"This is NOT The Way To Defeat Hamas" Piers Morgan vs Mehdi Hasan

Summary

The transcript presents a detailed conversation focused on complex international relations, particularly addressing Israel's actions against Hamas, political leadership responsibilities, and the impacts of these actions on global perceptions. It explores criticisms and defenses of various responses to terrorism and political strategies, incorporating discussions on media representation, political accountability, and the broader implications of military and political decisions. The dialogue navigates through the nuanced viewpoints on combating terrorism, the ethical considerations in military retaliation, and the role of media in shaping public discourse around these contentious issues.

Takeaways

• 💬 Mehdi Hasan expresses strong opposition to Israel's military actions against Palestinians, arguing they are disproportionate and fail to address the root causes of conflict.
• 🔥 The dialogue touches on the challenges of defeating Hamas and explores the idea that Israel's approach may exacerbate rather than resolve the situation.
• 🚨 Hasan criticizes the framing of questions around Israel and Hamas, suggesting it reflects a lack of understanding of the complexities of the conflict.
• 🚫 The discussion includes a critique of the U.S. response to the Israel-Hamas conflict, with a particular focus on President Biden's policies and their impact.
• 💡 There's a debate over the use of the term 'terrorist,' with Hasan arguing for consistency in its application to both Israeli and Palestinian actions.
• 📌 The conversation explores the role of media and public figures in shaping perceptions of the Israel-Hamas conflict, including criticisms of MSNBC's handling of Mehdi Hasan.
• 📈 The script delves into broader issues of politics and policy, including critiques of the Trump administration and discussions on the domestic achievements of the Biden administration.
• 🔴 Hasan and the interviewer engage in a heated debate about the implications of woke culture, censorship, and the dynamics of political and social discourse in the U.S.
• 📝 The script touches on controversies around critical race theory and transgender rights, reflecting broader cultural and political debates.
• 👨‍💻 Mehdi Hasan outlines his reasons for leaving MSNBC and discusses the launch of his new media venture, highlighting his commitment to speaking freely on contentious issues.

Q & A

What was the interviewer's initial question about handling the situation as the Prime Minister of Israel after a specific atrocity?

The interviewer asked the guest to imagine being the Prime Minister of Israel and questioned how they would respond to the atrocity, suggesting the challenge of addressing such a situation.

How did the interviewee respond to the suggestion that Israel's actions were necessary to defeat Hamas?

The interviewee rejected the premise that Israel's blunt and brutal methods were the only way to defeat Hamas, indicating disagreement with the approach suggested.

What was Med Hasan's stance on Israel's military response to an act of terrorism?

Med Hasan clarified that he does not consider Israel to be terrorists, explaining that their response, although massive, was to an act of terrorism that demanded significant military action.

Why did Med Hasan believe the Prime Minister of Israel should resign?

He believed the Prime Minister should resign due to responsibility for botched security, support for Hamas through financial means, and failure to address internal issues leading to public protests.

What was Med Hasan's critique of the scale of Israel's response to Hamas?

Med Hasan criticized the scale of Israel's response, questioning the necessity and morality of the extensive casualties, especially among children, and comparing the situation to historical atrocities.

What is Med Hasan's view on defeating Hamas?

He believes defeating Hamas requires a strategy different from Israel's current approach, suggesting that military action alone, especially when it targets civilians, is not an effective solution.

How did Med Hasan describe the nature of Hamas as a challenge to Israel?

He described Hamas as a symptom of broader issues rather than the core problem, indicating that eliminating Hamas without addressing underlying issues would only lead to similar groups emerging.

What criticism did Med Hasan have for the way the media and certain individuals label Hamas?

He criticized the selective use of the term 'terrorist,' arguing for consistency in its application to all parties that commit violence against civilians for political purposes, including actions by Israeli forces.

Why did Med Hasan believe the Israeli government's strategy is not solely focused on defeating Hamas?

Med Hasan suggested that Israel's actions, which he described as genocidal, aimed at erasing the population in Gaza and taking back control, rather than just defeating Hamas.

What was Med Hasan's assessment of Joe Biden's presidency in terms of domestic policy and foreign policy, especially regarding Israel and Gaza?

He praised Biden's domestic policy as impressive but criticized his foreign policy for supporting Israel's actions in Gaza, which Hasan saw as enabling genocide, calling it a moral failure.

Outlines

00:00

🗣️ Political Perspectives on Israeli Actions and Media Influence

This paragraph features a scripted dialogue focused on the conflict between Israel and Hamas, exploring various viewpoints on Israel's actions, the role of the media, and the implications of these actions on both the political and social landscapes. The conversation critiques the blunt approach of Israel's military actions, challenges the premise of defeating Hamas through such means, and discusses the media's portrayal and influence on public perception. It highlights the complexity of responses to terrorism, the importance of strategic and moral leadership, and the controversial aspects of media coverage and political discourse surrounding these issues.

05:01

🤔 Reflecting on the Morality and Strategy in Conflict Response

This paragraph delves into the moral and strategic considerations of responding to provocations in the Israel-Palestine conflict. It draws parallels with historical events like 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, questioning the efficacy and morality of large-scale military retaliation. The dialogue criticizes the notion that brute force is the only way to address terrorist acts, suggesting that such approaches may not only fail to solve the underlying issues but also exacerbate them by creating more victims and further entrenching adversarial ideologies.

10:03

🏛️ Questioning the Intentions and Strategies of Israeli Policy

The conversation shifts to scrutinizing the intentions behind Israel's military strategies and the possibility of alternative responses. It challenges the view that Israel's actions are solely aimed at defeating Hamas, suggesting instead that they may be aimed at broader objectives such as territorial control or population displacement. The dialogue also touches on the international and domestic implications of these actions, including the political dynamics within Israel and the broader Middle Eastern context. It questions the ethical considerations and long-term consequences of such strategies, emphasizing the importance of understanding the root causes of the conflict.

