Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview With U.S. Secretary Of State Antony Blinken; Interview With Former Hostage Negotiator And "The Negotiator: Freeing Gilad Shalit From Hamas" Author Gershon Baskin; Interview With Altadena, California Resident Kevin Williams. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired January 16, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
PAULA NEWTON, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello and a very warm welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
A bloody day in Gaza as the Israeli cabinet delays a vote on the ceasefire agreement. Outgoing U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken talks Christiane
through the post conflict phase of the deal and about giving Ukraine the strongest hand to play as the Trump administration takes over. And we hear
from veteran Israeli mediator Gershon Baskin on the calculus of negotiating with Hamas.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN WILLIAMS, ALTADENA, CALIFORNIA RESIDENT: There's a time to be brave and there's a time to have some common sense and I left.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: -- Hari Sreenivasan speaks with longtime Altadena resident Kevin Williams on the devastation of losing your neighborhood to fire.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Paula Newton in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
A brutal reminder in Gaza today that a ceasefire that's been a long time coming is not here yet. At least 77 Palestinians were killed in intense
bombardment since the deal was announced. That's according to Gaza's civil defense.
Now, meantime, the Israeli government delayed a cabinet vote on the agreement, blaming Hamas for reneging on parts of the deal. Far-right
finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, threatened to quit over the terms of the next phase of the agreement, a move that could collapse the Netanyahu
government.
Now, the Biden administration fully expects the hostage deal to be implemented Sunday. Hamas, too, says it is committed to the truce.
And amidst all the maneuvering, Israeli hostage families desperately await the return of their loved ones. Now, this agreement, of course, closely
resembling one proposed by President Biden in May, marks a last-minute achievement for the outgoing administration, helped by the incoming Trump
team.
Last night, Biden bid farewell to the presidency in a final speech to the nation. For the world, it's been a bumpy ride. There is intense criticism
of his administration's handling of the Gaza war. Even today, Secretary Antony Blinken was heckled in valedictory remarks at the State Department,
just as the ceasefire deal was being reached. Christiane sat down in Washington to discuss all of this with the outgoing secretary of state.
Here's more of their conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Ben-Gvir and his ilk, they are extremist firebrands that even the U.S. has sanctioned in the
past. They want settlements. They say that they want to stay in Gaza. The infrastructure that the IDF is creating in Gaza points to a permanent stay
there in some parts. Are you sure, is USG sure, that Israel will pull out or that it will stay for, I don't know, months, years afterwards?
ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: What I can tell you is this, Christiane, first, it's our policy and it's been our policy very clearly,
including principles that I laid out months ago at the very beginning of the conflict in Tokyo that there can't be a permanent occupation of Gaza,
that Israel has to pull out, that the territory of Gaza shouldn't be changed. And of course, it obviously can't be run by Hamas or used as a
base of terrorism.
The ceasefire deal itself requires the Israeli forces to pull back. And then, assuming you get to a permanent ceasefire, to pull out entirely. But
that's what's so critical about this post-conflict plan, the need to come to an agreement on its arrangements, because there has to be something in
place that gives Israelis the confidence that they can pull out permanently and not have Hamas fill back in and not have a repeat of the last, really,
decade.
AMANPOUR: I want to ask you in the broad picture, because I was actually quite, I don't know, stunned that I saw President-Elect Trump retweet a
position by a former U.S. official, Jeffrey Sachs, as you know very well. He basically called Benjamin Netanyahu a mean, rude, SOB., you know, dark,
and all the rest of it, and then alluded to the fact that it's him running the show and not USG. USG, the biggest, biggest backer of Israel has not
been able to change the dynamic in any appreciable form.
[13:05:00]
A, what did you think of President Trump? Would you think that's a message, that he plans to be harder than maybe you? And also, do you think that the
tail has often been wagging the dog? That no matter what you've said about respecting international law, getting humanitarian aid in, all of the rest
of it, you know, your clients have ignored you by and large.
So, I'm wondering whether you think it's time to re-ask the question that former President Trump did during particularly fraught negotiations when he
said, who is the effing superpower here?
BLINKEN: So, first, I focus less on personalities and more on policies, what is a given country actually doing. It doesn't matter who the
individual is, what are they actually doing? Second, I think that what's been misunderstood around the world is ascribing to one individual, or
maybe a small group of individuals the policies that Israel's pursuing that many people don't like.
I think this is a reflection of 70, 80, 90 percent of Israelis following the trauma of October 7th. And ascribing this to any one individual I think
is a mistake and actually leads you to maybe draw the wrong conclusions.
This is where the country is. And the policies that the government's pursuing are really a reflection of the country, even many people who don't
like the prime minister. So, that's one thing, and it's important to understand that. You have a traumatized society, just as you have a
traumatized Palestinian society because of the horrors that children, women, and men have had to endure in Gaza, caught in this crossfire of
Hamas' initiation, that they didn't start and are powerless to stop.
AMANPOUR: I'm not going to ask you the genocide question because I've heard you answer it. You don't believe that that's what Israel is doing.
Although, the leading U.S.-Israeli scholar on genocide and Holocaust studies has told me he believes, after a year of studying this, that it
does fit that description. But I'm going to ask you about your own officials here in the State Department.
You know, more than a dozen have resigned, and they're very, very deeply concerned that the actual American laws governing the use of military aid
have not been followed. And furthermore, I'm going to ask you about the Israelis themselves who talk about war crimes. Moshe Ya'alon, the former
defense secretary for Netanyahu, a Likud, not a Bleeding-Heart liberal, ethnic cleansing and war crimes are taking part, and he's doubled down on
that.
