Piers Morgan Uncensored - "Playing Hard Ball!” Trump's Gaza Plan | Feat Michael Knowles & Scott Horton

Episode Date: February 5, 2025

No one was expecting business as usual when Donald Trump returned to the US presidency last month - but even his most ardent supporters have been left open-mouthed after hearing his plan to send US troops to the Gaza Strip as part of its recovery. For a man who campaigned on ending wars and bringing American troops home, this idea seems like something no one voted for. But is Trump simply playing the long game? If Gazans want to see into the future, should they be reading ‘The Art Of The Deal’? For a vibrant debate on the topic, Piers Morgan brings on host of 'The Michael Knowles Show', Michael Knowles, Vincent Oshana from 'PBD Podcast', Palestinian-American commentator Omar Baddar and author and host of 'The Scott Horton Show' Scott Horton onto Uncensored. Uncensored is proudly independent and supported by paid promotion from: Tax Network USA: CALL 1-800-958-1000 or visit https://TNUSA.com/PIERS Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip. It's utter lunacy that the President of the United States is speaking in those terms. It's the definition of insanity is to just keep repeating the same thing and expecting different results. So say what you will about President Trump's plan. The very fact that it's different makes it probably a lot saner. The thing that has been done over and over again for decades, giving a carte blanche for Israel to behave however it wants to work the Palestinians. There's over, you know, 64,000 people dead,

And now we're talking about building a paradise on top of their bodies. It's a little difficult for me. I don't know, man. I wasn't expecting you to take that line so vehemently. America needs to cut all ties with all sides and just stay out of it. You talk about doing the same thing over and over. How about an independent Palestinian state? I think it's an idea that's worth thinking about.

We shouldn't use cliches like ethnic cleansing. And I'm not saying ridiculous things. Please respect me. To keep repeating the same. Same thing, Mr. Piz. Yeah, we do say the same thing because you don't answer the question. Because you are biased to Israel. World leaders, scholars, diplomats, monarchs, activists and analysts have all spent decades

on failed plans for Gaza and the goal of bringing peace to Palestine. None of them has ever come up with anything remotely like this, though. The US will take over the Gaza Strip and we will do a job with it too. We'll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous, unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site. level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings, level it out, create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of jobs and housing for the people of the area, do a real job, do something different.

Just can't go back. If you go back, it's going to end up the same way it has for 100 years. Well, part of the Trump's Gaza plan is to really code about 2 million Palestinians to Jordan and Egypt, while the United States clears the war-torn strip and leads a massive, project to rebuild it. With his real estate hat on in place of his red MAGA hat, the president imagines a glorious resort city for Palestinians and investors from all over the world. I think the potential in the Gaza Strip is unbelievable. And I think the entire world, representatives from all over the world will be there and they'll live there. Palestinians also. Palestinians will live there. Many people will live there. But they've tried the other and they've tried it for

decades and decades and decades. It's not going to work. It didn't work. It will never work. And you have to learn from history. History has, you know, just can't let it keep repeating itself. We have an opportunity to do something that could be phenomenal. And I don't want to be cute.

I don't want to be a wise guy, but the Riviera of the Middle East, this could be something that could be so magnificent. But more importantly than that is the people that have been, absolutely destroyed that live there now can live in peace in a much better situation because they're living in hell and those people will now be able to live in peace. Well, as ever with President Trump, there's a lot to unpack there. He's right the history cannot be allowed to repeat itself. He's also right that Palestinians are living in hell. Only a radical breakthrough can end the cycle of endless violence and we have their decades

of suffering to prove it. But the Palestinians are not pawns on a chessboard. They certainly won't move by choice. Forcing them to move is called by definition ethnic cleansing. And who's going to do the forcing anyway? Israel has waged a brutal 15-month war in Gaza, which didn't even depose Hamas. Sending U.S. troops to seize Gaza would be a drastic 180 on everything candidate Trump stood for, and Congress may have one or two problems with a decades-long military occupation and a multi-billion dollar building plan. As for Gazans returning to live in harmony with investors from around the world, well, good luck with that. Here's what I really think is going on here. Listen to the final part of Trump's press conference. We'll make sure that it's done

world-class. It'll be wonderful for the people. Palestinians, Palestinians, mostly we're talking about, and I have a feeling that despite them saying no, I have a feeling that the king in Jordan and that the general president, but that the general in Egypt will open their hearts and will give us the kind of land that we need to get this done. And people can live in harmony and a peace. Well, last week, Egypt and Jordan said a ferocious node the idea of essentially relocating Gaza to their countries, staunchly backed by Saudi Arabia. So Trump, the dealmaker, has cranked up the heat.

He's made what once seemed outrageous feel like a sensible middle ground. We've already seen this play out with Mexico and Canada on tariffs, with Colombia on migrants, with Panama on the canal. A deal with Denmark over the US presence in Greenland could be next. We know that President Trump would love a Nobel Peace Prize to take back to Marilago. A big shiny deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel would be one hell of an entry.

Well, stacking the negotiating table with crazy demands that designed to be sacrificed might not be so crazy after all. To debate all this and more and joined by the host of the Michael Knowles show on Daily Wire, Michael Knowles, PPD podcast Angry Patriot, Vinnie O'Shanna,

Palestinian-American commentator Omar Bader and by the director of the Libertarian Institute and host of the Scott Hawton show, Scott Horton. Well, welcome to all of you. Michael Knowles, let me start with you. On the face of it, it's an outrageous idea by Donald Trump that involves the displacement of two million people from their homes where they've been for many, many decades. They would say that they've been over hundreds,

if not thousands of years, displacing them to neighboring countries against their wishes because he thinks it can create some sort of peaceful utopia and Riviera on the Gaza Strip. Many people think this is for the birds, many people think it is a form of ethnic cleansing by the purest definition of that phrase. What do you think of it? Do you see good, bad and ugly here? Do you think it's got merit? What do you feel?

People can call it insane, but of course the definition of insanity is to just keep repeating the same thing and expecting different results. So say what you will about President Trump's plan. The very fact that it's different makes it probably a lot saner than the supposed piece plans we've had for almost a century now. It's clear President Trump has never seen a piece of real estate that he didn't want to acquire.

And I think Greenland is a little more scenic than Gaza, but nevertheless, perhaps a golf resort or a casino would look good in that area. But I suspect your right peers. I think that probably President Trump is talking past the sale here. I think he is probably giving himself a lot of leverage here in a broader kind of negotiation. But I don't want to evade the issue. You've brought up this issue of ethnic cleansing. And this is something that I've been talking about for certainly the entire duration of this war and probably, even earlier, which is that in this war, you have two belligerents with the same rational strategic

objective, namely the ethnic cleansing of the other. And so when we're talking about the Israelis, it does seem that the implicit and rational strategic objective would be to get the Palestinian Arabs out of Gaza because they can no longer tolerate the security risk that was proven on October 7th. I don't blame them for it. If I were the prime minister of Israel, I would have the same view. And we can't let the Palestinian Arabs off the hook here. They elected Hamas. Their explicit goal, their perfectly clearly stated goal is the ethnic cleansing,

if not the outright genocide of Jews in Israel. So I guess my question to people who are clutching their pearls and who are scratching their heads is, what did you expect to happen? For the fact that President Trump is at least giving a little bit of leverage for a broader deal here, seems to me the best resolution that we've had so far. The IRS is the largest collection agency in the world, and it's just stepped up enforcement for 2025. If you owe back taxes,

or if you've unfilled returns, do not wait for the IRS to come after you. Getting ahead of this is the smart move. But never, never contact the IRS on your own. Turn it over to the experts at Tax Network USA. Why? Because not all tax resolution companies are equal. Tax Network USA has a preferred direct line to the IRS.

