Piers Morgan, Elon Levy, Nadine Kizwani, Emily Austin, Omid Scobie, Tessa Dunlop, Hilary Fordwich, Jake Berry, and Kevin McGuire dissect the Gaza ceasefire's release of 50 hostages amid Netanyahu's vow to resume war, debate the equivalence of Palestinian prisoners and Israeli children, scrutinize Scobie's royal family claims regarding Meghan Markle, and clash over European immigration drivers like far-right populism versus low-skilled migration. Ultimately, these diverse dialogues highlight deep societal fractures in defining justice, truth, and national security across global conflicts. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Gaza Ceasefire Extension Debate00:02:00
Tonight on Piers Morgan Uncensored a temporary ceasefire in Gaza is extended by two days, bringing joy and relief for more hostage families, but a mountain of pressing questions for Israel.
I'll put them to government spokesman Elon Levy.
Truce is divided opinion in Israel.
Was it right to extend the deal or is it seating the upper hand by negotiating with terrorists?
We'll debate.
And a bombshell new book by Megan Lickspittle, Omid Scoby, takes aim at every member of the royal household, apart, of course, from two people in Montecito.
Does anybody in the world believe it?
From the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Good evening from London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
The temporary ceasefire in Gaza has brought scenes of unbridled joy in the middle of a relentless tragedy.
50 Israeli hostages are finally being released by Hamas, 150 Palestinian prisoners, and trucks carrying much-needed aid are moving in the opposite direction.
For some of the families of the Hamas hostages, it's the end of an unbearable, agonizing wait.
Thomas Hahn's daughter Emily turned nine during her 50 days in captivity.
His emotional interviews have made the trauma of the hostage families feel tangible for those of us who can only begin to imagine the appalling, horrifying grief.
This is the moment they were finally reunited.
A wonderful end to a story that could have ended so much worse.
And indeed, that was the fate that that poor father assumed had happened.
Well, a two-day extension to the ceasefire means more reunions and more aid, but it also means more difficult questions for Israel.
Prime Minister Netanyahu is very clear that war will resume with full force as soon as this pause is over.
He's far less clear about what happens after that.
Civilian Casualty Numbers Explained00:14:52
Israel's pounding Gaza for weeks now.
77% of the entire population has been displaced.
Half are in shelters where 700 people share a single shower.
The scale of the destruction is beyond comprehension.
And Israel says it won't stop until Hamas has been eradicated.
Quite clearly, Hamas still runs Gaza.
It's Hamas who are negotiating the release of the hostages and dictating the terms of that release.
It's Hamas who says that more than 14,000 people in Gaza have been killed.
Israel claims that figure includes thousands of terrorists, but where is the hard evidence to support that claim?
Where is the evidence that terrorists have simply not disappeared underground or hidden themselves among innocent civilians who headed south?
Where is the plan for the future of Gaza?
Where do these people go back and live if all their homes have been destroyed?
Netanyahu's ruled out a return for the Palestinian Authority, hinted that Israeli occupation might be the answer.
I think Israel will, for an indefinite period, will have the overall security responsibility because we've seen what happens when we don't have it.
When we don't have that security responsibility, what we have is the eruption of Hamas terror on a scale that we couldn't imagine.
This is dangerous territory for Israel.
It has a rapidly narrowing window of legitimacy in Gaza.
President Biden is under pressure from his supporters to speed up the end of the fighting.
And America won't accept a prolonged occupation, Israel told Palestinians to move south in Gaza to escape the bombing.
Now it says it'll bomb the south too.
This bloodshed cannot continue without proof there's a plan beyond the total destruction of Gaza.
I've been picked up this weekend by people reminding me of tweets from 2014.
Back then, Israel launched a massive bombardment of Gaza in response to the murder of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank.
What happened? I'm asked.
Why did I change my position?
Well, I haven't changed my position.
Israel committed atrocities in 2014, in my estimation.
It was a completely disproportionate response to what had happened.
It looked more like revenge to me than a military strategy.
And President Obama told him to call it off.
Well, during that bombardment, I asked, at what point does Israel's current military strategy become the very terrorism it professes to be fighting?
And today, I'm beginning to ask myself that exact same question.
Well, I'm now joined by Israeli spokesman, Elon Levy.
Elon Levy.
Elon Levy, thank you very much indeed for joining me.
You heard my monologue there.
I've said from the start of this conflict that I've felt a real moral quandary.
Not about October the 7th.
I'm crystal clear about the horror that happened there.
I'm completely clear that Israel not only had a duty to its people to defend itself after that, but had a responsibility to do it.
The question has always been in my mind, what is a proportionate response?
And as we have this pause at the moment, thank God for the release of many of the hostages, it's also time for everybody to pause and ask some pertinent questions of Israel about what the real plan is here going forward.
So let me start just by asking you, where does this go now?
We've got a two-day extension to this pause.
More hostages will come out, but it won't be all of them.
In fact, Hamas don't even know where many of the hostages are.
They're with other Islamic fundamentalist groups within Gaza.
