 A few days ago, our spotlight was on Hassan Mahdi during an episode of The Open-Minded Thinker Show. Our primary goal was to showcase his journalistic prowess in objective reporting and delve into why he lost his position at MSNBC for asking pertinent questions to an occupation spokesperson regarding alleged cases of genocide. Today, we turn our attention to a critical segment of Hassan's interview with Piers Morgan on his uncensored show, A Segment That Seemingly Vanished. Our dedication remains steadfast in delivering unbiased news and geopolitical analysis. We encourage interaction with our content through likes, shares and subscriptions to stay abreast of developments concerning Palestine. Before we proceed, it's essential to acknowledge Piers Morgan's extensive coverage of the Gaza crisis, often biased towards the occupation's perspective as it conducts one of history's most brutal military operations. While occasionally condemning the IDF's methods as civilian casualties rise, Morgan has shown more support for the occupation and its alleged plans to quell what it deems as a dangerous resistance from Palestine. However, to be fair, Piers has provided a platform for many pro-Palestinian voices amidst the media battle over culpability in the conflict engulfing the region. It was on his show that figures like Muslim apologist and creator Muhammad Hijab and the renowned Norman Finkelstein found a voice. The insights and humour of the Egyptian comedian Bassem Yousef became one of Piers' most watched YouTube videos, amassing a staggering 11 million views in its first two weeks. You're talking in a generalized way about people in the West who always talk about Arabs as savages. I don't. I never have. I actually led the campaign. I led the media campaign in this country against the Iraq War. OK, so I don't see people in the Middle East as savages. You are one of the good ones. I am not talking about you. You're great. No, no. It's not about me being great. We love you. It's about the way Hamas behaved on October the 7th was like savages, like a pack of savages. This virality underscores the broad reach of the message and lays bare the marginalised position of Palestinians for the world to witness. Therefore, we can assert that Morgan has played a pivotal role in amplifying Palestinian voices, shaping the narrative as they persist in resisting the occupation's attempts to stifle their quest for self-determination. Nevertheless, Hassan remained steadfast in his stance on the Palestinian issue while critiquing Piers Morgan's perceived bias. His eloquence dismantled Morgan's attempts to portray the occupation in Palestine favourably, drawing parallels between the actions of occupation forces in Gaza and the questionable tactics of Palestinian resistance groups. Hassan urged Morgan to speak truthfully and refrain from labelling an entire population fighting for survival as a threat to those occupying their ancestral lands. Hassan Mahdi even called out Western hypocrisy and cornered Piers Morgan for his partiality. This was indeed an open-minded strike. I want you to imagine, and it's a bit of a leap I admit, I want you to imagine that you are the Prime Minister of Israel when that atrocity happens in Israel. What do you do? That's a great question. So short answer is I resign because I'm responsible for that attack. I'm the one who botched security at the border. I'm the one who propped up Hamas with money from Qatar over the years and allowed them to be propped up as a way to divide the Palestinian people. I'm the one who's had millions of my own people on the streets for months protesting against my authoritarian reforms to judiciary. So I have some shame, I have some self-respect, I have some honesty and I say, I quit. Let someone else do this because I've failed for 20 years. OK, Netanyahu did not do that. And interestingly, although the majority of Israelis would like him to go, they also want him to finish the job in destroying Hamas. There's not much ambiguity in terms of how Israelis feel about the mission plan. But there's obviously a lot of concern mounting around the world about the scale of Israel's response. And that's really what I guess my question was alluding to. And I've been honest, I've said this a lot on my uncensored show, that I felt a real moral quandary. You know, I can go back over tweets I've done back in 2014 where I said that Israel's response to provocation by Palestinians at the time was bordering on terrorism. You know, I've somebody who, when I was editor of Daily Mirror, posed the Iraq war before, during and after, very vociferously. And I think that aged pretty well, that campaign. I'm somebody that when the Qatar World Cup happened, you know, I sprang to defence of Qatar's right to host the World Cup and exposed a lot of Western hypocrisy. And yet when it comes to this particular conflict, I feel genuinely conflicted for one of the better phrase. And the point of my conflict is this really, is that the reason I asked you that question about if you were the Prime Minister of Israel, it's very, very difficult to know how any Prime Minister of Israel could have responded in a particularly different manner to the way that Netanyahu did, putting aside all the reasons that you say you should have resigned. And by the way, I broadly agree with them. In terms of the Israel people, the Prime Minister at the time, the response to what happened that day was going to always have to be enormous, wasn't it? So you're right in terms of the emotional response. It was going to be enormous. And I would take us back to 9-11, Piers, you mentioned Iraq. After 9-11, there was an