faced a wave of condemnation from the international community after the strike on a tent city in the south of the gaza strip, while three more european countries recognized the state of palestine, so is netanyahu losing the support of the west, this is the next 15 minutes of the bbs broadcast, jefer rumerov works in the studio in london . israeli authorities have faced criticism from international organizations and the european union over the deadly strike on the southern city of rafah.

gas sector. israeli army strikes targets in tent city, fire breaks out, kills at least 45 people, hundreds received burns, fractures and injuries. these are data from the hamas-controlled ministry of health. the attack by israel was condemned by the chief diplomat of the european union, joseph borel. he said that israel must comply with the decision of the un court, which obliged the country to stop the attack on rafah, and french president emmanuel macron. network x also condemned the attack on safe zones for palestinian civilians. in general, according to the data of the hamas-controlled ministry of health, during the armed operation of israel in over 36,000 palestinians died in the gaza strip. let me remind you that the netanyahu government declared war on hamas after the largest militant raid against israel on october 7 last year. more than 1,200 israelis died then, and more. as 200 became hostages.

nearly 1 million people have left rafah in the past three weeks, according to the un agency for palestinian refugees in the middle east. the agency adds that there is no safe place where people could go. so i will tell you more about the current situation in rafah bbc correspondent yolanda danel. things are packed, but many of these people do not know where to go. while israeli forces advance further into gaza's southernmost city, palestinians leave without waiting for an evacuation order. we woke up at 5:30 to shelling and rockets, says ahmet anamleh, who is going to pick up the children of elderly relatives. we have no tents, nothing. yesterday, children raked the charred remains of a tent store in rafah, where dozens of people died due to a strong fire. the fire was caused by... a nighttime israeli airstrike,

stated, the target was two hamas teams, the strike was accurate. despite our best efforts to avoid harming civilians, unfortunately a tragic error occurred last night and we are investigating the matter. however, it is similar to israel's deadly actions. the latest events in rafah came just days after the offensive there, leaving israel increasingly isolated on the world stage. spain became the first of three european countries to diplomatically recognize a palestinian state despite israel's angry reaction. the bloodiest in history continues for more than seven months the war in gaza, and israel continues to face an international standoff. he declares his determination to root out ham's militants. and

release the hostages he believes are being held in rafah, but this has again left many palestinians desperate for rescue. the ministry of foreign affairs of qatar of ukraine , the mediator of israel's operation with hamas , warned that the attack on the urafaq tent city could disrupt efforts to negotiate the release of more than a hundred israeli hostages who are still being held in the gaza sector. so what are the consequences of death palestinian civilians for public image paul adams further. israeli officials of netanyahu's government, the bbc's diplomatic commentator argued all day, trying to find out what went wrong. how did it happen that they used what they say was an undercharged weapon for a precision strike and this led to a fire that killed dozens and injured many others. the scenes from rafah were truly horrific, the bodies of many dead.

it was difficult to recognize because of the burns. the israelis say they are investigating it closely. prime minister benjamin netanyahu called it a tragic mistake. he did not admit responsibility, but clearly indicated. that the israeli military thought that something had gone wrong, or that it was an intelligence error, that they didn't know that so many people were living in the area, in these flimsy shelters, tents under the plastic, which was the source of the flammable material that led to the fire, which lasted more than two hours. all these questions need to be answered, and of course the israelis know that the world's attention is on them. after the decision of the international court that nothing more should happen in rafah that would cause even more suffering to the civilian population. incidents like the rafah airstrike undermine the israelis' justification for continuing their operation in the area, as well as their argument that they are doing so within the framework of international law, so the israelis will have a lot of questions to answer, and i suspect

we will hear very soon more detailed explanations of exactly what happened there. and today at the initiative of algeria of the un security council on... on considers the consequences of the attack on rafah and the subsequent armed operation of israel, contrary to the call of the western partners, at the regular meeting. the bbc's new york correspondent peter bowes has more. this emergency meeting of the un security council will be held behind closed doors. it was convened at the request of algeria. it reflects growing international disapproval and criticism of israel's strike in rafah on sunday. the strike itself came just hours after hamas fired rockets at tel aviv after a months-long hiatus. we heard the words israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu that there was a tragic mistake, which is being thoroughly

investigated. however, he insists that the war against hamas militants will continue. we also heard the reaction from the white house that the footage from rafah is scary, but... israel has a right to self-defense. the spokesman of the white house added that israel is obliged to take all possible measures to protect the lives of the civilian population. and today, three more countries have recognized the state of palestine: norway, norway, ireland and spain. they joined the long list of countries that have recognized before the palestinian state, this is most of the countries of latin america, africa and asia, and by the way, ukraine. recognized palestinian statehood in 1988, while still part of the ussr. so madrid, dublin and oslo explained their decision by the fact that it activates efforts to cease fire in israel's war with hamas, in turn israel considers it to encourage

