A rush transcript of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" airing on Sunday, March 31, 2024 on ABC News is below. This copy may not be in its final form, may be updated and may contain minor transcription errors. For previous show transcripts, visit the "This Week" transcript archive.

       MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC “THIS WEEK” CO-ANCHOR: And I’m joined now by Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland.

       Good morning, Senator. Good to see you.

       Let’s talk about those weapons. You’ve been outspoken about the U.S. continuing to supply weapons. But these were approved a long time ago.

       So, what could the Biden administration have done?

       Recent Stories from ABC News

       PLAY Top Stories 00:36 Video Settings Full Screen About Connatix V458403 The Trump camp assails Biden for declaring March 31, Easter Sunday, as Transgender Day of Visibility

       SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, (D) MARYLAND & (D) FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Well, it’s good to be with you.

       We need a little more hope in the world this Easter, including a ceasefire and a return of all the hostages. Look, the Biden administration had been planning to submit to Congress and a new round of weapons proposals. They decided not to do that because clearly they knew they would encounter resistance and so, they’ve essentially done an end run with this earlier version. So, my view, Martha, is until the Netanyahu government allows more assistance into Gaza, to help people who are literally starving to death, we should not be sending more bombs.

       RADDATZ: Do you think they should have tried to stop this, just not send more weapons?

       VAN HOLLEN: I think the Biden administration needs to enforce the president’s requests. He’s made two very simple requests. One, allow more humanitarian assistance into Gaza. The president said no excuses. He’s also said it’s a red line for him to have an invasion of Rafah.

       So, it’s my view that as part of a partnership, we should get those assurances for the Netanyahu government upfront, rather than just send weapons now and ask questions later.

       RADDATZ: But how do you do that? You’ve listened to Prime Minister Netanyahu. You know he stands firm. You know he says again and again, we can’t defeat Hamas unless -- unless we keep going the way we’ve been going. So, how do you push him further, if -- short of stopping weapons?

       VAN HOLLEN: Well, I think we need to better use our leverage. We have different parts of leverage and one of them is sending more offensive weapons. So, President Biden needs to be as serious about ensuring more humanitarian assistance gets into Gaza as Netanyahu has been in making his demands.

       I mean, we have a situation where the Netanyahu government continues to rebuff the president of the United States time and time again, ignores reasonable requests. And what do we do? We say we’re going to send more bombs.

       My view is that a partnership needs to be a two-way street, not a one-way blank check with American taxpayer dollars. So, this is not about saying we’re not going to provide any more weapons. It’s about saying, hey, we have requests. Don’t let people starve to death.

       RADDATZ: So, you believe that Israel is currently blocking aid into Gaza. Do you consider that a war crime?

       VAN HOLLEN: There’s no doubt that blocking aid into Gaza is a violation of international humanitarian law. With respect to certain individuals in the Netanyahu government, people like Finance Minister Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, who have not only said they want to block aid into Gaza but have taken steps to block aid into Gaza, that is a war crime.

       RADDATZ: Netanyahu is the prime minister. Is he a war criminal?

       VAN HOLLEN: Well, we’re going to have to make a decision as to what the intent of the full Israel government is. I mean, these are members of the government, the finance minister and the person who’s in charge of the police. But ultimately, that will have to be decided down the road.

       But in the meantime, let’s just get more assistance to starving people in Gaza. You know, one third of the shipments of the humanitarian assistance into northern Gaza have been blocked in the last month. You could open Erez Crossing in the north and get assistance in right now. I mean, kids starve to death.

       So, I’m just saying to President Biden, you said no excuses when it comes to getting humanitarian aid into Gaza. Prime Minister Netanyahu continues to drag his feet. So, instead of just sending more bombs without in turn getting the request that you want, Mr. President, let’s at least make this a partnership.

       RADDATZ: Do you believe there is, again, another way for Israel to fight this war, to have fewer civilian casualties and still defeat Hamas? That is a central question too and that is where that pushback comes from Republican colleagues, from others. Look, we can’t win this war unless we continue doing it the way it is.

       VAN HOLLEN: Well, I strongly disagree and President Biden has disagreed. I mean, President Biden is the one who mentioned the fact that there’s an indiscriminate bombing. President Biden rightly said you can’t use humanitarian assistance as a bargaining chip. In other words, Israel is totally within its rights, in fact, I would say has a duty to defend itself after the horrific Hamas attacks of October 7. But that right does not extend to restricting unnecessarily assistance to people in Gaza.

