Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Uncensored: Temporary Ceasefire, Should Israel Extend the Truce

Episode Date: November 27, 2023

On Piers Morgan Uncensored tonight, Piers discusses the temporary ceasefire in Gaza brings joy and relief for hostage families - but a mountain of pressing questions for Israel and will put them to government spokesman Eylon Levy. Should Israel now extend the truce - or is it ceding the upper hand by negotiating with terrorists? Emily Austin and Nerdeen Kiswani will debate. Watch Piers Morgan Uncensored at 8 pm on TalkTV on Sky 522, Virgin Media 606, Freeview 237 and Freesat 217. Listen on DAB+ and the app.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tonight on Piers Morgan, our sense, the but temporary ceasefire in Gaza is extended by two days, bringing joy and relief for more hostage families, but a mountain of pressing questions for Israel. I'll put them to government spokesman, Alon Levy. Trues has divided opinion in Israel, was it right to extend the deal, or is it seated in the upper hand by negotiating with terrorists or debate? Had a bombshell new book by Megan Licksbittle, Omed Scobie, takes aim at every member of the Royal's household, apart, of course, from two people in Montecito.

Does anybody in the world believe it? From the news building in London, this is Pearce Morgan Uncensored. Good evening of London, welcome to Pierce Morgan Unsensored, but temporary ceasefire in Gaza has brought scenes of unbridled joy in the middle of a relentless tragedy. 50 Israeli hostages are finally being released by Hamas,

150 Palestinian prisoners, and trucks carrying much near... aid and moving the opposite direction. But some of the families of the Hamas hostages, it's the end of an unbearable, agonizing weight. Thomas Hans' daughter, Emily, turned nine during her 50 days in captivity. His emotional interviews have made the trauma

of the hostage families feel tangible for those of us can only begin to imagine the appalling, horrifying grief. This is the moment they were finally reunited. A wonderful end to a story that could have ended so much worse, and indeed that was the fate that that poor father assumed had happened. Well, a two-day extension to the ceasefire means more reunions and more aid, but it also means more difficult questions for Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is very clear that war will resume with full force as soon as this pause is over. He's far less clear about what happens after that. Israel's pounding Gaza for weeks now. 77% of the entire population has been displayed. Half are in shelters where 700 people share a single shower. The scale of a destruction is beyond comprehension, and Israel says it won't stop until Hamas has been eradicated.

But quite clearly, Hamas still runs Gaza. It's Hamas who are negotiated in the release of the hostages and dictating the terms of that release. It's Hamas who says that more than 14,000 people in Gaza have been killed. Israel claims that figure includes thousands of terrorists, but where is the hard evidence to support their claim? Where is the evidence the terrorists have simply not disappeared underground or hidden themselves among innocent civilians who headed south?

Where is the plan for the future of Gaza? Where do these people go back and live if all their homes have been destroyed? Netanyahu's ruled out a return for the Palestinian Authority, hinted that Israeli occupation might be the answer. I think Israel will, for an indefinite period, will have the overall security responsibility because we've seen what happens when we don't. have it. When we don't have that security

responsibility, what we have is the eruption of Hamas terror on a scale that we couldn't imagine. This is dangerous territory for Israel has a rapidly narrowing window of legitimacy in Gaza. President Biden is under pressure from his supporters to speed up the end of the fighting, and America won't

accept a prolonged occupation. Israel told Palestinians to move south and Gaza to escape the bombing. Now it says it'll bomb the south too. This bloodshake cannot continue without proof there's a plan beyond the total destruction of Gaza. I've been picked up this weekend by people reminding me of tweets from 2014. Back then, Israel launched a massive bombardment of Gaza in response to the murder of three Israeli

teenagers in the West Bank. What happened? I'm asked. Why did I change my position? Well, I haven't changed my position. Israel committed atrocities in 2014, in my estimation. It was a completely disproportionate response to what had happened. It looked more like revenge to me than a military strategy, and President Obama told them to call it off. Well, during that, in Bomb I asked, at what point does Israel's current military strategy become the very terrorism and professes to be fighting? And today, I'm beginning to ask myself that exact same question. Well, I'm now joined by Israeli spokesman, Elon Levy. Alon Levy, thank you very much indeed for joining me. You heard my monologue there.

I've said from a start of this conflict that I felt a real moral quandary. Not about October the 7th. I'm crystal clear about the horror that happened there. I'm completely clear that Israel not only had a duty to its people to defend itself after that, but had a responsibility to do it.

The question has always been in my mind, what is a proportionate response? And as we have this pause at the moment, Thank God for the release of many of the hostages. It's also time for everybody to pause and ask some pertinent questions of Israel about what the real plan is here going forward. So let me start just by asking you,

where does this go now? We've got a two-day extension to this pause. More hostages will come out, but it won't be all of them. In fact, Hamas don't even know where many of the hostages are. They're with other Islamic fundamentalist groups within Gaza. Netanyahu has already said, your prime minister, that he wants to pick up the attacks as soon as this pause is finished. But to what end and how far will you go?