That means they know which agents to deal with and which ones to avoid. Tax Network USA has proven strategies that are designed to settle your tax problems in your favour, whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million. Their attorneys and negotiators have resolved over a billion dollars in tax debt. You can talk to one of their strategists about your case for free. So put your IRS troubles behind you once and for all. call 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com forward slash peers that's p iERs and that's tnusa.com slash peers now on with the show yeah i mean it's interesting umar because i've known trump a long time

and one of his favored techniques is to say something that sounds very outrageous sounds very shocking sounds very extreme, to jolt people to a negotiating table. I've seen him do this many, many times. We've just seen it with the tariffs, with Mexico, Canada, and the ongoing Rawa China. This is part of his playbook. So I don't for a moment think that he believes this is actually achievable the way he laid out yesterday,

but do I think that there is some kind of middle ground here where America took charge of Gaza for the foreseeable future, helped rebuild Gaza, and that some people from Gaza do end up going to Jordan and Egypt, as many have in the past, by the way, and the sum would return to a revitalized, rebuilt Gaza. Is that beyond the realms of acceptability to people in Palestine? Yeah, you know, Pears, Trump has said many extreme things in the past,

but this is by far the most extreme position he has put out, and that, frankly, is a very high bar, given the fanaticism with which he utters, policies on just about everything. Effectively, at this point, what he's proposing is the destruction of Palestinian society in Gaza, the scattering of Palestinians to neighboring countries, and then for Trump to come and own the Gaza Strip. I mean, it's just utter lunacy that the president of the United States is speaking in those

terms. And listening to Michael talk about insanity is doing the same thing over and over again. The thing that has been done over and over again is Trump giving a carte blanche and the United States in general for decades, giving a carte blanche for Israel to behave. however at once towards the Palestinians, dominating them, besieging them, bombing them at will, and never putting any conditions on that support. Frankly, if you want to do something different and try something different, rather than turn to the victims of Israeli occupation and brutality for decades

and say maybe the new thing we're going to try is to scatter you and send you somewhere else and ethnically cleanse you. The new thing you should be trying is applying pressure on Israel to end its brutal occupation of the Palestinian territories. to say that at this point, every major human rights organization in the world is describing Israel's onslaught in Gaza as genocidal. And to say there's not going to be another penny from the United States unless this genocide comes to an immediate end. And we start working towards allowing Palestinians to be a free people in their own country. That is the trying something new that would actually achieve a better result, rather than this insanity of looking at an entire history of utterly deranged American policy,

of just enabling Israel's worst behavior and saying, well, the new thing, maybe we just have not been tough enough on the victims, and that's where we must do a difference. It's utterly bonkers. Okay, Vinnie, what's your response to that? Well, Pears, I have mixed emotions with this entire situation,

but I always like to go back to, like, we can't talk about where we are today, peers, until figuring out how we got here. October 7th, you mentioned Pierce 15 months ago, worse attack, almost, what, 1,300 civilians murdered by Hamas, horrible, horrible day. But the fact that and John Kirby came out a week after and said, people were asking, how

could this happen? How could the most secure piece of land in the entire planet? Okay, Pierce, I know if you ever been to Israel. Dogs walk past these freaking security. Okay, so you cannot tell me at all that Mossad, the Shinbet and the IDF, not only had no idea that it happened. And it appears

for six to 12 hours in certain places, this happened. And when you have John Kirby coming up in front of the White House, and he was like, you know what? People were asking, what happened? Now's not the time. And then BB's attitude, you know what, maybe after the war. So no answer questions, nobody knows what happens, Pierce.

And then also, October 13, 2003, the Israeli Minister of Intelligence had a document coming out, alternatives to political directive for civilian population in Gaza. They had a plan ready to go, put all these people in tents, dispert them around the Middle East,

then to Europe, then to Canada, and use influence from the U.S. to pressure other countries to take these people. Okay, you mentioned Egypt doesn't want them. Jordan doesn't want them. I don't know how persuasive Trump is going to be to take people. But, I mean, Pierce, put yourself in the innocent people, the people that have nothing to do with it.

They're not terrorists. They don't support Hamas. Their country, their land, I'm sorry, is flattened. Now they're gone, and now you're hearing people saying, oh, we're going to build it. And yeah, maybe these people could come back, Pierce. There's over, you know, 64,000 people dead. I mean, what, over half?

women and children and innocent people. And now we're talking about building a paradise on top of their bodies. It's a little difficult for me, Pierce. I don't know, man. I'm a bit taken aback by, I wasn't expecting you to take that line so vehemently. Because it seems to me that you're basically,

you feel this is a complete non-start of this Trump idea and should be, I'm not putting words in your mouth, but should be disrejected. No, well, Pierce, here's my, and this is where I'm conflicted, like I said in the beginning. With this situation, Pears, when I was a kid and I would fight with my brother over a toy, okay? My father would come in, my mom would come in, and they'd warn us, guys, stop fighting over this toy. And after three or four times, they'd finally come in and say, you know what?

Nobody's playing with the toy. Nobody gets the toy. Okay, peers, I'm a Christian. And that land, that land, Pears, is where Jesus Christ was. Okay, so I'm conflicted, peers, because I want that land to be preserved. I want to be able to go there and visit. So maybe, Peers, maybe, maybe this might be a good thing where Trump is going to come in and just as long as there's no fighting. My only thing is the people that were there, they should have a right to come back to their land, Pierce.

Plain and simple. Yeah, I mean, I certainly think that. Scott, Scott, let me bring in Scott. He's not spoken yet. Scott, look, the point of the part of Trump's speech, which I did resonate with me was, we've tried everything to sort this out and nothing has worked. And clearly none of the ideas he's been given in the last few months, preparing to come back into the White House, have made him think that any of that's going to work either.

So he's throwing something out there, a kind of firebomb idea, I think to rattle everyone's cage and try and force people to come to some kind of resolution that could work. That's my gut feeling. I might be wrong. Sometimes I'm completely wrong about Donald Trump and what he really thinks. But it just seems to me he's negotiating. here wanting people to get their heads together and work out what could work.

What's your sense? I agree with that. And your opening statement for this segment, too, that he's playing hardball, and I suppose it's trying to get Qatar, Saudi, Egypt, Jordan to take responsibility, probably for the occupation and rebuilding. And then also, of course, as we're talking about here, the cleansing and the so-called resettlement of these people. So I think any mention of, oh, yeah, no, we're going to make a nice place for the

Palestinians to live, they don't mean that. And they say, oh, we have people of the area are going to take over Gaza now. They mean Israeli Jews are going to replace the people there. And the thing is, America can't do that. I mean, the Pentagon, I don't know if he talked to the generals before he said that or anything or exactly what he has in mind if he really thinks he's going to do that. But that would mean American GIs and Marines in the place of the IDF. And as we just saw, getting shot, killing people, killed and achieving nothing for it, and they wouldn't be able to cleanse the place anyway. So it's not like they're just going to walk in there and shoe everyone out, and they're going to listen to us instead of the Israelis now. So I agree that it's an opening position for,

at least I certainly hope he's just trying to get someone else to take responsibility for it. But I'm for a total non-intervention on this. America needs to cut all ties with all sides and just stay out of it. I have my opinions about how things should be. You talk about it. doing the same thing over and over. How about an independent Palestinian state? Or how about separation of church and state and a secular state with citizenship for everybody between the river and the sea and equal rights for everybody? Those are my opinions, but I do not think that is the role of the United States government to dictate that. But we need to cut off all aid and certainly all weapons to Israel, all diplomatic support for them and their war crimes. After all, for conservatives who

believe in the rule of law, the fourth Geneva Convention, Article 46, is the law. There are federal laws. That treaty was written mostly by Americans in the first place, ratified by the U.S. Senate, and there are federal laws implementing the Geneva Conventions in the United States. And it is illegal to replace a civilian population to help another country to do so either, certainly in the name of Leibbons round. And Trump literally said, well, geez, Israel is such a small country in answer to whether he supports the annexation of the West Bank. And that's where part of this conversation needs to go to. As soon as they had a ceasefire in Gaza, they moved to the West Bank. And they made it very clear they would like to annex the West Bank. And if we see in the West Bank

the kind of slaughter we just saw in Gaza for the last year and a half, you could, it's within the realm of possibility. You could see them bombing those cities and trying to force the Palestinians to flee into Jordan and to go ahead and finish the job. Now, the only restraint on that, apparently, is not America, the only restraint on that is will it destroy Israel's relations with all the Sunni kingdoms of the GCC and Egypt and Jordan? Because if it does, then there goes their new alliance that they're building against Shiite Iran. And so that's really the only thing hedging them in. But if America's willing to take on Iran for them, then they might decide it's worth it. We need to just absolutely butt out starting right now.

Okay. Michael, it's very interesting to me watching in London at the moment, but watching a lot of conservative right in America, turning more and more against President Zelensky, who I interviewed yesterday, and the battle against Russia that Ukraine has been fighting, which I've always believed was a sickening illegal invasion of a sovereign, democratic, European country, and that whatever claims Putin makes about being provoked and so on actually is just a cover for the fact he wishes the Soviet Union never got dismantled, and he'd love to get it all. all back if he could. But putting that aside, a lot of conservatives in America now. Pierce, I'll send you a copy of the book if you just have your producer, send my guy, your

mailing address there. I would love to. We'll do that. Thank you very much. Always like to read your stuff. But Michael, the point of the point of the make was, is there not an inconsistency here between the conservatives in America, many of them now, a big number, who want no involvement in Ukraine because it's thousands of miles away. It's not our problem. We shouldn't get involved in this, America first, MAGA, so on. And yet here you have another situation, which is thousands of miles away. You could put exactly the same arguments up that Israel v. Hamas has nothing to do with America, exactly as Scott just said, really.

And I mean, I had this conversation with Tucker Carlson in Saudi Arabia last week. And I think he struggled a bit, actually, to explain why one deserves America's fulsome support and the other doesn't. Can you articulate it better for me? I hope I can. I think there's no inconsistency because the principle is that we American conservatives generally trust Trump's gut and strategy on foreign policy.

That's not hero worship. That's not idolatry. That is a rational prejudice that we have arrived at because President Trump has achieved better results on foreign policy than any presidents in our lifetime, certainly in my lifetime. But that's not the question.