The truth warriors at Haaretz who discovered what Israeli soldiers have been saying that they have in the recent past -- recent present even
considering children who come to a certain area as terrorists. That the brave soldiers from Breaking the Silence are taking the confessions of IDF
coming back. And, you know, who, many of them, some of them, you know, concerned about what they have been doing.
Are you prepared to say that war crimes have been committed by Israel?
BLINKEN: I can't speak to individual instances. I can say, obviously, we've had concerns, more than concerns about the way Israel has conducted itself.
Understanding, first of all, that this is a unique environment. One we haven't really seen before. One where you have a population that's trapped
inside of Gaza and virtually every other situation in the world. People are able to get out of harm's way. They become refugees in a neighboring
country. That's not a good thing, but it's better than being caught in the middle of this kind of maelstrom.
Second, uniquely, you have an enemy that intentionally embeds itself within the civilian population, in and under apartments, in and under schools,
mosques, hospitals, that does not in any way absolve Israel of the responsibility, the obligation to conduct itself according to international
law --
AMANPOUR: 17,000 children.
BLINKEN: -- but it makes it much more challenging. So, we look at this very, very carefully. Israel looks at this very, very carefully. There are
hundreds of cases that are within the Israeli system as we speak. Those cases, I believe and trust, will move forward to assess exactly what you've
asked, whether individuals have committed violations of international humanitarian law, war crimes, you name it. That's the nature of the system.
We need to see it obviously come to fruition, just as we look intensely at any things that are brought to our attention. But the challenge of doing
that, not only in real-time, but doing it in this unique environment are real, that doesn't mean we don't do it, we do, but it takes time to get to
the facts.
The second thing I want to say is this, I more than respect, I deeply value the fact that we have people in this department and in our system who have
different views and speak up, speak out. We have something called a dissent channel in the State Department where people object to a policy we're
pursuing. They can send me a note, a memo, a detailed brief, and it -- and I see it. I read it. I respond to it. I've gotten, I don't know, a couple
of dozen when it comes to Gaza, as well as other issues.
[13:10:00]
That is a cherished tradition in this department. And I wanted to make sure that people feel that they can do that. And it's also affected our thinking
in many cases, including our actions.
AMANPOUR: I want to go to Ukraine because in the fight for democracy, in the fight for, as you and President Biden have been speaking about,
especially as you wind down the administration, that these are the big successes of your administration, that you brought this huge alliance
together, you expanded NATO, you helped Ukraine survive.
As you know, even within the U.S. environment, people, some experts believe that you didn't go far enough, you didn't give them enough weapons, it's
just enough to survive, but not enough to win, or even enough to bring Putin properly to the table seriously.
I don't know whether you're going to answer that, but I want to ask you about what you've just written with Secretary of Defense Austin, where you
have, you know, listed your achievements and then said that this is leverage that we can pass on to Donald Trump and his administration. And,
you know, if he doesn't use it and if he just surrenders, that would be catastrophic for everybody concerned.
Do you think that leverage will be used by the next administration?
BLINKEN: Of course, I can't speak to what the next administration will do. I do know that President Trump often says that he wants and gets good
deals. So, one of the things that we've tried to do is to make sure that Ukraine has but also the United States has the strongest possible hand to
play if it comes to trying to get a resolution, to trying to get a ceasefire.
And that really depends on two things. It depends on whether that's what Ukrainians want to do and it depends on whether Putin will agree to engage
in that kind of process. So, we'll see. The jury's out on that.
But, Christiane, what I can tell you is this, remember where we started. Putin who sought to erase Ukraine from the map, to eliminate the Ukraine as
an independent country, to subsume it into Russia. This was an imperial project. That project has failed, and it's failed because, obviously, the
courage of the Ukrainian people, but it's also failed because we rallied and kept together a coalition of more than 50 countries in Ukraine's
defense.
And every step along the way, we've been determined to make sure that Ukraine had what it needed to defend itself as the nature of the
battlefield changed, we changed too in terms of what we were providing them every step along the way. We not only had to determine whether, you know, a
given weapon system was something that we were prepared to do, but could they use it effectively? So, did they have the training? Could they
maintain it? Was it part of a coherent operational plan? All of those factors went into every decision.
But the fact is, Ukraine is standing, and that was not at all what was expected when Putin began this invasion. It's standing. It also has an
incredibly bright future as a country that is standing independently, that's increasingly integrated with institutions in Europe, the
Transatlantic community that can fend for itself militarily, economically, democratically, that is the ultimate rebuke to Vladimir Putin.
AMANPOUR: And you know that Putin has no interest, no expressed interest in anything other than total surrender and to completely obliterate Ukraine as
an independent sovereign nation.
BLINKEN: That's right.
AMANPOUR: A vassal state. What would the effect of that be on -- well, we know what would happen to Ukraine, but Europe, American leadership?
BLINKEN: Well, I think two things are important to keep in mind. First, when it comes -- if there is going to be some kind of ceasefire, it's
essential that that have embedded within it some kind of deterrent to make sure that Russia doesn't attack again because we know what's in Putin's
mind.
Putin, if there is a ceasefire, will, yes, try to use the time to rest, to refit, and to re-attack. So, there has to be a strong deterrent in place to
make sure that that doesn't happen. There are different ways of doing that. But that's going to be critical.
