Piers Morgan Uncensored - Mohammed Hijab vs Alan Dershowitz

Episode Date: October 9, 2024

With its attack on Lebanon, Israel’s war on its enemies is spilling out into other countries; drawing even further condemnation from around the world. Piers Morgan wants to understand the conflict just like everyone else, but without any pretence or restrictions. To this end, Piers brings Muslim philosopher, scholar and YouTuber Mohammed Hijab and US lawyer and author Alan Dershowitz together on Uncensored. Suffice it to say, the trio struggle to stay on topic. Hijab quickly goes off topic, even insulting Dershowitz to the point that he threatens legal action. The debate rages on but is eventually brought to an end by an exhausted Piers Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What I'd like this to be is a civilized debate between two people with very strong opinions about this. Wherever we see suffering, wherever we see death and destruction, assault, sexual assault, we've seen Dershowitz to the rescue. The former defence attorney of Jeffrey Epstein. Muhammad, attacking a lawyer for defending people is a stupid argument. You're not looking at me when I'm speaking to. What's this going to do with Israel? This shows you the bias. The bias in the coverage.

You're talking complete bullshit. You should be arrested without a charge if you're held for a security reason. Let me ask the questions. Sure, go ahead. And you guys try and debate it. Why is this uncomfortable? It's nothing to do with a debate. Why are you doing this, Mohamed?

Why not? Because it's pointless. If you didn't want to do a debate, don't agree to do it. What's wrong with you? Are you not looking at me again? You're crying. Are you crying? No tears in my eyes.

Is there any point in tune? The events of the past year have shatter stability in the Middle East. Israel's war on Hamas provoked. by the atrocities of October the 7th, have led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians. Prime Minister Netanyahu promised total victory and the complete destruction of Hamas. But one year on, Hamas is still firing rockets at Tel Aviv.

One year on, 97 hostages remain in Hamas captivity. Very clearly, Israel's not fulfilled a stated aims in this war, and it continues to add new ones. It's now a war in Lebanon and on the precipice of a direct conflict with Iran. It has no plausible exit strategy in Gaza, where millions live in grief and under occupation. But it has, without question, decimated Iran's client militias. Hasbolo, the jewel in Iran's crown, has been decapitated.

The question is whether that makes the Middle East and the world a safer or a more dangerous place. Can it really be said that Israel is winning this war? How big will this war get? And how much collateral damage and suffering? Can the world tolerate before enough is enough? This debate will examine the legality, the morality, and the sustainability of the conflicts in the Middle East.

Joining me are two of our most passionate advocates for their cause, the Muslim philosopher scholar and YouTuber Mohamed Hijab, and the lawyer and author Alan Dershowitz. Well, welcome to both of you. Mohamed, you've been on twice before, Alan, many times. What I'd like this to be is a civilized debate between two people with very strong opinions about this, obviously very different opinions,

where we try and reach potentially some, points of agreement. Because so often with these debates, that seems almost impossible. Descends into a shouting match. Everyone gets ad hominem. Everyone digs ever deeper into their trench, their tribe, and we don't get anything constructive out of it. I think you guys are smart enough to potentially, through spirited and passionate debate, agree about some stuff. And that is surely the first basis for how any of this eventually gets resolved. So let's hope for the best. the worst and hope for the best, as they say. Alan Dershwis, let me start with you.

Israel, it seems to me, in the last three weeks, have massively ramped up their military offensive in a way that says to me that Prime Minister Netanyahu and his cabinet sent an opportunity to completely, in their eyes, sort out the Middle East problem once and for all with Iran at the center of that problem. Is that how you see this?

Yes, I do. I see Iran as the head of the octopus, sending out its tentacles through the Houthis, through Hamas, through Hezbollah. The tragedy, as we celebrate, celebrates a bad word, commemorate October 7th, is that if Sinwa and Hamas had the opportunity to do it again, knowing everything that followed, knowing all the deaths and disasters in God, and in Lebanon, I think Hamas would do it again, would do October 7th again, because they think they've won. They've turned college and university students against Israel. They have solidified the United Nations opposition to Israel. They've divided Americans, particularly the Republican administrations in the past from the current Democratic administration. So

Hamas cannot be allowed to have a victory. on growing out of October 7th any more than ISIS should have been allowed to have a victory going out of 9-11. So I think the answer is, yes, a military defeat for Iran and its surrogates and a peace process between Israel and Saudi Arabia with steps taken toward the recognition of a two-state solution, which is the only reasonable solution that will solve. the problem. But remember that October 7th was stimulated by the desire to prevent Israel and Saudi Arabia from creating a peace process following up from the Abraham Accords. And unless

that peace process continues, and unless Hamas is told, no, you failed, the world will not reward you for this, we're just going to see a continuation of the bloodshed in the Middle East, which does not serve the interests of the Palestinians, nor the Israeli people. Okay, Muhammad Hijab, your response to that. Well, first of all, I would like to say that wherever we see suffering, wherever we see death and destruction, especially of young people, assault, sexual assault,

we see Dershowitz to the rescue, the former defense attorney of Jeffrey Epstein, a man himself accused of rape. I knew we would get to that. I didn't give you permission to interrupt me. I didn't give you permission to interrupt me. I stayed quiet when you were talking. I was saying you were talking.

I stayed quiet when you were talking. Here's what I would say. I didn't give you permission. Listen, Mohammed, attacking a lawyer to defending people is a stupid argument. Well, I'm not making an argument yet. Well, you're just using that. I'm not making an argument.

I'm not going to attack straight off the top. Has he got leverage on you? No, he's a brilliant lawyer. You saw your picture with Maxwell. He's got leverage, John, you know. He's a brilliant lawyer. Are you saying that because he's got leverage, Johnny? I make Giley Maxwell for five minutes at a book launch.

You look very happy with her. Well, I didn't know anything about her at the time. You were very happy with her. She was the daughter of the man that... We're talking about the biggest sexual scandal in the last hundred years. Who I never met Jeffrey Epstein or ever knew him. Alan Dershowitz was wrongly accused of various things in relation to Jeffrey Othew. Because they've all been...

