Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Center for a New American Security Senior Fellow and CNAS Transatlantic Security Program Director Andrea Kendall-Taylor; Interview with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa; Interview with "Calling In" Author Loretta J. Ross. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired February 18, 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]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: No one else has been able to bring something together like what we saw today, because Donald Trump is the only
leader in the world that can. So, no one is being sidelined here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: The U.S. and Russia meet in Riyadh, leaving Ukraine without a seat at the table. After three long years of war, what do these new talks
spell for Kyiv and for Europe? We discuss.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOHAMMAD MUSTAFA, PALESTINIAN AUTHOR PRIME MINISTER: Our people are determined to stay in their homes. Our people want to be part of rebuilding
their homes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- the ceasefire holds between Hamas and Israel. But what happens the day after tomorrow for the Palestinian people, and who will
lead them? Christiane asks the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LORETTA J. ROSS, AUTHOR, "CALLING IN": You can say what you mean, and you could mean what you say, but you don't have to say it mean. That's always a
choice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- how to make change with people you'd rather cancel. Michel Martin speaks to human rights activist Loretta Ross about her new book
that's calling out call out culture.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
For the first time since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago this month, senior Russian and American officials are meeting to
discuss what comes next. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio meeting his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, in Saudi Arabia.
Rubio said Washington and Moscow agreed on four principles as talks continue, including appointing a high-level team to help, quote, "negotiate
and work through the end of the conflict in Ukraine." In comments just after the talks, the secretary of state said he felt good about Russia's
commitment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I came away today convinced that they are willing to begin to engage in a serious process to determine how
and how quickly and through what mechanism can and be brought to this war, whether we can ultimately reach that outcome will obviously depend on every
side in this conflict's willingness to agree to certain things.
So, I think it's important to have this meeting because we haven't really had much engagement with the Russians for almost three years and it sets
the table for future conversations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Now, for his part, Ukraine's president, Zelenskyy, said today his country will not give in to Russia's ultimatums. The exclusion of Kyiv
and European allies at this early stage is causing concern in the continent most impacted by this war. And fears are growing that President Trump,
eager for a quick deal, will give away too much.
So, what's the sentiment like inside Ukraine right now? Nick Paton Walsh joins me from Kyiv. And, Nick, you've been covering this war since day one.
Ukrainians have literally lost more than anyone else here and no doubt want to see the bloodshed end and the fighting come to an end as well. But what
are you hearing from those residents in the country? It's a large country. I know people have differing views.
But for the most part, when you hear these words from President Zelenskyy saying that they won't listen to a Russian ultimatum and that Ukraine needs
to be at the table and preferably meeting with president of the United States before President Putin does, do they all agree with him?
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, look, I think there's a widespread exhaustion about the war here,
very few people you can talk to say they have the energy for vast amounts more loss. But there's also recognition that the sacrifice that's been made
so far, the very significant loss of life for every family really affected in some way, must be for something. People don't necessarily want to see
themselves under some form of Russian occupation proxy or direct after any kind of peace deal.
And so, it's a very complex thread to essentially weave for Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He has to try and energize a population that
are exhausted to keep up the fight in such a way that doesn't appear to be a surrender on a frontline where the Russians are clearly advancing.
We're seeing nightly massive Russian drone attacks, 176 drones launched just last night. That's pretty close to one of the records. And so, that is
taking a toll slowly as well.
[13:05:00]
And the uncertainty, really, as well. We've saw that during the Biden administration, the slow drip of aid, never fast enough. Ukraine said to
give its troops the edge that it needed against the Russians, then a hold up essentially through Republicans in Congress for aid at the back end of
2023 and now the broad uncertainty period as to whether the Trump administration wants to continue the kind of financing that the Biden
administration provided and a suggestion potentially that there could be some kind of economic deal that may involve Ukraine's minerals.
So, definite concerns here that we've seen in the last two weeks, a change in the wind, the Europeans scrambling to some degree to make up for what
appears to be a change in American position, certainly one articulated by U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in Brussels about how the Americans
didn't really want to be the guarantor of European security. That does sound a lot like potentially stepping back from providing Ukraine support
too.
But U.S. policy in times it seems sure footed, at times in flux. But we heard today in Riyadh Secretary of State Rubio, Middle East Envoy Steve
Witkoff, and also National Security Adviser Mike Waltz again say that Ukraine was going to be involved in any kind of peace deal, as were the
Europeans, trying to, I think, sound more unified in their approach.
But ultimately, I think the wider worry here is that what we saw in Riyadh was a U.S.-Russia summit more addressing bilateral issues between them and
the rehabilitation of that relationship. Ukraine's peace deal, part of that, but perhaps not the focal point that many Ukrainians hoped it would
indeed be.
And so, it's ultimately the quality and the enduring nature of the peace that comes out of any of these talks that has most Ukrainians concerned,
and I think that, combined with the Russian consistent advance in the frontlines leaves people deeply anxious here, possibly in a way we've not
seen since the start of the war.
