welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america jerusalem. and, in and around the globe. my name is lewis vaughanjones. landmark in westjerusalem. and, in fa ct, landmark in westjerusalem. and, in fact, it was designed by the same our top stories: architect behind the empire state building in new york. and through hundreds of civilians flee the last its activities it brings together stronghold of the islamic state israelis and palestinians so they group, ahead of a final assault can get to know one another better. and some of them are here in our by western—backed forces. audience and they, along with palestinians living in the occupied west ba n k thousands join rival rallies in venezuela in support of both palestinians living in the occupied west bank and gaza, will be putting the president and opposition leader their questions to our panel. let me tell you who is now panel. a member as the country's crisis continues. rescuers find the bodies of two of the israeli parliament and his climbers missing for almost a fortnight on a mountain minister of education in benjamin netanyahu's in the himalayas. minister of education in benjamin neta nyahu's govern. minister of education in benjamin netanyahu's govern. he has been a and american singer r kelly critic advocating a tougher stand on is released from jail in chicago — the palestinians. a palestinian canadian lawyer who has been an advisor to the palestinian leadership and thus being involved in negotiations with the israelis. we arejoined by in negotiations with the israelis. we are joined by a in negotiations with the israelis. we arejoined by a man in negotiations with the israelis. we are joined by a man who until 2017 was a jeopardy prime minister injordan and 2017 was a jeopardy prime minister in jordan and served 2017 was a jeopardy prime minister injordan and served in other cabinet positions, including foreign

minister. he was also chief co—ordinator in jordan's peace minister. he was also chief co—ordinator injordan‘s peace talks with israel. and we have jake wallace, a distinguished former american diplomat who served in the us state department under four presidents, both democrats and republicans, and has been a member of the us delegation in peace talks. that is our panel. please give them a warm round of applause. applause. now, actually, before we take our first question, let's bring you this brief background to the conflict as well as efforts to bring about peace. it's the deal of the century, says donald drohan, a deal that will finally bring peace to the middle east and, controversy early, it involves american recognition of jerusalem as the capital of israel —— donald trump. jerusalem as the capital of israel -- donald trump. today we officially

opened the united states embassy in jerusalem. congratulations. it's been a long time coming. jerusalem isa been a long time coming. jerusalem is a city that is as disputed as it is a city that is as disputed as it is holy. the palestinians claim the east as their capital, but israel has occupied it since 1967. jerusalem lies at the very centre of a conflict that has raged ever since the state of israel was created some 70 years ago. the war of independence, the six—day war, yom kippur war, lebanon, the intifada is, gaza, war followed kippur war, lebanon, the intifada is, gaza, warfollowed war. again and again, american presidents have sought an elusive middle east peace. in1978,jimmy carter sought an elusive middle east peace. in 1978, jimmy carter helped israel's leaders to negotiate the camp david accords. and starting in 1993, bill clinton presided over the

oslo accords between yitzhak rabin and yassir arafat. palestinians were given limited self—government, as is white —— israel withdrew from big west ba n k white —— israel withdrew from big west bank towns and most of gaza. final status talks were supposed to settle the big issues, jerusalem, jewish settlements, the borders, and palestinian refugees, the plan was to signa palestinian refugees, the plan was to sign a peace deal after five yea rs, to sign a peace deal after five years, it did not happen. a quarter ofa years, it did not happen. a quarter of a century on from oslo b plan for a 2—state solution is on hold. israel still bases rocket attacks from a mass, while palestinian protesters along the gaza border are shot out with live ammunition and settle m e nts shot out with live ammunition and settlements have expanded hugely. so, 70 years after the birth of israel peace still seems a distant dream. what should young israelis and palestinians hope for all fear in the future?

so, a brief summary they are setting the scene to this edition of global questions. let us now take our first question. from edward mcmillan. edward. our current conditions conducive to all parties accepting the deal of the century if it is presented? the deal of the century if it is presented ? —— the deal of the century if it is presented? —— are current conditions? welcome the main conditions? welcome the main condition in the middle east right fiow was a condition in the middle east right now was a massive condition in the middle east right fiow was a massive move condition in the middle east right now was a massive move of their run to flank the entire middle east and israel from all its parts, and while there is this huge shi'ite and zanni divide and internal war, the last thing you want to do is give up more land, which would provide the rudd malt area, which is what they're doing everywhere they can, and it would risk the very existence of israel —— ride. any of adding

