britain's foreign secretary, borisjohnson says he's had frank talks with his iranian counterpart in tehran over the case of a british—iranian woman — nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe — who's being held in prison there. a senior un official has told north korea there's an "urgent need to prevent miscalculations to reduce the risks of conflict". jeffrey feltman was in north korea this week — the highest—level un official to visit since 2012. there have been further protests in the israeli—occupied west bank and the gaza strip, in response to president trump declaring jerusalem to be israel's capital. a rocket fired from gaza has exploded in southern israel. hundreds of thousands of people have lined the route of the funeral procession in paris for the veteran french rock starjohnny hallyday. president macron was among those to attend the service. now on bbc news dateline london. hello and welcome

to dateline london. i'm shaun ley. recent days have tested the proposition that in relations between nations it's negotiation rather than innovation that wins the day. on friday, after brexit talks went to the wire and beyond, theresa may appeared to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. has she improved the odds for a successful departure for the uk from the european union? on wednesday, president donald trump went the other way, declaring that the united states would unilaterally recognise jerusalem as israel's capital, ending 70 years of studied neutrality on one of the issues that has prevented a settlement of the conflict between israelis and palestinians. could breaking out of positions adopted more than a lifetime ago be a catalyst for change? team dateline this week are:

ned temko, political commentator and former editor of thejewish chronicle. agnes poirier of marianne, the french magazine. nesrine malik, who analyses arab affairs. and michael goldfarb, the america journalist and podcaster welcome to you all. in the year since he was elected us president, donald trump's supporters have explained his sometimes contradictory positions by advising, watch what he does, not what he says. well, this week words and actions were as one. during the election campaign, mr trump said he would recognise jerusalem as israel's capital, and on wednesday he did just that. on friday, palestinian protestors responded with what they called a day of rage — an appropriate description that captures both their anger and their impotence. ned, he has broken out of this position that has been established policy, whether democrats or republicans have been in the white house, for decades now. could he encourage others to do the same? no, in a word.

i would be astonished. you said words and actions where the same, but it is trump musical theatre. despite this extraordinarily august statement, he also signed the six—month waiver, as did his predecessors to avoid actually having to move the american embassy any time soon tojerusalem. his argument is they would have to establish a new building and all the rest of it. and the real problem, like so much in the trump administration, this has nothing to do with foreign policy. it was a petulant, superficial decision, ticking a box, driven by domestic, political considerations. it is almost an act of diplomatic arson. you can argue how great will the damage be? there is some reason, i guess, to feel happy,

that's the wrong word, a little bit relieved more people haven't died as a result of the inevitable violence that followed this. it is also true, if you are looking for silver linings, there wasn't much of a peace process to destroy any more. but here is what matters. in order for short—term political gain and particularly with evangelical voters in southern united states, who will vote next week on whether to elect a credibly accused paedophile to the united states senate. that is the world we live in now. but he has put america's fingers on the political scales inside the middle east, in a way, quite rightly, both parties were wary of doing. what he has done, he has weakened the shrinking number of credible arab leaders who still wanted and believed in a two state negotiated solution. people like king abdullah ofjordan, and the palestinians. he has an bold and people

like hamas, iran, arguably isis, al-qaeda spin offs. —— emboldened. so whatever gradually reducing prospects there were four a negotiated two state solution, seem much worse. —— for a negotiated two—state solution. michael, that is the case for the prosecution, is there any case for the defence? no. i don't know if there is a case for the defence. i think after a year we can say that decision—making is not... means nothing. a decision has been made. is it possible that decision changes the game? if you look at the players, it is the same people. 50 years since the occupation began or the victory in the 1967 war. i don't want to get too many angry e—mails. it has been half a century

and if you look at the names of the people who have been negotiating out of this, the only way you get out of it is to die. arial sharon is dead, yasser arafat is dead, yitzhak rabin was murdered. if you look at the roll call of names, maybe it does change the game. the immediate response amongst the younger generation of palestinian negotiators, there is no two state solution, we want to be citizens, let's play the demographic game. that could be a game changer. iran was mentioned. it is important to remember that over the last two months, there have been changes afoot negotiated by, not the state department but byjared kushner, son—in—law. he went to riyadh, saudi arabia. he has been three times,