Netanyahu has already said, your prime minister, that he wants to pick up the attacks as soon as this pause is finished.
But to what end and how far will you go?
Israel's campaign now in response to the October 7th massacre is proportionate to the threat that we face.
And that threat is a second October 7th, a third October 7th, the fourth million October 7th, exactly as Hamas is promising to do, to murder every man, woman, child in our country.
We really wish we were not in this situation, peers.
And for many years, Israel has been putting off a possible campaign to topple Hamas, but the October 7th massacre left us no choice.
It was the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.
It was the deadliest terror attack in world history since 9-11.
And in response to that, our campaign is going to continue to destroy Hamas.
This war will end with the end of Hamas because we cannot allow it to remain in power.
And we know that the scenes on our screens are very difficult and we're doing everything we can to minimize civilian casualties.
But everyone in Israel understands that the consequences of inaction would be too great to bear because we cannot leave Hamas in power and our hostages in Gaza.
We cannot leave Hamas emboldened to continue attacking our people, to launch another murderous campaign like it did on October 7th with those barbaric acts that you have spoken so powerfully against.
The burnings, the beheadings, the abductings, the abductions.
We simply cannot go back to 6 a.m. on October 7th.
That will not happen.
That massacre was the straw that broke the back of a very strong camel.
And this war is going to end with the end of Hamas.
Okay.
How many Palestinians, including Hamas terrorists, have you so far killed?
We know that we've killed thousands of terrorists.
We know that...
Hang on, okay, but let me ask you about that.
So the Hamas-run health authority says it's over 14,000 people have now been killed.
Of that, I mean, A, do you accept those numbers?
Because they have been endorsed by other bodies, but do you accept that those numbers are fairly accurate?
Historically, they have been.
Hamas is the organization, the Army of Terror, that on October 7th burned, beheaded, abducted people, and then lied about it to the entire world.
I understand.
I understand that.
So it is the opposite of a credible source.
I understand it.
But do you accept, given that previous figures that they have given during the many years of this conflict about casualties have turned out to be pretty accurate, do you accept this is likely to be the range of people who've been killed?
First of all, they haven't been proven accurate because historically, Hamas never admits in the course of a war that its own terrorists are killed.
And that only comes to light afterwards.
I'll say what we know about the numbers.
And we don't have exact numbers because, Piers, I can't tell you how many Israelis were murdered in the October 7th massacre because we still have dozens of body parts, dozens of body bags of unidentifiable human remains.
The idea that I can give you an exact number is not realistic.
But here's what I can tell you.
One, we know we've killed thousands of terrorists because our campaign has been targeting to target the monsters who perpetrated the October 7th.
How do you know they're terrorists?
Two, we know how do you tell a Hamas terrorist from a Palestinian civilian who's not part of Hamas?
Hamas is making it very difficult to do that because we know that it's terror attacks because we know who we are targeting.
We are targeting on the basis of precise intelligence.
This isn't an indiscriminate bombardment as many would like to paint it.
Hamas knows that we do not target civilians.
It seems to know that better than some in the West.
That's why, for example, we recently declassified an intercepted phone call of Islamic Jihad terrorists talking about transporting an anti-tank missile in a baby's pram because they know perfectly well that Israel is trying to not the civilians.
Okay, but here's my problem with this is that by your own admission, you don't know how many Hamas terrorists.
And I categorize people who belong to the Hamas organization as terrorists, just for clarity.
But you don't actually know, do you, how many of them you've killed.
And I tried your own, by your own admission, just a few moments ago, you said that they make it incredibly difficult for you to work out who is a Hamas terrorist and who is a civilian.
That seems to me part of the problem that you have with the optics of this to the wider world is that they're seeing horrible imagery all day long.
I mean, it's just the worst thing I've ever seen all over social media of.
The worst thing we've ever seen were the atrocities that Hamas did.
No, no, I'm not.
I'm not understanding.
Yeah, I've not seen, thankfully, I've not seen what many journalists have seen, which is the 45-minute film of that.
And I understand it's absolutely horrific.
And I'm not making any comparison to body.
I would not say anything is worse than that.
So for the record.
But the horrible imagery all day long, it is suggesting to people that there are thousands and thousands of thousands of women and a lot of children, maybe as many as five, six thousand children now, have been killed by these airstrikes and now the ground attack.
And I think the problem that you have, and I say this respectfully, the problem you have is that you don't actually know how many Hamas terrorists you're killing.
And if you're honest, you don't, do you?
Piers, the sad fact is everyone who has been killed in the Gaza Strip in the last month and a half would still be alive if Hamas had not launched this war with the October 7th massacre and then fought out of densely populated civilian areas that it has done its dandist to prevent people from evacuating in order to get to safety while we try to get them to safety.
But I want to say something about the civilian casualties because I think this is important.
We know that we've killed thousands of terrorists.
We know that Hamas is inflating the numbers.
You don't actually know.
We believe...
But that's my problem with this.
You say you have, but when I push you for the details, you don't have them.
And that for me is still exactly how many Israelis were murdered in the October 7th mass.
I understand that.
And that's horrific.
I agree with you.
