All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Oct. 9, 2024 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
52:20
20241009_mohammed-hijab-vs-alan-dershowitz
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Israel's Military Offensive 00:05:57
What I'd like this to be is a civilized debate between two people with very strong opinions about this.
Wherever we see suffering, wherever we see death and destruction, assault, sexual assault, we see Dershowitz to the rescue.
The former defense attorney of Jeffrey Epstein.
Mohammed, attacking a lawyer for defending people is a stupid argument.
You're looking at me when I'm speaking to you.
What's this got to do with Israel?
This shows you the bias.
The bias in the coverage.
You're talking complete bullshit.
You should be arrested on that charge if you're held for a pathetic question.
Tell you what, let me ask the question.
Sure, go ahead.
When you guys try and debate.
Why is this uncomfortable?
It's nothing to do with the debate.
Good information.
Why are you doing this, Mohammed?
Why not?
Because it's pointless.
If you didn't want to do a debate, don't agree to do it.
What's wrong with you?
Why are you not looking at me again?
You're crying.
Are you trying?
No tears in my eyes.
Is there any point considering this?
The events of the past year have shattered stability in the Middle East.
Israel's war on Hamas, provoked by the atrocities of October the 7th, have led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians.
Prime Minister Netanyahu promised total victory and the complete destruction of Hamas.
But one year on, Hamas is still firing rockets at Tel Aviv.
One year on, 97 hostages remain in Hamas captivity.
Very clearly, Israel has not fulfilled its stated aims in this war, and it continues to add new ones.
It's now at war in Lebanon and on the precipice of a direct conflict with Iran.
It has no plausible exit strategy in Gaza, where millions live in grief and under occupation.
But it has without question decimated Iran's client militias.
Hezbollah, the jewel in Iran's crown, has been decapitated.
The question is whether that makes the Middle East and the world a safer or a more dangerous place.
Can it really be said that Israel is winning this war?
How big will this war get?
And how much collateral damage and suffering can the world tolerate before enough is enough?
This debate will examine the legality, the morality, and the sustainability of the conflicts in the Middle East.
Joining me are two of our most passionate advocates for their cause.
The Muslim philosopher, scholar, and YouTuber Mohammad Hijab and the lawyer and author Alan Dershowitz.
Well, welcome to both of you.
Mohammed, you've been on twice before, Alan, many times.
What I'd like this to be is a civilized debate between two people with very strong opinions about this, obviously very different opinions, where we try and reach potentially some points of agreement.
Because so often with these debates, that seems almost impossible.
Descends into a shouting match.
Everyone gets ad hominem.
Everyone digs ever deeper into their trench, their tribe, and we don't get anything constructive out of it.
I think you guys are smart enough to potentially, through spirited and passionate debate, agree about some stuff.
And that is surely the first basis for how any of this eventually gets resolved.
So let's hope for the best.
Prepare for the worst and hope for the best, as they say.
Alan Dershowitz, let me start with you.
Israel, it seems to me, in the last three weeks, have massively ramped up their military offensive in a way that says to me that Prime Minister Netanyahu and his cabinet sense an opportunity to completely, in their eyes, sort out the Middle East problem once and for all with Iran at the center of that problem.
Is that how you see this?
Yes, I do.
I see Iran as the head of the octopus sending out its tentacles through the Houthis, through Hamas, through Hezbollah.
The tragedy as we celebrate, celebrate's a bad word, commemorate October 7th, is that if Sinois and Hamas had the opportunity to do it again, knowing everything that followed, knowing all the deaths and disasters in Gaza and in Lebanon, I think Hamas would do it again, would do October 7th again, because they think they've won.
They've turned college and university students against Israel.
They have solidified the United Nations' opposition to Israel.
They've divided Americans, particularly the Republican administrations in the past, from the current Democratic administration.
So Hamas cannot be allowed to have a victory growing out of October 7th any more than ISIS should have been allowed to have a victory going out of 9-11.
So I think the answer is yes, a military defeat for Iran and its surrogates and a peace process between Israel and Saudi Arabia with steps taken toward the recognition of a two-state solution, which is the only reasonable solution that will solve the problem.
But remember that October 7th was stimulated by the desire to prevent Israel and Saudi Arabia from creating a peace process following up from the Abraham Accords.
And unless that peace process continues, and unless Hamas is told, no, you failed, the world will not reward you for this, we're just going to see a continuation of the bloodshed in the Middle East, which does not serve the interests of the Palestinians nor the Israeli people.
Okay, Mohamed Hijab, your response to that.
Well, first of all, I would like to say that wherever we see suffering, wherever we see death and destruction, especially of young people, assault, sexual assault, we see Dershowitz to the rescue, the former defense attorney of Jeffrey Epstein, a man himself accused of.
The Case for Proportionate Response 00:14:36
Before we would get to that, I knew.
I didn't give you permission to interrupt you.
I didn't give you permission to interrupt.
I stayed quiet when you were talking about the money.
Here's what I would say.
I stayed quiet when you were talking about the internet.
Hang on, hang on.
Here's what I would say.
I'm going to attempt to the merits of the title of the law.
I didn't give you permission.
Mohamed, attacking a lawyer for defending people is a stupid argument.
Well, I'm not making an argument yet.
But you're just using an advantage.
I'm going to attack straight off the top.
Has he got leverage on you?
No, he's a brilliant.
I saw your picture with Maxwell.
He's got leverage on you.
He's a brilliant lawyer.
He's making that because he's got leverage on it.
I met Ghillene Maxwell for five minutes at a book lawyer.
You look very happy with her.
Well, I didn't know anything about her at the time.
She was the daughter of the man that was talking about the daughter of the man.
She was in the scandal in the last hundred years.
No, I never met Jeffrey Epstein or ever knew him.
Alan Dershowitz was wrongly accused of various things in relation to Jeffrey Epstein.
How'd you know it's wrongly?
Because they've all been out to be nonsense.
They won a court case.
You're looking at me when I'm speaking to you.
Well, I can turn to you, but there are three of us involved in this.
Yeah, you're speaking to me, I'm sure.
Let me make things clear.
I never met Jeffrey Epstein.
I met Ghillene Maxwell for five minutes of age.
You look very happy in that picture.
If you want to use that as an ad hominem, why are you defending him?
