July 31, 2025

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.

Hunger and danger in Gaza as more are killed by Israel while seeking aid and starvation worsened. The U.N.’s top humanitarian official, Tom

Fletcher, joins me. And opposition to this war grows inside Israel. What could it mean for the possibility of peace? I will ask Nimrod Novik, a

senior adviser to the former Prime Minister Shimon Peres. Then whatever happened to the TikTok ban and is it still a national security risk?

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

In Gaza, dozens more Palestinians joined the list of those killed by Israel as they tried to find food after Israeli forces open fire near an aid site.

This as President Trump’s special envoy met with Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is increasingly isolated on the world stage.

Canada has now joined a growing list of countries recognizing a Palestinian State. And in another significant development, Arab and Muslims. States,

including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, have for the first time issued a call for Hamas to disarm and relinquish power in Gaza as part of efforts to

end this brutal war.

Amid these diplomatic and political moves though people are starving to death in Gaza. They need urgently and immediately aid, says WFP. Tom

Fletcher is the U.N.’s top humanitarian official and emergency Relief Coordinator, and he’s joining me now. Tom Fletcher, welcome back to the

program. Could I just start with a news flash that Israel has dropped 43 aid packages in Gaza over the past few hours? This is according to Israeli

military. Airdropped it. I mean, is that cause for celebration? What does that mean?

TOM FLETCHER, U.N. EMERGENCY RELIEF COORDINATOR: Well, look, any aid getting through at all is welcomed, but ultimately, you can get the same

amount of aid onto one truck as you could get onto one plane. And what we need to see is vast amounts, these convoys, these trucks getting through in

their hundreds as opposed to what we’re getting in at the moment.

So, I’m not going to complain about airdrops, but it’s not the most efficient way to save the number of lives we need to save. And Gaza is

starving right now. We need to get on with it.

AMANPOUR: So, talk to me about the aid that is getting through. There’s airdrops, as we said, which everybody says is just a trickle and can

actually be dangerous as well, and can lead to only the fittest being able to survive the melee around it. But what about, is there any let up in the

trucks or the aid that’s been stalled and stuck at the border?

FLETCHER: So, a reminder that, you know, when I was in Gaza and spoke to you from there a few months ago, during the ceasefire, in the first quarter

of the year, we were getting in 600 or 700 trucks a day. And that’s the sort of scale we need to deliver at now. Instead, you know, since Sunday,

since the announcement of the change from the Israeli authorities, we are getting in fewer than a hundred trucks a day.

And we’re still facing massive bureaucratic impediments on both sides of the border. Of course, we have to turn up at the borders. We have to get

the permissions to get through. We have to unload the trucks, we have to bring different trucks with different drivers who then need to go through a

whole separate set of permissions to move. And then, we face these terrible security conditions on the ground.

Desperate starving people, and of course, a conflict going on around us. And so, these are really impossible conditions to get aid through. But

we’ll do our bit. We will get every lorry we can get through, but we need this pressure to be sustained, to demand that we have the conditions to

deliver.

Today, just one example, my senior official on the ground, the guy who’s been coordinating these deliveries, the guy who knows the Palestinian

leaders, the Israeli leaders, who knows how to get this done, it’s the last day before his visa is taken away from him by the Israeli authorities. So,

we are facing these huge obstacles, but we will keep trying. We will keep going. But the situation is desperate. It’s got to be at a much, much

greater scale and with much more urgency.

AMANPOUR: I want to get to this kind of tug of war between you, the U.N. and the Israeli government. You know, you talk about the visa. I want to

get to that in a minute. But you talked about pressure. Well, President Trump has sent Steve Witkoff, his special envoy, there. It’s the first time

in quite a few months that Witkoff has gone to Israel, met with Netanyahu, and apparently, he’s meant to be going to see what is going on and what are

these deadly so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation aid hubs where Israel says they fire in the air warning shots, but where hospitals and doctors

report that actually they’re going into the abdomens of people, these bullets, and a lot of people are dying.

What do you think Witkoff can do? What leverage do they have right now?

FLETCHER: Well, it’s a very welcome visit. And it’s what’s clear, you know, from the statements that we’ve seen from President Trump, including

in the U.K. over the weekend, is that he wants this to end. He wants this starvation to end. He does not want to see these pictures of dying babies

that we are all witnessing right now. And so, it’s excellent that he sent his chief envoy over to try to see if we can change that situation.

I think everyone at various times has hoped that private pressure can shift this Israeli government to open up greater access. Of course, many

Europeans are demanding that as well, and many in Israel, including within the Israeli military, want us to get this aid through.

So, I desperately hope that Steve Witkoff can make that progress. We’ve been in touch with him, of course, and we’re offering him briefings on the

ground, on the realities of the situation. If anyone can shift this government, it is of course the Americans. And so, this shift, apparent

shift in their approach is good news.