Republican or Democrat. That wasn't the question. The question was, what's the difference ideologically between America getting involved in helping Ukraine repel Russia and America getting involved in helping Israel repel Hamas? They're both thousands of miles away. They're conflicts that don't directly involve America. What is the ideological difference?

Well, I suppose we have to shift the premise a little bit here. America is involved in everything. Pache, to my libertarian friends, America is involved in everything. That is in part because we're the global. Hegemon, that is in part because we are an empire and have been an empire for a very long time. It is in part because nations have interests. All nations have interests. Even tiny little nations have interests, and they seek to influence other nations to better accord with those

interests. So we are going to be involved in some way all over the world, whether that is in Ukraine or whether that is in the Middle East. The question is, how are we going to be involved? And here I think President Trump's commentary was really, really important. Trump says, on the one hand, we're going to take over Gaza. We're going to own Gaza. You saw Netanyahu's eyebrow went up. I'm not sure he was totally prepared for that one during their press conference. On the other hand, he says, someone else is going to pay for all of this.

We're not going to pay for this. And other people are going to figure it out. So what does that mean? If he says we're going to take over Gaza, we're going to own Gaza. People, I think, assumed that that means we're going to send in the Marines or that we're at least going to send in the Trump organization contractors to build a nice casino. On the other hand, the Marines cost money. So if someone else is going to pay for this, then it seems to me President Trump is saying,

no, we're not going to be directly involved. We're just going to put a stop to this war, which is why I think our other co-panelists here who makes a suggestion that Trump is always just giving the Israelis exactly what they want is totally absurd. President Trump got a ceasefire over the objection of many Israelis. President Trump has helped the Palestinian people a lot more than any presidents in our lifetimes. And so I think what you're seeing here is... That's literally the most ridiculous thing that has ever been said.

Well, I think it's... He's done more to undermine Palestinians every turn. Is that ridiculous? Yeah, he did bring about a temporary ceasefire before he's about to propose a full ethnic cleansing. Listen, I have to interject here because Trump has done more to undermine Palestinian rights. He's recognized Israel's illegal occupation, illegal settlements. What rights? recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital in violation of international law.

Every single, I'm listing them for you. There's an entire unanimity of condemnation of Israel's illegal occupation that Trump has recognized. Unanimity. I don't think so. I really have to say that I'm fundamentally. Unanimity. Global hegemon acting like a rogue state in order to enable another rogue state.

Yes, the entire world, if you look at the logs of the international of the UN General Assembly voting, it's obvious that Israel. and the U.S. are out of step with the rest of the world on the legal occupation. I mean, it's just being condescended to somebody who does not know what they're talking about. It's just, it's always a wonderful experience. Maybe listen a little bit and try to learn and understand actually how the world works. United States is the global hedging on. You're incredibly out of your depth.

Okay, let me, allow me to say a few words, uninterrupted if you don't mind. I think I've said a lot of words. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the idea. The United States is the global hedging on. I have not spoken. You've been speaking over me the entire time of this. I'm not. Guys, guys, time out. Time out. We can't hear it. We can't actually hear. Hang on. We can't hear either of you. So Omar, say what you want to say, then I'll let Michael respond.

Sure. First, I want to say that I'm incredibly object to the suggestion that the entire Palestine-Israel conflict is like two children fighting over a neutral toy and a parent needs to come and say it belongs to neither. If you neither of you gets to play with it. The correct analogy, if you want to use that, it's a parent walking their spoiled child out in this street. finding another toy, another kid who has his own toy, and letting their own child get on top of that other kid, beat the living crap out of them, and take the toy out of their hands. And what you need is for the parent to say, let go of that other kid's toy and leave it alone. The entire world agrees.

There's no debate, especially on Gaza and the West Bank, that those are occupied Palestinian territories, that Israel has no legal title to whatsoever. This is the entire UN, this is the International Court of Justice, the General Assembly, the Security, the Security Council, every major organization in the world, everybody recognizes that this is Palestinian territory that Israel has no legal right to. And so that's the dynamic.

And if, again, you want to try something a little bit different and say the idea that Trump is more pro-Palestinians, literally he's done more pro-Palestinians, literally he's done nothing but stripped Palestinian rights inch by inch in a world in which the U.S. has always said, you know, by on the one hand saying, Palestinians deserve their own state, they deserve freedom from Israeli occupation, where U.S. actions were essentially to allow Israel to continue to entranced that occupation without any question. Trump came along and made the rhetoric matched the policy. He fixed it in the wrong direction, which means that now Netanyahu is having his wish list. What he wants to do is empty Palestine of indigenous Palestinians in order

to make it a Jewish supremacist state and not have the apartheid problem anymore, where Israel rules over Palestinians without granting them rights. And when you come out and give that to Israel, you're not pro-Palestinian, and it's utterly absurd and ridiculous for anybody to suggest that Trump has done anything. I'll let Michael respond to that. Then I'm going to come to other reaction. Michael.

I think it's kind of silly to say there's total unanimity on the matter of Israel and Palestine when we're sitting on a panel debating the matter of Israel-Palestine, and especially when the global hegemon, the United States of America, disagrees with all of the two-bit international institutions and non-government organizations that you're citing.

It's simply a matter of fact. It's a longstanding controversy. And if you're talking about Palestinian rights, we need to be specific as to what those rights are. There has never been any such thing as a Palestinian nation state. There's no right to elect Hamas. You know, I allowed you to spew your re-eotless propaganda. The entire world on one hand,

the entire world on the one hand, and the U.S. enabling Israel to violate international law is the dispute that you're saying. Much as the Palestinian Arabs and Gaza are not capable of electing a lot. I'm correcting. So, all right. Thank you. Thank you for that racist dig. I appreciate it.

But no, no, let's just be clear. What the U.S. is saying is that Israel is above the law. And if you think that that makes it a legitimate dispute about what the law is, that's an absurd position. You're welcome to take it. When did I ever suggest that? You're trying to stop me from speaking. You're suggesting that there is no unanimity.

You're suggesting that there's a legitimate dispute. And I'm telling you that the dispute is the United States is saying Israel is above the law. That's the dispute. The entire world thinks that international law means something, and you can't take other people's land, and the U.S. says no, Israel gets to do it. All right. Let me bring in, Vinny, he's been waiting patiently. Unusually patiently, Vinny, I've got to say, you've been on exemplary behavior today. I salute you. Let me just ask you a slightly different way into this, because I find your conflict over this fascinating. I think a lot of people on the right are going to be conflicted by this. because apart from anything else,

how does all this sit, if you take Trump's dream proposal to its logical conclusion and American troops are on the ground all over Gaza protecting this new Riviera and all the Palestinians have gone on the and this is all happening thousands of miles from America?

How does that sit with America first? I mean, is there not a direct conflict there with that whole ideology? Yeah, Pearson, that's why I said from the beginning It's conflicted on two sides. I mean, you know peers, you know me as the United States Air Force veteran. I am anti-war. The reason I left the military was because of the actions of the United States after 9-11,

this weapons of mass destruction, this all this BS war that we were pushed into, which if you don't forget, Bibi Netanyahu did go in front of Congress and say also that Saddam Hussein not only had weapons of mass destruction, but that killing him, taking him out, would cause positive reverberation. throughout the entire region. It did anything but that. But, peers, you know me. I'm anti-war, but at this situation,

what else do we do? Okay? There's one side, just like Ben Shapiro, Michael knows how much, Ben Shapiro has said, you know, Israel could take care of itself, all right? Obviously, it can't. It's just a horrible situation that's not going to get better. And I wanted to ask Omar, Omar, who's running,

if the Palestinian is Hamas in charge? Who's actually in charge? And what solutions do you have to taking out Hamas running the show because if they're in charge, nobody's going to stop, Omar, nobody's going to stop. They're not going to stop. And I'm not, like I said, Pierce, I'm anti- Go ahead. The obvious answer is you should ask how Hamas came to power. There was a two-state solution on the table back in the late 1990s towards 2000 with the idea

that Israel was going to end the occupation of the West Bank in Gaza to allow the facilitation of a Palestinian state. And there was no support for Hamas at the time. They were trying to sabotage that deal. But only when Israel made clear that they have no interest in allowing a legitimate Palestinian state to exist, kept entrenching the occupation and insisting that Palestinians must live forever under the boot of Israeli occupation. That's when support for Hamas rose, and Hamas became a political force to contend with. So if you have a problem with Hamas being empowered, the obvious alternative is to create a peaceful path where Palestinians can be a free people.

And as long as American policy is to enable Israel denying Palestinian's freedom, that is precisely what empowers groups like Hamas and makes it. impossible that we're going to get rid of groups that are advocating for violence as it means achieving liberation. Okay, let me ask. Israel has blocked every other avenue for freedom. Scott Horton, you know, the obvious response I have to what Trump has said is, okay, if you find that idea completely objectionable and outrageous and shocking and it can't possibly happen, then what's a better one? I mean, in your eyes, what is the best way that is achievable to move out of this war into genuine potential for peace.

