on his plans to substantially increase the powers of the presidency. with more than 99% of the votes counted, the yes campaign won just over 51% of the votes. a senior member of the trump administration has said the united states, its allies and china are working together to develop options for dealing with north korea. the us national security adviser, hr mcmaster, said beijing had joined an international consensus that the situation could not continue. the number of people thought to have died in saturday's bomb attack in syria has risen to 126, including 68 children. that is according to local activists. they were among busloads of civilians being brought out of two pro—government towns that have been under siege. let's have a look at some of the front pages of this morning's papers. the telegraph has an exclusive interview with prince harry, talking about how he sought counselling in his mid—20s to help cope with the death of his

mother, princess diana. the guardian reports calls for a recount following the yes vote in turkey, which gave president erdogan the power for major constitutional reform. the times leads with what they call north korean defiance in the face of pressure from the us. the i also leads with the tension in north korea, saying china and america are working together to find a solution. the mirror continues with north korea, with president trumps messaging that he is poised to strike if necessary. the mail leads with the deterioration in uk—russia relations, saying they are at an all—time low. and the ft focus is on us commerce secretary, wilbur ross, rubbishing international monetary fund claims of us protectionism. now it is time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur.

the and apartheid in the same sentence and you are stepping into a political minefield —— put the words israel and apartheid in the same sentence. write a un report and accused israel of systematically implementing apartheid policies, well, you can be sure that will be a diplomatic explosion. my guest today, rima khalaf, didjust that and properly resign from her un post when the secretary general refused to a cce pt when the secretary general refused to accept her work. her motives have been widely questioned. so let's ask are, what were they? —— let's ask her. rima khalaf, welcome to hardtalk.

pleasure to be here. now that the dust has settled for a few weeks on this episode of you, the report you commissioned on israel and apartheid, you have had some time to reflect on it all. do you have regrets about the way you handled it? no, actually, not at all. first let me explain that i did not commission the report, because i wa nted commission the report, because i wanted to commission a report. escwa, or united nations economic and social commission for western asia, is an intergovernmental body. we and intergovernmental agency. and we just we and intergovernmental agency. and wejust implement we and intergovernmental agency. and we just implement what a member state ask us to do, member states, which are the 18 arab member states of escwa, they requested us to commission a report to see whether israel is actually imposing and apartheid regime on the palestinian

people. in way of background, israel has pursued segregation and racial discrimination policies. in that, this is not disputable, because even israel doesn't deny the policies that it has implemented in the west bank on the occupied palestinian people, and some of the policies in israel itself. i mean, in the west bank, you have a dual legal system, one that applies to jewish settlers and one that applies to the palestinian inhabitants of the occupied territories. yes, ok, but to use the word apartheid, that rings a whole heap of emotional issues, connected, of course, to the regime established in south africa by whites, based upon a racial premise. now, did not strike you that, as you say, the 18 nations who wa nted that, as you say, the 18 nations who wanted you to write this report, and who said we want youtube focus on the apartheid analogy, these were doye ns the apartheid analogy, these were d oye ns of

the apartheid analogy, these were doyens of human rights standards, like saudi arabia, sudan, syria, iraq. bahrain. did not strike you that there might be something misguided about this entire enterprise? well, the countries that you named did not write the report. no, they asked you. as you have just said to me, they asked you to do it. they asked us to check whether this is the case or not. did you think for one second they didn't already believe they knew the answer? no, no. because it was a debate among member states. some did believe that and some didn't. so they said we wa nted and some didn't. so they said we wanted escwa to commission a report. now, regardless of the motives, our duty as a un agency was to look for the best experts in the field. experts who are into international law and human rights law, and who also know the region. so from that point on, neither the member states nor escwa had anything to do with findings of the report. related to

the experts. so you felt the best expert to lead the writing of this report was the american legal scholar richard falk? he is, as you know, an expert in international law and human rights law. know, an expert in international law and human rights lawlj know, an expert in international law and human rights law. i do know him, because he has been on hardtalk and i know his record. and i know the kinds of things he has written which include commentary on, quote, israel's genocidal tendencies. now, let's look at the substance that richard wrote. i mean, he didn't invent laws and say the law in israel is so—and—so. these are the laws in israel. when richard falk said that there is a un legal system applied in —— dual legal system applied in —— dual legal system applied in —— dual legal system applied in the west bank, there is a dual legal system. so instead of attacking richard falk, who is, in my opinion, a very respected international jurist, my opinion, a very respected internationaljurist, let's look at the substance. if you disagree with anything the report, bring it up.