another palestinian state beyond the one that already exist in gaza is u na cce pta ble one that already exist in gaza is unacceptable and cannot happen. deanna. i think when we are talking about the deal of the century we don't know what they deal entails. robert lee have seen so far the only things it entails is rewarding israel —— from what we have seen. whether it is giving jerusalem to israel or rewarding is a's current settle m e nt israel or rewarding is a's current settlement activity, or allowing israel to continue dining out palestinians. this is the only thing we have seen in terms of the deal of the century. the question i am left with is what century are we really talking about? if the plan that is presented our put forward as one that treats me and treats other palestinians as equals, then by all means the ground is right, but i'm afraid that what we are going to see it exactly the opposite, the continuation of israeli settlements, the continuation of rewarding israel, and the continuation of giving more and more to israel while beating up a

i think the absence of peace is going to enhance iran's influence in the region. i believe that we should, if we are going to put an end ora should, if we are going to put an end or a limitation to the iranian influence in the region, then peace should be the word, because that is how you create a strong alliances to face any enemy. sol how you create a strong alliances to face any enemy. so i really find the logic rather contradictory. secondly, i believe that we need to know what the deal of the century is all about. so far, what we hear is certainly features, to which mr naftali, you have responded to that i refusing it, according to what i read in the papers. when you say that it read in the papers. when you say thatitis read in the papers. when you say that it is a very close to what the arabs have except that in this summit of 2007 in riyadh. that is basically, there will be full recognition of israel and it is completely, it will normalise with

all arab countries at the same time. now, should this materialise, then we would be in a very good shape to face any outside enemies in the region. 0k, jake wallis, so, jawad says we don't really know what is in the deal of this century, but whatever the deal is, the question was, other conditions conducive to anything being presented? they are not conducive right now moving forward. both israelis and the palestinians are not in a position where they are prepared to make the sort of concessions that either side would need to make in order for there to be a deal. more to the point about the deal of the century, i don't think the us administration right now is well positioned to be a mediator. in order to be an effective mediator you need a relationship of trust with both sides of the negotiation. the trumpet and a stretch and have that kind of relationship with israel but they have a relationship at all with they have a relationship at all with the palestinians right now. —— trump administration. there is no dialogue between them. without understanding

the views of both sides and trying to find a middle ground they are not well positioned to move forward, so my expectations for this deal of the century are actually quite low. resounding skip is as and from all of you, then. —— scepticism. we have a question from the mahler in the west and, somebody has a question to put directly to president donald trump. translation: what do you wish to achieve out of this deal? if you think it is good to your country and israel, then we will not be bound by it because it violates our interests. well, sadly we couldn't provide president trump with a place on this panel, so in the absence of that, jake, we will come to you. i know you don't speak for the trump administration but you have had a long and distinct career in washington. so, i mean, distance from that young woman in ramallah is that perhaps the us is no longer seen that perhaps the us is no longer seen as an that perhaps the us is no longer seen as an honest broker?|j that perhaps the us is no longer seen as an honest broker? i think she is right to be sceptical about the trump administration. i cannot

answer on behalf of them. i think what they are trying to do is, certainly they are relatively attuned to israeli views and concerns, which have to be taken into account. but they are not speaking with the palestinians. they are talking to the saudis and the iraqis. you cannot filter palestinian views through the arab states and expect you are going to make any progress. i don't understand what their motivations are, whether they are really trying to solve this or whether they are only trying to build up relationships between israel and the gulf states, which is a possibility. does that reflect palestinian opinion, in your view, does that reflect palestinian opinion, in yourview, that does that reflect palestinian opinion, in your view, that if any deal emerges and it is accepted why the americans and the israelis than it is going to necessarily be bad for the palestinians? i think we have to look at what the content of what the deal is, and what we have seen so what the deal is, and what we have seen so far received that we reflective of what she's saying. so far we have seen in the two years since president trump has been president, he has given everything to israel. whether it is arms,

money, the recognition of settlements or the fact that he has allowed the embassy to be moved to jerusalem. all of these things are indicative that he is definitely taking a position that is a one—sided position. the people he has surrounded himself with are also people who are very much embedded with the israeli settler movement. based on that it is hard to meet a step back and say, yes, this is going to be a wonderful deal. that being said, if there is an issue of equality being put forward, of course we are going to listen to it and take it into account. but as i see it right now everything has been entirely carrots for israel and entirely carrots for israel and entirely sticks to palestine. jake, we have heard this kind of hyperbolic language from donald trump, the deal of the century and so on. trump, the deal of the century and so on. how engaged is he? is itjust a fanciful boast, do you think? would you believe that this is going to be one of his signature issues that defined his presidency?m to be one of his signature issues that defined his presidency? it is ha rd that defined his presidency? it is hard to say. he made a big deal