That is utterly horrific that you still can't determine how many people were killed that day because of the horrors that were perpetrated.
You and I are in complete agreement, but nor do you know how many of these Hamas terrorists are killing.
could be that vast numbers of them, and we think there are around 35,000 perhaps in total, that vast numbers of them either disappeared into the tunnels and have been safely there ever since, or simply went south with the million or more Palestinian supposed civilians that went down there.
Maybe a lot of them infiltrated that group and are down in the south.
You don't actually know, do you, for sure?
Piers, during the Afghanistan war, and I believe your brother, a real military hero, fought in that war, British military spokespeople could not have given you a running commentary in real time about exactly how many Taliban fighters were killed.
During the Second World War, and I know your grandfather was a war hero who fought the Japanese to liberate Burma, the British army could not have given a running tally of how many civilians were killed there or how many Japanese were being killed.
These are facts that become clear when the fog of war clears.
And what I can tell you is that when the fog of war clears and the numbers become clearer about the civilian to combatant ratio inside the Gaza Strip, and you compare that to other counter-terrorism wars fought by Western armies, like the British in Afghanistan, like the British in Iraq,
like the British against Islamic State, that ratio is going to prove very firmly the extent to which the Israeli army has gone to try to keep civilians on the other side safe from the consequences of their own leaders' reckless and evil and barbaric attempts to try to keep them in harm's way.
Piers, every civilian casualty is a tragedy.
Civilian casualties are a feature of every war and they are a feature of this war that Hamas began and that Hamas is true, but the reason I'm pushing you.
The reason I'm pushing you on it is simply because you say you've killed thousands of Hamas terrorists.
And the reason I think this is such an important question is there have been reports that once this pause is over, that Israel intends to then attack in the south and may give further warnings to people that are out of certain areas that will attack in the south and presumably destroy the areas that you attack there as you have done in the north, making it almost uninhabitable for people to return to.
And all of this is part of Operation Get Rid of Hamas.
But if the world doesn't know how much of Hamas you're getting rid of, but only sees day after day, hour after hour, images of children dead, women dead, innocent civilians caught up in this, then I think the global support for Israel is going to dissipate very quickly.
That's why it's really important, I think, for Israel to be able to demonstrate to people that your mission is being accomplished.
Because, you know, otherwise you could be here in six months, a year, and the civilian death toll in Gaza could be over 100,000.
And we might be having the same conversation where you're still not sure how many Hamas terrorists you've killed.
That's the problem, it seems to me.
Piers, I'm slightly surprised by this question because in the fog of war, no country, no military in the history of warfare could ever give you an exact running tally.
I'm not for an exact number.
The casualties, but I'm saying we know that we are targeting Hamas.
We know that we are targeting the monsters who perpetrated the October 7th massacre.
And we know that we are trying to foil their strategy to hide behind women and children.
And just this week, we've exposed the world the evidence of the bunkers that they built underneath the Shifa hospital that so many have spent so long trying to cover up and deny that Hamas is using that strategy.
Let me ask you, what happens?
Assuming this war ends, and please God it ends sooner rather than later, but assuming it ends, Benjamin Netanyahu has said he intends to effectively occupy Israel, to occupy Gaza for security reasons indefinitely.
Well, that's really what he said.
Indefinitely.
You would be in charge of security.
I mean, you're already in charge of a lot of their food, their energy, their water.
If you start adding security as an umbrella, basically you're occupying Gaza.
That is not anything that anybody wants outside of, it seems to me, him and his cabinet.
I mean, That's not what you would want, is it?
No, Piers, Israel does not want to occupy the Gaza Strip, and that is why 18 years ago, Israel left the Gaza Strip.
So why would he say he wants to do that indefinitely for security reasons?
Because the sad fact is, the prime minister has said we do not want to occupy Gaza.
To say that the Prime Minister said that is simply false.
He said Israel will have to, for some period, to exercise security control to prevent that from being demilitarized, just as President Biden said in his own column in the Washington Post that there will have to be arrangements.
How do you do that?
We're going to have to prevent smuggling of any weapons inside the Gaza Strip after we have totally destroyed the Hamas terror infrastructure.
You know, Piers, in the years that Israel has been out of the Gaza Strip, all that concrete that went into Gaza and was supposed to build people's houses went into tunnels.
All those pipes that were supposed to go into water pipes, Hamas dug them out and then filmed propaganda videos of them turning those water.
And let me ask you shooting them at Israel.
And that is what we have to prevent to stop this happening again.
Danger of Radicalization Rising00:15:27
But if you displace the vast majority of civilians, as you have, and you destroy large amounts of their homes, what do they come back to?
After the day after Hamas, and I wish it were next week, but it will take time, there are three things that are going to have to happen.
The first is the Gaza Strip must be demilitarized.
We will never allow it to be used as a base for operations from a terrorist group to direct attacks against our people, just as the UK and 85 other nations came together to deny ISIS its territorial stronghold.
And they did to Raqqa and Mosul what they did to Raqqa and Mosul, because they understood that a jihadi group like that must never be allowed to hold territory to attack innocent people.