forgive me, you said earlier, he said nobody in the process of commissioning this report, nobody was prejudging the issue. you chose as your lead author a man who is highly controversial, because of the things he has said about israel in the past, including, and i'm quoting richard falk directly, israel is slouching towards a palestinian holocaust. those are his words. you chose him. you chose him to be the author. it was clear what was in your mind. before i chose him, members of the human rights council chose him as a special raconteur, so he has the respect of many. i understand, that meant the state like the us do not like richard falk. but what i am saying is let's stop focusing on the messenger, let's focus on the message. we are saying we have a system of apartheid. at least, at minimum, we haveis apartheid. at least, at minimum, we have is system of segregation and discrimination. we should focus on this. we cannot live with such a

system this. we cannot live with such a syste m o n this. we cannot live with such a system on the 21st century. and i still... by the way, before i said that i am not willing to pull the report of our website, i really asked our colleagues, show me one floor, one fault, and i am willing to ta ke floor, one fault, and i am willing to take it off our website. but so far, i have read so many commentators on the report, not one. the only commentary i read or heard was defamation focusing on richard, focusing on me, focusing on why the report... tell me what is wrong with the report. well, i want to focus on the report. well, i want to focus on the substance of the report, and on this insistence that there is, in legal, substantial terms, a direct comparison between israel and the established norms of what represents apartheid. and i am struggling. i mean, for example, in israel, i see no race classification act, i see no ban on mixed marriages, i see no group areas act, no pass laws, these

are all fundamental pillars of south africa's implementation of apartheid. the reference, in order to determine whether you have an apartheid regime or not, you have to go to the apartheid convention. anti—apartheid convention has a very clear definition of what will be considered apartheid. basically they should be three elements. the first element, there should be inhumane a cts element, there should be inhumane acts that are committed against a racial group. in this case, we have, let's say, the two category citizens in israel, the jewish let's say, the two category citizens in israel, thejewish citizens and the non—jewish citizens. other acts that are committed against the non—jewish citizens? per second, which is a very important condition, you need to show that those acts are committed within the context of an institutional regime of domination and oppression by one racial group over another. and third, you have to show that it is intended to maintain

the regime. so what the report does, it looks at the act, and that it looks at the institutional structures, it looks at the laws, and it looks at the basic law, and it looks at how the non—jewish citizens are treated. let me quote you richard goldstone, if i may. he is one of south africa's most respected senior thinkers, after he was asked to write a report of the war, which the israeli government hated, by the way, but richard goldstone has reacted in this way to the comparison between what israel does and apartheid. he says in israel nothing comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 rome statute. inhumane acts committed in the context of an institutional regime of systematic oppression, that is the definition of apartheid. he said israeli arabs represent 20% of the population. they have the vote, they have political parties. one of them is on the supreme court. they occupy positions of acclaim across the

country. this is israel. have you been to israel? this is part of the story. have you been to israel? i am trying to remember. i have... i have been to gaza, i have been to the west bank. but that's the point, have you been to israel? occurs we are talking about israel's treatment of his own population on its own sovereign territory. we can get to the occupied territories. please allow me to comment on this. now i understand what goldstone is saying, and he is telling us only part of the truth. goldstone did not tell us that in israel there is a differentiation between nationality and citizenship. and this is very strange, by the way. in that you have to be due in order to be a national. and there are of rights that are associated with nationality. so you can be a citizen, but you cannot have those other rights. and this is extremely important. you cannot discriminate between your citizens. excuse me, but one of your sponsor countries,

that commissioned this report, is saudi arabia. yes. it is not easy being a christian in saudi arabia, is it? what kind of rights do you have that? wait a minute. first i don't like the idea ofjumping to compare with another country. when we talk about apartheid and racial discretion and segregation, we are talking about treating citizens within the same country. now, saudi arabia may be treated citizens cruelly, with cruelty. it may be the case. but my point is a treat all its citizens the same. there are christians who live in saudi arabia... but there is a difference in terms of the basic law. whether legally... i'll tell you what. there are areas of saudi arabia, particularly around makkah, which christians are not allowed to enter. i understand this. they have their excuses. i don't like them, but they don't have any law that says, for example, in jeddah

