All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Nov. 29, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
49:35
20231129_piers-morgan-uncensored-kyle-rittenhouse-royal-rac
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
The Dutch Translation Mystery 00:15:08
Tonight on Piers Morgan Uncensored, the Royal Race Row is reignited as a translation, supposedly of Omisco's new book names two senior royals who were accused of making racist inferences.
Tonight I'll reveal who the royals are that were named in this erroneous part of this Dutch version of a book.
And we'll debate whether it's time for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to denounce the author and his, in my view, baseless claims.
Also, he's the acquitted killer who became one of the most divisive figures in America two years after he walked free from court.
Kyle Rittenhouse says he's still trying to clear his name.
He joins me live.
And as the clock ticks down on the truce in Gaza, should Israel extend the pause or finish the job?
We'll debate.
Live from the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Well, good evening from London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Harry and Megan's claims about supposed racists in the royal family have left a predictable and poisonous legacy for the last few years.
We live in an age where grievances are given the benefit of the doubt, where the establishment is toxic by default, where my truth apparently means more than the truth.
They knew the power their words would hold and many people across the world took their words at face value.
Now, almost three years on, Britain is still dealing with the fallout from this.
And also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he's born.
What?
About how dark your baby is going to be?
Potentially, and what that would mean or look like.
Hold up, hold up.
There are several conversations.
There's a conversation with you.
With Harry.
About how dark your baby is going to be?
Potentially, and what that would mean or look like.
Ooh.
And you're not going to tell me who had the conversation?
I think that would be very damaging to them.
Okay.
Compartmentalized conversation.
I was concerned that if he were too brown, that that would be a problem.
Are you saying that?
I wasn't able to follow up with why, but if that's the assumption you're making, I think that feels like a pretty safe one.
You may recall that I lost my previous job for responding to these claims by saying I didn't believe a word of it.
Well, Harry and Megan have never provided any evidence for that highly incendiary claim.
It's not like they haven't had the chance to.
After all, they pumped out six hours of self-indulgent bilge on Netflix, trashing Britain and the press for its racism, but didn't mention what they said on Oprah.
Harry wrote 150,000 words of family bashing poison in his memoir Spare and told the TV studios to promote it, but didn't mention what they'd said to Oprah Winfrey.
Megan had a 12-part podcast on Spotify.
Didn't mention it either.
It was like it never happened.
Like it disappeared.
Clearly, neither of them gave a damn about Royal Protocol or family privacy.
In fact, they built a whole industry around violating their own privacy and that of their relatives.
Instead of backing up those claims about racism on their relentless publicity tour, Harry did a sort of strange U-turn, didn't he?
A few months ago.
Try to pretend they'd never said them.
It was us.
It was the media.
In the Oprah interview, you accuse members of your family of racism.
You don't even ever mention that they were racist.
She said there were troubling comments about concern about his skin colour.
Right.
Wouldn't you describe that as essentially racism?
Not having lived within that family.
Took him two years to do that U-turn.
Two years of the royal family are a bunch of racists flying around the world.
I was in America through a lot of that period, and they all believed it, because it had appeared on Oprah.
Then he says, I never, never meant to say anything about racism.
What are you all talking about?
It's the beastly media.
Well, now Harry and Megan's Lick Spittle client journalist Omid Scobie, the man who lied about his age, said he was 33 when in fact he was 38, a bit older now, said he never used private jets and then got reminded of an Instagram picture of him the week before he denied that this week, showing him on a private jet.
The man who said that I have regular phone calls with Queen Camilla, regular phone calls, never had one phone call with Queen Camilla in my entire life.
I'd like to, but she doesn't call.
Well, Scobie is back with a spiteful, lie-filled new book that's poured fuel on the flames.
He says that Megan wrote private letters to King Charles naming two royals who she accuses of taking part in those supposedly troubling conversations about Archie's skin colour.
Scobie initially said he knew the names but couldn't legally report them.
But of course, he could have done outside of the UK.
He could have done it in America if he wanted to, where the book is published.
He could have done it anywhere.
But he said he never names names, which is another of his lies.
And yet overnight, they were sensationally revealed, suddenly, out of nowhere, in the Dutch version of Scobie's book.
Journalists had been sent copies and the book was briefly on sale in bookstores before being suddenly withdrawn in a dash by the publishers.
Scobie initially said it was a translation error, which didn't really make any sense because how do you mistranslate names?
They're either there or they're not.
The publisher now says it wasn't translation, it was simply an error.
But how did that error happen?
How is there an entire different version appearing in a Dutch edition of this book?
The consequence of that error is that millions of people online around the world now know the royals are again being implicated in what I think is a completely baseless claim of inferred racism.
There is again massive speculation about who the people are who were supposedly making comments about Archie's skin colour, which is incredibly unfair to all the royal family.
They've all been tarred with this brush now for years.
Well, I'm going to end all this nonsense because frankly, if a book is on the streets in Holland, available to Dutch people, containing names, that Omid Scobie, the Lick Spittle scribe for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, the man who you may remember, denied they had any involvement in the last book.
And so did Megan.
Do you remember?
No, I had nothing to do with it.
