welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america an ultra—low emission zone and around the globe. my name is lewis vaughanjones. in an effort to improve air quality. drivers of polluted vehicles, our top stories: from motorbikes to lorries, coming into the centre of the city striving for cleaner air in the city streets. london becomes the first will have to pay to enter the area. in the world to charge drivers of polluting vehicles president trump is replacing his homeland security secretary. to use its roads. kirstjen nielsen says she has resigned with immediate effect. anger has been growing within the white house president trump announces at the failure to reduce the number he is replacing the woman in charge of his border policy. of migrants entering the us illegally across southern border. the secretary for homeland security, kirsten nieljsen, says she has resigned with immediate effect. the un—backed libyan government says and the un—backed government in libya says more than 20 people more than 20 people have been killed in four days of fighting around have been killed in four days of fighting around the capital, tripoli. the capital, tripoli. he is the king of bollywood. forces led by a warlord are trying to seize the city, sharukh khan tells the bbc in defiance of international what he thinks about gender calls for restraint. now here is dateline london.

hello and welcome to dateline london. i'm carrie gracie. this week: halt all military activity. that is the message from the united nations security council and the g7 to rival forces in libya. but as the so called libyan national army presses on towards the capital, who, if anyone, is listening? israel?s elections: the candidates, the issues and the implications for the middle east. and brexit: life on a knife edge may be beginning to feel like the new normal for westminster politics but this week the decisions move to europe. my guests today are janet daley of the sunday telegraph, middle east commentator rachel shabi, bernard purcell who edits the irish world

and american writerjef mcallister. thank you to you all. there is a united nations security council backed government in tripoli, but for how much longer? a rebel army is marching on the libyan capital, deaf to pleas from the visiting secretary general of the un last week and defying the wishes of the wider international community. since the uprising that toppled muammar gaddafi in 2011, libya has been wracked by civil war. antonio gutteres had hoped to bring all sides together this month for a un backed conference to plan national elections. but at the head of the self proclaimed libyan national army, khalifa haftar seems to have other plans. let's look at why it is. jef, you start us off. why is it that libya is still such a wreck so many years after the fall of gaddafi? i think you have to go back to the roots. i mean, gaddafi is not something you can get over in a week, or a month, or even in years.

it became this place where stasis among lots of factions and no one able to command enough authority to be able to unify them. many attempts made, all failed. and then i think the international community has given up and with good. . .sort of with good reason. and it has just been allowed to languish. it has taken a long time for the general to get himself organised in benghazi and even that has taken a long time. to actually think about unifying the country simply has taken deal—making, tacit support — maybe less than tacit support — from egypt, from france, from other sources who are not necessarily paying so much attention to what the un is asking. is it good? is it bad? i mean we sort of like countries run by people, but libya is a mess. it is hard to say whether this is going to be an improvement. rachel, authoritarian or force for stability — khalifa haftar?

if he did take the capital, is this something that the general public of libya, tired after so many years of chaos, would welcome? that is, to some extent, part of general khaftar's appeal, in that he says he is a stabilising force. you know, he is playing that strong man card of, you know, i will bring some stability in the face of this chaos and people are exhausted by chaos, of course they are, so that is quite appealing. but i think when you look at the situation, you know, for various reasons when you look at the arab uprisings, tunisia was the first but also the best case. now tunisia has specific reasons of its own to account for that, including that it had a very strong civil society for some years, but it was also the first one to get away before the international community started to interfere, as it did with egypt, as it did with libya and as it did, with devastating consequences, with syria. so what we are seeing now in libya is really another iteration of the same thing, which is that, you know, the un may want there to be...for all the factions

to come together and to talk and for there to be peace and reconciliation, and a look a head at the elections, but as long as there are different countries backing different factional elements of libya, as there are in syria, there is absolutely no chance of that happening. janet, what do you say? a failed state, obviously. and the west does have a degree of responsibility over this. if you help to depose a dictator then there is a vacuum. and if you don't come in... if you give up on the idea of what used to be called nation building, and you don't hang around long enough to take responsibility for the after effects, this is what tends to happen. i don't know if there is any

