earlier in october. at least one person has been killed with dozens injured in central israel after a truck rammed into a group waiting at a bus stop near tel aviv. police are treating it as a terror—related incident. here, the labour mp mike amesbury has been suspended from the party pending an investigation. it comes as new footage emerged, appearing to show him in an altercation with a member of the public. and the georgian president has rejected the ruling party's announcement that it won saturday's election, saying the country had been the victim of a russian special operation. it follows reports of intimidation at the ballot box. we will go back to new york if donald trump appears in the next half an hour or so. now on bbc news, newscast.

newscast. newscast from the bbc. hello, it's adam in the newscast studio, making a rare sunday foray. is that how you say that word? a foray? i don't think i've ever said it in real life. well, you said it now. it's laura, in the studio. it's very nice to have you foraying with me on a sunday newscast. and it's henry at home, and i feel like i ought to say the word foray, even though i don't have a particular sentence in which to use it. well, you've not forayed from anywhere. you're in your living room. anyway, right, so the reason i'm in the building and working on a sunday rather than skiving off is because i was standing in for paddy on broadcasting house, a great programme, always very interesting, kind of mixture of things. but laura, it means i didn't get to watch you on bbc one. so can you bring me the highlights, please? so we had bridget phillipson, the education secretary. obviously all newscasters on the planet, wherever they are, will know that we are three days away from the budget, a big bazooka, huge budget, biggest day so far for this newish government. and the fact that

bridget phillipson was on the programme was a very subtle clue that schools is one of the bits of the public realm which is actually going to get a bit of extra change, rather than quite a lot of bits of the public sector that may actually find things are quite squeezy. however, rather than getting tangled up in lots and lots of budget speculation, we also wanted to do a sort of progress check on the things that she said she'd do in the education bit of the manifesto, and this is what she said about the 6,500 extra teachers that she promised to that target. i think you said there is people are going to have to wait till 2029. you said to the end of the parliament, so is that the target? people are going to have to wait till 2029 to get those 6,500 extra teachers that you promised in the election? no, we've already, as i say, that work is already - the work has already begun. by when will you keep that promise? as with our other commitments in our manifesto, they are for. the duration of the parliament. so... but that work is under way. it's urgent. it's absolutely urgent. so you might have to wait five years for the teachers, even though it's urgent work. there's another area that we asked her about — special educational needs.

everybody listening knows how much is a mess that system sometimes is. labour has said that they'll do a big reform. but again, you find the education secretary didn't really want to put a date on when that would happen. do you have a plan? because that's what people want to know. they want to be able to hold you to what your plans actually are. when will they see your plan? i understand that people want to see action as - quickly as possible. that's why i have taken stepsl to invest in more early speech and language support - within our primary schools. why we've launched _ the curriculum and assessment review in terms of what our. children are taught at school, but the wider system overall, of course, i want to work- as quickly as i can. to set out a plan for change and for reform. and i do urge patience — - because whilst i recognise that for lots of parents, - the system — and children — the system just isn't- working at the moment. if we are to embark on a bigger programme of reform and idol believe that is essential, . then i think it's also crucial that we get it right. and i suppose, henry, that's another example of

"you can make a pledge in an election," and making the pledge is the easy bit. delivering the pledge on a timeframe that is both realistic and satisfies people is harder. you can make a pledge that's a big thing about private schools. but then in the real world it's like, oh, we need exemption a, exemption b, but maybe we won't have exemption c. and that is one of the things that, when you speak to people in government — newly in government since july the 5th — they acknowledge that they are discovering lots of these things that are complicating. and that's not to say that they didn't believe that government was hard before they got into government, but there is no substitute in opposition for being in government and having thousands of civil servants pointing out to you all sorts of complications — be they legal, political, policy and so on. and i do think education is definitely one of the areas where the government has learned that. 0n the other hand, you have all these sort of slight derogations or whatever to various flagship policies, but i think bridget phillipson, if she gets to a year's time

and vat is being levied on private schools, albeit with some exemptions, she will believe that is a huge labour priority of decades standing, in fact, that she will be the education secretary who's delivered, and i think she'll be very happy with that. yeah, and there's no sign whatsoever that the government is not going to stick to that promise. you know, it was one of the clearest, i think, actually, in terms of revenue raising. it sort of raised them a bit of money and also had this political meaning to lots of people, and they were completely unapologetic during the election campaign. and they still are. and they would say, "look, that money is going to go and pay for teachers that are needed in state schools. so suck it up." that is a clear ideological position. it's a clear financial position. it's one of these rare sort of quid pro quo things where they've said, "well, that money is going to go to that," even though in reality it all goes into the same big treasury pot. but there are going to be lots of individual case studies where we're hearing people struggling with that, notjust the kind of situation

boo—hoo, you're minted, you can afford it." there are people who fall into different categories where henry, though she i think really had a tricky moment this morning and she's not the first labour politician to have a tricky moment is on this definition of what is a working person. now, in case people have been living under a rock, what is this all about? so, labour's general election manifesto was peppered with the phrase "working people". they said they would not increase taxes on working people. they also said that they would not increase national insurance, vat or income tax. and what's become complicated is that those two pledges were mashed together in one sentence, and different people clearly have taken different meanings. lots of people thought that that amounted to the working people bit was a kind of nice literary way of conveying the pledge to not increase national insurance, vat

or income tax. it now turns out to be the position of this government that what it really was, was a way of qualifying that pledge, and it was qualifying it by saying that it was only talking about the employee rate of national insurance, but not the bit paid by businesses. and we are now reporting, it is now established fact, that in this budget the bit of national insurance paid by employers is going to go up. and that's politically complicated for this new government, partly because people think that's just not what the manifesto said, but also because a lot of people who run businesses — especially small businesses — would believe that they themselves are working people and that nevertheless, their tax bill is going to increase significantly after wednesday's budget. and so i asked bridget phillipson this morning what her definition of a working person was,