has built a relationship with the crowned prince. i would be very surprised if this hadn't been discussed in those overnight meetings. just picking up on that point, you can see this as a concession to israel's position, but others have suggested that it is not so much as a punishment to mohammed bass, the palestinian leader, because he went to riyadh and he was given instructions by the saudi arabian government, get this thing going. he effectively said to trump, not on these terms. is it possible to see it this way? —— mahmoud abbas. less in terms of a particular interest and more in terms of the overlapping gulf powers in israel, definitely. what has been really clear is the shifting calculus of the middle east in the arab world. when the last gaza assault

happened, there was outrage. both on the government side and also on the street. it is very different now. what has happened is two fold. interests have begun to overlap with israel in terms of saudi arabia and the national arabian emirates who are aligned because of the emboldening of iran and the trump administration and jared kushner played that angle very well. the second thing is, the arab street, i hate that term, but it is inert after the arab spring because you have three states that have been taken out of the equation, yemen, libya and syria. the remaining states have become so paralysed by post arab spring political status... places like egypt? yes, people would come out onto the street, they were corralled the arab league members.

now, the palestinian cause has become less useful to arab leaders, who would use it as a valve to release tension and stress and make the right noises. the second thing is, nobody wants people on the street any more, it is too risky, a tinderbox. agnes, we had president macron saying it isn't helpful, which is a bit of an understatement, but it gets to the point. everybody seems to have said it isn't helpful, yet president trump has done it. what happens next? can i be the devil's advocate for one minute. because, the lines are shifting in that region. imagine for 90 seconds it is a cunning plan to restart the peace talks, which are dead, as you said. and to lure israel into some concessions. now, israel and saudi arabia... are almost on the same page, yes. ..aligned.

trump is pro—saudi arabia, anti—israel and it creates a new thing. it adds pressure on abbas to agree to something. i don't believe it is a cunning plan to restart the peace talks. what it shows, because jerusalem is so many different things to so many different people. it is such a symbol and it should remain a symbol rather than become a concrete territory that you start dividing. again, it is the lack of, a complete ignorance of history from trump. jerusalem is the capital city of the world's imagination, it is imaginary. it is where cain killed abel.

where abraham almost killed his son. you should stay away. jerusalem is their city anyway. if you look for kind of threads of reassurance, one of the great things and michael is right, we have got to get used to a new approach to decision—making, but even in trump's statement, there was this kind of post modern moment after he had said, i have given everything to the israelis. in which he says, i will not prejudge, even the kind of boundaries and sovereignties in jerusalem. so who knows. perhaps agnes is right, even if she doesn't believe it has health, this is a clever ruse to get the israelis talking again. —— believe it herself. stop! iam trying.

there is no cleverness involved. even if it is a happy accident? this was a pledge made, notjust to the evangelicals, but also the people who bankrolled him, the hard right inside the americanjewish community which is extremely active. it is the minority. but because it is a very active minority it wags the dog a bit. i don't think there is any cleverness, except in the typical way as ned pointed out at the beginning. it doesn't change the calculus much. becuase he didn't say and we are moving the embassy any time soon. one other thing to pick even though there is this potential communality between the gulf states, moderate sunni regimes and israel because of iran and because of hezbollah and the kind of shifting

sands in the region, for political cover, and for that to be made overt, this complicates that relationship. it doesn't ease it. the common interests are true, you are right, but even if you are the brightest, new crown prince in saudi arabia, you need to be cognisant of the limits of what you can say or do against the background. i think those limits are shifting. have they shifted sufficiently? i think they have. i think we are in the process of seeing something extraordinary in the middle east which is the palestinian cause is no longer a red line issue.

