Return to Transcripts main page

Quest Means Business

House Passes Bill That Could Ban TikTok In The US; Investigation Ramps Up Into Boeing 787 That Plunged Midflight; Boeing's Leadership Comes Into Question As Issues Mount; Judge Dismisses Some Counts Against Trump And Others In Georgia Case; Kanye West Fiasco Tips Adidas Into Loss As U.S. Sales Fall; Ship Carrying 200 Tons Of Food Sailing Toward Gaza. Aired 4- 4:45p ET

Aired March 13, 2024 - 16:00   ET



LYNDA KINKADE, CNN INTERNATIONAL HOST: The US House passes a bill that could ban TikTok. Next stop is the Senate to consider the fate of the app,

which is owned by a Chinese company.

Investigators say Boeing is unable to provide key records related to the door plug blowout on a January Alaskan Airlines flight.

And Adidas slumps to a rare annual loss, thanks to the fallout from its breakup with rapper, Ye, formally known as Kanye West.

Live from the CNN Center. It's Wednesday, March 13th. I'm Lynda Kinkade, in for Richard Quest and this is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.

A very good evening to you. Tonight, one of the most popular social media apps may soon be forced out of the US. The House of Representatives

overwhelmingly voted to remove TikTok from US app stores unless its Chinese parent company sells the app.

Lawmakers in favor of that measures cited national security concerns. The bill now heads to the Senate where its fate is uncertain and they claim the

bill was not a blanket ban.

Lauren Fox reports.


LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): After major bipartisan support in the House for a bill that could potentially ban

TikTok, its next stop in the US Senate and the fate of its tens of millions of users in the US is not as clear cut.

REP. DAN KILDEE (D-MI): This is one of those arguments you can push either argument.

FOX (voice over): The House overwhelmingly passed their plan that would require Chinese parent company, ByteDance to sell its popular social media

platform or face a ban in the US.

KILDEE: At the end of the day for me, it really came down to whether or not we can take some action to try to deter this malign influence of the PRC.

FOX (voice over): But the bill wasn't without its detractors, 65 members voted against it, including 50 Democrats.

REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-IL): I think there are serious national security concerns, but I think the way the bill was crafted was problematic, and so

I voted no.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The answer is not to go selectively banning the flow of information from a particular nation.

FOX (voice over): Those backing it argue they did so for national security.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want to protect them from a foreign adversary collecting their data and manipulating it.

REP. DAN CRENSHAW (R-TX): TikTok is owned by ByteDance. ByteDance is in China.

FOX (voice over): Already, President Joe Biden has said he would sign the bill if it passes, that opponents argue could be a political mistake.

FOX (on camera): Do you worry at all about the political implications for Biden and for Democrats in the election over supporting this legislation.

REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): I don't know why you want to upset young people and 170 million people on a platform.

FOX (voice over): Republican frontrunner Donald Trump is taking a different approach after the former president once called for an outright ban on


DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will either close up TikTok in this country for security reasons, or it will be sold.

FOX (voice over): He now says he isn't behind the House bill. The bill's future in the Senate, also less certain.

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): There are a lot of questions my colleagues are asking, myself included. I haven't come to a final decision as to whether

or not it should be banned.

FOX (voice over): Senators Marco Rubio and Mark Warner, top members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, committed Wednesday ". to working together

to get this bill passed through the Senate and signed into law."

But Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has not committed to putting the bill on the floor.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): I'll have to consult and intend to consult with my relevant committee chairmen to see what their views would be.


KINKADE: Well, China says banning TikTok would be an act of bullying that will backfire on the US. It is worth remembering, US social media platforms

including Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube are banned in China.

Still, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson criticized the bill, saying the US has not presented evidence that the platform is a national security


Our Marc Stewart is in Hong Kong and joins us now live.

Good to have you with us, Marc.

So, you've spoken to the Chinese Foreign Minister. They call it bullying. They say this will backfire. What did you ask that prompted that response?

MARC STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Lynda. Good morning now from Beijing today.