Why are you turning him? They all turned out to be nonsense. He won a court case about it. Why are you not looking at me when I'm speaking to you? Well, I can turn to you, but there are three of us involved in this. Yeah, you're speaking to me, so I'm looking at this. Let me make things clear. I never met Jeffrey Epstein.

I made Gillian Maxwell for five minutes. You look very happy in that picture. Okay, if you want to use that as an ad hominem attack on me, why are you defending him? Hang on, a picture taken in 2013. He spoke for three minutes, I spoke for 20 seconds. I'm defending him because your first attack on him is to attack him as a lawyer because he defends bad people.

That's fine. Here's a little secret for you, Muhammad. All lawyers do that. No, hold on, we're not talking about bad people. We're also defended. I've also defended me. I've had enough. You've had enough speaking.

I'm talking about a person who, after the fact, said that he was proud to defend him, after the allegations come out. You still want to do you, do you condemn, do you condemn it? Do you condemn, uh, Dershowitz? For what? For defending Epstein. I have defended, I have defended, I have defended some of the best, not for me to defend him for the world.

I did, Alan, you defend yourself. I know, why should he defend himself? I can defend himself. Alan can defend himself. Well, let me speak for more than 20 seconds. I haven't even made my point yet. I helped to defend Nelson Mandela. To defend...

It's a two-on-one-one, is it? I've helped to defend some of the finest people in the world, and I've also helped to defend some of the worst. I never justified. He was not proud of defending John Lennon in the same way as he announced that he was proud of defending Epstein. I am proud of my role. This has got to do with the fact that this man, the credibility of this man's on the line. He defends Israel on the one hand.

And on the other hand, he defends Epstein. I think the public should know this. Do you want me to play the clips... He's proud of it. Mohammed, do you want me to play the clips of you? You don't know. I don't know. Saying some very inflammatory things.

You want me to? Why are you not looking at me? Because I'm looking at the three of us. I'm right here. You can turn to me. And the viewers see me and you look at me, man to man. Fine.

Look at me, man, to man. Look at my eyes. It's called an aesthetic thing for videos. Okay. Now, the first thing I wanted to say was that this man's credibility is something which is shocking that it's even, we're even entertaining.

What do you base on? On the fact that he actually defended Epstein and after the fact, he said he was proud of it. He was in Epstein's vicinity. He was in Epstein's vicinity. He had a massage in his vicinity. This is the kind of person that we're having on the show defending Israel.

That's the first thing I want to say. The second thing is, in the first interaction where me and you were talking about October the 7th, we spent about three or four minutes actually talking about sexual assault allegations, if you remember that. And actually here, what we have is

Israeli soldiers like Mir from Unit 100, and that's on The Guardian, it's on Sky News, it's on all these kinds of platforms, coming out, and there's videographic evidence of him raping another man, I haven't heard condemnation from you,

and I don't expect to hear it from him who defended Epstein. This shows you the bias, the bias in the coverage for a year, where we know the ICJ have said that there's a plausible genocide. You haven't been watching my show. I think I have.

No, you haven't. Have you spoken about me? You're talking complete bullshit. Okay, tell me why. Right? Tell me why. Because, A, I did condemn what you've just talked about in a previous debate.

Good. Good. Derswitz, do you condemn it? Yes. of course. I condemn any rape of anybody in any assault on anybody who's in captivity. And you also condemn the right of rape, the right of rape protest that took place in Israel. And do you acknowledge that there's a problem in Israel with this? If any rape took place, they will be investigated, they will be fully investigated,

they will be court-martial. And if anybody is convicted of that, they deserve their punishment. Do you acknowledge that there's a problem in the race? What about the problem with Hamas, raping women? I have no compunction. I have no compunction. Condemning Hamas for anything that they've done. You've said that you've asked me before, and I've told you before. I have no moral scruple.

Neither do the majority of the Muslim world. I tell you now, anything that Hamas has done, we have condemned in the first instance. But we're not seeing the same level of coverage with Hamas as we are seeing with these people that are shoving rods of people's ass and raping people on videographic evidence. And you have 3,000 people. You've got 3,000 people and essentially, captivity, according to Human Rights Watch and Betz Helem, who are prisoners of war of Israel, and we are spending a fraction of the time speaking about them as compared to speaking about

the hostages. This shows you the inherent bias. Well, there's no comparison. There's no comparison between innocent hostages who did nothing wrong and people who are being charged with criminal offenses. They're not charged with criminal offenses. They're not charged with criminal offenses. They're not charged with criminal offenses. You can't compare. They are arrested without charge. You can't compare a three-year-old baby. They're not charged with criminal offenses. Don't shout over each other.

We can't hear the answer. He's lying to the public. Allow him to respond. Go ahead. To somebody who's a member of Hamas. Say that again. Sorry, Adam, we couldn't hear you because he was shouting. I was shouting.

I was shouting. He says the 3,000. Alan, he says the 3-year-old baby. Alan, just to be clear, he said the 3,000 people he's talking about were all arrested without charge, and therefore they've not been charged with crimes. Your response to that? Well, if they've not,

were, they should be released. Nobody should be arrested without a charge. If you're held for a security reason. I will say what I want. It's uncensored. Good boy. Let me finish, please. Let me make my point. Can I make my point? Can I make my point? Let me make my point. Great Britain can find tens of thousands

of people without charges during the Second World War. Two wrongs don't make a right. Two wrongs don't make a right. I was strongly opposed. Let's talk about what Hitler done. Let's talk about what Hitler done. Let me make my point. I'm opposed to that. I wrote an article against administrative detention. But you can't compare that, no matter how bad it is. You can't compare it to three-year-olds being kidnapped to people being raped and murdered.

