All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
July 3, 2025 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
01:13:02
20250703_the-real-terrorist-is-you-trumps-israel-hamas-ceas
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Did Israel Accept The Deal 00:04:15
I think the real terrorist is you and the real criminal is you.
If Hamas hadn't done October 7th, if they hadn't used human shields, if they didn't use hospitals, there wouldn't have been a single person, a single civilian, killed.
You are a liar and you don't have manners and you should shut up.
Shut up, please.
Shut up, please, and let me finish.
Shut up, shut up.
When you watch that rapper at Glastonbury chanting and leading a chant with thousands joining in of death to the IDF, you instinctively believe it means that this market will violate it.
He said it since the Firo report.
Do you believe him 100%?
Yes.
Because new footage has emerged.
And death to every single IDF soldier out there as an agent of terror.
But he's completely contradicted everything you've just said.
I'm not Boville in Space.
You just have to admit when you hear that, you were wrong to defend him in the way you defended him.
Now you've heard that.
Do you still say he only meant the...
Well, no, obviously now he's made clear what he meant.
He's made all of you look like complete prunes.
Donald Trump says he'll be very firm with Benjamin Netanyahu on ending the war in Gaza when the Israeli prime minister visits the White House on Monday and the President may have already had a breakthrough.
He announced on Truth Social, his social media platform, Israel has agreed to the necessary conditions to finalize the 60-day ceasefire, during which time we will work with all parties to end the war.
The Qataris and Egyptians, who have worked very hard to help bring peace, will deliver this final proposal.
He's pressed Hamas to take the deal, threatening it will only get worse if they don't.
With Iran weakened following Trump's so-called daddy diplomacy, the Terror Group has indicated it's open to a ceasefire.
Israel will want the remaining hostages released.
But so far, Netanyahu has only said there will be no Hamas.
So what will break the deadlock?
Do you want me to discuss the ceasefire?
His lawyer and author of the Preventative State, Alan Dershowitz, and the General Secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative, Dr. Mustafa Baghuti.
Welcome to both of you.
Alan Dershowitz, how likely is it, do you think, that this proposal, which Donald Trump has talked about on Truth Social, will actually manifest itself imminently?
Well, the latest report is that the Israelis have accepted it, probably reluctantly, but they've accepted it.
You don't say no to Donald Trump.
You don't want to be Zelensky.
Trump helped Israel on Iran.
Israel owes him.
And therefore, I think Israel will accept the deal as is, even though they would like to see some changes.
The most recent report is Hamas said no, and that's what led Trump to say, you better accept this deal because it's only going to get worse.
The history of Palestinian leadership has been a history of rejecting good deals.
They were offered a state on 70% of the Arab land in 1948.
They turned it down.
They were offered a state in 1967, offered a state in 2000, 2001, 2005, 2007.
They've always wanted a better deal.
And as President Clinton said, when you turn down deals like this, you're not going to get a better deal.
You're going to get a worse deal.
So I'm hoping that we'll get back to October 6th.
Remember, on October 6th, there was a ceasefire, in effect.
Nonetheless, on October 7th, Hamas went and killed 1,200 innocent Israelis and held hostage 250 others.
Nonetheless, I hope there will be a deal.
But the ball is clearly right now in the court of Hamas.
Okay, Mustafa Barghouti, why wouldn't Hamas accept this deal?
No, thank you.
I want to correct the information first.
Israel did not accept the deal yet.
Mr. Trump did not say that Israel accepted the deal.
President Trump said that Israel accepted or is accepting necessary conditions to finalize the deal.
That doesn't mean they have accepted the deal.
And up till now, there is no statement from the Israeli government that they have accepted anything.
Netanyahu faces a very serious opposition from two major fascist ministers in his government, Smotrich and Bengvir, who are threatening to bring down his government if he accepts any deal.
So in reality, Israel still did not accept the deal.
Amas did not yet accept the deal, but did not reject it.
Why Palestinians Reject Peace 00:08:10
So the matter is still being negotiated between the mediators and the two sides.
And it is not acceptable to Russia in claiming that it is Israel that accepted and Palestinians did not.
On the other hand, I have to say, why doesn't Hamas now announce that it would accept if Israel accepts it?
Mr. Beesmorgan, I want to be polite in this meeting, in this discussion.
So if Mr. Doshevich interrupts me again, I will not be silent.
So please let him not interrupt me.
Okay?
He's not the one who's interviewing me.
It's you.
So please stay silent till I finish my talk.
Israel is saying Israel is the one that have destroyed any possibility for peace, not Palestinians.
When did Israel accept to end its occupation of Palestinian land?
When did Israel accept the right of the Palestinians?
Shut up, please, and let me finish.
Shut up.
Shut up.
Don't tell me if you ask me.
I can answer it.
You keep interrupting me.
Don't interrupt me.
I did not interrupt you.
When you ask a question, I want to answer it.
You asked the question this time.
Don't ask me questions.
You are not the interviewer.
You shut up and let me finish.
Israel is the one that refused.
You asked the question.
Israel is the one that rejected to end occupation.
Israel is the one that refuses up till now the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
Not only that, Israel passed a law in the Israeli Knesset, which said Israel passed a law in the Israeli Knesset, which said that the right of self-determination on the land of historic Palestine, which they call Eritz Israel, is exclusive for Jewish people.
So don't talk to me about peace.
Israel is the main obstacle to peace.
Israel has always obstacle to peace.
Israel will always be the main obstacle to peace as long as they have these restrictions.
Let me answer.
Let me answer your question.
Let me answer your question, please.
Bill Clinton has stated, and he stated publicly, it's on videotape, that he and Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians 96% of the West Bank, 4% of Israel, capital in Jerusalem, many, many other inducements.
And Bill Clinton has said that Yasser Arafat, although he had told him initially he would accept it, he rejected it.
The Palestinians have rejected statehood in 1947, 1937, 2000, 2001, 2007.
Almost even more than Bill Clinton offered them.
Now you're interrupting me.
Bill Clinton offered them, and Ehud Barak offered them.
The Palestinians, as a leader once said, don't know how to accept yes for an answer.
Israelis have offered a two-state solution over and over and over and over again.
The Palestinians don't want a two-state solution because as Bill Clinton said, this is Bill Clinton, not me.
Hamas just wants to kill Jews.
But isn't the true Palestinians don't want to say to the Jewish people?
They reject the two-state solution, period.
But Alan, isn't it also true that Benjamin Netanyahu has no desire for a two-state solution, never has done?
And in fact, the whole reason he went along with Hamas getting power in Gaza was because he wanted to create a split between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas and split the Palestinian people.
I don't think he's ever shown any real desire for a two-state solution.
So isn't that a problem on both sides?
It is, but if the Palestinians were to accept a two-state solution, were to accept Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.
I actually sat across the table from the head of the Palestinian Authority and I asked him, Would you say the following?
Would you say, I accept Israel as a Jewish state?
And if you do, I will call Benjamin Netanyahu, my friend, and I will ask him to say the same thing.
He said, I can't say that.
The Palestinians have never accepted a two-state solution.
Israel has.
You're right.
Netanyahu is not going to be the first person to accept a two-state solution.
But I guarantee you this: if the Palestinians and Hamas came to the bargaining table and said, We recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, we put down our arms, we declare peace, we want to have mutual agreement, we accept Israel joining the Abraham Accords with Saudi Arabia, a two-state solution would be accepted by the Israeli public.
Let Hamas do that, and we'll see whether Benjamin Netanyahu follows Ben-Gavir and Smutrich, which I think he won't, or whether he follows the majority of the Israeli people, which just want peace.
They don't want a repetition of that, they will accept it.
Hang on, Mustafa, I'll come to you one second.
I just want to ask you, Alan, Alan, how damaging is it that Smodrich in particular and Ben Gavir, these very hard-right members of this government, Smodrich is now on record.
But he's now saying he wants to cleanse Gaza of all Palestinians.
That is ethnic cleansing.
That would be a war crime.
And I keep being told, well, he doesn't represent the government, but he's a senior member of this government.