Look, this is all happening at a time when the United States and China are trying to figure out this business economic relationship moving forward,

especially post pandemic. So the question that I posed was this: Regardless of what happens from TikTok, there is a feeling of mistrust by some US

lawmakers and by some members of the American public. How do you respond to this?

Let's take a listen to the response from the ministry here in Beijing.


WANG WENBIN, CHINESE FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESMAN (through translator): Even though the US has not found evidence on how TikTok endangers its national

security, it has never stopped going after TikTok.

Such practice of resorting to acts of bullying when one could not succeed in fair competition, disrupts the normal operation of the market. It

undermines the confidence of international investors and sabotages the global economic and trade order. This will eventually backfire on the US



STEWART: And this response that we are hearing from Beijing is also reflected in some of the newspapers here in China in their editorials

suggesting that US lawmakers are pursuing this for their own self-interest and as a way for the United States to tried to exert its strength as a

superpower -- Lynda.

KINKADE: So Marc, here in the US, this vote has gone through the House. It will go through to the Senate. What would China do next?

STEWART: Well, that's a curious question. I mean, it raises a lot of a lot of debate about free speech and autonomy. I did ask the ministry one

question in particular, just to try to gauge its involvement and what it is thinking.

And I asked, you know, is the government advising TikTok, does it have a role in helping ByteDance decide what to do next, especially with all of

this discussion taking place? And the response that I got from the government was the response to the previous question. So very much holding

to a script.

So, you know, it remains to be seen what China itself will do if anything. We have a business, we have the government, but in China and in many parts

of the world, those relationships, Lynda, do many times intersect?

KINKADE: Yes. Exactly.

Marc Stewart, good to have you up in Beijing for us in the early hours of the morning, we appreciate.

Well, today's vote comes despite TikTok's efforts to mobilize a campaign against that measure. It tried to get users to contact their members of

Congress and its CEO had tried to meet with lawmakers ahead of the vote.

The bill though, will likely face legal challenges if it becomes law.


Adam Kovacevich joins us now. He is the founder and CEO of the trade group, Chamber of Progress. He used to lead Google's US policy team and joins us

from Washington, DC. Good to have you with us, Adam.


KINKADE: So we saw the House today vote overwhelmingly to ban TikTok here in the US, unless it severs ties with China. The bill's future, of course,

in the Senate is less certain.

Where do you stand on this issue?

KOVACEVICH: Well, personally, I have actually greater concern about the potential propaganda control that TikTok's foreign ownership raises for the

US. I mean, I think sort of the United States would never have allowed the Soviet Union to own a television station in the midst of a Cold War.

You know, right after Russia invaded Ukraine, we kicked out Russia Today off of our cable TV stations. Frankly, we probably should have done a lot

earlier, and I think this poses for me the same set of concerns that this is really an unprecedented situation where we have one of the United

States' top information, entertainment social media apps controlled by ultimately the Chinese, and we know that Chinese -- its Chinese owner,

ByteDance, really has to abide by Chinese law, which obligates Chinese companies to advance the Chinese government's interests.

And so this is an unprecedented situation, but I think the bill is properly tailored to address it.

KINKADE: And interesting, Adam, there were politicians who obviously voted against this. One Democrat who voted against it, explained his decision.

I just want to play some of that sound.


KHANNA: This is blatantly unconstitutional and I don't think the courts would uphold it, and the reason is if the sale didn't happen, it goes to a


The Supreme Court has said it has to be the least restrictive alternative when you look at a free speech, which 170 million Americans' free speech is

at impact.


KINKADE: So Adam, he went on to say that we should instead toughen up laws around data collection. He is arguing that it is better to pass a privacy

data bill, rather than targeting one particular app. Does he have a point?

KOVACEVICH: Well, we should pass a privacy bill. We are supporters of that. But that doesn't really get at the, again, the propaganda of concern that I

and others are concerned about.