Hang on.
A picture taken in 2013.
He spoke for three minutes.
I spoke for 20 seconds.
I'm defending him because your first attack on him is to attack him as a lawyer.
Yeah.
Because he defends bad people.
That's fine.
Here's a little secret for you, Mohammed.
All lawyers do that.
No, but hold on.
We're not talking about bad people.
We're talking about speakers.
You've had enough speaking.
I'm talking about a person who, after the fact, said that he was proud to defend him after the allegations come out.
Do you condemn Dershowitz?
For what?
For defending Epstein.
I have defended Establishment.
Being proud of defending Epstein.
It's not for me to defend.
I'm condemned for that.
Alan, you defend yourself.
Why should he defend himself?
I can defend him.
I'll speak for 20 seconds.
Alan can defend himself.
Let me speak for more than 20 seconds and I haven't even made my point yet.
I helped to defend.
It's a two-on-one now.
I've helped to defend some of the finest people in the world.
John Leonard, some of the people who defended, isn't everybody in the world.
He was not proud of him.
What's this got to do with Israel?
This has got to do with the fact that this man, the credibility of this man, he defends Israel on the one hand, and on the other hand, he defends Epstein.
I think the public should know this.
Do you want me to play proud?
You want me to play the Kinsha?
He's proud.
Mohammed, you want me to play the Clints of Victoria?
And I don't know.
You're going to do the rounds of social media saying some very inflammatory people.
No problem.
You want me to?
Why are you not looking at me?
Because I'm looking at the three of you.
I'm right.
He can turn to you and the viewers see me and you look at him.
Look at me, man-to-man.
Fine.
Look at me, man-to-man.
Look at my eyes.
It's called an upsetting thing for videos.
Okay, now, the first thing I wanted to say was that this man's credibility is something which is shocking that it's even interpreted.
What do you base that on?
On the fact that he actually defended Epstein, and after the fact, he said he was proud of it.
He was in Epstein's vicinity.
He was in Epstein's vicinity.
He had a massage in his vicinity.
This is the kind of person that we're having on the show defending Israel.
That's the first thing I want to say.
The second thing is, in the first interaction where me and you were talking about October the 7th, we spent about three or four minutes actually talking about sexual assault allegations, if you remember that.
And actually, here, what we have is Israeli soldiers like Mir from Unit 100, and that's on The Guardian, it's on Sky News, it's on all these kinds of platforms, coming out and there's videographic evidence of him raping another man.
I haven't heard condemnation from you, and I don't expect to hear it from him who defended Epstein.
Well, this shows you the bias, the bias in the coverage for a year.
Well, we know the ICJ have said that there's a plausible genesis.
You haven't been watching my show.
I think I have.
No, you haven't.
Have you spoken about it?
I'm talking complete bullshit.
Okay, tell me why.
Right?
Tell me why.
Because, A, I did condemn what you've just talked about in a previous debate.
Good.
Doshwitz, do you condemn it?
Yes, of course.
I condemn any rape of anybody in any assault on anybody who's in captivity.
And you also condemn the rights of rape and the right of rape protests that took place in Israel.
And you acknowledge that there's a problem with Israel.
They're going to take a place.
They will be investigated.
They will be fully investigated.
They will be caught in the future.
Do you acknowledge that there's a problem with anybody?
Why is convicted of that?
They deserve their protection.
Do you acknowledge that there's a problem with this?
What about the problem with Hamas raping women?
I have no compunction.
I have no compunction condemning Hamas for anything that they've done.
You've said that.
You've asked me before, and I've told you before.
I have no moral scruple.
Neither do the majority of the Muslim world.
I tell you now: anything that Hamas has done, we have condemned in the first instance.
But we're not seeing the same level of coverage with Hamas as we are seeing with these people that are shoving rods off people's ass and raping people on videographic evidence.
And you have 3,000 people, you talk about the hostages, you've got 3,000 people in essentially captivity, according to Human Rights Watch and Bet Selim, who are prisoners of war of Israel.
And we are spending a fraction of the time speaking about them as compared to speaking about the hostages.
This shows you the inherent morality.
But there's no comparison.
There's no comparison between innocent hostages who did nothing wrong and people who are being charged with criminal offenses.
They're not charged with criminal offenses.
That's why you're not meant to know better.
You're not meant to know better.
They're not charged with criminal offenses.
They're not charged with criminal crimes.
You can't compare.
They are arrested without charge.
You can't compare.
Compare us to real children.
They're not charged with criminal offenses.
Don't shout over each other.
We can't hear the answers.
But he's lying to the public.
Allow him to respond.
Go ahead.
Somebody who's a member of Hamas.
Say that.
Sorry, Adam.
We couldn't hear you because he was shouting.
I was shouting.
Alan, he says the 3,000 people.
He says, Alan, just to be clear, he said the 3,000 people he's talking about were all arrested without charge, and therefore they've not been charged with crimes.
Your response to that?
Well, if they were, they should be released.
Nobody should be arrested without charge if you're held for any reason.
I don't say what I want.
It's uncensored.
Good.
Let me finish the census.
Let me make my point.
Try and have a point.
I will say what I like.
Can I make my point?
Let me make my point.
Great Britain confined tens of thousands of people without charges during the Second World War.
Two wrongs don't make her right.
Two wrongs don't make her shit.
Let's talk about what Hillada.
Let's talk about what Hitler does.
Let me make my point.
I'm opposed to that.
I wrote an article against administrative detention.
But you can't compare that, no matter how bad it is.
You can't compare it to three-year-olds being kidnapped, to people being raped and murdered.
You can't compare what happened on October 7th to what Israel has done.
Yes, you can charge on the 100 prisoners.
There's 30,000 people in your action with 100.
And stop this.
That's 30 times more.
That's 30 times more.
Look, if you want us to take you seriously, if you want us to take this coverage seriously, if you want us to take Western media seriously, then let's, for God's sake, talk about proportionality as your favourite word.
We're talking about 30,000 people detained in prisons on the one hand and 100 people who are hostages.
And yet we have managed somehow to spend way more time proportionality.
You said 3,000, Mega.
Which one is it?
3,000?
Sorry, 3,000.
3,000.
Not 30,000.
Not though.
3,000.
Get your numbers right if you're going to make that case.
