Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with New York Magazine Writer-at-Large Rebecca Traister; Interview with "No Other Land" Co-Director Basel Adra; Interview with "No Other Land" Co-Director Yuval Abraham; Interview with Russian Opposition Politician and 2024 Pulitzer Prize Winner for Commentary Vladimir Kara- Murza. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired November 04, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
The U.S. election and what's at stake on these crucial issues.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHELLE OBAMA, FORMER U.S. FIRST LADY: Because a vote for him is a vote against us, against our health, against our work.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: First, as Michelle Obama articulates what many women appear to be thinking, Author Rebecca Traister says women's rights may be the
decisive issue in this election.
Then, the Middle East.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
YUVAL ABRAHAM, CO-DIRECTOR, "NO OTHER LAND": The current situation of occupation is wrong and Palestinians deserve to be free.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: In a powerful documentary called "No Other Land," an Israeli and a Palestinian come together to document the destruction of West Bank
villages.
And, democracy and dictators.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA, RUSSIAN OPPOSITION POLITICIAN AND 2024 PULITZER PRIZE WINNER FOR COMMENTARY: What moral right would I have to call for my fellow
Russian citizens to stand up and resist Putin's dictatorship if I didn't do it myself?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Confronting Vladimir Putin. Poisoned, jailed, now free, Russian opposition leader Vladimir Kara-Murza speaks to Walter Isaacson about
keeping resistance alive.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
In these final hours of the U.S. presidential campaign, the headlines look a lot like they have all along. Polls suggest a near even race. But could
pollsters be missing a critical voting bloc that could determine the outcome of this election again?
That question lurks behind this bombshell headline from the Des Moines Register. Kamala Harris leapfrogs Donald Trump to take lead near Election
Day. This, in ruby red Iowa. The widely esteemed Iowa pollster, Ann Selzer, says women are driving the late shift towards Democrats. Quote, "Age and
gender are the two most dynamic factors that are explaining these numbers," is what she concludes.
And here's the former first lady, Michelle Obama, speaking in Michigan, warning that when women lose fundamental rights, men lose as well.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHELLE OBAMA, FORMER U.S. FIRST LADY: If your wife is shivering and bleeding on the operating room table during a routine delivery gone bad,
her pressure dropping as she loses more and more blood or some unforeseen infection spreads and her doctors aren't sure if they can act, you will be
the one praying that it's not too late. You will be the one pleading for somebody, anybody, to do something.
So, I am asking you all from the core of my being to take our lives seriously. Please. Do not put our lives in the hands of politicians, mostly
men who have no clue or do not care about what we as women are going through, who don't fully grasp the broad reaching health implications that
their misguided policies will have on our health outcomes. The only people who have standing to make these decisions are women with the advice of
their doctors. We are the ones with the knowledge and experience to know what we need.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: That is a powerful plea and an important statement. And just to note, there is a big gender gap. Young women breaking for Harris, young men
breaking for Trump during this election.
Now, journalist Rebecca Traister writes about reproductive rights and women's voices for New York Magazine. She covered Obama's speech saying, no
one has articulated the stakes in this election like Michelle Obama. And Rebecca Traister is joining us. Welcome to the program.
REBECCA TRAISTER, WRITER-AT-LARGE, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: Thanks for having me.
AMANPOUR: So, look, anybody could see, anybody who listened to the speech, who read the op-ed that was made out of the speech realizes how incredibly
powerful it was. But why did you feel moved to actually write a whole article about it?
[13:05:00]
TRAISTER: Well, in part, because I think the message was so simple and direct. It was -- and should be so basic. The core of what Michelle Obama
was saying is women are human. Women are people. And that should be the very basic bottom line of what we understand.
But when you hear what has been coming at us from the Trump campaign rhetorically and also from the American right-wing in terms of its
policies, its denial of healthcare to millions of women in so many different circumstances, when you combine that with the language, the --
literally dehumanizing language, the racist and misogynist language that Donald Trump and members of his party have been using in these recent years
and getting ever more intense on the campaign trail, sort of culminating with the Madison Square Garden rally that took place the night after
Michelle Obama's speech, that core, simple message, that argument that women are people, that their lives have value to the women themselves and
to the men who love and live with them.
This is such a core moral call that I think is at the heart of how we have seen women organizing now since the Dobbs decision. And in fact, going back
to Donald Trump's first win 2016, we have seen women organizing in ways that are pretty unprecedented in American history. And I think Michelle
Obama's speech spoke to why that is.
AMANPOUR: You know, when I was listening to it just now, I could have been in Afghanistan listening to that plea, listening to that speech. I could
have been anywhere where women's rights are simply not allowed. And yet, this is being said by a former first lady in the United States of America.
And I'm sure for the rest of the world, listening to that is it punches a very, you know, powerful sort of note.
But everybody also will be asking, those who are sitting on the edge of their seats wondering how this is going to go, what about this Iowa poll
suggesting, as I put it, that Kamala Harris is ahead of Trump by three points in Iowa, which is, I think, a reliably Republican state, right?
TRAISTER: Yes, it's a very republican state. It's a very unexpected polling result. And I can't speak to whether or not it's going to turn out
to be accurate because one of the things -- I think our increasing reliance on polls as predictive in the news media I think is really problematic
That's something I've been writing about for years.
