Return to Transcripts main page


Interview With Israeli Journalist And Channel 12 Chief Political Commentator Amit Segal; Interview With Of The Columbia Daily Spectator Editor In Chief Isabella Ramirez; Interview With "How To Make Herself Agreeable To Everyone" Author Cameron Russell. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired April 29, 2024 - 13:00   ET



CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour. Here's what's coming up.


ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I'm hopeful that they will make the right decision.


AMANPOUR: U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken offers new hope for an Israel-Hamas ceasefire, as Israeli airstrikes on Rafah continue. I ask Amit

Segal, a journalist at the heart of Israel's right-wing politics, what will Netanyahu do next?

Then --


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But they're going to attack us, we're not going to back down, but we're going to take precautions.


AMANPOUR: -- tension rises on college campuses. Student Isabella Ramirez, who's editor in chief of the Columbia Daily Spectator, reports from the

heart of the pro-Palestinian campus peace movement.

And --


CAMERON RUSSEL, AUTHOR, "HOW TO MAKE HERSELF AGREEABLE TO EVERYONE": From top to bottom, the industry relies on the exploitation of women's labor.


AMANPOUR: -- Michel Martin speaks with fashion industry activist Cameron Russell. Author of "How to Make Herself Agreeable to Everyone."

Plus, a prime Parisian apartment for just $800 a month? We report on how public subsidies keep Paris a vital, diverse city.

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

Today, we talk to two journalists at the heart of critical developments in the Israel-Gaza war. First, a conservative political analyst close to

Benjamin Netanyahu. Then, to a student newspaper editor at the epicenter of U.S. campus protest.

We begin with a renewed push for a ceasefire in Gaza. Hamas is set to meet negotiators in Cairo, as Egypt's foreign minister calls on both sides to

accept the proposal on the table. A diplomatic source suggests that two- step process over several weeks involving hostage releases, prisoner swaps, and some sort of pause in the fighting.

Speaking in Saudi Arabia, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken puts the onus on Hamas, saying they're "the only thing standing between the people

of Gaza and a ceasefire." But Israel hasn't yet agreed to the proposal, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is being urged by his extreme right flank

to send troops into Rafah. Here's the finance minister addressing the prime minister.


BEZALEL SMOTRICH, ISRAELI FINANCE MINISTER (through translator): If you decide to raise a white flag and cancel the order to occupy Rafah

immediately in order to complete the task of destroying Hamas and to restore security to the residents of the south and to the citizens of

Israel and to return all our abducted brothers and sisters to their homes, the government headed by you will have no right to exist.


AMANPOUR: Twenty people, including at least one infant and a toddler, were killed in an Israeli airstrike on Rafah earlier today.

Now, few journalists are as close to Netanyahu's thinking as the Israeli political analyst, Amit Segal. And he's joining us now from Jerusalem.

Welcome to the program.

AMIT SEGAL, ISRAELI JOURNALIST: Thanks, Christiane. Thanks for having me.

AMANPOUR: Can I ask you, I mean, whether you can fill in any details, whether you know any more details of a ceasefire? Periodically we're told,

you know, there's hope and then, of course, it doesn't happen and the hostages don't get returned. Can you tell us what you know now? The


SEGAL: As always in the Middle East, it's always good to stick to cautious pessimism. Israelis have their habit of playing chess with themselves and

usually lose. We have a heated debate in Israel. You showed the finance minister in Benjamin Netanyahu's cabinet. But at the end of the day, since

November, each and every time Hamas demanded one major thing in return, which Israel couldn't have given him this, which is the end of the war. And

that's why this hostage deal has not been achieved yet.

And I have to admit that I'm still a bit pessimistic from what I hear because Hamas refuses this. He understands that as long as Israel continues

the war, even after a period of six weeks, he is finished if Israel dismantles Hamas in Rafah.


AMANPOUR: OK. So, I've also heard that pessimism because yes, you're right, Hamas wants a full ceasefire and Israel wants to do other things. So, what

do you think? Because the next question is, will there be a ground invasion into Rafah?

SEGAL: Well, a ground invasion into Rafah is not an Israeli whim. There is a logic into it, and that's why Israel is pushing. By the way, this is the

only consensus in the Israeli cabinet. Even ministers from the left, like Benny Gantz, support entering Rafah at the end of the day because there are

three strategic assets by Hamas in Rafah.

One is the last five battalions of this terror army that invaded Israel on October 7th with those horrific results. Second is the senior figures in

Hamas, in war and death, number one and number two. If they are killed or caught by Israel, it means the end of the war with an Israeli victory. And

the third thing, which is the most important one, is cutting the chain of supply. The lifeline for Hamas from Egyptian Rafah. Through the tunnels,

Hamas gets all the commodities, all the explosives, all the weapons that he wants.

I'll just give you one example, Christiane. Each cigarette that is sold in Gaza is sold by Hamas, and they sell it 300 times the cost of a single

cigarette. All this money goes to fund terrorism activity -- terrorist activity against Israel. That's why it's so important to cut this lifeline

in Rafah.

AMANPOUR: So, let's talk about what the prime minister and what you've heard from your sources, either him or close to him, thinks about the

choice he has to make, whether to defy the United States or to do what it appears his right flank is pushing him into do it.

