Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, INTERNATIONAL HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.
Since the October 7th massacres in Israel and over 240 hostages held by Hamas, I’m joined by Sharone Lifshitz, whose mother was released, but whose
father remains in captivity.
Then, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel will control Gaza’s security for the foreseeable future. I ask his adviser, Mark Regev, how?
Why?
Plus, Gaza is becoming a graveyard for children, that warning from the U.N. chief. Former Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad joins me.
And, as the Trump trials continue, Colorado’s secretary of state debriefs Hari Sreenivasan on the state’s attempt to disqualify Trump from running
again.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.
One month ago today, just as the sun rose on October 7th, Hamas launched its surprise attack on Israel. The government says 1,400 people were
killed, mostly civilians. The worst massacre in the country’s 75-year history. And it launched its most aggressive operation yet in Gaza. With
now over 10,000 killed there, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Ramallah. It’s a death toll that even the U.S., Israel’s biggest
supporter, is finding harder to explain.
These are pictures of memorials tonight in Tel Aviv, marking a month since the attacks. And last night, the faces of hostages kidnapped by Hamas were
projected on the outer wall of Jerusalem’s old city. To this day, 240 people remain in captivity.
86-year-old Yocheved Lifshitz is one of just four hostages who’s been released so far. But her husband, Oded, is still being held. And I’ve been
speaking to their daughter, Sharone, about the family’s ordeal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: You have been very clear, along with a lot of hostage families that you believe the government’s first and foremost duty is to the
hostages. Do you believe that that is what’s happening in this current war on Gaza since the atrocities in your country?
SHARONE LIFSHITZ, MOTHER RELEASED BY HAMAS, FATHER STILL HOSTAGE IN GAZA: I would like to believe, but do I believe? I will believe it when I see
everybody has come home safe. I think that there is a lot of conflicting interests. Some of them are medium and long-term. The short-term must be
the return of the hostages. I don’t feel that it really is at the foremost of everybody’s mind within the government.
AMANPOUR: So, if you were in front of your prime minister or defense minister or whoever, what would you say to them right now? Your father is
still there.
LIFSHITZ: Bring them back. Bring them back. Do what it takes to bring them back. Israel has exchanged loads of prisoners, a thousand prisoners for one
soldier, not a civilian, a soldier. My father always was against that. He thought that we shouldn’t do it, but we did it because the first contract
that a country has with its citizens is to protect them.
We have 240 hostages, civilians, babies, children, mothers, elderly people like my father in their 80s. This is not an acceptable thing to just let
them be collateral damage.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
It’s a powerful message, and we’ll bring you my full interview with Sharone Lifshitz later this week.
But next, the U.N. secretary general says that Gaza is becoming a graveyard for children. Israel’s incursion has already left more than 4,000 children
dead, according to the health authorities in Ramallah. In his first interview since October 7th, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
tells ABC that his government is considering “tactical little pauses to enable humanitarian goods into Gaza, but no ceasefire.” He also revealed
plans to control the enclave security indefinitely.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: I think Israel will — for an indefinite period, will have the overall security responsibility because
we’ve seen what happens when we don’t have it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Today, the White House pushed back saying that Israel shouldn’t reoccupy Gaza. Mark Regev is senior adviser to the prime minister and he’s
joining me now from Tel Aviv. Mark Regev, welcome back to the program.
MARK REGEV, SENIOR ADVISER TO ISRAEL PRIME MINISTER: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you first to respond to Sharone Lipschitz, who, you know, like all of you, suffered enormously as your nation has from what
happened October 7th. She said that everything needs to be done to bring back those hostages, more than 240. One of the war aims was to put enough
pressure on Hamas that they would release the hostages. It hasn’t happened.
REGEV: Correct. It doesn’t — hasn’t happened. And the release of the hostages, as you say, is one of the aims of our operation. It’s crucial
that we expedite the release of the hostages. But Christiane, we saw the sort of a barbaric violence that Hamas is capable of. We saw what they did
when they invaded our country and butchered our people, the rapes, the massacres, the burning of people alive. We saw all that. And we have to
have no illusions about Hamas. They’re not going to suddenly release the hostages because they’ve decided to become humanitarians on the contrary.
So, we believe by beefing up the pressure, that is the best way to get them out. Make Hamas feel the pain until they understand they have to release
the hostages.
AMANPOUR: But —
REGEV: Now, we already —
AMANPOUR: — but it hasn’t happened yet, Mark. And that’s — there’s a lot of pain. You’ve been dropping one, two-ton bombs. I mean, this is a serious
question, whether it remains a serious primary war goal.
REGEV: We are seeing in our intelligence Hamas is increasingly under pressure. And we think today there is a better chance of getting the
hostages out than there was before our ground incursion. And I think as we keep ratcheting up the pressure, the chances of serious movement on the
hostage issue is increased.
You’re correct, it hasn’t happened until now. I feel for the families. I can only imagine what they’re going through, but what is the alternative?
AMANPOUR: Can I ask — sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt you there, but I just wanted to ask you whether actual negotiations have ever been on the
table in the vein that Sharone Lipschitz indicated that you’ve already done before several times in your history doing prisoner swaps. I just wondered
whether there was any serious contemplation of trying to get your hostages back by releasing Hamas prisoners.
REGEV: So, as you know, there have been discussions going on through the Qataris, but so far they have not yielded any results. We believe it’s
possible that those tracks may work in the future if Hamas is under increased pressure.
