Piers Morgan Uncensored - Mehdi Hasan Vs Piers Morgan: Israel-Lebanon & Trump

Episode Date: September 26, 2024

Piers Morgan Uncensored Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You always pivot back to, yeah, but the real problems israel. You're famous for interview style that begins with condemn this group, that group. Let me finish before you keep suggesting I'm supporting October 7, which I have not. Sounds like you're justifying you to me. You know what, can I finish a sentence? Booby traps are not allowed if they are genuinely indiscriminate. You don't think going off on a grocery store is indiscriminate. No, actually.

I'm not playing this game, peers, because I'm not here to talk about the rules of war. You say, Mendi, all rows lead to the occupation. Yes. Okay? Israel would say all rows lead to Iran. Who cares what Israel says? They've lied for the last year. They've lied to 30.

Who cares what they say? I'm curious what you think Israel could do that would pass your test. That's probably not much. I'm as close to it. I'm as close to a pacifist as you can get. Just saying, I want it what I want, peace and joy. You sound like Kamala Harris.

Well, two seismic issues are dominating the global news agenda. What happens next in each of them will have a profound impact on the state of the world. First, of course, is the forthcoming US presidential election. The second is the crisis now engulfing the Middle East. My next guest has strutened views on both these big stories. He's not shy about airing them. Joining me in the studio is editor and CEO of Zateo News.

Medi, Hassan. Medi, how are you? Good to see you. We have never met in person. No. Until now. No, Twitter makes you think we have. It was great to see you. Thank you for having me. Great to be in London.

Always enjoy our debates, which they are. Let's start with what's happening in the Lebanon. Because we may find some areas of agreement here, I suspect. But first of all, Hezbollah, do you see a distinction between Hezbollah and, say, Hamas? In what sense? In what they are, what they represent, how they have acted. I mean, they're very different groups.

They operate in different places, in different contexts. I guess what they have in common is that they both came out of Israel's occupation of their land. Hamas comes out of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and many people are not aware of the fact that Israel occupied Lebanon, southern Lebanon, for 18 years, from 1982 to 2000 when they withdrew, although the Lebanese argue that they're still an occupation of a piece of Lebanese land called the Shaba Farms. So in that sense, they're similar.

They're obviously different in some of their tactics. They're different religions. Well, they're different sex. I apologize. They're both Muslim, but one is Shia, one is Sunni. They're both backed by Iran. Look, there's similarities differences. I think what's really interesting this time round

is we've seen for a year, Israel killing thousands of civilians in Gaza and saying, well, Hamas is to blame because of human shields, because of tunnels. That argument just does not work in Lebanon. They've killed 550 people peers on Monday. An insane amount of people in a single day,

one of the highest single-day death tolls in modern warfare. Almost all of them, civilians, according to the Lebanese health ministry, which is not Hezbollah, by the way. They always say Hamas-controlled health ministry in Gaza. So I think what we've seen is so phenomenally bad on Israel's end and so little defense. October 7th was used, as you and I have discussed before, as the excuse for killing tens of thousands of Palestinians.

Well, I would categorize it differently. I don't think they used it as an excuse to go and kill tens of thousands of Palestinians. They responded to one of the most egregious terror attacks of modern times. When does the response end? We're nearly a year and killing them. That is the question. Well, that's when it becomes an excuse. When you carry on killing and killing.

Is it an excuse or is it that they are wedded to the elimination of Hamas? Because Hamas has persistently said, we want to keep doing the same thing over and over again. And there's a correlation with Hezbollah, who's charged. Charter is very explicit. They stand for the eradication of Israel. I mean, that's what they're about. That doesn't justify killing 500 people in a single day, doesn't it? I didn't say it did.

That's what bothers me. That's what happened this week. I understand. Hesbalas Charter is irrelevant to what we're talking about. That's not why they kill 500 people on Monday, Piers. I mean, Hesblos Charter has been around for years. I don't think it's irrelevant that you have a terror group on your doorstep who are wedded to your extinction.

Why is that irrelevant? I think the language you use is loaded, peers. You say, on your doorstep. Do you know they did a poll of Americans a while back who thought that Palestinians were occupying Israel. When we talk about this stuff, we make it sound like Israel is the one being occupied, besieged. Israel's the one that's occupying the West Bangar's the longest military occupation in the world, going back to 1967. Israel is the country that occupied southern Lebanon. I mean, everything the world did not begin on October the 7th.

1978, Israel invades southern Lebanon. 1982, Israel invades southern Lebanon. Sabra and Chitilla massacre. 2006, Second Lebanon War, murder 100 people. But you always make it sound like they just do. doing this for the sake of it. They're not. What are they doing it for? Well, they've been provoked by Hezbollah. Hezbollah didn't exist in 1970.

OK, I'm talking about the specifics of going on now. The provocation since October the 7th. Hezbollah's first response to October the 7th was to unleash rockets on Israel on October the 8th. That's not true. That is what happened. Where did they fire the first rocket? They fired rockets on the 8th. Where? Well, you tell me. No, no, you just said they fired it Israel. Where?

Well, they fired them in the direction of Israel. Where did they hear? They find them at the Sheba farms. I do. They fired up the Sheba farms, which, as I said earlier, is an area of Syria. Well, the Lebanese claim it's Lebanon. Syria claims it's Lebanon. Israel says no, and is occupying the Sheba farms. They fired at Israeli military installations in the Sheba farms. Now, have they got fired at Israel. So they were firing at an area that Israel says is theirs. No, Israel doesn't say it. Israel says it's Syria. Because remember,

Israel is occupying Syria and the West Bank and Gaza and Lebanon would argue part of the This is the problem, right? The core of the problem is Israel's territorial expansionism. It's a mess. It's not a mess. It's Israel occupying multiple Arab lands, which leads to, quote, unquote, resistance or quote, unquote, terrorism, whichever word,

I don't care what word you want to use right now. But that is the core, right? You had John Mearsheimer on the show this week, made the same point. Deal with the occupation. Then you deal with the violence. And look, has Hezbollah fired into Israel at Sima? Yes, I don't agree with that.

But the reality is 82% of the exchange A change of fire between Lebanon and Israel since October the 7th has been done by Israel. 82%. Is that not a provocation of people? Let me finish my point, which is that since October the 8th, 19,000 missiles rockets have come from Hezbollah to Israel, right? But way more from Israel into Lebanon. 82%.

Of course they've responded. What else are they supposed to do? 82%. This is not two equal sides. So they can't defend themselves. But the vast majority of attacks is on Lebanon. Would you condemn the firing of rockets by Hezbollah or not? Of course, I condemn all attacks on civilian targets.

We know that, Piers. We've discussed this reason. I'm going to come to Israel's response. I don't come on shows to defend militant groups or foreign governments. I come on shows to say, let's end the violence, let's sort out what the solution is. Let's look at the root cause of the violence. It is undeniable that the root cause of the violence is Israel, Israel's occupation, the genocide in Gaza. What did the leader of Islam al-Hibullah say?