More broadly, you get at what this has always been about. Of course, it's about Ukraine, it's about the Ukrainian people, but it's about something
much broader. It's about the fact that Russia committed an aggression against the very principles that are at the heart of the international
system that are necessary to try to keep the peace, to try to preserve stability, to try to prevent war. The notion that you can't just violate
another country's borders by force, that you can't simply go in and try to take over another country and run its future.
And we know that had we not stood up for those principles, had Putin been able to violate them with impunity, the message that would have sent to
would-be aggressors everywhere, well beyond Europe, all over the world, would have been crystal clear.
One of the most powerful moments of this was early on when the then- Japanese prime minister, Kishida, stood up and put Japan strongly behind Ukraine and said, what happens in Ukraine today could be happening in East
Asia tomorrow. That's why this has been so much bigger than Ukraine and why it remains so essential that we continue not only to defend Ukraine but to
defend those principles.
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: Do you think in the full fading light of this administration after all that you've done that you Wish that you had done more, for
instance, the former Russian foreign minister said to me in the aftermath of the invasion, all Putin understands is strength. The former French
president mild mannered, you know, Francois Hollande, told me that the west is afraid of war, Putin is not afraid of war, that's what gives Putin his
advantage.
We know that the U.S. government has been intimidated by the saber- rattling, the nuclear saber-rattling. Do you really think that he would have followed through with that, and should you have called his bluff as a
massive U.S. and NATO force?
BLINKEN: Well, I'll take objection to one part of your question, the notion that we've been intimidated. We certainly haven't. Look at what we've been
able to do, not only ourselves, but dozens of other countries that we brought together and that we've kept together in terms of what we provided
Ukraine. And Ukrainians have been willing themselves to carry this fight. And it's hundreds of billions of dollars in military support and more as
well in terms of humanitarian and economic assistance to Ukraine.
And the losses that Russia has suffered on the battlefield, in a meat grinder of Putin's making, by some estimates, 700,000 to 800,000
casualties. That includes people killed and people wounded. That's beyond what almost anyone can conceive of. So, certainly Ukrainians, with our
support, have more than taken the fight to Russia.
President Biden has a responsibility that none of us ultimately have. The buck really does stop with the president. And that's to make sure, on the
one hand, that we provide all the support that we can for Ukraine, so that it can effectively defend itself. But also, yes, avoid getting into a
direct conflict with a nuclear power. And he's managed, I think, to do both very, very well.
We also have a NATO alliance that's stronger, that's bigger, that's better resourced than it's ever been. That's the best deterrent to making sure
that there's not further aggression coming from Putin. He does not want to take on NATO, and we've seen that time and time again.
AMANPOUR: Do you think Marco Rubio and company, who have expressed, you know, doubts about supporting Ukraine and have actually, you know,
prevented aid going there in a timely manner and who have expressed doubts about alliances, certainly the first Trump term was not one that respected
alliances like yours has done, do you think that they will maintain this alliance that you have rebuilt or do you think that that is going to -- I
know you can't look into the future, but what do you -- what's your fear? What's your worry?
BLINKEN: Well, yes, of course, my concern is that there will be a move away from what I think is a signal achievement of this administration, which has
been to re-energize, to re-engage, to rejuvenate, even to re-imagine our alliances and partnerships, because we believe fundamentally that we're
stronger, we're more effective when we're working with others.
And I think most Americans don't want to see America go it alone. That they understand we're better off when we can do things in partnership with other
countries. And that's been a hallmark of this administration.
The fact that we did that is what enabled us to bring so many countries together in defense of Ukraine, to make sure that they were picking up the
burden, not just the United States. The fact that we did that, made that investment in allies and partners, that's why we've been able now to focus
everyone in a very similar way on the challenges posed by China, so that we're all taking on those challenges together collectively. And the weight
of that is much greater than if we were just doing it alone.
Now, they could move away from that. I've had really good conversations with Senator Rubio, soon to be Secretary Rubio. And he's someone who is
deeply steeped in these issues, longtime service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on the Intelligence Committee. He knows the issues
well. He's very thoughtful about them. And I believe, but I don't want to speak for him, I certainly don't want to damn him with praise, that he's
someone who understands the imperative of American engagement and American leadership.
AMANPOUR: What do you think then would be the consequence if President Trump pulled a Putin, so to speak, and annexed Greenland or invaded Canada
or Mexico or whatever?
BLINKEN: You know, this is not going to happen. And so, of course, not a good idea to begin with, but not much point really spending time talking
about it because it's not going to happen. We have a very strong relationship, of course, with Denmark, which is, after all, a NATO ally.
I've been to Greenland myself very early in my term. We have a military base there that's critical. We have important economic relationships. And
those can grow deeper and stronger. That would be a good thing. But not by taking the route that you just described.
AMANPOUR: And finally on Iran, I mean, there's so much to talk about, but I want to ask you whether the -- you know, the demonstration in the full
light of day of Iran trying to attack Israel and it failing completely. Do you think that will accelerate Iran's as yet, you know, they don't have a
nuclear weapon, they're not building a nuclear weapon according to the U.N.
[13:20:00]
Do you think that that's a worry for the next several years, that they'll conclude that they have to have that?
BLINKEN: Well, we've seen two things from this. One is the nuclear question. And of course, we had Iran's nuclear program in a box with Iran
nuclear deal.
AMANPOUR: And remember Trump pulled out of it.
BLINKEN: And I think that was a big mistake, especially pulling out and not then moving in with something else. And since then, Iran was at a point
where it would have taken it more than a year to produce the fissile material for a nuclear weapon. That was what the Iran nuclear deal did.