about this, he is the one who called it the deal of the century, nobody was pushing him to take this on, he took it on himself. but since he did that in the beginning of the administration i have not seen that he has been involved on a regular basis, as previous presidents have been. president bush was deeply involved, president clinton also. so far president trump has left this to his advisers, jared kushner, jason greenblatt, and ambassador friedman. they have been working the issue but in more than two years now we have not actually seen a plan yet. they say they will put it out after the israeli election in april. i agree with diana buttu, we have to wait and see what is in the plan, but i do not see this sort of engagement by the president himself that we have seen from his predecessors. we have seen from his predecessors. we have a question now here in the audience from alex feder. this question is for naftali bennett and diana buttu. describe how you think your government and your people are perceived by the other side of the conflict? naftali bennett? well,

clearly there is no love in the air between both sides. that is a reality. the other reality as both sides are here to stay. nobody is going to evaporate. it is sort of a reality we all have defaced and understand that we are stuck together whether we love each other or don't. and we ought to build a good life everyone as well as mccann. what i would say is, it is not about trumpet. it is not about a specific administration. this is something that is more fundamental. 1947, 2000, 1995, 2007, there has always been a deal in the air, and after the palestinians said no, we have massive death. but could you a nswer have massive death. but could you answer alex's question, which is, describe how you think israeli government send your people, the israeli people, are perceived by those on the other side of the conflict, like diana? i mean, how do

you perceive her opinions and so on? that was the question. you perceive her opinions and so on? that was the questionlj you perceive her opinions and so on? that was the question. i very much respect the arabs and judaea and samaria. they live here. either way, diana said before, we were offered jerusalem. let me be clear. we don't need anybody offer jerusalem. jerusalem has been, always, our capital, forever 3000 years. applause . that is absolutely not true. if you want to play games back and forth and do an arm—wrestle but my son is named david, the name of king david. he speaks the same language as king david, and lives in the same land as king david. no—one is going to give us a present. jerusalem is oui’s to give us a present. jerusalem is ours and has always been ours. but we live together, we respect you, and we think that you should stop trying to kill israelis and that would sort of progress peace. this is the problem. also as the

question, yes. this is the problem, the fundamental problem is that naftali bennett is unable to even use the term occupied west bank. he is unable to even view me as an equal or see that i actually have rights to this city as much as anybody else does. but instead he continues to use the language of an occupier, the mentality of an occupier, the mentality of an occupier, and continues to engage in this idea ofjewish supremacy and jewish superiority. so to answer your question, alex, in terms of how it is that palestinians see it israelis and the other way round, i can tell you, because i live on both sides. in terms of the way that israelis view palestinians, they view us as people who are not equal. they have treated us as people who are not equal. they would not want the same treatment that they have been inflicting on us for the past 71 yea rs, been inflicting on us for the past 71 years, and yet continually, continue to ignore the treatment, their treatment, of us. continue to ignore the treatment, theirtreatment, of us. in continue to ignore the treatment, their treatment, of us. in terms of their treatment, of us. in terms of the way palestinians see it israelis, we see them exactly as

they are, as occupiers. so palestinians are unable to come to jerusalem because they need to get permission from somebody like naftali bennett and in 19—year—old soldier standing at a check on, rather than being able to come to the place of their birth and heritage and origin. that is wrong. you know we also asked people to bring in questions and comments through social media, and jean goldstein plus said this, also to you, naftali bennett and diana buttu. is it possible for either a few to acknowledge the pain that the other side has experienced in this land over the past hundred years, and your own people's role in causing the pain? is there a way to admit the mistakes of your own people without delegitimising either of your rights to exist as a modern nationstate? it really builds on what alex feder has said there. alex, you put your question to naftali bennett and diana buttu. what do you think about what you have just heard? what do you think about what you havejust heard? i think what do you think about what you have just heard? i think what each of the presenters just said is

evidence of the fact that it is really difficult to understand what the other side in the conflict is actually experiencing, similar to whatjean actually experiencing, similar to what jean was just actually experiencing, similar to whatjean was just commenting on. i am not sure either was really able to understand what the speaker from the other side is actually saving. gelato nani, do you agree with what alex has just said, gelato nani, do you agree with what alex hasjust said, that gelato nani, do you agree with what alex has just said, that there gelato nani, do you agree with what alex hasjust said, that there is gelato nani, do you agree with what alex has just said, that there is a lack of understanding and empathy on both sides? —— gelato nani. lack of understanding and empathy on both sides? -- gelato nani. at the just say that at the end of the day we can go into history and probably everyone , because we can go into history and probably everyone, because it is such a long history, everyone can find sufficient evidence to support their point of view. but that is not going to resolve the problem. at the end of the day, like you said, naftali bennett, we are two people living together and there is no way for us, for each of us, to disengage. so what is the alternative, if you do not treat your neighbour and a neighbourly way? so therefore, to continue to use the high ground of

violence does not solve that, and may i quote einstein on this particular thing? i find a very interesting point from einstein, who is more intelligent than myself, i am sure. peace cannot be kept by force, it is only achieved by understanding. understanding is the key word here, and we need to understand to live, because continually harassing children, stopping people at chek points, denying them their human rights, their basic human rights, it is known to breed more violence. so where are we going to go from here? you are the stronger party. you are the one who can afford to be gentler, so please do that, so this is the beginning of understanding. applause

