Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Strip of Royal Titles? Has Israel Gone Too Far

Episode Date: December 4, 2023

On Piers Morgan Uncensored tonight, Prince Harry prepares to play the victim again in a court battle for his security, as the Sussexes remain silent on those baseless racism claims and Is it time to strip them of their royal titles? Israel pounds Gaza as a seven-day ceasefire ends with a vengeance. After telling civilians to flee to the south, why are its ground troops now moving there? Piers will ask top adviser Mark Regev. 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

Is that his life? Tonight up here's Morgana censor. Prince Harry prepares to play the victim yet again in a court battle yet again this time for his security, as the suspects remain stonily silent on those baseless racism claims that they started. Is it time, many are asking, including an MP, to strip them of their royal titles?

Israel Pound's guards was a seven-day ceasefire ends with a vengeance after telling civilians to flee to the south, Why are its ground troops now moving there? I'll ask top advisor to Israel government, Mark Regief. And a shocking new reporting reveals a depravity of her massive sexual violence against women. Why do they take the UN's women's right body 57 days to condemn it? From the news building in London, this is Piers Morgan Uncensored.

Good evening from London. Welcome to Piers Morgan Uncensored. It's almost four years now since Harry and Megan made the groundbreaking announcement. They were quitting the royal family, stepping down as senior royals, moving to the United States and finding freedom. Well, since that moment, they've systematically and relentlessly exploited their existing royal status to make as much money as possible, while simultaneously trashing the royals and the monarchy to preserve their exposure and relevance.

I think it's time we brought the Sussex Circus to a formal end. Conservative MP Bob Seeley is now introducing a bill in Parliament to strip them formally of their titles. The Duke and Duchess can be Mr and Mrs like the rest of us, he said. Someone doesn't want to be a royal, that's a decision we respect. But they shouldn't keep the titles and privileges if they trash an institution that plays an important part in our nation's life. I think he's right.

And as he also says, the baseless racism claims that are now embroil the King and Princess of Wales, well, it should be the final straw, shouldn't they? The author behind those damning claims, who claims he wasn't the author behind those damning claims, but who else could he have been the author of those damning claims, given it was in the manuscript of his own book in which these damning claims were made.

Sussex Lab Dog Omid Scobie is still tying himself in the web of his own lies. Yeah, what a series of events, right? And what a frustrating experience for me for a book that was so heavily vetted, legaled, eyes dotted, tees crossed, and a book that I was extremely proud of now completely overshadowed by an event

that has caused me a lot of frustration as well. We have a full investigation going on into this series of events that happened. Yeah, I know you're frustrated, buddy, but imagine how frustrated King Charles is, or the Princess of Wales, that somehow they got called racists in a manuscript you claim you didn't actually draft that way. That's frustrating, isn't it? And the entire world is encouraged to think that you were named as racists.

A little bit more frustrating than you not being able to work out. why a draft of your own book appeared in the Netherlands and was translated from a copy that had the names on it that was sent to them apparently by your agent. How did your agent get that if you didn't write it? Does your agent write your books, Omed? Well, the Times, as reported, like I said, but earlier versions of the book did contain the names

and it was sent to the Dutch publisher. Harry and Megan are stood by in stunning silence. So unlike them, isn't it? when private conversations of the kind that Megan had with Charles in private letters began to circulate in this book as well, containing the names of the two people that she and Harry claim were racially insensitive about the potential skin color of their baby. Now, these two can't normally wait to set the record straight,

to sue, to go to court, to hold people to proper account for invasion of private correspondence or conversations. Why aren't they doing it now? They claim that they had nothing to do with Omis Gobi's new book. But you might remember Megan claiming that about his last book. And then a strange thing happened. She was suing a newspaper, ironically, for invading her privacy over private correspondence.

Rather similar to the situation we find ourselves in here. And when it came to the court case, after the book had been published that she had nothing to do with, she was forced to apologize because it turned out that not only had she had something to do with it, she'd given briefing notes to her aid to go to a meeting with Omisobie and brief him for the book. So she was a primary source for that book. So I don't know what you make of the silence from the Sussexes. We're into nearly week two now of a deafening, damning silence.

Weird, right? Well, the question of whether they should keep their titles, in my view, comes down to this. And it's that if you're going to spark a race route, if you're going to accuse two senior members of our royal family of being racists, and if you're going to then deliberately not say the names for two years, so the whole world speculates over which member of this white supremacist family was racist, tiring them all with the brush. If you're going to do that, and then calmly, as Harry did at the start of this year, suddenly go, oh, we didn't mean to say they were racist? No, no, no, no, this was unconscious bias.

