but by the time he landed in israel, the plan to go on to meet arab leaders was off, amid the fallout from a deadly blast at a gaza hospital, the disputed circumstances of which have further heightened anger and the fear of what comes next. my guest is us democratic party congressman adam smith. how does the us navigate its multiple interests at this time of maximum danger? congressman adam smith,

in washington, welcome to hardtalk. and let me begin with a very simple question — what do you believe president biden hoped to achieve by flying out to the middle east? well, i think the number—one biggest goal is to contain the conflict. that's number one. number two, to work with israel to try to figure out some way to minimise the impact on civilians within gaza, and also within israel, to try to chart a path forward. and i am seeing reporting — it's this morning, my time, where we're at, recording here — i'm seeing reporting this morning that a humanitarian corridor has been opened up out of gaza, and that's one of the biggest goals. the second is to work with partners in the region to try to make sure that this conflict doesn't spread, that hezbollah and iran don't get more involved. that's the goal and that's the objective. and i guess also to have the conversations with israel about how best we can help them defend themselves against the threat from hamas. let's just start with that

idea of working with the partners in the arab world. of course, the plan was that biden would go on to amman, jordan, after being in israel. that was cancelled as a result of the fallout from that blast at al—ahli hospital in gaza. now, as you very well know, the israelis have presented evidence which they say clearly shows that the blast was caused by an islamichhad rocket which fell short. there are many people in the middle east, representing governments around the region, who it seems refuse to accept that version of events and who blame israel for causing that terrible blast and the terrible loss of life. now, joe biden chose to say, when he met benjamin netanyahu, "that blast appears to have been done by the other team, not you." do you think it was wise for biden — he says he'd seen some data from the pentagon — but was it wise for

biden to say that? yes, i believe it was, and i've seen the reporting on this. i've had some conversations with the white house, as well. it seems pretty obvious at this point that this was a rocket launched out of gaza. the speculation is that it was islamichhad. we don't know exactly which terrorist group was launching the rockets, but there's clear images of a bunch of rockets being launched from, i guess it's about a kilometre or two away from the hospital, many of which go over the top of the hospital on their way to israel. and plus, israel has released a recording of hamas terrorists in conversation about how one of these rockets landed on the hospital. so i think president biden was on solid footing. i think there was another quote from him that he had gotten some of those assurances from our defence department here in the us that that is what has happened. it seems pretty clear that that's what's happened, and it is worth noting that hamas makes note — they specifically

target civilians. they put civilians in harm's way, they use them as human shields. so it would not at all be unlikely that something like this would occur. and that is clearly where the evidence seems to have pointed. but to come back to your point about biden�*s intent to reach out to arab leaders as well — clearly that's deeply problematic right now. we've seen, for example, the governments of the uae and jordan, both of which have peace agreements with israel, condemning israel, making it quite plain they believe it was an israeli targeting of that hospital. and what we've also seen is a popular anger on streets from turkey to jordan to the west bank, as well. popular anger that is at a new level. how do you believe biden, in this context, is going to reach out in a new way to arab leaderships?

yeah — no, i think you hit the nail on the head. i mean, the problem is the anger in the streets, and the leadership injordan, the leadership in the uae and elsewhere is responding to that anger. i think it would be incorrect at this point to say that those countries�* governments have concluded that israel did this. i don't think they have. i think they are reacting to the anger in the street. look, hamas, islamichhad, these groups are very good at propaganda. they put this out immediately. they spread the story, lie though it may be. it hits the arab street quickly and they respond. and governments injordan, uae, elsewhere, they have to respond to that. and what president biden can do... i mean, first of all, i think it is important to get the correct story out that this was not an israeli attack. in fact, this was once again the effect of terrorist groups in gaza targeting civilians. in this case, i'm not saying they were — they weren't targeting the hospital. they were targeting israeli civilians by launching missiles