15:03

🌍 International Reactions and the Moral Quandaries of Warfare

This section explores the international reaction to the Israel-Hamas conflict, particularly focusing on the moral quandaries posed by the high civilian casualty rates. The dialogue examines the difficulties of combating embedded militant groups without causing extensive harm to civilians, especially in densely populated areas. It critically analyzes the premise that certain militant actions justify extensive military responses, discussing the broader implications for international law, human rights, and global perceptions of justice and morality in conflict situations.

20:04

💡 Media Influence and Political Accountability in the Israel-Hamas Conflict

The dialogue addresses the influence of media coverage on public perception of the Israel-Hamas conflict, discussing the roles of journalists, commentators, and broadcasters in shaping narratives. It highlights the importance of accountability, both in political leadership and media reporting, questioning the effectiveness and morality of Israel's military strategy. The conversation also touches on the potential biases in media coverage and the challenges of maintaining journalistic integrity and objectivity in highly polarized environments.

25:06

🎤 The Power of Public Figures in Shaping Discourse on Conflict

This paragraph focuses on the impact of public figures and celebrities in shaping discourse on the Israel-Hamas conflict. It examines the reactions to statements made during award ceremonies and on social media, discussing the implications of such comments for public perception and political debate. The dialogue also considers the role of the entertainment industry in addressing or ignoring global conflicts, highlighting the tension between advocacy, censorship, and the commercial interests of media and entertainment platforms.

30:08

📺 Exploring Media Censorship and Career Implications for Journalists

The discussion explores the challenges faced by journalists and broadcasters in covering the Israel-Hamas conflict, particularly in relation to media censorship and career implications. It touches on the experiences of individuals who have faced professional consequences for their coverage or commentary on the conflict, discussing the balance between editorial independence, political pressures, and the commercial interests of media organizations. The conversation reflects on the importance of diverse perspectives in media coverage and the role of journalists in holding power to account.

35:09

🔍 The Intersection of Sports, Culture, and Politics in Public Discourse

This final paragraph debates the intersection of sports, culture, and politics in public discourse, particularly focusing on issues of identity, rights, and representation. It examines the controversies surrounding transgender athletes in sports, the censorship of educational materials, and the politicization of cultural and social issues. The dialogue challenges the framing of these debates by media outlets and political figures, emphasizing the need for nuanced discussion and the importance of recognizing the rights and experiences of marginalized communities.

Keywords

💡Hamas

Hamas is a Palestinian Islamic organization that has a military and a political division, governing the Gaza Strip since 2007. In the script, it's mentioned in the context of Israel's military response to an atrocity attributed to Hamas, which includes the targeting of Israeli civilians. The discussion revolves around the justification and consequences of Israel's aggressive military strategies towards Hamas, highlighting the complexity of defeating such an organization without causing extensive civilian casualties.

💡Israel

Israel is a country in the Middle East, mentioned throughout the script in the context of its conflict with Hamas and its control over Gaza. The script explores the Israeli government's military actions in response to attacks from Hamas, the international and domestic reactions to these actions, and the ethical and strategic questions these reactions raise. The narrative delves into the debate over whether Israel's tactics are justified and effective or if they exacerbate the cycle of violence.

💡genocide

Genocide is mentioned in the script as a term used by some to describe Israel's offensive actions in Gaza. It's a serious accusation that involves the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that group. This term is controversial and heavily debated in the script, with discussions around whether Israel's actions constitute genocide or are a form of self-defense against terrorism.

💡terrorism

Terrorism is a crucial concept in the script, discussed in the context of actions by both Hamas and, controversially, Israel. It's defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. The script debates the application of the term to Hamas' attacks on Israeli civilians and whether Israel's military responses can also be categorized as acts of terrorism.

💡MSNBC

MSNBC is mentioned as the former employer of Mehdi Hasan, a broadcaster known for his critical views on Israel's actions in Gaza. The script touches on the speculation that Hasan's departure from MSNBC might have been related to his outspoken criticisms, which leads to a broader discussion about media freedom, censorship, and the potential consequences for journalists who express controversial opinions.

💡media freedom

Media freedom is an underlying theme in the script, particularly in the context of Mehdi Hasan's career and his ability to express critical viewpoints on sensitive issues like Israel's military policies. The narrative raises concerns about the limits of journalistic freedom, the influence of media corporations, and the challenges faced by journalists who tackle controversial topics that might clash with political or corporate interests.

💡critical race theory

Critical race theory (CRT) is briefly mentioned in a broader discussion about cultural wars and educational content in the United States. CRT is an academic concept that explores the idea that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice but also something embedded in legal systems and policies. The script reflects on the controversy surrounding the teaching of CRT in schools, illustrating the polarization in American society over issues of race and history education.

💡Joe Biden

Joe Biden is mentioned in the script as the President of the United States, with discussions revolving around his domestic policies, his response to international crises, and his fitness for office due to his age. The narrative critically evaluates Biden's presidency, particularly in light of the conflict between Israel and Hamas, raising questions about his leadership and the moral implications of his administration's policies.

💡fascism

Fascism is discussed in the script in relation to various actors and ideologies, including the actions of the Israeli government, the Trump administration, and the so-called 'woke left.' The term is used to describe authoritarian, suppressive behaviors and policies, regardless of their origin on the political spectrum. The script debates the application of the term to different contexts, underscoring the importance of defining and recognizing authoritarian tendencies.

💡woke left

The 'woke left' is mentioned as part of a discussion on culture wars in the United States, particularly in the context of debates over transgender rights and educational content. The script characterizes the woke left as a segment of the political spectrum that emphasizes social justice issues but is also criticized for purportedly engaging in censorship and suppressing free speech. This term is used to explore the tensions and divisions within American society over progressive social policies.

Highlights

Med Hasan argues against the premise that Israel's methods are the only way to defeat Hamas, suggesting a nuanced understanding of the conflict.

Hasan suggests resigning as a responsible act for the Prime Minister of Israel in a hypothetical scenario, emphasizing accountability.

The discussion touches on Netanyahu's strategies and public opinion in Israel regarding his leadership and actions against Hamas.

Piers Morgan and Med Hasan discuss the moral quandaries and the scale of Israel's response to Hamas' actions.

Hasan points out the problematic approach of addressing Hamas as the root problem rather than a symptom of broader issues.