Israel's campaign now in response to the October 7 massacre is proportionate to the threat that we face. And that threat is a second October 7th, the third October 7th, the 4th million October 7th, exactly as Hamas is promising to do, to murder every man, woman, child in our country. We really wish we were not in this situation, peers. And for many years, Israel has been putting off a possible campaign to topple Hamas,

but the October 7th massacre left us no choice. It was the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. It was the deadliest terror attack in world history since 9-11. And in response to that, our campaign is going to continue to destroy Hamas. This war will end with the end of Hamas, because we cannot allow it to remain in power. And we know that the scenes on our screens are very difficult and we're doing everything we can to minimize civilian casualties.

But everyone in Israel understands that the consequences of inaction would be too great to bear because we cannot leave Hamas in power and our hostages in Gaza. We cannot leave Hamas emboldened to continue attacking our people to launch another murderous campaign like it did on October 7th with those barbaric acts that you have spoken. so powerfully against the burnings, the beheadings, the abductings. We simply cannot go back to 6 a.m. on October 7th.

That will not happen. That massacre was the straw that broke the back of a very strong camel, and this war is going to end with the end of Hamas. Okay. How many Palestinians, including Hamas terrorists, have you so far killed? We know that we've killed thousands of terrorists. We know that the Hamas... Let me ask you about that.

So the Hamas-run Health Authority says it's over 14,000 people have now been killed. Of that, I mean, do you accept those numbers? Because they have been endorsed by other bodies. But do you accept that those numbers are fairly accurate? Historically, they have been. Hamas is the organization, the Army of Terror that on October 7th burned, beheaded, abducted people, and then lied about it to the entire international media. So it is the opposite of a credible source.

I understand that. But do you accept, given that previous figures that they have given during the many years of its conflict about casualties have turned out to be pretty accurate, do you accept this is likely to be the range of people who've been killed? First of all, they haven't been proven accurate because historically, Hamas never admits in the course of a war that its own terrorists are killed,

and that only comes to light afterwards. I'll say what we know about the numbers, and we don't have exact numbers because, Pierce, I can't tell you how many Israelis were murdered in the October 7th massacre because we still have dozens of body parts, dozens of body bags of unidentifiable human remains. The idea that I can give you an exact number is not realistic, but here's what I can tell you. One, we know we've killed thousands of terrorists because our campaign has been targeting to target the monsters who perpetrated the October 7th massacre.

How do you know their terrorists? Two, we know how do we know their terrorists? How do you tell a Hamas terrorist from a Palestinian civilian who's not part of Hamas? Hamas is making it very difficult to do that because we know that it's terrorists. So how do you know you've killed thousands of them? Because we know who we are targeting. We are targeting on the basis of precise intelligence. This isn't an indiscriminate bombardment as many would like to paint it.

Hamas knows that we do not target civilians. It seems to know that better than some in the West. That's why, for example, we recently declassified an intercepted phone call of Islamic jihad terrorists talking about transporting an anti-tank missile in a baby's pram because they know perfectly well that Israel is trying to target terrorists and not the civilians. OK, but here's my problem with this is that by your own admission, you don't know how many Hamas terrorists. And I categorize people who belong to the Hamas organization as terrorists, just for clarity. But you don't actually know, do you, how many of them you've killed.

And by your own admission, just a few moments ago, you said that they make it incredibly difficult for you to work out who is a Hamas terrorist and who is a civilian. That seems to me part of the problem that you have with the optics of this to the wider world is that they're seeing horrible imagery all day long. I mean, it's just the worst thing I've ever seen all over social media. The worst thing we've ever seen were the atrocities

that Hamas perpetrated in October 7th. I've not seen, thankfully, I've not seen what many journalists have seen, which is the 45-minute film of that, and I understand it's absolutely horrific. And I'm not making any comparison. I would not say anything is worse than that, so for the record. But the horrible imagery all day long, it is suggesting to people that there are thousands and thousands of thousands of women

and a lot of children, maybe as many as five, six thousand children now, have been killed by these air strikes and now the ground attack. And I think the problem that you have, and I say this respectfully, the problem you have is that you don't actually know how many Hamas terrorists you're killing. If you're honest, you don't, do you? Here's, the sad fact is, everyone who has been killed in the Gaza Strip

in the last month and a half would still be alive if Hamas had not launched this war with the October 7 massacre and then fought out of densely populated civilians, in areas that it has done its dandest to prevent people from evacuating in order to get to safety while we try to get them to safety. But I want to say something about the civilian casualties because I think this is important. We know that we've killed thousands of terrorists. We know that Hamas is inflating the numbers. You don't actually know that. We believe. But that's my problem with this. You say you have, but when I push you for the details, you don't have them. And that,

I still can't tell you exactly how many Israelis were murdered in the October 7th last ago. I understand Because we're still counting bodies. I agree with you. That is utterly horrific that you still can't determine how many people were killed that day because of the horrors that were perpetrated. You and I are in complete agreement. But nor do you know how many of these Hamas terrorists

are killing. It could be that vast numbers of them, and we think there are around 35,000 perhaps in total, that vast numbers of them either disappeared into the tunnels and have been safely there ever since or simply went south with the million or more palace

Palestinian supposed civilians that went down there, maybe a lot of them infiltrated that group and are down on the south. You don't actually know, do you for sure? Yes, during the Afghanistan war, and I believe your brother, a real military hero, fought in that war. British military spokespeople could not have given you a running commentary in real time about exactly how many Taliban fighters were killed.

