Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Cenk Uygur and Mosab Hasan Yosef, Mark Regev, Avram Grant and David Mamet

Episode Date: December 18, 2023

On Piers Morgan Uncensored: Should Israel’s allies demand a ceasefire? With Cenk Uygur and Mosab Hasan Yosef, Netanyahu's adviser Mark Regev, Former Chelsea & Israel manager Avram Grant and Pulitzer-winning David Mamet say diversity-obsessed Hollywood has lost the plot. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8pm 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 are not censored. The Pope accuses Israel a terrorism in Gaza as global criticism of the IDF intensifies I put the big questions to government advisor Mark Regev and more debate should Israel's allies now demand a ceasefire. Also tonight, David Mamet is a Pulitzer-winning playwright a titan of Tinseltown. He says diversity-obsessed Hollywood has completely lost the plot

and joins me live. Live from the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan. Uncensored Good evening, London. Welcome to Pierce Morgan Unsensit. Throughout the long and deadly history of Israel's wars with Palestine,

it's usually fallen to Israel's friends to tell them when it's time to stop. That time may be fast approaching again, even as Israel insists it needs more time to eradicate Hamas. It can only have itself to blame. This weekend, the IDF admitted to killing three of its own hostages in Gaza.

The men were waving a white flag of surrender. They'd use scraps of food to scroll SOS, desperately pleading for help. Regardless of whether they were Israeli or Palestinian, there's no justification under international law for killing them to clear breach of the rules of engagement. What does that tragedy tell us about the way Israeli soldiers are treating Palestinian civilians? How seriously should we now take Israel's insistence is doing everything it can to keep innocent people alive? In a separate incident, two innocent women were reportedly shot dead by

sniper fire at a Catholic church in Gaza. One of them was leaving the church shelter to go to the toilet. Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster, one of Britain's most senior spiritual leaders, was scathing. It's certainly a cold-blooded killing. The Israeli Defence Force says it didn't happen, wasn't there? Well, I think that's hard to believe, frankly, because the people in Gaza and the Cardinal Archbishop of Jerusalem,

they're not given to tell lies. So you don't believe the Israeli Defence Force? No, I don't. Well, the Pope went even further. He said that what Israel is doing in Gaza now constitutes terrorism. Unarmed civilians are being bombed and shot at, and this has even happened inside the Holy Family Parish Complex, where there are no terrorists but families, children, and sick people with disabilities, nuns.

Some say it's terrorism, it's war. Yes, it is war. It is terrorism. The British government is shifting its position to Foreign Secretary-Lor Cameron in a joint statement with his German counterpart, said he backs a sustainable ceasefire and said that too many civilians have been killed. Ben Wallace, the influential former defence secretary, said if Benjamin Netanyahu thinks a killing rage

will rectify matters, and he's very wrong. His methods will not solve the problem. In fact, I believe his tactics will fuel the conflict for another 50 years. His actions are radicalising Muslim youth across the globe. I think he's right. All this after President Biden accused Israel of indiscriminate bombing.

The starkest warning yet that America's backing is not unconditional. Well, news reports about the war in Gaza today will state that 18,000 Palestinians have been killed so far, according to the Hamas-run Health Ministry. And the key point about that, often quoted sentence, is not the debate about whether Hamas exaggerates those figures, is that Hamas is still in charge and able to release them as official numbers. After two months of war, endless atrocities and the full might of Israel's army unleashed on this tiny stream of land, the very people that are supposed to be eradicating are still firmly in power.

Only about 20% of a mass terrorist so far, even if you accept IDF figures on this, have been killed. 80% remain alive and fighting. Most civilized countries and decent people back Israel's fundamental right to exist, and indeed it's duty to defend itself. But the war is now to look like more retribution than strategy. That suspicion is fueled by hardliners and Netanyahu's government and by Israeli commentators, making appalling remarks like this. I support the war crimes. He laughs, as the other presenters laugh as well.

Well, the rest of the world does not support war crimes. And if Israel does have a plan and proof that it's working, it needs to start showing the evidence of that plan very soon. Well, joining me now as the senior advisor of Benjamin Netanyahu, Mark Regge. Mr. Rego, thank you for joining me. In the last two hours, a letter from... a number of Conservative members of Parliament has gone to the Foreign Secretary David Cameron,

in which they're demanding that the UK no longer abstain or resolutions calling for ceasefires at the UN and saying thousands of bodies lie under the rubble, in particular number of women and children who have been killed is profoundly shocking, too many Palestinians have died, and then this key line, by any measure we are witnessing a catastrophe of precisely the kind the 1949 Geneva Conventions were supposed to prevent. What is your response to that? I think they're wrong. I think Israel, as you said, correctly,