Okay, it was, I misspoke.
Exactly.
Not a problem.
Not a problem.
He spoke about Iran.
Let me ask you a question.
I'll tell you what, let me ask the question.
Sure, go on.
You guys try and debate it.
At the moment, Alan Dershowitz is being very civilized in the way he's debating.
I'm sure you're going to say that.
You're just making profits and shouting all the time.
He's a friend.
No one can understand it when you're talking about it.
You've met him before.
I know Alan well.
Oh, you know him well.
I respect him very much.
Oh, yes, you do.
He's one of America's top lawyers.
His top lawyers.
Aha.
And you're an unbiased person here on Censor.
An unbiased person about Alan Dershwitz.
Does he have leverage on you, Piers Morgan?
There's no leverage on me, no.
You've got a picture with Maxwell.
Yes, with Guillaume.
Did you go to the island?
No, I've never been to the island.
I've never met Jeffrey Epstein.
Be honest.
I never spent more than five minutes with you.
I've answered you.
So what part of that wants to say?
Do you condemn him being on the island?
Is your good friend?
You can ask me about Jeffrey Epstein.
You had a mask.
He represented him.
He said he didn't take his shorts off.
Do you know what?
None of this has got anything to do with Israel.
He said he didn't take his shorts off when he was getting a massive.
Please, Mohammed.
Why is this uncomfortable?
It's nothing to do with the debate.
He's taking his shorts off, but he's got his pants down now, hasn't he?
Can you stop it?
Why?
What's the point?
Why?
Because he's one of the most obnoxious people in the last hundred years.
Why should he stop it?
Actually, what is going on right now?
Why should I stop it?
In the Middle East is incredibly important.
Yes, you are trivializing them.
Well, if you didn't want to do a debate, don't agree to do it.
Who said I'm not going to do a debate?
I'm saying this person is defending Israel.
Oh, oh, okay.
All right.
Is your good friend you want to defend him so much?
What are you talking about?
You're defending him.
You're defending him.
You're defending a monster.
A pervert, an old pervert.
He's not a pervert or a monster.
Why is he not?
He knew Epstein.
And for us, there's good information.
Why are you doing this, Mohamed?
Why not?
Because it's pointless.
You may get a few clicks on it.
Ask your questions.
You might get a clickless question.
A few questions.
It's not pointless.
Let me be very clear.
It's not pointless.
He just called me a pervert.
He will be sued now for defamation.
And we have to do that.
We will be able to resonate with his opinion in a quarter of different ideas.
I guarantee you that he will be sued.
In my understanding, you are a pervert.
Woman has now withdrawn her short.
I've got my own defamation cases.
I know the law for you.
Acknowledge that you can't confuse me with somebody very well.
In a defamation lawsuit, sure, in a second court, and in a British court.
I'm ready for the war.
I believe that's the problem.
Why don't we move on to the domestic?
Let's move on to this is there any point in considering this?
Would you want to throw the towel?
No, what's the point of Iraq?
I'm not doing the debate you were booked to do.
Do you want to throw the towel?
You were not booked to debate.
Do you want to give out this?
Do you want to come up?
Let's debate the issues.
Let's talk about the issues.
Let's talk about Iran.
Let's talk about Iran.
Fantastic.
Okay.
Do you support Iran?
Okay, well, let me answer your question.
Iran was attacked on April the 1st, right?
It was attacked.
The embassy of Iran was attacked in Syria by Israel.
After that, on the first occasion, they then sent missiles and drones, correct?
Now, my question to you is: does Iran have a right to defend itself?
And if so, what is a proportionate response?
Because you see, I've been getting it, I've been having a moral quandary about the issue.
Piers Morgan, what's a proportionate response for Iran?
I'll tell you what I think about Iran.
I think Iran is an unbelievably nefarious place which has been fueling Hamas, the Houthis, Hezbollah for many years with a joint ideology that they want to eradicate Israel in any way they can.
So I think Iran is one of the most despicable in the world.
I also think that right now, the Iranian regime is in serious danger.
You look completely discombobulated.
What do you mean?
You're disheveled.
I'm telling you what I think of Iran.
I'm asking you, do they have a right to defend themselves?
Do you think they have a right to defend themselves?
Both of you can answer the question.
Do they have a right to defend?
They were attacked.
The sovereign nation was attacked.
My question is: does it have a right to defend themselves?
Iran has been fueling Israel now for what, 40 years?
I've been having a moral quandary about it.
I've been having a moral quandary about Iran.
Have you?
Yeah, moral quandary, yes.
Moral quandary.
I don't know.
Do they have a right to defend themselves?
And if so, what is the proportionate response?
So you're supporting Iran, to be clear.
I'm asking you.
No, are you supporting Iran?
I'm not supporting.
I'm antithetical to many of these organizations for my own purposes.
But my question is.
Do you support the Iranian regime?
Not unconditionally, but I support their rights.
What conditions do you agree with them about?
Their right to defend themselves.
Do you believe they have a right to defend themselves?
No, they're a terrorist.
Oh, so they don't have a right to defend themselves.
Iran does not have a right to defend itself.
They do, but they're not the ones.
So what is a proportionate response?
They're not the ones.
What's the proportionate response?
Okay.
No.
Can I answer it?
You asked this question to the question.
You're just going to keep talking.
Can I answer it?
What's the proportionate response?
The proportionate response to Iran is to stop them trying to destroy Israel through their proxies: Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas.
What have they been trying to do for many years?
What is a proportionate response of Iran after their embassy was smashed and destroyed in Syria and 16 people were killed?
What's the proportionate response?
Well, what about the proportionate response to everything Iran's done?
Which is against the Vienna conventions.
What about the response to everything Iran did?
What did Iran do to Israel?
Who did they kill?
Who did they say to Israel?
They never killed anybody.
Who did they say?
Included Iran.
Excuse me, hold on.
Which Israeli civilian have Iran successfully targeted?
Give me one name, please.
You don't think Iran's been responsible for any Israeli civilian dying?
I'm asking you to educate you.
What about the way they funded Hamas?
You can both have to do it with 1,200 nations in Israel.
Iran in particular, Hamas.
We've spoken about Hamas at length.
We're talking about Iran's old news.
You're talking about Animal Response.
Yes, go ahead.
Who did they successfully target?