But then in court, many months after the book was published, under oath, she had to admit she had emailed her aides briefing notes for when they met Scobie.
So she was one of his primary sources on that first book.
Now again, we're being told she had nothing to do with this.
And maybe she didn't.
And maybe we should be believing Omid Scobie when he says he did not ever write these names down in any draft of his book.
It just somehow popped up in the Dutch version of the book.
How?
I've written 10 books, I think it is now.
I've never had a version of my book pop up in a foreign edition that contained unbelievably damning allegations about two of the most famous people in the world.
And I had nothing to do with it and didn't know how it got there, and nor did anybody else.
How does he get there, Omid?
Surely you as the author, I mean, you must be furious, right?
You must be demanding.
Heads roll.
And you want names, don't you?
Ironically.
Omid, about who did this to you?
Who besmirched your reputation as an author?
I would, Omid.
I'd want to know right now.
Especially if I was trying to convince the world that I had nothing to do with it myself.
And I'd never ever put these names in writing.
And maybe some lawyer had come along and told me not to.
I mean, that couldn't possibly have happened because you've given us your word.
And as I've established so far in this monologue, your word is your bond.
and should be taken as sacrosanct.
Well, I'm going to cut through all this crap.
I'm going to tell you the names of the two senior royals who are named in that Dutch version of the book.
Because frankly, if Dutch people wandering into a bookshop can pick it up and see these names, then you, British people here, who actually pay for the British royal family, you're entitled to know too.
And then we can have a more open debate about this whole Farago, because I don't believe any racist comments were ever made by any of the royal family.
And until there is actual evidence of those comments being made, I will never believe it.
But now we can start the process of finding out if they ever got uttered, what the context was, and whether there was any racial intent at all.
Like I say, I don't believe there was.
The royals who are named in this book are King Charles and Catherine, Princess of Wales.
Well, joining me now is the Royal Editor of the Sunday Times, Roya Dicker, who just discovered I was going to do that.
Royal biographer Tom Bauer, who also just discovered I was going to do that, and the professor of black studies at Birmingham University, Kahindi Andrews.
But first, the Dutch royal journalist, Rick Evers, who has read the damning excerpt because he's seen it in the Dutch version.
Let me talk to you, Rick, first of all.
When you first saw what appeared in the Dutch version, what did you think?
Well, I wouldn't think I would have some big scope because I was thinking that everyone in the whole world would have the same copy, except it would be in English.
So I wasn't aware that it was such a big thing.
How do you think?
Of course it is a big thing that their names are in it, but everyone would have the same copy, isn't it?
Well, I couldn't work out in my rational head why you should know what those names were, but British people shouldn't.
So that's why I've said them.
And to repeat, I don't believe a word of these racism claims, never have done.
I've seen no evidence to suggest they're true.
I think it was an ugly smear.
And now at least we can have a public debate about it and people can say what they really want to say about it.
But from your perspective, how do you think these paragraphs appeared in the Dutch version if Omid Scobie, the author, insists, as he has done, that he had nothing to do with it, never put these names in writing, never supplied a draft with those names?
First of all, I want to say, after your track record, Piers, it would be very unimpressed if you didn't mention these names.
So well done, because you're the first one, I think, on TV that's doing that.
Well, to be honest with you, I don't understand why journalists wouldn't.
I haven't understood why we haven't so far, because the moment a book is published and available to people on the streets of another country containing these names, you know, I don't even know if these are the two names of the two people that Meghan Markle originally with Harry claimed made these comments.
We don't know.
But we do know they've appeared in the book, a version of the book, and it's Omid Scobie's book.
And we do know that under oath, Megha Markle admitted that she conspired in his last book as one of his sources.
So let's wait and see how this plays out.
But again, just to come back, what do Dutch people in the media think has happened here?
Well, I don't think Dutch people really care about it because it's the US royal family in this case that is involved.
Not even the British royal family, actually, because people don't believe it, I think.
But on the other hand, how did it end up in your book?
I think it is in the way Ahmed is describing it.
It was not in the manuscript.
What is the manuscript?
Is it the final version that you hand in at your publisher?
In that case, it was in an earlier version and it got erased in all the other versions all over the world, except for that tiny little country, the Netherlands, that has been overlooked.
Maybe someone overlooked the Netherlands to send us a memo, the publisher, or maybe the publisher forgot to do it.
I don't know.
Well, it's very mysterious.
Let me go to another seasoned author, Tom Bauer.
You've written many books.
Have you ever known a situation, Tom, where a version of your book has appeared in a foreign version containing paragraphs you knew nothing about that contained bombshell revelations?
It's impossible.
And also, more to the point, he also complained that the French translations were wrong too.
I mean, the problem with Scobie is everyone is getting it wrong what he wrote.
Of course, he can't probably remember what he wrote himself because it's so full of fabric.
Well, I'm not saying he's lying about having no involvement in this.
I'm just saying generally, he's a terrible liar.
He's a terrible liar.
We know that from his own statement about the briefing from Jason Knauff, which Megan gave him.
We know he's a liar.
And I think he's fabricated a lot in his book.
And he lied when he said he didn't have Megan's help in this book.
Clearly, he was briefed by Megan's people from California.
