"DANCING On Charlie's Grave!" Dennis Quaid on Kirk & Immigration | Dave Smith vs Officer Tatum
Hollywood star Dennis Quaid returns to Piers Morgan Uncensored for a third time to discuss the assassination of Charlie Kirk, his widow Erika’s choice to forgive his killer, Jimmy Kimmel, ICE deportations and more. Then; It’s a true testament to Kirk’s influence, and the power of the movement he led, that his death has sparked intense debate about the evolution of his opinions. How did he reconcile his profound faith with the increasingly intolerable scenes in Gaza, for example? Had he begun to change his mind about Netanyahu’s Israel? Comedian and host of Part of the Problem, Dave Smith, Brandon Tatum, AKAThe Officer Tatum, both join Piers to debate. Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by: Birch Gold: Visit https://birchgold.com/piers to get your free info kit on gold. Oxford Natural: To watch their full stories, scan the QR code on your screen or visit https://oxfordnatural.com/piers/ to get 70% off your first order when you use code PIERS. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Spiritual Fight for America's Soul00:09:24
This is a spiritual fight for the soul of America.
Dancing on Charlie's grave.
I wouldn't even call these guys leftist or Democrats.
I'd call them ghouls.
You called me, I think, a devil and one of the worst people in America.
He has not committed a genocide in Gaza.
I think that's disingenuous.
What they should do is embrace a two-state solution ultimately.
They should stop occupying a people as they do.
They've done it five times in the Arabs.
No, they haven't.
Okay, now five times.
Yeah, I get it.
I know you're going to hit every Hasborough talking point.
That's not true.
There's no policy to murder kids.
It's urban warfare.
Unfortunately, people die for the 15th time.
You're 100% wrong.
You don't know what you're talking about.
It's Israel has just been checked.
No, you're going to watch it.
Hollywood is not exactly overloaded by proud patriots with a knack for saying it how many regular people see it.
Dennis Quaid is a notable exception.
Many uncensored viewers were energized and moved by his previous appearances on this show.
And I'm pleased to say that he rejoins me again now.
Dennis, great to have you back.
Pierre, it's wonderful to be here with you again.
Thanks for having me.
You know, I was really keen to talk to you because you did Charlie Kirk's podcast, I think, last year to promote your movie, Reagan.
So you knew him a bit.
You interacted with him a bit.
Where were you when you heard that he'd been killed?
I was in my car and it had just happened.
It was another one of those, where were you when Kennedy was shot or whatever.
And I just couldn't believe it that it happened again.
It brought up all of those feelings that I felt whenever we hear devastating news like that again.
And it made me sad for our country.
What is going on in America, do you think, that has led a 22-year-old young man to do this?
It reminds me of, in a way, of the 60s of what we went through.
Back then, I think we were a nation that was a little naive.
And until Kennedy got shot, there was such hope.
And then Kennedy was shot.
You had Martin Luther King shot.
Robert Kennedy was shot.
Like, those were two months apart.
We had Kent State.
We had Woodstock.
And then we had Altamont, which ended things.
A lot of people, this country was very divided.
And people were at each other's throats, but at least we were listening to each other.
There was a real debate going on in this country.
But now it's the hate speech, which has gotten way too high.
And it's we have to start reaching out to one another, being tolerant with one another, and do some listening and search our own hearts, I think, as individuals.
I don't even want to call it, everybody wants the label, but I wouldn't even call these guys leftist or Democrats.
I call them ghouls.
And It's, you know, this is a, it's not a, more than a political fight.
This is a spiritual fight for the soul of America.
One of the many incredibly awful things that's happened since Charlie Kirk's death is the glee that many people on, I think, predominantly the woke left.
And I use that because I think a lot of people on the left are perfectly decent liberal people who abhor violence and have humanity.
So there is a difference, but there seems to be a strain of this woke left who've lost all sense of humanity.
And they gleefully post videos.
And these are professors on college campuses.
These are doctors, nurses, teachers.
These are people in real positions of authority.
Some of them making decisions about saving people's lives.
And yet they want to be seen publicly, gleefully celebrating joyously the murder of a 31-year-old man who went out of his way to debate with anybody about anything.
What does that say about where we are in modern life?
That's the most perplexing thing.
That's the thing that caused me the most heartache to see people posting and they're literally dancing, dancing on Charlie's grave, basically, just so happy that someone's been killed who they didn't even understand.
I think Dave Chappelle actually put it really well.
I saw a clip on him when he was doing a show someplace that greatness, these people, they don't know what greatness looks like.
And the thing about Charlie is that I think what made so many of these people angry is that Charlie would challenge them and by challenging themselves.
And the debates that I've seen, they really can't support the argument.
And that's really what made them angry most of all, I think.
Charlie would run it through and really have them challenge themselves in a sense.
And they were left speechless.
And what I liked about it was he would do it with respect.
He'd be polite to them.
He'd be civil to them.
He would say, prove me wrong.
Come on, come down.
I'm a broad, open.
Prove me wrong.
I'm a broad, open church, literally, right?
You know, you know my views.
I'm a Christian conservative, right-wing guy.
Okay, these are my views about all these issues.
Come down and engage with me and prove me wrong.
And if you can, great.
But, you know, we've got to the stage now where the incoming president of the Oxford Union Debating Society in Oxford in the UK, probably the most famous, certainly the oldest debating society in the world.
A place where you would imagine.
Which Charlie went to, right?
Which Charlie went to, and he debated with this guy in May.
He stood opposite him and debated with him.
And that guy, that incoming president, was straight out of the traps when he heard that Charlie had been murdered, saying, LOL.
He found it hilarious and let's effing go.
That was his reaction.
And this is the guy who's going to be president.
Well, I hope he won't be, not because I believe in cancel culture, but because I do believe in accountability for things you say.
It is completely ridiculous that the president of a debating society would gleefully celebrate the murder of somebody for his speech and somebody he himself debated just a few months ago.
So for that reason, obviously he can't do his job.
But again, what is he thinking?
How do we get here where people just say LOL to a 31-year-old man having his neck blown apart by bullets?
Yeah, how eloquent LOL.
You know, he couldn't beat him in a debate, but that's incredible.
I have been heartened for people like Van Jones, who I think the day before had had an argument, a debate, a very heated one with Charlie.
And he says, we were, you know, we were just kind of hating on each other, so he thought.
But he didn't see it.
Charlie was assassinated.
And then the very next day, he found out that Charlie had texted him and wanted him to come on his show and to remind him that we can argue and we may not agree, but we can argue agreeably and be grown-ups and really put these issues out there.