emotional response in the U.S. that something had to be done, right? There's, you know, there's the famous Yes Minister dialogue. Something has to be done. This is something, let's do it. And we invaded Afghanistan, which didn't solve the problem of terrorism, made it worse, punished innocent people who had nothing to do with 9-11. And you'll remember at the time, Piers, both parties in the United States supported going into Afghanistan only one member of Congress, not Bernie Sanders, Barbara Lee of California, voted to oppose that war. Two decades on many people would say she was vindicated, even though she was an isolated voice, and she was going against a tidal wave of opinion from liberals and conservatives said we have to do something. And I get that after a trustee happens, people want to do something. But the best leaders, the most strategic leaders, the most moral leaders are the ones who can take a pause, take a breath, and say are we going to make the situation better or worse? Are we striking out strategically or just for the sake of vengeance and revenge? And you talk about Israeli prime ministers having to do this, look, they didn't have to do it on this level. I think a lot of Israelis, despite supporting Netanyahu, would argue it didn't have to be done like this. There are different ways to retaliate against Hamas. The Iranese, no Israeli government has done it like this before. This is the greatest death poll for Palestinians of any war in Israel's post-1948 history. So the fact that he did it like this was unique. I mean, look, the statistics speak for themselves, Piers. You know them. You've said them on this show. The level of killing, the number of kids killed. You have one former UN official saying this is the highest kill rate in the world since Rwanda, right? Of any conflict since Rwanda. Do not tell me that the only response to a brutal attack on civilians in Israel on October the 7th was to produce a conflict that had a kill rate equivalent to Rwanda's. Sorry, I don't accept that. Here's what I would say playing devil's advocate, and you might think I'm literally playing devil's advocate, but I'm going to play it anyway, which is all that is true. The death toll is horrific. The percentage of children being killed is horrific. But I would say as a caveat to this, if you think about it from the Israeli perspective, you've got 35,000 Hamas terrorists and we'll come to whether you think they're terrorists or not in a moment, but you've got 35,000 Hamas soldiers, warriors, terrorists, whatever description you want to call them depending on whose side you're on. And they are embedded amongst a civilian population where half that population is under 18. How else do you get rid of Hamas if you don't go about it in the blunt brutal manner that Israel is doing? And if you do it the way they're doing it, how do you avoid the kind of casualty rate of people under 18 given that that's half the population? So through things very briefly, number one you do it by not deliberately targeting civilian targets and schools and hospitals and cemeteries and mosques and universities and churches. You don't have snipers shooting at hospitals or Christian women inside a church. That's how you avoid the casualties. Number two, I don't accept the premise of your question that this is the way to defeat Hamas. I think even if I'm an Israeli hawk I criticize Netanyahu and say this is not the way to defeat Hamas. This is actually absurd to think you can defeat Hamas in this way. We have countless episodes from history that show us this is not how you defeat a guerrilla movement, a resistance movement, a terror group, as you say whatever words you want to use. In fact you have Israeli general saying this can't be done in this way. And number three, look the reality is Hamas is a symptom of the problem. As long as you treat Hamas as a problem rather than as a symptom of the problem you're never going to get rid of Hamas. Or if you do by some fantasy means get rid of Hamas you'll just get another version of Hamas because now you've got tens of thousands of orphans. You've got people who've lost their kids, their spouses, their siblings. What? You think they're not going to fight back in the years to come? You think they're not going to take revenge? Well that's how I feel. It's absolute madness to believe. I feel the same way. Then we agree. So yeah I think broadly speaking I do because I think you can't kill the ideology and in fact all you will do is entrench the ideology. I think and that's what I don't think Israel have thought through to a logical end game which is you're not going to get rid of the thinking that inspired Hamas because a lot of people will have suffered such a Pauling grief with their close family in the way you described it. I think you're being a little revenge. I think you're being a little too generous to the Israelis here and with a greater respect I think your questions reflect a little bit of a naivety about what Israel's doing here. You're starting from the premise that Israel is trying to defeat Hamas. I don't accept that premise. Piers Morgan's current stance seems to revolve around justifying Benjamin Netanyahu's approach to handling the Gaza crisis. While we can't delve into Morgan's exact thoughts it's evident he grapples with the challenge of how the occupation can respond while safeguarding Gaza civilians. However what seems apparent is his attempt whether conscious or not to obfuscate the fact that there's little distinction between the Palestinian freedom movement and ordinary Palestinians. Any assault on Palestinian defenders effectively equates to a declaration