re facing in the world today, I found it really heartening and encouraging that so many of our ancestors

experienced very similar things and not only experienced them, but adapted to them, survived them, and sometimes even came out better on the other

side.

SREENIVASAN: Yes, that’s really fascinating. I mean, I never thought — I — like probably most people, when I hear the word apocalypse, I think of

this, you know, cataclysm, a disaster. That is something that people don’t recover from. That was unexpected. But you actually really take the time to

break down that there’s different, first of all, types of apocalypses that can be caused by, you know, natural events, human made events, political

events, all kinds of reasons. What — was there a through line on what made societies successfully come out of it?

WADE: Yes, I think when I was trying to decide on a term for this book, I wanted kind of a term that would encompass just, as you say, many different

kinds of events, not just a limited natural disaster, but something more long lasting, something more transformative. And that was really the key

word for me, was a transformation. If this society that went into one of these events was very different than the society that came out of it, that

for me, account as an apocalypse.

SREENIVASAN: And you point out that there are very different reactions and we can’t necessarily predict how a society is transformed. You kind of

juxtapose a couple of different societies, one in the Indus Valley, the Harappan civilization. Tell us a little bit about what happened to them.

And then you kind of compare that to, you know, Europe and the black death. Tell us.

WADE: So, Harappa was a society that began to collapse around 4,200 years ago and had existed about 800 years before that. It was part of a larger

Indus Valley civilization. Harappa was one of the main cities. And when archeologists study not only how the city was laid out and organized, but

also the skeletons of the people who are buried there, they find that Harappan, at its height, was very cosmopolitan and very egalitarian. Like

there’s no images of a king. There’s no palaces. The grandest architecture and the most sort of investment in time and resources seems to go into

public spaces that many different kinds of people could use.

And we know from how the — you know, how goods were moving around, trade routes, and also the isotopes of the people who are buried there, you can

see people, you know, grew up somewhere else and came to Harappa later in their life and ended up forming part of that society and dying there.

And — but, you know, around 4,200 years ago, there’s — the monsoon cycle gets disrupted. So, it’s sort of equivalent to a drought. But this climate

change made things really unpredictable in ways that they had never experienced before. And what we see in Harappa is the — a real increase in

inequality. People who seem to be living outside of the city’s walls start to become much sicker, suffer possibly violent deaths. The people living in

Harappa after this — after most people have left also are sicker, seemed to experience more of violence throughout their lives.

And I think for me, that was part of showing that like apocalypses really come for society’s weak points, you know. So, probably, you know, as

egalitarian Harappa was, there probably were social divisions that kind of get smoothed out in where — like how archeologists can see it today. And

you know, apocalypse as really amplified those, amplified or perhaps even created those social tensions that were going into it.

And in the black death, something sort of different happened, which is in Europe, you know, this horrifying disease swept through and killed

potentially over half of all people in the matter of five — four or five years. And when you’re coming out of that, it actually seems to increase

the quality and decrease inequality in what had been a very, very, very unequal fetal (ph) society.

So, with fewer workers available living to keep these — you know, keep the farms running, keep the manor houses running, do the essential labor of

society, these workers had a lot more a lot more agency, a lot more decision making over the lives, a lot more bargaining power in the ways

that we would think about it today. You know, of course they had different vocabulary for these things and how they were thinking about living their

lives.

But you can see in the elite writing around this time as well as the bones of the people who died after the black death, that it seems like the poor

classes, the working classes were much healthier after this plague.

SREENIVASAN: You know, what’s interesting about the book is you have this kind of scenes where you paint life in these societies and, you know,

obviously, these are composite characters. You weren’t able to interview somebody 4,000 years ago, but you’ve based this on research from science

that’s available today, and that was really fascinating to me.

I had no idea that archeology has advanced to this level, or climate science or all the different kind of fields and how specific we can get to

figuring out what life was like for a particular person whose bones or DNA we might be able to see today.

WADE: Yes. Archeology has come by leaps and bounds in the last few decades, both in terms of the scientific techniques available to

archeologists and sort of also in the frameworks they use to think about what they want to learn, what is interesting about a past society, what

kinds of questions they can ask and want to answer.

So, you know, I mentioned the study of isotopes. So, essentially, you know, when you drink water in a certain location, you know, the kind of chemicals

— the minerals and the water becomes stored in your teeth. And when — as a child, when your teeth are growing. So, if you can compare the isotopic

signature in a person’s teeth to the place, the geological signature of the place where they died, you can see if a person migrated throughout their

life. And I think that’s just so fascinating.

And I think, you know, that the questions that archeologists want to answer have really expanded beyond, you know, who is the king of this society and

what great stuff can we find in this tomb to much more about who are the regular people, what were their lives like, how are they affected by and

interacting with their environment, with the political structure of their society? And when it comes to apocalypses, how they recovered afterwards.

SREENIVASAN: You also asked the reader to look at Mexico City as an example of a post-apocalyptic civilization. Explain.

