which is straight after this programme. welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. no doubt israel has the military capacity to keep up its ferocious assault on hamas in gaza for many more months. but is its political and diplomatic room for manoeuvre narrowing? getting the hostages still held by hamas home is one key consideration. so too is the growing international criticism of the human cost of the operation, some of it coming from israel's key allies. my guest is former israeli prime minister naftali bennett. did israel set itself objectives after hamas�*s murderous october 7 attack that it cannot meet? naftali bennett in ra'anana, israel, welcome to hardtalk.

thanks for having me. it's a pleasure to have you on the show, mr bennett. i want to take your mind back to those dark days of october in israel, after hamas�*s barbaric attack on southern israel of october 7. a few days later, joe biden visited your country and he said this to israelis. he said, "while you feel the rage, do not be "consumed by it. "after 9/11," he said, "we in the us were enraged. "while we sought justice, we also made mistakes." do you think israel has paid

heed to those words from joe biden? i think the operation that we're conducting is not about rage and it's not about what happened. it's about preventing it from happening again. you see, there's a huge difference between 9/11 and october 7th. afghanistan is far away from the united states. gaza is on our doorstep. and hamas, the terror organisation that executed this horrible attack, tells us point blank, "we're going to do it again and again." so we have really no choice but to eradicate it. close to 20,000 palestinians have been killed in israel's military operation. those figures coming from the health ministry, which is, as of course you know, run by hamas in gaza. that's close to i% of the entire gaza population killed. joe biden, and i come back tojoe biden, he's been watching closely what has been

happening, he now says that israel is starting to lose support by "indiscriminate bombing that has taken place." that's the us president accusing israel of indiscriminate use of force. israel does not deliberately target civilians. it's just not part of our way of conducting war, ever. well, the word was indiscriminate, which is obviously, the meaning of which is that you do not take sufficient care to discriminate between innocent civilians and those hamas people that you are said to be going after. well, i disagree with that statement. i know, in fact, what is happening. i meet commanders almost every other day in the field and i know how cautious they are about not... it's not even about caution. we simply don't deliberately target civilians. we target terrorists who are hiding amid,

in the midst of civilians and who built their entire city of terror under houses, schools and hospitals. but we're not targeting civilians. now, there is... a few days ago, mr bennett, three israelis were tragically killed in gaza. they were captives, hostages who had managed to escape. they were waving a white flag. they were clearly unarmed. they were gunned down by idf soldiers. how can you tell me that idf takes very great care? idf does take tremendous care, and mistakes do happen. i don't know if you've ever been six or seven weeks in a battlefield, targeted by hamas, away from your family, barely sleeping, barely eating. and it's very easy to judge soldiers who are in battle when, you know, from here, from this studio.

but it's much harder being on ground. now, let me be very clear. we do not target civilians. no israeli wants this war. we didn't choose this war. it was imposed on us by a horrendous, savage terror attack that people tend to forget, where hamas deliberately targeted women, children, adults, burning whole families, raping young women. just horrible, horrible things that one cannot imagine. that's what started all of this. this was out of left field, out of nowhere, and that's what started it. now, we are determined to not allow this to reoccur, and that's why this war is going on. it can stop. it could stop right now in two minutes if hamas releases the hostages and disarms itself. but we're not going to allow hamas to continue to be. yeah. believe me, i know the scale of what hamas did on october 7.

i've seen idf videos which portray it in very great and terrible detail, so... i'm not sure that all the viewers are aware of it because, not because you did something wrong, simply because global coverage of the actual attacks has been much smaller than the coverage of the war thereafter. but if we're talking scale, just as i'm aware of the scale of what happened on october 7, i'm aware of the scale of what is happening, continuing to unfold in gaza, day after day after day, to a civilian population. i'm just looking at some extraordinary statistics. the un says that there have now been 364 attacks on healthcare services since israel's military operation began. 553 people killed, 729 injured inside healthcare facilities. the un special rapporteur

on the right to health says that the healthcare infrastructure of the gaza strip has been "completely obliterated." comes back to this point you try to make to me, which is, israel is doing a precise operation. it takes the very greatest of care not to harm civilians. statistics like the ones i've just given to you show that is not true. no, absolutely not. they show that hamas uses hospitals and medical facilities as terror bases. that's what it shows. and you should be only focused on asking, why is hamas using these schools, these hospitals, as their terror bases? this is something we now know were there. we've been in the hospitals, every single hospital in gaza, every single school in gaza is used as a terror base. so how could you be blaming or pointing a finger towards israel where we're fighting these terrorists, by the way, on everyone�*s behalf?

