in the coming hours. last week, he was found guilty of misconduct in public office. he's the most senior official in the territory to be tried for corruption. the white house has issued tough new guidelines designed to accelerate the deportation of illegal immigrants from the united states. but hundreds of thousands of children brought to the us illegally will be allowed to remain. and this video is trending on bbc.com — the national zoo in washington dc has said its final goodbye to its panda cub bao bao. the american—born panda boarded a one—way flight to chengdu, china, where the 3—year—old will eventually join a panda breeding program. that's all from me now, stay with bbc world news. now on bbc news it's time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk.

i'm sarah montague. for decades, many have assumed that the only way there will be peace in the middle east is when the palestinians have their own state. but president trump has made it clear that america is no longer wedded to the idea. "two states, one state, i can live with either one," he said. my guest is tzipi livni, the joint leader of the zionist union movement in the israeli parliament, and a former foreign minister. she has said that the only way to achieve peace is to have two states for two peoples. but why is that? could one state wherejews, muslims, and christians live live peacefully, tzipi livni, welcome to hardtalk.

thank you. hello sarah. why do you think the only way to achieve peace is two states for two peoples? the conflict is a national conflict between two national movements, one is zionism, which acted for many years in order to establish a state for the jewish people, and the other is the national palestinian movement. and as far as my understanding goes, and according to negotiations that we had before, the idea is to end the conflict and to end all claims between these two movements, and between the state of israel and the palestinians, is to have different states for two different peoples, and which each people implement their own right of self—determination. and in israel, israel

is a jewish democratic state, and the meaning is that israel is the nationstate of the jewish people, with equal rights to all of its citizens, because it is a democracy, and because this is, or these are also ourjewish values. there is an argument that that has been tried for decades, or at least that has been the ambition for decades, unsuccessfully, which is perhaps one reason that the israeli president reuven rivlin talks about annexing the occupied territories, and he says that there won't be one law for israelis and another for non—israelis, you would grant citizenship to all residents, and it would be one egalitarian democracy. this was the idea likud members, including my parents, basically after the 1967 law. the idea was that we would live happily ever after, giving equal

rights to those living between thejordan river and the mediterranean sea, but in the end, this can lead to a situation in israel in which israel would stop being a jewish democratic state. and we would have a bi—national state, one state, with everybody living there, but i don't think it would be living happily ever after — it would be more bloody, with this ongoing conflict amongst us. and this is against what i believe is the vision of zionism, to create a state of thejewish people, and in this state, everybody is equal rights citizen. is it down to demographics, then, the idea that if you take in 2.5 million palestinians, that's the end of thejewish state? yes. in — in the end, listen... we live, and my values are, to keep in harmony the values of the state of israel as a jewish democratic state.

and this is also an issue of number. we need to have a jewish majority, in order to keep this, and not have a clash between the values of israel as a jewish and a democracy. and therefore, if i need to choose between the entire land of israel and keeping the state of israel as a jewish democratic state, i prefer to divide the land and to have israel and keep the israeli values. i would like to refer, also — this was also basically the idea in 1947, when the united nations wanted to end the ongoing conflict that was here before the state of israel was established. and the whole idea was to divide the land into two different states. just on this question, the idea of what one state could look like, saeb erekat, who is the plo secretary general, has warned that the way that some people envisage it, you would have — it would be an apartheid system. is that something you would fear, too? israel would not be an apartheid state. i would fight against it

inside israel, because this is against our values. but you recognise it is a fear? giving equal rights... but you recognise that as a fear of having one state, do you? i believe — i believe that this is something that most of us, israelis, would reject. this is against our values. and therefore, in choosing between all the options, as an israeli, i believe that the israeli interest is to divide the land and to have two different states. frankly, i am not fighting for the establishment of a palestinian state, i am fighting in order to keep israel as a jewish democratic state. and saer erekat, from his point of view, he is fighting to fight and create a palestinian state, because — because he represents the national aspirations of the palestinians. now i — i would like to say something about what president trump said. i mean what he said is not,

