January 18, 2024

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to AMANPOUR. Here’s what’s coming up.

Another day, another airstrike as a regional war threatens to take hold. Ivan Watson reports on what Pakistan’s retaliatory strike on Iran could

lead to.

Plus, a doctor just back from Gaza tells me that she saw hospitals there overwhelmed by children with horrendous injuries.

Then, I speak to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s senior adviser, Mark Regev.

Also, ahead, just how significant are the Houthis, these Iran proxies, amping up regional tensions? Walter Isaacson talks to Middle East expert

Elisabeth Kendall.

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

The Pentagon insists that conflict between Israel and Hamas has not technically spread into a wider war yet. But experts warn just one

miscalculation could change that as missiles fly around the region between hostile states at an alarming pace.

The United States has today carried out further airstrikes against Houthi militants in Yemen. Israel, meanwhile, warning that the likelihood of war

on its northern front with Lebanon is “much higher” than in recent times. That’s the backdrop for a different escalation of hostilities, this time

between Pakistan and Iran. Tit for tat airstrikes that both nations claim are aimed at terror bases. Take a listen to Iran’s foreign minister at

Davos.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOSSEIN AMIR-ABDOLLAHIAN, IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): None of the nationals of the friendly and the brotherly country of Pakistan

were targeted by the missiles and the drones of Iran. It only targeted Iranian terrorists on the soil of Pakistan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: But tensions are rising between the two neighbors as Ivan Watson now reports.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

IVAN WATSON, SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Survivors sifting through rubble after a series of deadly cross border

missile strikes.

This week’s flare up between Iran and Pakistan, adding fuel to a region already on fire.

WATSON: The Islamic Republics of Iran and Pakistan share a long and porous border. In a 48-hour period, their militaries have carried out tit for tat

drone and missile strikes into each other’s territory. An unexpected crisis for two neighbors who just days ago appeared to be getting along.

WATSON (voice-over): On Tuesday, Pakistan’s prime minister held face-to- face talks with Iran’s top diplomat in Davos. But hours later, Iran carried out what it called precision missile and drone strikes on what it claimed

were Iranian terrorists in Pakistan’s Balochistan region.

Pakistan condemned what it called a breach of its sovereignty that killed at least two children. And on Thursday, the Pakistani military struck back.

MUMTAZ ZAHRA BALOCH, PAKISTANI FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESPERSON: This morning, Pakistan undertook a series of highly coordinated and specifically

targeted precision military strikes against terrorist hideouts in Sistan and Balochistan province of Iran.

WATSON (voice-over): Using killer drones, rockets and loitering munitions, the Pakistani military says it targeted separatist Baloch ethnic group.

Iranian authorities say at least 10 people died, prompting Tehran to condemn Pakistan.

In fact, this week, Iran also carried out missile strikes against Northern Iraq and Syria, a deadly show of force after ISIS claimed responsibility

for twin blasts in the Iranian City of Kerman on January 3rd, which killed scores of civilians.

ALI VAEZ, IRAN PROJECT DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP: This was really primarily a demonstration of force in a place that Iran taught would

have limited repercussions in terms of the risk of escalation.

I think they underestimated how this would put the Pakistani government in a very difficult situation.

WATSON (voice-over): For its part, the Pakistani government seems to be willing to de-escalate.

BALOCH: Iran is a brotherly country, and the people of Pakistan have great respect and affection for the people of Iran.

WATSON (voice-over): The question now, does Tehran want a conflict with its much more populous, nuclear armed neighbor?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Incredibly dangerous times. Ivan Watson reporting there.

Next, medicine for Israeli hostages and Palestinians has entered Gaza, according to Qatar’s foreign ministry. Those medicines arrived after it

brokered a deal between Israel and Hamas to allow these vital necessities in.

More than 24,000 people have been killed in Gaza since October 7th. 10,000 of them are children, according to Palestinian health officials.

A recent CNN investigation found that most hospitals in Northern Gaza have either been damaged or destroyed. Here’s an excerpt.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KATIE POLGLASE, CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Inside an ambulance at Al- Awda Hospital in Northern Gaza on November 9th.

Nearby, at the Indonesian hospital, the same night. Sheer panic.

The first two months of war decimated Gaza’s healthcare system as Israel launched an air, then land offensive on the north of the Strip.

Out of 22 hospitals in Northern Gaza, CNN has identified 20 that have been damaged or destroyed between October 7th and December 7th. Imagery analyzed

by CNN shows over half have been directly attacked. Several, including the two largest in Gaza, Al-Shifa and Al-Quds, were directly attacked by the

Israel Defense Forces, this evidence suggests.

At Al-Ahli hospital, CNN previously found evidence a misfired rocket from Gaza was likely responsible for a deadly blast. But this appears to be the

exception.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It’s called the Qatari hospital.

POLGLASE (voice-over): Israel and U.S. intelligence say Hamas used many of these hospitals as command-and-control centers, a claim Hamas denies. While

protected under international humanitarian law, a hospital’s protection during war is not absolute.

CRAIG JONES, AUTHOR, “THE WAR LAWYERS”: There are instances where those protections can be lost, and that is for such time as they are being used

for military activities to sort of further the activities of an enemy. That does not give carte blanche to militaries to launch an attack however they

want.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Expert Craig Jones speaking to Katie Polglase there.

Israel says it doesn’t target civilian structures, but anytime they are targeted, it’s approved by the high command.

