Piers Morgan Uncensored - All Eyes on Rafah Debate

Episode Date: June 3, 2024

Israel’s invasion of Rafah has gone ahead, and as so many predicted, innocent civilians are paying the price. Last week saw an airstrike on a UN facility in Tal al-Sultan that killed Hamas commanders, but also left tens of non-combatants dead. Piers brings Deputy Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations Ambassador Majed Bamya to discuss the latest in Rafah. Followed by a debate between,pro-Palestinian commentator and columnist Wajahat Ali and former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem, Fleur Hassan-Nahoum. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Let's not start with this line of questioning. Actually, I'm going to start with this line of questioning. If you've got no idea how many civilians you've killed, why should I believe a word about the numbers of Tamas? Wow, yeah, I'm obsessed with how many civilians are being killed. You and I have eyes. The world has eyes. We have seen Rafa get bombed.

She represents the general psychopathy of the Israeli government. Sometimes when you invite me to debate, I sit here and go, I don't have to say a word. When you bomb a refugee camp, that is a strategy. International Aid Organizations, and Israel's biggest allies have warned in unison for months, in no uncertain terms, that attacking Raffa would cross a red line. But Israel did it anyway.

Many of the details are still disputed. The only one that isn't is that dozens of people, only two of whom were Hamas targets, were killed. International Court of Justice issued in order for Israel to halt any strikes on Raffa to stays earlier. Israel admits that the area struck was not included in the list of locations in Rafa, where civilians have been told to evacuate. Prime Minister Netanyahu said the civilian deaths were a tragic mishap. But as with every so-called tragic mishap in this war, nothing much has changed.

The red line seems to move at Israel's beck and call. This weekend, President Biden outlined details for a ceasefire plan, which he said had Israel's backing. For the past several months, my negotiators of foreign policy and intelligence community and like have been relentlessly focused, not just on a ceasefire that would ever, that would inevitably be fragile and temporary, but on a durable end of the war. That's been the focus, a durable end of this war. One that brings all the hostages home,

ensures Israel's security, creates a better day after in Gaza without Hamas and power, and sets the stage for a political settlement that provides a better future for Israelis and Palestinians alike. For months, People all over the world have called for ceasefire.

Now it's time to raise your voices and demand that Hamas come to the table, agrees to this deal, and ends this war that they began. On Mr. President is surely ripe. It is time for the war to end. Civilians in Gaza need more aid and need it fast. Israel needs to bring its hostages home. The watching world needs to see a credible plan for the security and rights of Gaza beyond the bloodshed and that cannot surely include

Hamas. Netanyahu responded by appearing to distance himself from that plan, saying that Israel's conditions have not changed. He's now routinely embarrassing the President of the United States by ignoring pretty much everything he says. But the time has come for Israel to listen to its top allies. Killing innocent civilians as a car and refugee camps, whether intentional or otherwise, cannot be tolerated. I make a mistake, Hamas is a genocidal terror network whose wicked goal is the eradication of the Israeli state. But once again, I find myself asking, How much further can this go before Israel is guilty of the very terror it's supposed to be fighting? Well, in a moment, we'll be debating this with Wajah Ali and Fleur Hassan Mahoum.

But first, I'm joined by Ambassador Majid Bamiya, the deputy permanent observer of the state of Palestine to the United Nations. Well, welcome to you, Ambassador. Let me start by asking you this question. Do you see any future for Gaza after this war that includes Hamas in any form of power? So it's for Palestinians to choose their governments, and what we saw from the Israeli response to the Biden speech, is the wish to continue the war, continue killing civilians, continue in its attempt to designate who it wants to govern Gaza under their own authority and its ability to continue invading and occupying our land. That is not possible. The future we see is one where we have a real prospect for Palestinian freedom,

and that our people will be offered finally that right and that choice and we are confident that our people as a whole will adhere to that choice. I mean, with respect, the question asked is whether you think it would be right for Hamas to hold any power, not what the Palestinian electorate might think, but what do you think? I think that you have a Palestinian government that should have authority over the West Bank and the Gaza Strait, including East Jerusalem, and I think

that Israel has done everything to undermine the Palestinian leadership and government that are willing to make peace as long as the occupation ends. Israel considers that the existential threat is the Palestinian state, and that is a big mistake that has led to all this ordeal. It's Palestinian freedom who will bring shared peace and security to our region. Okay, but by Palestinian government, you mean the Palestinian Authority, or do you mean Palestinian Authority on the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza? I mean the PLO and the Palestinian Authority.