And I think it’s also important to tell people in Qatar, you have this relationship with Hamas. You have a relationship with people who are
terrorists, who brutalized innocent civilians, who raped, who massacred young people in a music festival, who did the most atrocious crimes against
humanity. Now, you tell the world that that relationship with Hamas brings benefits. So, let’s see. But this is not going to happen because Hamas, as
I said, suddenly become nice people. They’re not nice people.
AMANPOUR: No, no. We’ve never suggested —
REGEV: It happened only because Hamas is under pressure.
AMANPOUR: Right. But the question is —
REGEV: Only under pressure.
AMANPOUR: — how much more pressure? The prime minister has said — your prime minister, there’ll be no general ceasefire without the release of the
hostages. So, is the hostage release the condition for the ceasefire?
REGEV: The operation, as you know, is to dismantle the Hamas military machine and to end Hamas’ political control of Gaza. Now, to achieve the
release of the hostages, we’re willing for a pause. We’re willing to facilitate that release. But once again, it’s only going to happen if Hamas
feels the pressure. And it’s important that we keep that pressure on Hamas.
AMANPOUR: What pauses are you talking about? Because that, again, is what Netanyahu brought up last night, little pauses. What? When? How? And this
is not just for hostages, but for humanitarian relief into Gaza.
REGEV: So, since this operation started a month ago, we’ve had a number of pauses. First of all, there were the two pauses that facilitated the
release of the two pairs of women, the first pair of American women and the second pair of the elderly Israeli women. There was agreed in a specific
location and a specific time for a cessation of the fighting.
We’ve also had pauses to facilitate the departure of Gazans from the Northern Gaza Strip to the Southern Gaza Strip. We created a safe corridor.
There are also pauses to allow in humanitarian supplies. These are things that we’ve done in the past. We’re willing to see them in the future. We
want to make sure that the humanitarian effort to the people of Gaza can continue. And of course, there will be pauses to facilitate that. We’ve
done all that. We’re willing to do that in the future.
But to cease the war against Hamas would be a mistake. It’s like a ceasefire with al Qaeda or a ceasefire with ISIS. These people, of course,
want a ceasefire because we’re hitting them hard. But just giving them a chance to regroup, to reenergize their forces, to rearm and then to hit us
again, that would be a mistake.
Ramzi Hamed, the — one of the leaders of Hamas said, given the chance, they would do October 7th again and again and again, his words, not mine.
So, obviously, we don’t want to have a situation where Hamas can have a rest and then just attack us again. That’s not a logical position.
AMANPOUR: So, to that point, your prime minister gave his first interview, not to the Israeli press, but to the American press, ABC, and said last
night — and caused some waves, as you obviously know, saying that — or implying that Israel would remain for the indefinite future in charge of
security. What exactly does that mean? And do you know what? I’m just going to — well, what does it mean? What does it exactly look like, that?
REGEV: Well, you are right in stressing security because we have to distinguish between security — a security presence and political control.
And when this is over and we have defeated Hamas, it’s crucial there won’t be a resurgent terrorist element, a resurgent Hamas. There’s no point doing
this and just go back to square one.
And so, there will have to be Israeli security presence, but that doesn’t mean Israel is reoccupying Gaza. That doesn’t mean that Israel is there to
govern the Gazans. On the contrary, we are interested in establishing new frameworks where the Gazans can rule themselves, where there can be
international support for the reconstruction of Gaza. Hopefully, we can bring in countries, Arab countries as well, for a reconstruction of a
demilitarized post Hamas Gaza.
AMANPOUR: I mean, you know, I wonder whether that’s splitting hairs given what we have on the occupied West Bank, which is meant to be a lot of their
control, but is actually a lot of your control. And the reason why I’m asking is that, as you know, the Americans, your staunchest supporters,
have floated, have said, particularly the secretary of state, that they see a revitalized Palestinian Authority in the first instance going in, you
know, maybe not immediately, but the security and the control or whatever, you know, the management of Gaza would be undertaken by the second tranche
of what you called in the first instance, you know, like internationals or the U.N. But you’re saying Israel will stay there in its military
configuration, a military configuration?
REGEV: Correct. When you say stay there, it’s like we’re there the whole time, and I think you could expect something more fluid, something more
flexible where we can move it and move out as need be to do — deal with the security situation.
We’re not talking about any sort of ongoing occupation of the Gaza Strip. Once again, we want the Gazans to rule themselves, and we think there will
be an international effort for that. But if you bring up the Palestinian Authority, I want to say what needs to be said, we’re a month today since
those terrible October 7th massacres and the Palestinian Authority has still refused to condemn them.
And I’m sorry, their silence speaks volumes. And for them to say that they’re a peace partner, and at the same time refusing to condemn the sort
of atrocious violence. The German chancellor compared the violence we saw to the Nazis. Yes, they refuse to condemn it. That is a problem for
Israelis across the political spectrum in my country.
AMANPOUR: I’m going to bring that up with the former Palestinian prime minister, Salaam Fayyad, in a moment. But first to you, I want to ask you
about the humanitarian situation. Look, Mark Regev, 10,000 dead is a huge number. And it’s a desperate scene, as you know, that we are seeing on our
screens and the people are reporting on inside Gaza every single day. You talk about humanitarian pauses, but that would be news to a lot of those
who’ve lived through, you know, 27, 28 days of constant bombardment.
