All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Dec. 18, 2023 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
47:24
20231218_piers-morgan-uncensored-cenk-uygur-and-mosab-hasan
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Pope Accuses Israel of Terrorism 00:15:01
Tonight on Piers Morgan uncensored.
The Pope accuses Israel of terrorism in Gaza.
As global criticism of the IDF intensifies, I'll put the big questions to government advisor Mark Regev.
And we'll debate should Israel's allies now demand a ceasefire.
Also tonight, David Mamet is a Pulitzer surprise-winning playwright at Titan at Tinseltown.
He says diversity-obsessed Hollywood has completely lost the plot and joins me live.
Live from the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan uncensored.
Good evening, London.
Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored.
Throughout the long and deadly history of Israel's wars with Palestine, it's usually fallen to Israel's friends to tell them when it's time to stop.
That time may be fast approaching again, even as Israel insists it needs more time to eradicate Hamas.
It can only have itself to blame.
This weekend, the IDF admitted to killing three of its own hostages in Gaza.
The men were waving a white flag of surrender.
They'd used scraps of food to scrawl SOS, desperately pleading for help.
Regardless of whether they were Israeli or Palestinian, there is no justification under international law for killing them to clear breach of the rules of engagement.
What does that tragedy tell us about the way Israeli soldiers are treating Palestinian civilians?
How seriously should we now take Israel's insistence it's doing everything it can to keep innocent people alive?
In a separate incident, two innocent women were reportedly shot dead by sniper fire at a Catholic church in Gaza.
One of them was leaving the church shelter to go to the toilet.
Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster, one of Britain's most senior spiritual leaders, was scathing.
It's certainly a cold-blooded killing.
The Israeli Defence Force says didn't happen, wasn't there?
Well, I think that's hard to believe, frankly, because the people in Gaza and the Cardinal Archbishop of Jerusalem, they're not given to tell lies.
So you don't believe the Israeli Defence Force?
No, I don't.
Well, the Pope went even further.
He said that what Israel is doing in Gaza now constitutes terrorism.
Unarmed civilians are being bombed and shot at.
And this has even happened inside the Holy Family parish complex, where there are no terrorists but families, children, and sick people with disabilities, nuns.
Some say it's terrorism, it's war.
Yes, it is war.
It is terrorism.
The British government is shifting its position to Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron in a joint statement with his German counterpart said he backs a sustainable ceasefire and said that too many civilians have been killed.
Ben Wallace, the influential former Defence Secretary, said, if Benjamin Netanyahu thinks a killing rage will rectify matters, then he's very wrong.
His methods will not solve the problem.
In fact, I believe his tactics will fuel the conflict for another 50 years.
His actions are radicalising Muslim youth across the globe.
I think he's right.
All this after President Biden accused Israel of indiscriminate bombing, the starkest warning yet that America's backing is not unconditional.
Well, news reports about the war in Gaza today will state that 18,000 Palestinians have been killed so far, according to the Hamas-run Health Ministry.
And the key point about that often quoted sentence is not the debate about whether Hamas exaggerates those figures, is that Hamas is still in charge and able to release them as official numbers.
After two months of war, endless atrocities and the full might of Israel's army unleashed on this tiny strip of land, the very people they're supposed to be eradicating are still firmly in power.
Only about 20% of Hamas terrorists so far, even if you accept IDF figures on this, have been killed.
80% remain alive and fighting.
Well, most civilized countries and decent people back Israel's fundamental right to exist and indeed its duty to defend itself.
But the war is now starting to look like more retribution than strategy.
That suspicion is fueled by hardliners in Netanyahu's government and by Israeli commentators making appalling remarks like this.
I support the war crimes.
He laughs as the other presenters laugh as well.
Well, the rest of the world does not support war crimes.
And if Israel does have a plan and proof that it's working, it needs to start showing the evidence of that plan very soon.
Well, joining me now as the senior advisor to Benjamin Netanyahu, Mark Rege.
Mr. Reggie, thank you for joining me.
In the last two hours, a letter from a number of Conservative members of parliament has gone to the Foreign Secretary David Cameron, in which they're demanding that the UK no longer abstain on resolutions calling for ceasefires at the UN and saying thousands of bodies lie under the rubble, a particular number of women and children have been killed is profoundly shocking.
Too many Palestinians have died.
And then this key line, by any measure, we are witnessing a catastrophe of precisely the kind the 1949 Geneva Conventions were supposed to prevent.
What is your response to that?
I think they're wrong.
I think Israel, as you said correctly, Pierce, Israel is acting to defend itself, to destroy a brutal and ruthless and horrific enemy, Hamas, which is guilty of the most terrible crimes against humanity.
And our challenge here is to dismantle Hamas's military capabilities when Hamas, of course, embeds itself amongst the civilian population in neighborhoods, in hospitals, in schools, in mosques, and so forth, even in UN facilities.
And so we're trying to be as surgical as is humanly possible in Israel.
Let me jump on that situation.
