allow debate. how can, then, the policies of the israeli government be criticised without being regarded as anti—semitism? i think it's impossible to be anti—semitic if you criticise the israeli government. what would be anti—semitic is criticising the jews what would be anti—semitic is criticising thejews in the israeli government. one of president trump's closest advisers, his chief strategist steve bannon, has been removed from his position on the us national security council. a senior official said that mr bannon had only been given the position to oversee the work of the former national security adviser, michael flynn, who was subsequently sacked. the duke and duchess of cambridge have attended a special service for the victims of the westminster terror attack. european parliament

has set its priorities for the brexit negotiation, saying the uk would have to agree to honour any financial obligations to the eu. it's very, very possible — and i will tell you it's already happened — that my attitude toward syria and assad has changed very much. a surprising turn in us policy. is president trump — accused of inappropriate respect for president putin — about to get tough on the russians and their ally, bashar al—assad? there was drama in the un. when the united nations consistently fails in its duty to act collectively, there are times in the life of states that we are compelled to take our own action. we'll ask what the us can do, and what it means for the reset of russian—us relations. i visit the old coal—mining territory in northern france. home of europe's‘s tallest slack heap. is anybody here buying

into the promises of politicians?. and remember this? find the woman and there the she—devil is. the life and loves of a she devil, by fay weldon. get ready for the sequel. i have changed somewhat, but a lot of the early feminists haven't and they go on seeing men as the enemy. i don't see men as an enemy, or an oppressive force, anymore. i tend to see women as rather the oppressive force at the moment. hello.

since the start of the syrian civil war, adjectives of horror have gradually become worn out from over—use, not least from describing the brutality of bashar al—assad and his military. listening to much of the reaction to yesterday's reports of a chemical attack, one could only be struck by the apparent powerlessness of the west to prevent cruelty on that scale. for some, donald trump was the problem — he had shown a disregard for syria and respect for russia, offering assad and putin a licence to do their worst. but at quarter to five our time, a dramatic shift in approach. the us ambassador to the un, nikki haley, made an excoriating attack on russia and assad, with a suggestion the us might take unilateral action. the president himself also had strong words. so what does this say? that the administration is about to take a new and decisive step towards intervention, or that it is just words, but no more?

here is david grossman. and i should warn you — ambassador haley held up some graphic images of some of the victims of the attack today and they are included in his report. about all everyone agrees on that this was chemical weapons. who carried it out, though, that is what is at issue. the western powers, including britain and supporters from the region, were congregating in brussels today for yet another serious conference. here, a consensus on who is to blame is easy to find. all the evidence i have seen suggests that this was the assad regime who did it, in the full knowledge that they were using illegal weapons, in a barbaric attack on their own people. what to do about it, though? the question a leading international agreements so many times and every time, the death toll in syria has grown and grown. the un security council has convened many times since syria's barbaric

civil war began but nothing said emission chamber has halted the carnage for a second. russia sometimesjoined by china has vetoed concerted action. today, yet another emergency session with the same strong condemnation from some around the table. yesterday, we sought the consequences of those vetoes. those consequences are painted on the stricken faces of the children in syria. but russia is supporting and supplying president assad, it contends that the chemicals were released when a rebel munitions store was hit by a syrian covenant as strike. the rebels, russia says, using the chemical weapons to draw the us into the conflict. translation: the turning point in the use of toxic chemicals in syria, and following that,

weaponise chemical agents, that turning point was the establishment by the previous us administration of the so—called red lines. crossing those red lines was supposed to lead to intervention, military intervention in the syrian conflict. that decision served as a starting point for future provocations eye terrorists and extremist ructions with the use of chemical weapons. it is impossible to say without independent scientists on the ground, but from this distance, the russian explanation of a rebel chemical munitions store being hit gets little support. we would not see this many deaths around. we would not see this many suffering around. this is for sure the government or the government affiliated agencies. bombing the idlib province and the people deliberately using a nerve gas. foaming at the mouth, suffering convulsions.

america is convinced the us ambassador to be when major the russians and syrians could see pictures of some of the dead. and she hinted at a strong us response. when united nations consistently fails in its duty to act collectively, there are times in the life of states, that we are compelled to take our own action. it seems that president trump is in the process is very calibrating his syria policy. it crossed a lot of lines for me. when you kill innocent children, innocent babies, babies, little babies. till now, the president has seen so—called islamic state is the bigger threat to american interests. i think the president, as a result of this chemical weapons attack, has reached the conclusion that syrian president bashar

al—assad is a major asset for violent extremism. but what follows from that realisation, what the us can do to hurt the assad regime without coming into conflict with russian forces, is by no means clear. well, new president, a different approach. is this the first opportunity for president trump to show what he can achieve, or the first sign that he's going to achieve little when it comes to influencing russia and its allies? joining me now from new york is the foreign policy strategist nancy soderberg, who served as deputy national security advisor under president clinton and as an ambassador to the un. good evening. do you regard what happens today as a shift in american policy, a serious shift, orjust more words? i think it is a serious shift. president trump cannot ignore the pictures of his un ambassador at the united nations and it will drive a wedge between him and president vladimir putin with