Let me respond.
Yeah, please, yeah.
The Iranians have been found by an Argentine court to have been guilty of killing hundreds of Israeli and Jewish people in Buenos Aires.
They killed Marines through Hezbollah.
They were combatants.
But the attack on the Israeli Cultural Center, the attack on the Israeli embassy, let me finish, were attacks, according to the Argentinian judicial proceedings, attacks on Israel, entitling Israel to engage in response.
Now let me explain what proportionality means, because you're missing the point.
Proportionality doesn't require that a country that's attacked attack back in proportion.
Proportionality only means that if you're going to attack a mixed target that has civilians and combatants, the ratio of civilians to combatants must be proportional to the military value of the target.
And that's what Israel has been trying to do.
But Iran has killed thousands and thousands of Israeli and Jewish civilians over the years.
So to defend somehow, they killed even the people.
What ratio was it killed?
You've seen the empiricity now.
What ratio is acceptable for you?
Combatants who were legitimately killed.
Can you hear me or not?
As combatants.
What's an acceptable ratio for you?
So Iran has no right as defense against Israel was completely entitled to...
Let me answer what you're saying.
Let me finish.
Legitimate Combatants in Embassies 00:04:55
Israel was entitled to kill any combatant that was hiding in an embassy building.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
You've just conflated two things.
You've spoken about the Argentinian case, which there is not actual independent international investigation on.
Number one.
And then you've spoken about, we're speaking about 1st of April.
Was that a response to Argentina?
It was not a response to Argentina.
When on the 1st of April, they bombed the Iranian embassy in Syria.
They did not do so.
They said that is a military base and they were attacking.
But we all know that in this country, for example, every single embassy has military attaches.
They have military attachés.
So if you go to the U.S. embassy here in London, they have armed officers.
Does that make it a viable target?
Does it make the U.S. embassy a viable target, the Russian embassy a viable target?
This is clearly against the UN convention.
It's against the Vienna Convention.
You cannot attack.
You cannot attack an embassy of another nation in another sovereign land.
You cannot do that.
So you respond to that.
Let me respond to that.
Hold on.
Let me respond to that.
Let me respond.
It was not an embassy.
It was an ancillary building being used as a military center to plan attacks against Israel.
They used the process of it being a building somehow attached to an embassy.
The evidence is very clear.
And be happy to have them bring a lawsuit.
To see if it can be resolved in a court of law.
But Israel was entitled to regard the...
Who was killed?
The people who were killed were military people who were planning attacks on Israel.
Those civilians that were also killed.
To a building.
Those civilians that were also killed.
Did that justify 3,000 rockets being sent into Israel?
Hold on.
There were 180 ballistic missiles.
How have you made your point?
Okay.
The response is as follows.
First of all, 16 people were killed officially.
And of them, there were two civilians that were killed.
So what you're saying is only military targets is flatly false, squarely false, barefaced lie.
You're a liar.
As you were a liar when you were defending Epstein, that's number one.
Number two is, when you say that, okay, that was a response.
When Iran then, on the 14th of April, responded with missiles, once again, how many casualties were there?
How many casualties were there?
Zero.
Just like there were zero casualties when they responded recently in October.
Not one person died except for one Palestinian, ironically enough, that was apparently killed in the October one.
But in the April one, no one died.
It was precise strikes at military bases.
Number two, you speak about this being a base.
As I say now, if you look at Colin's dictionary right now, there's two aspects of what is a military base, vernacularly speaking.
Number one is that there has to be weapons in that place.
And number two, that there has to be training of soldiers.
This is usually understood as what is a military.
It's just made up.
Those are made-up stories.
There's no truth.
What's made up?
Which possible issues?
There's no truth to that.
Just let him respond.
I don't think that you need weapons.
I've made a statement.
No, no, no.
I'm not saying it's wrong.
Let me finish what I'm saying.
Let me finish what I'm saying.
It's just made up.
You don't need weapons to have a military base.
It could be a command center.
Oh, hold on, hold on.
Let me finish.
Let me finish.
If we.
The more you say, the happier I am.
Okay.
What I'm saying to you is that if you look at any, almost every Western government embassy in the West and outside of the West, they have military attaches.
You can fact check this.
You can go online.
You will see in the U.S. embassy, in the French embassy, in the British embassy, military guards, people there that have their own weapons and guns.
So according to you, that would be a military base.
See, are they then legitimate?
Are they then legitimate?
Did they use the budget?
Can we then contravene the brand?
Can we then contravene the Vienna agreements?
Can we then conventions?
You have no knowledge of international law.
Hold on, hold on.
Hold on.
Or diplomacy law, the law of law.
You don't have one peer-reviewed work on international law.
And Jimmy Carter, the former U.S. president, said you have no knowledge of Palestine.
Don't speak to me about Palestine and its issues.
Jimmy Carter, former president of the United States, as you acknowledge you've written it in your book, he says that you have no knowledge of the Palestine issue.
Jimmy Carter said that.
Don't speak to me.
Well, you want to hear something?
The only thing you have knowledge about is whether the laws and the rooms and the massouries are not.
It was the next time.
That's my book.
That's all you have knowledge of.
I've written 13 books.
Did you touch Virginia?
Did you touch her?
Did you touch Virginia?
Did you touch her?
Did you touch that woman?
I've never heard of her.
I never met her.
I never met her.
Don't lie.
Don't lie to me.
Did you touch that woman or not?
I'm telling you, I never met her, and she acknowledged under oath.
International Law and Palestine 00:14:08
Did you sexually assault her?
You have no knowledge of his case.
You wouldn't be asking me for a question.
You're a casing.
Because he won a case.
It was proven to be lies.
I'm asking you.
Why are you doing this?
I'm asking him a question.
It's not about Israel.
You're trying to be a clever dick.
All you're doing is inviting a lawsuit from Hannah, which you will get.
I'm ready for it.
You are?
Yeah, I'm not.
Really?
I've got four defamation cases, all of which have...
Your friend Douglas Murray, I'm taking him to court.
Well, good luck taking on Hannan on this.
I'm ready for him.
Oh, you love him, don't you?
No, he's just one case in his life.
I just wonder what he has.
Defending himself.
I just wonder what leverage he has.
Does he have any leverage on it?
It's pathetic, man.