He says they share mutual friends.
But those friends would not be allowed to cooperate with him without permission.
Exactly.
Exactly.
His book, again, is Megan's voice.
Why is she decided to launch another war, a battle against the royal family, that's for her to explain.
But she hasn't dissociated herself from Obi-Man.
Have you ever thought that there was any racial intent any comments made?
No, no.
I mean, the whole story.
Actually, I explained it in my Megan book very clearly.
It was very, very early on in Harry's relationship with Megan.
He goes for tea to Clarence's house.
He's sitting there with King Charles, Prince Charles then, and Camilla.
And they eventually discover who he's dating and all the rest of it.
And Camilla, as a joke, just says, I wonder what your baby will look like.
Will he or she have ginger hair?
It's just the normal.
And when that originally came out, it had nothing to do with racism.
As Harry himself admits, it was all to do with a perennial problem.
What will your baby look like if it comes from different parents?
I just thought it was incredibly disingenuous of Harry after two years of feverish racism slurs.
He then said, well, we never meant to infer racism.
No, no, but the whole point is in the opera interview that he comes onto the program after Megan has spoken and says, no, she's wrong.
It all happened long before she was pregnant.
It happened right at the beginning of our relationship.
It was just a normal tea conversation.
Only two years before.
Royal Racism Allegations 00:10:06
Exactly.
And so Megan had lied.
I mean, there were 17 lies she uttered in the opera interview.
That was one of her lies.
And that is the problem.
He's now hoisted by it.
But the real problem is he's caused enormous damage.
And Scobie.
Huge damage.
And Scobie, to get some money and all the rest, stirs it again and again and again.
But this time, yet again, is definitely with Meghan's approval.
Okay, Roy, look, you didn't know I was going to do the naming of these two people.
I don't want to get you involved in that directly.
You're a royal correspondent.
But on the wider picture, this book is getting more and more attention.
It's now front-page news of many papers.
It clearly has a lot of damaging revelations.
It follows a familiar pattern from his first book.
All the main royals are awful.
Duke and Duchess of Sussex are angelic and weren't they treated so badly?
How significant is this book?
Is it going to actually have any real effect, do you think?
Well, it's interesting you say it's full of damaging revelations and bombshells, because actually from what I have read so far, it's just full of Omid's own highly partisan views and opinions rather than fact-based, damaging bombshell allegations that I think a lot of people thought were going to be unveiled with real proper evidence behind them.
And I have to say, I've been asked about the book a lot this week, and it's just felt quite predictable.
And of course, it was always going to get lots of traction because it's Omid, it's the royals.
But it just feels once again like Finding Freedom, a very one-sided partisan.
The rest of the royal family are awful, Harry and Megan's Men of Roses.
And I think actually the British public and a lot of the wider public are able to sort of decide for themselves which camp they're in, how much they believe, how much they don't.
I mean, you've talked about already this week the things that Omen has said about you that aren't true.
He's really not a fan of the Sunday Times coverage I've read and he had a whinge and a moan about my William interview knocking off Trooping the Colour from the front page.
We never put Trooping the Colour on the front page and so on and so forth.
So I think, is it going to be hugely damaging?
I think it'll whip up a storm predictably, you know, to get publicity.
And I feel that possibly something around these names could be to do with publicity.
But I don't think it's going to have real loss and damage because I don't think people are going to believe all his opinions.
Right.
And they shouldn't, by the way, from my experience.
But in terms of, I guess, the family relationships here, particularly Harry and his father, we were reading signs of potential reproach more.
Would they come to Sandringham?
I've got to say, I think I've got more chance of being at Sandringham than Meghan Markle pulling.
That's my story.
They'd like to.
They'd like to.
Yeah.
What's your story?
Yeah.
But none of this is going to help because there is this belief, which may or may not be true in the case of this book.
I don't know, right?
But we know in the first book, Meghan Markle said she had nothing to do with it and then under Roth had to admit she did.
If it turns out the same has happened here and she's authorized friends to help him and give him stuff, because let's face it, this exchange of letters between Charles and Meghan Markle, only one of them can have told people about that.
And Charles is not the kind of guy that's going to be telling people about a letter like that, which makes me think it's her and her friends or somebody has gone to Scobie.
We'll wait and see.
But if that is the case, this is going to be very damaging to the ongoing trust issues between Charles and Harry.
Well, trust is the key issue.
And I think that was something I touched on in that piece about them saying we wouldn't decline an invitation to spend time with the family.
The problem is, as you just rightly said, imagine what a whole Christmas at Sandringham would produce in terms of potential future content.
And I think looking at the phone call between Charles and Harry and Megan around Charles' 70th birthday, it was briefed before it happened and it was briefed after.
And I think if you can't even have a private phone conversation that isn't briefed before and after or after...
I honestly wouldn't trust...
If that was someone in my family, after what they've done.
Yeah.
Repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, I wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw them.
Trust is the issue, and that's not changing anytime soon.
Let's go to Kahindi Andrews.
Be waiting patiently here.
Kahindi, we've talked a lot about race issues over the years, but specifically here, there is no doubt that when they went on Oprah Winfrey two years ago, they made a series of allegations directly inferring racism by senior members of the royal family, which they've never produced evidence for, and which two years later Harry said, oh, we didn't mean racism, we meant unconscious bias and so on.
