Mohammed Hijab – Piers Morgan & Dershowitz Squirm In Clash
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
Asalaamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh, how are you guys
doing?
Before we begin the video, make sure you
click the link below for the people in
Lebanon.
It's one thing raising awareness, it's another thing
giving charity.
We've got people on the ground for one
ummah, they're doing a fantastic job, a hundred
pound will feed an entire family for a
month.
Asalaamu Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh.
What I'd like this to be is a
civilized debate between two people with very strong
opinions about this.
Wherever we see suffering, wherever we see death
and destruction, assault, sexual assault, we've seen Dershowitz
to the rescue.
The former defense attorney of Jeffrey Epstein.
Muhammad, attacking a lawyer for defending people is
a stupid argument.
I'm not looking at you when I'm speaking
to you.
What's this got to do with Israel?
This shows you the bias, the bias in
the coverage.
You're talking complete *.
You should be arrested without a charge if
you're held for a security reason.
Pathetic.
Let me ask the question.
Sure, go ahead.
And you guys try and debate it.
Why is this uncomfortable?
It's nothing to do with the debate.
Good answer.
Why are you doing this, Muhammad?
Why not?
Because it's pointless.
Well, if you didn't want to do a
debate, don't agree to do it.
What's wrong with you?
Why are you not looking at me again?
You're crying.
Are you crying?
I've got tears in my eyes.
Is there any point in continuing?
The events of the past year have shattered
stability in the Middle East.
Israel's war on Hamas, provoked by the atrocities
of October 7th, have led to the deaths
of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians.
Prime Minister Netanyahu promised total victory and the
complete destruction of Hamas, but one year on,
Hamas is still firing rockets at Tel Aviv.
One year on, 97 hostages remain in Hamas
captivity.
Very clearly, Israel has not fulfilled its stated
aims in this war, and it continues to
add new ones.
It's now at war in Lebanon and on
the precipice of a direct conflict with Iran.
It has no plausible exit strategy in Gaza,
where millions live in grief and under occupation.
But it has, without question, decimated Iran's client
militias.
Hezbollah, the jewel in Iran's crown, has been
decapitated.
The question is whether that makes the Middle
East and the world a safer or a
more dangerous place.
Can it really be said that Israel is
winning this war?
How big will this war get, and how
much collateral damage and suffering can the world
tolerate before enough is enough?
This debate will examine the legality, the morality,
and the sustainability of the conflicts in the
Middle East.
Joining me are two of our most passionate
advocates for their cause, the Muslim philosopher, scholar,
and YouTuber, Mohammed Hijab, and the lawyer and
author, Alan Dershowitz.
Well, welcome to both of you.
Mohammed, you've been on twice before, Alan, many
times.
What I'd like this to be is a
civilized debate between two people with very strong
opinions about this, obviously very different opinions, where
we try and reach potentially some points of
agreement.
Because so often with these debates, that seems
almost impossible.
It descends into a shouting match, everyone gets
ad hominem, everyone digs ever deeper into their
trench, their tribe, and we don't get anything
constructive out of it.
I think you guys are smart enough to
potentially, through spirited and passionate debate, agree about
some stuff, and that is surely the first
basis for how any of this eventually gets
resolved.
So let's hope for the best.
Prepare for the worst and hope for the
best, as they say.
Alan Dershowitz, let me start with you.
Israel, it seems to me, in the last
three weeks, have massively ramped up their military
offensive in a way that says to me
that Prime Minister Netanyahu and his cabinet sense
an opportunity to completely, in their eyes, sort
out the Middle East problem once and for
all, with Iran at the center of that
problem.
Is that how you see this?
Yes, I do.
I see Iran as the head of the
octopus, sending out its tentacles through the Houthis,
through Hamas, through Hezbollah.
The tragedy, as we celebrate—celebrates a bad word—commemorate
October 7th is that if Asinwa and Hamas
had the opportunity to do it again, knowing
everything that followed, knowing all the deaths and
disasters in Gaza and in Lebanon, I think
Hamas would do it again, would do October
7th again, because they think they've won.