Okay, so you agree then that Hamas can have no leadership role going forward in any governmental sense in Gaza? I disagree with the fact that we're ignoring Israel's responsibilities, and I disagree with the fact that. I'm going to come to that, but I'm just asking you directly. It seems to me you've already answered the question. The state of Palestine, yeah, the state of Palestine is represented by its institutions who are committed to international law and who are committed to a two-state solution in which

an independent and pre-state of Palestine, live side by side with Israel. Okay, but just to be clear, that can't involve Hamas in any governmental role. You know, you keep saying Hamas. Yeah, because they're the current government of Gaza. I keep telling you, there is a Palestinian government

that is ready to take up its responsibility tomorrow if it is allowed to do so. Yeah, but the government, the government in Gaza remains Hamas until it changes, right? And you think that Israel had a problem with that or that Israel... No, I'm asking you whether you think Hamas should have any governmental role going forward. You don't see anyone to answer the question. I'm answering it, I think a single Palestinian government,

which is the one recognized by the international community, which with the state of Palestine... Right, but why are you reluctant to say it can't include Hamas? Because we're proposing to have a Hamas within the Palestine liberation organization. as long as they are committed to the platform of the Palestine liberation organization. Why should, okay, all right, so now you want to convince all our people. All right, so you want Hamas to be part of it. But if you're Israel, why on earth, if you're Israel, why on earth would you allow any peace deal to resolve this war

if people like yourself, you're senior members of the Palestinian side, come out and say, actually we think Hamas should be part of a government going forward? Hamas are the people who committed one of the worst terror acts in history. They killed 1,200 people. They wounded nearly 7,000 more. They kidnapped 250 people, including babies and Holocaust survivors. They can have no role in any future government of either Gaza or the West Bank. You must surely understand that.

Otherwise, why would Israel ever accept a peace deal? Let me challenge your premise and let me challenge the prejudice behind. Because this is, we have to deal with a prejudice against terrorists. No, I think there's a general, I'm not saying only you, I think there's a general prejudice of tolerance, a relatively high level of tolerance when Palestinians are killed and no tolerance with Israelis are killed. I think there's always justifications, oh, you know, the Israelis had to endure the 7th of October when no justification could be given to the suffering that the people have endured before the 7th of October or after the 7th of October. That's a general

prejudice where we are not considered as equals. If we have to deal with the suffering that, the people who are now massacring our nation, who have killed 36,000 people, including a majority of women and children, if the Israeli government today has extremists within its ranks, and still the world wants us to find a certain way of remaining peaceful and finding ways to peace, I mean, you have to accept that we deal with our society in its complexity and diversity, and we need to convince people not kill them. We need to find a way to convince people on both ends that peace is the way forward. And if you are able to justify Israeli militarism, then you cannot demand Palestinian pacifism. We are coherent with ourselves. We call to end the cycle of violence.

It's not to address the root cause of violence, which is the Israeli occupation, and to make peace. And then we don't think it would be relevant to which faction you belong. We believe the Palestinian people will adhere to that vision as long as they see a path to it. And the fact we keep it, and the fact we keep talking about Hamas, instead of talking of these realities, I want to have a thoughtful, mindful conversation with you. It's not a got-you moment that you're going to get here. We are, we want, we are very clear about the principles we adhere to. We don't have a finger on the trigger. The Israeli government has its finger on the trigger. We are not killing Israelis. The Israeli government is killing Palestinians. That's not a group in Israel. That's the government of Israel. Today,

you have a recognized Palestinian government. You have a recognized Palestinian leadership, who says it is ready to make peace now, based on the two-state solution and the international consensus, based on international law, and Israel is rejecting it. You can say Hamas 300 times. It doesn't change that reality.

They had a partner for peace. They did everything to undermine it. They want to sue division among our ranks. They want to create civil conflict among our ranks. And we're not going to play into their hands to justify their assault and their massacres against our people by saying Hamas, Hamas, Hamas. That doesn't work.

They are an occupying power. They have responsibilities. They have obligations. And no, their violence, not a single piece of their violence is justified. If we are demanded in the face of 7,000 Palestinians killed in 15 years to remain peaceful, then Israel should have been peaceful after the 7th of October and found a way to end this conflict once and for all, where nobody will be helped captive, where no civilian would be harmed, where the occupation would end, and two states would live side by side.

You see, a lot of what you said I agree with. You know, I do think you've got to get to a two-state solution. They've got to live peacefully side by side. It has to be a political solution in the end as all these things are. My issue is if I'm on the Israeli government side and I see senior Palestinians advocating for Hamas to be part of the government going forward, you can't ignore Hamas. Hamas are the people who perpetrated the massacre,

and that was an existential threat to Israel. Hamas is stated chartering. is the eradication of Israel. They make no pretense about it. They want to destroy Israel. So why should Israel allow going forward, notwithstanding a lot of the valid criticism you make about what Israel has done by way of its response,

and I can come to that in a moment. But notwithstanding that, you can't just remove Hamas from the equation. The moment Israel thinks Hamas is forming part of a government going forward in a post-war Gaza, it's a non-starter. First, I said clearly anybody willing to adhere to the platform of the PLO, which is in line with international law and UN resolution, and a Palestinian state on 67 borders next to Israel.