feasible remedy now. as rachel says, the strong man solution, in a sense, of appointing another dictator, tends to be historically what happens. the west...is the west happy with that? probably not. but, on the other hand, is it prepared...libya, the consequences of the breakdown in libya's state organisation have been tremendous for the west, because it became a centre for people trafficking. the migration problem had a lot to do with the fact that migrants were flooding through libya and being taken by people traffickers across to italy and to greece and to spain. that problem, to some extent, has been controlled now, but it is very dangerous to have a north african state with such proximity to europe, even from a purely selfish point of view, from the european point of view, having it be in a state of disorder, complete disorder. the breakdown of law. and, so bernard, do you think that events will be decided on the ground and by the renegade generals? 75—year—old former chief of staff of gaddafi, who, of course, then spent 20 years in exile and then came back and fought this toe by toe,

trench by trench war to the capital? do think events will be decided in that way on the ground, or by these wider forces that the others have been describing? gaddafi was the solution for a long time and he was the hard man who kept a lid on it and the rest of us turned a blind eye until he lost the plot and started doing things like sending semtex to the ira. what happened, as janet says, is the west interfered with good intentions, but they had no plan to follow it through. we have seen this particularly throughout the middle east. it is quite likely that you are going to see history repeating itself, not least because this individual has formed alliances and patronage with the saudis and the russians and even the egyptians and he was originally set out as someone who was combating islamic extremism and that made him popular because he was our enemy's enemy. he is prepared to find alliances with anyone just to get himself in position. he was originally a gaddafi loyalist

and then became a cia asset, so we're not talking about there, we are talking about a... we're not talking about aetiology there, we are talking about a for power. and when he decided not to intervene, syria kept its dictator. assad is the survivor in that region, which is a bit tragic. bernard's point, the cia asset,... we talked at the beginning about you and cut, saying that everyone put down your arms. is there a role for the us, as a former superpower, world policeman, to come in and say, collect everybody. is that a given that the trump presidency does not play in libya? i don't think he even knows where libya is. i don't see any interest in trump to do that. obama was an isolationist in his own way. his decision not to go into syria for example. i have no time for trump at all, i think it is an administration of ignoramuses, but obama made

a conscious decision that america would not be the policeman of the world. but he did lead from behind in libya. yes, lead from behind. we are going to move from north africa to the middle east. israel goes to the polls this week in an election which some describe as a referendum on benjamin netanyahu. the israeli prime minister has been in powerfor a decade but his hopes for re election are overshadowed by possible corruption indictments. israelis are preparing for a tight result this week, but for palestinians, israel?s neighbours and the wider middle east, will it make a difference who the voters elect? rachel? for palestinians it will not make much difference, because the occupation has not been part of the conversation in israel for some time. there's not really a left to speak of because the labour party

is desiccated. very few people define themselves as left—wing. about 12% ofjewish israelis would define themselves as left wing and paradoxically, the younger people, which is contrary to what is happening as a trend in the west, the younger people are more right—wing than the older generation. why is that? for those who remember the old powerful labour party of israel and perhaps don't pay attention to developements there on a day to day or week to week basis? just give us any nutshell why the left has lost so much support? settlement expansion and the treatment of the palestinians, whether it was the left labour party or right likud party. there are differences on economic issues and in later years, there are differences on how they view a liberal democracy. bluntly he does not have much time for it. calling the left—wing traitors, calling rights organisations traitors.

in broad brush strokes the hollowed out the... that came to be seen as the narrative created in israel. we tried, we given everything, the palestinians are not ready for peace. that narrative is not true, but that is the narrative that is cemented in israel. this explains why the generation of young people are becoming more right—wing because that is their own experience. if that is the context, janet, is this a referendum on benjamin neta nyahu ? probably, but is also a referendum, as most israeli elections are, on a national security. most of the neighbouring countries, the arab countries have lost interest in the palestinians. the two state solution has gone

because no one is championing the palestinian cause. it used to be the case that russia, in its soviet union days once considered to be so —— in its soviet union days, was once considered to be on that side. putin is the best friend of the regime which is the greatest threat to israel's security. what about the challenger? there is a challenge who is fighting a tight race in benjamin gantz? he is a former chief of staff, supported by other chief of staff and he favours a more secular, centrist approach to the economy and to dealing with palestine. he favours a more secular, centrist approach to the economy and to dealing with palestine. a much more aspirational approach to what israel can be full stop especially since in the past decade,

netanyahu has lead such a race towards the bottom. it will be small parties that hold the balance at the end of the day. neither of the big players will hold that much sway. if he goes with what is possible, and what is pragmatic in a country where lots of people have had national service and they have heard the pontificating of netanyahu and they have heard the extreme religious speaking and sending others to take part in what is generally seen to be a mess, it is possible that he might strike a chord and the centre might actually hold a more optimistic engagement with palestine and others. for purely pragmatic reasons. it is interesting to think...

