in the murder of the north korean leader's half brother as vx, an odourless but highly toxic nerve agent. the substance was found on the face of kim jong nam, who died after being attacked last week at kuala lumpur airport. its use is a strong indication that pyongyang was behind the killing. iraqi troops have recaptured mosul‘s airport, as they continue their attack on the so—called islamic state. iraqi officials say their troops have gained ground rapidly in outlying areas to the south of the city. elite counter—terrorism forces have nowjoined the advance. britain's main opposition labour party has suffered a shock defeat to the governing conservatives in a parliamentary by—election at copeland in the north of england. it's the best by—election performance by a governing party in britain in nearly half a century. now on bbc news, 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 foreign peace is to have two states for two peoples. but why is that? could one state wherejews, muslims, and christians live live peacefully, have a greater chance of delivering peace? 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. only a year ago, the opportunity

is still on the table in a way. 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. you know that ijoined this coalition before, tried to negotiate. we didn't reach an agreement. i also have criticism on the other side, by the way. but it is true and now it is more clear to the israelis that what this coalition represents is something that would not lead to peace 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 and 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 supports it, i cannot be party to that. 0k.

well, you talk about the outposts. but you have — we're in a situation where the united nations has again condemned the building of settlements, and we've had people suggesting, or even president trump saying that he would like to see a hold back on building settlements, for a little bit, because it is seen as eroding the prospect of a 2—state solution, but you are happy for there to be some settlements. indded, you would continue building in settlement blocks, wouldn't you ? every... also the palestinian negotiators, i believe that any american president understand that when you are finalise the border, or delineate the border between israel and the future palestinian state, we need to take in consideration what we call blocks of settlements. these are the places in which most of the israelis are living, hundreds of thousands of them. and the good news is that it takes only a few percentage of the west bank, and therefore when the palestinian start speaking about adjustment

to the ‘67 line, and they want compensation for this, this is something that is negotiable. ok, but you will know that the recent un resolution, the recent resolution, un resolution 2334, that was passed in december, when the united states abstained, allowed it to be passed, it reaffirmed that the building of settlements on palestinian territory occupied his 1967 was a flagrant violation of international law, and did notjust in which between the settlement blocks and the outposts. i am familiar with this, unfortunately, and therefore i believe that any agreement would lead to an understanding that these blocks of settlement should be part of a final agreement, part of israel and frankly what i criticised the israeli government by saying that when you do not make your priorities, when you do not come saying ok,

i want to keep the blocks but i am willing to give up the places which are outside of the block, or i am willing to freeze for now as a message of goodwill the outposts and settlements that are outside of the block so the minute the israeli government cannot make these priorities the world is not making these priorities... what percentage of the settlement do you think are acceptable? that you categorise and settlement block because for people outside —— that you charafterise as being settlement block —— that you characterise as being settlement block because for people outside of israel it is very hard to get their head around this and so to get some sense of what you think is acceptable? well, you know that i'm not going to negotiate this with you but when i said that it takes only a few percentages, we are all talking about one digit and therefore there are gaps...

one digit, less than 10% of all the settlements that have been built? yes and this is something that should be negotiated between us and the palestinians and they want compensation for it but it is not important what you think personally or what others are thinking about settlement activities whether they are part of... against the international law or whether they are part of thejewish people coming back to the land of our forefathers, we are talking about realities on the ground and since most of the israelis that are living outside of the ‘67 line are living in what we call blocks of settlements, so the realistic solution should take this into consideration because otherwise it is impossible to think that we can reach an agreement. i can assure you, as the chief negotiator on the palestinian side, and also the palestinian side, they understand this as well. in the past we got president bush saying this that this should be taken into consideration

when we finalise and delineate the line, trust me, the problem that we didn't reach an agreement was not about this percentage... we are with a different us administration, that has talked about being keen to move its embassy tojerusalem from tel aviv and that is something you would support? i am an israeli, jerusalem is our capital. but you are also a politician, you know the consequences of that... but this is an american decision. you know it would be seen as israel's annexation ofjerusalem. even if it were in westjerusalem... this is an american decision and, as i said before, as an israeli, jerusalem is our capital and i hope that you do not expect me... that i would represent here on hardtalk the outcome of this and what the arabs would say...

but you have in the past been honest enough to say, look, i'm not going to be politically correct about this, i'll talk about settlements as a burden — here we are with something that is widely recognized... i am still talking about new settlements as a burden... as far as the embassy moved is concerned, it would be seen as highly provocative and unnecessary move, are you not prepared to say that? no, because i believe that it depends on whether it would be one step doing "okay, we are taking the embassy to jerusalem and that is it" or whether they would recognise things that are connected also to the interests of others in the region. so i believe this is a question of not only taking the embassy but the context in that it will be done, i have some ideas

about it but... the former director—general of israel's foreign ministry says everyone knows that to unilateral move is the end of two states? is he wrong? as i said before i am sure that the american, the new administration and i know that they started already asking our neighbours, asking the palestinians, asking abbas what would be the implications and it is for them to say how this is going to impact them and i hope that... is it true that you have been offered a job at the united nations? i prefer not to refer to this publication and speculations. but you had a meeting with antonio guterres... this is going to be my only answer, i am sorry. but you can answer this question, you have a difficulty with travelling, you have a difficulty with travelling not least because when you came to london there was a summons issued for you, you are going to be

going to belgium injanuary, a trip that was cancelled and it is known that prosecutors there were going to ask for you to be questioned. do you have a difficulty with travelling, a fear that there will be arrest warrants issued which stem from operation cast lead in gaza, when you were foreign minister? no, i do not. as you know i visited london and did not... the trip to brussels was cancelled for other reasons. in fact, i did not know about this story that was raised in the newspapers. but i will check it. but i want to say something about this in general, not about me and not about travelling.