So there are criteria to our ability to work together in that stance. But again, you're ignoring the Israeli platform. You have an Israeli prime minister who people welcome and talk to. Well, you haven't asked me what I think about that. Why don't you ask me? You might get pleasantly surprised because I happen to agree with you that the Israeli government right now

seems to have been completely overrun with extremist ideology, you know, from Smodrich and Ben-Givir to Netanyar? Yes. But you agree with me? You agree with me that I'm treated the same way. I do. No, I do.

I do. I don't think Netanyahu should remain in power after this war. I don't think he's more right-wing lunatic element in his government should remain in power. Do you think he should be killed? Should Smokrish be killed? Should bin Grir be kin?

Should all these Israeli generals committing massacres against us be kin? Should we respond? Should we leave unanswered the killing of 36,000 Palestinians, the destruction of the entirety of Gaza, the colonization, the settlers against our people, the displacement of communities? Should we leave all that an answer? How our people are going to be secure? Don't we have a right to safety?

Don't we have civilians that should be protected? Yes, you do. So if you apply the rationale that you have applied and the media has applied and the governments around the world have applied on the 7th of October, then we could justify violence, very strong violence against the Israeli.

But it sounds to me, okay, but it sounds to me, correct me if I'm wrong, Ambassador, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you're trying to find a way of justifying what Hamas did on October the 7th, that it was part of the, part of the so-called resistance. because of previous violence. I'm not, listen, there's, again, there's the limits.

You have to draw a limit somewhere. Harming civilians is the limit. It applies to everyone. Harming civilians. But you do condemn what the mass did. You see, so we're going to go down that line of questioning. Yes. And I'll think this, since we have a bit of time, usually we try to, you know, answer.

I'm not trying to go to you. I think you've made a lot of very good points. No, no. Since you're giving me the time, let me explain why you do. didn't get anyone to answer that question, if you allow me to do that. Well, no, some people did. I told you, no, I mean, again, let me try and explain. If we had adhered to that line of questioning, the first question would be, would you condemn what happened in the 7th October? Whatever you say yes or no, the questioning is not going to end. If you say yes, then they're going to ask you, do you consider it as terrorism? If you say yes or no,

that line of questioning is going to continue, and by the time you have done, the interview is done, and you haven't spoken of the or deal of our people, and you have somehow found yourself justifying the Israeli response to it. I do not accept a terrorism framing. I'm very clear with you. I reject a terrorism framing. In the UN, I'm a jurist. How would you frame it?

I will tell you, there is no definition of terrorism. And the reason is you have countries who came from decolonization. Well, it's a killing of innocent civilians for political gain. There's no definition. You can check. Well, that is a definition. agreed upon, that's your definition. There's no agreement upon definition.

Let me, let me get to you'll get the point that I'm making. Again, you know, I'm a very, I'm a very blunt person. I'm a very blunt person. I'm not scared of any question. So am I. And I can respond to any question you have. The reason why states cannot agree on the definition is that people

don't want struggles against colonialism, liberation, apartheid, etc. To be tainted as terrorism and thus by confusing the justness of the means you are, and the justice of the cause you are defending to delegitimize these struggles. And then you have on the other side states,

including in the Western Block, including Israel, who say a state can do anything, can do exactly what you just define, and can never be accused of terrorism because terrorism can only be done by armed groups, not states. That's why at the UN till now, we have agreed on everything except the definition of terrorism. The terrorism framing means you have to kill the terrorists.

That's the only way out. If you accept a conflict framing, then you need to end the country. conflict. That's how we resolve the violence once and for all. Israel wants to replace the conflict training by a terrorism training and then wants to expand the definition of who's a terrorist to anybody in the Palestinian people. How many times they said Palestinian prisoners are terrorists? We had one million prisoners in 70 years. So all of our people are terrorists. They call our diplomacy terrorists. They call our NGOs, the most prominent human rights NGOs terrorists. Now they're

calling the UN terrorist supporter and they want to make the honor to a terrorist. So once we're accept that framing, we've set the stage for the indiscriminate killing of Palestine. This is an occupation. It doesn't mean that you can harm Israeli civilians when I say that. There's no right to resistance that allows you to harm civilians. That's not the way the international law works and we are abiding by international law. But it means that the solution is not to kill more people. It is to break the cycle of violence. It is to sit and make a peace agreement that liberates the Palestinian people and ensures the peace and security for all. That is the only way out. And you have to recognize the humanity of the other. And for many

reasons, personal that we will not dwell into, I am immune to hatred. There are reasons in my personal story that makes me immune to hatred. And I'm far away and I'm privileged. And I haven't suffered much of the suffering my people have suffered. If you could see into my soul the level of anger that takes every fiber of my being so it doesn't turn into hatred that would misguide me or rage that would blind me. I can understand how people can go crazy, seeing their kids killed, seeing people under the rubble, having to be displaced from one place to the other, being bombed, besieged, spark to death, and the world's still demanding of them that you should do something different. Israel will kill Palestinians, whether they're peaceful, whether they're

violent, whether they're tall or small, they will continue killing Palestinians because what they reject is our identity, is our nationhood, is our statehood. And they're not being very discreet about it, if you just listen to them. Ambassador, I appreciate you joining me and being so frank. Thank you very much. Thank you. Well, I'm joined now by the host of the Democracy-ish podcast, the commentator and columnist Wajja Ali, and Flohrasan Nahum, the Israel Special Foreign Ministry envoy. former deputy mayor of Jerusalem.