That's how we advance ourselves.
We may not have the same opinion, but you have your opinion and I have my opinion.
But if you argue it through, you're going to advance the issue.
Arguing Agreeably After Tragedy00:02:38
You're going to start.
There's another opinion that's out there that we can get to.
We're all trying to get to the truth of this.
Yeah, I mean, the whole point of this show is to get people who get together.
Yeah, but I was very, yeah, think about Van Jones.
He went on air after he found that text, and he was really visibly moved by it.
I really appreciated that, coming from what they call the other side.
It made it a very human issue with him.
And that's the effect that Charlie had on people, really.
He hit them in the heart.
It's like almost like you were, it was a surprise, the emotion that came up in people, how he touched people's hearts.
Or if they weren't inclined to that, you know, he brought up anger in people, but he brought up what was going on in you.
And Bill Maher is another who is, you know, over the past months.
I don't really agree with Bill Maher most of the time, but he has an open heart.
And that's what we have to have.
We have to start opening up our hearts.
Yeah, I completely agree.
U.S. national debt is more than $37 trillion.
And these are uncertain times of the global economy.
It's enough to make you think maybe now would be a good time to buy some gold.
Whether it's a hedge against inflation, peace of mind during global instability, or just sensible diversification.
Birch Gold Group believes that every American should own physical gold.
They've created something special.
Until the 30th of September, if you're a first-time buyer, Birch Gold is offering a rebate of up to $10,000 in free metals on qualifying purchases.
To start the process, request a free information kit now.
Just text Peers, P-I-E-R-S, to 989-898.
Make right now your first time to buy gold and take advantage of a rebate of up to $10,000 when you buy before the end of September.
Text my name, Piers, to 989-898.
Claim your eligibility and get your free information back.
Again, just text Piers to 989-898.
It's about just, you know, when I was young, there was no social media.
There was no internet.
Free Speech vs. Real Violence00:06:12
But I remember in my teenage years, you know, regularly having ferocious arguments with people at school, in the pub, you know, but the idea that this would fester and that we would then hate each other to the extent where we'd have to want to kill each other was just total anathema.
I mean, that was just not, it was never in our minds.
You know, next day you'd have a laugh and you'd get back on it and you'd agree to disagree.
That ability to agree to disagree, which is the fundamental bedrock of free speech, actually, when you think about it, it's not about two people agreeing with each other.
That's not, I mean, that is free speech, but that's obvious.
It's about the ability to listen to a view you completely detest, but accepting that someone has a right to have it.
Yes.
Right.
And so you could maybe put yourself in that person's shoes and roll that argument around and let's talk about it.
Let's talk it through.
And, you know, maybe it's changed each other's hearts, or at least we're talking to each other and make each other human in that way.
You see, I think it's dehumanizing to silence.
I think the shooter, the Charlie Kirk shooter, just got dehumanized to the extent where he probably didn't even view Charlie Kirk as an actual human being.
He played a lot of video games, apparently.
I've been worried about the video game culture for a long time because I think it blurs the line between reality and fantasy.
And it can dehumanize people.
If you just spend all day long killing things on a screen, it may not feel the same to kill a human being as it would to someone like me who doesn't do that.
To me, I see a human being.
It would be, you know, maybe the line gets blurred.
You add in a highly medicated society, which America's become.
Then you add in the guns element.
He's able to take his grandfather's gun and so on.
It's a cocktail of things, I'm sure.
But it's also true that I think social media is amplifying into people's heads a lot of stuff in a way that is very dangerous.
Not least calling everybody a fascist, Hitler, Nazis, and so on.
It has to permeate down where people hear this enough times and they start to think, well, if they are Nazis, we have to stop them.
Right.
Of course, we all thought about this.
If we'd had the chance to kill Hitler during that time, that would have been justified.
But these words of these code words, they're code words is what they are.
And it's an echo chamber with one side.
People like, well, AOC and Crockett, who I have seen, every chance they get, it's to get on air and they get a lot of TV time for it.
And they double down on the hate speech.
I would have loved to have seen them debating Charlie Kirk.
It may have been surprised that they may have had their heart touched as well in the end because he leaves me speechless the example that he was to everybody.
He was able, he was willing to go into the lion's den in college, a guy who didn't have a degree.
He went to Oxford in debating the best there was.
And it wasn't about his ego to, you know, I got you, I got you, I got you.
It was about really bringing us all together.
It was about being a uniter.
And the words of Crockett and the AOC, it's about keeping that divide that they want to keep as divided because that's all they have to define themselves.
There was a very powerful moment in the Charlie Kirk Memorial, I felt.
Well, there were several, but particularly his widow, Erica, saying she'd forgiven the killer.
You're a man of faith.
What did you make of that moment?
That's what Jesus tells us to do, because you can't hold that inside you.
You're the one that is, it still festers in you.
It's a way of letting it go.
It's a way of giving it all to God by forgiving somebody so you don't have to carry that on your heart.
And let God handle it.
That's what forgiveness is about, so that you don't have to carry it yourself.
And how do you, it's tougher, I would imagine it was tougher on the killer to hear those words than it was for her to say it.
Do you think you could forgive somebody for doing something like that to your family?
It's really hard.
We're all human.
We all want to strike back.
And we don't know until that time comes now, do we?
But it was, she's right, that's what Charlie would have done himself, I think.
She's an amazing person.
She really is.
And what she said about, you know, Charlie was, his movement was growing, getting bigger all the time.
But I think his killing has created a million Charlie Kirks.
It really has.
Charlie Kirk's Million Followers00:04:59
And we need to come together as a country.
We don't have to agree on everything, but we do have to start talking to one another.
We pass each other on the street all the time.
And, you know, we need to start leading from the heart and just think a little bit before we act.
The Jimmy Kimmel saga is still ongoing.
We're not quite sure how it's all going to end.
But you've been on Jimmy Kimmel's show.
What did you think of the way that all played out?
Well, I've done Jimmy Kimmel over the years, when I'm promoting a movie or whatever, and he was always, you know, very kind guy and in person.
I did a hoax a few years back that he was kind of part of and helped propel.
But how he takes up the hate speech, but where are we?
Then you could come out and say something.
We knew three days before that, for one thing, this guy was raised in a conservative family, but his mother and his father and friends had said that he had all these leftist ideas.
And then the whole trans thing came in there, which really seemed, wow, you can't write this kind of stuff that's been happening in our society.
And this was already known.
And Jimmy goes on and he lies, basically, or tries to put it off that this guy is right wing.