I don't know.
Why do you keep defending yourself?
Why are you accusing me of the story on the show?
Why are you thinking now?
He's a monster.
This man is a monster.
Well, why debate then?
Because I don't mind debating monsters, just like you don't mind debating monsters.
We have that in common.
Do you want to finish the debate about the bigger picture or not?
I'm speaking about it.
You guys are the ones rattled.
I'm not rattling.
It was rattled.
We just think it's pathetic.
They're both rattled.
We think it's pathetic because you don't understand what you're talking about.
Really?
That's just an assertion, really, isn't it?
No, you're just trying to get your clicks on X and that's fine.
Is there anything wrong with that?
You know what?
Trying to debate it too.
You always brag about it, my friend.
Trying to debate it.
You brag about it myself.
We've got a million views, two million views.
You talk about it all the time.
Anna, let me ask you something, which is about what Israel is doing.
At the heart of it, if you take the belief that Iran is the main target here, a lot of Israelis believe that Iran is really rattled and that Israel has a genuine opportunity to topple this regime.
Do you think that is a likely eventuality?
Is it a thing that Israel should be pushing to do?
I think if Israel has the military capacity to destroy Iran's nuclear abilities to create a nuclear arsenal and can do it with minimum civilian casualties, the way it did it in Iraq and the way it did it in Syria, it ought to do that.
But if it risks a wider war, then obviously it has to take into account other considerations and the opinions of the United States.
So it's largely a military question.
Israel certainly has the right to destroy Iran's nuclear capacity.
Rafsan Jani, the former president of Iran, said if Iran developed nuclear weapons, they would use them against Israel, kill 3 million Israelis.
Israel's a one-bomb state.
That would be the end of Israel.
And even if Israel retaliated and killed 10 million Muslims in Tehran, the trade-off would be worth it.
No country should ever accept that kind of a threat.
The United States wouldn't.
They didn't in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
And Israel shouldn't as well.
But it's a military decision, and I'm not competent to resolve whether Israel has the capacity to destroy Iran's nuclear ability without too many civilian casualties.
That's a military question.
Mohammed, do you think Hezbollah are terrorists or freedom fighters?
I have an antithetical view to Hezbollah, and that's been well documented in the record.
However, what's your view?
I don't know.
Well, I tell you one thing.
I'm not going to be baited into a sectarian debate here.
I'll ask you for his comment about Hezbollah.
Sure, I have an antithetical view to Hezbollah.
However, on this point, what I mean by that is that I don't necessarily support them in any way, shape, or form.
How do you categorize them?
I categorize Hezbollah in their response to Israel as justified in that response.
And in the response for Assad in Syria, clearly fellow Avram?
Yeah, well you and I both know that I have an antithetical view.
I don't think that they were on the right side of history then.
I do think they were acting in any way.
So they were terrorists then?
Well, I mean, it depends on how I think the word terrorism is a social construct.
What were they when they fought for Assad?
Oppressive, oppressive, and that's on the record.
There's no doubt about it.
You can call it whatever you want.
Well, they're all the things that you would say Israel is.
When they were doing the thing with Bashar al-Assad, that is, of course, my view.
But they're only that thing when they're doing that.
When they're attacking Israel, that's fine.
When they attacked Israel in the European Union, when they're attacking Arabs on behalf of Bashrav Assad.
But that shows consistency.
No, hang on.
Doesn't that show consistency?
No.
Why not?
It doesn't show consistency.
It shows consistency.
The inconsistency is that you think that that was bad, but when they're attacking Israel, that's fine.
Let's respond.
On the 8th of October, you mentioned many times before in your interviews that they attacked Israel.
They attacked Israel, right?
They did.
That's not true.
They attacked the Sheba farms, which is occupied territory.
Which Israel has claimed as its own since 1967.
Wait, but it's occupied territory.
Which Israel has claimed as its owner.
See, this shows your lack of knowledge on the matter.
It does.
Well, part of what I just said is not true.
They claimed it as their own since 67.
Hold on.
This is occupied territory according to the UN, according to the US.
It's occupied territory.
I just said Israel have claimed it as their own.
So what?
They can claim.
I can claim what I want.
ISIS have made many claims.
Whatever Israel claims is true.
Is that what we are meant to believe here?
Hezbollah has fired beyond the Sheba farms.
Explains Sheba farms, Israeli cities.
Hold on, hold on.
Israel, hold on, Dershwitz.
Dershwitz, I haven't finished.
Dershwitz, Dershowitz, I haven't finished yet.
On the 8th of October, you talked about the 8th of October.
When they fired on the 8th of October, they fired, and you can go ahead and bring evidence that they fired anywhere other than the Sheba farms.
They fired on the Sheba farms.
After that, there was response from Israel.
And then after that, because there was response of Israel into Lebanon, then Hezbollah attacked the northern part of Israel.
This is what happened.
And that is justified according to international law.
So on this issue, you will not find differences between Sunnis and Shi'is.
You'll not find differences in us.
We are all united in the hatred of the Zionist entity.
All right, Alan, your response to that.
Well, Hezbollah has been firing rockets at Israel for years and years under the auspices of Iran.
Israel has fought back and responded.
And Nasrawa has called for all the Jews of the world to be brought together into Israel so that they can be taken care of at the same time in the way that Hitler took care of the Jews of Europe.
This is a genocidal claim by Nasrawa on behalf of Hezbollah.
And certainly Israel had the right to respond to Hezbollah as they did.
And, you know, you can quarrel with particular responses as you can quarrel with particular responses of any country.
What the United States did after 9-11 was seen by many as an overreaction.
Countries react when their civilians are murdered the way they were on 9-11 and the way they were on October 7th.
And Israel had the right to respond.
The United States and the world said so.
And Hamas could end all the suffering in Gaza instantaneously by simply releasing the hostages and putting down their arms and calling for a genuine peace rather than a tactical ceasefire that just allows them to rearm and repeat October 7th.
Remember, they said they would repeat October 7th over and over and over and over again.
And as Elie Wiesel once said, always believe the threats of your enemies more than the promises of your friends.
And so Israel has to act again and again.
Okay, Muhammad.
We've listened to that.
Mohammed, you've said so far, unless I'm wrong, you don't support Hamas, you don't support Hezbollah.