So we won't fire any rockets if you end the killing in Gaza. What did the President of Iran say? We won't retaliate for what you did to Ismail honey on Iranian soil if you end the killing in Gaza. What did the Houthis say? We'll stop blocking ships. you end the killing in Gaza. Where do all roads lead back to end the killing and guns? I don't believe any of those. I don't believe any of them. I'm Ronald Reagan. You're citing them as if there's sort of gospel statements from people who have impeachable. I'll tell you why.

If you let me finish, I'm Ronald Reagan. A bunch of terrorists and we won't do X, Y, Z. Do you do this? I'm Roder Reagan. I say, verify. Call their bluff. If they're lying, call their bluff. Stop the Gaza fighting and then see what happens. Yeah, but Israel has called Hamas's bluff. When? There was a ceasefire in place before October the 7th. That's not true. Well, it is true. That's not true. Well, it is true. It's fundamentally false. They were attacking Palestinians the week before October the 7th. In September, the guard, you can Google it on that tablet.

What's your definition of a ceasefire? Well, Israel gets to attack people or not the other way out. In September, hold on. In September, you just made a charge that's not true. There's a tablet there. You can Google it. Guardian headline, right there. You can go see the news report. I don't Google during interview. Well, afterwards, everyone can.

There's a Guardian headline. September, 2023, a month before October the 7th. The headline is, Palestinians shot in the ankles by Israel in Gaza attacked. There were airstrikes in Gaza. And by the way, Gaza is not isolated. Gaza and the West Bank under international law are one entity. There were several hundred Palestinians killed in the West Bank before October. But my point to you, Medellie, is...

So there was no ceasefire. You just can't say, it's just not true. They would say there was a ceasefire. And it's not true. You would say otherwise. The facts say otherwise, please. But what I've noticed with you is you're always downplay anything which might be deemed by Israel to be provocation. No.

You always... Not at all. Did I down play out to November 7? I don't think I have on your show or anywhere else. It's a horrible crime. But what you do, in your debating style, it's an impressive debating style, but you always pivot back to...

Yeah, but the real problems is real. Yeah, but the real problems... Hold on, hold on. If we're going to talk about styles, Piers, you're famous for interview style that begins with condemn this group, that group. On Monday, 500... Hold on, on.

Let me finish my word. Then you come back in. 500 people were killed on Monday. 100 women, 50 children. I assume you condemn that and don't support the kids. of civilians in Lebanon, right? 500 people died. That's the equivalent of 30,000 Americans

or 6,000 Brits in a day. And yet we started this interview with Hezbollah-Hesbullah Charter. So if you're going to talk about Stiles, you're focusing on the wrong thing. I'm going to focus on 500 people dead. Okay, let me come back to the week before where 3,000 Hezbollah terrorists were targeted specifically...

How do you know that? What do you mean? How do I know that? You just said 3,000 Hezbollah terrorists. How many was it? I don't know. I'm asking you made the claim. That is what's been reported. By who? You dispute that?

Yeah, I dispute everything, Israel. But you don't know the real number. You don't know the real number. But I didn't give a number. You did. Well, what has been the number from the other side? I didn't give a number. You said 3,000 terrorists.

I wonder why a journalist... That has what's been reported. No, it's not reported. It's what's said by Israel. Or it says what's said by people speaking on behalf of Israel. Was a little girl died? Hang on. Israel hasn't even said it did it.

They have in private. It's been reported. To you? No, to the American government. Don't say they said it publicly. They haven't. But obviously, I believe they did it, right? I believe they did it too.

But you're saying this in public. You just gave a 3,000 number. And I'm wondering, I just saw a little girl's funeral last, but was she a Hesbala terrorist in your view? No. So then why did you say 3,000 terrorists? It was a kid killed. I was about to say that in the process of targeting very specifically,

in an extraordinarily outdoid, whichever way you're going to be. In a terror attack? Well, that's what I'm going to come to. So they target 3,000 Hesbola terrorists with their pages, walking, talky, and so on. In the process, a small comparative to that number, to that number, a small number of civilians get killed, which is obviously deplorable.

But my point to you is, if someone's been chucking rockets over for a year at you and your people, you've had to display 60,000 people from the north of your country because of this relentless bombardment, and you eventually respond in such a precise, targeted fashion. Okay.

Right? And in the process, some civilians are killed, which is never acceptable, can never be condoned, never be supported. But if it is right, as has been widely reported, by all mainstream media, that 3,000 terrorists have... People associated with Hezbollah. Not everybody in Hezbollah are terrorists.

Okay. Like a driver, a nurse. 3,000 members of Hezbollah were targeted, right? Yeah. Would you say that that is... Some people have claimed it's unlawful. You've said it's a terror attacks. You think it was illegal.

Yep. But I would say that's not. I mean, I would say that if you look at that in totality, they are responding to rocket attacks all year and they are being extremely precise, unlike what they've been doing in Gaza, where I do not accept that Israel's been doing this precision targeting they keep talking about,

and I've held them to account for that. I do think in this particular occasion, they were extremely precise, and it was a brilliant piece of warfare, right, if you want to call it that, notwithstanding, I don't like any war, nor do you. But my point is, surely that is justified. I mean, in some parts of this, you have to say,

Israel's entitled to defend itself. So, actually, Lebanon is the one that needs to defend itself, as we say, 500 people killed on a day. Look, you are right, you have held, I've watched your interviews with Israeli spokespersons. You have held them to account on their nonsense about casualty numbers. But let me just take three very brief things on that.

Number one, you said just a moment ago, when they eventually respond, you use that phrase eventually, that's just factually inaccurate, we already discussed. 82% of the attacks, they have been bombing Lebanon for a year. Now, you can say who started it, whatever, I'm not talking about. But they've been attacking Lebanon.

But this is a significant escalation. Yes, but five days after October the 7th or six days after, they killed a Reuters video journalist in southern Lebanon, a man called Isam Abdullah, killed, according to reporters without borders targeted by Israel, according to the UN, a war crime, right? So they have been killing people in Lebanon who have nothing to do with Hezbollah for a year now.

So let's not say eventually. Number two, I would say, yes, it's an act of terror. And that's just not my view. You know Leon Panetta, former Obama, Defense Secretary, former head of the CIA. When the former head of the CIA comes out and says, Israel is committing an act of terror. I think we should take that seriously.

But it's not just him. A group of UN special rapporteurs on human rights and extrajudicial killings put out a statement saying... But many other people have said it was not an act. Of course. And that's the problem with international law. People can argue always. You know that you and I are not lawyers,

but we know that lawyers can argue multiple these. But do not think that action was justified? No, of course not. I don't think you should booby trap devices. It's against international law to use booby traps. I think taking... I'm actually petrify, separate to the politics of Middle East peers.

I'm actually petrified at the ability of governments to use technology and surveillance to track us and now kill us. I think there's a wider discussion to be had. I think the idea that Israel keeps opening the doors to all sorts of new precedents that other governments will run with and we will regret. I think going into the supply chain of devices, phones, beepers, whatever, pages, I think that's very, very worrying. I also think from a practical point of view, it's not targeted.

If you blow up a guy with a pager, even if you think he's a terrorist or terrorist leader, you don't know if he's driving, he's at an intersection. He's about to crash his car into children crossing the road. We saw them going off in grocery stores. It's taken out people's eyes, fingers. No, I don't think it's target. I think it's barbaric. I think it's illegal.