As you know, the friend of Israel, the columnist Thomas Friedman says, Netanyahu has to decide, is it Rafah or is it Ria (ph)? Do you want to

make, you know, an international coalition or do you want to be pushed into a very unpopular and potentially very difficult, for everybody,

particularly the Palestinians, invasion of Rafah?

SEGAL: So, it's interesting, Christiane, because, you know, I stood right here at this very roof of my house in Jerusalem just two weeks ago, and I

watched this amazing spectacle off Middle Eastern cooperation of Saudis, Jordanian, Israelis, Americans. That is to say that was -- there was a

Muslim, Jewish, Christian cooperation against fundamentalist Islam.

What Thomas Friedman always writes, by the way, since, give or take, 1995 is a deal that I never hear from Saudis or people from the Emirates. I only

hear it from Washington, New York, and London, which means for Israel to give up its security and get the prospects for peace in the Middle East.

By the way, what Saudis really want, behind closed doors, I guess you hear it as well, is eliminating Hamas as a regional power, because if Hamas ends

this war on its feet, it means that he got away with killing 1,200 Israelis, Americans, and British. That's why Saudi Arabia wants Israel to

eliminate Hamas.

And I think it goes the other way around. I mean, it's -- I'll put it differently. From what I hear from senior sources in Jerusalem, Biden gave

the impression that invading Rafah means for him that Donald Trump is going to be the next president of the United States because Michigan voters,

especially the Muslim voters, will not forget this and will not go to the ballot So, he loses Michigan and that's how he'll lose the election. That's

why Americans push Israel for not invading Rafah, dispute it in a very dramatic moment for Benjamin Netanyahu.

But one thing, Christiane, I'm not sure Netanyahu needs those threats from his right-wing. I don't think Netanyahu wants to skip Rafah. I think this

is his raison d'etre these days.


SEGAL: Winning the war in an outright to victory as he defined it.

AMANPOUR: OK. There's a lot you've put there. So, obviously, people like Thomas Friedman and your friends in Washington and London also want to

secure Israel with a free and, you know, full rights for the Palestinians. So, let's just park that.

Really interesting that you say that Netanyahu believes that the pressure he's getting is just because of Biden's upcoming election. But as you know,

most people believe, outside and inside Israel, that the reason Netanyahu's not going into deals and this and that is because he's concerned about his

own political survival. And that he cannot survive if he does anything that you heard the finance minister and the security minister and his coalition

disapprove of. And they've been very clear that he mustn't, as they put it, wave the white flag.


SEGAL: So, first of all, I can confirm that Benjamin Netanyahu is a politician that takes political considerations. But I'll tell you what the

public opinion in Israel believes in. It believes in full victory over Hamas. You see it in each and every poll. The most persuasive thing for

Netanyahu to do as a politician is to defeat Hamas.

And as for the goodwill, I'm quite sure that President Biden wants all the best for Israelis, but there is a heated debate about what will cause it. I

think the logic means that if Yahya Sinwar and Hamas as a whole get away with it and they are still standing on their feet after October 7th, so,

what's next? I mean, you'll still have this terrorist enemy, monstrous enemy, just one mile from your borders. It will not be very good for

Israel. It will be devastating for Netanyahu's prospects as a politician, which are not very good these days anyway.

So, I think Netanyahu or the public opinion in Israel, and this is what people in Washington don't really understand, they're not against Netanyahu

because he's too hawkish, they are against Netanyahu because they see him as too dovish.

For instance, 72 percent of the Israeli population are against those -- this humanitarian aid to Hamas from the border -- from the Israeli border.

So, for Netanyahu to be more popular, he needs to go -- to be more hawkish rather than the other way around.

AMANPOUR: Yes. And you say to Hamas, the humanitarian aid, but of course, it's to the Palestinian people who are in very, very, very dire straits.

And that also is, you know, raising the anger around the world against Israel, as you've obviously seen, including on -- in amongst many young


But can I just ask you, because as you know, better than I do, over the weekend there were more proof of life videos that were sent by Hamas to

you, well, in some way released, of two male hostages. Now, we are not running the video, but we've shown pictures. And every night, as far as we

can gather, there are hostage families that blame Netanyahu for slow rolling any deal to get their loved ones back. And this is something that's

really causing a huge problem.

At what point does Netanyahu believe, if ever, that the hostages come first, that the families, the people of Israel, comes first?

SEGAL: OK. So, there is a debate about the hostages. If Israel accepted these very specific deals -- deal, it means that it ends the war with three

quarters of the hostages still in Gaza, 50 minutes from here by car. 99 hostages will still be in Gaza. So, the debate in Israel is not between

those who want hostages back and those who don't want them because they are -- I don't know, they don't have anything in their heart.

But the question is what helps the most? I'll give you an example. Five months ago, Israel put a strong military pressure on Hamas and it got 123

hostages in return for only, I think, eight days of a ceasefire. So, there is a sentiment in Israel that says put more military power and you'll get

more hostages.

By the way, did anyone think what caused -- just a second, Christiane, what caused Hamas to release those video clips just seconds before Israel enters

Rafah? Maybe they have something to hide there. Maybe they want to have it as a commodity.