During the Second World War, and I know your grandfather was a war hero, who fought the Japanese to liberate Burma, the British army could not have given a running tally of how many civilians were killed there, or how many Japanese were being killed. These are facts that become clear when the fog of war clears. And what I can tell you is that when the fog of war clears and the numbers become clear about the civilian to combatant ratio

inside the Gaza Strip. And you compare that to other counter-terrorism wars fought by Western armies, like the British in Afghanistan, like the British in Iraq, like the British against Islamic State, that ratio is going to prove very firmly the extent to which the Israeli army has gone to try to keep civilians on the army. other side, safe from the consequences of their own leaders reckless and evil and barbaric

attempts to try to keep them in harm's way. Pears, every civilian casualty is a tragedy. Civilian casualties are a feature of every war and they are a feature of this war that Hamas began and that Hamas is forcing us to fight against the populated areas. The reason I'm pushing you on it is simply because you say you've killed thousands of Hamas terrorists. And the reason I think this is such an important question is there have been reports that once this pauses over that Israel intends to then attack him a south

and may give further warnings to people that are out of certain areas, but will attack him a south and presumably destroy the areas that you attack there as you have done in the north, making it almost uninhabitable for people to return to. And all of this is part of operation, get rid of Hamas.

But if the world doesn't know how much of Hamas you're getting rid of, but only sees day after day, hour after hour, images of children dead, women dead, innocent civilians caught up in this, then I think the global support for Israel is going to dissipate very quickly. That's why it's really important, I think, for Israel to better demonstrate to people that your mission is being accomplished. Because otherwise, you could be here in six months a year, and the civilian death toll in Gaza could be over 100,000. and we might be having the same conversation where you're still not sure how many Hamas terrorists you've killed. That's the problem, it seems to me. Piers, I'm slightly surprised by this question

because in the fog of war, no country, no military in the history of warfare could ever give you an exact running tally about what the casualties, but I'm saying we know that we are targeting Hamas. We know that we are targeting the monsters who perpetrated the October 7th massacre, and we know that we are trying to foil their strategy to hide behind women and children, and Just this week we've exposed the world the evidence of the bunkers that they built underneath the Shifa hospital that so many have spent so long trying to cover up and deny that Hamas is capable of using that strategy of human shales. Let me ask you, what happens, assuming this war ends, and please God it ends sooner rather than later, but assuming it ends, Benjamin Netanyahu has said he intends to effectively occupy,

of Israel to occupy Gaza for security reasons indefinitely. What's really what he said, indefinitely. you would be in charge of security. I mean, you're already in charge of a lot of their food, their energy, their water. If you start adding security as an umbrella, basically you're occupying Gaza. That is not anything that anybody wants outside of, it seems to me, him and his cabinet. I mean, it's not what you would want, is it? No, peers.

Israel does not want to occupy the Gaza Strip, and that is why 18 years ago Israel left the Gaza Strip. So why would he say he wants to do that indefinitely for security reasons? because the sad fact is the prime minister has said we do not want to occupy Gaza to say that the prime minister said that is simply false he said Israel will have to for some period to exercise security control to prevent that area from being demilitarized just as president Biden said in his own column in the Washington Post that they will have to be inter-security arrangements how do you do that we're going to have to prevent smuggling of any weapons inside the Gaza Strip after we have totally destroyed the Hamas terror infrastructure you know Piz in the

The years that Israel has been out of the Gaza Strip, all that concrete that went into Gaza and was supposed to build people's houses went into tunnels. All those pipes that were supposed to go into water pipes, Hamas dug them out and then filmed propaganda videos of them turning those water pipes into rockets and shooting them at Israel. And that is what we have to prevent to stop this happening again. But if you displace the vast majority of civilians, as you have, and you destroy large amounts of their homes, what do they come back to? after the day after Hamas, and I wish it were next week, but it will take time.

There are three things that are going to have to happen. The first is the Gaza Strip must be demilitarized. We will never allow it to be used as a base for operations from a terrorist group to direct attacks against our people, just as the UK and 85 other nations came together to deny ISIS its territorial stronghold. And they did to Raka and Mosul, what they did to Raka and Mosul, because they understood that a jihadi group like that must never be allowed to hold territory to attack innocent people.