this is... that's just full hypocrisy. this is a very important point, and i'm intrigued by what you say. i guess we could call it the israeli human shield defence, orargument, about why it goes after healthcare facilities, schools, mosques, other civilian infrastructure. you claim that hamas uses all of those facilities as cover... no, no, no, stephen, we don't claim. this is a fact. it's a fact. let me... dozens of... well, you're entitled to tell me, as far as you're concerned, it's a fact. let mejust quote to you, if i may... we have dozens of soldiers who have died in hospitals, fighting terrorists from within the hospitals. this is not a claim. there's not two sides to this. there's an evil side that is deliberately looking to kill its own people in orderfor stephen and bbc to ask me these questions. and there's us, we're out to defend ourselves. we didn't look for this war. we have no... you know, i served in wars.

wars are a bad thing. people die in war. i hate it. israel hates war. and there are things called international laws which govern the rules of war, which... we abide by. ..as i understand it, israel accepts. now, b'tselem, which is an israeli human rights organisation, has considered this human shields argument and says the following: "hamas violating international humanitarian law "does not release israel of its own obligations "under international law. "the interpretation put forward by israel completely overlooks "the rule that one party's violation of these provisions "does not — does not release the other party "from its obligation to uphold those laws." i'm not claiming otherwise. i will say two things. first of all, i wouldn't quote b'tselem because it's an organisation of self—hating israelis

that are targeting israel. but nevertheless... they disagree with you. i don't know if that makes them self—hating. well, no, it's not about disagreeing. it's about what they focus on and what they do. but i don't want to turn it into a discussion about b'tselem. no, let's turn it into a discussion of international law, please. so would you allow me to answer? you asked the question. so let me answer. israel abides by international law. with regard to hospitals, the international law says that if a hospital is used as a base, it loses its special status as a protected area. nevertheless, what we do in these hospitals, we don't just go bomb the hospital, even though it's filled with infrastructure. we first let them, give them a notice of many hours, sometimes days, to vacate the hospital. then we give them ample time to actually do it. so we give the notice, give ample time, and only then we go in and fight the terrorists.

so this is actually abiding by international law. another element of international law is collective punishment of civilians, which again is a violation of international rules and law. this is you in 2018, interestingly, arguing against a tightening of israel's blockade on gaza, particularly a fuel blockade. you at the time — it was quoted by the jerusalem post, i've just seen the archive — you at the time said, "we shouldn't punish two million people "for what 100 people. by which you meant hamas terrorists, as you call them, "we shouldn't punish two million "for what 100 people are doing." what's changed, in your view, about collective punishment between 2018 and 2023? no, it's not collective punishment now either. what we're doing, the reason that we're fighting this war is to target hamas. however, hamas is embedded within the citizens. what we do, we move the citizens away from harm's

way, according to international law. is it tough to be a refugee? yes, it is. is it lousy? yes, it is. are the conditions great? no, they aren't. but do we have a choice? we don't. that's what you got to do. and i will also say that, unfortunately, thousands of gaza's citizens actively supported this terror attack. we know that the third wave of the attack, which was the most savage of the waves and that included the rape, etc, was conducted by civilians. nevertheless, we're not out punishing the two million civilians. are they suffering? yes, they are. but it's not a punishment. it's a natural result of war. and the war is the result of the savage attack. you were in washington not long ago talking to senior officials. the defence secretary in washington, lloyd austin, said the centre of gravity in this conflict is the civilian population in gaza. if you drive them into the arms

of the enemy, you replace a tactical victory with a strategic defeat. what do you think the people of gaza are thinking right now as they see close to 20,000 of them killed? do you think that they are inclined to buy your arguments or do you think they might be inclined to actually become stronger in what they term resistance to israel? well, let me tell you what the civilians of gaza felt on october 7 before israel retaliated. the lion's share of gaza citizens massively supported hamas. they massively support the attack. we know this because there were polls done. this is very unfortunate. we're dealing with a population that, i guess, believes that raping women, murdering children is fine if it'sjews. now, could i...

