Piers Morgan Makes Money off Palestinian blood

Piers Morgan knows his job. He also knows Israel is a sure fix, one of the most hated countries on earth, guaranteed to get people hooked and emotional. Morgan is not alone in seeing the potential of Israel as a news item, but he is perhaps the only one to realize that clinical reports accusing Israel of wrongdoing, such as those appearing on the BBC or CNN, aren’t enough to drive and maximize potential engagement. He knows that the BBC and CNN fail to provide the juice. And since he isn’t really a journalist, and since there’s nothing fundamentally newsworthy about his work, he has chosen to present Israel as a spectacle unlike anything we’ve seen before.

Morgan is profiting off the war in Gaza, which he publicly calls to end. He does so not because he hates Israel, but because most of his viewers do. As long as the war continues, there is more reason to hate Israel, and as long as there is more reason to hate Israel, there are more views.

Piers is merely the dealer that knows what works; he doesn’t get high on the supply he provides - (Israel-hate).

This doesn’t mean he’s an antisemite. But he knows the trick: holding Israel to uniquely impossible standards makes money. 

His method: Demand standards that no other state is asked to meet. Standards so high that Israel will inevitably fail to fulfill them. And by not fulfilling them, Israel can be bashed - ensuring a steady flow of views.

It’s like an algorithm that produces outrage and profit. In fact, the more Israel tries to meet these insane standards by providing food and aid to its enemies, the more the west guarantees the war will never end - which in turn ensures a constant supply of content. The insane standards are of course applied because Israel is Jewish. And when those standards are breached, the Jews become news.

This is how the “proportional response” click-mechanism works: hold Israel to an impossible moral bar, wait for the reaction, then monetize the outrage.

Beyond applying this formula almost to a pornographic level, Morgan increasingly navigates public discourse into deceptive terrain, both through the mad guests he brings onto his platform and by playing the role of “the barometer.”

When guests accuse Israel of genocide, a baseless and inflammatory charge, Morgan does not always interject. He lets it stand. The purpose of such a claim is clear: to raise the bar of blame so absurdly high that anything short of “genocide” becomes a tolerable compromise. Worse, he frames Israel as an occupier without even acknowledging that Israel has any legitimate historical or legal claim to the territory. Morgan is the master of carefully selecting guests and curating confrontations to whip up sentiment - not to investigate facts. On occasion, Morgan adopts the posture of reason. He’ll push back against an extreme guest, appearing as a defender of Israel’s basic right to exist. But it’s a façade. That same guest, say, someone like Cenk Uygur, will appear days later on a panel with an Israeli or Jewish representative, where Morgan will step back and let the anti-Israel rhetoric run wild. The rational counterpoint he once offered disappears.

This isn’t about seeking truth or projecting reality. If it were, Morgan would reject guests whose arguments he himself debunked a day ago.

Instead, he recycles them like bloodthirsty performers in a coliseum - designed not to inform, but to provoke, to incite, to inflame.

Yet somehow, it’s his occasional defense of Israel that enables him to get away with it all.

It’s that very defense that makes him appear, as if by contrast, not deceptive at all, just someone who wants to give everyone a fair chance.

His ability to walk that line between sensationalism and reasonableness is what makes him a good interviewer, but also deceptive and dishonest. Because when someone like Cenk Uygur compares Israel to Nazi Germany - not only absurd but morally unhinged - the viewer is left with a madhouse. When your goal is to extract emotion and draw blood, you are no longer engaged in journalism. You are engaged in manipulation; you are utilizing this conflict for views. You are catering to those driven by hatred and raw emotion when it comes to Israel - you are allowing them to fight the Gaza war or the Israel war as they fantasize. It’s pretty sick.

Morgan’s inconsistency, his moral contextualism, and his indulgence in performative outrage make him unethical.

The day the war in Gaza ends, Morgan’s platform will lose its emotional currency. He will no longer be able to ride and provide the outrage. Morgan uses Israel and Gaza. Let’s see what happens when he can’t.