WADE: Yes. So, I’ve lived in Mexico City for over 10 years, and it was really one of the inspirations for this book. Because, you know, I think

Mexico City was born of an apocalypse, the conquest of the Aztec empire, by the Spanish Empire in 1521. So, in the case of the Aztec empire, it was an

empire. There was a lot of resistance to their rule, a lot of inequality.

And so, you know, when the European invaders arrived, some of the Aztec’s, you know, long-term enemies allied with these newcomers and kind of used

them as weapons, kind of. And you know, a lot of the story was actually driven by indigenous agency, indigenous history, indigenous politics that

stretched back centuries before.

There was ever a European in Mexico and that the Europeans themselves didn’t always quite understand. And, you know, so you have this really

interesting fascinating apocalypse and, you know, short like only three or four years. And Tenochtitlan, which is Mexico City’s old name, is in

rubble. It’s being reconstructed from the stones, literally out of the rubble of this apocalypse, Mexico City is built and reborn. And you know,

it’s — we’re still suffering the consequences of that, right?

So, Tenochtitlan, the Aztec city was built on a lake. There was an island the center of the city was on, and then there was all these farmlands like

canals and artificial islands, and it was just a really kind of amphibious environment that the Aztecs had figured out how to do a lot about how to

manage the water, how to live with the water, and when the Europeans arrived, destroyed all this hydraulic infrastructure in this devastating

war, and then either just didn’t realize or didn’t want to rebuild it. They never quite managed to like figure out how to live with the water, as the

Aztecs did. And they drained the lake.

And that’s left us, you know, this huge mega city of over 20 million people, I think kind of teetering on this pile of mud and that, you know,

creates devastating earthquakes even though they’re not that many faults close to Mexico City. And so, you know, we’re still suffering.

The rainy season just started a few weeks ago here, and we’re already — you know, there’s floods every week, and it’s been like this for 420 years

and counting. And so, it’s like we’re still suffering very immediately the effects of colonialism and the decisions that were made during this

colonial period. And you know, that’s been a lot of the — you know, there’s been a lot of change in Mexican society as a whole because of the

kind of communities that come together after these disasters.

So, I think, you know, it’s both a post-apocalyptic tragedy and a post- apocalyptic opportunity, right. And I think living every day with that kind of paradox and cognitive dissonance really made me think about apocalypses

differently and made me want to write this book.

SREENIVASAN: You know, you also show us that there are kind of different scales of apocalypses, so to speak. On the one hand, look, in our

lifetimes, a lot of people would consider the pandemic to be an apocalyptic event for them if they lost several members of their family and they

certainly — you know, the entire world for a very small moment experienced lockdown and, you know, we had this kind of shared experience.

WADE: I mean, I think you can see in the pandemic story particularly, and it’s really reflected in what happened after the black death, a real

resistance to cultural changes that were, you know, ultimately necessitated by these diseases. And — you know, and after the black death, they were

passing laws up till 40 years after the pandemic, you know, multiple generations at that point, trying to get the working class back in line,

back accepting what, you know, the limited poorly paid poverty stricke n lives they had before. And you know, that you can see in the length of time of those laws just how long it takes for these — for the — for all

of the ripple effects to play out.

And I think for me, thinking about apocalypses, including the pandemic, which I really think we won’t know even potentially within our lifetimes,

all the effects it’s going to have on us personally on, and especially on our societies. But I think for me, thinking about apocalypse is one really

important.

And often encouraging thing to consider is that apocalypses are moments when things that seemed impossible before suddenly become possible. And

that doesn’t mean that those things are necessarily an improvement, it doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily a tragedy. And I think a lot of

people in a lot of different societies across human history have experienced apocalypses very differently depending on who they are in a

society. So, we talked about with the black death. But for the elites, it was a terrifying tragedy, not only the loss of life, but the loss of power

and control.

For the working classes, we don’t have as many of their feelings written down, if any, but we can see them, you know, refusing to accept this pre-

plague status quo in the writings of the elite. So, you can sort of see how people are having different experiences.

And yes, things that seemed — things that would’ve seemed impossible before are suddenly on the table and everything is up for grabs after an

apocalypse and even during sometimes. And I think that that — you know, seeing these events not only as moments of loss, which they certainly are,

but also as opportunities and doors that we can walk through into a world that we maybe couldn’t even have imagined before, I think that brings me a

lot of hope.

SREENIVASAN: Lizzie Wade, author of the book, “Apocalypse,” thanks so much for joining us.

WADE: Thank you for having me.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And finally following in Princess Diana’s footsteps, Prince Harry is quite literally walking the same path his mother did 28 years ago,

visiting Angola’s active minefields as part of the HALO Trust effort to clean up after the 2002 Civil War there. The Trust has cleared 120,000 of

those deadly devices, but they estimate thousands are still left. Diana’s original walk in 1997 paved the way for the treaty to ban landmines later

that same year. To this day, the efforts to clear old war zones continue.

And that’s it for now. Thank you for watching. Goodbye from London.