polls seem to indicate a likud victory. it is very interesting. it does seem interesting to see the similarities between trump and netanyahu, they like each other and they act the same way. they're both bombastic and demonise their enemies. netanyahu is much more intelligent. yes, he has been there much longer yet. no, he's much more intelligent. now the strongman. he said that he was if he was running, trump was running in israel, he said that he would get 98% of the vote. he identifies... he has done everything he could, moving the embassy, everything to help netanyahu. this may turn out to be... i mean, it feels like i think israel is getting to it may be that security solution. it doesn't have a solution to the palestinians. it could be a jewish and democratic state, but keep going, keep going, don't acknowledge it and keep it on the side and it is working so far and the americans, i think the new peace plan from jared kushner, which is supposed to be released to the world after the elections...

will not actually make any decisive... i have to say that being jewish and a supporter of israel, that it breaks my heart, the relationship with trump. israel, it breaks my heart, the relationship with trump. why is it appalling? because trump is a fascist of sorts and he is so unattractive to enlightened voters of every description. i think netanyahu is making a mistake in the long run to associate with trump. it is worth saying that a lot of you are not going to agree with the almost fascist line

and the undesirable to many a night etc. we're not going to get into that. rachel? when we talk about the palestinians, what about iran, what about syria and what about lebanon? when they look at the israeli elections, to he see anything to choose between neta nyahu and gantt? you could say there are differences over things over economic issues are whether they want to be in the authoritarian or not. i suspect gantz is not in that field, but it has to be said, the policies are absent in the selection. the policies are absent in this election. there are no policies. blue and white, the gantz coalition with yair lapid, is not really forward facing. it does not have a story to tell. it's story is stop bibi. being against something it is not necessarily enough to get you over the line.

sometimes ideas capture the age. people are sick of bibi as well. we do not do a dateline london programme without discussing brexit. now is the time. even by brexit standards, last week was extraordinary? a seven hour cabinet meeting, a commons vote tied, another that squea ked through on a majority of one, negotiations between theresa may and a man she'd long said was unfit to govern, and to cap it all, a letter to the european union which erased yet more of the red lines she'd once said were indelible. but when history is written, the first week of april may not feel like the turning point in the brexit saga. because the second week of april is fast upon us and it may prove more fateful. janet, who is actually in power this weekend? good question. it is just as chaotic as it looks. this is really happening.

the remainers are, at the moment, thinking that all their christmases have come at once. because of this extension offer from tusk, which seems to be the beginning of the end that they have always wanted, which is... an indefinite delay to article 50, then you get another year delay, then you get another and eventually it all goes away. that might be the case, that might be what is going to happen. but it needn't be. because a year, if they actually take a year extension, and a lot of my brexiteer friends will not agree with me on this, but if you take the extension and the... instead of pushing it further and further down the road which accomplishes nothing. they have a year to make substantial changes in the leadership which has been so absolutely hopeless. the whole political configuration of how the tory party relates to the country and how it relates to itself, the change of leadership, it can transfigure the situation and transform it.

that is the hope and also the hope that the eu might actually decide that it is not such a good idea to keep us in. at the moment, one of the things that is quite heartbreaking about this is that the idea of the democratic nation state, that is to say the people who govern who you elected is being... defended by fascists and by populists. which is bizarre. if we were still in the eu, we could legitimise an awful lot of the anti—eu sentiment, the eurosceptic sentiment that is so prevalent in europe because we have this tradition of strong and stable democracy can stop that may not be helpful to people like macron who want to continue his centralising project and the federalisation of the eu. some might say that may not be helpful to europeans, but also to the conservative party?

