January 28, 2020

AMANPOUR:
one and welcome to Amanpour and company. Here’s what’s coming up.

KUSHNER:
Our plan is 80 pages and as the most detailed proposal ever put forward by far,

AMANPOUR:
President Trump finally unveils his middle East peace plan. Amid his Senate impeachment trial, I talked to Jared Cushner, the president’s trusted advisor son-in-law, an architect of this plan. Then we speak to both Jordanian and American negotiators in previous peace deals. Laws.

KOPPEL:
Let’s not kid ourselves. Donald Trump has been very, very good for the business of Journalism.

AMANPOUR:
A legendary American broadcast at Ted Kabul tells our Walter Isaacson of his worries about the state of journalism today. Almond porn company is made possible by Rosalind P Walter Bernard and Irene Schwartz, Sue and Edgar walkin Haim, the third Candice King, where the Anderson family fund, the Cheryl and Phillip Milstein family, Charles Rosenbloom, Jeffrey Katz and Beth Rogers. Additional support has been provided by and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you.

AMANPOUR:
Welcome to the program everyone. I’m Christiana Amanpour in London. The president’s impeachment trial is in full swing and yet Donald Trump decided now is the time to unveil his middle East peace plan. He was joined at the white house by only one party to the conflict. The Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who himself just hours earlier, was formally indicted on charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. They stood side by side to praise the proposal that included no input from the Palestinians.

NETANYAHU:
My vision presents a win-win opportunity for both sides, a realistic two state solution that resolves the risk of Palestinian statehood to Israel’s security. Too many plans tried to pressure Israel to withdraw from vital territory like the Jordan Valley. But you, Mr. President, you recognize that Israel must have sovereignty in the Jordan Valley and the other and other strategic areas of Judea and Sumeria.

AMANPOUR:
Both acknowledge this proposal would meet opposition, especially from the Palestinians who have cut off dialogue with the Trump administration since the president moved the U S embassy to Jerusalem and recognized Israel’s undivided sovereignty over the city. And indeed the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has already rejected it, saying the Palestinians cannot be brought to their and that this deal will not pass. Now at the white house ceremony, Netanyahu paid tribute to president Trump’s senior advisor and son-in-law Jared Cushner for his work on the plan saying Israel owes Cushner a debt of gratitude. And Jared Kushner is joining me now from Washington. Welcome to the program, Jared Cushner.

KUSHNER:
Thank you Christiane. It’s an honor to be with you.

AMANPOUR:
Okay, so Jared, this is a huge day for you, for the president. And let’s face it for Benjamin Netanyahu and, and, and, and his allies and supporters, we know that they believe this to be a great deal cause they’ve said it. He has said it from the podium, but I want to pick up on what the president said that he wanted to make this a win-win deal, including for the Palestinians. Can you tell me sort of lay out precisely where you think the win is for the Palestinians? The precise details [inaudible]

KUSHNER:
perfect. Well first of all I’d like to say that today was a big accomplishment for president Trump. Something that only he could have done. Uh, he met yesterday with prime minister Netanyahu but also with general Gans his opponent in a time of very divisive politics in Israel where they can’t agree on much. He brought the country together on what has been the most, most divisive issue, but he’s also done is we’ve released an 80 page detailed plan in the past plans you had the Arab peace initiative, which is a very good effort, which is about eight lines. And then you had past proposals, which were two to three pages of wordsmith documents, really talking about high principles. He also got Israel to agree for the first time to a state and he got Israel to agree to a map. So what you’ve seen today is that president Trump’s built a lot of trust with the state of Israel.

KUSHNER:
He’s done a lot of great things that have made Israel more secure. And the relationship between America and Israel stronger. And what he’s been able to do today is deliver for the Palestinians a pathway to a state, a contiguous territory and conditions where they can earn their way to their independence, their dignity, all of these different things along with a $50 billion economic plan that could make them a very, very thriving a state in the future. So it’s a big opportunity for the Palestinians and you know, they have a perfect track record of blowing every opportunity they’ve had in their past, but perhaps maybe their leadership will read the details of it, a stop posturing and do what’s best to try to make the Palestinian people’s lives better.

AMANPOUR:
I’m Jared with respect. Obviously there have been Israeli prime ministers have also talked about a two state solution and a Palestinian state. I’m also American presidents and there have been maps. There’s the Oslo map, there’s the current map, and there’s the one that you have just revealed in this 80 page plan. Um, I guess, uh, I want to ask you because clearly the president himself, president Trump said, you know, we’ll wait to see what the Arab world says because what they say will be, you know, very important in terms of how this will play out. Um, it was noticeable that in, in the, in the white house, in the white house ceremony, there was the ambassadors from Oman, the UAE and Bahrain. Um, given that the Palestinians have rejected and the Jordanians have already, um, issued a statement, which I can read parts of it to you, where does this go next? What, what do you think is going to happen next? Since there has not been the fulsome support publicly from the heavyweights in the Arab world?

KUSHNER:
Yeah, I’ll be honest with you, it’s very difficult to do a remote interview with you where you’re going to assert all these different things as facts without giving me the chance to respond to things that are not correct. I’m happy to answer that question, but if I can go back to the premise that I don’t want to accept in your question again, I’ve studied this now very closely for the last three years. I have not found any maps, uh, from any past negotiations that have ever been produced, nor have I ever, there’s never been a map in the history of this that has been accepted by the state of Israel. So hopefully it will, you’ll stipulate to that. Israel also does not have diplomatic relations with the countries that you mentioned and the fact that they showed up today to celebrate the Israeli, uh, current Israeli prime minister agreeing to negotiate on the framework of a basis of a state, I think is also a very significant achievement.