Now, that the so-called breakout time is down to a week or two, enough material for weapon. They don't have a weapon itself, but the fissile
material will be done very quickly. So, Iran is going to have to calculate whether, because it's lost all of its proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Syria
connection, it may conclude that in order to defend itself, it has to move in that direction, it may also conclude that, no, it better strike a deal.
And if President Trump is serious about what he said back then, which is that he wanted a better or stronger deal, well, there may be an opportunity
to get one.
There's something else, Christiane, that's so important here as well though. What's happened with Iran also demonstrates where the region can
go, where Israel can go, where the Palestinians can go, if they move down the track that we've established for greater integration. Israel's profound
hope from the beginning of its existence was to be treated like any other country in the region, to have normal relations with its neighbors. We now
have an opportunity, they now have an opportunity to do that.
We were -- before October 7th, we were working intensely on normalizing relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, building on the Abraham Accord.
And I was scheduled to go to Saudi Arabia and Israel to try to resolve some of the outstanding issues, including, and in particular in that moment,
dealing with a pathway to a Palestinian State, because for the Saudis, it would be critical, and for us as well, critical to have that pathway in
order to move forward with normalization.
We've seen the benefits of integration for Israel's security. When Israel was attacked in an unprecedented way by Iran, not once, but twice, we were
able to pull together a coalition of countries, including countries in the region, to defend Israel. Israel can see that being part of a regional
security architecture, which is what comes with integration, comes with normalized relations, is good for its security. But two things are required
to get there, to have this historic normalization. One, ending the war in Gaza. Two, agreeing to a credible pathway for Palestinian State.
We have done a lot of work on all of that. The normalization agreements. They're ready to go. Ideas for how you would have a credible pathway to a
Palestinian State, they're also they're ready to go. I talked about some of them just this week. I think we're handing off to the next administration
the possibility of actually moving through this path, moving down a path that they, with the Abraham Accords, really move forward, having this
integration, having a region that is focused on working together, creating more opportunity for people in every country, dealing with terrorism,
dealing with threats from countries like Iran that want to undermine the order, but Gaza and a pathway for the Palestinians. Those are the two
critical things.
My hope, my strongest desire is that the next administration will be able to move forward with all of those plans, all of those projects, that can
radically change the future out of the region.
AMANPOUR: Secretary Blinken, thank you very much.
BLINKEN: Thanks, Christiane. Good to be with you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEWTON: Fascinating exit interview there. And we thank Christiane. More now though on that ceasefire deal and why it's taken so long. And we turn to
Gershon Baskin. He was instrumental, of course, in helping negotiate the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit from Hamas captivity in 2011. And,
Gershon Baskin, welcome to the program. Appreciate you being here.
GERSHON BASKIN, FORMER HOSTAGE NEGOTIATOR AND AUTHOR, "THE NEGOTIATOR: FREEING GILAD SHALIT FROM HAMAS": Thank you.
NEWTON: Thank you. Especially as we deal with what is going on just in the last a few hours. It seems that there will be this cabinet vote on Friday.
In your opinion, where does this deal stand now? And especially given the fact that U.S. officials remain confident.
BASKIN: I think the deal will go through. The cabinet will approve it. Netanyahu will have his majority. He has his opposition within the
government and within his own party, but he has a majority in the government. And on Sunday morning, we should see the beginning of the
ceasefire. And by Sunday evening, the release of the first three women hostages.
And this is being done because the new incoming administration was much more forceful with Netanyahu than the outgoing administration. And
Netanyahu knows that he has to listen to Trump, particularly on his first days in the Oval Office.
NEWTON: I do want to pick up on what is an enduring opinion out there, the fact that although this deal was done in May, that the Trump
administration, the incoming Trump administration is really the one that got it over the line.
[13:25:00]
Now, we are seeing as well this hour that a few members of Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition are threatening to quit if, you know, they don't
return to this war footing in Gaza after the first phase. So, I ask you, what does this mean for phase two of this deal, especially where it comes
into the Trump administration and how it handles Netanyahu's coalition.
BASKIN: My assessment is that we have the deal primarily because the incoming president, Trump, provided guarantees to Egypt and Qatar to tell
Hamas that the war, in fact, would come to an end in phase two. I don't believe that Hamas would have entered into the agreement in phase one if
they thought that the war was going to pick up and continue in phase two.
It has to be said from the outset that the entire deal is a bad deal. I've written that a bad deal here is better than a no deal because we're talking
about saving human lives. But nonetheless, this deal designed by President Biden is a three-month deal before it's completed, before the war is over,
before Israel withdraws from Gaza, before all the hostages are home and Palestinian prisoners are released, when we know that in September, Hamas
was willing to accept a deal for three weeks to end the war, Israeli withdrawal, free all the hostages and Palestinian prisoners.
So, this is not a good situation. There are many opportunities for this to be derailed during the next months. And it's a very dangerous situation,
but we do have apparently President Trump who has said to Netanyahu and to the Qataris and the Egyptians that he wants this done. He doesn't want it
on his desk.
We know that Trump is unpredictable. We know that he's transactional. We know that Netanyahu has no option but to work directly with Trump, whereas
with Biden, he could go around to the Republicans against the will of President Biden, Netanyahu doesn't have that option anymore.
NEWTON: You know, I do want to do a deeper dive, though, on why you say this is a bad deal. And just to remind everyone, the deal itself does have
a few phases. And the first one, of course, is the release of Israeli hostages and in exchange for those Palestinian prisoners, that's going to
be over 42 days.
You know, when we talk about the second and third phases though, where are the weak points? You know, describe to us why you believe this is a bad
deal.