it is an existential threat to have to fight european elections, are they wrong? it is a question not in the short term, but it is a question of what europe would think. macron is worried about as having a long extension or staying in. the most fundamental democratic sense of britain's history and its institutions. that is an irreconcilable difference. they have created a logically impossible situation where it seems to be an unresolvable dilemma of coming out, but actually staying in is also irreconcilable from the eu's point of view. jef, i know you watch westminster closely, but if that compromise with labour for theresa may worked

and got her the votes over the line for her withdrawal agreement, they're not pointless from her point of view, that the 30th ofjune deadline? not going to happen. i agree, not going to happen. signs are worse than zero. you never know, but i think we do now. i think we become besotted, almost inevitably, by the parliamentary ins and outs and this extension under that deal and it is conceivable that there will be some kind of set of indictive votes for the different alternatives this week that may, if the government controls any voting system and there is alternative voting and notjust first past the post box, it could coalesce around mrs may's deal. maybe that's what their... it does make sense to me to stop brexit has never made sense to me as an economic, cultural or political matter.

i don't think it will ever work. it is like trying to take apart of an aeroplane while you're flying it. there are all sorts of analogies. i don't think the promises made can ever be delivered. because it is fundamentally an emotional thing, we want to control our own country. well, we're not going to re—fight the brexit battle. another year, under another tory leader, whoever that may be, to figure out another set of twiddles with the declarations, i don't see ever working. you don't see it working? rachel, what about the european council summit? it is good enough to say that we're flying a plane and we are in a plane and we had to get it to land, there is the european council summit next wednesday and what is to happen? you can see for european officials that it is getting more and more... there is a sense of desperation help help us help you? we don't know what you want.

i think it must be very frustrating for them to say, look, you can have an extension that is flexible. we can give you a year, if you want it to stop before then it can stop before. and if we say and theresa may says, no, now we want it untiljune, it must be very frustrating to be at the other side of the table and trying to figure out... do you think donald tusk on the other side of the table, who did apparently talk about this flexible extension, you think you can deliver 27 yeses than 25 and a couple of no? i think that he can. we haven't seen very much deviation i think we can. i don't think we are likely to know. even though we can see voices of dissent coming from i think macron, for instance. i think, ultimately things

that they are interested in, stability, smooth transition, lack of disruption, minimal chaos... to mainland europe as well. these are things that are going to drive towards a longer extension and it is in britain's interested that as well. if you're a leaver and you still want to leave, despite everything, taking the time to reconfigure seems to make sense. so, bernard, you agreed? around the table we seem to agree that remainers and leavers and europeans are shuffling into the camp of a longer extension? it is the only practical response. if it is going to be longer and more of the same, that is why you have the reticence in france. the conservative eurosceptic line here seems to go through the prism of a franco british competition. a 19th century model of government here, the two party system top—down does not seem to comprehend a multilateral way of doing business.

there are 27 other countries, ranging from the small to the big. angela merkel was in ireland. macron went to meet leo varadkar. macron gave some idea every support was up there actually going to be some concerns about the single market ending on the island of ireland and they wanted to know how they can stop the of their own rule—based system. by holding the men and there is a prospect of disruption, there are countries that will see, why should we let them? there are still senior europeans that are saying that there is an alarmingly high risk of a disorderly brexit? yes, and france and ireland would have the most disruption.

the dutch are actually supportive of britain, they feel affection towards it. they do not like to see what is happening. ireland is the same. you have the same with germany, and the scandinavian states. at the moment there is a certain kind of fatalism that britain might have two... people might have to resign and allow britain to go to its own fate. there is signal europeans that are saying that there is an alarmingly high risk of a disorderly brexit, by accident? no i don't think that is possible. there is not a majority for that in parliament, let alone the country. we could do it without going to parliament. that would be suicide. what impressed me about public opinion is the desire for leave has scarcely moved and there is now a majority of people asked who say that in it we should come out without a deal. of people asked percy which, with no deal. that is not true. that has to be contested

wherever people see it. it is absolutely untrue. you didn't even get there... not the majority of people in the country thinking we should leave with no deal, but when you offer the options of the ways that we might leave, no deal has escalated. that is because many of them, and curtis has shown this in his polling, mean that no deal means that the status quo and they think it means a thing. does anyone think that he confirmatory referendum, taking it back to the people, would resolve some of this? does anyone think that he conform to a referendum, so it would take it back to the people, we do of this? yes, absolutely. we would understand that he can from a confirmatory referendum is not this evil plot. it's not an evil plot, no.

people would see it as what it is, we have a deal, we will check in with the public, and see that this deal, rather than the concept of a deal, does this have the approval of the public? over the last two years, public opinion has been much more sophisticated on this issue. this has been the discourse of the nation for the last year and they have become very much more sophisticated in the understanding of the issues. we are going to have to leave it on that rather heated note. thank you forjoining me.