Piers Morgan Uncensored - Piers Morgan Vs George Galloway

Episode Date: June 26, 2024

British politician George Galloway - who is renown for his staunch support of Palestine and scathing criticism of Western foreign policies - joins Piers Morgan Uncensored for a deep dive into current events during a fascinating feature-length interview. On the ongoing conflict in Gaza, Piers presses Galloway to denounce the killings of innocents by Hamas in Israel on Oct 7th. Galloway responds by saying that while killing children and the elderly is terrorism, "if you keep 2.3 million people in a cage, they’re going to try and break out". The pair also discuss Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with Galloway declaring that he actually trusts Putin "more than Keir Starmer, Joe Biden or Donald Trump". Piers doesn’t let up, and George doesn’t back down... Plus, in a surprise turn, Galloway reveals that he has fallen victim to Fiona Harvey of Baby Reindeer notoriety's stalking. 00:00 - Introduction 02:05 - Is any debate more divisive than Israel-Palestine? 04:06 - Piers asks if Galloway condemns the actions of Hamas on Oct 7 11:44 - Terrorist organisations and freedom resistance fighters 18:14 - Israel’s creation of “a boogie man of an Islamist Regime” 23:19 - “The fact cannot be changed, there once was a Palestine, now there is not” 24:14 - The Balfour Declaration: “My country caused it, that is why I’m so exercised by it" 26:14 - Failure of the Accords to create a Palestine state 37:14 - Brexit and losing control of UK borders 40:33 - Russia, Ukraine and the expansion of NATO 41:14 - George Galloway on Zelensky - “the greatest showman on Earth” 49:14 - “I trust Putin more than I trust Keir Starmer, Joe Biden and Donald Trump” 51:14 - Battle of Bucha 59:14 - “Why do you trust Putin?” 01:03:14 - On Julian Assange’s release 01:14:14 - On being stalked by Fiona Harvey Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The fact that you thought that this was the biggest single day of slaughter is part of the problem. The Israeli media all the time reports that significant casualties were inflicted by Israeli forces themselves. Some people tried to describe what Hamas did that day as resistance. No, killing grandmas and kids is terrorists. It suited Israel that Hamas were there. Almost 40 years after the agreement, there's not one. centimeter of Palestine free. What do you expect from an open-air prison camp

but a prisoner's revolt? You're perceived to be somebody very sympathetic to Russia. There's a cult of Nazism. There's also a cult of supporting people like Putin. What part of you is so naive, George, that you think that Putin are going to stop there? I'm against war.

Against war? I'm against war. Unless it's your Russia, mate. You trust Vladimir Putin. I trust him more. More than Kiersta. I trust him more than I trust Joe Biden. Who's going to win the U.S. election?

This democracy you talk of is a farce. We're just not on the same page. No, we're not. George Galloway has had more comebacks, and Frank Sinatra even has the hat to match. He's a gifted orator, a firebrand populist, and one of the most controversial politicians of our time. Many millions have seen his blistering rebuke

of the U.S. Senate over the Iraq war, Clips to which still often go viral today, and I was one of the people who cheered him on. But it's his strident support for the Palestinian cause that led to many of our viewers on both sides of that debate to call for him to appear on uncensored, and he joins me in the studio now. George, good to see it.

Pleasure. Been a while. Glad we're both still here. The old survivors. Look, you and I have locked horns many times about many different things. In all the time that you've debated issues, have you ever come across one,

more divisive than Israel-Palestine? Probably not. Particularly in the last eight months. Yeah, I mean, probably not. There have been others. I mean, I was plastered on the front page of the Sun in 1990 for meeting Jerry Adams and Martin McGuinness under the 42-point bold headline traitor.

That was hot at the time. But who now would say that it was not right to, have met and talked and brought in from the cold the leaders of what was an armed struggle within our own country. Joe Joe is definitely better than war war. There are others. Russia, for example, is a divisive, controversial one. But yeah, you're right, as your show has proved. Now, a lot of people, a lot of friends of mine, think you've been awful on this issue. at least you have brought on hundreds, I think, well, certainly a dozen scores maybe,

of voices that wouldn't have made it elsewhere onto the media. And although I'm now appearing on you, you have been asking me for quite some time to come on. So I'm one of those that acquits you of that. But it is an issue that separates the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the chaff. The chaff, I personally believe that when history comes to be written, just as it was written over the Holocaust in the late 30s and 40s, those that turned their faces away from mass slaughter, even though they must have known that it was going on, have not emerged well from history.

And I think the same will be true over this. I have used the phrase from the start of this that I have felt a genuine moral quandary. And I'll explain to you why and get your response. So from October the 7th, I felt it was on a scale completely unprecedented for one day of slaughter that we have seen in that entire conflict, that it was so barbaric, so medieval, so inhuman in the way it was executed against, so many in the main young, innocent people at festivals, in kibbutzis and so on, that I felt you had to start this debate about what's going on with a clear denunciation of what happened that day.

Then the question for me became twofold. The scale of Israel's response and what was proportionate, I didn't have that answer. I said, I would see how it played out and make an assessment. And secondly, what was the end game and what would happen the day after the war ends? And on those second and third points, I have grown increasingly critical of what Israel's been doing, particularly since they began attacking a refugee camp

in Raffa where they've been sending everybody. And I thought that excuse of we're trying to be targeted to Hamas when it's clear that you can't be targeted when you attack a refugee camp. I thought crossed a line for me. But also cognizant of two things. Israel's right to defend itself and a duty to defend itself after the scale of what happened. And because the Hamas spokesman said, we're going to keep doing it.

So they had that. But secondly, that uniquely in Gaza, half of the population of two million are under 18. This is a place that is jam-packed with children. And when Hamas embed themselves among civilians, as they do... Well, where else could they embed themselves? It's a prison camp. I accept that. And I'll come to that part of it.

I'm sure there will be many parts of this debate where you and I will agree. There will be some where we don't agree. And I still have no evidence that there's any endgame plan by Israel. And I think you're now seeing the Israeli government fracturing with people recognizing there is no after the war plan.

And it could be complete and utter chaos. And there are certainly people on that cabinet, I think Smodrich and Bengavir and others who have been talking in a genocidal way about this. So that's where I am with this. But I've started a lot of interviews with pro-Palestinian guests, and I'll do it with you. And it's been a sort of controversial thing. People have sort of mocked me for it.

But I kind of think it's a good starting point that to go back to October the 7th, when you realize the scale of what had happened that day, do you condemn what happened that day? Well, I have to first correct you on something. It was by no means the single biggest slaughter. in the Israel-Palestine chapter. In one day? In one day. In fact, in five hours, with Sharon on the roof shining a searchlight

into the Sabra and Shatila camps in Beirut, 3,850 Palestinian women and children. There were only women and children because the men had all agreed to sail away to Tunisia as part of an American broker deal. Now, younger viewers will not remember Sabra and Shatila, but that they will not remember Sabra and Shatila, those two names are burned in the minds of those older and who care about it. So that's triple the actual death toll on October the 7th. Well, nearly 7,000 more were wounded on October the 7th. Yeah, but the fact that you thought, I mean, this respectfully,

that this was the biggest single day of slaughter is part of the problem. The lives, the blood of Palestinians is oftentimes by commentators and politicians. regardless of less valuable than the blood of Israelis. All the blood is a disgrace, all of it. And insofar as terrorist acts are committed by Palestinian organizations, by terrorists, I mean the harming, killing of innocent civilians. Of course, I condemn that. So do you accept, on that then, do you accept,

because the number you gave for the other atrocity, which is what it was, is disputed. You know it's disputed. The Sabreshati, yeah, the actual toll is disputed. Well, the death toll on October 7th is disputed. But there's more clarity about the numbers on that. No, there isn't because the Israeli media reports have not been reflected in Western reports,

but the Israeli media all the time reports that significant casualties were inflicted by Israeli forces themselves. and deliberately under Netanyahu's Hannibal Directive, which states that no one should be allowed to be taken hostage, kill them rather than allow them to be taken hostage. But over 230 were taken hostage? Yeah, and taking women.

