Cracks in the Ceasefire

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Cracks in the Ceasefire"

Amanpour (CNN Podcasts) | October 29, 2025
Host: Christiane Amanpour
Guests:

• Alon Pincas – Former Israeli diplomat
• Mustafa Barghouti – Palestinian politician, President of the Palestinian National Initiative
• Garrett Graff – Historian, journalist
• Michael McFaul – Former US Ambassador to Russia
• Walter Isaacson (interviewer)
• Adi Cornish (contributor/host)

---

Main Theme

This episode explores the fragility and politics of the Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire in Gaza, the shifting power dynamics in US governance under President Trump, and the changing world order as autocrats gain ground globally. In-depth interviews dissect Israeli and Palestinian perspectives on the ceasefire, Trump-era ethical controversies, and US foreign policy, especially regarding Russia and China.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Gaza Ceasefire Crisis

[00:34–13:00]

• The deadliest day since the ceasefire: At least 104 Palestinians killed in Israeli strikes (including many children), raising doubts about the truce.
• Amanpour frames the situation as an unraveling ceasefire, pressing guests on whether Israeli and Palestinian leaders genuinely want peace or are gaming the terms to serve their own interests.

Israeli Perspective (Alon Pincas)

• Netanyahu "treats [the ceasefire] a la carte," not wanting true cessation but acting as pressured by Trump and coalition politics.
• Netanyahu’s skepticism of Trump’s commitment: "He doesn't know whether or not President Trump is committed to this or… will disengage in two weeks." ([03:19])
• The Israeli Prime Minister remains cornered between Trump’s demands and his far-right coalition, leading to inconsistent policy.

Memorable Quote:
"Netanyahu is banking on Trump saying, at some point, 'I've had enough, a plague on both your houses. I gave it my best shot. Everyone applauded me.'… He has done so [aligned so closely with Republicans] that leaves him with zero levers of influence in America." — Alon Pincas ([05:40])

• No real consensus or hope for a stabilization (peacekeeping) force: "I'm not concerned because I know it won't happen… This can't happen with this current government in Israel. This can't happen while Hamas hasn't disarmed." ([08:56])
• The pattern will be ongoing: "We're going to go into this repeated motion, this pattern of the ceasefire being infringed on or violated every two weeks without anything happening." ([10:13])
• West Bank escalation: “The West Bank is the next focal point. It is explosive… I can’t fathom any kind of cohabitation… This is going to explode one day.” ([11:19])

Palestinian Perspective (Mustafa Barghouti)

• Openly prefers a "one democratic state with equal rights," accuses Israel of only seeking ethnic cleansing: "We’re staying here. So, yes, the situation in the West Bank is absolutely horrifying." ([13:36])
• Explains the scope of settler violence: “60 Palestinian communities in the West Bank have been evicted by Israeli settlers’ terror. The Israeli army is supporting them…” ([13:36])
• Calls the ceasefire a sham, citing violations: “This Israeli fascist government… has violated the ceasefire 126 times… More than 211 Palestinians have been killed during the ceasefire agreement...” ([15:52])
• Highlights dire humanitarian issues: medical shortages, denied aid, and ongoing “strangulation” of Gaza.

Memorable Quote:
"Only one man can decide whether [the ceasefire] will hold… President Trump. Either Mr. Trump is complicit… or he is being manipulated by Netanyahu." — Mustafa Barghouti ([15:52])

• On the dehumanization of Palestinians:
  “Why they don’t accept us Palestinians as equal human beings?… Some Palestinian bodies have been withheld by Israel for 50 years now.” ([19:41])

• Calls for an impartial stabilization force: "That force should come in to separate us from the Israelis. It should be a peacekeeping force to observe the ceasefire and stop Netanyahu from continuing these attacks." ([22:12])

---

2. Trump-Era Corruption and Constitutional Crisis

[25:36–37:04]

• Host: Christiane Amanpour

• Guest: Garrett Graff

• Trump's presidency is described as leading a “Watergate-level scandal” nearly daily, with ethical boundaries and norms being shattered.

  • Examples: Demanding $230M from the Justice Department, enriching family through foreign deals, using presidential powers for personal/family gain (notably crypto-related).
  • Contrasts sharply with Jimmy Carter’s era ("sold his peanut farm to avoid conflicts") vs Trump family's mass capitalizing on power.

• Collapse of governmental checks:

  • Supreme Court and Congress accused of “abdication of responsibilities.”
  • “It’s not a constitutional crisis… It’s a constitutional crash; our system is lying dead on the operating table.” ([28:25])
  • Congress fails to check presidential power as intended by the founders.

• Specifics on Trump’s exploitation of crypto:

  • Family businesses brought in $864 million in 2025 (largest part from crypto); Trump, meanwhile, rolled back enforcement against crypto fraud and pardoned major crypto criminals.
  • Brazen conflicts of interest: "…using his presidential powers in order to help fuel an industry who is able to pay him directly in untraceable money." ([31:33])

Memorable Quote:
"This is a family that has done an enormous amount to capitalize on the presidential power… Absurd levels of conflicts of interest in just the first nine months." — Garrett Graff ([26:22])

• Difference from Nixon’s Watergate:
  • Both parties in Nixon’s day ultimately chose US institutions over party loyalty; in Trump’s era, the GOP is described as enforcers for his personal benefit.
  • Media environment is now deeply dysfunctional and toxic with disinformation.

---

3. The Evolving World Order: Autocrats vs. Democrats

[38:06–53:17]

• Host/Interviewer: Walter Isaacson

• Guest: Michael McFaul

• Trump’s foreign policy frames world by “strong” vs “weak” leaders, not democracy vs autocracy.

  • McFaul warns this undermines US soft power: "Turns out public opinion shows… most people prefer to choose their leaders rather than have God, the Communist Party, or a soldier choose them." ([39:01])

• Are we in a new Cold War with China?

  • "Elements that are similar and different… US and Chinese economy much more intertwined than US/USSR was." ([41:21])
  • Ideological struggle is present but not as intense as Soviet era.
  • The US is now more polarized and isolationist than during the Cold War.

