people on the big island of hawaii are being warned to stay away from molten rock flowing into the ocean from the eruption of mount kilauea. lava pouring into the pacific has created hazardous clouds bearing acid and particles of glass. lava streams have caused a key evacuation route to be cut off. votes are being counted in venezuela's presidential election amid reports of a low turnout and polling irregularities. venezuela's leader, president nicolas maduro looks set to win re—election. he's expected to benefit from a boycott by the main opposition parties and his ban of his most popular rivals. the authorities fighting an outbreak of ebola in the democratic republic of congo insist they are prepared for a worst—case scenario, in which the deadly virus reaches the capital, kinshasa. about 25 people have already died in a remote area upstream on the congo river. now on bbc news it's time for dateline. hello.

welcome to bbc dateline. where we debate some big stories. they report the events to the world. today, britain's royal wedding with an added dash of royal soap opera. israel celebrates its 70th birthday and a special present from donald trump whilst the troops clash. like father like son. kim jong—un uses an old playbook. she is a french algerian writer. polly toynbee, whose columns appear

in the guardian. and thomas who was known to readers in germany. let us begin with the marriage of prince harry to make a mark girl who made her name on the us tv show suits. she is bringing more than hollywood glamour. a carefully choreographed series of announcements was derailed by the will he or won't he walk him down the aisle saga. revolving around her reclusive father. polly, in the end that was resolved with charles the prince of wales doing the honours. how much hope do you rest on the ability of meghan markle and all she represents to introduce some element of change to bring's monarchy? it never changes. it always is amazing, modern young people. amazing they have a baby. amazing they get married.

all they have to do is exist and reproduce. they don't have any other duty orfunction. they make us an absurdity of the world stage. there we are a country tearing ourselves apart over europe and suddenly this wedding cake, mythology, this lunacy. it symbolises in this country everything that is worst about a huge amount of power and money and inheritance. the worship of that. but i'm afraid it is very popular with 80% of our people so we have to go along with it. until people come to their senses, what are we doing this very ordinary family being sanctified as if there was something special about them. they are quite dim. they have no known intellectual interests. that is a very sweeping generalisation. we wouldn't know about it, it is kept behind closed doors. we know what the queen reads.

they never go to this theatre, to any artistic things. look at paintings, despite william and kate having degrees in art history. never knowingly going to an art gallery since. they can go anywhere they want. they have had the best education and at the end of it all, they are really, ordinary. you wrote a book about them. it is... if it is true like polly says, that i am an observer of that. it is notjust 80% of britain, it seems to be 80% of the world population who think this absurd thing is well worth watching. i think what polly is underestimating is apart from personal qualities of individual members which is very hard for us to gauge, is the stability of the monarchy as an institution. it is quite remarkable and well worth keeping.

look at all the so card pillars of the society, the banks, the media, church, politics, they are down in the dumps and people really care less and less about them. amazingly the monarchy, which 25 years ago thought we had seen the last of its days, has risen to a position of where it represents continuity. if you look at my country and talk about heads of state, and the different heads of states we've had and the wrangling about it. which demeans the office, and you have here a royal family which continually hold sway in the highest office in the land. i think for us as observers, it is a enviable situation to have. well, some of them are german we can send them back to you. please do. any time we will have them. you grew up in a country that famously cut off the heads of its monarch. yet seems to have had a yearning for

a monarchy sense. there is a debate about the french president if he is getting ideas bigger than his station. has britain got an advantage here? well, i think a royal wedding is a uniquely british event and it attracts mass interests around the world including the french. as you said, france got rid of their royals a long time ago, but they are fascinated by the sense of developing history. and the pomp and circumstance. saying that, i think the latest wedding is getting many of us confused because it is supposed to be a game changer. one that will make royalty become more inclusive. what troubles me is the whole point of the royal family is that it is supposed to be aloof and indeed snobbish, i would say. you don't want it to be the kind of monarchy would bump into in the gym or in the art gallery? no, it it represents

wealth and to pretend otherwise is silly. the queen has never bowed to the populist agenda and she represents a kind of stiff upper lip person. that is why she has done rather well. i think the younger royals were getting into the celebrity culture who are rather desperate to be loved in spite of their privileged lifestyles. a brief point about the inherited wealth. the amount of money via monarchy brings in in terms of tourism is enormous. seeing a lot of that this week. but i think that is a salacious argument because the main argument in support of them is that it is a form of soft power, well my answer to that is france is a much more popular tourist destination and its royal

legacy draws crowds. we don't need living royals. laughter. you are talking about painting them off, not offered their head. —— tensioning. well, i would say elizabeth the last. stephanie, what about the impact in the united states because meghan markle is american there's huge excitement. there is a lot of focus on her mother arriving. do you think it is a disappointment that doria ragland did not get to walk down the aisle. i think there is. the royalfamily is a magnet for many americans and an obsession. i think for most americans the politics get lost. they don't understand