don't have any law that says, for example, injeddah a muslim can own land, a christian cannot own land. in israel, i'm sure you know that 93% of the land is owned by the state, and land laws allow land agencies to develop and sell land to jews only. so you talk about 20% of the population who are non—jewish? fine, but they are not allowed to buy land in israel, except the lands that stayed with them after israel was established. and many of the lands... let's not get... you mentioned also political parties. do you know that it is unlawful in israel to establish a political party that questions the nature of the state as a jewish state? so basically you are telling the non—jewish citizens of israel, you can non—jewish citizens of israel, you ca n vote, non—jewish citizens of israel, you can vote, but once you elect did, you cannot question your subordinate status. ok, you can lobby for additional, better budgets, for better services, for better health and better education, but the basic

law is the disk and it against you, and that establish inequality, are beyond your reach. because if you do, you are illegal as a party. beyond your reach. because if you do, you are illegal as a partylj just wonder whether you are completing different issues here. there is no doubt south africa was a racist state, built on racist premises. same with, of course, the nazis. they were deeply racist in the way they viewed people and society. yes. now, in israel, and this is a quote from a palestinian expert on israel and palestine, from the washington institute, from italy's policy, says accusing israel of being an apartheid state doesn't serve the palestinian cause. rather it diverts attention from the fact that on the ground israel is an occupation state, and the conflict is on about racial segregation so much as military occupation. this is, ithink much as military occupation. this is, i think mahmood from the court that you just said was talking about the situation in the west bank. we have two problems in the west bank.

the first of the problem of the military occupation which has lasted for half a century. and the second, because this is not like the us occupation of iraq, where you sent your army, this is a case where israel sent its population to settle in the west bank, to colonise the west bank. so you ended up with an occupied territory with two populations. the apartheid problem emerges not from occupation but from the fact that you had two populations on the same land, and you have different laws applying to the two populations. so you have one set of laws that applies to the jewish settlers, and another set of laws that applies to the palestinians. if we didn't have this, then it would have beenjust a military occupation, that everybody has been hoping will end. the israelis say that so many of the conditions put upon the palestinians are connected to security, it is security they say that led them to build the barrier fence or wall whatever you choose to call it, it is security that leads them to have

wrote specifically forjewish settlers to get them safely to their settlements. now, that is not about a racial theory, that is about the practicalities of security. mention south africa, is that exactly the same arguments that were used by the south africans. we are in a very difficult neighbourhood, except the south african call them revolutionaries, they attack us, they are barbaric and because of security we have to take such measures, israel is using the exact same arguments and no, security doesn't mean, it doesn't this is as a-- it doesn't mean, it doesn't this is as a —— it doesn't necessitate that you treat a jewish child and the palestinian child differently, it doesn't mean you have different judicial procedures or sentencing when they commit a crime, if two children commit a crime regardless of their religion they should be treated the same. when the secretary

general saw your report he was appalled, so much so he demanded you withdraw the report, and when you refused, you then said that you would resign but the bottom line is he and his staff said that you had ignored key un protocols. he said... when you put this report online. ignored key un protocols. he said... when you put this report onlinem should be enlightening that it isn't the of content, he wasn't appalled at the content. well, excuse the un spokesman, i have it in front of me," this report does not reflect the views of the secretary general." of course. every report that we submit, nothing represents the views of the united nations or the secretary general that particularly the united nations, we are talking about member states and we as a secretariat submit reports and they ta ke secretariat submit reports and they take resolutions and they may be very different from the material that we submitted. the position of the un is taken over by its member states, not by the secretary at. we submit reports to the security council, they can adopt it or