I just want to ask you — I want to read something about doctors. You can see the report of hospitals and health systems on the verge of collapse,
partly because of the bombings, partly because of your total siege of all the necessary sustaining necessities there. “The New York Times” reports,
and this is a quote that struck me about doctors.
“They make snap decisions amid the screams of small children undergoing amputations or brain surgeries without anesthesia or clean water to wash
their wounds.” It goes on. “A lack of fresh water supplies and iodine has left wounds filthy with maggots nibbling at patients charred and torn
flesh.”
So, I just want to ask you as a representative of what you proudly call the Middle East only democracy. Is that acceptable? In any war, is that
acceptable.
REGEV: Christiane, you’ve covered wars over the last decade.
AMANPOUR: I have indeed. I’ve never seen anything like this. And I’m not on the ground.
REGEV: So, first of all, there has never been a war in modern history where there haven’t been civilians caught up in the crossfire.
AMANPOUR: But 10,000, Mark.
REGEV: But what is our obligation — no. What is our obligation as a democratic country? To try to keep those numbers as low as possible. Now,
you quote the 10,000 number, which is the number that’s put out by the Hamas controlled ministry of health in Gaza, and that’s picked up by
everyone else, but they’re the only ones producing the numbers.
You say 10,000 civilians. That’s — I have to argue with you. No one has any idea of what percentage of them are Hamas terrorists —
AMANPOUR: But you do see the civilians, right? I’m not arguing with you about percentages.
REGEV: Of course. I’m not.
AMANPOUR: But you see the civilians. You see the kids. You see the women.
REGEV: I’m just saying it’s incorrect, I think, to say 10,000 civilians have died. That’s presuming that Israel hasn’t hit a single Hamas terrorist
in this operation. That’s obviously not true.
AMANPOUR: No, no, no. We said 10,000 dead.
REGEV: Hamas wants us to believe that. Yes, yes. So, it’s clear they’re not all civilians. I hope that’s clear. Now, Israel —
AMANPOUR: But you see the civilians.
REGEV: — for the last three weeks — I have no doubt there is genuine suffering and tragedy in Gaza. I don’t want to see a single civilian
killed. But let’s be clear, for the last three and a half weeks, Israel has been calling on Gaza civilians to relocate from the north to move to the
south. Gazans have voted with their feet. Over 800,000 people have taken our advice and moved to the south out of harm’s way.
We’re establishing together with the Americans and others this safe zone in the southern part of the Gaza Strip close to the Mediterranean coast in the
west there. It’s in proximity to the Rafah Crossing. We are making no limitations on the water, food and medicine coming in for these people.
We’re trying to keep them out of harm’s way.
But what has to be said, Christiane, is that if Israel is making a maximum effort to keep civilians out of harm’s way, the Hamas authorities are doing
the opposite. Hamas is telling people not to leave. They’re ordering people not to leave. They’re actually putting up physical barriers to prevent
people from leaving. And why? Because Hamas doesn’t give a hoot about the civilian population of Gaza. Hamas wants to fight to the very last Gazan
civilian, that’s why they built their military infrastructure under hospitals, under urban areas.
In normal countries, the job of the military is to protect the civilian population, Hamas inverts that. Hamas says the job of the civilians is to
protect our terror machine.
AMANPOUR: Mark —
REGEV: They should be blamed for the civilian casualties.
AMANPOUR: You’re absolutely right. I’m sure those fighters don’t give a hoot, as you say, about the civilians who are being, you know, killed in
terrible, terrible massacres, or rather, in terrible ways that we can see. But I want to ask you this, because you said, and this is really important,
that you warned all these people to move. We’ve been reporting this for weeks. They did, as you say, in huge numbers. But the south is also getting
bombed. It’s also getting attacked. And so, this is a problem. Many of them say they have nowhere else to run. That’s one thing.
The second thing is, what exactly have you achieved in degrading Hamas if you say they’re continuing to have an influence on people? What have you —
can you tell us how much you think you’ve degraded them militarily?
REGEV: We’ve hitting — we’ve been hitting them hard, and we’ve degraded them substantially, but there’s still a lot of work to be done. Because our
goal is the elimination of Hamas, to end their control of Gaza and to destroy their military machine. And we’re not there yet. It’s going to take
more time and more effort. This won’t be over soon.
And because we know it won’t be over soon, that’s why we have to expedite the safe zone and the increase in the flow of aid to the people of Gaza.
That’s our goal, is in parallel as we relentlessly pursue the Hamas murderers, we have to at the same time facilitate expedite support for the
civilian population of Gaza. Ultimately, we’re trying to be as focused to target the Hamas terror machine. And in parallel, C, do everything that can
be done for the civilian population. That’s the Israeli policy.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you about something else you said earlier? That you’re — I mean, you indicated that you’re moving civilians, you want them to
move to a certain point near the Rafah, et cetera, which is on the Egypt border.
There are a lot of people all over who are truly panic stricken that what your real intent is — I’m not saying you, the government’s real intent is
to actually remove the civilians from Gaza. There have been secret papers or planning papers that are circulating. Many in the International
Community believe that that’s the intention. Egypt says, no, we’re not going to take them. Jordan says, no, we’re not going to take them from over
there. The U.S. says, we still believe in a two-state solution. We do not believe or do we accept the forcible transfer of population? Are you
trying? Do you want — do you expect the people of Gaza to move into Egypt?