if i could choose a different neighbour, i would. but that is who we have on our doorsteps. we have to face it. but the question is — what do you do? and the answer is, we need a new regime in gaza that will stop poisoning the brains and brainwashing the children of gaza from the age of zero until they're 20 years old, telling them thatjews are pigs and thatjews ought to be slaughtered and that we're the satan. if that stops now... with respect, with respect, you must be aware also that in recent weeks, we've had israeli cabinet ministers talking about putting a nuclear bomb on gaza. we've had others talking about a new nakba, obviously welcoming the entire displacement of the palestinian population in gaza. we've seen videos of israeli soldiers using the word amalek,

which is, of course, a reference to a biblical destruction of an entire people. if you're to talk about the rhetoric that's being used, we can for sure talk about the palestinian rhetoric of destruction and elimination. are you aware that the same sort of rhetoric is now being used in israel? you're making a symmetry where there is no symmetry. and i'll tell you why — because you're quoting fringes that do not represent mainstream israel. i'm quoting ministers in the current government, mr bennett. i know, and they were condemned by the prime minister, and so... you measure a society not by what its fringes do, but how mainstream population reacts to those fringes. and here, there's a fundamental difference. mainstream palestinian opinion supports that attack, whereas mainstream israelis do not support the atomic bomb thing, etc. you're a former military... hang on. you're a former military man. just a simple question — do you really believe hamas can be entirely eliminated,

extinguished by military might? absolutely. there's precedents. there's, let me give you two precedents. the first is, nazism was totally eliminated by force, not by persuasion, not by anything. and only after beating the nazis and de—nazifying germany, we got a whole new germany. the second example is in israel itself. injudea and samaria, aka the west bank, until 2002, we were getting a tremendous amount of terror and suicide terror, people bombing up buses and cafes injerusalem, tel aviv and haifa. and we went on an attack. i myself participated as a commander in operation protective edge in 2002, and we won. it took about a month and then another 1.5 years to clean up. and we eradicated the

radical terror and... just, if i may, just a quick word... terror can be beaten. contrary to what you're suggesting here. well, it's not a question of what i'm suggesting. it's what people like lloyd austin are suggesting. butjust a quick word as we're talking about the united states and the international community. can you remember a time when israel was looking at more diplomatic isolation than it's actually looking at right now? from the words of key allies in the biden administration that i've already used to what the europeans are saying, what the secretary general of the un is saying, israel has got a massive diplomatic problem. so to your question — yeah, can i recollect this sort of thing? absolutely. in 1956, when we defended ourselves, in 1967, when we were abandoned by the world community and we had to go defend ourselves, in 1982, in 2002. it's not new. thejewish state has to go out and fight for its defence again and again, it is abandoned by world opinion here and there.

but, you know, the only way to respond is to win. and i want to tell you, stephen, that if we don't win, this wave of radical islam terror is going to hit london, paris and new york. mm—hm. let's just talk about your vision for the future. the cliche is the day after, because this fighting in gaza will end at some point. it may take many more weeks, months, we don't know, but it will come to an end at some point. what do you think will happen to gaza and its population of 2.3 million people when the fighting stops? so, a few things. first of all, as i said, we're going to have to eradicate hamas, which means either killing the hamas terrorists or expelling them from gaza and their leadership. then we're going to need to create a buffer zone of about 1, 1.5 kilometres inward from the border into gaza, clean a no—man�*s land, so... so in a tiny strip of land, you're proposing to take more territory. i'm proposing to defend

ourselves, and they should have thought of that before going out and raping and murdering people, yes. the third thing is a process of de—nazification of the gaza strip, which means to immediately ensure that all education systems stop teaching them to hatejews. then what i suggest is an interim technocratic self—government — we don't want to govern gaza — that would be run from either local people who are competent or a combination with external folks, probably from abraham accord countries. and then within five, six... to be honest... to be honest, i'm already beginning to believe you don't really have a clue what's going to happen, because none of what you've just outlined is in any way likely at all. i mean, the idea of getting third party countries from the arab world to be involved in running gaza after you've laid it to waste, it's just not going to happen. actually, we're talking to them and there is willingness. they also have an interest to eradicate hamas and ensure

hamas doesn't come back. and they want to show that there could be a potential different future, a good future for gaza. isn't the bigger question, which concerns notjust the 2.3 million palestinians in gaza, but the 2.5 million palestinians living under israeli military occupation in the west bank, is what on earth you think is going to happen to those people if you get your way, and the settler movement, which is a huge part of netanyahu's current coalition, gets its way and you turn what you call judea and samaria into a permanent part of the israeli state? you're in essence saying you either subjugate forever five million palestinians or you expel them. what is it? well, you've just made a salad, a mess of everything. let's. .. how's that? let me unpack this for you. i'm sure you'll be thankful about this. first of all, regarding gaza,

we don't want to govern gaza. ijust told you that i want the gazans to govern themselves, but only after they go through a process of de—nazification. with respect, you didn't tell me that at all. you indicated that you wanted control of even their school textbooks. no, because you cut me off while i was in year 5, and i was telling you that we need an interim government. you know that in post—world war ii germany, there was also an external government for a few years until they could set their own government up, a competent and de—nazified government. so the same goes here. there's going to need to be an interim period, but, ultimately, i want them to govern themselves, i don't want to govern them, and that's totally fine, as long as they stop trying to killjews and stop trying to kill israelis. so here we got half of the problem off the table. then regarding judea and samaria, aka the west bank. first of all, it's complicated, i won't suggest it isn't,