You can't compare what happened on October 7th to what Israel has done in terms of security prisoners. There's no comparison at all. And stop interrupting me, please. That's 30 times more. Look, if you want us to take you seriously, If you want us to take this coverage seriously, if you want us to take Western media seriously,

then let's, for God's sake, talk about proportionality as your favourite word. We're talking about 30,000 people detained in prisons on the one hand, and 100 people who are hostages. And yet we have managed somehow to spend way more time proportionately. You said 3,000 in a minute. Which one is it? 3,000?

Sorry, 3,000. 3,000. Not 30,000. Get your numbers right if you're going to make that category. Okay, it was, I misspoke. Exaggerated 10 times. Not a problem. He spoke about Iran. Let me ask you a question about it. Let me ask the questions. Sure, go ahead.

And you guys try and debate it. At the moment, Alan Dershowitz is being very civilized in the way he's debated. I'm sure he's going to say that. You're just making... He might have leverage on you. He might have leverage on you. He's your friend. No one can understand it when you shout at him before. I know Alan well. Oh, you know him well. I respect him very much. Oh, yes, you do. He's one of America's top lawyers. His top lawyers. Yeah. He is. Uh-huh. And you're an unbiased person here on sent him. An unbiased person about Alan Dershwitz. Why? Does he have leverage on you, Piers, Morgan? There's no leverage on me, no.

You've got a picture with Maxwell. Did you go to the island? No, I've never been to the island. I've never met Geoffrey Epps. Be honest. I never spent more than five minutes with Gilles. Be honest. I've answered you.

So what part of that was to your... Do you condemn him being on the island? He's your good friend. You can ask him... No, I'm asking you condemn him. He had a massage. He said he didn't take his shorts off. Do you know what?

None of those have got anything to do with Israel. He said he didn't take his shorts off when he was getting a massage. Please, please. Why is this uncomfortable? It's nothing to do with a debate. He's just taking shorts off, but he's got his pants down now, hasn't he? Can you stop it? Why?

Why? He defended one of the most obnoxious people in the last hundred years. Why should I stop it? Actually, what is going on right now in the Middle East is incredibly important. Yes, and you have this man who's... You are trivialising that... If you didn't want to do a debate, don't agree to do it. Who said, I'm not going to do a debate?

I'm saying this person who's defending Israel... ...a stupid ad hominem attacks. It's pathetic. Oh, okay. All right. Is your good friend, do you want to defend him so much? What are you talking about? You're defending him?

You're defending him. You're defending a monster. A pervert, an old pervert. He's not a pervert or a monster. Why is he not? He knew Epstein and for us, there's good influence. Why are you doing this, Mahamud? Why not? Because it's pointless. You may get a few clicks on. You might get a few clicks on it. So what? It's not, it's not. Ask your questions. Let me be very clear. It's not pointless. He just called me a pervert. He will be sued now for defamation. And we will be able to resolve this in a court of law. I guarantee you that he will be sued for calling me a pervert. The woman who falsely accused me has now withdrawn her accusation.

Sure. I've got my own defamation cases. I know the law very well here. You can't threaten me. You can't threaten me. You can't threaten me. I know the law very well. I consider you to be a pervert will result in a defamation lawsuit.

Sure. In an American court and in a British court. I assure you of that. I believe you are an old pervert. Why don't we move on to the debate? You're an old pervert. Let's move on to Israel. You're not a pervert.

It's really, this is, is there any point considering this? Do you want to throw the towel? No, is it, what's the point? Do you want to throw the towel? Do you want to go to the towel? You were not booked to talk about this. Do you want to give up? Do you want to?

Let's debate the issues. Let's talk about the issues. Let's talk about Iran. Let's talk about Iran. Oh, fantastic. Okay. Do you support Iran? Okay, well, let me answer your question.

Iran was attacked on April 1st. Right? It was attacked. The embassy of Iran was attacked in Syria by Israel. After that, on the first occasion, they then sent missiles and drones, correct? Now, my question to you is, does Iran have a right to defend itself? And if so, what is a proportionate response? Because, you see, I've been having a moral quandary about the issue, Pierce Morgan.

What's a proportionate response for Iran? I tell you what I think about Iran. I think Iran is an unbelievably nefarious place, which has been fueling Hamas, the Houthis, Hesbola, for many years, with a joint. a joint ideology that they want to eradicate Israel in any way they can. So I think Iran is one of the most despicable regimes in the world. I also think that right now

the Iranian regime is in serious danger. You look completely discombobulated. What do you mean? You look disheveled. I'm telling you what they think of Iran. I'm asking you, do they have a right to defend themselves? Do you think they have a right to defend themselves? Both of you can answer the question.

Do they have a right to defend? They were attacked. The sovereign nation was attacked. My question is, does it have a right to defend it? Iran has been fueling an attack on Israel now for what, 40 years? I've been having a moral quandary. What? I've been having a moral quandary about Iran. Have you?

Yeah, moral quandary, yes. Moral quandary, I don't know. Do they have a right to defend themselves? And if so, what is the proportionate response? You're supporting Iran, to be clear? I'm asking you, no, I'm not supporting Iran. I'm not supporting. I'm antithetical to many of these organizations for my own purposes.

But my question is you... Do you support the Iranian regime? Not unconditionally, but I support their right. What conditions do you agree with them about? Their right to defend themselves? Do you believe they have a right to defend themselves? No, you think they're a terrorist... Oh, so they don't have a right to defend themselves.

Iran does not have a right to defend itself. They do, but they're not the ones. So what is proportionate response? They're not the ones. What's a proportionate response? Okay. No, I ask, you. You asked this question to the people.

You're just going to keep talking. Can I answer it? What's a proportionate response? The proportionate response to Iran is to stop them trying to destroy Israel through their proxies, says Bola, the Houthis, and Hamas. What are they been trying to do for many years? What is a proportionate response of Iran after their embassy was smashed and destroyed in Syria and 16 people were killed. What's a proportionate response?

What about the proportionate response to everything Iran's done? Which is against a Vienna conventions? What about the response to everything Iran has been doing? Who did they kill? Who did this? They never killed anybody, Iran? Who did they, which? Excuse me, hold on. Which, excuse me, hold on. Which Israeli civilian have Iran successfully targeted? Give me one name, please.