GOLODRYGA: And quickly, Nick, we know that General Keith Kellogg, the U.S. envoy to Ukraine, is expected in the country shortly, within the next few
days, I believe. Does that quell any concerns about the U.S. and its support for Ukraine through this process?
WALSH: Look, I think there's definitely going to be a relief that the Zelenskyy team get to sit down with General Kellogg and start talking about
the details of a plan, which privately as a citizen for an American think tank, Kellogg put out in April of last year. It was detailed. It had some
contradictions that I think it accepted itself in terms of how much arming Ukraine could receive.
But I think, yes, there'll be in Kyiv some relief to begin to get to work on what this indeed looks like, perhaps catch up with exactly what's
occurred in Riyadh and begin to work out the finer points of what Ukraine can and can't accept, what the Russians essentially demand here, and really
what this American mediation has brought fortnight behind us.
GOLODRYGA: Nick Paton Walsh for us live from Kyiv, thank you so much. Let's get more on this suddenly accelerated peace process and who will be
the winners and losers. Joining me now is Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a former CIA analyst. She's a senior fellow at the Center for a New American
Security. Andrea, thank you so much for taking the time.
So, I just want to get your reaction to the images that we saw today, this high-level meeting between Secretary of State Rubio and Foreign Minister
Lavrov, the first time such high-level officials between these two countries met in over three years since Russia's illegal second invasion of
Ukraine. We're approaching that anniversary now. Your reaction to that, especially given the fact that there was no real concrete framework that
they were discussing here, how unusual is that?
ANDREA KENDALL-TAYLOR, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR A NEW AMERICAN SECURITY AND DIRECTOR, CNAS TRANSATLANTIC SECURITY PROGRAM: Well, I think it is
unusual. And the key takeaway that I had is this has really been a tectonic shift in U.S.-Russia relations. It has been U.S. policy for the past three
years to try to isolate Russia into increased costs on Russia for its invasion of its neighbor. And the point of that is to undermine Russia's
ability to sustain its aggression, not just in Ukraine, but also beyond Ukraine.
And so, then today, here you have a Trump administration that's talking about the normalization of relations with Russia, and the big risk there
for me is that the Russians and Putin will pocket the concessions that are being made by the United States to strengthen its position not just to
sustain that aggression in Ukraine, but really to sustain what it views as a much broader confrontation with Europe and the West.
[13:10:00]
GOLODRYGA: Yes, that's what really stood out to me as well. We heard from Secretary Rubio, who's obviously speaking for President Trump. The two in
the past had far different views on relations with Russia and Russia's role vis-a-vis Ukraine. Marco Rubio, as a senator, had always been quite
hawkish. And here, we heard him echoing the same comments we heard from President Trump, that he is convinced that Vladimir Putin is serious about
coming to an agreement to end this war.
Also, what stood out to me was not only the fact that they didn't have any really concrete framework for a peace deal, but there were other issues
that were discussed. It's one thing to open up embassies a bit more and start communicating, it's quite another to talk about future investment
opportunities and prospects. It seems like there were quite a bit of carrots dangled here, far more than the sticks that are hovering over
Europe right now.
KENDALL-TAYLOR: Yes, a couple of points. It was really notable for me to see that as part of this delegation in Saudi Arabia from the Russian side
was the head of Russia's direct investment fund. And to me, that speaks volumes about how the Russians are approaching this. They are trying to woo
and win over President Trump by talking about all of these economic opportunities that might be made available. And what they're asking for in
return is a removal of the sanctions that have been in place on Russia for this.
I also think it's really remarkable to hear Secretary of State Rubio say that he thinks the Russians are interested in the negotiation because, as
the correspondent reporting from Kyiv mentioned, Russia is continuing its horrific attacks on Ukraine as these negotiations are going on. The day
after the Putin Trump phone call, I believe, was the Russian drone attack on the Chernobyl nuclear power reactor.
So, the Russians are sustaining this pressure on Ukraine. And as they see the United States giving away concessions that the United States is saying,
you know, Ukraine won't be in NATO, that the United States will not take place of any peacekeeping mission, we're giving away all of these
concessions for nothing in return. And so, what do the Russians do? They ask for more. They're moving the goalposts.
And now, there's reporting from The Financial Times that the Russians may be asking NATO, for example, to remove troops from the Baltics. So, I think
the Russians are feeling quite emboldened. And when they see that weakness, they're leaning in and pushing for more.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and I believe it was Defense Secretary Hegseth who said something along the lines of U.S. troops, you know, we can't guarantee that
they'll be here forever, and that coupled with everything else he said and what we're watching unfold clearly is alarming not only to Ukraine, but to
Europe in general.
In a Foreign Affairs piece that you co-wrote with Mike Coffman last month, you made the case that, quote, "Putin is now more committed than ever to
the war with Ukraine and his broader confrontation with the West." Let's quote more from this piece. "Russia is likely to walk away from the war
emboldened and, once it has reconstituted its military capacity, spoiling for another fight to revise the security order in Europe. What's more, the
Kremlin will look to pocket any concessions from the Trump administration for ending the current war, such as sanctions relief, to strengthen its
hand for the next one."