That thing when someone isn't racist, but someone says they were thinking it. It was that. But we all know what we heard on Oprah. And in my view, they made their racial charge bed, and they now should lie in it. And you can't accuse the king of this country or the wife of our future king of this. country of being racist and in my opinion keep the royal titles that you've been so cynically

fleecing for the last four years or maybe you can let's have a debate about this journalist rachel johnson talked to a few contributor to paula ron adrian associate editor of the mirror kevin mcguire and the author and historian sir anthony selden so a fantastically high-powered panel tonight sir anthony let me start with you and purely kind of constitutionally historically Is it even possible to wrestle the titles away from them? Well, I'm sure it is, peers. The question is, is it all worth it? And is it going to be what they want

because it just makes them more out to be victims of these hateful, exploitative people in Buckingham Palace? Wouldn't it just be better just to let them be forgotten and not to react? Because by reacting, by doing this, the Bob Seeley idea. I think it just makes them into victims, gives them even more publicity. There they are over all the world's headlines again as people.

There must be some truth, surely, in what they're both saying. And I think that that is not the right way to handle it. They're both clearly two very, very damaged people. They need help. I don't think they need stripping their royal title. See, I would question that. I would say they're very damaging people. I'm not saying they haven't been through damage.

They're that too, Pear. But I think they've set out to be deliberately damaging to the royal family and the monarchy. They've taken hundreds of millions of dollars to do it. It is unprecedented in history for two renegade royals to go off and enrich themselves making money out of targeting the royal family, isn't it? We've never seen this before.

It's not almost unprecedented, Pierce. is unprecedented for two members of the royal family deliberately to set out, hurt, harm, belittle, besmirch, the monarch and the wife of the heir to the throne. That's unprecedented. Of course, it's damaging, but of course the damaging action comes out of damaged people. The question is, I think, just what's the best way to do it? And I think myself, the best way to deal with it is not to give them the oxygen. of even more entitlement to the claim of being victims.

OK, Rachel Johnson, your view. Well, Sir Anthony, as ever, as an eminent historian, has put the argument for killing with kindness. Don't give the grifters any more grist to the mill. But the grifters make most of their money because they have royal titles. Of course they do. The American business model collapses if they're just plain Harry and Meghan.

Not immediately, but it would over time. If they can't slap all over all over all their correspondence, that they're the Duke and Duchess. It disappears. Possibly, that remains to be seen. We do not know that. It could definitely give them another leg on their grievance talk. I want to know, I mean, Bob Seeley,

who is the liege man of life and limb, who's, you know, withdrawn the flaming scabbard to defend the monarchy, and he's inserted this bill, this private member's bill, which is called something like the disinheritance of titles bill, 1917, it must be on notes. So my question is...

Just to be clear, it's been used before to remove the titles of His Royal Highness Charles Edward, Duke of Albany, Earl of Clarence, Baron Arclough, His Royal Highness, Ernest Augustus, the Duke of Cumberland and Teviot Dale and Earl of Armagh and so on. This has been used a lot. But wasn't it mainly used to strip Germans of their titles in 1917? But the curious irony is, if you took the title Duke of Sussex away from Prince Harry, he'd be Harry Mountbatten. which is a German surname. Anyway, so I'm sure he wouldn't like it. I think the, okay, so the question is, who has the right to strip these royals of their titles? Is it the House of Commons, or is it the Queen? She took away Princess Diana's HRAH,

which caused Princess Diana. Which I campaigned for her not to do, by the way, at the mirror. That was a terrible wound for Princess Diana. This would no doubt be a terrible wound for Harry and Meghan, because the royals, their titles, is who they are. You know, the difference about Diana was she never attacked the monarchy. She had her issues with her ex-husband. But I campaigned at the mirror to stop her HRH being taken away

because I knew how much it had hurt because she told me. And because it was only taken away because she was deemed to no longer be married to Charles, right? But she didn't attack the monarchy, Paula. And here's the difference between what Diana used to do and what these two are doing. It's their deliberate diminishing and relentless attacks on the family and the monarchy that I really find offensive now. And I don't understand why, if you're going to attack the institution this much

and you hate the family this much, why would you want to, A, stay a member of that family or B, keep titles bestowed on you by the monarchy and the family? I appreciate that you find it personally offensive peers, but shall I tell you what I find concerning that in this discussion about racism, we know that the institution has issues.

We know that. in 2021, we were supposed to see the appointment of a diversity czar. And I'm still waiting for that appointment. What is a diversity czar? We can discuss that another day. Well, it's a little bit of course title, isn't it? Well, Pears, this is important. This is important.

The Royal Family employ a lot more non-white people than they... You don't want to hear it, Pierce, for you? Hang on. It's a fact that they employ a lot more non-white people than they used to. Right? It's also a fact they remain exclusively white other than the Mega Markle part of it because there are a white family. His, don't shut me down on this point,

because this is important for us to discuss. You're distracting away from the alleged racism in this story. Trevor Phillips, Trevor Phillips, who ran the big... Did you see what's happening here? No, no, I'm asking you a question about this particular topic. I haven't finished answering your first question. I'm talking about other things. I'm not talking about other things.

