Re: Antisemite Piers Morgan Hosting and being friendly to a Hamas guy, yet not letting a Jew speak

„One of your best responses yet Mr. Spencer.
Piers has been trying to straddle the moral fence and doesn't realize
his balls have been ripped off by the barbed wire because he couldn't
take a moral stance.
Piers should be required to take a class on military theory in order to
continue his broadcast.  Oh, and did he ever watch the footage from
October 7th? 🙄“
Hahahaha
https://x.com/OnceAnAngel18/status/1928926702270640385
In Reference to:
„.
@piersmorgan
 You say you support Israel’s right to defend itself after Oct 7—but now
call its actions “beyond proportionate.” That only proves you still
don’t understand what “proportionate” means in the laws of war.
Your question is valid. But you haven’t asked me—or any serious scholar
of war. Try Victor Davis Hanson, LTG (ret) H.R. McMaster, Sir Andrew
Roberts, Lawrence Freedman. Ask us what proportionality means in actual
war—not on talk shows.
Proportionality in war isn’t tit-for-tat. It’s not "you killed 1,000 so
you can kill 1,000." It means that the expected harm to civilians cannot
be excessive in relation to the concrete military advantage anticipated.
So what’s Israel’s objective? The total defeat of Hamas—a terror army
that invaded its territory, slaughtered civilians, took hostages, and is
still firing rockets, using tunnels, hiding behind civilians.
The value of that military objective? National survival.
Israel has made extensive efforts to reduce civilian harm: notification,
evacuations, precautions, humanitarian corridors, aid deliveries—despite
Hamas actively sabotaging them. The IDF targets fighters. Hamas puts
civilians in harm’s way on purpose.
You often imply there must be another way. History agrees—there was
another way. For example: Egypt could have temporarily taken in
civilians into safe zones in the Sinai, enabling Israel to fight Hamas
without their uses as the civilian deaths as their primary strategy.
But instead, the world demanded Israel fight a genocidal terror army
without displacing civilians—essentially giving Hamas human shields by
design.
You continue to repeat Hamas's talking points: blurring combatant vs.
noncombatant, ignoring the laws Hamas systematically violates, and
judging Israel’s actions without context—military or moral.
So I ask again: What exactly would you have Israel do?
Given Hamas’s size, strength, tunnel network, embedded positions in
dense urban terrain, continued rocket fire, and the hostages it still
holds—what is your real alternative?
Say it clearly. Because vague moralism won’t defeat Hamas. Clarity and
courage might.“