Pierre, Israel is acting to defend itself, to destroy a brutal and ruthless and horrific enemy. Hamas, which is guilty of the most terrible crimes against humanity. And our challenge here is to dismantle Hamas' military capabilities when Hamas, of course, embeds itself amongst the civilian population in neighborhoods, in hospitals, in schools, in mosques, and so forth, even in UN facilities. And so we're trying to be as surgical as is humanly possible in a very difficult combat situation. Let me interrupt you there, if I may, because you say you're being surgical, and you always say

this, that you're being very precise, very careful not to kill civilians. But in the last two days alone, we've seen three Israeli hostages who had, no shirts on who had a self-made SOS banner that they were holding. They were clearly not terrorists, and they were shot dead by Israeli forces. And then we have these two women killed outside a Catholic church, and that the Pope has called terrorism based on his information that he's got from the archbishop in Jerusalem. This is, I'm afraid, not indicative of a fighting force that is trying to be surgical or precise. It is actually lending, I would say, support to the notion that President Biden put out that it's indiscriminate. So let's talk about those two issues specifically. Let's start with the

three hostages who were tragically killed. You know, the fighting in Gaza, in that particular part of Gaza has been very intense, close quarter combat, a face-to-face fighting, and it's very difficult. And it's our soldiers claim, and this is being investigated, of course, that obviously they perceive the three as a threat incorrectly and tragically. You know, in all sorts of urban warfare, you have what the experts called blue-on-on-blue shooting. They were waving a white. They were waving a white piece of cloth with S-O-S. They were clearly not Hamas terrorists, unless you've been killing a number of Hamas-Therry.

terrorists who'd been waving white cloths with SOS and surrender on them, which I don't think you have. These people were killed, and it turned out to be Israeli hostages. I mean, it's an absolute tragedy, but to simply dismiss it as sort of blue-on-blue. It seems to me it wasn't an accident. They were deliberately killed, and they were literally holding a cloth saying S-O-S. I mean, it's hard to think of a more blatant killing of innocent people than this, isn't it? It's worse than Blue and Blue because they are civilians. There weren't even combatants, yes? And they were, you know, they were freeing, obviously, running away from Khamas.

One of our problems in this was the soldiers on the ground did not have a briefing that they could expect to see hostages walking down the street, so to speak. We were expected to see hostages in tunnels, in dark rooms, imprisoned, and the idea that they'd be walking around, somehow free was a surprise and wasn't expected. Why would they shoot anybody holding an SOS banner? Would they shoot a Palestinian that was doing that? A Palestinian civilian?

Your assumption, which could be correct, Pierce, but it also might be incorrect, is that the soldiers who fired the shots saw all that. And this has to be investigated. Obviously, when it was over, all this was discovered. But we have to find out and it has to be investigated. What did the soldiers see at the time? that they perceived that this was a threat.

And we know that there was fighting in that area. There was hostile fire from the location, more or less, where the three were coming from, both before and after this tragic event. So we have to investigate. We have to get to the bottom. But I can tell you this, the chief of staff of the Israeli military,

the most senior officer in uniform, he spoke publicly earlier. And he said very clearly, of course, that the idea of shooting someone who is holding a white flag and so forth, that is against our code, that's the against our rules of engagement. He was crystal clear

and he even stressed, even stressed, it's not connected to them being hostages, even if they had been Gazan Palestinians, that would have been wrong behavior against our code of conduct, and let me explain why, for two reasons. One, for moral reasons, it's against

the morality of the army, but also from a tactical point of you, Because if you can take prisoners, then you get information, you get intelligence. So how is this happen? So obviously it has to be investigated. But the Chief of Starr said clearly this is against our Code of Conduct. What has happened to the IDF soldiers who fired the bullets? So there's an investigation going on.

And the question is, what did they see? Have they been withdrawn from the battlefield? First of all, we have to see what the investigation comes out. How do you investigate it if they're still out there fighting? Have you brought them back? No, I'm sure the ways the military does these investigations is always very thorough because we want to learn the lessons. And let's be frank, the families of the three people...

Just to be clear, do you know if they're still in active fighting or whether the soldiers responsible have been withdrawn? I don't have the answer to that question. I simply don't know. I can ask the military and get you an answer. Surely you would agree with me. It would be pretty extraordinary if they're still out there having committed this atrocity. It's what it is.

It's a tragedy. It's also an atrocity. Three hostages who were literally fleeing for their lives to what they thought was the safety of their own side have been just killed in cold blood. Having held a sign up saying SOS, I mean, at the very least, I think the world would expect

that the people concerned who fired those bullets have been withdrawn from active service until this is properly investigated. So once again, I'll ask the idea, but I can say the following. that there was no attempt at all to try to hush things up. We openly admitted this.