And then the whole kind of hoax thing with the, you know, with referring to Trump, you know, about the, I guess, about the ballroom or whatever they're doing.
And that's supposed to be funny.
I mean, it's, you have the right to free speech.
And he certainly had the right to do that.
I would definitely give him that.
But you don't, you know, there are consequences that come with it.
And you have to accept those if you're, you know, if you're going to, if you're going to speak freely like that.
And that's, I think originally it was, but the, the local affiliates are the ones that complained, I guess, because of people calling in to complain and then also, you know, losing ratings.
And I think it was a business issue, the reason that he was fired in the end.
But you have to accept the consequences.
Today's show is brought to you by Oxford Natural, makers of the Optimum Day and Optimum Night, all natural supplements.
Thousands of Brits and Americans are already taking them with incredible results.
Optimum Day is designed to boost your energy and support weight loss throughout the day.
Optimum Night helps you relax and get deep, refreshing sleep.
And don't just take their word for it.
Here are just a few of their success stories.
England football legend, Michael Owen, lost £40.
Robbie, the face of AFTV, dropped over £100.
Linda, a top laurel firm executive, lost £50.
And Danita, an immigration lawyer, shed £60.
To watch their full stories and find out more, scan the QR code on your screen or visit oxfordnatural.com slash peers.
And here's the best part.
Use the code PEERS, P-I-E-R-S, and get 70% off your first order.
Get 70% off with the promo code PIES.
And Jimmy Kimmel, of course, I've done his show.
I got off perfectly well with him.
But he was the first out of the traps always when anyone on the conservative side lost their job.
I remember him gleefully celebrating Tucker Carlson being fired by Fox.
Same with Roseanne Haar from his own network, ABC.
And he would lead the charge of words have consequences.
This is what happens.
So he set the bar himself to me for this kind of thing.
And if you are struggling with ratings and you are costing your network money and then you do something stupid, then you're giving them a chance to get rid of you.
Yeah.
I saw him going on about Paul Pelosi and when that happened, you know, when he was taken hostage by that guy with a hammer and, you know, asking where was anyone who was conservative, where was their compassion for this guy?
Truth About Undocumented Families00:06:46
Right.
And, you know, it's look to your own heart.
That's what I would say.
And I would, we all have to like start speaking up around here.
If we're going to be role models or whatever, we have to start speaking up.
We have to start telling the truth.
I really kind of don't know what the Democrats are doing except for doubling down on the same stuff, which is don't really have an issue.
It's all about Trump and Trump and Trump.
And, you know, I'm an independent.
I would vote for a Democrat one of these days if they, but they actually have to have a stand on a direction for this country, an alternative that's not just hate Trump.
Yeah, I completely agree.
It's pretty much all they have.
And that's why they're polling so badly.
I've got to end just by asking you about your new movie, Sovereign.
It feels appropriate, this, because it's based on a true story of a father and son who identifies sovereign citizens, a group of anti-government extremists who get into a standoff with police that then sets off a manhunt.
The sovereign citizens believe the government's illegitimate.
They can decide which laws to opt out of.
What relevance do you think this movie has right now?
Because clearly there are lots of potential relevances, but what do you see as being the most relevant part of this to where we are?
Well, this sovereign people feel like they are not subject to the laws of the United States.
It's a contract of which they were not part of.
And it's a very extreme fringes of, it's not even left or right, really.
But it's very, the fringes are trying to take over in this country.
And it's about ideas and how ideas could drive people to extremes that to me seem ridiculous, of course.
This is a true story of this father and son.
And the movie in the end is about father and sons.
I played a police chief in the small town who my son is becoming a policeman.
In fact, it was this kid's very first day on the job.
He stopped this sovereign guy who had his son in the car.
And it's about hearts and minds and fighting for the soul of America with your son.
And it was such a tragedy that happened.
But the human impact of how ideas can go bad.
You've just made me think of a last question, but I've been watching the whole immigration debate in America.
I get a sense that most Americans applaud Trump for what he's achieved on the southern border.
I think it's been extraordinary how quickly he's resolved that crisis.
I think most Americans believe if you're undocumented in America and you commit a crime, you should be deported.
But there is a real battle.
You're talking about the soul of America over people who may be undocumented but have been in America for a number of years, maybe built a family, paying taxes, contributing to society.
And this sort of imagery of ICE agents running into Home Depot and grabbing people like that.
Where do you sit with that?
Do you feel it's gone too far?
Do you feel comfortable with that kind of thing?
I've had experience myself.
My housekeeper, who was in this country for decades, undocumented really because she had her sister's driver's license in order to get around.
And I found this out.
This was back in 2016, and she was really afraid of Trump getting elected because she would be thrown out of the country, she thought.
And she lived in fear.
And I said, No, what we have to do, Josie, is we have to do things right.
So I sponsored her.
We went through the process and we got her documented.
We got her a green card, in fact, to be here.
And she's going for her citizenship right now.
And, you know, after a year or two, two years later, or four years later, she wanted to get her citizenship because she wanted to vote for Trump in the end.
But most of the, most of most of the Latino community that I know, they're great, hardworking people.
Family values, they agree that these people that are coming in, undocumented, jumping the line, getting their jobs.
They also, they live in fear of the cartel, which has fingers even into their own communities.
And you have the which Trump has come out and said that, you know, all our seasonal workers, farm workers, we have to come up with a solution to that, that they could stay.
But we're going out there, mostly we're getting the violent.
We're getting people who continue to break the law after breaking the law of coming into this country.
And we're going to be taken over from within if we don't.
Obama deported more people than Trump had.
He did.
He did.
In fact, there was no outcry about that at the time that it was happening.
And it's really about just being anti-Trump.
I guarantee you, if Biden had been for the same thing, there wouldn't have been a word said.
Overcoming Social Media Hate00:15:34
Dennis Quay, it's always great to have you on our sense.
You always speak such sense.
And you always do it also with an underpinning of humanity, which is so lost, I think, in many people these days.
It's such a shame.
It's great to talk to you.
Sovereign, starring Dennis Quay, Andy Kofferman, is available now on demand in the UK.
Dennis, thank you very much.
Thank you.
Yay, 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 PBB Situation Report with excellent guests, including national security insiders and foreign policy experts.
Check us out on Spotify and Apple or wherever you get your podcast.
Also on our YouTube channel at President's Daily Brief.
Now it's a true testament to Charlie Cook's influence and the power of the movement he led that his death has sparked intense debate about the evolution of his opinions.