Let me start with you, Flo Hassan Nahum. I mean, that was powerful stuff there for me, Ambassador. What's your reaction to what he said? Well, half of it is lies or delusions. And again, everybody wants to look at this in a very narrow scope of what happened since October 7th, which we are still suffering, that trauma of those atrocities. We still have 124 people.

Every day we're discovering dead young people from the concepts. We have a one-year-old child, and a four-year-old child. But I want to go further back. 2005, Israel left the Gaza Strip unilaterally in order to give the Palestinians that chance of what they said they wanted.

They wanted autonomy, they wanted self-determination, they wanted a state. And let's say that it wasn't a state, it was a statelet. And look what happened. This man who just spoke, his party fatah were brutally removed in 2006 from the Gaza Strip by Hamas who took over and since haven't had an election that's been 17 years now the people who live under the Hamas umbrella they're doing great and the people who don't live a miserable life there's of

course no no rights for women you know 12 year old girls are married off I mean it just it goes on and on and on now since Since 2005, every year we've had a war with Gaza, almost every year. Rockets. Why are they firing rockets if we left? That's straight for them. And it goes back to what you mentioned, to your speaker, which is the chart of Hamas. It's not a two-state solution.

Hamas is from the river to the sea, the destruction, not just of Israel, but of all the Jews in the world. And if all the Jews happen to be in Israel, even better, more convenient. But let's look at the PA as well. And let's look at why we're in this mess to begin with. The Palestinians have rejected statehood five times from the 1930s to then on to the Oslo Accords to 2001. When Ahud Barak offered them, they're talking about the 96 and 7 lines. That's exactly what Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat. And instead of saying yes, he goes to the streets and releases suicide bombers,

and maims and kills innocent people in the streets of Jerusalem, my city. Now, let's say you're not happy with that deal. Let's say you're almost there. You're about to get a state, but you're not, you know, you're not agree with this or that. Wouldn't you go back to the negotiating table if that's what you really want? You start an urban warfare. Move forward. 2005, Israel leaves the Gaza Strip.

2009, another peace deal offered by Houd Omar, going even further than Hiburah, and them saying no again. So my conclusion is, and the conclusion of a lot of people in this country who are fatigued by this four attempt that they are saying that they want a state, is that the crux of the problem is not that there isn't a Palestinian state. The crux of the problem is that there's a Jewish state, that they have never ideologically accepted exists. And in their educational system, he talks that they want peace.

Why are they paying terrorist tensions? He talks that they want peace. Why is there in the educational system? Okay. Talk about the right to return and the destruction of the state of Israel. If that's what they want, why are they telling the people exactly the opposite? Okay. Let me bring in Wajah Ali.

You've been waiting very patiently. I mean, there's a question in that, which I think is a very valid one, which I also asked the ambassador. You know, he seems to think that you can have post-war a situation where Hamas still form part of a government, governing in Gaza, for example. I just don't think Israel's ever going to wear that, and I completely understand why they would feel that way, and I'd agree with them. Do you think it's possible to have Hamas as forming any part of a government in Gaza after this? The year is 2024. Israel has occupied Palestinians in East Jerusalem, in West Bank, and in Gaza for nearly 60 years.

In the West Bank, there is no Hamas. Hamas does not control it. What is Israel's excuse? Over 500 people have died. No one's talking about that around because of the genocide in Gaza. They have expanded settlements. Palestinians live under apartheid law. You know this. In Gaza, over the past seven months, peers, over 36,000 people have died.

You and I have seen it. You and I have been outraged by it. You and I have seen the burned bodies in Rafa. Over 80,000 people have been injured. Over a million and a half people have been displaced. As long as there is an occupation, even if you get rid of Hamas, and as we have seen in the past seven, eight months,

Hamas will not be destroyed. They have been weakened, but Israel has already failed in its war because as we have seen, Hamas will not be destroyed. even if Hamas gets destroyed, something else will pop up. I'll give you an example. Early 80s, Lebanon. They went to Lebanon.

Israel went to Lebanon, laid devastation. What happened? PLO got weakened. What rose in its place, Pierce? You remember, Hezbollah. Who has been supporting Hamas? Specifically as a counter to Arab nationalism, Israeli government.