Do you not feel that that is incredibly damaging to people like you who constantly fight battles for racial equality, racial justice, you know, try and fight proper battles about this?
Is it not incredibly damaging to that when someone of their profile tries to pretend what they said to Oprah Winfrey was not what it was?
Well, no, I mean, I think the allegations when they came out, we all kind of believed it.
It wasn't something that seems completely outrageous.
Also, I'm not sure what evidence you could have.
And actually, if you listen to the clips, they're clearly trying not to say the names because they know the names are going to cause this massive storm.
But I think the bigger problem with the whole way this has been has been portrayed is Oprah is shocked, everybody's shocked.
No black person I know was shocked that this came up in a conversation in the royal family.
And the bigger problem here really is that actually it isn't about racist royals.
It's about the royal family is racism.
It is a symbol of white supremacy.
That's the bigger problem because we're talking about this now is completely because they're white.
No, not because they're white, but not because they're white, because they are exclusively.
Where is the evidence of them being white supremacists?
They link back to colonialism.
Why do we even the idea that a country like Britain, which is incredibly diverse, an empire which was more diverse, is led by this almost exclusively white family into the 21st century?
I'm sorry, that is.
So you're judging them by their skin colour.
That's the issue of racism.
So you're just to be clear, you're judging them by their skin colour, not the content of their characters.
No.
I'm saying their skin colour is not an accident.
It is not an accident that Meghan Marshall.
No, they're white.
They can't help being white.
It is an accident that she's run out of the family.
They're white.
You're white.
I'm white.
We can't help our skin colour.
It's not about their skin colour.
It's about what it represents.
The idea that King Charles is the king of my family's from Jamaica, which is 90% black people, and the king of the head of state of Jamaica is this King Charles.
It's ludicrous.
That is a ludicrous thing in the 21st century.
But that is what I'm saying.
Symbol of white supremacy.
When you're going to have a vote, I couldn't care less if it was Kate.
Listen, countries like Jamaica will have votes and they can decide.
It's not having a vote.
It's about the.
No, no, but I'm not going to say that.
There are countries like Jamaica choosing whether they want to go independent.
That's absolutely a democratic right.
You don't have to have our monarch as the head of state.
The fact that's a choice, the fact that's a choice in the 21st century tells you there's a big problem.
Do you understand anything?
Do you think anyone that almost exclusively?
Just to be clear, anyone in the royal family, as far as you're concerned, is a white supremacist simply because they're white and they're part of the royal family.
What I'm saying is the royal family, like the police or like universities where I work, they are institutions of white supremacy.
It's not about the individuals.
It's about what they do.
It's about their role in the world.
That's the real case.
The royal family should be gone.
It should be abolished.
It shouldn't exist if we're talking about anti-racism.
I really couldn't get less which royal said what, because that's not that actually distracting.
What if they didn't say it at all?
Why on earth would we accept it?
What if they didn't say it at all?
But the whole world has been led for two, three years to believe that they did.
What about that scenario?
Like I said, like I said, this doesn't, like for me, it really doesn't matter whether they said it or not.
Do you think they're all racist anyway?
It's not about individual people.
It's not they are all racist.
They are in an institution, which is racism, which is one of these primary symbols of racism.
You know, sometimes Ken Hindi...
I think.
I was going to say, sometimes, you know, when your default position, which it always is, by the way, is that everyone's a white supremacist if they've got white skin colour until they can prove otherwise.
It is your default position.
It is your default position.
That's always been your default position.
I said that the institution.
Any white people and any definition of authority, power, anything, are all white supremacists.
But just beg the question, my.
Why do you want to live in a country like this if they're all like the road?
I could go home back to Jamaica.
No, fortunately.
I don't care.
You can go.
You can go where the hell you like.
I'm just saying, why, honestly?
Why stay in a country you believe is led in every pillar of the establishment and society by white supremacists?
Makes no sense to me.
Because the reality is that that's the world.
I didn't achieve the world.
That is the world that I inhabit.
And I will just stress, I'm not saying that all white people are white supremacists.
I actually think when we think about racism as individual racists, it's the worst way to think about it.
Think about the systems, think about the institutions.
And the royal family is exclusively white for a reason.
It is the head of the so-called Commonwealth British Empire for a reason.
It is a direct connection to the colonial history that this country loves so much.
It is the premier symbol of white supremacy.
You know what?
It's actually not exclusively white.
It's not exclusively white because the Duchess of Sussex is exclusively.
I said, The Duchess of Sussex is not white.
What she did do was she entered the world.
She launched a grenade of racism allegations and has ever since stayed silent about racism.
Let them run riot around the world.
I mean, that to me in a blackness so much of an afraid that everybody lost their minds.
That in its way is a form of racism, actually, in my view, what she's done.
But we'll see.
We'll see how this all plays out now, because I've decided to name the two people named in the hold-on version of this book.
Let's see how this plays out.
Let's see whether Meghan, Markle, and Harry were involved with Scobie's book.
Let's see what Scobie and his involvement in this offending paragraph and naming was.