terrorism, but let's listen to how the decision of his authorities was commented by the prime minister of spain, pedro sánchez . a historic decision that has one single goal: to help the israelis and palestinians to achieve peace. the recognition of the palestinian state is not only a matter of historical justice, because it is a legitimate aspiration of the palestinian people. however, it is also an urgent necessity if we are to achieve peace. the recognition of palestine is a decision that we do not take against anyone, especially not against israel, a friendly nation that we respect, value, and with whom we want to have something. better relations, moreover, this decision reflects our absolute rejection of hamas, the terrorist organization it opposes the decision on two states. other european countries and the us say they recognize a palestinian state only as part of a long-term political solution

to the middle east conflict. and against the background of the war , there were often calls to resume negotiations on the two-state formula, when the state of palestine and the state of israel would exist side by side. but for that both countries would have to recognize each other first, but will this formula work? let's hear from near eastern expert erwin vanvin. in my opinion, it is necessary to understand recognition of the state of palestine is proof that the old formula no longer works. the old formula - the supposed recognition of palestine, is the result of negotiations that we saw in oslo, for example. however, it is clear that the last few israeli governments. are not considering any new negotiations, let alone an independent palestinian state, so by recognizing palestine , those countries are essentially saying, the palestinians have a right, they are essentially saying, the palestinians have a right to their own country, and you'd better accept that

if you don't, then we will use relevant measures unilaterally . the steps taken by ireland, spain and norway are unique from a western perspective. after all, it is the western countries that are delaying the recognition of palestine. the vast majority of countries in the world are already doing this, so it will reduce the uniformity of the event and increase the pressure on such countries as france, germany, etc. the second factor to consider is how bloody and destructive israel's military campaign in gaza is, disregarding international humanitarian law and the rules of war, so it will increase the pressure from other sides. and alina hrytsenko, chief consultant of the national institute for strategic studies, joins the broadcast. greetings vaselina, in your opinion, why is israel losing support for the event? in fact, to date, israel is losing this war strategically, losing this

war in an informational, ethical context, despite the fact that it has a military-technical advantage, of course, it is not the desire to consider any alternative options, such radical blocs, which it is going to today netanyahu's government is called out for the westernization of western countries, netanyahu's figure becomes increasingly toxic, and this of course has an effect. on the level of support of western countries for israel, although today the event is actually on a stretch, on the other hand, on the one hand, there is the united states, which today actively declares its full support for israel, on the other hand, european countries, today day, they lack consensus on what to do about israel and the israeli-palestinian conflict in general and recognition by three european states in addition to others, so, for example, it should be mentioned that... in 2014, sweden recognized palestine as an independent state, and shows precisely that the european states of the west

lack consolidation and unity in this context. well, if we raise the issue of recognizing the state of palestine, what will change primarily for the palestinians themselves? well, of course, the palestinians will achieve the strategic goal that they have been striving for for many, many decades, on the other hand, the surrender of palestine as an independent state by spain, norway and ireland is more of a political, symbolic step, and not a legal one, that is, palestine will not just appear on the map, for this , regional consensus and the participation of israel in this process, plus the state of palestine , are necessary will not appear as a professional member of the un, there is also a need for regional consensus and, accordingly, the consent of the members. zones for the palestinians, of course, the recognition of palestine as a fully independent state is actually the achievement

of their dream. for israel - this is what manages the country today, this is quite a serious blow to their reputation, including their positions. therefore, for israel today, this is enough, the situation is developing quite, quite problematically. in general, what levers of influence did the west have over israel? theoretically, the west could apply all those, all those tools that, for example, were applied to the russian federation after the start of the full-scale invasion of ukraine, including economic sanctions, or, for example, diplomatic isolation, or refusal to supply of munitions and so on, but the west today is not ready for such radical steps, and therefore, in principle... there is recognition of palestine as an independent state, because it actually

contributes, it reflects the desire of western countries to resolve the israeli- of the palestinian conflict precisely according to the two state solution formula, that is, two two states for two peoples, this is, in principle , the formula agreed upon by the majority of the countries of the international community, from their point of view , this is what can finally contribute to the achievement of peace for about in the east and the resolution of the israeli-palestinian conflict, but today we can say that the leadership of israel is not ready to accept this formula. thank you, thank you, alina hrytsenko, chief consultant of the national institute of strategic studies, was in touch with us. thank you. thank you. so, that's all we have time to tell today. subscribe to our social media pages so you don't miss the most important news. we are on facebook, instagram and tiktok. you can watch our release on youtube, if missed it on the air and that's it for