The second thing is the Gaza Strip must be de-radicalized.
You know, the youngest terrorists who perpetrated the October 7th massacre weren't even born when Israel vacated the Gaza Strip in 2005 and they were raised on a diet to glorify jihad and martyrdom.
And the third thing, I want to address the question of reconstruction.
The Gaza Strip is going to have to be rebuilt.
And this time, it's going to have to be rebuilt in a way that ensures that the concrete genuinely goes to people's homes and doesn't go into the tunnels, because otherwise we're going to be in the same place.
I understand, but this sounds very like to me.
And the consequences for the people who are going to be able to do all this.
But with respect, the only way you can do all this is with a form of occupation, whether you want to call it that or not.
That's the only way you can do this.
And my other question to you would be this, is that is there not a danger?
You talk about radicalization there.
Is there not a danger that the longer this goes on and the more innocent people you kill as you try and target Hamas, that you build up a whole new generation of Palestinians who are radicalized to hate Israel and want to exact revenge?
Isn't that a real concern right now?
You know, I don't think during the Second World War, when the Allies were bombing, the Germans and the Japanese people claimed that if you continue bombing Germans and Japanese, you'll raise a new generation of Nazis.
And that's because they realized these were people who were radicalized beyond measure.
And after the war, there had to be a serious process of de-radicalization.
Piers, the facts are that 85% of Palestinians across the West Bank and the Gaza Strip support Hamas's atrocities on October 7th.
That is the first polling evidence that has come out.
The level of radicalization is already severe.
And it is that radical element that we have to deny a stronghold from which to perpetrate atrocities against our people.
And we think it's important that the whole international community understand the extent of the rot of the Hamas death cult that has raised a whole generation.
Tragically, after the greatest opportunity for peace in the Middle East, that 2005 withdrawal, there has to be a serious push towards de-radicalization to ensure that this never happened again.
And we expect the entire work hand in hand with us.
Listen, I've got to leave it there, but the big question is whether what you're doing now and what you intend to do in the next few weeks and months will actually begin the end of that radicalization or make it a lot worse.
And that is a question I think we just don't know the answer to.
But Elon Levy, thank you very much indeed for joining me.
Could I complete an answer, perhaps?
If you're quick.
If this war doesn't end with the end of Hamas and the return of our hostages, we know that Hamas will attack us again.
That's what it says it wants to do.
And so if you're talking to me about extremism, we know that a Hamas that feels emboldened because the world tells it Israel has no right to defend itself, that is the surefire recipe for more radicalism and extremism and more death.
And we're determined to put an end to this cycle of violence and we'll end it.
We'll end this war and we'll do it by ending Hamas.
Elon Levy, I really appreciate you joining me.
Thank you very much indeed.
Thank you very much, Piers.
Anytime.
Ancensor, next tonight, should Israel negotiate with Hamas or is it simply giving the upper hand to a terror group that still has more than 150 hostages under its control and that of other Islamic groups in Gaza?
We'll debate.
Welcome back to Ancensa.
Israel is divided over its hostage deal with Hamas, which has now been extended for a further two days.
One major poll found that 45% of Israeli Jews oppose the ongoing prisoner swap, while just 40% support it.
Idamar Ben-Gvir, a right-wing security minister, called it a very, very big mistake.
So does negotiating with terrorists weaken Israel's position, or should Israel's allies be pressing to make this ceasefire permanent?
My next guests have clashed in the past on this show over the crisis in Gaza.
Last time they appeared together, I said keeping the dialogue open is the only way forward and they'd both be invited back.
And so tonight they're invited back.
And I'm joined by Nadine Kizwani, the activist and founder of the Palestinian Community Organization Within Our Lifetime, and by the journalist and broadcaster Emily Austin.
Well, welcome to both of you.
Nadine, let me start with you, if I may.
There's a pause at the moment.
It's been extended by two more days.
There are hostages being released back to Israel.
There are prisoners being released back to the Palestinians.
What is your view of where things should move from here?
I think it's important that when we talk about hostages to also understand that there are thousands of Palestinian prisoners that have been held in Zionist dungeons and Zionist prisons for years and years, and it's important that they are also freed and that the 2.3 million Palestinians in Ghaza, which is effectively a concentration camp, are also being held hostage.
So I think all hostages should be freed when we look at the context of Palestinians prisoners.
And not to call them hostages, but understanding that it's the same kind of line of thinking.
All right, Emily Austin, I mean, the thing about the Palestinian prisoners who've been in Israeli jails, I was shocked by not necessarily the age of so many of them, because I knew that a lot of young teenagers in particular had been rounded up for throwing rocks at soldiers and so on.
But the fact that so many are being held in detention without charge, that makes me feel very uncomfortable.
Are you comfortable with that?
Most of the prisoners that were part of this exchange were actually tried and convicted of the crimes, most of them being attempted murder.
There is a narrative going around that there hasn't been fair trials, that they haven't been convicted, but that's simply not true.
And there's one in particular that's going very, very viral on Twitter of Ahmed Al-Mansra, who was convicted at 12 years old.