Let's just see how this all plays out.
And let's give the members of the royal family that they besmirched collectively.
Gaza Conflict and Solutions 00:10:34
Let's give them the chance to properly respond because I don't believe a word of it.
Anyway, Kihindi, it's always good to talk to you.
Thank you very much.
Tom, good to see you.
Roy, thank you very much indeed.
Unsensitive, one of the world's leading Jewish legal experts says all options are on the table when it comes to Israel's self-defense, including the nuclear option.
We'll debate with Professor Ahmed Dershowitz next.
Welcome back to our censor.
The clock is ticking tonight on Israel's truce in Gaza.
As many debate whether the ceasefire should be made permanent, others argue that Israel must be allowed to finish the job of eradicating Hamas.
I'm now joined by Professor Alan Dershowitz, author of War Against the Jews, How to End Hamas Barbarism.
And to debate him, the Palestinian-American columnist, Omar Badar.
Well, welcome to both of you.
Alan Dershowitz, let me start with you.
Obviously, your book, very timely.
You know, I've spoken a lot in the last couple of months of the moral quandary I feel about what is going on in Gaza.
I have no moral quandary about what happened on October the 7th.
It was an appalling terror attack.
I have no quandary about Israel's right and duty to defend itself.
The quandary I have is whether what is going on in Gaza is a proportionate response given the massive civilian death toll and given that so many of them are children.
Do you understand that moral quandary and what is your response to it?
I fully understand it and I blame it 100% on Hamas, which uses children as human shields.
It has a strategy.
Its supporters call it the CNN strategy.
I'm more direct.
I call it the dead baby strategy.
What Hamas does is they kill as many Israeli Jews as possible, knowing that Israel is going to have to respond by going after their commanders, their tunnels, and their rockets.
And so they hide their commanders, their tunnels, and their rockets among babies and children and civilians.
And then when Israel responds and tries to conduct a military operation to prevent recurrence of these barbarisms, they bring the dead babies in front of CNN and the New York Times.
And the world, of course, sheds tears as we all shed tears whenever we see a dead baby.
And the world turns against Israel.
And then Hamas does it again and again and again.
It's been doing it for 20 years with great success because the media plays into it.
So there is a great moral conjury.
But, you know, if I were to rob a bank and hold you, Pierce, as a hostage and then start shooting in the police in an attempt to stop me from shooting, or accidentally to shoot and kill you under British law, under American law, under Sharia law, the responsible person is not the person whose bullet killed the hostage.
It's the hostage taker who's guilty of murder.
So yes, there's a moral conundrum, but Hamas is responsible for causing it.
Okay, Omar Bada, I mean, there's no doubt that the scale of what Hamas did on October the 7th was so overwhelming and horrendous that Israel was always going to respond like this.
Hamas knew that.
And I guess my question off the top to you is, how did that serve the Palestinian people?
How does what Hamas did and the scale that it did it, knowing what the response would be, knowing thousands of innocent Palestinians would die very quickly as a consequence, as well as people in Israel, how did that help the Palestinian people?
I think there's a bigger question here as far as context is concerned, which is that the single biggest terrorist organization in all of Palestine and Israel is known as the Israeli government.
And the military wing of this terrorist organization, which is Orwellianly named the Defense Forces of Israel, has engaged in massive war crimes for decade after decade against Palestinians, engaging in the mass killing of Palestinian civilians, in land theft, in denial of water.
I mean, just the list of atrocities goes on and on and on.
And if we want to just go by a timeline, a question might be, why did the terrorist government of Israel think it's going to impose decade after decade of occupation and siege on Palestinians and deny them any prospect for a better future and not think that there's going to be a reaction of sorts?
So we have this a little bit backwards.
We have this arbitrary starting point of an attack by Hamas, which had it been confined to military targets could have been construed as an act of legitimate resistance.
But because it also included attacks, horrendous attacks on Israeli civilians, obviously these kinds of acts are indefensible.
But ultimately, we are talking about a situation in which Israel is initiating violence, in which Israeli terrorism dwarfs anything that Hamas has ever done.
And we're watching that even expand to a more monstrous scale.
Now we're talking about an apartheid government that is engaging literally in the mass starvation of a civilian population and mass terrorism killing them by the tens of thousands.
And the question is, has it gone too far?
I shudder to live in a world where that's even a question.
Of course these kinds of atrocities have to come to us.
Let me go back to Alan.
I mean, this is the problem, Adam, that I think Israel has in terms of global opinion here, especially from America, which obviously will play a key role.
If, as the report suggests, once this temporary pause is over, they start barreling through the south of Gaza, it does beg the question, well, what is going to happen at the end of this?
Is the military plan to simply level the whole of Gaza to the ground with perhaps 50 to 100,000 or more civilians killed in the process?
And is there any guarantee of two things?
One, that you actually get rid of Hamas by doing that, because at the moment they can't say, I've already interviewed Israeli government spokesman, they can't tell you how many Hamas terrorists they've actually killed.
They don't know, right?
And it may be, they've all disappeared.
But is that part of the military plan?
And if it is, what's the plan after this?
What happens to all the displaced Palestinian people?