that the british taxpayers are funding the royal family. they don't understand where it lies on that spectrum. and i actually think now what we are seeing is the royal family is serving a useful role at a time when the country is still divided. you have an apolitical head of state who has remained very tight—lipped and is in a sense unifying the country. and i would say it is similar in the us where we are so divided. this idea of looking at a royal family that rises above the fray, so to speak, is very appealing. with an american in the mix, this becomes like a disney fairy tale come true. grace kelly all over again. with the added intrigue of her being not only a divorcee, but of mixed race heritage. her having a very established career behind her before she enters the royal family. i think the fascination is enduring. i would agree with thomas, it does provide a tourist boost that is most likely, by most accounts, bigger than what they cost the british taxpayers. you've almost sold me

if the alternative is the trump family. we have to be careful. this is the by—product of the popularity of the monarchy. but i don't think it it is what makes them most important. your argument about uniting the country, is important. especially since we are so divided especially about brexit. it is nice to have some family uniting the people. we have some examples of divisions much deeper and troubling that in the uk. or indeed around this table. 70 years ago the state of israel was unilaterally created. the borders of israel may have changed, but the basics of the palestinian israeli conflict have not. donald trump's decision to relocate the embassy tojerusalem has angered

some and made others very happy. live ammunition was used to prevent a breach in the border of israel. nearly 60 protesters were killed in palestine. whatever people's view of the conflict it was terrible what happened. where do we go from here? is there any fresh momentum? which after all some around donald trump think they might create by injecting this degree of uncertainty with the embassy decision in jerusalem. well, i think first of all it has to be said there has been some horrendous massacres of palestinians by israel use over the decades and most of all over the last few years. i think this week's slaughter was very pointed because of what is happening in jerusalem. one of the most extreme right wing israeli governments for years was working with an almost rogue administration in the us to show its contempt for the peace process,

and palestinian lives. we hear apologists making up fantasy scenarios about a huge invasion of israel... you are making the point very strongly, but the view that is expressed by the israeli government is that people were a threat to enter the country and that live fire was used on them because of that. and that is what the un inquiry will have to establish the facts. precisely, the facts, not the view. your view of their view. i'm dealing with facts. the truth is the palestinians are in no position whatsoever to invade israel. precisely because... but people can cross the border and cause trouble. gaza is a prison camp that has been under siege. it lacks all the basics including water, electricity, food and medical supplies...

that is the position for many years there but where do we go from there? it has to be emphasised. but the overwhelming majority were peaceful protesters in palestine. they were within gaza itself, on their own territory. nowhere near their own territory. nowhere near the israeli fence. but this idea that the threat could justify indiscriminate execution is diabolical. the question is where do we go from here? and my answer to that is i quite agree there is a case to be answered here by the israelis, but the thing that went awry was the decision by the americans to move the embassy tojerusalem. it is one of those moments where you ask yourself what goes on in the us that they look at this combustible situation and continue with something that was promised in the election campaign. diplomacy requires you to not follow what you said in the election campaign and look at the likely outcome. and the outcome was predictable.

if you move the embassy what you expect? the answer to where we go from here is not to step backwards. this was a step backwards. whether america recognises it or not, this is not an issue that needs to be resolved today. we know broadly the political consensus and that us is pro israel as a state and they are broadly supportive of israel. to this cause any trouble? it did. the american jewish community was divided as they are and have been in the past. this was an attempt by president trump to fulfil a campaign promise. to play to his base.

he disregarded what would be the long—term effects on the ground and, you know, iagree, the split images of ivanka trump opening a jerusalem embassy juxtaposed with slaughter in gaza was very disturbing. now when trump announced this decision in december to move the embassy to jerusalem and recognise jerusalem as the capital of of israel, there was hope that behind the scenes this was part of a larger strategy. part of a broader unorthodox plan. but that looks like it was wishful things mac thinking. we saw someone say that... when netanyahu was in washington we had the sense that maybe some other players were coming into this.

to derive any hope? i think that is very optimistic. when you have had a massacre, 60 people dead and many many more injured. you don't buy the suggestion that some of the people are being used? do you derive any hope from the role of the arab nations? i think that is very optimistic. when you have had a massacre, of 60 people, many many more injured. unarmed protesters... are being used by hamas? protests involves people who throw stones and get a bit... that happens in protest here sometimes. israel sets itself up as the only real democracy in that part of the world. well, what kind of democracy does not allow unarmed protest? their argument is they do, but...

it is a diabolical argument. if you continue to look at the ins and outs of that situation, you are not going to get anywhere with this issue. this is for the investigation to establish what went wrong and who is more to blame. i think the blame lies on the american diplomacy. to allow this situation to emerge at this time laid the fuse. maybe we thought that trump was a bit of a fool and he will not really do this stuff, but it looks like he is white serious about undoing the legacy of any previous president. —— quite serious.

this idea that terror or criminal suspects can be, who are within gaza, can now be murdered alongside what israel i am sure would cool collateral damage is monstrous. despite their intentions or affiliations. this attempt to whitewash attacks on protesters... you are still trying to solve who is to blame and how this happened. with all due respect i think we need to have israel stop murdering people. the right to life is being negated.