And I also think, look, I say this all the time. Even if I was in Israeli, I would not support this. It doesn't make Israel safer. Do you think Israel's safer today? Would you support then any military... They just fired a rocket at Tel Aviv. Let me ask you, would you then, by your criteria, is there any military response that Israel can give?

First to what Hamas did in October the 7th, the second to what Hasbolo has been doing ever since. Is there any military response Israel can do, which in your eyes would be justified. I don't accept, again, I don't accept the loaded question. You say, response. Israel is the aggressor in all of these places, as I say. But it wasn't an egregor on October 7th, was it?

Well, it was, actually, because it was occupying Gaza, and it was besieging Gaza for 20 years, and even in Israeli general... You're sounding like you think it was justified, what the did? No, no, no, no. It's one or the other. Why? How's it justified? So it wasn't justified? Of course not. I've said that many times.

So was Israel not entitled to respond? No, but I'm questioning you used to word, response. Response implies everything starts on October 7. No, I don't accept your timeline. I've never said that. you keep saying response to that specific terror attack in a way that if in England somebody suddenly launched an attack on our people and they killed 1,200 and wounded nearly 7,000, I would absolutely expect my government to respond with substantial force. Would you? Yes, but Britain...

So you would. Hold on. But is Britain occupying territory in that scenario? Because that's the key point here. It's Shlomo Brom. It's dangerous, it's dangerous, hold on. Dangerous, dangerous wording. It's not dangerous because I don't disagree with you. I'm going to quote, let me finish, before you keep suggesting I'm supporting October 7, which I have not. Sounds like you're justifying it to me. You're not paying attention. They're not occupied. They are occupied and they're not occupied?

I think they probably are, yeah. Not probably. The ICJ says they're occupied. Shlomo Brahm, who's one of the former top Israeli generals, one of their big strategists, said after October the 7th, what did you expect if you keep people under military occupation, they will rise up? Yeah, of course.

There's always going to be terrorism. What do you expect? Yeah, there's always going to be terrorism and violence as long as you oppressed people. On that scale, you expected that? No, obviously, I don't expect the details, but do you expect Palestinians to fight back? Of course you do.

Everyone who's sane who looks at this conflict from American presidents downwards would say the root cause of the violence has to be ending the conflict. I agree. So then talking about tip-for-tile responses makes no sense. To go back to the start in 1948,

which I've had many scholars on from both sides of this, probably the most interesting piece I read about this was Jonathan Frieden of the Guardian, who's a Jewish journalist, who concluded, you know, you can construct, if you're reasonably fair-minded about this, you can construct,

a solid argument for both sides, for both sides to feel agree from the very start of this conflict. Fair enough. And that's a different argument. I'm talking about what you talk about now. When people say it didn't start... Well, I'm not even going back to 94 years. I'm talking about 20 years of Gaza under blockade appears.

Open air prison camp to quote David Cameron, that well-known pro-Palestinian. But also Hamas in that process since 2005 have clearly run Gaza in a despicable Agreed. You wouldn't disagree? No. There's not all Israel's fault, does it? Well, no, because you're mixing different things up.

You're always very keen to put it all on Israel. No, because if we're talking about... I try and be a little bit more like, hang on. Hang on, when you commit a terror attack from the scale of... You both sides' occupation and illegal... No, I don't. Yeah, you are. You just said, I don't.

I try and be fair. You can't be fair to an occupier. By the way, when we talk about Russia and Ukraine, this is what frustrates me. And I know my friend Owen Jones sat here and said the same thing to you. When we talk about Russia, Ukraine, you don't do both sides. You blame Russia as the invader and occupant. You don't do that with Israel. That is the double standard on your part.

I try to be consistent, peers. I'm morally consistent. I say Russia, hold on, let me finish his end. Russia illegally invaded and occupied Israel and illegally annexed to Crimea. And Israel is doing the same thing in the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights. As you know, they are completely different. Yeah, Israel's worse.

It's been going on much longer. People living under much worse conditions. And they've killed more kids. There is no similarity in these two situations. Agreed. Israel's is worse. It's not. How many kids have been killed in Ukraine versus Gaza? Well, in one year.

Ever. In one year? Ever. Take whatever point you want. More kids have been killed in Gaza than Ukraine. Every human rights group agrees with that. What's happened in Ukraine? We can come to Ukraine. What happened in Ukraine is a Russian dictator

invaded illegally. We agree on Ukraine. But we don't agree in Israel because you're not consistent. I think Israel is much more complicated. That's complicated, as my friend Tarnese-Coge point out of the other way, is just a good way of avoiding attributing moral responsibility. It's complicated. No, it's not complicated, actually.

Israel is the occupier and the international law. Israel is the one killing the vast majority of civilians. Right now it's not a liberal democracy. It's run by neo-fascists right now. Well, I don't disagree with it. There are some right-wing headbangers on that cabinet. I also think that Netanyahu has to go. I also think the whole of Hamas have to go, right?

Under no scenario, is it liberal democracy right now. Palestinians do not have the same rights. But let me come back to my point about Hezbollah because that's the most current part of this crisis over there. We'll cover all this. We've got plenty of time. With Hezbollah, my point to you would simply be that if someone does what Hezbollah did on October the 8th has carried on doing it all year,

they have a charter which says they want to eradicate Israel. You have to defend yourself. So the question then becomes, what type of defence or response or reaction or revenge, whatever you want to call it? I don't want you get caught in the semantics of a word. But what kind of thing can Israel do, given that direct threat to them, to their existence? and the same sort of ideology applies an argument to Hamas. But with Hezbollah specifically, this state within a state in Lebanon, which is far better armed, far more powerful, far more resourced.

Far more popular with the people, part of the government, it's much more part of Lebanese society. And was created by 1,500 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Supported, not created, but yes. Well, they trade. They're also indigenous to Lebanon. They trade. And they're not foreign forces.

So my point is, what can Israel do that would actually tick your box of being justified? My box is a very minimum. My box is hypocritic, don't know harm, don't kill civilians. You don't respond? You don't respond. This is the same argument with Gaza. You don't respond by killing 40,000 people. What do you do?

What do you do for Israel? Target the Hezbollah people. I don't know. Jonathan Conriquez came on your show last week. They couldn't have been. IDF colonel, he said, they're not in civilian areas, so we're able to target them. OK, target them. Then if you want to target them, under the rules of war, you can target combatants.

But here's, hold on. Hold on. You just said earlier. Let me switch my point. No, no. No, no. No, Medi. Go on.

Then I'm going to finish my points. You literally just said you can target combat. Yes. But when they did that last week with the walking talkies and pages, you said, no, no, no, that's a terror attack. It's illegal. Hold on, hold on. Could there be a more precise targeting.

Hold on, because A, we don't, they didn't just target combatants, as we've just discussed. B, they did it in a number of scenarios. And C, they did it in violation of the amended protocol to of the convention on certain conventional weapons, which doesn't allow booby traps. So there is no. I already explained the boobie traps.