• Taiwan: The “greatest non-event” is the avoided war over Taiwan. US should enhance deterrence, not provoke China over Taiwan independence.

• Trump’s erratic trade/tariff policies criticized: "That's not a strategy." ([45:08])

• On Russia: US has historically underestimated Putin’s willingness to use power to destabilize; Ukraine aid is crucial for both stopping Putin and deterring China on Taiwan.

• Lessons from the fall of the Soviet Union:

  • US failed to give post-Soviet Russia the full attention/resources it needed ("no Marshall Plan for Russia").
  • More robust NATO/arms to Ukraine and Georgia in the 1990s could have prevented future conflict.

• On inevitable US-China war (“Thucydides Trap”):

  • "It's going to be an inevitable tension. That's a good word—but not an inevitable war. There's a difference." ([52:02])

Memorable Quote:
"We managed to avoid a great war between [US & USSR] because of leadership… leaders on both sides said we got to manage this competition and we developed… crisis prevention mechanisms." — Michael McFaul ([53:17])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Alon Pincas:
  "Netanyahu not only killed forever the concept of bipartisan support for Israel by aligning himself completely… with the Republicans, but he has done so in a way that leaves him with zero levers of influence in America." ([05:40])

• Mustafa Barghouti:
  "They wanted ethnic cleansing and they failed. They’re not going to get it. We’re staying here." ([13:36])

• Garrett Graff:
  "Our constitutional system is lying dead on the operating table… Congress and the Supreme Court have just completely abdicated their normal responsibilities." ([28:25])

• Michael McFaul:
  "If we stop Putin… that makes Xi Jinping a little less likely to invade Taiwan. So these things are… highly intertwined." ([47:46])

• Michael McFaul on the US and China:
  "I think the idea that we just decouple and go our separate ways is not only imprudent… I think trying to do so, we would fail." ([41:21])

---

Important Timestamps

• [00:34] Amanpour sets the crisis: over 100 Palestinians killed despite Gaza ceasefire.
• [02:50] Start of Alon Pincas interview (Israeli view on ceasefire).
• [13:00] Start of Mustafa Barghouti interview (Palestinian view, focus on West Bank).
• [25:36] Garrett Graff on Trump-era corruption; ethics and accountability.
• [38:06] Walter Isaacson introduces Michael McFaul for segment on changing world order.
• [41:21] McFaul details differences between Cold War and US-China rivalry.
• [52:02] Discussion of Thucydides Trap; inevitability of US-China conflict.

---

Conclusion

This episode provides a sobering view of the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, the grim realities in the West Bank, and deep mistrust between the parties, with both Israeli and Palestinian experts expressing pessimism about political solutions under current leadership. Transitioning to America’s internal and global position, the podcast delves into the erosion of constitutional safeguards during Trump’s presidency, with stark warnings about conflicts of interest and institutional failures. Finally, a wide-angle look at the geopolitical landscape emphasizes the dangers of new tensions with China and Russia and the necessity—though not inevitability—of war, underscoring the importance of leadership, alliances, and strategic thinking.

---

For listeners seeking a comprehensive understanding of Middle East peace prospects, US constitutional strains, or global power realignments, this episode delivers expert context and unvarnished perspectives with sharp, memorable commentary.

Transcript

[Christian Amanpour]

This is a real good story about.

[Garrett Graf]

Bronx and his dad, Ryan, real United Airlines customers.

[Adi Cornish]

We were returning home, and one of the flight attendants asked Bronx if he wanted to see the flight deck and.

[Garrett Graf]

Meet Kath and Andrew.

[Christian Amanpour]

I got to sit in the driver's seat.

[Adi Cornish]

I grew up in an aviation family, and seeing Bronx kind of reminded me of myself when I was that age.

[Christian Amanpour]

That's Andrew, a real United pilot.

[Walter Isaacson]

These small interactions can shape a kid's future. It felt like I was the captain.

[Adi Cornish]

Allowing my son to see the flight.

[Alon Pincas]

Deck will stick with us forever.

[Walter Isaacson]

That's how good leads the way.

[Christian Amanpour]

Hello, everyone, and welcome to Amanpour. Here's what's coming up. More than 100 Palestinians are killed in Israeli strikes despite a ceasefire. After Netanyahu accuses Hamas of killing an Israeli soldier. I speak to former Israeli diplomat Alon Pincas and Palestinian politician Mustafa Barghouti.

[Walter Isaacson]

The corruption of this presidency is unparalleled in American history.

[Christian Amanpour]

From building ballrooms to demanding money from the Department of Justice. Historian Garrett Graf explains the flurry of ethical issues coming out of Trump's White House.

[Adi Cornish]

Plus, it's going to be an inevitable tension. That's a good word. But not an inevitable war. There's a difference.

[Christian Amanpour]

Autocrats versus Democrats. As Trump tours Asia, former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul reflects on the changing world order. Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christian Amanpour in London, and we begin in Gaza, which has seen its deadliest day since the ceasefire began just over two weeks ago. At least 104 Palestinians, including dozens of children, were killed in a wave of Israeli strikes on Tuesday night. That's according to the Health Ministry there. The director of the Al Shifa Hospital described the health and humanitarian situation as catastrophic. The strikes come after Israel accused Hamas of an attack that killed an IDF soldier and allegedly staging the discovery of a deceased hostage. But Hamas said it had no connection to the attack and it says it's committed to the ceasefire deal. So does Israel say that? And so does President Trump. And then they did it again tonight. The IDF said it had conducted a precise strike against terrorist infrastructure in northern Gaza. So will this fragile ceasefire hold? To discuss, we turn now to the former Israeli diplomat Alon Pincas, who joins me from Tel Aviv. Welcome to the program.

[Alon Pincas]

Thank you, Cristiano. Always good to be with you.

[Christian Amanpour]

Thank you. And I do want to ask you, because you've actually been in the room, you've advised not only, you know, conservative, but also labor politicians there and prime ministers. What do you think is going on does Israel actually want this ceasefire to hold or is it sort of a la carte intervention when they want to and then saying that they're committed to the ceasefire deal? I'll ask our Palestinian guests about Hamas, but first to the Israeli perspective.