AMANPOUR: You mentioned President Trump, and he did actually say categorically here in the U.K. there is starvation there, babies are dying,

they are hungry, and we’ve got to stop it. But still, Prime Minister Netanyahu challenges those terms. There is no starvation and any hunger is

caused by Hamas. Any disruption is caused by Hamas.

I want to just report what Cindy McCain, who’s, you know, the head of WFP, basically says, waiting for official confirmation of famine or any terms to

provide life-saving food aid they desperately need is unconscionable. People are already dying of malnutrition, and the longer we wait to act,

the higher the death toll will rise.

So, the imperative is to act now. Are you seeing a shift in the global pressure? I mean, it is incredible what’s happened over the last week,

certainly since Trump said there was — and most particularly since we’ve been seeing these pictures, more and more of them come out of Gaza. We’ve

just been airing them as you speak. I’ve been to many crises zones and this is the kind of thing you see when people are starving. And you know, there

isn’t that much time to fix it. Do you think this is reaching a tipping point from the International Community?

FLETCHER: Well, it’s certainly past the tipping point in terms of the hunger and starvation levels. And I completely agree with Cindy McCain who

is an outstanding humanitarian. I’ve just been on the phone actually with her discussing how we can ramp up this effort to get our trucks moving, and

she’s working around the clock to shift those convoys in and reach the civilians who so badly need it.

I think we have seen a shift in the tone of International commentary in the last few days. You’ve seen it very clearly from European leaders, you’ve

seen it from President Trump, and I think, in this case, you know, with Prime Minister Netanyahu saying there’s no starvation and President Trump

saying there clearly is starvation, I agree with President Trump that people are dying, people are dying of hunger, and this can be avoided. This

is a manmade famine. And so, he’s right to put that pressure on the hard liners within the Israeli cabinet to allow us that access.

Ultimately, the politics is a sideshow here. It’s all about getting those convoys moving in their hundreds, 600, 700 trucks a day. Food, water, fuel,

shelter, absolutely essential, medical equipment, all of that is badly needed. And alongside those U.N. convoys, my team on the ground is saying,

we’ve got to get private sector networks moving as well, to get more food in than even we can provide.

AMANPOUR: Let’s just try to do a sort of forensic look from your perspective, being the head of U.N. humanitarian, on what is happening, the

charges and the counter charges with all this aid that is stacked up at the border. There have been images, of course, of some of these pallets and

trucks being, you know, stormed by people on the ground. We’ve seen, you know, gunfire also being used.

And we know because the U.N. has put it out, and I’m just going to read this to you, that the U.N. stats itself on how much aid is being

intercepted and not in — you know, arriving at its intended destination. So, some 2,000 — well, 27,434 tons has been collected, but 23,353 tons was

intercepted. This is between 19th of May to the 31st of July. That basically shows, in case my math is not clear, that the majority is still

being intercepted, and we have pictures of some of that. Who is doing the intercepting as far as you know, first and foremost?

FLETCHER: So, a reminder that we have these networks inside Gaza. We’ve got the community organizations that we work with so that we had a system

for dis distributing vast amounts of aid without it being looted. That’s all been dismantled during the recent blockade. So, we’re trying to put all

that back in place.

But the reality, in your stats, back that up, is that our drivers, when they pick up the food, the medicine, the shelter materials from the

checkpoints, from the crossing points, they then have to run the gauntlet through areas full of starving desperate civilians. And so, the vast

majority of the aid that we’re trying to shift through those territories is being looted by those civilians. And we’re seeing it then end up on the

market. We’re seeing it being distributed.

You know, it — so, marker of the levels of starvation and hunger that that is happening, the only way to stop that happening is to flood Gaza with

aid, by having hundreds and hundreds of trucks rather than fewer than a hundred a day, you’ll basically take away the looting, you’ll destroy those

criminal networks that are trying to exploit this situation and you’ll deal with the desperate levels of starvation that civilians are experiencing

right now. So, it’s only by scaling out massively that will reduce the level of that looting.

AMANPOUR: Now, again, with these truckloads parked near the Kerem Shalom Crossing point, and with all the videos, it plays into a different

narrative, a narrative that basically Israel’s saying that Hamas is looting the aid. And that’s why they have, you know, put this block on because they

don’t want Hamas to get the aid and they blame Hamas for this, you know, horrendous humanitarian crisis.

But Israeli military officials and U.S. government officials have both said to various journalists and organizations that there is no evidence of

widespread Hamas theft, particularly of U.N. aid. So, does this narrative also play in to the difficulty in getting that aid, which is just sitting

there shifted to where it’s needed?

FLETCHER: So, look, we are not going to leave any aid stacked up that we could be distributing. So, any photos of our U.N. aid are of stocks that we

can’t move because of bureaucratic impediments, because we can’t get the permissions to get to it, or because of the security conditions on the

ground. And Hamas are to be condemned for continuing to hold hostages. They must release those hostages unconditionally. They’re to be condemned for

October the 7th.