Actually, no, that's not true. It's not true. Okay. Boobie traps are not allowed if they are genuinely indiscriminate in the way that they potentially... You don't think going off in a grocery store is indiscriminate? No, actually, I believe what I've seen... You gave the British example earlier, Piers. You're okay with someone blowing you up in Sainsbury's?

I'm going next to you blowing you up in the Isle-Sahnsbury. I believe that what has been reported, right, widely reported, is that 3,000 terrorist militants, Hezbollah members, whatever you want to call them, were very precisely targeted. Are you saying people... By your criteria... Did they go off in grocery stores and hospitals? If it's legal...

Did they go off in grocery stores and hospitals? No, no, you brought up the UK earlier. We're in London right now. If I go from here to the local Sainsbury's to pick up some chocolate on the way out of the studio and a terrorist is targeted next to me and they're blowing up in Sainsbury and I get, lose my eyes. You're saying that's okay?

No, but if you have people... Sounds like you're saying it's okay. If those people in that grocery store are literally responsible for firing rocket after rocket at every country... You're okay with them being blown up with me. I'm just collateral damage. I actually looked at what they did

and I thought it was a very precisely targeted... What about the 500 civilians killed on Monday? just don't want to talk about today. No, I'm going to come to that. You keep saying that. The time's nearly up. The time is not nearly up. I'll be talking for literally 15 minutes.

Stop racing the clock down. I have another show to do, Piers. Hang on. 500 people died on Monday. I've come in early for you. I was looking for a thank you, peers. Thank you, peers. 500 people were killed on Monday.

You're not talking about that. I am going to talk about that. It sounds like you're justifying that. I am going to talk about that. First of all, before we get to, before we get to that, I just want to get inside your head about what you think is legitimate

because it said a very interesting thing. One, what they did was a terror attack, even though they would say they targeted specifically combatants, and that is law. That's not true, though. We know that's not true. Well, it is true. It is true. It is true. Kids, doctors, nurses.

You can never target combatants and not involve civilians ever. That's funny because Israel were bragging, well, people on behalf of Israel. Tell me one. Tell me one war. Tell me one war. Didn't they kill Ismail Hania without collateral damage? Hold on. Didn't they kill Ismail Hanne in Tehran with that.

Tell me one war. I just told you. You just interrupted you. twice. Ismail Hanir was killed in Tehran. There was no collateral damage. No, I don't agree with that killing, but there was no collateral damage. To be clear, you think that the targeting of combatants is legitimate. If you're in a war, and they are fighting with you, and they are fighters, yeah, of course it's legitimate. But you also think that when Israel targeted combatants from Hezbollah last week,

in a very precise way, it's terrorism. It's terrorism. How can it be both? Hold on. Leon Panetta says it's terrorism, the former head of the CIA. So? Well, you act like some crazy extreme view. If the head of the CIA, the former head of the is saying this is terrorism because it's not done. So give me an example. It's literally terror. People in Lebanon don't know what devices to use anymore. You think killing what has Bala done?

By the way, I'm not playing this game here because I'm not here to talk about the rules of war. My position is even if it's legitimate, you just talked about them? No, because I'm saying even if it's legitimate, even if I accepted the 3000s, which I don't, I still don't think they should do it. But you said targeting civilians.

Can I finish a sentence? You said targeting militants, yes. Combatants is lawful and justified. Yes. But even then I don't think you should do it. Okay. You know what?

Can I finish a sentence? I think it's an inconsistency in this. No, I'm very consistent. I'm saying even if it's legitimate, which in this case, it's not legitimate. Let's say I take the same it's legitimate. You still shouldn't do it because all it leads to is escalation. I don't want escalation in the Middle East. I don't want a regional war that American dragged into.

I'm saying that the way of the gun, the military solution to everything is a failure, whether you think it's moral or immoral. So how should Israel respond? I've told you, with end the occupation. You don't want to talk about the occupation peers. You don't want to talk about the 500 dead. I'm telling you that's the root cause. Israel wants to do everything except what every smart person is telling them to do.

Even members of their own security establishment are telling them to do. End the occupation and then see what happened. Nobody's waking up in the morning saying we want to kill Israel for no reason. You say, Medi, all rows lead to the occupation. Yes. Okay. Israel would say all roads lead to Iran. Who cares what Israel says?

They've lied for the last year. Who cares what they say? Do you care what Russia says? No. This is what I'm saying. You're inconsistent. The occupier and the invader doesn't. I don't care what.

It's not a barbaric dictatorship. If you're a liberal democracy, they're not an liberal democracy. And second of all, no, they're not. They're ethnocracy. But even if they were a liberal democracy, you don't get to invade other people's land. That's not an excuse, Pierce. You sounds like you're justifying an illegal military occupation here. No, no.

You just did. You said they're a liberal democracy. Sounds like you're justifying occupation. You're extrapolating two things together. Why? I said, it's an occupation? You said, but they're a liberal democracy. Sounds like a justification.

I'm just coming back to one thing, because I'm curious what you think Israel could do that would pass your test. Probably not much. I'm as close to a pacifist as you can get. It's like passivism? I think you only use force to defend yourself. Everyone else to attack you and to rape and murder and pillage you. It's a fire rockets all year.

Who's raping? You don't think that's what Hamas did not tell us. I thought we're talking about Hizbollah. You're jumping around. I'm talking about both. You were talking about Hizballah a moment ago. To me, it's the same. But that's the problem.

To you, to you, to you, it's the same. Everything's very simplistic. Let me explain why. Let me explain why. You have two. You have two. Lebanon is way. To me, you are two groups of terrorists funded by Iran.

They both are wedded to the existential removal and disintegration of all things, Israel. And they're prepared to use a lot of violence to achieve that. But not as much violence as Israel has used to occupy their land for 50 years in the case of Gaza and the West Bank. So your argument is whatever Hamas has done and whatever Hezbollah does is justified. No. The only person justifying violence here is you, Pierce, not me. I'm not justified any violence today. You've justified terrorist attacks via pages. You seem to have justified the occupation.

You won't even say occupation. I do think the specific targeting of Hezbollah in the way that they did it. Do you think it makes Israel safer? That's a different question. Well, that's the question that matters to me. I think Israel feels... If there's no point doing all this...

And at the end of the day, the war continues. I want to end the conflict, peers. Well, of course, maybe this is... Well, then escalations don't help. Israel is briefing the press, peers. You're just saying, I want it all I want peace and joy. You sound like Kamala Harris. No. Actually, Kamala Harris is funding Israel.

She supports you, so that's the problem. Does support me? She supports your position, that Israel has a right, to do this stuff. It doesn't have a right to do all of it. I never said that. Oh, you pick and choose which bits? Yeah. What do you think they have a right to do? I think that they have right to do? I think that they have been disproportionate in their response to Gaza. What do you think they're allowed to do in Gaza? You made me very specific. What do you think they're specifically in Gaza? I think in Gaza that they were the victims on October the 7th.