[Alon Pincas]

Yeah, I think both premises of what you said are correct. Israel does not want the ceasefire, or at least Mr. Netanyahu does not want, but he treats it, I'm sorry, as a la carte, as you suggested. And that has to do with the fact that he doesn't know, he really doesn't know whether or not President Trump is committed to this or whether or not, as past patterns have indicated, he will distance himself from this and disengage in two weeks. Now, look, let's not forget, Christian, this is an agreement that Mr. Netanyahu did not want. This is an agreement that President Trump basically cornered him and bullied him and made him endorse almost under, well, diplomatic at least duress. And he made all these promises to his extreme right wing coalition partners, not that he's any different from them, but at in terms of the composition of the coalition of the government that he cannot reconcile with endorsing the plan. So what he's trying to do right now is say, well, look, Hamas hasn't disarmed. This of course prevents the further implementation of other phases or further phases in this program. But he's saying to himself, and quite possibly to President Trump, don't worry about it. We could still do one more major military offensive in Gaza without this undermining the further implementation of the plan. Now, I think he's dead wrong about this, but this is his thinking.

[Christian Amanpour]

I just want to pick you up on what you said. He doesn't, this is Netanyahu doesn't know how intensely Trump is going to be engaged. But just to state the facts, the Trump sent his vice president, his secretary of State, his son in law and negotiator Jared Kushner, his main envoy, Steve Witkoff, all in the last week or so to insist to Netanyahu that this cease fire has to hold and Trump himself says nothing is going to jeopardize the ceasefire. Why do you then think, and you were Consul General in the US I know it was a long time ago, but you get the politics. Why do you think Netanyahu then is doubtful about Trump's continued attention and focus?

[Alon Pincas]

For two reasons. One is he's looking at Trump's modus operandi in Ukraine and then secondly, he's looking at Trump's notoriously narrow attention Span. And he's saying, okay, he got the accolades. He was showered with the praise for the release of the Israeli hostages and for the ceasefire. But the next phases are much less attractive, are much less ritzy, glitzy, and are much less rewarding as far as Trump is concerned. And so Trump has a vested interest in maintaining the ceasefire, but not necessarily maintaining the same level of commitment and engagement in the further stages. That's one way of looking at it. The other way of looking at it has to do with the. What you just suggested, Christian, domestic, American politics. Look, Mr. Netanyahu not only killed forever the concept of bipartisan support for Israel by aligning himself completely and comprehensively with the Republicans, but he has done so in a way that leaves him with zero levers of influence in America. What is he gonna do now? He's gonna ask the Democrats to help him out against a. A Trump administration that is pressuring him? Of course not. He's gonna help his old Republican buddies. They're out of the Republican Party. They're no longer members of the Republican Party. And so he's been cornered into complete reliance, dependence, and at President Trump's mercy. So he's sort of cornered in this, and he's pretty much afraid of what Trump can do. But yet he's banking. But he's banking on Trump saying, at some point, okay, I've had enough plague on both your houses. I gave it my best shot. Everyone applauded me. I did something that other presidents refrain from doing that is pressuring Israel. I can't want this more than the parties repeating lines that you're familiar with, the Clinton administration and the Bush administration and so on and so forth.

[Christian Amanpour]

So let me then ask you again, as more devil's advocate here, Jared Kushner and Steve witkoff were on 60 Minutes after the negotiations, after the ceasefire, and, you know, after they continued to push the Israelis and Hamas. This is what he said that about Israel pushing Israel to do more for the Palestinians. This is what he said to 60 Minutes that we've tried to convey to the Israeli leadership.

[Adi Cornish]

Now is that now that the war.

[Christian Amanpour]

Is over, if you want to integrate.

[Adi Cornish]

Israel with the broader Middle east, you have to find a way to help the Palestinian people thrive and do better. What are you doing with that message? We're just getting started.

[Walter Isaacson]

How sure are you that what you've.

[Christian Amanpour]

Accomplished so far is going to stick? First of all, it's the Middle east.

[Adi Cornish]

So everyone complains about everything.

[Christian Amanpour]

You know, a plague on both your houses as he ended that sort of saying, but, you know, so they're putting the pressure on. I mean, they're saying the right things. But how concerned are you, for instance, that there is still no consensus on, on who and what will make up and when it'll happen, this stabilization force?

[Alon Pincas]

Oh, I'm not concerned because I know it won't happen. And I'm sorry to sound pessimistic or skeptical to the point of depressing you or any one of our viewers. This can't happen with this current government in Israel. This can't happen while Hamas hasn't disarmed. So we are entering the next phases of an agreement that was signed under duress, that has zero goodwill and zero trust between the sides. You can't make an agreement work that way. But this particular government in Israel is not going to entertain any kind of future thinking forward looking, Palestinian, Israeli settlement. Without that, you will not have not only Israeli integration into the broader Middle east, which primarily means Saudi Arabia, but also you will not really have this agreement. And so I am afraid and concerned that this status quo is so tenuous and so volatile that this ceasefire we're going to go into this repeated motion, this pattern of the ceasefire being.

[Garrett Graf]

You.

[Alon Pincas]

Know, infringed on or violated on, you know, every two weeks without anything happening. Surely you and you know the Arab world better than I, Christiane, through your journalistic career, surely no one thinks that the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar or anyone else is going to invest $80 billion in Gaza reconstruction when Hamas gangs are roaming around, when Israel hasn't really withdrew, when there is no meaningful political process. So sorry to depress you again, but I don't see anything happening here.

[Christian Amanpour]

It is actually very depressing given the massive loss of life and the destabilization inside Israel and the hostages and all of the rest of it that's happened over the last two years. But let me ask you, does your kind of dark picture extend to the West Bank? Because it seems like Israel, the settlers, the IDF are ramping up the their control and attacks and all the rest of it on the West Bank. Is this part of the. We're not going to, you know, we have a different view than the Americans on all of this.