And one last thing about what you say about starvation. Prices in Gaza -- and facts beg to differ, prices in Gaza of food and humanitarian supply

reduced dramatically over the last few weeks because of the humanitarian aid. Actually today --

AMANPOUR: Yes. Some aids got in, but it's not quite enough.

SEGAL: -- humanitarian aid sent to Israel then before the war.

AMANPOUR: Yes, it's not enough, as you know.

SEGAL: And before --

AMANPOUR: No, not them before the war. Maybe even before a few weeks ago. But I want to ask you, because Netanyahu has promised -- no, let's not

argue over things.

SEGAL: Christiane, just one question.

AMANPOUR: That's the International Community and all the aid agencies, say it's not enough. There are horrendous pictures and that is what is

inflaming the world against you.

But I want to ask you this -- and plus the 35,000, you know, dead. But Netanyahu has promised total victory, and you talk about victory. Most

people in Israel believe that the previous hostages were released because of a negotiation. Your IDF has only managed to release three of them. Three

of them they killed.

It's almost seven months in, Hamas has not been beaten. And, you know, you've got one leader, Marwan Issa, Yahya Sinwar, and the others are still

there. So, I think people are beginning to say, how long? You know, how long is it until you get total victory?

SEGAL: I'll tell you it won't happen without Rafah. It's necessary, but not sufficient.



SEGAL: Victory over Hamas reminds me of the COVID crisis. When -- during the first week I asked a professor who gave an interview on Channel 12, my

channel, when will I know it will end -- it has ended? And he told me, you -- there won't be a specific moment, but there will be a day you'll sit in

a restaurant in Jerusalem with your family and all of a sudden, you'll tell each other, wow, do you remember the days when we had masks and the

warrants restaurant and bars and pubs? I think the same applies for defeating terrorism.

20 years ago, Israel defeated the terrorist suicide bombers from Judea and Samaria. It took three or four years, but at the end of the day, there is

no threat of suicide bombers in the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

I'll give you two examples. One, the number of rockets fired from Gaza reduced by 99 percent. The number of tunnels, terror tunnels, reduced by 70

percent. The ability to invade Israel and to massacre, behead, rape, and murder does not exist anymore. So, I think we have to go there.

And just one thing, Christiane, 20 years ago, to the date, there was a letter, a presidential commitment made by President Bush in order to

persuade the Israeli public to withdraw from the very specific Gaza Strip. He wrote Sharon, then-Prime Minister Sharon, that the U.S. will work to

dismantle every terrorist organization that might try to seize Gaza Strip. So, not only the United States does not put boots on the ground, now trying

to prevent Israel from doing it, is something that will risk not Israel, but the very commitment, the very meaning of presidential seal and

presidential commitment.

AMANPOUR: So, so far, I think I've read you loud and clear that as far as you and your contacts know there will be a Rafah invasion, incursion,

ground. But now, I want to ask you about the other news that's come up this weekend.

Israeli media, so that's you all, are reporting that Israeli officials, including the prime minister's office, believe the International Criminal

Court, the ICC, may issue arrest warrants for the prime minister, for the defense minister, and the chief of the defence staff. Also, they believe

they may be considering warrants for Hamas leaders.

You've said the prime minister's office is very concerned. Can you give us some more details? Is that what you're hearing? Where are you hearing this

from? Do you think that's going to happen anytime soon?

SEGAL: I don't think concern is the word. Horrified is a word that better describes what is happening in the high windows, in the high places in

Israel these days. Yes, they do think there is a good deal that an arrest warrant will be issued by the ICC. The latest news is they -- that they

fear that those will be discrete ones.

That is to say that once Netanyahu, let's say, make a state visit to London or to Brussels, he'll get arrested there. By the way, it almost happened to

then-foreign affairs minister, Tzipi Livni, some 15 years ago following the, caste led operation, I think, in Gaza. So, it's not something new, but

it's very, very dramatic. It actually puts Israelis in a very problematic situation. It's an earthquake in an unprecedented level. And to be honest,

I can't confirm -- I can confirm that they are very concerned, but I cannot confirm it's going to happen.

AMANPOUR: All right. We will we will keep watching. Amit Segal, thank you very much, indeed, for joining us.

Now, a major development sparked by this war is a growing protest and peace movement on college campuses across the United States. Though mostly

nonviolent, several schools have called in local police and National Guard troops.

Today in Paris, French police entered the Sorbonne University campus to remove students occupying the main square.

Now, the epicenter of all of this is Columbia University, where today, with negotiations between students and the administration at an impasse, the

university called on protesters to clear their encampment or face suspension. Some of the most valuable reporting on all this comes from

inside the student newspaper, the Columbia Daily Spectator. Editor in Chief Isabella Ramirez. Joins us from New York.

Isabella Ramirez, welcome to the program. And, you know, I can't tell you how much we've read about what an excellent job you are doing and your, you

know, student newspaper, your on campus journalist. What can you tell us is the latest right now as we sit here talking?

ISABELLA RAMIREZ, EDITOR IN CHIEF, COLUMBIA DAILY SPECTATOR: Today is going to be a very significant day in terms of our developments. This morning,

our president, Minouche Shafik, sent out an e-mail effectively saying that negotiations failed to reach an agreement. And it, for the first time,

outlined very explicitly that Columbia will not divest from Israel, which is the central demand of the protesters.