And the latest figures are that 1,143 people were killed in the initial series of terror attacks, 373 of whom were linked to security forces, 766 of whom were civilians. Now, you've questioned those before. Do you question those now? No, I question who killed whom, but I don't eschew condemnation

of the killing of innocent civilians. If you show me an old woman who was killed by a Palestinian fighter... Well, they showed it themselves. They broadcast many of eachosties to the world. I absolutely condemn that. I also condemn the taking of women and children as hostages. Whether they're taken by the Israeli government, and there are 9,000 hostages in Israeli dungeons

that are untried, not even charged. They're just held there as hostages. And I condemn the holding of civilian hostages in Gaza. Do you think what Hamas did that day was a terrorist attack? Well, the parts that I'm talking about were undoubtedly a terrorist attack. But if he attacked... See, look, I wasn't expecting you to say that.

And the reason I think is significant, George, is a lot of people are sat in that chair on the Palestinian side of this debate. And they have, including Jeremy Corbyn, on my ad, who have resolutely refused to condemn what Hamas did that day. And I find that very difficult to get past. Well, yeah, I've often...

I've ended up with 20-minute debates as I did with Corbyn about it, because I don't see any human being cannot tell that what it is. innocent civilians, whether on London Bridge or on the London Underground or at a music festival, are terrorist acts because they are punishing innocent people for the crimes of guilty people. Now, I was underground as an agent of the ANC in apartheid South Africa. I was working for Nelson Mandela's ANC.

I gave my blood on the floor of the Gogoleto police station in Cape Town. Was the ANC a terrorist organization? The answer to that is no, even though they had people who carried out terrorist attacks. You have to understand the whole picture and not just a tiny corner of a single snapshot. The ANC, like the Palestinians, are fighting against an apartheid state, In the case of Palestine, the millions of Palestinians scattered around the world with no one speaking up for them. And from time to time... When people categorize what Hamas Day on October 7th as resistance, do you think that's an acceptable choice of word for what happened that day?

If you're fighting against occupation forces, undoubtedly it is. So if you cross the wire, break out of the wire of the concentration camp. it was David Cameron, I remind you, who called it the largest open-air prison camp in the world. If you break through and you start taking a toll on your guards, the people who've kept you in this absolute immiseration, penury with regular death being dealt to you, then that's a legitimate act of resistance.

It's not legitimate. So it's enshrined kids and grandmothers. I already said that. That's what I mean that. already. But that's why I mean, some people try to describe what Hamas did that day as resistance. No, killing grandmas and kids is terrorism. It's not resistant.

It's not resistant. It's terrorist. That's my point. But killing soldiers and security officers of the Israeli state is enshrined in international law. When you used the phrase earlier about Israel having the right to defend itself, it literally does not have the right. It's excluded. Every country has a right to defend itself. It's excluded in international law that any country has the right to defend itself from territories that it illegally occupies.

So the occupied have that right. Hang on. As you've just said, many acts of terrorism were committed that day, and every country has a fundamental right to defend its people from terrorism. You would agree with that? Yes, from terrorism. Right. So Israel does have a right to, because the Hamas spokesman, I think critically for this debate, the Hamas spokesman within several weeks on camera said we will keep trying to do this again and again.

Well, I'm not a supporter of Hamas. I'm not saying you are. I'm not saying in terms of Israel's right to defend itself. Indeed, I would say a moral duty. Now, the scale of it we're going to come to, and there we might meet some common ground. But on the principle of if you suffer a terror attack of that nature in the way that it was perpetrated, that Israel has a fundamental right and a duty to its people if the perpetrators say we're going to keep trying to do this

to defend itself. You would agree with that. But to defend yourself by killing and mutilating 150,000 people and climbing, save the children have just said there are 21,000 missing children on top of the 15,000. We don't have these figures. These figures have not been confirmed. Well, you can believe save the children or not. I agree. I think they're a pretty reputable organization.

Princess Anne is that it is widely accepted that up to about 40,000 people so far have died. We don't know how many of those are Hamas. Israel would have you believe it's 15,000. I've seen a lot of pictures of people who are manifestly not Hamas. I agree. So have you. I agree. And I think the slaughter of the children has been horrific.

And inevitable. Yeah. Inevitable. It is inevitable. If you defend yourself by raining down bombs, on tents. It is inevitable that you are going to kill and mutilate children and women who cannot possibly be Hamas. But Hamas would have known that Israel would respond in that way. Yes, but Israel would have known that if you keep 2.3 million people in a cage, they're going

to try and break out. So there's all kinds of concomitants should have known in this story. They should have known when they occupied Palatian. Palestinian land, drove hundreds of thousands of them out, never to return, that those people would have children and they would have children, and enmity, bitterness, and a desire for revenge would exist forever. And so it has. Now, the Gaza people maybe were unlucky. They were driven out only to Gaza, not to the neighboring countries, and they had a fence put around them. And by the way, this is something I think you should acknowledge. It's suited. that Hamas were there.

They begged Qatar to keep on funding Hamas. I agree with it. Because they didn't want Arafat, my friend. Let me clear that. They wanted an Islamist enemy. Netanyahu liked the idea of the Palestinian governments being split. To be Palestinian Authority and Hamas, it suited him that they were divided, that there wasn't a unity governing the Palestinian people.

That is why he helped authorize these billions. being sent through to Hamas. And Hamas then, in my opinion, abused that money and used it to build the tunnels where they went down, but they didn't let the civilians go down, to arm themselves to the teeth and plan attacks, right? So I don't remotely excuse Netanyahu from this. I actually think going out of this... Goes much farther back.

Pierce, I was there, saw it with my own eyes. The birth of Hamas. Right. But I mean, it's only existed. But it's existed for 38 years. Right. But I was, I've been involved. Sure, but I've been involved for 50 years. So I can tell you that I saw with my own eyes the deliberate bringing into being of an Islamist resistance set of organizations to stymie Yasser.

They didn't want Arafat. They didn't want the likes of my friend, the next legitimate president, the Nelson Man's. of Palestine, Marwan Barguti, many of his family members have been on your show. Marwan Barguti, they don't want, they want to keep him in a dungeon because he represents an ideal that unites people of all religions and none, has an ability to attract people around the world to the nobility of his cause. So kill and jail, all the people like that, make a bogeyman of an issue. Islamist enemy, make sure he continues to be funded by Arab regimes that you are able to order around.

And that's what happened. That's not to say that the resistance fighters who are now taking a heavy toll on Netanyahu's invaders, very heavy. It's now nine months. They still haven't quashed the resistance in these camps. Well, they're not going to defeat Hamas in its entirety. And they've, some of the knowledge. And they certainly, in my opinion, the massive flaw with this strategy, I think they are fueling, not ending the ideology.