[Alon Pincas]

Well, you know, Christiane, here I was saying, okay, depress Christiane on 50% of the issues. As long as he doesn't mention the west bank, then it becomes 100% depressing because the west bank is the next focal point. It is explosive. The friction between the military, the Israeli military, the Palestinians and the settlers 500,000 of them is such that I can't fathom any kind of cohabitation even without a political process. Now, what is happening in the west bank right now as opposed to Gaza, which is our natural focus, but in the west bank, there is a relatively weak but stable Palestinian Authority with which Israel refuses to engage and have a dialogue, a fruitful dialogue with the better part of the last 10 years. And that's going to explode. That's going to explode one day. I mean, they are financially on the verge of implosion. And what is happening is that a one state reality is being created in front of our eyes. If you ask Israelis about a one state reality, of course they're all against it. Do a referendum now in Israel, Christiane. And 70% will say, what one state? Absolutely not. But what if it does happen? What if the Palestinian Authority dissolves voluntarily? What if they say, you want us, you have us. All we ask is one man, one vote. Enfranchise us. One, you know, one state, one binational state. We. I don't want to use expletives on cnn, but we would be in a very bad situation.

[Christian Amanpour]

Well, Alon Pincas, that has given us a lot to think about. And we are going to go to the west bank now and to Mustafa Barghouti, president of the Palestinian National Initiative. Mr. Barghouti, thank you. You might have just been listening to Alon Pincas and particularly what he said about the West Bank. Before I get into what's happening in Gaza, can you just tell me and give me your reaction to that prediction that the west bank is on the verge of some kind of collapse and that in the end it may all lead inevitably to a one state solution reality.

[Mustafa Barghouti]

That would be my preference. One democratic state with equal rights for everybody. The Israelis don't want two state solution. They don't want one state solution. What do they want? They wanted ethnic cleansing and they failed. They're not going to get it. We're staying here. So, yes, the situation in the west bank is absolutely horrifying. I mean, everybody speaks about disarming Hamas. Nobody speaks about disarming the illegal terrorist settlers who are behaving as settler gangs. Terrorist gangs moving around from one city to another, from one village to another, shooting people, burning houses, burning cars, destroying properties. They've already evicted 60 communities. 60 Palestinian communities in the west bank have been evicted by Israeli settlers. Terror. The Israeli army is supporting them, participating with them in shooting Palestinians. More than 1,100 Palestinians have been killed or injured during these attacks. And every night the Israeli army is conducting massive arrests against Palestinians, including, by the way, some of those who were freed in the exchange of prisoners in violation also of the agreement.

[Christian Amanpour]

Let me just read some of the facts.

[Mustafa Barghouti]

The west bank is absolutely horrible.

[Christian Amanpour]

Well, let me read some of these statistics, because Israel, as you know, conducted an airstrike on the west bank on Tuesday. Yesterday, that was the first time in months, and it says it killed three militants. But data showing settler outposts are increasing. The Israeli NGO Peace now says 84 new outposts were established over the past year, compared to 49 the previous year. Also, 757 recorded settler attacks in the first half of 2025. So those are the facts that you're referring. So then what do you think is going to happen? Because especially with what's happening in Gaza, do you actually think that this ceasefire is an actual ceasefire? And yes, there's been some violations by Hamas and now by Israel, but the ceasefire in general will hold. Is that what you think, or what do you think about this ceasefire?

[Mustafa Barghouti]

Only one man can decide whether it will hold or not, and that is President Trump. And given what Israel has done in the last days, either Mr. Trump is complicit with these Israeli attacks, supporting them and allowing them, or he is being manipulated by Netanyahu around the clock. In reality, Netanyahu never wanted the ceasefire. He was obliged to accept it, and now he's trying to change its nature. He wants a unilateral ceasefire only from the Palestinian side. But he wants to give his army the full liberty to attack Palestinians every day, every night, if he could, and to have the total freedom of attacking Palestinians anywhere. Look, they claim that one soldier was killed. Okay, one soldier was killed. We don't know who killed him. Maybe. I don't know. I don't have a proof of anything. But why would you go and then bombard all of Gaza from the north to the south and kill no less than 46 Palestinian innocent children and 20 Palestinian women, and in total kill 104 people since the ceasefire agreement. This Israeli fascist government, let me say, has violated the ceasefire 126 times, not only by bombarding and killing Palestinians. So far, more than 211 Palestinians have been killed during the ceasefire agreement and more than 600 have been injured with live ammunitions, of course, and bombardment. But more than that, Israel is still refusing to open the Rafah crossing, refusing to allow people to get in or out. Israel is still strangulating Gaza, depriving it from humanitarian aid as they should. And it's not only quantitative, I mean, they never allowed the 600 trucks to get into Gaza daily. They are also preventing so many vital things to Gaza, like medical equipment. You know that the whole of Gaza, 2.2 million people, do not have a single MRI. Now, most of the medical machines have been destroyed. Medications is lacking. So what you are talking about here is strangulation of the people. And when they speak about the hostages that they still didn't get the hold of.

[Christian Amanpour]

Let me just ask you about this.

[Mustafa Barghouti]

Even machines, right?

[Christian Amanpour]

They don't. Yes, the machines haven't got in. So, I mean, look, you call the government fascists, they call your authorities terrorists, and we are where we are. But Israel says Hamas faked the recovery of hostage remains, which was one of its causes. Strikers, so to speak. Causes beli for this strike. And Trump was asked about that on Air Force One. Here's what he said.

[Walter Isaacson]

Hamas is a very small part of.

[Adi Cornish]

Peace in the Middle east and they have to behave.

[Walter Isaacson]

They're on the rough side, but they said they would be good. And if they're good, they're going to be happy.

[Adi Cornish]

And if they're, they're going to be.

[Walter Isaacson]

Terminated, their lives will be terminated.

[Christian Amanpour]

Right. So Mr. Barghouti, that is unintelligible because of the airplane noise, but what he's saying is Hamas is a very small part of peace in the Middle east and they have to behave. They are on the rough side, but they said they were going to be good. And if they're good, they're going to be happy. But if they're not good, they're going to be terminated, their lives will be terminated. You know, Alon Pincas, former diplomat, said that Netanyahu is banking on Trump not staying focused. My question is, what do you think about Trump's focus given that he sent all his top deputies to Israel to let them know that this has to hold. But what do you think he means between Hamas good and not good? What's the line there?