I'm talking about exactly what you're referencing, the allegation of racism, and why it's important for society as a whole, for us to see that the institution is dealing with this. and I'm saying to you, where is the diversities are? What racism? Where is the diversities are that we were told was going to be appointed in 2021? We were told that this was such an important thing

and that it was going to happen because of the concerns. Paula. Where is the racism? Because of the concerns that Megan had. That's what was reported. Secondly, we've also had reports. And by the way, she thought it happened when she was pregnant. Harry said it happened before they got engaged.

Which one is it? not going to change the fact that I'm concerned. So we also have reports, don't we, about issues in relation to how the institution approaches the concerns about, about racism. We've had unfortunate stories where I accept, there was an apology, but it left a concern, didn't it, when, for example, Princess Michael attended the dinner wearing her approach that caused upset. Do you honestly believe that Charles and Kate were racist about that baby skin color?

We know about the issue in relation to how late. Lady Hussie and how that was dealt with. And what I'm saying to you is that there are concerns that have been raised. And it seems to be that we want to deflect those concerns by pouring hatred on Harron and Meghan. No, no. That's what this is about. This is about hatred of Harry and Megan.

How could you pour more hatred over people than these two who for four years have poured hatred on their family and the monarchy and who did it by sparking. a racism row on Oprah Winfrey in front of 50 million people where they made allegations of racism and then try to pretend they hadn't. They've never produced any evidence. I mean, Kevin, this is my issue with this whole thing.

And it does incense me that we are trying to deal with a story which at the heart of it, I don't think there's even a story. I don't think this ever happened. As Trevor Phillips said, at worst, what we may be dealing with is that someone in the royal family, Charles, Kate, whoever, may have said, I wonder what kind of the baby might be. That's not racism. No.

You have a mixed-race relationship. It's what every mixed-race relationship family would ask themselves. Why do we keep leaving out of the word concerns? Why do we keep leaving that word out? Because what are the concerns? I read Trevor Phillips account because he's a black Britain who's long campaign against racism racism. There's no problem with the institution.

But Megan Markle's evidence wouldn't stand up in court because it was hearsay. It's something she said... Racism allegations often don't... No, no, no. But it's hearsay. She hasn't heard it directly, but of course they should be stripped of those titles. And I think Harry's grandmother, the Queen, made a mistake, not taking them away. I think his father, Charles now the King, has made a mistake not taking them away.

They said they wanted to start a new life. But that new life actually requires them to have those titles. Because their meal ticket is trashing the royal family. I'm intrigued. The failure wasn't in about talking. The failure wasn't in about resolving the public. What I love is, you still believe there was racism. No, that's been very careful.

I have never said that I could believe it because I don't know. So we need to be very careful. You don't think it should be incumbent on those who made the allegations to actually say what happened. Why are they silent in the last week? I think what's intriguing is that you have asked them to be silent for so long and now you are demanding that they speak. If they do speak, if they do speak,

I don't think why their author, the boy they cooperated with on the last book, why he's able to name Harry's father and his sister-in-law as two racists, and they say nothing. They say nothing. Do you think that if you continue to shout me down? I think you've got to answer some questions for it. At some stage, you have to. You literally are behaving like a politician. If you allowed me to.

If you allowed me to. The fact is, should they respond to this? Absolutely they should respond to this. Charles and Kate have an opportunity to respond to it? Absolutely. Do you know what I would like to see in terms of a response? I would like to see a joint response. I would like them to come together and send out

a joint response. They don't talk to each other. Well, then they need to find somebody who does. Then they need to find somebody who does. Because this is an unusual peers. The fact that this is a fallout in a family is not unusual. Megan Markle. Yes. Kevin wants them to be stripped of their titles. Bob Seedy wants them to be stripped of their titles.

I want them to be stripped of their titles. You will do. The fact remains that you could strip them of the title Duke and Duchess of Sussex, but you cannot remove the fact that he is a Prince of the Blood. He is the son of the King. You can't stop calling him a title. No, I don't think you can. I think it's literally like... All right, let's turn to...

Let's turn quickly to something else. It's his drug. While we've got Sir Anthony, I want to ask you about this whole furorory over Kea Stama appearing to praise Margaret Fatcher as one of the great biographers of our prime ministers over the years. What do you make of this? Is it political expediency, a smart move, or is it potential political suicide? It's a smart move.