KUSHNER:
And if you look at what president Trump has done in the region, overall, he’s unified the region around common, uh, common goals and shared enemies. So what we’ve been able to do is get people to focus on Iran and their maligned behavior by putting a chokehold on their finances. We’ve stopped a lot of funding of terror. Uh, when president Trump got here, there was ISIS had a caliphate the size of Ohio, he’s destroyed that and I need just killed their leader al-Baghdadi and he’s been working with Saudi Arabia and a lot of the other countries to combat extremism and the ideology. So what we’re seeing from a lot of other countries is they’re very, very thrilled that there’s finally a real effort on the table. There’s a real plan on the table, a real offer. And that president Trump was able to secure that. They recognize that no other president would have been able to achieve that.

KUSHNER:
And they’re hopeful that the Palestinians for once we’ll do something rational come to the table and negotiate. And so the terms are not final terms. This is a, an opening offer. And if the Palestinians come and they have some adjustments, they want to move the line, they want to change one of the sentences, they want to negotiate on different things, there’ll be flexibility. And one thing I’ll just say to Christianne is that, uh, actually when I was with the Sultan of Oman, he said something to me that really resignated where he said, uh, I feel bad for the Palestinian people that they carry the burden with them of the entire Muslim world. And it made me really understand that this is two different conflicts that have been conflated, that people have used for their own different purposes over the years. Never for good. You have a territorial dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians in a security dispute.

KUSHNER:
There’s a very prescriptive, uh, outcome that we propose for that. If the Palestinians have issues with that, they should try to come and negotiate it. Then you have a religious dispute between Israel and the entire Islamic world and that’s over the Harambe Al Sharif, the, the, the, the, the mosque, what the president also got Israel to acknowledge today is the special role that the King of Jordan plays with that site. And also to say that all Muslims from throughout the world are welcome to come and pray. And so I do think that that will help bring Israel and the Muslim world closer together because Jerusalem is a city that whether you’re a Muslim, a Christian, or a Jew, it’s something that everyone should be able to come and, and, and, and practice their religion and enjoy regardless of a territorial and security dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians. So I do think we’ve made historic progress today and again, I really hope that you’ll, uh, acknowledge that and again, read the plan and I think you’ll see a lot of very good support from places that nobody was expecting it.

AMANPOUR:
Okay. So, you know, obviously there are a few questions to ask you in there. You’ve stated your case very eloquently. You’ve worked on this for I guess nearly three years and, and, and you have come out and new Von veiled it, but to a several points here. You know, there are two Arab countries which have relations with Israel, historic relations, Egypt and Jordan. They were not present at the ceremony. And Jordan did put out a statement which basically said, um, was worried about the dangerous consequences of unilateral Israeli actions, including the annexation of Palestinian land, the building expansion of settlements in any encroachment on the Holy sites that aim to impose new realities on the ground, including what even Benjamin Netanyahu acknowledged was for the first time the Americans. Have you, your administration has recognized the annexation I Israel sovereignty over the Jordan Valley, which is right next door to Jordan.

AMANPOUR:
So there is an unprecedented amount of, of territory that you have offered to the Israelis that the United States is now offered to the Israelis and the Israeli, as you know, the Israeli government is in a bit of a, of an uproar. President or prime minister Netanyahu was indicted today, shortly before standing next to the president who’s also being impeached. I guess the question is, do you expect Israel as Netanyahu has said, to immediately enact, as he said, Israeli law over the Jordan Valley over the areas of the settlements, um, over Jerusalem or like Benny Gantz, the opposition leader says, you know, we need to wait. We need to see this as a basis for negotiating. And furthermore, we shouldn’t take these actions unless we have a stable, uh, Israeli government, you know, their elections coming up in less than six weeks. Why now? I guess what’s the rush?

KUSHNER:
Well, it’s not about Russia. Again, getting both parties in Israeli election to agree is a historic accomplishment on a very contentious issue. Again, you raised a lot of concepts. Let me try to go through them so that I don’t accept premises that, that may not be accurate. Um, with regards to, uh, to the Israeli politics with what we’re going to do, but we released was a conceptual map. It’s going to take us a couple of months to go through it and try to get it detailed. So could take us two, three, four months to do that. We’ll start the process again. We welcome the Palestinians if they want to come and be a part of it. If they have suggestions for areas to include or not include, uh, we’re happy to do it. Again, I, I come from a real estate background. It was a very, very difficult, uh, to draw these lines and to get a map where you can have contiguity to a Palestinian state.

KUSHNER:
And again, this isn’t because of something that we, uh, that we developed. This is something that we inherited the situation where Israel continues to grow and grow and what the president’s secure today was Israel agreeing to stop for four years more settlements to give the Palestinians their last chance to finally have a state. Um, the other thing I’ll say is you mentioned the Jordan’s statement, which I have not had a chance to see, but there was a good statement from Egypt. Uh, the U K just put out a very encouraging statement. I believe there’s more statements coming in the middle East. I saw a couple more coming out, uh, that were very supportive. They called this a very serious proposal and they encourage both sides to negotiate on the basis of this deal. And so I think what we have today is a real breakthrough. And so the question then comes down to the Palestinian leadership, right?