[Mustafa Barghouti]

I really don't know. I mean, you know, President Trump can change his mind every hour and it's not clear what he thinks. But if you talk about the bodies of the nine Israeli soldiers who are still there, Hamas says that they can't get them out. They need machines to get the rebel out. I mean, there are 10,000 Palestinian bodies under the rabble and nobody can get to them because they don't have the proper machines, they don't have the proper equipment. And Israel is not allowing that and keeps talking about the fact that they're not getting the bodies. And by the way, they speak about the nine Israeli bodies. Nobody speaks about the 700 Palestinian bodies that are withheld by Israel, including the three people they have killed recently in Jenin. And by the way, that was a field execution. There was no necessity to shoot them and kill them in this manner. But look, a mother of a 15 year old boy from Jenin camp told me their boy was killed by the Israeli army and his body is held withheld for three years. She told me, all I want is a grave to cry on. I mean, why they don't accept us Palestinians as equal human beings. I want every Israeli body to be handed over to Israeli and to their family. I respect that. But why they don't speak about our people, our people who have been killed? You know that some Palestinian bodies have been withheld by Israel for 50 years now. You know that 33 Palestinian prisoners who died in Israeli jails either because of torture or lack of medical treatment are still withheld because Israel says that their bodies must finish the term. Who would do that? I mean, for God's sake, they call us this and we call them that. But in reality, what we face here is the worst system of apartheid, the worst system of racism. Something that no Jewish person that respects the history of the Holocaust should accept. That is unacceptable. It's inhuman. It's unacceptable in every sense of the word.

[Christian Amanpour]

We have 30 seconds left. Do you think that there will be a stabilization force? Already the Israeli foreign minister is saying, you know, countries that want to or are ready to send armed forces should at least be fair to Israel and there banning Turkey. It's a problem in Gaza that there's no stabilization force yet.

[Mustafa Barghouti]

Netanyahu does not want ceasefire, does not want this force to come in. And he will try to make obstacles, but that force should come in to separate us from the Israelis. It should be a peacekeeping force to observe the ceasefire and stop Netanyahu from continuing these attacks. That will repeat for sure unless somebody stops him.

[Christian Amanpour]

And somehow Hamas has got to decommission and put away those weapons. And of course these forces, these, these people who are being asked to join the stabilization force don't want to have to do that.

[Mustafa Barghouti]

Dr. Mustafa Barghouti I think, I think I have to say that Hamas has no problem with decommissioning if there is a true process that would lead to the beginning of reconstruction of Gaza.

[Christian Amanpour]

Let us hope that that's the case. Dr. Mustafa Barghouti, thank you very much indeed. Stay with us because we'll be Back after the break.

[Adi Cornish]

Every leap in American history has needed breakthrough energy.

[Mustafa Barghouti]

Ignition. Liftoff.

[Adi Cornish]

Now AI Is here and Chevron is working to power it. We're aiming to develop multi gigawatt power plants near data centers designed with future pathways to lower carbon intensity. AI Gets the power it needs, communities get the jobs and the grid stays strong. Powering AI today builds America's next superpower.

[Christian Amanpour]

Hey, friends, this is Adi Cornish, host of CNN THIS Morning and the Assignment. And guess what? Every story you care about, every angle you want unpacked is now streaming on cnn. That means you can catch my show or other CNN programming whenever you want on your favorite device. And a subscription also gets you access to exclusive video series and unlimited articles. So subscribe to [e-mail] subscription we turn now to the United States and a growing list of controversies at the center. President Donald Trump, from suggesting he may demand $230 million from his own Justice Department and his family members being enriched by international deals to tearing down the east wing of the White House in order to build a new ballroom funded by private donors without any of the normal oversight expected and demanded of previous governments. It's worth noting overseas that accountability and the rule of law often extends to the very top. In Israel, the former Prime Minister Ehud Olmet has spent time in jail. In South Korea, the the former president was impeached and arrested for attempting a coup. And just last week in France, former conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy began his five year prison sentence for criminal conspiracy. Meanwhile, back in the United States, our next guest says we're watching a Watergate level scandal unfold nearly every day. Journalist and historian Garrett Graf is the author of a New History. And so how can American institutions hold the president to account? And what should ordinary citizens be most concerned about? To answer some of these, he is joining me now from. Where did I say you are in Washington? Um, Garrett, listen. On the good constitutional news, let's open this with the president has said he does not think he can run for a third term and is not inclined because the Constitution says it's not possible. And the speaker of the House obviously said that the Constitution provides for just two terms. Good news, right?

[Garrett Graf]

Good news. For now, I will believe that that is the final and settled answer by President Trump when I see him walk out of the White House voluntarily someday.

[Christian Amanpour]

On the other hand, we have Eric Trump, who along with the other Trump siblings, I think, or Elise's brother, they're running the Trump family business. And he says recently we are the hottest brand in the world Right now, What do you take from that comment, given some of the things I led into you with, given the deals that are going on overseas between the business and other nations and other entities?

[Garrett Graf]

Yeah, I think it's helpful to start with a little bit of a history lesson, which is when President Jimmy Carter was elected, he had to sell his peanut farm in order to help ensure that there were no visible ethics or sort of legal questions and conflicts of interests for him as President. Fast forward 40 years, and we have seen in this administration the complete collapse of the wall between President Trump the office and. And Donald Trump the business leader. This is a family that has done an enormous amount to capitalize on the presidential power that he has up to and including sort of one of the most remarkable things that we've seen Donald Trump do, which is, as president, sue private media companies for things that he believes that they said about him that were wrong, and then sort of force settlements and payments to himself or entities that he's associated with in exchange for sort of the largesse of continuing to do business with these companies on behalf of the government. I mean, it's just absolutely absurd levels of conflicts of interest that we've seen in just the first nine months of this administration.

[Christian Amanpour]

But what is, I mean, and what is, do you think, absurd, then, about the fact that it's able to happen? America is a country of the rule of law, constitution. There are very clear parameters around what can and cannot happen. There's a Supreme Court which seems to be basically, you know, tipping for him on every one of these controversial decisions so far. There may be others where they. Where they decided to rule in different ways. But what should the American citizen be concerned about right now, as I pose in the lead to you? What can ordinary people do?