It's a smart move. And Tony Blair bent out towards Margaret Satcher. Gordon Brown had her into tea in Downing Street. Gordon Brown, to the left of Tony Blair, had the Iron Lady into Downing Street for two hours. And the press release afterwards said there was a, meeting of minds. I mean, look, peers, we are a conservative nation. Labor is only going to win if it attracts significant middle ground Tory voters. And what better thing to do than attract the

one truly successful conservative leader of the last 50 years. And that is Margaret Thatcher. And to praise her is simply smart politics. But also it's showing that he was, he was He wants to be like her. He wants to be that leader coming in at the beginning of a single party period of long domination. Labor could be in power for 10, 15 years. He wants to be a figure like Thatcher, who started that period off, or like Clement Attlee, one of his heroes, maybe even like Blair himself, although he's a bit more muted about that. So smart moves, smart electorally, smart politically, smart in terms of his own mark as a leader. Okay, I guess three smarts from the great historian, Kevin. You were smarting as you heard that. I was actually, yeah. I think Britain's a social democratic nation, not a conservative nation. All our values are social democratic.

I think Blair... Why have we voted conservative at the last 15? That's because the opposition is split between Labour, Liberal Democrats and Nats who are all in a similar pool. But the conservatives are very good as a ruling party of coalescing... But is he not quite smart? No, it's not. I'll tell you why it's not.

To widen his base. because wounds are still so deep from her reign in the 80s. When so many people suffered from greed is good, fat cats roaring ahead, flogging off national assets on the cheap to our mates, trying to cripple trade unions, turbo-charging inequality. He didn't have to do this, and you can tell, and I followed him through this, you can tell he's now tired of it, and he'll wish he hadn't done it because he's getting so much criticism over it.

I think it's very amusing because I was beginning to wonder, when Kirstama would give the lefty commentary at something, you know, to be angry about. And finally... Hang on, hang on. No, we've got back two years of this, actually, as he's ditched his initial proposals. Ever since Kirstama stopped being a loony lefty, they've all gone bonkers. Ever since he saw the light, it became relatively normal. No, but now they've got something to give him a pop-at for.

What do you think? I thought it was a calculated risk. I think it's going to pay off because people think Margaret Thatcher was one of the great prime ministers. And of course, she came to power on the... back of Labour votes, he's going to come to power on the back of Labour votes as well. And we have to be... Even during her reign, the majority of people

were against it, because she could win on the electoral system with a minority of the votes. You know what, she kept winning elections? Because the opposition was split. But this I fear... But if you don't win elections, you don't have power. You don't split the opposition. Well, you need an electoral system.

You need an electoral system. Look at me. I know you don't want to. All right. I'll answer my questions. A quick verdict. Smart move or not? Smart move.

Smart move. Had to be done. All right. Interesting. Most people think it's a smart move. I think it's a smart move. I think he's a smart guy. And if things say as well, he's heading into powers.

Oh, he's going to. Yeah, but the Conservatives are making a very good job of ensuring that lose. Yes, but as someone here's brother could tell you, a year's a long time in politics. As he found out. Yes. Are you looking forward to seeing your brother in the COVID inquiry this week? I think it's tomorrow, isn't it?

Tomorrow is it, yeah. Yeah. Well, I'm not going to recuse myself on that subject. Just get into trouble. Yeah, because you don't agree with him. Good to see you. All of you, thank you very much. And Sir Anthony, thank you very much.

And since the next, millions of gardens are sheltering the south of the Gaza Strip after being ordered to leave the north. Now Israel stepping up its attacks there too. So where are a civilian supposed to go? What are they going to go back to? Israel government's spokesman. Mark Rego joins me next.

Welcome back. More days after a truce with Hamas collapsed. Israeli forces have turned their focus to southern Gaza, hitting areas where hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have sought shelters since the start of the war. Turkey's President Erdogan today denounced Benjamin Netanyahu as a butcher and said he would eventually be tried as a war criminal. We're joining me now from Tel Aviv as the Prime Minister's senior advisor, Mark Regev. Mr. Regev, thank you very much indeed for joining me again. Your reaction first of all... My pleasure.

Your reaction first of all to President Erdogan, he said that of the Prime Minister, beyond being a war criminal, Netanyahu is the butcher of Gaza right? will be tried as the butcher of Gaza, just as Milosevic was tried. What is your reaction to that? I, of course, don't accept the criticism. And unfortunately, this is not out of character for the Turkish leadership, which has, of course, been very critical over the years of Israel and very supportive, I should say, of Hamas. The big question now is exactly what is the game plan?

for Israel. You're moving into the south. There are, as we know, two million Palestinians now crowded into a 90-square-mile area. This is already, clearly, I would say, indisputably, a humanitarian crisis there. But also, they were told to go south to be safe.

Now they're being attacked in the south. Now where is safe now in Gaza. Would you accept that? No. When we told people to relocate to the south, it was true. The fighting was concentrating in the north, and we asked people to move to the south

because they'd be safer. And that was true then. Now the operation is continuing into areas of the south, and we've specified, as has been widely reported, specific areas in the south which remain safer zones, and we've urged people to relocate there. Now, we know it's difficult to move. My father was a refugee.