BASKIN: Well, first of all, in phase one of the first 42 days, only 33 of the 98 hostages are being released, and we don't even know how many of the
33 are alive. After a week, Hamas will release an additional four and then release once a week, until the end of the six-week period, 33 hostages.
What about the remaining 65 hostages? We know nothing about them. We know nothing about whether or not they're alive or dead. And this is a very long
period to wait for them. Every day that they remain in Gaza is a danger to their lives. They're not being treated well. Those who are alive are
underground in tunnels, and they'll probably remain there for quite a long time.
Additionally, even when the ceasefire was declared last night, Israel attacked Gaza and 77 people were killed in Gaza overnight. There are many
opportunities for IDF soldiers to encounter Hamas combatants and for firefighters to break out and the whole deal to break down.
The last thing that's really important and bad about this deal is there's no tomorrow plan. Who is going to govern Gaza when this all is over? Hamas
knows very well that it cannot continue to govern Gaza. There won't be a single penny of -- money for reconstruction if Hamas is in charge of Gaza,
not from the Saudis, the Emiratis, the Bahrainis, anyone. No one's going contribute money if Hamas is in charge.
And yet, Prime Minister Natanya refuses to understand that the only way to move forward. is to deal with a wider political solution for the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. There must be more than what Secretary Blinken said, a path to a viable two-state solution, there must be a direct, a negotiated
deal that puts, from the outset, the two-state solution on the table. And Netanyahu has worked his whole political career to prevent that.
NEWTON: He's worked his whole political career to prevent that, and yet, I do again come back to Hamas. You are saying that there is no way that
they'll even allow any reconstruction money in there if Hamas is in power. And yet, who else would be in power?
We heard from Blinken himself in the last few days that they have recruited as many new fighters to Hamas as they have killed. Where are we with that
and where do you see the future of Gaza then, given how the Palestinian political establishment is so weakened?
[13:30:00]
BASKIN: Right. Well, Hamas will be able to recruit new people as long as the Israeli army is in Gaza and Israeli soldiers will continue to die. Even
though Hamas is badly broken up, they have no real military command and control. They have no real divisions. They have guerrilla fighters who peer
-- who come up out of peers out of the underground or from buildings which are bombed out and can shoot Israeli soldiers and kill them. The way to
prevent that is removing the Israeli army from the Gaza Strip.
What needs to happen is that the Palestinian leadership needs to appoint an independent person to head a new government in Gaza, which will be made up
mainly of Gazans, a civilian professional technocratic government for a period of a number of years. There are one or two possible candidates who
fill the criteria of what's necessary to have legitimacy.
The problem is that Hamas -- that the Palestinian Authority, President Mahmoud Abbas, who's 90 years old and in the 19th or 20th year of a four-
year term, enjoys no legitimacy. The only thing that's left for him to do is to use his power to appoint someone who can govern. Hopefully, it would
be a prime minister for all the Palestinian Authority, including West Bank and Gaza. But even if that doesn't happen, it should be at least for Gaza.
And then, that independent person needs to create a council of people from Gaza who are willing and able to govern, to create a security force, to
invite Arab states to send a security force to help stabilize the situation, create security on the ground.
But we need a person who's committed to peace with Israel, because the Palestinians need to recognize that they no longer have a viable armed
struggle against Israel. As Israel needs to realize that there is no military solution to this conflict.
NEWTON: But it is precisely those two last points that you're articulating that are so sobering because they're so difficult to get over. The former
national security adviser, John Bolton, told my colleague, Kasie Hunt, on CNN, that this is a bad deal, in fact, that will strengthen Hamas. But I
really want you to listen to what he said here. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: By giving a six-week ceasefire, if it happens, you're giving Hamas the chance to gain hundreds
of potential new fighters from the Palestinians being released. Remember, Yahya Sinwar, the now deceased leader of Hamas in Gaza, was a prisoner
released by Israel.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEWTON: He was a prisoner released by Israel, as you well know, during the negotiation that you were involved in to release Gilad Shalit. Now, do you
fear that this kind of a deal actually emboldens Hamas to again kill and take more hostages? I know that is what the right-wing in Israel is
articulating at this very hour.
BASKIN: Right. I also know that the people of Gaza no longer want Hamas and hold Hamas responsible for the tragedy that's befallen on them. They
definitely blame Israel, but they hold Hamas responsible, and a majority of Gazans don't want Hamas there anymore.
This needs to be exploited. This is a moment of place in history where change can be made if we had the region enlisted together with Israel in
order to create the opportunities for a new Palestinian governance in Gaza.
It really has to happen because there are 7 million Palestinian Arabs and 7 million Israeli Jews living on this small land between the Jordan River and
the Mediterranean Sea. They're not going anywhere. And we have to stop doing this. We've been doing it for a hundred years. This war has been the
biggest tragedy that's befallen these two people in the history of the State of Israel. And the Palestinian people and the Israeli people have to
change directions. We need help from the International Community.
President Biden and Secretary Blinken did not do what they needed to do. They could have ended this war a long time ago, and they kept feeding
Israel with the ability to carry on the war without demanding that it stop and they have not forced Israel nor the Arab partners to put forth a viable
plan for changing the situation around on the ground.
Hamas cannot stay there, but neither can a radical right-wing extremist government of Israel, which is responsible for what happened on October
7th.
NEWTON: But, Gershon, you are speaking as a seasoned negotiator that you are. And as you articulated, it certainly makes a lot of logical sense. And
yet, Hamas still remains in place. You and I both know -- I was in Gaza, you know, when Hamas had taken over, when the Bush administration allowed a
vote there, they were shocked that the Gazans had voted with Hamas. And here we are in the beginning of 2025.