But it's been -- and I want to say that Ann Selzer is one of the most, if not the single most reliable pollster based on her past record that we have
in United States politics. That doesn't mean that I'm saying that what she found is definitely going to be right tomorrow. It would be a shocking
result. But I also want to point out that we have been living through years in which there have been a lot of shocking results that are different from
the polls that have preceded our electoral choices, especially since Dobbs.
I don't know that pollsters have figured out how to poll well since the Dobbs decision scrambled so many people's engagement with electoral
politics. And I do believe that that too goes back before Dobbs. There haven't been terrifically reliable -- steam (ph).
So, yes, Selzer's poll is an outlier. I -- if it were true, I think it would forecast a landslide in a lot of places besides Iowa, if other
patterns are moving that way. I should note that Iowa itself, her poll reflected a massive swing toward Harris and toward the Democrats from a
poll that she took this summer.
But that in Iowa, a very strict abortion ban went into effect this summer. And living with those results, again, the dehumanizing results of denying
women basic health care, obstetric, reproductive care has a real impact on how people understand policy and the weight and import of electoral choices
and their votes.
So, we will see whether it turns out to be an accurate poll or not. But I will say that I don't see any reason to believe all the other polling is
more accurate, the polling that shows it neck and neck or with Trump ahead, because pollsters haven't figured out how to poll in this environment.
AMANPOUR: Let me just add. So, what Selzer discovered is that there was a surprisingly high number of women over 65 years old in this poll. And as I
said earlier, it's -- apparently, if pollsters are ought to be believed that there's a big gender gap, but young women breaking for Harris, young
men breaking for Trump. So, the older demographic is really interesting.
Where are you coming to us from? Do you -- I mean, do you have any anecdotal, reportorial stories that could, I don't know, inform a little
bit more about what women are thinking?
TRAISTER: Yes, I have some pure anecdotes, which you're supposed to really avoid, I guess, as a journalist. But I think they're indicative of certain
kinds of patterns and enthusiasm.
[13:10:00]
So, I live in Maine and my mother's family comes from a rural community that has historically been very conservative. And I can tell you that,
anecdotally, the shift that I've seen up there, again, this is a very Republican community, very rural, quite remote, and I have genuinely
counted more Harris signs in that community than Trump signs, which is a shock. I never thought I'd be saying that.
I also heard from somebody who works in an -- in a residential facility for older patients that every resident that she had spoken to was planning on
voting for Harris. That made my jaw hit the floor. I have heard from friends whose parents who are Republicans, some of whom voted for Trump in
2016 and 2020, that their parents in Florida are voting for Harris. Similar stories coming out of Pennsylvania.
I am not predicting here. I don't necessarily believe in political prediction, but what I can tell you is that the findings in Selzer's poll
about older Americans and older women match anecdotally a lot of things that I am hearing. And it's important to remember that older women in the
United States lived in a pre-Roe world where they understood what that denial of health care meant for women's wellbeing.
And in a time when -- before Roe v. Wade, the partisan divide on abortion was not nearly as clear as it is now. There were lots of Republicans who
were advocates for legal abortion. And a lot of women came of age in that world, whether they were Republicans or Democrats, believing in abortion
rights and the protection of access to reproductive health care. And we could be seeing that in some of the older women who now are on the other
side of Roe v. Wade in a post-Dobbs universe.
AMANPOUR: So, no accident that Michelle Obama appealed, not just to women, but to their men as well. But I want to put the Trump position to you
because he has said, I guess he sees that since the Dobbs decision of the Supreme Court reversed Roe vs. Wade, sent it back to the states, et cetera,
and brought in all these incredibly restrictive new laws in various states, they have systematically lost a bunch of midterm and the presidential
election in 2020.
So, I spoke to a Trump supporter, the Texas congressman, Dan Crenshaw. This was last week. This is what he told me about this particular issue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DAN CRENSHAW (R-TX): I understand the pitfalls politically, but that doesn't matter to me when it talks -- when we're talking about doing what
is right and standing for what is right. And it's not exactly true that this is such a losing issue. Trump's position is widely held by the vast
majority of Americans. I mean, any poll that you've seen for the last 20 years shows that about 60 to 70 percent of people think that abortion past
12 weeks, it shouldn't be allowed. It should be illegal. And Trump's position has been to -- actually, to not even do that, but to say that
there should be no federal ban and that it should be left to the states. So, Trump is a far more moderate candidate if people are actually being
objective about what moderation is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, he's saying Trump is being moderate. You know, I mean, he would say that because Trump has also said, I won't go for a federal ban.
But of course, we've seen so many of these stories. ProPublica has been doing incredible reporting about young women who've died, who've gotten
ill, who've, you know, had life-threatening situations because of this crisis of not being able to get their healthcare.
So, what do you make? Is that a selling point to a Trump audience, because they believe that they can win some women on this issue?
TRAISTER: No, they're not. No, this is it -- it's not accurate. It's not a truthful representation. Donald Trump himself, as an individual, is all
over the place on this issue. I don't think anybody believes he has a deep moral stake in an anti-abortion legislative agenda, but it is what his
party's base has built its power on and thus, from which he got his base power and his political rise.