He had to move from place to place in the Second World War to save his life. I know it's difficult to move, But surely it's better to move than it is to stay in a combat zone and get caught up in crossfire. It's all a matter of managing risk. We want to see civilians outside combat zones. We don't want to see them accidentally hurt.

It's best for them to move. And the truth is we're seeing now. Gazans are voting with their feet and are moving to the areas which we've specified as safer areas. But eventually, this operation is going to clearly lead to you attacking all over Gaza. Where do they eventually move all these people? Is the operation actually designed to permanently displace the Palestinian people as some fear? No, not at all.

And we hope that people can, when the fighting is over, that people can go back to their homes, and where homes have been destroyed because of the fighting, there will be temporary shelters for them, I hope. But it is common sense. Our enemy is Hamas. And as you know, Hamas is embedded itself in civilian neighborhoods, in mosques, in schools, in hospitals, unfortunately.

And we've had to fight Hamas and we will defeat Hamas. But once Hamas is defeated, of course, we'll be allowing people to return to their homes. And of course, there'll be a massive rebuilding, reconstruction campaign of Gaza. That's going to be needed. How many terrorists have you killed? So I can't give you an exact amount because the war is still going on. But we see the death hole in fatalities on the terrorist side in the thousands. But if you don't know, how do you know, if you know what I mean?

Well, we've got estimates, but because we're not sure, and I'll explain to you why we're not sure, you blow up an underground bunker, yes, which Hamas has got these underground fortifications across the gas strip. You destroy it. You don't necessarily know if there were 10 terrorists inside or 20 or 50, yes, because you've destroyed an underground fortification. So it's all based on approximations. When this is over, I think we'll have a more precise understanding of the numbers.

but I've been in briefings, and I've heard the numbers. It's in the thousands. Right. I mean, I hear this from the Israeli side, but nobody seems to be able to produce any concrete evidence. And I understand slightly the fog of war, but the significance of this is that if you can't actually produce hard evidence of how many Hamas terrorists you're killing,

and the death toll of innocent civilians keeps rising and rising and rising, as it has done now over 15,000 by the Hamas-run health. authorities estimation. You know, you know the public opprobrium that's coming Israel's way, the longer this goes on, isn't it incumbent on Israel to actually be able to produce clear evidence of the volume of Hamas terrorists you're killing? Because if there are 35,000 of them, and you've only killed a thousand or 2,000 so far, then the fear is that the civilian death toll is going to be 100,000, 200,000, before you can even think about eradicating Hamas. What is the line for Israel?

Is there one? Or is there no limit on civilian casualties so long as you still got Hamas terrorists to kill? So first of all, we don't want to see a single civilian casualty. You've heard me say that before, and we mean it. We don't want to see civilians caught up in the crossfire. That's why we're urging people to leave combat zones. It's common sense. If we don't want to see them get caught up in the fighting between the Israeli defence

forces in Hamas, please, we urge people to leave combat zones. And most of the, the civilians do so, Hamas, as you know and has been reported, they've urged people to stay, ordered people to stay even at gunpoint because they want those guards and civilians as a human shield. But white, right-minded person agrees to be a human shield for Hamas. Of course they want to leave, and we have to facilitate their leave. And even now, as we move towards our ground incursion in the South, I can assure you that escape routes will be there for the civilians to still reach the same areas because we don't want to see them come into harm's way and we'll make every effort possible about the numbers and you ask a good question look we could just

articulate numbers the way Hamas does and just make them up and throw them out there no we're very precise and if we don't have a precise number we're not going to make one up when you say when I say in the thousands I know what I'm talking about it's more than 2000 it's in the thousands but we don't want to say numbers that we're not 100% sure but I can say something that we are sure of Look, we're fighting a difficult war against a brutal terrorist organization in an urban area. And if we compare ourselves to, let's say, what the West did against ISIS in places like Mosul and Fallujah,

I am sure when this is over. And you can have me back if this is not true, but I am sure, because I know this to be the case. When one looks at what the experts call the combat to civilian death ratio, yes, and you will compare the IDF's behavior in Gaza together against what the West, did in, let's say, places like Mosul and Volta, I think the IDF's going to come out very favourably. How favourably will Israel come out with what's going on with the settlers on the West Bank? I watched a very disturbing report on the BBC from Jeremy Bowen tonight,

where there is clear, huge aggression from Israeli settlers against Palestinians, a lot of deaths, and Hamas are not involved there. They're not the controlling body. How do you feel about that? So, first of all, we did have a terrible terrorist attack in Jerusalem just a few days ago. where Hamas shot at people waiting at a bus stop on their way to work. I think that was, was that Friday morning or Thursday morning last week. That was widely reported.