British obstetrician, Dr. Deborah Harrington, went into Gaza over Christmas with other international NGOs to work the emergency room at the Al-Aqsa

Hospital. She’s just back, and she joined me here in the studio to describe what she saw.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Dr. Deborah Harrington, welcome to the program.

DR. DEBORAH HARRINGTON, OBSTETRICIAN AND VOLUNTEERED AT AL-AQSA HOSPITAL IN GAZA: Thank you very much.

AMANPOUR: You’ve just returned from Gaza, you are an OB-GYN, and you went to treat women and children, I guess. What did you see there? Why did you

even go?

DR. HARRINGTON: I went because I’ve been to Gaza many times. I’ve been going since 2016 as part of a teaching group. I’ve never been in a

conflict. I’ve never been in these circumstances.

And what I saw was — in Al-Aqsa, which is in the middle area, was a hospital that was overwhelmed. It was overwhelmed with numbers of

inpatients, it was overwhelmed with emergencies, trauma cases coming in all the time, at a level that it simply wasn’t set up to deal with. And it had

swollen to massive numbers of patients, both inpatients, but also just displaced people.

So, there were thousands of people taking refuge in the areas around the hospital, in the hospital. The — normally there are about 150 inpatients,

and that had swelled, I think, while we were there to about 600 to 700 inpatients. And then another 200 to 300 presenting through the emergency

department every day.

AMANPOUR: So, what did you notice most? Are they women, children, men, fighting age fighters? Who were they?

DR. HARRINGTON: So, I think — so, I was expecting, in some ways, that this was a war situation and therefore, I was sort of anticipating that

they were going to be perhaps young men or, you know, all sorts of casualties, you know, across the whole spectrum of society. But actually,

what I overwhelmingly saw was children.

And on one day, I was thinking this is New Year’s Day. And there was one moment where I just looked at my watch, and it was about 2:00 in the

afternoon, and we had mass casualties coming in. And in fact, it was from a school shelter where there had been bombardment and blast, and we had mass

casualties coming in.

Then I looked around the resus room, which is where all the sickest patients are taken. And out of the five patients in the resus room, four of

them were children. One with an injury, with a horrendous injury, a shrapnel injury to the brain, weren’t going to survive. And then, the other

children with horrendous mix of, you know, open fractures, partial amputations, open chest wounds, horrendous lacerations from shrapnel to the

sort of chest and head and burns. And that was every day.

You know, looking around the emergency department, my overwhelming impression was, why are there so many children here? You know, there were

so many children.

AMANPOUR: And why were there so many children here?

DR. HARRINGTON: I don’t know other than the bombardment. We were obviously taking casualties from the area immediately around the hospital and they

were coming in because those areas were being targeted, were being bombarded, sniper fire, shelling. And that’s what we were seeing.

And, you know, alongside the horrendous casualties, there were, you know, many people that came in dead. And some of the scenes, you know, I never

expected to see. I mean, I thought I was really well prepared for this. I had, you know, thought about what I might see, but that struck me and will

live with me forever.

AMANPOUR: Can I ask you something? You know, you asked your question, why do we see all this? Was there anybody to ask a question to? Were there

Israeli soldiers around? Could you say, don’t target around the hospital? Why are you targeting? Was there any dialogue on trying to keep a hospital

and shelter safe?

DR. HARRINGTON: Shelter safe. So, no — I didn’t see any soldiers. The team they worked with to map were in direct contact to de-conflict, you

know, the areas that we were in. So, every day there was a check with the IDF about where was safe for us to travel in, where — you know, if the

hospital was safe.

And then, we had to be withdrawn on the last two days along with the — our MSF colleagues. And that was because the area suddenly became designated as

a red zone, and that means that, you know, is now an active area of conflict.

AMANPOUR: How do you know it was designated? Who told you?

DR. HARRINGTON: So, there are areas, blocks literally numbered. And our security were in contact with the IDF, and they said you can no longer —

this is no longer de-conflicted. This is now a red zone in the area around the hospital.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, when we asked the IDF, following a very detailed forensic investigation by CNN of some 20 hospitals over a period of two

months of this war, they told us that they do not intentionally operate around there. They said they don’t — they’re not operating around Al-Aqsa.

And that if they do, then it’s been approved at the higher echelons. That’s what the IDF told us when we aired this piece.

So, the next question is, was there any Hamas around? Could you identify anybody of them that you could say, what are you doing here, endangering

us? Did you have any notion that they might be in the area?

DR. HARRINGTON: We have absolutely no notion. We’re humanitarians. We were there to work in a hospital alongside our colleagues, some of whom I knew

already. There was certainly nobody I could identify.

It’s not impossible that there may have been people, but I didn’t see anyone. There was no one wearing, you know, army fatigues or anything.

AMANPOUR: Can I play for you a soundbite from an American senator who, when I asked about getting aid in, getting medicine in, and the whole

deconfliction, which you’ve just talked about, this was his response just a couple of days ago to me.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): If you look at the Israeli inspection proceedings, for example. We visited a warehouse, Christiane, that was full

of items that were rejected. I’m talking about health kits for the delivery of babies. I’m talking about water filtration systems. I’m talking about

water quality testing systems. These were rejected by the Israeli screening authorities. And when they say one item has to be rejected off the truck,

they send the entire truck back. And these trucks sometimes wait up to 20 days to get in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: I see you nodding. Does that ring true?

DR. HARRINGTON: So, we had to enter in through the Rafah Border. So, we came in through Egypt. We flew into Cairo, and then up through Sinai and

across the Rafah Border. And there must have been about 300 trucks waiting to go in. And we did see trucks that had obviously been turned back.