How did he reconcile his profound faith with the increasingly intolerable scenes in Gaza, for example?
Had he begun to change his mind about Netanyahu's Israel?
The many people debating this believe it matters because Charlie Cook's movement mattered and his legacy matters too.
Turning point has transformed the way many young people think about politics, and it's only going to get bigger.
Two of our regular uncensored contributors have locked horns on this issue and others, like Kirk himself.
They both relish a debate.
I'm pleased to say that Dave Smith hosted part of the problem, and Brandon Tatum, better known as the Officer Tatum, both joined me now.
Well, welcome to both of you.
No strangers to the show uncensored, or indeed being uncensored.
So it's good to have you both.
Dave Smith, first of all, there is a sort of growing sense that Charlie Kirk was wrestling with the war in Gaza.
He'd gone from a position of being a bit like I do, I think, of being very pro-Israel's right to defend itself, to getting increasingly concerned about the scale of what has been happening in the last few months in Gaza.
What is your sense about that?
How significant is it?
Well, I mean, I think it's significant.
I think it's really a fascinating story that maybe it would have been appropriate to wait a few more weeks before we really started getting into, but everyone dove into it, including the prime minister of Israel, right away.
And I'll tell you what I know for sure, what I think most people know, is that, look, Charlie Kirk was in a different position than, say, just a commentator like Ben Shapiro or like me or you, Pierce, or, you know, he was organizing a youth movement to, you know, support Republican candidates.
And the youth are really abandoning support for Israel.
And so he had a very difficult job as like the movement guy who's trying to keep a big tent going.
And so he was attempting to do that.
And you could see this at his last big event where I debated there, where he had speakers like Tucker Carlson and Megan Kelly, who said some things, and I'm sure myself too, who said some things that really upset some of his backers and some of the more hardcore Zionists out there.
And he was quite open in his interview with Megan Kelly about talking about the dynamic that you've experienced.
You know, I had, I had a post on Twitter that went viral about you, which I believe you reposted.
But I was just using you.
Like you were the latest example in this trend, which a lot of people have experienced where people who are generally pro-Israel, in many cases, have been pro-Israel their entire lives, have an issue with something that Israel does.
They go a little bit too far for them and they start criticizing them for that.
And they're immediately met with accusations of being an anti-Semite and essentially the new Adolf Hitler.
And I do think that that's very jarring and often has the effect of just pushing people further away from Israel.
Now, I don't think that was happening in Charlie Kirk's case, but I do think he was certainly grappling with how do you keep this movement together when the young people who you're trying to galvanize and organize are abandoning Israel at an incredibly rapid rate.
Officer Tatum, what's your response to that?
Yeah, but my response is very similar.
You know, I knew Charlie very well, and I know a lot of people that know Charlie.
And I think that Charlie was wrestling with this conflict.
I don't think that in any way he was changing his perspective on Israel because Charlie's love for Israel goes beyond who's running Israel, goes beyond Benjamin and Yahoo.
It goes deeper.
It goes to a spiritual level.
And Charlie was unwavering on that.
But I do think, and I know this for a fact, that he was getting a lot of pressure because the youth was abandoning Israel to a certain degree.
And it bothered him because he wanted Israel to do better with their PR to try to capture these young minds so they don't fall or be against Israel because Charlie had a deep love and respect for Israel.
So he was feeling the pressure.
And a lot of people can't handle that pressure.
And I think that Charlie was in a unique position.
Unlike me, I don't care what people say to me.
I don't really care.
But when it comes to Charlie, he does care about what the young people are saying because that is the establishment of all that he worked for for so many years.
So I don't blame him for it, but I do know that it was the pressure that he was feeling.
Megan Kelly was feeling the pressure.
And some people just, when that pressure is on, they try to move to a central point so they don't have to deal with it.
Dave Smith, there was a Tucker Carlson made a pretty powerful speech, actually, I thought in many ways.
Certainly captivated the audience yesterday at the memorial for Charlie Kirk, but included what he described as his favorite story.
Take a listen.
Ultimately, he was a Christian evangelist.
And it actually reminds me of my favorite story ever.
So it's about 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem, and Jesus shows up and he starts talking about the people in power.
And he starts doing the worst thing that you can do, which is telling the truth about people.
And they hate it.
And they just go bonkers.
They hate it.
And they become obsessed with making him stop.
This guy's got to stop talking.
We've got to shut this guy up.
And I can just sort of picture the scene in a lamplit room with a bunch of guys sitting around eating hummus thinking about what do we do about this guy telling the truth about us.
We must make him stop talking.
And there's always one guy with the bright idea.
And I could just hear him say, I've got an idea.
Why don't we just kill him?
That'll shut him up.
That'll fix the problem.
Dave Smith, what did you make of that?
I don't know.
I mean, I see people freaking out about this on social media today, but I think what I took from the message was that, yeah, he's telling the foundational story of Christianity and making the point that obviously Charlie Kirk was, you know, when you're assassinating someone for the crime of trying to have open dialogue and discussion, the idea is you're trying to silence that guy.
You're against this discussion taking place.
And I think the point Tucker was making was that, you know, if killing someone silenced their ideas, then the last several thousand years of Western civilization would look quite differently.
And that the idea being that Charlie Kirk's probably, his ideas are now going to have, which is, I think, just factually true, a larger platform and resonate with more people than they even could have in his life.
As indeed did Jesus Christ's views after his crucifixion.
Obviously, Tatum, I mean, a lot of people have tried to spin this as Tucker Carlson being anti-Semitic, very predictable, because that's the stick used to beat anyone that does anything that may possibly be construed that way.
What did you make of that part of his speech?
Well, I want to address the anti-Semitic thing.
I think that people, and this is my advice to people who are Zionists or people who are Jews, you got to stop with the pushing the anti-Semitic thing every time somebody says something you don't like.
You have to stop.
I was just talking to a friend yesterday that said he just got bombarded with people calling him an anti-Semite because he shared a post of somebody Who, you know, may have had a difference of opinion.
So that needs to stop, or you're going to lose all credibility and respect from good people that love you.
Now, Tucker Carlson, when I first watched it, I'm going to be honest, I didn't think none of it.
You know, I don't really like Tucker very much, but I do think that he has a lot of negative things to say unjustifiably about Israel, but he's entitled to his own opinion.
But I can see why some people are thinking that he may have been subliminally saying things that were connecting Israel to this whole thing.
Now, I don't go down the bandwagon because I can't unequivocally prove that, but I did find it interesting that he had made mention as if Charlie was really an attack or attacking the government, as if Charlie's death was directly associated with government officials.