I think it's going to take years, whatever way you take, given all the history here and given the events of the last 15 months. But what is the more credible, achievable pathway if it's not the way Trump's suggesting? Well, you're right that it's been a horrific setback for peace, going forward just of what's happened since, you know, including and since October the 7th, it's a real catastrophe. But there are places around the planet where people have some or another form of binational type of state,

where they have their own local security forces under one government. And there are places where you have extremely bad blood historically, but where it's basically worked out. For example, there are millions of ethnic Germans that still live inside France. but they're free. And so there's nothing to fight about. And but of course, Germany and France have fought over the millennia, right?

There's, if you want bad blood, you can have some. There's also essentially a status quo holding in Bosnia where there's tons of bad blood between the Bosnian, Serbs, Croats, and Muslims. And they went through horrific fighting for years, but then they stopped. And they could get up in the morning and get revenge for their brother that died in the thing

or they can get up and go to work. And so if the dynamics are changed, severely enough, then things can go back to hell, but it goes to show that people can put the past aside. Well, we had it in all, you know, we had it close to where I am. We had it in Northern Ireland, of course. You know, where for many decades, it seemed completely intractable. You had two groups led by paramilitaries, terrorists,

whatever you want to call all of them. But they were, you know, terrible actions on both sides throughout the troubles in Northern Ireland. But eventually, clear-headed new leadership leadership, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, George Mitchell, others all came together, and they managed to get to a place of peace. And actually, Northern Ireland now is a pretty peaceful place. We don't get these daily updates of appalling attacks and so on from both sides to each other. Can I have one thing there, Pierce?

Yeah. You know, ever since the founding of Israel, one fifth of the population of citizens of Israel, although they're sort of second or third class citizens, but they are citizens of Israel, are Palestinian, Muslims and Christians. Well, I know. I mean, when I went there, I went to interview Netanyahu for CNN back in 2012, I think it was. And I was completely stunned. We stopped at a cafe on the way back from, on the way to Jerusalem, in a cafe halfway from the airport. And I was with my Jewish producer, and I was looking around the cafe. And it was full of what seemed to me to be half Arabs and half Israelis. And I said, am I missing something here? What's happening here? And he said, oh, yeah, there's like a million.

a million Arab Israelis living in Israel. And I was really stunned. I don't know how many people watching us now know that, right? In other words, it's clearly a pathway for the different groups to live in peace together. And it just begs the question, well, why can't it be achieved in Gaza on the West Bank? In other words, why can't you extend what's happened in Jerusalem elsewhere? Because there's too many, and that would ruin the 80-20 super-duper Jewish majority. over the Palestinians.

In fact, there's this study that was written by an advisor to Netanyahu. I'm sorry, his name is escaped me. It's back in 2004. It was published all about it in the Jerusalem Post. Arnon, Arnan something, like Mill Chan, the movie producer, Arnan, I'm sorry, I forget his last name.

But the point was, and this was, he was advising Sharon to do what was called the disengagement. Sometimes you hear pro-Israeli type say that this was the Palestinian state. They gave them Gaza. But what this guy is explaining is there's just too many Palestinians, and they keep making babies. So at the cost of withdrawing the Jewish settlers out of the Gaza Strip in 2005, what we'll do is we'll be figuratively kicking Gaza and the 2 million Palestinians there out of Israeli jurisdiction. That way it won't be sort of this 50-50 split,

where it's really we get accused of having an apartheid state. Now we'll count 6 million Israelis versus only 3 million Palestinians on the West Bank, and so it won't look as bad as an apartheid. But then he says, but what do we expect the Palestinians in Gaza to do when we put them under this siege? Well, they're going to fight and resist.

And then he says, we'll just have to kill and kill and kill. We'll have no other choice, choice, but to just, as they put it now, mow the grass, just keep going back and kill them and kill them and kill them, because of course they won't accept being simply just locked in a concentration camp. But they have to do this because there's just too many of these people whose land they've conquered. But see, in 48, there was this massive ethnic cleansing.

But in 67, when they took the Palestinian territories from Jordan and Egypt, they kept all the people, or almost all of them. So they have these huge territories with millions of people, almost an equivalent number of Palestinians as you have Israeli Jews, under the control of the Israeli government, as Netanyahu himself says, from the river to the sea. One nation, one security force for the whole area. Okay. So Michael, the people I really feel sorry for today.

I mean, lots of people I feel sorry for in that region right now, but I feel particularly sorry for the families of the remaining hostages because there's got to be, surely, a genuine risk of this ceasefire, which so far has been moving reasonably smoothly in terms of release of hostages and moving to the next stage, that Hamas may get a real injection of support from Palestinians who now believe they're all going to get kicked out, now believe there is ethnic cleansing that the President of the United States wants to lead,

and that actually it could ruin the entire deal with Hamas. and could lead potentially to the deaths of their loved ones who are still being kept hostage. I mean, you know, anything could happen here, but you could easily see how support for Hamas, which we know from US intelligence, that they believe every Hamas terrorist who's died has already been replaced, that the ideology remains pretty strong. Are you concerned that this whole deal could just unravel quickly? Well, to your point, peers, support for Hamas hasn't really declined all that much. In fact, your previous guest, when you were speaking one-on-one,

refused to say that Hamas even committed crimes on October 7th. So, you know, we're already dealing with that starting point. And one could also see the flip side, which is that President Trump is the bad cop, and he's giving Netanyahu the opportunity to play the good cop, so that when Trump goes way past the deal and says, yeah, not only are we going to take over Gaza, not only are we going to get rid of all the Gazans, but we're going to build up a bunch of Trump towers, and then we're not going to let them even come visit.

You know, that is such an extreme position to start with that it might potentially actually give the Israelis some wiggle room. You're already seeing a lot of Israeli politicians coming out and saying this is too far. This isn't going to really happen. This is really just a way to set the table for a negotiation. So it seems to me, sure, there's risk in anything in this life, but when you're beginning with such destruction, such absolute human misery as the starting point, I'm willing to take a few risks, I guess. I want to switch gears and talk about USAID, which is this agency that's basically been shut down. Elon Musk appears to have led this, obviously with Trump's approval.

Trump told reporters it was run by a bunch of radical lunatics and we're getting them out. Vinnie, what do you make of this? I mean, it's got a workforce of 10,000 people. It managed $43 billion in appropriations, assisted approximately 130 countries with disaster relief. and economic development in 2023. This is what the White House press secretary, Caroline Levitt, said about it. These are some of the insane priorities that that organization has been spending money on.

$1.5 million to advance DEI in Serbia's workplaces. $70,000 for a production of a DEI musical in Ireland, 47,000 for a transgender opera in Colombia, 32,000 for a transgender comic book in Peru. I don't know about you, but as an American taxpayer, I don't want my dollars going towards this crap, and I know the American people don't either, and that's exactly what Elon Musk has been tasked by President Trump to do.

Vinny, I've got to say, when she put it like that, I found myself nodding. What did you do? I mean, peers, I touched on this a couple of days ago. That's just a couple of the egregious monies that we were spending. We were spending $230,000 on K-Cup Starbucks drinks. The numbers are astronomical. It's insane, peers.

And you could see that the left is losing their minds because all of their wallets are about to get really, really thin. From Jamie Raskin to Ilhan Omar to all these people. But you know what, peers, we've been getting walked over from the inside out, okay? And you know what? The left, peers, they are in shit. They're not used to having an alpha like Donald Trump come in and tell them, guys, I made the promises and I'm going to keep them. Okay, Joe Biden was a freaking doormat, and Donald Trump is a matadour.

Okay, he's a bull. He's not BSing. And now you see the law last night they had all these Democrat people on the hills talking about Elon is this. He's racist. He's a Nazi. Let's take to him in the street. They're calling for freaking violence like the BLM riots against this. And you know, appears this is all normal.

These are growing pains that they're all going to learn that the taking advantage of our freaking system is over, peers. And I absolutely love it. Let them cry. Let them cry and whine. It's over just like peers, just like RFK trying to get confirmed. You know, Big Pharma, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren look like they're going to have heart attacks

because they're all the big pharma donors. Okay, and just like Cash Patel, FBI, he's going to put everybody on notice and he's going to investigate everybody if they broke the law, peers. And I absolutely love what's happening. Okay. Omar, I saw you shaking your head there. Just to be clear, I mean, do you support the United States

providing $70,000 for a production of a DEI musical in Ireland or $47,000 for a transgender opera in Colombia? Because it seems completely insane that America is spending a miscount of money. If we... Listen, if we dig into humanitarian programs and development programs, we might find a few thousand dollars here and there that are misspent and could potentially be wasteful. But it's just incredible that we're talking about this

when the real waste is the military industrial complex. It's sending billions of dollars to a genocidal government that is wiping Gaza off the face of the earth. That's where the waste is. It's not chasing these few thousand dollars near and there to be talking about that at a time in which the Pentagon budget is just over bloated. It ends in the pockets of private military contractors

at a time when the US would not negotiate drug prices down. It's a lot of big format to run rampant. Yeah, in a way, you're making a kind of distraction. Hang on, hang on, what you're doing, you're playing kind of water battery. In other words, there's another area of overspend. Maybe they'll get to that. Maybe they'll get to that. Let's wait and see about the overspending by the Pentagon.