And over the last few days, I’ve been in touch again with survivors at the Nir Oz Kibbutz. One in four of whom were taken away or killed on that day.

So, there’s plenty to condemn Hamas for. But we are not having our convoys massively disrupted by Hamas.

Can we guarantee that every grain of flour avoids them when a lot of this is ending up on the market and when they have the guns and the money inside

Gaza to try to steal it? Of course, we can’t guarantee that. But I agree with those studies in the U.S. and Israel and elsewhere that have shown

that actually this is only a fraction of what we’re able to get through that is being taken by Hamas.

The vast majority of what the U.N. has delivered, for months when we’ve been allowed to, has reached civilians, and they’re the people who need it

so desperately right now.

AMANPOUR: I want to ask you then about these so-called protection groups, because there seems to be several types of groupings there. Some of these

gangs and organized crimes and militias, some of whom who’ve been recruited by Israel, who is public, to actually try to fight Hamas. And then, there

are protection groups, you know, who — locals who help secure the aid convoys inside Gaza, which are brought in perhaps by — well, the aid is

brought in by you all and NGOs, sometimes they’re paid, sometimes not.

One of them, an anonymous member of this — of one of these clans told CNN, the main risks we face include looters, large crowds trying to steal the

aid, and being pelted with stones. Our presence during this period is a humanitarian necessity. In the absence of proper security, vulnerable

people urgently need food and medicine. And went on to say, if a functioning authority is restored, then our role ends here.

And we’ve got video of that clan securing the trucks of the World Central Kitchen. So, all these clans and protection gangs and all the rest of it,

some are, you know, criminals, some are legitimate. Why is this happening? Is it because there just is no governance? I mean, the fight against Hamas

is so degenerated, not just their fighting ability, but the governing that they used to do, you know, some form or fashion before.

FLETCHER: Yes. You’ve got to remember now that for months now there’s been a complete breakdown of what law and order and what infrastructure there

was inside Gaza. And so, NGOs, the U.N. and others are relying on community organizations, local NGOs to help to secure our convoys and help to

distribute what we can get in to ensure that as much as possible if it gets to mothers, families, civilians, those who are starving, those who are

weaker and unable actually to get to the normal distribution points often. So, we do rely on those sort of community conversations and networks.

When I was coming out of Gaza a few months ago on my last visit, I drove across on — as part of our convoy, no man’s land, to the crossing point.

And you could see, in fact, they hit the lorry just in front of me. Many of those armed groups that are operating in that space, armed group opposed to

Hamas of course, but who have somehow been able to operate around those crossing points and very near to the Israeli lines for some time. So,

they’ve been a real threat to our convoys.

AMANPOUR: And, you know, there’s obviously markets there, but we hear from people that the markets have almost got nothing there. I’m just looking at

a New York Times article, which quotes the Gaza Chamber of Commerce’s most recent statistics that sugar, for instance, a kilo of sugar, 89 cents

before the war, $106 now. Let’s just go down to flour, $10 for a 25-kilo bag before the war, $305 now. Let’s go to diapers for kids. $8.61 before

the war for a pack of 40, now $149. And rice, a staple, $2.38 cents for a kilo before the war, $20 now when it’s available.

So, in other words, people who have no jobs, no banking system, no money, how do they — how — what are they meant to do in these markets?

FLETCHER: It’s just desperate, isn’t it? And of course, I hear every day from our team on the ground, many of whom are desperately hungry

themselves, you know, the escalation in those prices, you know, paying tens of dollars for a tomato. They took desperation. A colleague was able to

bring in some bits of chicken the other day. And you could see, you know, how ravenous our colleagues were.

I got slightly better figures the last 24, 48 hours saying that the prices might be starting to come down, certainly for flour and some of those

essential food stuffs in the markets, which to sign that even the little we’ve been able — allowed to get through so far is starting to have an

impact. But the only way you bring those prices down is to get 600, 700 of aid through every day, and start to flood Gaza with food.

That’s what I believe President Trump wants us to do. It’s clearly what European leaders, world leaders, world opinion wants us to do. But also,

really importantly, we’ve got to get journalists in. I mean, you shouldn’t have to be telling this story from London. We shouldn’t have international

journalists at the border. We shouldn’t have international journalists in the planes flying over, but not allowed to take a photo of what they see

below them. We need to get the media in and then we can get the real story of what’s happening there.

AMANPOUR: Yes. Well, as you know, we obviously agree with that and many of our organizations have signed petitions to request just that access. Tom

Fletcher, thank you very much indeed for joining us. Thank you.

Now, later in the program, with international pressure mounting, how is this war being viewed now inside Israel? I’m joined by a former adviser to

the late Shiman Peres, Israeli prime minister in the ’80s and ’90s.