Well, and you get people in Hamas who are senior members of their government and people in the Palestinian Authority who make statements like that.
He does not speak for the Israeli government.
The Israeli government has a mechanism by which people speak for them.
Netanyahu speaks for the Israeli government.
The Israeli people speak for the Israeli government.
Smutrich and Ben-Gavir are two people who I find despicable.
I despise them.
I attack them.
I reject them.
Most Israelis reject them.
In order to remain in power, Netanyahu has had to tolerate them.
But if Hamas would come forward and create a situation where there'd be no repetition of October 7th, Smutrich and Ben-Gavir would be history and we would move on to a two-state solution.
Okay, Mustafa, your response.
Hey, I'm Caitlin Becker, the host of the New York Postcast, and I've got exactly what you need to start your weekdays.
Every morning, I'll bring you the stories that matter, plus the news people actually talk about.
The juicy details in the worlds of politics, business, pop culture, and everything in between.
It's what you want from the New York Post wrapped up in one snappy show.
Ask your smart speaker to play the NY Postcast podcast.
Listen and subscribe on Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Well, first of all, let me go back to Clinton.
It's not true what was said because in reality, no Palestinian state was ever offered to Palestinians.
If Bill Clinton is biased to Israel, it's his problem.
But that doesn't mean that what he tells is the truth.
And the proof to that, that the Israelis never accepted, never accepted that Jerusalem would be the capital of Palestine.
And there is no Israeli politician, whoever, that is ready to accept that Jerusalem would be the capital of Palestine.
That's one.
Second, that's a lie in the West Bank.
You are a liar and you don't have manners and you should shut up because you are a person who does not understand the proper way of dialogue.
You have to be polite and let me answer.
You don't like my answer, it's your problem.
You cannot accept it, but you cannot say that I am lying.
You are the one who keeps lying.
You are lying.
Let me tell you, let me tell you.
You are lying.
You know what?
You are impolite, and I am not surprised because a person like you who used to defend people like Epstein, the sex traveler trafficker, is not surprising.
I knew you'd get into that.
I knew you'd get into that scene.
I knew you'd get into that.
But I know that you have no reasonable answers on the state.
You have no manners whatsoever.
Let me finish.
Smotrich and Bengvir, of course, represent the Israeli government.
Smotrich is the finance minister of Israel.
Smotrich is the finance minister of Israel.
Losing Global Support Fast 00:10:59
That means he's the second most important minister in the Israeli government.
And it was not only Smotrich who said, it was not only Smotrich who said that he will not accept that he wants to call for ethnic lensing of Palestinians from Gaza.
It was Netanyahu.
Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, who calls for that, who speaks about that, who talks about it and call it Trump's vision of ethnic lensing of Palestinians from Gaza.
I lived in the West Bank.
You lived in New York.
You don't know what's happening.
I lived in the West Bank where the Israeli illegal settlers, the terrorist settlers under Netanyahu, have conducted 333 attacks on us, the Palestinians in the West Bank, the civilians in the West Bank.
In the last month alone, in June, we are encountering not only illegal settlers, but an Israeli army that had imposed 1,000 military checkpoints all over the West Bank, preventing normal life of people, besieging villages, besides communities.
They have destroyed everything in the West Bank.
I'm not talking only about Gaza.
In Gaza, up till now, according to the most recent study of Michael Spagat, who is an international renowned demographer, says that Israel has killed more than 75,000 Palestinians already in Gaza, including no less than 58% of them are women and children.
This is the highest number of civilians killed in Israel.
Children are 19-year-olds with 19-year-olds.
Okay, let me jump in here.
Let me jump in if I may, Mustafa.
Let me jump in.
We are dealing here.
Wait a minute.
Last minute.
Last point.
Netanyahu came to power to kill Oslo Agreement.
He wrote that in his book.
If he's your friend, read these books.
He wrote in his book, We will never allow a Palestinian independent state.
This is the kind of government we are dealing with.
A government of fascists, a government of extremists, a government of criminals.
Even ex-prime minister in Israel, like Yehud Olmar, are saying that Israel is becoming a pariah state because of Netanyahu.
Okay.
I mean, Alan, there's no doubt.
Let me respond, please.
Yeah, let me just ask you a question, though, because there's no doubt to me that Israel's government is currently, with the way it's prosecuted in this war in Gaza in the last few months, is very rapidly losing global support, even from key allies who do not think this is self-defense anymore.
And they're joining the dots with what people like Smodric are saying.
And they fear there is a much bigger plan that is now unfurling, which is to get rid of all the Palestinians.
And in relation to the number of children being killed, you know, obviously you don't believe every statistic that comes out of the Hamasran Health Authority, although historically their numbers have later proven to be broadly accurate.
That is a fact.
But the reality is we know from reporters on the ground, we know that probably 20 to 25,000 children have been killed here.
This cannot, cannot be right, Alan.
This continues.
Well, let me respond.
Let me respond.
There was a war in Iran.
Israel went in, destroyed much of the military capacity, and they killed an incredibly tiny number of civilians, very, very few, in the low hundreds, which proves clearly that the only reason that civilians have been killed in the Gaza Strip is because they're used as human shields.
I don't agree with that.
I don't agree with that.
Wait a minute, let me finish.
Well, okay, but I don't agree with you.
I don't agree with you.
Finish your sentence, yeah.
Yeah.
My point is: when Sino hid, where did he hide?
He hid underneath the hospital with nine of his people.
Israel had to kill all of them, and yes, they killed 16 civilians.
That's proportional.
Let me tell you: if Hamas hadn't done October 7th, if they hadn't used human shields, if they didn't use hospitals, there wouldn't have been a single person, a single civilian, killed.
Israel prides itself on being able to target, stop cutting me off, being able to target military targets like the Iranian nuclear reactors.
When it destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor, one civilian casualty.
Syria, no civilian casualties.
Iran, very few.
Why Gaza?
Because they were human shields.
Yes, but they hide their commanders among the children in order to induce to kill children so that Pierce, people like you, can get on television and correctly point out that so many civilians have been killed.
It's all the fault of Hamas.
Here's the problem I have with that theory, which is this.
I hear it a lot.
But if you look at the way that Israel dealt with Hezbollah, for example, a very carefully planned and well-executed plan that targeted almost exclusively the Hezbollah terrorists, right?
Again, very surgical, very important.
They were confused to that as well.
I don't believe that the combined brain power of Mossad and the IDF could not have come up with a better way.
Let me say that.
Mossad has no jurisdiction over Gaza.
Let me just correct you.
But the idea that Mossad is a problem is that the idea doesn't belong in Gaza.
But the idea that Mossad wouldn't have known stuff going on in Gaza is for the birds.
And I just cannot understand why, given the global dismay about what has been happening in Gaza, that with the destruction of 70% of Gaza now, with so many children being killed, everybody accepts that Israel's trying to go after Hamas, but they also accept and understand, because it's clear that way too many children are being killed here, and that the end goal of getting the hostages released is not happening, right?
That the language from Smodrix makes people think there's a different plan going on here.
And so my question really is.
He has no influence.
There has to have been a better way than just leveling Gaza to the ground.
And I think it's been driven by...
I agree with you.
Do you not think?
No, no, I agree with you that there has to be a better way.
And the better way would have been for Hamas to come out and fight in the open like brave people do all over the world.
But instead, they hide behind children and babies.
They use them as human shields.
And that's why Israel has to go in in order to dismantle Hamas.
They tragically, Israel never benefits from killing a civilian.
Why would any Israeli ever want to kill a civilian?
So why does it keep doing that?
They lose in your court of public opinion.
They lose on your television show if they kill a civilian.
They don't want to kill civilians.
Hamas makes them kill civilians.
They've never killed more civilians.
They've got to do the words from Hamas leaders say.
Alan, Alan, Israel's never killed more civilians.
They're martyrs.
We want you to kill more civilians.
That's what Hamas says.
Well, then you're playing into their hands, aren't you?
So that's right.
Yes, and I wish they did.
It's a catastrophically bad strategy because if you say that's Hamas's acceptance, they don't want anything.