When in fact, it was really these narcissistic lunatics that are over-medicated, that hate Charlie because he's countering the arguments that we see that's pervasive on campus.
The government is not taking as extreme positions as the kids on campus are taking.
They're brainwashed.
I've been on campus.
I've been to probably 40 universities.
The kids on campus don't live in reality.
They live in an alternate reality.
They don't live like we do.
We pay taxes.
We have to go to work.
We have to be nuanced about arguments and things that we get involved in.
They are completely radicalized.
So I think that people could take it a certain way.
But let me tell you this.
It seems as if Charlie was very good friends with Tucker Carlson.
And it seems to me that Tucker Carlson can say whatever he wants to say.
And that may be the way he liked to grieve, or that's the way that he wanted to present himself at a ceremony.
And I think people should leave it alone unless you have unequivocal evidence that he was somehow trying to do that because you cheapen the love and respect and dedication that all of the people who spoke at the ceremony had for Charlie Kirk's life.
People got to stop trying to go too deep on both sides.
Let the man be loved and appreciated by everybody who was on stage and quit trying to conjure up controversial conspiracies.
Chris, can I just add to that?
Because I do think there's something kind of interesting.
Because having a black conservative and a Jewish guy who's like a critic of Israel, there's always like some parallels that I see between those two positions.
And I think maybe we could like across the board on all of these things.
People got to just stop making accusations of bigotry based off of what you're guessing the other person was dog whistling.
Like you're saying that there was a, you know, that there was a secret message hidden somewhere in what the other person said.
This doesn't, listen, if the say what you will about Tucker Carlson, I know Brandon said he's not a big fan.
I love the guy.
Of all the things you could criticize him for, he'll tell you how he feels.
I promise you.
He'll tell you how he feels.
If he has a controversial view, he'll say it.
He's not hiding some view embedded in his story here.
And people got to get over this, man.
There's just like, if we couldn't take one lesson away from the last 15 years, that making these accusations of bigotry to shut down conversations and making these accusations where there's no tangible evidence that they exist, they do not solve the problem of real bigotry.
They make the problem much worse.
And everybody should back off of that.
Now, I do want to ask, though, I got to say, because as you mentioned there, you said that your friend was being called anti-Semitic for sharing a clip of what someone else thought.
And listen, man, we don't know each other, but literally the only interaction we've ever had is you called me, I think, a devil and one of the worst people in America the other day, also for sharing a clip with somebody else.
No, no, no.
I'm glad you brought it up because there's a reason why I said that.
It's not that I somehow mentioned something about you just in passing.
You've shared a post of one of the most disingenuous, evil individuals that I've ever seen online.
Nick Fuentez shamed Charlie ever since 2017.
He would come out, harass, accost Charlie at events.
He would harass his wife.
Him and the groupers would harass my wife because she's white.
And this guy said Charlie is a fake Christian and he's disgusting and he should never be able to be on campus without being shouted down.
And then he comes out and makes a fake apology.
And I felt like you supported that.
And then also, with you, I had never met you before.
I disagree with you on Israel, but I respect that you come with your opinions.
But when you were on stage at SAS and you chastised those young people and said they can never claim to be pro-life ever again because they support a genocide, I thought that was the most disgusting thing that any adult man could say to young kids who was just seeking the truth and openly listening to a debate between you and another individual.
So the only reason I said that is based on those principles alone.
I don't know you personally, but I thought that that was disgusting.
And anybody who support that Nick Fuentes guy who shamed my friend, who's now dead, it bothers me to no end.
Dave?
Okay.
Well, look, I mean, again, I said I give him all the credit in the world for this.
And what was this?
This was after Charlie Kirk was killed, him saying that he was a good man, that he's praying for his soul and urging his supporters not to be violent in response to this.
And I got to say, you know, I thought, as I think many of us did, immediately after Charlie was killed and immediately after your first reaction of feeling so horrible on a personal level for his family, you realize this is a very dangerous situation.
And I got to say, for Nick Fuentes, you know, being who he is, to have him telling his audience, hey, if you respond at all with violence to this, I completely disown you.
We need to be Christians about this.
We need to be peaceful.
We should be praying for him and his family.
I give him credit for that.
Whatever other beef you got with him, that's between you two.
I didn't say I agree with the guy on everything he's ever said.
Well, hold on, let me just respond.
I didn't endorse everything the guy's ever said.
I said I give him all the credit in the world for this and then shared the clip of this.
Pretty clear what I was saying.
And by the way, I didn't chastise the kids at Charlie Kirk's event.
I warned them.
I warned them that if you're supporting the destruction of a captive, stateless people in Gaza right now, that you will never be able to claim to be pro-life again without being rightfully viewed as the biggest hypocrite in the universe.
That's an opinion that I will gladly defend.
And I noticed in there, you're not actually taking on that argument.
You're just telling me how disgusting I am for having it.
So listen, man, I think that if there's one thing Charlie would have wanted, it probably would have been for us to have this conversation without devolving into insults.
You can say it's disgusting if you want to.
I think there's a pretty strong argument for my point there.
I think it's kind of undeniable.
There's a real conflict between being pro-life and then also supporting a policy, the price tag of which is tens of thousands of slaughtered babies, children.
Terrorism Tactics on Both Sides00:15:32
Well, on that point, Officer Tato, I will let you respond, but let me just put that directly to you, because one of the reasons I become increasingly critical of Netanyahu's government, and you interviewed Netanyahu a couple of weeks ago on your YouTube show, and we'll play a clip from that in a moment.
But one of my, and he won't do my show, just for the record, since the war started.
Because I think one of the reasons he won't do me is because I would say to him, you're not achieving any of your war aims.
You know, you're not getting the hostages released.
In fact, if anything, I'd say you're imperiling their lives more every day this goes on.
You're not defeating Hamas.
That much is clear.
You're causing endless more devastation.
Your cabinet right-wing members like Smodrich, Ben Gavir and others, they're talking openly about ethnically cleansing all the Palestinians.
Are you not concerned, Officer Tatum, with a fair-minded head about this, that actually it is no longer about a retaliatory self-defensive strike for what happens on October the 7th, but part of a much bigger plan, which many on the hard right in Israel have harbored for a long time to displace Palestinians from their home in Gaza and from large swathes of the West Bank.
Does that not concern you?
Okay, great question.
Let me address a few things.
I think that Nick Fuentez is disingenuous.
And I felt like Dave Smith is intelligent enough.
And I'm not challenging your intelligence, but I believe that you can see through the bullcrap on so many other people.
