and are rare window is how united states really sees the war. join me and our expert guests on this edition alex, to the point as we tie, been to the pentagon in to the point here in 16 on d. w to hold on what secrets lie behind these walls discover new adventures in 360 degrees and explore fascinating world heritage sites. d. w world heritage 360 t app. now for 15 weeks israel has been in crisis. the mass demonstrations triggered by government judicial reforms, the protest as showing no signs of giving up prime minister benjamin netanyahu paused the overhaul last month offering no compromises. but will he, my guest, is the american lawyer for the harvard law professor allan does,

which often labeled israel's lead attorney and with court of public opinion. he talks directly to the israeli prime minister. he wants balance, she used the word balance 4 times with me. he's willing to accept compromise, and i think there will be compromise. so where does the style made lead and how much damage is it doing to israel at home and abroad? and what about americans of judicial system? okay, so even cases against former president trump, how much trouble is here? ah, our judgments welcome to conflict zone. back you for many years you've defended israel through thick and thin. come what may, but not this time. what was the point to which you said, i can't support this and i need to go public with my concerns. i've always been somebody who's supported israel's right to exist and be strong and be the nation state of the jewish people. but i've been critical of many of its policies from

starting from 1970. i favored the 2 state solution i always have. and i've opposed any israeli efforts to block the 2 state solution. i've met with this railey leaders. i met with palestinian leaders and that was a boss and that was odd. i think a solution to the problem is within reach but neither side has been willing to make the so called painful compromises that are required on this issue. of course i'm a lawyer and i've been a. ready lawyer for 60 years and i care deeply about the judicial process. and so i thought that the, a new administration there not to new administration, went too far in its efforts to weaken the supreme court. but i want to emphasize that i don't believe this is the business, anybody, but israelis. this is a domestic issue. it would be as if there was an argument in germany about whether we can the constitutional court the rest of the world wouldn't participate. but

whenever israel is involved in anything, no matter how domestic it is, it becomes in international concern the european community should. but out of this, i have offered my assistance but, but i wanted it in the constructive positive way. and so i think israel should resolve this issue, whichever way it resolves, it will remain one of the most vibrant democracies in the world. as evidenced by the protests we see on both sides, no attempt to start to stop the protest. so israel will remain vital and vibrant democracy, whichever way this comes out. i think it will be a better democracy if it allows the supreme court to continue its efforts on behalf of civil rights, minority rights, human rights and range of other issues. but the, let's not overstate the problem because i think many people on both sides have overstated it. well, you have pointed yourself to some dangers in some of the legal changes that have

been discussed in particular rules of engagement for the security services. you yourself said in an interview, there were proposals to have different rules of engagement based on race and ethnicity. so shooting live ammunition, depending on whether your arab or ju, no international court would ever hold that as a pretty horrifying proposal, isn't it? yes and dbi not to know who is said and he is assured me personally in meetings, and he's assured these really public that he would never allow that completely insane proposal to go forward. even the man made the proposal, it was made by one man named bank of ear has withdrawn it. so again, this is an example of a debate within israel that has become international eyes that has become exaggerated. i don't think one percent of israel is would agree with that conclusion. one is brailey state, it withdrew it. the government has said they would never accept it. and i would hope that the supreme court would immediately rejected. it aim to be, by the way,

obviously the palestinian sat there and gauge meant they feel it perfectly appropriate to murder jewish children and jewish women and jewish old people without any hesitation. and the world seems to condemn more one israeli, who makes an absurd proposal than the entire palestinian government that acts on the distinction between jews and non jews. so let's keep our priority straight. well presumably you dug object to the dearest diaspora, having venting to say about what's going on in israel. do they don't know what they're talking about. most of them, most of them are just simply support left in israel as i do. and they don't understand the judicial reform issue and the, the aspirin split as it would be, you know, the old expression to juice re opinions. so don't expect anything different. the vast majority of israeli support a democracy. they support making peace with the palestinians. they support

a strong israeli supreme court, but because of the contingencies of government, the 5 elections, and in 4 years, in order to form a government not to know, had to include people with whom he disagrees. when i was last in israel and you disagree with the people he's brought in and you disagree with the people who brought it on to mentally disagree with them. and i met with them and i told them, i disagree with them. but look, i disagree with many people in the american government. i probably would disagree with many people in the german government. if i got to know more about them, well, i mean, you have no concern them into mob been given for instance, man convicted of a number of charges including supporting a terrorist organization and incitement to racism. it's hard, tough qualification for public security minister and israel. these days, but democracy is all about and that's why many israelis will vote against the government. that's what you do in a democracy. and in