com pletely council, they can adopt it or completely ignore it and with a bit reports to be assembly and it is up to them to take policies. you wrote a resignation letter to him in which you said you have instructed me to withdraw not any fault but you found ina withdraw not any fault but you found in a report, because you disagreed with the content but due to political pressure by member state who gravely violate the rights of the people in the region. obviously you by talking primarily about israel but i assume you are talking about the united states as well. use it to be accusing the new un secretary general of having no moral backbone, of being a moral coward. secretary general of having no moral backbone, of being a moral cowardlj am accusing member state of interfering in the work of the secretary. i know you are accusing them of that but you are also saying that mr secretary general you have been bullied, you have been weak, you have the spine of a jellyfish. been bullied, you have been weak, you have the spine of a jellyfishlj didn't say that. actually, i thought this in my resignation, i said i

understand that you have little choice and i understand the difficult position you find yourself in. at the recent the secretary generalfinds himself in in. at the recent the secretary general finds himself in a very difficult position is because member states are trying to impose on him what needs to be said and what needs to be done. for the secretary general, if i was the secretary general, if i was the secretary general, if i have... i'm general, if i was the secretary general, ifi have... i'm sorry but you are general, ifi have... i'm sorry but you a re really general, ifi have... i'm sorry but you are really not facing up to my question— 80 or did he not bow down in the face of bullying, as you would see at, from israel and the united states? 0k, whatever toys he made, it was very difficult. -- choice. let me ask you for a direct a nswer to choice. let me ask you for a direct answer to the question. choice. let me ask you for a direct answer to the questionlj choice. let me ask you for a direct answer to the question. i will a nswer answer to the question. i will answer you how... iwill explain what the situation that they found the sovereign, a member state is breathing down your neck and telling you take this report of the website. and you have the head of the agency telling you that unless you give me a convincing reason or you shami, i

will not take it off my website. what are the choices? if the secretary general resists pressure from member states, actually, the un may lose its existence because those member states will give up the un. but if the secretary general... hang on, usa and the united states of donald trump was threatening the un secretary general to withdraw the billions in funding in the us is to the un? actually, they started threatening this way before we issue the report. they started their threats after the passing of the settle m e nt threats after the passing of the settlement security council resolution in december 2016 and congress said we are going to be fun this agency unless they thought of i don't know what the word they used takeback or don't know what the word they used ta keback or cancel that resolution. it seems to be it is very convenient for you to say i wrote a great report but it was, it was bullying and it was the intimidation of israel and the united states that led to it being rejected by the un secretary general but the truth surely is somewhat different, the

truth is that if one takes the logic of your report to its final conclusion, you are saying that israel is a racist state. i am. israel is a racist state. i am. israel is a racist state. i am. israel is renewing that old canard about zionism being racist. if that's what you really believe? wait a minute. i'm talking about specific laws, policies and practices. that pursue racial segregation. you believe israel is a racist state?|j believe israel is a racist state?” do believe that israel discriminate against its non—jewish citizens. do believe that israel discriminate against its non-jewish citizens. are you questioning is rob's right to exist? what is this... unless you are telling me that the israel to exist it has the practice racial discrimination and it has two oppress all of the non—jewish citizens and the non— jewish people in the occupied territories that i can't see... you know the history better than i, you know israel was set up in1948 better than i, you know israel was set up in 19118 as a state for the dues. —— jew. after all the

set up in 19118 as a state for the dues. ——jew. after all the history they went through, they were given a homeland. i tell you what, they went through, they were given a homeland. itell you what, i suggest you and probably the audience go back to the un resolution that established israel, the partition resolution, and it was very clear that it resolution, and it was very clear thatitis resolution, and it was very clear that it is a jewish state and the reason arab state but neither of the two states, neither thejewish or the arab state can have laws that discriminate between people based on religion, sex, or race. so that was, that was the condition for establishing the state. actually the declaration of independence for israel does not discriminate based on any of these factors. then later on, laws that discriminate based on religion and ethnic origin came into the legal stature of israel. what i'm saying is if we want peace the region, we really need to address those laws, particularly now. we we re those laws, particularly now. we were talking about recognising israel as ajewish were talking about recognising israel as a jewish state, my references the prime minister of