Who has been supporting and funding Hamas? Benjamin Netanyahu. So who here the ICC has said has committed war crimes, Netanyahu, and the leaders of Hamas? The reality is, unfortunately, As much as all of us hate Hamas, and we do, it has committed terrorism against Israel. Right now, the problem is the occupying power, occupying Palestinians. And I will say this.

Israel should call out Hamas's bluff. Hamas said, if Israel accepts two states, we will lay down our arms. All right, call Hamas's bluff. Last month, Hamas said we accept Qatar and Egypt's peace plan. Anthony Blinken said it was very, very generous. Who torpedoed it? Nanyahu. We just saw on Friday, President Biden, who has...

has been weakened, humiliated, and mocked, and ridiculed by his greatest ally, more like an enemy, Nanyahu, the next day, Saturday, Pierce, who rejected Israel's own peace plan? Nanyahu. So I'm telling you, as long as Israel occupies Palestinians, and Israel chooses to occupy Palestinians, and Nanyahu and the government say, no two states, there will always be a resistance. That's the reality we have to deal with, unfortunately. Okay, bring Fleur back in here. I mean, I don't think Hamash should form part of any government after this.

I think they abrogated their right to govern anything, frankly, but what happened October the 7th. But I also think that Israel's current government is full of people who I would label extremists, whether it's Smodrich or Benghavir or even increasingly Netanyar himself, who, let's not forget, is facing corruption charges the moment this war's over. All the polling says that Israelis support the war on a mass, but don't want him to continue as Prime Minister at the end of it. There's no motivation for him to end this war. In fact, the motivation is quite the opposite. And it's quite clear from the rhetoric of people like Smodrich and Meghavir

that they speak in virtual genocidal terms themselves. So, yeah, I'm all in favor of Hamas being removed completely from any power. But I don't understand why any sensible person on the Israeli side would see that it would be good for anything going forward, particularly a two-state solution, to have people like Netanyahu Smok, and Bengevir anywhere near a government? What do you say to that? Well, the thing is peers were a democracy.

And democracies, we have elections. Just because Hamas had an election and the PA haven't had an election in what, 19 years, Hamas haven't had an election in 17 years. We have elections. The people speak and they elect the leaders that they want. But it's very, very interesting how everybody's putting the blame on Netanyahu

and this government, when previous government, some on the left also were rejected, also the Palestinian leaders, rejected statehood. What was the excuse then? Why don't we, why don't we ask ourselves? What is the fundamental reason why Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Habas have said no to very generous peace deals? What is the reason why Hamas have rejected now a ceasefire deal five times? Blinken did say that the deals were very generous, but it was Hamas who rejected it.

And then they magically accepted a deal that we didn't even offer. And again, trying to manipulate the media. And so again, the question is not this government. It's very easy to blame this government right now. They're an easy target. What was the problem with the Ehud Barak government? What was the problem with the Ahud al-Ohm government? What was the problem with the Arabian government?

Well, they didn't kill nearly 40,000 Palestinians in eight months. Oh, first of all, please, peers. We know that the numbers have gone up and down like yo-yo's. Even the UN said last week that it wasn't already 35, that it was 20. All I can say to you. is that we have, I would say, potentially around 20,000, because that's what the UN has said, 22,000. You have no idea? Let's not start with this line of questioning.

Actually, I'm going to start on this line of questioning. I don't think, no, I don't think Churchill knew in the middle of the Second World War how many Germans he'd killed. And so this is a farcical question. What I can tell you is a- You just gave me a number, but you've no idea why you've got that number. That's what the UN says. The UN says, according to the so-called Gaza Health Ministry, let's take their number. Let's take the number, the mistaken, corrected number of the Gaza so-called health ministry, all terrorists underground, hiding like cowards.

But let's say now they're saying 22,000, we know we've killed 14,000 terrorists. No, you don't. Now, you tell me, yes, we do. No, I'm sorry, I'm not having that. I pressed the Israeli. We know how many brigades. Hang on. We know how many brigades we've gone right off.

We know how many brigades are left. We know how many brigades left. I did put this. We know how many brigades. I put this to an Israeli government spokesman. I asked him, how many Hamas have you killed? And he gave me this figure. And I said, how many civilians have you killed?

And he had no idea. I said, well, then how can you be so precise of how many terrorists you've killed? You've got no idea how many civilians you've killed. Why should I believe a word about the numbers of Tabas? Because we know how many brigades they have, because we have that intelligence. We know how many brigades were in different places.

Just to be clear, you know exactly how many terrorists you killed, but you have no idea how many civilians. We estimate, absolutely. We estimate that there's about 14, 13, 14,000 terrorists, which we've gotten rid of. We know how many are left. There's four brigades, and that's why we're in Rafa. And how many civilians have you killed? Again, Piers, in the middle of the Second World War, I don't think you could have pushed Churchill to ask him.