They've turned college and university students against Israel.
They have solidified the United Nations' opposition to
Israel.
They've divided Americans, particularly the Republican administrations in
the past, from the current Democratic administration.
So Hamas cannot be allowed to have a
victory on—growing out of October 7th—any more than
ISIS should have been allowed to have a
victory going out of 9-11.
So I think the answer is, yes, a
military defeat for Iran and its surrogates and
a peace process between Israel and Saudi Arabia,
with steps taken toward a recognition of a
two-state solution, which is the only reasonable
solution that will solve the problem.
But remember that October 7th was stimulated by
the desire to prevent Israel and Saudi Arabia
from creating a peace process following up from
the Abraham Accords.
And unless that peace process continues, and unless
Hamas is told, no, you failed, the world
will not reward you for this, we're just
going to see a continuation of the bloodshed
in the Middle East, which does not serve
the interests of the Palestinians nor the Israeli
people.
OK.
Mohammad Hijab, your response to that?
Well, first of all, I would like to
say that wherever we see suffering, wherever we
see death and destruction, especially of young people,
assault, sexual assault, we see Dershowitz to the
rescue, the former defense attorney of Jeffrey Epstein,
a man himself accused of— I knew we
would get to that.
I knew— I didn't give you permission to
interrupt me.
I didn't give you permission to interrupt me.
I stayed quiet when you were talking.
OK, here's what I would say.
I stayed quiet when you were talking.
Hang on.
Hang on.
Here's what I would say.
I didn't give you permission.
Listen, Mohammad, attacking a lawyer for defending people
is a stupid argument, right?
Well, I'm not making an argument yet.
Well, you're just using that ad hominem attack
straight off the top.
Has he got leverage on you?
No, he's a brilliant lawyer.
We saw your picture with Maxwell.
He's got leverage on you.
He's a brilliant lawyer.
Are you saying that because he's got leverage
on you?
I met Ghislaine Maxwell for five minutes at
a book launch.
You look very happy with her.
Well, I didn't know anything about her at
the time.
You look very happy with her.
Other than she was the daughter of the
man that— We're talking about the biggest sexual
scandal in the last hundred years.
Who I never met Jeffrey Epstein or ever
knew him.
Alan Dershowitz was wrongly accused of various things
in relation to Jeffrey Epstein.
How do you know it's wrongly?
Because they've all been— Why are you defending
him?
They all turned out to be nonsense.
He won a court case about it.
Why are you not looking at me when
I'm speaking to you?
Well, it's— Well, I can turn to you,
but there are three of us involved in
this.
Yeah, you're speaking to me, so I'm looking
to the left.
OK, let me make things clear.
I never met Jeffrey Epstein.
I met Ghislaine Maxwell for five minutes at
a book launch.
You look very happy in that picture.
OK, if you want to use that as
an ad hominem attack on me— No, but
why are you defending him?
Hang on.
A picture taken in 2013.
He spoke for three minutes.
I spoke for 20 seconds.
I'm defending him because your first attack on
him is to attack him as a lawyer
because he defends bad people.
That's fine.
Here's a little secret for you, Mohamed.
All lawyers do that.
I've also defended— No, but hold on.
We're not talking about bad people.
We're talking about— I've also defended— You've had
enough speaking.
You've had enough speaking.
I'm talking about a person.
I'm talking about a person who after the
fact said that he was proud to defend
him after the allegations had come out.
Do you condemn Dershowitz?
For what?
For defending Epstein.
No, I have defended— And being proud of
defending Epstein.
I have defended some of the best— It's
not for me to defend him.
I have defended some of the best people
in the world.
All I can tell you is you've condemned
him.
OK, Alan, you defend yourself.
I helped defend Nelson Mandela.
Why should he defend himself?
I haven't even spoken for 20 seconds.
Alan can defend himself.
Well, let me speak for more than 20
seconds.