a democracy will allow the government to appoint people. some countries have rules prohibiting former that convicted people from serving the government. some governments do not. in the united states, we want set a man run for president from prison. we've also had a man be the mayor of boston from prison. so you don't judge a country by its most extreme elements and i fundamentally just to disagree with the, virtually everything then give your says and i met him and i told them so was space . and the same thing is true with several of the other people, but i, but you got to judge a government by its willingness to bring people like that into it's rac summit to make us well, it's a, it's marks of what desperation i've got to i've got to prop up this coalition, even by the people who are so unpopular in the country and, and abroad, you've got to do,

you've got to take measures like that. smacks of decoration, doesn't it? and england, of course, when the british government not only included but had as its minority leader, a rampant anti semite who then was and defeated in the marketplace of ideas in the united states. we have what's called the squad, a group of people who are very active in the democratic party who are virulently, anti semitic, and anti israel. and we have people in the republican party, one yesterday who was called out for his anti semitism and is big. so i think every democracy, when you have a broad coalition, it's going to include people who, you know, agree with. i think you judge a government by its leader and not tenure who won the election parents where it was a very close election. the winning margin was about 49.7 to 49.2. ready and when you have a government like that in a coalition system, you're going to get people in it who fundamentally a disagree. frankly, it's not of germany's business, and it's none of europe's business. this is

a domestic issue than israel can resolve. this is the 1st time in the history of the world of the world where judicial reform has become a subjective international concern. let israel solve its own problems, it will. there are demonstrations, not tenure who wish pulled back. these are the precedent to demonstrations of these unprecedented condemnations coming from jewish groups around the world that hasn't been anything like that has that, that that's a good sign. it shows that democracy is alive and well, and that it's frankly none of the business of the european community. why does the european community care whether or not the israeli supreme court requires a standing in order to bring the lawsuit? why does the european community care if there is a judicial override on political decisions? you know, the supreme court of israel is most influential and powerful supreme court anywhere in the world, even more powerful and influential than the german constitutional court. and,

and so there are people, many people, the majority of israelis want to limit that power. the issue is how much you limit the power. i want to limit it only a little bit. the government wants to limit it more than a little bit, but frankly, mind your own business. take care of european concerns. don't concern yourself so deeply with israeli domestic issues. it is a form of anti semitism to focus. so obsessively on every every domestic issue in israel, no other country in the world receives that kind of negative attention and criticism . so far, problem is that, that yahoo is on 3rd to all the protests of the criticism has been by law. i won the election. this is what people voted for. it's called democracy, so suck it up. the israeli historian and uva harry dismissed. that is the oldest trick in the book. he said 1st you use the law to gain power and then you use your power to distort the law as you go to point. that's a form of holocaust denial. that's essentially saying that what not in your who's

done is like what hitler did. it's just what muscling it, it's absurd. there are elections in israel, the connection the we could, the right one parties have a very small minority. they probably will lose their majority. they will not be able to hold on to power. there is nothing that not an o is doing that in any way resembles what's happened in, in europe. and the opposition to not in yo has turned racists has turned big in it has turned anti semitic, even among jews. and that's a tragedy. and the biggest tragedy is that the european community thinks this is their business. this is not the concern of norway of sweden, of germany, of italy, how israel resolves it's domestic disputes. you've got the prime minister for many years and you've put your concerns directly to him. what did he say to you? you want to balance, you use the word balance for times with me. he's willing to accept compromise,

and i think that will be compromised. i can tell you, i spoke not only to the prime minister, i spoke to the president, i've spoken to our on brock the man who created this revolution. i've spoken to gone spoken to. sure asking everybody in israel wants 2 things. one, it wants to resolve this in a pragmatic and balanced way and to it wants to eat the attention of the world on top of problems on problems with terrorism and problems. and iran, those are the concerns of the european community that iran is developing a nuclear bomb. it is not the concern of the international community. and israel is having a dispute about judicial reform. israel is retaining its status as a great and vibrant democracy. and as a fighter against terrorism, i will continue to support it while being critical of particular aspects of israeli policy. that's the way democracy works. what explains the fact that mister

netanyahu had never shown the slightest desire to weaken the supreme court? until of course, the state of israel decided to put him on trial. you yourself said he was right back then referring to his previous views. and he's wrong now, isn't it clear that his motivation primary motivation is to stay in power with whoever will back him and whatever price they demand and stay out of jail. how is that different from any other politician in the world? every politician wants to, particularly in coalition governments, create coalitions. it will keep them in power. there is nothing in the judicial reform, nothing is good to show a form which it anyway, impact on the criminal charges against him. i've gone through all the criminal charges against him. i do not think they are valid. i have advised him that and advise others that i've spoken to the attorney general. and i believe that the effort to try to get your dish or reform is very widespread in israel and you set