So there's probably more bits of agreement here with Alan Dershowitz for me than you might like to admit if you don't support those two groups.
Okay, so I don't see what that's got to do with anything.
We will talk about nation.
We will talk about October 17.
I said at the start, I wanted to find points.
We were talking about agreement.
Can we all agree that Hamas and Hezbollah are a bad thing?
I can agree that white man, the white man, the Western man, has tried to use social constructs like terrorism to try and absolve themselves from all the things that they...
What would you call them, Hamas and Hezbollah?
Well, I mean, just like any human being, just like any human being, they can sometimes be oppressive and they can sometimes be on the right side of Israel.
Most human beings do not do what Hamas did on October the 7th.
Well, in designist entity, they do.
And they do worse than that.
But they don't.
They don't.
Israel's never committed an atrocity on that scale.
On what scale?
On that scale.
Explain.
On what scale?
Killing 1,200 people.
They've killed 40,000.
Sorry, in one day, massively.
They've killed 40,000.
Israelis could get there.
Hold on.
Kidnapping on the 23rd of September.
Holocaust.
We're talking about Holocaust.
Beheading people.
Oh, you don't think that happened, do you?
Well, hold on.
You just said raping and abusing.
We just started to show with an admission that there's a problem in Israeli society, that there was a problem.
I'm talking about Hamas.
Yeah, but you just said Israel doesn't do that.
We both condemned what you talked about earlier in Russia.
So why are you saying Israel don't do that?
What's wrong with you?
I didn't say that.
You just said that now.
No, I didn't.
You said Israel doesn't do, and then you just listed three or four things, and that was one of the things that you just said.
No, I said Israel had never done that.
Am I speaking of foreign tongues?
Sorry, listen to what I'm saying.
I said Israel never perpetrated an atrocity on that scale.
Okay, on the 23rd day against the people.
They never have.
Hold on.
How many civilians died on October the 7th?
Civilians about 800.
Oh, sure.
All right.
But hang on, hold on.
But nearly 7,000 more were wounded.
Sure, sure.
Seven?
Sure.
What happened on the 23rd of September?
Were wounded.
What happened on the 23rd of September?
7,000.
Okay, sure.
Think about that number.
Okay, no problem.
23rd.
The scale of people were attacked on that day.
Talking over each other.
It's two on one.
8,000 people were attacked.
No problem.
On the 23rd of September.
One of the most horrendous terror attacks.
Is this going to be a monologue or is it a dialogue?
I'm telling you some facts.
I know the facts.
You may not like it, but I'm telling you them.
Okay, I'm telling you, on the 23rd of September, Israel attacked Lebanon.
How many people died?
How many civilians died, according to the Lebanese health, the Ministry of Health?
I believe it's about 2,000 was the last recorded number by Suzanne.
No, in one day.
On the 23rd of October, including combatants, including many combatants.
On the 23rd, how many died?
How many died?
Why don't we have a year?
We don't have a year commemorating the 23rd of September.
Since we're having a year commemorating the 7th of October, and about 600 people died, 650 people, civilians died on that day.
That's quite close, isn't it?
8,000.
8,000 people were.
We're not talking about attack.
We're talking about dead.
What's wrong with you?
Why are you not looking at me again?
You're crying.
Are you crying?
Because the viewers are seeing the three of us together.
I see that there's tears in your eyes.
There are no tears in my eyes.
What's going on?
There's a slight sense of exasperation.
Sure, there should be.
Because you are employing people.
What do you think I am?
I think you said it yourself with your interview with Mehdi Hassan.
I think you're just biased.
You talked about tribes.
Who am I biased against?
You're biased against anything anti-Western, clearly.
You said ridiculous statement.
Because you said it yourself.
You said the reason why you have such and such a view with Russia.
Digital was biased when I led the media campaign against the Iraq war.
No, I think you were.
Was I biased against the brown people?
You were good then.
Was I?
Oh, I was good then, because you agree with me.
Sure, because you're on the side of truth.
Just like I could say Hezbollah was not on the side of truth in 2013, but they're on the side of truth today.
I can say this.
And even though they're Muslims, just like me, just like I can say that Hamas is wrong for doing such and such a thing, but they're right on such and such a thing.
I can say all these things.
You should be able to do the same thing.
What have Hamas been right about?
Resisting, because they're occupied territory.
If they had just attacked, if they had just attacked the people.
They were given billions of dollars in 2005 when they took charge of the Palestinian.
Have they got a right to defend themselves?
Hang on.
Against military territories.
When they took charge of the Palestinian people and had power from 2005, they got billions of dollars.
And what they did with that money was spend it on tunnels, which they built around civilians.
Sure, so what?
So that they could then launch a horrendous terror attack.
And they knew when Israel came after them.
They were talking about the terror attack.
Hang on.
When Israel then came after them after October the 7th, they knew because they'd embedded themselves on the tunnels.
You're flogging that.
A lot of Palestinians would get slaughtered in the process.
That's exactly what's happening.
My question to you, does Palestine have a right to defend itself?
Does Hamas have a right to defend itself exclusively against military titles?
Everybody has the right to defend themselves.
So Hamas can do that against military titles.
What they did not tell themselves is not self-defense.
It was a terror attack.
Hold on.
It's not saying al-Qaeda had the right to defend it.
But that's not.
We both agreed that the civilian death is something we should both condemn.
Yeah?
We're talking about areas of agreement.
You just said it yourself.
I'm saying now, do you agree that Hamas has the right, because they're on occupied territory, Gaza is an occupied territory.
According to the UK, by the way, they're an occupied territory because it's effective military control.
According to the UK, they're...
They ended their occupation in 2005.
No, no, hold on.
You're meant to be intelligent.
You're meant to know this fact.
According to the UK government, according to the US government, and you can check it up online, and according to the UN, all three organizations, Gaza is an occupied territory because there is no, because they have control over the borders, they have control of the population.
I've said this many times, Muhammad.
Sure, you agree with it.
You said it recently.
You've said many times.
Let me give you that.
Let me give back, please.
Can I give you the facts?
Yes, you can respond.
Let me give you the facts.
Okay, the facts are, in 2005, I was there in Israel when the Israeli government uprooted every single civilian person who was buried there.
Gang of Massachusetts.
Not a single soldier, not a single policeman was in Gaza.