And one that really sticks with me is that there was a truck, you know, really large lorry full of baby’s nappies or diapers. And the pallets were

all uneven, because I presume that they’d been checked or something, and they were going in the other direction. And when we asked —

AMANPOUR: They’d been sent back?

DR. HARRINGTON: They’d been sent back at the border. Yes, that’s right.

AMANPOUR: So, these are children’s diapers, nappies?

DR. HARRINGTON: Yes, yes.

AMANPOUR: What about — you’re an OB-GYN.

DR. HARRINGTON: Yes.

AMANPOUR: There are terrible stories of women who are giving birth in the street.

DR. HARRINGTON: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Who — I think, there’s something like 180 women per day give birth.

DR. HARRINGTON: There are.

AMANPOUR: Apparently, 15 percent of them, I think that’s the number, are unlikely to do well.

DR. HARRINGTON: Yes, that’s correct.

AMANPOUR: Tell me what is the situation today for women — pregnant women and the babies they deliver?

DR. HARRINGTON: There is no antenatal care for women. So, women are not getting any care in their pregnancy. Every woman that I did see, I asked

her when she was last seen and it was October.

They’re not getting — Anemia is a real problem in Gaza anyway. It’s about 50 percent of people are anemic, even in non-war times. They’d had no

supplements. And the women I saw were really severely anemic.

Now, if you are anemic and you bleed at the time of your birth, you may die. Because you haven’t got the reserves. Women — there’s a thing called

vulnerable women. And in humanitarian crises, situations, women become especially vulnerable. And that means that they’re more likely to miscarry.

They’re more likely to have stillbirths. They’re more likely to deliver prematurely.

You know, there are women — in Al-Aqsa, for example, there was a woman who’d had no antenatal care, and in fact, she’d arrived the day before I

arrived. And the obstetricians, you know, wanted to tell me all about this woman. And she’d arrived fitting. So, she was having —

AMANPOUR: Fitting.

DR. HARRINGTON: — seizures as a result of a complication of pregnancy called eclampsia. So, if you have untreated high blood pressure, it can go

on to cause fits. And this woman arrived unconscious in continuous — having continuous seizures.

She was treated. Her baby was delivered by caesarean section. It was on the neonatal unit. But that woman was then on the intensive care unit with a

cerebral hemorrhage as a result of her seizures. And that’s the sort of thing that’s happening. And that is just one of thousands of stories.

You know, many women can never even reach a hospital to give birth, and that’s because they haven’t got transport There is no electricity. It’s

dangerous. They might be entering, you know, a hospital that is surrounded by a — you know, by conflict, by bombardment. It’s not safe for them to

move. They can’t even call an ambulance because Wi-Fi — you know, you don’t have a mobile signal. So, they can’t summon care.

AMANPOUR: You’ve been to Gaza, as you said, many times.

DR. HARRINGTON: Yes, I have.

AMANPOUR: The health system there has never been fabulous. But there are a lot of hospitals.

DR. HARRINGTON: There are a lot of hospitals.

AMANPOUR: What is the state now? Because we hear the whole health situation is collapsing.

DR. HARRINGTON: So, I think there has been a sort of systematic dismantling really of the healthcare system. It’s almost like a kind of a

fall really of, you know, one hospital falls after the other after the other.

And healthcare systems, healthcare facilities should be protected. They’re there for everybody.

AMANPOUR: I want to play this soundbite, because when you say should be protected, I talk to, you know, a former, you know, mega U.S. commander who

knows a bit about war and going after terrorists and civilians. This is what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, U.S. ARMY (RET.): I have felt that the hospital should have been kept open, Al-Shifa in particular, but all of them. And

treat the civilians in these hospitals. Control them, though. Ensure that the tunnels underneath them, headquarters or whatever is being done in them

—

AMANPOUR: Yes.

PETRAEUS: — is not allowed and is eliminated. But again, they need to provide for the people, without question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: He’s saying, whatever the case in war, you need to provide for the people. Do the people have anywhere to go?

DR. HARRINGTON: They’ve got nowhere, and they’re getting less and less.

AMANPOUR: How do you feel as a doctor? I mean, you’re a professional. Do no harm.

DR. HARRINGTON: I just feel desperate. I also feel ashamed and shocked that we’re doing this to fellow humans. You know, my — as you say, I’m a

daughter. My whole career, my whole reason for — you know, for getting up in the morning is to — corny as it sounds, to go and help people.

And actually, they’re not being — you know, the healthcare professionals, as excellent, as committed, as compassionate as they are, are not able to

do that. They haven’t got supplies. They’re coping with numbers that their — you know, that their facilities are not set up to deal with. They’re

losing staff all the time.

I mean, the obstetrician that spoke to me this morning said, you know, they have got people everywhere, giving birth in the corridors and in the halls.

They haven’t got staff to deliver them. They haven’t got capacity in theatre to do cesarean sections. You know, babies are going to be

asphyxiated, are going to die as a result of not being able to deliver mothers in a timely manner.

They also said their neonatal unit is full of infection. It’s full of babies dying from infection. They just can’t cope, and there isn’t the

capacity to deal with it because so many health care facilities have been dismantled.

AMANPOUR: What did you notice about hunger because just now, since you’ve been back, the U.N. has said officially that they are noticing absolute

famine conditions for a significant portion of people there.

DR. HARRINGTON: The sort of humanitarian aid, the humanitarian response is just inadequate. It is — because of the situation.

