on bbc verify, we have been examining videos of us and uk strike 0n bbc verify, we have been examining videos of us and uk strikes on yemen and what's triggered this latest crisis. also on this programme, we'll get the latest details on the attacks. we'll hear from military experts, top diplomats, and our teams in london, washington and the region. our other main story today — the international court ofjustice hears israel's defence against allegations of genocide brought by south africa. the entirety of its case hinges on a deliberately curated decontextualised and manipulative description of the realities of current hostilites. of current hostilities.

hello and welcome to verified live. the houthis in yemen have said american and british strikes against them will not go without punishment or retaliation. the group says five of its fighters were killed and six were injured overnight. earlier, the houthis issued a statement saying british and american interests were "legitimate targets" after the strikes. us central command says more than 60 houthi military targets were struck, in response to attacks on ships in the red sea. they included what the us called command and control centres, munitions depots, launching systems, production facilities and air defence radar systems. among the areas targeted — the capital sanaa and the port of hudaydah. this was the moment us warplanes took off from an aircraft carrier. russia called the strikes "illegitimate" and requested an urgent meeting of the un security council. iran — which supports the houthis — condemned the strikes in yemen as a clear violation of the country's territorial integrity. the british government described the strikes as a limited, proportionate response and said no

more military action was "immediately planned". here's jonathan beale. these strikes were led and coordinated by the us. last night, dozens ofjets launched from an american carrier already in the red sea — the scene of recent tensions. their targets, houthi rebels in yemen who had been launching their own attacks on merchant shipping. they'd been warned to stop or face the consequences. president biden said the strikes were in direct response to unprecedented houthi attacks against international maritime vessels in the red sea — including the use of sophisticated anti—ship missiles for the first time. britain was one of the few other nations to directly take part. a more limited contribution — four raf typhoons flying from their base in cyprus, loaded with guided bombs. it took them several hours to reach their targets in yemen.

it's clear that this type of behaviour can't be met without a response. we need to send a strong signal that this breach of international law is wrong. people can't act like this with impunity, and that's why, together with allies, we've decided to take this action. houthi rebels in yemen, backed by iran, have already scared off trade through one of the world's busiest sea lanes — notjust boarding ships, but targeting them with armed drones and missiles. they say it's in response to israel's attacks in gaza, and in support of palestinians. in reality, it's risking a wider conflict. the us and uk say their goal has only been to reduce tensions. the targets, they say, only military — houthi radars, drone and missile sites and command centres. this footage from one of the two raf strikes. at this stage it's only an initial battle—damage assessment,

but that would indicate that both of the targets that the uk prosecuted were successfully destroyed. the houthis — who control a large chunk of yemen — claim several civilians were also killed. they also say they won't back down. iran and russia, too, have condemned the us—led strikes. they may have destroyed some of the houthi's arsenal, but not their willingness to fight. hence president biden says he won't hesitate to do it again. jonathan beale, bbc news. let's get the view from washington now. our correspondent tom bateman is there. the white house issuing comments in the last 60 minutes. bring is the latest in terms of how they view this set of strikes.— this set of strikes. what the administration _ this set of strikes. what the administration is _ this set of strikes. what the administration is seeing - this set of strikes. what the administration is seeing at i this set of strikes. what the i administration is seeing at the moment is that they are still carrying out what they call battle damage assessment but they believe that in their words, they have had a

good outcome from these strikes. and what they mean by that is that they have, and the wording they have used here is to disrupt and degrade the ability of houthis to fire these missiles, and some of this is really advanced weaponry, including anti—ship ballistic missiles. these are very powerful weapons and they believe they have had a significant effect in what they say is disrupting and degrading that ability. and we heard in the last few hours from major general patrick ryder, the pentagon spokesman, seeing that they had so far been no retaliatory action from the houthis, and that of course comes amid the growing warnings, we have tied multiple houthi officials now seeing they will retaliate and respond against what they call a blatant aggression by the us and britain. ——

we have had a multiple houthi officials. so no retaliation, we might have to add the word gets to that, because all the frets remain out that there will be a response from the houthis, and i think that gets us into this very difficult because the americans are trying to steer here, because what they are trying to do is deter houthi rebels from further strikes against shipping in the red sea, but at the same time, try to avoid and prevent the very escalation that secretary of state antony blinken has just spent an entire week in the middle east talking about, trying to and seeking to avoid. so i think that in some sense, this becomes a battle of resolve and president biden's statement was very much speaking about him being resolute, that is international partners were resolute here if they continue to respond with further strikes. but this is now a battle of resolve against a