Gaza could have become the most beautiful spot on the Mediterranean, Singapore and the Mediterranean.
Then Hamas engaged in a military coup in which they murdered members of the Palestinian Authority, took over Gaza, and started sending rockets into Israel.
It was only then that Israel began to control the borders and make sure that tunnels couldn't be built.
They failed in that respect, that weapons couldn't be brought in.
Gaza was not an occupied territory.
It was a free territory between 2005 and the time that Hamas took over.
And so is it occupied now or not?
Is it occupied now?
Creating an occupied territory right now in Israel.
Imprisoned.
West Bank Settlement Expansion 00:09:53
He's not answering my question.
It's not an occupied terrorist.
It's not.
Okay.
Is it an occupied territory according to the UN, the UK, and the US?
Yes or no?
It's a factual statement.
Not the U.S.
The U.S. doesn't.
No, it doesn't.
They don't know you see that yet.
That's why you've had to plagiarize books in order to make your case from John Peters.
And Finkelspier put you out.
You've had to plagiarize books because clearly your knowledge on this issue is ridiculous.
According to the U.S. Gaza, the West Bank and the United States.
Wait a minute.
We have another occupied territory.
You have to have a lawsuit against you.
You've accused me of plagiarism, even though Harvard University conducted a thorough and complete study.
Totally vindicated.
If you're going to do something, I believe Norman Finkelstein is not aware of that.
You're taking a full judge against John Peterson.
Count two.
No problem.
That's according to Norman Finkel.
Who debated you on Democracy Now, you plagiarized that book, and he showed you evidence in that debate.
That's one thing.
The second thing is a study found out that Finkelspata.
You've all made his allegations of his position as a professor, but you've accused me of plagiarism.
Count two in the show.
I'm ready.
I'm ready.
I'm ready, Alan.
I'm not sure if that I will be fighting against you.
I know defamation laws in this country.
Yes, I do, because I've had four cases.
And moreover, and I've been the person taking the other person to court, including your good friend Douglas Murray, which I've got two cases against him.
But what I'll tell you is that you probably know nothing about defamation law, just like you have nothing, no information, no knowledge, no peer-reviewed journal on international law.
You're completely dumb on these issues, because if you're saying to me... 55 books.
I've written 55 books.
Many of them are not.
It's not decision books.
You're not an authority in international kinds of law.
Are you an authority in international law?
And I'm not sure if you're a cash cases.
Are you a scholarly authority in international law?
We're going around the house.
Alan, let me ask you this.
One of the many problems I have with what Israel's been doing in terms of the scale of what it's been doing, but also what has been going on on the West Bank with the increased settlements, very aggressive expansion of settlements, I think is completely outrageous.
I agree.
But once again, you said before.
Can we all agree on this?
Well, Alan's agreed on.
I'm opposed to Israel's policies on the West Bank.
I think Israel should continue a military occupation of the West Bank, just like I thought it should have continued a military occupation of Gaza.
But I'm opposed and have been opposed to civilian settlements since 1967.
And I'd like to see them ended in a process that leads to a two-state solution.
By the way, I'm curious whether my fellow guest here supports the two-state solution.
As the nation-state of the Jewish people alongside a Palestinian state, do you agree that Israel has the right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people?
Yes or no?
I think it's a viable option.
In 2002, in 2002, not just Hamas agreed to this, by the way, in what's called the Arab Initiative.
The Arab political issue.
No, they didn't.
Hold on, let me...
You've just asked me a question.
You've asked me a question.
You can check me.
You can fact-check me.
In 2002, there was something called the Arab Convention.
And in fact, Iran itself was part of it, even though it's not an Arab country.
But it was part of the 2002 Arab Convention.
And they both said, so long as Israel does not occupy Gaza, it does not occupy the Golan Heights, and it does not occupy the West Bank, which you've just advocated for, then there can be a two-state solution.
Even Hamas Hezbollah mentioned the same thing.
No, that's true.
That's totally false.
Hezbollah mentioned this point.
Iran agreed with it.
And members of the IOC agree to recognize members of the IOC.
They recently recognized Israel's right to exist.
Has Iran recognized Israel's right to this now?
I'm not talking about 10 years ago.
I'm talking about now.
Does Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran recognize Israel's right to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people?
Let me ask you the other thing that I find really difficult.
And Thomas Freeman wrote a very good column for the New York Times today, which I read just before we started this, basically saying that Israel seems to have no plan for what happens after this.
And in fact, the UAE, who've normalized relations with Israel, has already offered to go into Gaza at the end of this war in Gaza and to help build a coalition to rebuild Gaza and get the people back on track.
But Netanyahu is refusing to countenance that.
He's refusing to countenance the idea of a two-state solution.
You know, I've said for a while, I think Netanyahu is becoming a massive problem in this.
And it's also hard, as Thomas Freeman said, to avoid the conclusion that Netanyahu is acting in self-interest because the more he's been attacking Hezbollah, the more popular he's grown.
Secondly, he has these corruption charges awaiting him the moment this is all over.
There's no incentive actually for him right now to try and bring peace anywhere.
And he doesn't really sound like a man who wants to bring peace anywhere.
He didn't accept it until Alan responded to that.
Why should he respond to what I'm asking you to do?
I would like to see a resolution of Gaza, much like the resolution of Nazi Germany after the Second World War: a Marshall Plan, an effort to rebuild it, an attempt to occupy what happened in Germany, was occupied by four countries, France, Russia, Britain, and the United States.
I would like to see a rebuilding of Gaza.
I think the people of Gaza are entitled to a Hamas-free government, perhaps even a democratic government.
I would like to see that on the West Bank.
I am a strong supporter of a two-state solution in which Israel can live in peace.
That's all Israel has ever wanted since 1948 when it was attacked in a genocidal war in 1967, 1973.
All Israel wants to do is live in peace.
And if Israel can live in peace with a Palestinian neighbor that's peaceful, that would be my dream.
What is wrong with that as an ambition?
Well, he said all Israel wants to do is live in peace.
And I think what Israel wants to do is have pieces of other people's land.
And as he's just agreed a second ago, and you didn't even challenge him on it, which I find quite incredulous, actually, is that he said, I think that the West Bank should have military, should be military occupying the Israel should be military occupying.