You've already said that. I know. What should they do in Gaza? So, so I think they are perfectly entitled to go after Hamas. What they're not entitled to do, in my estimation, is to level the whole of Gaza to the ground of the way they've been doing, nor can they move vast numbers of Palestinian civilians to specific areas. And those are war crimes. And then bomb those areas as well. And those are war crimes, yes? And those are war crimes, yes? Probably, yeah. And what about in Lebanon?

In Lebanon... There is, to me, a big difference... 50 children. I'm about to answer you. I think there is a big difference between what they did in the targeting of the pages and what they did with the airstrikes, which were far more indiscriminate and kill far more civilians. My question for Netanyahu, if he would dare to do an interview with me, which he now won't. But if he did, I would say, what are you trying to achieve here? Because it seems to me you're just levelling Gaza, killing tens of thousands of people in the process.

You're never going to finish off Hamas completely. You're certainly not doing anything, but in my view, fueling their ideology. And you have no plan for what happens in Gaza afterwards. And you have a bunch of right-wing nut jobs in your family. We finally agree. Who actually do speak in quite a genocidal way. that I agree. They are about Lebanon too, by the way. We know that, right? They're speaking about Lebanon in a genocide away too. I think there are people there who just want total war with everything

to do with Palestinians. But don't you think someone like you with your huge platform should be calling that out consistently? I do, but I also think... No, you're always... You just gave me a whole thing. Iran, backs, Hamas, Hezbollah, terrorism. That just sounds like an Israeli narrative. You take one side completely. Just like you do in Ukraine? Yes. Yeah. So I'm consistent. I take the side of the Ukrainian people under occupation and the Palestinian people occupation. I'm consistent. No, you're not. They're totally different situations. You have to say that because you're not consistent. And you have to say what you say. No, but I literally described it. Two people's under foreign occupation. Two people's having their

hospitals bombed. Two people's having their kids killed. Two people facing governments to say genocidal stuff. Yeah, I'm consistent. One is a democracy and an ally of the West. Says you. And one is not. Oh, ally of the West. What little slip in there? What's not got to do in anything? So allies of the West get to be genocidal? No. Why did you say ally of the West? Why is that really? I don't believe what they're doing in So if Russia was an ally of the West, they could kill people in Ukraine. I don't believe what they're doing in Gaza is genocide. You do, I don't.

Well, genocide is the complete... Put genocide to one side. Whether we agree or not on genocide, and it is genocide or... It's not genocide. You just said they're an ally of the West. Why is that relevant? I think it's important. So if you're an ally of the West, you get to kill kids.

No. You get some... So why is it relevant? You support... You're making my point for me, be it. I'm consistent. I don't care whether you're an ally of the West or an enemy of the West. Fine.

I care about what you do. Yes. And Russia and Israel both committing war crimes. for saying genocide. Yes, but Medi, here's my point. You are so blindly anti-Israel that you frame everything. I can say the same thing for you about Russia. I'm very blindly against Russia.

Okay, so again, so you're inconsistent. Exactly, I'm consistent. I'm blindly anti-occupying Russia that occupies Ukraine, and I'm blindly anti-in-Israel that occupies Gaza. By the way, another area I'm consistent is, I do think both wars need to come to an end, and they're going to come their end through some support in negotiation. I don't believe in prolonged conflict.

I don't know. I'm not negotiating. I don't believe there's a military solution to either conflict. Give me the solution in Ukraine. I don't have one. Do you have a military solution? I don't think there is one. We can't possibly give Putin what he's taken.

No, I agree. So how do you do it? I don't know. But I don't think the military continuing helps. I mean, how do you win militarily? I don't know how that way... Would you say that in World War II? Would you mean?

When the Nazis were trying to take over the world? No, there was a plausible plan to win, wasn't there, when the US came in? Just to fight them. And there were no nuclear weapons back then, peers, as you know? Okay, but you do think Putin would ever use them? Do you not think he would do it? No. Why would he? He's not an Islamic fundamentalist who wants to blow himself up.

Oh, that's a very racist thing to say. It's not. You're saying only Muslims want to use nuclear weapons. No. I said Islamic... What? Why would Putin not want to use? Muslim. I said Islamic fundamentalists. Because Islamic fundamentals kill themselves. But they haven't used nukes.

The only people have used nukes in history are the United States of America. You're missing my point deliberately. And you're playing the race card stupidly. You're playing weird asides peers. You're bringing in Western allies. I'm asking your question about whether I thought Russia would use news. No. But the only people who were...

would, are Islamic fundamentalists. They do not, he does not think like an Islamic fundamentalist where they will kill themselves to get their goals. You know the United States of America used a nuclear weapon, peers, right? They're not Islamic fundamentalists. You're missing my point. The point is, Islamic fundamentalists will kill themselves in the process of destroying others. Russia does not want to do that. Vladimir Putin doesn't want to kill himself. Fair point. So my point about the nuclear threats, which he does all the time, is he takes what should be a deterrent. Look, we shouldn't have nuclear weapons, right? Period. But we do. do. Russia has six thousand.

Russia has six. I'm sure they do. And I put that question to that in the eye, and he fudged it, but I'm sure, of course they do. Right. But the point is, I don't think that the mindset of someone like Vladimir Putin is to start a war where he gets instantly vaporized. Makes no sense to me. So I think he uses it as a threat. And a lot of people in the West go like this and go, oh my God, we can't do anything. We must let him continue what he's doing because he might nuke us. And I think he's been doing this now for years and we've got to stand up to him because he's never going to use. nuclear weapons because he knows the moment he does, Russia and him are dead. And he doesn't think in the way that al-Qaeda or ISIS or one of these groups do,

where they don't mind dying in big numbers to blow things up. It's a very fair argument. I respect that argument. That's my point. That's a fair argument. I respect that argument. I'm saying I'm not willing to take that risk. I would like to see the Ukraine conflict come to an end.

So would I. In Ukraine's favour. But how? I don't know. I'm not pretending to know the solution. Look, with respect, and I do respect you, with respect, simply saying, I just want peace and harmony. You don't have a solution to Ukraine either.

I do. What is it? Support them. That's not a solution. No, it is. No, it is. What's the end goal? You give them the tools that they're asking for

to repel Russia long enough, that Russia goes, all right, enough. Nobody agrees that Russia is going to give up Crimea. No one's ever going to reach for. I didn't say Crimea. That's part of Ukraine. You said don't give up any Ukrainian territory. Crimea, to me, has already been sorted.

I'm talking about the... I don't think anything they can do about it. It would be good. But I do think that the area of the Dombas... They've been annexed. as well, unfortunately. They should not be allowed to take that as well. If they do, they'll never stop. I agree with that. I don't think they should be allowed to take it. I don't see a military solution, but I'm not a military expert. But the people I read say, there's no way the Russian give up.

What do you think is the solution in the Middle East with Israel? I get the argument, give up occupation. Yes. On that, we agree. Okay. But Israel will only do that, and this has a vast support of their people. They'll only do this if they feel they can get security out of the situation. They'll only allow a two-state solution. Do you believe in a two-state solution? I don't believe in any solutions, right? I don't talk about one state, two states, three states, because all of it is nonsense, all of it is pie in the sky,

none of it's happening. My position is I want equality for Palestinians and Israelis, Jews, Muslims, Christians, living in that part of the world. Exactly in the same human rights for all. Exactly. I agree with you. I don't care about the structures. I don't care what the name of the place is,

what the government looks like. I want equality between the river and the sea, to use a phrase, for everyone living in that patch of land, No one's leaving. I don't believe any of those people are going anywhere. They're all staying. They all have to live side by side as equals. I'm a Democrat, small D Democrat. I believe it should be a democracy. But fundamentally right now, I'm only concerned about one thing. Stop the killing, stop the genocide.