If you say that's the game Hamas wants to play, then Israel is playing the game that the enemy wants them to play.
That's the problem with it.
That's right.
And they have an alternative.
They have an alternative.
Just not go after Hamas and let Gaza continue and let there be what Hamas has said over and over again.
More October 7th, more hostages.
That's the alternative.
But if you want to destroy Hamas, you have to kill the civilians who are being used as human shields.
It's a tragic choice.
I wish Israel didn't have to make it.
But it's a choice in the world.
Let me bring Mustafa back in.
You can argue that they're wrong, but you can't argue that it's their responsibility.
Okay, let's bring Mustafa back in.
I don't accept that that is the only way Israel could have prosecuted this war.
I don't think destroying Gaza and killing tens of thousands of people was the only option they could have done.
I think it was driven by a rage.
By the way, driven by an understandable rage after October the 7th, but that it has been completely disproportionate to what happened and completely alien to the way that Israel has conducted itself with other conflicts.
I just don't understand it.
And that's why everyone hates it so much.
It's like, how many more people are going to get killed here?
It's ridiculous.
Mustafa.
Well, there are so many points one has to speak about.
But first of all, let me remind you and your guest with the following.
According to World Health Organization, Israel bombarded 94% of all hospitals in Gaza.
According to World Health Organization, Israel hides under Gaza.
I believe that because Hamas hides underneath.
No, no, wait a minute.
Israel destroyed.
Today they killed another medical doctor.
1,500 medical doctors, nurses, and health professionals were killed.
Not a single foreign journalist allowed into Gaza.
Shut up, please.
Not a single foreign journalist was allowed into Gaza.
Why?
Because they want to hide the truth.
That's a mistake.
200, 288 Palestinian, 228 Palestinian journalists were killed by Israel in this war while they were trying to report.
More than that, 700 medical centers and hospitals were destroyed by Israel, including several clinics I am responsible for, where our medical teams work, and they were completely destroyed.
One of our health workers, a lab technician who lived in a house with his family, went out to buy products for his family if he could find products in the siege that is imposed on Gaza.
And then he came back to find that his wife, his daughter, his three sisters, his two brothers, and his mother were all killed in one hit.
Every day.
It was underneath the house.
Who was using Amanda?
No, you can't claim that all the time.
You've just heard reports that the Israeli pilots coming back from Iran, who needed to get rid of the bombs they had in their planes still, decided to go and throw them on Gaza without even having targets.
Oh, that is such a lie.
This is blood libel.
That's like denying the Holocaust.
You're saying that they dropped bombs on Gaza?
The Lie About Bomb Drops 00:10:50
Come on, that didn't happen.
You can prove that by looking at the tracking of the...
They didn't even fly over Gaza.
They went the other way.
It's just such a lie.
All right, Mustafa, I have a question for you, Mustafa.
Mustafa, I have a question for you.
I have a question, Mustafa.
But let me finish.
But I have a question for you.
Israeli Haaritz, the Israeli newspaper, not a Palestinian newspaper, reported that the Israeli high-ranking officers ordered their soldiers and officers to shoot people while they were trying to get humanitarian aid.
Almost 600 people were killed.
I want to go back to the Palestinian.
I want to go back to the bombs being dropped.
Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas, was killed while he was fighting Israeli soldiers in Gafah.
He was not killed or hiding.
I have a question.
I have a question.
I have a question, please.
I have a question for you, Mustafa.
Last time you came on, Mustafa, you said that all of the 50 hostages who are believed to have still not been released, many of whom may, of course, sadly be dead, but you said they were all IDF soldiers.
So we did some research into this, and at least 15 of them were not IDF.
One worked as a massage therapist and a gardener in a kibbutz.
One was a software tester in a tech company.
One was a pianist with plans to study jazz in Tel Aviv.
One was an electrical engineer, and so on.
You branding them all IDF soldiers was very disingenuous.
It wasn't true.
Okay, didn't they all serve in the Israeli army?
Is that what you meant?
You said they were all IDF soldiers.
If they serve in the Israeli army, they are soldiers.
But as I just said to you, 15 of them were no longer international.
They were not in the Israeli army.
And they were civilians who once served in the Israelites.
Hold on, please.
You know, it's really disgusting to have an interview with such a person.
Let him shut up, please.
There are 50 Israeli prisoners.
Okay.
Some of them are killed.
Unfortunately, they will not be able to get back to their families.
Fine.
But do you accept that many of them were civilians when they were taken?
Nobody speaks.
Hang on, do you accept, Mustafa?
Do you accept that many of them were civilians when they were taken?
Not as you don't know.
Not as you claim IDF soldiers.
My information is that they are all have served in the Israeli army.
Well, that's very different.
Because as you know, it's different because as you know, it is compulsory to serve in the IDF, but only for a certain period of time.
And 15 of the people who were taken out of those 50 were civilians when they were taken.
It makes a big difference in international law.
But there are other civilians who were taken, not only those, if they are civilians.
But that's not the issue.
The issue is that besides the 50 Israeli prisoners, there are now 10,600 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jail.
Why nobody speaks about them?
You know that out of them they ought to remain in prison.
They're murderers.
They're rapists.
They're murderers.
They're terrorists.
They ought to be in prison.
I think the real terrorist is you, and the real criminal is you, and the real criminal who defends criminals and sex traffickers is you.
And you are the ones who defend people who are killed, have killed other people.
You are famous with that.
You defend the killers.
So shut up, please, and let me finish.
Out of the 100%.
What grounds do you have in calling Alan Dershowitz?
Let me finish my point.
Sorry, sorry.
Sorry, Mustafa.
No, you can't get away with that.
What grounds do you have for calling Alan Dershowitz a terrorist?
Because he keeps defending terrorists.
He's a lawyer.
Yeah, a lawyer.
Are you saying that every Palestinian?
Are you saying every lawyer?
Every lawyer who defends anybody is that person.
Is that what you're saying?
But he cannot say that the 10,600 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails who are all civilians are terrorists.
I think you should withdraw.
You should withdraw your claim that Alan Dershowitz is a terrorist.
You should withdraw it.
Talk about rudeness.
You should withdraw that claim that he is a terrorist.
He's not a terrorist.
And you are interrupting me, Pierce, and you're not letting me.
Because you're making outlandish claims about people being terrorists.
I think the person who defends terrorist acts against other people is you think somebody who defends a terrorist as a lawyer is a terrorist.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
I didn't mean that if he is defending a terrorist in jail.
No, I meant he's defending terrorist policies that Smodrich and Bengvir.
He literally said he hates Smodrich and Ben-Gaveer.
Sorry?
He literally said in this very debate that he hates Smodrich and Ben-Gaveer.
What more does he do?
And he said he's a friend of Netanyahu, who killed 50,000 Palestinian children and injured, who killed and injured 50,000 Palestinian children, right?
He's his friend.
Are you a friend of any members of Hamas?
I'm not a friend with anybody.
I am going to tell you.
Are you a friend of anybody in Hamas?
Let me.
Are you a friend, Mustafa?
By your yardstick, are you a friend of anybody in Hamas?
You are the thing.
First of all, you did not allow me to be without me finishing my I will not answer your question.
You will answer me because you've made that allegation against the other guests.
Are you a friend of anybody in Hamas?
Yes or no?
I know people from Hamas.
Okay, so does that make you a terrorist then?
No, no, no.
Does that make you a terrorist?
No, no, of course not.
No, of course not.
One rule for you, another rule for Alan Dershowitz.
It's pathetic.
You can't defend.
I never defended.
No, you want to be balanced in your approach?
Yeah.
I will take your language.
I want you to be consistent.
Let me finish my line.
Let me finish my line.
My line was: there are 10,600 Palestinian prisoners today in Israeli jails.
Of them, 3,600 are people held without charges.
No legal process, no due legal process.
Their lawyers even don't know why they are in jail.
To me, these are captives.
Among them, there are 220 Palestinian children who are in Israeli jail.
Do you know, or your lawyer knows, do you know that 660 Palestinian bodies are still held by the Israeli authorities?
Some of them have been held by Israeli authorities.