They've got no homes to go back to.
And how do you avoid the obvious, in my opinion, consequence of this, which is just a massive increase in radicalization from all those who've seen their relatives blown to pieces?
Well, the plan Israel has had since 1948 has been a two-state solution.
It was offered to the Palestinians by the UN.
They said no in 1967.
Again, they said no.
In 1990, in 2000, 2001, 2007, in Gaza, they ended the occupation, and then Hamas, by a bloody military coup, took over.
I haven't seen a single sign of protest calling for a two-state solution.
Hamas is against the two-state solution in its charter.
It wants to eliminate Israel completely from the river to the sea.
Palestine will be free, free of what?
Pre of Jews.
And then the signs also say, we want to clean the world, clean the world of Jews.
That's what the Nazis said.
They called Jews dirty and vermin.
So the answer has to be a two-state solution and a peaceful two-state solution.
But you can't have a two-state solution with Hamas because Hamas's charter is against it.
Maybe the Palestinian Authority, yes.
So I'm in favor of doing what the United States did after the Second World War.
They totally destroyed Nazism.
Lots of people died.
Lots of civilians died.
But there wasn't an increase in radicalism.
The German people realized that getting rid of the Nazis was the best thing that could happen to the German people.
And I'm hoping that the Palestinian people will realize that the same thing is true.
If Hamas is ended, the Palestinian people have a great future.
Gaza can be Singapore and the Mediterranean instead of a place where terrorism is feeding hungry people.
Omar, I mean, do you believe there's any future for Gaza that involves Hamas at this stage?
I think that's unavoidable.
I mean, honestly, just the onslaught of untruths from Alan Dershowitz.
I mean, the only person who has less regard for truth than Donald Trump is perhaps Dershowitz.
And it's hard to know where to begin to respond to all of this.
Let me just say, yeah, well, I'm willing to back it up with actual facts.
So here we go.
First is back it up.
Back it up with human shields.
What did I say earlier?
Let me point it all out to you.
Here, listen up.
First of all, on the question of human shields, there is no question that Hamas hides in civilian areas.
That's as a result of the imbalance of power where Israel has fighter jets that fly in the sky and a massive regular military force.
But the issue of human shields, the definition of human shields is holding civilians against their will and putting them in front of you in combat to deter enemy fire.
And the only party in this conflict that has ever done that, documented by major human rights organizations, and a matter of fact, is actually the Israeli military using Palestinian civilians, including children, as human shields.
That was a matter of policy from 2000 until 2005.
The Israeli Supreme Court said that has to come to an end in 2005.
The Israeli military protested that decision because it is very useful for them to continue using Palestinian civilians as human shields.
And even though the Israeli Supreme Court banned it, the Israeli military continues to use it to this day.
There have been numerous occasions documented by Human Rights Watch, by Amnesty International, and other organizations.
And it tells you what this lie is ultimately about.
Because if it is true that Palestinian militants do not care about the lives of Palestinian children, then what is the point of the Israeli military using Palestinian children as human shields when they are in these confrontations?
So that is simply just don't use it.
And it's against them to blame Palestinians for their own.
Okay, let me get a final quick response, please, Adam.
A quick response, Adam.
If the Palestinian terrorists put down their arms, there would be peace.
If Israel put down its arms, there would be genocide of the kind that occurred on October 7th.
Israel cannot, cannot put down its arms because we know what Hamas did on the 7th.
They would have done to every Israeli if they had the ability to do that.
And that's why Israel must have been ongoing.
And that will benefit the world, and that will benefit the Palestinians, and that will lead to a two-state solution, which is not what my distinguished opponents want.
The two-state solution argument is nonsense.
Throughout the entire so-called peace process, when Israel was pretending to be engaged in a peace process, support for Palestinian violence simply disappeared.
And in spite of that, Israeli land theft continued unabated, building more than 10 years.
Gun Rights and Harassment 00:07:37
Gentlemen, I'm sorry.
That is what occurred right after the offer of solution to the market.
Gentlemen, I have to leave it there.
Alan, I'm sorry.
We've run out of time.
I appreciate you both joining me.
It's an important debate.
We'll keep having it.
Thank you.
Please, both of you come back again.
I appreciate it.
In a moment, we'll be talking to Kyle Rittenhouse.
First, let's have a look at an exclusive interview we've got coming up on tomorrow's show.
Something very different with the bad boy of tennis, a world sport, Nick Kyrios.
Never seen an Australian sulk like Kyrios.
Embarrassing.
To which you responded, E-A-D.
E to d ⁇ .
Sometimes you are a bit of a ⁇ , I guess.
I could be a douche on the tennis court, but I think we're very alike.
How would you feel if while we're talking right now, I just start munching on sushi?
If I was talking to Raphael Nadel or Movak Jokmich, I'd be lucky.
Yeah, no, 100%.
But Piers Morgan, it's like, it's a problem.
People think that I've been entitled and got given everything off a plate, but you hold a gun to my mum and to come steal a car.
The Kyrios family has definitely dealt with their fair share of racism in Australia.
When they're all going nuts, what do you actually feel?
You feel like the bad guy in a movie.
You feel like the main villain.