REGEV: What we’re — what we have been saying is we’re talking about a temporary location to get people out of harm’s way while the fighting
continues. And when the fighting is over, of course, they can return to their homes. And if their homes need to be rebuilt, there should be an
international effort to help reconstruction of Gaza. We spoke about that a moment ago. But all these conspiracy theories about how Israel wants
somehow to depopulate Gaza permanently.
AMANPOUR: No, it was your paper. It was a paper from the Ministry of Interior. The intelligence, I’m sorry. Sorry.
REGEV: No, no, no. That was not serious and my prime minister denounced the document.
AMANPOUR: OK.
REGEV: It’s just not serious.
AMANPOUR: All right. OK.
REGEV: Can I be clear though? The Egyptians though have opened up a field hospital for the wounded on their side of the Rafah Crossing. The
Jordanians and the Emiratis have opened up field hospitals inside the Gaza Strip. The French are talking about and have already moved a hospital ship
to the Mediterranean Coast opposite Gaza. We’re supporting all these efforts. We believe it’s important. We urge all other countries who can to
also provide medical support, we’ll help facilitate that.
You know why it’s so important? Because unfortunately, Hamas has turned the hospitals of Gaza, as has been widely reported, into tools of their terror
machine. So, it’s crucial that we have alternative facilities.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And there’s been a lot of attacking around those hospitals. So, let’s just move on, because that’s a fact. There’s been a lot of
bombardment around the hospitals, schools, all the other things, because we know that —
REGEV: Well, that’s because Hamas had turned them into military targets, of course. That’s the truth.
AMANPOUR: Now, on — I said that I would, ask you this, because last night we had the Jordanian foreign minister on, who talked about, again, the post
war scenario, and about what they’re trying to urge. Their, you know, actual diplomatic partner, Israel, you, they have a peace treaty with, to
listen, and this is what he told me, and I want to ask you, to respond.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AYMAN SAFADI, JORDANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: It’s not listening to the advice of its friends and it’s not listening to the genuine calls that are coming
from people across the world to say what they’re doing is simply war crimes. So, where do we go from here? I think it is within Israel’s —
their view to decide where we go from here. Continue with this war and we will pay the price for generations to come. Stop this war, let’s all bite
the wands.
Let’s all say enough death, enough killing and really come together and see what — how — what is the path that we make sure that none of us have to
go through this again. That path is peace. We’re ready to engage with all our partners to start immediately on that path. But Israel is not there
yet. It has to be there. Otherwise, it’s hurting itself as much as it’s hurting everybody else.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, hurting itself, yourself as much as everybody else is hurting. Do you have a plan to re-enter peace negotiations afterwards?
REGEV: Yes. And I think one of the reasons we saw the attack by Hamas on the day that it happened on October 7th is because they were trying to
torpedo any chance for Saudi Israeli peace.
AMANPOUR: Yes, but that’s different.
REGEV: And —
AMANPOUR: That’s Saudi and Israeli. I’m talking about Palestinian and Israeli.
REGEV: So, let’s be clear about this. First of all, the circle of peace has grown over the last few years. It has included countries in the Gulf, and I
expect that to continue in the coming months and years. We’re going to see more and more Arab countries make peace with Israel. That’s a good thing.
Hamas, of course, is opposed to peace, opposed to reconciliation. And they are the most violent and ferocious enemy of peace. They say so in their
charter.
AMANPOUR: You made that point and you say that you’re trying to destroy them. I’m talking about a different negotiation, but you say that you will.
REGEV: Not. But — I understand. I — if we, and we will, defeat this most vicious enemy of peace, I believe there’ll be room for more moderate and
pragmatic elements to fill the void. But it’s all subject to us destroying Hamas. Because as long as Hamas has the power it has, everything is stuck
and Hamas has shown itself.
Yes, they say my country has no right to exist in any borders. They say any Arab who negotiates peace with Israel is a traitor to Islam and a traitor
to the Arab world. They say that every Jew is a legitimate target for their terrorism.
If we can destroy the political power and the military might of this terrorist organization, we’re creating space for more moderate voices to
fill the vacuum. That’ll be a good thing.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Unless it leads to more radicalization. And we’ll look at that the next time we talk. Mark Regev, thank you very much, indeed.
Now, we want to go straight to Salam Fayyad, who is the former prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, and put a lot of what we’ve just
been talking about with Mark Regev to him. Minister Fayyad, welcome back to our program.
I want — because I know you’ve been listening.
SALAM FAYYAD, FORMER PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY PRIME MINISTER: Thank you. Thank you for having me on.
AMANPOUR: Yes. I want to ask you a few questions. First and foremost, while — I would have asked you anyway, because it is the — you know, it’s the
month of — since October 7th. Your Palestinian Authority says the Israeli government, Mark Regev, has not once condemned what happened that day. How
does that sit with you? What do you think that the Authority should do?
FAYYAD: This is no time for more ambiguity. Let me be very clear on this. Any harm that went to civilians, that targets civilians, putting civilians
in harm’s way knowingly is a crime under international law. And to the extent that happened, what happened of it, what may have happened is to be
squarely condemned without any hesitation or equivocation whatsoever. That’s our position.
I’ll go further. The — whenever we get to the day after, and I hope we get there sooner than later. Obviously, with all that’s going on, it is very
important for there to be an international commission of inquiry, to really look into all of the crimes that have been committed. And anyone who’s
found to really have put any civilian’s life at risk, harm the civilian in any way, manner, shape or form, or put the life of civilians and harm’s way
knowingly is a criminal under international law. We should be very clear on this.