As well as, in that e-mail, it laid out, what, the university actually brought to the table to those negotiators, to those student negotiators and

included a series of very interesting things, including offering a list of financial transparency of direct holdings of the university that is --

would be accessible to students and updating that list. It also offered to potentially invest in health and education in Gaza, as well as create an

expedited process for divestment proposals. And those were all the things that essentially those students would have rejected because it did not

fulfill what their central demands would be.

And one of the interesting things as well is that that e-mail did not include anything about amnesty for the students, which has also been a very

big thing for the arrested and suspended students. And so, now, the university has been handling out notices to those students at the

encampment at this moment warning of disciplinary action, and they have until 2:00 p.m. today to potentially clear out if not to face, again,

disciplinary action.

And at the same time that this is happening, we're hearing word from the encampment, they made an announcement essentially saying that they have

voted to stay.


RAMIREZ: So, the students currently have voted to stay past 2:00 p.m. and face those suspensions. And just to add one more thing, the suspensions are

actually even more severe than previous. The previous suspended students who were suspended simultaneous to the first wave of arrests that happened,

you know, on April 18th, those students were allowed to stay on campus, at least in the residential spaces.

This interim suspension says they would have no access to any campus buildings, including residences, dorms, dining, et cetera, IDs completely

deactivated, which would effectively evict a lot of those students or at least leave them without access to the residence halls and other important

buildings. So, the consequences are now much more severe.

AMANPOUR: So, it seems, honestly, Isabella, that it's a real standoff that there seems to be, you know, little peace building or bridge building

between either side and both sides, administration and students are really holding the toughest positions right now.

I don't know whether you see any way forward, but what I want to ask you is, you know, you're watching this, you're talking to people on campus, you

also see the ruckus that's being created outside the campus. Can you tell us what is the real picture? What -- is it dangerous, violent on campus? Is

that off campus? What are you seeing as journalists from inside?

RAMIREZ: So, at the very beginning stages, there were -- there was a lot of activity in terms of protest activity, both outside of our campus on

campus. To be frank, that off campus protest activity has held quite a bit. It has calmed down. That is where a lot of people were sort of citing a lot

more tension in terms of when it came to, you know, certain chance or certain incidents that were arising from those outside protests.

But predominantly for right now, the encampment has sort of remained the same. And there's been very few updates sort of on the day to day. That's

why today is actually quite a big day. But, you know, I was just at the encampment pretty recently distributing our newspaper and really, when you

walk on and you see it, it's students sort of laying on the lawn, you know, chatting, reading books, getting water, getting food.

It's a really interesting environment because we are certain that there are a lot of students who have reported feeling uncomfortable, have reported

feeling unsafe by the presence of the encampment. But also, when you walk onto it, there isn't like active protests necessarily occurring on the

encampment itself, it's mostly just the state of occupying that space and kind of being on that space, and there being kind of a series of other

activities often but very little in terms of tangible protest.

There is going to be probably more escalation we can anticipate as a result of the university's crackdown. And that's sort of why we saw, in the first

place, some of those outside protests come in and also some of the students themselves start to galvanize in terms of upping their protest activity was

because or was in response to the arrests and also university crackdown.

But for these past few days where everything has been at sort of a -- the negotiations have stalled, it has been pretty, you know, regular in terms

of just the students laying on the lawns and, you know, kind of doing their day-to-day activity and programming, sometimes even tuning in to class from

the lawn.

AMANPOUR: Isabella, did you see, or were you able to hear the kind of, you know, student on student verbal harassment that has been cited as very

damaging and uncomfortable and frightening by some of the Jewish students?

RAMIREZ: Yes, we have compiled pretty extensive reports regarding this, most particularly when in the aftermath of one of our campus rabbis telling

Jewish students, hundreds of Jewish students to not -- to leave campus, to not stay because of the environment. We, in that report, were able to

compile a series of incidents that had happened.


I believe on the Saturday following the arrests, much were related to off campus protest somewhere on campus that involved certain rhetoric, some of

which was evocative of the Holocaust, telling students to go back to Poland, go back to Europe. And there were also other particularly violent

signage that was used to refer to actually Hamas and that was one singular protest, that was a protester that was holding that sign and referring to

the pro-Israel protesters behind them.

And so, we have seen those incidents, and for sure, it has come up quite a lot in the dialogue when it comes to Shafik's communication to the

community and all communication we've been receiving from the administration has been very strongly condemning the particular incidents

that have arisen from this.

Now, is that to say that that represents the entirety of the protesters at the encampment or all of the sort of different moving pieces? I think that

is, of course, probably too wide sweeping, but there have certainly been these incidents that should draw concern for our community in half.

AMANPOUR: So, let's go back. There's so much politics as well. You just mentioned the president, Minouche Shafik, who is new, let's face it. She

started at the beginning of this academic year and has been hauled, like the others, in front of the special committee in Congress. I want to play a

little bit of what happened on April 17th as you guys were -- well, not you, but the campus protesters were building the encampment.

This is an exchange between Shafik and the GOP Representative Lisa McClain.


REP. LISA MCCLAIN (R-MI): Are mobs shouting, from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free or, long live the intifada. Are those antisemitic


MINOUCHE SHAFIK, PRESIDENT, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: When I hear those terms, I find them very upsetting. And I have heard --

MCCLAIN: That's a great answer to a question I didn't ask. Is that fall under definition of antisemitic behavior? Yes or no? Why is it so tough?