AMANPOUR: As harrowing images of Gaza’s starving children fill every screen, support for the war has plunged in the United States, which is

Israel’s biggest backer. And within Israel itself, there’s a growing rejection of their government’s actions. A major TV journalist and

presenter this week called it a moral failure.

So, let’s get into this now with Nimrod Novik, who served for years as a senior adviser to the former and the late prime minister, Shimon Peres.

He’s now a fellow at the Israel Policy Forum, a U.S. organization dedicated to a two-state solution. And he’s joining me from Tel Aviv. Nimrod Novik,

welcome to the program. Can I —

NIMROD NOVIK, FORMER ADVISER TO SHIMON PERES AND FELLOW, ISRAELI POLICY FORUM: Thanks for having me.

AMANPOUR: Can I start by asking you to react, really to the, you know, accusation now inside Israel, from some Israelis of a moral failure,

particularly when it comes to the starvation of these children and other civilians inside Gaza. At what point do you think the Israeli government

needs to fully change it’s — you know, it’s access for tons and tons and tons of trucks to go in?

NOVIK: The point to change was a year ago when the primary objectives of the war have been accomplished and the primary objectives were basically

three, two of which were accomplished a year ago, and that is dismantling the Hamas military formation and its governance. The third was hostages,

and they’re still there, 50 of them, 20 alive. That was a time to change course.

But when the war drags on, beyond its purposeful phase, many things begin to go wrong, including, and perhaps primarily at the moment, the issue of

humanitarian situation, the catastrophe of humanitarian situation in Gaza.

I believe that in Israel there is a sea change over the last couple of weeks. And I think that three factors contribute to the change. One was

that the International Community moved from futile expressions of concern to taking actual steps. And it attracted attention back home here. The

second thing that happened was that the Israeli media, which for a long time self-censored those images, there was a total disconnect between the –

– what the world saw and what Israelis were allowed to see. And that was not government censorship, it was self-censorship by the media, suddenly

gave up on it and decided that you cannot really spare Israelis what’s going on in our name in Gaza.

And the third thing, to our shame, is domestic politics. That is to say once the Knesset, our parliament, went into a three months recess,

suddenly, the prime minister has the political room to maneuver and act in contradiction to those who hold the power in his coalition, the extreme

elements in Israeli society and suddenly, has the freedom to do the right thing and allow everything that was prohibited previously, including the

airdrops and the opening of the passages that you discussed previously.

AMANPOUR: But he’s not doing that yet. There’s some — some have called it performative airdrops that Israel is doing and other Arab nations and other

allies are contributing to. But the big opening of the hundreds and hundreds of trucks per day that need to go in just to achieve some kind of

baseline normal nutrition and medical situation is not happening yet. There’s a constant blaming and trading of accusations of who’s to blame for

the violence and the looting.

NOVIK: It may be wishful thinking on my part, but I’ve got the sense that it has been ramping up on a daily basis, not to the extent that it used to

be 600 to 700 trucks a day that your previous guest noted is essential, to flood the market. But still, I believe that we are in the process — not

the airdrops, but rather the ground transition, including from Egypt. There was an Israeli team in Cairo last week to coordinate this.

But mind you, it was only on Saturday, this last Saturday, that Netanyahu convened an emergency cabinet session, realizing that they need

international tsunami, diplomatic tsunami is approaching our shores and realizing that the Israeli public becomes aware of it more than ever

before. And I think that with his experience and knowledge of the International Community and domestic dynamics I think the decision made on

Saturday are manifesting themselves too gradually, too slowly, but I think in the right direction.

And I’m hoping that Envoy Steve Witkoff will play the doubt in the room and put an end to the mutual accusations between Israel and the U.N. and

everybody else. And rather than focus energy on who’s to blame, coordinate amongst them so that things change substantially.

AMANPOUR: I noticed, and I want to pick up on what you said. He had to — Netanyahu have a Saturday cabinet meeting and that, of course, as most

people understand, is Shabbat, and it would’ve excluded the Orthodox nationalist hard liners who control his government from attending. So, he

was able to move a little bit, have a little bit of room for maneuver on a Saturday.

But I want to ask you about Witkoff and the Americans. You have so much experience. You have essentially — you know, your whole professional life

has been around the peace process, trying to figure out how to secure Israel and the rights of Palestinians in a two-state solution.

So, it has been said — and in fact, when he stood up in Congress in the United States, Senator Chuck Schumer, the major — you know, he’s — you

know, at the time the Democratic Jewish leader of the United States Senate stood up and said, essentially, my main fear is that Israel will lose

America’s support and be isolated if this kind of stuff goes on. And that is bad for Israel. It’s bad for Israel, and it’s bad for the Jews.

So, I want to ask you, Nimrod Novik, whether you are concerned about that now. Because American Jews are now having apparently a change of heart,

according to polls. This is a statement from the Union for Reformed Judaism on behalf of America’s reformed Jewish movement, which makes up the

majority of American Jews, quote, “Denying basic humanitarian aid crosses a moral line. Blocking food, water, medicine, and power, especially for

children, is indefensible. Let us not allow our grief to harden into indifference nor our love of Israel to blind us to the cries of the

vulnerable.”