Sorry, Flur. You're doing the same thing the government spokesman did. You know exactly how many terrorists you've killed, but you've no idea how many civilians. We don't know exactly. How convenient. We don't know exactly. How convenient that Israel knows exactly how many terrorists you've killed, but you've no idea how many innocent women and children.

Do you believe that you are numbers? Huh? Do you believe that you are numbers? I just find it staggering that you'll all come on and say to me, we know we've killed 14,126 Hamas, but we've no idea how many civilians. Because we know what the army that we're dealing with is. We know what the terrorists are dealing with it.

No, I'm sorry, it's nonsense to say you can count one and not the other. Absolutely not. It's nonsense to even ask the question. I don't know who in the middle of a war starts counting. You're counting. You're counting. We know how many are left. Sorry, you're counting, but you're only counting one side.

Pierce, you seem to be a little obsessed with this counting of numbers. Yeah, I'm obsessed with how many civilians are being killed. All right. Let's say we take the so-called Gaza Health Ministry's numbers. The corrected version. Do you remember what that is now? That was the number of people they could actually put a name to, right? Corrected, the corrective version.

So we went from, and you think that's a total number of civilians killed? The last time I was on your show, you had Barguti saying that there was 40, 50, 60,000 dead. Let's just add numbers on, because why not? Everybody will believe you anyway. And then we had the corrected version of the numbers, which went down to about 22, 24,000.

They were the names of people. They were the ones that could put a name to. They don't know how many people are lying in rubble still. They've no idea. People have been killed. We know how many. People have been killed in gigantic numbers week in, week out. You know that and I know that.

I've interviewed doctors in hospitals saying 500 people have been brought in every single day. But what staggers me, flirt, what staggers me is it you, like the government spokesman I interviewed, you are certain you know exactly how many terrorists you're killing, but you've no idea how many civilians. Let me bring you a how big. We know how big. Let me finish. No, I'm going to come to watch out. I've given you a chance.

When our Shifa hospital was, when our Shifa hospital was bombed by the Palestinians, they said there were 500 dead. The next day when it turned out to be a Hamas rocket, there were 26 dead. I know. Think about that. I am thinking about that, yeah. Let me come to what you have. This is my problem with when I get into numbers with the Israeli side, is that they seem to be utterly emphatic in their knowledge of how many terrorists they're killing,

but no idea how many civilians. and almost don't care. It's the fog of war. Churchill didn't count. The fog of war was used by the UN, not us. I'm asking Wajaham, sorry. When they were justifying the wrong numbers, you could let him speak, please.

Let him speak, please. It's not that they almost don't care, Pierce. It's that they don't care. And we know that the number is probably higher than 36,000 people killed. You and I have eyes. The world has eyes. We have seen Ruffa get bombed.

We have seen the charred bodies. We have seen Israel bomb churches, mosques, refugee camps. We have seen Israel kill the staff of World Central Kitchen and then say, oops, we have seen Israel occupy. Palestinians in the West Bank. There's no Hamas in the West Bank. What's Israel's excuse for killing over 500 people in the West Bank? With Ben-Givir handing out, handing out, excuse me,

with Ben-Givir handing out weapons to extreme settlers. You're delusioned if you think there's no Hamas in the West Bank. But to you, can I? And I just say, but to you, Hamas doesn't control the West Bank. Facts, please. But to you, every Palestinian is a terrorist. You don't care about the women. You don't care about the children.

That's not true. The majority of people that have been killed are civilians. To you, it's all terrorists. You don't know anything. You just blunt accused Israel. Can I just finish? I didn't say a word. Can you let him finish his point?

I didn't say a word. You can't keep talking over him, Fleur. Let him finish his point. Yes, he's lying. First of all. Well, he listens. to you. So let him speak. She represents, this is what I say is, she represents the general psychopathy of the Israeli government

where they come on television and they think the rest of the world actually is like them, that they don't see Palestinians as humans. And they say these talking points. And Pierce, sometimes when you invite me to debate, I sit here and go, I don't have to say a word, because they're undermining themselves and their own cause in front of the global stage right now. I mean, the fact that she knows, like somehow magically, they're all terrorists. But when you ask them repeatedly, well, how can you not know how many civilians there are? And they say, oh, we don't know. What civilians? And then she goes to World War II, compares Palestinian moms and children to Germans, to Nazis. Okay, fine. Go for it.

You're talking about mosques and you're talking about churches and you're talking about schools and you fail to mention that that's exactly where Hamas hide. Not just that. They build mosques on top of tunnels, on top of terrorist installations. You want to ignore the fact that Hamas are cynically using their own people. They use their people as a defense strategy. They're using our hostages as a defense strategy. So Israel bombs, the Ruffin kills kits? So Israel bombed two terrorists, Israel bombed two terrorists. A kilometer away, there was a fire that was made by munitions that were in a place that they shouldn't have been. Actually, you don't know all that.