He appointed a Supreme Court. His party stole a seat from Barack Obama, who was supposed to be able to appoint a justice and was denied that
opportunity in 2016. He stacked a court with justices he knew, he bragged about overturning Roe v. Wade, about appointing the justices who did the
work that his party had been working toward for decades.
So, whether or not now they want to talk about his moderate positions, and he doesn't want to do a ban, that is exactly what the base of his party
wants to do. And it is this -- they're trying to cover the notion that the majority of the country shares a position with Donald Trump is easily
disproven by the fact that majorities, huge majorities have won in every abortion referenda that has been on a state ballot since the overturn of
Dobbs.
[13:15:00]
Plus, a number of state legislative elections, state Supreme Court elections in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, the vast majority of Americans do
not want the federal government imposing limits on their ability to get safe quality reproductive health care.
AMANPOUR: OK. Let me --
TRAISTER: And that is what's happening, as you note. Yes.
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes. I want to fit in one last question very quickly, because his primary rival, Former Governor Nikki Haley, says she'll vote
for him. Basically, he's not perfect, but he's better, but says, yes, he's got floor. He'll make mistakes. And he -- it basically says he's not
properly appealing to women. The things he's doing in his campaign are not the way to appeal to women voters.
TRAISTER: I think Nikki Haley is correct on this. I think it's really notable that in an election where there's all kinds of anecdotal evidence
and reporting about some Republicans who'd formerly voted for him moving to vote for Harris. And Trump himself not inviting Haley, not having Haley
campaigning with him.
You know, she was a person who a number of people in his party preferred. He is not actually inviting women or he's holding these horrible rallies
and saying terrible things about women. He's not working to appeal to them. She is right about that.
AMANPOUR: Rebecca Traister, thank you very much indeed. And just to note, of course, Donald Trump recently said he will take care of women. He'll
protect them whether they like it or not.
Now, in the battleground State of Michigan, anger at the Biden administration's handling of Israel's wars could cost Kamala Harris crucial
Muslim American votes. After more than a year of brutal fighting, the White House has failed to produce a lasting ceasefire and innocent civilians
continue to suffer.
Now, a powerful new documentary, "No Other Land," tells the story of Masafer Yatta, a group of villages in the occupied West Bank, which for
years have been subject to forced evictions and demolitions by settlers and the Israeli government. It is co-directed by Palestinian Basel Adra, who
grew up in Masafer Yatta, and Israeli Yuval Abraham, a journalist determined to expose injustice. And both joined me recently from Paris to
discuss the film.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Basel Adra and Yuval Abraham, welcome to the program.
YUVAL ABRAHAM, CO-DIRECTOR, "NO OTHER LAND": Thank you.
BASEL ADRA, CO-DIRECTOR, "NO OTHER LAND": Thank you.
AMANPOUR: You know, I want to ask you first, how you came together? What was the point of connection that then led you to make this film together?
ADRA: We met together in my village, in Masafer Yatta, five years ago through other common activists in between us. Yuval came with Rachel, the
other co-director to Masafer Yatta to do journalism work. Me and Hamdan were, most of our time, in the field documenting what's happening. Then
they start to come more and more to the -- to Masafer Yatta. And we were like in the same age doing activism and journalism together. And from
there, the idea came of doing this documentary.
We didn't have any experience doing any long film before, other than activism and filming and taping. And we decided to go through this
experience together.
ADRA: So, Basel, I understand why you would want to film what's happening to your own villages from the settlers and the Israeli occupation forces.
But Yuval, what was in your interest? Why did you decide? What was the storytelling part that attracted you as an Israeli?
ABRAHAM: Yes. Well, I learned Arabic when I was younger and it's really changed my life. And when I met Basel I was interested in writing about the
policy of house demolitions, which I felt was very under covered in the international media and also in the Israeli media. Because pretty much
everywhere you look in the land between the river and the sea, you see Israeli bulldozers destroying Palestinian homes.
When I grew up, people told me it's because they're building illegally. But when I began researching this as a journalist, I understood quite quickly
that this is being used as a tool to push Palestinians out of their lands. So, you know, the military refuses 99 percent of building permits for
Palestinians in the West Bank. So, it's impossible to obtain a permit. And I was interested in writing about that, and that's how I met Basel.
And if you ask me why I was, you know, interested in doing that, I think it's for two reasons. First of all, you know, I'm opposed to the military
occupation and I feel it's a grave injustice that is being done in my name and I also believe that the Israeli people, my people, cannot ever be
secure or free if Palestinians are not free. And for me, I think it's, in a way, what I see is the right path forward.
[13:20:00]
AMANPOUR: And obviously this is all being done in the -- or at least we're talking about it now in the context of what happened on October 7th and how
Israel was traumatized and how there's been a huge amount more activity from settlers. And again, the occupation forces against the Palestinian
villages in the West Bank, not to mention what's happening in Gaza. I think 16 more villages have been evicted, villages.
But I want to ask you first, Basel, because this is called "No Other Land." And we have a clip that essentially -- it's from the beginning of the film
where you are narrating yourself as a young child watching this trauma and basically telling the world how you became traumatized. We'll play this
first clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADRA (through translator): I'm five years old. My first memory. A light woke me up. This was my father's first arrest. I'm seven years old. The
first protest I remember.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): This is my land.
ADRA (through translator): I sat in the field with my mother. This is my grandfather. And this is my father.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Daddy.