very war hardened and a very adept adversary that is quite skilled at hiding its weaponry and having much more powerful strikes, for example over many years in the civil war from the saudis into yemen. and that is why i think we are hearing the houthis saying that they will retaliate. ., �* . . retaliate. tom bateman live in washington- — retaliate. tom bateman live in washington. thank _ retaliate. tom bateman live in washington. thank you - retaliate. tom bateman live in washington. thank you for - retaliate. tom bateman live inj washington. thank you for the update. thank you and welcome to the programme. what are your headline forts after the strikes? speaking out to sir william pt. i forts after the strikes? speaking out to sir william pt.— forts after the strikes? speaking out to sir william pt. i think that the queues _ out to sir william pt. i think that the queues were _ out to sir william pt. i think that the queues were given _ out to sir william pt. i think that the queues were given to - out to sir william pt. i think that the queues were given to them l out to sir william pt. i think that| the queues were given to them to stop attacking international shipping, they were given warnings, and i think it was clear that when they fail to do so there would be strikes. they seem to be fairly proportionate and aimed at the houthi capacity to strike the shipping, and i doubt they would be able to destroy that capacity in its

entirety and such limited strikes. and there's quite a lot of bluster from the houthis switch you would expect. they have a limited capacity to host british and american interest beyond a tax on shipping which they are already doing. —— capacity due hurt. there are already few british assets in yemen, no embassy in yemen, and they would be unable to do that without a rainy and help and that would certainly put matters. —— without iranian help. put matters. -- without iranian hel. ., ., , . ., help. you mentioned they had ignored all the warnings _ help. you mentioned they had ignored all the warnings come _ help. you mentioned they had ignored all the warnings come at _ help. you mentioned they had ignored all the warnings come at the _ help. you mentioned they had ignored all the warnings come at the back- all the warnings come at the back channels, the private work to dissuade them and they have continued the attacks. what happens if this doesn't work? i continued the attacks. what happens if this doesn't work?— if this doesn't work? i suspect the international _ if this doesn't work? i suspect the international coalition _ if this doesn't work? i suspect the international coalition would - if this doesn't work? i suspect the international coalition would have | international coalition would have no choice but to go back and strike again and there is the possibility of continuing strikes. i don't think there is much chance that anyone

would want to get involved on the ground in yemen but they will not sit back and watch the yemenis interfere with international trade and this is a matterfor interfere with international trade and this is a matter for the international community. the yemenis may want to link it to gaza but this is an attack on the free movement of goods around the world so it effects the chinese, egyptians, europeans. it is notjust the us and the uk thatis it is notjust the us and the uk that is impacted by attacks on shipping in the red sea. —— frets to shipping. shipping in the red sea. -- frets to shi inc. , , shipping in the red sea. -- frets to shi...in_ , , ., ~' shipping in the red sea. -- frets to shinina. , , . ~ ., shipping. they were 'ust talking at is throu . h shipping. they were 'ust talking at is through the h shipping. they were 'ust talking at is through the tight — shipping. they were just talking at is through the tight walk _ shipping. they were just talking at is through the tight walk that - is through the tight walk that president biden is walking, because over the last few months, one of the central planks of policy has been ensuring this conflict doesn't widen in the region but how does what we saw overnight and the potential of further strikes sits with that? it increases the risk of its whitening and the biggest risk is in lebanon where attacks on hamas, on their

leader in southern beirut, an attack on the hezbollah leader. the prospect of a war between these actors is by far the biggest escalation. —— it increases the risk of it widening. the best way to de—escalate this risk in the middle eastis de—escalate this risk in the middle east is to come to some sort of agreed ceasefire in gaza and bring that conflict to an end. that is possibly the only sure—fire way of preventing any escalation. but possibly the only sure-fire way of preventing any escalation. but that of course links _ preventing any escalation. but that of course links it _ preventing any escalation. but that of course links it back _ preventing any escalation. but that of course links it back to _ preventing any escalation. but that of course links it back to the - preventing any escalation. but that of course links it back to the war. of course links it back to the war we have seen going on for the last of three months, the point you were trying to make that the west is trying to make that the west is trying to make that the west is trying to keep these two things separate. i was talking to one analyst in the region who recognised thatis analyst in the region who recognised that is was the west wanted and was trying to do but talked about the competing narratives, because that is not the way this has been seen in the region, is it? ida. is not the way this has been seen in the region, is it?—