The conversation explores the complex dynamics of labeling groups or actions as terrorist, with Hasan criticizing a double standard in questioning.

Hasan addresses his departure from MSNBC, shedding light on media dynamics and his move towards independent journalism.

The discussion includes critical perspectives on Joe Biden's presidency, particularly his handling of foreign policy and domestic achievements.

Hasan and Morgan debate the implications of Biden's response to the Israel-Hamas conflict and the broader impact on his presidency.

The conversation shifts to cultural and political polarization in the U.S., with a focus on the woke movement and free speech issues.

Hasan challenges Morgan's framing of the woke left as the main source of cultural controversy, advocating for a broader understanding of censorship.

The debate touches on transgender rights and sports, highlighting the complexity of navigating fair competition and inclusivity.

Hasan and Morgan discuss the political and social implications of book banning and critical race theory in American education.

The dialogue reflects on the nature of fascism and the use of the term in political discourse, especially in relation to actions by the woke left and Donald Trump.

The interview concludes with reflections on the challenges of media representation and the need for nuanced debate on contentious issues.

Transcripts

I want you to imagine that you are the

prime minister of Israel when that

atrocity happens what do you do that's a

great question how else do you get rid

of Hamas if you don't go about it in the

blunt brutal manner that Israel is doing

I don't accept the premise of your

question that this is the way to defeat

Hamas I think your questions reflect a

little bit of a naivity about what

Israel is doing here people do ask me do

you think Israel are terrorists and I've

said no but I have repeated well I have

repeated because I think they interest

why because they were responding to an

act of terrorism so heinous it demanded

a massive military response no Med it's

not your show it's mine when is when did

Israel kill what we need to have is hang

on when did Israel kill 1200 of

Palestinian civilian were you fired by

MSNBC because of what you

said well M Assan is a broadcaster with

a big bite his MSNBC show as a L

cancelled the end of last year but not

before his criticism of Israel's war in

Gaza had sparked plaudits and protests

around the world he's best known for his

tongue lashing monologues and probing

interviews which have made him a big hit

online there also people your government

has killed you accept that right you've

killed children or do you deny that no I

do not I do not de yes you did this is

awkward for you because you did I've got

the tax returns in front of my face the

former president of the United States

today threatened America's Jews do you

believe that if elections are held on

time in October of this year that your

besieged party can still win and that

you can still be prime minister again

surely that's a pipe dream now I think

it was not C of Communism no so when KL

marks was talking about religion being

the opiate of the masses that was just a

throwaway

line look people look at

me and the president can be a liar

there's no contradiction between those

two statements well now's joined the US

Guardian using his first column to call

Israel's offensive a genocide also

started his own media company it's a Teo

news is New York Times bestseller win

every argument was notably written

before he'd appeared on this show and

now Med Hasan is uncensored medy how are

you I'm good thank you for that

introduction P we' we've had a few

ding-dongs on uh on X formerly Twitter

over the years uh recently I've noticed

a patent where you've started a few

tweets saying I hate to admit this but I

agree with Pierce

Morgan

yeah you've said some sensible things

about the conflict in the Middle East

you've said some sensible things about

islamophobia I feel like you've matured

over the

years uh I've been following what's

happened with you with great interest

and as somebody who was at CNN and left

left there pretty abruptly myself a few

years ago after a series of very Lively

debates with members of the NRA about

gun rights in America you know I could

see what happened with you and we'll

come to that a little later but first of

all how are you enjoying the freedom of

your new

life very much so um I'm someone as you

said who likes to speak out I'm known

for speaking very freely and look it's

great to have your own Enterprise start

your own Media company I'm 44 years old

I've worked for the BBC for sky for alaz

English for NBC for huff post and it's

good to actually be my own boss for a

little while and to be able to

especially at a time perers when the

world is going through so much you have

the the war in Gaza you have an election

in the US you have the rise of fascism

globally there a lot I want to speak

about both online and in my shows and in

my writing and you know it is good to be

uncensored including on this show it

certainly is it's great to have you um

let me just take you back to October the

7th I want you to imagine and it's a bit

of a leap I I admit but I want you to

imagine that you are the prime minister

of Israel when that atrocity happens in

Israel what do you do

that's a great question so short answer

is I resign because I'm the responsible

for that attack I'm the one who botched

security at the border I'm the one who

propped up Hamas with money from Qatar

over the years and allowed them to be

propped up as a way to divide the

Palestinian people I'm the one who's had

millions of my own people on the streets

for months protesting against my

authoritarian reforms to Judiciary so I

have some shame I have some self-respect

I have some honesty and I say I quit let

someone else do this because I have

failed for 20 years okay Netanyahu did

not do that and interestingly although

the majority of Israelis would like him

to go they also want him to finish the

job in destroying Hamas there there's

not much ambiguity in terms of how

Israelis feel about the mission plan um

but there's obviously a lot of concern

mounting around the world about the

scale of Israel's response and that's

really what I I guess my my question was

alluding to I'll be honest I've said

this a lot on my on my un sensed show

that I felt a real moral quandry you

know I can go back over tweets I've done

back in 2014 where I said that Israel's

response to uh provocation by uh

Palestinians at the time was bordering

on terrorism you know I have somebody

who when I was editor of Daily Mirror

opposed the Iraq War before during and

after very viciously and I think that

aged pretty well that campaign um I'm

somebody that when the Qatar World Cup

happened you know I sprank to defense of

qatar's right to host the World Cup and

Expos a lot of Western hypocrisy And yet

when it comes to this particular

conflict I I feel genuinely conflicted

for one of a better phrase and and the

point of my conflict is this really is

that the reason I asked you that

question about if you were the prime

minister of Israel it's very very

difficult to know how any prime minister

of Israel could have responded in a

particularly different manner to the way

that Netanyahu did putting aside all the

reasons that you say he should have

resigned and by the way I broadly agree

with them um in terms of the Israel

people the prime minister at the time

the response to what happened that day

was going to always have to be enormous

wasn't it so you're right in terms of