Where do you see an opening going forward? And do you believe that opening will be created by the Trump administration? That seems to be enabling
still, again, I say to you a right-wing coalition in the Netanyahu cabinet.
BASKIN: Well, we don't know what Trump is going to do. He's completely unpredictable. But we know that he is transactional. We saw this past week
the work of Steven Witkoff, Trump's Middle East emissary, going to Israel, going to Doha, staying in Doha, and making sure that this deal is done.
[13:35:00]
Steven Witkoff, although he's an American Jewish real estate mogul from New York, he's also very transactional. He has a lot of investments personally
in Qatar and in the United Arab Emirates, and I think there's a chance that there'll be a different view on the American interest in the region. And I
think the biggest American interest, as it is in the world today, is to see this conflict come to an end.
Hamas has to be dealt with, but Hamas understands its own situation. Its a chief negotiator yesterday issued a horrible statement after the success of
the negotiations, it was so despicable. It was even difficult to read. But it is so unrepresentative of what a majority of Palestinians want. They
don't want to go through this war anymore. They don't want to go through the suffering. Two million homeless people in Gaza are suffering horribly
in a catastrophe that cannot continue.
So, I think if there was leadership coming from the United States we could see a change here. The region wants it. Just yesterday in Oslo, 90
countries got together for the fourth time in the Global Alliance for the implementation of the two-solution that was initiated by Saudi Arabia, the
European Union and Norway. This is remarkable that 90 countries have gotten together and said, no more speeches, no more declarations. We want to know
what all these countries around the world are going to do to see the two- state solution implemented.
Israel should embrace this. Because Israel is recognized as one of the two states. And now, the United States would make great progress if the United
States would recognize the State of Palestine. But at the end of the day, what's most important is that Israel recognizes the Palestinian people's
right to a state, just as the Palestinians need to recognize Israel's right to self-determination.
NEWTON: Gershon, we do have to leave it there for now, but you've certainly given us a lot to think about, as again, many parties here try and get that
path forward to peace. Gershon, thank you so much. Again, appreciate it.
BASKIN: Thank you.
NEWTON: And we do turn now to Los Angeles, where firefighters are slowly gaining control of the wildfires raging since last Tuesday. Now, for many
people affected, returning to their homes or whatever is left of them is likely a while away yet because of critical work to remove hazardous debris
and also rebuild infrastructure. Now, that cleanup and rehabilitation process could take between three and six months, that's according to
officials.
Kevin Williams is a longtime resident of Altadena, one of the area's hardest hit by the fires. He joins Hari Sreenivasan to tell his story and
that of the diverse community residing there.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Paula, thanks. Kevin Williams, thanks so much for joining us. You are a longtime resident of
Altadena, and that's been in the news because of the fires, of course. And I just want to ask, what did the fire do to your house and your home?
KEVIN WILLIAMS, ALTADENA, CALIFORNIA RESIDENT: The house sustained some minor damage, but all the outbuildings, the pool house the garage carport,
as well as three fences were all destroyed.
We spent -- my son, myself and next-door neighbor spent most of the day just trying to keep the house and save the house, putting up sprinklers and
things like that. But it was a harrowing experience just trying to keep the home itself protected.
SREENIVASAN: But when did you know that it was time to go?
WILLIAMS: It was about -- I think it was about 5:00, 5:30 in the morning. And my -- I sent my wife and son out to the evacuation shelter. And the
fire was actually was north of the home. It made a U-turn. And I have some experience with looking at some of the fires, and the fire pattern changed.
And I looked down my street and I saw this glow. And then, the house about three houses down just exploded in flames. There were 40-foot flames.
And the flames -- it was big wind gusts we had, you know, 60, 70, 80 mile per hour winds. The wind gusts actually knocked those flames over to the
side of the street. And I said, you know, there's a time to be brave and there's a time to have some common sense, and I left. Only temporarily,
though. I had to tell my wife later the things that were going on and she wasn't too happy. But, you know, we did what we could do to save our home.
SREENIVASAN: If you don't mind me asking. what in those last hours was most important for you to get out of the house to take with you?
WILLIAMS: There were mementos. I think we took our wedding album and we took some mementos from families. My relatives, my dad and mom had passed
away last year and there were a few things that were there and just some minor items in terms of, you know, wedding rings and things of that you
don't sleep with. So, we got those out and close. And then, we left.
SREENIVASAN: You've been in that house for how long?
WILLIAMS: We've been in this particular house since 1993.
[13:40:00]
SREENIVASAN: And you grew up in this neighborhood?
WILLIAMS: Yes, my parents bought a home back in 1965. We moved from Los Angeles. My dad said the neighborhood was starting to change. And he said,
well, I need to get my family out to a different area. So, we bought a house that was being built out in Altadena. In fact, that house was
destroyed by the fire. 1965. We had been in it for 59 years.
SREENIVASAN: I'm looking at a picture here, which I think is of your parents sitting in front of a fireplace. Have you had a chance to go buy
that home that you grew up in?
WILLIAMS: Yes, that's the one I went down in the chimney. That's why I think that the picture is so poignant. That's the first night that my
parents spent in the home. We were in there. And they took the picture in front of the fireplace and that's all that remains now. Yes, that was --
that's the tough part. Yes, mom and dad was so happy to buy that home. And now, it's no longer there.
SREENIVASAN: and that's not just a lot of memories, that's an entire community that has built up. You know, take us back a little, for people
who don't know, the history of Altadena and especially for African- Americans why was that special?