Look, TikTok is almost certainly going to challenge this in the courts. They'll have their day in court, but there is precedent. There is ample

precedent for the United States to block foreign investment on national security grounds.

Certainly, I think the way that the US government has dealt with Huawei effectively removing Huawei from operations in the United States because of

concern of essentially sort of network security and national security.

So I think this poses a similar concern for a lot of people in government, but as I said, there are some who raise this constitutional question and it

will certainly be litigated.

Interestingly, one of the Biden administrations top legal minds, Lisa Monaco, senior official in the DOJ was involved in drafting this bill, and

I believe that its sponsors have worked -- have tried to work to address any kind of constitutional vulnerability that this law might have.

KINKADE: Adam, we know that TikTok was fined in 2019 for collecting data from people using their phone when they accessed that app. But China has

gone on to say that the US hasn't presented any evidence about how TikTok endangers US national security, what do you make of that?

KOVACEVICH: Well, there was a report earlier this week from the intelligence agencies that outlined, excuse me, that mentioned that TikTok

has played a role in election misinformation. I think they certainly could put out more, and I actually think it would be a smart idea for the

intelligence agencies to put out more.

They've actually shared more information with members of Congress and I do think that would probably help establish kind of the public case for what

the administration is supporting here.

KINKADE: You used to obviously work for Google, head of policy there and strategy. I assume you probably have friends inside of TikTok. Have they

given you any opinions, assessments of how they see this playing out and what it might mean for them?

KOVACEVICH: Well, first of all, I think that the bill does face a little bit of an uncertain future in the Senate. I think there are enough voices

who are concerned about it that it is not on an easy path to passage -- and so its path of passage there is a little more complicated.

But, you know, candidly, I do have friends who work inside TikTok in the US and ironically, even though they have to spend a lot of their time now

defending the current ownership structure, I candidly think they'd all be much better off if TikTok were sold to an American owner just from a pure a

standpoint of kind of removing the Chinese ownership question, which is always going to be a cloud over TikTok's head.

They have a much clearer future and candidly have a path to actually be going public as a company and making good on stock and stock options. All

of that is not possible under the app's current ownership structure.


And so, I just think there isn't really a sustainable future for TikTok in the United States, so long as this China question is over its head.

KINKADE: Yes, exactly. And if this bill were to go through the Senate and pass and become law, China obviously would have to agree to sell this, the

US arm of TikTok.

What are the implications, political and otherwise for the 170 million US users of this platform?

KOVACEVICH: Well, it is important to say we've actually seen this kind of approach before. So during the Trump administration, the Trump

administration objected to Chinese ownership of Grindr, which is the gay dating app and actually CFIUS demanded that its Chinese owner sell the app

to a US owner because of concerns about data privacy, and potential blackmail concerns, and that went through pretty quietly.

Now, that's a much smaller app. It's a much smaller company, but candidly, when you see the Chinese Foreign Ministry as your correspondent reported,

objecting so vociferously to the divestiture, it actually kind of hardens in my view, the resolve of American politicians to demand this divestiture

because why should the Chinese government care so much that TikTok operates in the United States.

They ban it from the Chinese people. You know, China does not allow TikTok to operate in China, so clearly, they're concerned about it.

When you have the Foreign Ministry saying these things, it actually suggests that TikTok is a huge national security asset for China, which I

think again, just kind of backfires as a counterpoint. So I just -- I think American politicians I think, are tuning into that dynamic.

KINKADE: Yes, you certainly make a good point there.

Adam Kovacevich, good to get your perspective. We appreciate your time. Thank you.

Well, regulators are struggling to get information from Boeing about that Alaska Airlines incident.

Boeing officials could be forced to testify this August.

We will have that story in a live report, next.


KINKADE: Welcome back.

I'm Lynda Kinkade. Good to have you with us.

Well, New Zealand officials say they've seized the black boxes from the Boeing 787 that suddenly plunged on Monday. Dozens of passengers on that

LATAM Airlines flight were injured. The pilot, said he temporarily lost control of the plane.


