Mohammed Hijab – George Galloway Interviews about Piers Morgan and Palestine

			The sharp edge of these issues. I've been following him now on social media. Time to introduce him
to you, if you have not yet met to Muhammad, thanks for joining us and congratulations on some great
work, including schooling.
		

			The multimillionaire Piers Morgan on the multi billionaire Rupert Murdoch's television show. Tell
us, first of all what that was like.
		

			Well, thank you for that. And I wanted to actually congratulate you as well.
		

			For your Interfax indefatigability, the words that you use all the time, and your resilience, in
fact, your patience and your courage on this issue on the Palestine issue. I think that you the
community has noted, the community has noted that you have been a close ally on these matters. And
we really respect your work on the Palestine financially. I think that your work in the last 20
years is probably in the United Kingdom context, the most notable work and your resilience and
strength against some of the far right elements of our society has also been noteworthy. So I wanted
to put that to
		

			say thank you.
		

			Yeah, in terms of peers, I would categorize him as a person who is
		

			who has heavy hands, but a glass jaw, in the sense that if you really put them, if you ask him
questions, if you, you know, in a corner, he will find it difficult to answer the questions that he
likes to ask everybody else. And the reason for that is, is simply because he doesn't actually have
he's not morally consistent. He's only strategically consistent. You mentioned yourself, his kind of
connections with Rupert Murdoch, and all these kinds of organizations that he's worked with, has
been said that the reason why he's acting in this way he can't bring himself to condemn, the killing
of civilians in Gaza was one of the most populated areas in the world with civilians, is because he
		

			knows that that will get under the skin of his his masters, which shows lack of backbone, it shows
lack of integrity, that he's not Integris. He's not morally principled in that manner.
		

			And in fact, it shows that he's, he's not, he doesn't have a moral compass.
		

			And that anyone could maybe give him money
		

			to say whatever he, they want him to say.
		

			I'm afraid that's true. But you put them behind the eight ball, as Americans who played that vulgar
game of pool will recognize you snooker them, as we would say, in the United Kingdom.
		

			When you turn the question round, you asked him, will you condemn the Israeli Defense Force killing
of 1000s of Palestinian children? And he couldn't even answer that.
		

			Exactly. I mean, he hasn't even answered that, even after that interview. And the reason why is very
clear for anyone to know and see, is because of his ideological and or financial commitments. I
mean, if we're being honest about the situation, right? I mean, if we say that killing a child, I
mean, this is a very simple argument. I mean, we can make it killing a child with a Palestinian or
Jewish, Arab or Jewish or black or white, whatever it may be, is a bad thing. Okay. So killing one
black child killing one white belt is equally bad, killing one Palestinian child killing one Jewish
child is equally bad, then it would make sense then, using that kind of logic that the more children
		

			that you kill, the worse it is. And so the IDF has been killing more children. Therefore, they've
been there wasn't any anyone else in this conflict, whether whether once one wants to invoke Hamas
or Hezbollah or any other entity, Islamic Jihad, if we're talking about the killing of civilians,
there's no doubt that there's been more you've mentioned before I came on civilian deaths that have
been killed from the Palestinian side And historically, from the disengagement in 2006 of Palestine,
a so called disengagement because, in fact, they still maintain effective military control in
international relations in international law terms.
		

			In 2006, all these operations that they've conducted from cost lead to Protective Edge every three
to four years, while they call mowing the lawn or killing the people or subduing the populations.
Now.
		

			If we're just counting bodies, effectively, if we're just counting bodies, there's no way anyone can
make an argument if you believe that the human life of a child who is a Jew, and a human life of a
child is an Arab is equal that baby is equal to that baby, this race is equal to this race. There's
no one no way anyone can make an argument that in fact, that any other party other than the IDF is
is most criminal here.
		

			Now, when I started in this course, in 1975, precisely, you could have fitted to all of the people
who were ready to say they were with the PLO into this room that I'm sitting in, which is not very
large, and room for an elephant at the back of it.
		