Every time I went out on the court, I knew that I could spoil someone's day.
I love it.
Great interview in Kyrios.
Definitely worth watching tomorrow night.
Something very different.
My next guest is one of the most controversial figures in recent American history.
Carl Rittenhouse appeared in self-defense when he was charged with murdering two people during the Wisconsin Black Lives Matter riots of 2020.
And the jury agreed.
For some, Rittenhouse has become a heroic standard-bearer for the Second Amendment and Americans' rights to bear arms.
For others, he got off because of privilege.
Now, two years after his trial ended, he's written a book called Acquitted to tell his side of the story.
And he joins me now live from Florida.
Carl Rittenhouse, thank you very much indeed for joining me.
First of all, let me just ask you, if you had your time again, would you, age 17, have put an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle around your neck and gone purposefully down to where these protests were happening, knowing what was going to transpire?
Well, Pierce, thank you for having me on.
With hindsight being 2020 as it always is, no, I wouldn't have gone, but that doesn't change the fact that I was attacked and I defended myself.
I was there to help people and provide first aid, and that's what I did.
I'm on video that night providing first aid and helping people.
And then being ambushed and cornered and forced to use my rifle to defend myself.
You killed two people and you wounded a third.
How do you feel about that?
Well, Pierce, they attacked me.
They left me with no choice.
I have nightmares every night of being attacked and being ambushed and them trying to steal my gun and pointing guns at my face.
It's not an easy thing to do, but I did what I had to do to stay alive.
And if I didn't, I would be dead.
Yeah, listen, you were acquitted, and many in America believe that you have the absolute right to defend yourself.
I'm just curious on a human level, you know, you're very young even now.
What are you, 20 years old now?
Yes, sir.
And you've killed two human beings and wounded a third.
I just wonder how that feels.
I don't think that's an appropriate question to ask how it feels.
It's not an easy thing to do.
It's something I live with every single day.
It's nightmares I have.
It's something that I have to deal with.
I have to deal with the PTSD and the trauma from having to do that.
Right.
I mean, but it seems to me your emotions are more about you and your trauma because your life was being threatened and that side of it, rather than the question I'm asking, which is simply on a human level, how do you feel about being so young and yet having on the record for the rest of your life now that you took the lives of two people, regardless of the circumstances?
And like I just said, it's something I deal with every day.
I deal with the PTSD and the trauma and the nightmares.
It's not easy to deal with it.
Your book, presumably you're going to make money from this book.
Do you feel comfortable making money from this, which ultimately is a tragic story?
You know, again, I repeat, you were acquitted.
There's no reason you can't do a book.
But do you feel comfortable making a lot of money out of essentially what in the end was an incident that cost the lives of other humans?
Well, I'm not writing the book to make money.
I'm writing the book to tell the story of what happened.
I'm trying to change the narrative that media keeps putting out there that I'm some type of white supremac, racist person when that's just not true.
I'm a 20-year-old kid who was put in a situation where I was forced to defend myself, and I'm writing to put that into a book.
I wrote a story and put that in a book so I can share that with everybody so they can understand what I went through, how my childhood was growing up, and the difficulties I deal with today.
And you can check out the book at RittenhouseBook.org if you want to read it and learn the truth for yourself.
How do you feel that you became a hero to many on the far right?
It kind of made you their poster boy.
Well, Pierce, I'm not a hero.
I did what I had to do to defend myself.
There are countless Americans every day that defend themselves.
And it's not a heroic thing to do.
It doesn't make you a villain, but it doesn't make you a hero.
It's doing the right thing to stay alive.
If I didn't defend myself, I wouldn't be here talking today.
You were 17 at the time.
You were too young to legally acquire the gun that you used.
That's not true.
It's not true?
That is not true.
Wisconsin statute says a person between the ages of 16 and 17 can carry a long rifle with a barrel longer than 16 inches.
That's Wisconsin law, and the judge dismissed that charge.
Okay, so you were let me ask you, look, I am in the country right now, and I've talked about this many times, both here and in America, and I've learned Americans want to handle their own gun culture the way they want to handle it.
I respect that.
But let me ask you, do you think it's right that 17-year-olds in America, in Wisconsin, should be able to carry around semi-automatic rifles like an AR-15?
Our founding fathers were very intentional when they wrote the Constitution.
They didn't put an age limit on how old you have to be to exercise the Second Amendment.
But they did say it would be part of a well-regulated militia.
They also didn't put an age in it, and we have the right to bear arms.
It's our right as Americans to possess these arms, to carry these firearms, and to use them to protect ourselves.
How do people treat you, Carl, when you walk around there?
Well, there is some harassment.
I'm constantly having photos taken of me.
I'm constantly receiving death threats on social media.
And it's just something that is part of my life now, having pictures taken of me everywhere I go and the constant, constant harassment and death threats.
Vegan Debate and Legal Issues 00:06:08
Obviously, by doing a book and promoting it in the way that you are on national television around the world, you're going to make yourself even more famous, infamous, whatever you want to call it.
Is that something you're aware of that you're deliberately consciously doing that?