but there's basically two areas. there's the palestinian governed area that holds about 90% of the palestinians and absolutely no israelis, and that covers almost two million of the palestinians. they will continue governing themselves, but they do also have to go through a process of de—nazification. it's not that difficult... it's not that difficult for the outside world to see what many regard as the only viable pathway to a lasting peace between these two peoples who share this land between thejordan river and the mediterranean sea, and that pathway is a two—state solution. joe biden said just the other day that a palestinian state that is "real, existing alongside an israeli state, "has to be the long—term solution." your problem is that throughout your political career, you have absolutely dismissed any possibility that could ever happen.

well, let me tell you that the overwhelming... or there was a majority of israelis, i don't want to say overwhelming, a majority of israelis supported the two—state solution and, therefore, the oslo accords went through and ehud barak was elected. but reality has changed dramatically. the reality on the ground is that whenever we hand the palestinians a swathe of land, they turn it into a terror base against us, and they shoot rockets against us and they kill israelis from within the very land that we handed them. and that's why there's an overwhelming majority of israelis today who have changed their mind, because they look at reality as it is, not as they would hope it to be. and reality is tough. we've got neighbours who just want to kill us. it's a very problematic situation. afinal...a final very quick question. you were prime minister for a year and then you... ..they got rid of you. people say that netanyahu, his life, political life, is very limited once this war comes to an end. people talk about you as a possible successor.

if you are to return to israeli politics, is your message that there will never be a two—state solution? my message is that the notion of handing land over to the palestinians and hoping that it will bring peace and quiet failed not once, not twice, three times. and doing it a fourth time would be a profound mistake. all right... we have to think new. we have to think fresh. we have to end there. naftali bennett, i thank you very much indeed forjoining me on hardtalk. thank you very much. hello. wintry weather does not feature heavily in our forecast between now and christmas day, but cloud, wind and rain will. on the earlier satellite picture, you can see this stripe of cloud that brought rain in the south on tuesday. then a zone of clear skies not lasting long. more cloud rolling in from the atlantic in association with a warm front bringing

a rather grey and quite damp wednesday in many locations. also, quite a windy day out there, so any early brightness across england and wales will be replaced by cloud spreading from the north and the west with some outbreaks of rain. northern ireland and scotland just having a generally grey and cloudy day with some bits and pieces of rain and drizzle. it's going to be a breezy or indeed a windy day, but a mild one for most. just a little bit colder in the far north there in shetland. and then through wednesday night, extensive cloud cover, some mist and murk, splashes of rain, heavier rain pushing into scotland and the winds really picking up. gales likely across northern scotland, but we could see gales developing elsewhere by the start of thursday morning. it's going to be a mild start to thursday, but a really windy start to the day, with this deep area of low pressure passing to the north of the uk. this frontal system bringing cloud and a little bit of rain

as it slides just a touch further southwards. behind that, some sunny spells, but some showers which could be wintry over high ground in scotland. and it is going to be very windy. particularly gusty conditions to the east of high ground — say, to the east of the pennines, northern and eastern parts of scotland. we could in places see gusts of 70—80mph, very rough seas and maybe even some coastal flooding around some north sea coasts. temperatures, well, just 2 degrees by the middle of the afternoon in lerwick, 12 there for cardiff and plymouth, so staying mild in the south. quite a messy weather picture for friday. it looks like we'll see a band of rain trying to push northwards and eastwards. that could run into some cold air to provide a bit of snow over high ground in scotland. temperatures are 4 degrees in aberdeen, 12 for london, 12 for plymouth. now, mild air will win out for most of us over the weekend and as we head towards christmas day. just a little bit colder in the north. and it is over higher ground in the north of the uk, particularly in scotland, where we do have the chance of a little bit of snow.

live from london, this is bbc news. colorado's supreme court bars

donald trump from the state's primary ballot in the 2024 election. the former president says he'll appeal to the us supreme court. the head of hamas is expected to travel to egypt for talks on a fresh ceasefire in gaza — as israel says it's willing to agree to another pause in exchange for more hostages. authorities in iceland say the volcano that erupted in the southwest of the country is becoming less active. and tiny and tasty — coming up in business, we talk to the ceo of a caviar company who is finding sales are booming despite the cost of living squeeze. hello a warm welcome to the programme. we begin in the us. the state of colorado

where its supreme court has ruled that donald trump is disqualified from holding