KUSHNER:
They’ve been saying that their victims for a long time, uh, they’re doing fine. There’s been a lot of corruption, a lot of mismanaged funds. Uh, you know, a lot of the leadership is great. They’re rich, their friends are rich, their, their families are rich. But the Palestinian people have been stuck in this cycle. So the question for, for, for the international world is, are we going to continue to tolerate this? But what we’ve now put together for them is a real offer on the table. You talk about the borders right now, under this plan that we’ve proposed, they can double the size of the land that they have available. They can have two $50 billion of investment, which will lead to over a million Palestinian, good paying jobs. It could double the size of their GDP. So again, what I’ve been fighting against isn’t a logical construct created by people who had no interest in solving a problem.

KUSHNER:
And what we’ve tried to do is attack that by putting out a very detailed, logical solution. So again, I think that people have to look at this fresh. That’s one of the great things that president Trump has done on this, but he does it on everything, which is he comes in, he’s a pragmatist, he looks at the problems, and again, our economy’s stronger than it’s ever been. Our country, safer than it’s ever been. And that’s only because president Trump is putting in place policies that may be driving people who are traditional thinkers, crazy, but things that are very disruptive and are clearly making America strong.

AMANPOUR:
Okay, so on the, on the issue of better world traditional thinkers and, and driving people crazy. I just want to pick you up on what you said because if indeed this is a basis for negotiations and the Palestinians do take up the offer and come to the United States or to, to the administration, try to negotiate. You know, that’s one thing. So I want to ask you then, you called it a conceptual map and you’ve called this a basis for negotiations. The Israeli prime minister has stated that this weekend he will impose the laws of the state of Israel. Those are the words out of his mouth on the Jordan Valley, on those areas are in the West bank. He calls it Judea and Sumeria are where there are settlements and, and, and other such places, and presumably over Jerusalem as well or, or I don’t know about Eastern Jerusalem, but nonetheless, if that happens this weekend, is that with the approval of United States? [inaudible]

KUSHNER:
yeah. I, I don’t believe that’s gonna happen this weekend as at least not as far as I know. But again, a lot of these areas, uh, just the reality is that Israel’s there and there and they’re not leaving. There’s never been a deal where they’ve contemplated doing it. And it’s not pragmatic. I’m not looking at the world as it existed in 1967 I’m looking at the world as it exists in 2020 you have 5 million Palestinians who are really trapped because of bad leadership. So what we’ve done is we’ve, we’ve created an opportunity for their leadership to either seize or not, if they, if they screw up this opportunity, which again, they have a perfect track record of missing opportunities. If they screw this up, I think that they will have a very hard time looking the international community in the face saying they’re victims saying they have rights. This is a great deal for them. If they, uh, if they come to the table and negotiate, I think they can get something. Excellent. So look, we’ll work through it. Yeah. Sorry, go ahead.

AMANPOUR:
Yeah. I just want to just ask you because I know my time is somewhat limited, but you know, Benjamin Netanyahu paid you specifically great tribute and said that the state of Israel owes you a great debt of gratitude. However, other Israelis, former negotiators, people who are also Israeli and Jewish Patriots are people who’ve been ministers in previous Israeli cabinets, um, have said today, at least one of them, you’ll see bail-in. This is not a deal for Israel. Why are we celebrating? It may be for one party in one segment of Israeli society, but he said, Trump has said you can take it all, take whatever you want. Jordan Valley settlements, Jerusalem, take a lot of it, annex it. All this will give us, he said one state where we will be the minority answer that other people have said that today. Also the idea of a two state solution not being viable anymore.

KUSHNER:
Yeah. I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to talk about these things because when we talk about, you know, random individuals who don’t have a lot of say or maybe knowledge or who have tried it.

AMANPOUR:
Jared, he was a negotiator and a former Israeli cabinet. Mr Madison.

KUSHNER:
Okay. How did he do with his negotiations? This thing is as screwed up as it’s ever been Christian, so look, I’ve been getting criticized for the last couple of years by all the people who have tried and failed for not doing this the same way that that they have. Okay. We’ve put a real offer on the table today. We have a unified Israel. Getting both general Gans and prime minister Netanyahu to come to the white house is a historic achievement. What I would encourage people to do is try to divorce yourself from all of the history that’s happened over the years and read this plan. Look at the map and say two questions in mind. Number one, does this make the lives of the Palestinian people much better? The answer is unquestionably yes. The second question, does this compromise Israel security or does this make Israel much more secure and the answer is unquestionably doing this deal makes Israel much more secure.

KUSHNER:
Why? Why? Because it gives them a defensible territory. It reduces tension in the region and it gives them the ability. Now, now that they’ve agreed to this, you’re going to see them becoming less and less isolated internationally and you’re going to see more and more pressure put on Palestinian leadership to do it. What we’ve done, look right now, what’s Palestinian leadership? You’re talking about them like they’re great diplomats. What are they calling for? They’re calling for a day of rage. Who do you know that runs a state that when they don’t get what they want, they call for a day of rage. That’s not how people who are capable of running a state work. So again, the Palestinian leadership have to ask themselves a question. Do they want to have a state? Do they want to have a better life? If they do, we have created a framework for them to have it and we’re going to treat them in a very respectful manner.