[Garrett Graf]

Yeah. So I think one of the things that we are struggling with right here is you'll hear the American media talk about this as a constitutional crisis. And I don't think that that's exactly the right term, because a constitutional crisis implies that there is tensions in between our branches of government, that there's sort of a power where there is some ambiguity or sort of some sense of question of authority between the branches and who is answering to whom. That's not what we've experienced so far over the course of these nine months. What we have seen instead is something that I call a constitutional crash, a crash in the medical sense, where sort of our constitutional system is lying dead on the operating table. That there. That the two other branches that we rely on, the Supreme Court and Congress to exercise checks and balances as co equal branches of government have just completely abdicated their normal responsibilities. You know, one of the things that has been just so striking this year is that the President has taken upon himself sort of a number of the most important powers traditionally given to Congress. You know, the ability to decide how funds are spent in the federal budget, the ability to levy tariffs now in the war or sort of undeclared war that we are in with Venezuelan drug cartels. You know, the ability to choose who and how the US Goes to war with. And that all three of those are traditional congressional responsibilities. Congress in House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Leader John Thune have yet to raise any meaningful objection to how the President is using and usurping traditionally constitute traditionally congressional powers. And that to me is sort of the part where our constitutional system is failing, is that the founders never imagined that the leaders of other branches would put their party responsibilities above their constitutional responsibility.

[Christian Amanpour]

So let's, so let's deal with a couple of examples and sense of scale. So the whole business of the Trump family crypto business. Look, I don't know much about crypto frankly, but there are pretty big numbers. Reuters reports that the Trump family businesses brought in about 50 million in 2024 before he was re elected president. From real estate and branded products, et cetera. This year the Trump family businesses have earned a $864 million actual earnings with the lion's share coming from crypto. So that's the Trump family business, right? I mean, it's not President Trump, but what does it mean anyway?

[Garrett Graf]

Yeah, so this is an area where there's sort of a particularly murky sets of relationships playing out. The crypto world got behind President Trump in a big way in the presidential campaign last year. And through this year he has been giving them a number of sort of policy and personal victories using his presidential powers while sort of collecting payments on the family side from crypto enthusiasts and crypto industry backers. A couple of examples here. One is he has largely dismantled the efforts of the Treasury Department and the Justice Department to prosecute and investigate crypto fraud. He has also publicly pardoned, using his presidential powers two notable sort of crypto celebrities. One, Ross Ulbricht, who ran a so called dark web marketplace where people sort of sold drugs, recruited killers for hire and other criminal deeds who had been serving multiple life sentences. And he was fully pardoned by Donald Trump and to sort of back out on the crypto industry circuit. Just in the last couple of days he also pardoned the leader of a of binance, which is a big crypto exchange, also similarly facing criminal charges. And so it's an area where you're seeing sort of Donald Trump use the presidential powers that he has in order to help fuel an industry who is able to pay him directly in untraceable money.

[Christian Amanpour]

Let me just give the White House response to the crypto money situation. And it keeps coming in. Earlier this year, the White House spokesperson, Carolyn Levitt, responded to the question, you know, what we were talking about, of hosting events for these crypto customers. Here's what Carolyn Levitt said.

[Adi Cornish]

The president is abiding by all conflict.

[Garrett Graf]

Of interest laws that are applicable to the president. And I think everybody, the American public.

[Adi Cornish]

Believe it's absurd for anyone to insinuate that this president is profiting off of the presidency.

[Garrett Graf]

This president was incredibly successful before giving.

[Adi Cornish]

It all up, up to serve our country publicly. And not only has he lost wealth, but he also almost lost his life.

[Christian Amanpour]

He has sacrificed a lot to be here.

[Adi Cornish]

And to suggest otherwise is, frankly, completely absurd.

[Christian Amanpour]

So, you know, she answered that question in the way that they do. And America has seen these scandals and issues before. And you've written about Watergate, when President Nixon, for instance, tried to weaponize the IRS to go after his political enemies, ordering the FBI to shut down the Watergate investigation, trading cash for favors with companies like Goodyear Tire or American Airlines. What is the difference now and then?

[Garrett Graf]

So I think a couple of different things. One is the media environment in which all of this is happening is much more difficult to navigate and much more corrupted by disinformation and partisan talking points that you sort of can't, you can't separate the backsliding in American democracy from the media environment in which we are living, where people just don't trust government institutions, they don't trust the information that they are getting, and that they sort of believe these vague and factually wrong talking points like the one you just cited from Carolyn Levitt at the White House. The second thing is the way that Donald Trump has personally captured the Republican Party, that Republican office holders sort of up and down the ballot more, fear a primary challenge from the right, from sort of a more extreme Trump supporter than they do their general election victories. And so what that has meant is that Donald Trump has just been able to exert control over this party and remake it in his image. You know, we're 10 years now into Donald Trump basically controlling the Republican Party. And an entire generation of Republican leaders have now come up through a party that Donald Trump has personally controlled. This is very different than the situation that Richard Nixon confronted where he was president amid Watergate during a moment when Republican Party leaders decided and felt a responsibility to put their constitutional duties as members of a co equal branch, holding to account the abuses of the executive branch first rather than be sort of loyal to their president's party. That this was a moment when Republicans in Watergate chose the country first and their role in Congress first and understood that the Republican Party came second to that.

[Christian Amanpour]

Right. Garrett Graf, thank you for that explainer. It's important because a lot of people are talking about it, looking at it, and of course, the White House, the East Room destruction, kind of focus everybody's minds again on this. So good to have your perspective and experience. Thank you very much indeed. And we will be right back after this short break. Now, has the United States entered a new cold war with China? The answer, according to our next guest, is not a simple one. But the question highlights the changing world order and the fluctuating tensions between the two superpowers. As President Trump tours Asia, the world watches Washington confront a shift where autocracies form alliances and strengthen their influence without America's involvement. The former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, joins Walter Isaacson now to discuss his latest book, exploring this power struggle.

[Walter Isaacson]

Thank you, Chris, John and Ambassador Michael McFaul, welcome to the show.

[Adi Cornish]

Thanks for having me.