Chamas doesn't control the West Bank, but Hamas has violent cells across the West Bank that are there, and they've wanted to activate those cells. And that's why we had those murderous attacks in Jerusalem just a few days ago. Hamas is there. They're more underground on the West Bank, but there's still a threat, and we've tried to be as proactive as we can be

in trying to go out there, and arrest Hamas activists. Look, Hamas in Gaza is under a lot of pressure. So they've sent messages to all their cells in the West Bank. This is a time for you guys to kill Jews, yes? And they succeeded, unfortunately, last week. But we have limited their ability to kill people by being proactive, arresting people in the middle of the night,

taking out these Hamas activists. But does wiping out villages and looking like you are encroaching more and more with the settlements throughout this conflict, is that not just incredibly inflammatory to the Palestinian people living in the West Bank. Pierce, there's been no villages that have been wiped out. Well, I literally saw one on the BBC

where it's been almost demolished and the people have been displaced. 200 or so had been displaced permanently. So once again, I'm not sure what you're talking about and I apologize for not having that information. But the Israeli policy on the West Bank is to live and let live, yes? And if Palestinians are not involved in violence...

With respect. That's not what's been happening. I disagree. I mean, it's obviously been a difficult. period, but we have so far managed to keep, and despite the fatalities we had last week, yes, it could be a lot worse. But through our actions, we've managed to keep the level of violence on the West Bank relatively low. I mean, the Hamas people want to see an explosion on the West Bank. That's what they want. They want to see Hamas activists get on jeeps like they did

in Gaza and come into Jewish communities and butcher people. That's what they want to see. And so far, once again, we had fatalities last week, but I think overall we've managed to keep the level of violence relatively low, and that's a good thing for Israelis and Palestinians. Final question. What is victory going to look like here? I mean, if there are still Hamas terrorists alive at the end of this, is that victory, or do they simply, by their time,

regroup and come back at Israel even stronger because so many people will have been killed by them in Gaza? So victory is the destruction of Hamas' military machine and the end of their political control over the Gaza's trip, a bit like victory of. over ISIS in Iraq and Syria. You didn't have to kill every last ISIS gunman, but you destroyed their territorial independence. You destroyed their ability to control an enclave, because that gives them power. We can't destroy the Hamas idea, just as you can't destroy the ISIS idea.

But you can remove from them the capability to inflict pain on others. And we believe that once we have destroyed Hamas's terror regime in Gaza, there'll be room to build something better for the Palestinians, they can build it themselves. We'll support them. But let's be clear here, when this is over, Hamas's path of extremism, of radicalism, of violence, of terror, will be discredited, not because it hurt us, but because it hurt the people of Gaza. I mean, the people of Gaza are not stupid. They can see who started this war, who brought all this destruction upon them, who even ended the ceasefire by refusing to release more hostages. The people of Gaza know this. They can't speak their minds today

because they live in a terrible dictatorial state. Hamas does not allow people to criticize them and not face consequences, violent consequences. But when this is over and the people of Gaza can speak, they will say that Hamas brought this tragedy upon them and there'll be room, I think, to work with Palestinian moderates to build a better future for Gaza. It's good for Israel. It's good for Gazans.

Mr. Rugga, thank you very much. One question for you. I would love to interview Prime Minister Netanyahu. I interviewed him back in March when he was in London. I've put in a number of requests. He's not spoken yet to any European media entity, only American ones. Could we have an interview with Prime Minister Netanyahu?

So I'll check that out with the Prime Minister. I know he's interviewed in the past and he's enjoyed that and he could well do it again. I just can't commit for him at the moment. He has been focused on American media. I think we've done, I think 95% of our interviews have been connected to the US market because the US market,

the Americans are a most important ally, as you well understand. Well, Britain has proven to be a pretty good ally, too. So that's why I'm asking the question. I think it might be. You are 100% correct. Britain has been a good ally in this conflict, and so has Germany, and we know to appreciate our friends.

Well, it would be good to be able to interview, the Prime Minister, if he could spare us the time. You could pass that message to him. I will speak to him about it the next time I see him. Thank you very much. Appreciate it, Mr. Rego. Thank you. Unsets the next, the UN's women's rights body

finally condemns her master its appalling sexual violence almost two months after the attack. My next guest says it's feminist to support Palestine and demand a ceasefire. Well, that's a debate coming up. Welcome back. There's a shocking and growing body of evidence that Hamas used extreme sexual violence against women throughout its attacks on October the 7th. UN women has been strongly criticised for taking 57 days to condemn those atrocities.

Why did it take them so long to say something? Why have we so many in the feminist movement? Why have they sided with Palestine, a culture where women's rights barely exist? Well, these are important questions. Jeremy now as Chief Foreign correspondent Sunday Times, Christina Land, hosted to Tommy Layron. His feel is an outkick, Tommy Layron, and author and journalist Judith Levine.

Well, thank you all of you. Christine, let me start with you. You wrote this gut-wrenching piece of journalism on Sunday. It really moved me almost to tears, actually, reading the detail of what you'd unearthed about the barbaric rapes and sexual attacks on women on October the 7th. Just summarise really your findings.