the emotional response it was going to

be enormous and I would take us back to

911 P you mentioned Iraq after 911 there

was an emotional response in the US that

something had to be done right there's

you know there's the famous Yes Minister

dialogue something has to be done this

is something let's do it and we invaded

Afghanistan which didn't solve the

problem of terrorism made it worse

punished innocent people who had nothing

to do with 911 and you'll remember at

the time pce both parties in the United

States supported going into Afghanistan

only one member of Congress not Bernie

Sanders Barbara Lee of California voted

to oppose that war two decades on many

people would say she was Vindicated even

though she was an isolated voice and she

was going against a tidal wave of

opinion from liberals and conservatives

said we have to do something and I get

that after an atrocity happens people

want to do something but the best

leaders the most strategic leaders the

most moral leaders are the ones who can

take a pause take a breath and say are

we going to make the situation Better or

Worse are we striking out strategically

or just for the sake of Vengeance and

revenge and you talk about Israeli Prime

Ministers having to do this look they

didn't have to do it on this level I

think a lot of Israelis despite

supporting Netanyahu would argue it

didn't have to be done like this there

are different ways to retaliate against

Hamas the irony is no Israeli government

has done it like this before this is the

greatest death pole for Palestinians of

any war in Israel's post 1948 history so

the fact that he did it like this was

unique I mean look the statistics speak

for themselves P you know them you've

said them on this show the level of

killing the number of kids killed you

have one former un official saying this

is the highest kill rate in the world

since Rwanda right of any conflict since

Rwanda do not tell me that the only

response uh to a brutal attack on

civilians in Israel on October the 7th

was to produce a conflict that had a

kill rate equivalent to rwanda's sorry I

don't accept that here's what I would

say playing Devil's Advocate and you

might think I'm literally Playing

devil's advocate but I'm going to play

it anyway which is all that is true the

death toll is horrific the percentage of

children being killed is horrific but I

would say as a caveat to this that if

you think about it from the Israeli

perspective they've got 35,000 Hamas uh

terrorists and we'll come to whether you

think they're terrorists or not in a

moment but got 35,000 Hamas soldiers

Warriors terrorists whatever description

you want to call them depending on whose

side you're on and they are embedded

amongst a civilian population where half

that population is under

18 how else do you get rid of Hamas if

you don't go about it in the blunt

brutal manner that Israel is doing and

if you do it the way they're doing it

how do you avoid the kind of casualty

rate of people under 18 given that's

half the

population so three things very briefly

number one you do it by not deliberately

targeting civilian targets and schools

and hospitals and cemeteries and mosques

and universities and churches you don't

have snipers shooting at hospitals or

Christian women inside a church that's

how you avoid the casualties number two

I don't accept the premise of your

question that this is the way to defeat

Hamas I think even if I'm an Israeli

Hawk I criticize Netanyahu and say this

is not the way to defeat Hamas this is

actually absurd to think you can defeat

Hamas in this way we have countless

episodes from history that show us this

is not how you defeat a gorilla movement

of resistance movement a terror group as

you say whatever words you want to use

in fact you have Israeli General saying

this can't be done in this way and

number three look the reality is Hamas

is a symptom of the problem as long as

you treat Hamas as a problem rather than

as a symptom of the problem you're never

going to get rid of Hamas or if you do

by some fantasy means get rid of Hamas

you'll just get another version of Hamas

because now you've got tens of thousands

of Orphans you've got people who have

lost their kids their spouses their

siblings what you think they're not

going to fight back in the years to come

you you think they're not going to take

how absolute Madness to I feel I feel

the same way I we agree so yeah I think

broadly speaking I do because I think

you can't kill the ideology and in fact

all you will do is entrench the ideology

I think and that's what I don't think

Israel have thought through to a logical

end game which is you're not going to

get rid of the thinking that inspired

herass because a lot of people will have

suffered such apping grief with their

close

family descri they going get

revenge I think you're being a little

too generous to these is here and and

with the greatest respect I think your

questions reflect a little bit of a

naivity about what Israel is doing here

you're you're starting from the premise

that Israel is trying to defeat Hamas I

don't accept that premise I don't

believe that's what Israel is trying to

they wouldn't be doing it this way I

think they're trying to take back Gaza I

think they're trying to erase the

resistance in Gaza I think they're

trying to get rid of the people from

Gaza I think this is their you know

they've mowed the lawn as they put it in

previous Wars this time they're going

into erase the population you know you

know there's a plausible

genocide Justice if you listen if you

listen to Israeli officials as you know

it's laid out in the South African

petition they are very genocidal in

their approach to flattening and burning

down Gaza it's not about destroying

Hamas and if it was about destroying

Hamas why has Netanyahu and smotrich and

others talked about how Hamas is asset

to Israel why did they say that openly P

well he was clearly massively deluded I

think Netanyahu about having anything to

do with Hamas I think the netanyahu's

plan was quite straightforward which was

to separate Hamas from the Palestinian

Authority and create a split in the

Palestinians at an official level and he

thought that that was the best way of

preserving security for Israel he

couldn't have been more wrong I mean the

thing I do want to ask you you I I don't

think you've called Hamas terrorists in

fact you've gone out of your way to call

them Fighters do you still think that or

do you accept that what they did on

October the 7th was an act of terrorism

on a heena scale and therefore you have

to call them terrorists so you're wrong

uh uh p uh in my very first MSNBC

monologue after October 7th I refer to

what happened on October 7th as

terrorism in fact when I was 16 years

old I wrote a letter to The Independent

Newspaper condemning Hamas bus bombings

in the mid 1990s uh so you're wrong on

multiple levels I don't expect you to

know about my 16-year-old self but

clearly uh my MSNBC output is all is all

there for anyone to see so just to be

clear just to Bear to be clear you it

was an act of terrorism and Hamas are

terrorists that's your position I think

I think the Hamas fighters who went into

Israel and killed civilians and

kidnapped babies certainly I would call

them terrorists just as I call Israeli

soldiers who kidnap children and kill

children terrorists I use the terrorist

label more freely because otherwise it's

just a politicized empty phrase that we

just apply to our enemies what I would

say peers is that I find it a problem

and you you know this you've joked about