SHAFIK: Because it's a difficult issue.

MCCLAIN: Maybe I should ask your task force. Does that qualify as antisemitic behavior, those statements? Yes or no? Yes. OK. Do you agree

with your task force?

SHAFIK: Yes, we agree. The question is what to do about it?

MCCLAIN: So, yes. So, the -- so, yes, you do --


AMANPOUR: So, I'm just fascinated to know what you think and how you're writing about the very targeted political situation that's layered upon all

of this. Because after that, Shafik, did, as we've been talking, call in the NYPD to break up the protest.

Now, it's interesting that the chief of the NYPD patrol on the U.S. said the students who were arrested were peaceful, offered no resistance

whatsoever, and were saying what they wanted to say in a peaceful manner. And your newspaper wrote in an editorial, history has made clear who stood

on the wrong side then. And it's clear that this is the side you are aligning yourself with now. This will be your legacy.

Are you -- were you addressing the president and the administration?

RAMIREZ: Yes. So actually, our editorial board, I do not serve on, but it represents a sector of our opinion team who is very talented and has been

working very hard on, you know, kind of reflecting discourse in a different way, because I oversee both the opinion and the newsroom.

But that was -- that piece in particular was addressing Shafik herself. It was attempting to say, Shafik, take a look at what your legacy looks like

right now to the public, to your students, to the administration. And I think a lot of it is inspired as well by what we know from previous

protests at Columbia, 1968, Vietnam, antiwar, South African apartheid, these are all huge moments in Columbia's history in which those presidents

also have been looked upon for the decisions that they made at that time.

And now, when we reflect on it now, there is, of course, a lot of disdain and criticism for those decisions. So, I believe what the editorial board

was really trying to get out here is, you know, really warning President Shafik as to what your legacy will entail if it means, you know, the

forceful removal of students from campus and also this crackdown on student protests. Now, of course, there are many differing opinions here, but that

was the opinion reflected by our editorial board in terms of what the majority voted for.

AMANPOUR: And as we continue to chat, you know, we've seen on other universities, including Emory, it caused a huge ruckus, what happened on

Emory, when a teacher -- a professor was essentially manhandled. Other teachers tried to help, faculty members, student, you know, the -- I think

it was the police and the state guard or whatever they call them. It was a very rough situation over the weekend in Atlanta.

But I guess what I want to ask you, because Columbia is known around the world for, you know, it's history of student protests, but most

importantly, it's very enviable and distinguished Middle East program. You have a very important Middle East studies on Arab and Palestinian studies.

You have very, very important Jewish studies program.


What do you think happened? Why can't people talk to each other?

RAMIREZ: I think part of it is that there is -- encircling all of this, encircling the protest activity is there's a big conversation about

academic freedom at Columbia and sort of what are the limits of that, but as well as has the university done enough to protect those -- the academic

freedom of the professors on our campus.

And we saw that as well in the congressional hearing. Congress went very, very hard on Columbia for, naming multiple faculty members by name, most of

whom came from the (INAUDIBLE) department regarding statements that they had made, scholarship, and other things that they have taught in their

classrooms as, of course, labeling them antisemitic and unsafe.

And so, there has been this really big question as to whether the university has done enough to kind of protect academic freedom in the first

place to allow that discourse to even happen. And so, I think, you know, in terms of agree, like our tradition here at Columbia of both our Middle

Eastern Studies Department, but also our immense connections too, we have the Jewish Theological Seminary, we have a -- controversial, but we have a

relationship through a program with Tel Aviv University.

We have these very deep-seated ties to this issue in particular Edward Said, many scholars who are considered foundational in Israeli and

Palestinian issues. And so, a big question here has, though, been, what is academic freedom, what is the university's role in protecting it, and has

Columbia, in this time frame, under political pressures, under student pressures, has it done enough to protect that and allow that discourse to

occur on its campus?

AMANPOUR: And briefly, we got just a little bit left. You know, a lot of the faculty and some of the students have criticized the way we, the press,

have covered these protests, some call it a peace movement. It's not even, you know -- it's not meant to be violence, it's meant to be nonviolent. And

obviously, social media is blowing it out of proportion.

You're watching it from the inside. Do you have a comment on the way the national press has been covering it?

RAMIREZ: Well, I definitely think that as a student newspaper, we see everything in a way that I believe would be incredibly challenging as

national media to capture. And it's something that we've prided ourselves in. But part of that is because we can be there, first of all, all day.

Columbia has limited time press access pretty significantly. We're there all day. We live on campus. We sleep on campus. We eat on campus. That is

our community and our livelihoods and our peers.

And so, I think we come into everything with that angle. And like I said, I personally, I have been on the encampment. Many of my reporters who have a

spanning series of different identities, some Jewish, some not who have also stepped into the encampment, who have also been sort of on the front

lines in terms of that reporting been inside protests outside of our gates. And of course, we've practiced a lot of measures to stay safe as reporters,

but I do think we have a very different angle here.

AMANPOUR: Yes, you do.

RAMIREZ: And I do think --

AMANPOUR: And it's --

RAMIREZ: -- when -- yes.