Boeing is under investigation here in the US for the Alaska Airlines door plug blowout in January. Regulators are struggling to get key information.

The National Transportation Safety Bureau says the security footage from when the door plug was repaired has been overwritten.

Boeing CEO, David Calhoun said he was unable to provide the names of those who worked on them.

Well, I want to bring in our Pete Muntean for all of this and much more.

Pete, good to see you.

So let's start with this door plug issue because this lack of transparency here for Boeing looks absolutely terrible.

How on earth could they have zero documentation about who worked on this repair?

PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: Well, it has really led to the woman leading this investigation putting Boeing on blast again, and

Jennifer Homendy, the head of the National Transportation Safety Board says, Boeing's lack of a paper trail here is hampering this investigation.

Remember, the NTSB's preliminary report on this Alaska Airlines door plug blowout back on January 5th says this: "The 737 Max 9 that was involved in

this incident delivered to Alaska Airlines late last year, came out of the factory without the four critical bolts that keep the door plug in place."

Those plugs, sorry, those bolts rather were removed at the factory because of corrective work on another part of the plane and then not re-installed.

This is the development, Boeing has not been able to produce paperwork of that detailed work. And here is what NTSB Chair Homendy said in her update

to US lawmakers today: "The absence of these records will complicate NTSB's investigation going forward."

She also underscored that Boeing has been unable to locate the security footage of that work. Boeing has responded and says it supported the

investigation from the start and it will continue to do so.

KINKADE: Absolutely baffling.

I want to ask you also about his Boeing plane that flew from Sydney to Auckland. The pilot says he temporarily lost control of the plane, which is

frightening. How soon could we have information from the black boxes onboard that plane?

MUNTEAN: The black boxes are really key to answers in this big mystery and passengers describe this in-flight jolt on this LATAM Airlines, Boeing 787

and LATAM says it was a technical event that caused a sudden movement on board. What leads to a lot of big questions, passengers were thrown to the

ceiling and bloodied they said, 50 treated on the ground by first responders in Auckland.

The latest update from the ground in New Zealand is that the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder, the pair of pieces of systems that

make up the black boxes have now been removed and they've been taken to the secure location in New Zealand.

Chile is leading this investigation, that's where LATAM is based. New Zealand is helping, but investigators really will want to know this. Was

this an issue with the flight controls? Was this an issue with the autopilot? Or was this just severe turbulence because pilots described

something a bit more than that. Their screens going dark, just one account, but the data recorder will really hold the unvarnished key.

It can show the airspeed, the altitude, the position of the flight controls, even positions of switches on board the airplane. So there is

really no hiding from the flight data recorder.

KINKADE: Yes, it would be good to get that information and of course, sadly, a Boeing whistleblower was found dead. His family said he was

looking forward to his day in court against Boeing. What are you learning about his death and the information he had against Boeing?

MUNTEAN: John Barnett was the name of this whistleblower, a longtime former Boeing employee who had raised safety concerns about the Charleston, South

Carolina facility that builds the 787.

Police say Barnett was found dead in his truck in a hotel parking lot with what appears to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound. His lawyers say he was

in the middle of this multi-day deposition in this whistleblower lawsuit, that he was in good spirits. He was looking forward to putting this phase

of his life behind him, and that his lawyers also say they didn't really see any indication that he would take his own life.

Boeing offered condolences in a statement, but it is a sad incident really, as concerns about Boeing's manufacturing are taking the spotlight in

multiple investigations, not just the 737 Max 9 investigation, but there has also been concerns about manufacturing processes at the 787 plant as


KINKADE: Yes, let's just stay across, Pete Muntean, good to have you on the story. Thank you.

MUNTEAN: Anytime.

KINKADE: Well, Boeing shares fell more than one percent today. They are down sharply this year as the company appears to be going from one crisis

to another and it has led to questions about the company's leadership.

Allison Morrow has been talking to people about what the solution may be. She joins us now from New York.

Good to have you with us, Allison.