today, we're back on the air tomorrow, take care. greetings, friends, the second part of the verdict program is live on the tv channel, my name is serhii rudenko, and in this part we will talk about the following. preventive protection against russian terror. president zelensky asks western partners to give ukraine a chance to prevent tragedies similar to the one in kharkiv. what to expect from allies? looks like outright sabotage. public organizations demand from the verkhovna rada an immediate ban on the russian orthodox church, which

prevents deputies from adopting the long-awaited draft law. prolonged presidential term. putin and lukashenko repeat mantras about zelensky's illegitimacy. can the kremlin prepare the return of the exiled yanukovych? friends, we work live on the espresso tv channel, as well as on our youtube and facebook platforms. for those who are currently watching us on these platforms, please subscribe to our pages and take part in our survey. today we are asking you about the following: would you agree to... the essence of western troops in ukraine, do you mean the troops of our western partners, yes, no, everything is quite simple on youtube, if you sit in front of the tv and watch us on tv, pick up your smartphone or phone and vote, yes 0800 211 381, no 0800 211 382, ​​all calls these numbers are free, vote at the end

of the program, we will sum up the results of this vote, i want to introduce the guests of today's studio: they are people's deputies of ukraine, yulia klymenko from the voice faction, first deputy head of the parliamentary committee on transport and infrastructure. ms. yulia, i congratulate you, thank you for being with us today. good evening. mykyta poturaev, people's deputy of ukraine from the servant of the people, chairman of the committee on humanitarian and information policy of the verkhovna rada of ukraine, vice-president of the osce parliamentary assembly. mr. nikita. congratulations, thank you for joining our broadcast. good evening. and oleg senyutka, people's deputy of ukraine from european solidarity, head of the subcommittee on ensuring the activities of people's deputies of ukraine. mr. oleg, i congratulate you. and glad to see you on our air. i congratulate you. so, ladies and gentlemen, as we ask our viewers and television viewers what they

think about the presence of the troops of our western partners in ukraine, and we seem to be asking... a rhetorical question, but we see that we do not have a hundred percent support for this issue, therefore in the format of a blitz poll, very briefly, what do you think, and whether or not you would agree to the presence of troops, our western partners in ukraine, because this topic is already being discussed, it seems for the third month, if i am not mistaken, let's start with ms yuliy, well, i think that there are options, if we have... the possibility of the presence of western troops, we can only welcome that. thank you, ms. julia, mr. leger? yes, of course, because we are moving towards nato, and we are convinced that we will reach a time when, together with our allies, we will resist any aggressive actions, first of all, from the side of moscow, and i am convinced that the parliament,

the verkhovna rada, namely the decision of the parliament, is needed for such... the essence of western troops, nato troops on the territory of ukraine will definitely vote and such a decision will be supported thank you, mr. olezh, mr. nikita. well, i honestly don't know why to hesitate here, certainly, this presence is desirable, it has been desired for a long time, it has been desired since the 22nd year, in various manifestations, it can be ground troops, it can be airborne. troops, well , there is a place to help us and there is someone to help us and what to help us with, and i am also convinced that if there is a real desire, not a declaration, a real desire, then the verkhovna rada supports such a decision. thank you, mr. nikita, thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your very short and precise answers.

let's start our main topics, this is you. sku and we have three of them, let's start with the first one - this is the use of western weapons on the territory of the russian federation, president zelenskyi called on the partners in turn to make a decision that would allow preemptive attacks on the concentration points of russian troops, let's listen to the president, many leaders of representatives of states and international organizations, public figures , expressions with sympathy in ukraine and kharkiv, condemned russian terror, and it is important that such condemnation leads to completely fair consequences. that we finally have enough air defense systems to protect ukraine, our cities, and that our partners have enough determination to

pre-emptively protect against russian terrorists, as if they would attack any other terrorist, destroying them before they they will begin to destroy life. ms. yulia, please tell me, the question here is only the truth or indecision of our western partners, or are there any possible other motives when our western partners try not to give a direct answer that ukraine can use their weapons at blows on territory of russia? well, i think that there are rather only two questions that the western partners are asking themselves, whether there will be further escalation of the war and in what form it will take. that is, the use of western weapons, which are long-range and which are sufficiently accurate, worries everyone so that we do not use them against the kremlin and moscow, and

the question is whether we will use it not only for, for example, the destruction of russian warehouse and logistics chains there , as well as for attacks on the group, including the leadership of russia. which are actually the main ones criminals and that led to this war, so that's one question, and the second question is whether, let's say, in response to our weapons used, russia will use nuclear weapons, i think that's the question that worries our partners the most, because they don't once the kremlin threatened the whole world. to use nuclear weapons against ukraine and not only against ukraine, so the question is whether