all the memes about you this obsession

with what we call Hamas which is a

question you pose let's be honest Piers

to most of your pro Palestinian Brown

guests you don't ask your Israeli or

Jewish your pro-israeli guests to

condemn Israeli terrorism or Israeli war

crimes at the start of an interview in

the way you do I've been I've been asked

directly whether I think Israel are

terrorists and I've said no so I don't

think they are I think they had a right

to defend themselves the question is the

scale that wasn't that wasn't the point

I made peers that wasn't the point I I

said when you have Israeli

guest let me finish my sentence no Med

it's not your show it's mine I wanted to

say that the whole interview by the way

so we got that other way that's a I'm

joking but the point I would make make

is I I think that I asked all the pro

Palestinian guests who've come on that

question quite quickly because I think

it it reveals a state of mind if like

you and I'm sorry I I didn't realize you

had in that first piece of number 7bc

done that so I I take back the

suggestion you hadn't and I'm glad that

you have that you have called them that

I don't think you can call them anything

else so the moment you have a pro

Palestinian guest who wants to avoid

calling what Hamas did an act of

terrorism by terrorists I think it's

very revealing about their mindset and I

think it's the wrong mindset here's my

problem with that why is that not

applied to your Israeli guests I would I

would be I would be fine peers if you

had Palestinian guests and You Begin by

asking them do you condemn Hamas war

crimes because what Hamas did on October

7th was a war crime but then you should

start with Israeli guests and

pro-israeli guest saying do you condemn

Israeli war crimes which have been

documented by the UN every Human Rights

group on the planet you don't you had

naftali Bennett the former Israeli Prime

Minister on a couple of weeks ago I

watched the interview your opening

question was how comfortable are you

with the way Israel is Prosecuting the

war bit of a soft to start with you

didn't ask him to condemn Israeli

terrorism Israeli war crimes Israeli

genocide in Gaza so a lot of people look

at that and they say I they get your

intention but it comes across as a bit

of a racist double standard well look I

don't think it's a racist double

standard and I think that nobody has

given Pro Palestinian voices a bigger

platform more consistently since October

the 7th than me uh and and if you go

back and look at those interviews you

know I think that Clips get taken out of

context and people assume they know what

I've said and often it's completely Mis

leading I've tried to be fair-minded

about it people do ask me do you think

Israel are terrorists and I've said no I

don't think they are but I have repeated

well I have repeated because I think

they interest why because they were

responding to an act of terrorism so

heinous it demanded a massive military

response the question for me that's

caused me a moral quander is what is an

acceptably proportionate level of

response and I don't know the answer but

I don't think you can call people

responding to an act of Terror on that

scale terrorists for responding what you

can do is hold them to account the

problem the problem if you go to Gaza if

you go to Gaza piers and you talk to

Palestinians they will say that Hamas

were responding if we play The Who

started it game we go back many decades

when when is kill what we need to have

is hang on when did Israel kill 1200

hundreds of Palestinian civilians when

did they kill 800 Palestinian civilians

in one few hour period right in the way

that Hamas killed those definition of

terrorism how many hours you do it in I

can mention many Israeli massacres going

back to Sabra and chatila which they

oversaw going back to Kia and Ariel

shiron going back to Dear Yen where rape

and violence happen the point is not to

compare atrocities the point PE is to

have a consistent moral principle which

is to say if you kill civilians for a

political cause you are a terrorist on

that basis Hamas have committed acts of

Terror and Israel have committed acts of

Terror I think that's only fair to say

that yeah listen you're perfectly

entitled to say it of course you are um

at the Oscars on Sunday Jonathan GL

laser uh won an award for best

International Film for the zone of

Interest a movie about uh the Holocaust

and uh he's a director he he said this

when he was on stage our film shows

where dehumanization leads at its worst

it shaped all of our past and

present right now we stand here as men

who refute their jewishness and the

Holocaust being hijacked by an

occupation which has led to Conflict for

so many innocent people whether the

victims of

October

whether the victims of October the 7th

in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza

all the victims of this

dehumanization how do we

resist now that that prompted a lot of

reaction as you'd imagine New York Post

columnist John podet said on X Jonathan

Glazer you can go bleep yourself and

stuff your Oscar up your bleep to which

you replied cry more Ben Shapiro wrot an

next in Jonathan glazers zone of

interest you don't see one Jew these are

the best Jews to Glazer The Faceless

victim screaming in a distance

ironically he's the villain picking up

awards from the bodies of these

Anonymous dead Jews while ignoring the

living ones getting slaughtered

slaughtered in the Gaza envelope by

genocidal murderers um listen you've

seen the way that that debate played out

interestingly to me before we get to

what Glazer said been really struck by

the fact that throughout the entire

Hollywood award season be it movies

television music

I don't think there's been a single

statement by a big star about the Israel

Hamas War which is pretty well

unprecedented for the biggest bunch of

virtu sigers in the world a what do you

read into that and and secondly on

Glazer speech was that the right time

and place to say it and what do you

think of the reaction from prominent

Jews to what he said well let's work

backwards uh yes it was the right time

to say it why not and I've been

depressed to see that the award ceremony

season has not seen anyone mention an

ongoing genocide in the Middle East in

which 12 a half thousand children

minimum have been killed in the space of

a few months so I'm happy he did it I

find the controversy to be uh

manufactured I find it deeply dishonest

you have people like Megan McCain uh and

others tweeting that he said he refutes

his jewishness just flat false I'm glad

you posted and played the whole clip

here because a lot of people have been

very sneaky in posting a portion of his

statement to make it sound like he was

refuting his own jewishness what he said

as you we all saw is he refutes his

jewishness being hijacked by the

occupation which is how a lot of Jewish

people a lot of young Jewish people

especially in the United States feel and

that's why so many of us who are critics

of Israel say let us disentangle the

political ideology of Zionism being

pushed in the occupied territories from

Judaism one of the world's great

religions which is not responsible for

the crimes of Benjamin Netanyahu or

bizal smotrich so I think he's been

completely smeared and I hope he sues

some of these people uh number two in

terms of

Hollywood for four years of trump

Hollywood celebrities spoke out against

fascism authoritarianism human rights

abuses at the border and now suddenly

they've all lost their voices which

tells you a great deal about how this