I visited a U.N. camp. As I said, it had 40,000 people in the camp in a 60,000 square meter. So, just over a square meter per person. Around the

outside of that, there was another 10,000 to 20,000 of, you know, temporary shelters that people were living in abject conditions. There was one toilet

for 615 people.

But people are going hungry. Children, particularly communicable diseases such as, you know, diarrheal diseases because of sanitation, because there

isn’t adequate water. There’s 94 percent less water going in than there was —

AMANPOUR: 90 percent less water.

DR. HARRINGTON: Absolutely.

AMANPOUR: Dr. Deborah Harrington, thank you.

DR. HARRINGTON: Thank you very much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And Dr. Harrington told me that she hopes to go back to Gaza to continue her medical work.

Now, Benny Gantz, a member of the Israeli War Cabinet, says Hamas is no longer in control in large parts of the Gaza Strip, but Israel believes

that 132 hostages are still being held there.

Joining me from Tel Aviv now is Mark Regev, senior advisor to the Israeli Prime Minister. Mark Regev, welcome back to the program.

MARK REGEV, SENIOR ADVISOR TO ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: Thank you for having me.

AMANPOUR: So, can I ask you first about what Dr. Harrington told me? This dovetails with what so many in the International Community have been

saying. And I just want to ask you, you know, all your friends here in the U.S., everywhere, say, of course, Israel had to go on the offensive against

the terror that was committed on October 7th. But that it turns out the longer it goes on, it’s not being done right.

So, I guess I want to know from you, how long can a democracy — you know, you call yourself a moral democracy — continue to watch this that’s

unfolding in Gaza right now, the children, the women.

REGEV: I mean, we’ve just had a discussion about the crisis in the Gaza health system. And the obvious question has to be asked, why is there a

crisis in the Gaza health system? Israel didn’t want it. But as has been reported and documented, Hamas has a deliberate strategy of building its

military structure inside hospitals.

We would have much preferred that as humanitarian sites that the hospitals would have been outside the conflict. But unfortunately, Hamas took a

decision, a strategic decision, not in one hospital, not in two hospitals, but all across the Gaza Strip, Hamas built military infrastructure inside

and underneath hospitals.

We saw tunnels. We saw weapons, hostages, the ones you mentioned a moment ago, who were kidnapped, abducted on October 7th. They reported being taken

to and held in basements inside hospitals, not for medical treatment, they were held prisoner there. They were abused there.

There is video from — hospital videos showing the abducted people being rushed through the hospital. We know of command control centers underneath

hospitals. We were forced to fight around hospitals. And when we went into hospitals, we did so as surgically as is humanly possible to avoid harming

the staff, the patients, and so on.

But if there is a crisis income in the health system in Gaza, it’s clearly because of Hamas’ deliberate behavior of using those hospitals as a shield

against international law as a shield for its military machine.

AMANPOUR: Mark Regev, I know that’s your position and I know that you found some tunnels.

REGEV: It’s the truth.

AMANPOUR: I also know — I know. I’ve seen them. I’ve seen your pictures of them. We have seen also many investigations by western media

organizations that haven’t actually yet connected a hospital room to a command center or to a connection with the tunnel. However, that is your

position.

My question to you is, General Petraeus, Senator Van Hollen, leaders all over the world, the secretary of state, the National Security Council, the

president of the United States, of France, of the U.K., everywhere, says, yes, you have a right to self-defense, but these civilian casualties are

just too much.

So, my question to you is, is there not a military way to separate civilians and take care of civilians? As Petraeus said, he’s been through

many wars against terrorists in civilian areas. Was there not a better way?

REGEV: First of all, we don’t want to see any civilians killed. And I repeat that. We don’t want to see any civilians caught up in the crossfire

between Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces.

But having said that, we’re up against a brutal and horrific enemy who deliberately embeds itself not just in hospitals, but in residential

neighborhoods, in schools, in U.N. facilities, in mosques, and underneath Gaza, underneath the cities of Gaza —

AMANPOUR: OK.

REGEV: — where cameras often cannot go, there is a subterranean terror network of tunnels, of bunkers, of missile launching sites, of armories of

command control. Hamas has had more than 16 years to embed itself, and that’s why this operation will take time.

And though we’re doing our best to avoid civilians getting caught up in the crossfire, Hamas has a deliberate strategy of using civilians as a human

shield, making our job just so much more difficult.

AMANPOUR: You have said that. But I want to ask you this. In that case, why then does a doctor, a British doctor, who went in with the approval of

Israel and Egyptian and all the other permissions they need to get with NGOs, why does she witness a truck that has been turned back full of baby’s

diapers? Why does Senator Van Hollen tell me and other international organizations, remember, friends of Israel, that the onus on helping some

of these civilians get aid in, humanitarian aid in, is on you now? Because it’s so complicated to get these trucks in. And we’re seeing them being

turned back.

Is there any way that you should and can speed up the delivery of humanitarian aid and medicine?

REGEV: So, I want to be clear, that truck specifically — and it’s a good example because that truck specifically was both authorized by Israel and

inspected by Israel. And it could have gone into the Gaza Strip, from our perspective. But obviously, there were problems at the border where Israel

is not on the Egyptian-Gaza border for it to be stopped and there wasn’t room or something for it to go in that day.

But Israel has opened up the additional crossing of Kerem Shalom because we want to make sure that humanitarian aid does reach the Gaza Strip, that the

civilian population of Gaza is not the target of our military operation.

There are other issues involved here, but that Israel did not prevent that truck from going in. I want to be 100 percent clear about that.

