suggesting many senior officials are secretly working to resist the president, to frustrate what they see as his worst impulses. the anonymous editorial says mr trump's amorality and impulsiveness have led to ill—informed and reckless decisions. president trump has called the attack gutless and phony. after talks in pyongyang, south korea's envoy has said president moonjae—in will meet kimjong—un in north korea for three days this month, from 18—21 september. britain has named two officers in russian military intelligence as suspects in the novichok nerve agent attack. the british prime minister says the attempted murder of a former russian spy and his daughter was almost certainly approved at a high level in the government in moscow. now on bbc news, hardtalk.

welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. in the turbulent recent history of the middle east, has there ever been a time when israel has seemed more powerful — militarily, diplomatically and economically? israel has the fulsome support of the trump administration, and it has common strategic interests with saudi arabia, and arab nations preoccupied with perceived threats from iran. my guest is israel's ambassador to the un, danny danon. is israel making wise choices from its position of strength? ambassador danny danon, at un headquarters in new york,

welcome to hardtalk. thank you, stephen, for having me. well, it's a pleasure to have you on the show. i want to begin with what i found rather extraordinary remarks from your prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, just a few days ago when he was visiting the dimona nuclear plant, where he said this. he said, in the middle east, there is a simple truth. this is no place for the weak. the weak crumble, they are slaughtered and erased from history, while the strong, for good orfor ill, survive. that seems to be a message to the israeli people, to the world, that might is right. am i understanding him correctly? the prime minister was very clear. we live in a very tough neighbourhood. you just need to listen to our neighbours. you know, we can envy your

neighbours in the uk, but when you listen to our neighbours from the north, you listen to hezbollah, you listen to the iranians, to hamas, you understand that they really mean it when they say that they want to kill the jews, they want to destruct israel. it's not only cheap talk. they really mean it, and they have the capabilities of threatening israel. that's why we will continue to seek peace, but at the same time we'll continue to invest in our defence, in our security measures, to protect ourselves. we have no luxury to make a mistake on this issue. ok, but let's think about the context. there he is at the dimona nuclear plant. we know it's the repository of israel's nuclear weapons arsenal, an arsenal which you will never disclose in public, but we all know it exists. you are the only nuclear power in the region. you have the strongest military of all of your neighbours, and there is benjamin netanyahu, basically saying all that matters is military strength.

stephen, israel is a peaceful nation, and when you look at stability in the region, when you seek stability in the region, israel is a beacon of stability in the region. so we will continue to be a place where we seek peace. we have no — any intention to escalate anything in the middle east, and our neighbours know that. they should know, at the same time, that if they will try to pose a threat to our existence, we have the means to protect ourselves, and we'll do whatever is necessary to protect the jewish people in israel. yes, but of course, many of the engagements and conflicts that we see israel occupied with are actually not about israel in an existential struggle for survival. in fact, quite the contrary. since march of this year, we've seen five months of the israeli military lining up along the border with the gaza strip, using live—fire ammunition

against palestinian protesters. more than 165 have been killed, including 23 palestinians under the age of 18. i guess mr netanyahu just regards that as proof that the middle east is again, quote, no place for the weak. the weak crumble and are slaughtered, and that is what israel is doing. i beg to differ with you. firstly, when we speak about the threat, we speak about iran, which is a real threat to the middle east, not only to israel, but also to the saudis, jordanians, egyptians, you name it. no, my question is not about iran. my question is about civilian protesters in the gaza strip, who for many months have been protesting along that border fence. they do not carry guns. admittedly, some of them throw stones. they even fly kites with flaming torches on them at times. but what they do not have is guns, and the israeli military responds with live fire. i will get to that in a minute. when the prime minister

spoke about the threat, he spoke about iran. let's make it clear. now, regarding your questions, nobody was lining up at the border to harm peaceful civilians. that is not the fact. the fact is that you had a 14,000 violent mob coming to the fence, with one intention — to bring down the fence, and then to march into thejewish communities next to our border. it was not a peaceful demonstration. that is a lie, if you call it a peaceful demonstration, because in a peaceful demonstration, you don't come with guns, you don't come with molotov cocktails. you come and you have a peaceful protest. this is not the case. it was orchestrated by hamas, and we did exactly what every other nation would do. we protected our border. you are sitting in new york, i am sitting in london. i'm inclined to take the word of a very experienced israeli human rights lawyer, michael sfa rd, who has looked at cases where the israeli military opened fire in the last five months, and he says it's quite clear lethal force against unarmed civilians

who do not pose a danger is illegal, and this is the crux of many cases there on the gaza border. he is an israeli lawyer, one of half a dozen human rights campaign groups who have filed cases against the idf in your country. with all due respect to all of those lawyers you just quoted, i care about the rights of the israelis who live in israel. and when you have 14,000 people marching to the fence, and they are saying, we will come and we will take the house of the jews, they are saying it, you have reports of hamas sending people to the fence and paying them to crash the fence, we cannot take any chances. let me ask you, what would you do if you had 14,000 of your enemy coming to your fence? what would you do then? you would protect your border. so we have no intention to harm anyone.