So, Boeing has suffered this string of problems in recent years. Trust in the brand is damaged. Investors are losing confidence, right?

ALLISON MORROW, CNN BUSINESS SENIOR EDITOR: Absolutely. You know, it is really hard to overstate how big of a crisis this is for Boeing, which has

been in decline in a corporate sense for the last decade or more. But it is now the second worst performing stock on Wall Street.


It is a really bad thing and a lot of aviation analysts that I've talked to are saying, we've never seen anything like this and we also don't have an

immediate solution because it really kind of comes down to bad management that's been allowed in part by regulators and in part by the board to

continue and to not fix the problems that it has known about for at least six years.

KINKADE: And Allison, you've been speaking to people who say that Boeing needs a complete leadership change, a shakeup. Any indication that changes

might be coming?

MORROW: There is really no indication that change is coming. You know, one expert I spoke to said they should fire everyone with a C in front of their

title, you know, chief executive officer, chief operating officer -- anyone with a chief in their title should go.

But Boeing is a really unique company and it is not subject to the same forces of capitalism a way a company that has competitors in the United

States would have.

Boeing is a duopoly and it really doesn't have domestic competition. So there is no backlash in terms of losing business because a lot of its

business is coming from the government and it is the only game in town.

So the same kind of clarifying corrective forces that the market would normally play on a normal company are just not happening here.

KINKADE: So we know, Allison, that the National Transportation Safety Bureau are going to convene this rare hearing in August about that, that

Boeing door plug that I was just speaking to Pete about, that will happen in August.

Can we expect regulators to get tougher on Boeing?

MORROW: You know, I asked that question today of an analyst and he said he is not confident. Part of the -- I mean, a lot could happen between now and

August and Boeing could decide to really get its house in order and change up the leadership and really make serious changes.

But ultimately, for years, the FAA has been underfunded and kind of telling Boeing to self-regulate. So the FAA, its primary regulator, has been fairly

toothless up till now and people I have been speaking to say that's unlikely to change soon.

KINKADE: All right, well, we will stay on this story. Allison Morrow, good to have you with us from New York. Thanks.

MORROW: Thank you.

KINKADE: Well, some of the 41 counts in Donald Trump's Georgia election subversion case have been thrown out. As the case goes forward, we will

tell you why the judge said six counts didn't have enough detail.



KINKADE: Welcome back. I'm Lynda Kinkade.

A judge is throwing out six of the charges against Donald Trump and his co- defendants in that Georgia election subversion case. The rest of the 41- count indictment remains intact. And to be clear, the case alleging that the former U.S. president broke the law in Georgia while trying to overturn

the results of the 2020 election will continue.

Judge Scott McAfee is presiding over the case. He says he threw out the charges because they weren't detailed enough.

Well, for more I want to bring in CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson, who joins us now live from New York.

Good to have you with us, Joey.

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Good to be here, Lynda. Thank you.

KINKADE: So we have today the judge dismissing six of the 41 charges in this case. Three of those specifically against Trump. Explain his reasoning


JACKSON: Yes. So it's the right call. So just as a matter of reset, when someone is facing charges, the prosecutor, in this case the special

prosecutor, goes into a grand jury. A grand jury doesn't decide guilt or innocence. They just determined, one, is there reasonable cause to believe

that a crime was committed? And two, that the subject of the proceedings committed it. We know that that was the case against Mr. Trump, as well as

18 other defendants.

Furthermore, it's a majority vote, it's not unanimous, as would be the case in an actual trial. But what happens is, is that a grand jury is the wing

of the prosecution. The prosecution presents a case to the grand jury, the prosecution instructs the grand jury as to the law, the defendant or the

defense attorneys are not there. Why is that all significant? Because when you're instructing the jury, you have to be specific with respect to what

you're requesting of them.

In this particular case what the judge said is that you're saying that these defendants are accused of soliciting public officials to violate

their oath of office. Public officials take an oath of office and part of that oath, Lynda, is to uphold the Constitution of Georgia in this case and

the United States. So the judge said, what specific provision of the Constitution of Georgia and the United States are you referencing that they

were solicited to violate?