of war against vulnerable civilians. It's a straightforward equation the defenders arise in response to the policies and actions of the occupation. For years Gaza has endured a suffocating siege its borders tightly controlled rendering it virtually isolated from the world. Such dire circumstances naturally compel a reaction in the name of self-preservation. As highlighted in a previous video the very presence of an occupation necessitates the existence of a Palestinian defense unit. Action begets reaction and for peace to prevail addressing the grievances of the occupied becomes imperative. Failure to do so would perpetuate the cycle of violence which ultimately sparked the October 7 counter-offensive. In the second segment Hassan served up some compelling food for thought. Drawing parallels to the United States post 9-11 responses the Zetio founder criticized the knee-jerk reactions often advocated by western policymakers in dealing with the Gaza crisis. He emphasized that an opposition intertwined with the Palestinian people themselves cannot be vanquished without harming the people. Such actions could potentially constitute war crimes under international law. Hassan's arguments intensified as peers pressed with probing inquiries challenging him further. Here's my problem with that why is that not applied to your Israeli guests? I would be fine peers if you had Palestinian guests and you begin by asking them do you condemn Hamas war crimes because what Hamas did on October 7 was a war crime but then you should start with Israeli guests and pro-Israeli guests saying do you condemn Israeli war crimes which have been documented by the UN every human rights group on the planet you don't you had Naftali Bennett the former Israeli prime minister on a couple of weeks ago I watched the interview your opening question was how comfortable are you with the way Israel's prosecuting the war right? A bit of a softball to start with you didn't ask him to condemn Israeli terrorism Israeli war crimes Israeli genocide in Gaza so a lot of people look at that and they say they get your intention but it comes across as a bit of a racist double standard. Well look I don't think it's a racist double standard and I think that nobody has given pro-Palestinian voices a bigger platform more consistently since October the 7th of me and if you go back and look at those interviews you know I think that clips get taken out of context and people assume they know what I've said and often it's completely misleading I've tried to be fair-minded about it people do ask me do you think Israel are terrorists and I've said no I don't think they are but I have repeated it well I have repeated it because I think they have interest why because they were responding to an act of terrorism so heinous it demanded a massive military response the question for me that's caused me a moral quandary is what is an acceptably proportionate level of response and I don't know the answer but I don't think you can call people responding to an act of terror on that scale terrorists for responding what you can do is hold them to a count the problem the problem is if you go to Gaza if you go to Gaza appears and you talk to Palestinians they will say that Hamas were responding if we play the who started it game we go back many decades well what we need to have is a consistent moral principle what we need to have is well hang on when did Israel kill 1200 of the Palestinian civilians when did they kill 800 Palestinian civilians in one few hour period right in the way that Hamas killed those the definition of terrorism how many hours you do it in I can mention many Israeli massacres going back to Sabra and Shatila which they oversaw going back to Kibbeh and Ariel Sharon going back to Deir Yassin where rape and violence happen the point is not to compare atrocities the point peers is have a consistent moral principle which is to say if you kill civilians for a political cause you are a terrorist on that basis Hamas have committed acts of terror and Israel have committed acts of terror I think that's okay to say that Piers Morgan's discomfort with being labeled as racist is understandable but his treatment of pro-Israel commentators on his show compared to pro-Palestinian guests is noticeably disparate this bias reflects a broader issue within the collective west which has largely ignored the ongoing plight of Palestinians while the occupation continues its brutal subjugation of the people the resistance in Gaza is a direct response to this oppression yet it's often misconstrued as terrorism this makes it challenging to appreciate the resistance's struggle as a legitimate defense against occupation in the ensuing debate an anti-zionist film producer criticized the complicity of the occupying government in perpetuating the crisis in Palestine a surprising perspective coming from a Jew the prevailing consensus has been that the occupation is necessary for self-protection but in reality its absence might have led to greater peace and security for the entire region including the Jewish Commonwealth you're perfectly entitled to say it of course you are at the Oscars on Sunday Jonathan Glazer won an award for best international film for the zone of interest a movie about the Holocaust and he's a director he said this when he was on stage our film shows where dehumanization leads at its worst it shaped all of our past and present right now we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people whether the victims of October the whether the victims of October the 7th in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza all the victims of this