The army came straight out and spoke to the families and said this was a terrible accident and it will be looked into and there'll be a thorough investigation. And the evidence and what the investigation reveals will be shared with the families of the three hostages who were killed. We're going to be,

the army's going to be very transparent on what's happened here. We owe it to ourselves so these things don't happen again and we owe it to the families. Are you going to be as transparent about what happened at the Catholic Church that the Pope described as an act of terrorism and given the Archbishop of Westminster says

he simply doesn't believe the IDF when it claims it didn't do it? So we'll investigate that as well. We are in the process of doing so. We're looking at the situation closely. You must know if your snipers did it. We at the moment, yes, I can say the following. Our forces do not deliberately target civilians. We definitely don't deliberately target...

Was it IDF snipers who fired the bullets? So once again, we don't... This is still being investigated, but I can say the following peers. We don't deliberately target civilians. So you keep saying, Mr. Regan, but with respect... We're talking about two incidents

where that's exactly what's happened and why it's happened is crucially important to the credibility of the wider statements that you've been making on behalf of the Israeli government about whether you are being indiscriminate. That's why it's so important.

And again, I just ask you a simple question. You must know, you knew immediately you'd fired the bullets that killed the hostages. You must equally have known immediately whether your snipers have shot these two women outside of Catholic Church. You literally just have to ask the question. So this happened over the weekend.

You must have had enough time now to establish was the Israeli snipers? Earlier today, you were denying the suggestion it may have been IDF, but the archbishop says that's a lie. So what is the situation with these killings? So let me please answer by saying what needs to be said. It's not like someone is ready to hang around with a gun and indiscriminately shooting. We're talking about combat zones.

And I'm often, you know, your coming under fire. Did IDF soldiers shoot those two women? You know the answer. It's still be looking into, and I'm sure that we'll be putting out a report. I can't prejudge the IDF's report, beers. You understand that. But I can say the following. Hang on, you've already prejudged the killing of the hostages

and said you know for a fact you did that. Why do you not know for a fact you killed these two women or not? Because we had the bodies here of the three and there was immediately shown to be chosen. I'm not sure we've got the bodies of the two women. I don't know where they are. I don't know what the situation is. We will get to the bottom.

But if it wasn't IDF, who were these snipers who've seen women outside of Catholic Church in Gaza? Well, because we know there was fire there. You see, the way it's being presented incorrectly is that somehow there was people at a church going to pray or praying and suddenly the IDF came in attacks. No, that wasn't the situation, peers. We know there were firefighters in that area. We know our forces took hostile fire.

So it's quite possible that it was Israeli forces, but it's also possible that it was bullets from the other side. But I think you're talking about a combat area. But you are stretching my credulity to try and make me think, you don't know the answer after all this time, given how clear you've been about the other incident and IDF culpability. I'm sure a full IDF report will come out shortly,

and I urge you please be patient. It's worthwhile waiting for the full report. And if it transpires, as everybody believes, and as the Archbishop of Westminster said, come directly from information on the ground that he believed was credible, relayed to him by the Archbishop of Jerusalem, and what the Pope himself has called an act of terrorism.

If that turns out to be indeed, the work of the IDF again, what would your response be? So I can give you an example from the past, Pierce, where there was a situation on the beach in Gaza. This was in one of the previous rounds of conflict, and I remember it well because I was personally involved. I don't want to go into previous incidents. No, because I'm giving you precedent.

Well, the Pope has directly accused you of terrorism. No, but please allow you to ask question, peers. I do think it's incumbent on you as a government to very, very, very quickly tell the world what happened here. Citing previous incidents in previous wars and conflicts is kind of meaningless, frankly. I mean... But judge us by our track record,

because in the past we have come clean when there was an accident and we misidentified a target and we killed the innocent people, and that's what I'm starting to tell you. We have come and admitted that we've made a mistake. You must know if you had snipers in that area by that church you shot people.

You must know that. But if there was a firefight and there were shooting from both sides? We have to look into this now. I'm agreeing with you. There were Hamas terrorists. Just to be clear, your position is there were Hamas terrorists inside a Catholic church with a bunch of nuns and women.

I didn't say that. I said in the location, in location of the church. When do you think you know... And they were firing at our people. And our forces return fire. But if it turns out, as the Pope has alleged, and in fact stated as fact, it was an act of terrorism, what will Israel do about that?

But can I say the following which I don't accept in the accusations? I can accept the possibility that they were killed, unintentionally caught up in the crossfire. I do not accept that they were deliberately targeted by the IDF. We do not target civilians. We do not target churches. Right. And terrorism, the definition of terrorism, the definition of terrorism is the deliberate targeting of the innocence. Yes, I know.