I can't imagine that the amount of bloodshed of civilians we've seen is not going to inspire a lot more people to embrace the revenge ideology that Hamas have represented. Didn't we discover that ourselves in our own country? When we interned, without trial, thousands of Roman Catholics in the north of Ireland, we got. guaranteed the struggle of the Irish Republican Army for decades afterwards. We made a university for them behind the wire. This kind of failure to address legitimate grievances of people can only generate future hatred. See, I believe fundamentally, every Palestinian should have exactly the same human rights and freedoms as every Israeli. Me too. Right? On that, we agree.

Me too. And within one state, it will have to be because the two-state solution, which I supported as an Arafatist, I look foolish now, having supported the Oslo Agreement, I look like an idiot. Why? Arifat looks like an idiot. Because we believe that there would be a two-state solution. And almost 40 years after the agreement, there's not one centimeter of Palestine free. And Gaza is in complete ruins. The West Bank is on fire.

Settlers are running amok. The attempt to ethnically cleanse the West Bank and East Jerusalem is running concurrently with the slaughter in Gaza. So where are you going to put two-state solutions? Well, I would add a massive butt to them. that, which is, but one of the main reasons for this current mayhem is what Hamas did in October the 7th. I don't agree at all with that.

You have to agree with that. The chronology makes it clear that that's not true. There's 800,000 illegal settlers in the West Bank. They all settled there long before October the 7th. I think, look, again, for the record, the expansion of a settlement, particularly since October the 7th, is completely outrageous. It shouldn't be happening. happening. 99.9% of them were all built before October 7th. It's as foolish to think that this all

began on October 7th. I know you don't. Many commentators feel that way, talk that way, that it all begins when the Sky News cameras turn out. One of the best pieces I've read on this whole thing, I'll tell you, was quite early on Jonathan Friedland is a Jewish columnist for The Guardian. And he wrote a really, I think, amazing column in which he said, I can present as a Jewish man a very clear, coherent argument for why both sides have a right to feel most aggrieved in this 75-year conflict. It was a really interesting piece where he didn't take a position. He just explored the arguments on both sides. Went back to 1948 and through a series of spiraling circumstances,

hundreds of thousands displaced on both sides in those first few years. The ultimate you end up with a lot of very aggrieved people being pushed and shoved out of homes, a lot of bloodshed starts, you then have a series of wars almost entirely started by the Arab side, but then the response from Israel often being massively disproportionate. Well, you say started by the Arab side. You say that. I'm talking about the specific flare-ups of war. Well, the 1973 war was an attempt to get back the territories of 1967. the resistance from 1948 onwards was because the country called Palestine

was wiped off the map and its people scattered till the four winds. They're never going to accept that. Neither would you. We wouldn't accept it in our own country. Can you put yourself in the shoe? If someone came from New York and took over your house peers,

you would never accept it. I understand that. What I'm saying is can you accept that if Jonathan Friedland as a Jewish man can find it in his heart to see that the Palestinians have had real, cause for grievance.

Can you, as somebody who supports the Palestinian side, can you understand why Jewish people, why Israelis, also feel a burning sense of grievance and injustice for what they've endured at the same time? Well, they endured it at the hands of Christian Europeans, not at the hands of the Palestinians. But can you accept that they do feel that have a right to? I know that they feel it.

It's my job to empathize, to understand, to walk in the other fellow shoes. But the facts cannot be changed. There once was a Palestine, now there is not. The people came from New York, from Paris and London and all over Europe, and took their homes and took their land. No one's ever going to accept that. There will always be resistance to that. As long as there are two Palestinians left alive, male and female, there will be a Palestinian resistance.

It's a failure to grasp that, which has led to this. Now, I said 1948, I could go back, I was in a building in Manchester in Chatham Hill last Saturday night where the Balfour Declaration was received and co-signed by the Zionist organizations.

I was literally in the building. It's a big Manchester story. The Balfour himself was an MP in Manchester. The document was signed in Manchester. The reality is when we promised on behalf of one people to give to a second people the land that belonged to a third people, we set off, as Churchill put it, down a descending staircase, soaked in blood. That's why British people, when some people say, why are you so exercised by this? Because my country caused it and my country is still involved in it.

That's why I'm so exercised by it. We are where we are now. How does this get resolved? How long will it take? I don't think it's going to be resolved and therefore cannot give a time skill. There's never going to be a two-state solution until, you know, a surgeon can't operate on his own foot.

Until outside surgeons operate on this, it's not going to be resolved. As long as we keep giving Israel the money. When you see the Abraham Accords, you see normalization of relations with Arab countries and Israel, you see that Saudi clearly want to pursue the same path. Is that not ultimately the way it has to go? How will that help resolve the Palestinian issue? The question then is who will help rebuild and govern the people in Gaza after this? And that is a question which is open for

a lot of debate. I mean, there's no easy answer, clearly, but what do you think? You call it normalization, but there's nothing normal about these regimes that concluded under Trump's, browbeating and bribery and the judicious deployment of his son-in-law, there's nothing normal about these countries. Their populations, 99.99% of them are with the Palestinians and are against this normalization. This is a Potemkin village. And even Trump, I think, will not seek to resurrect the Abraham Accords. The Oslo Accords are dead.

The Abram Accords never got off the ground because none of them have solved the fundamental problem of Palestinian statehood, of the return of the Palestinian refugees to their own land, their own homes, for which they have the title deeds written in English and counter-signed and sealed with a stamp by British judicial authorities. You, I say it again, you nor I would ever accept anyone stealing our house. And no matter how long they live there, it will never be there. It will always be mine. It is also a fact in the history of planet Earth in the last thousand years that where there is warfare, there is a change in territorial ownership. That goes with warfare, right? And there have been, what, how many five wars now in this conflict in 75 years?

So when that happens, you are going to get changes in geography, aren't you? It goes with warfare as long as the victims disappear into the museum. But insofar as they don't, and Darifah always used to say, we are not the Red Indians. We will not go into the museum, let people come and see our gowns and our cooking utensils in an exhibition case. As long as the Palestinians remain alive and insist on their rights, there will be resistance. The rest of us have to make up our mind. Why are we so enthralled to a very small country of seven or eight million Israelis that we, are prepared to risk what might become World War III over defending it.

If, as we are speaking, Israel invades Lebanon, Hezbollah and Lebanon will be a Donnybrook, a battle royal, which may very well immediately draw in the Americans. Well, the last time this happened, it actually didn't turn out to be that at all. It didn't because Hezbollah gave them a bloody good hiding. Well, they didn't. As I said on Sky News on my biggest ever clip. They did.

Israel ran away. And Hamas, sorry, Hezbollah. That's a shocking mischaracterization of what happened. What happened then? Hisbola did not see off Israel the last time they clashed. Well, I think we need to go back and check the news clippings of that. Israel gave Hezbollah a pretty big, bloody nose. Well, you're the only person I've ever heard say that.

Really? Only. I'm the only person who thinks. I've the only person I have ever heard say that. Everybody else believes, Hezbollah. gave Israel a bloody good hiding. But the most important thing... Why did they stop there then? They were winning.

Why did they stop? The most important thing is... Why did they stop? The most important thing is, Hizbollah is now 10, 20, 50 times more powerful than it was in 2006. There are hundreds of thousands of men under arms. They have the best arms.