Does it feel like a sea change for you? Because next, I’m going to read to you the polls that are also not looking good for Israel right now, the

polls in the United States.

NOVIK: Yes. I think we’re losing primarily the younger generation that feel that they cannot identify with the Israel as it is governed today. And

I make a sharp distinction between the government that is controlled by the most extreme elements in Israeli society who represent about under 10

percent of the population too much in my mind, but nonetheless, marginal and the rest of the public.

I mean, it is no accident that over months now, an overwhelming majority wants the government to end the war, bring the hostages back, even if that

means that Hamas remains. Now, I don’t think that that’s the option. I think there is an option where we end the war, bring the hostages, and

there is an alternative to Hamas in Gaza. But even if that were not the case, still, the majority would like to see that.

Look, as you pointed out, there’s no doubt that America’s support is a central pillar of Israeli national security. We cannot afford to play games

with that. Anybody in Israel who took it for granted got the lesson when we had three rounds of fighting with Iran, two last year and one this year,

the 12 days, in all three. American orchestrated regional security system under CENTCOM, the central command, helped protect Israel from the incoming

hundreds and hundreds of missiles and drones from Iran.

The strategic relations with the United States are absolutely essential for Israel’s long-term security. And therefore, yes, I’m very much worried

about it. I think it is reversible. But for that to be reversible, like everything else, we need a change of policy in Jerusalem.

AMANPOUR: Well, I’m going to ask you about that. You led me right into it. So, a new Gallup poll shows American approval of this Israeli military

action at 32 percent. That’s a new low. A Pew poll in April shows a majority of Americans, 53 percent, expressing unfavorable views of Israel,

even amongst some, and particularly as you say, the younger generation of Republicans in the United States.

So, when you say we need a change and we must hang on to American support for our — you know, for our survival and our existence, a former prime

minister from, I guess your party, Labor, Ehud Barak is calling Israel increasingly a pariah state. But he saying that, you know, they have to —

there has to be a rise — a peaceful, you know, uprising, essentially, and — civil disobedience to get rid of the Netanyahu government.

Do you think you — what do you think? Is that — I mean, is that something that you think is possible? Opposition leader Yair Golan, he’s a reserve

major general in the IDF says, Israel is on the way to becoming a pariah state among the nations. The South Africa of Yor, if it does not return to

behaving like a sane country.

NOVIK: I worry about our standing in the International Community, but I must confess, I worry more about us looking in the — in our own mirror.

Our conduct over the last three years has been anything but the Zionist vision and the values of our Declaration of Independence.

And I heard Barak, and I heard Yair Golan and others calling for a similar approach. I’m — I’ve been humbled by two major failures to predict Israeli

public reaction. I did not anticipate the explosion of pro-democracy energy in the Israeli streets in 2023 when Netanyahu was orchestrating a campaign

of legislation to undermine the independence of the Israeli judiciary. And I didn’t expect hundreds and hundreds of thousands to be in the streets for

39 consecutive weeks to stop it, and they succeeded.

And my second failure was that after October 7th, with the demonstration of the wrong strategy of feeding Hamas, of feeding the beast to the point that

it exploded in our faces, the anger about it and the fact that in the ensuing months the government was MIA when we needed it most for those

affected, that anger did not manifest itself as I hadn’t expected with greater demonstrations than in ’23.

There are all kind of reasons for it, all kind of explanations. Probably the most persuasive is that most Israelis were both exhausted after ’23,

but even more so felt that it was improper to go to the street and demonstrate while our children are fighting, as it might be misinterpreted

as lack of solidarity with the troops.

So, we have not seen the kind of demonstrations, even though we do have demonstrations, and I was supposed to be at one, but I prefer your forum

for once. We will see more demonstrations. But I don’t think that we will see the kind of shutting down the economy, shutting down the country to the

point that the government collapses. I think this is going to happen in the polls.

And we’re going to have election next year, either early elections, early in the year, or as scheduled towards the end of the year. But I’m afraid

that we have to survive a few more months with the government dominated by self-identify the Jewish supremacist, by many — by Messianic

annexationists, by homophobe, xenophobes, self-identified as such that Netanyahu chose to associate himself with. And now, he is dragged by them

in awful directions.

So, we do have a pause, three months of the parliament recess, where he’s more free to do the right things by what we believe should happen and by

the International Community. Let’s hope that he does that and let’s hope that Witkoff is carrying with him persuasive arguments in order to help

steer Netanyahu in the right direction.

AMANPOUR: Well, they say, and I’ve said it before, that only the United States has the leverage to affect Netanyahu, given how much they support

and how many weapons and how much financial and other military aid they’ve given historically and continue to do so. So, you have spent a lifetime

being, you know —

NOVIK: Including during the strike on Iran.