ADRA (through translator): That time, I began to realize my parents were activists.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): You're under arrest, don't move.
ADRA (through translator): I would think, my father is invincible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, Basel, we see your father there, and it's very clear from the beginning that he's an activist, your family are activists, and you are
essentially an activist, but one with a camera in hand. When did you start filming your family and your village's experience?
ADRA: So, I grew up, as you said, in a community where activism and the people who would like to oppose the occupation and confront the conditions
that the occupation are trying to put us under it, so, for example, the story of my mother with the school and how they build the school. My
parents are not educated. They didn't have the chance to go to school because they it was forbidden. But my mother and the community fight to
build a school where I had the chance to be educated in it and I learned English and I could speak to you today in English.
And also, I learned -- the camera that's very important and almost the only tool we have beside our steadfastness in our land in front of the brutality
and the occupation machine that try to uproot us from our homes.
AMANPOUR: And, Yuval, one of the things that makes this so compelling is that we get to see ordinary villagers and their emotions, the men, the
women, the children as the houses are being demolished. And this is the focus, as you said, the demolition of houses, which is a regular thing. I
mean, we've seen this for years and years and years.
I just want to know when you saw that, if you did in real, how did you feel about that? You've said that you won't do things in your name, but when you
actually write there.
ABRAHAM: Yes, it's a really good point, Christiane, because, you know, I - - as you said we have seen it over and over again, and I think people know the facts, and I just spoke about facts before, about 99 percent and all of
that. But, you know, facts are only one part of the truth. There is a much deeper emotional truth to what it means like to live under this military
control.
And, you know, I remember the first time I met Basel, I came to interview him, and in five minutes, we had to run because there was a structure in
his village that was being demolished. And standing there and looking at the faces of like the family that's being pushed out of their house -- and
I remember I heard my first stun grenade, like the military immediately threw stun grenades, the sense of dread that you go to sleep and you don't
know if, you know, the next day your house will be demolished. All of that is an emotional feeling and a truth that I feel journalism is often not
able to convey, which really moved me and I think it's part of what we tried to do in the film as a way to speak for the emotional impact of it
all.
AMANPOUR: So, one of the other issues that is a constant theme throughout this is, is the notion of impunity. For instance, a police shot and
paralyzed a young boy called Harun. He later died. This was as a house was being demolished and the generator was being removed. And that's very, you
know, viscerally portrayed in the movie. Was this -- was Harun's death ever held accountable? Did anybody ever answer to that?
ADRA: So, there was no accountability for sure for the soldier that shot him in the neck. And putting Harun's story in the movie of "No Other Land"
sis very important for us. Nobody should be killed or like (INAUDIBLE) killed for getting a electricity or build a home or to have those basics,
like human rights that everybody in the world should have them without fighting for it.
[13:25:00]
This is basics that nobody -- and this is why we bought Harun's story to explain to the people what a price is we pay just to stay in our land, to
build a home, to have a school, to build a clinic, or a water pipe, or to connect our home with electricity and what we are faced with.
AMANPOUR: So, as you know, the Israelis basically say, and they did say in the early 1980s, that this particular area, including your village, was
designated as a restricted military zone. They then said that Palestinians never lived there permanently, only seasonally. And the court apparently
agreed.
So, here's what the military told The New York Times, over the years, the closure order was violated by Palestinians, who began building illegally in
the area. The court ruled that the petitioners acted in bad faith and illegally built in the area while an interim order was issued, and rejected
any attempted compromise offered to them.
I'm going to ask you, Yuval, what is your response to that?
ABRAHAM: Well, first of all, Christiane, I think it's right that you tell your viewers that the judge who wrote this verdict is a settler who lives
20 minutes away from Masafer Yatta. And we should all think about how ludicrous and outrageous it is to believe that Palestinians should even be
ruled under the system of laws that they cannot affect.
So, the judges and the military laws that you have now referred to are all being created by Jewish Israelis while Palestinians are living under
military occupation with no ability to influence the laws that control their lives.
As you know very well, according to the fourth Geneva Convention, a transfer of population from occupied territory, which is what is happening
in Masafer Yatta, is illegal. is illegal no matter what kind of excuse the military can come up with. And to directly respond to the claims, there are
secret state documents that 972 Magazine have uncovered and Akevot have uncovered, which show very clearly that the military training ground was
designed in 1980, to quote Ariel Sharon, to push Palestinian farmers off of their lands.
And 20 percent of the West Bank are these military training grounds and they are used as a tool. They're using the tool to prevent Palestinian from
obtaining building permits and to expand the Israeli settlements in the area. Like magically, the military training ground only falls on the
Palestinian villages in the area while Israel builds settlements. And all of this is clearly illegal under international law as per the recent ICJ
ruling.
So, I really think that we should not take these claims seriously when we look at the facts and when we look at international law.
AMANPOUR: I would like to play another clip at this point. This, for want of a better way to explain it, is green and yellow. Basically, it
delineates the license plates and their colors between Israeli vehicles and Palestinian vehicles that are allowed to use the roads and drive around the
West Bank.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice-over): In these roads near my home, two kinds of cars pass. Yellow plates. Green plates. Israeli cars are yellow. They can
move freely in the land. It's illegal for me to drive them. Palestinian cars are green. They can't leave the West Bank. Israel controls both
colors.An entire world built on a division. Green man. Yellow man.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Basel, how does that make you feel?