Clearly, either people at the White House, the president, Secretary of State Rubio, didn't read your piece, which is unfortunate, or they're not
heeding your advice, equally unfortunate, I think many would agree, because it echoes some of the concerns that you've expressed right now. You're sort
of foreshadowing in this piece inevitably the worst-case scenario that's unfolding right now.
KENDALL-TAYLOR: Yes, I think this administration is entirely missed the changes that have taken place inside Russia since the invasion. So, Putin
has put their economy on a wartime footing. They're increasing the defense industrial base. He's turned up his own propaganda at home to convince
Russians that they are at war with the West, that wants to break Russia apart.
So, they really do see the confrontation as being about much more than Ukraine. They want to undermine NATO. They want to push the United States
out of Europe. And what I really fear is with the concessions that the United States is making, the Trump administration is doing a lot of Putin's
work for him.
GOLODRYGA: As you noted, this is a different Russia in your view. They're in a wartime footing. They've already re-established themselves as isolated
from the rest of the world and accommodate a new relationship with other regimes isolated and sanctioned, including North Korea and Iran. And then
you hear President Trump last week suggest that Russia should be readmitted into the G8.
What did you make of that sentiment? And even if this war does come to an end, which it inevitably will because all wars come to an end at some
point, do you think that that would be appropriate to readmit Russia under Vladimir Putin into the G8?
[13:15:00]
KENDALL-TAYLOR: No, I absolutely don't think it would be appropriate. And it's this type of normalization that the Trump is pursuing that carries
such significant risks. So, of course, there's the immediate concessions the United States could make, things like sanctions removal and other
things that then allow Russia to re-equip, re-arm, and I would argue eventually retry in Ukraine.
But then, in a much -- in a -- on a different level, in a broader perspective, the signal to other countries, like Iran, North Korea, but
particularly China, is that if you wait the United States and the West out long enough you will be brought back in from the cold, and it's that kind
of action that will embolden adversaries all across the globe.
And what I've argued in much of my work is that getting Ukraine right is the most direct and impactful way to deal with the deepening relationship
between Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea that we see. Because if you get Ukraine right, you can deter China. You can isolate Iran and it would
really take the wind out of the sails of the North Koreans.
And I really do worry that Trump's interest in ending this as quickly as possible is really setting the United States and really global security up
for future challenges.
GOLODRYGA: So, what are the options right now for President Zelenskyy given what we've seen unfold at just the last few weeks? I think they were
anticipating a change in policy for sure under a new administration. But aside from saying defiantly that he won't succumb to Russian ultimatums and
with whatever help Europe can manage to provide Ukraine without a U.S. backstop, what is left?
KENDALL-TAYLOR: I think President Zelenskyy is trying very hard to play a weak hand as strongly as possible. And he has recognized, rightfully, that
he has to avoid angering, irritating, alienating President Trump.
And so, I think what he's done is really trying to appeal to President Trump, to make Trump understand that without us support Ukraine will be in
a horribly weak position. Those were statements that Zelenskyy himself made.
He is trying every which way to come at this administration. It was President Zelenskyy himself who raised the idea of giving the United States
some of their critical minerals in exchange for future U.S. aid. We've seen that kind of be derailed in many ways, but I think he's looking for options
to come and appeal to the United States to remain invested because I do subscribe to the idea that you cannot have a just peace. We will not see a
durable settlement in Ukraine without significant U.S. participation.
GOLODRYGA: Russian spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that Putin would be willing to negotiate with President Zelenskyy if necessary, but then had
said he may not be, though, given that he describes President Zelenskyy as illegitimate. And why does he say that? Well, Ukraine has been under
martial law now since the start of the war and there haven't been elections. The hypocrisy is obvious here coming from Vladimir Putin.
But the fact that there is concern among Ukrainians that there hasn't been an election is a valid point and it's something Christiane asked President
Zelenskyy at the Munich Security Conference. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: I'm ready, you know, to speak about elections if you want. Ukrainians don't want, totally don't want
because they afraid. Because otherwise, we will lose the military law, war law, and our soldiers will come back home, and Putin will occupy all our
territory. It will be because now we are mobilized, now we are one organism. Yes. So, we are one country. Yes. That's why it's very important
to hold and to save it.
And it doesn't matter. I mean, this -- we need unity in country. So, it's not about, you know, myself, it's about the future of our country. It's
about for today, really, the question is to survive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: What do you make of his response there?
KENDALL-TAYLOR: Well, this issue of elections keeps coming up and there are rumors or bits of information circulating on the contours of a deal in
Ukraine from the United States and Russia conversation that would comprise a ceasefire first, elections, and then a final settlement.