Constitutions are vast. They have hundreds of provisions within them. You have to be more specific because at the end of the day a defendant has a

right, of course, to a fair trial but to defend themselves and in order to defend yourself, you have to know what specifically you're being accused of

and what specific provisions the prosecutors are relying upon and finding you guilty. And that, Lynda, was the basis for the judge saying, you know

what, these counts have to go.

KINKADE: Right. And of course, later this week, Joey, the judge will have to determine whether to disqualify Fani Willis, who is of course the

attorney general on this case, given the allegations that she financially benefited from this relationship with the special prosecutor whom she

appointed and is in a -- or was in a romantic relationship with. How do you see this playing out for her?

JACKSON: You know, so the judge could have a basis to disqualify for a couple of reasons. The judge could conclude that there were lies told under

oath by Miss Fani Willis, the special prosecutor or the prosecutor who appointed the special prosecutor, Mr. Nathan Wade. The lies with respect to

when they were romantically involved, when the relationship started, the nature of the relationship at the time.

The judge can say, you know what, I believe that there was a misrepresentation here and as a result of that, I'm disqualifying you the

judge can furthermore issue a basis for disqualification on the evidence presented as to issues concerning this financial arrangement. Remember Fani

Willis appointing him, the judge can suggest that that was not appropriate and as a result of that, in paying him, right, Fani Willis paying Nathan

Wade, that that's in order to benefit to her.


At the same time, Lynda, the judge can say there's nothing to see here, that I don't see a direct causal connection between anything that Fani

Willis may have paid Nathan Wade for the services and the ultimate indictment in this case. And if there were misrepresentations made under

oath, then perhaps that's an ethical concern that should be sent to the bar association, which is the association that oversees attorneys and can

sanction them, take away licenses, fine them, et cetera.

And so remember, eye on the prize, the issue is about the right to defendants to have a fair trial. Did this relationship or any economic

benefits impair that right? That's the central question. So the judge has a number of options and one of the options can be that, you know what, I

don't see it in terms of any financial impairment. I don't see it in terms of any disqualification or anything relating to on fairness to the actual

defendants accused.

And as a result, I'm going to let the matter stand. So the judge has a number of decisions to make. One of them could be simple disqualification,

another can be no disqualification at all. Another can be dismissing the indictment in its entirety. The issue is whether there's enough on the

facts and the evidence in that hearing to warrant the judge simply dismissing the case and throwing Fani Willis off of the prosecution at all.

And of course, Nathan Wade, being a special prosecutor, would suffer a similar fate.

KINKADE: Lot at stake here. Joey Jackson, we will be watching the fate of all of this play out later this week. Good to have you with us. Thank you.

Well, out of this is messy breakup with Kanye West is costing the company millions of dollars. Low sales of the rapper's Yeezy line helped push

Adidas to its first loss in three decades, $63 million last year. Adidas parted ways with the rapper in 2022 over a series of antisemitic remarks

with more than $325 million in Yeezy inventory left over. Well, the sportswear giant decided to try and sell that leftover merchandise instead

of writing off its losses.

Anna Stewart is covering the story and joins us now.

Anna, this has been such a disaster, the fallout from this partnership debacle and of course the huge tax bill. It certainly meant that we've seen

this massive loss the first time in three decades, right?

ANNA STEWART, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I thought it was really interesting on the court. The CFO said we didn't have a great year in 2023, which was the

understatement, I think. Obvious perhaps. Lots went wrong. Let's start with Yeezy because that's obviously had a big impact. This was a very expensive

breakup for Adidas. At one stage the Yeezy line was considered to contribute around 40 percent of the company's profits.

So suddenly breaking up that partnership and trying to figure out what to do with the existing stock as you mentioned, they did start selling it with

the logo, but there was a lot of confusion for some months about what to do about all of that. Now they are contributing they say a significant amount

or they will to organizations that deal with discrimination and trying to combat discrimination.