They might. I mean, I'm holding my breath, but they might. But they won't. But they won't. We know they won't, yes. My point is Elon Musk is going through a lot of federal spending. You know, America spends a gigantic sum of money, $17 trillion in debt, maybe more now, I think. They've got to do something.

Elon's taking his shredder to this. And so I just ask you again, on those two, examples I gave you. Do you think it's right that America spends that kind of money? Because it seems to me an obvious place to start if you're going to trim federal spending. Yeah, again, I don't agree that this is the right place to start. Again, to be chasing down a few thousand dollars here and there in random programs where there might be waste. Well, it's millions, actually. It's many millions. They manage 43 billion dollars in appropriations. Compared to the nearly trillion dollars in the military budget. It's not a few thousand here in.

there, is it? Oh, it's a lot of money. But I'm saying, if you're looking at individual programs, again, when you're saying 73,000 for this and 400,000 for that, what about the $20 billion for Israeli war crimes against House? OK, you made that point. That to me is the obvious point to start. All right, let me bring in my...

It's not just what aboutism. All right, let me... I think Scott, hang on, Scott. Scott wants to respond and then I'll bring Michael in on this. Scott. Yeah. Omar, my guy, you're blowing it, man. All you have to do is say, yes, absolutely. I agree, and we should all agree about this and about the Pennsylvania.

It's one big empire. And I'm sorry for Pearson and everybody. The crisis in the scandal with USAID is not just pissing away money on these kind of ridiculous things, as you name. This is the major engine of regime change overseas. We get distracted by things like George W. Bush marching the entire third infantry division into Iraq and things like that. But starting in late Clinton and through W. Bush and Obama, we've had what are called the

color-coded revolutions all over. mostly in Eastern Europe and in Russia's near abroad, mostly overthrowing governments that are friendly to the Russians and helping to cause this horrible new Cold War that we're in right now. And they started it in the Balkans in the late 1990s and with, of course, Serbia in the year 2000, Georgia in 2003, Ukraine the first time in 2004.

They did it again in 14. They did the failed denim revolution in Belarus and the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan and the failed Cedar Revolution in Lebanon in 2005 and on and on like this. And the worst crisis, the worst thing that USAID has ever done by far is 10 years ago, they're avowed support for the bin Ladenites in Syria

in Barack Obama's dirty war on behalf of the Syrians. And this is where, pardon me, the Syrian so-called revolution, which was really al-Qaeda in Iraq in Syria, the bad guys from the last war. And why? And this is where our conversation comes full circle. Because America, following, as your other guests here said,

following Netanyahu's advice and the neoconservatives working for him, lying us into war with Iraq, they empowered Iran and put the Iraqi Shiite super majority in power in Baghdad. So then they panicked and they launched what the Bush administration called the redirection. That said, now we have to tilt back toward the Sunnis. If we put Iran up two pegs, the Shiites up two pegs in Baghdad, then we have to take them down a peg in subsection. Syria and that means getting rid of Bashar al-Assad. And as we discussed the last time I was on your show debating Wesley Clark Pierce, that means as we see right now, just as happened two months ago, finally,

al-Qaeda in Iraq in Syria, led by Mohammed al-Jolani, has just seized power in Damascus and taken over the country. And it was USAID, up to that in their eyeballs the whole time. Why? Because they're making up for the disaster of doing what Netanyahu had recommended the time before that. Okay. Michael, just to bring it back to U.S. AID, USA, whatever you want to call it, it seems to me there ought to be broad agreement. A lot of these examples are ludicrous. And it's probably a shock to the American people that their money is being wasted in this absurd manner. But there are also legitimate concerns. This is a massive agency. A lot of what it does is not absurd. They do help a lot of countries in a very meaningful, constructive way from everything I've read about it.

You know, this sort of slam-dunk thing that Elon is carrying out at the moment at Trump's behest where he just shuts down an agency, for example. What do you feel? Do you feel comfortable about that? There have been good programs as part of USAID, the one that's usually cited as PEPFAR, which is the president's emergency plan for AIDS relief, started under George Bush, in 2003. The problem is Democrats, notably Joe Biden, have politicized and made toxic, even those programs that have been very good. So Joe Biden, by tying all U.S. foreign aid to the promotion of

abortion and radical LGBT LMNOP ideology, has made even a great program like PEPFAR quite toxic. And so Elon said, we were initially going to go in there and get the worm out of the apple, but unfortunately we found out it's all worms. And so USAID in principle can be a good thing. I don't want American conservatives to draw the wrong conclusion from this. Yes, $70,000 on a trans opera in Kerkmenistan or whatever is ridiculous, but it's broadly speaking good for the United States to project soft power. The problem is not that America is projecting imperial powers, it's sometimes called. The problem is what we are projecting. If we were projecting truth, justice in the American way, if we were projecting law and order and virtue and all this

good stuff, great, you know, sign me up, man. But if what we're actually projecting is transing little kids and making aid contingent on countries that don't want any of this woke nonsense accepting these ideas. Well, then I don't want to project that kind of influence. You know, it's less about the procedural norm of USAID and more about the substantive good. Yeah. We've got about just a few minutes left. I want to get this in. I want to move on because I want to get this in before we finish and we're running out of time. Just one, peers, there's one thing that is super important that I think is missed. Very quickly, yeah, well. Very quickly.

No. It's about Elon Musk himself being unelected, having incredible conflicts of interest. And the fact that we're not talking, he's not the person who should be doing this, going in there and slashing programs on his own. He has not been confirmed by the Senate. He's in battle with all the government entities that are trying to regulate the businesses that he has. And that's a clear conflict of interest that I think is deeply problematic. This is a well-established president. Doge has president for a century at this point. That's one thing. All right. Well, Scott, just counsel that. Sorry, I could not make that out.

Yeah, I just want to say, yeah, no, if he starts giving himself contracts to launch rockets and make nuclear missiles or something, obviously, that's a huge conflict of interest. But just because he's tough enough to go in there with an axe and ruin these government employees' lives, you know, he should be absolutely celebrated for that. And by the way, I forgot my footnote earlier. It's Arnon's our non-softer. And people can read what he wrote there for Sharon at my website, Scott Horton.org. Okay. Look, I want to turn to this. Hang on, guys, guys, I want to leave it there because I really want to get this in before we have to let you.

And it's this. I interviewed President Zelensky on Monday, and it aired last night. And he said this about if Ukraine as part of any settlement with Russia, which remains to be seen if Putin will go for any of this, given that they're clearly beginning to win this war, Russia, on the battlefield. But whether he accepts, I think, Zelensky now, that getting full NATO membership is highly unlikely. So he was trying to paint for me a picture of what would be accepted. to him, and it was enough security guarantees led by NATO, where he'd have enough manpower, because he lost a lot of troops, obviously, enough manpower and military hardware to deter Putin from any further attacks.

And he said, you can include the nuclear weapons that we had to give up, obviously, when back in the mid-90s. So listen to what he said. What will be defending us against this evil for this whole time of... on this whole path, which support package, which missiles? Will we be given nuclear weapons? Then let them give us nuclear weapons.

Will they give us the missiles in the quantities that we can stop Russia? And I'm not sure of that, but I think it would help. Otherwise, what missiles can stop Russia's nuclear missiles? That is a rhetoric question. So let's do the following way. Give us back nuclear arms. Michael, what was interesting about this is that the Kremlin's come out, their spokesman Dimitri Peskov today, dismissing that suggestion, said in principle, such statements and remarks border on madness.

Now, some people might say, well, hang on a second. Ukraine, when the Soviet Union broke up and it went independent in the mid-90s, there were nuclear weapons in Ukraine, which would then return to Russia as part of an agreement led by America. So Ukraine, as it went independent, voluntarily agreed to give up its weapons. And there was a big agreement in place to offer its security guarantees,

which Putin then ignored with impunity. It's got a point, isn't he? I mean, if you've got a country like Russia with 6,000 nuclear weapons, would he have invaded Putin nearly three years ago if he knew that Ukraine still had nuclear defenses? And if they're not going to give Ukraine-NATO full membership, is it mad, as the Russians are saying,

is it mad that they should have at least one weapon which matches the firepower that the enemy has to stop Putin to actually deter him from attacking again? Because look at the history. He attacked and took over Crimea, and he left it a few years, and he attacked again. He's taken more land. You know, call me cynical.

I'm very cynical about Putin. I think he's going to carry on as much as he can unless there is a genuine deterrent. So what do you think, Michael, of Zelensky's plea? It's a perfectly reasonable plea. If I were him, I would make it, and I don't find any logical errors in it. And also, we're not going to give him nuclear weapons.