       So, yes, you could conduct this with fewer civilian casualties and certainly you could prevent the horror of this humanitarian catastrophe that we’re watching unfold.

       RADDATZ: As you know, politically, this has been very damaging to President Biden. You saw the protesters I’m sure at the fundraiser the other night. So, what does President Biden have to do to win those voters back? You’re a Democrat. I assume you want President Biden to win. So, what is your advice to him to win those voters back?

       VAN HOLLEN: I certainly want President Biden to win. The future of our democracy depends on it, the future of democracies around the world depend on it. This is a case where just doing the right thing would also result in a better electoral outcome. In other words, yes, support Israel’s right to defend itself. I’m all in on that. I’ve been that way, all in from the beginning.

       But reasonable requests like preventing people from starving. I mean, 2 million Palestinians who have nothing to do with Hamas and the president needs to back up his no excuses language with real action. And just providing a blank check, providing more bombs without getting assurances now about Rafah and not making this humanitarian disaster even worse and doing simple things right now to help people who are starving to death in Gaza, those seem to be simple request.

       We have a situation where Netanyahu continues to essentially, you know, give the finger to the president of the United States, and we’re sending more bombs. So, that doesn’t make sense.

       RADDATZ: And, Senator, I want to, quickly, if you can talk about the bridge in Baltimore, in your state -- where you are? What’s the current situation?

       VAN HOLLEN: So, number one, Martha, we’re working to help the families of the six individuals.

       RADDATZ: All immigrants.

       VAN HOLLEN: All of them, all immigrants. It’s a clear example about the contributions and the sacrifices that immigrants make.

       RADDATZ: Honduras, El Salvador, Mexico, Guatemala.

       VAN HOLLEN: That’s right. And the other priority right now is to open the channel because this is a thriving port of Baltimore. We have over 15,000 people working directly for the port. Thousands of others -- their livelihood depends on the port. So, opening that channel is the priority.

       And I want to thank President Biden because has followed through on his commitment. The Army Corps of Engineer will cover all the cost of clearing the channel. We have submitted our requests for rebuilding the bridge to the emergency relief program. We’ve been invited in that program. The federal government will pay 90 percent of the costs and Senator Cardin and I are planning to introduce legislation to cover the other 10.

       RADDATZ: OK. Thanks so much for joining us this morning.

       VAN HOLLEN: Thank you.

       RADDATZ: We really appreciate it. Happy Easter.

       Up next, the terror group ISIS claimed responsibility for the recent massacre in Russia that left more than 140 dead. But how has the group reemerged after we were told they were largely defeated? That conversation when we come back.

       MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC “THIS WEEK” CO-ANCHOR: And I am joined by former CENTCOM commander, retired General Frank McKenzie, author of the upcoming book “The Melting Point”, on leadership and his years in command.

       Good morning, General.

       I want to start with why ISIS-K would go after Russia.

       GEN. FRANK MCKENZIE (RET.), U.S. MARINE CORPS & FORMER CENTCOM COMMANDER: ISIS-K seeks to conduct external attacks. By that, I mean attacks away from their homeland, which they regard is largely Afghanistan and, of course, they’re not under regular pressure in Afghanistan. So, when you’re not under pressure, so your home buddies, you have the opportunity to reach out.

       And they hold Russia accountable for actions against ISIS several years ago. So, they decided to attack not only Russia but also the United States and other Western nations as well. So, this is very much in keeping with their stated operational design, if you will.

       RADDATZ: And the U.S. says it warned Russia and Iran before that, part of its duty to warn. Russia didn’t heed those warnings.

       If they had, do you think there was enough intelligence to make this preventable?

       MCKENZIE: I think we gave them pretty precise information. You know, the problem that ISIS-K has and all these organizations have is when they wanted to conduct an attack abroad, they have to communicate and that communication is often something that we have the opportunity to listen to, to gain knowledge of, and that could be reasonably pressure.

       I think there was probably good opportunity for the Russians to have averted this attack had they actually listened to the material that was presented to ‘em.

       RADDATZ: And from what you have seen and read about the suspects, these men from Tajikistan, a very poor country, how does ISIS continue to recruit?

       MCKENZIE: So, you can be radicalized in place by access to literature, the Internet. You can be radicalized in ISIS-K then shipped abroad to attack. There are a variety of ways that this can occur because the Tajiks, you assumed that there’s a connection back to -- back to ISIS-K, you know, a more direct connection.