You don't think Iran's due response of what any Israeli civilian dying? I'm asking you to. What about the way they funded Hamas? You can both. I can give you some names in Israel. Iran in particular, others are about Hamas. We've spoken about Hamas at length. I can do it through their specific names. We're talking about Iran. It's old news.

You're talking about Hamas. Let me respond. Yes, go ahead. Who did they successfully talk? Well, let me respond. Yeah, please, yeah. The Iranians have been found by an Argentine court to have been guilty of killing hundreds of Israeli and Jewish people in Buenos Aires.

They killed Marines through Hezbollah. They were combatants. But the attack on the Israeli cultural center, the attack on the Israeli cultural center, the attack on the Israeli. the embassy, let me finish, where attacks, according to the Argentinian judicial proceedings, attacks on Israel, entitling Israel to engage in response. Now, let me explain what proportionality means, because you're missing the point. Proportionality doesn't require that a country that's attacked back in proportion.

Proportionality only means that if you're going to attack a mixed target that has civilians and combatants, the ratio of civilians to combatants must be proportional to the military value of the target. And that's what Israel has been trying to do. But Iran has killed thousands and thousands of Israeli and Jewish civilians over the years. So to defend somehow Iran and saying that they were innocent,

even the people who were killed, even the people who were killed in the embassy, what? were combatants who were legitimately killed as combatants. What's an acceptable ratio for you? So Iran has no right of self-defense against that. Israel was completely entitled to kill. Let me answer what you've just said. Israel was entitled to kill any combatant that was hiding in an embassy building.

Hold on, hold on, hold on. You've just conflated two things. You've spoken about the Argentinian case, which there is not actual independent international investigation on, number one. And then you've spoken about, we speak about 1st of April. Was that response to Argentina? It was not a response to Argentina.

On the 1st of April, they bombed the Iranian embassy in Syria. They did not do so. They said that is a military base and that we're attacking. But we all know that in this country, for example, every single embassy has military attaches. They have military attaches. So if you go to the U.S. embassy here in London, they have armed officers,

does that make it a viable target? Does it make the US embassy a viable target? The Russian embassy a viable target. This is clearly against the UN Convention. It's against the Vienna Convention. It's not. You cannot attack. You cannot attack.

You cannot attack an embassy of another nation in another sovereign land. You cannot do that. So let me respond. Let me respond to that. Hold on. Let me respond to that. Let me respond.

It's been pre-eating. It was not an embassy. It was an ancillary building being used as a military center to plan attacks against Israel. They used the pretext of it being a building somehow attached to an embassy. The evidence is very clear. And be happy to have them bring a lawsuit and see if it can be resolved in a court of law. But Israel was entitled to regard who was killed. The people who were killed were military people who were people who were.

planning attacks on Israel using an annex to a building to do it. Did that justify 3,000 rockets being sent into Israel? Hold on. And then 180 ballistic missiles being sent into Israel? Have you made your point? Okay. The response is as follows. First of all, 16 people were killed officially.

And of them, there were two civilians that were killed. So what you're saying is only military targets is flatly false, squarely false. Bare face lie. You are a liar. you were a liar when you were defending Epstein. That's number one. Number two is when you say that, okay, that was a response, when Iran then on the 14th of April responded with missiles, once again, how many casualties were there? How many casualties were there? Zero. Just like there was zero casualties when they responded recently in October. Not one person died except for one Palestinian, ironically enough,

that was apparently killed in the October one. But in the April one, no one died. It was precise strikes at military bases. Number two, you speak about this being a base. As I say now, if you look at Collins' dictionary right now, there's two aspects of what is a military base, vernacularly speaking. Number one is that there has to be weapons in that place, and number two, that there has to be training of soldiers. This is usually understood as what is a military base.

That's just made up. Those are made up stories. There's no truth to that at all. What's made up? What's made up? That's no truth to that. Let him respond. I haven't finished my point. I haven't finished my point there.

The fact that you need weapons. No, no, the fact that you need weapons for it to be a military base. Let me finish what I'm saying. That's just made up. You don't need weapons to have a military base. It can be a command center where they're planning attacks. Let me finish. Let's just made up.

Let me finish. If we take this... The more you say, the happier I am. Okay. What I'm saying to you is that if you look at almost every Western government embassy in the West and outside of the West, they have military attaches. You can fact check this. You can go online.

you will see in the U.S. embassy, in the French embassy, in the British embassy, military guards, people there that have their own weapons and guns. So, according to you, that would be a military base. See, are they then legitimate targets? No, no. What happened in this case was they used an annex of a building as a military base. Can we then convene the Vienna agreements? Can we then? You don't know what you're talking about. You have no knowledge of international law or diplomacy law, the law. You haven't got one peer-reviewed, you don't have one peer-reviewed work on international law.

And Jimmy Carter, the former U.S. president, said, you have no knowledge of Palestine. Don't speak to me about Palestine issues. Jimmy Carter, a former president of the United States, as you acknowledged, you've written it in your book. He says that you have no knowledge of the Palestine issue. Jimmy Carter said that. Well, you want to hear something? It wasn't my word. In fact, it was in the back.

It was in the back. It was the best cover of my books. That's what you have knowledge of. I've written 13 books. Did you touch? I've written 13 books on Israel. Did you touch Virginia? Some of which have been...

Did you touch her? Did you touch that woman? Never heard of her, never met her, never met her. Don't lie. Don't lie to me. Did you touch that woman or not? I'm telling you, I never met her, and she acknowledged in writing, under oath that she may have no knowledge of this case, do you?

I wouldn't be interminated. Why are you? Because he won a case. It was proven to be lies. I'm asking him a question. Why are you doing this? I'm asking him a question. This is not about Israel.

This is the credibility of the individual. What you're doing is inviting a law suit from Anna, which you will get it. I'm ready for it. You are? Really? I've got four defamation cases, all of which have your friend Douglas Murray, I'm taking him to court. Well, good luck taking on Anna on this is all I would say to you. I'm ready for him.