AMANPOUR: Yes, indeed. You have spent a lifetime being part of the peace process when you were adviser to the late prime minister, former — and

foreign of Shimon Peres. The two-state solution, end game, the Oslo process. You’ve seen now plenty of world leaders, allies, many of the —

you know the U.N. Security Council permanent members saying that they will recognize a Palestinian State in the fall unless there are material

changes, especially towards a day after, which we’ve seen nothing from Netanyahu on that.

Do you believe that there is any way, because to resolve this, politically and diplomatically, in the only way that’s actually viable, that’s been

written down on paper?

NOVIK: Israeli-Palestinian relations and the eventual two-state solution, which I believe in, as the only viable option, is not going to happen by

outside the pressure. It’ll come from the two peoples, just as what we did with Egypt peace and with Jordan. It’ll come from the two peoples.

One has to admit that after October 7th, positions were hardened on the Israeli side. In the wake of the 22 months war in Gaza, positions have been

hardened on the Palestinian side. And therefore, even if we do have an alternative government, a few months from now running Israel, it’s not

going to be a bunch of peaceniks who are going to run to Ramallah to embrace President Abbas and sign a peace treaty with him.

But I believe that any alternative government that exclude those lunatics that I referred to earlier will have — will change course in a very

substantial way, even though a two-state solution might still remain over the horizon ending the war in Gaza, changing course by treating the

Palestinian Authority as a partner rather than an adversary. Arresting Jewish terrorism on the West Bank, ending that phenomena rather than

fueling it from inside the cabinet quarters.

AMANPOUR: Yes.

NOVIK: Changing course on these things can open up a path for relaxing tensions, separating the two peoples gradually in a secure way while taking

care of Israeli legitimate security concerns and allowing an Arab coalition to help the Palestinians and us reach the desired outcome a few years down

the road.

AMANPOUR: Well, we want to follow up with that at another time, because that obviously is the end game. Nimrod Novik, thank you so much indeed. And

as we said, a coalition of Arab nations have called on Hamas to lay down their arms and get essentially out of the business of governance. And we’ll

be right back after this short break.

AMANPOUR: Now, to the U.S., it wasn’t so long ago that lawmakers from both parties were warning about the dangers of TikTok, the hugely popular app

owned by a Chinese-based parent company. But lately, says our next guest, the alarm bells have gone noticeably silent. Glenn Gerstell was general

counsel of the National Security Agency, and here he is with Walter Isaacson.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And, Glenn Gerstell, welcome to the show.

GLENN GERSTELL, FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY AND SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Thank you. Glad to

be here.

ISAACSON: You have a essay in The New York Times about the TikTok ban and why it hasn’t taken place. It’s — well, you know, the video app that half

the country, I think, uses, it was supposed to be banned. Why is it still in operation?

GERSTELL: This is a completely crazy saga, TikTok. It shows sort of our inconsistency about how we approach Chinese tech. But this was such a

national security threat just 15 or 16 months ago that bipartisan majorities of the House and Senate decided that this app was such a —

presented such a risk of Chinese interference and possible theft of data that it had to be banned within nine months if it didn’t get out of Chinese

hands.

So, it was a very serious national security threat that was really urgent and the Congress took unprecedented — adopted unprecedented legislation.

We’ve never banned a social media app before. And here we are now just 15 or 16 months later the banned outlawed app is still in Google’s app store

and in Apple’s app store. The president of the United States has said he’s going to continue to extend the ban, not apply it. He’s directed his

Justice Department to not enforce the ban while he’s searches for a deal to take it out of Chinese hands.

ISAACSON: Well, let’s start with the underlying question, not whether the law enforce or not first, which is, what’s wrong with TikTok? Why would you

want to ban it?

GERSTELL: So, critics of TikTok have pointed out to at least two or three things. One is because it’s owned by China — because by — owned by a

Chinese company, ByteDance, which is ultimately responsible to the PRC government and ultimately to the Chinese Communist Party. There’s a fear

that China could direct ByteDance to direct TikTok to spew misinformation and disinformation on the app, perhaps in very subtle ways. So, you can

imagine a case where, say, China is thinking of invading Taiwan.

So, for six months beforehand, it starts very subtly introducing videos on TikTok, not directly outrageous, but just subtly suggesting that Taiwan is

not a great place, it’s corrupt. Maybe Americans shouldn’t lose any blood or treasure over Taiwan, et cetera, and change public opinion. That’s one

concern.

The second is that China, because its national security law gives it power to do so, could direct ByteDance, the corporate owner, to turn over all the

user data, all the information that TikTok collects, just like Facebook and Instagram and other big apps, it vacuums up data about users and turn that

information over to Beijing, for whatever purpose.

ISAACSON: Well, let’s start with that one, turning over the data. What — is there any evidence that they’ve done that, and why would that be so

harmful?