This is a photo of him then, a photo of him now, and they're saying that he was abused in Israeli prisons.
But if you look closely, you can see him stabbing two civilians at 14 years old.
And a lot of them are calling this kid innocent just because he's a child.
But at 14 years old, if you're stabbing civilians, you might be a child, but you're definitely not innocent.
And contrary to what Nardine just said, there is no equivalency.
This is not a hostage exchange.
This is an exchange of criminals for children.
Okay, these are babies who are being held captive for someone who tried to stab a soldier.
Another baby for another woman who tried to stab a soldier.
Another baby whose crime was being a Jew versus another woman who tried to stab another soldier versus another baby whose crime is being an Israeli who was released for a woman who tried to stab a soldier.
So I'm sorry, this is not a hostage exchange.
This is a criminal exchange for our civilians back who were taken out of their homes.
Okay, Nadine, respond to that.
Thousands of Palestinians are held under administrative detention, which, as you said, means that they don't even get charged with anything, let alone a fair trial, and that these administrative detention detentions can be renewed every six months.
And even when Palestinians are tried, oftentimes Palestinians are tried in military courts, and there's a 99% or higher than 99% conviction rate of Palestinians being tried in military courts.
Children are not tried in military courts anywhere else around the world.
On top of that, Palestinians get 20 years just for throwing stones.
But Nadine, let me ask you about this question of a permanent ceasefire.
Israel just made it clear to me through their government spokesman they've got absolutely no intention of having any ceasefire.
This war continues in their eyes until they have defeated Hamas.
What is your response to that?
Is the murder of 20,000 Palestinians, 8,000 of them being children, not enough?
You know, I think that no matter what they say, no matter who they're going after, there's always going to be Palestinian resistance.
So that argument is essentially saying that they're never going to stop killing Palestinians and that they're completely justified in doing so.
Would you categorize the disparity between Australia?
Would you categorize what happened on October the 7th as resistance?
Sorry, I didn't hear your...
Would you categorize what happened on October the 7th as resistance?
Yeah, I would categorize it as resistance, and it's not my categorization where that's coming from.
Is there any categorization of Palestinian resistance, armed resistance, that you wouldn't categorize as terrorists?
I think when several thousand people wouldn't care about it.
I think when several thousand people storm over a border, hang on, let me just respond.
I think when several thousand people storm over a border and attack peace-loving people in kibbutzis and butcher them to death, raking people's heads off, killing babies, incinerating people.
People were killed by Israel itself.
But that is that Israel incinerated a 12-year-old incineration.
But before we get to Israel's response, you must accept that what happened that day was an act of terrorism, surely.
I don't live in a concentration camp, and neither do you, and neither does Emily.
I haven't lived under the brutal conditions that the people of Gaza have had to endure for the better part of the last two decades.
It's not up to me to tell people who are breaking free from a concentration camp how exactly they should do that.
And like I said, when Palestinians tried to do that, this is the concentration campaign.
She's referring to Gaza.
This is a very beautiful concentration camp that is Gaza, and it's a damn shame that Hamas terrorists are invading this very beautiful-looking concentration camp.
If only the Jews were that lucky to have such a beautiful concentration camp.
Nardine, listen.
Pierce, let's cut to the chase.
I can't ask her to condemn October 7th.
Stop asking her to condemn October 7th when she is borderline a terrorist herself.
She herself incites violence.
She herself protests and always incites violence and vandalism, even though vandalism is not protected by our First Amendment.
So how do you expect her to condemn terrorism when she has openly said that it is an act of resistance and she continues to justify the war?
I also want to say that I'm not defending Palestinians.
I'm not still speaking.
I was about to say that.
I don't care about innocent damn debate.
And I don't care about you either.
And I'm here to say, I'm just going to keep speaking.
Clearly, you cerebral.
You're taking away from the people who are not going to be able to do this.
Every single life that is taken on either side is abhorrent.
It is atrocious, and I wish it would stop.
Israel cannot stop until Hamas is defeated.
Israel is the only military in the world that will knock on doors, send out pamphlets, send out alarms on roofs, and warn civilians to leave.
And Hamas will rather warn civilians.
Emily, psychological warfare, hostages without their mothers and their sisters.
Emily, let me ask Emily a question.
Emily, Emily, here's my question for you.
I think there's a real danger for Israel of this happening sooner rather than later.
That if they start attacking the South as well, as seems to be the intention after this pause is over, and the death toll of innocent Palestinians continues to skyrocket, and they can't produce any hard evidence, as they clearly can't at the moment from my last interview, of how many actual Hamas terrorists they're killing in the process, they're going to lose the moral support and the high ground, and the global support for them will disintegrate for Israel.
That is a real potential danger.
I completely disagree.
I think it's not Israel.
Israel did its due diligence.
Israel did its part.
They warned civilians to leave.
So all of the condemning that Israel is receiving, Hamas should be receiving because they are using their own civilians, their women and their children, as human shields instead of having them evacuate.
Those who evacuated refugees in.
That's who you should be condemning.
Don't talk over each other.