			The worst of times, now, Hyde Park could not contain all of the British people who want to take to
the streets and demonstrate their support for Palestine. And if you add those, they left at home who
can't or won't go on demonstrations and so on. Now, we are millions and millions in the United
Kingdom, and we are now producing
		

			as if from nowhere,
		

			people have the eloquence of you and the courage of you. And there are many of you now I'm seeing
them not least on on Piers Morgan, I mean, low key. I mean, these United Nations class is world
class. And, you know, when I first knew him, he was a rapper. Now is a political statement. In other
words, what I'm seeing is, we're growing in quantity, but we're also growing in quality and new
leaders, new speakers, like you are coming forward, you've expressed similar thoughts I saw today,
and made the point that it is causing some consternation amongst the establishment, that people they
bring on, maybe thinking there'll be a punch bag, turned out to be brilliantly eloquent and
		

			informed. This is you isn't that?
		

			Absolutely, uh, first of all, thank you for the compliments, I really do. appreciate them. The new
god cannot have done what they're doing, unless the old gods, which is people like yourself, in
fact, done what they done. And it's no doubt in my mind, I remember being, you know, a child in
secondary school, or a teenager, and, and seeing your coverage and your responses, for example, to
the 2006 war in Lebanon. And the way you put there was a particular reporter that you really put on
the backfoot, doing exactly the same things and techniques that I've employed. So once again, I
thank you for the compliments. But I have to put to you as well, that you've laid the foundations,
		

			actually for this, which shows you the importance of intergenerational work. In terms of the PLO, I
think it's good that you mentioned them, because the PLO really represent an organization that have
tried with the peace talks, that have tried going through, you know, the Oslo Accords and these
kinds of things. And lo and behold, what we're finding is that the Palestinian issue, even though
there's been non violent attempts to try and resolve the situation, have not found resolutions. I
mean, we're talking about the Oslo corps. But people don't realize because now Hamas, for example,
is being used as a scapegoat that there are, for example, the West Bank is bereft of Hamas, there is
		

			no Hamas in the West Bank, that they have no effect there at all. And yet, we have the Palestinian
Authority there, which the PLO was part of, and then we came to PA.
		

			Still, you have 44 children being killed in this year alone, according to UN reports, children
before the conflict emerged. And so what we're seeing is Palestinian life is being it's being
cheapened by by people in this country is being it's being seen as lesser than, and in fact, I think
this is what we're facing, we're facing actually, you talked about race, before you came on to the
segment talking about your own anti racial politics. I have to put to you that I think that if you
believe in an apartheid system, which many people are saying we support Israel and these kinds of
things, I don't know to what extent they support Israel, because if they support Israel,
		

			unequivocally and comprehensively, and in everything that they do, then they should also they will
be implicitly complicit in supporting Israel and their racism as well. Um, there is an apartheid
system, not just According to Human Rights Watch, and Salem, and Amnesty International and even
bodies of the UN. But if you look at the law, because in 1973, there was a The UN has an apartheid
convention. And of the things conditions, it was eight conditions that were laid down, what are the
conditions that were laid down for something to be called apartheid, is that it would have to be
		

			would have to have laws that discriminate on the basis of race. If one just takes one example which
is the right of return law that Alia effectively says you have the right to return if you're if
you're a Jew, okay? And if you convert by the way to Christianity or to Islam,
		

			that rate of return is actually is relinquished, or it's rescinded, or whatever it may be. And so
you lose the right to return if you convert. This is just this example alone, which no one can deny,
because it's entrenched within the the statute books of Israeli law. This example alone, it shows
you clearly that Israel is an apartheid state, just in the same way as South Africa was, in fact,
there's a very good book that was written on this topic, about the secret allegiance between Allah
between South Africa and Israel. The point being here is that you have people like Piers Morgan, who
claimed to be anti racist, you have people across the political spectrum of categories, but then
		

			they talk about supporting Israel unequivocally. And I don't see how that actually works. How does
it work when you've got when you've got communities of people, Palestinian people, who are being
imprisoned in the West Bank without and you've got about 1000 children, in prisons in the West Bank?
I mean, you have, you have pic children being killed. And we have, we have casa, we have a blockade
going on. And there's a reason why the Gaza and the West Bank are not part of an Israeli state, not
that we're proposing a one state solution. But this should be put on the table that if Gaza with a
2.2 million population and West Bank with a 3.2 million population of Arabs were consumed into an
		

			Israeli state, you'd have a majority of Arabs actually in Israel. And if you have a Knesset, which
has a PR system of proportional representation, then they couldn't they couldn't do this. So in
order to try and subjugate the Palestinians, they can't have them as part of the state, they can't
have a two state solution. So they effectively have to have them between two situations. A situation
A is they can't be part of the state and situation music, they can't have their own statehood. So
here, this is not apartheid, even worse than actually apartheid, because I don't think South Africa
had this state of affairs where, you know, 10,000 people were killed in 22 days in this in this way.
		