you know israel is fighting terror and the operations in gaza are against terrorist organisations that doesn't represent a national conflict but a religious conflict, that in a way represents all the extremist islamist ideology that is against — not to say peace — but against even the existence of the state of israel... operation cast lead was in response to something else. crosstalk. we only have a few minutes, operation cast lead was in response to the firing of rockets into israel... sorry, it is very important for me to say so, hamas is being delegitimized by the entire international community. they are acting in terror against our citizens and i believe that this is not only the right but the responsibility of any israeli leader as a member of cabinet to fight against terror as any state in the free world would do... but other states have not had the response the united nations did to israel. a un report accused israel of committing actions amounting to war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. no, i know that there was a report and afterwards israel worked

in order to open everything, we're checking ourselves, our supreme court is checking every event that is happening. frankly, just tomorrow we are going to have the verdict of an israeli soldier that acted against what we believe, not only the international law, but our laws, but i want to tell you something here, ijust came from munich, there was the security conference there, and as i said before, we are members of the free world, we are fighting together with others against terror and it is in order to defend civilians, trying to avoid any civilian casualties and while you me these questions, the foreign minister of iran has stated support terror, support hezbollah, they act in terms of terror also on european soil so i'm willing to answer any question and i proud that i had in my life the possibility to be

a member of the israeli cabinet and the fight against terror. do you think president trump means peace is more likely in the middle east? i do not know. i want at first to say the former administration, and especially secretary kerry, invested in it and i highly appreciated it. the good news is that president trump said "i want to make a deal" and he said that this is his priority and therefore any american president who wants to make a deal, speaking about peace in his first meeting with the prime minister of israel, it was good to hear and it is true that he said not only the two state solution but if he wants to invest in it, if he wants to achieve peace, let's hope this is what will happen — is it is a mutual interest for all of us. tzipi livni, thank you

for coming on hardtalk. it's a common interest. thank you. thursday was a very wild day across the uk. storm doris packed quite a punch, bringing all sorts of weather — heavy rain, some heavy snow and the damaging gales. you can see a real squeeze on the isobars across the uk moving off into the north sea into the low countries and denmark as we reached friday. a ridge of high pressure building in. it means that the winds continue to turn light overnight, but with clear skies a new hazard will appear and that's ice across the northern areas. especially where wintry showers

continue, so bear that in mind if you are heading out first thing. it will be a much colder night up and down the uk than what we have been used to over the last few nights. it means, however, that into friday things will be fine, thanks to the ridge of high—pressure. it should see plenty of sunshine through the day but it will not stay calm for all areas because later on in the day the next area of low pressure will bring wet and windy weather into northern ireland and then into scotland. but for much of england and wales it will be chilly. the wind is picking up again across the north of ireland and western scotland. rain becomes heavy and persistent but not reaching the east of scotland until after dark so here you should enjoy the sunshine. rain getting in towards the north—western parts of wales. certainly getting cloudier. the midlands, eastwards, it remains fine. lots of sunshine around. a lovely day with light winds. on the cool side, with temperatures in single figures for most. wet and windy weather across the north—west quarter

of the uk. that spreads easterly during friday night, so the wind picks up everywhere. some of the rain will turn to snow over the high ground, we'll see it move across scotland. maybe the far north of england. turning back to rain, as the temperatures begin to rise from the south—west. so a less cold night on friday night than what we will see on thursday. so this weekend it looks like it will be milder. south—westerlies back and it will be windy, certainly across the north and west of the uk. close to the high pressure it should stay largely dry. you can see the isobars across the uk tightly packed again for saturday. weather fronts crossing the uk. the north—west corner of the country will see the most unsettled weather. wet and windy here through the weekend, whereas the midlands, south—east england, brightness and not a lot of cloud. temperatures in the double figures so back into milder air. on sunday it looks like the south in the east will see the best of any brightness.

across the north and west, windy with outbreaks of rain. hello, you're watching bbc world news. i'm ben bland. our top story this hour: malaysian police have identified the highly toxic nerve agent vx on the body of the murdered north korean leader. kim jong—nam died last week after two women wiped a substance over his face in a check—in hall at kuala lumpur airport. welcome to the programme. our other main stories this hour: iraqi troops make a key breakthrough in the battle for mosul, recapturing the city's airport from the so—called islamic state. shock defeat — in a parliamentary by—election, britain's main opposition labour party loses a seat they've held for more than 80 years to the governing conservatives.