The second thing is the Gaza Strip must be deradicalized. You know, the youngest terrorists who perpetrated the October 7th massacre weren't even born when Israel vacated the Gaza Strip in 2005 and they were raised on a diet to glorify jihad and martyrdom. And the third thing, I want to address the question of reconstruction. The Gaza Strip is going to have to be rebuilt.

And this time, it's going to have to be rebuilt in a way that ensures that the course, Concrete genuinely goes to people's homes and doesn't go into the tunnels, because otherwise we're going to be in the same situation. I understand, but this sounds very like to me. And the consequences for the past Indians will also be severe. But with respect, the only way you can do all this is with a form of occupation, whether you want to call it that or not, it's the only way you can do this.

And my other question to you would be this, is that, is there not a danger? You talk about radicalisation there. Is there not a danger that the longer this goes on, and the more innocent people you kill as you try and target Hamas, that you build up a whole new generation of Palestinians who are radicalized to hate Israel and what of exact revenge? Isn't that a real concern right now?

You know, I don't think during the Second World War when the Allies were bombing the Germans and the Japanese people claim that if you continue bombing Germans and Japanese, you'll raise a new generation of Nazis. And that's because they realized these were people who were radicalized beyond measure and after the war there had to be a serious process of de-radicalization. Pierce, the facts are that 85% of Palestinians,

across the West Bank and the Gaza Strip support Hamas's atrocities on October 7th. That is the first polling evidence that has come out. The level of radicalization is already severe. And it is that radical element that we have to deny a stronghold from which to perpetrate atrocities against our people. And we think it's important that the whole international community understand the extent of the rot of the Hamas death cult that has raised a whole generation, tragically, after the greatest opportunity for peace in the Middle East

at 2005 withdrawal, there has to be a serious push towards deradicalization to ensure that this never happen again. And we expect the international community to work hand in hand with us on that. Okay, listen, I've got to leave it there, but the big question is whether what you're doing now and what you intend to do in the next few weeks and months

will actually begin the end of that radicalisation or make it a lot worse. And that is a question. I think we just don't know the answer to. But Alon Levy, thank you very much indeed for joining me. Could I complete an answer, perhaps? If you're quick. If this war doesn't end with the end of Hamas

and the return of our hostages, we know that Hamas will attack us again. That's what it says it wants to do. And so if you're talking to me about extremism, we know that a Hamas that feels emboldened because the world tells it Israel has no right to defend itself. That is the sure-fire recipe for more radicalism and extremism and more death, and we're determined to put an end

to this cycle of violence, and we'll end it. We'll end this war and we'll do it by ending Hamas. Adel Levy, I really appreciate you joining me. Thank you very much, indeed. Thank you very much, Piersz. Anytime. Unsense, the next tonight, should Israel negotiate with Hamas? It was simply giving up a hand to a terror group that still has more than 150 hostages under its control

and that of other Islamic groups in Gaza. We'll debate. Welcome back to Unsens that Israel is divided over his hostage deal with Hamas, which has now been extended for a further two days. One major poll found that 45% of Israeli Jews oppose the ongoing prisoner swap, or just 40% support it. Edemao Benghvir, a right-wing security minister,

called it a very, very big mistake. So just negotiating with terrorists weaken Israel's position, or should Israel's allies be pressing to make this ceasefire permanent? My next guests have clashed in the past on this show over the crisis in Gaza. Last time they appear together.

I said keeping the dialogue open is the only way forward and they both be invited back. And so tonight, they're invited back. And I'm joined by Nardin Kizwani, the activist and founder of the Palestinian Community Organization within our lifetime and by the journalist and broadcaster Emily Austin. Welcome to both of you. Nadine, let me start with you, if I may.

There's a pause at the moment. It's been extended by two more days. There are hostages being released back to Israel. There are prisoners being released back to the Palestinians. What is your view of where things should move from here? I think it's important that when we talk about hostages to also understand that there are thousands of Palestinian prisoners that have been held in Zionist dungeons and Zionist prisons for years and years.

And it's important that they are also freed. And that the 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza, which is effectively a concentration camp, are also being held hostage. So I think all hostages should be freed when we look at the context of Palestinians' prisoners and not to call them hostages, but understanding that it's, you know, the same kind of line of thinking. All right, Emily Austin, I mean, the thing about the Palestinian prisoners who've been in Israeli jails, I was shocked by not necessarily the age of so many of them, because I knew a lot of young teenagers in particular had been rounded up for throwing rocks at soldiers and so on.

But the fact that so many are being held in detention without charge, that makes me feel very uncomfortable. Are you comfortable with that? Most of the prisoners that were part of this exchange were actually, tried and, you know, convicted of the crimes, most of them being attempted murder. There is a narrative going around that there hasn't been fair trials, that they haven't been convicted, but that's simply not true. And there's one in particular that's going very, very viral on Twitter of Ahmed al-Mansra,

who was convicted at 12 years old. This is a photo of him then, a photo of him now, and they're saying that he was abused in Israeli prisons. But if you look closely, you could see him stabbing two civilians at 14 years old. And a lot of them are calling this. kid innocent just because he's a child. But at 14 years old, if you're stabbing civilians, you might be a child, but you're definitely not innocent. And contrary to what Nardine just said, there is no equivalency. This is not a hostage exchange. This is an exchange of criminals for

children. Okay, these are babies who are being held captive for someone who tried to stab a soldier. Another baby for another woman who tried to stab a soldier. Another baby whose crime was being a Jew versus another woman who tried to stab another soldier versus another baby whose crime is being in Israeli who was released for a woman who tried to stab a soldier. So I'm sorry, this is not a hostage exchange. This is a criminal exchange for our civilians back who are taken out of their homes.