I'm aware that it's going to bring some more notoriety to my name and make me more known, but I think it's worth that risk to share my story and share what happened, just in the hopes that maybe somebody else who goes through a similar situation or faces other trials in their life, they can read it and they can understand that they're not alone and that this happens to other people with the misjustice that does happen in America.
Okay, Carl Rittenhouse, thank you for joining me.
I appreciate it.
Uncensored next tonight, as hangry vegans vote to take meat off the menu at Warwick University, depriving many students of meat.
Well, maybe it's time to get serious about fighting this foodie fascism.
Joining me now is talking to the contributor Esther Krapio and Associate Editor of the Mirror Kevin Maguire.
Just before we get to vegans and vegan fascism, I've named the two royals that were named in this Dutch version of Omisco's book.
I wonder if we understand why journalists weren't.
I'm glad you did name them.
I think there are some concerns about legal issues if it's denied by the two people you name.
But I just take the view that if you can read it in Holland, why can't you read it in the United States?
And I also take the view, Esther, that I don't believe there ever was any racial undertone to anything that was said.
Of course.
Particularly when you see the two names that have been put in this Dutch version.
It's because the thing is, what people are forgetting was Megan wasn't there for the conversation.
They apparently raised this conversation.
She's just getting, she built her opinion based on what Harry told her.
And she said, apparently the person said they were concerned about how dark the child was.
They couldn't even decide what year it was said.
Exactly.
And I'm like, why would there be concerns about the darkness of the child?
You look Puerto Rican.
Anyway, but if the allegation, the accusation, the charge is made against the people of the stature, seniority of the royal family, as you make, it's an issue that has to be debated.
You have to get to it.
Well, I thought of it.
I think the moment a book is published in another country and people in that country were able to go into a bookstore and buy it with these names in it, it's time that this farcical anonymity that's dominated this debate now for two and a half years is just over.
Let's just have the debate.
What was actually said?
When was it said?
Who exactly said it to whom?
What was the context?
And let the people who've been accused of this actually say what they would like to say.
But that would require the palace, Buckingham Palace, to issue.
And there's never going to be a right of apply.
But I do think that if Harry and Megan don't say something about Omit Scobey's book, it would be really, really disappointing.
Well, they've got to denounce it and say they've nothing to do with it.
Trouble is, Meghan Markle denied last time being involved in this book and then under oath in a court case many months after it was published, was forced to admit, actually I did.
I emailed my aides telling them what to tell Omit Scobie.
She was a primary source, right?
As were a lot of her friends.
And they all just disappeared?
Because someone told him about this meeting, about these letters, I mean, between Charles and Meghan Markle.
And it wasn't Charles.
Let's turn to vegan fascists.
One of my favourite subjects.
So thousands of students at Warwick University will be forced to go vegan after a handful of activists voted for a meat and dairy ban in the institution's canteens.
Three establishments.
Why did they allow a vote in the first place?
Why is it?
Exactly.
This is the thing.
Why is it anyone's business?
You choose to eat.
It's a student union.
You have votes.
You have decisions.
Well, no, not based on what people are going to eat.
This is not far.
Nobody's going to be forced to be a vegan.
I think the fruit is a lot of fun.
You can't eat anything else.
You are.
There's everything else on the menu.
You can go elsewhere.
You just go elsewhere.
1,400 students will be offered plant-based crap in my day, right?
Which, by the way, there is no scientific evidence to suggest it's even good for you.
In fact, the scientific evidence is the opposite.
That actually, a strict vegan diet is bad for you.
And it's also who just bailed out of the I'm a severe jungle looking terrible.
Grace Dent.
Grace Dent, apart from being a guardian columnist, which is painful enough, is a vegan.
There's my proof.
I think that's a big job.
Right?
Look, look.
You couldn't even last a week in there.
Despite the fact she's surrounded by plants and bugs.
Some vegan food is good.
Like us.
I think the Greg's vegan sausage rolls.
Oh, no, that's heavy.
Don't intrude in private green.
Absolutely.
There's a serious point here.
Why should we allow a small group of people at a university to dictate how thousands of students eat?
Look, if the other students don't want it, they can overturn the vote.
And they can say, bring back beef, bacon, whatever you want.
But why would they vote harder in the first place?
I mean, do they have nothing better to do?
Why don't they vote on World Peace?
You can literally vote on anything else.
I think they'll probably do that every other week.
Yeah, with Greg's vegan sausage rolls.
I mean, I've tried, the chumps, you go everywhere now, and everyone's got their little vegan ice cream, vegan.
Shut up.
Have you noticed vegan food is very heavily processed?
I've never, unless I'm seeing them eat salad.
It's always like a broken- Do you know what they're doing in France?
In France, they ban the use of meat language to sell vegan products.
You're not allowed to say vegan sausage roll.
Again, vegan steak, right?
And that's what we should do there.
Make it illegal.
Use your own language.
Call it gruel.
Here's your gruel, right?
It's tasteless and horrible, but if you want it, it's in the gruel section.
Leave the meat language to me.
I've got to leave it there.
That's it.
I've had my red meat for the night.
Thank you both very much indeed.
Great to see you all.
That's it from me, whatever you're up to.
Keep it uncensored.
And that means telling you what the Dutch know.
Good night.
Good
Export Selection