But unfortunately, in the last 48 hours, you have shot and killed. three Israeli hostages, and it is believed IDF forces have also shot and killed two completely innocent women outside a Catholic church. So this constant refrain that you're not targeting innocent civilians is not borne out by the reality of IDF forces targeting and killing innocent civilians. No, but now I disagree. And if you'll allow me to finish the sentence, please, Pierce, there's a huge difference between a policy that deliberately targets civilians, that's what Kamas does, yes, and between civilians inadvertently getting caught up in the crossfire between combatants between the Israeli forces.

Well, you called it crossfire, but the allegation is that all five of these victims were deliberately shot dead. The two women by snipers and the three hostages by ID-F-Forces. No, let's be clear, if there is a trial, right, let's say the accusation against the soldiers who killed the three hostages, it wouldn't be a murder trial. It would be a trial if there was a trial. I don't know there will be, yes, but they would be accused of negligence or of misidentifying a target. Yes, murder and terrorism is the deliberate targeting of the incident. I understand.

And it's not clear that in either of these cases, that applies. Right, but it may well be that that's what happened. You can't rule that out either. Well, that's why you've got to do an investigation. Right. But, you know, it shouldn't take very long to ask whether you had snipers in that area. You shot women outside of church. I know for a fact we had combatants in the area,

but the fact is did they, in fact, fire the bullets that killed the two women? Once again, let's wait for the investigation. And as I said, in the past, when we've made mistakes, we have admitted it. There's a track record there. I want to remember. I wanted to show you a picture.

This is of IDF bombs. And they've inscribed on them the names of actually a number of people who've been guests on Mishou, Mohamed Hijab, Andrew Tate, and also one of my next guests, Jank Wiga. What is your response to that? Maybe IDF soldiers are watching your show. Is that possible? Yeah, but do you think it's a sensible thing to be doing,

to be putting names like this on these bombs? Well, first of all, it's obviously this is some soldiers trying to be funny or creative, but there's a history here going back to the First World War, isn't there not of soldiers drawing pictures on shells and so forth? It's something that soldiers have done. I'm not justifying it, but I think British soldiers have done it. Sounds like you are justifying it.

to me. Sorry, no, I'm just putting it into historical context. Okay. Mark Regiv, I appreciate you joining me. Thank you very much. Thanks for having me, sir. Well, Unsensor next, I'll be putting Mark Regov's comments to US presidential hopeful. Jenk Wegar, a major critic of the IDF, whose name, as I just said, was marked on an Israeli bomb. Welcome back to Onc Sensor. Demands for a full ceasefire are now growing across the world. One of my next guest, Jek Yuga, has been among the loudest voices calling for one.

His name was written on an Israeli bomb to be dropped on Gaza, along with that of Andrew Tate, Mohammed. all previous Pope Palestinian guests on this show. I'm joined now by Democratic presidential candidate, Jenk. You've got Mossab Hassan Yusuf, the son of the Hamas co-founder Sheikh Hassan Yusuf, Mossab has opposed to terror groups as defecting in the 90s. And the former Chelsea and Israel manager Avram Grant joins me live in the studio. Avram, great to see you, and I'll come to you in just a moment.

Chankan, what to start with you? Because pretty extraordinary to see your name scrawled on a IDF bomb. Just first of all, what was your response to that? Yeah, it's, of course, disheartening to see it. It's sick. They're going to drop those bombs on Palestinian civilians. They're probably going to murder babies and grandmothers with those bombs. That's why if I'm president, I won't send Israel a single dollar. Not only the $14 billion they're considering now, but I would end all funding to Israel as they have massacred civilian after civilian, 19,000 dead, 9,000 children butchered. I do not want a single funding to Israel. I do not want a single funding to Israel as they have massacred. I have massacred. I have massacred. I do not want a civilian. I have massacred. I have civilian, 19,000 dead, 9,000 children butchered. I do not want a single American tax dollar going to help Israel commit war crimes. And if they think they're going to intimidate me by putting my name on their bombs, they've got another thought coming to them.

We're at a state in this war where Hamas is believed to have around 35,000 terrorists, at best estimate, 7 to 8,000, if you accept the idea of, figures have been killed, and that's not been confirmed at all. But if that is the case, that's only 20% of the total. That means that 80% of Hamas terrorists have not been killed yet. Again, I'm staying with you, Jank, for this. I mean, if you're Israel and your mission statement is to eradicate Hamas, the calls for a ceasefire are going to fall on deaf ears, aren't they? Because they're determined, as we can hear from all the rhetoric, to finish the job as they see it. Yeah, so let's be clear. I mean, I saw the Mark Regervon before.

me, the propagandists for Israel that you had on. And first of all, he thought it was funny that my name was on the bombs. I don't think that the children that they're murdering think it's funny. And the idea that they are not indiscriminately killing civilians is absurd. So they dropped 2,000-pound bombs in residential areas. America never dropped a bomb larger than 500 pounds in a residential area in Iraq, and we did great damage in Iraq, four times larger. The area is the size of Las Vegas, and they've dropped 29,000 bombs, nearly half of which are unguided missiles.