He says that.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Occupation.
Of course, as long as there's belligerents.
I think there should be an occupation.
Why are you interrupting me?
I've let you speak for a very long time.
I've let you speak for a very long time.
Now you're interrupting me.
I didn't give you permission to interrupt me.
I didn't give you permission to interrupt me in this manner.
What I'm saying to you is, according to international law, there cannot be occupation of one sovereign nation over another.
It doesn't seem like you care about international law.
What do you mean, yeah?
You're wrong.
No, you're just wrong.
Okay, but just be quiet for the United States occupied Germany.
Britain occupied Germany.
You can have a military occupation as long as there is belligerents.
Your former friend Epstein and be quiet for a second.
Pretend I'm Epstein, your former friend, and be quiet and listen to what I have to say.
Yeah?
Whether the United States of America did it or not is not an indication of the legality of something.
Occupation.
That's legal.
Occupation is by military occupation is legal while belligerency continues.
That's the law.
Are you going to be quiet?
Are you going to be quiet?
I've let you speak for about three or four minutes uninterrupted.
He asked you two questions and I've stayed quiet.
Why are you okay?
I'm saying that military occupation of one sovereign nation over another is not something that international law accepts because it contravenes the sovereignty.
False.
False.
So give me the evidence to the contrary.
Give me the evidence.
I'm waiting for you.
It's clear that every country is a good idea.
You ask me a question has occupied the losing country until belligerency is over.
Once belligerency is over, as it was in Germany and Japan, two or three years after the war, the occupation ended.
So why is that?
If you're saying military occupation is permissible as long as they're holding civilian occupation.
If what you're saying is true, why have the organs of the United Nations condemned the occupation of Israel?
Why?
They have condemned the civilian aspects of the occupation.
They have condemned.
I'm talking about a military occupation.
You're lying just like you had to when you defended the goodness.
It's pathetic.
Why?
Why is it pathetic?
Attacking lawyers for defending people is so pathetic.
Being proud of it, yeah.
Of all the monument attacks.
It is the least effective.
What do you think of Epstein?
And the most embarrassing.
You're defending him too much, David.
I think Epstein was a disgusting human being.
So he's proud of defending him.
Do you condemn him for that?
I just don't care.
I'm talking about...
Oh, you don't care now, but why is it disgusting?
I'm too proud about the Middle East.
Okay, so let's go back to the point.
He was just advocating occupying the West Bank, Israel occupying the West Bank.
We got to the point where he was saying that's acceptable.
I'm saying that if that's acceptable from an international law perspective, then you would expect the ICC and the ICJ and these organs of the United Nations to agree with him on that assessment.
They have not agreed with him on that assessment.
Even the United Kingdom doesn't agree with him on that assessment.
The national position on the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is that it's illegal.
It's effective military control.
So you don't know what you are talking about.
And if that was possible, if it's okay for one nation, a sovereign nation, to go ahead and occupy another one, then sorry to say, Russia and Ukraine.
Russia and Ukraine, the same thing, the same idea.
What you're saying, your position is that when a country is attacked and it wins the war, it must leave the next day, no country has ever done that.
Effective Military Control Defined 00:02:01
You continue the military occupation until all belligerency ends.
Most of all.
Many of the conventions that were put in place ends in the Gaza Street.
You ask me a question.
The occupation should end.
There should not be civilian civilization.
So it's a fallacy and this military attempt to control belligerents.
You ask me your position and then you've got to be able to do it.
Well, he tries to answer you, but once again, you shouted over him.
So you can't hear the answer.
Wait a minute.
Do you agree with him?
What about whether I agree with him or not?
Do you agree with him?
Let the man.
Why are you running your question?
Do you agree with the shout over the answer?
Is it okay for one country to occupy another sovereign nation?
Is it okay?
Do you know what is okay?
Yes or no?
I'm done.
Oh, you give up.
Yeah.
I'm exhausted.
I need a break.
I need a cup of tea.
Alan, thank you for your patience.
I asked you for a civilized debate.
You tried to be aware of the people who are not being thankful for you.
It's extreme provocation.
Of course.
On a very personal and ill-informed way, you have managed to be civilized.
Muhammad, your friend is a good friend.
I appreciate it.
I like Alan.
I respect Alan.
I'm sure you do.
And you, Muhammad, let yourself down today.
I think you let yourself down.
I'm sure the people that follow you on April.
He's a monster.
I'm cheering you on.
He's a monster.
No, he's not.
Oh, he's not.
No, he's not.
Okay, he defended a monster.
The only person who's behaved in the world.
The only person who's behaved in a monstrous way in this debate.
Okay, whatever.
That's your opinion.
That's your opinion.
You've given up this debate.
No, I've actually run out of time.
We're running two minutes ago.
As you know, you were booked till 5 o'clock.
It is 500.
I don't even know.
We've actually run out of time.
Fantastic.
But we're also debating something that you've rarely spent much time on debating because you were far too busy scoring personal, cheap little jibes, ill-informed.
Whatever, whatever.
Good for the goose.
I always can't handle it.
You can push it out, but you can't.
You've got a weak chin.
I can take anything.
You've got a heavy, heavy punchin' weak jaw.
I always think when people get personal abusive you and him it's because they can't argue the argument.
You're both weak.
They can't argue the argument.
Whatever whatever, whatever people who can't win an argument, the normal way of debating.
You've just run away from ad hominem attacks.
Ad Hominem Attacks Fail 00:00:47
Okay sure sure, that's what you've done.
I think you've blown up on this debate.
I think you've let yourself down.
I think you have both given up because you realize that what you're spewing was false.
And you and you were talking about the pager attack and you said, about saying that it was an act of military brilliance.
I'm sure if it happened here in Sainsbury's and a little white boy was killed, you wouldn't say that, would you?
You know what?
Like, you've also let down that question too.
You've also let down the Palestinian people, whatever.
I think you both let yourself down.
I think you've both given up and I think the standing 10 count has been done and I think the white towel has been thrown in and I think the people can judge what I've done.
Okay, you know What on that.
I think we can all agree.
People can watch your performance in the last hour and they can judge accordingly.
And let me tell you, Mohammed, they will.
Thank you for being here.
I appreciate you coming in.
Alan, thank you very much indeed.
Thank you.
Export Selection