you know, well, what said was "what makes you happy makes me happy," but he also said it depends on both sides. so in a way, i am not against thinking outside of the box. and now the other idea they can give an answer to our aspirations, to the palestinian aspirations, and an idea it can keep israel as such... let it be, i mean... but as you said, this is exactly the point that he made, that it hasn't worked so far. he said it is something very different, that hasn't been discussed before. he went on to say it was a bigger and more important deal it in that it would take in many countries and encompass a larger territory. i mean, do you recognise that by opening this up, there could be some chance of a very different route, but one that leads to peace? frankly, i believe that at first, even before entering into the negotiations room,

israel and the israeli need to decide what is our direction, what is our goal. and in a way, when president trump put this on the table, i am using it, in order to say to israelis "0k, the two options of the table. what do we prefer?" even understanding that there would be no situation in israel in which you have two different types of citizenship, because israel is not to be an apartheid state. and maybe by raising this option, this can lead also to an internal debate in israel, because i know that the vast majority of israelis support the idea of two states for two peoples, not for the palestinians, not as a favour to any president of the us, not as a favour to the arabs of palestinians, but this is a way to keep israel as such. and therefore i believe that even the debate is something that is maybe good to have. ok, but what we know is that information that has come out in the last few

days, not least from your fellow leader of the zionist union, isaac herzog, he's talked of a deal that was on the table last year from the us secretary of state, john kerry, and put to benjamin netanyahu, and one that he walked away from. one that would have involved a freeze of settlements, and reaching out to arab nations with some sort of proposal for a comprehensive peace deal. and you know that i am in that position with isaac herzog. what we believe is that the best thing for israel is to try again and again until we find a way to end this conflict, based on the idea of two states for two peoples. and there are opportunities. but with benjamin netanyahu as prime minister, because your colleague has accused him of being a serial refuser and saying

history willjudge him on that failure. yes, that is true. or to the end of conflict, and more and more voices within this current coalition, led by benjamin netanyahu, are talking about secession, something against the interests of israel. and now what we represent is something which is completely different, and in the end, we will reach elections in israel — hopefully sooner — and put this on the table, and say ok, this is what i represent. and we represent something else. but i do agree that this is the responsibility of any leadership, and by refusing to all these, you know,

deals or suggestions, and negotiations, that are based on not only thee relations between israel and the palestinians, but also on the ability to change the situation, the strategic situation of israel in the region, with the arabs. they know, and i know this, the — most of the arab world, or the moderate arab sunni states want want to normalise the situation, but the glass ceiling is the israeli—palestinian conflict. and therefore we can do something which is bigger than the, you know, israeli—palestinian conflict. unfortunately, benjamin neta nyahu was not willing, couldn't, didn't want to, it was less important, to say yes to all of these offers that were on the table. and do you... and they are on the table right now, i believe. well, the offers are still there, but what, he's saying no because of those he's in coalition with, those to the right of him?

excuse me. this is the excuse. this is the excuse, this is the coalition that benjamin netanyahu formed. we had another coalition. we were in the coalition. we represented the idea of two states, or basically the idea of concessions and steps towards the palestinians, and he toppled his own government and led to elections by saying that he wants to form a coalition based on what benjamin netanyahu called his "natural partner". it is true. i'm not saying it's a natural partner... would you go back into government with benjamin neta nyahu, if he were to be open to accepting the deal that you say is still on the table, a deal to — to head towards peace? when, a year ago, when this deal or the offers, or what was on the table, was, when i was told about it, and i was asked whether i wanted to join the government based

on this, i asked several hard questions. a few questions, frankly. is he willing to free settlements outside of their blocks? is he willing to give up the far right in his coalition? is he willing to make more positive comments on the arab peace initiative? and when the answer was no, i said no to the question whether i would join the coalition. and therefore, i am in the same position. the reason for me to be in politics and to try and move forward towards peace treaty. if we have problems on the way, and sometimes we have problems on the way, so let's find a way to move forward. and settlements activities, especially outside of the fence, or legalising illegal outposts are against what i believe is the interest of israel, and this is something which should be avoided, and as long as benjamin netanyahu