I don't know what you call it, prison or grave prison.
You condemn them for more than 57 years.
Is that acceptable?
Are you speaking about it?
Well, let him respond.
Let Alan Dershowitz respond, please.
Let me explain.
You can't just keep talking, Mustafa.
Let Alan respond.
No, no, last point.
We're running out of time, so I'll have to cut you off.
No, no, but one point.
Let's make a deal.
Let's make a deal.
Let's make a deal here.
Let's make the occupation.
7th of October would not have happened if it wasn't for the Israeli apartheid system.
7th of October would not have happened if there was no displacement of 70% of the Palestinian people since 1948.
Consider us Palestinians as equal human beings.
We are also entitled to proper life.
We don't want to kill anybody.
Can I respond with the history of those Jewish people who were persecuted by the Gestapo and by the Holocaust?
But I'm telling you, the Jewish people were persecuted by the Holocaust, by the criminals in the Nazi regime, because there were so many cowardly people who stayed silent.
And today we see the same cowardness towards all these crimes that are happening.
You must let Anam respond.
So let me respond.
First of all, you're being a Holocaust denier by comparing the Holocaust to the self-inflicted Palestinians.
Let me finish.
Let me finish.
You're denying the Holocaust by claiming that there's an authority.
By claiming there's an analogy between the Holocaust, six million people innocent killed, and the self-inflicted...
You say Palestinians were...
Let me finish.
Palestinians were forced to leave.
They were not forced to leave in 1912.
Let me finish.
I'm going to finish.
You don't want to be interrupted.
It's not acceptable to conduct this discrimination.
Do you accept me as an equal human being?
You have to let me finish.
Not a single Palestinian would have been displaced had the Palestinian leadership accepted the UN offer of a partition plan where Israel was established where there was a majority of Jews and a Palestinian state where there was a majority of Palestinians.
The Nakba was a self-inflicted wound.
Nobody would have to say that Palestinians would have had their...
You're not allowing me to speak.
You're claiming that I'm rude.
I'm not going to use that word because you've proved it yourself.
But the point is that if the Palestinians had simply said yes in 1948, said yes in 1967, said yes 2000, 2001, said yes 2005, said yes 2007, there'd be no displaced people.
This is not me speaking.
This is Bill Clinton speaking.
These are the records.
These are the official records of the United Nations.
I helped to draft a little bit 267 of the United Nations, which would have provided a basis for a two-state solution.
The Palestinian leadership said no because they did not want them to be there.
We've run out of time.
That's their goal.
We've run out of time.
I'm sorry.
No, no, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, Mr. Taft.
We've run out of time.
Israeli historians.
Abish Leim, Israeli historian at Oxford.
He's a phony.
He's a phony Israeli historian.
He's a pro-Palestinian shill.
There is no Israeli official document that shows that any Israeli government accepted the partition.
Okay, you've responded.
That's the end of the debate.
I appreciate you both coming on.
Thank you for coming on uncensored.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thanks for having me.
Chanting Death Negates Campaigns 00:15:44
I appreciate it.
Thank you very much.
Hey, Mike Baker here, host of the President's Daily Brief podcast.
If you want straight talk on national security, foreign policy, and the biggest global stories going on of the day, this is the show for you.
We publish twice a day, Monday through Friday, once in the morning, again in the afternoon.
And on the weekend, we go longer with the PDB Situation Report with excellent guests, including national security insiders and foreign policy experts.
Check us out on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcast.
Also, on our YouTube channel at President's Daily Brief.
Well, two weeks ago, a nurse from Wales made global headlines after viral clips showed him begging Egyptian security forces to allow him and other humanitarian activists to cross the border into Gaza.
Allow us to march to Gaza.
We're peaceful people, we're good people, we're Muslims.
We're Christians.
We're atheists.
We're Jews.
We are humanity.
We are here for humanity.
What are you here for?
You don't have to do this.
You don't have to follow the orders.
Please, I'll go onto my knees and I will beg you.
Allow us to march to Palestine.
Please, you've got to listen.
Well, that nurse was Lee Evans.
He says he's previously worked as a nurse in Gaza.
He won many plaudits for sincerity, but also many detractors.
And this week you divided opinion again after being filmed outside the Senate in Wales chanting this.
I will not be censored.
I will not be censored in my own country.
So death!
Death to the IDF!
Well, Lee Evans joins me now.
Mr. Evans, thank you very much indeed for joining me.
I just want to start with you chanting death to the IDF.
When you're campaigning to stop people being killed, why is it a good thing to then immediately yourself start to call for people to be killed?
Well, firstly, the IDF isn't a people.
Well, it is.
It's a bunch of people who form an army.
It's the militarized arm of a Zionist occupying force which facilitates apartheid and a starvation of two million people.
They are human beings.
Well, they're human beings.
No, no, each individual soldier is a human being, and I know a lot of them.
And I've worked with a lot of them that are now working to facilitate peace and the freedom of Palestine.
But nobody believes people.
It's a bit like the rapper at Glastonbury.
And now you, when you say death to the IDF, everybody knows what you really mean.
And it's a call for IDF soldiers to be killed.
What else can it mean?
The institution of the IDF should be dissolved, disseminated, because I've been there many times and they are facilitating what I can only compare to Nazi Germany.
They are completely facilitating an apartheid.
They shoot innocent people.
They shoot children.
So criticize them, but don't call for the death to the IDF.
Call for, criticize the IDF.
I've criticized the IDF.
I also chanted death to the arms trade.
Now, the arms trade isn't a person either.
No, it's not a person.
Neither is the IDF.
Yeah, arms trade is not a person.
The IDF is the Israeli defense force made up of soldiers.
Everybody knows this.
The arms trade is made up of people who run businesses selling arms.
You're perfectly entitled to your views.
I'm sure I agree with a lot of your views, but when I hear people chanting death to other people, it negates the effect of your campaigning.
It makes me think you're just as bad as you can.
That's the misperception.
But it's not a misperception, Lee, is it?
Come on.
It's me you're talking to, not some clue.
I might have not talked to you before.
I know, it's good to have you on the program.
And a lot of what you say and do sympathy with.
But when I hear people try and pretend that when they chant death to the, it's like when people chant death to America, what do they mean?
They mean death to Americans.
No, if you're not going to listen to my point, then there's not much I can say, is there?
The IDF is not a person.
And we have not named any individual soldier.
So would you say death to the British Army?
Would you chant death to the British Army?
Well, if I had cause.
Well, we waged an illegal war in Iraq, for example.
Would you have chanted death to the IDF?
I actually went there as a nurse.
Right.
So would you feel comfortable with people chanting death to the British Army?
Yes or no?
For the genocide that they've caused, yes.
And for the genocides that Britain has caused through history.
So you would now say that death to the British Army.
So you want Britain.
That's what you're seeing, Pierce.
Is that what you're saying?
No, it's what you're saying.
Well, I thought you just said it.
No, you just did.
So you wouldn't countenance chanting death to the British Army.
You think that's wrong?
It's not a constructive argument, and you're not listening to what it's saying.
The British Army, and I campaigned against this at the Daily Mirror.
The British Army waged an illegal war in Iraq, which was completely wrong, which caused mayhem, the rise of ISIS, the deaths of a million people.
But I had a brother, I had a brother who served in the British Army, and I would have taken grave exception to anybody chanting death to the British Army, because I would have taken that as a direct threat to kill my brother, who was serving his country and would have been imprisoned if he deserted his position.
So, this is my point about this.
This casual use of chanting is actually quite dangerous.
And in the wrong people's voices and impressionable heads, it can lead to people actually thinking what you mean is killing human beings.
And I just don't see how that helps a campaign to stop human beings being killed.
Okay, I can see your perspective and I can see the line of thought that you're going down.
My initial thoughts when I first heard that chant were that I found it very, very strange that somebody chanting death to the IDF, which isn't an individual person, can upset the Western media so much that it facilitates a five-day debate on it, whereas the IDF caused the actual death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Why can't they both be wrong?
Why can't both those things be wrong at the same time?
Absolutely.
The violent loss of any life is wrong.
Right.