issue uh is so censored in the US to use

a phrase that you like uh it's not

uncensored we know that people in

Hollywood in the media in politics

elsewhere do feel a pressure not to

speak out on this do get worried about

losing career opportunities uh my good

friend Mark rfal was up for an Oscar I

was hoping he'd win because he's one of

those bold folks who does speak about

Gaza and Palestinians I know he would

have devoted his speech to it sadly he

lost to his fellow Marvel character

Robert Downey Jr but look it's a real

problem that in Hollywood there is so

much censorship at a time when people

talk about free speech and artists for

free speech and I'm glad Annie lenx

spoke out I'm glad Jonathan uh Glazer

spoke out I just wish more people were

were you fired by MSNBC cancelled by

them because of what you said about the

Israel Hamas War as many people think

you

were so just to clarify I was not fired

uh I chose to quit but after they cancel

my shows they did cancel my shows yes

and I was disappointed who wouldn't be

uh to lose my two shows uh you'd have to

ask them why they cancel the shows they

never said it was about Israel Palestine

people can speculate um I then decided

that look it's an election year I've got

a lot I want to say uh and I asked to

leave and they very graciously allowed

me to Exit my contract you know about

cable news contracts Piers but could it

the reason I'm ask you is it could you

have been a victim of the very thing

you're talking about which is a

censorship driven by big media companies

in America most of who whose tentacles

end up in

Hollywood I appreciate your questions

Pier but you're going to have to ask

MSNBC get them on and Grill them I might

do that um you also said about Joe Biden

that he was the most impressive

president of my lifetime that was in the

guardian uh a calendar year ago do you

stand by

that uh so quick quick bit of caveat

there I was asked by the interviewer not

yes Med you know how do you consider no

no I I will clarify at the time I was

asked is he the great I said he's the

best I'm surprised he's the most

impressive president of my lifetime and

then the next slide which is in the

piece was but then again who's he up

against Ronald Reagan George Bush Senior

Bill Clinton George Bush Jr Barack Obama

Donald Trump not great competition the

bar is very low but he exceeded that bar

I mean Barack Obama's probably the only

person who comes close I think he's

better than Obama in domestic policy I

was talking very much about his domestic

record and I stand by that Biden's

domestic record is the most impressive

domestic record since LBJ you look at

the list appears you know it American

Rescue plan inflation reduction act the

bipartisan infrastructure agreement the

gun control legislation the chips act

the packed act we could go on and on

record low unemployment it's a great

domestic record feel a butt coming

having said that obviously the butt is

October the 7th obviously what he's done

uh on the foreign policy level in

enabling Israel's genocide in Gaza in

arming Israel over a 100 times according

to the post uh since October the 7th in

giving a blank check to some of the

worst fascists in Israel that will be a

stain on his record on his career on his

presidency for many decades to come and

it's a real problem for a lot of people

in this country who supported Biden up

until October 7th I meet many Biden

voters I meet Biden donors who say we

cannot vote for him in November and that

is a real problem so yes I stand by that

headline from last year in domestic

policy terms but overall I would never

say that statement again because he's

been so disappointing on the biggest

moral issue of our time I also thought

the withdrawal from Afghanistan was

absolutely disgraceful and what that did

to we disagree on that I think it was

one of the best things he did but the

way that it was carried out means that

basically millions of Afghan women got

thrown back to the Taliban wolves how

can that be good for

them unfortunately there were no good

options in Afghanistan it was America's

longest war we had failed to quell

terrorism or defeat the Taliban in those

20 years as Barbara Lee warn back in

2001 and our presence there was not

making things better if in many ways it

was making things worse

look the withdrawal was not great

shambolic in many ways but I'm not sure

there was a way to withdraw that

wouldn't have been chaotic if they'd

given lots of notice there probably

would have been an increase in killings

and let's not forget this was Donald

Trump's plan that Biden executed I'm

glad he executed I'm glad that Donald

Trump promised to pull out of

Afghanistan but Joe Biden did it he

ended America's longest war he ended

America's drone War uh he did a lot of

good things on foreign policy until

October the 7th but abandoning Afghan

women to the Taliban wouldn't be

categorized in my list of good things

for an American president to

do there's zero evidence that our

presence there would have helped Afghan

women in the long term in fact Afghan

women continued to be killed maimed and

have their lives destroyed while America

was on the ground Afghanistan the

question you have to ask Piers is how

long were we going to stay there another

100 years 200 years sometimes you have

to stay somewhere a long time to prevent

the people who you displaced coming back

the longest war in American history but

the Taliban seed power literally in days

and they immediately dragged those

millions of women back to the Medieval

ages I mean things it got immeasurably

worse very very quickly for Afghan women

you know whether it was school or that

being allowed out and so on so it that

to me is a calculation if you're an

American president you got to make that

calculation does keeping a few thousand

troops in a place like Afghanistan

prevent the Taliban doing what they've

inevitably done from the moment they got

power

again I think the few ,000 troops were

not having an impact if you look at the

stats Piers uh civilian casualties were

up um the the level of drug production

was up the level of territory control by

the Taliban was up no serious military

Observer thinks that we were winning in

Afghanistan should the Democrats win the

election in November if Joe Biden

insists on being the

candidate I I don't quite understand the

question ask you do you think he'll win

but the more interesting question is

should he win I mean is he it good for

America if a guy who is literally almost

incapable now of speaking a sentence

without making a GFF or staying on his

two feet um should he be the candidate

would that be such a bad thing for

America for the next five years that it

should render the Democrats

disqualified so I'm going to agree with

you from a different direction I'm going

to say that morally he probably

shouldn't be the candidate for president

given what's happened in Israel a lot of

people would prefer stand aside given

the horrific record over the last few

months and the way in which he has as I

say written a blank check to Netanyahu

while netanyahu's carried out what the

top Court in the world calls a plausible

genocide I think there is a lot of blood

on his hands and it would be better for

Democrats given you've seen the

uncommitted vote peers in Michigan in

Minnesota in some of these states uh

could end up costing the Democrats the

presidency so strategically and morally

he probably should step aside but he's

not going to he is the candidate whether

we like it or not and the reality is the

other candidate is Donald J Trump your