the charges against mister netanyahu are not valid in you will view the serious charges and bribery fraud and breach of trust is why i just while they valid will because there's no israeli law that says that a certain number of gifts exceeds the authority and you can't make that up as you go along. so that's the charge. number one, on the, on the most serious charge. it's that he agreed to help a newspaper or a media company in exchange for getting good publicity or the absence of bad publicity. every politician in the world is done that. what's the 1st job a politician gives? it creates a media consultant because he wants to know that if he votes a certain way, the media will give him good attention. so i think that the charges them have gone way too far. i predict they will not result in felony convictions. and if they do, and if they result in convictions based on moral turpitude, he will be precluded from running. but there's nothing in the judicial reform which

has any effect on the current pending trial. so i think it's wrong to say that the reason he's behind this usual reform is to protect himself. i think the reason is behind this reform is to maintain his coalition and power. that's correct. and that's political, and that's what happens in democracies based on coalitions. mister netanyahu is former chief of staff, former director general of the prime minister's office, is in very stop terms that he's not going to and this fair quietly, you know, i've horowitz told a newspaper, he won't rest until the entire court system is on the floor asking for forgiveness, he's a master of manipulation and campaigning. do you recognize him from that description? no, he's just dead wrong. in my conversations with him, he wants balance. he wants a compromise. he wants to approach. he doesn't want to destroy the supreme court. he wants to make the supreme court of israel more like the supreme court of the united states, canada, and new zealand, england,

and many other countries. right now the supreme court of israel has far more power than any supreme court in the world. today. it is the only supreme court to strike down legislation it deems to be unreasonable. the only supreme court that doesn't require standing before you become bring a case. so any n g o can bring a case and these are reasonable debates. this is the base that have occurred in the united states over the years. you said earlier that the 3rd at yahoo is looking for compromise. i'm wondering where that compromise will be, especially if he keeps somewhere like been given or bizarre, smarter in the finance minister in his cabinet. what room is there for compromise? if those 2 remain pretty office 3 or 4 examples, one compromise would be to allow override on political and economic decisions, but not on core human rights and civil liberties and minority rights decisions. i propose that to benjamin not to know and he seemed very sympathetic to that. the

other would be to create a commission to for the appointment of justices which is more like the commissions that exist in most other states. it's called the missouri plan in the united states . so there isn't much room for compromise on the far right. there's the far right. what is the compromise? and the far left doesn't want to see compromise, that the reason we don't have compromise is you have extreme this and both guys, you have extreme us on the left that will not accept any degree, any degree of, of a reduction of power the spring. courtney, people on the right but won't accept anything else. and when you have the extremist weighing, when you have both sides, extreme is winning. the atmosphere for compromise is not usually so suitable. but i think the center in the vast majority of israel's, the poll show, would like some degree of compromise. your own record is saying you want to see arab writes protected in israel. if, if these, if these judicial reforms go ahead,

one want to those protections be worth? well, the protections are implicit in the declaration of independence of israel, which the courts have said, have to be given some a weight. remember that the status of an arab in israel is much, much more secure than the status of any arab in any arab country in the middle east . thank much though. is it? well no, it's saying a lot today when you have countries like egypt and jordan and, and others that, that promote. but you have to look at it comparatively. israeli arabs vote. they serve in the kinessa. they serve on the supreme court. they are professors at major universities, they're subject to affirmative action. the state is there in israel, is better than the status of arabs in countries in the middle east. it should be better, should improve. but so we have the latest human rights report by the us government, the state department, israel's closest ally. and the message is as bleak as ever talking about

significant human rights abuses, including credible reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings, arbitrary detention off an extra territorial detention of palestinians. it's not a great, it's not a great recommendation. is it? it, israel's record of human rights is better than any country in the world face with comparable threats. no country faced with comparable threats of terrorism, of nuclear taxonomy. ron of attacks from within no country has a better record of human rights. all right. presentation is, let's talk about donald trump. you've brought out a new book which looks at some of the legal issues facing the former president. indeed, let's be clear, you know, support a of trump politically. you haven't voted voice. you said you won't be voting for him. but you think the challenge is he's facing, ah, laughable and blatantly political why. but let's take the charges in new york or what the da in new york is basically saying is with the district attorney of new

york, basically saying is when somebody pays hush money to prevent a, an allegation of an adulterous of there from being made public to his wife to his family, to his voters, who is business associates, he must immediately put the exact reason why he paid that money in a corporate public form. nobody in history is ever done that nobody in history will ever do that. it's an absurd charge. it's selective prosecution. i am not in favor of donald trump. i hope he loses his election. and i also hope if there are charges that are valid against him to the prosecutor. but i don't want to see the criminal law stretch the constitution, contract it in order to pump. it's a very great danger, particularly. it's a great danger cas trump is an easy person to go after, because he has so many laws and fallacies. but the distinction between voting against somebody which i do and prosecuting them for a non crime is a very serious one. and i want to maintain that line very strongly. if you're right,