You didn't feel uncomfortable with thousands of people, thousands of people at a music festival, ironically, a music festival.
And I say ironically because of what happened on October the 7th, where hundreds of innocent young Israelis enjoying a music festival were slaughtered by a terrorist group.
Which is awful.
Thousands of people in an audience at an English music festival join in a chant of death to the IDF.
And you have no problem with that.
I'm not saying that I haven't got a problem with it.
But you don't have a problem with it.
You did it yourself yesterday.
You don't have a problem with it.
You did it yourself yesterday.
Yes, because I believe that the IDF should be dissolved.
Then say that.
So you know what, Lee?
Say that.
That's fine.
Criticize the IDF as much as you like.
Say that a lot of what they're doing in Gaza now is unacceptable, indefensible, as I've been saying.
Not just in Gaza.
But when you incite a chant in front of thousands of people of death to the IDF, many people assume it means death to the members of the IDF who are human beings.
You may not like them.
You may not like what they do.
They're ordered to do it by their government.
And I just feel like it doesn't help the cause when you're trying to stop the killing to just call for killing.
That's my point.
I wasn't calling for killing.
I was calling for the death of the IDF, which aren't individual people.
I think, Lee, in all honesty, I think it's an excuse that everyone's latched onto when they saw what had happened to this rapper at Glastonbury.
And even he's now joined in by saying that's what he really meant.
And I don't believe him.
And I don't believe you.
But I listen, in other areas of what you've been saying, I have a lot of sympathy.
But I appreciate you joining me on Uncensored.
Thank you very much.
No, I don't mean you're giving me the chance.
I've been on television all over the world since my impassioned appeal to the Egyptian police.
Yeah.
But none in Britain have even asked me a word.
Well, I've had you on and I appreciate it.
I know.
I admire your intestinal fortitude for it.
I really do.
It doesn't take that.
I like to have everybody on and I like to have vigorous debate.
And look, some stuff I'm sure you and I would agree about and some stuff we wouldn't.
But I've got to leave it there, Lee.
Thank you very much.
I'm being joined now by the columnist, political commentator Owen Joe, and somebody else, who I suspect on this issue of what the IDF is doing in Gaza, we'd have a lot of agreement on.
But you and I locked horns a little bit on X a couple of days ago about what happened at Glastonbury.
I just felt, I mean, that when people try and pretend what they mean is, oh, we just mean the entity.
We don't actually mean IDF soldiers.
It's disingenuous.
When a crowd charts death to the IDF, what they mean is they think IDF soldiers should be killed.
People talk about the death of institutions all the time.
Kier Starmer, when he said the NHS must reform or die, did he mean, and maybe you should probably give a bit of warning to doctors, nurses, and patients around the world, does he literally mean they're going to be killed?
Of course not.
So does, sorry, just to be clear there.
You're comparing your company.
You're comparing that the NHS.
So when people say the NHS will die, we're literally going to say the NHS will die without reform.
Are they saying that they're going to be the mass murder of doctors and testors?
So to be clear, when you watch that rapper at Glastonbury chanting and leading a chant with thousands joining in of death to the IDF, you instinctively believe.
He said it himself.
Oh, no, he said it since.
Well, no, no, no.
Well, yes, you're right.
Look, unlike you and I, we're both very verbose commentators.
Let's be honest.
We write at length, sometimes in Pythia tweets, but I like to write at length what I think.
And I think the IDF should be dismantled.
That's fine.
Yeah, ah.
But he said himself, it means the dismantling of a violent.
He said it since the Fiori British.
But he also said he's opposed to death of Jesus Adams or any other race of group.
If people are on Pierce, I don't be rude, but that puts him in a rather different category than of your pro-Islamic artist.
Hold on.
When did he post that?
Well, the next day.
Of course.
What do you mean, of course?
It wasn't the next day.
It was actually two years.
It was the day after.
So you're saying that a rapper should have done a long, verbose statement on stage?
He's a rapper.
His initial response.
Let's just be honest.
As you know.
Let's just be honest.
Oh, and hang on.
Hang on.
Let me respond.
His initial response the next day was not to apologise for anything, to cite his daughter and school meals.
He shouldn't apologise.
That's fine.
He doesn't have to.
No.
Free speech speech doesn't have to.
But he was dropped by his talent agency.
He had his visa revoked so he can't go on the Tory of planning in the United States.
And then we saw this clarification, which bore a striking resemblance to what people who tried to justify it had been saying on social media, which is, I didn't mean soldiers.
If on the Fridays, I meant just the institutions.
Can I put this in?
I honestly am interested to see what you think.
Because what, you know, well, I'll come on to the false equivalence you also made.
If the Russian army on Friday, if Russian officers and soldiers had confessed that they had been ordered to deliberately shoot Ukrainian civilians who had, they had been ordered to starve already, they put a total siege on Ukraine for several months.
They had been ordered to shoot dead those unarmed starving civilians and they had killed over 600 of them, including an 18-month girl who they shot in the chest.
And then the next day, having seen those reports, people chatting the death of the Russian army, would you honestly, and you really do need to answer honestly here, and I want to just say it from the heart, would you honestly regard that as an outrage?
Or would you regard that as an obvious emotional response to an absolute unbelievable war crime?
Right.
So you accept then that the rapper was talking about soldiers?
No.
People call for the death of the Russian army all the time.
Do you believe him 100%?
Yes.
When he said death to the IDF, he didn't mean individuals.
Do you believe that?
Well, he's actually, unlike, this is the irony.
Do you know what the irony is?
Well, does it answer my question first?
Yes, I do.
And actually, it's not.
Because I want to read you something.
Can I just...
I want to read you something.
Because new footage has emerged and circulated today of Bob Vylan saying on stage, villain.
Villain.
Death to every single IDF soldier, May 2025.
To be honest, I mean, I don't know about that footage.
I haven't seen it.
To be honest, that still puts him, I'm afraid to say, Pierce, in a better category than most of your pre-profits.
But he's completely contradicted everything you've just said.
I'm not Bob Villen spokesperson.
And by the way, I'm not playing Godshit.
I just got told that myself.
No, no, fair enough.
They've literally put it on the iPad because it's gone round today.
Fair enough.
I would never myself.
Clearly, that shows his actual meaning was not what he put as an excuse two days later.
What he meant was death to every single IDF soldier.
So then the argument becomes your one about the Russian troops in Ukraine.
And my point is, coming from a family full of military, military do the orders of their government.
Often on pain of imprisonment.
I'm afraid to say that.
You may want to say that that's not the case, but actually an army goes into battle and the orders...
When we went into war against Iraq in 2003, many of those soldiers would have had serious misgivings.
Pierce, right?
So who is accountable?
Tony Blair, who orders them in, or the soldiers who do their job?
Piers, we established at Nuremberg that I was just following orders is not a legal excuse.
You're absolutely right.
The perpetrators of genocide should be hauled before the courts.
That's principally the likes of Benjamin Enyahu and those at the top.
But Israeli soldiers who are massacring knowingly unarmed civilians, it doesn't matter.
They are legally required.
Quickly, they are legally required to refuse to enact those orders.
Now, just on that point, by the way, people like myself oppose sending IDF soldiers into Gaza.
And if that had happened, not only would hundreds of thousands potentially of Palestinians' lives be saved and not maimed and all the rest, but those hundreds of Israeli soldiers wouldn't have been killed either.
A lot of your guests, ironically, the pro-Israel guests, supported sending hundreds of IDF soldiers to their deaths in pursuit of what is a genocidal campaign.
What would you have done on October the 8th if you'd been Israel?
What would you have done if you were the Palestinians on the 7th of October?
No, hang on, hang on.
3,000 terrorists have come over the border.
They've annihilated 1,200 people.
They've captured 250 plus hostages.
7,000 people were wounded, many of them with irrevocable injuries.
What would you have done if you were to?
The problem with this is you're saying, if I was an apartheid state, which had deliberately and systematically, because if I was Israel, I would create a single- So what would you have done?
Nothing.
Well, what I would have done is if I was suddenly the Israeli state, probably what I would have done is dealt with the underlying causes of what happened and said.