Let me interrupt you there, if I may, because you say you're being surgical, and you always say this, that you're being very precise, very careful not to kill civilians.
But in the last two days alone, we've seen three Israeli hostages who had no shirts on, who had a self-made SOS banner that they were holding.
They were clearly not terrorists, and they were shot dead by Israeli forces.
And then we have these two women killed outside a Catholic church in that the Pope has called terrorism based on his information that he's got from the Archbishop in Jerusalem.
This is, I'm afraid, not indicative of a fighting force that is trying to be surgical or precise.
It is actually lending, I would say, support to the notion that President Biden put out that it's indiscriminate.
So let's talk about those two issues specifically.
Let's start with the three hostages who were tragically killed.
You know, the fighting in Gaza, in that particular part of Gaza, has been very intense, close quarter combat, face-to-face fighting.
And it's very difficult.
And our soldiers claim, and this is being investigated, of course, that obviously they perceive the three as a threat, incorrectly and tragically.
You know, in all sorts of urban warfare, you have what the experts called blue on blue shooting.
They were waving a white.
Friendly fire.
They were waving a white piece of cloth with SOS.
They were clearly not Hamas terrorists, unless you've been killing a number of Hamas terrorists.
You've been waving white cloths with SOS and surrender on them, which I don't think you have.
These people were killed and they turned out to be Israeli hostages.
I mean, it's an absolute tragedy.
But to simply dismiss it as sort of blue on blue, it seems to me it wasn't an accident.
They were deliberately killed and they were literally holding a cloth saying SOS.
I mean, it's hard to think of a more blatant, a more blatant killing of innocent people than this, isn't it?
It's worse than blue and blue because they are civilians.
They weren't even combatants, yes.
And they were freeing, obviously, running away from Hamas.
One of our problems in this was the soldiers on the ground did not have a briefing that they could expect to see hostages walking down the street, so to speak.
We expected to see hostages in tunnels, in dark rooms, imprisoned.
And the idea that they'd be walking around somehow free was a surprise.
Why would they shoot anybody holding an SOS banner?
Would they shoot a Palestinian that was doing that?
A Palestinian soldier.
So your assumption, which could be correct, Piers, but it also might be incorrect, is that the soldiers who fired the shots saw all that.
And this has to be investigated.
Obviously, when it was over, all this was discovered.
But we have to find out and has to be investigated.
What did the soldiers see at the time?
It's clear that they perceived that this was a threat.
And we know that there was fighting in that area.
There was hostile fire from the location more or less where the three were coming from, both before and after this tragic event.
So we have to investigate.
We have to get to the bottom.
But I can tell you this.
The chief of staff of the Israeli military, the most high senior officer in uniform, he spoke publicly earlier.
And he said very clearly, of course, that the idea of shooting someone who is holding a white flag and so forth, that is against our code.
That's against our rules of engagement.
He was crystal clear.
And he even stressed, he even stressed, it's not connected to them being hostages.
Even if they had been Gaz and Palestinians, that would have been wrong behavior against our code of conduct.
And let me explain why.
For two reasons.
One, for moral reasons.
It's against the morality of the army, but also from a tactical point of view, because if you can take prisoners, then you get information, you get intelligence.
So how is this?
In other words, the idea.
So obviously it has to be investigated, but the chief of star said clearly this is against our code of conduct.
What has happened to the IBM soldiers who fired the bullets?
So there's an investigation going on.
And what did they see?
Have they been withdrawn from the battlefield?
First of all, we have to see what the investigation comes out.
How do you investigate if they're still out there fighting?
Have you brought them back?
No, I'm sure the ways the military does these investigations is always very thorough because we want to learn the lessons.
And let's be frank, the families of the three soldiers.
Just to be clear, do you know if they're still inactive fighting or whether the soldiers responsible have been withdrawn?
I don't have the answer to that question.
I simply don't know.
I can ask the military and get you an answer.
I mean, surely you would agree with me.
It'd be pretty extraordinary if they're still out there having committed this atrocity.
It's what it is.
It's a tragedy.
It's also an atrocity.
Three hostages who were literally fleeing for their lives to what they thought was the safety of their own side have been just killed in cold blood, having held a sign-up saying SOS.
I mean, at the very least, I think the world would expect that the people concerned who fired those bullets have been withdrawn from active service until this is properly investigated.
So once again, I'll ask the idea, but I can say the following, that there was no attempt at all to try to hush things up.
We openly admitted this.
The army came straight out and spoke to the families and said this was a terrible accident and it will be looked into and there'll be a thorough investigation and the evidence and what the investigation reveals will be shared with the families of the three hostages who were killed.
The army is going to be very transparent on what's happened here.
We owe it to ourselves so these things don't happen again and we owe it to the families.
Are you going to be as transparent about what happened at the Catholic Church that the Pope described as an act of terrorism?
And given the Archbishop of Westminster says he simply doesn't believe the IDF when it claims it didn't do it.
So we'll investigate that as well.