AMANPOUR: Yes, sorry. I get it and it's really impressive and you're doing a heck of a job, and we will keep checking in with you. And of course, as

you mentioned, a lot of Jewish students also taking part in these protests. Isabella Ramirez, editor in chief of the Daily Spectator, thank you so


Next, a different call for action, this one, in the fashion world. Cameron Russell was first scouted, age 16. Since then, she's modeled for Calvin

Klein and Ralph Lauren, and appeared in Vogue and Elle. She has long called out hard truths in her industry. A TED talk she gave in 2012 is still one

of the most viewed.

Her new memoir, "How to Make Herself Agreeable to Everyone," explores feeling both objectified and complicit in the system that built her career.

Michel Martin asks her how this might change.


MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR, NPR: Cameron Russell, thank you so much for joining us.

CAMERON RUSSELL, AUTHOR: Thank you so much for having me.

MARTIN: People, if they don't know your name, probably know your face. You've been working as a model for many years now. This book is really

shocking. I'll just say it. It's shocking to me as a person who's been an outsider to the industry. What made you write it?

RUSSELL: You know, I had a word in my head and it just got stuck in my head and I wanted to investigate it. The word was tolerate. I was thinking about

all the things that I had consented to, had tolerated. And that word, the sort of relationalness of it, like why we do things and wanting to be

agreeable, just stuck with me as such a complicated idea because it has benefits and it has drawbacks. It makes us speechless and it makes us

powerful. It allows us to move through conflict.


And so, I just sort of started thinking about that word and then wanted to write something that couldn't be said in an Instagram frame or in five

minutes. And I think finding the way to tell the story, which is complex, really came from starting to read other model memoirs, actually, and

reading, for example, Iman's words, where she talks about feeling both objectified and harmed and also complicit, and being able to say, it's OK

to sit with that duality. That was sort of a liberating idea for me as I started to write.

MARTIN: Talk a little bit, if you would, about how the boundary crossings starts.

RUSSELL: I think about what I was able to tolerate and why. And I think of my mom who raised me to be so tough and so resilient and, in fact, equipped

me very well to swim in a water that was patriarchal. And that same toughness, in a sense, allowed me to persist.

And a lot of those early stories, I think, will feel familiar to many young women, you know, thinking that I had done a double kiss wrong when someone

kissed me on the lips, or, you know, having someone watch me change and then being told by my agent, you have to go shoot with them after hours.

And they're pulling the bandeau strapless bra down to get the shot they want. And I looked down and it's come off.

And in that moment, just feeling like, I'm too tough to be disturbed by this. I can keep going. You don't intimidate me. And that allowed me to

keep going.

MARTIN: Do you have the book there? Do you want to just read the first paragraph? The chapter title is "She'll Do Anything."

RUSSELL: OK. On my first shoot, the stylist says to his assistant, let's go for an S AND M vibe. Mom, do you remember? I go to the toilet and call you

and say, they want to put a belt around my neck. It's an S and M vibe, and you say, no belt around my neck. S and M is a sexual fetish. So, I say no

to the belt and he thinks I'm ungrateful.

By way of explanation I say, I want to run for president. I have to be careful about the kind of pictures I take. He looks me in the eye and I

look back. Normally, adults are pleased or amused when I tell them this, but he rolls his eyes and takes off the belt. He gives me a tiny black

bikini. Go, he says, and turns his back. I've never worn a bikini before. I didn't know I would be wearing one, but I don't have enough pubic hair yet

to need to shave.

On set, I suck in my stomach until my ribs poke out. How do I stand when my stomach is showing? The photographer keeps telling me, relax. He has a fart

machine prank, he does. I laugh because I'm supposed to.

When the photo comes out, my agent makes it my comp card and sends it to clients. I carry it around to castings to give out. Your body looks

amazing, she says.

MARTIN: So, you're what, 15?

RUSSELL: I was 16.

MARTIN: And then it goes on, the stylist won't work with me again for another seven years when he finally books me again, he jokes, you are such

a spoiled brat. One of the points that you make is, when you've refused, there were several situations that you describe on the book that you said,

I'm not doing that. And they're like, well get out. And you see five other girls lined up waiting to take your spot. The message is sent.

But would you mind, and I apologize in advance if it offends, that why do so many people put up with it? Why did you put up with it?

RUSSELL: Yes, I don't -- I actually don't find that question offensive. I find it at the heart of the book in some ways. You know, I think about all

those familiar directives that we lob at girls, like stop being so emotional, you're overreacting, chill out, and wanting always to be able to

tough it out, to play, you know, first to play with the big kids, to play with the boys, then to be a kid in a grown up world, be successful, be

powerful, have a seat at the table.

And that that felt like -- and in some ways, I think is what is required. Actually, as I am writing the book, I'm continuing to work. And I'm in my

30s. I have children. I have a head filled with books. And yet, I find myself on set with someone who is telling me that they are divorced, that

they need me to shoot naked, even though it's in my contract that I don't, and I am bending to them, and I put that in there, really to say, it's so

hard to move away from this at this as much information as we know, if that is still how so much of the world is working, you know, if that is how to

access wealth, if that is how to access visibility.


And the ways to move beyond it that I see are to say, I don't think those things are important. I don't think that's where we're going to build

liberation. And then, also, it's not just on me. I have to build as a collective. There's not like a solution that I propose that fixes it.

