Piers Morgan: One day he's Israel's friend, Another day, he's our bitter enemy. 

Piers Morgan’s stance on Israel is a rollercoaster, swinging from staunch defender to sharp critic, often within days, leaving observers puzzled. The deal? It’s a mix of his provocative style, selective outrage, and a knack for chasing viral moments, all while navigating the polarized Israel-Palestine debate.

Let’s break it down without fluff, sticking to what’s out there.

The Pattern: Flip-Flopping with Flair

Morgan’s public statements and interviews show a clear pattern of oscillation.

On one hand, he’s repeatedly backed Israel’s right to self-defense, especially post-October 7, 2023, when Hamas’s attack killed 1,200 people. He’s said, “I support Israel’s right to defend itself after the terror attacks of Oct 7,” and grilled guests like Jeremy Corbyn, demanding they label Hamas terrorists. He’s hosted pro-Israel voices, from government spokespeople like Avi Hyman to conservative commentators, often giving them softer questions while clashing with pro-Palestinian guests.

Yet, he’s also unleashed scathing critiques of Israel’s actions, particularly when civilian casualties in Gaza mount. He recently called Israel’s Rafah strikes “indefensible,” urging Netanyahu to “stop this now” after 45 deaths in a tent camp.

Three days ago (May 15th), he was tweeting that Israel’s response had “long since crossed the line of ‘proportionate response’” and accused it of “deliberately starving Gazan civilians” and “lying about it.” His viral December 2023 monologue questioning Israel’s bombing of Gaza’s largest refugee camp racked up over 2 million views, embraced by pro-Palestinian supporters.

So, Why the Swings?

1. Showman’s Instinct: Morgan thrives on controversy. His Piers Morgan Uncensored YouTube channel, with 2.3 million subscribers, lives off viral clashes. He’s admitted to prioritizing “big interviews and debates” that draw millions, like his Trump and Kanye West spats.

2. Taking both sides, defending Israel’s security while slamming its excesses, keeps him relevant to polarized audiences. Critics call it opportunism; he’d likely call it “sparking debate.”

3. Selective Moral Outrage: Morgan’s criticism spikes when Gaza’s civilian toll hits global headlines, like Rafah’s “horrific” scenes or communication blackouts. But he’s less vocal when Hamas’s actions, like hostage-taking or rocket fire, dominate. His May 2025 posts focus on Gaza’s kids and women, decrying “relentless ‘collateral’ civilian death,” but he rarely matches this fervor when Israeli civilians suffer. This imbalance frustrates pro-Israel voices, who see him as inconsistent, while pro-Palestinian critics argue he’s still too soft on Israel.

3. Guest-Driven Dynamics: His interviews shape his tone. Pro-Palestinian guests like Bassem Youssef and Cornel West have pushed him into tense exchanges, forcing him to confront Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. Youssef’s 2023 satire on Islamophobia visibly rattled him, and West accused him of racism for not focusing enough on Palestinian deaths. Meanwhile, Israeli officials like Hyman get grilled on civilian casualties but often face less pushback on broader policy. Morgan’s approach, giving airtime to all but skewing questions, creates a perception of flip-flopping.

4. Geopolitical Pulse: Morgan’s shifts often align with global sentiment. When international figures like Pope Francis or ex-UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace called Israel’s tactics “terrorism” or a “killing rage” in 2023, Morgan amplified these critiques. Trump’s 2025 Middle East visit, promising “good things” for Gaza, may have nudged him to lean critical, sensing a diplomatic shift. Yet, he’s quick to pivot back to Israel’s defense when terror attacks resurface.

The Criticism: Not Neutral, Not Consistent

Critics on both sides see through the theatrics.

Pro-Palestinian outlets like Middle East Eye argue Morgan’s pro-Israel bias shows in his guest choices, favoring Israeli politicians over scholars or human rights groups like Amnesty International, and his failure to challenge unsubstantiated claims. They note he humanizes Israeli suffering more vividly than Palestinian losses.

Pro-Israel voices, meanwhile, slam his “horrific” outbursts as betrayals, with Israeli officials pushing back on his Rafah comments as mischaracterizing “precision” strikes.

The Deal: A Tightrope Act

Morgan’s no ideologue; he’s a broadcaster playing to the room. His love-hate dance with Israel reflects a calculated bid to stay center-stage in a divisive conflict. He supports Israel’s existence and security, rooted in his view of Hamas as terrorists, but recoils when civilian deaths pile up, especially under global scrutiny. His vicious critiques aren’t betrayal but attention-grabbing pivots, timed for maximum impact. He’s less interested in consistency than in keeping the conversation loud.

With all this flip flopping like a dead fish out of water, does he even know what he really thinks anymore? Does he have a moral compass or is he just chasing views?