We are in the process of doing so.
We're looking at the situation closely.
You must know if your snipers did it.
We at the moment.
Yes, I can say the following.
Our forces do not deliberately target civilians.
We definitely don't deliberately target it.
Was it IDF snipers who fired the bullets?
So once again, we don't.
This is still being investigated, but I can say the following, Pierce.
We don't deliberately target civilians.
Well, you keep saying, Mr. Reginald, with respect to church.
We're talking about two incidents where that's exactly what's happened.
And why it's happened is crucially important to the credibility of the wider statements that you've been making on behalf of the Israeli government about whether you are being indiscriminate.
That's why it's so important.
And again, I just ask you a simple question.
You must know.
You knew immediately you'd fired the bullets that killed the hostages.
You must equally have known immediately whether your snipers have shot these two women outside a Catholic church.
You literally just have to ask the question.
So this happened over the weekend.
You must have had enough time now to establish: was it Israeli snipers?
Because earlier today, you were denying the suggestion it may have been IDF, but the Archbishop says that's a lie.
So what is the situation with these killings?
So let me please answer by saying what needs to be said.
It's not like someone Israelis hanging around with a gun and indiscriminately shooting.
We're talking about combat zones.
And I was whether did IDF soldiers shoot those two women?
You know the answer.
It'd still be looking into, and I'm sure that we'll be putting out a report.
I can't prejudge the IDF's report, Piers.
You understand.
But you've already prejudged.
Hang on.
You've already prejudged the killing of the hostages and said you know for a fact you did that.
Why do you not know for a fact you killed these two women or not?
Because we had the bodies here of the three and there was immediately shown to be true.
I'm not sure we've got the bodies of the two women.
I don't know where they are.
I don't know what the situation is.
We will get to the bottom and just...
But if it wasn't IDF, who were these snipers?
No, they were all inside a Catholic church in Gaza.
Because we know there was fire there.
You see, the way it's being presented incorrectly is that somehow there was people at a church going to pray or praying and suddenly the IDF came and attacked.
No, that wasn't the situation, Pierce.
We know there were firefights in that area.
We know our forces took hostile fire.
So it's quite possible that it was Israeli forces, but it's also possible that it was bullets from the other side.
Yeah, but I think you're stretching my combat.
Sorry, but you are stretching my credulity to try and make me think you don't know the answer after all this time, given how clear you've been about the other incident and IDF culprit.
I'm sure a full IDF report will come out shortly, and I urge you, please be patient.
It's worthwhile waiting for the full report.
Firefights and Hostile Targets 00:15:01
And if it transpires, as everybody believes, and as the Archbishop of Westminster said, it came directly from information on the ground that he believed was credible, relayed to him by the Archbishop of Jerusalem, and what the Pope himself has called an act of terrorism.
If that turns out to be indeed the work of the IDF again, what would your response be?
So I can give you an example from the past, Piers, where there was a situation on the beach in Gaza.
This was in one of the previous rounds of conflict, and I remember it well because I was personally in the United States.
Well, I don't want to go into previous incidents.
It doesn't matter.
No, because I'm giving you precedent.
Well, the Pope president.
The Pope has directly accused you of terrorism.
No, but I do think it's incumbent on you as a government to very, very, very quickly tell the world what happened here.
Citing previous incidents in previous wars and conflicts is kind of meaningless, frankly.
I mean, but judge us by our track record, because in the past we have come clean when there was an accident and we misidentified a target and we killed innocent people.
And that's what I'm starting to tell you.
We have come and admitted that we've made a mistake.
You must know that we've had snipers in that area by that church who shot people.
You must know that.
But if there was a firefight and there was shooting from both sides, we have to look into this.
I'm agreeing with you.
There were Hamas terrorists.
Just to be clear, your position is there were Hamas terrorists inside a Catholic church with a moment.
In the location?
I didn't say that.
I said in the location and location of the church.
When do you think people forces return fire?
But if it turns out, as the Pope has alleged, and in fact stated as fact, it was an act of terrorism, what will Israel do about that?
But can I say the following, which I don't accept in the accusations?
I can accept the possibility that they were killed, unintentionally, caught up in the crossfire.
I do not accept that they were deliberately targeted by the IDF.
We do not target civilians.
We do not target churches.
Right.
And terrorism.
The provocation of terrorism.
I know, but the provocation of terrorism is the deliberate targeting of the innocent.
Yes, I know.
Unfortunately, in the last 48 hours, you have shot and killed three Israeli hostages.
And it is believed IDF forces have also shot and killed two completely innocent women outside a Catholic church.
So this constant refrain that you're not targeting innocent civilians is not borne out by the reality of IDF forces targeting and killing innocent civilians.
No, but no, I disagree.
And if you'll allow me to finish the sentence, please, Pierce.
There's a huge difference between a policy that deliberately targets civilians, that's what Hamas does, yes, and between civilians inadvertently getting caught up in the crossfire between combatants between the Israeli forces.
Well, you call it crossfire.