MARTIN: With more women help, would it would it help to have more women, photographers, stylists, fashion editors?

RUSSELL: You know, I've thought about that. Maybe. I think that there should be equity behind the camera and in front of the camera. That's

great. But there is something even more insidious happening, right, which is that from top to bottom, the industry relies on the exploitation of

women's labor, treating women's labor as unskilled.

You know, post industrial revolution, it still requires skilled hands to sew clothing. And so, this massive labor force that we treat as unskilled,

who is very skilled, who is mostly women, who organized by the tens of thousands, 50,000 women go on strike in Bangladesh and not one fashion

media outlet picks it up. And it's not for lack of a woman editor in chief, it's something else about the structure of the industry.

And so, I don't think we need, you know, to have women's faces in high places always. It's something deeper and more structural that I think has

to be addressed.

MARTIN: You're not responsible for other people's behavior, but I am still sort of stuck on this, like, why do so many of the people behave so badly?

Why do so many of these men behave so badly? Like why do these, you know, 30, 40, 50-year-old men want to sleep with 15-year-old girls? Why do they

think they can do that? Like, do you have a theory about that?

RUSSELL: I mean, patriarchy, I guess. You know, I think the fashion industry is not uniquely sexist or racist or exploitative. I think it can

be, as many, many industries can be. I think what feels unique in a way to fashion is that fashion speaks the language of beauty, of grace, of, you

know, sort of joy and exuberance and expression. And yet, that expectation to arrive and speak in that language began to feel for me so at odds with

what was happening in my heart and my mind.

And it's interesting to publish this book in this moment because I actually think that's what a lot of us are going through. When we come to work, when

we interact with institutions, when we go to the polls and we think our governments, our businesses, our schools are not protecting us, right, are

actually not putting people first.

And so, there is that kind of profound struggle to arrive in a way that is agreeable, you know, that is agreeable to our boss that allows us to --

even arrive at a dinner table agreeable and what is happening for us on the inside. And I tried in this book, I think, to just stop performing so much

and try to find language for all those complicated things that I was feeling not just what was easy to understand.

MARTIN: How do you feel now that you found your words?

RUSSELL: I feel like I grew up in writing it. Maybe that's not what I'm supposed to say now I'm talking about it. But I got to the end and I was

thinking, where do I land with this? And this quote from Mariame Kaba just was like -- kept playing in my mind where she says, in regards to abolition

politics, we could stop asking, how do we fix what is, and we could start imagining what we want in the world. And so, that understanding of where do

we give our attention, how do we dream what's next, that felt like an open invitation for a next phase for me.

MARTIN: What are you imagining? If I may ask, if it's not too personal or not yet fully formed, what are you imagining?

RUSSELL: Well, I can answer -- because we're talking about fashion, I'll give an answer around the fashion industry. You know, in the first half of

the book, I think there's this idea that you pull back the curtain, and what you see in fashion is extractive business, is girls who come of age

when they're assaulted, is, you know, women who can argue they're empowered by objectification, and that's sort of an agreed upon story, in a way.


But there's no way to make meaning in that story. There's no way to repair that story. So, in the second half of the book what I tried to do was think

about, what's another way to tell a story about the fashion industry that isn't that, that isn't industry that actually is people? And the story that

I could tell and then help me understand where to go was, you know, for the past couple of centuries, although the fashion industry has been so

extractive, we've seen the first labor union in the United States founded by teenage garment workers, we saw worker protections we enjoy today come

out of labor organizing before and after the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire in New York.

And I think, in many ways, our most precious democratic freedoms come from people enslaved on cotton plantations and their descendants. And so,

despite this extractive nature of textile in the past couple centuries, people working in that have transformed our world. So, that's another way

to tell this history. And that's why I think organizing is part of what I continue to do.

MARTIN: So, you write about garment workers in places like Bangladesh who produce the clothes for the companies that you model for and make some of

the lowest wages in the world. And you were at a photo shoot outside of Atlanta on a former plantation, you say, I sit on the porch waiting for the

team to set up. How different is what we're doing, celebrating this place, celebrating my white face over and over while women of color make, pack,

ship, and sell the clothes for nothing close to a livable wage.

Could you just talk more about that?

RUSSELL: Yes, that was extremely difficult shoot. It took place on a former plantation, and there were -- you know, in the course of that shoot, there

were offhand comments about things that may have taken place there and I just felt my skin crawling, really, throughout that shoot to be

photographed there and to celebrate that place.

And of course, also, you know, that story is also about how the fashion industry continues to rely on very extractive systems to make profit. And,

you know, I have a footnote for people who want to dive deeper about, you know, reading about racial capitalism and understanding all the ways that

our history has created an economic model that relies on racial and gender oppression to extract value from people. And certainly, that is happening

in the fashion industry and beyond. And in that moment, I felt like I was the pretty face that was being put on to sell that inhumanity.

MARTIN: One of the things I was going to ask is, do you still like it? Do you still like fashion?

RUSSELL: Yes, I think I have just a very different understanding and relationship now that I can separate out some of those industry parts from

the other parts that are meaningful to me. And also, to understand, you know, when 20 conglomerates own 97 percent of profits, most people working

in fashion are going to be in their employ.