KUSHNER:
If they don’t, then they’re going to screw up another opportunity like they’ve screwed up every other opportunity that they’ve ever had in their existence. Again, I just Christian, we’re pragmatists. We’re realists. I’m focused on a lot of problems here in America. The reason why this is important is because this conflict has been a, has been something that’s been used to stoke extremism in the region for a long time. We’re doing a good job of, of, of cleaning out a lot of the mosques and and, and restoring the ideology and working with our partners to make sure that people are doing it. But what we’ve done today will make it much easier for Israel to normalize relations with people who it does not have a relationship with the Arab world. It will allow Muslims who have wanted to pray at the HELOCs and Moss to start coming to the yellow box, a mosque.

KUSHNER:
And I think it has, it lets the world in a region that’s been stuck have the ability to move forward. And I’ll just say this, which is a final thing, right? You’ve been covering this for a very long time and if somebody was successful, I wouldn’t be dealing with this and I wouldn’t have this additional responsibility to the other things I have. I think that people should try to be optimistic. I think they should root for peace to be successful and I think they should hope that it happens. And again, if people want to be wise people and figure out why this is complicated or why it could fail, there’s a million reasons you could do, but you know, great leaders like president Trump. What he does is he tries to find a way to push things forward and doesn’t let the ankle biters and the naysayers, you know, let their negativity drive it forward.

KUSHNER:
So again, we’re fighting against a lot of emotion. And the way we did that is by putting out an 80 page logical plan. We’ve put out a map, we’ve gotten Israel to make historic concessions. We’ve unifies Israel, I don’t know, you know, the guy you’re mentioning about, but we have Gantz and we have BB both showing up. The two most popular people in Israel who lead the two biggest parties right now. And they both agreed to negotiate it on the basis and see this as a big step forward. So I’m sorry if you don’t, if you don’t accept this as a major opportunity for Palestinians and a major step forward, then uh, I just think you have unrealistic expectations. And again, you’re probably stuck with the people who have been busy turning this into a cottage industry and not solving this problem. I, I assume you’re not actually addressing me directly, so I will put those issues, the gender, I will put those questions.

KUSHNER:
I can show you to the Palestinian leadership. We’ll interview the prime minister tomorrow and we will put some of those issues too. Obviously the world is also waiting for you to raise that $50 billion that you promised at the Bahrain conference, which the Arab States have not yet ponied up and that underpinned Christian Christian. I’d like to say that, first of all, I’ve had discussions with a lot of the countries on that. Uh, the money is definitely there. I have soft commitments for most of it, but it’s subject to them having a regime where you could actually invest. You can invest a place that doesn’t have property rights, that doesn’t have governance. Uh, you need a place that there, that’s free of terror would all the business people were saying at that conferences, we’re dying to help the Palestinian people. We have a lot of money. We’re willing to invest, but we can’t invest in a place where we’re scared of terrorism

AMANPOUR:
can invest where you don’t have a judiciary, you don’t have freedom of press, you don’t have human rights. When you ask, when you interview president Abbas tomorrow, ask him about, I’m going to be interviewing the prime minister one, I’m going to be interviewed in five minutes. I know you have to go and I’m getting the hard rap from your people, but we did say, we’re going to ask you another question of the day. As you know, many observers have, have, have, you know, mentioned the elephant in the room that the president of the United States is under impeachment and under trial in the Senate. The prime minister of Israel is under indictment for corruption and all sorts of other things. You are the Wrangler for the president’s defense. How do you think it’s going? Do you think John Bolton will be called? And what do you think about witnesses?

KUSHNER:
Right, so first of all, I’d like to say that since the impeachment started til now, the president’s risen about seven points in the polls. I think RCP today just came out and said that he had his, uh, highest number ever, uh, unless verse with what’s going on in Israel. But what I can tell you here is that from the day that president Trump got into office, they’ve been talking about impeaching him. They tried to investigate him with the Russia thing. How many stories on CNN did you have? The, you accused me of treason and all these different crazy things, which I came out right away. I testified for 20 hours, and then poof, all of a sudden, it’s like nothing ever happened, right? There’s a lot of dirty stuff in politics. And again, president Trump is an outsider. He came to Washington promising to do things.

KUSHNER:
A lot of people in Washington don’t like it. He’s keeping his promises. He’s created over 7 million jobs. He’s taken millions of Americans off of food stamps and out of poverty. Our economy’s never been stronger. And so president Trump, he, he, you know, we have a team that deals with the impeachment because it’s a, it’s a nuisance. But the reality is, is we have a lot of people today. Tomorrow we’re signing U S MCA, the largest trade deal history of the world, a deal with Mexico and Canada. We signed a historic trade deal with China, uh, just a couple of weeks ago. So while the Democrats are busy going crazy, trying to impeach the president, he’s out creating opportunities for the American people and making the world a much better place. So I’ll be honest with you, it’s really doesn’t take a lot of our time and quite frankly, I’m also seeing it on the TV ratings. They continue to go down and down and I’m glad we get to do this interview now because if people are watching impeachment, I’m sure they’d be bored out of their minds.

AMANPOUR:
Yeah, maybe. Maybe ratings would go up if they saw you. You’re a very good spokesman for the president. You didn’t answer my question about how the defense is going and whether John Bolton will be cold, but we’ll leave that for another day. I appreciate it.

KUSHNER:
Yeah, well I can answer that. The, the defense is going great. Honestly, I feel like, again, it’s very easy to defend when they don’t really have any legitimate, uh, accusations against you. So, uh, we’re very pleased with the defense. We feel like, again, the president’s been totally vindicated. He’s done nothing wrong here and we’re very excited to go back to trying to do the business of the American people.