Then they shoot three hostages dead without even checking when they had a white flag and no shirt on at all. And if those three hostages were Palestinians instead of Israelis, no one would have even noticed. Because now at this point, one more devastating fact. Hamas, and what they did on October 7th was terrible, and they killed 840. civilians. The rest were soldiers. Now Israel has, even if you take the IDF numbers of saying that there's, of the 19,000 they killed as 5,000 they claim as Hamas, it's an absurd number, a total and utter lie, not backed up by any evidence, but even if you accepted it, that means Israel has now killed 16 times as many civilians as the terrorist group Hamas. Here's the question. So what does that

make Israel. Should Israel leave Hamas 80% intact? Is that good for anybody? No. So now we get to the absurdity of what Israel says. We are going to stay there until all of Hamas is gone. How? How do we know if they're all gone? How do we know if they've surrendered? How do we know if the Palestinians have turned on Hamas? These are all impossible standards meant to eradicate Gaza entirely. And in fact, they've almost done it already. 90% of the people in Gaza are homeless. We're picking out the body parts of family members every single day in Gaza. And now even the New York Times and every human rights group, we acknowledge this is this one of the worst massacres, the biggest war crimes committed in our lifetimes.

America, in 20 years in Afghanistan, did not kill as many civilians as Israel has killed in two months. But should they leave a mass in time? So now let me give you an answer. Let me give you a productive way to do this, how to drive Hamas out. You make a peace deal with the Palestinian authority. That buys them the credibility to be able to say to the Palestinian people, we have delivered a state for you. The thing that we have been looking for our entire lives. And now,

because we have delivered that for you, we are going to run Gaza. That can drive Hamas out in a way that is organic and driven by the Palestinians themselves. If you just try to murder as many civilians as possible in Gaza, that is not an answer for actually getting Hamas. And by the way, the bombs

have shown that they do not affect the tunnels. So all they're doing is killing civilians. Let me bring in Mossabasan, Yousef. You're the son of one of the Hamas co-founders, of course, renounced that back in the 90s. You believe that Israel should finish the job. They should eradicate Hamas.

Well, absolutely, because all the calling for a ceasefire is calling for surrender. They want Israel to surrender to the terrorist savages and sit down at the table and negotiate with them. And this is absolutely rejected. Is there any deal to ever be done with Hamas? You know Hamas very well, obviously, through your father. Is there any deal to be done with a group like this now? There is no deal with the devil.

There is no deal with Hamas as long as they pose a threat against children, against civilians, and destabilize security in the entire region. If they get away with their crime, and their crime is not just any crime, It's a genocide. If they get away with their crime, what will they do tomorrow? They have to be punished and they have to be held accountable. All the calling for sees fire. Those are the people who want to give a lifeline to Hamas.

And this is not acceptable. Masab, you tweeted on Friday, something that many people found in Century. You said, never trust anyone who identifies as a Muslim. They may appear as a harmless sheep when they are alone, but when they're in a pack, they will begin to show their tusks. I have zero respect for any individual who identifies as a Muslim and I may consider the use of force when it comes to Islamists. What did you mean by that?

Many people are saying, well, why would you say that about over a billion people? Well, I don't care how many they are. Any person who put the religious identity above the highest interest of humanity, I have no respect for this people. The majority of the Muslim people identified with Hamas, supported Hamas, show me how many Muslims out there who condemned Hamas genocide.

Why? Is it because Jewish blood? This is what I meant that the Muslims, as long as they give Hamas cover, I have no respect for them. As long as I identify as Muslims, I have no respect for them. But I've interviewed a number of Muslims on this show who do not support Hamas and have renounced him. Jank himself came on the show before and immediately denounced what Hamas did not totally the 7th.

I am dealing with a majority of Muslim countries, governments, an entire nation. Don't tell me about an individual here or there. We're talking about a majority of Muslim people who fail to take their moral responsibility. They fail to take their moral responsibility because it's Jewish people. I understand, but you did say literally every Muslim. You said, don't trust anyone who identifies as a Muslim. That's all of them. And what I'm saying to you is I've interviewed many Muslims on this show who are not extremists,

who do not support what Hamas did, who believed what they did was a terror attack. But they still have the need for a religious identity, which is a false identity. Individuality is something else. freedom is something else. A person who know who they are, they are above all national and religious identities. There is no need to pose as a Muslim in a critical time in the human history. This is the time to take moral responsibility. What's the point of identifying as a Muslim while people threatening to erase an entire Jewish community? This is not acceptable.

This is why I want the Muslim to stand and be clear. Up to this point, I haven't seen the Muslims taking a moral stand, a firm stand against Hamas. You know why? Because they are Muslims. Because they are Muslims against the Jewish people.