The allegation is all five of these victims were deliberately shot dead.
The two women by snipers.
Well, in the first place, no, let's be clear.
If there is a trial, right, let's say the accusation against the soldiers who killed the three hostages, it wouldn't be a murder trial.
It would be a trial if there was a trial.
And I don't know there will be, yes, but they would be accused of negligence or of misidentifying a target.
Yes.
Murder and terrorism is the deliberate targeting of the incident.
I understand that.
And it's not clear that in either of these cases that applies.
Right, but it may well be that that's what happened.
You can't rule that out either.
Well, that's why you've got to do an investigation.
Right.
But, you know, it shouldn't take very long to ask whether you had snipers in that area who shot women outside a church.
I know for a fact we had combatants in the area, but the fact is, did they, in fact, fire the bullets that killed the two women?
Once again, let's wait for the investigation.
And as I said, in the past, when we've made mistakes, we have admitted it.
There's a track record there.
I wanted to show you a picture.
This is of IDF bombs.
And they've inscribed on them the names of actually a number of people who've been guests on this show.
Mohammed Hijab, Andrew Tate, and also one of my next guests, Jenk Uyghur.
What is your response to that?
Maybe IDF soldiers are watching your show.
Is that possible?
Yeah, but do you think it's a sensible thing to be doing to be putting names like this on these bombs?
Well, first of all, it's obviously this is some soldiers trying to be funny or creative, but there's a history here going back to the First World War, isn't there, not of soldiers drawing pictures on shells and so forth.
It's something that soldiers have done.
I'm not justifying it, but I think British soldiers have done it.
Sounds like you are justifying it to me.
Sorry, no, I'm just putting it into historical context.
Okay.
Mark Regev, I appreciate you joining me.
Thank you very much.
Thanks for having me, sir.
Well, Uncensored next, I'll be putting Mark Regev's comments to U.S. Presidential Hopeful, Jenk Uyghur, a major critic of the IDF, whose name, as I just said, was marked on an Israeli bomb.
Welcome back to Uncensor.
Demands for a full ceasefire are now growing across the world.
One of my next guests, Jenk Yugar, has been among the loudest voices calling for one.
His name was written on an Israeli bomb to be dropped on Gaza, along with that of Andrew Tate and Mohamed Hijab, all previous post-Palestinian guests on this show.
Well, I'm joined now by Democratic Presidential Kenya, Jenkin Yugar, Mossab Hassan Youssef, the son of the Hamas co-founder, Sheikh Hassan Youssef.
Mossab has opposed the terror groups as defecting in the 90s.
And the former Chelsea and Israel manager Avram Grant joins me live in the studio.
Avram, great to see you.
And I'll come to you in just a moment.
Jenkins, I want to start with you, because pretty extraordinary to see your name scrolled on an IDF bomb.
Just first of all, what was your response to that?
Yeah, it's, of course, disheartening to see it.
It's sick.
They're going to drop those bombs on Palestinian civilians.
They're probably going to murder babies and grandmothers with those bombs.
That's why if I'm president, I won't send Israel a single dollar.
Not only the $14 billion they're considering now, but I would end all funding to Israel as they have massacred civilian after civilian, 19,000 dead, 9,000 children butchered.
I do not want a single American tax dollar going to help Israel commit war crimes.
And if they think they're going to intimidate me by putting my name on their bombs, they've got another thought coming to them.
We're at a state in this war where Hamas is believed to have around 35,000 terrorists.
At best estimates, 7,000 to 8,000, if you accept the IDF figures, have been killed.
And that's not been confirmed at all.
But if that is the case, that's only 20% of the total.
That means that 80% of Hamas terrorists have not been killed yet.
Again, I'm staying with you, Jenkin, for this.
I mean, if you're Israel and your mission statement is to eradicate Hamas, the calls for a ceasefire are going to fall on deaf ears, aren't they?
Because they're determined, as we can hear from all the rhetoric, to finish the job as they see it.
Yeah, so let's be clear.
I mean, I saw Mark Regev on before me, the propagandists for Israel that you had on.
And first of all, he thought it was funny that my name was on the bombs.
I don't think that the children that they're murdering think it's funny.
And the idea that they are not indiscriminately killing civilians is absurd.
So they dropped 2,000-pound bombs in residential areas.
America never dropped a bomb larger than 500 pounds in a residential area in Iraq.
And we did great damage in Iraq, four times larger.
The area is the size of Las Vegas, and they've dropped 29,000 bombs, nearly half of which are unguided missiles.
Then they shoot three hostages dead without even checking when they had a white flag and no shirt on at all.
And if those three hostages were Palestinians instead of Israelis, no one would have even noticed.
Because now at this point, one more devastating fact.
Hamas and what they did on October 7th was terrible and they killed 846 civilians.
The rest were soldiers.
Now Israel has, even if you take the IDF numbers of saying that there's, they kill of the 19,000 they killed, this 5,000 they claim is Hamas.