. israel has about 8 million people in it, surrounded by 22 arab states, with almost 1 in it, surrounded by 22 arab states, with almost1 billion people. we are the only democracy where you actually go and vote in elections, including jordan, where you actually free elections that you vote for the leader, and all arabs enjoy full and equal rights. we established in 2005 a palestinian state, and you quoted einstein. he also said if you try the same thing again, don't expect different results. that's right. we tried it. let's go to a next question, naveen. my question is for mr bennett. elections are coming up soon,... what is your view on a two—state solution, and what is the alternative, provided what you have just said about the iranian threat and that you want for both people to live in peace ?

and that you want for both people to live in peace? as i said, there is a palestinian state in gaza that has rapidly turned into a terrorist state. there is another palestinian entity which is called jordan witt two thirds of the citizens of jordan, including the queen, are in fa ct jordan, including the queen, are in fact palestinian. so there is an attempt to form a third palestinian state, this time smack in the heart of israel, which would be an unmitigated disaster. clearly i oppose that. what do i think that we need to do? given that there are 22 arab states, we need to form an autonomy that already exists, we should hope that the palestinians will govern themselves a bit better than they have until now. they have a government, and anthem, a flag, you name it. what i would do is massively invest in infrastructure, in economy, so we massively invest in infrastructure, in economy, so we can massively invest in infrastructure, in economy, so we can live good lives, but don't make big mistakes, and forming, inch acting another palestinian state just five minutes from here would make this location a horrible place to be, like it was in the year 2000 when people were

blowing up. the reason it is nice and quiet here is becausejerusalem is united under israeli sovereignty. so it is a two—state solution, in your view, that is not feasible? so it is a two—state solution, in your view, that is not feasible7m already exists. you are saying it is in gaza? in gaza, and there is the nation ofjordan is two thirds palestinian. so you are making that a palestinian state as well? it is. including the queen. to come to you, diana bhutto, on what you have heard. gaza is not a state. when israel pulled out it maintained its occupation. the fact that palestinians in gaza need to obtain israeli permits to get some mygov simple as cancer treatment in a hospital injerusalem simple as cancer treatment in a hospital in jerusalem or that palestinians from the gaza strip cannot travel to see their families inside the fact that palestinians cannot travel to go outside of the

world is indicative of israel's ongoing control. plus the fact that israel controls the movement of each and every article. if that is not occupation, i don't know what is. but what israel does not want to do is it does not want to relentless control. it wants to maintain control. it wants to maintain control and crush palestinians. and bring jake wallace in. there is a lot of —— a lot to say. bring jake wallace in. there is a lot of -- a lot to say. the question was is the 2—state solution possible? if you look at the alternatives, the only one is viable isa alternatives, the only one is viable is a 2—state solution. if you look at the idea of gaza as a model for what you are trying to create, gaza isa what you are trying to create, gaza is a humanitarian crisis and it is a security problem for israel. that is not and you want to replicate in the west bank. and i think unless you give, unless you address the core clinical issue, which is that the

palestinians also feel attached to this land, they also want you have a national existence here, just as the jewish people there, until you address that you are not going to solve this problem and will have perpetual conflict. that is why a comeback to there is no alternative to two state is. you had it -- naftali bennett say there is a palestinian state, it is called jordan, you are one of the jordanians palestinian origin, what is your response to that? don't tell anyjordanian government that you are the alternative homeland for palestinians. they will not like that. we have a peace treaty. a peace treaty that was signed in 1994, it specifically says that this is between israel and jordan. it does not say with jordan being a palestinian state. and the connecticut has approved that. 118 member is of the 123 voted for that

agreement. not to continue harping on the same issue, that the late ariel so rotten also propagated, i think we also need to think that. so please don't lose jordan think we also need to think that. so please don't losejordan as a friend —— ariel sharon. please don't losejordan as a friend -- ariel sharon. the question is is a 2—state solution feasible? -- ariel sharon. the question is is a 2—state solution feasible ?m -- ariel sharon. the question is is a 2-state solution feasible? it is, the 2—state solution is the only solution. let us go to our next question. the next question is from this woman. hello. my question is, how does the rift between butter and a mass of fakie palestinian people, especially those living in the west bank who support a mass and what does it have on the? i am somebody who thinks the rift is pointless. it should not exist in the first place. we are much more united and we are divided. the problem is that has