GERSTELL: So, there is no direct evidence that any of this data has been turned over on a wholesale basis or that TikTok has been directed by the

Beijing government to turn over the data. There have been a few instances which TikTok has admitted where some user data about Americans was sent to

Beijing and analyzed some reporters, et cetera, they seem to be isolated instance.

And if you believe TikTok, the U.S. data is not sent off to China, but is either kept in Singapore or the — or in the United States.

ISAACSON: Well, wait. You say if you believe them, and they say only vetted employees can get very specific things, and it’s otherwise in the

U.S. division there, do we believe them?

GERSTELL: I think most national security professionals say that it’s unrealistic to think that TikTok would in any way refuse a direct order of

the Beijing government to turn over data.

So, if there was a crisis or the Beijing government just wanted to step up pressure on the United States and get some data, perhaps it could reveal

some interesting trends. They’re probably not interested in which dance video a teenager in Wichita looks at. Sure, we got that. But a lot of

governments use TikTok. A lot of — although it’s banned on government phones, governments have accounts on it, it could be possible to trace who

watches certain government accounts. Perhaps they could combine that with other data that Beijing already collects on people to figure out who is a

CIA agent, who’s in the American military, et cetera. You could certainly envision a nefarious use of this data.

ISAACSON: But in your piece, you kind of call that overhyped in a way. Is it?

GERSTELL: Well, you know, I think to some extent, yes. I mean, there is a risk. I don’t want to say there’s no risk. But the actual risk of user data

being turned over in a meaningful way that will have strategic value to China, I think is pretty low.

Yes, of course, in a conflict it could be dangerous, but we could then shut the thing off if we are actually on the verge of a conflict. Right now, my

guess is it’s a risk something we should be aware of. We have ways of mitigating the risk. My concern is much more about the disinformation

piece.

ISAACSON: Let’s go back now to the idea that Trump’s just not enforcing this thing that 80 percent of Congress voted for. How can he get away with

that?

GERSTELL: Well, there’s a legal issue, of course, as to whether the president can simply refuse to enforce or decide to pick and choose which

laws he wants to enforce. The Constitution, as we all know, says that the president of the United States has to faithfully execute the laws of the

United States. I suppose, one could argue, that there’s some sort of prosecutorial discretion in deciding what laws to enforce. I don’t think

that’s really appropriate here.

This isn’t a question of a prosecutor deciding not to prosecute someone who’s jaywalking. This is a national security statute passed by bipartisan

majorities of the House and Senate. Upheld is constitutional by the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision. And if there ever was a statute that we’d

want to make sure it was enforced, it would be a national security statute.

Now, to be fair, on Trump’s side, what he said is that for national security reasons, he wants more authority to continue to delay the

implementation of this while he looks at the national security implications, he considers what tariffs he might want to impose on China,

he’s looking at it from a different picture. I might add, the statute does not give him authority to do that. He’s claiming it on his own.

ISAACSON: Well, it was, I think the attorney general, Pam Bondi, who sent letters to that effect, and she said that the president has determined that

an abrupt shutdown of TikTok would interfere with the execution of the president’s constitutional duties to take care of the national security and

foreign affairs of the United States. Explain her argument to me, and I assume you don’t think it’s a good argument, explain why it’s wrong.

GERSTELL: Well, as I said, the statute itself doesn’t — is quite clear. So, number one, the statute requires enforcement. There’s nothing about it

that says it can’t be enforced on these terms by the president. We have not generally had any Supreme Court precedent that says the president, in using

his powers as commander-in-chief, has the ability to suspend or not apply laws. Certainly, that’s not a general rule. So, it’s of legal question —

legally questionable.

As I said, the president is making this assertion. Interestingly, members of Congress are not complaining about it. Certainly, the members of his own

party aren’t going to cross him. And even the Democrats are sort of caught a little bit because they don’t want to be looking weak on China either.

So, they’re sort of waiting to see how this all turns out. It’s a somewhat delicate situation.

The part that concerns me most, beyond the legal point of whether the president has the power to enforce or decide which laws to enforce, and

that’s a significant legal point, I don’t want to minimize it, but putting that aside, is the fact that this is a little bit of a boy who cried wolf

situation, which is, if we have a national security statute that was passed on an urgent basis, and I might add, this was the remedies in the statute.

The ban was adopted without a single hearing. There was no hearing on what alternatives were available. This was so urgent that Congress just rushed

into this statute, as it said — decided it was absolutely critical.

And now, 16 months later, everyone’s saying, well, we can wait a little bit. Let’s just wait and see. And we have an app that half of Americans or

a third of Americans are using, 65 percent of teenagers are using around the country. It’s banned on military phones, government phones, most state

government phones. So, is this really a national security issue? And if you were an average citizen, you’d say, well, you know, maybe it’s not such a

big deal.

And what about when the next national security issue crops up and the government says, it’s really important to do this or not do that, and the

population says, well, you know, we were using TikTok for years after the ban, it didn’t make a difference. I’m worried about eroding the concerns

about the legitimacy of national security statutes.

