this is bbc news, the headlines: the uk prime minister has hailed a draft agreement on post—brexit relations with the eu as ‘right for the whole of the uk'. but spain's prime minister has repeated his threat to try and stop the eu withdrawal deal, saying spain and the uk were still far from agreement over gibraltar. president trump has threatened to close the us—mexico border if disorder breaks out there, now that 3,000 central american migrants have reached the frontier. he also said he'd authorised thousands of troops at the border to use lethal force if needed. the government in zimbabwe has outlined plans to compensate white farm owners whose land was seized under the former president, robert mugabe. the cash will come from next year's budget, which projects a huge deficit. a team of scientists from the massachusetts institute of technology have created the first ever plane to take flight without moving parts.

it uses electro—aerodynamic propulsion to fly, which is greener and quieter than traditional aircraft. is this the future of aviation? asa as a child i was a fan of star trek and was quite taken by the silent shuttle craft that would fly by without a whoosh all abnormally. that made me think, what would enable something a bit like that? it is fully electrical, no rate hitting propellers, no gas turbine. it does not emit c02, carbon monoxide, it also has the benefit of being nearly silent. it might be possible that it could

carry people, but it is too early to say yet for sure. the path to carrying people with this solid—state propulsion, would be combining it with conventional propulsion and it could be that we find some reason why it could be usable in the future, but it could be that it will be used on drums and larger aircraft. if you think forward , larger aircraft. if you think forward, ten, 20 years, it is quite possible our airspace will be covered with drones, if we can get electro—aerodynamic propulsion, that would make a much more widely used. the future is definitely here. now on bbc news, hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. israel's seemingly indestructible prime minister, benjamin netanyahu,

has dodged another political bullet. after the recent flare—up of violence in gaza, his demence minister quit and another key cabinet hawk, naftali bennett, said he would go too if he wasn't given the defence portfolio. the pm called his bluff, and mr bennett, who is my guest today, decided to stay after all. what's behind the chaos in israeli politics? are the right—wing factions putting their own interests before those of the nation? naftali bennett, in jerusalem, welcome to hardtalk.

great to be here, stephen. it's been quite a week. how would you characterise your relationship with prime minister netanyahu today? well, we're political adversaries, but i'm part of his government and i support prime minister netanyahu as the prime minister of israel. so, you know, it's not unlike the uk, where things are also quite tumultuous. we're going to continue in order to strengthen israel's security. let's un—pick this notion that you're sitting there in a cabinet led by a guy who you now describe as an adversary. avigdor lieberman, who was defence minister until very recently, he described mr netanyahu's decision to undertake a ceasefire with hamas after that flare—up of violence in gaza, he described that... lieberman described that

as decision as "a capitulation. did you see it as a capitulation to terror? i thought it was a profound mistake, and tried to fight against the notion of giving money to hamas in order to have them stop shooting at us missiles. but i am part of the government, and i assume responsibility for all its decisions. what i think we need to do to hamas is obliterate it, to hit them so badly that they will not be able to continue shooting rockets and missiles at our population. 0k, we'll get to your vision, your strategic vision for gaza and elsewhere in a minute. i just want to stay with israeli politics if you don't mind fora minute. this is what your own party, jewish home, said, after this crisis inside the cabinet. they said that if you didn't get named defence minister to replace avigdor lieberman, you would walk, you would quit the government

and the government itself would therefore almost certainly fall. what happened ? well, i never put that as an ultimatum. i did ask the prime minister to give me the mission of restoring israel's security strength and restoring our power, vis—a—vis gaza. no, mr bennett, i need to be very clear about this, i'm looking at a direct quote from your party, an official statement. "it is either the defence ministry or we are out." that is what your party said. as i said, when i met the prime minister last friday, i told him this is not an ultimatum, but i do think you should give me this huge task of shifting the whole direction of israel's security plans, vis—a—vis hamas. i think we've been way, way too soft... i'm so sorry to interrupt you,

but you're not making much sense to me, to be brutally honest, because the official statement said it's either the defence ministry or we are out, "this is our ultimatum to stay in the government." so it clearly was an ultimatum. long story short, the prime minister decided he was going to become the defence minister. i think it would've been a better decision to give that task to me, but i accept this. you know, you win some, you lose some, this is one of those cases where i did not get the task. i will support the prime minister and help him change the whole direction of israel's security policy. but with respect, you're now in a ludicrous position, because you had this face—off with prime minister netanyahu. you clearly felt you held the cards,

but he called your bluff, you caved in. then then went on to say you believe his security policy over the last ten years has been a complete failure. and yet there you sit, as his ministerfor education and diaspora affairs, inside his cabinet, showing him respect, when clearly you believe that his policies are jeopardising the security of israel. to me, your position makes no sense whatsoever. let me help you out, stephen, i'll explain it. i do think that the policy over the past decade has been weak on hamas, and we have to shift gears. the prime minister has said that he's taking the responsibility, and he's going to become for the first time in his history the defence minister, and he's going to change gears, he's going to change the direction of our security policy. i want to give it a chance, and i don't want to topple a government if possible.