So sorry, buddy. You know, the fact that Ukraine lost its nuclear weapons is one of the reasons that Russia was able to invade. There's no question about it. But again, I suppose the theme of our conversations on all of these topics today has been the matter of negotiating and talking past the sale. I suspect that Vladimir Zelensky is not a dummy

and doesn't really believe that Donald Trump is going to give him a nuke. However, that's probably a tactic to try to get more conventional weapons in the fight against Russia. But there's no question about it. You know, they had them. They were a great deterrent to Russia, but nobody wants to see a nuclear war pop off in Eastern Europe. Scott, what do you think?

I mean, it's complicated by the fact that, obviously they were Russian weapons that happened to then be in independent Ukraine. And that's why this deal got done. It's probably too simplistic to say Ukraine had a nuclear deterrent against Putin. They had Russia-owned weapons, which then got returned to Russia. Yeah, they were Soviet nukes, and the Ukrainians never had the codes for them. And they were on three-stage, or I believe mostly all of them were married to three-stage rockets that are pretty hard to target at Russia next door and all of that.

So they were essentially useless to the Ukrainians at the time that they gave them up anyway. But I would say, look, there's a lot of question begging in circular argument from the hawks on this stuff. And it's understandable what you say, obviously. If Ukraine was bristling with H bombs, then it would have been more difficult for Russia to invade. But it's, you know, a chicken and an egg kind of assuming the conclusion sort of a thing a lot of the times. Because what did happen, in fact, was that Russia was provoked by America arming up Ukraine to deter Russia. And that was what the Americans said that they were doing, and I believe them, that that was what they were trying to do. And as the Rand Corporation said, you have to carefully calibrate how many weapons you pour in there so that it doesn't backfire.

You have to have just the right amount. And I think I told you this before when I debated Wesley Clark on your show here, Pierce, was that there's this great journalist for Yahoo News named Zach Dorfman. And right at the start of the war, Zach Dorfman talked to CIA officers in Ukraine who were the ones in charge of receiving the American weapons. and distributing them. And they told him that they had complained to the bosses to tell the politicians in the White House, stop this now, stop pouring in more weapons. You have miscalibrated the amount of weapons. So what you're doing is you're not really giving Ukraine enough to deter Russia from attacking,

but you're making them feel like they better do it now because it's going to be more difficult later. And I would also point out that just real quick here that in this horrible, horrific war, that's happened. The most that you could really accuse the Russians of being as ambitious as wanting possibly Harkeve and Odessa. So far they do not have Harkeve and Odessa. And if they're brought to the table a couple of years ago, it wouldn't have even been a question. It very well could be settled now. But it is not at all in evidence, gentlemen, that Russia wants all of Ukraine and that after they're done losing the East and the South, as they already have,

that Russia will then pose a perpetual threat to invade and conquer the rest. It was truly, as I say in the book, not Kiev, it was Washington that started this war by putting Kiev in this situation as being a partial auxiliary of the American military, through what they call military interoperability, making them essentially a de facto member of NATO but without the war guarantee. So people, the hawks say now, well, yeah, you should have given them the war guarantee. But the thing is, if they had started to bring Ukraine into NATO, Russia would have invaded sooner before the ink was dry on the page in order to absolutely prevent that from taking place. It was never an option. I mean, look, like I say, I'm very cynical.

I think Putin would love to get his hands on all of Ukraine personally and then move on to other countries. But we'll see how history will record all this. Omar, just quickly, I mean, your response to Zelenskyy saying, look, I need enough defense to act as a genuine deterrent, not something that Putin can just ignore. Yeah, I mean, we need fewer nuclear weapons in the world and not more. We already are living in an incredibly dangerous situation.

We're having as many nuclear weapons out there as we have. And of course, Donald Trump, the alleged foreign policy genius, tore up the nuclear deal with Iran that made sure that Iran could not have nukes and is pursuing a bludgerent strategy towards Iran. And Iran's nuclear program is advancing and progressing because of that. The world is becoming incredibly more dangerous. And I think this is a very, very serious issue that when we're looking at the prospects of the world ending,

it's climate change and the prospect of nuclear war. Those are the two biggest risks. And we are really playing with fire if we continue down the path of saying that the way to maintain world peace is just to spread destructive weapons that could blow up the entire planet everywhere so that nobody would invade. We have to be more civilized than that,

and we have to achieve a level of seriousness about preserving this planet for future generations that leads us down a very, very different path. of what it needs to achieve. Final word to you, Vinnie. Finney. Final word to you, Vinny. Well, to say that Trump did all this stuff with Iran,

let's not forget, Joe Biden's administration released what, $6 billion to Iran, but that's a whole different conversation. Pierce, I'm anti-Zilinsky 1,000% having a nuclear weapon. I mean, there was reports that there, some of those tactical news that we were hearing that might have been smuggled in through Mexico into our country.

I think it's a horrible, horrible idea. But let's go back. Just like I said with October 7th, finding out how we got here. How do we get there? Joe Biden invited, basically, a small incursion. He said, I wouldn't do anything if Russia did a small, tiny incursion in Ukraine, and we are where we are. And that place, let's be honest, that place has been a money laundering spot for the past freaking four years and years beyond that. Piers Zelensky, we know who Zilinski is. He's a freaking puppet. He just came out the other day, Pierce, what do you say? There's billions of

dollars that was promised to me that are gone missing. I think cutting them off completely. Well, he explained that, actually, to be fair to him, I don't agree with you about Zelensky, but to be fair to him, he explained all that in my interview, that what he meant was he keeps reading that he's been given $200 billion, but he's only received, actually received $77 billion worth of commitment, which is part in terms of arms, and they have to get those from America, obviously, and part for other stuff on the ground they need it for. But they've certainly not had hundreds of billions, as many of Americans seem to think that they have, which is something he wanted to clarify, because he says,

look, is we just not had nearly enough, and people might say they don't deserve it, and they shouldn't have it, and they were provoked, and so on. But they've been at war now for three years, they had a horrendous death toll on their civilians, on their infrastructure and so on. In the end, it just seems to me quite straightforward. Do we want a Russian dictator running around invading European countries? Yes or no. We didn't with Hitler, when he tried it, from the German side, we repelled him and we stopped it and we killed off Nazism. I think that Putin, nothing would surprise me, honestly.

But I'm very cynical about him in a way that a lot of people, bizarrely to me, seem less cynical about him. I wouldn't trust a word he says. Anyway, I'll leave you on that bombshell. It's been a great panel. Thank you all very much indeed. Well, for more on President Trump's plans for Gaza.

I'm joined by two people who are no strangers to uncensored, Alan Dershowitz, former professor at Harvard Law School, and Professor Emeritus and author of eight books. And I'll be speaking to Dr. Mustafa Barguti, the Secretary General of the Palestinian National Initiative. Well, let me start with you, Alan, if I may. On the face of it, as with many of Trump's statements, everyone goes completely nuts.

They all think it's completely insane, and it follows a familiar pattern. And then you find out that what he really means turns out to be something rather more diluted and palatable because he's a trader at heart. What is your reaction to this, though? It's so dramatic. It stunned the world,

but is there merital method to the apparent madness? Well, it certainly shocked me and surprised me. I've been in this area for years and years and years. This is the first bold, new, out-of-the-box thinking about Gaza, and it shouldn't be rejected out of hand. It's reminiscent of Churchill and Roosevelt's view at the end of the Second World War to transfer millions of Sudeten Germans out of their land they had lived in for hundreds of years in Czechoslovakia and moved them back to Germany,

or the thinking of Nehru and others when England gave up Indian Pakistan transfers of populations against the wishes of the people. But it produced an enduring peace in central Europe, the transfer of the Sudanans, and it produced an enduring peace, you know, not perfect peace in either cases, and with high costs and high prices. Or consider the decision of Russia to take over Konigsberg, an old German city, and to remove all the German residents of Konigsberg, and to repopulate the city, rename it, Collingrad, repopulate it with Russians and annex it to the Soviet Union. there's precedent for this.

I think it's an idea that's worth thinking about and it's variations. There are so many possible variations. For example, you can do it piece by piece. You can clear out an area of Gaza, remove the population, clean it up, get rid of all the tunnels, then repopulate it with Gazans who would agree that they are not going to engage in terrorism. They're not going to join Hamas. Look, the alternatives that all the critics have been presenting are not viable. It's just doing the same thing over and over again.

That's Albert Einstein's definition of insanity. We need new thinking. We need fresh thinking. I'm happy that President Trump came up with this idea. Now let's think about it. Now let's deconstruct it. Now let's go step by step. Let's see if we can accept parts of it, accept other parts of it.

Let's see whether or another parts of it. not we can do something different in Gaza rather than return it to the status quo. Already the Hezahma said they're going to do October 7th again and again and again. And remember, too, people say it's against international law to move populations. Well, was it against the international law for Churchill to do it, for Roosevelt to do it? Are the same people complaining when the Hamas Charter calls for the transfer of populations out of Israel and Jews being eliminated from the river to the sea? We have to have bold new thinking.

We shouldn't use cliches like ethnic cleansing and transfer of population. We should think hard about what the realistic options are. None of them are cost-free. All of them will involve suffering. The question is, what's more important, place or peace? What's more important, geography or trying to bring about a resolution to an age-old problem? Okay, so I hear you. Here's what I would say to you, though.

