news. our top story: north korea tells the bbc it is prepared to launch a nuclear strike if the us decides to attack it. the us vice president visited the north korean border and told tom young not detest america's resolved by continuing to pursue its nuclear programme. “— by continuing to pursue its nuclear programme. —— pyongyang. turkey has extended its campaign and the president says it will continue after its victory. easter monday in washington meant it was time for donald trump to share a stage with the white house bunny. the lawns were filled with children for the long—standing tradition of the easter egg hunt. stay with us on bbc world news. now it is time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur.

put the words israel and apartheid in the same sentence, and you are stepping into a political minefield. write a un report and accuse israel of systematically implementing apartheid policies, well, you can be sure there will be a diplomatic explosion. my guest today, rima khalaf, did just that, and promptly resigned from her un post, when the secretary general refused to accept her work. her motives have been widely questioned. so let's ask her — what were they? 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 wanted to commission a report. escwa, or the un economic and social commission for western asia, is an intergovernmental body. we are an 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 an 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, 0k. but to use the word apartheid, that brings 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 it not strike you that, as you say, the 18 nations who wanted you to write this report, and who said we want you to focus on the apartheid analogy, these were doyens of human rights

standards like saudi arabia, sudan, syria, iraq, bahrain. did it 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 want 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. 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 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, let's look at the substance. if you disagree with anything in the report, bring it up. forgive me, you said earlier — you 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 rapporteur, so he has the respect of many. i understand, that meant that states 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 have a system of segregation and discrimination. we should focus on this. we cannot live with such a system in the 21st century. and i still... by the way, before i said that i'm not willing to pull the report off our website, i really

asked our colleagues, show me one flaw, 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 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. the anti—apartheid convention has a very clear definition of what will be considered apartheid. basically, there should be three elements. the first 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 citizens and the non—jewish citizens. are there acts that are committed against the non—jewish citizens? the 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 then 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? because we are talking about israel's treatment of its 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 ajew in order to be a national, and there are 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. mm—hm.

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 of jumping 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 maybe treated citizens cruelly, with cruelty. it may be the case. but my point is it doesn't 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 mecca, 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, 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 tojews 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 vote, but once you are elected, 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 laws to discriminate against you, and that established inequality,

are beyond your reach. because, if you do, you are illegal as a party. i just wonder whether you are conflating 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 mohammed dajani, a palestinian expert on israel and palestine from the washington institute for near—east 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 isn't about racial segregation so much as military occupation. this is — i think mohammed, from the quote that you just said, was talking about the situation in the west bank. we have two problems in the west bank. the first is 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 thejewish 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. of course, the israelis say that so many of the conditions they impose upon palestinians in the occupied territories in the west bank 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 roads that are 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. since you mentioned south africa, those are that exactly the same arguments that were used by the south africans. we are in a very difficult neighbourhood, those — except the south african call them ‘the 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 necessitate that you treat a jewish child and a palestinian child differently. it doesn't necessarily mean that you have differentjudicial procedures or different sentencing when they commit a crime. if two children commit a crime, regardless of their religion, they should be treated equally. the bottom line, rima khalaf, is that the un secretary general, when he saw your report, was appalled. he was so appalled, that he demanded that you withdraw it. when you refused, you then

said "i'll resign." but he and his staff said that you had ignored key un protocols... he said... ..when you put this report online. first, i mean — it should be enlightening that he said that it's not the problem of content. so he wasn't appalled at the content. he said it was... well, excuse me — the un spokesman — i've got his quote right in front of me, "this report does not reflect the views of the secretary general." of course. look, the — every report that we submit, nothing represents the views of the united nations or the secretary general. particularly the united nations — we are talking about member states. we, as a secretariat, we submit reports, then they take resolutions — and they may be very different from the material that we submitted. the position of the un is taken only by its member states, not by the secretariat. we submit reports to the security council, they can adopt it and they can completely ignore it. we submit reports to

the general assembly. it is totally up to them to take policies. you wrote a resignation letter too, in which you said "you have instructed me to withdraw not due to any fault that you found in the report, not because you disagreed with the content, but due to political pressure by member states who gravely violate the rights of the people in the region." obviously, you are talking primarily about israel but i assume you are talking about the united states as well. you seem to be accusing the new un secretary general of having no moral backbone, of being a moral coward. i am accusing member states of interfering in the work of the secretariat. i know you are accusing them of that but you're also saying "mr secretary general, you have been bullied, you have been weak, you have the spine of a jellyfish." no, i didn't say that. i'm saying — actually, i tell him this in my resignation. i say, "i understand that you had little choice and i understand the very difficult position you find yourself in."

but the reason 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. and the dilemma for the secretary general — i mean, if i were the secretary general, if i have... you think — i'm sorry, but you're really not facing up to my question — did he or did he not bow down in the face of bullying, as you would see it, from israel and the united states? 0k — whatever choice he made, it was a very difficult. let me — let me... let me ask you for a direct answer to a direct question. 0k, and i'llansweryou how — what was — i'll try to explain what the situation that the sg found themselves in. a member state is breathing down your neck and telling you "take this report off the website." and you have a head of agency telling you, "unless you give me a convincing reason or you show me, i'm not going to take it off our website."