Yeah, I mean, we should warn a few. It's horrific, but basically I talk to a lot of people, but in particular I talk to survivors of the Supernova Music Festival, which was one of the places that was attacked by Hamas on October the 7th. And some of those people told me about witnessing girls being raped, gang raped, and one man in particular who hid under the body of a woman that was shot, and then was for hours trying to get out of there. He saw a number of girls being raped,

but he told me in particular about one who was raped by about 10 Hamas fighters. And she was just begging them to kill her, actually, because she was just so horrific what they were doing. And he said that she had the face of an angel and that he wakes every night now to see that face. And they did in the end killer, I think, in that case. Yes, they did. They shop her. It was incredibly disturbing, as has been some of the reaction to all these revelations.

You know, normally you would see the feminist movement around the world rallying as one to speak out about this. And yet we're seeing a lot of silence. We're seeing a lot of female congresswoman in America going out of their way not to condemn what happened, to try and deflect. It's been a very bizarre reaction. What do you make of that? No, absolutely. I think this has all got mixed up in the politics of it. And, you know, whatever you think, I mean, I personally think you can completely,

it's completely compatible to be horrified by what Israel is doing in Gaza in terms of the number of civilians that have been killed and be horrified at what happened on October 7th. And it was very strange that feminist groups, the UN, others around the world, did not speak about it because, you know, there was really right from the beginning on the actual day. Hamas was live streaming videos, which made clear what they were doing it in plain sight and boasting gleefully about what they were doing. But UN women, I mean, if they can't speak out sooner than 57 days on the systematic rape and abuse of murder of women, what's their purpose? I mean, the one thing I would say, having covered this a lot in different conflict.

it does often take a long time to come out. And that's because, you know, this is such a difficult thing for people to come out and speak about. As we all know, rape is the one crime where the victim is often made to feel that they did something wrong. So it's hard for people to talk about it. They're horrific things that have happened.

And in this case, people will say, well, where are the victims, right? And we know victims have actually come forward and spoken. Yes. Now, that may be because they were all killed, or taken hostage. Or it may be that there are some. And the State Department in America was saying today

they believe a lot of the female hostages you've not been released are being sexually assaulted. I'm afraid, you know, I'm sad to say, I think that that is happening. I spoke to the mother of a 23-year-old who is taken hostage at that festival and she's, you know, absolutely tearing herself apart thinking, I mean, she says I have to not think about that.

It's horrific. Horrific. Let me bring in Tommy and Judith here. Tommy, what is going on here? Why are so many female so-called progressives simply finding it impossible to come out and scream from the rooftops about the systematic rape and sexual abuse of women

by Hamas? Well, Peirts, it's because the modern-day feminist movement is a farce, and it's a joke. They don't stand up for women, Israeli women, who are brutally raped and tortured. They don't stand up for women's sports, the integrity of our sports and our spaces, they don't stand up for anything beyond unfettered abortions.

The modern-day feminist movement is not the feminist movement that was created to empower women, to protect women, to guide women. Now it's about abortion and that's about it. And I wish that weren't the case. The UN is also worthless. Why we in the United States continue to fund that body is beyond me. But it's also quite disgusting to watch American politicians

play the mental gymnastics around what happened on October 7th and try to then repeatedly turn it back on Israel as if Israeli soldiers are indiscriminately raping those in Palestine and in Gaza, which we know is not the case. So what this is is evil, it's blatant anti-Semitism, and it needs to be called out forcefully and at every turn. Feminism is a joke, the UN is a joke, and unfortunately, a lot of our American politicians, also a joke, peers.

Okay. Your response to that? Well, as a Jewish-American feminist, I would argue with the idea that American feminists are not deploring or Jews or even people, as Christina said, who are deploring what Israel is doing in Palestine also speak about the atrocities that Hamas has committed against Jewish people in Israel

and elsewhere and against the... their own people as well. So it is completely consistent to look at both of these things happening and also to say that as many activists and people with long experience on both sides of the walls have said that neither the Palestinians nor the Jews in Israel or anybody else in Israel will have security unless there is peace, unless there is justice in Palestine. These are people, the Jews are not going anywhere, the Palestinians are not going anywhere, only some kind of political solution is possible. And I would remind Tommy that feminists are really the people who speak about rape. We're the only

people, really, who speak constantly about rape. What happened, I think probably what happened, said in the UN is that everything moves really slowly at the UN. The UN gathers information. Then they have to have some sort of consensus on what they put out. And so I don't know that there was some sort of, you know, conspiracy against Jews in not publishing what happened. And also those particular horrific acts came out later. Yeah, I think we all knew, though, from day one,

a lot of rape had occurred because it was being boasted about by the people doing the raping. And that's the key difference. I also think with the UN women, had Hamas used the wrong personal pronouns that day, they'd have been straight on it on Twitter because that's unfortunately what they seem to be seeing

as one of their priorities. And I find that ridiculous. But anyway, thank you to my panel. Greatly appreciate. Christina, what an amazing piece of journalism at the weekend. Honestly, one of the most powerful things I've read in a long, long time.