You say it's not about ethnic cleansing or any of these things, But if it was the other way around, Alan, and be honest, if the big idea from the President of the United States was actually, we know how to resolve this, we're going to move everyone in Israel somewhere else, right? Just hypothetically, we're going to move the millions of Israelis, they're going to move, and the Palestinians will get to, you know, have that land or they'll share it, that land or whatever that they're moving from.

You would lead the call of, this is ethnic cleansing. You would say this is unbelievable, shocking, appalling and should never be contemplated. And I think if you're honest, you would admit that. So I want you to put yourself in the, well, you cannot answer the question yourself, but I assume you would say that. But if you're a Palestinian,

you don't see this as the great rosy future. You see this as you've been kicked out of your land and it confirms the very fears you've been expressing about members of the cabinet like Smodrich and Ben-Gavir and so on, who have been talking them this way for quite some time They just wanted to get rid of the Palestinians. Look, this wasn't an idea that came, that Smotridge or Ben-Givir, or even Natsunayo came up, was an idea that the current administration came up.

Remember, too, that all the movements of Palestinians resulted from Palestinians attacking Israel in 1948. They produced the Nakhba. Palestinians would have been allowed to stay in Israel, hundreds of thousands of them, if they hadn't attacked Israel. And so, no, Israel is an established state. It didn't start the October 7th war. When you start a war, the way Germany started with Czechoslovakia, your civilians pay a price. And if the price can result in real peace, if the people of Gaza can be returned,

and I don't want to see the people, the Palestinians of Gaza remove forever, I want to see them returned to a stable community with beautiful homes, with no tunnels, with no tunnels, with no rockets, with demilitarization, that would be a first step to a two-state solution. Remember, I'm a strong supporter of the two-state solution. But that's not what Donald Trump said, though, isn't it? But, Alan, just to jump in there, if that's what Donald Trump had said, then fine. But actually what Donald Trump, when he was asked directly about what would happen with Palestinians, he said, well, some of them could come back.

But his implication was very clear that most of them would not, that most of them would literally move to Jordan and Egypt, both of whom their leaders have said, we're not doing this. And the general reaction across the Arab world is one of absolutely not happening in a million years. So I just think it's, you know, it's, I get the boldness, I get the vision, I get if you're an Israeli, this makes perfect sense and it's great. But if you're a Palestinian, you're like, hang on.

So we're getting kicked out, and most of us forever, from what they see is their homeland. You know, and again, I'll just ask you, if it was the other way around, how would you feel? Well, first, it wouldn't be the other way around, because Israel has lived in peace. It has never attacked its enemies. It has always been the recipient of attacks. It's only the Palestinians who say from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free of Jews.

It's they're the ones who want ethnic cleansing. Israel's responding to it by saying, wait a minute, let's not do any ethnic cleansing. Let's clear areas. This would be my idea, and it's an idea I would propose to President Trump if he asked me, and he has asked me from time to time about my ideas. Clear certain areas, say the South, the Rafa area, clear it, move all the Palestinians out, give them tremendous compensation packages, hundreds of thousands of dollars, give them beautiful homes in Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and Egypt.

Let them decide. And if they decide to stay, well, that would be fine. If they decide to come back, then they can come back. If they can clear vetting. If they can demonstrate that they're not Hamas terrorists, if they can demonstrate that they do not want to take up arms, that they are not in favor of ethnic cleansing of Jews, let them come back region by region to an area that has no tunnels, that tunnels can't be built, create a situation with underground wires and everything to prevent the

building of tunnels. Let's rebuild Gaza. It literally can be Singapore and the Mediterranean. Remember, Israel left Gaza in 2005. They left it completely until Hamas took over, and they could have built a beautiful seaport. I have been in Gaza. I've eaten in Con Unis. I've eaten in Gaza city. It could be magnificent. And I think Trump maybe naively believes that that could happen again, but if it could happen piece by piece with a right to return, but a right to return if you're not a terrorist from Hamas and if you're prepared to lay down arms and live in peace with Israel, 10 years from now, we could finally have a solution that would then enable Israel to move toward a two-state solution with the West Bank, relationships with Saudi Arabia. It's the beginning. Let's not just reject it by using terms like ethnic cleansing, because those terms...

It's interesting. I mean, look, the... Usually have been used in Sudetenland, and Sudetenland was a success. Yeah, but the reason... The official definition of ethnic cleansing is the force removed or killing of a population, ethnic group, or religious group against their will. And it's pretty clear from the immediate reaction from Palestinians that this would be against their will. Therefore, the forced removal of a population

is, by the definition, ethnic cleansing. It's not like people are exaggerating. That's exactly what it would be if it's against their wishes. No, that's not true. International law is based on precedent. And I don't think anybody has accused Churchill and Roosevelt of ethnic cleansing when they moved involuntarily, millions of ethnic Germans who were causing a problem. They were the beginning of the Second World War, and the problem has been solved.

International law is flexible. Peace is more important than geography. So let's not get caught up in technical definitions that are anachronistic and that have never been applied. India, Pakistan, we had millions of people displaced against their will in Konigsburg, every single German was replaced. Was their objection to that? No, that was Churchill's accepted it. No, that Roosevelt accepted it. These were accepted by international law of the United States. Let's do what's best for the Palestinians. Let's do its best for the Israelis. Let's do its best with peace. Let's not just reject the idea by putting a label on it. It is not in violation of the precedence of international law.

it's been done in the past with great success. And the best criteria for something under law is, did it work? And it worked in Sudetenland. It worked in Pakistan. And it is still working in Conningsburg. Alan Dershowitz, Fast selling. Thank you very much indeed.

I appreciate it. Let me bring in Dr. Mustafa Barguti. He was listening to that. Dr. Bargutti, your response to Alan Dershowitz, sir. Well, I'm not surprised at all about everything that Mr. Dershowitz said. he is being a very well-known lawyer of murderers and very bad record of even defending Epstein. But more than that,

he lied, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. He lied on. Don't interrupt me. No, I'm sorry, if you say something ridiculous, I'm going to interrupt you. The fact he's a lawyer who's represented people who may have committed crimes, he's allowed to represent anyone.

That's what lawyers do. Why would that be a stick to beat him with? Well, he has a very bad record of even being a lawyer, but I will not waste the time of the program on that. And I'm not saying ridiculous things. Please respect me. What he said now, he just lied several times. He claimed that Israel never attacked and never initiated a war.

They initiated the war in 1948 by attacking Palestinian communities. They raised to the ground, five. 221 Palestinian communities and destroyed them. They ethnically cleansed 70% of the Palestinian people. In 1956, they and France and Britain attacked Egypt. They initiated the attack. In 1967, Israel initiated an attack on Jordan, Egypt and Syria and occupied the occupied territories,

which is now a problem we are living with. But let me go back to the question of what Mr. Trump has proposed. Trump is not only making a very destructive proposal, he is actually issuing a criminal proposal. What he is advocating is the violation of international law by ethnically cleansing Palestinian people in Gaza. That's what he is proposing, sourcing people out of their homeland. What would Mr. Trump think if I suggest that all people in New York should be removed to Afghanistan? or should be removed to Mexico. Of course, they would say this is crazy.

How could you speak about that? What was Mr. Dervovich would say, as you have said, if the plan was to displace Jewish people from Israel? After all, we've been living here for thousands of years, long time before the Israelis who exist now in Israel lived here. So this is a very dangerous approach. It lacks respect of international. law. It actually shows a great amount of ignorance to the history of the Palestinian people,

to the resilience of the Palestinian people, and a great amount of ignorance of the geopolitical facts of the area. And it will not work. Of course it will not work. How could Mr. Dershow could compare the situation now with what happened during the Second World War? We have now the United Nations. We have something called the international law. That's exactly what Mr. Biden told, Told, Nathaniel, he spoke about the phlegm of Palestinians. So let me ask you this. So Donald Trump said he's thought about this for a while because he's not hearing any good idea to resolve this.

It's been going on for more than seven decades. Why, there is a very good idea. Well, hang on, I'm going to ask you a question. Nobody tried it. Let me ask you a question. With respect, you want respect for you. Show me the same respect. So my question for you is, what is your solution?

If it's not this, fine. What is your solution? Very simple. In the Israeli illegal occupation of the West Bank, Gazda Strip and East Jerusalem, allow Palestinian refugees to have the right, their right of return, and allow Palestinians to have a state of their own, independent state, sovereign state without Israeli illegal settlements that have been built on Palestinian land illegally,

and coexist and live in peace. This is the thing that was never tried because Israel never accepted to end its occupation. And who would run the Palestinian side? The Palestinians will elect their leaders through democratic process like people do in any other country, including in Israel. If they don't want two-state solution, I have a better solution. One democratic state would equal rights for everybody. that it's either two states or one democratic state. Would you, look, I agree with you.

I think there should be a two-state solution. No, one moment. If they don't want two states, they don't want one democratic state, they want exactly what Trump is proposing. Of course. Ethnic cleansing. And of course Trump would not have proposed that if he didn't consult with Netanyahu before.