how is it that the us legal system is so open to abuse? that a high profile prosecutor like the manhattan district attorney alvin. brad can get away with as you put a blatantly political set of charges that have no merit, if not some go ahead and just president is america foolishly accepted the concept of voting for prosecutors. we elect ross, it's absurd to prosecute no other country, no other democracy in the world. lex prosecutors in lex judges. and so you have prosecutors who are democrats, who, or, or republicans, and they follow their constituents. and you have people like the district attorney and the attorney general of new york running for office on the promise get from the name of my book. yet trump is not original with me. it comes from the campaign promises of the district attorney. it would be germany, unthinkable, and great britain, unthinkable in france for a prosecutor to run for office number one and number 2,

commerce in advance that he was going to get somebody and then rummaged the statutes to try to find something against him when he couldn't find anything in the statute books to create a crime. so the american criminal justice system, which i have been teaching about and practicing the 60 is in great danger. and i wanna do something about preventing that while also maintaining my strong opposition to donald trump as a candidate and as a president. so how do you take the politics out of the us legal system if, if the court to stuffed with political appointees, you stop electing prosecutors and you stop appointing them and you start appointing them on the merits. you start creating civil service jobs in which people get promoted as prosecutors based on their, the quality of their work, not on the political positions. they take the united states legal system, particularly as criminal justice system is in desperate need of reform isn't going

to get it. no, it's not going to get it because people don't care about criminal justice. people don't care about you know, reform. that's my point about both trunk and about what's going on in israel. they use judicial reform as a way of achieving their political ends. you said trump's case reminds you of your time dealing with civil rights in the south of the country, where the sheriff said you'd spot on the highway on the sidewalk and shot you with it. there's no chance you'd get acquitted by no white jury. everybody knew that you said you were innocent, but everyone knew you were going to get convicted. isn't that you are like that? my, me of it in the sense that you can't get a fair jury trial in manhattan where people voted for the district attorney on the promise that he would get trump. now the same people are going to serve on juries and they're going to try to help the district attorney who they voted for yet trump night. what, what, what is it? 87 percent of people manhattan voted against trump. the case should be moved to

a different area where it's more like 5050. you can get a fair trial in new york. is that it in? get a fair trial? no, no, i can tell you that abraham lincoln, daniel webster, jesus christ. and mohammed could not get him. an acquittal in the city of new york may be a hung jury, possibly a hung jury, but you're not going to get well. jurors who will say, we're willing to be the person to let donald trump go free and become the next president of the united states. there's so much opposition to trumping to your understandable. do you see other trials coming trumps way? what are the chances that he might face prosecution over his alleged attempt to over to the 2020 election results in georgia? that was his lead conversation with georgia secretary of state where he tried to pressure the man to, to find additional votes to flip the result. his also his role in january 6, riots if there is a role in the play. do these incidents still pose legal dangers full him?

what he did on january 6th was terrible and excusable. and he did bear a moral responsibility for what happened in the capital thereafter. but he used the words, i want you to go and demonstrate peacefully and patriotically. and that brings his speech within the 1st amendment, and so therefore, i don't think there is a legitimate case against him for january 6th. as far as georgia is concerned, he said he wants people to find votes, not discuss, not, not create manufacturer can car, but to look to see if there are any uncounted bows. whatever he met. i don't know, he may have meant something different. but that's what he said, the strongest case against him is in florida, where he did possess classified material improperly. and the problem with that his political would be very hard to prosecute him without also going after a president biden and form vice president pants, who also had classified material in their possession. but he's in danger.

look, i don't think trump will be the next president united states. i don't think he has the votes among the general public to be elected again. i would thus read, says be great to have you on conflict. so thank you very much indeed for your time . you've asked me hard and great questions and i always enjoy answering hard questions. so thank you for your excellent excellent questions. thanks very much date. thank you. ah ah, ah, with

a to the point. strong opinion, clear positions, international perspectives. top secret documents leaked online, have provided detailed accounts with some of ukraine's military capabilities and

are rare window is how with united states released the war join me and our expert guests on this edition. other to the point as we dive in to the pentagon makes to the point with on d w to hold a in good shape. those who stay fit are happier and healthier. both sound easy. it is a which training methods are most effective or what truly makes us sweat. and why did we get sore muscle mentor m truth about fitness in good shape? 90 minutes on d, w. o, a trio teaches on my dear intrinsic works with for this did

over those mounting evidence that nigerian human trafficking enforced constitution are also taking place here in school with the trio, combating, shady dealings starts april 29th on d, w. ah ah ah ah ah

ah ah, you're watching dw live from by lane that nato had yet installed. tim burks as ukraine will join the alliance after it when the war against russia. first ukraine saw it, full price is in a natal house. allies have agreed on.