been pressure brought to bear from outside forces, particularly the united states to make sure that this route continues. the only person benefiting from it is israel. jed wallace, you have been involved in israeli palestinian police —— peace negotiations going back to the 1990s with madrid. the emergence of hamas, much later on, how has that affected the dynamics of trying to bring about any kind of settlement? the dynamics of trying to bring about any kind of settlement7m certainly complicated things. the fa ct certainly complicated things. the fact that the palestinians are split the way they are and different groups controlled the different areas, there is no wind speaking on behalf of all palestinians. —— they want. i agree with what diana said, it is important for the palestinians to resolve this internal conflict. until they get their act together they will not advance their national objective. what can outsiders, obviouslyjordan objective. what can outsiders, obviously jordan berry close,

objective. what can outsiders, obviouslyjordan berry close, can you do anything to do a reconciliation between the groups. jordan has been tried to do something about this. it is destructive as far as the piece prospect is concerned. at the same time, iam prospect is concerned. at the same time, i am not prospect is concerned. at the same time, iam notjustifying prospect is concerned. at the same time, i am notjustifying what i am saying, that gaza is one of the worst places to live in in the world. there is so much pressure going on in, so if we give them a chance for peace and with the reference to economic improvement of their life, that is extremely important for them, for the people of gaza. sorry. if you live in squalor all the time, one of the most crowded places in the world. and life is barely bearable. if your father is sick or your mother is sick and you cannot take them to the

doctor, and they die, i think that creates anger. so in a way i am not justifying what is happening, i don't want to see a single rocket aimed atan don't want to see a single rocket aimed at an israeli citizen. because you have peace with israel. but... you brought up the issue of living conditions. i want israel to be you brought up the issue of living conditions. i want israelto be more compassionate. that is exactly what i believe should happen. we have to give peace a chance. everybody must ta ke give peace a chance. everybody must take a chance on peace. you have brought up the situation of living conditions in gaza. let us go to gaza to get some points from palestinians there. translation: gaza youth are in a dire situation, no future or aid. just a struggle from crisis to crisis. translation: my message to the americans, look how difficult our situation is. our people want to live, students want to learn and

aspire to have their needs met. translation: the situation in gaza is more than tragic. currently i am not able to pay for my university fees. we call on those concerned by this problem to help us lift the blockade. we are suffocating financially and psychologically. our living standards are much worse. naftali bennett, the world bank says that the decade—long blockade on gazais that the decade—long blockade on gaza is the key issue that is behind the suffering back, two thirds of the suffering back, two thirds of the people living that are suffering from food insecurity. absolutely. that young man from gaza deserves a good life. and from our perspective we only need one thing for the gazans to say we will stop attacking israel. we will stop fighting israel, and they can have anything. if they had the choice of singapore,

but they chose afghanistan, we handed gaza over to fatah, jim arthur without bias, but a year after hamas took over, killed the leadership there, and is created. that is a reality. everyone was hoping for singapore, but the palestinians chose to turn it into hamas — stan. the day they choose to turnit hamas — stan. the day they choose to turn it into singapore is the day they can have everything. applause. i was involved in those negotiations, as was], when i was involved in those negotiations, as was j, when we were negotiating with the israeli site, one thing we kept demanding was that israel remove the blockade over the gaza strip. the blockade didn'tjust happen in 2006, the blockade has beenin happen in 2006, the blockade has been in place for as long as oslo. one of the things we were pushing for and asking for was to be able to create a seaport, an airport, to have free passage of people, to have free passage of good. what israel

instead shows was to impose a very brutal blockade. it is the result of this very brutal blockade that we see the humanitarian disaster that has befallen gaza. it is not at all surprising that people have been going to the fenced area and amending their freedom. the only thing that surprises me is that it is not happening each and every day. what are influential countries like the united states and jordan doing to help the people of gaza in terms of the blockade? jake? you keep on saying blockade. no, iwon't accept a bloody —— blatant lie. there is no blockade. we only blockade one thing, missiles. that is all. you can bring in all the tomatoes you want, all the clothes you want, i will not accept the light to foment itself again and again. there is no blockade on gaza. can i tell you what the secretary general of the united nations said, antonio guterres, in february this year, he asked for israel to lift the restrictions on the movement of