[Walter Isaacson]

Your new book, Autocrats vs. Democrats, it's a great book, but somehow the title, now I'm wondering, are we blurring the distinction between the two? I mean, what do you mean by the Democrats and to what extent does that apply to Western nations, even the United States?

[Adi Cornish]

Well, Walter, I've been working on this book for many years. I wrote Most of it, 99% of it, before our last presidential election and most certainly since President Trump won again and came back to office. He is blurring those lines in two different ways. One, he doesn't frame the world like I do between autocrats and Democrats. Right. He sees strong leaders and weak leaders, irrespective of if they're democratically elected or not. And I just think that's imprudent for American foreign policy going forward. And I'm talking about years and decades, decades, not just what's going to happen in the next two to three years, but over the course of the 21st century.

[Walter Isaacson]

Wait, wait. Why is it wrong or imprudent to not say, okay, these are strong leaders, we can have alliances with them. We've done that, as you know, ever since World War II.

[Adi Cornish]

Yes, we had autocratic allies during the Cold War and at times they were important to us. But our most enduring, closest allies were all democracies. And that was a great superpower we had during the Cold War that we had really strong allies. The Soviets did not. And so I think in terms of managing this new parade of great power competition, we are better off supporting our democratic allies, number one, and supporting democratic ideas around the world, number two, because that's another advantage we have over the autocrats. Turns out public opinion shows all over the world. It varies from country to country, but most people prefer to choose their leaders rather than have God, the Communist Party or a soldier choose them. And if we give that away and we just act like the other autocrats, I think we lose that really vital instrument of soft power you talk about.

[Walter Isaacson]

And wrestle with the concept of whether we're in a new Cold War both with China and with Russia. Let's start with China. Are we in a new Cold War with China? And what do we learn from the old Cold War? If that's the case, are we in.

[Adi Cornish]

New Cold War with China? Yes. Let me say that question again. Are we in a new Cold War with China? No. That's why my book's so long, because I think we've over this debate in the United States has gotten too over simplistic. Either people didn't know what the Cold War was or forgot about it. And I see elements that are similar and different. So with China, two superpowers in the world, they're first among equals. Ideological competition. That is true. Both countries do they seek to influence the world and not just their region. That's also true. That's like the Cold War. Will it last for decades? Tragically, I think this competition will last for decades, just like the Cold War did.

[Walter Isaacson]

Well, tell me how it's different from the Cold War.

[Adi Cornish]

Well, I actually think the list of differences is longer than the list of similarities. And I won't try to go through all of them, but I think three are most important. So one, the most obvious is that the US and the Chinese economy are much more intertwined today than the American and Soviet economies were during the Cold War. And we've got to figure out how to deal with that. I think the idea that we just decouple and go our separate ways is not only imprudent, we don't need to do it, but I think trying to do so, we would fail. So we've got to figure out a different strategy than what we had for the Cold War for that set of problems. Secondly, there is an ideological dimension to this competition. My book, after all, is called Autocrats versus Democrats for a reason. But I don't think the ideological struggle is as intense as it was during the Cold War. The Soviets wanted the whole world to become Communists, including the United States of America. I just don't see the evidence to support the hypothesis that Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party are doing that. Although that's a contentious debate, Walter, in my circles, some people believe that. I just don't. I think they're wrong about it, and I think they're overestimating the Chinese threat. But the third difference is about us. We are more polarized as a society than we were for most of the Cold War. We had some periods, obviously the late 60s, as you know better than I, and early 70s, that America was polarized. But I think it's deeper and more enduring now. And we're also in an era of isolationism. We most certainly, for longer than we were engaged in the world, had an isolationist tradition. We didn't. During the Cold War, Democrats and Republicans basically agreed that we had to be engaged. They agreed to containment as a strategy, although that was a pretty elastic term during the Cold War. Now we have these isolationist tendencies, strongest in the Republican Party but also prominent in the Democratic Party. And I just don't think that's a strategy for success in the 21st century. But in part, I wrote this book to try to push back on it.

[Walter Isaacson]

President Trump is in Asia this week meeting with Xi Jinping. Among other things, Xi Jinping will try to pin him down on the Taiwan issue, which is whether the United States supports independence of Taiwan. What do you think is the best approach?

[Adi Cornish]

So when I teach at Stanford about history, I teach about events and bigger things like World War II and Revolutions and things like that. But I also remind my students about non events. Non events don't get enough attention. The greatest non event of the Cold War was the war that didn't happen over Taiwan. Tremendous diplomatic achievement, in my view. And we gotta just keep that non event continuing to happen. And I think that means two things in terms of the American foreign policy. One, enhanced deterrence to make a war, an invasion of the island, costly. There are lots of things we can do. I go through them in the book, and there's lots of things the people of Taiwan need to do. But two, resist what some politicians say when they show up in Taipei, that we support independence. I think that's a recipe for disaster. And I just think keeping the status quo however imperfect it is, is the best outcome that we can hope for.

[Walter Isaacson]

President Trump, in his trip through Asia this week, did a whole lot of trade deals and alliances from Vietnam to Malaysia and other places. It almost seems like it's from your book that we need to create these alliances economically and in some ways politically. Do you think that that's working?

[Adi Cornish]

So each of those bilateral deals, and I would say other ones that the President has accomplished, those are. Those are positive signs for American prosperity and security. I applaud the president. What I don't like about his strategy is one, he doesn't believe in trade. Fundamentally, he believes in tariffs. I think that is not smart for our long term economic interests. Again, one of the great successes of the Cold War is that we united the free world with respect to trade and investment, and we used institutions like the World bank and the IMF and later the World Trade Organization to unite the free world. After the Soviet Union collapsed, I think we went too fast to bring in the Chinese and the Russians to those clubs, and we paid the price for that. But generally speaking, uniting us around a common set of principles and rules of the game was a good strategy. What I don't like about the Trump strategy is it seems erratic. You know, an ad plays in Canada and suddenly we're putting tariffs on them. That's not. That's not a strategy.

[Walter Isaacson]

You've said that you think that the rivalry and competition with China is a bit overestimated. And yet do you feel that the Russian competition, our problems with Russia, is that underestimated?