And by that same ruler and standard, what has been going on since October 7 against our people in Gaza falls very much into that category. War crimes
are being committed. I’ve heard a lot to respond to in what your guests had to say, including casting doubt on the numbers and saying that 10,000, they
are not all civilians because we killed so many Hamas, et cetera.
But let’s just agree, settle one thing. 4,000 children who are killed and buried alive cannot possibly have been combatants. Not to mention, of
course, other segments of populations. So, to try to really mitigate or make it look like not a whole lot has happened by way of harming civilians
in Gaza, all one has to do is look at the sheer numbers and travesty with all in terms of how devastating this has been, by any standard, by any
historical standard, a cabinet official. I mean, he’s talking about what the P.A. said or didn’t say, but a cabinet officer of the current
government of Israel spoke of the need, maybe for Israel to use even nuclear bombs against Gaza.
Well, let me just say that hides the fact that so far, more Palestinians have perished or were injured in the course of what has happened over the
course of past month, that many times over the number of fatalities and those injured in the nuclear bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in August of
1945. That’s what we’re looking at. That’s the scale of devastation and aggression that Israel has been committing.
So, yes, to investigating all of the crimes, definitely. And no one should be held immune. And I think a lot of what is going on — key reason why it
has been happening repeatedly is because there was very little effort made to really bring those who are responsible for crimes to account.
AMANPOUR: Salam Fayyad, on the nuclear thing, Netanyahu disavowed it, suspended the guy, all the rest of it. But I do want to ask you. What you
believe can happen in Gaza in the — what Mark Regev said and what the Israelis say is they are going to destroy Hamas. Hamas was never a friend
of yours. Hamas was never a friend of the P.A.s. Hamas committed a coup, basically, as you all say, back in 2007 to get control of Gaza. So, can —
do you believe Hamas can be defeated?
FAYYAD: Absolutely not. I think in the way that the government of Israel from the start — and by the way, even if, Netanyahu said what he said
about his cabinet officer, he’s still a member of that cabinet. But let’s move on.
To say that, you know, the purpose of this campaign is to target Hamas, eliminate Hamas, eradicate Hamas, but first of all, let’s just — we all
remember, Hamas is a political movement and I do not know anyone with a degree of sanity who can seriously think that it is possible to eliminate
it, eradicate a political movement with ideology.
Yes. We are different shades and colors in Palestine. We — not all of us think the same or similarly. We come from all kinds of directions as to
what the vision ought to be that guides us toward being able to attain our national rights and live as free people with dignity on our own. But Hamas
is an integral part of the Palestinian political landscape.
How Israel characterizes it, how some elements of International Community characterize it, that’s not, you know —
AMANPOUR: But — so, let — I need to interject.
FAYYAD: As I see it —
AMANPOUR: You don’t really see seriously.
FAYYAD: Yes. Go ahead.
AMANPOUR: I mean, seriously, you don’t — they did win the elections in 2007. But those people who organized the — what was a military attack on
Israel’s soldiers and facilities and intelligence, but developed into or was intended to be the mass slaughter that it was, those people you don’t
believe can actually be part of a renewed Palestinian Authority or can have any role in the future of Palestine as a state, if you get your state?
FAYYAD: I’m not sure I can agree with what you said, Christiane. As a matter of fact, in a way to respond to something that was said by your
guest about the impossibility of envisioning a political process that might include Hamas. I remind everybody that for the past three decades, exactly,
Israel has been pursuing or in a process, supposedly, that was launched in September 1993, to get to a peaceful resolution of this conflict with the
PLO, once held as the absolute enemy, the party that would never sit together with, would not shake hands with, et cetera, et cetera. So, we
have seen this before.
Now, if they’re saying now that they cannot envision a situation where Hamas can be a part of an overall Palestinian political polity, if you
will, that could negotiate a resolution with them, well, what have they done exactly with a Palestinian counterpart who had taken on very serious
commitments in 1993, A, recognizing the right of the State of Israel to exist and in peace and security. And B, to renounce violence.
What they have done really actually to make it possible for that counterpart, which then described as a partner in peace at the time over
three decades. What do we have to show for this exactly? People look at Hamas now and say, well, they are strong. You’re right. The one — the
national elections in 2006 by an outright majority. They have since then continue to enjoy sizable support because they are aligned in terms of what
they say, their positions are with the overall sentiments of the Palestinian public, not only in Palestine, but throughout the world.
And that is at least in part due to the fact that that project, which your guest was talking about, two-state solution, pursuit of that in the way it
has been pursued for three decades failed miserably. The idea that the commitments taken by the PLO, including commitment to renounce violence
really fell flat on its face. That’s why Palestinians looking at what’s going on came to the conclusion that it’s not only Hamas. That’s just a
real mistake to think that way. And it’s not only Islamic jihad. It’s not only the factions that up until now are not a part of the Palestine
Liberation Organization, but it’s many, many independents.
It’s the youth in Palestine. Talk to them and see how many of them still really believe or harbor any thought of the possibility of their emerging
from this process that has been modeled for a very long time, more than online support a state that they can live in with dignity. I mean, that’s
just really nonsense.
And so, to now say that things cannot happen so long as Hamas is there when what that really means, hundreds of civilians, yes, getting killed every
day, not to mention the massive destruction that has taken place and will take place. And I do not know — for (INAUDIBLE), I don’t know what will
remain of Gaza after all is said and done if Israel is going to be — is to continue to be allowed to persecute this campaign in the manner that just
been described the way it has been.