       But I should also note that self-radicalization, radicalization in place if you will by people who access to Internet abroad, may be one of the most dangerous methods that ISIS can use to generate attacks.

       Now, those attacks are generally not going to be well-coordinated, they’re not going to be well-planned, and they’re not going to be well-supported. But they could be very lethal because they’ll be so hard to detect.

       Whereas, attacks in this nature that have some direction from, you know, from the mothership, if you will, from ISIS-K, as we see are in fact discernible and understandable if you only listen to the warnings.

       RADDATZ: And, General, your CENTCOM successor, General Michael Kurilla, said just days before the Moscow attack that ISIS-K, quote, retains the capability and will to attack U.S. and Western interest abroad in as listen as six months and with little or no warning. What’s your confidence in that intelligence?

       MCKENZIE: I think General Kurilla is spot on with that assessment. Here’s a problem. Again, we go back to ISIS-K. If you can keep pressure on them that they’re in their homeland and their base, it makes it hard for them to conduct these types of attacks. Unfortunately, we no longer place that pressure on them, so they’re free to gain strength, they’re free to plan, they’re free to coordinate and to outreach that hit us in our homelands.

       So, you might as well be playing an away game than a home game. We’ve chosen to play a home game.

       RADDATZ: And you were, of course, one of the senior leaders who did not want to leave Afghanistan entirely. When you look back on that period, do you think outside of chaotic withdrawal, do you think had we left 2,500 troops there, things would be different?

       MCKENZIE: I have to believe, Martha, that things would be different. We believe that -- we believe at the time that leaving 2,500 troops, along with our NATO partners, who would have left 4,000 or 5,000 troops, we would have been able to continue to work against ISIS, which was the principal reason we’re in Afghanistan, to prevent attacks in our homeland. I think we might be in a different place now. I think we might actually be safer than we are.

       RADDATZ: We were told again and again that there’s over horizon way of looking way at Afghanistan and tracking ISIS. We have, what, 2,500 troops, about 900 in Syria. It’s not enough?

       MCKENZIE: Well, I think we have enough in Iraq and in Syria to conduct operations against ISIS. The remnants of ISIS in the Euphrates River valley and in eastern Syria and, of course, Martha, you also remember, our SDF partners are -- partners there are sitting on top of the prison system with approximately 10,000 ISIS fighters that are incarcerated in. If the prison system were to open, it would let force on the world a whole new chapter of ISIS violence. So, that’s very important to us.

       On the other hand, in Afghanistan, we have almost no ability to see into that country and almost no ability to strike into that country. And so, ISIS there is able to grow unabated. There’s no pressure on them.

       And, again, our operating theory has always been with violent extremists, you want local security forces to be able to control them, and then you want them to not be able to establish a connective tissue internationally that allows them to carry out external attacks abroad and it’s very hard to do that in Afghanistan where you just don’t have the ability to sense, you don’t have the ability to strike, and very limited resources.

       RADDATZ: So, what do you think the threat to the homeland is? You heard General Kurilla (ph) talk about obviously U.S. interest abroad but the homeland. How soon, how big is ISIS?

       MCKENZIE: So, ISIS-K in particular, but ISIS in general, that has a strong desire to attack our homeland, we should believe them when they say that, they’re going to try to do it. And so, I think the threat is growing. It’s began to grow as soon as we left Afghanistan, took pressure off ISIS-K, so think we should expect further attempts of this nature against the United States as well as our partners and other nations abroad. I think this is inevitable.

       RADDATZ: And, General, just to end here, I want to switch to Israel. You heard the controversy about Israel, do you, as a general -- and that was under you, Israel, for a long time -- think there’s another way for the Israelis to conduct this war with fewer civilian casualties and still defeat Hamas?

       MCKENZIE: I think their goal of removing, you know, the military component of Hamas and the political leadership of Hamas that brought this war on is very difficult task. I think it’s made far more difficult by the way that Hamas cleverly embedded all these military activities in the civil population, whether it’s mosque, whether it’s schools, whether it’s hospitals, or high density residential areas. So, I think the Israelis are in genuine horns of a dilemma as they try -- as they try to finish the ground camp -- the ground campaign in Gaza and it’s going to be a very difficult stretch for them.

       RADDATZ: Yeah, thank you so much for joining us this morning, General McKenzie.

       Coming up, the Biden campaign brings in a massive fundraising haul with the help of two ex-presidents. The roundtable takes on the 2024 race.

       We’re back in a moment.