AMANPOUR: And yet, the senator says that he — I’m talking about the borders, on the Israel-Gaza border, that it’s way too slow, slow, slow. And

that it’s on you, because you control that to actually speed it up.

Also, we know, from the U.N., that there are famine and pre-famine conditions stalking Gaza. And I guess the question is — well, the related

question is, can you confirm that there has been, what Qatar says, some kind of deal to send in some kind of humanitarian aid? Can you tell us what

that is, for the Israeli hostages and for the people of Gaza?

REGEV: So, first of all, I want to be clear. In the first week of this war, the Security Cabinet of Israel took a decision that as we pursue Hamas

to destroy its military machine, and we must, at the same time in parallel, there will be no restrictions whatsoever on food, water, medicine going

into the Gaza Strip, and that is our policy. We placed no restrictions on those —

AMANPOUR: So, why then did your defense minister say there was a siege? He said it himself. No food, no water, no fuel, no medicine. That’s what Yoav

Gallant said.

REGEV: I don’t know what — I don’t — no, it’s not true.

AMANPOUR: On October the 9th.

REGEV: You’re talking about coming in.

AMANPOUR: Yes, going into Gaza.

REGEV: You’re talking about the crossings from Israel. So, at the beginning we allowed that to go through the Egyptian crossing, at Rafah.

And then we opened up — a few weeks later, we opened up. When we saw there was a greater need, we opened up the crossing, Kerem Shalom, which is our

crossing.

But you have to understand, following the October 7th massacre, the feeling in Israel was — you know, the crossings were attacked by the Hamas

terrorists. They were blown up. The whole idea that they just attacked us and we have to have business as usual with Gaza, that, of course, was

difficult.

In the end, we took a decision to open up the Israeli crossing because we wanted to. Now, we understand, to be frank, that what we have willing to

inspect and send in, we could receive much more today from the International Community to send it to Gaza than we are capable of dealing

with. If there’s a holdup, it’s not because of Israel.

AMANPOUR: OK. Well, again, that’s not what the U.S. senator says who saw it. Let me ask you a different question. Partly because of what the world

is witnessing and what leaders around the democratic world are witnessing to their increasing unease, and that is the civilian toll.

You see what’s happening. There is a growing — I’m going to use the word coalition of Israeli allies saying that there must be, in return for

normalization, as you want with Saudi Arabia and others in the region, there must be an absolute Palestinian process to statehood and an end of

the occupation.

The — your own prime minister has apparently completely said no to that. I’m going to just play a little piece of what he said in a speech to the

nation today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (through translator): Any agreement, with or without agreement, the State of Israel must control

security between the Jordan River to the sea. And the clashes for the sovereignty idea, I’m telling our American friends, I stopped at a reality

which would have hurt the security of Israel.

The prime minister of Israel should have the ability to say no, even to our greatest friends, when he has to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So, that’s it then. No political solution. You’re basically telling your biggest friends and your biggest military suppliers, the

United States, that no, you won’t consider that kind of political solution.

REGEV: I think it’s very important to hear what the prime minister says in its entirety. He has repeatedly said that the Palestinians should have all

the powers to rule themselves, but none of the powers to threaten Israel.

And the second half of that formula, none of the powers to hurt Israel is especially, I think, relevant following what happened on October 7th.

AMANPOUR: Yes.

REGEV: We don’t want to see ever again a repeat of that horrific attack on Israel by the Hamas terrorists or by any terrorists for that matter. And

so, the idea is to find a formula where the Palestinians can rule themselves, but not be in a position to threaten Israel.

That’s — I think that’s the formula that can help us move forward and find solutions that will be good for Israelis and good for Palestinians, too.

AMANPOUR: If I’m not mistaken, I heard the prime minister say, granted it was in translation, but that it had to be — essentially, I’m coining a

phrase from the river to the sea, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean, that there must be Israeli security. I think that’s what he

said, and that’s what you’re saying.

REGEV: Correct.

AMANPOUR: Which flies in the face of what your partners are talking about in terms of an end to occupation and a Palestinian State. So, I want to ask

you particularly about the Saudis. Because that was on the table. You’re a diplomat. You know this better than I do. It was on the table before

October 7th and it’s cropped up again.

We heard the Saudi foreign minister in Davos talking about it. I just spoke to somebody very well known to you all, Prince Turki bin Faisal, former

ambassador, former intelligence chief. This is what he said about what they believe needs to be the solution.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRINCE TURKI BIN FAISAL, FORMER SAUDI AMBASSADOR TO U.S. AND U.K.: There is a lot of talk being put out by Americans, by Europeans about a two-state

solution. But they’ve been talking the talk without walking the walk.

I think what is needed is for them to put their feet down and simply go ahead and work with Saudi Arabia and other countries in the area to

establish a Palestinian State. And to end the fighting. The first important thing that must be done is to stop the killing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And, Mark Regev, just today your president, Yitzhak Herzog, called on dialogue between Israel, the Palestinians over — you know, over

trying to figure out a way to end the endless cycle of violence and to prevent ever an October 7th happening again.

So, again, are you surprised that this is all coming to a head right now? I mean, it seems like the prime minister is trying to ward it off. And I have

to say, frankly, many observers think that it’s more about him and his own politics and staying in power than it is about a proper, just and fair and

secure solution.

REGEV: You know, Christiane, you and me have been following this process for more years than we’d like to remember. And I’d like to remind you of

the last speech that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin gave in the Knesset just before he was assassinated by a brutal enemy of peace and reconciliation, a

fanatic that I hope will remain in jail forever and ever.

