 Bella Hadid is one of the world's most successful supermodels. She's also Palestinian American and one of the most high-profile advocates for Palestinian rights in the United States. This has made her a target of Israel and specifically the official Twitter account for the state of Israel, which this weekend claimed Hadid had advocated throwing Jews into the sea. When celebrities like Bella Hadid advocate for throwing Jews into the sea, they are advocating for the elimination of the Jewish state. This shouldn't be an Israeli-Palestinian issue. This should be a human issue. Shame on you. Hashtag Israel under attack. Now, this is a really, really serious accusation. Now, Bella Hadid, she has 42 million followers, by the way. If she told her 42 million Instagram followers that Jews should be thrown into the sea, I mean, she should obviously be rightly condemned and presumably she'd lose a lot of her modeling contracts and sponsorship deals. This is a very, very extreme accusation. Now, the problem is she didn't say it. The video that the Israel account was linking to, the screenshot they showed you, was of a live stream by Bella Hadid on her Instagram. Now, it was watched live by 57,000 people. In the video, the supermodel can be seen chanting on a pro-Palestine march in Brooklyn, New York. Let's take a look at the video. You can see if you can see what the Israel Twitter account saw in this video. Nowhere in that video did Bella Hadid advocate for throwing Jewish people in the sea. The official Israel account was called out on this and they replied that the offending statement was at 22 seconds. Hadid said the following, from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. That's definitely not calling for any Jews to be thrown into the sea, by the way. I mean, I think that's clear enough, but we should talk about the background to this statement because this is a statement which is often chanted at Palestine marches and which has created some controversy. There's been a long-running campaign by the Israeli government and advocates of Israel to say, this is a really anti-Semitic or offensive or divisive or whatever. I want to explain why they say that and why I think it's actually a fine chant. Let's look at the meaning of what it means literally. This is a map of Israel, Palestine. The river is the Jordan River. The sea is the Mediterranean Sea. What people who sing this chant are saying is, from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. From the river to the sea, that includes what is now the West Bank and Gaza. It also includes what's now Israel and why people think this is controversial is because they're saying it would mean there would be no Israel. If from the river to the sea, Palestine is free, then where does Israel fit into that story? That's how, if you're really, really reaching, you say, oh, well, where's Israel going to be? You're clearly going to throw them in the sea. That's why you've mentioned the sea. That's the reach and that's completely ridiculous. Also, though, I mean, this doesn't even mean, to my mind, what some people say, oh, this means you're going to expel the Jews. It doesn't. It historically hasn't, and it also doesn't in the present. So essentially, what that chant is saying is advocating for a one-state solution. Now, some people don't support a one-state solution. Some people support a two-state solution. That's completely fine. But it is also important to be clear what a one-state solution would mean in this context. Historically, for the PLO, for the Palestinian Liberation Organization, what it has meant is a secular democratic state where everyone has one vote, one person, one vote. There isn't a Jewish state and a Palestinian, well, there isn't a Jewish state and an Arab state. There's just Palestine. And anyone in Palestine can have one vote. Jews can have one vote. Palestinians, Arabs can have one vote. Christians can have one vote. It's a secular state. Now, this used to be the position of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Liberation Organization. This is what Yasser Arafat said to the UN in 1974. At this point, he was in favour of a one-state solution. So he said, when we speak of our common hopes for the Palestine of tomorrow, we include in our perspective all Jews now living in Palestine who choose to live with us there in peace and without discrimination. So it was very clear. At that point, he was backing from the river to the sea. Palestine will be free. And he said, no one's going to get thrown in the sea, right? Anyone who wants to live here can live here and they can have one vote. Now, ultimately, Yasser Arafat and his Fathafaction abandoned support for a or abandon their commitment, at least for a one-state solution. They signed up to a two-state solution. But that is nowhere near being a consensus among Palestinians. You could also interpret from the river to the sea. Palestine will