And I felt like you should have seen the bullcrap through Nick Fuentez because he's just saying at the same face now that Charlie is dead.
And all the way up to his death, he shamed him.
When it comes to the pro-life situation, there's a very big difference between articulating whether a person believes that life starts at conception, not perception, versus a person disagreeing with urban warfare and the way that Israel is carrying out their attacks in Gaza.
That's two different things.
They should not be conflated.
When it comes to my concerns for Benjamin Netanyahu and his tactics in Israel, I mean, or his tactics against Gaza, there's a few things here.
I think that Benjamin Netanyahu, and because the interview, the nature of the interview wasn't really a debate, it was more so me asking him questions that my audience wanted me to ask him and him putting the answers out there.
And people can debate that.
But I think a lot of people that I know in Israel, including myself and others that are staunch Zionists, think that he is prolonging the war too long and is causing too much damage and irreversible reputational damage.
He should have ended it sooner and he should have went harder in America.
If we had faced such brutality, rape, people getting their heads cut off.
I saw videos of people getting their heads cut off.
We would have been swift within 48 hours.
We would have caused the most damage that you've ever seen to a country in world history.
And Netanyahu, for whatever reason, is capitulating, in my personal opinion, to his own personal image and that he don't want to look bad.
He don't want to be shamed.
He don't want people to say that he's committing a genocide.
So he's playing in the middle for too long.
Two years of this war is too much.
He should have eliminated Hamas immediately.
And he should not worry about the naysayers.
He's derned if he do.
He's derned if he don't.
He is not committing a genocide in Gaza.
I think that's disingenuous at best because no one committing a genocide will be giving food or aid to a people that they're trying to kill.
They would not be sending leaflets and advising people of buildings that they're going to tear down.
The population has grown in Gaza from 1948 all the way up until today.
500,000 they started with, they're at 2 million at this point.
When did the genocide start?
There is no genocide.
People can argue the tactics that Netanyahu is displaying in Gaza, but you cannot be superfluous and add these arguments that seems to, in my opinion, be anti-Semitic in many ways.
It's not, these people are terrorists and not the Gazan people, the regular everyday individual, the terrorist group that came into a country and attempted to commit a genocide against Israel.
They would have committed a genocide against Israel to a large proportion if it wasn't for the IDF and if it wasn't for the Iron Dome.
Let's not forget they shot 4,000 missiles into Israel.
They tried to kill everybody.
The IDF is going in strategically.
I wish that people had not died.
I wish that they could end the war so there's no suffering.
I wish that Hamas wasn't stealing food.
The UN confirmed that 96% of all the aid is being looted.
I wish that Hamas wasn't doing those things.
I wish that Hamas will take the approach of Israel, which means when the rockets go flying into Israel, the people go into bomb shelters.
When rockets go flying into Gaza, the terrorists go into bomb shelters and they make their people stay above ground to be the blunt force of what they receive in a war that they started for no reason.
Hamas knew they could never beat the IDF in Israel.
Why did they start the war?
Why did they initiate conflict?
Why did they rape people and do things like that and videotape it?
Why do they still have hostages in Israel?
You know, the unpalatable answer, Officer Taton, I'll come to Dave Smith as well, but the unpalatable answer to that, maybe they did it precisely to goad Israel into a massive overreaction, which would then make Israel and its government in particular hugely unpopular around the world to the extent that the United Nations is convening today with the UK declaring a state of Palestine.
They're going to be followed by other countries.
Only really American Israel is opposing this.
But it may well be that Hamash, being a bunch of evil terrorists, thought if we do this, Israel will massively overreact.
They don't care about their own people dying.
That's completely obvious.
And it could well play into our longer-term game plan.
Who knows?
But it could be that.
In which case, they've fallen for a hideous sucker punch.
Dave Smith, your response to a lot to unpack there, but your response.
And also taking in this news today about countries like the UK, you know, declaring there is a state of Palestine.
No newspaper is more iconic than the New York Post.
So why not start your day with me telling you our best stories?
I'm Caitlin Becker, host of the New York Postcast.
Every weekday morning, I'll break down the headlines that matter to you and the stories you're going to want to talk to your friends about.
It's a mix of politics, business, pop culture, basically everything you expect from the New York Post.
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.
Sure.
Well, I mean, I don't know.
I think Brennan kind of almost hit every single talking point there.
So I don't know.
I mean, I've been knocking all these down for years on your show here.
The bottom line is just that it is just, look, to sit here and say that even as you say, obviously, Pierce, it's not like Hamas had to be rocket scientists to figure this out.
This is what terrorism is.
It's asymmetrical warfare.
The action is in the reaction.
Osama bin Laden didn't think he could take down the United States of America by taking out our towers.
He thought he could lure us into a war in Afghanistan and that that might bankrupt us.
It was the plan that our CIA coached him through in the late 70s and early 80s with luring the Soviets into Afghanistan.
And so the idea that, and look, we did it.
We blew $8 trillion in the Middle East since then.
And so that's the idea here.
And Israel's completely fallen into the trap.
But of course, the reason why people are, that Israel has done irreversible reputational damage, the reason why people are abandoning supporting this is really just twofold.
Number one, it's clearly not in America's interest.
And number two, this is just indefensible.
Even if you say that, hey, look, Hamas goes down into the bomb shelters and leaves the civilians up there to be bombed.
Okay, but then ain't there a moral question about whether it's the right thing to do to just drop those bombs on the civilians when you know the terrorists are down in the towers?
Hold on.
You had a chance to go through all this stuff.
So I know, but I will show you how to do it.
You just went off on every talking point.
I'll shut up.
No, just explain it.
Let me have a look at that.
I'm just going to finish.
Yeah, I'm going to finish what I did.
Well, what they should do is embrace a two-state solution ultimately.
They should stop occupying a people as they've been doing it.
They've done it five times in the Arabs.
No, they haven't.
Okay, now five times.
Yeah, I get it.
I know you're going to hit every Hasborough talking point.
That's not true.
I mean, there's been lots of books.
No, it's not.
It's a talking point.
It is not true.
The Palestinians have never once been offered a full-fledged state.
There is not one of those five times that they were ever offered a full state.
Even, by the way, that's not even your own Hasbro talking point.
You're supposed to say 97% of what they wanted, which also is a lie.
The point is that it doesn't, no matter what you're going to say here, Israel propped up Hamas for years to keep them in power so that Metanyahu could thwart the creation of a Palestinian state to then use them as a justification for mass slaughtering a captive people that you have kept stateless for 60 years is morally indefensible.