ISAACSON: So, does that mean you think we should just quickly ban it?

GERSTELL: Well, I happen to think that the entire idea of banning the TikTok was a bad idea as a matter of public policy in the first place. And

I would’ve preferred that we adopt some version of a strategy to mitigate it. If we’re worried about Chinese risks, we’ve got — I’ve got a lot of

other risks that come before this one. And so, I would be focusing on those.

TikTok is a risk. I don’t want to say it isn’t, but I think we have other ways of mitigating it. And so, I would say that the ideal solution would

either be if indeed China will go ahead and release the algorithm and we can have a legitimate sale, that would be a fine way of doing it. It’d be a

consensual sale and the app is put in American hands or friendly hands, and that would solve it. I think just continuing to extend the ban

indefinitely, as I said, erodes some concerns here. I don’t think that’s the right approach.

ISAACSON: So, you say we ought to do something about it because there is some risk. What would you do?

GERSTELL: I would probably go back to some version of insisting that there would be American layers of oversight to try to check or stop

disinformation if we saw it starting to appear online. And also, the one thing we absolutely can do, because it’s technically possible, is make sure

that all user data is locked down in the United States and can’t be, so to speak, siphoned off to Beijing. And there would be — there would and

should be ways of doing that. And I think those two steps would go a long way to doing it.

I mean, on a broader level, you know, Congress could certainly go back and pass fundamental privacy legislation, which it’s been talking about for 20

years, that would go a step towards addressing people’s concerns over user data. It would also apply to Facebook and Instagram and Twitter and

everything else. But there are steps we can take.

ISAACSON: You’ve said that this is sort of a microcosm of a larger problem, which is how we deal with technology that comes from China.

Explain some of those other problems.

GERSTELL: So, we have a pattern in the United States, probably for good reasons of letting technology innovate and flourish, et cetera, which is

all good and something we want to do. And then, after flaws become apparent after misuse, after safety problems, whether it’s airplanes, automobiles,

electricity, you name it, we then start to regulate for safety and risk reasons.

And in the case of Chinese apps, it’s the same issue, which is we’ve allowed a large number of Chinese technology, which is good and useful and

often inexpensive to come into our homes and businesses. And then, later after we’ve done that, we realize, oh, gosh, there’s a user data risk,

there’s a political risk, there’s some cybersecurity risk. So, we have in – – I don’t know if it’s the majority of American homes, but certainly a very sizable percentage of American homes, TP routers, TP-Link routers, which

are made in China. They see every piece of internet traffic and email that someone’s home or a business generates in that.

There’s a risk for the same reasons we’ve talked about for TikTok, that some of that data could be inappropriately used by the Chinese government.

There are video — almost every video camera from Hikvision to Tapo, cameras in your home are manufactured by China. The U.S. doesn’t generally

manufacture video cameras.

DeepsSeek is a big very popular — recently popular Chinese app that’s — hosted on cloud servers of Amazon and others here in the United States, and

is used by American users. So, we have a pattern of using China —

ISAACSON: DeepSeek is the artificial intelligence competitor to ChatGPT.

GERSTELL: Exactly. So, my point simply is that we have a wide range, if not ubiquitous of Chinese technology that’s in our homes and businesses,

and we awaken to the potential risks only after widespread adoption when it’s very hard to either do something about it, take it away, shut it down.

There are some cases where we can do that. So, for example, several years ago, the government was concerned about Huawei Telecommunications equipment

in our U.S. telephone systems. And the government banned it. The government started a program which the FCC is now funding to basically rip out the

equipment from U.S. telecom systems.

In the case of Huawei equipment, there is no alternative. You either ban it, you either rip it out or not. That’s not the case of TikTok. There are

other ways of ameliorating the risk. We have Chinese technology in port cranes around the United States that are vital ports. People are concerned

about how in a time of crisis China could send a message paralyzing those cranes and causing all sorts of trade chaos.

So, there are a wide range of Chinese tech applications, many are useful, many are good. I’m not saying we should ban them, that’s not the

suggestion. But we need to have a coherent principled way of looking at this rather than the whack-a-mole approach that we now have, where suddenly

something becomes the issue du jour and we focus on that. That’s not a good way to manage the overall risk of Chinese technology. We need it, it’s

useful, but we need to address the risks.

ISAACSON: Glenn Gerstell, thank you so much for joining us.

GERSTELL: Thank you so much, Walter.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And of course, stay vigilant. And finally, tonight, the weeklong Jubilee of Youth Festival is underway at the Vatican, and Pope Leo is

welcoming thousands of young pilgrims. Worshipers even surprised him with pizza from his hometown of Chicago. The American pontiff stopped his

popemobile to receive a box from what’s said to be his favorite chain, Aurelio’s. What I want to know is, was it still warm?

Anyway, that’s it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.