i'm going to help him. i care about the state of israel more than i care about myself, and we're going to give it a chance. trouble is, no—one in israel believes that. i've been looking at the israeli media's opinion polls done in the wake of this crisis. it's clear a big majority of israelis believe you and avigdor lieberman were playing politics, playing politics indeed with israel's national security, and the polls show that the public doesn't like it one little bit. i don't serve the polls, i serve israel, and i do the very best in my power to secure israel. i came into politics to begin with from a career... to be honest, the polls suggest the israeli people don't think you're serving israel, you're serving yourself. i appreciate your profound care for the israeli people, but i came to politics because of the second lebanon war and what i saw there, and i saw the wrong direction. i saw confusion, and what we need

is clarity and a very strong policy on security because, stephen, we're surrounded by vicious enemies who want to, you know, wipe israel off the globe. we have to fight back. we cannot be soft on these enemies. here's what the times of israel wrote, and we'll get to your strategic vision in a minute, but the times of israel said this, "it's difficult to imagine a worse day politically forjewish home leader, naftali bennett, after he was forced to sheepishly back off from his threat to bring down the government." you see yourself as a future prime minister of israel, but the truth is, over the last week or so, you've managed to humiliate yourself. first of all, as i said, you win some, you lose some. no one has a perfect career. i had failures in high—tech

before i succeeded. you don't always get everything right, that's life, that's politics. the goal in life is not to never fail, it's to get up after you've had a failure. clearly the prime minister defeated me but i would prefer the prime minister defeats me than hamas defeats israel. i'm not going to give hamas the gift of toppling a government. albeit the fact you wanted to topple the government, not hamas, but let's leave that aside for now. you decided to stay in the government, and i'll point you again, "the ship of israel's security has sailed in the wrong direction." it seems what you're saying, particularly in regard to gaza, what israel has done in recent years, including, let's not forget, several wars, the last of which in 2014, 0peration protective edge, killed more than 2,000 palestinians. the un says at least 65% of those palestinians killed were civilians, and we know hundreds of them were children. you're saying the besieging tactics

in gaza, the fact gaza doesn't really have power supplies that work, it doesn't really have clean water, has a jobless rate of 60% or more, you're saying all of this isn't tough enough, that israel should be hammering gaza harder. is that it? no, i said we should be hammering hamas harder. i have no issue whatsoever with the gazan people. i have big issues with hamas, whose charter and actions clearly state that they want to annihilate everyjew in israel. they say explicitly we want to kill all thejews, and by the way, they shoot thousands of missiles at israel. i believe israel must be much tougher on our enemies, and yes, we have to kill every terrorist who shoots a rocket at us, something we've not been doing for many years.

look at the record, mr bennett, i don't want to repeat myself, the last big assault on gaza killed 2,000 palestinians, most of whom were civilian. we see in our media every week the images of the stand—off between palestinian protesters, sometimes they have stones, sometimes they have flaming torches. they go to the fence, they are shot by israeli service personnel. we've seen more than 100 killed, thousands wounded, and you're telling me that you want the israeli army and the israeli air force to up the ante and kill more people? that's what you're saying. i have a better suggestion — that the palestinians stop shooting rockets at israel. i don't know if you're maybe not understanding my question, but when you respond to the rocket fire that we saw as part of that recent flare—up in gaza, you respond with your air force, sometimes you respond with troops on the ground.

but the reality is and the record shows it, the people who suffer are the civilian population, including children. that is the reality, and you want more of it. no. that is the reality because the hamas cowardly hides behind its own children. you know, all this talk about proportionality... if you were walking on the street and from a residential home someone was shooting at you, you'd shoot back, you wouldn't be asking who's in that home. anyone who shoots at my kids, i'm going to shoot back, and the only proportions i can think about are the coffin of that terrorist who is shooting at me. let's talk about the reality of the un reaction. we've seen the recent... he's retired, but the recent un commissioner for human rights, zeid raad al hussein, saying israel's response is suggestive of something entirely and wholly disproportionate. he looks at the casualty figures on the palestinian side. we also know the international criminal court is still

investigating what you did in 0peration protective edge in 2014. do you understand the scrutiny being brought to bear on israel goes right through the international community and runs the risk of tarnishing israel's reputation in a very significant way? here's an idea, i would relocate the international criminal court to the outskirts of gaza forjust one week and feel what the citizens of israel, of sderot, feel when they're attacked by 530 rockets in one day. for heaven's sake, let me be clear — we have no claims whatsoever for gaza. let them live their lives.