be free is that Palestinians will be free and have equal rights in whatever state they live in. But the one-state solution is very, very popular among Palestinians and for good reason. They sort of say, one, we're not comfortable having an ethno state on our historic land whereby you have more rights if you're Jewish than if you're Palestinian, if you're non-Jewish, I think very legitimate position. And, you know, that's why they sing this song. You're not calling for anyone to go into the sea. I mean, it's completely defamatory, essentially, from the Israel Twitter account. But I also think it is important to explain what that chart means, why some people find it offensive and why I don't think it is. And I want your thoughts on the chart from the river to the sea. But also, I mean, it's very bizarre seeing a nation state, you know, because it doesn't say it's not called the Israeli, it's just called Israel. So it's just Israel is debating a super model. Like, what's that about? I mean, I wonder what the signing off process is for tweets. You know, is there like, does it have to get passed three or four people? Is it just one person in bed at night tweeting from the Israel account while they're on the toilet checking their notifications? No, it's quite worrying. It's no way to it's no way to do diplomacy when you're in the middle of a conflict. In terms of from the river to the sea, I've actually encountered this first hand, I was on sky once Sky News, and to present the perfectly affable guy most of the time, a guy called Nile Patterson, Scottish said, from the river to the seas, anti Semitic, do you support that? Where have you got this idea from? It's anti Semitic. We can say there's a one state solution. We can say there's a two state solution within the 1967 borders. Or we can say there's a two state solution that, you know, is far more favorable to Israel than the 1967 kind of borders. More like today. I mean, most people say that's not really viable as a state for Palestine. But let's just pretend it was. In all of these potential outcomes, Palestine goes from the river to the sea. I said, from the river Jordan to the sea. And again, he had this same thing. I don't know where they get these talking points from Michael. He was like, Yeah, but in the sea, it means like people will be like chucked into the sea. And I was like, What the hell are you talking about? It's, it's, you know, it's one of those countries which has quite or it's a, it's a historical area, which has quite, you know, geographically specific borders, you know, you've got the Golan Heights, you've got, you know, to the south, north, east, east, the west, it's quite rare in that respect, you know. And I said, it's not anywhere anti Semitic. I mean, if somebody says something anti Semitic, if they could say from the river to the sea, and, you know, we need to kick everybody else out, you're okay. But let me say, Michael, if you're, if you're going to claim that somebody is calling for genocide, you're going to need to back it up. I mean, it's quite a it's, firstly, it's a terrible thing to do. There should be serious consequences. But at the same time, you can't just accuse somebody of doing that lightly without any evidence. I mean, it's ridiculous. But it's even more ridiculous. Like you say, the fact that's being waged by, you know, Israel's official Twitter account, which earlier today, that same Twitter account, Michael, it had several tweets of just rocket emojis, you know, and you think, well, if Donald Trump in the middle of negotiations with North Korea was doing loads of rocket emojis, he was suspended from Twitter. What has to happen for the Israel account to be suspended from Twitter? Completely absurd. But look, you expect a measure of propaganda from a Twitter channel, trying to advance what it perceives as a nation state's self interest. You don't expect that from media. We've seen that same inaccurate, incorrect claim repeated time after time. Like I say, I was subject to it personally on Sky News. And it's, it's, it's not acceptable. If you're a journalist, you can't just take a statement which doesn't say what you claim it does, and then make accusations against people of supporting genocide. I mean, it's really infantile and childish and really belittles hugely important matters, including genocide, by the way. My God, you know, if there is a genocide, how's the media ever going to report on it properly? If you get something like Rwanda in the mid-1990s, or if you get something like The Shower, you know, from the 1930s all the way through to 1945, these are hugely important matters. They have to be taken more seriously than anything else in journalism. And yet they're kind of just thrown out there quite lightly, as if, you know, it's accusing somebody of having bad taste in clothes. No, if you're going to say that, if you're going to accuse somebody of that, you need some evidence.