Well,

first of all, we don't take any of our cues on anything to do with ethics, morality or assessment of the Middle East from a spokesperson for a genocidal government. So let's be absolutely clear that Jonathan is here 16 months into a genocide to provide cover for that ongoing genocide. And the only platform this man deserves is one at The Hague, which eventually is where he will end up with the rest of the government that he currently represents. Let's not forget that there are already two arrest warrants in place for him and Yoel Gallant, him being Netanyahu, that this man here represents, the spokesperson of that very government. Well, he's not the

spokesperson for that government.

He's the spokesperson for the IDF. He's not. Which is what? He's not. He's

an independent citizen now.

Oh, for... Piers. Spare me. OK. Sorry, you said he's

the spokesman for the IDF. He's not.

OK, Piers. Of course he's not. He's just here as a friendly former member of the IDF. You called him the spokesman

for the IDF. He's

not. He literally is. He literally is not. OK, Piers. That's

an actual job. So I don't mean to be... Just to be factual, he's not the spokesman for the IDF. He's in an independent capacity. He's

not in an independent capacity, but sure thing. Now, moving on to the terms of the deal, this man is not a reference for any analysis on that. I think the most important question is what is going to happen to the civilians who are caught up in this conflict. That is the only real question at stake here, whether they are Palestinians or Israelis. And after 16 months of conflict, there must be a resolution. has dramatically catapulted any attempts to bring about a peace agreement. And it appears from what our non-spokesperson spokesperson has been saying, that that is unfortunately where the current proposed deal is likely to head. But to me, I don't think you could even... Are you

a spokesperson for Hamas, just out of interest? Oh,

spare me, Piers. Are you? Spare me.

Well, by the same yardstick, if you're going to say that Jonathan Conrickus has a formal job on this panel as a spokesman for IDF, I'm just asking you, then, if

you're here

to take the other side, are you therefore de facto a spokesperson for Hamas?

Babe, spare me. I'm not your babe. OK, well, and if you're going to... I'm just asking you, if you're going to give people labels,

they should be accurate.

Yes. Otherwise, viewers

may get a misleading view about what is happening. OK, OK. So, anyways... Can I jump in, Piers, just to clarify? Please do,

Ahmed. All I'd

like to say is he was a spokesperson for the IDF. Yes,

indeed. That's accurate. But

Ahmed, you would agree he's not the current spokesman for the IDF. And these things actually matter, because the current spokesman for the IDF, I can tell you, would not be saying what Jonathan's saying. That's why I know he's speaking as an independent voice because he's been very critical of a deal that the IDF spokesman would not be critical of. So these things are important. Sure,

sure. Facts and truths are important. And I think anybody who's served as a former spokesman for the IDF is certainly not considered impartial or independent. But if I may, I want to share with all of us. I never claim to

be partial or independent, to

be honest. It's just better to use accurate terminology about whether people have official roles or they don't. And just to be clear, Jonathan Comrick is no longer any form of official spokesman for IDF. He's here as an independent person, albeit, as he says, not with nonpartisan views. He's openly clear about that, but he's not an official spokesman. I think that matters for viewers who are watching, who may be confused as to whether, because of what Miriam said he is, he's not.