we've pulled out of gaza, we pulled out our army from gaza, we handed the keys to mahmoud abbas and these people have decided to shoot at us. when they stop attacking is the day there will be peace. we have no claims... we don't want anything from them, we just want them to lead their lives and let us lead our lives. they're not doing that. as long as they continue attacking us, we will fight back, regardless of the hypocrisy of the international institutions, which are just a big home of hypocrisy. i understand you have serious political ambition, and we've discussed at the politicking you've been involved in in recent days, but the problem is, it isn'tjust the international community that thinks with your uber hawkish stance you're going far too far, even the israeli army things you're going far too far. in recent days, you've criticised the army itself. this is a quote from you just a few days ago, "we impose countless restrictions on our own soldiers, legal as well as mental. 0ur fighters are more afraid of the military advocate general than they are of hamas‘s leaders." you were immediately rebuked by the idf chief of staff for saying that, he said you got it plain wrong. you know, the international criminal

court was founded after the second world war, in a lesson on how to prevent genocide in those sorts of situations where there is a lawless area. it has nothing to do with what is going on here. here's it's really simple. these folks are... but i'm not asking you about the international criminal court anymore. we are fighting back. and we will continue to fight back, regardless of all the legal shackles. yes, i want to remove them, because i think it is immoral. it's profoundly immoral to show your second cheek to an enemy who is trying to kill you. no, but mr bennett... all i'm saying is the heaven sakes, stop tried to kill thejews.

it is simple suggestion. that is all they need to do. it is a simple suggestion, but it is not an answer in any way to my question. my question was about the idf chief of staff gadi eizenkot rebuking you for criticising the army's own military advocate general. the chief of staff responded by saying "never mind what mr bennett says, the military advocate general is part of the idf strength." so your contention that the idf is fighting with one hand tied behind its back is denied even by the idf itself! the idea of the mission is to win wars, to beat our enemies. our goal as the political level is to provide them the freedom of action to go and do the job and i think that if thejewish state wants to be here 50 years from now on, 200 years from now, we have to focus on one thing: getting our enemies

to understand it will never work. whatever they do will not work. we are here to stay. and then and only then will we be to reach sustainable peace. you've never been a big fan of the europeans in terms of their view of what is happening in israel. you've never been a big fan of the icc. you are a big fan of donald trump. you've talked about your deep respect for him, you have spoken about him as israel's best friend. are you suggesting that donald trump has decided, and he has said that he will launch this deal of the century, a peace proposal for israel—palestine. he is decided, and he said this in september, that he thinks that a 2—state solution would work best. are you worried about that? any plan that donald trump has, first of all, we will take a serious look at it and they respect will look at it. we will serve israel's best interests. we live here and we will live here for

the next thousands of years. and we have to take care of our future. anything that he presents to us we will take a serious look at. you will have to take a very serious look at it given the support that the trump administration has given to you and your government. he says "israel will have to pay a higher price because they have won a big thing." that is the talk about moving the embassy to jerusalem. he said "negotiators could never get past thinking ofjerusalem as the capital, but now that is off the table, there's nothing more to negotiate, so now they," the palestinians, "will get something very good, now, because it is their turn next." that is the reality that you will have to deal with. i am very supportive. i think he is right that

jerusalem has been taken off the table. and that is great news for the future of the israeli—palestinian relationship. at the end of the day, i don't want to speculate. we will see what comes and we will take it as that. i guess the fundamental problem that people in israel and outside israel ask of you, mr bennett, is what is your long—term strategic vision for your country? you are a guy who has absolutely steadfastly opposed a 2—state solution. you say you want to annex all of the land upon which thejewish settlements sit in the occupied west bank, but you don't want to offer citizenship to the palestinian population in the west bank. to many people inside israel, and one can go back to former prime ministers like ehud 0lmert and ehud barak, but also the leader of the opposition, tzipi livni, and they say that if israel pursues your vision, it will end up being an apartheid—style state. they are flatly wrong. there is a 2—state solution right now. there is a palestinian full—fledged state in gaza. and it has been a huge and unmitigated disaster. so you tried it once, we will not try it out again on a bigger scale when it fell so colossally in gaza. well, if you — if you — if...