[Adi Cornish]

Exactly. I think that we made a mistake there. And I say that as a former Obama administration official, I think we also made a mistake, which is when you go through the numbers and I go through all the numbers in the book, I have lots of charts in the book. My editors didn't like that, Walter. Way too many charts. But I thought it was important to show the data about the balance of power between China, Russia and the United States. And when you do that, Russia looks weak. Yeah, they have nuclear weapons, so they're a superpower in that regard. But conventional military power, they're not near the China, China or the United States. Economically, they're way down. Right. They're 11th out of the top 15 economies in the world. So capabilities wide, Putin is not as strong as Xi in terms of capabilities. But when we talk about intentions, which are much harder to measure a priori before power is used, what we've seen time and time again for the last 15 years is that the power that Putin has He's been willing to use it for, I think, very negative consequences. Right. So he invaded Georgia in 2008. He went into Ukraine in 2014. He went into Syria with his Air Force in 2015, and then he launched this full scale invasion of, of Ukraine again in 2022. He doesn't have the same military that either the United States or China has, but what he has, he's using in these very imperial and I would say, destabilizing ways. And I think we've made a mistake in underestimating that. When I was in the government, we talked about pivot to Asia. So did Trump, so did the Biden administration especially. And yes, we have to do more in Asia, but we also have to realize that the threat from Putin is real and these things are intertwined. By the way, if Putin prevails in Ukraine, that emboldens Xi Jinping with respect to Taiwan. Conversely, if we stop Putin and we push him, at least push him to a stalemate in Ukraine, I think that makes Xi Jinping a little less likely to invade Taiwan. So these things are actually, I think, highly intertwined.

[Walter Isaacson]

You were a young person in Russia working, I think, for the National Democratic Institute. When glasnost and perestroika brought down the Soviet Union, they opened up more democratic. Was there anything we could have done that would have not led to the rise of Putin and authoritarianism again?

[Adi Cornish]

Yeah, I think we did make some mistakes. I don't think we did enough to help them make the transition to markets and democracy because we thought it was all over. Right. It was the end of history and we just thought everybody was going to become democratic. And so we didn't do with Russia that what we did do after World War II, Marshall plan to help the countries become part of the West. I think had we done that, we would have better outcomes. Two, I still think it was the right strategy to try to help build democracy in Russia. Like you said, I moved there as a young kid to try to do that. I don't think that was a mistake. But we should have had a better hedge if it didn't work. And that hedge, in my view, should have been a much more expansive NATO, much more rapid when Russia was weak. And two, if we couldn't get everybody into NATO because they didn't meet the criteria, we should have armed them. And I'm thinking principally here about Georgia and Ukraine. If Ukraine back in the 1990s had the weapons systems from the United States and NATO that they have today, I think that could have helped keep the Peace. And that, I think, was a mistake. In retrospect, I wasn't making that argument, but I think the Plan A was right, but we should have had a hedge in case it didn't work.

[Walter Isaacson]

What should Trump be doing now? He's having such trouble trying to solve the Ukraine issue. Is there any way to solve it easily?

[Adi Cornish]

Not easily. Putin is an ideologue, as I write.

[Alon Pincas]

About in the book.

[Adi Cornish]

Too many people think he's just a transactional guy that wants to do a deal. I heard that all the time when I worked at the White House, and I just don't see him that way. I think he is on an ideological crusade to defend what he calls conservative Russian values against the liberal decadent West. And that's his mindset. And he's also an imperialist. He wants to be in the history books like Catherine the Great and Peter the Great. So he's highly motivated by ideas and not transactions. But I do think we could do more. And it's just. It's the same thing I've been saying for three and a half years. Greater sanctions and more and better weapons. Wars tend to end in two ways. Either there's a stalemate on the battlefield, or one side wins. Right now, neither of those conditions are present. The Russians are are incrementally taking Ukrainian territory, and we have to help Ukrainian warriors stop that progress. Before I think Putin sits down and talks about doing a deal, I want.

[Walter Isaacson]

To ask you a big, broad historical question. It goes back to Thucydides. I know you've read Graham Allison and the Thucydides Trap, but let me quote Thucydides when he's talking about rivals in power. He said what made Walt inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear this caused in Sparta. Could we say that right now that what makes war inevitable is the growth of Chinese power and the fear that causes in the United States? Is that going to be an inevitable tension or is it something we can overcome?

[Adi Cornish]

It's going to be an inevitable tension. That's a good word. But not an inevitable war. There's a difference. And everything starts with power. Everything starts with Thucydides. I have three chapters in my book about the rise and fall of power, but I add two more factors to the equation. I add regime type and I add individual leaders. So I don't think we're just destined for war because of rise and fall of power. And sometimes it's happened, but sometimes it hasn't. Graham wrote about both those cases. We need to remember it's not inevitable. And part of my optimism about that is the Cold War. We use that phrase, cold war, because we didn't have a war with the Soviets. Actually, we had lots of proxy wars and millions of people died. People forget that on both sides of the red and blue teams. But we managed to avoid a great war between them because of leadership. And especially after 1962 and the Cuban Missile Crisis, when we got really close, leaders on both sides said we got to manage this competition and we developed a whole bunch of crisis prevention mechanisms to do so. I think those are some good lessons for leaders in China and America today.

[Walter Isaacson]

Ambassador Michael McFaul, thank you so much for joining us.

[Adi Cornish]

Thanks for having me. Great conversation.

[Christian Amanpour]

And finally, a splash of hope for the world's most endangered marine mammal after a pair of vaquita, the rare porpoise species, were spotted playing off the Gulf of California. Experts reported earlier this year that just 10 vaquitas remained in the wild, prompting the Mexican navy and its partner in this protection effort, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, to increase surveillance in the area. While there is still a long way to go, the Mexican government has announced on Tuesday a 96.7% decrease in illegal intrusions, making these sightings even more amazing. That's it for now. Thank you for watching and goodbye from London.

[Walter Isaacson]

News fatigue. Have I GOT News for you? Is the cure and also the disease. CNN's comedy quiz show is back, making sense of the mayhem and definitely adding to it. Have I GOT News for you? Saturday at 9 on CNN.