ADRA: I mean, living -- like being born and grow up and raised under this situation of injustice and like racism and discrimination and all the time
we have to fight and almost every day we have to be harassed by either soldiers, settlers, and there is a big sometimes attacks, either by
soldiers and settlers, it's frustrating to be living this life, to be honest.
And when you, on the other hand, see that nobody is -- as you said before, nobody is held accountability for what they are doing and there is no
consequences for this.
AMANPOUR: How have things change for you, Basel, and even what you've noticed, Yuval, on the West Bank since October 7th?
ADRA: They took the advantage of what's happening in Gaza, that both -- like the government, but with its elements, the military and the settlers.
[13:30:00]
So, in the area where I live, in the South Hebron hills, there are six communities that fleed because of what's happening there, like the soldiers
and settler, without stopping, coming in the night and the day, attacking them. They burned homes. They build those old houses and like water wells
and destroying approaching the trees, violently arresting people at midnight and torturing them and threatening them in a clear sentence. If
you don't leave in 24-hour, we would come back and shot you to death, if you don't leave this home.
The amount of Palestinians being arrested is horrible since the war started. And the killing also in the West Bank, killing of Palestinians,
both by settlers and settler and Israeli soldiers raised in high numbers.
AMANPOUR: You know, we've heard several times from the government that -- especially in the most egregious cases, they always say this is going to be
looked into. This violates our, you know, codes of conduct, et cetera. Yuval, what do you make of those statements by your government?
ABRAHAM: Well, I mean, I look at the statistics, you know, because I'm a journalist. There's a well-known Israeli human rights organization called
Yesh Din, and they looked at thousands of cases of settler violence attacks against Palestinians from 2005 until 2023. And the chances for Palestinians
to receive accountability for a settler to be actually indicted and to pay a price is less than 3 percent. For soldiers who attack Palestinians, it's
less than 1 percent. And this is not because that the police or the units investigating the army find out that no wrongdoing happened, it's because
they fail to investigate, according to them.
So, I think, again, I know this is a claim that the Israeli state is making, but I find it to be factually false. There is very, very little
accountability. I think accountability cannot come when a military is investigating itself or when a system is, you know, predicated on the
dominance of one group over the other.
And I really think this needs to change, so we can build a better future. I mean, it's been going on for decades and decades. It did not start when me
and Basel, who are the same age, were born, and not when our father were born, but when our grandparents were born. And if we want to reach a place
where both people can have political and individual rights in the land, we have to end this occupation, and it's been way too long.
AMANPOUR: One of the extraordinary facts around you both collaborating to do this film is that you are both together doing this film. It's an area of
cooperation between an Israeli and a Palestinian and it's an area of friendship, it's an area of understanding. You know, it's what everybody
would like to see, I think, in some kind of resolution for the future.
But, Yuval, you have come under criticism for this work, from your own fellow citizens, and even when you presented this film at the Berlin Film
Festival, where you won Best Documentary, your speech was immediately condemned by one or more German officials as being anti-Semitic. How do you
account for that?
ABRAHAM: I was very outraged by that because, you know, I -- the word anti-Semitism carries a lot of weight for me. Like my grandmother was born
in a concentration camp and most of my family was murdered in the Holocaust. And today, like, sadly, anti-Semitism is on the rise. It's on
the rise among the right-wing and it's also shamefully on the rise among the left.
And because of that, it's very important that this word will not be used to silence real and legitimate criticism of Israel's occupation or of
Israel's, you know, horrendous policies all around the land. And when people use this word not only to silence Palestinian critics but also
Israelis like me who believe, you know, that what is going on is wrong, they are emptying it out of meaning and precisely because we should care
about anti-Semitism, this is even more dangerous. And I think it's literally putting Jewish lives as well in danger.
AMANPOUR: And finally, to you, Basel, this film is called "No Other Land." You have no other land to live on. So, what is your future? What is the
status of your village right now?
ADRA: The sense of our of my village and Masafer Yatta and so many Palestinian villages in what's so-called Area C, it's really under so much
attacks and we're losing a community after another community. This is not stopping even with the very, very small sanctions that the U.S. and other
like west governments are doing against this terrorist settlers.
I think the U.S., as the main player on this, should stop this from going on and should stop and put limits and red lines for the Israeli government
to stop these actions and these attacks against Palestinian communities, against the war that they are doing in Gaza, which is so horrible.
And I mean, we don't -- we are, as Palestinians today, very, very powerless and very worried and afraid for our future with what we are facing today as
from all this brutality and massacres and killing. And the International Community should stand for it responsibility and should defend the
international law and should, like, stop this from going on.
[13:35:00]
AMANPOUR: And what about your own relationship? How would you describe it?
ABRAHAM: I mean, we're friends and we're allies. We're doing a form of co- resistance. I mean, we have shared values. And we -- as I said, I mean, we think that the current situation of occupation is wrong and Palestinians
deserve to be free. And we believe in a future where both people, the Palestinians and the Israelis, have individual and political rights in
accordance with international law.
And yes, this is -- I mean -- but I don't know, Basel, how would you describe it?
ADRA: Yes, I agree. Yes.