randomly into israel, and one of them misfired and fell on civilians in gaza. but president biden�*s got to get that message out. he's got to make it clear what actually happened. that's certainly step one. right, now, congress — context is always important in these discussions. the context, of course, is that on october 7th, hamas launched a murderous assault on israel, which saw more than 1,400 people killed, including many children, women, and men. now, that kicked off this round of violence. since then, we have seen, according to the gazan health ministry, more than 3,000 palestinians killed, including very high numbers of women and children. is it time now for you, as a senior us politician, to call for de—escalation, to call for a ceasefire? what we are doing, what president biden is doing, and what his administration has done from the very start is israel

needs to respond to this. they need to do something to weaken hamas, but they need to do it in a way that is as careful as possible to minimise civilian casualties. now, i don't think calling for a ceasefire is the right thing to do. hamas has come in and attacked. if israel has some of the terrorists who did the attack that killed all of those civilians in israel, if they are able to target them, i don't think we can tell israel, no, don't do that. what we can do, and what the biden administration has done, is urge israel to take a more balanced and thoughtful approach as they respond to that attack... if i may interject, what does the israeli imposition of a total siege — no fuel, no electricity, no water, no food getting into gaza — what does that mean to you? does that represent to you a collective punishment, which, as you well know, is something that is not proscribed by — not allowed under

the geneva conventions and the norms that surround the laws of war? well, as i was going to say, what we have done since then is we have urged israel not to take that approach, and there has been a change. as i said, the humanitarian corridor has been opened up. also, israel had said, "get out in 2a hours because we're coming in." that was about 11 days ago now, they have not come in. so, yes, we've had conversations with israel about taking a different approach, and that different approach has begun to play out. look, it is understandable that israel reacted with incredible anger after the scenes and images that apparently too much of the world has already forgotten, less than two weeks later, of hamas pouring across the border and executing civilians, burning them alive, cutting heads off, specifically targeting civilians. israel wanted to get the people who did that. and in the immediate aftermath, some of the things they said probably were not as calm, rational and thoughtful

as they could have been. but under the circumstances, it's really hard to blame israel for having that reaction. what we have done, what president biden has done, is he has stepped in and worked with israel to change that approach. now, no matter how you do this, it's going to be incredibly difficult. hamas is embedded with the civilian population in gaza. how do you get to hamas without impacting the civilian population? it's going to be very difficult, but right now we are working with israel to try and have a better approach to doing that. and again, let us all remind ourselves, hamas doesn't care. they don't care if their own civilians die. they don't. .. sorry — they don't care if the palestinians civilians die. you've raised a lot of interesting points there... i do, because it's a complicated subject. yeah, let me just ask you one question about consistency when it comes to your view of what represents a violation of international law. as we'll discuss later

in this interview, i hope, you are a congressman who has spoken long and loud about resisting putin's aggression, his invasion of ukraine. when you saw the russians level the city of mariupol in ukraine, did you regard that as a war crime? i'm not a legal scholar. i regarded it as something that a government should not do, and i certainly... and that's why i've emphasised many, many times in this interview what president biden is doing. israel needs to be more careful about how they go after hamas. there's no question about that. "more careful" is an interesting phrase, because what we think the israelis are still intent on doing — we don't know, but it's what we think — is sending a huge force — tanks, ground troops — in a ground invasion of gaza. president biden has said he believes that if israel's intent is to reoccupy gaza, it would be a big mistake. is that his way of saying that he wants israel,

actually, to think again about a massive ground assault? yes, absolutely. and look, you know, i mean, this is something that our intelligence shows. there's a number of problems with that. first of all, is israel trained for that type of urban warfare? are they trained to go and find the tunnels where hamas has hidden their soldiers, their troops and their weapons? are they actually prepared to do this in a way that gives them a chance to achieve their military objectives? well, what do you think? so that's a big question. i don't know the answer to that question. i think there is cause for doubt. israel went into gaza in a limited way back in 2014. most observers after the fact don't think that it was a particularly successful operation in terms of being able to significantly degrade hamas. have they improved their training? do they have the intel to tell them where to go, number one. and number two, the impact on the civilian population is profound, of having to engage