AMANPOUR: Mr. Fayyad —
FAYYAD: But by your guess, it’s just really not possible for me to see how that can happen. Yes.
AMANPOUR: So, they say, and you heard, and my guest was the prime minister’s chief adviser, Mark Regev, you know, looking — envisioning,
first of all, Israeli security control of Gaza for the foreseeable future after the war, plus, Pan-Arab rebuilding of Gaza, that kind of thing. Do
you see that working?
FAYYAD: No. I don’t. And because I really honestly cannot see beyond what needs to happen right now, which is bring this aggression to an end. And,
you know, another — you know, let me just explain what I exactly mean by this. If Israel is to be allowed to continue to man this campaign and
prosecute it in the way it has been, I don’t know it’s really going to be left of Gaza. People, areas to live in, anything, means of life, I just
can’t really conceive of that.
So, for all of those who invest in this theory, look, Israel can say whatever it wants to say. I don’t want to say I understand it, but I
cannot, for the life of me, understand how that can really be entertained as a narrative by key players in the International Community.
The focus ought to be now on bringing this bad dash to hell to an end. And then, we really pick it up from there. But to really begin to think about
the future where Hamas is decimated, that’s not going to happen before just about everybody. All forms of life in Gaza have been done and over with.
The other thing I want to say in this, in describing the security arrangements that Israel may be contemplating now. You know what he
reminded me of? Actually, Mark Regev, he reminded me of what Israel — I mean, he really actually played out what happens — what has been happening
in the West Bank for decades now, which is Israel is there. Israel has been mounting, you know, raids back and forth in areas that are supposed to be
under Oslo Accords, which they entered into the PLO 30 years ago, the purview of Palestinian Authority night in and night out, even during period
of time when security conditions in the West Bank improved markedly.
And I remind your viewers, right before Gaza happened, this current round of escalation, it was preceded by several others. Right before this
happened, as a matter of fact, a lot of people were speculating about the prospect of a third intifada emerging based on what was happening, the
violence that was taking place in the West Bank, of Gaza, settler violence, terrorism, and all of that was going on.
So, to somehow all of a sudden deduce this as if it’s really a conflict between Israel and Hamas. No, this is a conflict between Israel and all of
us Palestinians. That’s what it is. If they continue to project it this way, that definitely is not helpful. It doesn’t really mean anything when
statements are parroted about the need to revive peace process, two-state solution, or anything like that.
AMANPOUR: All right. Prime Minister —
FAYYAD: Any such attempt in the future — sorry.
AMANPOUR: No, no. I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I want to hear about a future plan, but we’ll do that next time because we’re out of time.
FAYYAD: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Prime Minister Fayyad, thank you very much. And look, I obviously want to make a short correction because clearly the bombs in Hiroshima and
in Nagasaki killed, you know, much more than a hundred thousand people. But thank you very —
FAYYAD: No, no. If we are on the air. No, no, Christiane, if you allow me, I — please.
AMANPOUR: You got 15 seconds because I’m running out of show.
FAYYAD: No, no. But I’m talking to you now. Check the numbers.
AMANPOUR: No, no, no, no. We’re on the air. We’re on the air. We’re on the air.
FAYYAD: Scaled by population.
AMANPOUR: Oh, I see.
FAYYAD: Relative to population.
AMANPOUR: OK.
FAYYAD: Population of Gaza relative to population of Japan at the time.
AMANPOUR: Understood.
FAYYAD: Check that out.
AMANPOUR: We’ll check it.
FAYYAD: And if multiple times more.
AMANPOUR: Thank you.
FAYYAD: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Thank you. Thank you.
Now, in the United States, elections have been taking place all around for governors and state legislatures, which could be indicators for 2024.
Meantime, Colorado is wrapping up a trial to decide whether former President Donald Trump is even eligible to be on their presidential ballot
next year.
Colorado’s secretary of state, Jena Griswold, one of the defendants in the case, now joins Hari Sreenivasan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARI SREENIVASAN, INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Jena Griswold, secretary of state of Colorado, thanks so much for joining us.
There’s a lawsuit in your state that’s pretty interesting to the rest of the country right now. It was brought by four members of the GOP, two
independents, and they are saying that President Trump should not be on the ballot in Colorado because it basically removes their ability to “vote for
a qualified candidate in the general election.” Explain the lawsuit as you understand it and whether you agree.
JENA GRISWOLD, COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, first off, thank you for having me on, Hari. And yes, we have a very interesting lawsuit out here in
the State of Colorado. So, Section 3 of the 14th amendment says that any person who swears to uphold the constitution and subsequently engages in
rebellion or insurrection or provides aid or comfort to the enemies of the constitution is disqualified from office.
So, the six petitioners, which you rightly identified as four Republican and two unaffiliated voters, brought the suit saying that President Trump
has disqualified himself by engaging in the insurrection. So, we were at trial all last week, and ultimately, a judge will have to decide whether
Trump has disqualified himself.
SREENIVASAN: Do you agree with the basis for the lawsuit? Is this of concern to Coloradans?
GRISWOLD: Well, I agree that there is very clear language in the U.S. constitution. There are also very big questions about whether Trump’s
activities rise to the level of engagement in insurrection or rebellion and other questions around how Section 3 of the 14th Amendment works.