And this is where I want to push the Muslims to the point where they need to stand firmly and say, It doesn't matter if they are Jewish or Christians. A genocide is a genocide and is rejected. Hamas is rejected. I want to see this clearly. Then after that, I will have respect for the majority of the Muslim people.

As long as they fail, they're moral responsibility. I have no respect for them. Okay. You made your point very firmly. They'll be bringing Avram. A lot of emotions run very high with this, understandably. A lot of people have been killed. on both sides. It's a horrific situation. You were in Israel on October the 7th. You've been back

since. You've spoken to IDF soldiers. You've been to the kibbutzis that were attacked. I think one of your daughter's friends was killed. I mean, it's personal for you. You know, your father survived the Holocaust. What do you feel about all this? I feel sad. To be honest, I feel sad. But I want to tell you something. I came to Israel a few days. before. The atmosphere was very pastoralic. My son is musician. He is writing songs. By the way, he writes a song about the word that

he called it stopper. I said, why stopper? Because for me, everything stopped in the 7th of October. And then I woke up on Saturday morning. My friend called me, he said, you don't believe it. Twenty-three people was murdered by the Hamas. I said, oh,

and he started to watch a television. The day after my wife decided that we will took our daughter Romi because she was working in the television. And I don't know if you know, I think also you got all the videos, horrible videos. She didn't want to see it. On the way back, my daughter started to cry. I said, why?

We found a lie. Our friend, he was murdered in this party. The way, party for peace. Party for peace, not only by the Jewish people. So this highway is exposed to this situation. but I will tell you, it's a tragedy. It's a tragedy. All of this area is tragedy.

I'm not a politician. I'm a football guy. But I live in this area. I have a lot of Muslim friends. I have a lot. And I want one thing to say. Two things. First, what would you do?

What England would do if this massacre happened in England? What they would do? What would be in? Silence. And not just this. What do you would do if the people that did it say it publicly, we will do it again. And we will do it again. And they show the videos.

By the way, all the videos was published by them, was videos by them. Even the Nazis was hiding what they do. What do you would do? Of course, you need to prevent the second time. But are you comfortable, Avram, with the scale of the response by Israel? Do you feel comfortable? Now, a lot of people are feeling increasingly uncomfortable. And when you see three hostages being killed, you see women being killed outside.

churches, the Pope calling it terrorism, the President of the United States, saying it's indiscriminate bombing and so on. Do you feel comfortable about this? Do you think that Israel should just carry on, or do you think they should have a pause? I'm not a general of all the things. I think one thing everybody knows, this Hamas, no need to be in this area. If the Hamas is not here, if the hostages was released, by the way, which hostage is, 10 months years old, four years or old, 85 years old, you know, people that was in the party, it's not the soldiers. They didn't fight. It's under, I don't remember

in the history hostages like this. They need to release them immediately. They need to put their weapon down. One thing for sure, I can say to you, Piers, if they would put their weapon down, if they release their hostages, and they put all their efforts instead to build tunnels, instead

to missiles, to the quality of the people, Gaza can be paradise. I can assure you to this, for sure. But you think Israel should continue fighting until they get rid of Hamas completely? That could mean many, many months, if not years, at the rate they're going. No, I don't know.

People say six weeks, I don't know. I think this needs to be the target of the free world and Israel to get rid of the Hamas. Because the Hamas, I'm one of the people that believe them, not believe that the number. They said, we want to kill again. Yeah, there's no question of that. So you need to get rid of the Hamas.

You need to get rid of the Hamas. How to do it, how to do it. I'm a football coach. Everyone talks about the day after the war. What do you think the future looks like here? How do we get to peace? I will tell you exactly. Not exactly.

I will tell you my opinion. First, I have a lot of Muslim friends. By the way, I have friends in Gaza. My wife even did a program about family from Gaza. I have friends, all the Muslim around the world. They condemn what's happened. They don't like it. I don't agree with this guy.

I agree with him that the Hamas is the devil, but not all the Muslims are like this. They didn't like what they do. I think the people in Gaza deserve other government. They deserve other leaders. Who should that be? They need a leader. I don't know.

They need a leader from them, leader that take care of the quality of life. They need the leaders that will lead them to this. They need a leader that their target is not to hate. Their target is to build something. The target is to do something. Not to hate others. This deserves the leader.

One thing for sure, you know the song of Martha Luther, the speech. I have a dream. I also have a dream. I have a dream that it will happen. I would tell you something. The leader that admire more than anybody, I think, is the number one leader on the 20th century,

is Anwar Sadat. Anmar Sadat was a guy that was the worst enemy of Israel. In 25 years, four wars. One of them he started it. They killed each other. Many people died. Many people got injured. And this guy came, decided to come to Israel to the parliament

and say, I know I want a peace. And I will tell you something. In these days, to say, I'm going to Israel, it's more than Belander will come to America, you know. And he came, and what's happened since then? 50 years, nobody died. It's a cold peace. I want the peace will be better.