israel, the prime minister of israel said what you mean by the israel state, he said state for thejewish people and thejewish people only. so you have... this is another reference point for you, a written statement from the european parliament working group on anti—semitism that denying the jewish people they write to self determination, i.e. by claiming that the existence of the state of israel isa the existence of the state of israel is a racist endeavour... i didn't say that. that is in their terms of form of anti—semitism. say that. that is in their terms of form of anti-semitism. buk, and i know there are lots of flaws that are criticising israel, and they will lead to defamation and to labelling you as an anti—semite but... would you accept among the member states, those 18 arab member nations, there are many people who do not accept the legitimacy of israel and there are many who bring anti—semitism to the table when they are discussing issues like this very

one? i think we should differentiate between the and a regime. state exist, a regime may not be legitimate but not a state. i mean, when south africa, when the apartheid regime in south africa was dismantled, south africa existed but ina dismantled, south africa existed but in a different regime. all i'm saying is it is not against israel, it's against this type of regime that discriminates against people andi that discriminates against people and i think it is serious issue. we have to end but a final point and again, it seems to be it raises questions about the consistency of your position, you are a senior member in the jordanian your position, you are a senior member in thejordanian government to make peace with israel and then built a relationship with israel, evenin built a relationship with israel, even in the last few months and weeks, we have seen closer ties being forged, a purchase agreement with $10 billion between the jordanian government and the israeli cabinet into a netanyahu, more jordanian workers being allowed to cross into thejordan river and work

in israel in hotels around the dead sea. the ties are getting tighter and you, as a jordanian, presumably are saying to your own government which you are a loyal servant of this is unacceptable, we have to cut all ties. first... with this racist apartheid state. are you saying that? i think as a result of issuing this report, member state should show the responsibility, they should go to show the responsibility, they should gotoa show the responsibility, they should go to a sorry katie of the determine whether the findings are correct or not. if an authoritative by the icc or the general assembly decide this is an apartheid state than member states have a responsibility not to aid or assist in apartheid state and continue and dominating other people. you are saying your own government has it wrong? your own government has it wrong? your own government and king have a totally misguided policy to israel, is that what you are saying? i'm saying the next step, if it proves that we go to an authoritative and they determined that israel is an

apartheid state, then yes, my government should not deal with them. rima khalaf, we have to end there. thank you for being on hardtalk. thank you. a few showers continue in the morning acros the southern half of the uk but the setup for easter monday is one of high pressure to the west, low to the east. it brings in a northerly airflow and clear conditions to come over the next 2a— 36 hours, especially by night and notjust with us, across a good part of northern and eastern europe. let's split the country into two for easter monday because cooler conditions to begin with will be across northern england, ireland. northern ireland should stay dry throughout. a few showers across the eastern half of scotland

in particularfor a time, some of those will bring sleet and snow on higher ground, but hail and rain to low levels before sunshine develops widely. the southern half of the uk and here we start off with more cloud and a couple of residual overnight showers here and there. the odd shower through the day pushing through the breeze will not last too long. most places will avoid them and most of the day will be dry with increasing amount of sunshine a developing after a cloudy start. temperature—wise, it will feel pleasant as the sunshine comes out in the afternoon. cooler further north, particularly where there are showers and strong winds. here we will chase the evening showers from northern england down across other parts of central and eastern england to take us into tuesday. the sky is clear and the winds feel lighter. the cold conditions to take this into early tuesday and the coldest night of the week in the northern uk. —5 reaching —7 in the countryside. most should avoid a frost

across the south. close call but the breeze mayjust be enough but it will be a chilly commute if you are back to work on tuesday. if you have the day off, a lovely fresh spring day in store. a few isolated showers, cloudier into the hebrides, patchy rain later but for many it is sunny. temperatures not overly high but it will feel very nice indeed. high pressure builds in across southern areas as we go into tuesday night and wednesday. as it pushes southwards we allow more off the atlantic in the form of cloud into scotland, keeping temperatures appear to take this into wednesday, clear skies in the south and a cold start. the remainder of the week, not much rain around, it will feel warmer by day, but frosty nights will still be a feature and will take effect across the southern half of the uk. hello, you are watching bbc news. i'm sally bundock. our top story this hour: turkey votes yes.

voters narrowly approve a referendum to massively extend the president's powers, and let him stay in the post for another 12 years. our other main stories this hour: america's vice president visits korea's demilitarised zone, as tensions remain high over the north's nuclear ambitions. prince harry reveals how he came close to having a complete breakdown, and turned to therapy, following the death of his mother,