some people would say some of the arab governments have paid lip service to it anyway. yes, you have diplomatic representation. in israel and jordan. —— jordan and egypt. there is flights between these places every day. nobody is under any illusions. i would like to pick up on one thing michael said that this doesn't change the calculus. i think trump is beginning to do some real damage here. i think people make this understandable distinction, under obama, things looked a certain way but underneath it all, bad things are happening. all trump is doing is removing the mask and showing things as they are. but there is some merit, some benefit to at least the appearance of symbolism, the respectful symbolism and the respect for appearances. i think trump with the muslim ban and the jerusalem recognition, he needs to talk to his base

and say, see all these buttons we weren't allowed to push, i am going to press every single one of them. see what happens. i think you are right, but different example because where trump is genuinely hurting, is next week there there will be further discussions on peace in syria, yeah right! between russia and turkey. where is the united states of america, in less than a year? he was only sworn in on january the 20th. the idea the united states is so pulled back from this major conflict. from the world. i am ok with the us being removed, but i am not ok with is during this has put its finger on the scales in the middle east and emboldened these calculations in the gulf states. doing it selectively. the palestinians will continue to

suffer. yesterday at the un, a few european countries came up with probably another good intention, but you know, to sort of lead on future restarting of peace talks. the leadership role is up for grabs. the final irony is, we were saying, what did he get in return? this is a guy who had a book ghostwritten for him called the art of the deal. both here and perhaps even more brazenly on the withdrawal from the pacific trade partnership, he withdrew america from the game in return for nothing. it is puzzling. we will leave that puzzle hanging in the air for another week. as we discussed here a week ago, it was a divided island rather than a divided city which could have scuppered theresa may's attempts

to get other european union leaders to start talking about the terms on which the eu will trade with the uk after it leaves 15 months from now. on tuesday, the democratic unionists, from northern ireland, on whose ten mps the conservative government depends for its survival, objected. it took until breakfast time on friday for the british prime minister to provide the reassurances that allowed the dup to withdraw its objection — at least for now. agnes, is there a sense in brussels, do you think, it is good to get a deal with theresa may because if they don't, we might end up dealing with a different british prime minister, one who is considerably less willing to do a deal? it is good to do a deal, i will rejoice, as the sun newspaper said this morning. the daily telegraph, which is also a brexit newspaper, says it is capitulation.

which is interesting. another person said it is fudge. on the irish border, definitely fudge. if it is victory for theresa may, i wouldn't want to see what defeat looks like. finally we have an agreement to go further. it took 18 months. that was the easy bit. 0k. there is less than a year, i repeat, less than a year to negotiate the transition arrangement and to agree on a framework for the future relationship. because then you need a few months of ratification. next october, we need an agreement. i'm not going to stop aiming on about a second referendum. ok. brexit is happening. theresa may has a few weeks over christmas to actually come

to a position and the tory party and the cabinet is split down the middle. —— not going to stop banging on. you have one side, they want access to the single market, but no free movement. you have the other side, the loonie brexiteers. as you would characterise them, they wouldn't characterise themselves like that. of course not. they want a canada plus—style agreement. that is to say, free trade agreement. plus services, which canada doesn't have. the problem is, when one solution, the norway style agreement, you can have no border, no hard irish border. but with the hard brexit solution, you need a border in northern ireland. we have parked a deal for another day.

even if there was a bit of drama on the way, it is a good sign, isn't it? that they have got to this stage? a willingness on both sides to get something. no side wants no deal? i believe you cannot fast forward reality. but when reality arrives, you have to deal with it. there has been this extraordinary fantasy. one of the things britons, in particular, and i am a british citizen now, they have to realise the information they have been given for decades, the reality of the eu and britain's relationship inside it has been filtered through some severe propaganda machines in the daily press. every once in a while there is a reality because they negotiating. it took them nine months, but they could have agreed that the week they walked in. we could be discussing

beyond the transitional arrangements, the disappearing 58 papers and dealing with those relationships. that is done. what i think has happened this week. reality has hit. the inevitability of a significant sum of money to cover commitments made through our current membership has been agreed. yet, still you have the two guys vying to replace theresa may at some point, borisjohnson and michael gove, two ex—journalist, one used to be a regular on this panel, giving all kinds of confusing noise. borisjohnson said we can get back our money and get control of our borders. you are not in the eu, you are not in schengen. what are you talking about? you are the foreign secretary. how can you say such propagandising