You don't know that. That's not been established as fact. Sorry, that's not, sorry. But all I know is, again, to correct you, Flir, that has not. You don't know what happened either. No, nor do you, so you accept you don't. We are at the moment. Sorry, you just accepted you don't.

We know that it was a kilometer away from where we want. You just said you didn't know what happened either. In other words, nor do you. We are doing an investigation. Right, it's not concluded. So how should you say these things are facts? And then the only fact, the only fact, you're going to ask, why did a yellow.

If I may finish, if I may finish, flirt, if I may finish, if I may finish, the only fact is that 45 innocent people in the refugee camps were killed at the same time as apparently two Hamas terrorists. I don't call that a very good percentage, do you? No, but it wasn't a strategy. And it is not what we need to. But when you bomb a refugee camp, that is a strategy. When you bomb a refugee camp, it is a strategy. No, we did not bomb a refugee camp.

who are in a refugee camp. They were a kilometer away from the humanitarian zone. They were in a refugee camp. They were a kilometer away from the humanitarian zone. In a refugee camp. Where we moved people in order to put them on arms. You moved them there and then you killed them. Hamas keeps them in harm's way.

When babies were baked in ovens on October 7th, that was a strategy. When Israel tries to weed out the terrorists and there are unfortunately casualties, it's not a strategy. That is not what we aim to do. Those casualties are beheaded babies and ruffer. Really? Yes, really.

I saw a beheaded baby. And babies were beheaded. It was horrific. That's what happened in rough. And you know why they went to ruff up here? Hang on. Can we connect the real quick. Hang on.

I don't accept it. Flur, just to be clear, are you denying that there were any video footage of a baby beheaded? I have not seen anything. And I know that the Israeli army would never do anything like that. No, sorry, the baby's head was blown off. Okay, listen. It's killed 36,000 Palestinians.

Oh, well, that's what you say. Apparently, you know the numbers better than the UN and the army and everyone else. Did that damage to that baby? It was absolutely, and it was tragic. But it's going to happen again and again if you bomb people in a refugee camp. Well, we weren't aiming to bomb people in a refugee camp. But you are going to kill them if you keep dropping bombs in a refugee camp, aren't you? They're going to kill civilians.

That's why he took almost a million people and put them in a humanitarian zone. And how many have you left? That's why we did. How many of you left? Which army in the world is actually warning ahead of time where we're going to be attacking in order to put people out of harm's way that its own, its own authority, its own government puts in harm's way. Nobody's doing that. Where are they going to? to run to over a bit.

I'm sorry, I have to say something. Where would they run to? Where are they going to run to when, just let me finish. Maybe somebody should demand Egypt to help out here. I've listened to you. Just give me 10 seconds. The Israeli government has bombed Gaza. There's over a million and a half people displaced.

They moved to Rafa for safety. What did Israel do? Cross Biden's red line, the greatest ally United States, and bombed Rafa. These people, as peers were saying, were in a safe. space. They were in a safe zone in a refugee camp, and now we have charred bodies and beheaded babies, and Benjamin Nanyahu says, I don't care. No ceasefire. I'm going to continue bombing Rafa. And now you have openly admitted they should go to Egypt. Now, if you want to send them to Egypt,

which I know you do because you just said it. That is ethnic cleansing. That is ethnic cleansing. And that is a genocide. No, why is it? That would be a genocide. That's us. So you're saying that the democracy. Because you're bombing them out. At least that. Okay. All I can say to you, is this. Ukraine had a war and all of the neighboring countries took them in temporarily in order to help them out in a situation where there is bombing going on. Now, Egypt has a border with Rafa, with Gaza. Now, not only are they not helping out, even temporarily, taking people out of harm's way that built three walls, and it was discovered that

50 tunnels that were smuggling in arms were smuggling in arms from Egypt. it's Israel's responsibility. Israel is the occupying power. Why should Egypt help? Israel should stop killing Palestinians. It is your responsibility. It is your responsibility. You are the occupying power.

Why do you want to kick out Palestinians to Egypt? And by the way, do you think, do you think Palestinians will be allowed to return in Netanyahu's Israel, where he says there's no two states? Do you think Ben Gavir and Smotrich will allow these Palestinians that you care so much about that you're going to move out to Egypt and Jordan. Do you think that the government of Netanyahu, your government, will you allow these refugees to come back? You know all these hundreds of thousands of refugees

that you've allowed to come back over the past 70 years? What would happen? I think Netanyahu has made very clear. Listen, listen, we never left. We left in 2005 and we pulled out 8,000 people and their businesses and farms not to come back. Why did we do that? Why did we go through all of that trauma?

And you're still occupying. No, why are we occupying? because we tried to stop Iranians from sending arms to Gaza. Another myth, another lie. We left in 2005. We left the Palestinian leadership. We left the Palestinian leadership to their own devices. Let me ask you this.