we seek peace. and i want to remind you that, 12 years ago, we pulled out from gaza completely. we took out all the so—called settlements out of gaza. we don't have occupation today in gaza. we don't have settlers in gaza. we don't have israeli troops in gaza. we pulled out. we demolished the houses. we even took the dead people out of the cemeteries. and instead of building a society that will thrive for our coexistence, that will build their economy, unfortunately hamas took over. and we see the results today, when they are digging tunnels and they are firing rockets into our civilian cities. ambassador, you sit there at the united nations, representing israel. and you know, of course, the un general assembly voted, i think it was 120—8, to condemn israel for its use of excessive force in the clashes we have seen in recent months. we've had the international criminal court saying that it wants a preliminary examination of what israel has been doing.

we've had widespread condemnation from european leaders, many of whom regard themselves as close friends and partners of israel. what would you say, given all of that condemnation, what would you say that israel has achieved in those five months, in which 170 palestinians have been killed ? well, you can speak about achievements. we had no intentions to see the escalation of this. we said that very clearly. we seek peace, period. we protected our border. we had no intention to kill anyone, and you should ask the hamas what they achieved by sending innocent people — some of them were innocent, but most of them were members of hamas, and they claimed it themselves, that they sent them to the border. what did they achieve? and by the way, let's not forget the context, stephen. it all happened after the us administration decided to move the american embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem. and the hamas leadership decided to contort the narrative, and instead of you covering the opening of the new embassy, everybody in the world covered

the riots on the fence. so it was orchestrated. they planned it, and it's a pity that they used people's life in order to get broad attention. getting back to the question of what was the point, i mean, i'm very mindful that in recent days your defence minister, avigdor lieberman, has in essence been having de facto negotiation with hamas, admittedly through a third party, the egyptians, looking for some sort of long—term truce arrangement, which according to the hebrew press could involve the wider reopening of the border crossings, we've seen some of that already, a resolution of the important issue of captive soldiers and missing people that israel wants returned, and then a wider agreement on infrastructure in gaza, foreign funding of sea ports and shipping lanes,

and all sorts of things. basically you describe, on the one hand, hamas as an intolerable terrorist organisation intent on your destruction, and then, after a flareup of violence, you end up talking to them and looking to do some sort of truce arrangement with them. it doesn't make sense. well, first of all, i invite you to the middle east. you will understand that many things don't make sense in our region. that's unfortunate, because you cannot predict everything that will happen with those people. if you've got an elected government, that's elected every four years, you can have negotiations with them. you're dealing with a terrorist organisation. they have a hidden agenda, and sometimes you don't know what will happen tomorrow morning. no, but you do acknowledge, then, that all of this rhetoric around them being terrorist organisation that you will never talk to, and all of that, it's basically nonsense. after all of the violence we've seen in recent months, you are talking to them, and there is an effort to get a long—term truce with hamas. so when you look at the region,

not only about hamas, but we say very clearly, it will be peaceful in israel, it will be peaceful in gaza. the same goes for lebanon. if hezbollah will try to check our capabilities, it will not be peaceful in lebanon, as well. but we have no reason to engage with hezbollah, or with hamas. but they are the ones who are trying to send rockets, to dig tunnels. and we say this very clearly to our people who are in the area. if it will be quiet in israel, it will be quiet in gaza. and, by the way, we encourage humanitarian projects in gaza. we work with the eu, we work with the un, about those projects. we have our humanitarian needs, as well, and you refer to the israeli boys who are being held by hamas. two israeli citizens, and two israeli bodies of foreign soldiers. you havejust made a point of saying israel cares

about the humanitarian situation. if that is true, why has israel and your prime minister, mr netanyahu, been so fulsome in support of the trump administration's decision to cut $350 million worth of assistance per year, that was channelled to the un relief and works agency, unrwa, that specifically provides assistance to palestinian refugees? you in israel have been delighted by that, so where is your concern for palestinians‘ humanitarian needs in that case? first of all, we have to acknowledge the decision made by the us. they are the ones who are giving the funds, and i have heard ambassador haley speaking here in the un security council a few weeks ago about unrwa, and she said, why are we paying so much money when all those countries who criticise the us don't give much money as well?