the region, is it? no, in the rehion, the region, is it? no, in the region. the _ the region, is it? no, in the region, the us _ the region, is it? no, in the region, the us and - the region, is it? no, in the region, the us and british l region, the us and british reluctance to call for a ceasefire and an end of conflict is seen as support for israel and to some extent, it is supporting israel. there is a degree of sympathy for how israel feels after the horrific hamas attacks, but in the arab world and the wider international community, there is a sense that israel has conned way beyond legitimate, proportional response to that attack. —— that israel has gone way beyond. and that is a problem. and given that the iranian supports for a lot of the actors and players, whether it is hamas in gaza, hezbollah in lebanon, the houthis in yemen, that leads to the possibility of a wider conflict, and the iranian malign influence and willingness to exploit understandable anger in the

wider arab region. we exploit understandable anger in the wider arab region.— exploit understandable anger in the wider arab region. we understood we are already at — wider arab region. we understood we are already at a _ wider arab region. we understood we are already at a dangerous _ wider arab region. we understood we are already at a dangerous moment l wider arab region. we understood we | are already at a dangerous moment in the last three months. is it more dangerous over what we have seen and the last 2a hours? i dangerous over what we have seen and the last 24 hours?— the last 24 hours? i think it is certainly more _ the last 24 hours? i think it is certainly more dangerous, . the last 24 hours? i think it is - certainly more dangerous, whether thatis certainly more dangerous, whether that is because of these limited attacks, i am that is because of these limited attacks, lam not that is because of these limited attacks, i am not sure. that is because of these limited attacks, lam not sure. it that is because of these limited attacks, i am not sure. it is beginning to feel more dangerous and the possibility of a miss calculation by one of the party is leading to a wider conflict is higher now than it was a few weeks ago, i think. higher now than it was a few weeks ago. i think-— higher now than it was a few weeks ago, ithink. ago, i think. thank you so much for “oininh us ago, i think. thank you so much for joining us on _ ago, i think. thank you so much for joining us on the — ago, i think. thank you so much for joining us on the programme, - ago, i think. thank you so much for joining us on the programme, sir. joining us on the programme, sir william. live now to our political correspondent in westminster, peter saull. we heard rishi sunakjustifying the action, saying it was important to

send the houthis a message that the what they have been doing attacking ships in the red sea is unacceptable. they have also published a summary of the legal advice they have received, and they believe they are acting within international law, because it is happening in defence of the ships. there was an economic consideration in all of this and it is an ongoing want to because it is such an important route through the red sea and a lot of ships are now having to go around the whole continent of africa, which is costing them somewhere in the region of $1 million perjourney, and extra fuel costs, which may well then be passed onto consumers in the shops here in the uk, inflation is a major political issue, so lots of reasons why the government would want to get on top of this, but whenever you intervene militarily and overseas, it is a risk. it is a risk politically, because if you do it without the approval of parliament, you have mps without the approval of parliament, you have mstumping up and down saying, why want to be consulted? we are the elected representatives of the people. but i think that like to

be, the action taken overnight by the uk alongside the americans has been not necessarily welcomes but it hasn't prompted a huge outcry from the opposition benches. some on the left of the labour party are arguing it will set the region are light, but as for the current leader of the labour party, sir keir starmer, he is backing the government. we are supporting this action. the houthi attacks being carried out for some time in the red sea, it is on commercial shipping, civilians operating that commercial shipping. and not only is it disrupting trade and shipping, but it's putting civilian lives at risk and therefore we do support this action. i do want the prime minister obviously to make a statement to parliament as soon as possible because the scope, nature and extent of the operation needs to be explained. now, the vast majority of mps will have been in their constituencies last night when this action was

taken. they are still in their constituencies, parliament in recess until next monday, which is when the prime minister will come before the house of commons and explain his actions, take questions from mps. they will not be any form of votes though, with downing street making it clear that as far as they are concerned, there are no plans for further air strikes and they will wait and see what the reaction is from the houthis. they are hoping that what they have already done will have significantly degraded their ability to do that and in the meantime, a lot of the ships going through the red sea have diverted away because they don't want to be the first of the kind of victims of that potential retaliation from the houthis, and downing street admitting that in the short term certainly, there will be that impact, but in the long term, they believe this is the right thing to do to ensure that shipping lane is back open. and as for the other opposition parties in westminster, the liberal democrats, played comrie and the scottish national party, the third—largest party, all saying parliament should have been recalled and that should have been a boat on