people and goods which have the un and humanitarian agencies without materially jeopardising and humanitarian agencies without materiallyjeopardising legitimate security concerns. so that is what he has said. that is the head of the united nations. jake. there is a lot of blank to go around for the situation in gaza. it is important to point out hamas's responsibility for the situation there. things have got a lot worse since hamas has taken over. i think it is important, given the humanitarian tragedy that is going on that, that there be more ofan is going on that, that there be more of an international effort to provide assistance to make sure that the people of gaza get their basic needs of food, education, healthcare, in particular. hankie very much. by the way, you know, you can very much. by the way, you know, you ca n follow very much. by the way, you know, you can follow on twitter. it is hashtag bbc global quest. you can also find us on bbc global quest. you can also find us on facebook. we get on with our next question. from joshua denton. i'd like to ask the panel, that

after 70 yea rs by i'd like to ask the panel, that after 70 years by generations, palestinian refugees are being used as clinical pawns by it's opponents in an attempt to delegitimise israel. how is itjustifiable to keepin israel. how is itjustifiable to keep in camps when no—one can claim paraded through refugee status and no—one else has failed to find proper refuge for so long? applause. thank you very much. the arab summit in 2007 took a decision on this particular matter and added a new word, by the way, which was a just and agreed a solution for the issue palestinians. so in a way there is a progression going on as far as the issue of refugees is concerned. but at the end of the day he, the palestinians also have aspirations. they not just people who are looking

for a place to live. some of them still feel a deep sense of denial. and therefore we have two will accommodate that human dimension. but anyway, we will leave that politically with the solution that would be, i am politically with the solution that would be, lam sure, acceptable by both parties. diana. one of the fundamental problems is that you don't view us as equals, you don't view me as a body who has rights. my right to return is enshrined in international law. it is not a question of being a pawn, it is my right. israelis want to somehow have us right. israelis want to somehow have us forget that we were ethnically clea nsed us forget that we were ethnically cleansed from our homes, when some of our homes are still standing and we still have relatives in some of these places as well. i think we have to recognise that what i am seeking and what acting to other palestinians are seeking is that we wa nt palestinians are seeking is that we want a piece that is based on people to people, writes to rights. and you

are not going to have a peace agreement if you somehow try to ignore the rights of millions of refugees, instead you are just going to have a perpetual conflict. ok. let us go back to gaza. we have a comment on the us deal of the century. translation: we call on the american people, not the us government, to stand by our people. the us administration position towards the palestinians is unfair. we strongly reject everything being circulated about the so—called deal of the century. jake wallace, part of that question was appealing to the american people, not the us government. is that an approach that might work? well, we have elections in 2020 and we will see how they turn out. what i can say is, in the past, american administrations have tried to balance the relationship with israel, which has always been very strong, with some kind of

relationship with the palestinians, where we provided assistance not just to israel but for the palestinians, try to help them build the institutions of statehood and so on. so i think there is long—standing us support for involvement in this process and trying to resolve this process. and i think that that can be a feature of the future as we move forward. naftali bennett. i think in the entire middle east right now the fortress which is holding back radical islam is israel, with our intelligence, with outsider, with what we are doing in syria and lebanon. we are basically saving much of the sunny worlds from this massive shiites launch. the last thing you want to do is take the single democratic stable state and cut it in half and create another third palestinian failed state. that is the last thing you want to do. because the whole middle east then will fold and collapse and implode.

that is why i think it is in america's interest to fend off this pressure, to inject a palestinian state in the land of israel. applause. i think that in terms of appealing to the world, it is notjust a question of appealing to the united states. it is a question of appealing to the world. this is why it is so important for the boycott, the divestments, the sanctions movement, to pick up, move forward and push ahead. it is the only way we'll be able to move forward, is if israel is held accountable. and if israel is held accountable. and if israel is held accountable. and if israel is no longer rewarded for its continued apartheid. this is why people from gaza are appealing to the world. because they recognise they are not going to get anything by speaking to the israelis. they are not going to get anything by speaking to a us administration that seems to be so wedded to the israelis. instead, the only path forward is through a cot, divestments and sanctions. we have

seen some movement, divestments and sanctions. we have seen some movement, the european union, for instance, some of the goods coming here are labelled as being made in the occupied territories as opposed to made in israel. do you see any momentum in this area? absolutely. the bds movement is not only picking up, it is growing and growing to the point where even israeli politicians, ones who are pushing and trying to push back against the growing tide of bds, the reason it is attracting so many people and so much following is because the world sees that the way that israel has behaved ears as an apartheid state. they see that israel has been allowed to get away with murder and israel is continually rewarded for its bad behaviour rather than condemned for its bad behaviour. this is why the bds movement is not only growing but will continue to grow and will eventually succeed. naphtali on it, on the bds movement? it seems that the palestinians have spent the last 71 yea rs