I haven't even made my point yet.
I helped to defend Bill Clinton.
I've helped to defend some of the finest
people in the world.
I've also helped to defend some of the
worst.
John Lennon, he defended.
Is that a terrible crime?
He was not proud of defending John Lennon
in the same way as he announced that
he was proud of defending Epstein.
What's this got to do with Israel?
This has got to do with the fact
that this man— Just like John Adams was
proud to defend the people— He defends Israel
on the one hand, and on the other
hand he defends Epstein.
I think the public should know this.
Do you want me to play the clip?
He's proud of it.
Mohammed, do you want me to play the
clip to view the round?
I'm on social media saying some very inflammatory
things.
Do you want me to?
Why are you not looking at me?
Because I'm looking at the three of us.
Why are you not looking at me?
I'm right here.
You can turn to me.
Then the viewers see me and you looking
at us.
Look at me, man-to-man.
Fine.
I'll turn to you.
Look at me, man-to-man.
Look at my eyes.
It's called an aesthetic thing for videos.
OK.
Now, the first thing I wanted to say
was that this man's credibility is something which
is shocking that it's even— What's your base
on?
On the fact that he actually defended Epstein,
and after the fact he said he was
proud of it.
He was in Epstein's vicinity.
He was in Epstein's vicinity.
He had a massage in his vicinity.
This is the kind of person that we're
having on the show defending Israel.
That's the first thing I want to say.
The second thing is, in the first interaction
where me and you were talking about October
the 7th, we spent about three or four
minutes actually talking about sexual assault allegations, if
you remember that.
And actually here, what we have is Israeli
soldiers like me from Unit 100, and that's
on The Guardian, it's on Sky News, it's
on all these kinds of platforms, coming out,
and there's videographic evidence of him * another
man.
I haven't heard condemnation from you, and I
don't expect to hear it from him who
defended Epstein.
This shows you the bias, the bias in
the coverage for a year, where we know
the ICJ have said that there's a plausible
genocide— You haven't been watching my show.
I think I have.
No, you haven't.
Have you spoken about me?
You're talking complete *.
OK, tell me why.
Tell me why.
Because, A, I did condemn what you just
talked about in a previous debate.
Dershowitz, do you condemn it?
Yes, of course.
I condemn any * of anybody in any
assault on anybody who's in captivity.
And you also condemn the right of *
and the right of * protests that took
place in Israel.
And you acknowledge that there's a problem in
Israel with this?
If any * took place, they will be
investigated.
They will be fully investigated.
They will be court-martialed.
Do you acknowledge that there's a problem in
Israeli society?
And if anybody is convicted of that, they
deserve their punishment.
Do you acknowledge that there's a problem in
Israeli society?
Sure.
I have no compunction.
I have no compunction condemning Hamas for anything
that they've done.
You've said that.
You've asked me before, and I've told you
before.
I have no moral scruple.
Neither do the majority of the Muslim world.
I tell you now, anything that Hamas has
done, we have condemned in the first instance.
But we're not seeing the same level of
coverage with Hamas as we are seeing with
these people that are shoving rods up people's
* and * people on videographic evidence.
And you have 3,000 people.
When you talk about the hostages, you've got
3,000 people in essentially captivity, according to
Human Rights Watch and B'Tselem, who are prisoners
of war of Israel.
And we are spending a fraction of the
time speaking about them as compared to speaking
about the hostages.
This shows you the inherent bias.
Well, there's no comparison.
There's no comparison between innocent hostages who did
nothing wrong and people who are being charged
with criminal offenses.
They're not charged with criminal offenses.
That's why you're not meant to know better.
You're not meant to know better than that.
They're not charged with criminal offenses.
They're not charged with criminal offenses.
They're arrested without charge.
You can't compare a three-year-old baby.
They're not charged with criminal offenses.
Don't shout over each other.
We can't hear the answer.
He's lying to the public.
Allow him to respond.
Go ahead.
To somebody who's a member of Hamas.
Say it again.