But Rabin said that in — and he believed in peace. He was the father of the Oslo process. He said in final status piece, the Palestinians will have

less than a state because like the (INAUDIBLE) today, Rabin understood that Israel would have to have security control in ways that would limit the

full exercise of Palestinian sovereignty.

Now, in the peace process since then, and as you know, there’s always been talk about demilitarized and security controls and things like this. This

is what Israel is talking about. And especially after October 7th, to ask the Israeli public, the Israeli people to say will light pedal security,

that security isn’t the highest priority to keep our people safe, that is to ignore reality.

AMANPOUR: Meanwhile —

REGEV: And if the Palestinians really want to move forward with Israel, I think they have to be willing to understand those concerns. They are

legitimate concerns. And that the idea that any areas next to Israel will have to be — there will have to be security arrangements that allow Israel

to defend itself. By itself, if need be. That has to be the basis of any political settlements as we move forward.

AMANPOUR: So, I mean, that is your very clear position. And yes, I have, as you say, witnessed this prime minister hold that position. And here we

are.

Now, I want to ask you about what is the result after 100 days in your war against Hamas? The French president said the total destruction of Hamas,

does anyone think that’s possible? If that’s that, the war will last 10 years. Journalist Ronan Bergman has written, in addition, the military

pressure is not leading to the release of hostages.

Talk to me about the hostages. The families still don’t believe it’s number one priority.

REGEV: It’s definitely there at the top. And let me let me be clear. We achieved an amazing success in November where we got almost half the

hostages out. 110 people released precisely because of the military pressure Israel was applying. That was the only reason that — Hamas didn’t

release the hostages because they suddenly became nice people. No, they were responding — as President Joe Biden said, they respond to pressure.

And Israel was applying the pressure through our military might.

Now, if we would have accepted the advice of people in the International Community at the beginning of November to go for some sort of humanitarian

pause that was talked about, you’ll recall, we would never have got a single one of those people out. And they were women and children, as you

will recall. Some very young children, all held by Hamas. They were released. So, that’s one of the major successes so far of our operation.

But as we go forward, we’ve managed to destroy in Northern Gaza Hamas’ ability to work in an organized military framework. Their battalion and

brigades, we’ve managed to destroy them. They still have, of course, the ability to cause us harm, but to operate as an organized fighting force,

they cannot longer. And we’ll get there in the south too, in the center of the country and in the south of the Gaza Strip as well.

We have to win this war and we will destroy the Hamas military machine. We’ll do it, Christiane, because we have no choice. We refuse to live any

longer next to this terror enclave. And the Israeli parents have to (INAUDIBLE) in the middle of the night terrorists will cross the border and

murder their children. No, we refuse to live that way any longer.

AMANPOUR: Mark Regev, thank you so much.

And as we mentioned earlier, the U.S. launched its fifth round of missile strikes against the Houthis in Yemen today. Walter Isaacson now digs into

the roots of this crisis with Middle East expert Elisabeth Kendall.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And Dr. Elisabeth Kendall, welcome to the show.

ELISABETH KENDALL, Mistress of Girton College, Cambridge University: Thank you. It’s great to be here, Walter.

ISAACSON: The U.S. just conducted this week its third military operation against the Houthis who controlled much of Yemen including the capitol

after a nine-year civil war. The U.S. put the Houthis back on the designated terrorist organization list.

Who are the Houthis and how did it come to this?

KENDALL: The Houthis are a group that emerged in the northwest of Yemen. So, in that bottom corner of the Arabian Peninsula.

Now, they take their name from their former leader, Hussein al-Houthi, who was killed in 2004. And they’re now controlled by his brother, Abdul-Malik

al-Houthi. So, they’re a family group that rules the Houthis, but they’re much more than just a tribe. They’re a religious, political, and military

grouping that now involves its religion in its politics.

For example, their political arm is called Ansar Allah, which means partisan (ph) supporters of God. And They have a brand of religion called

Zaydism, which is a branch of Shia Islam. And that’s important because Shiasm is of course the kind of Islam that’s practiced in Iran.

Now, we shouldn’t think of them as just a small rebel group. They actually control territory in which about two-thirds of Yemen’s population lives,

and that’s about 20 million people.

So — and they’ve been at war for the last nine years in a civil war, and several years before that, since 2004. So, they’re quite a considerable

adversary. They should not be underestimated.

ISAACSON: Well, you say at the core it’s because they’re a Shia Islam group. And the civil war in Yemen has been fought between Sunni forces and

the Houthi Shia forces.

Are we — is that an oversimplistic divide that we in the West make between Sunni and Shia? Or is that really at the core of what’s happening both in

the region and in Yemen?

KENDALL: It’s certainly true to some extent to describe this as a sectarian war between Sunnis and Shias. But it is a lot more complex than

that.

So, on the one hand, we have the Houthis who are backed by Shia Iran. And on the other hand, we have the so-called internationally recognized

government backed by Saudi Arabia, which is Sunni and the United Arab Emirates.

But ultimately, this conflict inside Yemen was domestically generated before sectarian concerns came to the fore. It’s about control of power,

territory and resources. And it’s simply that those sectarian narratives have been glued onto these much more fundamental struggles. So, it’s going

to have to be solved at that domestic level in very practical terms if that conflict is to go away.