AMANPOUR:
All right. And we’re going to turn back to the middle East peace, uh, proposal that you have unveiled. Thanks for joining us from the white house. So we’re going to dig deeper into that proposal with two people who’ve been in the room before on previous peace negotiations. Aaron, David Miller, who worked for American presidents of both parties and Marwan Muasher following the Israeli Jordanian peace treaty, he became Jordan’s first ever ambassador to Israel. I guess I need to ask you both to comment really on what you just heard from the horses mouth, so to speak, because Jared Kushner has just put forth, um, the Trump administration and the Netanyahu administration’s view of why this is a great deal.

MUASHER:
Well, Christian, this is really a one state solution couched in two-state lingo. I mean, uh, the plan, uh, plants to annex all of the Jordan Valley, all of the settlement blocks, all of Jerusalem keeps security control in all of historic Palestine with Israel and then claims that it is doubling the land for Palestinians. I mean, people are not going to be fooled by semantics. This is a plan that gives Israel everything today and gives the Palestinians only the chance to negotiate the rest of the West bank in four years should they meet this criteria. It is not a plan for a viable solution and it’s not a coincidence that the Palestinian side was not the, uh, you know, in the white house today with, with full respect for the Arab countries that were there. They are not living on the land. They are not the ones involved. The Palestinians have to be, uh, satisfied with, with a viable solution to the conflict. Otherwise, we truly are looking at a one state solution and not a two state one.

AMANPOUR:
Should the Palestinians be advised to take this as the basis of something, of negotiations and engage with the Trump administration.

AMANPOUR:
This is not a reasonable plan. This is a farce in my view. No Palestinian, no Arab can accept a plan that does not include a, you know, part of Jerusalem that does not include the right of return. That does not include, uh, uh, uh, sort of the majority of the West bank and Gaza. You cannot take all of these away, often negotiation stay but, and then ask the Palestinians to negotiate for the rest of the 70% or 60% of the West bank. That’s not, you know, that’s not a reasonable solution in my view. This is only for maligning an apartheid system, uh, with the Palestinians.

AMANPOUR:
Let me turn to Aaron, David Miller, who has been your partner in Paul’s negotiations and as I said, serve many American presidents from both sides of the aisle. Um, can you describe what has just happened, Aaron, David Miller, and do you think that this is at least the basis for future negotiations? And also what Marwan just said about, you know, is it’s a doubling or an increase in the size of territory also to the Palestinians. What about Jerusalem? The president said that us would proudly build a, an embassy in that positive. He said Eastern Jerusalem, not East Jerusalem. I don’t know whether that was just a misspeak or what, what, what stood out for you?

MILLER:
You know, I’m one of those failed peacemakers under both Republican and democratic administrations that I think mr Cushner was referring to. And I understand his point. Um, eh, we’ve tried and, and some of our ideas were half baked, um, most failed in lare part because neither Israelis nor Palestinians were prepared to make the kinds of decisions. My concern is this Christianne uh, when I met mr [inaudible] for the first time, I, I said to him, I wish half jokingly, I said, I wish my father-in-law’s as much confidence in me as your father in law has in you because he’s given you mission impossible. I said, you can’t solve this, but you can make it worse. And in my judgment, and I understand all mr questionnaires points the importance of pragmatism, practicality, the importance of broadening the economic horizons of Palestinians. But the reality is, what has happened here today in my judgment was not a question of peacemaking. It was largely a question of, of politics. And the administration, once again in my view, is come up with a solution to a problem we didn’t have. And in the process made that made that problem even worse, there was no reason to put a comprehensive settlement plan, uh, for Israeli Palestinian peace on the table. Certainly not one that carries as many flaws and draws drawbacks as the one Mr. Kushner proposed, as marajuana knows this is a fraud enterprise. If they were serious, what they would have done is spend the hundreds of hours that are required to meet separately with the Israelis separately where the Palestinians, they would have encouraged both Israelis and Palestinians to sit together and they would have mediated tri lateral three-way talks with the U S to try to really understand the needs and requirements of both sides and to create a, not an imbalance of power, but a balance of interests. They didn’t do that and they didn’t do it because the objective of this plan was not peacemaking. It was in my judgment, domestic politics. And in that they may have succeeded. They’ve boosted Mr. Trump stock as a representative of a Republican party that is now emerging as the GoTo party when it comes to supporting Israel. They may or may not have boosted mr Netanyahu’s chances in the next election. Who knows? And they fundamentally taken steps to revise a traditional American approach to is really Palestinian peacemaking, which frankly has failed but isn’t doomed to failure.

AMANPOUR:
And that’s why I have a problem as an American with what mr Kush during the Trump administration has done. [inaudible]

AMANPOUR:
Okay. So let me just try to understand some of this. I mean, to be fair, Cushner and his and his, you know, fellow administration, uh, you know, compatriots have worked on this for three years. I understand what you’re saying. They haven’t maybe sat down with the, certainly with the Palestinian side for the requisite number of hours that you say. Um, but again, it just seems that there is, I mean, even if you just take this deal out of the equation, nothing has worked. Literally nothing. So what is the answer Marwan from where you sit and as I said to mr Cushner, neither Saudi Arabia, the guardian of the two Holy MOS, the so-called father of the Muslim nations nor Egypt nor the Jordanians, the only two Arab countries which have peace deals with Israel. Neither of you were in the room for this. None of you were in the room for this.