in that type of fighting. now, you are the ranking, as it's called, the ranking democrat on the armed services committee. you are very experienced at looking at sort of us national security and, in particular, at regional challenges like the mideast. is it your expectation that if israel does what you believe it should be very careful and cautious about doing, which is launching a major ground invasion of gaza, is it your belief that that will prompt a spread of the conflict, that another front at least in the north of israel will open up with hezbollah actively engaging? and of course, if hezbollah�*s engaged, then we can sort of say that iran is engaged, too. yeah, iran is already engaged because iran, you know, has supplied hamas for quite some time, but they could be more engaged, without question. yes, i think that increases the risk of that happening. these things are rarely black and white. it's rarely if you do this, then that will happen. so i'm not going to say that.

it definitely increases the risk of the conflict spreading, no doubt about it. and i think it's obvious to say the us has not deployed two aircraft carrier groups and thousands of marines to the eastern mediterranean just to look at the view. is it your belief that if hezbollah engages and there is a major conflict zone opened up in the north of israel that us forces which have been deployed will then be used? well, the first thing to keep in mind is the us forces are deployed primarily to make sure that we protect us assets in the region. we have troops in syria, we have troops in iraq. shia militias affiliated with iran have, you know, recently threatened those groups in a variety of different ways. so those forces are there to protect us interests primarily, and then also secondarily, yes, to hopefully be a deterrent to hezbollah. i can't say for sure whether or not

us forces would engage if the scenario you just described played out. i don't think anybody knows for sure. it depends on a lot of different factors... i just wonder if you would support that. i mean, it's fair to say there are different voices... i'm not going to get into a hypothetical about the future. you know, we will see whether or not it makes sense for us forces. it really depends on 1,000 different factors that right now is it's purely hypothetical to say what might happen. do you think the biden administration has taken its eye off the ball in the middle east, but in particular in its approach to israel—palestine over many months, arguably more than a year? it is very striking that just three weeks ago, the key national security adviser to the president, jake sullivan, gave a long list of positives he saw in the middle east right now. and then he concluded by saying, "the mideast region is quieter today than it has been in two decades."

what a terrible misjudgement. yeah, well, actually, no, he was absolutely right about the situation in terms of where it was at at the time he made that statement. there's no question he was right about that. well, it depends, of course, where he was looking. if he'd been looking at the months and months of rising violence in the west bank... i heard your question, now give me a chance to answer it. ..if he had appreciated that the israel—palestine tensions were rising to new levels, then he wouldn't have said that, would he? yeah — you're completely wrong in youranalysis, 0k? because what he was saying was about what was going on right at the time. 0bviously, hamas fundamentally changed that by pouring across the border and attacking, but nobody in the world was predicting that at the time. so, at the time, yes. and the abraham accords, the relationship that was going on between saudi arabia and israel, the effort to negotiate that, there were a lot of positive things going on. hamas changed that. that's what terrorists do...

sure, but that's my very point, congressman. well, i understand that, but look, you know, we can engage in discussions about what the right policy is. if you want to sit around and say, "how come that policy—maker didn't have perfect knowledge about everything that was happening and how come we didn't solve all the problems in the world, and therefore he's bad?" i don't think that's a particularly useful... no, i'm not about — congressman, i'm not about point—scoring, i'm simply about... i think the more useful discussion is to talk about what the policies are going forward, and what the biden administration has tried to do. and, look, let us also not forget one key factor here. we don't run the middle east, 0k? we have never tried — well, never�*s a long time — we have not tried to run the middle east. we're not in charge of what hamas does. of what israel does. we're not in charge of whatjordan does. what saudi arabia does. now, we try to play a role. we try to work with all of those countries to try to get to a more peaceful place. we do not govern the area, we do not dictate actions. we try to work with partners

in the region to get to a more peaceful place. and presenting this as, well, if something goes wrong in the middle east, it must mean that the us is incompetent — i don't think that's helpful, and i don't think it's accurate. well, i think the history of the last 25 years would say that america has had no problem trying to project its power in the middle east and shape events in the middle east to its own interest. 0ver many, many years we have seen it. i guess there's an interesting question — and you're sitting in the congress right now at a time of deep dysfunction in american national politics. there is a serious question about whether america today is less capable of projecting its power and being taken seriously by those it wants to be taken seriously by than it has been in many years. would you agree there's a profound credibility problem with the us right now? well, i would agree that we have a bit of a historical problem here that evolved in a slightly different way than most people are willing to accept. after world war ii,