Oh, you, you love him, don't you? No, it's just one case. I just wonder what he has. I just wonder what leverage he has. Does he have any leverage on you? God, it's pathetic, man. I don't know. Why do you keep, why do you keep the defending?

He's now accusing me. He's a monster. He's a monster. He's a monster. This man is a monster. Well, why debate then? Because I don't mind debating monsters. Just like you don't mind debating monsters.

We have that in common. Do you want to finish a debate about the bigger picture or not? I'm speaking about it. You guys are the ones rattled. I'm not rattled. No, what was rattled? We think it's pathetic because you don't understand what you're talking about. Really?

That's just an assertion, really, isn't it? No, you're just trying to get your clicks on X and that's fine. There's not what you do. Is anything wrong with that? You know what? Trying to debate these shoes. You always brag about it, my friend. You brag about it myself.

So we've got a million views, two million views. You talk about it all the time. Alan, let me ask you something, which is about what Israel is doing. At the heart of it, if you take the belief that Iran is the main target here, a lot of Israelis believe that Iran is really rattled and that Israel has a genuine opportunity to topple this regime. Do you think that is a likely eventuality? Is it a thing that Israel should be pushing to do?

I think if Israel has the military capacity to destroy Iran's nuclear abilities to create a nuclear arsenal and can do it with minimum civilian casualties, the way it did it in Iraq and the way it did it in Syria, it ought to do that. But if it risks a wider war, then obviously it has to take into account other considerations and the opinions of the United States. So it's largely a military question. Israel certainly has the right to destroy Iran's nuclear capacity. Rafsanjani, the former president of Iran, said if Iran developed nuclear weapons, they would use them against Israel, kill three million Israelis. Israel's a one bomb state. That would be the end of Israel. And even if Israel retaliated and killed 10 million Muslims in Tehran, the tradeoff would be worth it.

No country should ever accept that kind of a threat. The United States wouldn't. They didn't in the Cuban missile crisis, and Israel shouldn't as well. But it's a military decision, and I'm not competent to resolve whether Israel has the capacity to destroy Iran's nuclear ability without too many civilian casualties. That's a military question. Mohamed, do you think Hezbollah are terrorists or freedom fighters? I have an antithetical view to Hezbollah, and that's been well documented in the record.

What's your view? I don't know. Well, I tell you one thing. I'm not going to be baited into a sectarian debate. Ask you if you comment about Hezbollah. Sure. I don't necessarily, I have an antithetical view to Hezbollah. However, on this case, what I mean by that is that I don't necessarily support them in any way, shape, or form. How do you categorize them?

I categorize Hezbollah in their response to Israel as justified in that response. And in the response for Assad in Syria against fellow Abrams? Yeah, well, you and I both know that I have an antithetical view. I don't think that they were on the right side of history then. I do think they were acting in there. So they were terrorists then? Well, I mean, it depends on how I think the word terrorism is a social construct. What were they when they fought for Assad against Arabs?

Oppressive, and that's on the record. There's no doubt about it. You can call whatever you want. So they were all the things that you would say Israel is? When they were doing the thing with Bashar al-Assad, that is, of course, my view. But there are only that thing when they're doing that. When they're attacking Israel, that's fine. When they attacked Israel and when they're attacking Arabs on behalf of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

That shows consistency. No, hang on. Doesn't that show consistency? No. Why not? It doesn't show consistency. It shows consistency. The inconsistency is that you think that that.

was bad, but when they're attacking Israel, that's fine. Let's respond. On the 8th of October, you mentioned many times before in your interviews that they attacked Israel. They attacked Israel, right? They did. That's not true. They attacked the Shiba Farms, which is occupied territory. Which Israel has claimed as its own since 1997.

Wait a minute, help. Which Israel has claimed as its own since 1967. See, this shows your lack of knowledge on the matter. It does. What part of what I just said is not true? They claimed it as their own since 67. Hold on. This is occupied territory.

according to the UN, according to the U.S., it's occupied. I just said Israel have claimed it as a... So what? They can claim, I can claim why. ISIS have made many claims. So given it, given Israel... Whatever Israel claims is true. Is that what we are meant to believe here? Hizbollah has fired beyond the Shiba farms.

Let me explain. The Shiba farms... Hold on, hold on. Israel. Hold on, Derschwitz. Derswitz. I haven't finished yet. Dershwitz. Derswitz, I haven't finished yet. On the 8th of...

You talked about 8th of October. When they fired on the 8th of October, they fired, and I... you can go ahead and bring evidence that they fight anywhere other than the Shiba farms. They fight on the Shiba farms. After that, there was response from Israel. And then after that, because there was response of Israel,

into Lebanon, then Hezbollah attacked the northern part of Israel. This is what happened. And that is justified according to international law. So on this issue, you will not find differences between Sunnis and Shias. You will not find differences in us. We are all united in the hatred of the Zionist entity.

All right, Alan, your response to that. Well, Hezbollah has been firing rockets at Israel for years and years under the auspices of Iran. Israel has fought back and responded. And Nasrallah has called for all the Jews of the world to be brought together into Israel so that they can be taken care of at the same time in the way that Hitler took care of the Jews of Europe. This is a genocidal claim by... Nasrallah on behalf of Hezbollah and certainly Israel had the right to respond to Hezbollah as they did. And, you know, you can quarrel with particular responses as you can quarrel with particular responses of any country.

What the United States did after 9-11 was seen by many as an overreaction. Countries react when their civilians are murdered the way they were on 9-11 and the way they were on October 7th. And Israel had the right to respond. the United States and the world said so. And Hamas could end all the suffering in Gaza instantaneously by simply releasing the hostages and putting down their arms and calling for a genuine peace rather than a tactical ceasefire that just allows them to rearm and repeat October 7th.

Remember they said they would repeat October 7th over and over and over and over again. And as Eli Weasel once said, always believe the threats of your enemies more than the promises of your friends. And so Israel has to act on the assumption that Hamas is going to try to do this again and again. Okay, Mohammed, you've said so far, as I'm wrong, you don't support Amas, you don't support Hezbollah.