the rest of the world's democracies have to say this is not how democracies behave. your country, my country. all of our countries should be saying, don't do this. i think the problem is now you have a situation in gaza is feeding into trump's narrative that walls are the solution and are defensible. i think it shows that the trump administration is unabashedly pro—israel, pro—netanyahu and they're using that argument for walls. hollywood loves plot twists now... after this week's efforts in north korea, the characters in team america were puppets. in real life you could be forgiven for wondering who is pulling the strings. kimjong—un has gone from hinting he may give up his nuclear programme

to threatening to pull out altogether from the summit with president trump. that is one side of it. 0n the american side, john bolton, who was almost a figure out of central casting with his big glasses and intentional grumpy manner which she uses as part of getting his point across, is apparently being slapped down by his own president. correct if you read the statement that north korea put out, he is the central character. and actually cold him repugnant. he is the one that set them off. making the comparison that his model for north korea is the denuclearization deal that they with libya. now that has infuriated the north koreans. they don't want to end up with the fate of libya or iraq. we know that in 2003, america did a deal with libya and years later in 2011, gadhafi was in a ditch and then killed. that has prompted a resident trump to come out and say this is not about regime change.

we're going to be offering protection, what ever that means, to north korea. and libya is not our model. colonel gaddafi was in addiction was then killed. and that has prompted donald trump to come out and say, this is not about regime change, we are going to be offering protection, whatever that means, to north korea and libya is not our model, in fact. it's a pretty brutal public putdown. yes, but what you have is a clear split between his two main advisers. bolton on the one hand who is much more of a hawk and mike pompeo who has gone to north korea and is much more careful in his language. what we are seeing is much more division between these two.

the us wants complete, irreversible denuclearization and north korea wants it done in stages. i think it is terrific that we have got to this stage of possibly having talks with just a little while ago, it was just a little rocket man. the trouble is ijust don't think that president trump or his split administration are capable of the subtlety required. what is clear is that the north koreans are not going to give up their nuclear weapons. why should they? by becoming nuclear they have brought an american president to meet them. this is phenomenal. this is a tiny impoverished country and just by having a weapon,

they brought the most powerful country to their door. that is what they have learned. there is no way that anyone is going to be able to scrutinise if they have got weapons somewhere. it is not possible. all you can hope for is that you get a peaceful understanding between them. and nuclearization as minimal as possible. i don't think there is a hope that trouble except that. to think the north koreans have been quite clever in exposing the divisions in the white house? well, the north koreans have preferred to trump as human some. and meanwhile, they've despise john bolton. and john bolton himself doesn't have much confidence in trump, who he sees as very naive who was on his way

to another terrible deal. he has tricked a massively complex and catastrophic foreign policy issue into a simple chance to make himself popular. and perhaps even win the nobel peace prize, trump. he sees everything including diplomacy as a deal—making. and that is the problem. what he wants now with the north koreans leader is faced time with someone he has regularly insulted and threatened military action. trying to reach deals with nuclear arms deals i don't think it's a bad idea. i don't think the north koreans have exposed the division in the american administration. it is all over. when you say it is a brutal put—down, i am not impressed. you often fire people who was only appointed a day or two before. that is part and parcel of how

they do business there. why not keep quiet until the summit actually happens? why announce what is happening now what is their game plan. this is what allows the other side to play nicely and expose, as you say, the division. they have themselves to blame. i think what trump has done is he has infantilized politics. and as far as the safety of the world is concerned this is dangers. dangerous.

you only have to look at his policies towards palestinians to see that he is a warmonger. and he and mines themselves with war criminals. to use that phrase, you can't... it is not a objective phrase. he was elected to the country. you don't have much faith in trump to pull this off. he is full of some prizes. he pulled the summit off and that was a surprise. my point about the palestinian issue is that he is aligning himself with people who are not interested in peace. to think that in the nt has to pronounce to her brood resume you can do what you like, shows that he has reached a cul—de—sac of his own making. thank you all for your company. we will be back next time at the same time next week. goodbye. good morning.

but we do start with rain in the north—west highlands in scotland, peppering up through the night. we could see some misty conditions to start the day, dropping down into mid single figures but with sunshine overhead, it will warm up quite quickly with england and wales, some patches around eastern coasts, a dry day in scotland, the rain in the north and west of scotland fizzling out at continuing through the heavies in the likes of londonderry as well. with temperatures reaching into the low 20s, we might see one oi’ into the low 20s, we might see one or two showers develop, one of two home—grown, could come with the odd rumble of thunder, very isolated as

they developed through parts of the midlands, wales and the south—west later. most will be dry and that is the story through this week, isolated showers and thunderstorms but the most, sunshine feeling warm away from eastern coasts. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe. my name is nkem ifejika. our top stories: nicolas maduro is declared the winner in venezuela's presidential elections, which was boycotted by most of the opposition. warnings of a toxic gas cloud in hawaii after lava from the kilauea volcano reaches the south—east coast. authorities fighting an ebola outbreak in the democratic republic of congo say they're prepared for a worst—case scenario the us and china put

a potential trade war on hold, agreeing to back away from imposing tariffs on each other‘s goods. also in the programme, what has to be the most talked about name in fashion, clare waight keller from givenchy describes that wedding dress in detail.