it was a us decision, we respect it. we think it was the right decision for the... what do you mean you respect it? you were thrilled by it. mr netanyahu said this. let me finish, let me finish. we think it was the right decision because unrwa, instead of supporting the palestinians, they did something else. they kept in the same situation. they are not resettling the palestinians. they are not helping them. the, for example — you know, millions of palestinians who live today under the palestinian control. why unrwa should take care of those palestinians? why can't the us, the uk, the eu, the gulf countries? why can't they give money to the palestinian authority, and they should take care of the palestinians who live there? these are internationally recognised refugees, as the descendants of the original refugees. they have the same sorts of rights that would be given under international law to afghan or burmese or somali or other refugees. and the truth is, as a member of unrwa, christopher gunness, has said in recent days, what you are trying to do

in your support of this us decision, you are trying to airbrush out of history and out of the discourse more than 5 million individuals who, according to gunness, have inalienable rights, but rights you don't want to recognise. first, we can argue about those numbers. unrwa has a tendency to expand the number of refugees so they can get more funding from the international community. but the main point is where they are heading. in unrwa schools they teach their children they should go back to their homes in tel aviv and jerusalem, they are not helping the palestinians. we know that it won't happen. instead of settling them, instead of teaching them a profession and helping them build a better future for their own people, they are actually helping the palestinians to continue with their victimhood approach. an approach that didn't bring them anywhere. you cannot stay

victims for centuries. there are times we have to say let's move on, let's build our future. when mr gunness talked about you wanting to airbrush the palestinian refugees out of history and out of the discourse, that sounds pretty much like what you just said to me. but i would say to you, the american phrase, i am sure you do in new york city, "be careful what you wish for." it could lead to massive new problems for israel, if all of the humanitarian assistance, education that was provided by unrwa to palestinians, if this is jeopardised as a result of this, in the words of lara friedman of the foundation of middle east peace, she says "it is very clear that the overarching goal is to eliminate palestinian refugees as an issue, but this will not make peace any easier, it will actually make it even more difficult." so, i want to surprise you that we encourage countries

to support humanitarian projects in somalia and in gaza. we work in many countries on those projects. it doesn't have to go through unrwa. you have other agencies, you have other means to support palestinians, we encourage it, but when you look at unrwa, about the incitement in schools, about the work they are doing there, we think it is about time to find another way that will actually help the palestinians and will not leave them where they are. i asked you about how you regard israel's standing in the world, as you sit there representing israel at the united nations. another area of deep concern for many both inside and outside israel in recent weeks has been the passage in the knesset of what is called by many the nation's state law, which enshrines the special status of israel as the historic homeland of the jewish people in your basic law. the european union foreign affairs representative has expressed her deep concern. amnesty international has said that it has entrenched and exacerbated 70 years of inequality and discrimination. do you care? sure, we care.

but stephen, i am amazed, at the un i see so many resolutions and so much talk about israel, i don't recall in the un anybody discussing legislation in other countries. internal legislation, not the us, the uk not even the eu. when it comes to israel, people have an obsession with every single thing that happens in israel. ambassador, surely you don't have such a short memory? surely you remember during the apartheid years in south africa, the international community was very preoccupied for the fight as what was widely regarded as justice in south africa. it is notjust israel that is put under international scrutiny. you cannot compare south africa to israel, even though our

adversaries that is what they want to do. if you look at the arab israelis that live in israel, they are equal citizens. this law doesn't change it at all. israel is a strong democracy, it will continue to be a strong democracy and those arab members of the knesset who criticised the law, by the way, some of them even travelled to the un and the eu to criticise the legislation. can you imagine another democracy that would allow a member of parliament to come to the un and criticise the work of its own parliament, of its own government? it only shows how strong a democracy we are... laughter. ..even if you don't like it, it the strongest democracy. it is even stronger than the democracies in europe who criticise us! i believe we are a stronger democracy than those who criticise israel. it depends if you are listening to the substance of what these people are saying and how

seriously do you take it. and frankly, it isn't just arab—israeli mks, politicians, who are accusing the israeli government of racism. the leader, one of the leading figures in meretz, tamar zandberg, she said quite crudely and bluntly that this is a racist law. there are many israelis, we have seen them demonstrating in tel aviv and elsewhere who support that view. i was a member of parliament and i'm used to those arguments. let's speak about the legislation itself, which speaks about the character of israel as a jewish nation, our flag, our language, it allows minorities the same rights as everyone else. so yes, israel is ajewish democracy. you can have that, there is no contradiction between a jewish and a democracy and everybody should respect that... there are 1.8 million arabs in israel, roughly 20% of the population, isn't it? and when they read in your nation's

state law, which is now basic law, that "the state views of the development ofjewish settlement as a national value and will act to encourage and promote it's establishment", there is no doubt, surely in anybody‘s mind, that that creates two classes of citizen. jewish citizens and the rest. no, that is not the case. the same in minorities when they read the word of the national anthem of israel, it speaks about the jewish nation. when they open their passport or id cards, they will see the symbol of the menorah, a jewish symbol. they live in a jewish nation, they know that, but in thisjewish nation they have full rights, they will get elected to the knesset, they will sit in our supreme court, they will get the same education as my children get in israel. that is the meaning of equality, but it is equality in ajewish nation. yes, israel is the homeland of thejewish people and it can be a jewish nation and a democracy.