we were at a unique moment in human history, and that is basically that the united states of america was the last global power — well, us and i guess the soviet union, and they had a different agenda — we were the last people standing. so, for decades after world war ii, we had an unprecedented ability to influence world events, unprecedented and quite likely never to be matched again. and i think that created some problems. i think it created expectations globally. an overconfidence in the united states about what we could do. inevitably, that was going to change — in fact, part of the plan was for that to change. we wanted the rest of the world to get back up. we helped rebuild europe, we rebuiltjapan. when china came around, we engaged with them to allow them to participate in the global economy. it was always intended that other countries would develop more power. that's the way the world works. so, yes, without any question, we don't have the same level of power to influence the world

because other countries have become stronger and more influential. well, other countries have become stronger, but you, in the united states, it seems have become weaker. and there is a toxic polarisation which we see playing out in your chamber, the house of representatives, right now, where the republican party is deeply split over appointing a new speaker. and, as we speak to each other right now, it's not clear whether they're going to find a speaker — maybejim jordan, maybe not — over the next few hours and days. but the fact is that right now, your chamber can't even pass legislation. it can't, for example, work with the biden administration to get new funding packages for israel, for military assistance to israel, to ukraine, maybe to taiwan, maybe to new border security measures... yeah, i think we all kind of get the point at this point, so if you'd like me to comment on that, i'm happy to. do! democracy isn't easy, 0k? i think great britain has experienced that recently.

how many prime ministers have you had in the last five years? off the top of my head, i can't count them up, because that's the nature of democracy, 0k? if everyone gets a voice, it is harder to keep everybody happy. but i find it preferable to dictatorship. i find it preferable to the way putin and xi choose to run their countries. and part of maintaining democracy is not flipping out and losing your mind every time democracy shows that it's messy, is to understand it's not a sign of dysfunction. it's a sign of democracy. it's a sign of a situation where people have a voice. votes of no confidence in the leaders of legislatures happen all over the world in democracies all the time. now, as it happens, in the us, this the first time it ever happened, the first time we ever got to that point. but that's what democracy is. and acting like when democracy hits a messy point, we should all go, "oh, my god, nothing works any more. we've got to tear it all down and throw it away," that is what ends democracy and gives you dictatorship.

and that i don't want. so, yes, we're having a dispute in the united states congress. everyone is having their opportunity to say their piece. everyone�*s getting a vote, and we're resolving it. again, i find that preferable to the alternative. if you don't, i'm happy to have that argument. no, not at all. just on a point of detail, the white house recently said, one official said that we're running out of runway to get new funding, in particular for israel, and maybe even more particularly given the scale of the fighting with ukraine... now, see, now that's a substantive question, that's a substantive question which i'm happy to address. that's a substantive question which i'm happy to address. yeah, no, i think it's a real challenge. and, again, it has to do with a democracy. in the us, you know, many of people who support the republican party in our country have moved away from supporting funding for ukraine. this is not a matter of dysfunction. this is a matter of the right side of the political spectrum in the us basically deciding that they don't want to support ukraine any more, and it's becoming more of a 50—50 question amongst the united states population.

now, i feel very strongly that we need to continue that support, and i'm going to push for that. but that's not dysfunction, that's democracy. that's the way... and a final question, a final question, then. you talk about presidents putin and xi. do you think if they are looking at washington, dc right now, today, they are seeing a country that they feel is at a very weak and vulnerable moment? well, look, you want to walk back through the history of china and the soviet union, and then russia... you know, for — i don't know — decades now, they have been saying the same thing. they've been saying, "oh, the us is a falling power. they're going down, we're coming up, capitalism..." it's all marxist nonsense about how — and i forget the phrase exactly — they have a very specific way of putting it. "the decline of the west, the inevitable fall," and all of that. you know, they've been predicting that for decades. so the fact that china and russia are saying that the us and the western world is, you know, on the collapse is really hardly news at this point.