WILLIAMS: When we moved out to Altadena in '65, I remember it was a February of 1965. And I moved from an area that was all black in Los
Angeles to come out to Altadena, and there were people of all different types of racial groups. There were Japanese, there were a few Hispanics,
there was white students who I didn't have that much exposure to when we were in Los Angeles. It was very unique.
And I wasn't too excited because there were horses. People were riding horses in the streets and there were no sidewalks. And we told my dad, my
brother, and I said, hey, dad, we don't want to move out here. There's no sidewalks. So --
SREENIVASAN: For a kid from L.A., that's the country.
WILLIAMS: Oh, yes. Yes.
SREENIVASAN: And today, when you look at some of the statistics, what's remarkable is the amount of home ownership by African-Americans. How did
that come to be? I mean, over those decades, since your dad and mom moved there, why did it become a place where black Americans and Angelenos felt
comfortable?
WILLIAMS: There's the story that on the west side of Altadena is where most of the African-Americans had migrated to, because it's really three parts.
There's the west, there's the central, and then there's the east. The east side is slightly east of Lake Avenue. It was very warm and inviting. The
people were warm and inviting on the west side, so I think it made really comfortable for people to attend.
We attended a church, Altadena United Methodist Church, and there were some wonderful people who really welcome and embraced us as people of color. And
we had like pancake breakfasts and it was really good. So, that was welcoming there. Central Altadena was a little bit different. There was a
small mix of African-Americans there. And then on the east side, there were absolutely very few, if any African-American families over there.
But I think with so many people migrating from Los Angeles, there was a community that was instantly developed. Some of the people who I first met
in 1965 are still my very closest and best friends.
SREENIVASAN: And what happens? I mean, what's the magic there? I mean, for black families to put down roots. And to take that leap of home ownership.
I mean, you're talking about changing generational wealth patterns.
WILLIAMS: Right. It was property values in Los Angeles were starting to change and it was really -- if you look at it, like I said, we moved in
February of 1965, the Watts Riots occurred in August of 1965. So, my dad bought the house -- when he first bought the house, when he and my mother
got married in Los Angeles, they bought it for $9,000. We were able to leave and sold it for $12,000. I mean, if you can believe that.
We moved out to Altadena. And I remember my dad saying, hey, we're going to buy this house and it's -- you know, it's $32,000, but I'm going to go down
to the realtor and see if I can talk him down a couple hundred dollars. I said, dad, what's a couple hundred dollars. He said, son, you don't
understand. That may be much money for somebody or -- you know, so it's a - - it's something substantial.
So, it was just a better life. I mean, you're going from the inner city out to the suburbs and out Altadena really is a suburb. It was a unique
experience. It was very -- I don't know, I'm trying to adjust my emotions.
[13:45:00]
I talked to a friend recently and he says, Kevin, how you feeling? I said, I'm in an emotional limbo because I'm looking back at 1965 and some of the
early years and I'm thinking, man, this was so warm to go back and see just utter devastation, it's tough. It really is tough. I'm trying to withhold
my emotions right now just for that very reason.
SREENIVASAN: Kevin, what happens after we stop doing the interviews, after the camera crews roll away and you and your neighbors are still in this,
what I would call grief?
WILLIAMS: You know, that's something that not a lot of people are talking about right now. You're right. There's a lot of interviews. There's a lot
of camera. There's a lot of people around there. And then, we have to come back to community.
I have a slight background in mental health just on a -- I got my, have my degree in psychology and I work with the counseling ministries at our
church. And we're talking about, what are we going to do? You know, because people are hurting. I have friends who are saying, I am not going to
rebuild. I mean, that's the first thought. There's other people who are saying, no matter what, I'm going to stay. So, there's a lot of emotion
there. Again, a flip flop, but we call it now emotional whiplash. One day, it's like, I'm out of here because I'm in my late 60s, which a lot of
people are who've been around for a long time.
You know, I don't know if I have the emotional fortitude to stay for a year or two to see if my home's going to be rebuilt. There's a lot of hurt and
pain, but we're going to try to get together. Actually, we are. I'm talking with a lot of my community, activists, and people to say, hey, we need to
get some mental health in here to really help people because of that.
I think the real work is going to begin, you know, shortly after everyone leaves. Thank you for bringing that up, because that's really important.
SREENIVASAN: So, what happens to this neighborhood that's had this prominent place in Southern California and African-American history as a
place where people felt safe setting up homes and putting down roots and, you know, trying to create generational wealth? What happens if a large
number of this population decides, hey, I don't -- I can't stomach waiting for a rebuild, that might take years and I don't have the patience? There's
no wrong answer there, but what happens to the community?
WILLIAMS: You know, I had this question asked earlier and a pastor at our church said, when you have a group of people, a group of friends, let's say
you have five friends down there, and they develop a dynamic, and when one person leaves that group, the group is not the same. People -- you know,
the other four friends are there, but that one personality is gone.
When you remove a group of people, in this case, African-Americans who have been there for a long time, it's changing the tenor of the community. It's
not the same. It's just not the same for us because there's a loss of us in the home ownership and the legacy. And we're trying to -- again, I'm in
conversations with people who say, we just can't let that happen. We have to maintain that sense of -- the legacy, the strength. It makes the
community a strong place when you have all parts and all people, different races and background in a community.
Altadena is a very unique community. It's a lovely place. Just lovely. It's -- I can't even describe the devastation that's occurred in -- and the
common serenity that was there before this disaster took place.
SREENIVASAN: Do you think it'll come back?