And I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had to like actually paint the full thing out.
When I was talking about the pro-life analogy, yes, being pro-life is about believing that life begins at conception, but baked in there is also the assumption that you think it's wrong to murder kids.
Like the point is that yes, you like to murder kids.
Yes, but you're supporting a policy that is doing just that.
There's no policy to murder kids.
It's urban warfare.
Unfortunately, people die.
There's no policy to do.
You should murder kids.
Yes, I'm sorry.
Yes, that is.
Look, when you make a decision to drop a bomb on a building where you know there are children inside of it, yes, morally, you murder those children.
Phone calls?
The leaflets away.
Not murder.
Okay, okay.
So how about when they don't?
There's no way to go.
How about murder them?
Let me just let me ask you a question.
Follow up.
How about when they don't?
What about when they don't drop leaflets?
What about when they don't have evacuation orders?
They just did this in Gaza City yesterday.
How about that?
Is that now murder?
Well, they don't have any excuse.
No, no, no, I could give you an example.
They don't have to drop leaflets and give phone calls if they're not.
I'm saying when you're shooting weapons and Hamas is firing weapons and using as a military base, they don't have to give leaflets to give evacuation.
Instead, if it's a civilian building or something where they can eliminate having casualties, they will do that to the best of their ability.
But there's some instances where they can't give notification because Hamas is operating out of these hospitals, operating out of mosques, and they have to do what they have to do in this warfare.
They have to.
No, they don't.
They actually don't have to.
What should they do to do this?
What should they do?
By the way, I love that.
I love Pierce.
I think it was Aaron Matei who coined this phrase.
I could be wrong about that.
But someone said, the entire Israeli case rests on you saying that nothing justifies October 7th, but October 7th justifies anything.
Like nothing, you're sitting here.
Yes.
Look at one side or the other.
One second.
You can pick one side.
I'll answer that question, but just interrupting my point with that question over and over again is just so I can't make my case.
There is no, you can go tit for tat here.
There's been terrorism on both sides.
Israel has been occupying Gaza and the West Bank slash and or controlling Gaza and the West Bank since 1967.
There's going to be resistance to that.
And then for you to say that resistance now justifies us slaughtering people by the tens of thousands, destroying all of Gaza is just, there's no logic in it.
There's no morality in it.
What should Israel have done?
Number one, Benjamin Netanyahu should have resigned on October 8th.
After his plan to prop up Hamas, being this genius right-winger that I'm going to keep Hamas in power because in his words, he could control the height of the flame and this will balance things and thwart a Palestinian state.
When that blew up in his face, he should have resigned in disgrace that day.
They should have had a real investigation about what actually happened on October 7th.
Our late friend had some questions about that, didn't he?
Yeah, he did.
Should have really looked into that, which we've never gotten to the bottom of.
Then they should have done surgical strikes, targeted assassinations, as Israel has always done throughout their entire history with the terrorism problem.
They have never, until Netanyahu, treated as a problem for the regular old army, and it should have culminated in a real peace process.
They should have said, We are going to take out the people responsible for this by targeted strikes.
And at the end of that, we're ending the occupation.
We're giving all of East Jerusalem, all of the West Bank, and all of Gaza to the Arabs.
It's their decision what they want to do in the future.
But if we are attacked, we will treat them as a foreign nation and go to war with them.
That's what the response to Akhmer is.
And by the way, Obisa Tatim, I think the biggest mistake Netanyahu has made of many, actually, in terms of tactics and strategy was the attack in Doha, which failed.
It didn't kill any of the Hamas commanders.
But the amount of fury that that has created amongst the Arab countries from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others, but also apparently, according to Horetz, amongst Mossad,
who are absolutely furious about that attack on one of America's main allies in the Middle East, somewhere with 10,000 American troops and a base there, to just attack with impunity Qatar and to attack people who were at that moment deliberating over a potential peace plan and then to fail anyway.
So you cause all the mayhem without achieving the goal seemed to me symptomatic of where Netanyahu's got to.
He's not achieving any of the goals here.
He's just making things worse and worse.
I think that one could argue that.
I'm not disagreeing.
I think that there needs to be an investigation into it and figure out what should we do and what should we not do.
America knew that he was going to do the attack.
There's no way in the world Israeli jets could fly through airspace without America knowing about it and do that attack.
So America is gave the green light pretty much.
And then we go, I want to go back to some of the things that Dave Smith said.
You know, it sounds cute to act as if they're just indiscriminately bombing people.
They're doing strategic strikes.
They have to get approval to do strikes.
We know that they're doing it.
People don't like it.
It's ugly.
I get it.
I hate that it's happening.
I would have ended the war in 48 hours and it would have been a mass casualty situation.
However, we would have been done quicker and it would have been two years.
The two-state solution idea.
Why are we lying to ourselves?
They don't want a two-state solution.
They want Israel to be absolved.
They do not want a Jewish state.
They made it clear.
I don't know for how many years.
Netanyahu, they removed Jews from Gaza and gave it to them.
And what did they do in return?
They elected a terrorist organization that extracted funding and resources from them to build tunnels to create terrorism against Israel.
They cannot live in peace with these people.
They continue to fight against Israel in a Jewish state.
And I don't understand why we're acting as if that's not so.
Why Two-State Solution Fails Now00:08:34
They've given them their own sovereignty to a certain degree.
Imagine if they had to.
Do you think, Officer Tatum?
Officer Tatum, do you think?
Do you think, Officer Tatum, that Palestinians should have the same rights, human rights, as Israelis?
Let me put it in perspective.
There was no.
It's a yes or no.
I will answer to it.
I will.
No, you can't equivocate.
You can't answer it.
I just believe that or you.
The reason I'm asking you.
It's so central.
Let me start with your...
Let me know.
It's so central.
Let me answer your question first.
Okay.
Okay, good.
The answer is yes.
Good.
Let me articulate that there was a warfall and Israel won the war.
So they don't have to do anything for anybody.
What war?
1948.
Was that not?
Was that the war was fought?
They got attacked.
There's been many wars.
They rejected the two-state solution.
After they rejected the two-state solution, a war is fought, they won.
Every war that has been fought, Israel has won.
They've been victorious.
They don't owe Palestinians anything, but they're peaceful people.
Which war gave them right.
Yeah, yeah, no, no, actually, I mean, they only owe them what we all owe each other, I suppose.
But what I mean, you can make that argument, but that's not a real argument.
Yeah, it is.