They have Russian anti-aircraft missiles. They have Iranian ballistic missiles. They could turn Israel into a giant firestorm. So if Netanyahu does this... we're going to have to make up our mind whether we want to risk an international conflagration to save Netanyahu and his gang. I don't think there's any incentive for Netanyahu to bring an end to any warfare at the moment. Because the moment it is, all the polls suggest the Israeli people will kick him out of office.

And then the next phase of his life will be in a court facing corruption charges. So I don't see any future after this war ends for Netanyahu. half of more of that cabinet. But I don't say any future for Hamas either in having any form of governing over the people of Gaza. Do you? I don't think they care about governing. Do you think they should have any governing role?

I think the Palestinians should pick their leaders, not Pierce Morgan or George Gallowit. But the point is... Rob, you disagree with me about Israel. They're not going to have... You're giving a view about Israel. You can give one about Palestine. I support Marwan Barguti.

I want him released from jail and to be the president of both parts. Did you accept the Hamas after what happened on October of the 7th? They should have no governing responsibility at any level. Well, unless the Palestinians pick them. The point is, though, they've no interest in governing. They're a liberation organization, a resistance organization. A terrorist organization.

With an Islamist ideology, which will continue and will in fact become stronger by the failure of the West to be that surgeon operating. on Israel's foot. Isn't Islamist ideology terrorism? No, not all of it. Of course, the Muslim Brotherhood are Islamists, but they're not terrorists. There are, the ANC had a terrorist wing, as was described. There are all kinds of parts of these organizations,

but their ideology, which I don't support, don't share, is strengthened by what's happened over the last nine months. I think that may well be the case. I'm sure of it. I've been worried about that. I lived through Arafat's support going down and down and down because of his failure to deliver what he said the Oslo agreement was going to bring. He said, I'll be there, I'll be praying in the Al-Axa in Jerusalem, we'll have a state in the West Bank in Gaza. And as the years went by and people saw no such thing, they began to turn to other political forces.

And it suited the West, it suited Israel, not just in this theater, for your very much older viewers. They did the same in Egypt. They built up the Muslim Brotherhood because they hated NASA. They hated NASA because he nationalized the Suez Canal and began to spark the idea of Arab national unity and so on across the region. So they built up these Islamist forces. But if you don't have a two-state solution, George. How does this ever lead to peace? The way you described it.

That's why I'm instantly agreed with you. Let's call it the Holy Land. If you like, we can call it Israel-Hifin Palestine. One country between that famous river and that famous sea where every Jew, Muslim and Christian, lives as an equal. That's what we did at the end of apartheid in South Africa. How do they live as peaceful equals, given what's happened? Well, it'll never be perfect any more than it is in Northern Ireland.

or in South Africa now, but any alternative proposal has the disbenefit of having obviously been debunked. The two-state solution is debunked. Nobody believes in it, least of all, Israel, that would have to clear the 800,000 settlers off the land that's supposed to be the Palestinian state. That's not going to work. Now, you may say this will never happen. I tell you it will not happen in my lifetime, but my youngest child is three years old. I believe it can happen in hers. If we stop endlessly bankrolling, arming, diplomatically covering for culturally fluffing the state of Israel and begin to be at least even-handed, in the way that you are now being, be even-handed, recognize that the Palestinians have rights too and that Palestinian lives matter

or two. In a hundred years, maybe we'll get to the holy land. I have said that about equal rights from the start of this. The moral quandary I've had, which I've articulated throughout, is simply the scale of what Hamas did on that day was so horrific that it was inevitable Israel respond with huge force. I have massive concerns about the scale of what they've been doing, particularly in the last few weeks and months. But when you have a group that is publicly wedded to your annihilation...

Actually, far be it from me to defend Amas, but they are publicly wedded to the two-state solution. They made an historic climb down at least 20 years ago in accepting Arafat's Oslo Agreement. So it isn't true that they are wedded to... But their founding charter literally spells out They want the elimination. Have you seen Lekud's founding charter?

Sure. It is the mirror image of that. Forget founding charters. Hamas is wedded to the two-state solution, the very failed two-state solution that we are discussing here. The Hamas official spokesman, literally two weeks after October the 7th, said on camera,

what they're really wedded to is repeating this again and again and again. But that's what? They're resisting. the occupation. That's not resistance, it's terrorism. You've already agreed with me as terrorism. Part of it was terrorism. A massive part of it. Well, we could argue about the numbers. We'd have to know the Hannibal

directive, but it is the desperate act of occupied people trapped in a concentration camp, 2.3 million of them, with no exit and no entrance. What do you expect from an open

air prison camp but a prisoner's revolt? And now the guards are raining down, widespread death and destruction on them, that's only going to make the matter worse. I think we agree on that. I think that's probably, sadly, exactly what's going to happen. Let me ask you, you were very critical of Sekeir Stama, likely to be the new British Prime Minister in several weeks' time. You warned that he would pay a high price for his stance on this war. What does you mean by that? Well, I think that millions of people who almost certainly would have trooped out to vote Labor very loyally or even holding their nose will not now do so.

Millions of those are Muslims, but millions of them are not. If you look at any protest, demonstration, manifestation of any kind, it's mainly non-Muslims that are there. It's mainly young people, students. It's mainly people that Jeremy Corbyn would once have had in his coalition. And by the way, Corbyn will get more votes. Got more votes in 2017 than Starrmer's going to get in 2020. 24. Mark my card on that. The coalition that Labor could have had is not the coalition that they will have on the 4th of July. And the reason will largely be down to Gaza. There are other reasons,

but that's the biggest one. No self-respecting supporter of the Palestinians are going to vote Labour, whoever the candidate is. And now there are plenty of alternatives. But what will be the heavy price he pays given he's going to win with a massive majority? Well, we've yet to see how big the majority will be. I haven't given up hope of hung parliament, which would be the best parliament. No, I haven't because I think the rise and rise of Farage is not finished yet. And I think that Farage is taking a significant number of Labour voters in the blue wall, formerly the red wall. I can tell you that anecdotally from my own constitution.

No, we are pretty much diametric opposite. I mean, on Russia, you can barely put a bit of paper between you. On Brexit, too. So a stop clock is right twice a day. And Farage was right twice on those two days. Was he right on Brexit, given it appears to have been a spectacular act of self-harm? You was definitely right on Brexit. We fought for Brexit, people like me, because it was necessary but not sufficient.

Take back control of our borders, for example? Well, we certainly haven't done that. Since the referendum eight years ago, literally, we've, We're now in a position from tens of thousands of people in a net migration situation to 700,000. Yeah. And we have tens of thousands coming over. I mean, that's not taking back control. That's completely losing control.

We have lost control of our borders, and we haven't taken control of our economy in a way that we could have done. So how has it worked? I mean, let me be clear. I voted Remain, but I wasn't sure. I felt both sides were misleading me. I wasn't sure. And when it was over, I actually voted for Boris Johnson in 2019

for one reason was that he was the only candidate in that election who was prepared to honour the result of the referendum. And I felt for a democratic society like Britain that actually incredibly important that we'd be seen to honour the results, right? Whether it's general election, local election, or a referendum.