Nobody died. I'm expecting that these leaders, this leader is now in the region, and I agree with the son of the father, will take responsibility. And they say, let's make Gaza paradise. You know that I try to do a project of football. Pitches on the border.

And I would do it, by the way. Israelis, playing Palestinian. And the people will come to people. I try to do this project. I still believe in this. But I expect this leader, maybe it's Muhammad bin Salman, maybe others. I expect the leaders sit together and say,

instead to give them money for tunnels, why did they need the targets? Why did he make money the equality of the people? Like Anwar Sadat came to Israel, very brave men, I expect them to do this.

I will tell you one thing. I've got to go, actually. I think you're right. I will put all the leaders together that won peace, even from Iran, even pro-ad, everybody that won peace and want to make a guy's a paradise.

They can make it. And you know how it started? When Anwar Sadat called to water, concrete, and say to him, I'm ready to come to Israel. So maybe they will be call you peers and you say let's make peace

let's make Gaza paradise. I would do anything the help the intention of killing other people because I agree with Mark Reagan, the Israel never have intention to kill other people. I've got to live it there. Fascinating to talk to you. Great to see you. Thank you very much indeed and to my two other guests. I really appreciate it.

Chek, I can see you want to jump in. We will come back to this. You're a powerful voice and I will come back to you about this. I've just run out of time tonight but thank you all very much of it. Nine thousand dead children in Gaza. 9,000 dead children. It's acts of terrorism. I will get you back on again soon

and we'll talk about it again. I promise you that. Thank you all very much for joining me. Unsense to the next, a Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright, screenwriter, who's calling out Hollywood's diversity obsession. David Mamet is burning bridges

all over Tinseltown and good for him, frankly. He's live next. Welcome back, Doc Sains. My next guest is a Hollywood screenwriting legend and genius behind some of the most memorable scenes in movie history. David Mamet is daring now to call out

Hollywood's diversity obsession with his new book, everywhere an oink-oink and embittered, dispecting and accurate report of 40 years in Hollywood. And he joins me now, David, great to have you on the show. I'm so happy you did this book because it needs to be said loudly. Hollywood has lost the plot in recent years at the altar of trying to tick endless boxes

for diversity, for virtue signaling, whatever it may be. And it's made a lot of movies simply unwatchable, and it's also made award ceremonies unwatchable. As all the actors get forced into making these homilies and lectures and statements, when all I want them to do is embrace movies. Yeah, well, the thing about Hollywood is it's dead. And I've been around a long time, and technology changes culture, as we see, that vaudeville was driven out of business by the movies,

and the movies took it in the... tank when television came along, and every time the technology changes, there's a whole new paradigm. Who are we, to whom are we appealing, who's in charge of that, how do we keep track of it, and so forth? And so now the new paradigm is to go to downloading and streaming so that the incredible bureaucracy, the pointless bureaucracy of the studio system, which has been around for 100 years, is now dead. There's nobody there who says, Think of it this way. If somebody at Kodak said 30 years ago,

geez, I'm young, you guys don't know this, this whole new thing called computers and digitalizing. We got to stop making film. They would have said to that person, you're out of your mind. You're fired. Right. If we stop making film, our share price goes in the toilet. So the same thing is now true in Hollywood.

Nobody goes to the movies anymore in the brick-and-mortar movie theaters. And most people are just sick to death of this garbage that's being stuffed down their throat by the people who say, buy a subscription or read a book. I mean, when we see the issue that Disney got into, for example, with Snow White and the Seven Dwars, where they decided they weren't going to have any dwarves

because they wanted to take every quota box going and stuff, the backlash to that was very interesting to watch for me. It sort of said to me that the main body of the public have just had enough of this to a degree. Well, there's nobody making, everybody's making a corporate decision. So the whole thing about AI is interesting to me because that is the apotheosis of what idiots have been saying for 100 years. Why don't we just get people in a room and see what the audience bought last year and make it again this year. Wouldn't that make sense?

Well, it doesn't make sense because you can't predict what the audience is going to like, right? Because even the people who come out and say, this is what I liked, they do that because they've been asked the question. They've been turned into a critic. So even though they might say, yes, I liked this, doesn't mean they're going to like it again next year. So what's missing from Hollywood is individual invention, which can only come from the individual, and courage to take a chance and say,

yeah, you know what, I'm going to do this story because it's fun, rather than I'm going to do this story because if I don't, I'm going to get fired. Who wants to watch that garbage? I get all these Hollywood screeners in the mail, and they're all deeply felt. understanding tale of a person caught between his personal idea. Who cares? Nobody cares.