Do you agree that Hamas could play no part in any government going forward? Which government? On the Palestinian side. Like in a final settlement? Yes. Yeah, I don't think there would ever be a final settlement government. I don't think anyone would agree to that. I agree.

So if there was a kind of one state solution, which some people talk about, which is everyone binationally living side, of course not. If there's two states and the Palestinians were to choose a coalition government involving Hamas, well, that's up to the Palestinians, is it not? Let's go to something else. I think we're in front of agreement. The Al Jazeera raid, because you work for Al Jazeera. I thought that was disgraceful.

And I think actually when you take it in the context of what Israel's been doing and really prohibiting almost any foreign correspondence going into Gaza as well, you're seeing a genuine suppression of media and press freedom. and to actually shut down Al Jazeera studio in Ramallah, I thought was an absolutely outrageous attack on free speech. I mean, I presume you agree. 100%. It's outrageous that there's no foreign journalist allowed into Gaza a year in.

Yeah, it is. That is my point. Well, exactly. That's my point. That is my point. I totally agree with it. That's why I say, when you say liberal democracy, I laugh. That's not how a liberal democracy behaves.

Well, no liberal democracy is perfect. We're not here, as you and I would agree about it, for example. But there's a difference between a liberal democracy, not meeting standards, and behaving in this way. which is complete censorship. You see what's happening in Israel where kids are being pulled out of school just for criticizing what's happening in Gaza,

TED teachers, academics. It's not liberal democracy in any way. Separately, going back years, the way Israel is constructed, Palestinians do not have the same rights to Israel. Who would be a better president for resolving what's happening in the Middle East, Trump or Harris?

Oh, that's the hardest question you asked me to do, harder than anything else. I know. Does I see what you said about it? I think they're both hopeless. I think John Mearsheimer made a good point about Tweedledee and Tweedledum on the Middle East. One of them is going to have to win.

Yeah, who do I think is less bad? They're both horrible on this story. That's a different question. Well, they're both horrible. I phrased it very specifically. You don't even find it hard to answer. I know, so can you say it again? Well, the question, which one is more likely to be able to help resolve the Middle East crisis?

Trump or Harris? Oh, Harris, simply because she's a sane, reasonable person. But I don't believe she will resolve it. I'm going to add the caveat. I'm not saying there's going to be some two-state solution in a Harris term. No. But is she more likely? If you're asking me as a betting man, I'm a Muslim, I don't bet.

But is she more likely? Yeah, Harris. Obviously, he's more likely to do anything productive because he's the most unproductive, ridiculous figure to ever come near higher office in the history of America. He's had two assassination attempts on his life. The second one, who obviously is still alive, he wrote a note, assuming he might get killed

in the process of killing Trump, in which he basically rattled off a series of Democrat talking points. I mean, literally, word for word, in some cases, from what Harris has said and so on. I'm not blaming Kamala Harris for what happened. He's a lunatic. He's a lunatic. He invited Kim Jong-un to Hawaii.

Right, and the Secret Service should have stopped him way before he ever got to where he got to. And Trump shouldn't be playing so much golf as well. Well, actually, he plays as much golf as... The Secret Service has asked him to reduce it because it is a security... Because they can't protect him, which is disgusting. And I'm not going to defend the Secret Service? But when you see somebody using specific talking points

and you see the rhetoric being used, we've had the debate before about the left calling him Hitler and so on. But I do generally... The left, J.D. Vance called him Hitler, his running mate. I know. I accepted that point. Good. But no one should. In my estimation, likening Trump to someone who killed 12 million people in World War II is ridiculous and dangerous.

And in the wrong dangerous minds, lunatic minds, this is where you end up. On both sides, Trump's rhetoric is often terrible. Terrific. Let's agree with that. But as someone on the left yourself, do you not think that there has to be a dialing down of the blinding, hatred rhetoric about Trump. So I'm going to say the same thing I said to you last time, which is, I wish we didn't have to raise the rhetoric. I'm, you know, I agree with you to a point

that if you say certain things about certain people, of course I don't. I'm on the left. I think if you dehumanize people, I'm the one who says, migrant attacks because of Trump's rhetoric. So I would be a hypocrite if I didn't say that rhetoric leads to things. Yes, of course it does. I'm not one of these free speech absolutely says,

words have no feelings, sticks and say, no, words lead to actions, words lead to violence, clearly. So yes, in any scenario where we can dial down any incitement of violence, completely agree. I get very unconcern. comfortable, for example, at now Democratic rallies, people are shouting, lock him up, which I don't agree with.

Right. But it's totally hypocrisy. It's hypocrisy. He's on trial. If he's going to be locked up, let a court and a jury do it. I don't think crowd should be shouting that. It's not a helpful contribution. That makes me wince. He's a convicted criminal because of a one-night alleged one-night stand with a porn star. That's not why. Did you feel comfortable with that? I'm comfortable with the trial at Alvin Braggdown. I'm comfortable with the grand jury that

indicted him. I'm comfortable with the jury of his peers that connected him. You can't be comfortable. And actually, what I'm uncomfortable with is that a bunch of of his own judges now are protecting him from justice elsewhere. That makes America look like a quote-unquote banana republic. You know you and I live in the UK. You don't get to go pick your own judge. I actually thought what...

I actually thought the way that the... The Florida thing is ridiculous. I thought the way the Democrats weaponised the justice system to go out to Trump. I wish they had. They didn't actually. They spent years dragging their feet. They made him a convicted criminal

over a one-night stand with a... They did not make anything. A jury of his peers made him... She never had been put to a jury. Let me answer your original question about violence, but on a... Since we sidetracked, a jury of his peers.

convicted him. Back to this, on the rhetoric, I wish I didn't have to compare Donald Trump to Hitler. But when he quotes the lines from Mindcamp as a journalist... Come on, Eddie. As a journalist, should I not point out? You shouldn't compare him to Hitler because he's not Hitler. Okay, so what should I do? So I'm a journalist. Donald Trump says immigrants are poisoning our blood. I go, look, in history, who's the only person who said that, Hitler? Should I not tell my viewers on Piers Morgan uncensored? Should I go, can't tell him that? No, you can say he shouldn't use language like that. Can I say he's quoting Adolf Hitler?

You can't say he's the new Hitler. I haven't called him the new Hitler. Right. I've never called him the new Hitler. But you say, I'm allowed to say he's quoting Hitler. If he uses a direct sentence, which you can chart back to what he's almost directly the same. That's absolutely fair enough. But the idea that there is any comparison between Trump and Hitler.

No, of course not. Hitler is Hitler. We know that. It's appalling. Hitler is appalling. No, but I want to qualify what you're saying. Who is appalling? What is appalling?