now, what were the choices? if the secretary general resists pressure from member states, actually, the un may lose its existence because those member states defund the un. but if the secretary general... you're, you're — hang on. you're saying the united states of donald trump was threatening the un secretary general to withdraw the billions in funding that the us gives to the un? actually, they started threatening this way before we issued the report. they started their threats after the passing of the settlement security council resolution in december 2016 and congress said "we're going to defund this agency unless they sort of — i don't know what the word they used — take back or cancel that resolution." it seems to me 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." 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. you are renewing that old canard about zionism being racism. is that what you really believe? now, wait a minute. i'm talking about specific laws, policies and practices that pursue racial segregation. so you believe israel is a racist state? i do believe that israel discriminates against its non—jewish citizens. the question was... are you questioning israel's right to exist? uh, what does this...? unless you are telling me that for israel to exist, it has to practise racial discrimination and it has to oppress all of the non—jewish citizens and the non—jews people in the occupied territories, that i don't see how the question.... you know the history better than i — you know israel was set up in 19118 as a state for the jews. now, waita minute... after all the history that thejewish people had been through, they were given a homeland.

i'll tell you what. i suggest you, and probably the audience, they go back to the un resolution that established israel, the partition resolution. that resolution was very clear there is a jewish state and there is an 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. but then later on, laws that discriminate based on religion and ethnic origin crept into the legal structure of israel. what i'm saying is if we want peace in the region, then we really need to address those laws, particularly now. we were talking about recognising israel as a jewish state — my reference is the prime minister of israel. the prime minister of israel said, when asked "what you mean by a jewish state?"

his response was "a state for the jewish people and for thejewish people only." so you have... here's another reference point for you — a recent statement from the european parliament working group on anti—semitism. they said denying the jewish people their right to self determination, i.e. by claiming that the existence of the state of israel is a racist endeavour... but i didn't say that — no, no... that is, in their terms, of form of anti—semitism. look, and i know there are lots of flaws, where criticising israel will lead to defamation and to labelling you as an anti—semite and, but... would you accept amongst your 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 a state and a regime. a state exists.

it's what — it's a regime that may not be legitimate, but not a state. i mean, if — when south africa, when the apartheid regime in south africa was dismantled, south africa existed but with a different regime. all we're saying is it's not against israel, it's against this type of regime that discriminates against people and i think it's a serious issue. imean... we have to end but a final point — and again, it seems to me it raises questions about the consistency of your position. you are a senior minister in thejordanian government that made peace with israel and then built a relationship with israel. even in the last few months and weeks, we have seen closer ties being forged — a gas purchase agreement worth $10 billion between the jordanian government and the israeli government of benjamin netanyahu. morejordanian workers being allowed to cross thejordan river and work in israeli 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. 0k. .with this racist apartheid state." i tell you what. are you saying that? look, if — i think that, as a result of issuing this report, member states should shoulder the responsibilities, it should go to an authoritative body to determine whether the findings are correct or not. if an authoritative body like the icc, icg, or the general assembly decides that this is an apartheid state, than member states have a responsibility not to aid or assist an apartheid state in continuing in dominating other people. so you're saying your own government has for it wrong? your own government, you own king, have a totally misguided policy to israel — is that what you are saying? no, no. i'm saying now, the next step — if it proves — if we go to an authoritative body and they determine that israel is an apartheid state, then yes, my government should not be dealing with israel.

rima khalaf, we have to end there. thank you. thank you for being on hardtalk. hello. the weather may provide a shock to the system early on tuesday morning because temperatures have been dropping away. a cold and frosty start to the day. after the chilly start, plenty of sunny spells on the way. high pressure is firmly in charge at the moment. dry conditions. the cloud has been clearing. temperatures have been dropping in many areas, especially in the countryside. starting the day below freezing.

but, as i mentioned, after the chilly start, we will see plenty of spells of sunshine. breezy towards the south—east. that will make you feel particularly chilly. through the day, cloud will gradually increase from the west. so, the sunshine will turn increasingly hazy. in fact, by the end of the afternoon, skies will be largely grey in northern ireland and the west of scotland. maybe even the odd splash of rain in the shetland isles. orkney and eastern and southern scotland, some hazy sunshine. seven in aberdeen. 8—9 in edinburgh and glasgow. high cloud in northern england spreading into wales. again, sunshine will turn a little bit hazy in the afternoon. 11 degrees. light winds in wales and the south—west as well. 13 with shelter in plymouth. patchy cloud in the midlands, east anglia, and the south—east. plenty of sunshine. pretty cool, especially around

the coast of east anglia. as we go on through the night into wednesday morning, england and wales will be clear. very cold again. widespread frost. more cloud and outbreaks of patchy rain. that'll be courtesy of the very weak weather front sinking its way into the picture. behind that front, westerly winds. not as chilly in shetland and northern ireland on wednesday. extra cloud in northern england. the midlands, south wales, into southern england, the best of the sunshine, 1a degrees is the top temperature in london. temperatures in the south, particularly, they could rise further on thursday and friday. spells of sunshine. generally a fair amount of cloud around at this stage. to sum up this week, we will see very little rain. mostly dry. the days will turn warmer. some of the nights will continue to be frosty. by the end of the weekend and into the weekend,

it looks like cold air will return from the north. temperatures will drop. quite a chilly feel, i suspect, on the coming weekend. this is newsday. i am rico hizon. the top stories. a warning from pyongyang. north korea tells the bbc it is ready for war if america launches a military attack. if the us is reckless enough to use military means it would mean from that very day all—out war. nuclear weapons protect us from that threat. the president of south korea is charged with bribery. tu rkey‘s south korea is charged with bribery. turkey's president moves to consolidate power after this disputed victory means a state of emergency is extended for three months. and taking on the headscarf