AMANPOUR:
What can be done to actually come to a deal? What could this administration have done particularly given its leverage and it’s helped to Bibi Netanyahu over the last three years, what could it have done, do you think?

AMANPOUR:
Christianne it could have offered something which is viable as I said, which at least the Palestinians can work with. Right now what is being offered is basically saying we are killing the two States solution. We are for a one state solution. That is what they are saying. And I think in that, in that case, if that is indeed what Israel and what the United States want to do, then the Palestinians are going to demand equal rights in this state that controls them. And then the international community that mr Cushner talked about, the international community, if a two state solution dies, it’s not going to stand still and watch an apartheid system indefinitely. If people want equal rights. I think the American Congress, the American people, uh, the international community are not going to stand aside if people demand equal rights and don’t get them. That is what we are talking about. If there, if the two state solution is killed as I think it has been already. Okay.

AMANPOUR:
So I wanted to ask you this and I want to put this sound bite from Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister because president Trump specifically called upon your King, King Abdullah of Jordan to monitor and manage the Al Aqsa mosque. Um, and he also talked about his, you know, uh, formalizing Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley, which as far as I can tell in any other peace plan wasn’t on the table. This is what Benjamin Netanyahu has said.

NETANYAHU:
It stipulates that Israel will retain security control in the entire area West of the Jordan river, thereby giving Israel a permanent Eastern border, a permanent Eastern border to defend ourselves across our longest border. This is something we’ve longed to have.

AMANPOUR:
We don’t have such a recognized boundary, so 10 Jordan, except that no Jordan cannot accept that. And, uh, you know, offering Jordan custodianship over the Holy places in Jerusalem, which it already has, is no substitute for a Palestinian state on the West bank and Gaza and of course in East Jerusalem. Otherwise, if there is no such state West of the river Jordan fears that this solution might come at its expense. So there’s no amount of sort of bribery, if you will, that can be offered to Jordan, uh, less than a full Palestinian state and a viable Palestinian state in the West bank and Gaza.

AMANPOUR:
Let me put to you a Aaron David Miller. What president Trump is sort of a mashup of president Trump’s promises to the Palestinian side.

NETANYAHU:
This map will more than double the Palestinian territory and provide a Palestinian capital in Eastern Jerusalem where America will proudly open an embassy, no Palestinians or Israelis will be uprooted from their homes. Our vision will deliver a massive commercial investment of $50 billion into the new Palestinian state. You have many,

AMANPOUR:
Can you deconstruct that for us, particularly the size of the Palestinian state and what he said?

AMANPOUR:
No Palestinian always, rarely will be asked to leave or uproot from their homes or in large measure. That’s I think a a, a pretty directed green light, uh, for, for the, uh, for the Israelis to essentially sanction the existence of Jewish settlements throughout the West bank. Now, under any circumstances there were. And look at Gaza took Sharon, uh, the architect of the settlement enterprise to essentially dismantle and remove, um, uh, Israeli Jews from Gaza. And it was an extremely painful experience. So the notion of having to remove, even if you could incorporate the vast majority of the Israeli, uh, Israelis who live beyond the green line into the major settlement block, you’re still left with roughly 80,000 Israelis living in settlements that are not proximate to the green line.

AMANPOUR:
What Mr. Trump has done, I think is to suggest that, um, those individuals and the individuals in the blocks, uh, clearly in negotiation, even the Palestinians were prepared to recognize that some of these key blocks would be incorporated into Israel. I think the, the offer to the Palestinians, frankly, has gone down, and this reflects us to a certain degree Christianne the, the mentality of the bankruptcy attorney where on Friday, if you don’t accept 50 cents on the dollar by Sunday, it’s now 25 cents on the dollar. And the fact is, this was one I think of the administration and mr questioner’s key objectives to make it unmistakably clear to the Palestinians that they have lost, that the game is over. And unless they accept this pathway, they’re not getting 50 cents on a dollar, they’re not getting 25 cents on the dollar. They may end up with nothing. And frankly, even in the imperfect rule in which we live with all of the flaws of the Palestinian leadership and the Israeli leadership, that is no way for the world’s most consequential power to conduct an negotiation.

AMANPOUR:
Marijuana is 100% right. If they were serious about this, really determined they would have applied enormous amounts of honey to the Israelis in anticipation of asking when the time was right for the Israelis to swallow the vinegar that needs to be swallowed if you’re going to meet the needs and requirements of both Israelis and Palestinians. Last point, I still believe, I know Marwan may not agree that with wise and prudent leadership and ownership on the part of Israelis and Palestinians, the idea of a two state solution is not totally dead, but what has Trump administration has accomplished today I’m afraid is to open the door to unilateral Israeli moves that may ultimately cause the demise of that solution on the watch of this president. My one Washa Aaron, David Miller. Thank you so much for being with me today.

AMANPOUR:
Tonight. Now our next guest is an expert in bringing people who are worlds apart together. Ted Koppel is a member of the broadcasting hall of fame, who made his name as anchor of ABC news Nightline for over two decades. And in 1988 before there ever were any formal peace negotiations at all, he hosted and unprecedented town hall between Israelis and Palestinians live from Jerusalem. Look at that picture there. He was sitting on a symbolic wall created between the two sides. He’s been speaking to our Walter Isaacson about the state of journalism and democracy today with the United States in the throes of this impeachment trial.

ISAACSON:
So you’ve been to a lot of these Wars before and these scandals before. Tell me how you think the press is covering this one in some respects extraordinarily well.