whom he has been confusingly cosy. he has got to have a policy that puts america on the right side of history. we do not have one yet, we have not seen it yet, but i think we are going to try diplomacy and perhaps, we have to do something about the remaining stockpile in syria of those chemical weapons. just give one option that you think is a viable or plausible option that he might now pursue. well, i think he has got to recognise that the russian policy is a failure in syria. they promise to get rid of chemical weapons and they have not, so he has the tough talk to her putin and say we have to solve this issue, defeat isis and have a peace plan to rid the country of assad. that is in two stages and will be difficult and will require diplomacy which we have yet to see from this team.

but that does not involve taking what i would think is unilateral action of going in and doing anything, that is more talk and more diplomacy. is that going to leave america looking a bit week, with the day nikki haley saying sometimes you have to act on your own comic you would look like you have caved again? no, they have to do something to get rid of those chemical weapons and that could either involve the russians going in and doing it as they should have the first time in 2013, they promise to get rid of all of it, secondly, if they do not do it, i think the us would be justified in trying to capture that. unilateral military intervention to get the chemical weapons is very, very difficult. a negotiated effort with the russians upfront to make up their faulty deal from 2013 would be first, but i think president trump is very serious about taking action to address the chemical weapons threat if the international community and particularly russia fails. the finger very directly at russia

ii'fié télgfii éiéfi‘jt 35???” w" 7 w 7 president trump did not mention russia, he was talking about bashar al—assad. is that an interesting distinction between the two of them, they entirely on the same page on this? no, i don't. i think what nikki haley was doing at the un was to have her moment were akin to the cuban missile crisis when our ambassador showed for the first time the satellite pictures of cuban missiles, russian, soviet missiles in cuba, this is the pictures and the evidence. you cannot denvth

unpredictable and confusing, nobody knows what you're doing, that can be an advantage in these situations, you can get away with stuff nobody else can. i think people believe president trump when he says he will make sure this is addressed alone if we have two, i don't think president trump knows what that is exactly. this forces president trump to confront the russian behaviour which he has been unwilling to do so far. there is no doubt the russians could move to prevent this and did not get all the weapons initially, they are pretending this is the rebels, the same playbook they played in 2013 when this crisis happened before. russian policy is an absolute failure. it opens the door for president trump to try to get the russians to do the right thing here. given their relationship, he may be the one person that can hold that. if they can get that deal, he will have accomplished something

important, and that is going to be the first test of this presidency. nancy soderberg, thank you very much indeed. listening to that was dr leslie vinjamuri, an expert in conflict and us foreign policy at chatham house and soas. did you think this was significant when you heard president trump say he had changed his mind about syria? it was significant because trump backed himself into a corner. he has been criticising the 0bama administration for a long time and failing to force the red line. he said many red lines were crossed and more than a red line. so people will be looking to see what he does. much of what donald trump has been doing in the last months has been about his concern for his popularity at home. so that audience now, the expectations of that audience, has been raised. but she is exactly right, it is not very obvious what one does do, using russia has the greatest love it over assad so that is important, but whether donald trump has

leveraged over russia remains to be seen and there is no real strategy out of the administration. this is the most fascinating things, have we learned anything about donald trump and russia? this is what everybody has been talking about for the last four months. does he have any sway over russia? donald trump, when he spoke today about syria and about the chemical weapons, again, ithink he was speaking to a domestic audience and he was launching a critique of the past administration. it was a little bit less about russia. but this puts him in a very difficult position because without the help of russia, there is not much you can do about assad. everybody says that, can the us,

the one thing i have heard described you can do, you could just go in and punish assad for this. so he thinks about it the next time, you could just bomb and airfield. not get in the way of the russians and not get drawn into the fight but say, you did that, we do this, don't do that again. is that plausible or does russia have control of the airspace you could not do anything? the key issue is whether the current administration will think and deliberate carefully enough. if they were to decide to use military force for the specific aim of taking out whatever chemical weapons remain in syria and whether they would go through the kind of process that would be absolutely essential to achieve that, and that would not be easy to achieve in any case. i think that is an incredibly difficult to quote you do not know where the chemical weapons are. and the broader question is how to solve this crisis, this ongoing conflict in syria. they are two issues and the two issues will come together in the mind of the american public. thank you very much.

another day in which comments of ken livingstone have distracted labour from other things. he was suspended from standing for office within the labour party yesterday, not expelled, for his views on hitler and zionism. but he was on this programme last night, and carried on the argument without apology, to the disappointment of many. his latest comments mean there is now to be a second