What is the answer to this? I mean, is there an answer? Yeah, there's an answer. I just made a movie with Shiel LeBuff and Evan Janukite, Dom Hoffman, Chris Bauer. And they, the people who made this movie also made some direct-to-downloading movies, among them the Peanut Butter Falcon and among them Honeyboy with Shia and also that they just made this movie called Sound of Freedom, which was, I think, funded by some Christians who made a lot of money with Jim Caviesel playing Christ. Now he plays a cop. It's a straight-up cop movie starring Jim Caviesel. They made it for $8 million. They made a quarter of a billion dollars because they went right to downloading

to people who said, you know what, heck, I'll pay money for that. This is a great business if you think about it. If you make a movie for, say, $2 million, and you download it and it makes $4 million, which you can do if you just threw it out the window, you just doubled your investment in three months. So that's what's happening now. What has been the reaction, David, to your book from Hollywood?

The reaction to my book, I don't know about Hollywood, but the critical reaction has been overwhelmingly. This is hysterically funny. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That's good enough by me. As far as Hollywood goes, it's kind of like world opinion, right?

It's the mob. It doesn't quite really exist. So as far as Hollywood goes, that's my answer. What I did in the book, because I've been in this business for 40 years in every aspect of it sitting at the big table. So what I'm saying is this is what actually went on, that most people who I tell all books are either settling a grudge or exculpating themselves or hyping their brand.

But I said, you know what? I've had so much fun in this business. Here's a bunch of funny and raunchy stories. I hope you like it. And the reaction's been gratifying. Well, I've got to tell you, it is, I mean, I'm no surprise because I love all your work, but it is absolutely hilarious.

And I'm so happy you've done this book. Everywhere in Oinkoink, an embittered, dispecting, and accurate report of 40 years in Hollywood, and everyone should just go and read this A for a great laugh and B to see the veneer of this bullshit blown away. So David Bammett, thank you very much indeed for joining me. You're so welcome. Thank you. And so next. The PAC will be with me in this studio.

Welcome, Donald Sensor, joined by my PACT, talk to the contributor, Esther Cracru, and the blue-cernist, Aversantino. Welcome, ladies. I'll show you a little haircut. Eve Gillis, Miss France, the winner of Miss France, who apparently is at the centre of a woke backlash, because she has a pixie hairdo, and the French like their Miss France winners to have long hair, and she's the first short-haired one to ever win.

I don't get this. What's he got to do with woke? She looks fantastic, doesn't she? Am I missing something? Most people don't know how strict the Miss France rules are. So to be in Miss France, you have to be between the age of 18 to 24. You have to be 5'7. You can't have any kids.

It's one of the strictest beauty pageers in the whole... But is there a wrong about your hair? No, they don't have a rule about hair. What's he got to do with wokeery? I mean, I'm the biggest woke basher in Britain, but even I cannot muster any anger about a haircut. The Daily Mail tried to jump on it this morning and they did put it on their woke watch

and I think there was a slight retraction. There was a bit of edit of an online copy there. I thought she looked fantastic. She does. I mean, I think she should go for a side part. It's a bit too Linda Vangelista. I mean, she should go for more like Hallie Berry. But I think it's beautiful.

She looks like Twiggy back in my 60s. If you have like a Miss France from Martinique, she'd probably have an Afro, right? It'd probably be short. Is that woke? It's nothing to do with woke, is it? Yeah. Let's just, anyway, well done, Miss France.

You look fabulous. And we have to pick our woke battles, and that haircut is not a hill I want to die on in my woke bashing campaign. At least she's a woman. At least she's a woman. At least she's a woman. You're right.

There's no bulge to be seen. Let's talk about Lady Mone. Mishal Mone, because I watched that interview at the week. I don't think it did her any favours. The big question now, should she, obviously, has the criminal investigation, but should she remain in the House of Lords, having admitted lying to the press

in which she followed up with lots of libel threats if people publish the truth. I mean, I don't know about you, but I'm relieved that I'm not her lawyer. I think her lawyer is probably somewhere in a dark corner crying hysterically because she's making it worse. Should she be removed from the Lord? No, look, I mean, there's not a process

to remove someone from the Lords, but it's a good question about whether we should just get rid of the entire institution altogether, and I would back that. All right, Esther? I think we should blow it up with a handwritten. Well, what about her in particular? Oh, yes, of course. She should resign.

if she has a modicum of... See, I think lying to the press like that by sending endless legal threats is actually lying to the public. It is. And I've known Michel a long time, right? But I watched that and it had a touch of the Prince Andrew delusion about it. It's like, do you not realize that you're lying to the public.

And you can't do that if you remember the House of Lords. Anyway, I love you to see. I know you're sick. Go back to bed. Because you need to go back to bed and recover, all right? Care about you, Esther. That's it for me. Whatever are up to? Keep it uncensored and unsnifling Good night.