What war did Israel win that gave them the right to occupy the Palestinians in perpetuity for all of history?
Let's bring into it, but first of all, I don't know why you think it's the occupation.
Jews have lived in Israel since the beginning of time, never ceasing to exist in Israel.
They were the majority, became the minority.
Those two things are not related at all.
Let me finish.
Let me finish.
What I'm saying is that Jews don't have a military occupation.
Jews, what I'm saying is that Jews have entitlement to the land.
Palestinians don't have exclusive entitlement.
So when a war is fought, the Jews can make the decision of what they do with Palestinians or not.
Just like in America, we can say what we're going to do with the Native Americans.
Let me finish.
Let me finish this point and I'll answer.
Okay, sure, sure.
Just real quick.
It'll be a couple seconds.
But because we have humanity and dignity, we allow for Native Americans in America to have reservations and we support them in all of the above.
Because Israel and Jews have dignity, they allow them to have swaths of the West Bank and they allow them to have Gaza where they elected their own government system.
Now, do Israel have control?
I see why.
Can't you see?
If they had absolutely no control, they had no idea what was coming in through the southern border, through the sea, how much more of a terrorist attack would we see in Israel?
It would be even more massive.
So I understand that.
But when they were offered a two-state solution, why did they reject it?
All right, Dave.
Again, I don't know what period of time you're talking about, what war you're talking about.
But so here's a major difference.
You might notice this, Pierce, between Native Americans, say in the United States of America.
You know, they have citizenship and voting rights.
And so at a certain point, if you're going to say, we.
Okay.
Yes, that's right.
Now, how about the Palestinians living under Israeli control in the West Bank?
They do not have citizenship or voting rights.
And so if they don't have citizenship, Israel, right?
Israel's government controlling.
They have elections, don't they?
Listen, Brennan, think about what you're advocating for.
That's not the, you're not addressing the point here.
They don't have citizenship in the, you just said that, hey, you understand why Israel is going to control these areas because in your estimation, there'd be more violence if they didn't control these areas.
Now, I disagree with that estimation, but whatever.
Okay.
But then you're saying Israel has control and these people don't have citizenship or voting rights in Israel.
If Israel is controlling Gaza and the West Bank and they've got millions of people there who don't have citizenship or voting rights, don't have any say in that government, what would you call that?
By the way, we could maybe, I mean, I could make the argument that there'd be less crime if we just occupied high crime black neighborhoods in America, stripped all the people of their voting rights, of their civil rights, of their natural rights, and we just had a military occupation.
But I think we would all accept you're not allowed to do that to people because we're like, your argument is not a real argument.
They don't.
They keep saying that, but you can't take it off.
Listen, okay, let's give it.
If they actually control the people.
Israel doesn't control Gaza.
No, no.
If we actually control Gaza, okay, let me answer.
If they actually control Gaza the way you're saying it, they would have never elected Hamas and they would have never built tunnels and they would never stole funding and manipulated the people and they would never treat women the way they do and they would never throw population Israel if Israel controled them they don't control them they left them to their own devices and in the West Bank Manipulated the people.
That's why they have a separate election in Gaza because the PLO had manipulated the people in the West Bank and they didn't want that governance.
So they are governing themselves.
However, you will never see, I've been to Israel.
You will never see Jews in Palestine or what you call the West Bank.
You will never see them in Gaza.
But there are hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Palestinians that work in Israel.
I was there.
I saw it.
I'm not surprised October.
Nobody's talking about that.
Yeah, everybody knows Israel.
But what I'm saying is that what I'm saying is Israel is not treating Palestinians the way that people are acting like they are.
Okay, I want to gave them freedom.
I've got to do what they do.
I've got to wrap this up.
I've got to wrap this up.
I wanted to ask Dave one question before we wrap.
It's just this.
This decision by the UK and other countries to declare a state of Palestine has been ridiculed by Israelis as simply playing into Hamas's hands, giving them a reward for October the 7th.
Is it meaningful to you at all?
Well, I mean, yeah, I think it's somewhat me.
I mean, look, it's obviously a gesture more than anything else, but I do think it's significant that there's at least the feeling that there's a need to make the gesture, I think, is a result of public opinion shifting so greatly on this.
But, you know, I got to say, to this, look, first of all, I'll just say a couple things.
Number one, right after 9-11, it was Colin Powell, the wisest member of George W. Bush's government, which is not saying much, who went to George W. Bush and said, you got to do a two-state solution now.
Like, you have record high approval ratings.
9-11 just happened.
This is the time we can get it done.
And the reason Colin Powell said that was not because he wanted to give the Palestinians something, but because he knew that this was right at the center of the cause of why there's so much hatred for Americans in the Muslim world.
And that we had every single president of my lifetime, with the exception of Trump, wanted a two-state solution.
None of them could ever get it done.
None of them could ever get it done, in large part because of the enormous power of the Israel lobby in the United States.
Arabs rejected it.
Israel agreed.
I know, I know.
We heard you say that.
Anyway, no, no, no.
No, you need to talk about that.
You're wrong.
Every single two-state.
Okay, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
Right.
Okay.
You're telling me I'm wrong?
I actually know why.
For the 15th time, you are 100% wrong.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the longest-serving prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, the longest-serving prime minister in Israeli history, has made at the center of his entire career, thwarting a Palestinian state.
He has said this in his own words over and over and over again.
You don't know what you're talking about if you're liaring.
Israel has just been trying to fact-check.
No, people are going to watch this fact-check.
You don't know what you're talking about, dude.
Now you want to attack people.
You call me a liar.
Address it.
You call me a liar, dude.
And you're full of shit because you're not going to be able to do it.
Because the factual issue is that you're going to tell me.
I'm telling you, Obama Taylor.
Wait a second.
Wait a second.
I actually think.
I did what?
I actually think.
Listen, Opposite Tatum.
I've interviewed Bill Clinton a number of times and he was emphatic about the fact the closest they came was when he says Arafat walked away from what many people now see was probably the best deal that was ever going to be on the table.
I also think the assassination of Rabin was one of those moments from which I don't think anything has ever really recovered from that.
Killed by an extremist on his own side, Netanyahu fan.
Right.
And that may well be one of the reasons Netanyahu doesn't want to go down the same road.
We just don't know.
He acts in self-interest and everything else.
Proudly Independent and Uncensored00:00:34
Look, I've got to leave it there.
I'm going to leave it there.
I'm sorry.
It's been a great debate.
You guys have been great.
I really appreciate it, but I have got to move on.
Thank you both very much indeed.
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 uncensored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it Without you.