russia will use either tactical or strategic nuclear weapons after it understands that ukrainian troops are reaching the heart of dracula in the kremlin, or to significantly damage to russian troops and logistics. but mr. oleg, what do you think, in this, in this story, well, of course, it seems like arguments, fears, the world is afraid of nuclear weapons, putin and medvedev understand that the world is afraid, they constantly bring this topic into the information field, that we will now use nuclear weapons, but if we draw analogies between what happened in the second world war, when the western... don't shoot there, because well, you can't

use our weapons, because it will look like we gave the soviet union weapons there and you are now killing germans on german territory, are such analogies appropriate and do n't they make you feel similar associations, this limitation or this indecision or desire? it is possible, after all, in some perspective to sit down at the negotiating table with moscow and agree on peace. those sanctified in the secrets of diplomacy understand exactly why today it is so difficult for us to get a decision regarding an attack with weapons that provided to ukraine by our partners on the territory of muscovy, and i am convinced that we should not blame our westerners today. allies, but does ukraine need such a solution? it is obvious that we need it extremely much, because it is a question of our security, it is a question of preventing a lot of strikes that

the muscovites, especially on the territory of kharkiv oblast, sumy oblast, are carrying out today from the territory of the russian federation, so it is our joint task, and here we should not be divided into the president, parliamentarians, political forces, this is our joint task. and we finally demonstrated in sofia at the meeting of the nato parliamentary assembly, which was also attended by the leader of european solidarity poroshenko, that we are able to achieve such decisions with joint efforts, because the resolution of the nato parliamentary assembly says that such strikes in response to the aggression of the rashists are possible and necessary, and this is a very, very important step, i am convinced that... just as we went a very long way to get leopards and abrams, to get heiners and long-range

missiles from great britain and france, i i am convinced that sooner or later we will get, not only the atakamsa, that we will also get the german tauros, but really it will have to be hard, very careful diplomatic work, and there is another question that we must not just ask ourselves, but we must act and to act decisively, because in ukraine from 2014 to 2019 there were programs that not only ended in production. the production of neptune missiles, which are sufficiently effective, and which in the future provided for the possibility of their use not only on naval targets, but also on earth-earth system. it is a pity that in the 19th, 20th, and 21st years we stopped funding the ukrainian sapsan program, these are just medium-range missiles, i am convinced that if we had not lost this time, we would have ukrainian missiles today secondary

which would definitely be capable, just like ukrainian drones, of hitting objects on the territory of muscovy, and no one would then be able to prohibit it, and then it would be much easier for us, of course, to talk with our allies and receive from our allies these opportunities that they have today in of its latest military developments, i think that such a starting point will still be the acquisition of... by the armed forces of ukraine, the air force of ukraine, aircraft, f-16 fighters, because these are aircraft that are capable of carrying missiles of the class and air, air, and air, ground, and i am convinced that together with those planes we will find a consensus of western partners regarding the possibility of attacking objects on the territory of moscow. after all, the statements we heard today from great britain and sweden. certainly

inspire optimism that the countries of the western world, our partners understand that in a different way, how to attack objects, military objects, i want to emphasize, on the territory of muscovy, it will be simply impossible to stop the enemy, and this is our joint task. thank you, mr. olezh, and mr. nikita, how much are the arguments or what mr. sinyutka says about these missile programs that were. in different ways somehow transformed after 2019, how did this affect our current capabilities and whether in this situation, when the president quite logically asks the question to our partners that you give us permission to strike with your missiles on the territory of the russian federation, whether or not our western partners say, listen, well, you also had missiles and had an opportunity, but you did not take advantage of it,

did not prepare for war, and in principle... what should be the claims against us , well , let's not say harsh things right now, not too politically correct, so, well, first of all , i want to remind mr. oleg that i know something from dnipro about what is happening at the southern plant and in the southern design bureau, so , nothing could fly there, mr. oleg, not in in the 18th, not in the 19th year, just as bohddan could not shoot very well on the kravsky chassis, just as the neptunes did not fly very well, all this was brought to a combat state already during the actual invasion, so there is no need, either please, well, to our fellow citizens, well , tell a certain different picture from what actually happened. now, with regard to our partners, mr. serhiy, i want to remind you that

our partners financed the disarmament of ukraine, systematically financed it, so it is not for sure, for sure they should not remind us of something there, because it was with american money were sprayed into scrap metal, airplanes, let me remind you, there was such a small amount, which means that they were exchanged there for some mythical debts there for gas, which means that they gave the moscow ones. and the rest was paid for with american money, because the americans were interested in ensuring that we did not have airplanes, but was everything limited to this, by no means, because for yanukovych, yes for yanukovych, but again for american money dusted off, a bunch of launcher complexes, together, by the way, with rockets, also soviet, which were supposed to carry tactical nuclear charges, yes, tactical nuclear charges...

russia actually stole them from us.