But you wouldn't have responded to that.
Well, you would send the soldiers in the here and now to prevent civilians on the borders.
On the borders, they failed to defend because they were in the West Bank committing a pogrom at the time, Piers.
But you wouldn't have gone after the people that did it.
Everyone who commits war crimes needs to be held sent to justice.
Crossing Into Genocide Intent 00:11:41
The international criminal.
But that's not my question.
No, no, no, but the international criminal.
Do you believe that Israel had a right to defend itself?
Gaza, as you know, under international law, wasn't another state.
It's occupied legally as per international law.
But all the terrorists came from Gaza.
Yeah, because...
So did Israel have a right to defend itself?
Again, do you know why I regard this as so offensive to the worth of Palestinian life?
I'll tell you why.
In 2020...
Do you think Hamas cared about the lives of Palestinians?
No, I haven't argued that.
You know what I think Gaza has said about 632 days into genocide, have to start going back to do you condemn Hamas?
You know my views on that.
We don't arm.
That's the bottom of my question.
We don't armor support Hamas.
You said do you think Hamas cared about the lives of Palestinians when they launched that attack, having built an intricate tunnel system which protected Hamas but exposed the civilians to certainly...
And that's why Hamas is not relevant.
What?
Of course it's not relevant.
No, it isn't relevant.
I'll tell you why it's not relevant.
I'll tell you why you would.
Hamas is a revolution.
No, you would find this question offensive if I put it to you.
If I had said to you, in 2023, 240 Palestinians had been killed that year by the Israeli state, including 40 children.
What else was Hamas supposed to do on the 7th of October?
What would you say?
Are you justified?
No, no, that's the point.
I'm saying you would say correctly, there was never any excuse for war crimes.
This is an outrageous question for you to do.
But responding to a terror attack isn't a war crime.
What has happened in the last few months to me has now crossed the line between legitimate self-defense to the worst terror attack of modern times against the Jewish people, has gone mild past that into, and clearly from what people like Smodridge are saying, has gone into a plan, it seems to me, by the government to cleanse Gaza of Palestinians, which is a war crime.
No, so it's so easy for you to see Smotrich as your bogey now.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, yes.
Because he says it on camera.
Yeah, no one doubts that Smotrich and Ben Gavir are deeply unpeased, mass murdering, genocidal mania.
Well, people do deny.
Unfortunately, a lot of people come to your show, but who should be in prison, okay?
From the very beginning, Israeli leaders and officials made clear they were going to commit a genocide.
They made clear they saw no distinction between civilians and people.
And the problem is people like yourself now, you're literally fueling a continuing ramp campaign about a rapper and what he said on stage.
Well, a rapper you've defended, because he said he only meant the entity.
And as we've now discovered, he said he meant death to every single IDF soldier.
Yeah, you got that at the same time as I did.
So how much space for responsibility?
But given that, I support the...
Do you now accept that your defense of him was a little bit wrong?
I support...
Well, let's watch the clip here.
And guess to every single IDF soldier out there as an agent of terror for Israel.
Best for my idea.
I've known you a long time.
I have a lot of respect for you.
You just have to admit when you hear that, you were wrong to defend him in the way you defended him.
He didn't mean IDF.
People I was defending.
He didn't mean IDF VN.
But do you accept now that you were wrong?
He didn't mean that.
We both, I didn't hear, I've only heard for the first time.
You've heard that.
So now you've heard that.
Do you still say he only meant the?
Well, no, obviously now he's made clear what he meant to say.
Do you accept you're wrong?
Yeah, because obviously...
No, I'm not saying that.
I'm not saying you should have known.
I'm just saying that I found the defense very disingenuous by everybody.
And I felt what he'd done, and this has now been proven, I think.
He'd gone on social media, he'd seen people coming up with this ludicrous.
No, but this is what this is.
But he only meant the entity.
And then, knowing what he'd said on stage, so knowing what he said on stage, he issues a statement saying the complete opposite that he's read for people like you defending it.
Now he's made all of you look like complete prunes.
No, the people I'm defending principally are the people in the audience.
I do not believe thousands of people attending Glastonbury were supporting that.
And what I find actually even more grotesque, to be honest, and this is what I find going to test.
That view, which I don't support, I don't support killing anyone, which is what IDF soldiers shouldn't be supporting.
So then we agree.
You shouldn't be sent into Gaza.
Let me agree.
To kill and hang on, let me agree.
No, your guests.
You don't believe in killing anything.
I agree with you.
Most your guests, who you treat as respectable people on this show, have more extreme views than he does.
On which side.
But what about the pro-Palestinian guests I've had on, who the Israelis say are the most extreme people in the world?
The war crimes being committed.
You only care about extremists on one side.
Sorry, the war crimes.
Because I don't.
I care about extremists.
The war crimes being committed by Israel are infinitely worse than what Hamas did.
Absolutely.
How many people have been killed now in Gaza?
How many people?
Depending on what report you believe, between 50 and 70,000 have been killed.
Absolutely not.
The economists, for example, which is unique.
Well, I've seen those people.
No, no, which supported the onslaught, 109,000 people.
These are unsubstantiated numbers.
It's generally recognized by the international community that it's between 50 and 70,000.
So it isn't.
What are you talking about?
Absolutely not.
Sorry.
The international community is the international community in Western states who are arming and supporting Israel as it commits genocide.
The economists that are very deep, and the economists supported Israel's onslaught.
109,000, that's just violent deaths.
We know from other conflicts, this isn't a conflict, this is genocide.
The vast majority of people die from non-violent causes.
Now, the reason what he said, which I do not support, by the way, there, is less extreme.
But that's good.
Less extreme than your guests is under international law, it's legal to kill combatants.
It is not legal to kill civilians either because of disproportionate actions, intentionally or recklessly.
Your guests who come on this show, who are pro-Israel guests, they support an onslaught which doesn't just kill combatants, but kills civilians.
That is more extreme than what that man said.
But you don't treat them as that.
Why don't you treat those people as more extreme than that man?
You've talked for a long time.
I mean, I think we actually agree.
You just don't want to admit we agree.
No, you don't accept the idea of doing it.
As you don't accept it.
As you know, I have said very publicly now for many weeks, in fact, since the start of the year, that what Israel's been doing in Gaza in the last few months has crossed.
I don't think it is genocide.
I don't think it does.
This is a real problem.
Hang on.
No, it's not a problem.
It is a problem.
Because you're a genocide denier.
Hang on.
I'm not a genocide denier.
You are.
Do you think Israel's committing genocide?
Yes, yes.
Do you know what genocide is?
Yes, I do.
What do you think it is?
Genocide is the intention to destroy a people in whole or in part.
Right.
Do you not think that's a problem?
You think the Palestinians have genocide?
Do you think they're trying to kill every Palestinian?
That's not the definition of genocide.
Which genocide is every single person being killed?
I think what is happening is more ethnic cleansing.
Okay?
It's how I would describe it.
We can disagree.
No, no, no, no.
You can disagree.
A lot of people think it is genocide.
No, no, okay.
It has not been officially declared a genocide, right?
It hasn't been officially declared.
The International Court of Justice is the only arbiter you could point out.
No, just quickly, they would have to take years to do that.
Okay, let me just put this.
I would call it what Smodrich is talking about is ethnic cleansing.
A consensus of genocide scholars believe Israel is committing genocide.
And that includes, just quickly, Israeli scholars of genocide, Omar Bartov.
He's a professor of genocide and Holocaust.
So if you ask me what I think.
No, Oh, no, but this is what I'm going to ask you because we're talking about experts, people who actually dedicate their lives.
Many experts say it isn't genocide.
No, name it.
Let me quickly, Omar Bartov, Raz Sigal, these are only Israeli genocide scholars.
Alice Goldberg, Israeli professor of Holocaust history.
Daniel Blattman, he's the head of the International.
What's the ICC said?
The ICC is still investigating and their charges are public.
Now, come up with another one.
What's it said?
Well, we don't know because they've been ordered not to release any future charges.
We do know that it has not declared it a genocide.