the palestinians have spent the last 71 years victimising themselves. they have fallen in love with it, so they bequeath it to the children, their grandchildren, their great—grandchildren. you know, the view —— the dues had the worst tragedy in world history, the shoah, but we didn't whine to 70 years. we builtan but we didn't whine to 70 years. we built an amazing and remarkable country. you can go ahead and bds us, but you won't be able to wake up in the morning because the chip is built—in intel in israel, and on the way to work you'll get lost because of waze, and that to make you try to use as a cherry tomato made in israel. what did you bring to the world beyond suicide terrorists? what is your invention? you know, i think that it is very important to you to recognise one thing. the land that you are sitting on, the place that you are sitting on, the place that you are sitting on, the place that you claim all these wonderful things, and by the way cherry to make those were not invented by you, was built on my land, on palestinian land, and the fact that you keep

trying to somehow erase us and ignore us... what is your language? is it arabic? where is arabia? saudi arabia? there were no palestinian people, it is a new invention, it is 0k. people, it is a new invention, it is ok. our next question, then a shrug. what do the recent political developments of benjamin netanyahu's allegiance with the car harness party, jewish power, mean for the future of israeli politics and perhaps more importantly, the palestinian people? perhaps more importantly, the palestinian people ?|j perhaps more importantly, the palestinian people? i shouldjust explain that party, jewish power, it is the ideological successor to maya kahani, the is the ideological successor to maya ka hani, the ultra nationalist is the ideological successor to maya kahani, the ultranationalist rabbi who was a member in the 1980s of the israeli cassette. i don't accept any sort of racism. however, i will not be preached to by the palestinians, who spend 10% of their budget on funding murderers and murderers' families. you do not preach to us about democracy, do not preach to us about democracy, do not preach to us

about rights, because it is you who are killing each other, so go figure that out before coming to us and talking about peace. the allegations, the corruption allegations, the corruption allegations of benjamin netanyahu and whether he is going to be indicted or not, do you think he will be? will he resign?” indicted or not, do you think he will be? will he resign? i hope not. anjuman netanyahu is a great israeli leader. we have some disagreements, which is ok, that is part of democracy. but in german netanyahu isa democracy. but in german netanyahu is a remarkablejewish leader. —— benjamin. he will go down in history as strengthening israel for years to come. and you cannot resign because the elections are coming up in april. no, i cannot. iam the elections are coming up in april. no, i cannot. i am here to stay. there is no real difference between the ka ha na stay. there is no real difference between the kahana party and be likud party. we are talking about shades of fascism. let me finish. you have no idea about democracy. let herfinish. you have no idea about democracy. let her finish. in the west bank you didn't create a democracy. don't go

preaching to us. when was the last election? when was the last election in the palestinian authority? it was in 2007. it has been 12 years. do you know why? they are afraid of elections because they know that hamas will win. let's go to remand began with a question on us government policy. —— ramallah. america, why did you hold up all aid to the palestinian authority? america, how do you justify your aggressive measures against the palestinian people? is this your new policy in the middle east? jake, thatis policy in the middle east? jake, that is a reference to the decision taken in august last year by the us administration to hold up its aid from the un relief and works agency for palestinians. palestinians living in israel, in the occupied territories. it is about $300 million, roughly. your response?” am not going to defend the administration's decision, i think it was a mistake. as i've said in

the past we have tried to balance our support for israel with some relationship with the palestinians. over the years we have provided better manners amount of assistance for palestinians through the un organisation that takes care of refugees, which we should point out, what they do is they provide schools, hospitals, and they provide social services are destitute people. those are important needs and they need to be met. the us administration has also cut off the direct —— economic assistance for the palestinian authority. it has cut of security assistance for the palestinian authority. it has isn't —— even cut of support for private palestinian hospitals in east jerusalem, none of which makes any sense to me. if you are trying to do the ultimate deal unique have some relationship with palestinians and this makes sense. do you think it is a decision that may be reviewed? do you pick it is sustainable? could it be resented? i would hope they are going to review it, particularly they are going to put a plan on the table, as they say they are. you cannot expect the palestinians to be pa rt cannot expect the palestinians to be part of that process is —— if a the

