that's what the hamas terrorist organisation was chanting, that's exactly what they were saying, that we are going to kill everyjew. those aren't my words, those are the precise words of hamas. how many israeli soldiers or police were wounded or killed? well, i don't know what the premise of that question is, that it would be better if more of them were killed... well, no, the premise is, we are trying to gauge therefore whether the use was proportionate. the figure we've heard from the idf spokesman is that one soldier was lightly wounded on your side. so, if there were people shooting, there can't have been many, and it can't have been that much of a threat to justify killing more than 50 people and wounding 2000? well, let's talk about the scope of the threat. israel has received a barrage in past years of tens of thousands of missiles, hamas has dug terror tunnels underneath israel to try to kill civilians. had the soldiers not stopped this attempted mass infiltration by a terrorist organisation that openly preaches for genocide of everyjew, then the families that were right behind those soldiers living a few

football fields away could have experienced a mass slaughter, and that's exactly what we prevented from happening. but, look, it's a situation that the idf, the israeli military, has a lot of experience in — in that very place, it has been a weekly thing now for some weeks to have these very demonstrations, they must have considered the possibility that thousands of people might try and rush the fence — why weren't there water cannons, other nonlethal weapons that could be used to allow you to stop civilians doing that? well, of course we tried that, but if you were sitting at home eating a meal with your family, trying to protect your family, and if you had a fence outside of your house and on the other side of that fence were mass murdering terrorists that were carrying knives and shooting guns and placing bombs and sang, "as soon as we get over this fence we're going to slaughter your family," you might take every measure necessary in order to protect your family,

and that's exactly what israel did. if we look at the reaction from the german foreign ministry, uk foreign ministry, they all accept your right to defend your border and to defend your people. the only issue, and the really salient issue is whether proportionate force was used. now, you mention whether or not it was a deliberate tactic by hamas to use civilians — once again, that must be a thing, if what you say is right, that the israeli military is used to dealing with — haven't you just given them the exact result which, if they were adopting that strategy, they would have wanted, which is dozens of dead people? look, it's a very difficult situation, admittedly. the headquarters of hamas in the last war was the shifa hospital, the interior minister, excuse me, of hamas said that women and children excel at being human shields. it's exceedingly difficult when people are shooting behind children not to wound anybody who's innocent. that is the dilemma that we face on a daily basis.

well, let's talk about where this goes from here, because we both know in these situations, there are funeral the following day, emotions run high and it generates the desire for more violence — how are you going to try and stop this turning into a major situation, a major problem, maybe another intifada ? well, what can really stop this from devolving into more violence is, hamas can decide to stop waging war against israel. it can decide rather than investing the billions of dollars that it has received in aid, instead of investing those in bullets and bombs it can invest those in schools and roads and hospitals to actually take care of their people for the very first time. but it's evident from their actions that they don't actually care about the lives of their people. they are boastful about the fact that they are sending civilians to die, that is a travesty and this terrorist organisation needs to stop waging war against israel,

it needs to start caring for its people and that can be the real turning point here. david keyes, thank you forjoining us. thank you for having me. that's all from us in london. evan is in what the northern irish call stroke city. evan... welcome to londonderry — a city that sits right next to the border between northern ireland and the irish republic. the border may have been a sideshow during the brexit referendum campaign but it has now become the main feature. the government seems paralysed by it, trying to escape the grand brexit dilemma. does it allow some modest physical border here, which it has said it won't, or do you have a soft brexit inside the customs union? which it has said it won't. we would take a pretty comprehensive look at the issue throughout the week on newsnight. how the heck do you reconcile those pledges? all week we'll be looking at this. and, to start us off,

tonight we are here in the guildhall in derry with politicians, and members of the public who will be affected by their decisions. here, we are less than three miles from the border, and we've come here because this city has long had to live with the division that the border issue threatens to accentuate. the city is beautifully located on the banks of the river foyle but its very name, derry/londonderry, can be divisive. if only it were called say foyleside, like the local shopping centre, a neutralformulation of fewer than six syllables. the city at one time had its own internal border, the peace wall separated the communities. there's only a little of it left now and it's something of a tourist attraction. one measure of how far things have come. for some though, the city is now synonymous with the hugely popular channel 4 sitcom, derry girls. you can't marry an

orange man, michelle. that's a pity. because i think there's something really sexy about the fact that they hate us so much. the comedy is a reminder of how much has changed. the population of northern ireland is smaller than west yorkshire and yet it is here that almost the entire argument is being fought, an argument that involves three borders, northern ireland and the republic, northern ireland and great britain and great britain and the republic. this is the awkward one — the famous irish border. this bridge marks the divide between the north and the republic. and you can see the problem. it's open — too open to now obstruct. and there's an awful lot of it.