But let me ask you, would you, in this proposal that you've just outlined, would you allow Hamas, for example, to be part of any government going forward, if that was the will of the people of Gaza? If there is peace, Hamas will be willing to live peacefully with everybody else. I know that very well.

Why would you say that? At that point, you lose me. Hamas did not exist 30 years ago. Hamas made their intentions very clear on October the 7th. They are a terrorist organization who wage an act of horrendous heinous terror. More than that, they came out immediately after, through their official spokesman and said,

we're going to keep doing this again and again and again. They are wedded to an ideology of destroying everything that Israel stands for. Why, if you're Israel... That's not true. Well, they've said it. I mean, you haven't got to believe me. They said it themselves. But the idea that you could have Hamas after what they've done,

that you could have them as part of the government, would be a non-starter for Israel and for America. First of all, Israel said they do not accept Hamas and they don't accept the Palestinian authority, and they don't accept an independent national coalition government. They don't accept any Palestinian. They dehumanize Hamas to dehumanize all Palestinians.

And I don't accept your description of them as terrorists. Because we could go back in history and remember that George Washington was accused of being terrorist by the British because he fought for independence. We could remember that Nelson Mandela was accused of being terrorist and put on the American terrorist list of the Congress

for very long time even after he became president and every American president was trying to have a photo opportunity with him. Let's remember history here. Look, Palestinians are struggling for their freedom. The Palestinians want to have peace, just peace, but now insisting or imposing on us ethnic cleansing, this is beyond any kind of understanding. And let me tell you that what Natanahu failed to achieve in his genocide act in Gaza of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians will not be achieved by Trump, by his threats and what he is proposing.

No Arab country will participate in this. Egypt rejected it. Saudi Arabia made a very strong statement. Jordan rejected it, not only because their peoples will never allow their participation in ethnic and national. in a crime of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, but also because they know Jordan will not exist anymore if that happens. Egypt will be affected because their national security will be affected.

This is crazy. I don't know how the head of the biggest country in the world or the wealthiest country in the world, the United States of America, could come up with suggestions that violate every international law and advocate a crime, a crime of ethnic cleansing. Mr. Trump was hoping to get more than this price. Do you accept...

Okay, hang on. Do you accept that what Hamas did in October the 7th was illegal, was a crime, was against international law? Do you accept that? I think I told you many times on your program, I don't have to repeat that. 7th of October was not the beginning, was not the cause. Was it a crime? No, no, no, was a result of something. So it wasn't a crime.

The crime is this continuous. The crime is discontinuous. occupation. The crime is what was being subjected to. My question was whether the attack or not over the seven. No, no, I understand where you are aiming. Ethnic cleansing. No, I'm asking you're saying, apartheid occupation.

With respect, Dr. Barguerite, with respect, you've just laid out a reason that this can't be allowed to happen the way Trump wants because it would represent a crime of ethnic cleansing. Fine. Many people would agree with you. I'm simply saying to you, you seem perfectly content with the idea that Hamas may be part of a government going forward after the war, that would be a loathsome concept to many people around the world who see them as a terrorist group.

And if you're going to talk about international law being broken and crimes as being a reason to not do something, I think I'm perfectly entitled to ask you whether you view what they did Hamas on October 7th as a crime. Because if you don't, then it's very revealing about how you see them.

The real terrorist here is the one that is accused of four times. And wasn't my question. Don't distract. Give me a straight answer. Give me a straight answer. The real terrorist here, the real terrorist here is not Tanyahu. All right. You're just right. By the international criminal court.

Why can't you give me a straight answer? And by the way, Hamas did not want to stay as in the government if that's the problem. Hamas accepted what we signed in Beijing, which is the formation of national coalition government, which will not have Hamas in it. They agreed with that. Yeah, but you said you were happy to have them in the government. They don't want to be in the government. Right, but you said you would be happy for them to be in the government.

But Natanyahu, no, I didn't say that. I said, I said, I accept what they say. They say they are ready to accept national consensus government. But Natanyahu is not accepting neither Hamas, nor Fattah, I'm just going to ask you, all right, well, I'm just going to ask you, all right, but Dr. Barguti, look, given you raise the issue of international law, then I'm just going to ask you one. time, you don't have to answer it, I'm going to ask you one more time. Was what Hamas did on October

the 7th of crime? Yes or no? What Hamas did in October 7th was a response and a reaction to terrible atrocities made by Israel since 1948. Was it a crime? I don't like to be anybody to be killed. I don't like any Palestinian or Israeli or American child to be killed. Was it a crime? But you have to tell me who is the war? No, no, I'm doing the question. Was it a crime? 17, no, no, wait, 17,000... Why can't you say it was a crime? In Palestine.

No, Mr. Pierce, you are following the same trend. No, no, I'm asking you a very simple question. Very simple question. Why you don't accept us as equal human beings? No, why can't you accept that what they did was a heinous crime? Why you don't say that Natanyahu is a criminal? Did you ever in your shoulders ask anybody whether Nathaniau was a criminal by killing 17,000 children? Yes, I've asked many guests that question.

You didn't say he was a war criminal. I've actually had many, many people on the show who's called him a war criminal, right? But I'm asking you if Hamas committed a crime on October the 7th. Let's not dive. You're not going to divert the discussion from the main issue. The main issue here is. No, no. That is an issue for me.

No, no, no. Trump is proposing a war crime. Yeah. So you're big on war crimes if it's Trump or not in Yahoo. But when it comes to your own side, Hamas, you're not interested. Nothing in the world can justify a war crime. So Donald Trump would be...

So you're very anti-war crimes right to the point that it's Hamas perpetrating one of the worst crimes in modern memory. And at that point, you don't want to call it a war crime. You want to keep diverting the discussion because you're not comfortable with the fact that I'm the one you mentioned international law, not me. I am proving to you constantly that what we are talking here is about, A war crime Okay, I'll give you the chance to answer.

Nobody should be allowed to accept. I respect you coming on the program. We've had many discussions about this. Your singular failure having raised the issue of international crime. No, hang on. Sorry, I'm going to finish what I'm saying. Your failure, you're the one who raise the issue of international law. You're the one is accusing everybody else of war crimes.

And you will not call what a... Fine. You will not... call Hamas in a war crime. As long as you don't accept us Palestinians as equal human beings to Jewish people, to other people, you will never succeed. Okay, but you know what?

You keep repeating the same accusations. You don't regard the fact that so many Palestinians... No, I'm just not going to be... Honestly, you don't regard the fact that at this moment while we are talking... The Israeli army... Okay, you can keep talking or let me respond. To Al-Kareem and Janine in the West Bank.

Can I respond, please? Not governing the West Bank. Let me respond. Can you stop talking? Let me respond. Okay? Please. I just want to say this.

With all due respect to you, and I mean that, because I'd like you to keep coming back on the program, but when you refuse repeatedly, as you have done today, to say that what Hamas did in October 7th was a crime, I'm not going to take any lectures from you about anybody else who may have committed war crimes. Why should I? Because you refuse to call one of the biggest war crimes

of modern times. What it is? So I'm afraid I just, you're not a legitimate observer about war crimes because you don't think that what Hamas did was a war crime. So why should we listen to you about anybody else that you think is committing war crimes? Can you allow me to respond without interrupting me? Well, I've got about a minute, so you've got a minute. I do not accept any crime against any people, especially civilian population.

There wasn't a crime, though. But listen to me. Don't interrupt me. Give me my minute. Don't interrupt me. But what you are doing, Mr. Pierce, is maybe it's trying to defend the Israelis and the crime. I haven't said a word about the Israelis.

I've not said a word about the Israelis. What are you talking about? You keep interrupting me because you don't like the facts I am selling you. No, I don't like the fact you won't call a war crime or war crime. Let me say the reality. You divert the attention from the real problem. No, I asked you a simple question. The real problem is,

Natanyahu and Trump has done. just declared the worst kind of crime, which is ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people of Gaza. They will not succeed because we're resilient. I hear that message. I hear that message. And nobody will cooperate with them in achieving this crime. It's fine.

I hear you, listen, you've made that point very clearly. A lot of people will agree with you, right? I might even agree with you myself about a lot of what you just said. However, you would do yourself a massive favor if you were just able to find it in yourself to call what Hamas did in October. a crime because it was quite clearly, indisputedly, a massive war crime. But you choose not to, you choose not to, and viewers, you chose not too many times.

I invited you too many times, you've chosen not to, viewers can make their own minds up about that. Yeah, we do say the same thing because you don't answer the question. Because you are biased to Israel. No, I'm not. You cannot be happy when it is clear that Israel is committing crimes and when you are not happy when it is proven that. I'd call them out repeatedly in the last few months, and as you probably know. Anyway, we've got to leave you there.

Thank you very much, Dr. Magouti. I appreciate it. Thank you. Piers Morgan Unsensit is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. If you enjoy our show, we ask for only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Unsensored on Spotify and Apple Podcast.

And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent, uncensored media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.