[13:20:00]
And I think President Zelenskyy's point is that the elections have to come after you have an end to the war in Ukraine. It is impossible for Ukraine
to hold elections until you have a durable settlement to that war.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
KENDALL-TAYLOR: I think offering and talking about holding elections before you have a settlement plays into exactly what the Russians want. If
you have the election before there's a settlement, the Russians will use every tool, like they did in Romania and Moldova, to try to manipulate that
election and get a more compliant leader in Kyiv, which is the ultimate objective.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, it's not just a hypothetical, as you said, it's been done in other European countries in their elections as well. Andrea Kendall-
Taylor, thank you again for joining us.
Well, as Saudi Arabia hosts these talks, it also appears to be positioning itself as a key interlocutor for future resolution to the war in Gaza,
where for now, a fragile ceasefire between Hamas and Israel is holding.
Israel is preparing to receive the bodies of four hostages this Thursday, and Hamas is saying it will return six living hostages on Saturday.
The U.S. Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, says phase two of the talks are, quote, "absolutely going to begin." But concerns are rising that the only
internationally recognized representative of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian Authority, is not present. So, what is its role in this crisis
and what is it doing to protect its people?
At the Munich Security Conference, Christiane discussed all of this with the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister, Mohammad Mustafa. Here's their
conversation.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa, Palestinian Prime Minister, welcome.
MOHAMMAD MUSTAFA, PALESTINIAN AUTHOR PRIME MINISTER: Thank you. Thank you very much. Good to be with you.
AMANPOUR: So, let's just talk in order, if you like. The ceasefire, phase one is underway. There were, you know, thoughts there might be a hiccup,
but it's continuing, it's holding on both sides. Do you have any notion of whether phase two has even started to be discussed and whether it will
actually happen?
MUSTAFA: Well, as you know, it's supposed to have started a few days ago. Actually, the 16th day of the ceasefire was supposed today -- be the day
when the next phase two negotiations would start. It actually started probably in a different version of it in Washington, when Mr. Netanyahu was
in Washington. And then, I think it -- there were some meetings in Qatar and other places. I think it's not fully developed, if you like. So, I
think probably some discussions are going on on how things to proceed on phase two. But then, also, I guess the focus now is on getting phase one
going as well.
AMANPOUR: So, just in general, are you as the Palestinian Authority satisfied with the way the ceasefire is going? I mean, it's obviously not
easy for anybody.
MUSTAFA: Well, absolutely. I mean, of course, the fact that there is no more killing, no more destruction, some more humanitarian assistance is
coming in, that's all good news. But obviously, this is a small piece of the puzzle, as you know.
I mean, first of all, even at the humanitarian level, the most immediate problem for our people in Gaza today is to get some kind of temporary
shelter, because more than 330,000 people lost their homes in the war. Rebuilding these homes again, it's a big challenge. It's going to take
time. But we need to bring in some tents, some prefab homes, caravans, whatever, so that we can have a temporary shelter for them.
Until now, Israel did not allow for this. So, we hope that they will honor the agreement and allow this temporary shelter to come in as soon as
possible.
AMANPOUR: So, you obviously bring me to the controversial point of yes, the humanitarian catastrophe, the demolition zone that is Gaza and what
President Trump said during the White House meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu that -- and he's doubled down. He hasn't changed what he meant,
that we will take Gaza. We'll own it. We'll love it. We'll rebuild it. It will be, you know, the Riviera of the Middle East.
Since we haven't had the opportunity to talk to you and the recognized Palestinian Authority, what is your view on that?
MUSTAFA: No, our view is very simple, our people are determined to stay in their homes. Our people want to be part of rebuilding their homes. Nobody
wants to leave his home or her home. So, we're determined to continue to do our best to rebuild Gaza as soon as possible.
Obviously, it's a huge task. We think that in three years' time we'll be able to bring Gaza back to a situation where it's livable and most people
will have at least temporary shelter, not a permanent shelter.
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: That's very optimistic because we've heard U.N. and others say it could take 15 years just to clear the rubble and rebuild.
MUSTAFA: Well, no. I'm definitely much more hopeful than the U.N.
AMANPOUR: Mr. Netanyahu said during his U.S. visit that Palestinians who leave Gaza during the rebuilding can come back if they choose to do so. He
actually said the actual idea of allowing first Gazans who want to leave, I mean, what's wrong with that? They can leave, then they can come back. Do
you believe him?
MUSTAFA: Well, unfortunately, our experience with leaving is a very bad one. Our family left in 1948. That's 77 years ago, and they are still to go
back. So, we have very bad experience of leaving. So, we don't want even to entertain the idea of leaving. We want to focus on making things possible
for our people to continue to enjoy reasonable life and live in their country and dignity.
And that takes me to the main issue of why this is all happening, because why we're talking about leaving and building and ceasefires and exchanging
of prisoners, we still didn't talk about why all of this continued to happen despite 77 years since Israel was established and Palestine was
supposed to be established. And until today, we continue to work very hard with the International Community, with our partners in the region to get
Palestinians their rights in self-determination, independent state as soon as possible. This is the answer.