Okay, Nadine, respond to that. Thousands of Palestinians are held under administrative detention, which, as you said, means that they don't even get charged with anything, let alone a fair trial, and that these administrative detention, you know, detentions can be renewed every six months. And even when Palestinians are tried, oftentimes Palestinians are tried in military courts,

and there's a 99% or higher than 99% conviction rate of Palestinians being tried in military courts. Children are not tried in military courts anywhere else around the world. On top of that, Palestinians get 20 years just for throwing stones. Right, Nadine, let me ask you about this question, of a permanent ceasefire. Israel has just made it clear to me through their government spokesmen. They've got absolutely no intention of having any ceasefire.

This war continues in their eyes until they have defeated Hamas. What is your response to that? Is the murder of 20,000 Palestinians, 8,000 of them being children, not enough? You know, I think that no matter what they say, no matter who they're going after, there's always going to be Palestinian resistance. So that argument is essentially saying that they're never going to stop killing Palestinians and that they're completely justified in doing so. Would you categorize, well, hang on, let me ask you,

would you categorize what happened on October the 7th as resistance? Sorry, I didn't hear your... Would you categorize what happened on October the 7th as resistance? Yeah, I would categorize it as resistance, and it's not my categorization where that's coming from. It's just terrorism. Is there any kind of? categorization of Palestinian resistance, armed resistance, that you wouldn't categorize

as terrorism, but the U.S. and Israel wouldn't characterize? I think when several thousand people storm over a border... Hang on, I mean just, let me just respond. I think when several thousand people storm over a border and attack peace-loving people in kibbutzies and butcher them to death, raking people's heads off, killing babies, incinerating people...

Many of those people were killed by Israel itself. But that is... But Nadine, we have to agree. that Israel incinerated a 12-year-old, a 12-year-old Israeli girl. Before we get to Israel's response, you must accept that what happened that day was an act of terrorism, surely. I don't live in a concentration camp, and neither do you and neither does Emily. I haven't lived under the brutal conditions that the people of Gaza

have had to endure for the better part of the last two decades. It's not up to me to tell people who are breaking free from a concentration camp how exactly they should do that. And like I said, when Palestinians tried to do that peacefully in 2018, they were shot out. They were shot out. This is Gaza. This is a very beautiful concentration camp that is Gaza. And it's a damn shame that Hamas terrorists are invading this very beautiful looking concentration camp.

If only the Jews were that lucky to have such a beautiful concentration camp. Nardin, listen, Pierce, let's cut to the chase. I can't see photos of what's being shared. Stop asking her to condemn October 7th when she is borderline a terrorist herself. She herself incites violence. She herself protests and always incites violence and vandalism, even though vandalism is not protected by our First Amendment. So how do you expect her to condemn terrorism when she has openly said that it is an act of resistance

and she continues to justify it. And I also want to say, and, Your Dean, defending the murder of 8,000 Palestinian children. I was about to say it is a damn shame. And I don't care about you either. And I'm here to say, I'm just going to keep speaking. Clearly you care about me. You're talking me. Don't talk about each other, please.

Every single life that is taken on either side is abhorrent. It is atrocious and I wish you would stop. Israel cannot stop until Hamas is defeated. Israel is the only military in the world that will knock on doors, send out pamphlets, send out alarms on roofs and warns civilians to leave, and Hamas will rather barricade the whole civilian. Emily, Emily. The psychological warfare is releasing hostages,

without their mothers and their siblings. Emily, let me ask Emily a question. Emily, here's my question for you. Is that I think there's a real danger for Israel of this happening sooner rather than later that if they start attacking the South as well as seems to be the intention after this pauses over. And the death toll of innocent Palestinians

continues to skyrocket and they can't produce any hard evidence as they clearly can't at the moment from my last interview of how many actual Hamas terrorists they're killing in the process. They're going to lose the most. moral support and the high ground and the global support for them will disintegrate for Israel. That is a real, a real potential danger here. I completely disagree. I think it's not Israel

Israel did its due diligence. Israel did its part. They warned civilians to leave. So all of the condemning that Israel is receiving, Hamas should be receiving because they are using their civilian, their own civilians, their women and their children as human shields instead of having them evacuate. Those who evacuated, they are safe. And we can say the same about. You should be condemning. Why are you should be condemning all of the border? Let me go to Nadine. Don't talk over each other, please.