So, it will require people who are inside a broken system, who also are very skilled at speaking the language of fashion, who understand what it is

good for, what it is needed for to speak and be critical of where they sit and use both, you know, our understanding of our own complicity, our own

shame, and our own skills to move forward, and that's a hard spot.

But hopefully, you know, for everybody who reads the book, there's some universality to that conundrum where we are today and how we move forward.

MARTIN: Do you think that's possible? I mean, you see it in different movements, people, the reuse movement, people trying to move away from fast

fashion. You see a lot of that. You see the 15 percent pledge, for example, of Aurora James' movement to insist that fashion brands writ large engage

more with historically marginalized people.


RUSSELL: Oh, yes, I think you're naming so many of what is happening in the margins right now that is actually not the margins because it is where all

the innovation is happening. So, everyone is watching. You know, everyone knows the 15 percent pledge. People know The Or Foundation that's figuring

out what do we do with all this textile waste ending up in Ghana. People know the Fibershed movement, which started in California and now there's

hundreds of them trying to do soil to soil textile within a 25 mile radius.

And I think during the pandemic, what was so striking to me is while we saw this explosion of e-commerce, at the same moment, we saw an explosion of

mending and of making of Gen Z becoming knitters and sharing on TikTok all the ways that they were crafting. And so, there was a divergence, even more

striking than before, of what people need and want and what the fashion industry is trying to provide and sell.

And I think that is reaching a sort of logical conclusion now, because it's -- if you have a new collection every seven days, it's too much trash. And

even for the humans producing it, there is no pleasure in producing something that's going to go into the garbage. And so, I believe this has

to be the end of that cycle of disposability.

MARTIN: Well, Cameron Russell, thank you so much for speaking with us.

RUSSELL: Oh, thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate it.


AMANPOUR: We turn now to France, the center of fashion, as it gears up for this year's summer Olympics. The competitions will no doubt make Paris even

more of a coveted destination for millions of tourists.

But for years, the city has seen rent skyrocket, pushing so many people away. Correspondent Melissa Bell takes a look at how authorities now are

using rent control to ensure that residents can continue living comfortably in their hometown.


MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The view is second to none, the location as central as they get. But this rent

controlled apartment is now Catherine's for just $800 a month.

CATHERINE CORTINOVIS, LA SAMARITAINE RESIDENT (through translator): Welcome. The first time I saw it, I was so emotional that I burst into


BELL (voice-over): And this is the building she was able to move into. Reopened amid great pomp in 2021 after some 16 years of renovation, the

Samaritaine is one of the French capital's most iconic spots for luxury shopping and dining, not to mention its five-star hotel.

But the Samaritaine was also obliged, as part of its reconstruction, to include 96 apartments for the city of Paris to let at modest rates.

JACQUES BAUDRIER, DEPUTY MAYOR OF PARIS IN CHARGE OF HOUSING: If you let the market act, you will have only empty houses, second homes for

foreigners or rich French people. If you want Paris to stay a living city with people inhabiting in the city, you must develop a lot of social


BELL: Across Europe, there's a danger of cities turning to museums and ordinary people being pushed out. But here in Paris, there's the added

particularity that this was a city entirely redesigned in the mid-19th century. And that's exactly what gives it its beauty, but also what makes

it difficult for the city to adapt to the needs of the 21st century.

BELL (voice-over): All the more so that in the 20th century, social housing was built on the outskirts in the so-called banlieue. Where occasionally

top architects were hired to design vast social housing and sometimes grand projects, like the Espaces d'Abraxas estate that was built in the early


But for all their occasional grandeur, estates like these were kept at arm's length of the chic streets of central Paris, which meant long

commutes for those who lived there.

Then in 2001, Paris' Town Hall was won by the left.

IAN BROSSAT, COMMUNIST PARTY SENATOR (through translator): Our objective is social mixing and avoiding making ghettos. Avoiding ghettos for poor

people, avoiding ghettos for rich people. And therefore, prioritizing social housing where there is not enough.

BELL (voice-over): Private Parisian owners wary of lowering house values, worse as Yian Rosa (ph), just one of the hurdles that Paris's Town Hall had

to overcome.

In fact, the average price of a one-bedroom apartment in Paris has more than doubled these last 20 years and nearly tripled in some areas for two-

bedroom homes, which in turn has made centrally located social housing all the more important.

Already, it is one in nine Parisians that benefits. People like Zina (ph), whose place in the Samaritaine development allows her to live close to the

Central Paris hospital where she works.

ZINA HADJAB, LA SAMARITAINE RESIDENT (through translator): As they say, it's an open-air museum, it's pleasant. It's really a good place to live.


BELL (voice-over): An open-air museum that is now seeking to help those who keep at schools and hospitals running to be able to benefit from them too.


AMANPOUR: Melissa Bell with ideas that work. And finally, tonight, Paris housing for one of its oldest and most famous residents, Leonardo da

Vinci's Mona Lisa. It's one of the most photographed paintings in the world. And now, it might be getting a room of its own in the Louvre Museum.

Around 20,000 people a day flock there to catch a glimpse of her enigmatic smile, queuing for selfies, and generally making it more than a little

crowded. The museum president says moving the artwork will improve the visitor experience.

That's it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.