So there's probably more bits of agreement here with Alan Dershowitz of me than you might like to admit if you don't support those two groups. Okay, so I don't see what that's got to do with anything. We were talking about observation. We were talking about October. Instead of the start, I wanted to fight. find points of agreement. Can we all agree

that Hamas and Hezbollah are a bad thing? I can agree that white man, the white man, the Western man has tried to use social constructs like terrorism to try and absolve themselves from all the things that they... What would you call them? Hamas

and Hezbollah? Well, I mean, just like any human being, just like any human being, they can sometimes be oppressive and they can sometimes be on the right side of history. Most human beings did not do what Hamas did not over the cell. in design this entity, they do. And they do worse than that.

They don't. Israel's never committed an atrocity on that scale. On what scale? On that scale. Explain. What scale? Killing 1,200 people. They've killed 40,000.

Sorry, in one day, massive, any Israelis that could get their hands on, kidnapping children, kidnapping Holocaust survivors, raping and abusing women, they're heading people. Oh, you don't think that happened, do you?

Well, hold on. You just said raping and abusing. We just started to show with an admission that there's a problem in Israeli society that there was... I'm talking about Hamas. Yeah, but you just said Israel doesn't do it. We both condemned what you talked about earlier in relation to Israel.

So why are you saying Israel don't do that? What's wrong with you? I didn't say that. You just said that now. No, I didn't. You said Israel doesn't do and then you just listed three or four things and that was one of the things that you just listed. No, I said Israel had never... Am I speaking of foreign tongue? Sorry, listen to what I'm saying. I said Israel never perpetrated an atrocity on that scale. Okay. On the 23rd...

Against the people... How many... How many... They never have. Wait, hold on. How many... How many civilians died in October the 7th? Civilians about 800. Oh, sure. But hang on.

But nearly 7,000 more were wounded. Sure, sure. 7,000 more were wounded. What happened on the 23rd of September? 7,000. Okay, sure. Think about that number. Okay, no problem.

That's the scale of people who were attacked on that day. Are we talking over each other? It's two on one. Eight thousand people were attacked. No problem. On the 23rd... One of the most horrendous terror attacks... Is this going to be a monologue or is it a dialogue?

I'm telling you some facts. I know the fact. I'm not like it, but I'm telling you them. Okay, I'm telling you on the 23rd of September, Israel attacked Lebanon. How many people died? How many civilians died? According to the Lebanese health, the Ministry of Health. I believe it's about 2000 was the last recorded number I saw.

In one day. Including combatants, including many combatants. No, no, on the 23rd, how many? How many? Why don't we have a year commemorating the 23rd of, a year commemorating the 23rd of September, since we're having a year commemorating the 7th of October and about 600 people died, 650 people, civilians died on that day.

That's quite close, isn't it? We don't know those civilians. 8,000. 8,000 people react. We're not talking about attack, we're talking about dead. What's wrong with you? Are you not looking at me again? You're crying. Are you crying?

Because the viewers are seeing the three of us together. I see that there's tears in your eyes. There are no tears in my eyes. What's going on? There's a slight sense of exasperation. Sure, there should be. because you are employing... What do you think I am?

I think you said it yourself with your interview with Mejadiyahasan. I think you're just biased. You talked about tribes. Who am I biased against? You're biased against anything anti-Western, clearly. You said... What a ridiculous statement?

Because you said it yourself. You said the reason why you have such and such a view with Russia and Ukraine... Did you guys bias when I led the media campaign against the Iraq war? No, I think you were... Was I... Was I?

Oh, I was good then, because you agree with me. Sure, because you're on the side of truth. Just like I could say, Hezbollah was not on the side of truth in 2013, but they're on the side of truth today. I can say this. And even though they're Muslims just like me, just like I can say that Hamas is wrong for doing such and such a thing, but they're right on such and such a thing.

I can say all these things. You should be able to do the same thing. What have Amaz's been right about? Resisting, because they're occupied territory. If they had just attacked, if they had just attacked, if they had just attacked. They were given billions of dollars in 2005. Okay.

When they took charge of the palace? Have they got a right to defend them? Hang on. Against military targets. When they took charge of the Palestinian people and had power from 2005, they got billions of dollars. And what they did with that money was spend it on tunnels, which they built around civilians.

So what? So that they could then launch a horrendous terror attack. And they knew when Israel came after... We're talking about the terror attack. Hang on. When Israel then came after them after October the 7th, they knew because they'd embedded themselves on the tunnels around civilians that a lot of Palestinians would get slaughtered in the process.

My question is... Exactly what's happening. My question, too, does Palestine have a right to defend itself? Does Hamas have a right to defend itself exclusively against military? Everybody has the right to defend themselves. So Hamas can do that, against military targets. What they did not tell us to self-defense. It was a terror attack.

Hold on. I'm not talking. I'm not talking about. That's not my question. Had the right to result up September. We both agreed that the civilian death is something which we both condemn. Yeah? We're talking about areas of agreement.

You just said it yourself. I'm saying now, do you agree that Hamas has the right because they're an occupied territory, Gaza is an occupied territory. According to the UK, by the way, they're an occupied terrorism because it's effective military control. According to the UK... They ended their occupation at 2005.

No, no, hold on. You're meant to be intelligent. You're meant to know this fact. According to the UK government, according to the US government, and you can check it up online. And according to the UN, all three organizations, Gaza is an occupied territory

because they have control over the borders, they have control of the population. But I said this many times... Sure, you agree with it. You said it recently. No, I said it. Let me give you the facts. Let me give you the facts, please.

Can I give you the facts? Yes, you can respond. Let me give you the facts. Okay, the facts are in 2005. I was there in Israel when the Israeli government... Are you sure you were not in Epstein's house? Uprooted every single civilian, every single dead person who was buried there. Not a single soldier, not a single policeman was in Gaza.

Gaza could have become the most beautiful spot on the Mediterranean, Singapore and the Mediterranean. Then Hamas engaged in a military coup in which they murdered members of the Palestinian Authority, took over Gaza, and started sending rockets into Israel. It was only then that Israel began to control the borders and make sure that tunnels couldn't be built. They failed in that respect, that weapons couldn't be brought in. Gaza was not an occupied territory. It was a free territory between 2005 in the time that Hamas took over.

And so... So is it occupied now or not? Is occupied now, according to you, is occupied now or not? Is Gaza an occupied territory right now or is it not? He's not answering my question. It's not an occupied territory? It's not, okay. Is it an occupied territory according to the UN, the UK and the US?

Yes or no? It's a factual statement. Not the US. The US doesn't agree with that. No, it doesn't agree with that. That's why you've had to plagiarize books in order to make your case from John Peters. Wait, wait. What are you saying again?

Say it again. You've had to plagiarize books because you're, you're... clearly your knowledge on this issue. Now we have another count. Now we have another count. Now we have another count. The West Bank and Eastern Europe are an occupied territory. Wait a minute.

We have another count in the lawsuit against you. You've accused me of plagiarism, even though Harvard University conducted a thorough and complete study. Just totally vindicated me. If you're going to do something, don't do it. I believe you're, according to a normal woman, Finkelstein, who then lost tenure for making a full charge against me of plagiarism. But you're plagiarized John Peters's book.

Count two. No problem. According to Norman Finkelstein, who debated you on democracy now, you plagiarized that book, and he showed you evidence in that debate. That's one thing. The second thing is, it's an...

Harvard University did a thorough study, found out that Finkelstein has a matter. As a result, he lost his position as a professor, but you've accused me of plagiarism. Count two in the civil... I'm ready, I'm ready, I'm ready.

I'm ready. I'm ready. I'm ready. I'm ready. Look, I'm ready. I'm ready. I know defamation. laws in this country. You clearly don't. Yes, I do, because I've had four cases. I've had four cases.

And moreover, and I've been the person taking the other person to court, including your good friend Douglas Murray, which I've got two cases against him. But what I'll tell you is that you probably know nothing about defamation law, just like you have nothing, no information, no knowledge, no peer-reviewed journal on international law. You're completely dumb on these issues. Because if you're saying to me... I've written 55 books, many of them prize-winning books. You're not on this issue.

All kinds of awards. Are you an authority in international law? And I have one defamation cases. Are you a scholarly authority in the First Amendment? We're going around the hazard. Alan, let me ask you this. One of the many problems I have with what Israel's been doing in terms of a scale of what has been doing, but also what has been going on on the West Bank with the increased settlements, very aggressive expansion settlements, I think is completely outrageous.

I agree. But once you said we've agreed. Can we all agree on that? Yeah, we can. Well, Alan's agreed on that. Israel's policies on the West Bank. I think Israel should continue a military occupation of the West Bank, just like I thought it should have continued a military occupation of Gaza. But I'm opposed and have been opposed to civilian settlements since 1967. And I'd like to see them ended in a process that

leads to a two-state solution. By the way, I'm curious whether my fellow guest here supports the right Israel to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people alongside a Palestinian state. Do you agree that Israel has the right to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people? Yes or no? I think it's a viable option. In 2002, in 2002, not just Hamas agreed to this, by the way, what's called the Arab Initiative. No, they didn't. Hold on, let me.

You've just asked me a question. You've asked me a question. You can check me. You can fact check me. In 2002, there was something called the Arab Convention. and in fact Iran itself was part of it, even though it's not an Arab country, but it was part of the 2002 Arab Convention,

and they both said, so long as Israel does not occupy Gaza, it does not occupy the Golan Heights, and it does not occupy the West Bank, which you just advocated for, then there can be a two-state solution. Even Hamas, Hezbollah mentioned the same thing. No, that's totally false.

Hasbullah mentioned this point. It's totally false. Hezbollah mentioned this, and Iran agreed with it. And members of the IOC agreed with it. Hold on. Members of the IOC. recently recognized Israel's right to exist? Has Iran recognized Israel's right to exist? Now. I'm not

talking about 10 years ago. Talking about now. Does Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran recognize Israel's right to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people? Let me ask you, the other thing that I find really difficult. And Thomas Freeman wrote a very good column for the New York Times today, which I read just before we started this, basically saying that Israel seems to have no plan for what happens after this. And in fact, the UAE, who've normalized relations with Israel, has already offered to go into Gaza at the end of this war in Gaza and to help build a coalition to rebuild Gaza

and get the people back on track. But Netanyahu is refusing to countenance that. He's refusing to countenance the idea of a two-state solution. You know, I've said for a while, I think Netanyahu is becoming a massive problem in this, and it's also hard, as Thomas Freeman said, to avoid the conclusion that Netanyahu is acting in self-interest. because the more he's been attacking has bother them,

or popular, he's grown. Secondly, he has these corruption charges awaiting him the moment this is all over. There's no incentive, actually, for him right now to try and bring peace anywhere. And he doesn't really sound like a man who wants to bring peace anywhere. He didn't accept it in 2002.

Let Alan respond to that. Why should he respond twice? Because I'm asking Alan. I would like to see a resolution of Gaza, much like the resolution of Nazi Germany after the Second World War, a Marshall Plan, an effort to rebuild it, an attempt to occupy, what happened in Germany was occupied by four countries, France, Russia, Britain and the United States.

I would like to see a rebuilding of Gaza. I think the people of Gaza are entitled to a Hamas-free government, perhaps even a democratic government. I would like to see that on the West Bank. I am a strong supporter of a two-state solution in which Israel can live in peace. That's all Israel has ever wanted since 1948 when it was attacked in a genocidal war. 1967, 1973. All Israel wants to do is live in peace. And if Israel can live in peace with a Palestinian neighbor that's peaceful,

that would be my dream. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with that as an ambition? Well, he said all Israel wants to do is live in peace. And I think what Israel wants to do is have pieces of other people's land. And as he's just agreed a second ago, and you didn't even challenge him on it,

I find quite incredulous, actually, is that he said, I think that the West Bank should be military occupying, Israel should be military occupying the West Bank. He says that. Absolutely. Now, occupation. Of course, as long as there's belligerency, there should be an occupation. Why are you interrupting me?