Let me. You should be condemning. Don't talk over each other. Let me go to Nadine for response. We can say the same about October 7th. October 7th wouldn't have happened. If Israel was not occupying Palestinian land, if there wasn't a siege and blockade on Gaza,

if our land wasn't stolen from us. And this has been clear for so many years. Palestinians were talking about this. We're protesting about this for years. years and years while the world ignored them. Why are there Kibbutz's next to Ghazza's border? Are they a buffer zone? Are they human shields? Actually, it's Israel that's using Judaism and using its own citizens as human shields to mass slaughter, to mass genocide Palestinians. And Nadine, do you think, Nadine, do you, let me ask you a

question. But it is Israel that has killed 8,000 Palestinian children. Not the other way around. Nadine, do you believe Hamas should stay in power in God? Hang on, should Nadine Hamas stay in power in Gaza? I believe that Palestinians should be free. That's what I'm here to talk about. I'm here to say that. She won't answer your question. That's not up to me.

I don't live in Gaza. You've got a lot of opinions about this. Is your opinion that Hamas should stay in power? Yes or no? I believe that Palestinians wouldn't need resistance groups. All right, you're not going to answer the question. All right, Emily. No, no, that is answering the question.

Actually, and I ran it. I'm not done speaking. I'm giving you several chances. No, it is answering the question. Of course. They either stay in power or they don't. There wouldn't be a resistance group such as Hamas or itself in power if there wasn't anything to resist. If there wasn't an Israeli occupation.

All right, Emily. Piers, can I respond, please? Yes. I want to debunk this occupation myth once and for all. Nardine, when was the last time Palestinian had full sovereignty over the land of Israel? When was the last date that they had sovereignty over the land? When was the last prime minister? When did you have your own currency?

When did you have a Palestinian leader? Answer my question. There's clearly a siege and blockade. I'm not here to answer your question. When did they occupy it for Palestine? You're justifying on live television, the live murder of 8,000 Palestinian children. When did Palestine have sovereignty over the land since she can't answer it from me? That's a question.

My Palestinian family was killed off of our land. This is your genocide. This is Palestinian population growth. This is not a genocide. For generations and generations. and generations before 1948. You know the sad thing.

You know the sad thing. Time out. Time out. The sad thing about this is, at some point, we are going to have to bring the two sides together to reach a peace settlement. And yet every time I bring people from both sides of this debate together, this is how it goes.

It looks completely implacombed. Because she's using land as an excuse to kill Jews. Let me speak to you one on one here. I don't know why you're bringing the sports journalist who's obsessed with making it taking the attention on herself. This is better. When Palestinians are literally a terrorist.

Sure, call me a terrorist on life television. Wonderful. But it was three Palestinian Americans who were shocked two nights ago. And this is a point. I want to say this. I want to say one thing. And that is horrible. Okay.

That's enough. Three Palestinians were shot here on U.S. soil for wearing a scarf. Okay. So when you're calling me a terrorist on TV and say that there's incitement against you, you're actually inciting against you. You just end the line. A public library. You incited violence on myself and Pierce and Louise.

All right. Nardine, you are inciting violence. Emily, Nadine, I'll leave you to both continue shouting at each other. I'm sorry it ended like that. I want to have constructed debate. This doesn't get anyone anywhere. But I appreciate you both joining me again. Thank you.

He's a terrorist on TV. Unsets of next, a bombshell new book by Megan Loyalist, Obid Lickspital Scobie takes aim at every member of the Royal Household again, but not, of course, the Duke and Duchess of Netflix. Does anybody in the world believe it? I'm going to reveal something which strongly, suggest you shouldn't. We'll debate this next. Welcome back, Harry

and Megan's unofficial mouthpiece, Lick Spittle, onlyed Scobie. It's back in the headlines with a new book, Endgame. Scobie and the sussis deny they're in cahoots, as they did with the last book until Megan was put under oath and had to admit actually she had emailed her aid

some thoughts before they sat down with the authors, which you might think is being in cahoots. Well, are they again in cahoots? Let's discuss this with author and historian in Tessa Dunlop, a royal commentator, Hillary Fordwich. So let me start with you, Tessa. So given you normally park yourself

and they're defending the indefensible about all things, Sussex, what do you think of the Scobie's later, just when it seemed like they were getting off the radar, back come Scobie with a series of apparently damning revelations about all the world, apart from the two in Montecito. Yeah, from all the extracts that we've had access to and from the interviews that Omid's done

and the likes of Paris match, Certainly, he's parked his tanks firmly on their lawn. Queen Victoria recommended against royals having friendships. And if Omid was once the Sussex's friend, I bet they could flick him off like slime right now. Because the timing's terrible, and I feel that Omid is actually behind the curve on this. While you've moved on a bit, I think, I'll give you credit.

And Harry and Megan, to an extent, I think, after the sort of bomb of the Netflix and the book, have been really quite stum, Omid seems to be sort of stuck in the past. Well, also, he's a liar. And I'll tell you, I know he's a liar because he writes a bit about me in the book. I know, I was going to ask you about that.