misstatements? it is fair to say if you belong to any organisation, nato or the eu, you have pooled sovereignty. we are saying we want to take back. you can go to the city and talk to any banker and say, we are not governed by any treaties that governs how you behave, that is why they get away with murder in london, and everybody wants to live here. and you have these expensive restaurants i cannot afford to eat in. you won't be able to get a cheap meal in paris if president macron has his way because he wants the bankers there. the hot stuff is going to start. there has been little sign of this on the ground so far, this rush out of the eu by financial services. nurses and doctors are going to leave. financial services? under the canada agreement, it will not cover us. they won't be able to trade in euros. if britain wants to get out of it with its head up... you are seriously saying

there could be a scenario where the eu would not permit trading in euros in the city of london as a kind of spite to britain because it is leaving? no, as a matter of fact. it is part of the negotiation. britain wants to go. the problem is, brexiteers want their cake and to eat it. they want something that doesn't exist. they are riddled with contradictions and demands, they live in fairyland. and then they come to the table and mutually exclusive demands. i feel sorry for theresa may because if she had come away and said, what the eu is proposing is ludicrous and i'm going to walk away, that would have been a disaster.

if she had agreed to what our reasonable demands, —— what are reasonable demands, and the only type of brexit the eu can get, which is ensure european citizens and their families, 3 million of them, their rights are met and access in work and stuff, then she is accused of capitulation. and the problem is, and this is where michael gove and borisjohnson are mendacious creeps, there are people who are angry, foaming at the mouth. they have ideology eyes to the brexit questioned so much. —— ideologised. if you have heard people over the past 24 hours, absolutely livid at this agreement, talking about the eu as if it was their next—door neighbour who had done a land grab. michael has been here a long time. you reported on northern ireland in the 90s, so you know the uk policies. to be fair to mr gove and mrjohnson, they are the present—day generation of something that started 30 years ago.

it has destroyed successive tory prime ministers in government. to me, i can remember the maastricht negotiations and these 4am runs byjohn major. what did he do? he kept britain out of the euro and britain out of schengen. you would have thought he would be considered a great lion. two giveaways this last week, one, this splendidly, ridiculously, honest david davis, acknowledges to the committee, they haven't done the work to assess the potential impact on the british economy of these various options of brexit. that is strange enough, you wonder what they have been doing for the last ten months. but even more bizarrely, the cabinet is yet to have a discussion on what britain wants brexit to be. they can't agree, it

will be civil war. you know why david davis can say he doesn't believe in it, public opinion, if it goes wrong, it won't be his fault, it will be remain as false, the eu's fault. —— remainers' fault. i think it is the french's faults. i get e—mails every day saying france is there. —— france wants our death. we should move it out from britain, britain, britain and get the framework wider. while this was going on, the german head of the social democratic party said yes, it is time for france and germany to work together. they want to move the project forward, it'll be easier without britain and they will be happy to see the back of us. that is where we came in, the whole

point was we were going to prevent germany and france doing deal. how is that working out for you? that's all we have time for this week. do join us again next week same time, same place. but for now thank you for watching and goodbye. sunday morning starts on a bitterly cold note. temperatures down to perhaps —14 degrees. across the snow cover of scotland. further south, a band of rain, sleet and snow and increasingly, it is turning to snow as it pushes into the cold air. ice

also an added hazard during the course of sunday morning. the met office has issued a what —— and amberwarning. be office has issued a what —— and amber warning. be prepared for disruptive snow into it mid wales into parts of northern england and down to the midlands. 5— ten centimetres at low levels, 20 centimetres at low levels, 20 centimetres possible over high ground. we will continue to see the band of sleet and snow and towards the southern edge, it may turn into range but the wind is an added hazard. 60 mph or more in the english channel and bristol channel. further north across the country, dry with sunshine but temperatures will struggle to get far above freezing. keep up—to—date with the latest forecast. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is duncan golestani.

our top stories: the uk's foreign ssecretary says he's held frank talks with iran on the plight of nazanin zaghari ratcliffe. her husband gives the visit a cautious welcome. raising her case in the context of lots of other stuff can only help improve relations, and can only lead to a better case for us. and israel —— another day of clashes in the row over donald trump's recognition ofjerusalem as israel's capital. hello and welcome to bbc news.