there is no contradiction. some people want to change the character of israel as a jewish nation, but for us, since 19118, we decided that israel will be ajewish democracy. a final point ambassador, we don't have much time. it strikes me in your three years or so in the un, you have been very quick to accuse many critics of israel of being racist. you said it, i think, about the motivations of the un humans rights chief who hasjust left, that is zeid raad al hussein. you have said it about other critics of israel. you even once said at about the obama administration. do you think it devalues notions of anti—semitism and racism, to accuse those who simply oppose your government policies, of being racist? first of all stephen, we are open for criticism. as a strong democracy we criticise one another all day long in israel, it is part of our life, and we welcome cirticism.

but when you responded to the obama administration, when they were putting heavy pressure on the israeli administration, i think it was in 2009, to stop putting newjewish settlements and housing in eastjerusalem, you responded by saying "president obama should not interfere with the rights of thejewish people to live injerusalem, this is a — quote — racist demand." do you think president barack obama was a racist, anti—semite? no, your quote is not accurate. when president obama criticised the rights ofjews to build injerusalem in the neighbourhood of gilo, which is part ofjerusalem and said thatjews should not be able to build in gilo, in southern jerusalem, that was not acceptable by the majority of israelis. do you think barack obama was, is a racist against israel? no.

i think he made a mistake, a major one when he allowed the resolution to pass in december 2016 in the security council. it was a crucial mistake, it was a shameful resolution that they actually denied the connection betweenjewish people and jerusalem and i said quite clearly it was a shameful resolution. but when i blame people of anti—semitism here at the un, i do it when they are using different language, when they speak about israel. different criterias when they deal with israel. we can criticise israel, absolutely, but criticise only israel. when you look at the human rights council, when you speak about human rights violations in israel and spend only a few minutes talking about human rights violations around the world, it doesn't make any sense. this obsession, it comes from somewhere, and when i see anti—semitism, i will call it. we have to end it there. but danny danon in new york city, i think it much forjoining me joining me on hardtalk.

thank you very much stephen. we end this week on something more uncertain than we started it. at the moment we are still in between systems. there is a developing area of pressure in the sea. a couple of weather fronts around as well. they will bring outbreaks of rain to the northern isles. this weatherfront drilling down into england. just

eight lion of cloud. further showers returning to further scotland first thing this morning. cloud and temperatures generally starting in double figures. 0therwise single figure values. it will be feeling cooler right across the board, especially across the north. we are starting the morning off with a great deal of sunshine. showers will start to get going across scotland. we will see another feature of the weather front moving out of ireland across the irish sea into wales and the midlands in the south—west of england as we head into the afternoon. conditions go downhill for many central southern parts of england and or wales. sunshine across the vast south—east. 20 or 21 degrees. further north, cloud, outbreaks of rain, temperatures in the mid—to—high teens. it will feel cooler than that in the north. sunny spells and is is some showers across

scotland. into friday, we start to see this area of high pressure. —— low pressure. most of it will stay offshore, we think. into friday it looks like it could be quite wet across scotland and north—east england. some of the rain could be heavy through friday morning, with another spell of rain pushing into northern scotland. further south and west you should be generally drier and brighter. with the north north—west winds, temperatures range from 15— 19. a feature across the eastern side of the country. the area of low pressure continues to spin around, moving further eastwards into the north sea. we see another feature run into wales and the south—west of england as we head into saturday. this is a feature we are talking about. it could bring wet weather to england and wales for the day. low pressure to the north

country continues to bring showers to scotland. the rain spreading eastwards. into sunday, probably be better day, dry and slightly brighter. this is the briefing, i'm victoria fritz. our top story: president trump hits back at accusations of amorality and reckless decision—making. he says the attack by an unnamed senior aide is gutless and phony. the leaders of the two koreas agree to hold a three—day summit in pyongyang later this month. russia is in the spotlight over the novichok nerve agent attack, as britain takes its case to the un security council. in business: the $200 billion question — will president trump follow through on his threat of a massive escalation in the trade war with china? decision time looms. also coming up in the business briefing: after another grilling before congress over foreign

political interference,