So, under Colorado State law, a court has the ability to review certification of a presidential primary candidate. So, that’s exactly
what’s happening in this case. And I think overall, it will be a good thing to see that decision so that I have guidance as to whether Donald Trump can
appear on the ballot, but also, other election officials across the nation.
SREENIVASAN: I should note that you’re a co-defendant in this. What’s your role here? You’re listed with Mr. Trump.
GRISWOLD: As secretary of state of the State of Colorado, I certify the ballot. So, I am a co-defendant because the people who brought this lawsuit
say that I should not put him on the ballot.
Now, I have not taken any official action. And actually, when this lawsuit was filed, we still didn’t even have the forms for Donald Trump’s
candidacy. So, that’s why I’m a defendant. Our posture is that I do believe that Donald Trump incited the insurrection and that a court should
determine whether that incitement rises to the level of engaged in insurrection under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and other big questions
around how the 14th Amendment works.
SREENIVASAN: What about the matter of being charged with or being convicted of insurrection? We see the trials that have been going on since January
6th. There were members of the Proud Boys who have been convicted of this. President — Former President Trump has not. Does that matter?
GRISWOLD: President Trump has been charged with various civil and criminal actions across the country. But the question as to whether a guilty verdict
is needed for Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualification is a big question in this case.
And what I can say is that historically, disqualification under this insurrection clause did not require a guilty verdict in criminal court.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was put in place after the civil war, and it was used to remove hundreds of confederate soldiers and officers from
office during reconstruction. And again, historically, it did not require that guilty charge, but ultimately, we’ll see what the judge says.
SREENIVASAN: So, those words that we remember from January 6th, President Trump standing and telling the crowd, you know, we have to fight like hell.
If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. How much of that is protected speech and what can be construed as
incitement?
GRISWOLD: Well, those are some of the big questions that a judge will weigh in on. And of course, everybody has First Amendment rights, but those
rights do not trump, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, nor do First Amendment rights protect from incitement of violence.
These are our big questions. Did his actions rise to disqualification? Did he disqualify himself? Would the disqualification be just from being seated
in office or being put on the ballot? Another question is, who gets to decide? And under Colorado law, if there is a challenge to certification, a
judge decides. So, there is a lot of big questions, and I think either way that the guidance will be good for election officials across the country.
These lawsuits are filed in various places, and we’re seeing it play out across the nation.
SREENIVASAN: Regardless of how this specific judge rules, it is likely to be challenged. We’re in a district court right now, right?
GRISWOLD: That’s right.
SREENIVASAN: So, what’s the likelihood, timeline wise, that we would get. either a referral to the Supreme Court or a decision for electors and state
secretaries around the nation to have clear guidance on what to do.
GRISWOLD: Well, I think the judge in this first step of the case understands the urgency and the immediate nature of resolving the situation
quickly. So, this case was filed on September 6th. In less than two months, we already had the trial. Closing arguments are on the 15th, and then the
judge has indicated that she would like to try to issue the decision before Thanksgiving.
As you say, it’s very likely that this case is appealed either by petitioners or Donald Trump or the Colorado GOP, which is also a party in
the case, and then it would go to the Colorado Supreme Court. Now, whether or not it would then go to the U.S. Supreme Court, I think is a little
premature. I think it depends on what the Colorado Supreme Court does and what other courts do across the nation.
SREENIVASAN: We should note for the record that the president’s team has called the case anti-democratic and said that their client’s words did not
meet the Supreme Court’s threshold for incitement and therefore are protected by the First Amendment. Does the result from this case have
bearing on those larger ideas on the larger ideas?
GRISWOLD: On the larger ideas of democracy?
SREENIVASAN: Of what is political speech and what is protected?
GRISWOLD: We could see that play out. We’ll see what the judge holds and what the lines of appeals are. So, we could see further information on
what’s protected speech and what’s not. It’s too early to say.
SREENIVASAN: You know, it seems that the more President Trump comes under legal scrutiny in certain corners of America, his support increases. What
do you say to those people, even in Colorado, who say, you know what, this is a political witch hunt, just like the president says it is, this is just
another political maneuver to try to make sure that our candidate is not on the ballot?
GRISWOLD: Well, I say that following the law and upholding the U.S. constitution is exactly what we should do in a functioning democracy. You
know, when there are questions about the law or the U.S. constitution, then it’s appropriate for a judge to weigh in and the legal process play out.
You know, supporters, but more pointily, the former president, as soon as this lawsuit was filed, started to shout anywhere he could, oh, this is
election interference. What was election interference was the January 6th insurrection, his team’s attempts to interfere with the electoral process,
the fake electoral scheme, his conversations about seizing voting equipment. That’s what election interference truly is.
Determining whether someone is disqualified by a clear provision in the U.S. constitution is how a constitutional republic should work.
SREENIVASAN: Why isn’t a case like this playing out in somewhere like Georgia, where there were recorded conversations of the president
pressuring the secretary of state? I mean, that seems like a violation of the 14th Amendment.
GRISWOLD: Well, this case has been filed in various states. But the biggest cases are here in Colorado and in Minnesota. And, you know, when the case
was initially filed, I asked myself the same question, why was it filed in the State of Colorado? And lawyers for the petitioners actually said in an
interview that one of the reasons it was filed here in the State of Colorado is because we have that law in place, allowing voters to challenge
certification and having that challenge go to a court of law. So, I would say that’s one of the big reasons our laws allow an easier challenge to
qualification than in other states.