			And so people that are on the side of history, that they're talking about split supporting Israel's
right to defend itself, and that's what they're talking about. They won't even bring themselves like
peers to condemn Israel. I have to ask the question. I mean, how could you support? How could it be
conceivable? How is it intelligible? How is it conceivable? How is it conceptually possible to
believe to support unequivocally a state like Israel?
		

			And I not to be racist, because to be an apartheid supporter, is it not a prerequisite to be a
racist that you believe it's legitimate to discriminate on the basis of race? And I think this
should be the new narrative. The new narrative should be if, if one has unequivocal support, and
that is a big conditional because not many people have unconditional support. But if people have
unconditional support to the State of Israel, they should be questioned about whether or not they
actually are racist people.
		

			Well, the leader of the Labour Party, the leader of Her Majesty's opposition, used exactly your
words are the equivocal. My support for Israel is unequivocal. And that same person, circuit stava
		

			said that Israel had the right to cut off water, electricity, and food from the occupied
territories, and he is a king's Council, you couldn't get a more senior lawyer than him. Now, unless
he's masquerading as a lawyer, he obviously knew that Israel did not have the right to do this. That
to do this would be unequivocally illegal. But he still supported them. And he's the leader of the
Labour Party.
		

			I have seen him come out and try and retract some of those statements or try and clarify them. But
you're right. In the first instance, it was quite clear what he said on LBC radio. And this is a
scandal if anything can be said about it at all. It's a it's a scandal, a state of affairs. For
someone like Osama who's by the way, I mean, in terms of the Muslim population, canceled. If Tom
events that he had in Ramadan, he has shown the cold, cold, cold shoulder to the Muslim community,
complete disrespect. I can't see how anyone would from the Muslim community after this would vote
for him or vote for his party. He's really alienated the Muslim community. And with this his
		

			support, as you mentioned, using the term unequivocal that I would question him on this very matter,
I'd say that there's laws that are entrenched, we're not even talking about issues that can be
disputed, like for example, that Ill Hillel
		

			moustache for the hospital in Gaza, where they said that that was misfiring of this or that, which
is a ridiculous proposition anyway. But these things there's a level of, let's say, insignificant
doubt that was one can employ. But when we're talking about laws, which are entrenched, and one can
refer to them, they're digitized and they're online, like the right of return the proper
		

			The absentee property laws which allow a disproportionate ability for, for example, Israeli Jewish
people in West Bank and other places to effectively seize property that would otherwise be for Arab
people, their settlements and these kinds of things which have been consistently said to be against
international law. And then after that, the killing of civilians and the war crimes that have been
committed, which go against Geneva, for which go against all kinds of principles in international
law. If people can't speak up about these kinds of things, we must question their integrity, we must
question whether or not they're racist, because I will say is, I want to know how it's possible. If
		

			apartheid is defined as discrimination, or at least a prerequisite of there is discrimination based
on race? How could it be possible for people to support a state which is effectively an apartheid
state without having as a prerequisite of that and accept legitimization of race racial policy or
racism, racism in politics or racism in law? So they should be questioned? And I think this is a way
in which we will separate the men from the boys directly? I mean, how would you support these
apartheid laws? Or do you condemn them? And that's another question we can ask them. Can you do
support the right of return which is only for Jews? Would you support the laws on for example,
		

			property, which which are discriminatory to Arabs? Do you support the settlements, you support the
war crimes? Because once again, all these things show that this the international establishment is
moving towards racism, effectively, which is cheapening the lives of the Palestinian people,
comparative to Jewish people? And this is I think, this guy's actually scandalous
		

			Bama job, you've been marvelous. I knew he would be. Thanks for joining us on