I got a copy of the book today, and I just checked, as you do, it was a digital copy. I did a little search. Up I come three or four times. And on one occasion, he states, as a fact, that I have regular phone conversations with Queen Camilla.

For the record, I have never had a single phone conversation with Queen Camilla. Now, he says, as a fact in his book, that we have regular phone conversations. That I personally know is an absolute lie. He also says that when I said on Good Morning Britain that Megamarkle was Princess Pinocchio, that apparently she reached out to me, Queen Camilla, to thank me for standing up for the firm. Did she? I had zero contact with Queen Camilla around that time at all.

So you've got no embossed thank you notes from Camilla. Before she was a queen? Nothing. Is there any communication? I did, however, as I said publicly at the time, have conversations with several other members of the Royal Family, but it wasn't Queen Camilla. So my point, it was coming to Hillary.

Hillary, I know personally that just the little bits about me are completely untrue. They're lies. So why should I believe any of this stuff? Well, you're absolutely right to question it. I remember the time that you said that if she told you the weather, you wouldn't believe her. A few things here, I would say.

They say if you're going to lie, big, go bold. He states things so factually that I think your average person, of course, they can't sift through things. They don't know that you know that these were mistruths and bold-faced lies. So if you go so big, people will actually almost assume it's got to be true. I'll tell you something, though, peers, that someone that nobody really is mentioning and no one's talking about. And that is Megan Markle's dear friend, very close friend that she's posted online whom she loves. And that is Marcus Anderson.

Well, as we know, Omed Scobie has a very close relationship to him. Who knows how much of this is actually coming from him and maybe that's the source of a lot of these lives as well, whom he's quoting. It's a really good point because we know, because she went under oath in a court case, Megal Markle had to admit she briefed an aid

to then brief Scobie and the co-author. And what about this, Tessa? There's a point in the book where he talks about the con-of-a-lawful of letters between King Charles and Megham Markle, in which two members of the royal household, I know who they're supposedly are, right, these two people. Let's call them royal household, that two of them had expressed these infamous concerns about the skin colour of baby Archie before he was born, right? But my question is, obviously he's not got that from King Charles.

No. So he can only have got it from Megamarkle or her friends or people she's told this to, right? So, you know, it's two things this book. One is blatant lies. Secondly, stuff he can only have got from Meghan Markle. It is deeply unhelpful and poorly time from the Sussex's point of view, which is why I don't think they have collaborated with him recently. Remember, this book's been a long time in the cooking.

He started writing it before the Queen died. It's possible that in the wake of the Oprah Wimpery interview, when tensions were running high, that things did get spilt out, that now I expect the pair of men. That racism allegation, I said this to you before, it never appeared in Harry's book. That's never been mentioned again. So they've moved on?

It's like it never happened. Which, by the way, is what I said at the time. I don't believe this happened. Let me go back to Hillary. Hillary, what is the reputation of Megan and Harry in America right now? I mean, do people care? Well, actually, I always say

when Harry bangs on about mental health, most Americans, it seems, are far more concerned about the price of petrol here, gas and the inflation, rate in the U.S. That's sort of the main topic of conversation, but I will say this about in the U.S. I tell you an absolute fact. Not only can you look at the

polls, Pierce, but look at the A-listers, look at the Hollywood set. They're not invited to all those A-list events anymore. I think that says a lot, because they're the bellwether for the American people, the paparazzi here isn't as interested in them as they were and look what happened in New York City.

They even had to make up that concocted car chase off that the mayor of New York, Eric Adams, Adams, had to refute. Anyone who's been in New York knew that story was nonsense. Tess, a final point, we've got about 30 seconds. He says this is the beginning of the end of the monarchy, is it? No. Like I say, Omid Scobie is behind the curve.

Harry and Megan will not have wanted this book to land now. They have been very silent recently. They have dropped on the radar. They did make a few mistakes, and they're trying to rebuild. Meanwhile, the monarchy's had a relatively good year, all calm on the Western front. Let's just put it along, and I expect Charles and Harry will communicate. This might be the end game for Omid Scobie, one of the most loathsome little licks-bittles in modern history.

Thank you both very much indeed for joining me tonight. Unscensored next riots in Dublin and a hard-right populist sweeps to victory in the Netherlands. Is anti-migrant rhetoric stoking unrest to our streets, or do people on the streets actually really care about this issue? Jake Berry, Kevin McGuire, will debate. Welcome back. Join me now is the former chairman of Conservative Party, so Jake Barry and the Daily Mirror's associate editor, Kevin McGuire.