SREENIVASAN: Let’s kind of play this out for a minute. Let’s say that the petitioners win and this Colorado Supreme Court agrees. And there’s not an
appeal that takes effect before the election. Is there a possibility that voters in Colorado would not see Donald Trump on the ballot where voters in
other states might?
GRISWOLD: Well, I don’t want to get too far into hypotheticals because there’s a lot of time still to work this issue out. But I think that the
bigger question is that whatever court decision or order is in effect when I certify the ballot is what I’ll do. So, my job as an office holder is to
follow the law and uphold the constitution. I swore to do that to my first term and second term.
And when we have these big questions, a court of law weighs in. So, I think it’s too — it’s premature to say what exactly will happen. But there are
big questions around the case. That’s why we just had a five-day trial with people testifying on both sides.
SREENIVASAN: You know, there’s also a line of thinking that says, why not just let this play out at the ballot box?
GRISWOLD: There is a lot of political discussion, folks who on one side say this lawsuit is a good idea, folks on the other side who say it’s a bad
idea. But my job isn’t to pay attention to the politics. My job is to follow the law, uphold the U.S. constitution, which includes listening to
what a court of law says.
You know, this provision is in the U.S. constitution for a reason. And that reason was that, you know, the office holders, back when, believed that
folks who engaged in insurrection or rebellion should not be at the helm of elected office or in any office in this country. So, we just have to wait
to see what the judge says. And my job will be to follow whatever the judge says at the time of certification.
SREENIVASAN: You are the first Democrat to hold this office in the State of Colorado in a long time, there are going to be people who look at this and
say, well, clearly, she’s no fan of the former president. That’s why she wants to do this.
I mean, these decisions, these lawsuits, none of this happens in a political vacuum. And while you might not want to look at and factor in the
politics of it, everyone else in America today seems to take politics into account.
GRISWOLD: What I would say is, yes, I’m the first Democratic secretary of state elected in Colorado in 60 years since President Eisenhower was
president. And in this case, I did not bring this case. I’m actually a defendant in this case. The lawsuit is filed under the premise to bar me as
secretary of state in my official capacity from putting Donald Trump on the ballot.
And when it comes down to the politics, when we have questions of how our elections work, how the U.S. constitution functions, how our laws work,
again, my job is to follow the law, uphold the constitution, and listen to a court.
I do believe Donald Trump is dangerous to our democracy. His lies and misinformation about the elections have fueled voter suppression laws
across this nation, has incited attacks on election infrastructure, including three here in the State of Colorado. Has led to an unprecedented
level of vitriol and threats to election officials, which has caused election officials across the nation to step down. I do believe he’s a
threat to democracy.
I also believe, in this case, whether he has disqualified himself from taking office. Given how Colorado law works, it’s in the hands of a court.
And honestly, I think that’s good. A court should be holding an investigation and determining what she thinks. That’s a necessary step in
the climate we see ourselves in today.
SREENIVASAN: So, what’s the political climate in Colorado since this case was filed?
GRISWOLD: The political climate since the insurrection and the attempted stealing of the presidency has been really hard for election
administration. We’ve seen threats and vitriol skyrocket across the nation. It has the effect of having election workers step down.
Here in the State of Colorado, we’ve actually had about one-third of local county elected election officials step down since 2020. And since this
immediate case, we saw a skyrocket of threats against me. Within three weeks, there was over 60 death threats and over 900 type two threats, so
non-death threats.
SREENIVASAN: Traditionally, the jobs that monitor and certify elections have been lower profile. That’s just not the case anymore. And I wonder
what do you do when you become the focus of so much of the hate and vitriol and the threats?
GRISWOLD: Well, I’ll tell you, it’s scary. This is not the first time that I’ve received a massive amount of threats. The threats against me myself
started in the summer of ’21. They oscillate, they reach a peak, then they decrease. And at this point, two men have been found guilty for threatening
my life over election disinformation and conspiracies.
That’s why I say the president is dangerous to democracy. The fact that his rhetoric and actions incite violence against election workers is troubling.
That’s not how American elections can work. In those words, they can lead to violence. We saw the attempted kidnapping of the governor of Michigan.
The attack against Paul Pelosi, the attack on the U.S. Capitol. So, this isn’t a joke. What’s happening on this attack against democracy is real.
For me, personally, I take the threat seriously and take precautions, but I won’t be intimidated and I won’t be stopped. And the last thing I would say
on this, all those threats that I’ve received since the filing of this lawsuit is from me being a defendant. I actually haven’t even taken any
action. And that really shows how volatile the national dangerous rhetoric is against election workers and often at a heightened degree against women
elected officials.
SREENIVASAN: I know that you speak to other secretaries of state. There are organizations that bring you all together and I wonder if you’ve spoken to
folks like Brad Raffensperger or others that share your concerns about administering elections.
GRISWOLD: Yes. I have spoken with many secretaries of state about the challenging times and including Brad and secretaries across the nation.
There are good secretaries of state out there. The Democrats are there to open up access, increase security. But there’s also a troubling trend among
secretaries of state. There are now six election denier secretary of state that were elected or appointed in recent years.
Luckily, we were able to stop election deniers from winning races in battleground states. And I was happy to lead that charge and help protect
American democracy, because the American people, not crooked politicians trying to put their finger on the scale of elections, should be the one
choosing the president next year.
SREENIVASAN: Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, thanks so much for your time.
GRISWOLD: Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And that’s it for now. Remember, you can always catch us online, on our website and all-over social media. Thank you for watching. Goodbye
from London.