That was any reason I voted for it. Yeah, well, that's perfectly logical. And I think many people did that, especially in what became the Blue Wall. Should we not have another referendum now if Kiyosthama was to win? No, because... Most polls suggest the vast majority would now vote to go back in. Yeah, my stance is that we never actually Brexit it.

We never regained our sovereignty. We continued to tail-end the European Union on almost all important matters, and worse, we became a vassal and even greater, state of vassalage of the United States. And if Trump gets back in, that's going to continue. So we never actually became an independent country. We believe that being an independent country

is a necessary but not sufficient condition. I think we ceded so much of our authority on the global stage that actually being a leading member of the EU gave us so much more clout than being a little island, with little island mentality. And had it worked, had we got the border controlled, had we got the economy purring, have any of the things we've been promised actually worked, if we got our 350 million per week for the NHS,

and the NHS was transformed. If any of these things have worked. If my auntie had a beard, she'd be my uncle. Right, but we were promised all this and nothing's happened. Yeah, and the people that promised you it deserved to be held to account for it. But that wasn't Farage. He's not in government. Well, he was one of the main reasons we went through with it.

But the government that has been in power since we brexited is the people you should blame. Let me ask you about Russia. You're perceived to be somebody very sympathetic to Russia, to the extent that in the Ukraine war, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but with the Ukraine war, you feel that this was a, not necessarily a justified, but an inevitable response. I'll go with... Which is what Farage said. Yeah, and not just Farage, but Macron today,

who said he's going to continue his dialogue with Putin. You have to try and... In a way, that's all that Farage was saying. In terms of this provocation, I'm very curious about this. Here's my thing about the provocation. Ukraine voted by a massive majority, 90-something percent of the people in the 90s to become an independent, democratic, sovereign country in Europe.

And they were then persuaded by the international community to give up their nuclear deterrent defence. Well, it wasn't theirs. It was the Soviet. Okay, but they were persuaded to give up their weapons. Yeah, but it wasn't there. And part of the... Russia was the inheritor state.

But the deal, the deal was if they did that, then they would be guaranteed their independence. What could be more independent than in Ukraine's case, for example, wanting to be, of their own volition, a member of NATO? Which is a defensive alignment. In 2014, there was a government that did not want to do those things, and it was overthrown in a coup d'etat, the parliament on fire, the president fleeing for his life,

and the first act of the terrorized deputies, literally with a gun at their head, was to outlaw the Russian language. Now, one third of the Ukrainian people are Russian-speaking people, including Zelensky, the greatest showman on earth. I could call him something else, but let's... What else would you call him?

I'd call him a thief. I'd call him a fraud. I'd say that he fooled the Ukrainian people, that he was going to make peace with the Russian... I'd call him an absolute hero, and I would say back at you, George, that for such a smart guy, and you are a smart guy.

I've met a lot of politicians. You're right up there. in terms of your intellect. It seems to me that you're more comfortable just going along with the Putin world view than you are going along with the view of someone that Putin has barbarically illegally invaded. I mean, you and I agreed about the illegal invasion of Iraq.

We thought it was completely wrong, right? That America and the UK and the other Allied forces invaded Iraq as retribution for something they had nothing to do with. And it turned out to be a total decision. disaster that spawned. And we both got sacked. And we both got sacked, right? And we agreed about that, which is why I'm really struck by the fact that we agree, we disagree so vehemently about what seems to me a very similar situation. No, because you've got to know the history, and you should know it.

I do know the history. Russia has been invaded twice by Napoleon and then by Hitler using the runway of Ukraine. The idea that Russia is going to allow American missiles masquerading as NATO missiles on the soil of the place where Russia was twice invaded in the last couple of hundred years. Russia is one of the biggest land-house... It's the biggest country in the world, right? Do you know how much of it percentage-wise is bordered by NATO countries, including Finland who've just come into it?

Yeah, if you put a nuclear... Do you know how many? Yeah. If you put a nuclear... Hang on. That's a different question. That's a different question. What percentage is actually bordered by NATO countries?

Well, you've got the Baltic states, and if you had had Ukraine. Do you know the answer? No. Right. Have a guess. 10, 15? 10%. 10%?

A tiny percentage of Russia's border. What does that mean? A missile takes two... NATO is not... A missile takes less than two minutes. NATO is a defensive organization. Tell that to the birds. Tell that to the people of Libya.

Why do you think so many of the former countries of the Soviet Union are racing to want to be part of it? Because they are fearful, not of NATO attacking them, but of Russia attacking them. Like he did in Grozny, like he did in Georgia, like he did in Crimea, like he's now done in Ukraine. Why do you keep trusting this guy? Is it important to stick to the facts? The facts are these. Russia was promised. Gorbachev was promised.

by the United States, by James Baker, the Secretary of State, to George Bush won that if the Red Army left eastern Germany, NATO would not expand one inch to the east of Germany. They have expanded thousands of kilometers to the east of Germany, and they now have nuclear missiles within two minutes of hitting St. Petersburg. You're not answering my question. Why have these former countries, part of the old Russian Empire, why have they been so keen to join an alliance,

which is a defensive alliance? It's not because they want to be aggressive to Russia. It's because they want to be defended when Russia almost inevitably attacks them. If they're defensive, why did they bombard Belgrade for 90 days? If they're defensive, why are their ships sailing in the South China Sea as far away from the North Atlantic as it's point? for a NATO warship to be.

Why are the Russian airplanes flying over Europe? Actually, there are virtually no Russian airplanes. Virtually no, that's comforting. Virtually none. How many are there? But I'll tell you something. How many are there? Well, a lot fewer than there are American planes.

But you get my point, George. Ringed around Russia and China. George, because America... Why are you so keen to take the Putin world view? No, I'm keen that Russia should not be broken up into Balkan states. Who's going to do that? That's the avowed intention of the Rand report of the think tanks. Well, you say they're not attacking Russia.

They're not. Crimea was yesterday shelled by an attackam's missile programmed by the United States. Crimea belongs to Ukraine. It doesn't belong to Ukraine. You talked about people voting. It was stolen in 2014 by Vladimir Putin. Well, does voting mean anything or not? Well, you think the vote after they stole it matters?

The referendum that was held in Crimea, as any fool would have known the result would be, was at least 90% for rejoining Russia, rejoining being the operative war. The Crimea was an autonomous part of Ukraine during the Soviet era. The people of Crimea, like the people of eastern Ukraine now, wouldn't have been if there hadn't been a war, if there hadn't been an invasion, if there hadn't been a coup, most people were content to live in an independent Ukraine, whether they were Russian people or Ukrainian people.

And it's an important dichotomy that. A third of them are Russian. They would have been happy to live under a democratic government in Kiev, but that's not what we have. First of all, his term has run out, but secondly, the overthrow of the legitimate government in 2014 led to a war of attrition against the people in eastern Ukraine, which turned the people more and more to the point of view that, as Russian-speaking

people, they're better off with Russia. We should have implemented the accords that France and Germany guaranteed, and the Security Council subsequently adopted, that would have guaranteed Ukrainian neutrality. There's nothing unusual about that. If Mexico or Canada decided to join a Chinese Russian military bloc. America would never accept it. Neither will Russia accept. But Ukraine is now part of Europe. Ukraine is part of Europe. Not part of Russia is owned by Russia anymore. The truth is Vladimir Putin wants to take back a lot of the stuff that he believes was wrongly broken up and the Soviet Union was dismanted. I don't believe that that is true. I know you don't. Russia is why you constantly take it. He's even said that. Russia is a European

country. Moscow is the biggest city in Europe. It would have been far better to us, for us, to have accepted not just Russia, but Putin's own olive branches. He asked for Russia to join NATO. Here's the thing, George. Why do you trust Vladimir Putin? Well, I trust him more than I trust Kirstama. Really? Yeah. You trust. You trust Vladimir Putin? I trust him more than Kirstama. I trust him more than I trust Joe Biden. I trust him more than I trust Donald Trump. Hold on, let me finish the statement. I can't really get past Starmbert.