ABRAHAM: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Basel Adra and Yuval Abraham, thank you so much.
ADRA: Thank you.
ABRAHAM: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Shared values. Now, the film opens here in the U.K. this weekend. It is still looking for a distributor in the United States.
Now, Russian politics and the price for those who dare challenge Putin's regime. In April 2022, soon after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the
opposition leader, Vladimir Kara-Murza, was one of many dissidents arrested for speaking out. By chance, he was on his way to an interview with our
colleague, Walter Isaacson. Instead, he found himself behind bars.
This summer, he was released after more than two years in a prisoner swap that included the American journalist, Evan Gershkovich, of The Wall Street
Journal.
Kara-Murza sat down with Walter to discuss his personal story and the very unique excuse he had for missing out on their last interview.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And, Vladimir Kara-Murza, welcome back to the show.
VLADIMIR KARA-MURZA, RUSSIAN OPPOSITION POLITICIAN AND 2024 PULITZER PRIZE WINNER FOR COMMENTARY: Hello, Walter. It's really good to be on your
program. And I'm sorry I missed our appointment last time, in April of 2022, but I'm glad I was finally able to make it.
ISAACSON: And I just said, welcome back to the show. But that April in 2022, I was sitting here waiting for you and you were about to come on the
show and then you didn't. Tell me what happened.
KARA-MURZA: Well, I was coming home to my Moscow apartment from a meeting. I was driving. So, I was conscious of the interview we had scheduled with
you. I was supposed to do this from my apartment in Moscow, the same way by video link.
And as I was approaching my house, and I saw the bridge over the Moscow River, I noticed a surveillance car following me in my rear-view mirror.
Didn't pay much attention, to be honest with you, because if you're a Russian politician in an era of Vladimir Putin, surveillance is not
something that gets you surprised, we get it all the time. So, OK, one more surveillance car.
But then as I was approaching my house, my apartment block I noticed a silver minivan with darkened windows standing in that park right next to
the entrance. But again, didn't pay much attention because I live in downtown Moscow. It's always busy, always cars around.
But as I stopped to press the button to open the gate to go and park in my courtyard, I saw, again, the rear-view mirror of my car, five or six police
officers, you know, black balaclava masks on their faces, black uniforms, who got out of that minivan and started running behind my car. So, of
course, at that moment, I understood everything. So, I just had time to park my car and text my lawyer that I've been arrested. At that moment, the
commanding police officer over my door told me to come and follow them.
I saw the phone ringing from -- I guess, from your producers while they were driving me away to the police station, but they seized my phone. So, I
was no longer allowed to use them. So, I felt very bad because it was an impolite way to just not turn up to our scheduled interview, but I've had
some circumstances beyond my control. So, I hope you'll forgive me for that.
ISAACSON: The best excuse we've ever heard. But you had been, I think, poisoned twice or allegedly they tried to poison you twice. And yet, you
still went back to Moscow to fight against or protest against the invasion of Ukraine. Why did you feel the need to go back?
KARA-MURZA: Well, how could I not stay at my home? I'm a Russian politician. Russia is my country. A politician has to be with their fellow
citizens in their own country. To me, it cannot be any other way. What moral right would I have to call for my fellow Russian citizens to stand up
and resist Putin's dictatorship if I didn't do it myself? So, there was never any question in my mind as to leaving Russia.
To me, this is a responsibility that transcends any considerations of personal safety and personal comfort. If I'm calling on my fellow Russian
citizens to stand up to this dictatorship, I have to be willing to do it myself.
ISAACSON: In addition to protesting the Russian invasion, one of the things that got you in trouble with the Putin regime in Russia is that you,
along with Bill Browder, our friend, and I think the late Senator John McCain, helped push the Magnitsky Act, both in the United States and then
some of the sanctions around the world. Explain what that was and what it's done.
[13:40:00]
KARA-MURZA: The Magnitsky Act was an absolutely brilliant revolutionary piece of legislation that was first introduced in the United States
Congress back in 2010 by Senator Ben Cardin, Democrat of Maryland, the current chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the late
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who's one of the most powerful, the most prominent voices on Capitol Hill in support of democracy and human
rights.
And this law put forward a very simple premise. But those people, those individuals who are known based on corroborated evidence, needless to say,
to have been personally implicated in human rights violations or corruption will no longer be able to get American visas on American assets or use the
financial or banking system of the United States.
It sounds very simple today, but at the time it was a revolutionary concept, because before, in previous eras, sanctions were imposed
generally, on everybody, on whole countries. The notion of the Magnitsky Act was that responsibility should be individual, it should be assigned to
those people who actually are responsible.
And I had the honor and the privilege to work alongside Boris Nemtsov, my friend, my mentor, the leader of the Russian democratic opposition, in
advocating for this law, convincing the American Congress to pass this law. I should add, there was significant resistance from the then-U.S.
administration, it was the Obama administration at the time, they, as you remember, had a reset policy with Vladimir Putin. So, they had nothing --
they wanted to have nothing to do with this legislation. But at the end of the day, both houses of the U.S. Congress, on a bipartisan basis, passed
this legislation overwhelmingly.
And I continue this work in many other countries, and I'm proud to say that today there are Magnitsky laws on the books in 35 different countries and
jurisdictions around the world, that includes the United States, includes Canada, Great Britain, Australia, the whole of the European Union, and many
other places.