this. here is the snp leader, humza yousaf. —— plaid cymru. the uk, let's be honest about this, does not have a good track record when it comes to military intervention, particularly in the middle east. that is why the house of commons should have been recalled today ahead of military action that was taken in order to allow our mps to debate and, yes, to scrutinise the uk government's plans for military action. so, we will wait and see what actually happens on the ground. that statement is due from the prime minister on monday afternoon and i suppose that rishi sunak will look at the experience of one have his predecessors in david cameron, now lord cameron, foreign secretary appointed by rishi sunakjust a few months ago who famously lost a vote in 2013 about air strikes in syria and that might be one of the reasons why rishi sunak is reluctant to put it to a vote in the house of commons. certainly it looks like evenif commons. certainly it looks like even if there were to be further air strikes with british military

personnel involved, it wouldn't be put to a boat. of course, what they don't want to do is give any kind of pre—warning to the houthis so that they can respond. —— put to a vote. thank you very much, peter, with a lot of the political reaction there and we will get some of the economic reaction and the costs of these attacks on shipping in the red sea in a moment. around the world is and in a moment. around the world is and in the uk, you are watching bbc news. to the us where a ferry had a rather bumpy crossing of the us state of washington and heavy waves were there, and with only a few cars on

board and no passengers, the ferry was able to stay upright. an indian film has been removed from netflix for hurting hindu religious sentiments days after it began stripping. netflix said the film had been removed at request. the film shows a hindu brahmin woman becoming a chef and eating meat, which goes against its rigid caste rules. those are a couple of stories making international headlines. let's go back to the middle east, because there is reason to the attacks have caused huge disruption to international shipping and trade. let's get more on the impact that this had over the past weeks, with 26 attacks in total. with more on the impact of that, our chief economics correspondent dharshini david.

so all of this, of course, is happening at 3000 miles away. but that red sea is one of the most crucial shipping routes, transporting 15% of traded goods, typically from east to west. and 90% of our imports in the uk come by sea, typically non—perishables, from energy to furniture. already, as vessels have faced attack, many major shipping firms have diverted to this route. the red line there, it takes ten days longer, adding $1 million. so the average container ships feel costs. in germany, already, tesla has halted some production as components are held up already. here on the high street, next and ikea have warned of delays. but all of this is happening after the christmas rush so consumers will notice less disruption. and even if costs are passed on, the impact should be relatively small. however, 13% of crude oil also travels by this route. the price of crude is up overnight, but it does remain below where it was last autumn. and if the conflict escalates, there are worries about potential

interruptions to shipments of liquid gas. but we are currently well stocked and any impact on energy bills would not be felt for several months. so while this is not derailing our prosperity yet, that unrest in the red sea, if is prolonged and escalates, could threaten growth and declining inflation just at a time when the economy is already feeling quite fragile. the boss of maersk — one of the world's biggest shipping companies — has already been warning of "significant disruption" to global supply chains — because of those houthi attacks. the maersk ceo told the bbc that the extra costs on freight are already being passed onto consumers. this is one of the most important arteries of global trade and having to re—route all of this cargo now south of the cape of good hope is going to create significant disruptions to the global supply chain for the duration in which we have to do that, and probably a few months more

as we have to get back then into normal. so you need to see, i think, a stronger mobilisation. the other thing is that the level of threat is actually evolving, and so for the coalition that is trying to put in place this safe passage, they need to constantly reassess the level of protection. but for us, it is really important that this is being addressed with diligence and with a strong mobilisation of the international community so that normal global trade can resume. that was the ceo of maersk, and let me point due to the live page because there is constant analysis and reaction of those strikes and there is a lot of really useful information there. more on that story later. let's turn to our other major story of the day. israel has called on judges at the international court ofjustice to throw out the case brought by south africa, alleging that it is committing genocide in gaza.

0n the second and final day of hearings at the un's highest court, lawyers acting for israel argued that demands by south africa for a stop to the offensive in gaza lacked any merit. yesterday, south africa accused the highest levels of the israeli state of nurturing genocidal intent against palestinians in gaza. it wants the icj to issue an injunction to stop israel's military campaign. israel's foreign ministry adviser, tal becker, said south africa's case lacked any merit. the applicant has regrettably put before the court a profoundly distorted factual and legal picture. the entirety of its case hinges on a deliberately curated, decontextualised and manipulative description of the reality of current hostilities. south africa purports to come to this court in the lofty position of a guardian of the interest of humanity. but in delegitimising israel's 75—year existence in its opening presentation yesterday, that broad commitment