AMANPOUR: Because of what's happening now, who is the president of the United States, what he said publicly, there are many who feel empowered on
the right-wing in Israel, particularly those who do not want a Palestinian State. And they say this is the time to bury the notion of a Palestinian
State.
Even one of the far-right ministers who's in the coalition, he says, this is the year of Israeli annexation. That's the -- that's Smotrich. Even of
the West Bank he's talking about.
MUSTAFA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Is there anything to stop that? President Trump himself says he's going to deliver his opinion on annexation of the West Bank in the
next several weeks, maybe during his State of the Union. I don't know.
MUSTAFA: Well, all I can tell you is that annexation is going to be a disaster for everyone. It won't help Israelis, it won't help Palestinians,
it won't help the region. I think the region has seen the result of the continuation of wars over the years. Annexation is a declaration of war
against the Palestinian people. It will bring more fighting, will bring more loss of life.
This is not what we want for our kids. This is not what we want for our region. We want peace. We extend our hand for peace. So, we invite everyone
to focus on implementing the two-state solution that the International Community -- all the International Community agrees to. And we think this
is the answer to all the problems.
AMANPOUR: Do you think that it still has legs?
MUSTAFA: I think so, yes. We simply because. What's the alternative? Apartheid? They have a choice. For us, to have self-determination on our
own independent sovereign state is good enough. We don't want anything else.
AMANPOUR: There's no love lost between you, the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas. Right now, Hamas appears still to be in charge in Gaza. They
demonstrate that every week with the release of hostages. They are now actually facilitating certain security operations, policing operations,
guarding certain humanitarian deliveries and the rest. We see them. They make a determined effort to be seen by the world.
Now, it appears that you also are working on some of the crossings, like Rafah and this and that.
MUSTAFA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: What is going to happen in the future? I mean, how can any two- state solution, one that is fair and sovereign for the Palestinians and fair and secure for the Israelis happen? How can it happen if Hamas is
still in charge? How do you square that circle?
MUSTAFA: No, it's simply Hamas should not be in charge, period. This was a period of time when Hamas took over governance of Gaza. I think this should
not have happened in the first place. As you know, Gaza is part of the State of Palestine, part of the Palestinian Authority. And this is
according to international legitimacy, international law, U.N. resolutions, Oslo Agreement, everything talks about Palestinian Authority govern West
Bank and Gaza and East Jerusalem in the future.
[13:30:00]
So, the fact that Hamas control Gaza in the past was, you know, something extraordinary and I think it should end.
AMANPOUR: How? Magically how?
MUSTAFA: How? I think we will have to convince them and -- that it's time to move on and do the right thing for the interest of our people. I think
Gaza needs to be rebuilt. Our people in Gaza need a better life. The separation between Gaza and the West Bank is not helping Palestinians.
We know that reconstruction of Gaza will not happen without Palestinian Authority coming in Potentially rebuilding -- reintegrating the
institutions and also moving forward with the political track. If we do not do the right things as Palestinians, we would lose the opportunity to
rebuild Gaza and have our own independent state.
So, I think with the dialogue, with the, hopefully, support from our regional partners, this will hopefully convince Hamas to do the right thing
and allow the Palestinian government to go in there and serve our people.
AMANPOUR: Some of the, as they call themselves, the political wing of Hamas speak in forums with a zoom conferences or whatever. And recently, I
heard one of them saying that, A, on no account will there be any international even Arab, peacekeepers to try to maintain and enforce any
peace if there is a final peace deal. B, it can't just be the P.A. It has to be a group of, as they called it, Palestinian technocrats and, you know,
interim government and then have elections. And as you know, the Palestinian Authority, your boss, has not had an election since 2006.
So, again, what does that look like a technocratic Palestinian government? Are you going to have elections?
MUSTAFA: Well, first of all, we are a technocratic Palestinian government. I'm a technocrat. I'm not part of any political party, so is every minister
in my cabinet. So, we are technocrats. And the good news is that the political parties in the West Bank have accepted to give us the opportunity
to govern, to rule, to manage, to administer things. And we expect the same from our brothers in Gaza as well.
So, I think the time will come when all the parties will have to find out - - will have to agree that this is the best way forward.
AMANPOUR: I read that your president has issued a decree just this past week on a very key issue that has been condemned by the United States and
Israel for the last several -- many years, and that is the issue of payments to the families of Palestinians who've either been jailed or
killed by Israel, even Palestinians who've been accused, maybe even convicted, of violent crimes.
You used to do that to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars over many, many years. Now, it appears that this may end or you may reign that
in according to your own president's recent decree. Is that true? And is it in order to show good faith, to maybe show President Trump that, because he
cut off aid because of this to you all back in his first term?
MUSTAFA: Yes. I think what happened with this -- in this respect is that some people wanted to misinterpret what was done in the past and said that
this is in a way to reward terrorism, which is not really the case. This is -- has always been a way to protect the families of people who are in
prisons or people who were killed.
And this is kind of Social Security system exists in every country, including the United States and in Israel itself, for that matter. So, what
was basically done in a way is to rewrite the law, if you like, so that this would be clarified.