Yet.
Right.
But there's evidence that it's potential.
I agree with that.
Can you tell me?
I agree with that.
By the way.
Can you give me a second?
Let me get a word in.
Can you tell me what genocide scholars are?
Let me get a word in.
Okay.
My biggest problem with all of this is that you and I can argue the toss about numbers and this and that and scale and genocide, the ethnic cleansing and so on.
The reason we don't know more about how to assess this is because British and international journalists have not been allowed into Gaza to do their job.
On that, I think we completely agree, right?
If the international journalists were allowed in, they can get to the bottom of all this stuff.
I think when they finally get in, we are going to find evidence of appalling war crimes.
I really believe that.
I believe that is why the Israeli government continues to ban international journalists.
So it may well be that when the journalists get in, that you and I meet again and I say to you, I believe the bar for genocide was met.
At the moment, I don't.
So can I?
I believe Pierce, Pierce, can I just ask you?
You spoke for a long time there.
I've read several genocide scholars.
There's a consensus of genocide scholars who believe this is genocide.
I'm asking you to name me one.
Well, I'll just name the ICC who have not ruled that yet.
We don't know that.
We do.
No, we don't.
Sorry, the ICC, just quickly, is this true or not?
Do you know this?
The ICC have ordered any future charges cannot be made public.
We don't know what other charges they've made.
The bar for genocide because of intent is much higher.
Right.
Now, so we don't know what charges they're going to make.
So we don't know genocide yet.
Well, you've just admitted it.
No.
Or did you not?
It takes years, that process.
The legal process is a good idea.
Right, so why don't we wait for the children to determine whether it's a genocide or not?
We can rely on the evidence of genocide scholars who dedicate their lives.
Do you think you know better than genocide scholars?
That's the same thing.
I think the scholars know more than the ICC.
Maybe they know more.
They don't because the ICC is...
It's clearly an arguable point.
Well, it isn't because the ICC take years.
That legal process takes years.
Now, for example, on the night, this is again on the 9th of October, the head of COGA, the Israeli general in charge of Koda, he said, this is Dr. Sorry, Major General Gasanalian.
He said, Hamas has become ISIS.
He said, the citizens of Gaza are celebrating instead of condemning.
Human beasts will be dealt with accordingly.
You will get no water or energy, just damage.
You asked for hell you wanted hell.
That tweet was addressed.
It was a video.
The tweet was addressed to Hamas and the residents of Gaza.
Do you accept that's genocidal?
I think it falls into the category of what I've said repeatedly.
Why is that not genocidal?
Well, it's genocidal language.
Okay, so he's the guy.
Who is he?
He's the IDF general.
Smodrich is an IDF as a guy.
IDF intransitive.
Smodric talks in genocidal language.
I don't dispute that.
So you accept intent as that?
You're asking me to say that.
Do you accept intent is the highest...
You ask me, do I believe yet it is genocide?
I do not.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe there is genocidal intent?
I believe there's genocidal rhetoric.
No, well, what's the difference between rhetoric and intent?
What is the difference between Minister and the General?
Describe to me the difference between a genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Well, ethnic cleansing is just the forcible removal of people from their land on the basis of ethnicity.
Genocide is when you attempt to destroy people in whole or in part.
You don't need to expect...
You don't actually need to kill people to do that, by the way.
So by your definition, Srebenica is a good idea.
So there's not a lot of difference.
Do you think Srebonica was a genocide?
Do you think Srebonica wasn't a genocide?
I categorize it as a plan to do ethnicity.
Do you believe Srebonica wasn't a genocide?
No, hang on.
Let's stick on this.
No, no, no, hang on.
It was a dedicated genocide.
It's not a genocide, according to you.
Let's stick on this.
Why?
I have said I believe that Smodric is planning ethnic cleansing.
And maybe what is happening here, right?
And you think it's genocide, what's going on.
I think it is ethnic cleansing is the plan.
And there's not a lot of difference between them.
Right?
You accept that?
Well, genocide means...
So you think I'm sort of denying genocide?
I'm saying I think the bar has been met for me of ethnic cleansing.
Ethnic has come out of Smodric.
Ethnic cleansing doesn't actually have legal standing.
It's a term which was a useful.
If it does, it's a war crime.
No, well, it doesn't exist.
It is a war crime.
Is Any Response A War Crime 00:10:06
You know that.
Ethnic cleansing is a war crime.
Sorry, the term ethnic cleansing doesn't exist as legal language.
You're talking about forcible displacement of people from the homes.
That's a war crime.
But by your definition, Srebenica, which, by the way, lots of Israeli leaders claim isn't genocide.
They were allied, many of them, to the Bosnian Serbs, who had huge amounts of sympathy for.
They said it wasn't a genocide.
Is it a genocide?
I believe it was.
Okay, do you think the Rohingya, is that a genocide in Burma?
They haven't exterminated the vast majority of the Raham.
Why is that a genocide?
I prefer to wait.
Sorry.
You're right.
I'm getting excited.
You're getting nervous, aren't you?
Very excited.
But look, let's just conclude with things we agree about.
Okay.
Right?
Is your position now about Bob Villen, given what we just watched, that when he's chants death to every single IDF soldier, you would condemn that?
I don't support Ken.
I don't want any soldiers to be killed.
The way to stop that is to stop IDF soldiers committing genocide.
And in light, and just to clarify, in light of what we've just seen, would you now withdraw your defense that he was only talking about ideas?
His statement was obviously not correct.
He didn't say that.
Do you wish you hadn't defended him now?
Well, I wouldn't have defended him on the basis of his statement because...
Well, you said he was only specifically talking about the entity, not being able to do it.
Well, that's because that's what he said, Pitt.
But obviously...
But that's what people would have.
Yeah, but he lied to you, didn't he?
Well, the statement's not true.
But I'll say this.
He's less extreme than most of your guests because you're scared.
That's a different argument.
No, it isn't.
It isn't.
Because you don't show.
Do I take them on?
Did you watch my show?
Yes, and you don't show.
Have you watched me taking on the Israeli guests?
You treat those Israeli guests as having respectable views.
You always have.
In the first month.
Have you watched him the last few months?
In the first month.
Have you watched the students?
Do you support him?
Think you've been watching the show, have you?
I don't know.
Why don't you ask Israeli Twitter or Zionist Twitter what they think of what I've been doing on the show?
All the way through.
You would know exactly how I've been treating the pro-Israel government guests.
In the first month, and you wouldn't be surprised.
In the first month.
You've never watched, have you?
Be honest.
I've watched many of your guests who are pro-Israel.
Did you watch the interview?
Did you watch the interview with the Israeli ambassador?
Yeah, and she's very easily upset.
She's very easy to set her off.
The lawyers for Israel, Natasha, House Doris.
Did you watch that?
I've seen you.
Did you watch the interview with the minister this week?
I've seen you from the beginning.
Come on.
Interview pro-Israel guests and treat them with deference and respect.
These are people who support killing civilians.
Not soldiers.
I've also treated Israel.
It's illegal to kill soldiers.
I've also legal to kill civilians.
Apart from the fact that legal to kill soldiers, not legal to kill.
Had you watched the show for the last few weeks and months, you would know.
I don't watch everyone pierce.
But I have watched it for months.
I've seen you what...
But there we go.
Because you're admitting that.
Is for the first part of the genocide, when it was clearly a genocide, you were treating genocide.
Yes, it was.
No.
They said from the beginning what we were going to do.
Was the obvious response which was a month?
Of Palestinian civilians?
Yes, first month.
Okay, so when they were wiping Gaza from the face of the earth, where Gaza within three months was a different colour and texture when it looked at from space, when they had exterminated, had the biggest worst tritian, when Israeli leaders and officials made clear they did not see a distinction between civilians and officials, you don't think that was genocide, and you were treating these people as though they had respectable views.
No, I thought their views are more extreme than Israel.
I thought the Israeli military response was a direct response to Hamas's official spokesman saying on camera for the world to see, we're going to keep trying to do more and more October the 7th.
Did you think this about Rwanda?
What about it?
It's not what's about it.