It's an absurd number, a total and utter lie, not backed up by any evidence.
But even if you accepted it, that means Israel has now killed 16 times as many civilians as the terrorist group Hamas.
Here's the question.
So what does that make Israel?
Should Israel leave Hamas 80% intact?
Is that good for anybody?
No.
So now we get to the absurdity of what Israel says.
We are going to stay there until all of Hamas is gone.
How?
How do we know if they're all gone?
How do we know if they've surrendered?
How do we know if the Palestinians have turned on Hamas?
These are all impossible standards meant to eradicate Gaza entirely.
And in fact, they've almost done it already.
90% of the people in Gaza are homeless.
We're picking out the body parts of family members every single day in Gaza.
And now even the New York Times and every human rights group acknowledges this is one of the worst massacres, the biggest war crimes committed in our lifetimes.
America in 20 years in Afghanistan did not kill as many civilians.
But should they leave Hamas?
Israel has killed two months.
But should they leave Hamas?
So now let me give you an answer.
Let me give you a productive way to do this, how to drive Hamas out.
You make a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority.
That buys them the credibility to be able to say to the Palestinian people, we have delivered a state for you, the thing that we have been looking for our entire lives.
And now, because we have delivered that for you, we are going to run Gaza.
That can drive Hamas out in a way that is organic and driven by the Palestinians themselves.
If you just try to murder as many civilians as possible in Gaza, that is not an answer for actually getting Hamas.
And by the way, the bombs have shown that they do not affect the tunnels.
So all they're doing is killing civilians.
Let me bring in Mossad Hassan Youssef.
You're the son of one of the Hamas co-founders, of course, and renounced that back in the 90s.
You believe that Israel should finish the job.
They should eradicate Hamas.
Well, absolutely, because all the calling for a ceasefire is calling for surrender.
They want Israel to surrender to the terrorist savages and sit down at the table and negotiate with them.
And this is absolutely rejected.
Is there any deal to ever be done with Hamas?
You know Hamas very well, obviously, through your father.
Is there any deal to be done with a group like this now?
There is no deal with the devil.
There is no deal with Hamas as long as they pose a threat against children, against civilians, and destabilize security in the entire region.
If they get away with their crime, and their crime is not just any crime, it's a genocide.
If they get away with their crime, what will they do tomorrow?
They have to be punished and they have to be held accountable.
All the calling for ceasefire.
Those are the people who want to give a lifeline to Hamas.
And this is not acceptable.
Masabi, you tweeted on Friday something that many people found incendiary.
You said, never trust anyone who identifies as a Muslim.
They may appear as a harmless sheep when they are alone, but when they're in a pack, they will begin to show their tusks.
I have zero respect for any individual who identifies as a Muslim and I may consider the use of force when it comes to Islamist.
What did you mean by that?
Many people are saying, well, why would you say that about over a billion people?
Well, I don't care how many there are.
Any person who put the religious identity above the highest interest of humanity, I have no respect for these people.
The majority of the Muslim people identified with Hamas, supported Hamas.
Show me how many Muslims out there who condemned Hamas genocide.
Why?
Is it because Jewish blood?
This is what I meant, that the Muslims, as long as they give Hamas cover, I have no respect for them.
As long as I identify as Muslims, I have no respect for them.
But I've interviewed a number of Muslims on this show who do not support Hamas and have renounced them.
Jenk himself came on the show before and immediately denounced what Hamas did.
I am dealing with a majority of Muslim countries, governments, an entire nation.
Don't tell me about an individual here or there.
We're talking about a majority of Muslims.
Well, I'm talking about, but you did say literally every Muslim.
You said, don't trust anyone who identifies as a Muslim.
That's all of them.
And what I'm saying to you is I've interviewed many Muslims on the show who are not extremists, who do not support what Hamas did, who believe what they did was a terrorist.
They still need, but they still have the need for a religious identity, which is a false identity.
Individuality is something else.
Freedom is something else.
A person who knows who they are, they are above all national and religious identities.
There is no need to pose as a Muslim in a critical time in the human history.
This is the time to take moral responsibility.
What's the point of identifying as a Muslim while people threatening to erase an entire Jewish community?
This is not acceptable.
This is why I want the Muslim to stand and be clear.
Up to this point, I haven't seen, I haven't seen the Muslims taking a moral stand, a firm stand against Hamas.
You know why?
Because they are Muslims.
Because they are Muslims against the Jewish people.
And this is where I want to push the Muslims to the point where they need to stand firmly and say it doesn't matter if they are Jewish or Christians.
A genocide is a genocide and is rejected.
Hamas is rejected.
I want to see this clearly.
Then after that, I will have respect for the majority of the Muslim people.
As long as they fail their moral responsibility, I have no respect for them.
Muslims Must Take Moral Stand 00:07:42
Okay.
You made your point very firmly.
Let me bring in Avram.
Avram, look, a lot of emotions run very high with this, understandably.
A lot of people have been killed on both sides.
It's a horrific situation.