KOPPEL:
I mean there is some phenomenal reporting going on. On the other hand, I think it is, it is too easy for people to quite literally a sort of divide the price down the middle, uh, and establish quite easily who’s for and who’s against. Uh, and I think that is troublesome because it means that we have lost our, to be viewed as a objective observers of what’s going on.

ISAACSON:
Do you think newspapers, like the Washington post in the New York times in particular have moved away from objective journalism, especially when it comes to president Trump?

KOPPEL:
Let me tell you a story. Walter. Um, it, it goes back probably about 30 or 35 years. Uh, I was doing Nightline at that time and I was the managing editor and I called up a reporter at the New York times who had done a particularly good story. And I asked him if he would come and appear on Nightline that evening. Uh, and he said, I’m going to have to check with ape. Abe Rosenthal at the time was the executive editor of the New York times. And he called me back a little while later and he said, Abe said, uh, sure. If you want to go do Nightline, you go ahead and do Nightline, but then don’t come back to the New York tar. The point being, and there were actually two points. One Abe didn’t want his reporters sharing whatever their reporting had been with arrival news organization, but also he didn’t want his reporters as he put it.

KOPPEL:
Uh, if you go on couple’s gonna ask you some tough questions and you may end up expressing your personal opinion. I don’t want my New York times reporters expressing their personal opinions on TV. That clearly has changed. You can’t watch MSNBC or CNN for that matter without seeing a whole bunch of spear carriers from the New York times, from the Washington post. Uh, and I must tell you, and I say this, I say this to you and I, I see you occasionally on, on morning Joe. Um, when a reporter from the New York times or the Washington post ends up on one of those programs, uh, sitting next to Mika Brzezinski, it’s very hard for that reporter at that point to lay claim to absolute objectivity. Whether or not anything that he or she says ends up being subjective or ends up being perceived as being in favor of one side or the other. The mere fact that they are on a program that is perceived as being very left of center and very anti-Trump, I think undermines the public perception of those people as being objective.

ISAACSON:
But don’t you think that opinionated journalism is in some ways more honest that reporters have always had biases, but now at least they get to express their opinions and we know who’s on Fox, who’s on ms, who’s on CNN, what they’re saying on Twitter and Facebook?

KOPPEL:
Yeah, I mean, it’s not as though, uh, we’ve never had the opportunity to express opinions before. It’s just in the past we’ve limited those opinions to the op ed pages, uh, and that’s no longer the case. Uh, and, and that I think is a step in the wrong direction. It is too easy for enemies of really good journalism. And I don’t want anyone to think that, that I’m, uh, in, in any way deprecating, uh, what appears on the front pages of the New York times. And the Washington post, I think there’s some really brilliant journalism going on. Uh, but a, I don’t really like seeing analysis pieces on the front page of a major newspaper. I think they belong in the back, uh, on one of the op-ed pages a and B, when those reporters whose reporting may be absolutely objective appear on programs that are perceived by almost everyone who watches them, uh, as having a vested political interest in one direction or another. Uh, I think the reporters end up being perceived as, as having, uh, too much of a stake in the game. Uh, no, I don’t think it’s a good thing.

ISAACSON:
And so you’d think that cable TV news in some ways has undermined, uh, objective journalism?

KOPPEL:
Well, I think cable TV news in, in many respects, uh, look, obviously what happened is the first to do it, uh, was Rupert Murdoch, uh, over at Fox and it became hugely profitable. Uh, you know, you may know the numbers better than I do, but I think Fox these days probably earns about one and a half billion dollars a year. That’s real money. Uh, and at the time when Fox started doing that, MSNBC was nowhere doing nothing, making zero. Uh, and it is only when the folks over at NBC decided that they were going to turn MSNBC into a liberal counterpart, uh, to what Fox was doing, that they started really improving their ratings and therefore also improving the amount of money they were making. Uh, I mean, let’s not kid ourselves. Donald Trump has been very, very good for the business of journalism.

ISAACSON:
Do you think that democracy is getting undermined by the fact that people are getting their news and information from more partisan and ideological sources?

KOPPEL:
I don’t think democracy is being, is being strengthened by it. Um, is it being undermined? Yes. I think that a democracy requires desperately needs what are widely perceived by people of all political stripes as objective sources of news. Otherwise, it’s too easy to dismiss what is being said by one side or the other simply because they don’t share your political point of view. Uh, you know, that doesn’t mean that, uh, network news or cable news or the major newspapers cannot be very tough in terms of the reporting they do. But I don’t think their reporters should be perceived as siding with one group rather than the other. I think that’s, I think that does undermine democracy. Yes,

ISAACSON:
it is true though that some stories can be very, very anti-Trump but also be true. And that may be journalists shouldn’t be saying on the one hand, and on the other hand they should be saying this is just the objective truth and it may feel like we’re attacking Trump. But it’s true.

KOPPEL:
I totally agree with you. Totally agree with you. I mean, it, it used to frustrate the hell out of me. Walder when I would see people going out and doing men on the street interviews one side for one against and one not sure, uh, that’s not journalism. Journalism requires that you, that you have the capacity to at least lay out the facts so that your readers, your audience can then draw their own conclusions. Uh, and when there were, you know, when the laying out of facts looks like an indictment, I don’t have any problem with that.

ISAACSON:
To what extent do you think that the internet and social media has exacerbated this problem?