Let me ask you this. Fleur, please stop talking. If I'm asking a question, look what happens. My question is this. My question is this. If there's no occupation, how is it that at the start of this war, Israel was able to turn off a lot of the water into Gaza,

a lot of the food into Gaza, a lot of the energy into Gaza. If you're not an occupying country, how are you able to do that to another country? A blockade is not an occupation. What is it? A blockade is not an occupation. What is it?

First of all, there was trade going on between Gaza and Israel before October 7th. We gave out 20,000 work permits. People were working all across. Why Palestinians not entitled to the same rights as Israelis? They have their own state. They don't have the rights of Israelis. Why not?

Because they're not Israelis. Okay. Well, that's pretty conclusive. Thank you. They're not Israelis. Okay. Sometimes, you know what? Look, they can't have it both ways.

You can't have it both ways. Let me tell you what light. Like, I'm shining. You can't have it both ways. Do you want to be Israeli or do you want to have your own state? You want to have your own autonomous territory? I think Palestinians want to have the same. 94% of Palestinians want to have the same rights as Israeli.

And I don't see why they shouldn't. But do they want their own state or don't they? Do they want to be part of Israel? Do they want a one state solution or do they want a two state solution? Well, let me ask, okay, that's a fair enough question. I'm asking. That's a fair question. Let me put it to Wajat.

What do you want? What do you want? What do you want at the end of this? At the end of this, I want justice, I want peace. I want a pathway towards Palestinian self-determination. I think there has to be an end to the occupation. Israel's occupying Palestinians to its detriment. I want to just say, those who are supporting the war like she is,

Here's the failure of Nanyahu's war very quickly. Nanyahu said he wants to destroy Hamas. Hamas is not destroyed. Failure number one. Nanyahu says he wants the hostages back. The family members of the hostages are protesting Nanyahu because they know he doesn't care. Failure number two. He says he wants to make Israel safer.

Israel's not safer. He wants to make the region safer. Regions not safer. He wants to help Israel's repriah. Military solutions will not work. People like your guest right now think they could put the boot on the neck of Palestinians, create a symmetry where there is now, occupy people and people resist that occupation

and just die. They're just going to die. They're not. If you want an end, if you want peace, stop your occupation and give Palestinians a pathway towards self-determination and if there should be two states' peers, riddle me this. Why is Israel expanding settlements in the West Bank? What excuse is it? Please, please give us the excuse why Israel

is occupying the West Bank and expanding settlements. I couldn't agree more. Flirt, why on Earth does Israel think it's a good idea to expand settlements on the West Bank? Well, first of all, you have to understand the context that area A and B, which is where 94% of the Palestinians live, are under the PA autonomy. The fact that they haven't developed their own economy,

the fact that they don't give people anything, the fact that East Jerusalem... That's not the question. The question is, why expand settlements, knowing it is deeply inflammatory? Because... Because the settlements are not the obstacle to a two-state solution.

They're one of the major obstacles, actually. They're not. Because if you keep seizing land, who are violent towards Palestinians, that is an obstacle. Yeah, it is. What was the obstacle before 1967? The 48 declaration,

we're not in 1967. We're in 2024. In 1967, a war was started in 1967, a war was started in order to destroy Israel. In 1948, a war was started in order to destroy Israel. There wasn't one settlement. So explain to me. And in 2024, Benjamin Daniahu,

announced he would have 3,000 more settlements in West Bank. The settlements are ridiculously inflammatory. Menyahu said 3,000 more settlements. They shouldn't be happening. The largest cities and towns in the Palestinian, in the West Bank, in Judea and Samaria, are all under the autonomy of Mahmurbas, who unfortunately is a corrupt dictator. What I wish for the Palestinian people is that they get the leadership they deserve. They get a Gandhi.

They get a Mandela. They get somebody who's not either a kleptocrat. Genocide. You'd kill them. Hang on. You'd kill them. You'd kill them. You'd kill them.

You'd bomb them. That's not true. I actually wish that. If I may finish, if I may finish, I actually agree with you, flirt. I would like that on both sides. I think Netanyahu is long past his cell by date. The right wing, hate bangers and his government are past their cell by date. To get to a two-state solution where people can live peacefully

with the same rights and same security and freedoms, you have got to get new leadership on both sides. And that is how we're going to leave. Amen. I wish I could believe land for peace would bring us peace because we really want peace. Okay, well, one said amen and the other one tried to equivocate. And that's the problem, Fleur. Sometimes you've got to reach an agreement on top line principles, which is, isn't that what we should all want? With leaders who care about their people, and I wish that for the Palestinian.

On both sides, I don't care. I don't think Netanyahu and his cabinet right now care about anything but themselves. We've had many other prime ministers offering everything the Palestinian and said they wanted and they rejected it. We're going to leave it there. Floha Hassan Nahome, thank you very much. Wahadja Ali, thank you very much. I appreciate it.