You were in Israel on October the 7th.
You've been back since.
You've spoken to IDF soldiers.
You've been to the kibbutzes that were attacked.
I think one of your daughter's friends was killed.
I mean, it's personal for you.
Your father survived the Holocaust.
What do you feel about all this?
I feel sad.
To be honest, I feel sad.
But I want to tell you something.
I came to Israel a few days before.
The atmosphere was very pastoralic.
My son is a musician.
He is writing songs.
By the way, he writes a song about the world that he calls it Stopper.
I say, why stopper?
Because for me, everything stopped in the 7th of October.
And then I woke up in Saturday morning.
My friend called me.
He said, you don't believe it.
23 people was murdered by the Hamas.
I said, oh, and he started to watch the television.
The day after my wife decided that we will take our daughter Romi because she was working in the television.
And you know, I don't know if you know.
I think also you got all the videos, horrible videos.
She didn't want to see it.
On the way back, my daughter started to cry.
I said, why?
I say, we found a lie, our friend.
He was murdered in this party.
The way party for peace, party for peace, not only by the Jewish people.
So this is how I exposed to this situation.
But I will tell you, it's a tragedy.
It's a tragedy.
All of this area is a tragedy.
I'm not a politician.
I'm a footballer guy.
But I live in this area.
I have a lot of Muslim friends.
I have a lot.
And I want one thing to say.
Two things.
First, what would you do?
What England would do if this massacre happened in England?
What do we do?
What do we do?
They would be silenced.
And not just this.
What do we do if the people that did it said publicly, we will do it again?
And we will do it again.
And they show the videos.
By the way, all the videos was published by them, was videos by them.
Even the Nazis was hiding what they do.
What do we do?
Of course, you need to prevent that the second time.
But are you comfortable, Avram, with the scale of the response by Israel?
Do you feel comfortable?
A lot of people are feeling increasingly uncomfortable.
And when you see three hostages being killed, you see women being killed outside churches, the Pope calling it terrorism, the President of the United States saying it's indiscriminate bombing and so on.
Do you feel comfortable about this?
Do you think that Israel should just carry on?
Or do you think they should have a pause?
I'm not a general of all things.
I think one thing everybody knows.
This Hamas do not need to be in this area.
If the Hamas is not here, if the hostages will release, by the way, which hostages?
10 months years old, 4 years old, 85 years old.
You know, people that was in the party, it's not the soldiers.
They didn't fight.
I don't remember in the history hostages like this.
They need to release them immediately.
They need to put their weapon down.
One thing for sure I can say to you, Piers, if they would put their weapon down, if they release the hostages, and they put all their efforts instead to build tunnels, instead to make missiles, to the quality of the people, Gaza can be paradise.
I can assure you to this.
For sure.
But do you think Israel should continue fighting until they get rid of Hamas completely?
That could mean many, many months, if not years, at the rate they're going.
No, I don't know.
People say six weeks, I don't know.
I think this need to be the target of the free world in Israel to get rid of the Hamas.
Because the Hamas, I'm one of the people that believe them, not believed the number.
They said, we want to kill the gang.
We want to kill.
Yeah, they did.
There's no question of that.
So you need to get rid of the Hamas.
You need to get rid of Hamas.
How to do it?
How to do it.
I'm a football coach.
Everyone talks about the day after the war.
What do you think the future looks like here?
How do we get to peace?
I will tell you exactly.
Not exactly.
I will tell you my opinion.
First, I have a lot of Muslim friends.
By the way, I have friends in Gaza.
My wife even did a program about family from Gaza.
I have friends, all the Muslims of the world.
They condemn what's happened.
They don't like it.
I don't agree with this guy.
I agree with him that the Hamas is the devil, but not all the Muslims are like this.
They didn't like what they do.
I think the people in Gaza deserve other government.
They deserve other leaders.
They need a leader that...
Who should that be?
They need to lead.
I don't know.
They need a leader from them, leaders that take care of the quality of life.
They need the leaders that will lead them to this area.
They need a leader that their target is not to hate.
Their target is to build something.
Their target is to do something.
Not to hate others.
One thing for sure, you know the song of Martin Ruther, the speech, I have a dream.
I also have a dream.
I have a dream that it will happen.
I will tell you something.
The leader that I admire more than anybody, I think, is the number one leader on the 27th is Anmar Sadat.
Anman Sadat was a guy that was the worst enemy of Israel.
In 25 years, four wars.
One of them, he started it, yes.
They killed each other.
Many people died.
Many people got injured.
And this guy decided to come to Israel to the parliament and say, I know I want a peace.
And I will tell you something.
In these days, to say, I'm going to Israel, it's more than Bin Laden will come to America, you know.
And he came, and what's happened since then?
50 years, nobody died.
It's a cold peace.
I want the peace, will be better.
Nobody died talking.
I expect that these leaders, these leaders now in the region, and I agree with the Son of the Father, will take responsibility.
And they say, let's make Gaza paradise.