You would trust Vladimir. Easily. More than Kirstar. I wouldn't trust any of them if they told me what day it was today without checking. I don't trust automatically any politician. I check the facts. We live through an era and were sacked because of the result of it. in which we were told certain things by our own leaders

that turned out to be blatant lies. Right, and here's my point, George. This is my point, is that you seem to have brought in to Putin's whole justification, as Farage has. He was provoked. He had no option. There is no doubt. To which I say bullshit.

Right? This is a guy who proved in Grosny, who proved in Crimea, who proved in Georgia, and has proved again in Ukraine. he will attack where he smells weakness. No, I don't think that that is true, but if it were to be true, then you'd find me on the same side of the argument as you.

But do you not think the invasion was an illegal invasion? Yes, of course. Invading anyone's... How can you justify it? Well, for the same reason, I justified Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia to stop the tyranny of Paul Pot. But you're likening Zer to Paul Pot?

Oh, but? I am, actually. You can't be serious. I am. I am. For the thousands of children, women, who were killed by Ukraine's regime before Zelensky and after Zelensky, I think that the tyranny, the killing fields of the Donbass were as gruesome. The killing fields of a Donbass have been perpetrated by Vladimir Putin.

No, no, no. The killing fields of the Donbass were from 2014 to Putin. invasion's invasion. Do you think it's just stopped and see invading it? I'm old enough to remember Tanzania invading Uganda to bring about the overthrow of big Eid Amin.

It is not always the case that an intervention by a neighbour is a negative thing and in the case It's not an intervention. You just called it yourself an illegal invasion. You said illegal? It wasn't legal invasion.

How can you justify it? It was an illegal invasion. and the justification for it from the Russian-speaking Ukrainian point of view was to save them from massacre. It's bullshit. Well, they were being massacred. You just didn't notice it. No, you just didn't... The massacring has been perpetrated by Putin on Ukrainian people.

And by the way, on his own people. There's plenty of killing in Ukraine now. Let me pick you up on one thing you said, which I want to clarify. This is what you said about the Boucher massacre. I've been to Boucher. So I want to play this clip. So I don't believe that Bucca was a war crime. I believe it belongs in the long line of false flag operations used to trigger war.

False flag? Absolutely. It was a massacre carried out. Have you been there? No. Have you spoken to the people? I'd be killed if I went there. I have been there.

I'd be killed. I've been to bespriced. It's because you're a friend. It's because you're chilling for him. I'm not his friend. Zelensky would have me killed if I'm not. I went there, I am absolutely certain

that the people who were massacred at Bucca were massacred by the Nazis that are the foundation stone of the existing Ukrainian state. The Azov Nazis were the people who carried out the Bucca massacre.

This is complete insanity. How is it? I don't even believe you think that. I absolutely think it. Why are you saying something like that? Because I believe it. But I've been there. I've literally interviewed the families of the people who were massacred. They were massacred by the Russian forces. You weren't there when it happened.

I spoke to the people who saw the Russian forces. Well, I've also heard. Raping and murdering their families. Well, now we're back to, you always drag out this rape thing. Yeah, because all you know what happens a lot. I haven't seen any reports of rape at Bucca. Really? So if you, why don't you go and check it out?

Well, I will. But the... Presum, you think it would be the Ukrainian Nazi? Nazis you did it? Well, they've certainly raped people before. Are you capable, but the Russian forces are? Are you denying that there are Nazis in Ukraine? I've read a whole report about this. There is a tiny, tiny number of people associated themselves with a Nazi ideology. All the statues, the Bandera. Tiny number of people. Well, they must be very influential if they're tiny. By the way, there are Nazis here. There are Nazis in Germany. We don't have streets. We don't call streets after them.

We don't build monuments to them. But George, how can it? We don't call universities after them. You can't. There's a cult of Nazism in Ukraine. There's also a cult of supporting people like Putin when they perpetrate atrocities like Boudja, right? And you seem to think that somehow in your head he didn't do that.

You said that there are a tiny number of Nazis in Ukraine. Then why is the main street in Kiev called after Bandera? Why is Bandera and his Nazi collaboration? gang proliferating statues, street names, institutions being called after them. Why do they carry Nazi flags and insignia? I can tell you. I can tell you. Tatus.

There is a tiny percentage of Nazis in Ukraine. Tiny. Because you've been there, you can say that. Yes. Because I've spoken to people who know. And I have spoken to people who know. And I have read more than wonderful. I've read more than wonderful.

I've witnessed the scene of this massacre with my own eyes. Yeah. I talk to the people. who'd lost their loved ones, who had appalling things done to them. It was done by Russian invading forces. I believe that Buka, in all the circumstances, is a false flag of the kind with which we are really familiar, that you commit an atrocity and you blame it

in order to manufacture consent for what comes next. You blame it on the bogey man. So you think the Ukraine was behind the Russian forces advancing through to that area, and then they stopped. because they blew up the bridge. These people were murdered. You think they did all this? These people were murdered because they were Russian collaborator.

They were murdered by Russia. No, they weren't. That in Putin's forces murdered hundreds and hundreds of people. We can't. In Bukkah. Yes. How many hundreds were killed? I don't know the exact number.

That's funny because you've been there and you've read a report. I think it was it 400? I've seen pictures of the slaughtered people who were all wearing the ribbons. You've got somebody speaking in your ear. I have because I said I thought it was about 400. It turns out it was 458. The people that I saw on television were wearing armbands, which identified them as Russian collaborators,

people who'd taken the soup from the then-occupying Russian forces. We're not going to get anywhere batting this one around. My stance is this. The Russian-speaking people in Ukraine, decided they wanted out of Ukraine. They have a right to self-determination. The coup and the massacres that ensued after it in 2014, the abolition of their language,

the criminalization of their culture, led them to conclude that they no longer wanted to be part of that kind of Ukraine. It would be far better if we now negotiate. As Macron said, as Farad, let's partition Ukraine. How? Along, well, if you get me a map, I'll show you the very river along. Well, you give them what the Russians are taken. The Nipar River would be a reasonable place to participate.

So they invade Crimea and they get to keep it. Well, they now invade the Dombat region and they get to keep that. Crimea for hundreds of years has been Russian. All right. Actually, it was Ukrainian territory. Well, it was because Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine. when both were part of the Soviet Union. That doesn't stop it being Russian.

It doesn't mean the Russian Navy isn't anchored there for hundreds of years. To be clear, he invades Crimea and gets to keep it. He now invades the southeast region, the Dombas and other parts of that area, and he gets to keep that too. That's how you would settle this? Well, we need to negotiate. Would you let Putin keep what he's taken? I said right at the beginning, Georgia is better than war war.

I'm saying it about Ukraine too. You can have a war if you like. You can send your sons, you'll never send mine, to go and fight for which side of a line. But to be clear, you would let him keep what he's... But your idea of negotiation is to let him keep what he's taken. Well, I think the people need to vote. But is that what you would think is a reasonable thing?