ISAACSON: Well, they’re in the news right now because Yemen borders the Red Sea and the Houthis have been using their arsenals of drones and

military to attack shipping in the Red Sea. And I think there are, what, 17,000 ships that go through the Red Sea every year. I mean, one-fifth of

the cargo coming to the East Coast. The United States is there. A lot of the oil goes through there.

Tell us what’s happening with these attacks, and is that why the U.S. has been retaliating?

KENDALL: I think that the threat to global shipping and the knock-on effects that that has on our economies has certainly focused the interests

of the U.S., the U.K. and others in putting a stop to this in a way that nine years of civil war and the Houthis trying to take over inside Yemen

itself never would have gained our attention in this way.

But let’s just zoom out slightly. The location of the Houthis down there in the Red Sea is really important because it completes a jigsaw puzzle of

Iranian Proxies and partners in the region that, if you look at a map surround Israel.

So, we’ve got the Houthis there to the south of Israel. And of course, we have Hamas in the west of Israel, in the Gaza Strip. And then to the north,

we have Hezbollah, another Iranian proxy. And then in the north and the northeast, we have Iran backed Shia militias. So, the Houthis are a really

important part of completing that circle of pressure on Israel.

ISAACSON: And are the Houthis officially aligned? Do they work hand in glove with Hezbollah and Hamas?

KENDALL: The Houthis are part of the so-called axis of resistance, which is controlled by Iran, or at least partnered to Iran. And I wouldn’t say

that they’re very close to Hezbollah and Hamas. It’s simply that they have many of the same aims. And that goes for Iran too.

The Houthi slogan is death to America. Death to Israel, a curse on the Jews, and victory to Islam. That chimes very strongly with Iran’s own

political slogans.

But it would be too much to say that Iran has direct command control of the Houthis. Iran’s arms, its supply of weapons, its training and its

intelligence have been incredibly important in facilitating what the Houthis are doing. But it wouldn’t be the case that if Iran suddenly

stepped away or tried to stand the Houthis down, that this would end, because the Houthis have very good reasons of their own for continuing

these attacks in the Red Sea.

ISAACSON: What are their good reasons or reasons of their own?

KENDALL: Well, they have domestic reasons, regional reasons, international reasons. At a domestic level, this is very opportune for the Houthis. It

enables them to position themselves as the defenders of Palestine, as the heroes of the Palestinian people at a time when there aren’t very many

political power bases, regimes or governments speaking up for the Palestinians.

So, that’s made them quite popular, not just with their base, which is, by the way, very tired after almost a decade of war, but also more broadly in

Yemen and the Arab world.

And then regionally, it works for the Houthis because they managed to gain more leverage over Saudi Arabia. Saudi doesn’t want to antagonize the

Houthis at a time when it’s trying to extract itself from a very awkward and expensive war that it’s been pursuing against the Houthis in Yemen. And

it is on the cusp of being able to do that.

And then finally, internationally, well, the Houthis have gained massive publicity for themselves and for the Palestinians. And they’ve ensured that

what might have seemed to us like a faraway problem in Israel is really brought into our attention zones by this attack on our global shipping and

its knock-on effects ultimately on our wallets.

ISAACSON: Well, I just read a really good article you wrote on all of this. And I think you mentioned that the Houthis were planning attacks on

the Red Sea even before the October attack by Hamas on Israel.

So, would this have happened without that? Or is this really a reaction to what’s happening in Gaza?

KENDALL: It’s hard to say whether this was part of a well-planned strategy that Iran had in mind with its partners that was going to ramp up gradually

beginning with the 7th of October attacks by Hamas on Israel.

There are some signs that that might have been the case. As you say, the Houthis were militarizing the Red Sea, a couple of islands, and bringing in

the kinds of weaponry that was required for these Red Sea attacks just before Hamas acted in October.

And what is very striking is that the different partners in Iran’s so- called axis of resistance have gradually ramped up their activity in the way that makes them look like they’re being reactive and proportionate

because they’re responding to what Israel’s been doing and what America is now doing, it makes — it frames them as not as the aggressors, but as the

defenders. So, it could be parts of rather a smart strategy, or it could simply be opportunistic.

ISAACSON: As we said, the news right now is that in the past day or so, it’s been decided to put the Houthis back on what is called, I think, the

specially designated terrorist organization list. That’s what the Biden administration is doing, I think, in alliance with the United Kingdom.

What does that mean to put them on that list? And why did the Biden administration take them off the list when Trump had them on a similar

terrorist list?

KENDALL: So, Trump did have them on that terrorist list. But we must remember that Trump only put them on that list a couple of days before he

left office. So, it was almost like it was a gift to the Saudis as he parted from office.

And also —

ISAACSON: Let me stop you there to explain why that would be a gift to the Saudis.

KENDALL: So, of course, the Saudis had been fighting the Houthis in a war since they entered the Yemen civil war in March 2015 and had been

advocating for America to put them on that terrorist list. And America had resisted that right up until Trump’s last days in office.

And one of the reasons why the U.S. had resisted is probably the advice of different humanitarian organizations, including the United Nations, that

this would be absolutely catastrophic for the population of Yemen, which had already suffered greatly.

There was a situation, which is not much better now, where about 80 percent of the Yemeni population needs humanitarian assistance. Now, if you

designate the Houthis, then that makes it really hard for humanitarian organizations to get that vital aid and medicine in, because most of the

population affected lives in the Houthi areas. And —

ISAACSON: So, is it a good idea for them to be — for the U.S. and the U.K. to put them back on a terrorist list?