other hand you are also punishing them. did anyone else ask why, why was the money held back? does anybody know? naftali bennett. $300 million is precisely the amount of money that the pa funds the family of murderers, or the money that the pa funds the family of murderers, orthe murderers themselves, and salaries. it would be as if america were funding are some of the light and's family. so they said, no, we don't agree. we will offset every dollar with which they fund terror, we won't give it to them. does that make sense, yes it does. i think you are... go on, j. it does. i think you are... go on, j- j? it does. i think you are... go on, j.j?i it does. i think you are... go on, j. j? ithink you it does. i think you are... go on, j. j? i think you are mixing apples and oranges. the money you are talking about for the palestinian prisoners, that is an issue with the palestinian authority. a money that was cut off, the three had million dollars, it is free un organisation providing support for hospitals and schools. i think you are mixing these two things together. let's go to ourfinal question, these two things together. let's go to our final question, from joel rosen. thank you. shimon peres once

said we should use our imagination is more than our memories. without referencing the past, what are your dreams for the future? without referencing the past, what are your dreams for the future? j?” referencing the past, what are your dreams for the future? j? i think thatis dreams for the future? j? i think that is a good thing to quote. the point being, if all you do is look to the past, you can't get to any future. i think the future has to be, asi future. i think the future has to be, as i said, a state solution, the interests of both sides, and national homeland recognised in some way. it is a wonderful question. thank you for the opportunity to say something that i have been trying to get in, which is, i actually believe the future is a one state solution. i believe that we are going to be living together and i want to see us living together and i want to see us living together and i want to see us living together as equals with everybody, with the same rights, irrespective of religion. naftali bennett. my addition for 50 years

forward is for the arabs and dues and israelis living here to live side by side, building good lives for their children, having a strong israel as a support against the radical islam which will probably be here for another several hundred years, and building a future for everyone. joe biden money? i think the current situation is not sustainable, so therefore i think piece is going to come whether we like it or not, because we have to live together. — — like it or not, because we have to live together. —— peace. ithink like it or not, because we have to live together. —— peace. i think it is our duty to look forward, to build on the opportunities that may emerge, and if we continue to really lurk at each other from the dark side of the moon, as they say, quoting neil armstrong this time, you know, we would not get anywhere. we have to believe that eventually all of us would benefit from the

fa ct all of us would benefit from the fact that we can exist. israel has a great deal of talent that we can benefit from, and also the palestinians have a great deal of tale nt palestinians have a great deal of talent as well. absolutely. joel campbell auto your dreams for the future, speaking, clearly, as a member of the young generation? my dream of the future is that we abandon harsh rhetoric of boycotts, division and violence and instead embrace a scenario of mutual recognition and direct negotiation. thank you very much indeed. thank you very much. that is all from this edition of global questions from here in the ymca in westjerusalem. could president trump's deal of the century breathed new momentum to solve the israeli— palestinian conflict? you have heard the opinions of our panel, and our

audience. i will leave it to you to draw your own conclusions. thank you to my panel and to our audience. and those of you who gave us questions from the occupied west bank and gaza, from me, zeinab badawi, and the rest of the two —— rest of the global questions team, until the next time, the buyer. —— a good buy. good morning. it could be a case of getting everything bar the kitchen sink thrown at us today. we are going to see rain, gales, sleet and even some snow for some. over the last few hours we have seen heavy rain and strong winds moving its weight group wales and this weather front will bump into cold air in scotland over the next few hours and bring some snow with it as well. so, early

birds, across northern england, you may well see rain and some store across the pennines. that slips off into the north sea. at the same time we see a greater chance of seeing more snow. mostly to higher ground. we will see several centimetres accumulating in scotland, accompanied by gusts of wind, 45—50 miles an hour. not particularly pleasant. we could see slushy deposits at lower levels for a time. wintry showers into northern ireland and north—west wind as well. after a showery and damp side across eastern england it is an improving picture as we go through the afternoon. should be dry with sunshine coming through. it will be windy with it. gusts across england and wales 50—60 miles an hour, and we keep the threat of showers with hail and so mixed in further north. a cold afternoon here, 3—5d. the highest values further south of 7—11, that you have to factor in the strength of the wind, it will perhaps feel rather chilly as well. as we move out of sunday and into monday, we have a job hype rush of building from the south. —— eight ridge of

high pressure building. it will come things down briefly. monday will be a chilly start to the day. the blue shows where we will see frost, temperatures into the low single figures first thing on monday morning with a scattering of showers. again, with any elevation, some of those will be wintry. on the whole monday looks likely to be relatively quiet, dry with some sunshine coming through. not particularly warm with it. by the time we move out of monday into tuesday, another area of low pressure pushing in from the atlantic, tightly packed isobars. rain, wind or gales for a time. some of that rain could really be quite heavy as it slips its way south and east across england and wales. then it leaves a trail of wintry showers, and again, some of those could be falling as sleet and snow. a cool filter things on tuesday, with the highest values of 7—9. that's it. take care.