To compare him to Hitler. To compare him to Hitler? To compare him to Hitler. What sense, though? calling him the new Hitler. Yes, no, don't call him the new Hitler. Is that appalling? Oh my God, I'm not playing the silly game.

Give me a word. I don't want to you put you words about it. Give me a condominate true word. I think it's not accurate to say he's new, the new Hitler, because Hitler killed 12 million people. Yeah, it's not true. Not offensive. But can I, if you let me finish the sentence,

I speak to a lot of fascism scholars, people like Ruth Ben-Giatt, Jason Stanley. A lot of people say that there is an analogy between what Trump is doing in America now and what happened in places like Germany in the 20s and 30s. No, there is. I respect your opinion. I respect your opinion.

don't think it is. I'm not having that argument around. I'm trying to make a separate point, which is if fascism scholars are saying, we look at history and we make comparisons, they are scholars of fascism and they're saying, hey, hold on, the rhetoric is very similar. The way they're operating is very similar. That is it, first of all, free speech, they should be allowed to say that. You used to be the free speech champion. I am. And then you sit there regulating everyone's speech. I'm not appalling. I'm not making you. You literally just told me, I ask, call it appalling. That's not regulating what you're saying. It's asking you, can you bring it in yourself to condemn people who say he's the new Hitler.

I don't know who those people are. J.D. Vance called him the new Hitler and he's his running mate. To take it up with J.D. Vance. Condem him as well? Call him on your show. But you condemn anyone on the left, he uses it too, right? He uses what, though? Who says he's the new Hitler? Those specific words, the new Hitler, yes. Okay. Is he speaking like Hitler? Yes, he is.

And that should be condemned. Hold on. Do you condemn him speaking like Hitler? Yes. Does that not outrage? Of course. He's not your pal. Why don't you tell him to stop him to stop quoting Hitler? Yes, probably. I come on with the last interview I did was before or after, but if I do again, That world, yes, of course. Good. And hosting a Holocaust denial at Moralago. Yes, Nick Twentis, absolutely.

Have you told him to stop doing that? I said it on Twitter to him. Don't let white supremacist anywhere near you. Why are you doing that? No, that's not condemnation. That's a question. I think it's condemn it. It's disgusting.

It's appalling. It's appalling. Good. There you are. Agreement. You're trying to regulate my speech. I love what we agree. You said Trump called for the ethnic cleansing of legal immigrants in the United States.

No, he didn't. Yes, he didn't. No, he didn't. What did he said? He said he wanted to deport illegal immigrants. No, he didn't actually. Yes, he did. Piers, you're wrong.

That's what he said. Anyone can play the tape after this interview. You're wrong. You should do better homework. Ethnic cleansing is a forced expulsion. I love your team. Usually involving killing of members of a specific religious or ethnic group. Hold on.

That's what ethnic cleansing is. I really like your team. I deal with them a lot when I come in there. But you should talk to whoever did your research because that's wrong. You know what he said? Go watch the clip. It's on tape. He said, we've got to get rid of them from Springfield.

Yeah. Who are the people in Springfield? Haitians. They are not illegal immigrants. So it's interesting Springfield. Hold on, no, no, no, don't jump around. You just got something wrong. If you're going to mention Spring.

I didn't get anything wrong. No, you did. We could play the tape back. You said he said illegal immigrants. That's not true. He said Haitians should be got. You've got to get rid of them. You said, many.

Let me just go back to it. Hang on. Let me clarify what you said. You said his policy is calling for the ethnic cleansing. It is a phrase on Twitter. If you're going to kind of police my tweets, then fine. Well, you said that Trump has called for the ethnic cleansing of legal immigrants. Yes.

The violent, forcible removal of legal immigrants, I think, is a form of ethnic cleansing. That's not his position. But you... His position is that there should be mass deportation of illegal. Wrong. The clip is online. Everybody... You're conflating different things.

No, you are, because my tweet was over that clip. So anyone can go, look, and you guys got it wrong. I looked at a clip of him saying, you've got to get rid of them in Springfield. Different story. Different thing. But that's what I'm tweeting about, Piz. You don't get to this reference my tweets. But that's not what he's talking about the mass deportation.

Yes, he was talking about Springfield. No, he talks. Have you watched the clip? Yes, I've watched many clips about all of it. No, but the clip that my tweet is on. Well, you're wrong, Pierce, I get it. You can back down and say, but it wrong. So you think he wants ethnic cleansing?

I don't try and get inside a madman's head. You call that ethnic cleansing? I'm not, if he tries to violently remove. He wants to kill me. Can I finish a sentence? If he wants to violently remove legal immigrants from their homes, yeah, I think that's a form of ethnic cleansing, yes. Based on their ethnicity, your identity, 100%.

Do you think it's right in Springfield? Do you think it's right to call for the deportation of legal? No, you cut me off. It's actually, it's technically my show. And you misrepresented my tweet, which you haven't corrected yet. My tweet was in reference to legal immigrants. You said illegal. So you should walk that back.

You said it to all your viewers. That was wrong. But you said that he effectively has a policy. No, I said, no, Piers, don't misrepresenting. Is it a policy? I said, in this clip, he's calling for the ethnic cleansing. It's a quote above a clip. It's a quote tweet.

You should check your tweets when you put them in your document. Do you think that's what he's doing, though, ethically cleansing? Yes, if he's calling for the deportation of legal immigrants based on their ethnicity, yes. Do you think that? He's called it a bloody operation. You're okay with 14 million people being violently removed from their homes? Are you? Four million American children?

Let me ask you a question. It's outrageous. Are you okay with the situation on the southern border with so many illegal people coming in illegally? No, I'm not. To assume me, you're a legal migrant to America. Yes, I am. Right? So everyone has gone through the process like you. But whether you're legal or undocumented, you shouldn't be violently removed. And by the way, the southern border situation is very complicated situation. It's been going for years. Multiple presidents, multiple parties. There's no easy. You would concede under the Democrats. It's been a fiasco. No. Well, I can see it there. Really? The numbers in the last three and a half years?

And they were really bad under George Bush, if we go back. I mean, it's a multi- It's a multi... To make this into a party thing is really... In fact, last time I came on your show, you tried to do a gotcha on me and said, Obama was the deporting. So clearly Democrats aren't bad.

They're on your side. They're deported. You can't have it both ways, peers. You can't have it both ways, can you? When Obama deported three million migrants, presumably then, was he ethnically cleansing them? If they were undocumented, is very different, isn't it? You're legally...

Look, again, to go back to our discussion about Israel, Hamas. So is ethnic cleansing of Trump doing it? Now who's cutting me off. Something can be legal. If Trump's doing it, it's ethnic cleansing. If Obama's doing it, it's perfectly okay. I'm well known for speaking a lot. I can say my own words.

You don't need to put words in my mouth. I'm saying, what I said earlier about Israel, you can do something that's legal, but I still think it's wrong. So what Obama did was legal, right? He didn't break any laws. He was entitled to deport. But I thought it was wrong, unwise,

unhelpful, counterproductive, unfair. That's a different argument. What Trump would be doing, is taking people who are here legally and suggesting that it get out. You know when they go after 14 million people, peers, you're a very experienced journalist, you've covered many political issues around the world.