I think a reasonable thing to do would be for the United Nations to conduct a plebiscite amongst the people of eastern Ukraine as to which state. they wanted to be in. And I'm pretty sure that overwhelmingly they choose to be in Russia. What part of you, and look, I don't want to be disrespectful, but what part of you is so naive, George, that you think that Putin, having done it in Crimea and now done it in the Dombas, in the east of Ukraine, and got what he wanted, got what he took with force, that he's going to stop there

and not want the rest of Ukraine? Well, he's the one who was ready to negotiate. And at a Istanbul two months into the war. Yes, he was. He could negotiate this tomorrow. No, look, Boris Johnson was sent specifically to scupper the outcome of the Istanbul negotiations. Two months into the war, long before hundreds of thousands of people had died and hundreds, thousands of square kilometers of territory. Well, I don't trust people I have to negotiate with. I have to negotiate with people or fight them. I don't want to. fight the Russians. I don't want to fight the Chinese. Apart from anything else, we're in no position to fight either. What happens if he decides he wants a piece of the UK? My goodness,

the state of the UK, it would be exceedingly unlikely that he'd want to. But what if he does? What if he sniffs a bit of weakness? What if he hears you and Nigel Farage and thinks, wow, British politicians seem really bang up for me at the moment. Honestly, fantasy talk appears. I'm surprised at you. It's unbecoming. Is it fantasy talk? It is. The truth is, the truth is. the negotiations could have solved this problem, even before it began, the Accords, the Minsk Agreements, could have been implemented, and there would have been no war at all. The reason why they weren't implemented, and the reason the Istanbul Agreement was scuppered, was because the West wanted the war. That's what Farage means when he talks about provoked. That's what increasing numbers of European government.

Why would he want a war somewhere where there's like 25% of the world's wheat comes from? They would cause a massive global weak crisis? Why would they want that, George? They want to weaken and destroy the Russian state. They've said so. They think, and the Prime Minister of Latvia said it just yesterday. They want Russia broken up into its ethnic parts so that it becomes a balkanized proliferation of states,

the better to be exploited. So I think the best thing to do, and Farage is right, is to negotiate an end to this. The longer we wait to negotiate, the more disadvantageous those negotiations will be. Or fight. I mean, that's the alternative. But you understand why... We could go to war for coup of course. You understand you're sounding very like Neville Chamberl.

No, I'm the last man to accuse of being an appeaser of fascism. I'm the person here that's denouncing... Sounds like exactly what you're doing, Joel. I'm denouncing the fascism in Ukraine that you are turning out. But you think the only fascist in all this are in Ukraine? Yeah. Right. You don't think Putin's a fascist.

I think people waving swastikas. We should believe them. What about ruthless Russian dictators? When they show you the SS insignia, we should believe them. And when a Russian dictator invades country after country after country? You're talking as if there's only me and Farage who are thinking like this. But that's not true. your former pal

Donald Trump is going to end this war in a month if it's still going to do that because you're going to withdraw support for the man you think is a hero. I bet he doesn't do that. Well, we'll come back in December.

As with all things Trump, actually, judge him on what he actually does, not what he says from time to time. It's my best advice on that. I don't think he'll look like he wants to give Putin. If the war doesn't end before, it will end after Trump takes office. Who's going to win the U.S. election?

Donald Trump, by a landslide. You think so? By a landslide. Unless they rig it, unless Trump is stopped with extreme prejudice, he's on a role that can't be stopped. A better question is, who will the Democratic opponent be? Right. Should they get rid of Biden before it's too late?

Well, if his trousers fall down in the presidential debate, which they might. And they might, and it might not be a pretty sight, one way or another, they might ditch him, but it's getting late. in the day. Two quick things before I let you go. Julian Assange has been released and he's off to this little tiny court in the middle of nowhere where they're going to do a deal apparently 62 months, which is the time he served in Belmarsh, then he can go back home to Australia. I was quite surprised to wake up to that this morning. I didn't think this was going to happen. What do you think of Julian

Assange? Some people think he's a hero. Some people think he's a villain. Some people are a bit more nuanced about him with a bit of both? Well, I've been with him from the beginning. I could show you my scars, blackballed, blacklisted, lost jobs. I was sacked from the Daily Record and from the Holyrood magazine. Two of my columns wiped out because

of my support for Arsange over what turned out to be fake rape allegations against him. I think he's one of the greatest heroes of the field of letters of the last century

and this, I think the quality of his work is almost without peer. I think he's been treated monstrously by successive British governments. And interestingly, the man that is emerging at the centre of some of these things is Keir Starma. If you needed another reason to dislike Keir Starma, look at his role in what has happened to Julian Assam. To be honest with it, I can't still quite get over the fact you would trust Putin more than Starma. I mean, that's quite a statement. Starma, Biden, Trump, Sunak, I'd trust Putin more than any of them

because they're my leaders, they're the leaders of my part of the world, and they've betrayed me, and they've betrayed their own people, time and time and time again. So if I was negotiating with Putin, I would look him straight in the eye. I'd put to him the Pierce Morgan question.

Do you intend to take a piece of Britain? I think I could rely on him when he said, I certainly do not. Really? Russia is the biggest country in the world. It's one of the richest countries in the world, fourth richest economy in the world now. It is indissolubly linked now to China. What an achievement of American statecraft.

Nixon and Kissinger spent all that time trying to keep Russia and China apart. We have driven them together to the extent that they are now hip to hip, joined at the hip and growing numbers of countries, some of whom were once allies, satraps even of ours, are joining the bricks, joining the Shanghai cooperation. The problem is, George, he'll be watching this interview, I'm sure, Vladimir Putin,

and he'll have already heard you say that, yeah, if you invade stuff like Crimea and the Donbass, you get to keep it. And he'll be thinking, why can't I do that in the UK? No, if the people vote for it. That's the problem with appeasing dictators. No, it's not a dictator. He's not a better mandate from the people than Rishi Sunak, never faced a vote. Why do you think that is?

Rishi Sunak's never been voted by anybody. Rishi Sunnak doesn't kill and imprison his political opponents? Well, ask Julian Assange, who nearly died. Who was killing him, Rishi Sunak? The British government nearly killed Julianne Hsange because he was a journalist and a journalist. for the powerful, for the establishment. Because he revealed truths about the conflict that you and I, I think, quite gallantly opposed.

He revealed truths that our leaders don't want us to know. If you think our governments don't kill anybody, you need to listen to Donald Trump's interview with Leslie Stahl, in which he said, we've killed a lot of people, including our own president. Of course. The Americans are killed. So the fact is that Putin was recently reelected, He was re-elected with a thumping majority.

More thumping. He imprisons or kills his political opponents. No, I don't accept that. You don't accept that? No, I don't accept that. George? You can't even look at me? Well, you don't accept it.

Did you see Donald Trump in the court the other day? Where was Alexei Navalny when he died? Do you know, well, where is Donald Trump going to become November? Well, because you keep describing our country. I'm asking you about one particular leader. Well, Navalny died as it turns out. Why was he in prison? He was in prison for bank fraud.