So, protection for families that need assistance will continue to be provided, but this should not be done in a way that will be misunderstood
and used by some parties to be used against us. That's the difference.
AMANPOUR: So, how will you do it then?
MUSTAFA: Social based, needs based, social protection.
AMANPOUR: Not just automatic payments to the jailed and to the killed families of?
MUSTAFA: I think one of the comments that they have made in the past has to do with the number of years spent in jail. Now, this will not be the
criteria. The criteria is going to be needs, family needs.
[13:35:00]
AMANPOUR: And can you confirm that is as much about self-interest as anything else? You want your funds restored by the United States, who cut
them off. Israel regularly holds back your taxes.
MUSTAFA: Absolutely.
AMANPOUR: Again, hundreds of millions of dollars.
MUSTAFA: More than hundreds of millions. Currently, the number is about $2 billion.
AMANPOUR: $2 billion?
MUSTAFA: Absolutely.
AMANPOUR: Over how many years?
MUSTAFA: Well, over the last 10 years or so. So, it's serious money for us. We need it badly. So, hopefully, this will enable us to unlock this
money, which we badly need.
AMANPOUR: I mean, this might sound an off the wall question, but do you think that there's any time that you and the current Israeli prime
minister, your -- well, you are the prime minister.
MUSTAFA: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Would you meet, do you think? Was there any opportunity or occasion for the Palestinian and Israeli prime ministers to meet?
MUSTAFA: Well, the problem is not meeting. I mean, we -- people can always meet. We have -- we used to meet a lot, as you know.
AMANPOUR: Yes, I know. But you haven't -- I'm asking, can you get back to that?
MUSTAFA: Yes. The problem is what to talk about. Do we have --
AMANPOUR: This.
MUSTAFA: No, I mean -- but the Israeli government is not there yet. We have been saying for many years now, that let's re-engage, let's resume the
peace process, let's talk about the two-state solution and its implementation, let's implement what was agreed in Oslo. The Israeli
government, at least the current one, doesn't seem to be interested.
I hope this will change. But we remain to be committed to peace in the region. And we want to engage when there -- when we believe that the
Israeli government is ready for that.
AMANPOUR: Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa, thank you very much.
MUSTAFA: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Thank you.
MUSTAFA: Thank you very much.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Well, while the U.S. is stoking division on the world stage, an atmosphere of hostility is also being felt within the country, from federal
agencies shutdowns and layoffs to the slew of polarizing executive orders, many Americans feel at the mercy of the new Trump leadership.
So, how can we foster productive dialogue at this time? A longtime human rights activist and co-founder of the Reproductive Justice Framework,
author Loretta Ross provides some answers in her new book, "Calling In." And she joins Michel Martin to discuss.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Bianna. Professor Loretta Ross, thank you so much for talking with us once again.
LORETTA J. ROSS, AUTHOR, "CALLING IN": Thanks for having me on your show.
MARTIN: You are a very well-known human rights activist. You've been doing this work for, what, some four decades now. But I just want to read how you
start your latest book, it's called "Calling In." And you say, I am a reformed call out queen. I've furiously called out enemies. I've
righteously called out friends. I've gleefully called out strangers. I even once called out President Barack Obama, although that's a story for another
time. My ego sure gets the appeal of putting people on blast, but I also realized a long time ago that running my mouth never did seem to accomplish
what I wanted it to.
OK. Wow. What a way to start.
ROSS: Right, but it happens all the time. I have a tendency to speak first and regret later. And so, I'm always having to call myself in first so that
I don't succumb to that tendency and give myself a chance for my intelligence and my integrity to make the impact that I wanted to have.
MARTIN: One of the interesting things about your new book, it's called "Calling In: How to Start Making Change with Those You'd Rather Cancel."
You recount a number of movements and rooms that you had been in where it started to feel very uncomfortable, where you felt a lot of people who
should be on the same side expended a lot of energy kind of regulating each other and applying purity tests to each other that consumed so much energy
that the kind of the overall objective was lost.
ROSS: The incident that I described that affected national politics was in Washington, D.C., when President Carter offered the D.C. residents a chance
to get congressional representatives. And the D.C. statehood movement was so busy calling each other out that we failed to avail ourselves of that
opportunity that President Carter offered, because President Carter didn't offer full statehood, because he couldn't.
And so, do you know how national politics could have changed if D.C. had a chance to send two representatives to Congress? The whole balance of
politics could have changed. But we sabotaged ourselves with the call out culture in the 1970s. So, that was a significant moment for me because the
moment was quickly lost when, in 1980, Ronald Reagan was elected and there was no chance of getting congressional voting representatives in Congress
after that. Hasn't been a chance since then.
[13:40:00]
MARTIN: You've been teaching a class at Smith for a number of years, which is one of the reasons I think you came to public attention. You've
elucidated these principles and you've seen them sort of in practice. How did the -- how did this course come about? How did the idea for this course
come about?