they have everything. they have a... if you lay seige to the west bank like you did to gaza, there might be some relevance to that, but that is not on the table, because you have all these jewish settlements you intend to annex. if israel pursues your visues, you would end up with a population, before too long, that was largely arab—palestinian. and you wouldn't be

giving them a voice. so you would be violating democratic values and international law. i am touched by the care. you know, in gaza you are confusing cause and consequence. at the moment, the gazans have decided to stop fighting israel. there is no siege, by the way. they can bring in as many trucks of food or clothing, or — you name it, it is unlimited. they don't have a lot of money because mahmoud abbas is trying to starve them. first of all there is no siege there. this has been a terrible disaster. we are not suckers to try and do that yet again on a bigger scale in judaean samaria. in terms of my future vision... i would appreciate if you would address that point that you want the land, you are determined to annex it, even though they would be illegal under international law, but you don't want to give the arab palestinian population, which would very soon be a majority in the whole land of this future israel, you do not want to give them a full voice, it would violate democratic values

and international law. you haven't read my plan. in the areas that would apply israeli law, those palestinians in those areas to which numbers between 50000 and 100,000 palestinians, they would be offered israeli citizenship. so factually you're wrong. the rest of the area would become an autonomic area managed by them. they have everything they want. it would be less of a state in that they cannot have an army and cannot have an influx of 7 million descendants of palestinean refugees create an overflow demographic disaster in the land of israel. we are almost out of time. one last question which takes us back to the beginning, you made a powerplay against binyamin netanyahu. it failed. do you still see yourself as a future prime minister of israel? after the netanyahu era

i intend to become the prime minister. as long as he is around and is doing a fairly good job, i intend to stand beside him, to help him, hopefully as the defence minister in the next government. how long do you give him? how long do you think the netanyahu era, as you put it, will last? i have no idea. you know, he has genes of his parents who led long lives. i wish him a very long life. as long as the israeli public supports him he will continue being the prime minister of israel. naftali bennett, thank you for being on hardtalk. thank you very much, stephen. hello there.

for many places, thursday started on a very cold note. some spots got almost down to —7 degrees. but for friday morning, not as cold, because there's a lot more cloud around. it will be often cloudy for the day ahead. showers for some, but not all. the satellite picture shows quite a lot of cloud. this cloud across the north—east is thick, low cloud, producing the odd spot of rain and drizzle. this brighter, more speckled cloud down to the south—west is capable of producing some showers. so throughout friday, we have the potential for some heavy, thundery showers across the south—west. some of these drifting into east wales, the west midlands, maybe north—west england. also some patchy rain across the north—east of scotland. elsewhere, a lot of dry weather, but equally, a lot of cloud. now, if you're across the midlands, east anglia and the south—east, i'm hopeful that this cloud will break up a little to reveal some spells of sunshine. the odd brighter glimpse elsewhere, but hefty showers never too far away from the south—west. for north—west england, particularly cumbria, also northern ireland

and south—west scotland, the best chance of sunshine for the day. for eastern and northern scotland, a lot of cloud. misty, murky, drizzly and damp conditions for a lot of time. temperatures generally 6—10 degrees. going through friday night, we keep large areas of cloud floating around, stopping the temperatures from dropping too far. the showers rumble into the far south—west, these could be heavy and thundery and even cause a few travel issues. those overnight lows between 3—7 degrees in most places. we start the weekend like this. high pressure to the north, low pressure to the south. that brings us an easterly wind, which, at this time of year, will never be particularly warm. one in the system perilously close to southern england likely to feed some rain in here. uncertainty about just how far north it will get. really only spots to the south of the m4 are likely to be effected. 0therwise, mostly dry. the best of any brightness or sunshine to be found in the west. those temperatures, 7—10 degrees, not feeling too bad. but on sunday, we are likely to bring some slightly colder air back in from the north—east. those temperatures taking a bit of a tumble. still a lot of cloud, still the odd spot of rain and drizzle. not as much rain at this stage to the south. but those temperatures back into single digits for most of us. and then into the start of next week, a bit of a battleground for a time.

high pressure trying to hold firm. this area of low pressure pushing in from the atlantic. it looks like most of us will have one more fine day on monday. it will still be pretty cloudy. then for tuesday, there's the potential for some wet and increasingly windy weather to push in from the west. this is the briefing. i'm victoria fritz. our top story: the british prime minister says a brexit deal with europe is close — but spain is continuing it's threat to oppose it. president trump warns the migrants reaching the mexican border he'll close it down completely if they misbehave. and the african artefacts set for a return home from france thanks to president macron. in business, that black friday feeling. retailers brace for a multi—billion dollar shopping onslaught. but are consumers really getting a good deal? also coming up, ghosn gone: nissan sacks its chairman after almost two decades in the driving seat. but what's up the road for the car giant, its partners, and its former boss?