But they also, Lynda, have made some money from the Yeezy line. More than $300 million added to the operating profit from that. Good thing, too, all

things considered looking at their earnings report, sales in North America dipped 16 percent last year. Part of that to do with the Yeezy issues, but

also speaks to a broader demand issue in the U.S. and Canada are actually in terms of sportswear and athleisure.

It's something Nike is facing as well. Part of it being consumers just wanting not to buy some of these product lines, but also going for upstart

brands like Hoka and On, I think, are very trendy brands right now. So I'm told. Nike is actually saying they'll lay off 2 percent of their workforce

so it's not just Adidas. The huge tax bill last year was one of the key big issues for Adidas because they actually did make a pretax profit and

they're expecting hopefully to get over some of those issues this year.

KINKADE: You are across the business and the fashion. I might need to come to you for some fashion footwear tips soon.

Anna Stewart, good to have you. Thanks so much.

The shorelines in the U.S. are disappearing. In California to New England beachfront residents are watching helplessly as the ocean washes away their

sandy landscapes. Homeowners in Massachusetts took drastic measures. They built a $600,000 sand dune barrier to shore up the beach. But as Bill Weir

reports, the ocean swallowed up most of it in a single day.

We are trying to get that package for you, that piece. We have some issues with that, but that -- I wanted to instead if we can turn to the war in

Gaza. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency says more children have been reportedly killed in four months of war there than there have been

killed in four years of conflicts around the world combined.


It comes as tensions rise in Jerusalem. Israeli police say a 12-year-old Palestinian boy was shot and killed by a border officer in a refugee camp

in the city. We need to warn you the video you're about to see is disturbing.

Well, here you can see the boy holding a lit firework above his head before the sound of the gunshot is heard. A police spokesperson says forces

responded to a violent disturbance at the camp. And an officer fired, quote, "towards the suspect who endangered forces while firing aerial

fireworks in their direction,"

Meanwhile, some desperately needed assistance is heading to Gaza this time by sea. A ship carrying aid from the World Central Kitchen is now on route

to the Palestinian enclave after leaving Cyprus on Tuesday.

Here's CNN's Nada Bashir.


NADA BASHIR, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): On its way at last. The Open Arms, normally a search and rescue vessel, setting sail from Larnaca in

Cyprus with nearly 200 tons of aid in tow. Rice, flour, and canned goods, enough for 500,000 meals according to World Central Kitchen.

JUAN CAMILO JIMENEZ, WORLD CENTRAL KITCHEN: It's the first time happening in many years and that means that we are working with different actors,

different governments, different entities to make this possible.

BASHIR: And this is where it's going. A makeshift pier in Gaza still under construction. This in addition to a temporary pier to be established by the

U.S. Military on Gaza's coast. World Central Kitchen says it plans to distribute the food in Gaza where a quarter of Palestinians are on the

brink of famine, according to the U.N.

ANTONIO GUTERRES, U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL: My strongest that bill today is to honor the spirit of Ramadan by silencing the guns and removing all

obstacles to ensure the delivery of lifesaving aid at the speed and massive scale required.

BASHIR: Any form of celebration during this holy month is at best muted with little food for Palestinians to break their fast at sunset.

We decided to come and break our fast here in our home, which was struck. Despite the destruction and the rubble, we bought our food and cooked on


Open Arms will be one of the first ships to enter the strip in years ever since Israel implemented a naval blockade on the territory in 2007. Aid

trucks which on average crossed at around 500 a day before the war began now pile up at the Rafah Border Crossing in Egypt. Only a fraction actually

make it across the border every day.

Governments and other aid agencies have also taken to airdrops, though this option has proven both controversial and even risky. Leaving the sea as one

of the last remaining avenues to bring food to those so desperately in need.

Nada Bashir, CNN, London.


KINKADE: Well, that is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. I'm Lynda Kinkade.

Coming up next, "MARKETPLACE AFRICA." You're watching CNN. Stay with us.