ROSS: Well, I started noticing the call out culture when I got on social media. And when I asked young people what was going on, they told me that
they were in a call out culture and there was nothing that could be done about it. And I didn't agree with that resignation.
And so, I started reviewing how I had taught black feminists to racists, how I had deprogrammed white supremacists from the Klan and the Neo-Nazi
movement, and I realized that I had a lot of conversations with people I wouldn't bring home for coffee. I mean, I had a career of having those
conversations with people I'd rather cancel.
And so, I thought that telling my story and offering the lessons from my history, but also from philosophers, from other historians and
psychologists, would offer young people a way to have conversations that allowed them not only to sit in discomfort, but see how much they could
grow from that discomfort and not be afraid of putting something out there on Twitter or Facebook that haunts them for the rest of their lives, but to
own your mistakes and actually see your vulnerability as a strength.
Don't be afraid of making mistakes. Being a -- be afraid of not being adult enough to admit that you make mistakes.
MARTIN: You've been doing social justice work, as we said, you know, for four decades now, really more than that now, and social media was not a
factor when you first got started, but how big of a factor do you think social media is in contributing to a call out culture, what some people
call a cancel culture?
ROSS: Well, I don't know if I want to blame social media for it, because the original definition of a call out killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel.
That's the call out. You call somebody, you publicly shame them, and you give them severe consequences for something you think they've done wrong.
And I remember how it enraptured my mother's generation. My mother was born in 1922 by soap operas and so many housewives and women and probably men
too were so caught up in those soap opera parasocial dramas that they neglected their families for. So, we just have better toys for those same
old human emotions of regret, shame, blaming, anger, fear of dealing with our emotions. And so, I don't know if I want to blame the toys, but our
lack of healing as a society, our lack of having adequate healing for people's trauma.
Because every addiction, whether it's social media, drugs, cigarettes, or whatever, is born out of that trauma and those unhealed emotions. That's
what we should focus on, in my opinion, rather than think that we can police social media, keep us from ourselves.
MARTIN: At the very beginning of the book, you talk about this extremely powerful and, I have to say, challenging experience. You are a survivor of
rape. You are a survivor of incest. You've always been very open about that. You were working at a rape crisis center, but you were approached by
an incarcerated rapist. A man who acknowledged raping both women on the outside and men on the inside. And you got a letter from him where he asked
you to help.
Could you talk about that and just kind of all that flowed from that? And I start there not just because you started there, but because I feel like,
you know, if there's anybody who you might want to not engage with, it would be that person.
ROSS: Oh, I wanted to engage with them. I wanted to cuss them out. Because I could never hold my violators accountable, so I wanted to go to that
prison and tell that guy, how dare you ask us for help. And if you're having a miserable life, it's all your fault. But when I went there, and
those prisoners started sharing the stories of what had happened to them, and how they had been turned from victims into violators, I couldn't
maintain that rage at them anymore.
We were fellow survivors trying to navigate our own human dignity in the most awful circumstances. Me on the outside, them on the inside. And so, I
describe that as my first calling in moment, when I had to call my own self in, when I had to call my contempt in for people who are incarcerated so
that I could see them as human beings, and they can stop seeing me and women like me as prey.
[13:45:00]
And so, I'm really proud of the fact that I didn't indulge that impulse to curse them out. That instead they called me in. And everything that I write
in that book emanates from that transformative moment.
MARTIN: One of the things you talk about is the need to align your feelings with your integrity. Can you say more about that? What that means
and why that matters?
ROSS: As a survivor of a lot of racial and sexual trauma, I find that when I give into that first impulse to blurt whatever's coming out at the first
impulse, that's usually a reaction because of my trauma of what I've been through.
But I find that if I put myself on pause and then give a chance for my intelligence and my integrity to take the wheel, then I become trauma
informed instead of trauma driven. And everybody who's ever parented a child knows that pause. Because if you blurt out, the first thing that
occurs to you when your children are getting on your nerves, they'll be in therapy for life.
So, instinctively, we know to put ourselves on pause so that our intelligence and our compassion and integrity can be shown to our children.
I just want us to use that same discipline to everybody we encounter, and especially the people who want to bring out the worst in us. We have a
choice. You can say what you mean, and you can mean what you say, but you don't have to say it mean, that's always a choice. So, that pause gives you
a chance not to be mean.
MARTIN: Your book arrives at such an interesting moment, because we are in the midst of a change in administrations. They call people out like every
day. They seem uninterested in the feelings, the sensibilities of the people who disagree with them.
There are a lot of other people, one might argue reasonably half the country, and they feel very much assaulted by the current leadership of a
country. There have been specific executive orders, you know, aimed at, transgender athletes, for example, you know, federal employees, basically,
in many departments have been maligned as if they are abusers of the system, fraudsters, et cetera.
What would you say to people who feel that they are on the receiving end of abuse right now, really from our national leadership? How should they
receive your words?
ROSS: I refuse to believe that we're in a country where the majority of the people want to be bullies, want to be jerks to other people. I think we
have an inordinate visibility of the jerks of our population, because they get headlines, they get noticed, they get attention.