There's no scenario in which the American bureaucracy goes house to house to look for 14 million people and doesn't end up getting innocent people, green card holders, legal immigrants, just people who look brown or have a Spanish name and getting them as well. You know this. It's going to be a disaster piece.

So next time you talk to your pal, tell him not to do it. On Springfield, do you think it's... I think what happened as Springfield is outrageous. If you condemn the incitement of us, violence there by Trump. New Hitler, new Hitler. He shut down an entire town, 30 bomb threats. Actually, it's disgusting.

There weren't 30 bomb threats. And it turned out all the bomb threat, all of them came from what they now believe were bots and pranksters. All of them. Nothing to do with Trump. Nothing to do with Trump. So why did it happen?

Why did it happen straight after he spoke? The mayor has said, actually, it turned out, these were not in the private. You know what the mayor said? He said, he said Trump's words are harming us. That's what he said. He's harming our community. I tell you what does harm you.

Why don't you condemn that piece? Can I please ask you a question about Springfield? I have condemned the ridiculous Haitian migrants reading cats and dogs without any evidence. It's not just ridiculous, dangerous. It's wrong. There is a wider and more interesting and nuanced debate to be had, which unfortunately got completely destroyed by the cats and dogs bullshit. Which is this.

Which is this. When you put into a place like Springfield, I had this with Vibh Rambaswamy, he's from that area, when you suddenly change the makeup of that town by putting 20, 20% of the entire population becomes one community brought in Haitians in that case. I've seen lots of people in the areas say the Haitians have been great for working and economy and so. Great. But it also brings with it, as we've seen in the UK, when you radically change the makeup of towns,

it can have a real effect on what that town is for people, on the effect on infrastructure, the effect on schools and hospitals, etc., etc. Do you accept that this has to be handled carefully? Yes. And but actually putting 20% of the population into someone like Springfield inherently is a very tricky scenario. So this is what worries me about you, peers, because you ask good questions, you know,

you have these important discussions. But the framing, and my friend Brian Tyler Cohen said this to you a couple of days ago, your framing is very right wing. Why? Why is it right wing? I'm telling you. You said twice there. They put 20,000.

Who put them? Nobody put 20,000 people there. They went there voluntarily. they went there at the invitation of the local town. Do you know the local town put an ad in a paper saying, please come to our town. It's in decline. We need labor. And they went and they helped the town. And the local factory managers and the local mayor of all,

as you say, they've all come out and praise them. I actually find uncomfortable that rhetoric because I think immigrants should be valued regardless whether they're hard workers. But look, people have come and said they're hard workers. They attend the local church. They're integrated in the town. There hasn't been a crime wave associated with it.

When J.D. Vance uses, and here we go, Nazi-like rhetoric and says they're bringing disease, which is what De Sturmer used to say about Jewish people. Yeah, I find that horrible. And who put 20,000 people? Nobody put 20,000 people there. They went there for jobs. Does that cause unease?

I'm sure it does. Does it radically transform a neighborhood? I'm sure it does. Should the federal government and state government be helping communities that are dealing with migrant inflows? Of course they should. I'm on the left peers. I want higher taxes.

More government spending. You're going after the wrong guy. I want more infrastructure. Actually, I wasn't going after it. I was just asking you. No, we agree. Exactly. You and I both think there should be better infrastructure.

The federal government should support these areas. And better help with the integration process. Because I think often that's where the real problems start. Agreed. But both ways, right? Integration, as David Cameron once said, is a two-way street. You don't want racists repelling new people, and you want new people understanding the ways of the world.

Agreed. But what you don't want is a presidential candidate going on TV and just making up insane stories about immigrants eating. It's disqualifies you from the race. I don't know how you went on and on about Joe Biden's age and dementia. And yet you have, you know, here's a guy who went on TV. If Joe Biden had gone on TV and said people eating your pets, you would have condemned them straight away.

I condemned Trump straight away. No, you would have said, get out of the race. You haven't said Trump should get out of the race. Say it now, say Trump, get out of the race. You're too old and nuts. I don't believe you should get out of the race. Why? He just said eating pets.

If Rishi Sunak had said that, or Kirstama, we'd all said, get out of the race. But in America, for some reason, we give Trump a pass, we grade him on a curb, we treat him like a man child. What about when Carmen Harris deliberately misquotes him and tries to pretend that he said, if he doesn't win, there'll be a blood bath.

When he did say bloodbath. Well, when everybody knows he was specifically talking about a bloodbath in the automobile industry. Well, he was. I don't have time to get into all that. I don't agree with that. Just on your wider premise of Harris, even if I accept that she misquoted him, you and I both know. There's normal politics where politicians lie, exaggerate, do hyperbole, do gotchas. We all know everyone does that, Democrats, Republicans, Labor, Conservative.

You know that's not the same thing as an old man going on stage and screaming at the audience, they're eating your pets. There's no comparison. I agree. There's nothing like that. From Harris, Biden, Starma, Sunac, anyone. But I also think it's far worse to say he's the new Hitler. Did Kamala Harris say he's the new Hitler?

No. But Trump's... A lot of democratic politicians have used that language. What about Trump's language? Hold on. What about Trump's language? Does that make it disqualifying for them as well? No, no, no. Okay, hold on.

Hold on. Yes. Any Democrat politician that says the new Hitler disqualify. Hold on. Hold on. They kicked out of it. I'm about time to disagree. Do you believe that a presidential candidate should not call the other person

to Hitler? Yeah. Okay. So Trump has called Kamala Harris, a fascist communist, Marxist. Harris has not called Trump a fascist, as far as I'm aware. I wish she would. I think she has.

I don't think she has, but she hasn't since you became the candidate. So the person who's doing the incendiary rhetoric is Trump. He called Biden the Gestapo. Do you agree with that? Do you think Biden is the Gestapo? No. Well, that's what he called Biden. He said it's a Gestapo administration.

I didn't hear you condemn Trump for that. No. But I do know that there have been two attempts on one of the candidates lives. You don't know how many, you don't know what's going on with Harris or what's going to happen? She's a black woman. You don't think there's going to be death threats against Trump and Harris? No attempts in a life. Are you aware of any attempts in life?

I don't know. I'm not saying I don't know. We didn't know. Hold on, hold on. We didn't know about many death threats against Obama until very recently. The threats is one thing. Actually trying to kill somebody. They arrested someone the other day, just the other day for death threats against, I think Biden or Harris.

I can't remember top of head. Let's not be, come on, peers. Who's going to win the election? I have no idea. Who do you think? I don't do predictions. Really? No, not after Brexit and Trump.

In 2016, I got both wrong. So you accept you're the worst predictor out there? I mean, a lot of people go, did you get Brexit and Trump right? I got Trump, right? 2016. Brexit, I didn't know. I don't think I made a call. I voted Remain, but I actually was quite happy if Brexit worked. America's too close, and the electoral college is too stupid,

and that's a conversation for another day. Medi, it's great to see you. Pleasure. Thank you for having me. I've really enjoyed finding you. Thank you very much.