And this is a very simple statement from democratic countries that pride themselves on adhering to such notions as rule of law, democracy, and
respect for human rights, that people who are violating those notions will no longer be welcomed. But of course, you can guess what the attitude of
the Kremlin regime to that was, because with this legislation, they lost their coveted access to the democratic west.
And so, these two poisonings that were organized against me by the FSB, in 2015 and 2017, that was a response to the Magnitsky Act. And then, again,
when I was tried in the Moscow city court for my public opposition to the Putin regime and to the war in Ukraine, the judge who handed me my 25-year
prison sentence for so-called high treason was the very same judge, his name is Sergey Podoprigorov, who jailed Sergei Magnitsky back in 2008. He
was the same judge who was one of the first people to be sanctioned by the United States Magnitsky Act, you know, for which I had actively advocated.
And so, the Kremlin deliberately, very demonstratively, appointed that same judge to try me and to convict me and to hand me my 25-year prison sentence
just to make it absolutely clear and obvious. But you know what, Walter? To me, this is very clear proof of just how effective the Magnitsky Act is and
just how fearful these crooks and murderers and human rights abusers around Putin are of this legislation.
So, I just want to take this opportunity once again to thank those leaders in the American Congress, on both sides of the aisle, who are instrumental
in getting that legislation passed.
ISAACSON: You've said that the Magnitsky Act, which sanctions individuals, has been very effective. And we've also put what we said would be key
crippling sanctions on the Russian economy as a whole. And yet, I'm not sure that sanctions have done all that much. The Russian economy seems to
be OK. Explain to me, why have sanctions not worked better overall?
KARA-MURZA: I completely agree with you. These sanctions mechanisms imposed on Putin's Russia since the start of the full-scale war in Ukraine
are not working effectively, and they're not working effectively for two reasons.
I've now been out of prison for three months after the prison exchange on August 1st, and during all this time I've been catching up on, you know,
two and a half years' worth of information vacuum and sort of reading and learning and sort of listening to many new things. And one of the main
areas I've been sort of educating myself in was the way that these all these new sanctions have been imposed and the way they're operating since
February of 2022, since Putin invasion of Ukraine.
[13:45:00]
And there are two major problems with the way these sanctions are operating. The first problem is the fact -- that is the fact of the matter
is that there are many glaring holes in these sanctions mechanisms that allow the Putin regime frankly to go around them. It is a shocking fact
that to this day, almost three years into the full-scale invasion of Ukraine up to 30 percent of the military equipment and military
technologies used by the Russian army against Ukraine still come from western allied sources. How is that possible?
The fact is that the Russian missile that hit a children's hospital in Kyiv in July, on the 8th of July of this year, contained several western
produced microchips, including U.S. produced microchips. The Russian missile --
ISAACSON: Well, wait. Explain to me why that is possible. That's against the law.
KARA-MURZA: And to me, it speaks to the fact that there's not enough political will to enforce export controls, to enforce all these compliance
rules. They all exist. They're all out there. But we see that there are still glaring holes in these sanctions mechanisms, by the way, not only
with regard to sort of these general measures, but also with regard to the personal targeted sanctions that we've just been talking about in relation
to the Magnitsky Act.
Up until recently, the wife of Putin's deputy minister of defense, while the war in Ukraine is going on, was still living in her apartment in Paris.
How is that possible? So, we see that there are still too many holes that need to be addressed in the sanctions mechanism, that they're not effective
enough in really pushing against Putin's war machine, against Putin wars -- Putin's war economy, because to me, the goal of these sanctions should be
to make it more difficult and ideally impossible for the Putin regime to continue conducting this war.
ISAACSON: You have the rest of the world, which we haven't been able to line up against Russia, meaning India, China, Iran. Is there some other
mechanism that would be more effective than sanctions?
KARA-MURZA: It is very important to continue supporting Ukraine. Vladimir Putin and Putin regime cannot be allowed to emerge victorious from this
unjust criminal war of aggression that Putin has initiated. They cannot be allowed to emerge victorious. This war has to end in a way that is
acceptable to Ukraine, that is not humiliating for Ukraine, in which Ukraine emerges with guarantees of its status as a sovereign and
independent democratic country. That's number one, that's very important.
I understand the fatigue. This war has been going on for almost three years. I understand the fatigue around the world. But those people who are
advocating for some sort of a short-term deal with Putin over Ukraine, they're not advocating for peace. This will just push the problem down the
line. And in fact, we know from history that appeasement only makes an aggressor more aggressive and makes him want to grab more.
So, continuing to support Ukraine and resisting these calls to cut a deal with Putin is very important. Number two, it is very important for the
west, for the democratic nations of the world to continue speaking, messaging, communicating of Russian society. Because, again, not all
Russians support Putin and the war, there are many who don't, and it's very important that those pro-democracy and anti-war Russians are seen by the
western world as allies in a struggle.
This is not a war, unlike what Putin's propaganda is trying to present. This is not a war between the collective west, as they say, and the Russian
people. Not at all. This is a war between civilization and barbarism. This is a war between democracy and tyranny. And millions of Russians are allies
of the free world in this war. And this should be understood, and this should be practically implemented by the western world. There have to be
ways to message, for the free world to message and communicate with the people of Russia, to send a message that this war is not with the Russian
people, this was with the Putin regime. The core for the west is with the Putin dictatorship.