No, he wasn't. He was in prison for bank fraud. He was in prison because he was the biggest vocal opponent of Vladimir Putin. Well, he wasn't very big. He can't be this naive, George. He wasn't very big, and he died of natural causes. He was a very big vocal opponent, and he was in prison on Trump's tough charges. He represented one, two percent of the Russian electorate.

You're not doing archery. country or yourself any favors by imagining or pretending to imagine that Putin doesn't fully represent the Russian people. He does. And the more we're at war with them, the more he will. I do not underestimate his ability to terrorize his people into devoted slavery support. Because you know what? If you go out and protested in the streets of Russia against Putin, what happens to you? That just isn't true. What happens to you? There's more opposition to the Russian government in Russia than there is opposition to the British and American governments in Britain and America. You would go over to Russia.

There are TV stations. You would walk down the middle of a high street in the middle of Moscow with a banner saying Putin must go. Because I'm a foreigner. You know why you wouldn't George? I would have no rights to do that. I don't accept that. In a gulag for the rest of your life.

Are we poisoning you? We're just not on the same page. No, we're not. But it doesn't matter what we think of Putin. All that matters is that he is the president of a nuclear-armed superpower, the fourth biggest economy in the world, the largest country in the world,

better to deal with them than to constantly wave swords at him that are, in any case, woefully insufficient. Did you ever get bullied at school? To fight, yes. What did you do with the bully? I fought them back. Exactly.

Punch them in the nose. Exactly. You're going to punch Russia in the north? I think we should stand very strong. You and whose army? NATO, actually, which. is a much bigger army than his. So are we off to war then?

Where? Are we off to war in the Ukraine? One thing, we're in, we're in war in Ukraine. I'm glad you've acknowledged that. Well, we are in the sense of... That's what Russia's been saying and the West has been denying. We are supplying the weaponry they're using. You're right.

To me, we're in this war, right? You've acknowledged it. You've acknowledged it. We're at war with Russia. Let's see how we get on with that. We are supplying the weapons for Ukraine to wage its war. I think you'll find when you wind this back that you said we're in the war. We are. We are. You were telling the truth. We're in the war.

Yeah. And let's see how it... I believe we are helping defend a democratic sovereign country. And are you ready to sacrifice... Are you ready to sacrifice us all for that? You think he's a much misunderstood guy who actually deserves to take it all. Are you ready to sacrifice us all, including our own children? A lot of my family have fought and wars, yeah. Yeah. Are you ready to sacrifice them for Ukraine? I'm more worried about whether my kids have to end up being conscripted. Russia attacks us, which they might do if they sense that we are weak.

Right now, they're hearing a lot of political leaders like you and Nigel Farage, who are sounding remarkably pro-putin. Well, I'm just pro-peace. I'm against war. That's not pro-peace. I'm against war. Against war? I'm against war.

Unless is your Russia made invading Ukraine. Especially against nuclear war, because then neither us, nor our lineage, not anyone else's lineage, no cell of our being will exist. Why hasn't he invaded a NATO country? He didn't invade Ukraine because he wants to take other people's countries. He invaded Ukraine to stop the massacre of Russians in Ukraine. And what utter nonsense, George, honestly. That's not why he invaded Ukraine.

He invaded Ukraine. He invaded Ukraine like he invaded Crimea so he can take a large swathes of the country. and it's people. And you want to give it to him. Well, he's got it. The question is, do you want to have a war to take it back? And you've said, to be fair, you're ready. Yeah.

Actually, in answer to that question, I believe there is no point in having a nuclear deterrent if you allow the other guy who's got a lot of nuclear weapons to rattle them and terrify you into being his subordinate. Subordinate, it's about Kopjansk. It's not about Tumbridge Wells. So you have said on your show, you're ready to send your children to war

to decide which side of a line Kopyansk lies when it's been in four countries in 100 years. I'm not. I'm prepared to die to defend Tumbridge Wells. You may be surprised. So you're prepared to die to defend sovereign democracy? I'm a British. Just not if it's not here.

I'm a British politician. And I will die to defend. defend Britain and it's legitimate. What if he invaded France or Germany? I wouldn't die for Macron or Schult. So only here? Only here. You'd only die for here.

I think that we have a duty to defend the interests of our own people. And no duty to defend democracy? But what's democratic about what we have? This democracy you talk of is a farce. Trump versus Biden? That's your democracy? You want me to die for that? that democracy is a farce. It's a farce when people who need a billion and a half dollars,

even to run against the incumbent president, that is inherently farcical. When it is two octogenarians, one, pooing his pants in front of the Pope, the other from behind bars in a in a cell for paying a hookah, money, hush money. out of his company accounts that's democracy which is what she wasn't a prostitute is that is not stormy daniels wasn't a prostitute okay i used an adult entertainer they're different okay let me end on something completely different i've enjoyed our debate by the way um let's end up with this which is uh extraordinarily you told me something before we came on air that you were watching my interview with fiona harvey who is the

real live martha from baby reindeer And you suddenly revealed to me that you had a problem with her in your life. Tell me about it. I saw her sitting in this chair. I was riveted by your interview, which, by the way, was a master class. Morgan at his best. And it took me right back to the 1980s when stalking was up close and personal because there was no emails. There was no texting.

You had to either phone someone on the landline. or turn up at their door. That's real stalking. And that's what she did to me. In what way? She was forever on my case. She was a member of the Labour Party. I think you got that out of her.

She was a member of the Labor Party in my hillhead constituency. I had just been elected MP in 1987, defeating Roy Jenkins. And suddenly I find this obsessive woman in my midst. and everywhere I turned, she was there. And at first I thought that she fancied me.

But it turned out that she fancied my job. And so she was a relentless and physical, up close and personal, stalker of mine. And I'm ready to testify to that. How many times did she try and call you, for example? She called me hundreds of times. Really? of times and she showed up probably hundreds of times. Really? At your home or?

In the most inappropriate places. Ever at my office? Wherever she discovered that we were, me and my staff and my inner circle, she'd breeze in. Exactly the things that she acknowledged that she had done. I mean, it turns out that Netflix said she had done and been certain things, places that she hadn't so I wish her the best and her legal action well they said she'd been convicted which wasn't the case you never been to court by look of it yeah but you also knew the Scottish lawyer and her yeah yes yes Laura Ray who was a

distinguished lawyer and the wife of a friend of mine good friend of mind God rest his soul Jimmy Ray MP W R A W R a Y he Jimmy she quite fancied Jimmy's job too I mean she was... Did you talk to Jimmy about her? Yeah, and I've talked to Laura about her and since your interview with her. So it was on one level chilling, another level hilarious, to see that face and to hear that voice again. Did she ever threaten you? No, but she... Did you fear she might harm you? Yeah, I think when someone's obsessive, you're always afraid that that obsession might take a sudden twist and a potentially dangerous twist, but she never did harm me or threatened to harm me. She was just in my life when I didn't want her to be.

When was the last time you heard of it? The last time I saw her would be around the early 1990s, and I hadn't seen her again until I saw her on your show. I didn't, of course, at that point, know that she, She was the person being alleged to be the baby render, although I had watched baby render, but I had no idea that it was her. And then when I saw her on your show, it took me right back to the salad days of the 1980s. Extraordinary.

It sounded to chill up your spine. Well, a little bit. And a laugh out my throat. I mean, as I say, simultaneously chilling and hilarious at the same time. A little bit like our interview, George. A bit. But it's good to catch up with you. And you.

Thank you very much. Good time. Good luck.