to humanity rang hollow. and in its sweeping counterfactual description of the israeli—palestinian conflict, it seems to erase bothjewish history and any palestinian agency or responsibility. indeed, the delegitimisation of israel, since its very establishment in 1948, in the applicant's submissions that was inside the court, and outside the court, south africa's just miss minister also spoke. —— justice minister. just miss minister also spoke. -- justice minister.— just miss minister also spoke. -- justice minister. some of the points are astonishing _ justice minister. some of the points are astonishing and _ justice minister. some of the points are astonishing and are _ justice minister. some of the points are astonishing and are not - justice minister. some of the points are astonishing and are not backed | are astonishing and are not backed ljy are astonishing and are not backed by facts and the situation on the ground. israel suggest that the genocide convention is primary for their protection and because of that, it is not capable of violating its own provisions. the state of

israel today has failed to disprove south africa's appellants case that was presented before the court yesterday. 0ur correspondent anna holligan reports from outside the icj in the hague. israel accused south africa of weaponizing the term genocide and trivializing the genocide convention itself, under which this case was brought. and israel's lawyers invoked memories of the holocaust. it says it was acting in self defense in response to the hamas attacks on the 7th of october, which it said were a concerted campaign, calculated mass murder, the worst since the nazis. and what we've heard today from israel is an attempt

to reinterpret some of the arguments presented by south africa yesterday. so, for example, when south africa talked about the the military campaign, the bombings, israel said they were attempting to remove the threat posed by hamas. while south africa talked about forced displacements of more than a million people in gaza, israel said it had been acting to try to protect and preserve civilian life. so, now it's all over, at least for now. israel had three hours, south africa had three hours, and now it's down to the judges to make their interpretation of the evidence presented by both sides. anna holligan at the hague. i am back with headlines in a moment. good afternoon. it's pretty chilly out there and it has been for much of the week, but colder air is on the way by the end of the weekend. behind this weather front, we've got a blast of arctic air to contend with and stronger winds. for the meantime, the winds are, for the most part, relatively light, but they've just dragged a lot of cloud under this area of high pressure, some drizzle near the east coast and a weather front is starting to make its way

into the northern and western isles and that will bring about that change. the best of the sunshine the rest of the day is likely still to be across parts of scotland, northern ireland, western fringes of england and wales, but we're seeing a few breaks near the east coast. temperatures aren't quite as low as they have been because it wasn't quite as cold last night. again, the frost will be with us in some parts, but our weather front slinking southwards through scotland and northern ireland will bring a smattering of rain behind it. temperatures won't be as low as they were this nightjust gone. furthersouth, patchy frost and patchy fog, but still quite a bit of cloud for england and wales to start our saturday. clearing away, though, from northern ireland and any patchy rain here and for scotland. just a scattering of showers following. in the south, as we're seeing today, there will be quite a bit of cloud with some sunshine coming and going. as we move into the latter part of the weekend, sunday into next week, it will turn a lot colder. that blast of arctic air will bring, we think, the coldest snap of the winter so far because there will be the wind chill to add to it and the increasing risk of snow. as you can see on sunday,

still a lot of cloud in southern and western areas, but further north we're starting to get colder with those snow showers. there are already warnings out for snow in the north for sunday. into monday, as well, when the risk extends further south. these are the most likely areas to see snow. we're not saying those will be the only areas, but where it's likely to cause disruption. still a question mark about this low pressure system running east across perhaps northern ireland, southern scotland, northern england as we go towards the middle of the week — tuesday, wednesday. we have and will have to keep putting the detail on this. we could see a system running close to the south later in the week, wednesday into thursday, so that will increase the risk of some disruptive snow across the southern half of the uk, but still that risk with us further north. so the devil's in the detail in terms of where we're going to see the snow next week, but it does look set to be colder, as well, with some severe night frosts.

this is bbc news, the headlines: yemen's houthi movement vows retaliation as us and uk forces launch air strikes against houthi targets. britain says the strikes were "a limited, necessary and proportionate response" to repeated houthi attacks on global shipping in the red sea.

tje international court ofjustice hears israel's defence against accusations of genocide brought by south africa. rishi sunak makes a suprise visit to kyiv as the uk announces its $3 billion aid package for ukraine. and here, the former dj annie nightingale has died at the age of 83. let's return to her main story and take a closer look at the american and british air strikes in yemen over night targeting the iranian—backed houthis. bbc verify has been examining video from inside yemen, and what we know so far. here's merlyn thomas. these are some of the images that have come out of yemen overnight. we verified this video of an explosionjust east of yemen's capital, sanaa. and the uk has also released this video of a strike,