Let me go to Nadine for response.
We can say the same about October 7th.
October 7th wouldn't have happened if Israel was not occupying Palestinian land, if there wasn't a siege and blockade on Gaza, if our land wasn't stolen from us.
And this has been clear for so many years.
Palestinians were talking about this, were protesting about this for years and years and years while the world ignored them.
Why are there kibbutzes next to Gaza's border?
Are they a buffer zone?
Are they human shields?
Actually, it's Israel that's using Judaism and using its own citizens as human shields to mass slaughter, to mass genocide Palestinians.
Nadine, do you think that's a cause of terrorists?
But it is Israel that has killed Palestinian children.
Nadine, do you believe Hamas should stay in power in Gaza?
Hang on, Emily.
Should Nadine, Hamas, stay in power in Gaza?
I believe that Palestinians should be free.
That's what I'm saying.
That wasn't my question.
I'm here to say that.
That's not my question.
I'm not going to answer your question.
That's not up to me.
I don't live in the world.
I don't live in Israel.
You have a lot of opinions about this.
Is your opinion that Hamas should stay in power?
Yes or no?
I believe that Palestinians wouldn't need resistance groups.
All right, you're not going to answer the question.
All right, Emily.
No, no, that is answering the question, actually.
I'm giving you several chances.
No, it is answering the question.
Of course.
They have to stay in power or they don't.
There wouldn't be a resistance group such as Hamas or itself in power if there wasn't anything to resist, if there wasn't an Israeli opponent.
Last word to Emily.
Piers, can I respond, please?
I want to debunk this occupation myth once and for all.
Nordine, when was the last time Palestinians had full sovereignty over the land of Israel?
When was the last date that they had sovereignty over the land?
When was the last prime minister when did you have debunking anything?
When did you have Answer my fusion blockade.
I'm not here to answer.
When did they occupy genocide?
You're just there lying on my television, the live murder.
Can you ask me?
When did Palestine have sovereignty over the land since she can't answer it from me?
That's a fair question.
She just called that genocide.
This is your genocide.
This is our history.
This is Palestinian population and Palestinian.
This is not a genocide.
For generations and generations.
You know the sad thing?
You know the sad thing?
The sad thing about this is, at some point, we are going to have to bring the two sides together to reach a peace settlement.
And yet, every time I bring people from both sides of this debate together, this is how it goes.
It looks completely implacable.
She's using land as an excuse to kill Palestine.
Meghan Markle Royal Scandal00:07:50
Let me speak to you why.
Land is not an excuse.
I don't know why the land was never a journalist who's obsessed with making sure that you're not.
So you bringing in terrorists is better.
Don't call me a terrorist on live television.
It was three Palestinian Americans.
I think we've reached the end of 70 years.
I want to say this.
I want to say one thing.
Three Palestinian Americans were shot here on U.S. soil for wearing that car fire.
So when you're calling me a terrorist on TV and say that there's incitement against you, you're actually inciting the line of murder.
You incited violence on myself and Louise.
Nardine, you were inciting violence.
Emily, Nadine, I'll leave you to both continue shouting at each other.
I'm sorry it ended like that.
I want to have constructive debate.
This doesn't get anyone anywhere.
But I appreciate you both joining me again.
Thank you.
Uncensored next, a bombshell new book by Megan loyalist Obid Lick Spittle.
Scobie takes over every member of the royal household again, but not, of course, the Duke and Duchess of Netflix.
Does anybody in the world believe him?
I'm going to reveal something which strongly suggests you shouldn't.
And we'll debate this next.
Walk about Carrie and Megan's unofficial mouthpiece, Lick Spittle.
Omid Scobie is back in the headlines with a new book, End Game.
Scobie and the Sussexes deny they're in cahoots, as they did with the last book until Megan was put under oath and had to admit actually she had emailed her aid some thoughts before they sat down with the authors, which you might think is being in cahoots.
Well, are they again in cahoots?
Let's discuss this with author and historian Tessa Dunlop and royal commentator Hilary Fordwich.
So let me start with you, Tessa.
So given you normally park yourself in the defending the indefensible about all things Sussex, what do you think of Scobie's late just when it seemed like they were getting off the radar, back comes Scobie with a series of apparently damning revelations about all the royals apart from the two in Montecito?
Yeah, from all the extracts that we've had access to and from the interviews that Omid's done and the likes of Paris Match, certainly he's parked his tanks firmly on their lawn.
Queen Victoria recommended against royals having friendships.
And if Omid was once the Sussex's friend, I bet they could flick him off like slime right now because the timing's terrible and I feel that Omid is actually behind the curve on this.
Well, you've moved on a bit, I think, I'll give you credit.
And Harry and Megan, to an extent, I think, after the sort of bomb of the Netflix and the book, have been really quite schtum.
Omid seems to be sort of stuck in the past.
Well, also, he's a liar.
And I'll tell you, I know he's a liar because he writes a bit about me in the book.
I know, I was going to ask you about that.
Did he say that?
I got a copy of the book today and I just checked, as you do, it's a digital copy.