KOPPEL:
Hugely. Hugely. I mean, I think the internet has been a, you know, the internet is on one level, uh, one of the greatest gifts to mankind that we’re going to imagine on another level. It is a weapon of mass destruction, uh, and is being used as such. The fact of the matter is, it is the internet, uh, which has created things like Twitter. Uh, it is the internet that has enabled people of extreme ideologies on the left and on the right to get in touch, not just with the half a dozen people sitting at the bar who may share their opinion, but all of a sudden anyone with access to a laptop, anyone with access to an iPhone has the capacity of becoming a publisher, a broadcaster, someone who potentially can reach hundreds, thousands. Uh, you know, when you and I were young journalists, if you wanted to reach a large audience, you had to work for ABC or the New York times or the associated press or UPI. Uh, it wasn’t possible for an individual to put something out and make sure that it would reach tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people at attack. The internet makes that possible. That is both a blessing and a curse,

ISAACSON:
but isn’t it in some ways a, not just a blessing, but it really democratizes as opposed to allowing gatekeepers like you and I once were to say, here’s the news.

KOPPEL:
Yeah. And, and if you thank the democratization of journalism is a good thing. I disagree with you. I don’t think it is. Um, because whether, you know, you wouldn’t dream of democratizing any other profession. You wouldn’t democratize medicine. You wouldn’t democratize the law. You wouldn’t democratize plumbing or carpentry. You expect a certain level of expertise. You expect a carpenter to have had some training in his trade. I expect a journalist who have had some training in the industry by the democratization of journalism. You make the process available to people who have absolutely no background in trying to present a fair, balanced point of view? None. Uh, so in that sense, you know, obviously we like to think that democracy is in and of itself an unimpeachable word. Uh, you know, if something is democratic, it has to be good. Not necessarily. So

ISAACSON:
do you think there’s any way that the country gets back to what I guess you and I would call the old normal?

KOPPEL:
No, no. Not a chance.

ISAACSON:
So how does this movie go?

KOPPEL:
Well, um, I think we can, we can only express a hope, a prayer even that it doesn’t go in the direction of violence. Um, you know, on one level, and I’m not the first to say this and won’t be the last, uh, we clearly are already engaged and in a sort of ideological civil war in this country, uh, for the time being, it has been waged with at least a, a minimum of bloodshed. Um, I am wondering, for example, what’s going to happen, let’s save for the sake of argument that whoever the democratic candidate is defeats Donald Trump in November. We then have a period from early November until the 20th of January, that interregnum period when Donald Trump is still president, but he knows that he only has a few months left to sir. How do you think that period will go? Do you think he will be a gracious loser?

KOPPEL:
Do you think that he will accept to feed, uh, and, and reach out the hand of friendship to whoever is going to replace him? Uh, I don’t think so. Uh, can I, can I see Donald Trump at that point making the argument that, uh, the election was stolen, um, possibility. And I think there are unfortunately millions of people in this country today who would respond to that in a fashion that, you know, I’m not even sure. I, I, I really want to consider all the consequences of where that might go. Could it lead to violence, your zip code?

ISAACSON:
You’ve been a pretty bleak, uh, assessment of where we are and how it could get worse in some ways. Uh, people have compared this to sort of an authoritarian, uh, tamale even the way it was in Germany in the 1930s. Your family, your parents escaped Germany, uh, I think in 1937 got to England. Is that comparison in any way valid?

KOPPEL:
I don’t think so. No. I mean, um, there, there is still, and I hope to God that we can, that we can defend it. There is still something unique about America and, uh, the, the many, many voices. I mean so far, at least it, and that’s why it bothered me so much when, uh, when some people, uh, on the left began talking early on about the resistance. And when I think about the resistance, I think about courageous Germans and in Nazi Germany who were, who were confronting, uh, the possibility of imprisonment, torture, death. I think about, uh, the French resistance to, uh, Nazi Germans who occupied France during world war II. We’re nowhere near that in this country yet. Uh, and no, I don’t see that yet. Is it possible? Uh, we are not immune to the laws of history and if we give up our protections, if we, if we no longer have value, the rule of law and the, the appropriateness of, of journalism, uh, that is much heavier on objectivity than it is on opinion.

KOPPEL:
Uh, if we don’t value those things appropriately, then I fear not that we’re going to become Nazi Germany or fascist Italy, but it’s not going to be a happy place. And we have, we have seen periods like that in this country. Uh, the McCarthy era in this country in the early 1950s was much closer to that. People lived in fear. People lived in fear of expressing honest opinions out loud. Um, so we’ve, we’ve come dangerously close in the past and I think we, we are at least in a position today where it’s not beyond the question. I mean, it’s not beyond possibility, uh, that we could slide more in that direction. But do I see a, a precise parallel with Nazi Germany? I do not. Ted Koppel. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.

AMANPOUR:
And finally, the ongoing wrestling match between the Trump administration and the press intensifies. The state department has barred NPR veteran reporter Michelle Kellerman from joining secretary of state, Mike Pompeo on his upcoming foreign trip. This comes days after a tense interview with another NPR journalist and president Trump weighed in on that today at the white house on veiling ceremony. The state departments correspondent association has called the move retaliation and punishment. And let it be a reminder for all of us that the health of our democracy depends on a free press, able to report and bring you the truth. And that is it for our program tonight. Find out what is coming up on the show by signing up for our daily preview. Visit pbs.org/amanpour thanks for watching our important company and join us again tomorrow night.