300 miles, over 200 crossing points. i remember when there was barriers across here. barriers across here? yeah. you can remember that? och aye, sure. yeah. so, this road was shut? this road was closed altogether. i don't think there's any call for a border. if you put a border in, they'll blow her up. do you think they will? border country — near the northern irish town of warrenpoint. but this is no longer a border in the usual sense. normally, borders make nations. control of a border equals control of your taxes and regulations.

one can find relics of borders passed here. of borders past here. the border says who can come in, what can come in, and at what price. "take back control" could be said to mean, have a border. here, that's all gone. there's no control here. so, the challenge is quite simple. a lot of people voted for brexit so that the uk could go its own way and do its own thing, which requires a strong border. and yet, at the same time, whether it's in dover, or hull, or here, we want as little border as possible. really hard to reconcile those two desires. but the north—south land border is not the only reason ireland has for wanting britain to avoid imposing border controls. there's a second border to think about, one that dominates ireland's trade flows. this is the port in dublin. basically, brexit is really

annoying for ireland. at the moment, the country is in the eu single market and customs union — a zone that extends continuously all the way over there to eastern europe. they refer to britain here as the land bridge to the rest of europe. now imagine a really hard brexit. then, to get things from here to europe, they have to go through customs to get into the uk and then through customs again to get back into the single market from which they started. instead of being a land bridge, britain becomes an obstructive piece of rock — getting in between ireland and the market it increasingly feels is home. we are already seeing major shipping lines deploying brand—new capacity on direct routes from dublin to continental europe. here is how ireland is preparing, commissioning new ships. a brexit—buster like this that will go to mainland europe direct. people are simply going to say, "not worth it, just not worthwhile,"

and it will go on to the longer and slower, but more dependable direct routes to continental europe. ireland is creating options for itself but it would undoubtedly prefer not to have to do so. brexiteers fear ireland is using the fraught issue of the land border to thwart harder versions of brexit altogether. we would be very, very happy if the monies we invest in the physical border controls turn out to be a wasted investment. but we have to make that investment now anyway. i ask if there's a bit of bluff here — an attempt to scare britain towards a softer brexit. i wouldn't comment on the politics. it's an extraordinarily complex challenge that our politicians in ireland and our civil servants are having to cope with. the eu have a backstop plan for the border. it won't help the port because it puts a border in the irish sea — between britain and ireland north and south. which takes us to the third border in this relationship... away from the land border,

up near larne in the top right of northern ireland, you can see britain, the mull of kintyre. the historic connection is alive and well. there is even talk of building a bridge. do you feel closer to scotland? we‘ re ulster scots anyway, so we are. you consider yourself? oh aye, ulster scot. and do you think they'll ever build a bridge there? it doesn't look that far away from here. no chance. not around here. and, up here, the problem of the border is one for others to solve — somehow, anyhow. do you think they can get away with number plate readers oi’ cameras? unnecessary expense. we've just been down there. do you accept the idea it's going to be hard to have some physical border there — some infrastructure at the border? virtually impossible now. i don't think it will be acceptable to anybody. people are saying it's going to stop brexit,

or get in the way of brexit. well, i don't see how brexit should be on the go now, it should be ready to go now and get on with it, and then see what happens. get on with it first and then we'll see what happens. the people voted and you can't change it. so, let's take a minute to take stock of the potential outcomes here. and, essentially, we're trapped between a fundamental choice between the hard and soft versions of brexit. the brexiteers‘ dream and the brexiteers‘ nightmare. the dream is a hard brexit but it would involve a border — not a border like the past but probably some physical infrastructure, a camera. the brexiteers‘ nightmare, the soft brexit, well, that means britain inside the customs union, it means britain inside the single market or, at least as far as goods are concerned. no border but brexit in name only. it's not an easy problem to resolve. the public tend to big views

of the issue rather than detailed ones and yet the details will have a big effect on the kind of brexit we adopt. now let's be clear, there is not going to be a people border under any scenario. no passport control. it's all about goods and trade. and whether there is a way to avoid the binary choice between a physical border — albeit subtle — or a soft brexit? one thought is to have a hard brexit, butjust to allow smuggling? i don't think the eu will tolerate that. another thought is that maybe technology can make the subtle physical infrastructure so subtle as to be invisible, or even non—existent. but if that does exist, no—one has found it yet. a third option is to have less border but more internal controls. track trucks away from the border. that is actually a piece of the government's idea of a so—called customs partnership. but it is complex and untried. so, a bunch of ideas.

let's have a think about this with martina anderson, sinn fein mep, and the party's brexit coordinator and nelson sinn fein mep, and the party's brexit coordinator and nelson mccausland of the dup. he was member of the stormont assembly here until last year. i know there are other parties in northern ireland — politics is never that simple — but apologies for not having time to hear from them all. we will be hearing, however, from members of the public who are with us here wanting to express their views. we will hear from them as we go along. if i can ask you first of all, you voted leave, did you know when you voted leave what a nuisance the whole issue of northern ireland was going to be to the brexit project as the people in britain want to see it? well, i think the issue has been inflated by quite a number of people. mainly remainers, in order to effectively frustrate brexit.

so what is your preferred solution on what is called the irish border problem? well, first of all you have to be clear on what the problem or the issue is. and there is i think good evidence which we can look at elsewhere of how it might be approached. so, for example you can look at the arrangements in regard to the eu and switzerland. is that your suggestion...? no, it's not. why are you mentioning it, then? i am mentioning it occurs it is an indication of the way in which you might consider approaching it. you might also look at the arrangements between norway and sweden. the other thing which needs to be looked at very carefully as the nature of the trade between northern ireland and the republic. i think you have got a small number of companies... i want to pin you down because you have given two examples both of which have borders, and on major roads and they have physical infrastructure. the swiss border you will have seen on some motorways has great and sometimes they have

$pfi‘5'55fsfié‘fi‘ = a»; ~ . ~ . you picked there on the initial example i gave, switzerland. well, you gave it! i am saying they are the sort of thing. what about the actual thing? people keep offering these examples which sound seductive, you examine them and they involve great borders. and then i said also you could have the example... so now tell us your solution. i will if you will... go on, give it to us. the example of norway and sweden is not quite the same as switzerland, and if you take norway and sweden and look at an enhanced form of that, but also look at the fact that much of the trade between

northern ireland and the republic, a very large percentage of it is limited to a small