And that there will be a place for a different changed Democratic Russia in International Community who wants the Putin regime to fall.
ISAACSON: Well, wait. Let me ask you about that because you -- I'm sure you have contacts with people in Russia still. To what extent is there an
anti-war sentiment in Russia? Is it big enough that it's going to have any impact?
KARA-MURZA: There are many people in Russia who oppose this regime and this war. I'm not going to be able to give you percentage numbers because
in a repressive totalitarian dictatorship, it is meaningless to talk about public opinion. It is impossible to judge the true state of public opinion
in a country that imprisons you for expressing it.
What's much more important to me is that sometimes, from time to time, we get what I would call glimpses of the reality, glimpses into how many
Russians actually feel about Putin and about this war. And one of these glimpses came in February of this year, when, you know, amid the stage
circus of our so-called presidential election, when it was Putin and a couple of handpicked clowns alongside him on the ballot there was one
candidate, a lawyer, former member of parliament by the name of Boris Nadezhdin, who announced that he was running for president of Russia on an
anti-war platform. And you wouldn't believe the public response. It was unimaginable.
[13:50:00]
Suddenly, all over Russia, in large cities and small towns, there were these long lines, hours long lines that were formed of people who wanted to
sign the nominating petitions, because you have to collect a certain number of signatures to get on the ballot. People who wanted to sign the
nominating petitions to get this anti-war candidate on the ballot.
And all my letters in February in prison, most of my letters, were about those lines and how important it was for people to realize that they're not
alone, because the Putin propaganda tries to create this image that the Russian society is a monolith, you know, that all Russians support Putin,
all Russians support the war. And of course, it is a lie. And people sort of know it is a lie. But it's very important to see it visibly. Because
these long, long, long lines of people, you know, you can read election results, you can fake opinion poll figures, but you cannot rig these photos
of these long, long lines of people.
And I remember -- and needless to say, this candidate was not allowed in the ballot because opposition candidates in today's Russia never are. But
it was so important for people to see that they're not alone. This was the main point of this.
I'll never forget the letter I received from one young woman in the Black Sea town of Novorossiysk. This is in the south of Russia. And she described
how she waited in a line of likeminded people, you know, mostly young people, for two or three hours to sign that nominating petition for the
anti-war candidate. And at the end of that letter, she wrote, I never realized how many of us there are.
I want the free world, I want the west to see and hear that Russia, the other side of Russia, not the Russia of murderers and war criminals who are
sitting in the Kremlin, but the Russia of good, decent, kind hearted people who oppose this dictatorship, who oppose this war, because we are Russians
too, and there are many of us.
ISAACSON: We often think that authoritarians come to power, you know, through force. But a lot of times, including to some extent in Russia, it
happens through democracy. And we're kind of seeing around the world perhaps some yearning for stronger leaders, for nationalism. We look at the
support for Orban in Hungary and other places. What do you make of what's happening to democracy?
KARA-MURZA: Well, there are always these waves, right? Many political scientists, many historians have spoken of these waves of this pendulum
that sort of swings back and forth. But I think it's important to look at the big picture, and the big picture will tell us beyond any doubt at all
that whatever the short-term challenges or problems or even threats that the world as a whole may encounter, there is no doubt that the general
direction is always towards more democracies, always towards more freedom.
If we look at the map of Europe, let's say 35 years ago, that's nothing by historical standards. That's like yesterday morning. We will see that half
of the European continent was living under various forms of dictatorial or authoritarian regimes.
If you look at the map of Europe today, you will only see two dictatorships left, that's Putin's Russia and Lukashenko's Belarus. And I have no doubt
that, you know, the day will come in the very foreseeable future when Europe is dictatorship free.
And it is important to talk about these challenges. I'm not trying to say this is not serious. It is. And it's very worrying to see these
authoritarian trends in democratic countries. I mean, just a couple of months ago, there were a series of regional elections in Germany, for
example, in the eastern part, the former GDR that were won -- or at least were significant success was achieved by far-right parties. No one year
majority, of course, but still significant success.
And yes, these are worrying trends that people should address and should think about. But I think it's important not to lose sight of the big
picture. The future belongs to freedom. The future belongs to democracy. It does not belong to these archaic repressive regimes of the type that we
have in Russia to the end of Vladimir Putin. And I have no doubt that in the very foreseeable future, we will see the demise and the end of all of
them.
ISAACSON: Vladimir Kara-Murza, thank you for joining us.
KARA-MURZA: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, tonight, the entertainment world says goodbye to one of its greatest. Quincy Jones has died at the age of 91. His career
spanning seven decades, known as a composer, a conductor, and the producer of some of the world's top selling albums, like Michael Jackson's
"Thriller."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
LADY GAGA, SINGER: The pressure is on. Quincy's here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: He worked with just about everyone from Frank Sinatra to Jacob Collier. And Jones dominated the music industry for decades.
[13:55:00]
In 1985, he called on Michael Jackson, Lionel Richie, and a host of other stars for the charity single, "We Are the World." While successfully
reigning in the egos of some of the biggest singers of all time for the cause of African famine relief. And we want to leave you now with that song
produced and conducted by the one and only Quincy Jones.
Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