And they have cheapened the concept of empathy and compassion and even pluralism, whether or not we should have to get along with each other.
They're trying to re-fight the Civil War to see if they can win it again. But I don't think that's the majority of the American public, even those
who voted for Donald Trump. I think that the majority of them are being manipulated, lied to, and misled. And I'm willing to give them the benefit
of the doubt, because I think, personally, it probably -- a lot of them are probably kind people to their animals, to their pets, to their children, to
their neighbors.
And so, just because we have a leader who has made a career out of being contemptuous to people, I refuse to believe that that's the majority of the
American public. It is the majority who are getting the most attention right now.
And so, let us not fail to see the humanity of our political opponents. Let's try to do a more sophisticated analysis of what's going on, and not
assume that just because someone doesn't agree with you, or even votes for the other side, that makes them your enemy.
MARTIN: Well, you know, I get the feeling that your book is aimed mainly at progressives because there's a kind of a dialogue now that looks at the
current political environment and it says that actually this is liberals' fault because they took cancel culture too far and this is what they
invited on them. This is kind of the backlash to that. What are your thoughts about that?
ROSS: I'm not aware of any liberals that have banned books from libraries, fired people for trying to teach the reality of our history or demanded
that people from their own party be kicked out because they didn't support the Trump cult. I actually do see a lot of that power being misused on the
right than the left.
[13:50:00]
Now, it's just human beings to want to hold people accountable for things you think they've done wrong. But the problem with the cancel culture is
not the rich and powerful that get canceled. They laugh all the way to the bank. Trump used the cancel outrage all the way to the White House. It's
the vulnerable people who lose their jobs, who lose their reputations, who can't face up to their own neighborhood for fear that they're going to be
whispering about, oh, you know that person, he used the wrong gender pronoun, or she said the wrong thing, that kind of thing.
So, if the cancellation impulse is only affecting the most vulnerable people, how effective of a tool is it when you're trying to hold the rich
and the powerful accountable? It doesn't really work that well because they get away with a lot. And as I said, they can use outrage all the way to
power, fame, and the bank. And so, we need to figure out if canceling people is the best tool for the job.
Now, the human rights movement, that's what we're known for. We shame individuals, corporations, and governments for their violations of people's
human rights. But it's not our tactic of first resort, it's our tactic of last resort because we try talking to them first or we find other more
effective messengers to talk to them.
MARTIN: Is it ever not appropriate to call people in? Are there ever times when calling in just should not happen in your opinion?
ROSS: Oh, yes, I have a different strategy for the people who are mean on purpose, what I call the unapologetic racists and fascists. I mean, I have
a career fighting them. That's the course I teach at my college is, how do you deal with the rise of fascism? That people are intentional. But I think
that's a very small percentage of the population. And I'm not trying to call them in, I'm trying to overpower them with people of good will who are
going to beat back this culture of contempt and meanness and lies and violence that's being imposed upon us.
So, I'm not trying to call in the people who are intentionally harmful, I want to call in the people, who are being manipulated or being harmed by
the malicious people who are using this as a way to power.
MARTIN: How do people start calling people in as if they want to stop calling people out? What are just some of the principles that you could
leave us with?
ROSS: Well, I always advise the one, two, three steps. Let me tell a story of the blind woman in my online classes, because I teach this stuff online.
And she said, every time I got to go up a step or into a door, this arm comes out of nowhere and places it on my body. And because I'm a sexual
abuse survivor, it always feels like a sexual assault to me. And so, I just go ballistic. I curse people out. What can I do differently?
So, I asked her to reinterpret that as an act of kindness done badly instead of an insult. So, one, two, three. First, you thank them for the
kindness. Secondly, you set your boundary and say, you know, I don't like these strange arms coming on me or hands on me that I can't see coming. So,
you set your boundary. And then, the third step is to say, but if you want to help someone who's blind or disabled, why don't you stop and ask them
how they'd like to be helped first.
One, two, three, you turn a call out into a call in, and you can change everything. So, the first person you call in is yourself, because we want
people to do more kindness, not less. So, if you curse them out for trying to be kind, they're not going to do it anymore. But you also deserve
boundaries. And then third, you can offer your vulnerability as a way to create good change in the future.
MARTIN: How would you recommend that people who disagree with President Trump respond to him and his initiatives?
ROSS: Well, President Trump is a different entity. I have a strategy for President Trump, but it doesn't involve calling him in. But the people who
are being manipulated and harmed by him, and particularly the ones who voted for them, I still want to ask them, what's going on with you in your
life?
I'm not here to have a conversation criticizing what you've done wrong, I want to have a conversation about what's good about you and how we can
build on that more. Because you hear it all the time about how wrong you were, I want to talk about how your belief in the future of this country is
a good thing, and can we talk about how we can build that future together without demonizing each other?
[13:55:00]
MARTIN: Professor Loretta Ross, thank you so much for talking with us once again.
ROSS: Thank you for having me on your show.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you can
always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