we'll see. i mean, we are, i believe, still influential. i think the western alliance that we have put together is still influential. it's not easy, but we are going to keep working on it. and, yeah, china and russia have been predicting our demise for a very long time. congressman adam smith, we have to end it there. i thank you very much indeed forjoining me on hardtalk, thanks. thank you, appreciate the chance. hello, thanks forjoining me. let's get a check on the weather for the next week or so, and concentrate on the short term, because storm babet is affecting the uk, and torrential rain expected

across many parts of the country. now, particularly eastern scotland, the met office has issued a rare red warning, this is the thursday and into friday specifically for angus and southern parts of aberdeenshire. we'll have a look at the details in just a second — but all of us are in for heavy rain. in fact, this is the accumulation of rainfall over the next few days, so widely 20—30mm — but look at that, in parts of eastern scotland, the north—east of england, well in excess of 100mm, and east anglia in the south—east also in for a soaking, particularly towards the end of the week. now, this is the forecast through the early hours of thursday. this is the weather front associated with storm babet moving northwards, a very specific area of heavy rainfall here, so it's certainly not raining all the time — in fact, to the south, through the early hours, the skies may even clear for a time before further heavy showers sweep in from the south. now, at the same time, very strong winds will start to develop, blowing out of the east or south—east, a severe gale, eventually, on the north sea coast,

and especially around eastern parts of scotland, and i think at this stage this is where we really will be running into problems across parts of eastern scotland. yes, many parts of the country, sunny spells and some heavy showers, but it's eastern scotland that bears the brunt of that rain. now, amber warnings are in force in some spots, in excess of 100mm of rain here in the north highlands, other parts further east across scotland. also an overlapping wind warning, and that's the severe gale on that east coast, but if we zoom in, so, parts of angus and southern aberdeenshire within this area, the potential for extensive flooding and danger to life, because the rain will be persistent, it will keep falling on that saturated ground, flash flooding is likely at river level, riverflooding is possible. you can see it's a persistent easterly, but, actually, as we go through the course of friday, the heavier rain transfers to areas further south, so it's across england,

and specifically central and south—eastern parts of england that get the heavier rain on friday, and then through saturday and the rest of the weekend this nasty area of low pressure is pretty much with us. notice that strong easterly still pushing in the rain clouds, so it's always eastern parts of the uk they get that heavy rain. so, here's that low, once again strong winds, up to gale force, pushing in yet more heavy rain into eastern parts of scotland and along the north sea coast, but the further west you are the better the weather will be, so, actually, on saturday in belfast it's a cool 11 celsius, but it's probably going to be, well, bright, at the very least. and then sunday morning that low pressure starts to weaken, it moves a little bit further north, and the winds start to change direction across the uk, so rather than that screaming easterly, those winds will start to blow in from the north, and then actually coming in from the south, south—west, as well, so that means that the weather will start to dry out across the uk. i think a cool weekend on the way, with temperatures of around 10—13

celsius, but it's looking drier and brighter. however, beyond that, after the weekend, it does look as though things are going to turn once again very unsettled, and we have a risk of torrential rain at times, and also more gale force winds. that's it.

welcome to newsday. reporting live from singapore, i'm arunoday mukharji. let's get you the headlines. president biden says egypt has agreed to open the rafah crossing for humanitarian assistance to gaza. egypt had wanted security guarantees from israel after the border area was shelled four times. no, i was very blunt

about the need to support getting humanitarian aid to gaza. he's now flying back after his visit, pledging unwavering american support to israel, but warns them not to act on rage. the us president backs israel's claim that they weren't behind the gaza hospital explosion. but many arab countries still blame an israeli air strike. the evidence remains inconclusive. the uk prime minister, rishi sunak, is on his way to israel as part of the diplomatic efforts to prevent the conflict spreading across the middle east. live from our studio in singapore, this is bbc news. it's newsday.

welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers