Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Benjamin Netanyahu Exclusive

Episode Date: March 26, 2023

On tonight's episode of Piers Morgan Uncensored, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to Piers in a world exclusive interview in the midst of the protests threatening to bring down his government. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8 pm on TalkTV on Sky 522, Virgin Media 606, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and the app.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tonight on Pierce Morgan Unsensored, turmoil in Tel Aviv, as Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces waves of protest that threatened to bring down his government. In a world-exclusive interview, the only one he's given in this crisis, Netanyahu sits down with me to debate whether he and Israel's fragile peace can survive this. From London, this is Pearz Morgan Uncensored. Well, good evening from London. Welcome to Pierce Morgan Unsensored. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is tonight.

fighting for his political life. He's been pushing through laws to give elected governments like his the power to select judges. Critics say it's an attack on democracy that threatens vital checks on his, the Prime Minister's power. More tonight, Netanyahu sensationally suspended those plans for a month. He spoke of a dangerous clash that is endangering Israel's basic unity

and he said he was now prepared to suspend pushing this legislation through Parliament. It's not clear exactly what the new time will be, it may just be a few weeks, in which case it may not be the end of these protests. But it's some kind of breakthrough. There have been massive protests from right across the political divide. Tens of thousands took to the streets in anger on Sunday after Netanyahu fired his defence minister who had called for this kind of pause. Police and soldiers used water cannons on demonstrators gathered outside Netanyahu's home. Today, Israel's biggest airport suspended flights

as workers went on strike, ports, shops, banks, even hospitals are now disrupted. Well, in a moment, my world-exclusive interview with Prime Minister Netanyahu. It's the only one, like I say, is given throughout this turmoil. But first, in the last few hours, the embattled premier has gone on national television in Israel and addressed the people of Israel after 48 hours of total chaos. He was criticized for not speaking to the country all day, but eventually, he did. And here's some of what he said. I am aware of the increased tension

that is happening between the two parts of the country. I am listening to the wants of many citizens to release this tension. But there is one thing that I am not willing to accept. There is one minority that is willing to tear this country into pieces. Well, Prime Minister Netanyahu was in London over the weekend. He held talks at Downing Street with our Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, before flying back to a country in chaos late Saturday night.

Well, just before he got on that plane, I got a call to go and sit down with Benjamin Netanyahu for what turned out to be the only interview he's given during this crisis, a genuine world-exclusive. Prime Minister, you've been elected six times. You're the longest-serving Prime Minister in Israel's history, 15 years. Israel is 75 in a few weeks time. And it ought to be a time, a celebration both for you, for this extraordinary personal achievement and for your country. But instead, Israel is in turmoil at the moment facing what some fear could turn out to be civil war. Fears of a potential third interfaida. Is this your biggest challenge right now? It's a very big challenge, but I think that the prospects for Israel are great.

I think there is a lot of concern about the democratic judicial reform that we want to move ahead with. But people think that it's going to result in a fissure that I don't think will last, because people will see at the end that Israel was a democracy, is a democracy, and will be even a stronger democracy after this democratic reform. So I think you're right. There's a lot of tension right now, and I wish it wasn't so, but I'm quite confident that we'll get over this difficulty, because you know, you have to reform things that get

ossified. And in Israel, what we've had is the ossification of the imbalance between the three branches of government that has to be corrected. This happened in the last 20 years. It's been building up, building up, building up, and people say, we want to correct that. And, you know, people who are used to one thing don't want to correct it so well. Well, this because the critics say it's not reform, it's regime change, effectively, is what you're trying to push through. They say that what this bill will do, it'll arm you, the prime minister, with the power to appoint judges that you want,

and for your government to overturn any judgment of the Supreme Court that you don't like, as long as there's even a one-vote majority in the Knesset. In other words, the judiciary, they say, will be neutered, and with that, the rule of law, and with that democracy itself. Yeah, well, let's take that apart, one by one. The first thing that has to be understood is what is a democracy? Democracy is majority rule with the protection of individual rights. And to get these two things, what you have is the checks and balances between the three branches of government, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial.

Everybody understands that. In Israel, over the last 20 years, that balance has been taken off the rails. Because the judiciary became not independent. It's always been independent, will always be independent. It became all-powerful. So it can nullify any decision of the parliament, the Knesset, and it can be a legal decision, a legal law, that's fine. But they say it's not reasonable.

It doesn't exist anywhere in the democracy, such powers. It can nullify any decision of the government, and often has. It can nullify any appointment of the government. It can intervene in military matters. It can intervene in our battle against terrorists. It can intervene in taking gas out of the sea that costs. billions of dollars, billions of dollars, I finally got it out. All these things are unacceptable.

But it's called, hang on, it's called checks and balances. Well, there is no checks and balances. Well, actually, it's the only check and balance in Israel to the government. No, no, it's not. In all democracies, there's one other thing, and I'll answer your question one by one. It's important. There is one other thing that characterizes this, the judiciary in Israel, and that is that the judges veto the appointment of judges.

They effectively select themselves. In other words, that doesn't exist in any democracy. The reform that we're dealing with right now corrects that. It allows for a balance. What it means that you can pick them? No, no, I can't pick them. In fact, it's an even thing between the majority and the minority, the coalition, and the opposition. It's in fact not that one side can pick them, but by the way, in most democracies, with the exception of Britain, by the way, all judges are chosen by elected officials.

And in Israel, the discussion is so narrow and so one-sided that they say, how could it be that judges will be chosen by elected officials? And I say, hello? This is what is being done in every democracy. Why is someone like you who's always been such a staunch defender of an independent judiciary in Israel? Why take a move that even some of your close colleagues and supporters say is a step too far in infringing on that independence? I absolutely will always defend the independence of the judiciary and the way that's achieved in all the democracies who are in which judges are appointed by elected officials.

In America, for example, who picks the judges? Politicians, the president. The politicians then have to affirm. By the way, that's replicated more or less in most of the democracies in one way or the other. Well, how are the judges independent? They're independent because once they're there, they're there either until retirement or until life. And that's what happened in the United States just now. I mean, the former president

chose some very strong conservative judges and the first opportunity they voted against it because they're independent. So the independence of the judiciary will always be maintained. I think that the important thing to understand. But that's not how people are seeing this. Because they don't know the facts. Well, they studied the bill and they say that they're presenting it as an autocratic movement. No, well, they're framing it as such, but they haven't really But is what you're doing really consistent with what you said in 2012 in this speech? Let me remind you your exact words then. I believe that a strong independent court allows for the existence of all other institutions

and a democracy. I ask that you show me one dictatorship, one undemocratic society where a strong independent court system exists. There's no such thing. In places with no strong an independent court system, rights cannot be protected. In fact, the difference between countries in which rights are only on paper and those in which there are actual rights, that difference is a strong independent court. This is the reason that I am doing and will continue to do everything I can to protect the court system

and make it strong and independent. I will continue to operate this way. Every time a bill comes across my desk that could harm the independence of Israeli courts, will take it off the table. That's you, 2012. And now here you are, 11 years later, you're the one putting the bill on the table, which many people, on all sides of the divide in Israel, say is achieving the exact thing you were so keen to avoid.

I stand by everything that I said, an independent court, a judiciary that is independent is something that was in Israel and will remain in Israel. But here's the thing. In the last 10 years, the judiciary went from being an independent judiciary to an all-powerful judiciary. The balance of three branches of government says that you have to have three branches that are balanced.

In Israel, you have like one big trunk, the judiciary. That's what's developed, with two little twigs on the side. That's not democracy. Democracy means that every branch of government balances the other. And that's, in Israel, it's the most judicially activist court on the planet. Welcome back to this special edition of Pierce Morgan uncensored, a world-exclusive interview with Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Next, I pressed him on whether he'll back down. People would rather in Israel, it seems, judging by these mass protests, hundreds of thousands of people, out on the streets protesting every weekend now for nearly three months. You've got generals, scholars, entrepreneurs, former heads of Mossad. Some of your closest political allies have come out and attacked this and said this is a judicial coup made by the majority in order to grab power away and not give Israelis the protections in law they're entitled to.

Reservist fighter pilots refused to attend a training exercise. This week joined by 650 members of the IDF Special Forces Command. This is uncharted territory for Israel. And you've got Army General Staff senior military officials who believe this is now imperiling the security of Israel. And you've always positioned yourself. I know this because you've told me yourself before, as Israel's Mr. Security.

Well, let's, again, if you'd allow me to answer the question. Of course, okay. So the first thing is, I think balancing the judicial having the judges not select themselves, which is what this bill is about, is not only weaken democracy, it strengthens democracy, because in all other democracies, in all other democracies, with exception of the U.K., and there may be one more exception, the judges do not choose themselves, the elected officials do, and that's what this bill does, and I think it's right. On the other hand, there is one consideration that the critics and the opponents of this judicial

reform raise, and I think it's a valid concern, and that is, You want to go from one extreme to the center. You don't want a pendulum to swing to the other side where the Knesset, our parliament, can nullify any decision of the Supreme Court. And I think that requires a balance. I agree with that. So it has to be in the center.

So you are going to rein back then on this current proposal? Yes, yes. I said that. How significantly? Well, I said that there's not going to be this unlimited power. When you want to restrain unlimited power, you don't go and give the parliament unlimited power over the court. But that's what they say this current bill does. I explained very clearly that as far as I'm concerned that will not happen.

So I think you need to reach the happy center. Now the other thing is, look, I don't want the army. You know, look, I think a lot of people go to these demonstrations. They're patriotic Israelis. They want the good of the country. But a lot of them don't actually know the details of the bills just like I just described. They don't even know that the leaders of the opposition that are now going to these demonstrations, they themselves argue that the court, the way we select judges,

should be changed. They themselves did it before the elections. So all these people protesting just don't get it. Many, many of them don't. Many of them... Isn't that slightly patronizing, Prime Minister? No, I don't think so. To tell your own people who are protesting in hundreds of thousands. I didn't say that all of them don't.

You might it, they just don't understand. Well, listen, you have to see the mainstream media in Israel that is going on this, like a huge, huge, huge propaganda campaign. Well, the added complication for you is that you, of course, are still going through an ongoing trial that is suspended while. your Prime Minister for corruption and bribery. It's not suspended at all. It's going on all the time.

So it's going on? It's going on. And in fact, it's unraveling. The charges that were put before me were ridiculous. And they're just unraveling in the court. You're discovering things like prosecutorial intimidation of witnesses, the blackmailing of witnesses, changing, tampering with evidence. But here's the point.

So all of that is coming out. And that would be dealt with in the trial. The judges that are going to decide this case have already been selected. They will not be affected by this legal reform. Here's the point I was going to make. Is twofold. One, the Attorney General, Gali Baharov-Miyara, says you've broken the law by directly involving yourself in an overhaul of the judiciary when you're facing an ongoing corruption

trials. She said it was illegal and tainted by a conflict of interest. That's completely false. I maintain the same conflict of interest restraints and I'm abiding by every consideration that my case is not going to be affected by this legal reform, one I owe them. But to insist, I am the Prime Minister of Israel.

Israel is going through the most acute crisis in many years. You yourself said how important it is. To say that the Prime Minister of Israel cannot deal with something to try to bring a resolution to this crisis, cannot speak about it, cannot try to resolve this issue, cannot take care of the security of the country, which you yourself say may be impacted by this? This is absurd.

If it was an opposition leader who was in power, who was going through a corruption and bribery trial, I don't think you'd have the same view. I'd have exactly the same. I think you'd say there's a clear conflict of interest here. I'd say, no, there isn't. Because the trial or my legal proceedings are completely unaffected by this reform. So the Attorney General, I mean, if the statement is that you've broken the law, you're saying, as Prime Minister of Israel, the Attorney General's wrong about the law. Of course I'm saying it.

I said it openly. It's not a question. We have a disagreement on that. In fact, that's going to be brought up in court proceedings. I think it's wrong. I think I, as Prime Minister of Israel, have a responsibility to see if I can somehow bring a conclusion to this impasse, somehow bring a resolution. so we have responsible judicial democratic reform and at the same time keep the country together.

Who's going to do that, if not the prime minister? Your point is that the judiciary has got too much power. But what you want to do, and this is, again, from your critics, and there are a lot of them. And again, to repeat, they're not just people on the opposition. You know, voices across the divide here on this. They say what you're pushing for is a form of autocratic rule, where the one remaining check and balance on your power as Prime Minister is just evaporated,

and you ultimately can then determine judge selection, you can determine what laws pass or don't pass. You become the overriding autocratic leader, as they have in many countries where there are genuine autocracies, of the kind that you talked about in 2012 in that speech. You keep repeating these shibbolets and these absurdities. I made Israel the most liberal country, among the most liberal countries on the planet. I liberalized its economy, turned it from a straight-jacketed socialist economy to a free-market

economy that benefited the entire people. I brought in investments into the Arab sector more than all the previous governments combined. I'm very proud of the fact that the leader of the Gay-Sel and the Likud, my party, I nominated to be the Speaker of the Knesset, the third-highest, the highest position. in the country, and he was elected not because he's gay, he was elected because he's very good. But that's the liberal position that I've always espoused and espoused now. To try to paint me as some third world autocrat is ridiculous. I believe in the balance.

I'm a classic Democrat with a small deal. I don't want to get into trouble with my American friends. But I'm a classic believer in the balance between the three branches of government. That's what ensures democracy, and it's been thrown off balance in Israel. We have to bring it back. It will not give any power. I do not select. What happens when the...

I do not select the judges. In fact, there will be selected by a composite committee. It's not important right now, but the majorities, minorities, they all have their place in there. So this is complete falsehood. What are the concessions you're going to make from the current bill to appease those who say what you're doing is taking it from one extreme pendulum in your eyes to another? The most important thing is indeed to restructions. the power of the Parliament to strike down any decisions that the Supreme Court makes. I think the Supreme Court deserves its place under the sun, its powers, but it just has to be,

there are no checks and balances right now in Supreme Court power. So you want to get some checks and balances on that, but you don't want to eliminate checks and balances on the... But you want to stop the Supreme Court from interfering in any... No, no, no, no. It's called against basic laws, which form the... constitutional framework if you will you don't have a constitution do no well the the Supreme Court argues that we do already the founder the Supreme

former Supreme Court president said that the basic laws that have been enacted form a constitutional framework so that those in any case those laws in my opinion have to be protected the Supreme Court can't challenge them but it can challenge other laws and the question is what is the majority that is required in the Supreme Court to strike down the law that's I won't get into the the weeds of what they're going to do surely the Supreme they will try and strike down this. So what do you do as the Prime Minister that wants to do this

if the Supreme Court exercises what it believes to be its right to strike down your bill? Well, I think that it's never happened before that the Supreme Court strikes down basic law. This is a basic law. And I don't think they're about to do it. Really? They never had such a direct attack on their authority.

Well, then the question is should they be able to judge that? That's a question. Well, it seems that the people of Israel who are protesting every week and all these eminent people who are commenting about this, they prefer the current situation to one where the power moves to the prime minister? Well, it doesn't move to the prime minister. It's got nothing to do with it. The prime minister gets no power.

To politicians? Yeah, well, then you have to ask yourself, if that were the case, I don't see any democracy that has such extreme powers of the Supreme Court as in Israel. There's no such democracy. So are they not democracies? Are they dictatorships? Of course not.

They're perfect. When you are trying to take some power away from any British, branch of government, and in this case from the judiciary, they don't want to take it away. Right now you have a situation where 15 unelected members of the Supreme Court effectively govern Israel. They can decide things that affect our military, our economy, our foreign relations, our battle with terrorism. Is that right?

Is that democratic? No, it's not democratic. You want to correct it. Israel is democratic in the sense that you vote for a government, but when you vote for a government, you want that government to govern. Right now, the powers of that government to govern are severely restricted by the government by a Supreme Court that has more powers than any other democracy on earth.

You don't say that those other democracies are somehow tainted, are somehow not democratic, because they have a better balance of power. And trying to balance it is difficult. I grant you that. You can see how difficult it is. I don't deny it. And I understand the concerns of those who are generally

worried about the future of Israel, but so am I. And I would not let Israel become less democratic. I want it to be more democratic. You've always been a politician that strikes me who's got, an instinct for what the people are thinking. You must be aware. The scale of this is like nothing you've ever had to deal with

in any of your terms of office, any Israeli Prime Minister. This is unprecedented for you. And there comes a point when if you're just going to keep pushing up against this gigantic ever-growing hill of opposition, including, you know, members of your own government who said you should stop this and negotiate. What is your response to that? Well, you know, I was the first one to call for negotiations.

even though I was in a curious position, because they told me you can't deal with the actual workings of the bill, so I didn't. I actually didn't. But I did call on the opposition to join the coalition, the government, to discuss reaching some kind of compromise. And I've called for three months, and they haven't come. So you ask yourself, and when they say, let's halt it,

I said, you just wasted three months. Why did you come in and talk? Get into the room, start saying what your concerns are, like the ones you raised you. Our people will give their responses. I think we can figure out a middle way that will be, I think, successful. By the way, I still hope that will happen.

Remember that the bill that is now in Parliament, as we speak, is one component, just one component. It really deals only with the selection of... But you know how big this is blown. You went to see Rishi Sunaak, British Prime Minister. And in their readout of your meeting, It spoke about the desire to save Israeli democracy.

Curacy in yours, I'll read the exact wording, the importance of upholding the democratic values underpin our relationship, including in the proposed judicial reforms in Israel. But in the statement from your office, didn't mention that. Why? Well, because we spoke for about an hour, and the prime minister indeed raised that issue,

the prime minister of issue. It was, there's a debate in my team, whether it was 45 seconds or 47 seconds. out of the hour. So yes, you did raise it, you're quite right. I don't deny it. But I think it's sort of, it's become a perfunctory thing. You sort of have to say it because people are pressing, they're BDS people that are pressing it. You know, it's become a political hot potato in Israel, so the opponents have their supporters here and they're pressing on the various governments. I understand that. And look, people don't necessarily get into

the details of it, but I do. But the American president has also said the same thing, Joe Biden. He's also said that to you. Yeah, sure. I spoke to him the other day on the phone. And what did he say to you? Well, first of all, we spoke about Iran, as you can imagine. Of course, and I'll come to that.

A lot. But he raised that. And I assured him what I assured you, that Israel was, will and is and will remain a democracy. It's a worrying time for Israel with America, because for the first time in polling history, a majority of Democrats in America now have more sympathy for Palestinians than they do for Israelis. It's been 11-point swing in the last year alone. That must concern you. And what also must concern you, more people aged 18 to 29 now view more sympathy with Palestinians than they do Israelis.

What's your response to that? Well, I think I've looked at other polls, but you can never deny the, you can never deny the, The alliance between Israel and America takes the majority of Americans to support Israel. And they do. They do consistently. But that's got a concern you, hasn't it, that poll? You know, you look at it and you say one thing. You know, America is changing not vis-a-vis Israel.

America's changing vis-a-vis America. But one of the reasons people... And you've often said that. Well, yeah. America is changing vis-a-vis America and therefore it changes vis-vis Israel. But I think the main bulk of the American public, by the way, across the political spectrum, a wide, wide birth of the political spectrum, support Israel because they see Israel as representing the values.

Right, but not Democrat supporters and nor the young ones, 18 to 29. Well, there's a question of where that goes and whether this pendulum doesn't swing back, you know. One of the reasons is they cite a lot of them, apparently, your very close relationship with Donald Trump. They think that you really pivoted to him. You described him as a greatest friend Israel's ever had in the White House. I said Israel I had no greater friend in the White House.

That's true. Because he did some very good things. He moved the embassy to Jerusalem, recognized Jerusalem as our capital, recognize our sovereignty in the Golan Heights, and went out of this disastrous, the Iran deal, nuclear deal that would have paved Iran's path with gold to nuclear weapons. So, yes, I appreciate it. But I always approached American presidents, whether it's Donald Trump.

Did you take sides too much with Trump? Not at all. I never took sides of it. Did you align yourself too much? I didn't align myself with anyone. I didn't come in as a, is a Republican or a Democrat. I came in in Israeli.

And I have close friends among both sides of the aisle. Joe Biden, with whom I often disagree. By the way, some I disagreed with Trump, too. I tried to tell him we should go to. Well, he wasn't happy when you tweeted your congratulations to President Biden on winning the election. Maybe not. But what I want to see.

But he was extremely, if you don't mind me, I don't want to use a profanity in front of you, but he was heard on tape saying that it was the ultimate betrayal. He hadn't spoken to you since, and bleep him, he said about you. He then added, BB is BB. Beebe is BB. Bebe didn't want to make peace. Never did. Right. Well, I did, actually. With his help, we made a breakthrough of peace. The Abraham Accords with four Arab states.

It's a turning point in history. And if I came back, it's to do two things. Came back into office because, as you know, it's not walking in a rose garden to be the Prime Minister of Israel. at any time, and especially this time. The reason I came back is to do two things. One, block Iran, Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, that aims to destroy my country and threaten every other country. And the second thing is to expand the historic Abraham Accords,

the peace accords and end the Arab-Israeli conflict. And I believe that I can do both, and that's what I'm here for. But look, I've dealt with presidents. Have you spoken to Donald Trump since that? He wrote me a note. What did you say? He congratulated me on my victory. Did they?

Yeah. So have you made peace? Have you spoken on the phone? I never made war. I mean, he might be back in the White House. I've always, look, I have to tell you, I have, Joe Biden has been a personal friend for over 40 years, and I've disagreed with him. Donald Trump has been a great friend, and I've often disagreed with him.

Not often, but sometimes. And the same happened with other Americans presidents. I represent the people of Israel, a people who for 3,000 years, actually 3, 500 years is trying to survive and revive itself in our ancient homeland, and we did. It doesn't go without problems, as you can see. It doesn't go without debate. Israel is fiercely democratic, fierce debates. But I believe that my mission is to assure that Israel is sufficiently strong,

militarily, economically, diplomatically, to defend itself against the likes of Iran. How did you feel when... I want to wipe us off the planet? I'm going to come to Iran in one moment. How did you feel about Donald Trump having dinner with Kanye West and the white supremacist? Nick Fuentes to people who'd be a lot of anti-Semitic. I thought it was horrible and I said so.

I think it's a big mistake. It's wrong. It's wrong from every point of view. How damaging is it when someone with Kanye West's following suddenly seems to go rogue, anti-Semitic in the way that he did? My father was a great historian and a historian of anti-Semitism and goes back about 2,500 years as sort of a doctrine that keeps changing. But basically people say there's trouble in the world.

blame the Jews. We have a setback here or a setback there. Blame the Jews. The Communists say the Jews are the capitalists. The capitalists say the Jews are the communists. Blame the Jews. So, you know, that's a deep-seated pattern. It should not be continents. It should not be accepted. It should be rebuked

and condemned. And that's what I do. And I don't care where it comes from or from whom. Welcome back to this special edition of Pierce Morgan uncensored, a world-exclusive interview with Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's Prime Minister, who right now is fighting for his political life amid the worst crisis

that Israel has seen in modern times. In a moment, we'll debate whether he can survive those ways of protest. But first, I talked to him about Ukraine, Iran, and the explosive remarks a member of his government made about the Palestinian people. Let's talk about Ukraine briefly, if we may.

I interviewed Governor Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor a few days ago, and he said that Vladimir Putin is a war criminal and should be held account for his crimes. Do you share that view? Well, I think that I share the view that the Ukraine war is a horrible, horrible tragedy, that it should be, if I can do anything to help stop it, I will. And I'll refrain from saying more because I might be in a position,

might be in a position to help stop it one day. Have you been asked to, I know you were asked at the start to try and mediate, perhaps. Have you been asked again? I haven't been asked officially, but I received unofficial approaches from, supposedly from both sides. I don't want to say more than that. At the time, I wasn't the prime minister. I said there's one prime minister at the time,

and I'm not going to jump in. And if the opportunity arises where there's a realistic chance that I can help stop this tragedy, this horror, horror, there's no other word, then I'll do it. But it wasn't a legal evasion, wasn't it? I mean, it broke every international law. No, of course, it's not the question. The question is, where is the,

What is it that you can do to stop this horror? And as long as there's a glimmer of a chance that I can, I'll keep that glimmer alive. Iran now can enrich uranium to 84% purity, which clearly is a dangerous situation, not least for Israel. They might see what they've perceived to be from what they've read and heard, an unchecked Israel government, packed with what many people view as extremists as a threat to them. So, well, let me just put that to you, because people have said that. Well, they say a lot of silly things. I mean, this is silly. Israel is a... No, this has come from Israelis who fear that that may send the wrong message to...

Well, I think that's nonsense. I mean, I think all Israelis are united in seeing the danger of a nuclear Iran. All Israelis understand that, at least I understand, that it's myers responsibility as the leader of the one and only Jewish state which Iran calls for its annihilation to do everything in our power to stop it. And Iran should know that I and Israel will do everything we can to stop it. It's got nothing to do with the composition of the government. It's got everything to do with the composition of our history and the fact that they're calling for our destruction. Rishi Sunak said again in the read out from your meeting, our governments will continue to work closer together to push back against aggression from Iran and manage the risk of nuclear proliferation.

But in reality, what can someone like Rishi Sunak on behalf of Britain do to help you in this situation? I think, first of all, it's important to say it. I think it's important also to apply economic pressures. I think the combination of crippling economic sanctions and a credible military threat can hold back Iran's nuclear ambitions. I don't think without a credible military threat, you're not going to stop Iran, just as you... The only thing that stopped Saddam Hussein was a credible military action on our part. The only thing that stopped Syria, Khafiz Assad, or rather Bashar Assad from developing

nuclear weapons, is a credible military action on our part. Gaddafi feared a credible military action on the part of the U.S., so he gave up his nuclear weapons. North Korea didn't. So it has now nuclear weapons that can cover half of Asia. and very soon, perhaps, the United States. Iran is 50 times more dangerous than North Korea, and we must do everything, and I must do everything,

to prevent it from having nuclear weapons. What is required from the international community? Sanctions, strong sanctions, from the United States and from Israel, a credible military threat. Final question, Prime Minister. There have been 88 Palestinians and 15 Israelis killed so far this year. It's the highest rate of deaths in two decades. Many are saying that a lot of this is down to its century rhetoric from some of your right-wing members of your government.

And they particularly cite Bezal Smotrich, who earlier had called for the segregation of maternity ward, so Arab and Jewish newborns, would be separated at birth. He's now in charge of the civil administration of the Occupy West Bank. Last week he said, who was the first Palestinian king? What language does the Palestinians have? Was there ever a Palestinian currency? Is there a Palestinian history or culture? Nothing.

There is no such thing as a Palestinian people. That's not helpful to anything, is it? I think that there are a lot of statements that he made previously that he walked away from. And some of he said were not accurate. In any case, they're part of my government, but they're part of my government. And I decide policy.

Do you distance yourself from comments like that? There are many comments. When he called for the Palestinian town, of O'ara to be wiped out? Of course not. Of course, that's totally unacceptable. And he said, he corrected. He corrected.

But wait a minute, be fair to him. About, I don't know if it was 20 minutes later or 30 minutes later or whatever or a few hours later, he said, I was misunderstood. That's not what I meant. We don't believe. He doesn't believe. And by the way, I know him, got to work with him now a few months. We don't believe in collective punishment.

I go after the terrorists. I go after those who support the terrorists. but I don't believe in collective punishment. I also think that you should know that the rise of Palestinian terrorism and as a consequence of the fatalities that you're talking about actually happened in the previous government. It doubled the number of shooting incidents, drive-downs, and other things that are involved in terrorism

came from the Palestinian side. And the weakness that we have here is the weakness of the Palestinian Authority that doesn't send its security forces to stop the terrorists, and therefore we have to do it. And what we are trying to do right now is calm things down, put some kind of mechanism in place that we're trying to do with the Palestinian Authority and with others to stop the violence.

But members of your government saying stuff like that is unbelievably in Sanjury. Well, that comment on that village is absolutely right and he walked away from it very quickly. But his comment saying there's no such thing as Palestinian people? Well, he has that view. Do you have that view? No, I think.

I think there wasn't a Palestinian people in the 19th century, clearly. Do you think there's a Palestinian people now? I think it galvanized. Their national consciousness galvanized in the 20th century. And the question is, will it hold into the future? That's something that has to be seen. But I think they're there. They're definitely living among us.

And we have to live among them. The problem we have with them is that they say, you're not going to live among us. The problem, the reason this conflict persists now for 100 years is because the Palestinians led by irresponsible leaders are resolutely opposed to a Jewish state in any boundary. So it doesn't make it, no one succeeded. Previous governments,

very left-wing government, generous governments, you know, unbelievably concessionary governments that give everything, nothing helped because they are not interested in a territorial resolution. They're interested in the dissolution of the one and only Jewish state.

So far this year, six times as many Palestinians have died as Israelis. That's just a fact. Well, do you want to compare what happened in other countries? Not to say this year. You want to compare other conflicts, include global conflicts? No, I'm saying this year.

Yeah, well, because what happens is that they start shooting Israelis. They have, we go after the terrorists. The terrorists hide inside terrorist strongholds, and to get to them, we have to fight other terrorists. Most of them, by the way, are combatants. That is terrorists who have been hit. But in the crossfire that is there, I wouldn't judge the justice of a battle, by the number of casualties on either side, because you'd be in very, very shaky historical ground,

and you know that very well. I know you've got to go to get a plane. You're on TikTok, I'm on TikTok. All the calls now for people to ban TikTok. What's your view for Israel? And will you come off it? I don't know. I haven't looked into it.

Are you a TikTok? I mean, do you do? I occasionally use it. Yeah, sure. You're not worried about the Chinese? Harvesting data for you and all the Israelis who use TikTok? Well, I'll tell you what. Since you raise it, I'll look into it.

Thank you, Prime Minister. Good to see you. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Bye. Thank you. Welcome back to Piers Morgan, I said. So, joining me now is U.S. lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, and columnist for the Guardian, Jonathan Friedland.

Jonathan, let me start with you. Also, you wrote a terrific piece for the Jewish Chronicle about this, some of which I have to say I used to frame some of my questions for Benjamin Netanyahu. It was so beautifully phrased. So thank you for that. Your position on this is that you believe, I think you both believe that there's a comparison to be made here with Donald Trump. Jonathan, you go first because I think it's not a favourable comparison that you would draw.

Yeah, I mean, I think there is a comparison to be drawn in the sense of somebody who has a total disregard for democratic norms. And in this case, it's being played out in the sense of those things which make a democracy function. It isn't just a matter of the ballot box and whoever gets the most votes is then in total control. A liberal democracy exists with, yes, majority power in, for example, a parliament. But then a whole lot of breaks, as you used, the phrase in your questions to the prime minister, you talk about checks and balances. Israel is really quite unusual. Again, you brought this out in the interview.

It really has none. I mean, there isn't a written constitution. Again, you said that. There isn't a second chamber in parliament. And therefore, the only break, the only restraint on a prime minister in the Israeli system, It's very, very unusual. Is this body the Supreme Court? So when Netanyahu was telling you that, you know,

it's got out of control, it's got far too much power, that's partly a function of a system where nobody else can put a break on the Prime Minister except that court. Now, in the United States, there were all kinds of breaks and restraints on Donald Trump, a written constitution, courts that he couldn't control, a Senate, a House, all kinds of things.

Israel doesn't have that. So even if they've got the same impulses, Netanyahu is in some ways much more dangerous because Israel allows a Prime Minister, if they want to, if they're bent on doing what he's doing now, to concentrate all power in their own hands. Right, Alan Dershowitz, I mean, that seemed to me, my takeaway from the interview was this just seemed to me

he has it in his head that the judiciary, Supreme Court in particular in Israel, has gone too far to the left and is now being deliberately restrictive and obstructive to his government, which is to the right. but he also acknowledged that he doesn't want the pendulum to swing right the other way, which is how many people are categorizing this.

They think that what he's trying to do really is say, right, you've got too much control, I'm seizing all control, and that is the behavior of an autocrat. I think both sides have exaggerated their claims. I think the judiciary in Israel has gone a bit too far. My oldest friends in Israel are Benjamin Netanyahu, who I've known for 50 years in Ehud Barak, who engineers. the judicial revolution who I've known for 55 years.

And there's a reasonable argument that both sides have gone too far, which is why we need compromise. I think it's absolutely essential that the parties get together, sit down, and resolve this. And there are ways of resolving it. I've written a series of articles. The Supreme Court should have power and final word over basic civil liberties, human rights, minority rights, but it should not have the final word over who serves in. in the government. By the way, your previous guest says there are no checks and balances in Israel.

That is totally and completely wrong. There have been six elections in the last, what, five years or five elections. That's the ultimate check and balance in a democracy. Throw the people out if you don't like them. If you can't maintain your government together, very, very few countries in the world have judicial review. Israel may have more judicial review than any other country in the world. But I'm on the side of the Israeli Supreme Court. But I do think that both sides have points to make. This is not an issue that generally results in worldwide attention, judicial reform. When's the last time we've had demonstrations over judicial reform? Judicial reform is a surrogate for opposition to the right-wing elements in the government. And I understand that. I've met with

Smutridge. I've met with Ben-Gavir. And there is good reason. reason for protesting them. But if the same judicial reforms had been advocated by people at the center of the party, there wouldn't be such demonstrations. I think there should be judicial reforms, but not as extreme as either side wants them. Jonathan, I mean, the other part of this, which cannot be overlooked, and I raise this with the prime minister, is that he's himself currently still undergoing a criminal trial for bribery and corruption. And of course, people are saying, well, of course he must have control the judiciary, because that means he can then control what may or may not happen to him,

or indeed future leaders who get themselves into similar positions. Yes. Yeah, this is the crucial point. I mean, I think, you know, great respect for Professor Dershowitz's analysis there, although I did like his position more in January when he was saying, if I were in Israel, I'd be at those protests. That's because this isn't a debate in a legal seminar room among, you know, Harvard law students.

This, and it's understood by the people who are heading onto the street. This isn't just some abstract matter of refining a few tweaks to the precise arrangements of the Israeli Constitution. This is a power grab. It's happening now because Benjamin Netanyahu is on trial for three very serious counts of corruption where if he were convicted he would end up in jail. And he does not want to go to jail. And therefore he wants to have some control over the judges of the Supreme Court who would hear, if it came to it, his appeal. is pretty naked. I'd be people, there are no comparison is perfect. But people have said this is as if enduring Watergate, Richard Nixon decided to tear up the Constitution and make the Supreme Court something which he, whose members, he could decide. And in his interview with you just now,

Netanyo tried to suggest somehow that this would be not him, it would be politicians. It would be his appointees, Le Kud member sort of hacks, who would sit on the committee, that would do his bidding and put in, if they got their way, judges who would do his bidding. So this is serious business. Those people on the streets would not be there if this was just an abstract theoretical debate. They're there because they understand what's at risk for their country. Okay, Alan, finally, just quickly, this poll, very worrying poll, the American support from Democrats and 18 to 29s moving away from Israel now to Palestinians. Well, first of all, that's been a movement of young people for a long time.

talk to the comparison between Trump and Natinehu. I wrote a new book called Get Trump, which is about efforts to try to prevent Trump from running for office by illegally and improperly going after him by weaponizing the criminal justice system. There have been efforts to do the same thing with Natanyahu. These three charges against him are totally phony charges, and they're designed to remove him from office. And nothing in the judicial reform would make it easier to win the case. His case will be won in front of trial judges that were appointed years and years ago and that served for life. So I think there are analogies. There are analogies because a lot of people in Israel want to get Netanyahu and a lot of people

in the United States want to get Trump. But that's where the analogy stopped. I think we ought to think about these on their merits and not try to personalize them because I think these issues of judicial reform are serious. And we should sit down and resolve. them with both sides getting an opportunity to make their points. Well, I suspect that's exactly what's now going to happen. Because I think Benjamin Netanyahu, my sense was he's been pretty shocked by the reaction and the scale of it. And I think, above all else, he's proven himself to be a survivor and a pragmatic politician. So I suspect he's going to get around a table and water this down.

But for now, Anandershowitz, Jonathan Friedrich, thank you both very much indeed for joining me. I appreciate it. Well, that's it for me. Extraordinary interview. In extraordinary times, Benjamin Netanyar. the leader of Israel facing the biggest challenge of his entire career. That's it for me. Whatever you're up to, keep it uncensive.

Good night.