nasa has successfully landed a probe on the surface of mars. touchdown confirmed. there wasjubilation at mission control in california, after the probe endured a dramatic seven—minute plunge to the planet's surface. the mission aims to study the deep interior of mars. ukraine has declared martial law in part of the country, following russia's seizure of three ukrainian navy ships on sunday. a number of western countries condemned moscow's actions. and this video is trending on bbc.com. this sandstorm, which was as much as 100 metres high, hit zhangye city in northwest china on sunday afternoon. the sand was blown in from the gobi desert and covered the city in minutes. police had to help motorists and residents were forced to take shelter. that's all from bbc world news. an inquest into the death of the former welsh government

minister, carl sargeant, has opened in north wales. mr sargeant, who'd been sacked last november following accusations of sexual misconduct, was found dead four days later at his home. our wales correspondent sian lloyd reports. carl sargeant was a well—known figure in the welsh assembly. his death last year left his family grief—stricken and sent shock waves through the welsh political establishment in cardiff bay. his body was found at his family home, four days after he'd been sacked from his post and suspended from the welsh labour party amid allegations of sexual misconduct, which he denied. walking arm—in—arm, mr sargeant‘s wife bernie and sonjack came to his inquest today, where the note that she'd found close to her husband's body was read to the court. directed to family and friends, it said: the inquest heard that carl sargeant

had suffered from depression and had been prescribed medication on a number of occasions. a former colleague, leighton andrews, said he was concerned about the impact that tv interviews given by the welsh first minister carwyn jones about the alleged complaints had on his state of mind. he considered it to be irresponsible. the coroner reminded mr andrews that was his opinion, and the inquest will hear from the first minister carwynjones later in the week. sian lloyd, bbc news, ruthin. now on bbc news, it's 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 defence 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 unpick 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

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, is to hit them so badly that they will not be able to continue shooting rockets and missiles at our population. 0k, well, 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 for the moment. 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 7 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. and generally ad defence minister... 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's what your party said. so as i said, when i met the prime minister last friday, itold him, you know, this is not an ultimatum, but i do think that 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 that 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, and this is one of those cases where i didn't get the task. i will support the prime minister and try 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. you then went on to say that 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, nobody in israel believes that. i've been looking at the israeli media's opinion polls, that have been done in the wake of this crisis. it is clear a big majority of israelis believe that 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 that the israeli people don't think you're serving israel, you're serving yourself. hold on. 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, butjust to finish up with politics, the times of israel said this, "it is 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 fact 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 is 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 that the prime minister defeats me than hamas defeats israel. i'm not going to give hamas that gift of toppling a government. all right. albeit the fact you wanted to topple the government, and 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 to me that what you're saying is that, particularly with regard to gaza, what israel has done in recent years, including, let us 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 that israel's —

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 think indeed israel has to be much tougher on our enemies, and we have to, yes, 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 more than 2,000 palestinians, most of whom were civilian. we see in our media every week the images of the stand—off between palestinian protesters who have — sometimes they have stones, sometimes they have flaming torches. they go to the fence, they are shot by israeli service personnel. we have 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. no, i have a better suggestion — that the palestinians stop shooting rockets at israel. i'm — 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, that 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... now 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 that 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 thatjerusalem 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, —— if israel pursues your vision, 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. good morning. there is a change to come to the weather but i am not sure you're going to like it because the cold air is being replaced by something a little bit milder but u nfortu nately something a little bit milder but unfortunately stormy over the next couple of days, this wet and windy weather to come. it is all moving in from the atlantic. you can see these areas of low pressure starting to push towards the uk. they will arrive a little later on today. so

we are going to start off on a relatively quiet note and on a chilly note it is worth bearing in mind with a little patchy mist and fog. temperatures over the next few hours will be sitting into low single figures. the breeze will pick up, that will lift the mist and fog bromley and we will see the rain moving on from the west. that will introduce something a little bit milder through the day but wet as well —— promptly. the heaviest of the rain looks likely to be into the south—west of england and wales and northern ireland first thing in the morning, so let's take a look at that in more detail. it will move through at quite a pace actually so some brightness pushing through into the south—west later on. the rain will sit across parts of dorset up into wales, the midlands. look at this, the south—east, the east of the pennines will be dry. rain into the pennines will be dry. rain into the lake district into northern ireland, fringing south—west scotla nd ireland, fringing south—west scotland as we go through the afternoon. and by the end of the afternoon. and by the end of the afternoon for the bulk of scotland it will finish off dry, pretty windy

with it but the rain arrives through the night. so one front pushes more than east, it will be replaced by yet another and there is quite a squeeze on the isa buyers and that denotes where we will see the strongest of the wind, so gusts in excess of 60 miles an hour, maybe more and some of the rain will be quite heavy through northern ireland, south—west scotland, north—west england —— isobars. a little more showery in nature further south but nevertheless windy with it as well. so not a pleasant day i suspect as we go through wednesday. in terms of the feel of things it will be milder, noticeably mild, but when you factor in the wind and rain i am not sure whether that will be an issue for you. so as we move into thursday more wet weather, this time pushing in from the south. it looks as though england and why will see the heaviest of the rain likely. not a pleasa nt heaviest of the rain likely. not a pleasant day on thursday. getting slightly showery in nature further north. but hopefully by friday we will see the winds and the rain easing. i'm rico hizon in singapore.

the headlines: touchdown confirmed! nasa celebrates a perfect landing on mars, as the insight mission sends back its first image of the red planet. it isa it is a very, very nice looking picture. it looks pretty flat, which makes ourjob very easy to do. it is time to get going! ukraine imposes martial law after russia seizes three naval vessels and their crew. the us strongly condemns moscow's actions. i'm lewis vaughanjones in london. also in the programme: we meet some of the children reunited with their parents, after being separated by indonesia's recent earthquake and tsunami.