You know that I tried to do a project of football.
Yeah.
Pitchers on the border with people.
And I will do it, by the way.
Pitchers between...
Israelis playing Palestinians.
Yeah, Peter.
And the people will come to Peter.
I try to do this project.
I still believe in this.
But I expect this leader, maybe it's Mohammed bin Salman, maybe others, I expect the leaders to sit together and say, instead to give them money for tanners, why they need the Tanners?
Why didn't it make money to the quality of the people?
Like Anman Sadat came to Israel, very brave men.
I expect them to do this.
And I will tell you one thing.
I've got to go actually, Avram.
I think you're right.
I will put all the leaders together that want peace, even from Iran, even Prohibit, everybody that wants peace and want to make a Gaza paradise.
Make it happen.
They can make it.
And you know how it started?
When Anwar Sadat called to Walter Concord and said to him, I'm ready to come to Israel.
So maybe they will call you Piers and say, let's make peace.
Let's make Gaza paradise.
They would do anything.
And let's stop the intention of killing other people because I agree with Mark Reagan.
The Israel never have intention to kill other people.
Avram, I'm going to leave it there.
Fascinating to talk to you.
Great to see you.
Thank you very much indeed.
And to my two other guests, I really appreciate it.
Jake, I can see you wanted to jump in.
We will come back to this.
You're a powerful voice, and I will come back to you about this.
I've just run out of time tonight, but thank you all very much.
9,000 dead children in Gaza.
9,000 deadlines.
It's a rendition.
It's dead children.
It's acts of terrorism.
I will get you back on again soon, and we'll talk about it again.
I promise you that.
Thank you all very much for joining me.
Hollywood's Reaction to the Book 00:06:12
And since the next, Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright and screenwriter is calling out Hollywood's diversity obsession.
David Manet is burning bridges all over Tinseltown and good for him, frankly.
He's live next.
Welcome, Daws.
So Simon Excit is a Hollywood screenwriting legend, the genius behind some of the most memorable scenes in movie history.
David Manet is daring now to call out Hollywood's diversity obsession with his new book, Everywhere in Oink Oink, an embittered, dyspectic and accurate report of 40 years in Hollywood.
And he joins me now.
David, great to have you on the show.
I'm so happy you did this book because it needs to be said loudly.
Hollywood has lost the plot in recent years at the altar of trying to tick endless boxes for diversity, for virtue signaling, whatever it may be.
And it's made a lot of movies simply unwatchable.
And it's also made award ceremonies unwatchable as all the actors get forced into making these homilies and lectures and statements when all I want them to do is embrace movies.
Yeah, well, the thing about Hollywood is it's dead.
And I've been around a long time and technology changes a culture as we see that vaudeville was driven out of business by the movies and the movies took it in the tank when television came along and every time the technology changes there's a whole new paradigm.
Who are we, to whom are we appealing?
Who's in charge of that?
How do we keep track of it?
And so forth.
And so now the new paradigm is to go to downloading and streaming so that the incredible bureaucracy, the pointless bureaucracy of the studio system, which has been around for 100 years, is now dead.
There's nobody there who says, think of it this way.
If somebody at Kodak said 30 years ago, geez, I'm young.
You guys don't know this whole new thing called computers and digitalizing.
We got to stop making film.
They would have said to that person, you're out of your mind, you're fired, right?
If we stop making film, our share price goes in the toilet.
So the same thing is now true in Hollywood.
Nobody goes to the movies anymore in the brick and mortar movie theaters.
And most people are just sick to death of this garbage that's being stuffed down their throat by the people who say buy a subscription or read a book.
I mean, when we see the issue that Disney got into, for example, with Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, where they decided they weren't going to have any dwarves because they wanted to take every quota box going and stuff, the backlash to that was very interesting to watch for me.
It sort of said to me that the main body of the public have just had enough of this to a degree.
Well, there's nobody making, everybody's making a corporate decision.
So the whole thing about AI is interesting to me because that is the apotheosis of what idiots have been saying for 100 years.
Why don't we just get people in a room and see what the audience bought last year and make it again this year?
Wouldn't that make sense?
Well, it doesn't make sense because you can't predict what the audience is going to like, right?
Because even the people who come out and say, this is what I liked, they do that because they've been asked the question.
They've been turned into a critic.
So even though they might say, yes, I liked this, it doesn't mean they're going to like it again next year.
So what's missing from Hollywood is individual invention, which can only come from the individual, and courage to take a chance and say, yeah, you know what?
I'm going to do this story because it's fun, rather than I'm going to do this story because if I don't, I'm going to get fired.
Who wants to watch that garbage?
I get all these Hollywood screeners in the mail, and they're all a deeply felt understanding tale of a person caught between his personal idea.
Who cares?
Nobody cares.
What is the answer to this?
I mean, is there an answer?
Yeah, there's an answer.
I just made a movie with Shia LaBeouf and Evan Jonikait, Dom Hoffman, and Chris Bauer.