old friend and if we're going to talk

about mental unfitness we can't start by

talking about Biden we have to talk

about the most mentally unfit person

ever to run for any office in the United

States and that is Donald J Trump well

that listen that you're perfectly

entitled to your view of him uh but the

reality is that after four years of

Donald Trump's administ surely you don't

disagree P well I'm going to explain to

disagree I'm going to give you some

facts about Donald Trump which are I

think quite startling given what you've

just said one is that in in 2020 nearly

10 million more Americans voted for

Trump than first time around after

looking at him as president for 4 years

that would suggest that a lot of

Americans simply don't agree with you um

secondly this time round he's now got

Muslim and Arab voters migrating away

from the Democrats because of of Joe

Biden towards Donald Trump and when it

comes to the black vote in America even

more extraordinary according to a New

York Times Senate poll released at the

beginning of this month the support

among black voters for Trump is now 23%

which is a 19 percentage point increase

since the same poll in October 2020 so

for the guy who many like you would say

is an appalling racist it seems a lot of

non-white people in America rather like

what they see and what in back in the

white house why

okay

so I mean you said going to deal with

some facts you didn't give me any facts

about Trump you gave me some facts about

Trump supporters do I deny he has

support of course not I spent the last

eight years documenting the crazy high

levels of support for Trump and in 2020

it was deeply shocking to see people

voting for him after everything they had

seen over the previous four years and it

is very worrying about the trends in

American society and it is a fact that

he's a racist I just say I think he's a

racist he's a racist by any definition

of the term and you know you said you're

going to give me some facts about Trump

let me give you some actual facts about

Trump and mental Fitness let's just talk

factually Donald Trump recently confused

uh Nancy Pelosi with Nikki Haley he

claimed he ran against Barack Obama in

2016 he ran against Hillary Clinton uh

he thought that we're about to enter

World War II we've actually had World

War II if we enter another world war

it'll be World War II he thinks you can

stop a hurricane with your nuclear

weapon he thinks you need ID to buy

cereal uh he thinks you can buy

Greenland from Denmark he thinks England

and Great Britain are the same thing he

thinks that stealth bombers are

literally invisible he thinks that you

can beat Co by injecting disinfectant

into your veins the idea that this man

should be allowed near a school board is

absurd the idea that he should be

allowed near the White House again after

everything we know about him Madness and

in fact I believe you called him mad

after January the 6th and I agreed with

that him mad on I've been very critical

of him on many occasions when I felt he

deserved it but I've also tried to I've

also tried to understand why so many

Americans gravitate towards him and I

think what's Stark at the moment if you

look at the the polling for Biden his

approval ratings are shockingly low

given who his opponent is likely to be

um but also particularly amongst

Democrats two-thirds of Democrats don't

think you should run again and they cite

his age and physical and mental

incompetence as the main reason I that's

the reality this is why I think for the

Democrats there's a really sharp click

ticking clock coming here isn't there

where I do think if they persist in

having Biden as the nominee which relies

on him you know standing down which I

don't think he'll do I think that's how

they lose I think you put almost anybody

else in there against Trump for all the

reasons you've just cited they'd have a

much better chance but you see here's

the problem Edie Jo Joe Biden could not

list the things you just listed and

remember them himself so you know when

he tries to talk about Trump's mental

incompetence he forgets halfway through

what he's supposed to be saying that's

the

problem is Biden Gaff prone yes he's

been Gaff prone for a while has it

become worse clearly he's old no one's

debating he's old I think he's trying to

lean into his age now if you look at

some of the ads you look at a state of

the union he did a very good State of

the Union by the way with the exception

of Gaza was a very strong and energetic

performance I don't think anyone can

deny that the issue of course is we have

a media that's singularly unable to

cover Trump properly that's one part of

the problem and of course the age issue

on the Biden front is a I've never

denied that's a problem it is a problem

but the reality is when you say the

Democrats make it he can't be made to

stand out he's winning primaries it's a

democratic process and he's winning if

people want to run against him they can

they didn't and I'm not sure I agree

with you when you say another Democrat

could beat Trump if you look at the

polling other Democrats the vice

president

Fair well not according to the polls the

polls suggest people like vice president

Harris lose much bigger to Trump

definitely not har I'm not talking about

her Joe Biden is the one Democrat who's

beaten Trump he did beat Trump you

mentioned 10 million more votes for

Trump he beat Trump by over eight

million votes I think it was if memory

serves me correctly in 2020 in fact

Donald Trump has never won a popular

vote against a Democrat he lost to

Hillary and he lost to Joe Biden talking

of votes um at the Oscars Barbie got

flatlined by Oppenheimer you said on

MSNBC last summer these are grown men

losing their minds over a movie about a

doll what has happened to conservative

movement there was a time when

conservatives talked about taxes

regulation defense foreign policy but

now it's just Barbie this doctors use

that Bud Light Mr Potato Head uh it's

childish ridiculous pretty pathetic

actually um now I would take issue with

that because I'm not a conservative but

this whole culture War stuff I think is

I think it's very real well I'll tell

you what I would say on the pendulum

historically I've been slightly left to

Center so I was edit of a Daily Mirror

here for 10 years in the UK as you know

having come from these fine Shores um

it's it's it's a labor a labor

supporting newspaper right but what's

happened is the woke left has edited the

news of the world one of the most

right-wing Publications around actually

not onto me but we we can because that

was if you may remember that was an ERA

leading up to Blair and we were we were

all part of the Blair uh uh success

story Tony Blair that famous leftist

yeah exactly but the deposit I make

though is that I think the woke left and

I've heard Bill Mah say the same thing

and others who consider themselves like

me to have been liberals right is that

work left got so insane that actually

people like me and Bill Mar start to

sound like we're vaguely conservative

when I don't really have conservative

ideology at all um but what I would say

is I'm definitely feel more at home with

people SL slightly ride of Center than I

ever will with the woke left and this

cultural stuff is driven and fueled by

the woke left doing Bonkers things like

for example well let me give you an

example let me give you an example when

you allow biological males trans women

to compete against biological females at

sport at Elite level what you are doing

is eff effectively licensing a form of