KENDALL: So, it isn’t a good idea. It’s not because the Houthis don’t deserve to be on a terrorist list. It’s because of the knock-on effects of

that. It doesn’t hurt the Houthis. For them, it’s a badge of honor. It hurts the general population who’s already suffering. And it also might

have knock-on effects in scuppering the domestic peace process inside Yemen.

There has been an uneasy truce. in Yemen since 2022. It’s not officially a truce, but it has more or less held. And now, the United Nations is just

about brokering a political process for Yemenis to make peace with one another, and the Houthis are a key part of that.

Now, if the U.S. places the Houthis on a terrorist organization, it’s difficult to see how the United Nations can include them as a legitimate

political authority in the domestic peace talks. If those peace talks don’t go ahead, then Yemen circles back into a civil war. So, there’s a lot at

stake.

ISAACSON: Well, it does seem that if they’re part of the U.N. designated peace process, that it’s the Houthis who’ve disrupted this by suddenly

starting to attack international shipping in the Red Sea.

KENDALL: That is true. But the Houthis are trying, and to some degree they’re actually succeeding in separating entirely what they’re doing in

the Red Sea from what’s happening inside Yemen.

They’re pitching their Red Sea attacks as something that is 100 percent geared towards bringing world attention to the plight of the Palestinians.

And they say that if Israel and America stop their aggression in Gaza and against Palestine, then they will stop their attacks. That’s what they say.

ISAACSON: Do you believe that at all?

KENDALL: Well, I think we can’t completely dismiss it. There’s a genuine empathy and sympathy with the Palestinian courts. But we ought to also be

skeptical. It works very well for the Houthis politically for all the reasons I outlined.

And I also think it’s important to mention here that there’s not that much evidence that the Houthis are willing to settle for a power sharing

agreement inside Yemen. They’re always flexing their muscles whenever they’ve signed an agreement before they’ve had deal remorse, and they’ve

always gone back to try to get more.

And so, this could be just another example of that, where they have no intention of sharing power, they simply want to keep finding excuses to

carry on.

Well, what I should say is that I don’t think they want all-out war with the U.S. That could be existential for them. And I don’t think they expect

it, because like many people, like many commentators, nobody thinks the U.S. is going to put boots on the ground in Yemen. And nor do the Houthis

think that. But some kind of low-level conflict, tit for tat strikes, that works well for them. That feeds into their narratives.

ISAACSON: Well, you just said that tit for tat strikes work well for the Houthis. But the U.S. recently has gone through its third attack on the

Houthis. Is that helping or hurting the Houthis these last few weeks of U.S. and allied military strikes on the Houthi forces?

KENDALL: Yes, an excellent question, because the rationale, of course, is that these strikes are supposed to hurt the Houthis. But there are several

reasons why that’s not really the case.

The first is that the Houthis are very adept at hiding their weapons. They’ve also suffered many, many airstrikes, over 25,000 airstrikes during

the course of the civil war by the Saudi-led coalition, and they still kept going. So, it’s very likely that they can weather these airstrikes.

And at the same time, they have been framing the United States as an aggressor, as an imperialist power that wants to be at war with Islam. So,

these strikes now play to that narrative.

And whilst the Houthis can be relatively assured that the Americans won’t want to go in with ground forces, they can just keep going, because they

have a different war logic from ours. They’re very tolerant of high casualties. They are not that concerned about recycles of misery that their

actions inflict upon their populations. And they have war almost as a way of life because they’ve now been at war for almost a better part of 20

years with a couple of years off in between. So, they can just keep going.

ISAACSON: I don’t quite understand what could — how this could possibly work out for the West or the U.S. in the sense that the Saudis, for what,

nine years have been trying very hard to push back the Houthis, to beat them. And the Saudis have used enormous numbers of missiles. They’re in the

region, and it hasn’t worked at all.

Can the Houthis be defeated by a few random attacks by U.S. drones when the Saudis couldn’t do it?

KENDALL: No, I don’t think they can. You paint a very realistic picture. We have tried all sorts of other measures. Sanctions haven’t worked.

Curbing the flow of funds to the Houthis hasn’t worked. Just putting the multinational maritime force in the Red Sea as a warning and a threat, and

a way of batting away missiles, that hasn’t worked, which is why the U.S. has now had to ramp up to this kind of direct military action.

Are there any other things that we could do? Maybe. Maybe we could try harder with mediation. Oman would be a good route because Oman has not

joined the Saudi-led coalition against the Houthis and has open channels to both the Houthis and Iran.

And perhaps we could ramp up our indirect military action. Things that the Houthis couldn’t point to the United States and say that was them. And

maybe also spend more time building up local forces in Yemen who have spent the last nine years trying to push back against the Houthis.

Ultimately, though, I think it’s quite hard to see any of this working without taking away this moral high ground that the Houthis have claimed

rightly or wrongly, which is that they are defending Palestine.

So, unless something is done to solve that overall conflict between Israel and Palestine, I think the Houthis can just keep going.

ISAACSON: Dr. Elisabeth Kendall, thank you so much for joining us.

KENDALL: You’re welcome. Thank you for the opportunity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And, finally, his face is recognizable around the world. A red- haired baby boy. Today marks the first birthday of Kfir Bibas, the youngest hostage taken from Israel on October 7th.

Relatives and family members held a rally in Tel Aviv wearing t-shirts in a nod to his hair color. They pleaded for Kfir’s release and the release of

his four-year-old brother, Ariel, and their parents, who were also abducted on October 7th.

It’s not clear whether any are still alive. A cousin of the family told CNN that baby Kfir is not the enemy of Hamas.

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