WILLIAMS: I hope. I don't know. I mean, how do you rebuild a community where homes have been around for over 100 years? My wife and I take a walk
almost every morning to -- we live right off of a place called Christmas Tree Lane. And I think when they were doing some early shots of the fire,
most of the footage was coming from about a block away, block and a half away from where we live. And we normally go east and north, up towards the
foothills, that area was almost totally destroyed. But there are pine trees, the deodar trees. It's -- it was a calm.
I just -- I don't know how you build that back with these homes that are there that have been around 100 years. How are they going to replace them?
Is somebody going to come and put in a modern home? Because there are a couple -- I say modern homes, they were built in the '70s. And those we
call those moderns in Altadena. But there's many homes that have this just beautiful character, English tutor, Spanish stucco. How do you bring that
back? I don't know. I'm not sure. I hope that people, when they rebuild, take that into consideration. Because that is a part of our community.
SREENIVASAN: As we're having this conversation, there are still some fires out there. But it also seems to be, you know, the beginning of finger
pointing season. People trying to place blame on how this was mismanaged, or what could have been done better, or could this have been prevented.
[13:50:00]
You know, you live through it. You stood there through those 60, 70-mile an hour winds. Is there something that could have prevented this?
WILLIAMS: I have a background in insurance, and we used to take classes in terms of fire prevention and what happens in a fire. And there's a thing
called a fire storm, which people don't understand the fire makes its own weather.
Early in the fire, I was driving towards the east side where many -- much of the devastation was, and I looked up towards the foothills and I saw
this tall palm tree, and about all of a sudden, an ember came and it attacked the trunk of the tree at about 50 feet, 60 feet high. And within
moments it turned from a little ember to a bright flame. And 10 seconds later, it just exploded, the embers from that tree, and went out in
multiple different directions. And I'm not talking about small embers, I'm talking about embers the size of, you know, three and four inches. And then
the 90 -- the 80 to 90-mile an hour winds, I don't know how you stop that. There could have been a fire engine on every street corner and I'm not sure
how they would have stopped it.
I mean, this is unprecedented 90-mile per hour and 100-mile per hour winds. How do you stop that? I don't know. In fact, when I was trying to put the
fire out on my garage, my whole hose had a strong stream and when the wind gusts came, the water just came right back in my face. And talking to
several firefighters, that's exactly what happened to them too. So, I don't know.
Why do you -- people are angry and I don't blame them for being angry and you have to point your finger at somebody in the cycle of grief. But, you
know, I don't know what that solves really.
SREENIVASAN: Did most of the friends that you have in your neighborhood have insurance and or do you think that they're fully insured?
WILLIAMS: In my neighborhood, which is considered Central Altadena, they have insurance. There's a lot of people on the west side who -- there was a
fire several years back. And so, insurance changes, it goes to a more substandard, they call it the fair plan. So, the insurance isn't quite as
good because it has to fight fires. So, many of them decided because of the cost of insurance, they just -- you know, they own the home, there was no
mortgage, and they decided not to have insurance. So, I personally know of three people who decided that. I mean, they've lost everything and they
have no insurance.
Again, we're in conversation saying, hey, how can we who didn't suffer the utter devastation, how can we help them? You know, I hope there's somebody
out there. You know, this isn't a political statement, but I hope their funds, when we're talking about rebuilding other communities and other
places, rebuild Altadena.
Altadena is -- again, it's a wonderful place where people have been around a long time. You'd love to live here. Whenever we go off places and we
describe our community, people says, that sounds like a place I'd like to live. And I just hope that there's some funds available from the government
that can come in and help these people, my friends, my family.
SREENIVASAN: What's that legacy that you wanted to leave behind that might be missing now?
WILLIAMS: It's making sure that my children can inherit my home. But not only my home, my community. I just hope that not too many of the neighbors
decide to leave because that changes the community. That's what I really hope for. I really do.
I'm a person that loves people. I love being around people. I was a coach and I like to help people. And that's one of the reasons why we stayed
behind. My wife said, you know, why were you there? And I said, you know, when you're in the middle of it, when I go broad start caught fire, I said,
oh, no, I don't want to be responsible for my neighbor's homes burning down.
We have a little kid next to us. His name is Elliot. He's two -- just celebrated his two-year birthday. And I just thought, if his home burns
down, how is that going to affect him? Or my neighbor to the other side, Greedo (ph), who's just a wonderful neighbor. Is my home responsible?
So, I just hope that the community is there. We can rebuild it somehow so that everyone can live in a -- live together in harmony as much as you can
in Altadena. Like I said, it's just a very unique place like that. It's a wonderful place. I just hope it hasn't been damaged forever. That's my
hope, that we can somehow retain some of the legacy of experience of camaraderie and togetherness.
SREENIVASAN: Kevin Williams, longtime resident of Altadena, California, thank you. And I wish the best for you and your community.
WILLIAMS: Thank you. Hari. And thank you for this segment to hopefully shed some light on my community that I love and adore.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
SOARES: And finally, for us, and as you just heard, Kevin Williams described so eloquently, the people of Los Angeles are coming together to
help each other in their time of need. Now, donations are pouring in for those affected, even at this animal shelter in Pasadena where they've taken
in 400 animals during the fires.
And of course, here as well, while parents pick up supplies, magicians at L.A.'s famed Magic Castle are keeping children busy with balloon animals
and card tricks, bringing smiles to these families affected by what has been unthinkable devastation. Bringing some smiles to the innocents there.
That's it for us. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and on social media.
Thank you for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