cheating just as deadly and devastating

to the Integrity of women's sport as

doping there's no denying it because if

you have a a biological physiology you

have a natural Advantage it's unfair but

that's not what we're talking about

that's what we're talking about I'm

sorry I'm not going to let you no no no

because no you didn't you just quoted me

talking about Bud Light and the nonsense

if you want to say there's a debate to

be had about transgender rights about

bathroom issues about sports about where

we go that's a legitimate debate I've

never said you can't have a legitimate

debate aboute WR what I am saying though

is when hold hold on what hold on what I

am saying though listen what I am saying

Piers is that when you have Fox and when

you have your old you know your your

your your man Rupert Murdoch and his

minions pushing these fake culture wars

to divide up Americans they're not fake

we have millions of Americans they're

not well they are PE Millions let me

finish the very real can I finish the

sentence sure well let me finish the

sentence I'll tell you why they're not

you millions of Americans are living I

am if you let me finish a sentence

millions of Americans are are living

paycheck to paycheck the climate crisis

is destroying the planet and you think

we should spend loads of hours on Fox on

cable debating the green M&M's boots do

you think that's a legitimate timec

consuming debate I that a scandal a

scandalous State of Affairs actually but

more importantly people are starving

people are losing their

is

on if you were

intervie is proper journalism if you

were interviewing yourself what you

would now be saying is Medan you have

single-handedly refused to answer the

original question which is do you you

said the woke left you said the W left

let me ask you the question again you

obvious didn't hear me would you do you

support trans women competing in women's

sport do I support trans yes under the

under the under the correct set of rules

yes I do and I'm not an expert on this

subject my understanding is what rule

correct because I believe that the

sports bodies who investigate this stuff

actually look at for example in swimming

what the levels are etc etc I'm not an

expert on this but I will tell you this

if you want to have a debate about

transgender rights that's fine you

should have a transgender guest on to

discuss it it's not my expertise but let

me just be very clear that's not what

you asked you started the question say

you and Bill Mah are not your old

lefties who became conserv you're not

let's be honest Bill Mah is an old white

guy who had a history of bigotry he was

never on the left and therefore I I do

see a lot of old white men who are very

uncomfortable with people of color and

people who don't look or sound like them

asking for rights asking for space

asking for freedom and that is the

backlash if you really cared about Free

Speech you would be going on about the

silencing of pro Palestinian speech on

campus the Banning of books in Florida

not the green Eminem or doctor Su are

all these Fox Murdoch generated fake

controversies but they're not Fox

Murdoch generated controversies they're

generated by yes they are they literally

start on Fox they literally start on Fox

PE you haven't been living here for the

last few years I'm telling you in

America for 20 years they they start

with somebody on the woke I'll give you

a long list after the show's over I

would say they start with somebody on

the woke left doing something nuts and

playing right into the hands some random

person who's Amplified by Fox meanwhile

Ron DeSantis gets a pass from you and

other journalists for bringing in

authoritarian rules in Florida you're

really worried about freed on the

fascists who are getting rid of our

freedom right I think it's F on random

college student with aard that you don't

hang on I think the wokery is a form of

fascism I've said this many times it's

about silencing people that don't agree

with you it's about in the trans debate

if all the trans debate was about was a

was a right to fairness and equality of

trans people I'm a fully signed up

member I want to be clear here I want to

be clear here you think you I'm going be

clear as I said I believe they we should

be able to have a debate about

transgender rights about access about

spaces believe that but are you

suggesting that transgender people one

of the most demonized minorities facing

High rates of violence are fascists are

a fascist threat to America at a time

when your friend Donald Trump is an

actual fascist I'm going to be a

dictator critizing Trump you're misting

I said I said that when the woke left

behave like fascists which I think they

do regularly because they silence any

debate for example Donald Trump when

we're talking about the woke you think

Donald Trump behaves like a fascist

we've already talked about Donald Trump

why why do you not talk about Donald

Trump's f Donald you me how popular he

is you didn't condemn him you condem

I've condemned many things Donald

Trump's done but you cited one of fism

you cided one of them earlier I don't I

don't think Trump is a fascist no no wow

but the left transgender activists a

fascist Trump who says I'm going to be

dictator for I'm talking about why the W

when the woke left wants to suppress

Free Speech they behave like fascists

when they want everyone to conform to

their narrow world view and when they

want to shout down and silence and

suppress debate about for example trans

athletes competing in women's sport who

been Banning books in

America I think that's a form of fascism

who's been Banning books in America

appears the woke left or the Republican

Party actually historically

both no right now who is Banning books

Across America according to every human

B think Republican party or the woke

well it comes this comes down to another

issue which is whether you think that

children can't a simple question which

group of people are B answering your

question I think that when it comes to

kids at school a father of four kids I

actually don't want them exposed to to

graphic stuff in books at school I don't

and nor do I want them exposed to

critical race Theory or any of these

other things that you think are the the

purview of fox and the right wing think

books

about par I think it's fascism it's

fascism to books about MLK and Rosa

Parks sorry I think we should be able to

have books about MLK and Rosa Parks not

banned absolutely pretty fascist

absolutely Rosa Parks kids should not

have critical race Theory preach out

them when they're young I don't agree

with it well there's there's no critical

race theory in American schools so you

know oh well there is and you know there

is no there isn't you're wrong you're

wrong critical race is not taught in K

through2 schools in the America you know

this a university law as you well know

there are many teachers in American

schools who are teaching critical race

Theory and that's been a big problem in

American society they're also teaching

you have to point to me also we PE

anytime I'm on I'm on I'm on Twitter you

follow me please post to me which

teacher is post teaching crial there

I'll be I'll Happ to see that I'll do

that after this interview uh medy I

could talk to you a long time uh I'm

great to see you back on the airwaves

great to see you uncensored living up to

the the name on the tin I wish you all

the best with your new media Empire and

come back soon I enjoyed it thank you so

much it's called Zeto and I appreciate

the opportunity Piers cheers Manny all

the

best