Sorry, Adam, we couldn't hear you because he
was shouting.
I was shouting.
Say it again.
I'm saying you can't compare a three-year
-old baby.
Adam, just to be clear, he said the
3,000 people he's talking about were all
arrested without charge, and therefore they've not been
charged with crimes.
Your response to that?
Well, if they were, they should be released.
Nobody should be arrested without charge if you're
held for a security reason.
Let me say what I want.
It's uncensored.
Good boy.
Let me finish, please.
Let me make my point.
Let me finish.
Let me make my point.
I'll say what I like.
Can I make my point?
Let me make my point.
Great Britain confined tens of thousands of people
without charges during the Second World War.
Let's talk about what Hitler done.
Let's talk about what Hitler done.
Please let me make my point.
I'm opposed to that.
I wrote an article against administrative detention.
Good.
Good.
But you can't compare that no matter how
bad it is.
You can't compare it to three-year-olds
being kidnapped, to people being raped and murdered.
You can't compare what happened on October 7th
to what Israel has done in terms of
security prisoners.
There's no comparison at all.
Stop interrupting me, please.
That's 30 times more.
That's 30 times more.
Look, if you want us to take you
seriously, if you want us to take this
coverage seriously, if you want us to take
Western media seriously, then let's, for God's sake,
talk about proportionality as your favourite word.
We're talking about 30,000 people detained in
prisons on the one hand and 100 people
who are hostages.
And yet we have managed somehow to spend
way more time proportionally.
You said 3,000 a minute ago.
Which one is it?
3,000?
Sorry, 3,000.
3,000.
Not 30,000.
Not 30.
3,000.
Get your numbers right if you're going to
make that comparison.
OK.
It was I misspoke.
Exaggerated 10 times.
Not a problem.
He spoke about Iran.
Let me ask you a question.
I'll tell you what.
Let me ask the question.
Sure, go ahead.
And you guys try and debate it.
Go ahead.
At the moment, Alan Dershowitz is being very
civilised in the way he's debating.
I'm sure you're going to say that.
You're just making...
He might have leverage on you.
He's shouting all the time.
He's your friend.
No one can understand it when he's shouting
all the time.
Have you met him before?
I know Alan well.
Oh, you know him well.
I respect him very much.
Oh, yes, you do.
He's one of America's top lawyers.
He's top lawyers.
Yeah, he is.
Aha.
You're an unbiased person here on Central.
An unbiased person about Alan Dershowitz?
Why?
Does he have leverage on you, Piers Morgan?
There's no leverage on me, no.
You've got a picture with Maxwell.
Yes, with Gilead Maxwell.
Did you go to the island?
No, I've never been to the island.
I've never met Jeffrey Epstein.
Be honest.
I never spent more than five minutes with
Gilead Maxwell.
Be honest.
I've answered you.
So what part of that was your...
Do you condemn him being on the island?
He's your good friend.
You can ask Alan Dershowitz about Jeffrey Epstein.
You had a massage.
He represented him.
He said he didn't take his shorts off.
Do you know what?
None of this has got anything to do
with Israel.
He said he didn't take his shorts off
when he was getting a massage.
Can you stop?
Please, Mohamed.
Why is this uncomfortable?
It's nothing to do with the debate.
He didn't take his shorts off, but he's
got his pants down now, hasn't he?
Can you stop it?
Why?
What's the point?
Why?
Because it's actually...
He defended one of the most obnoxious people
in the last 100 years.
Why should I stop it?
Because, actually, what is going on right now...
Why should I stop it?
...in the Middle East is incredibly important.
Yes, and you have this man who's...
You are trivialising the...
Well, if you didn't want to do a
debate, don't agree to do it.
Who said I'm not going to do a
debate?
I'm saying this person who's defending Israel...
Because I don't want to make stupid ad
hominem attacks.
It's pathetic.
Oh.
Oh, OK.
All right.
He's your good friend.
Do you want to defend him so much?
What are you talking about?
You're defending him.