I've let you speak for a very long time. I've let you speak for a very long time. Now you're interrupting me. I didn't give you permission to interrupt me. I didn't give you permission to interrupt me in this manner. What I'm saying to you is, according to international law, there cannot be occupation of one sovereign nation over another. It doesn't seem like you care about international law.

Wrong. No, you're just wrong. Okay, just be quiet for a second. United States occupied Japan, United States occupied Germany, Great Britain occupied, Germany. You can have a military occupation as long as there is belligerency that continues. And be quiet for a second. Pretend I'm Epstein, your former friend.

And be quiet and listen to what I have to say. whether the United States of America did it or not is not an indication of the legality of something. It's legal. Occupation is by... Military occupation is legal while belligerency continues. That's the law. Are you going to be quiet?

I've let you speak for about three or four minutes uninterrupted. He asked you two questions, and I've stayed quiet. Why? Are you okay? I'm saying that military occupation of one sovereign nation over another is not something that international law accepts because it contravenes the subject. False. You're false.

So give me the evidence to the contrary. Give me the, I'm waiting for you. It's clear that every country that has had a war has occupied the losing country until belligerency is over. Once belligerency is over, as it was in Germany and Japan, two or three years after the war, the occupation ended. That's what happens. Military occupation is primarily.

occupation is permissible as long as there's belligerency. Civilian occupation is not. If what you're saying is, if what you're saying is true, why have the organs of the United Nations condemned the occupation of Israel? Why? The ICC, the ICJ. They have condemned the

civilian aspects of the occupation. They have condemned the building of settlements, which I also condemn. What you're saying is flaring, you're lying. You're lying just like you had to when you defended the... Stop, Pete. Yes, yes, Epstein.

Why? It's pathetic. Why? Why is it pathetic? Attacking lawyers for defending people is so pathetic. Being proud of it, yeah. Of all the... Being proud of... Wait a minute.

It is the least effective and the most embarrassing. You're defending him too much today. I think Epstein was a disgusting human being. So he's proud of defending him. Do you condemn him for that? I just don't care. I'm talking about Israel. Oh, you don't care now, but why is it disgusting?

I'm talking about Israel and the Middle East. Okay, so let's go back to the point. He was just advocating occupying the West Bank, Israel occupying the West Bank. We got to the point where he was saying that's acceptable. I'm saying that if that's acceptable from an international law perspective, then you would expect the ICC and the ICJ and these organs of the United Nations to agree with him on that assessment.

They have not agreed with him on that assessment. Even the United Kingdom doesn't agree with him on that assessment. The national position on the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank is that it's illegal. It's effective military control. So you don't know what you are talking about. And if that was possible, if it's okay for one nation, a sovereign nation to go ahead and occupy another one, then sorry to say, Russia and Ukraine.

Russia and Ukraine, the same thing can, the same argument can be raised. So what you're saying, what you're saying, your position is that when a country is attacked and it wins the war, it must leave the next day, no country has ever done that. You continue the military occupation until all belligerency ends. Most of all the conventions that were put in place, once all belligerency ends in the Gaza Strip,

the occupation should end. Okay. There should not be civilian settlements, but there should be a military attempt to control beliger. Are you going to let... You ask me your position and then you've... Well, he tried to answer, but once again, you shouted over him so people can't hear the answer. Wait, man, do you agree with him?

What about whether I agree with him or not? Let the man answer your question. Why are you running away from this? Do you agree with the legitimacy of occupation? You ask you a question, then you shout over the answer. Is it okay for one country to occupy another sovereign nation? Is it okay or no? Is it okay?

Yes or no. I'm done. Oh, you give up. Yeah, I'm exhausted. I need a break. You did a cup of tea. Alan, thank you for your patience. I asked you of a civilized debate. You tried despite extreme provocation on a very personal and ill-informed way, you have managed to be civilized. I'm sure you're going to say the same. He's your friend, is a good friend.

I appreciate it. I like Alan. I respect Alan. I'm sure you do. And you, Muhammad, let yourself down today. I can you let yourself down? I'm sure the people that follow you on. He's a monster. He's a cheering you on. He's a monster. No, he's not. No, he's not. Okay. He defended a monster. Do you go that? The only person who's behaved in a monstrous way in this debate. Okay, whatever. That's your opinion. You've given up this debate.

No, I've actually run out of time. We're running two and a half minutes. We've both given up. As you know, you were booked till 5 o'clock, and he's 503. I don't even know that. We've actually run out of time. Fantastic. But we also debate something that you've rarely spent much time on debating

because you were far too busy scoring personal cheap little jibes, ill-informed jives. Whatever. Whatever. You do, what's good for the goose is not good for the gander. And I always think what's people. Good for the goose. You can't handle it. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.

You've got a weak chin. I can take anything, son. You've got a heavy punch by weak jaw. I always think when people get personal and abusive like you have. You and him. Because they can't argue the argument. You're both weak. Because they can't argue the argument. Whatever, whatever, whatever.

People who can't win an argument, the normal way of debating. You've just run away from this debate. That's what you've done. I think you've given up on this debate. I think you've given up on this debate. I think you've given up on this. I think you have both given up because you realize that what you are spewing was false and you were talking about the Pedro attack

and you said about this day it was an act of military brilliance. I'm sure if it happened here in Sainsbury's and a little white boy was killed, you wouldn't say that, would you? You know what? Like I said. You've also let down the Palestinian people. You've also let down the Palestinian people. Oh sure, whatever. I agree. I think you both let yourself down and I think you both given up

and I think the standing 10 count has been done and I think the white towel has been thrown in and I think the people can judge what I've done today. You know what? On that, I think we can all agree. People can watch your performance in the last and they can judge accordingly. And let me tell you, Muhammad, they will. Thank you for being here.

I appreciate you coming in. Alan, thank you very much indeed. Thank you.