Welcome, chaps. Kevin, I want to talk about immigration and the effect this whole debate is having now on European politics. We're all with Gert Builders potentially now running the country in the Netherlands. We've seen Italy go this way. We're seeing authoritarian far-right populist leaders sprouting up everywhere. And a lot of it is driven at the base of it by concerned, by concerned, populace is about immigration. We now see rioting in Ireland over an Algerian actually had become an Irish citizen, attacking three children and a woman in the street. And we saw

terrible rioting. But again, driven by this fear of what they believe to be out of control immigration, what do you think of this and what is the smart way to handle this? Yeah, I think it's incredibly dangerous because it has been this lurch to the right to the hard right in Europe and politicians like Jake will be worried about what happens in the UK where the level of immigration is over half a million was over three-quarters of a million. The net figures which are huge and I think politicians have a responsibility to be calm and reasoned and measured about it and also come up with answers, proposals because what we see and I hope Goert Wilders I think he's got 37 of 150 seats I hope the

other parties do not do a deal with him. And those who finish second and third, form a coalition, maybe with other parties, because he is so extreme and has spouted, so much poison in the past. But look, Europe's going right in part because of migration. Well, I think it's a large part of it, actually. And the problem with the migration debate in this country

is that it seems to me, depending on you listen to, we need a lot more migrants to come in, but actually we have too many. In other words, it seems to be both, if you believe, all the noise that's going around the ether. I thought the best column I read about all this was specifically about migration, but it was a piece by Matthew Parris and the times

about why so many people are coming in from abroad. They're coming a lot of the students, yes, and we're helping out people from Ukraine and Hong Kong and so on. But also a lot of people are filling jobs British people simply don't want to do. There are 5 million people is country, who now don't want to turn up and do a day's work. And I'm sorry, a lot of them are Skyvers and they are manipulating a system, particularly,

it seems, from Matthew Parris's piece, very well sourced, in the area of mental health. Yeah, so, I mean, this is a challenge across Europe. And I think the other thing we have to accept as politicians is we're in the foothills of the migrant crisis. This is not going to go away. In fact, with things like climate change and insecurity around the world, whether that be in Europe or in the Middle East, it's going to get worse. So politicians need to come up with an answer this quick,

and the answer isn't the hate ideology sort of pushed by people like Gert Builders and other people on the far right of politics. Since we left the European Union, the government controls most of the levers on legal migration. There's things like the salary cap, which is currently 26,200. I mean, that's far too.

If you want high-skilled immigration, do not set your salary cap, below the average UK salary. How do we get the Skyvers back to work? Because they're clearly gaming the system. We've got to stop people bringing workers into the country to fill low-skilled jobs in a lower salary than a British country. That's a quick way you can do it.

You can put that up to 40 grand. You can. And you can deal with this very quickly. That's not the problem I'm talking about. Kevin, the problem I'm talking about is if we could just persuade what looks to me like a work-shy country to get back to work, obviously some of them have got legitimate claims to be off sick. But I'm sorry, 5 million people, it's crap.

Yeah, well, you're going to have to attack a long-term sickness. You've got ill health, disability. If you can't do one job, can you do another job? Several million are claiming mental health issues, anxiety and so on, right? This has got completely out of control. I've always believed if you can work, you should work and pay your way. But there, you'll have to have a health service that functions, and you will have to have a lot of counsellors

who will be dealing with people who at the moment say they have problems going to work. And not everybody with a mental illness is making it up. No, no. And I know just sometimes because you can't see it, you think it's not there. It's several million people basically running to their doctors

and getting signed up as mental ill. Challenges, for decades, we have allowed the answer to low-paid work not to be actually let's invest in productivity and make that job a higher-paid job. Let's bring people into the country to do those jobs. That's why I go back to the point, and you're slightly dismissed it, and I'm just going to pick you up on that, because I think you're wrong.

This idea that you can bring people into earn 26 grand, it is wrong. It's wrong for the economy. No, I don't disagree with that. And it's wrong for British people who want those jobs working things like hospitality, to be proper paid jobs. I agree. If you want to get people off the dole, give them a decent job. I actually agree with you about that.

But on the students thing, it's complicated. We want to bring the bright students into the country to help our universities who've been struggling financially. Yeah, but don't let them bring their families, though. But who do you leave out of their families? Can they bring their wife, their kids, both? I mean, you know, these are serious questions. Yeah, I think it's direct dependence, close dependence you can bring in. You know what it says, like, Kevin?

I don't think the government has thought through any of these policies. But you know what, students, they come in, they pay more than a British-born... It's like $6,000 to do a medical degree. Huge amounts of money. A year. And then they go around the world, or sometimes they're allowed to stay here, but they go around the world thinking, well, of Britain. It's a great way of extending Britain.

Final question. Is it going to cost them the election, the Conservative, if they don't get this right, either legal or illegal immigration. No, I think the economy and the fact that most households will be £1,900 worse off than the last election, is what's going to cost them the election. It will be a big issue. And what I'd say is the Labour Party's got no answer. So people, I think, will give the Prime Minister and his team quite a lot of credit for trying to deal with this.

The Labour Party's answer is just putting more people in. But actually, the Labour Party said end the 20% reduction on wages. You'd agree with Labour. Thank you both very much. It's not easy for this. Thank you very much. That's it from me. Whatever you're up to. Keep it uncensored. Good night.