You're doing incredible work. Thank you. Even though it was incredibly distressing. It's so important. Thank you. Thank you very much. Unsense, next. Riz is Oxford University's word of the year, but what is Riz? Am I Riz? Do I want to be Riz?

Pack, will tell me next. Welcome back to Ancense, I'm drawing on my PAC, Talk TV contributor to Esther Cracker, and by the political journalist Ava Santina, who I last saw on the morning show this morning, so a big stint for you today on Talk TV. Congratulations. Can't get enough. Exactly, exactly. Let's talk immigration, Esther. Big new five-point rollout by the new Home Secretary, James Clever.

designed to target and bring down our legal migration numbers. What do you make of it? Well, this cabinet is clearly obsessed with five points. I don't know why. But I do think that it's addressing some hard truths. At the end of the day, you know, the government has to realize that this kind of immigration is unsustainable. They've raised the minimum threshold to get a work visa

to salary threshold to 38,700, which is like over £10,000 above the minimum now. And excludes the NHS and care workers, right? But you cannot offer a 20% discount for workers in areas that have shortages, which totally makes sense. At the end of the day, Britain has to make a choice. We can be drunk on foreign labor and be obsessed with mass migration, or we can choose to make these businesses make hard choices,

to train up and scale up our own population. Right, and the problem it seemed to me, Ava, with the whole thing, is when you crunch the numbers, take the ones who come in for our health and care service, right? There were like 100 or000 or 1,000 that come in. But there were 120,000 dependents who came with them. And of those, only 25% were getting work. So 75% were basically living off the state.

That seems to me to be part of the problem. The execution of a previous plan was flawed. So you're going to invite people to come over here and work in our NHS and serve us, serve us, you know, serve the country and then tell them they can't bring their spouse. They're not saying, hang on. You talked about hard truth a minute ago. Let's talk about actual hard truths. Okay. So the Conservatives right now haven't built on new housing.

They haven't brought in any more GPs. We've got a failing NHS. Why is that? It's because of the government. It's nothing to do with immigration. No, it's actually a lot to do with immigration. Because with all the points you've made, with all the points you've made, you worsen it by having uncontrolled mass migration.

Because if we're not building enough houses, it doesn't help to have 750,000 people more coming in. This is a cultural issue that doesn't exist. Hang on, hang on. We just had record 750,000 net migration last year. That is uncontrolled net migration. And we've got an aging population that is dependent on the state pension.

So we need to have... I'm sorry, I'm sorry. In my estimation, one of the biggest problems, we have a lazy, entitled population with 5 million people are now off work because they're all sick, right? 6 million. You sound like that book that quasi-quoting and...

It's a joke. It's a joke. And by the way, a third of that 6 million. We stop working in this country. Don't have to look for work. Okay, but now we're conflating two different issues here because there's actually look at migration, as look at the numbers or the amount of money

that immigration brings in. They are, they're net, 3% positive. That's how much they bring to work. Half of that, half of that migration are in a need to work. Just be clear, you would carry on allowing three quarters of a million people a year net to come into this country. Yes, I would. So over the next 10 years, you'd have nearly 8 million people come in. I would argue.

Legally. Well, you already talked about this. So the population would increase by that. You can't both go to me. Let me actually answer. We argued for this during Brexit. You wanted global Britain. We wanted, you know, people to control our borders.

And you wanted, no. That's not what this looks right. You wanted people to contribute to the economy and people are coming in here. And you're contributing. Half of those people are not doing that. Because they're all dependents. That's not true. 100% of these people are dependents.

Fine, we've got your position. There's going to be 100 million people here. And no one will have a job. No one can get an hospital. Nothing. The Aversantina. Very quickly, let's talk about Riz. Are you Riz?

Am I Riz? I hate that word. The Oxford at University Press says it's the word of a year. Internet slang apparently for romantic appeal or charm. It means to chat up. If you had good chat. Do I have Riz or not? Well, I've seen your wife.

You obviously have good chat. You obviously have good chat. Have RIS. But does it work on you? Yes, it actually does. I require Riz. It's not just in dating, you know. It's like, you know, so when you're interviewing someone, you've got a bit of Riz.

You know, you have people in here who you've never met before and you can get good stuff out of them. That's a bit of Riz. Do women have Riz too? I don't know. I depend. Mainly me. I don't really have Riz. I don't need Riz.

I don't like to give a lot of Riz. I don't need it. You know what? We take Riz. I'll take a little. I'll take a little. We've all agree we've all got a little bit of Riz. A little bit.

Just a sprinkle. Good to see you, Pac. That's it from me. Whatever up to, keep it unscentred and keep a bit of Rizzing your life. Good night.