dehumanization how do we resist now that prompted a lot of reaction as you'd imagine New York Post columnist John Potter said on X Jonathan Glazer you can go bleep yourself and stuff your Oscar up your bleep to which you replied cry more Ben Shapiro wrote an X in Jonathan Glazer zone of interest you don't see one Jew these are the best Jews according to Glazer the faceless victims screaming in the distance ironically he's the villain picking up awards from the bodies of these anonymous dead Jews while ignoring the living ones getting sort of slaughtered in the Gaza envelope by genocide or murderers um listen you've seen the way that that debate played out interestingly to me before we get to what Glazer said been really struck by the fact that throughout the entire Hollywood award season be it movies television music I don't think it's been a single statement by a big star about the Israel a mass war which is pretty well unprecedented for the biggest bunch of virtue siglers in the world a what do you read into that and and secondly on Glazer speech was at the right time and place to say it and what do you think of the reaction from prominent Jews to what he said well let's work backwards uh yes it was the right time to say it why not and I've been depressed to see that the award ceremony season has not seen anyone mention an ongoing genocide in the Middle East in which 12 and a half thousand children minimum have been killed in the space of a few months so I'm happy he did it I find the controversy to be uh manufactured I find it deeply dishonest you're people like Megan McCain uh and others tweeting that he said he refutes his Jewishness just flat false I'm glad you posted and played the whole clip here because a lot of people have been very sneaky in posting a portion of his statement to make it sound like he was refuting his own Jewishness what he said as you we all saw is he refutes his Jewishness being hijacked by the occupation which is how a lot of Jewish people a lot of young Jewish people especially in the United States feel and that's why so many of us who are critics of Israel say let us disentangle the political ideology of Zionism being pushed in the occupied territories from Judaism one of the world's great religions which is not responsible for the crimes of Benjamin Netanyahu or Bizarro Smotrich so I think he's been completely smeared and I hope he sues some of these people uh number two in terms of Hollywood for four years of Trump Hollywood celebrities spoke out against fascism authoritarianism human rights abuses at the border and now suddenly they've all lost their voices which tells you a great deal about how this issue is so censored in the US to use a phrase that you like it's not uncensored we know that people in Hollywood in the media in politics elsewhere do feel a pressure not to speak out on this do get worried about losing career opportunities my good friend Mark Ruffalo was up for an Oscar I was hoping you'd win because he's one of those bold folks who does speak about Gaza and Palestinians I know he would have devoted his speech to it sadly he lost to his fellow Marvel character Robert Downey Jr but look it's a real problem that in Hollywood there is so much censorship at a time when people talk about free speech and artists for free speech and I'm glad Annie Lennox spoke out I'm glad Jonathan Glazer spoke out I just wish more people were were you fired by MSNBC cancelled by them because of what you said about the Israel a mass war as many people think you were so just to clarify I was not fired I chose to quit but after they cancelled my shows they did cancel my shows yes and I was disappointed who wouldn't be to lose my two shows you'd have to ask them why they cancel the shows they never said it was about Israel Palestine people can speculate I then decided that look it's an election year I've got a lot I want to say and I asked to leave and they very graciously allowed me to exit my contract you know about cable news contracts peers but could it be many the reason I'm asking is it could you have been a victim of the very thing you're talking about which is a censorship driven by big media companies in America most of whose tentacles end up in Hollywood I appreciate your questions peers but you're gonna have to ask MSNBC get them on and grill them I might do that um you also said about Joe Biden that he was the most impressive president of my lifetime as a guardian a calendar year ago do you stand by that uh so quick quick bit of caveat there I was asked by the interviewer yes many you know how do you consider no no I will clarify at the time I was asked is either great I said he's the best I'm surprised he's the most impressive president of my lifetime and then the next slide which is in the piece was but then again who's he up against Ronald Reagan George Bush senior Bill Clinton George Bush junior Barack Obama at Donald Trump not great competition the bar is very low but he exceeded that bar I mean Barack Obama's probably the only person Hassan Mahdi passionately dismantled western lies and justifications yet he also acknowledged some areas of agreement with them he recognizes that the issue of the occupation transcends party politics in the US blurring the lines between different administrations however Hassan isn't exempt from criticism as he like many may overlook the collective responsibility of the wider society in addressing the crisis in Gaza despite widespread recognition of the atrocities occurring there thank you for engaging with this perspective and we encourage further discussion and awareness about the situation in Palestine until next time peace