I did a little search.
Up I come three or four times.
And on one occasion, he states as a fact that I have regular phone conversations with Queen Camilla.
For the record, I have never had a single phone conversation with Queen Camilla.
Now, he says as a fact in his book that we have regular phone conversations.
That I know, personally know, is an absolute lie.
He also says that when I said on Good Morning Britain that Meghan Markle was Princess Pinocchio, that apparently she reached out to me, Queen Camilla, to thank me for standing up for the firm.
Did she?
I had zero contact with Queen Camilla around that time at all.
So you've got no embosted thank you notes from Camilla.
Nothing before she was a queen.
Nothing.
I did, however, as I said publicly at the time, have conversations with several other members of the royal family, but it wasn't Queen Camilla.
So my point, let us come to Hillary.
Hillary, I know personally that just the little bits about me are completely untrue.
They're lies.
So why should I believe any of this stuff?
Well, you're absolutely right to question it.
I remember the time that you said that if she told you the weather, you wouldn't believe her.
A few things here I would say, they say if you're going to lie, be big, go bold.
He states things so factually that I think your average person, of course, they can't sift through things.
They don't know that you know that these were mistruths and bold-faced lies.
So if he goes so big, people will actually almost assume it's got to be true.
I'll tell you something though, Piers, that someone that nobody really is mentioning and no one's talking about, and that is Meghan Markle's dear friend, very close friend that she's posted online, whom she loves, and that is Marcus Anderson.
Well, as we know, Omid Scobie has a very close relationship to him.
Who knows how much of this is actually coming from him?
And maybe that's the source of a lot of people.
Do you know what?
It's a really good point because we know, because she went under oath in a court case, Meghan Markle had to admit she briefed an aide to then brief Scobie and the co-author.
And what about this, Tessa?
There's a point in the book where he talks about the contents of letters between King Charles and Meghan Markle, in which two members of the royal household, I know who they supposedly are, these two people.
Let's call them royal household.
That two of them had expressed these infamous concerns about the skin colour of baby Archie before he was born, right?
But my question is, obviously he's not got that from King Charles.
No.
So he can only have got it from Meghan Markle or her friends or people she's told this to, right?
So, you know, it's two things this book.
One is blatant lies.
Secondly, stuff he can only have got from Meghan Markle.
It is deeply unhelpful and poorly timed from the Sussex's point of view, which is why I don't think they have collaborated with him recently.
Remember, this book's been a long time in the cooking.
He started writing it before the Queen died.
It's possible that in the wake of the Oprah Wimp 3 interview when tensions were running high, that things did get spilt out.
That now I expect the pair of...
That racism allegation.
I've said this to you before.
It never appeared in Harry's book.
Yes.
It's never been mentioned again.
So they've moved on.
It's like it never happened.
No, it's like it never happened, which, by the way, is what I said at the time.
I don't believe this happened.
Let me go back to Hillary.
Hillary, what is the reputation of Meghan and Harry in America right now?
I mean, do people care?
Well, actually, I always say when Harry bangs on about mental health, most Americans, it seems, are far more concerned about the price of petrol here, gas, and the inflation rate in the US.
That's sort of the main topic of conversation.
But I will say this about in the US.
I tell you an absolute fact.
Not only can you look at the polls, Pierce, but look at the A-listers, look at the Hollywood set.
They're not invited to all those A-list events anymore.
I think that says a lot because they're the bellwether for the American people.
The paparazzi here isn't as interested in them as they were.
And look what happened in New York City.
They even had to make up that concocted cartridge that the mayor of New York, Eric Adams, had to be.
Anyone who's been in New York knew that story was nonsense.
Jessica, final point.
We've got about 30 seconds.
He says this is the beginning of the end of the monarchy, is it?
No, like I say, Omid Scobie is behind the curve.
Harry and Meghan will not have wanted this book to land now.
They have been very silent recently.
They have dropped all the radar.
They did make a few mistakes and they're trying to rebuild.
Meanwhile, the monarchy's had a relatively good year, all calm on the Western front.
Let's just poodle along and I expect Charles and Harry McCarthy.
I actually think this might be the end game for Omid Scobie, one of the most loathsome little lickspittles in modern history.
Europe Immigration Crisis00:07:06
Thank you both very much indeed for joining me tonight.
Uncensored next riots in Dublin and a hard-right populist sweeps to victory in the Netherlands.
Is anti-migrant rhetoric stoking unrest to our streets?
Or do people on the streets actually really care about this issue?
Jake Berry, Kevin Maguire will debate.
Welcome back.
Joining me now is the former Chairman of the Conservative Party, Sir Jake Berry and the Daily Mirror's Associate Editor, Kevin McGuire.
Welcome, chaps.
Kevin, I want to talk about immigration and the effect this whole debate is having now on European politics.
We saw the Goethe builders potentially now running the country in the Netherlands.
We've seen Italy go this way.
We're seeing authoritarian, far-right, populist leaders sprouting up everywhere.
And a lot of it is driven at the base of it by concern by populaces about immigration.