And the people who made this movie also made some direct to downloading movies, among them The Peanut Butter Falcon and among them Honeyboy with Shia.
And also that they just made this movie called Sound of Freedom, which was, I think, funded by some Christians who made a lot of money with Jim Coviesel playing Christ.
Now he plays a cop.
It's a straight-up cop movie starring Jim Coviesel.
They made it for $8 million.
They made a quarter of a billion dollars because they went right to downloading to people who said, you know what?
Heck, I'll pay money for that.
This is a great business if you think about it.
If you make a movie for, say, $2 million and you download it and it makes $4 million, which you can do if you just threw it out the window, you just doubled your investment in three months.
So that's what's happening now.
What has been the reaction, David, to your book from Hollywood?
The reaction to my book, I don't know about Hollywood, but the critical reaction has been overwhelmingly, this is hysterically funny.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
That's good enough by me.
As far as Hollywood goes, It's kind of like world opinion, right?
It's the mob.
It doesn't quite really exist.
And so as far as Hollywood goes, that's my answer.
What I did in the book, because I've been in this business for 40 years in every aspect of it, sitting at the big table.
So what I'm saying is this is what actually went on.
That most people who write tell-all books are either settling a grudge or exculpating themselves or hyping their brand.
But I said, you know what?
I've had so much fun in this business.
Miss France Haircut Rules 00:03:25
Here's a bunch of funny and raunchy stories.
I hope you like it.
And the reaction's been gratifying.
Well, I've got to tell you, it is, I mean, I'm no surprise.
I love all your work, but it is absolutely hilarious.
And I'm so happy you've done this book.
Everywhere in Oinkoink, an embittered, dyspectic, and accurate reporter, 40 years in Hollywood.
Everyone should just go and read this, A, for a great laugh, and B, to see the veneer of this bullshit blown away.
So David Berman, thank you very much indeed for joining me.
You're so welcome.
And so it's the next.
The PAC will be with me in the studio.
Well, goodbye, Don Sense.
I'm talking about my PAC, talking to the contributor, Esther Cracker, and the Blueprint Journalist Eva Center.
Welcome, ladies.
I'll show you a little haircut.
Eve Gilles, Miss France, the winner of Miss France, who apparently is at the center of a woke backlash because she has a pixie hairdo.
And the French like their Miss France winners to have long hair.
And she's the first short-haired one to ever win.
I don't get this.
What's he got to do with woke?
She looks fantastic, doesn't she?
Am I missing something?
Most people don't know how strict the Miss France rules are.
So to be in Miss France, you have to be between the age of 18 and 24.
You have to be 5'7.
You can't have any kids.
It's one of the strictest, it's one of the strictest beauty pads in the whole world.
But is there a rule about your hair?
No, they don't have a wonderful.
What's it got to do with wokery?
I'm not the biggest woke basher in Britain, but even I am, I cannot muster any anger about a haircut.
The Daily Mail tried to jump on it this morning and they did put it on their woke watch and I think there was a slight retraction.
There was a bit of an edit of an online college.
I thought she looked fantastic.
She does.
I mean, I think she should go for a side part.
It's a bit too Linda Evangelista.
I mean, she should go for more like Hallie Berry.
But I think it's beautiful.
She looks like Twiggy back in the 60s.
If you have like a Miss France from Martinique, she'd probably have an Afro, right?
Is that, it'd probably be short.
Is that woke?
It's nothing to do with woke, is it?
Let's just, anyway, well done, Miss France.
You look fantastic.
Miss France is a nerve having beautiful.
We have to pick our woke battles.
And that haircut is not a hill I want to die on in my woke bashing campaign.
I think she's a woman.
At least she's a woman.
At least she's a woman and not...
You're right.
There's no bulbs to be seen.
Let's talk about Lady Moan.
Michelle Moan, because I watched that interview at the weekend.
I don't think you did her any favours.
The big question now is, should she, obviously, it's a criminal investigation, but should she remain in the House of Lords, having admitted lying to the press, in which she followed up with lots of libel threats if people publish the truth.
I mean, I don't know about you, but I'm relieved that I'm not her lawyer.
I think her lawyer is probably somewhere in a dark corner crying hysterically because she's not a bad person.
Should she be removed from the Lord?
No, look, but I mean, it's not a process to remove someone from the Lords, but it's a good question about whether we should just get rid of the entire institution altogether and I would back that.
I think we should blow it up with a handful.
Well, what about her in particular?
Oh, yes, of course.
She should resign if she has a modicum of...
See, I think lying to the press like that by sending endless legal threats is actually lying to the public.
It is.
I've known Michelle a long time, right?
But I watched that and it had a touch of the Prince Andrew delusion about it.
It's like, do you not realize that you're lying to the public?
And you can't do that if you remember the House of Lords.
Anyway, lovely to see you.
I know you're sick.
Go back to bed because you need to go back to bed and recover.
All right?
Care about you, Esther.
That's it from me.
whatever up to keep it uncensored and unsniffling good
Export Selection