Huh?
You're defending him.
You're defending a monster.
A pervert.
An old pervert.
He's not a pervert or a monster.
Why is he not?
He knew Epstein.
And for us, there's good influence...
Why are you doing this, Mohamed?
Why not?
Because it's pointless.
You may get a few clicks on...
OK, ask your questions.
You might get a few clicks on it.
So what?
It's not...
Ask your questions.
Let me be very clear.
It's not pointless.
He just called me a pervert.
He will be sued now for defamation.
And we will be able to resolve this
in a court of law.
If defamation is an honest opinion, in the
UK, we have different defamation laws.
I guarantee you that he will be sued
for calling me a pervert.
In my understanding, you are a pervert because
you are acquainted with Jeff Bezos.
You are an old
pervert.
You will not do the debate you were
booked to do.
You were not booked to talk about this.
No, let's debate the issues.
Let's talk about the issues.
Oh, fantastic.
OK.
Do you support Iran?
OK, well, let me answer your question.
Iran was attacked on April 1, right?
It was attacked.
The embassy of Iran was attacked in Syria
by Israel.
So after that, on the first occasion, they
then sent missiles and drones, correct?
Now, my question to you is, does Iran
have a right to defend itself?
And if so, what is a proportionate response?
Because you see, I've been having a moral
quandary about the issue.
Piers Morgan, what's a proportionate response for Iran?
I'll tell you what I think about Iran.
I think Iran is an unbelievably nefarious place,
which has been fueling Hamas, the Houthis, Hezbollah
for many years with a joint ideology that
they want to eradicate Israel in any way
they can.
So I think Iran is one of the
most despicable regimes in the world.
I also think that right now, the Iranian
regime is in serious danger of being disheveled.
I'm telling you what I think of Iran.
I'm asking you, do they have a right
to defend themselves?
Do you think they have a right to
defend themselves?
Both of you can answer the question.
Do they have a right to defend?
They were attacked.
The sovereign nation was attacked.
My question is, does it have a right
to defend?
Iran has been fueling attacks on Israel now
for, what, 40 years?
I've been having a moral quandary about this.
I've been having a moral quandary about Iran.
Have you?
Yeah, moral quandary, yes.
Moral quandary, I don't know.
Do they have a right to defend themselves?
And if so, what is a proportionate response?
You're supporting Iran, to be clear.
I'm asking you.
No, I'm not supporting.
I'm not supporting.
I'm antithetical to many of these organisations for
my own purposes.
But my question to you is, do you
support the Iranian regime?
Not unconditionally, but I support their right.
What conditions do you agree with them about?
Their right to defend themselves.
Do you believe they have a right to
defend themselves?
They're a terrorist.
Oh, so they don't have a right to
defend themselves.
Iran does not have a right to defend
themselves.
They do, but they're not the ones.
So what is a proportionate response?
They're not the ones.
What's a proportionate response?
No, I'm just saying.
Can I answer you?
You asked this question to the people.
You're just going to keep talking.
Can I answer you?
What's a proportionate response?
A proportionate response to Iran is to stop
them trying to destroy Israel through their proxies,
Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas.
What they've been trying to do for many
years.
What is a proportionate response of Iran after
the embassy was smashed and destroyed in Syria
and 16 people were killed?
What's a proportionate response?
Well, what about the proportionate response to everything
Iran's done?
Which is against the Vienna Conventions.
What about the response to everything Iran has
been doing?
What did Iran do to Israel?
Who did they kill?
Who did they secure?
They never killed anybody in Iran.
Who did they secure?
I've been looted a year now.
Excuse me, hold on.
Which Israeli civilian have Iran successfully targeted?
Give me one name, please.
You don't think Iran's been responsible for any
Israeli civilian dying?
I'm asking you to edify me.
What about the way they funded Hamas?
You can both edify me.
I can't give you some names.
Iran in particular, I'm not talking about Hamas.
We've spoken about Hamas at length.
Why can't you do it through their protocols?