We now see rioting in Ireland over an Algerian actually who'd become an Irish citizen attacking three children and a woman in the street.
And we saw terrible rioting, but again, driven by this fear of what they believe to be out of control immigration.
What do you think of this and what is the smart way to handle this?
Yeah, I think it's incredibly dangerous because there has been this lurch to the right, to the hard right in Europe and politicians like Jake will be worried about what happens in the UK where the level of immigration is over half a million was over three quarters of a million actually.
The net figures, which are huge.
And I think politicians have a responsibility to be calm and reasoned and measured about it and also come up with answers, proposals.
Because what we see, and I hope Gert Will does, I think he's got 37 of 150 seats.
I hope the other parties do not do a deal with him and those who finish second and third, form a coalition, maybe with other parties, because he is so extreme and has spouted so much poison in the past.
But look, Europe's going right in part because of migration.
Well, I think it's a large part of it, actually.
And the problem with the migration debate in this country is that it seems to me, depending who you listen to, we need a lot more migrants to come in, but actually we have too many.
In other words, it seems to be both, if you believe all the noise that's going around the ether.
The most, I thought the best column I read about all this was specifically about migration, but it was a piece by Matthew Parris and the Times about why so many people are coming in from abroad.
They're coming a lot of it to students, yes, and we're helping out people from Ukraine and Hong Kong and so on.
But also a lot of people are filling jobs British people simply don't want to do.
There are five million people in this country who now don't want to turn up and do a day's work.
And I'm sorry, a lot of them are skyvers and they are manipulating a system, particularly, it seems, from Matthew Paris's piece, very well sourced in the area of mental health.
Yeah, so I mean, this is a challenge across Europe.
And I think the other thing we have to accept as politicians is we're in the foothills of the migrant crisis.
This is not going to go away.
In fact, with things like climate change and insecurity around the world, whether that be in Europe or in the Middle East, it's going to get worse.
So politicians need to come up with an answer to this quick.
And the answer isn't the hate ideology sort of pushed by people like Gert Builders and other people on the far right of politics.
Since we left the European Union, the government controls most of the levers on legal migration.
There's things like the salary cap, which is currently 26,200.
I mean, that's far too low.
If you want high-skilled immigration, do not set your salary cap below the average UK salary.
How do we get the Skyvers back to work?
Because they're clearly gaming the system.
We've got to stop people bringing workers into the country to fill low-skilled jobs in a lower salary than a British.
All right, but Kevin, that's a quick way you can do it.
You can put that up to 40 grand.
You can.
You can't deal with this very well.
But that's not the problem I'm talking about.
Kevin, the problem I'm talking about is if we could just persuade what looks to me like a work-shy country to get back to work.
Obviously, some of them have got legitimate claims to be off-sick.
But I'm sorry, five million people, it's crap.
Yeah, well, you're going to have to attack a long-term sickness, ill health, disability.
If you can't do one job, can you do another job?
I've always several million are claiming mental health issues, anxiety and so on, right?
This has got completely out of control.
I've always believed if you can work, you should work and pay your way.
But there you will have to have, you'll have to have a health service that functions and you will have to have a lot of counsellors who will be dealing with people who at the moment say they have problems going to work.
And not everybody with a mental illness is making it up.
No, no.
I know, just sometimes because you can't see it.
No, no, you think it's a problem.
Well, I'm sorry.
It's several million people basically running to their doctors and getting signed up as mental health.
For decades, we have allowed the answer to low-paid work not to be actually let's invest in productivity and make that job a higher paid job.
Let's bring people into the country to do those jobs.
That's why I go back to the point and you slightly dismissed it.
And I'm just going to pick you up on that because I think you're wrong.
This idea that you can bring people in to earn 26 grand is wrong, but it's wrong for the United States.
No, I don't disagree with that.
And it's wrong for British people.
Don't disagree with that.
If you want those jobs working, things like hospitality proper paid jobs.
I agree.
If you want to get people off the dole, give them a big...
No, I actually agree with you about that.
But on the students thing, it's complicated.
We want to bring the bright students into the country to help our universities who've been struggling for.
But don't let them bring their families in.
But who do you leave out of their families?
Can they bring their wife, their kids, both?
I mean, you know, these are serious questions.
Yeah, I think it's direct dependence, close dependence you can bring in.
You know what I say, Kevin?
I don't think the government has thought through any policy.
But you know what?
Students, they come in, they pay more than a British-born grand to do medical.
Huge amounts of money.
Yeah, and then they go around the world, or sometimes they will out of stay.
Yeah, but they go around the world thinking, well, a Britain.
It's a great way of extending British.
Final question.
Is it going to cost them the election, the Conservatives, if they don't get this right, either legal or illegal immigration?
No, I think the economy and the fact that most households will be £1,900 worse off than the last election is what it's going to cost them the election.
How big will immigration leadership?
It will be a big issue.
And what I'd say is the Labour Party's got to answer.
So people, I think, will give the Prime Minister and his team quite a lot of credit for trying to deal with this.
The Labour Party's answer is just a question.
But actually, the Labour Party, the Labour Party said, end the 20%.