It's about consistency.
What happened in Romania?
What's the difference?
I'm not going to talk about every conflict around the world.
No, no.
You've asked me a direct question.
You've asked me a direct question about the first month in which Israel bombarded Hamas in Gaza.
Well, they killed innocent civilians.
They killed lots of civilians.
Thousands of innocent civilians.
Well, it's not murder if you are doing a proportionate response to a terrorist.
It wasn't proportionate.
Do you accept that?
I kept asking what is proportionate.
Right.
I have now concluded in the last few months it's gone way past proportion.
But this is the thing.
You spent months.
You don't blame Hamas for what happened in the United States.
It was in the obvious...
Do you not blame Hamas?
The war crimes.
I blame them for their war crimes.
You don't blame them for what Israel then did.
Every war crime Israel committed.
So Hamas built a massive tunnel network.
They then launched the worst terror attack on the city.
What you're saying has no legal basis.
It's a holocaust.
And when Israel inevitably responds the way they did, that's not on Hamas.
There is no legal basis for what you just said.
You cannot say when you commit war crimes, I was made to do them.
Every war crime, legally speaking, that the Israeli military...
But I don't think what Israel did in the first few months was a war.
But that's like saying...
It was a defense against Hamas.
But you wouldn't say that about the 240 Palestinians who'd been killed by the Israeli military in the months before 7th October.
But what's the difference?
Israelis have also been killed throughout the 75-year conflict.
Well, you can go back over 75 years and you can say each could respond to the other.
But they've always done it on a much smaller scale.
Do you accept that?
And do you accept what Hamas did on October the 7th was on a scale totally out of guilt with anything that had happened on one day before?
Do you accept that?
Obviously, they can't...
But what Israel has done.
Building the tennis tunnels.
It's infinitely worse.
Infinitely worse.
By building the tunnel network, do you accept that Hamas protected themselves at the expense of the civilian population?
Israel wiped out civilization.
Do you accept that?
Israel attacks civilization.
Do you accept that Hamas knew what was going to happen?
Benjamin Netanyahu.
You built the tunnels to hide.
Benjamin Netanyahu.
Do you accept that part?
Again, it's relevant to the point of Israel.
It's relevant to Israel Israel.
It's relevant that Israel knew exactly.
Hamas knew exactly what was going to happen.
Benjamin Netanyahu in the first week was given a list of 100 targets by his general and he said that's not enough targets.
I want 400 and he said destroy their homes.
That's what he said.
This was revealed in an Israeli newspaper.
Now the idea that they were, you know, the reason that they slaughtered so many civilians in that first week was because of tunnels is a lie, Piers and you must know that's not.
No, no, it wasn't my question.
My question was, do you not think that when Hamas planned this attack and carried it out, having spent 20 years building this tunnel network, they then hid in the tunnels and let their civilian population take the inevitable bombardment that was going to come back when they committed the attack they had committed.
In other words, Hamas sacrificed their own civilian population.
You're trying to deflect from Israel's direct responsibility.
You know Hamas committed war crimes, everybody accepts that Israel is guilty of the war crimes that it purposely.
So to be clear then, your position is if a country has a terror attack on the scale of what Hamas did to Israel on October the 7th, any response by that country militarily is a war crime.
Is that your position?
Is that your position?
If you commit, no, if you kill civilians through either disposal.
But that's not a war crime.
Legality.
Israel made clear.
It's not a war crime.
This is.
Israel made clear from the beginning.
It's not a war crime.
Israel said from the beginning, they were fighting human animals.
You don't understand international law.
Yes, I do understand internationalism.
A war crime is not a problem.
It's not a war crime.
A war crime doesn't mean if you're attacked, you can break international law and the norms of war.
It means you have to abide by the norms.
It's not a war crime for a country to defend itself against terrorists.
Israel committed war crimes from the very beginning.
We will establish the truth about the war crime.
Do you think that Israel wasn't?
Do you think Israel wasn't committing war crimes from day one?
I don't know.
They wouldn't let journalists in.
I don't know what they would do.
They did it on camera, Pierce.
They did it on camera for the whole time.
You think that any military response is a crime, and that's not true.
That's not what said.
That's pretty much what you imply.
The reason this has happened is because Israel has been committing war crimes for generations.
Literally the Nakbim, which 15,000 Palestinians are.
And yet every war that started in the 7th century.
As they were driven by the people.
And in the 75 years of the conflict, every one of the five wars has been started by...
That isn't true.
Well, who started them?
Do you think in 67 that's true?
Each of the wars.
That's absolutely not true at all.
But we're talking about the Palestinian people.
Just to be clear, you think...
Are you saying the Palestinian people?
Do you think all five outbreaks of war in the 75 years were started by Israel?
The Palestinian people didn't start any of those wars.
Arabs started the war.
So just Palestinians just get lumped in with Arabs.
Did Israel start those wars?
Did Palestinians start any of those wars?
We're talking about Palestinians here.
We're talking about the war on the Palestinian Arabs.
Yeah, but we're talking about the war on the Palestinian people.
We're talking about the war on the Palestinian people.
And their right to exist.
Is Israel ever allowed to defend itself?
Israel needs to become a single state from the river to the sea in which Jewish people and Palestinians have equal rights.
That's what it needs to do.
And until that happens, I believe in a two-state solution where they all get the same human rights on that idea.
Okay, but the reason the war crimes, which you keep erasing, because you keep starting to get it.
I want to see the evidence of the war crimes.
So when it comes, I will be the first to land.
They did that on camera.
But I prefer due process on these things.
Yeah, but when they declare, when they declare to the world they're fighting human animals and they're going to, from the very beginning, they said when they're going to be able to do that.
I would call Hamas human animals.
They didn't say they said civilians.
They said the residents of Gaza.
And they said they were cutting off at the very beginning water and fuel.
Is a deliberate siege of Palestinians.
You know what?
Is it deliberate siege of a civilian population?
Is that a war crime?
Yes or no?
Listen, if you're asking me, do I agree with the occupation?
No.
No, I'm talking about the siege.
They announced the siege.
No, but they shouldn't have been able to do it.
Is it a war crime or not?
Probably.
So you accept they committed war crimes from day one then?
I think the siege that they enacted because they were able to is indicative of the wider, bigger picture problem of the occupation.
I agree with that.
So you conceded the point then.
You've conceded the point that this doesn't begin, obviously, in the 7th century.
Of course not.
But then you would never say my show more often.
Well, I've got life too short.
It's good to have you back.
Life's too short.
It's good to have you back.
But honestly, life isn't too short for you to be better informed about what I do on my show.
Well, you don't have to.
You don't accept it's not a good idea.
You're throwing all the generalizations which make me think you haven't watched it.
You don't think Israel's committing genocide.
You'd be better informed if you watched my show.
You think Israel's committing genocide?
As you were about our friend Bob Violent.
Who it turned out made you look a right chunk.
Anyway, you look more of a chunk when you wait exception's committing genocide.
You Conceded The Point 00:01:13
Which is really easy to do.
You could just say it now.
Is Israel committing soon?
When the ICC says it's genocide, I will say that.
That's the only time you're doing.
That's kind of a legal process I'm waiting for.
Okay, so you will never...
We've run out of time.
It's good to see you.
You don't think Hamas has committed to the next day?
Come back again soon?
Come back again soon.
Okay, fair enough.
Hamas committed Warcraft.
But you've not waited for the ICC to make their case?
No, because Hamas broadcast it on their own GoPros.
So have it.
We're committing war crimes.
It's literally on camera.
Thousands of war crimes.
We've run out of time.
Literally, the studio has run out of time.
However, I would love to have you back now often.
I enjoy our debates.
Actually, we agree with a lot more than probably people think.
You do need to move over to accepting it's genocide.
I think that would be very important given your opinion.
And there may be a time I do that.
Okay, well, let's see.
But it's good to see you.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent.
The only boss around here is me.
You enjoy our show.
We ask for only one simple thing: hit subscribe on YouTube and follow PiersMorgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain.
And we'll do it all for free.
independent on censored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it Without you, I would be
Export Selection