and whether she, as a cabinet minister who's paid more than £160,000 a year, is a working person compared to somebody who runs a small business where the average profit is £23,000 a year. are they a working person? and this is how she tried to deal with it. so, as a cabinet minister, you're entitled to a total salary of more than £160,000. are you a working person? my income derives from myjob, and i'll pay whatever _ taxes are required of me. so, you are a working person because your income comes from your main job and you're salaried in that way? is a small business owner whose average net profit last year might have been £13,000 — that's the average — are they not a working person? look, we can go through a range of different hypotheticals - about who may or may not be captured by tax measures - that may or may not l happen in the budget. and essentially, bridget phillipson there said, "yes, i'm a working person because i'm in cabinet and i get a pay slip." and then she wouldn't say whether somebody who runs a small business is also a working person. and she kept trying to deal

with it by saying, oh, you're trying to get me to speculate about the budget. i wasn't trying to speculate about the budget i was trying to get her to define, in her view, what a working person is. because keir starmer sort of said, oh, well, a working person is someone who gets most of their doesn't have income from shares and assets. and what's behind this really — and some people might think, oh, look, well, just, you know, get a dictionary, we're all dancing on the head of a pin here — but it's about something bigger, which is how this government is proposing to change the tax system to target more at people who have stuff compared to people who earn money and who get a paycheque in return for their services. so, if you have assets like shares, like you pay yourself maybe from dividends of a small business, you're more likely to get walloped by tax increases. although i've heard — and it was in some of the papers this morning — that there is going to be, i believe, a carve—out of an exemption for the smallest businesses who won't be hurt by this. but isn't there an argument for this whole semantic argument? and i know i'm saying semantic because it's about words. i don't mean to say semantic as in to downplay the importance of the discussion. ijust mean that it's

about the meaning of words. won't this all potentially disappear come wednesday at 2pm? because the decisions will be there in black and white, and we'll know, and itjust won't be an issue any more. i mean, we'll know exactly who they mean in the paper, but it will be an issue from a political point of view, because you may well still end up in a position where somebody who, i don't know, say somebody who is a landlord and they've worked very hard to save the money or four smallish flats somewhere — wherever it is, in fiction town, uk. and they are potentially going to be paying a lot more tax, even though their earnings might be far less than bridget phillipson, who's on a big giant salary as a cabinet minister. but even though they own

like four properties and some people don't own any. but in terms of... so what they're trying to... this is why it's philosophically interesting. yeah, because what they're trying to reflect more of is how you earn your income rather than how much you earn. and that's really what's at the core of this. so i think once we see it in black and white, that issue is still going to be there. and i think there's a sort of... i think in some labour circles, there's what might be considered by some people to be quite a traditional assumption that if you pay your way based on assets, somehow you're automatically wealthy, you've got loads of money sitting around. whereas if you are a worker getting a wage, you would automatically be in a less well—off category. that's not necessarily the case for lots and lots and lots of people. you know, the economy's very fragmented now. you've got loads more people doing things like working for umbrella companies or people who are self—employed, who don't earn very much but pay themselves through dividends. so, from a philosophical point of view, i think it's still going to be very politically live, not least also because i think they're going to be a lot of maybe some quite big businesses saying what you're doing. when you say you're trying to grow the economy, you're making it more expensive to employ people.

does that add up? the thing is, though, henry, this is sort of like episode 900 of this saga for labour, isn't it? because do you remember when keir starmer was interviewed on the radio months and months and months ago about what's your definition of working people? and off the cuff, he said something that ended with, "0h, and people who can't write a cheque to get themselves out of trouble," which everyone went, oh, what? so you're going to tax people's savings then? because in your mind that, keir starmer, that seems to be like spare money that people have lying around that proper working people don't have. so labour have surely been aware of these tricky issues around this phrase for quite a long time. they have. and i think that particular interview you referred to from keir starmer — i think that was during the general election as well. so quite a sensitive moment. i mean, ithink, you know, this is a ridiculous analogy, but there was... it's newscast, go for it. there was a sort of seminal and i've never watched it, but the seminal series on art produced by the bbc in like the 19705 called civilisation by kenneth clarke — not the cabinet minister, kenneth clarke. alan clarke, the great thinker, in fact.

and he has this famous line where it's like, "what is civilisation? i don't know, i can't define it, but i know it when i see it." i basically think that's the labour party's view of a working person. they can't define it, but they know what they mean. and i think a lot of this comes back to... it's sort of westminster learning bit by bit that this new government has a very different conception of who its voters are and who it's in politics for than the successive conservative governments of the last 14 years. arguably, actually, also of the new labour governments, which was a different age when economic growth was in a very different place and basically the left had a different and more relaxed attitude to business than actually a lot of politicians in keir starmer's government do. and i think, for all the definitional uncertainty, this government basically knows who it's in politics for. and it's not people

who own four properties, even if their day to day income from those four properties is lower than bridget philipson's day to day income from being education secretary. i think that is what we're learning bit by bit, through every difficult interview where they can't quite define what all that means. and i completely agree with you. and i think it's tricky, though, for two reasons. one is because the first bit of this government was all about economic growth is our number one priority, our number one priority, our number one priority. there is a tension between that and actually doing this. the second thing is that the public perception of what a working person is, if not more important as what the labour party's own definition is. and i just want to read everybody an email that i've had after the programme this morning. "i find the reluctance of bridget phillipson to define a working person disingenuous. i'm from a working class background. i'm formerly in the armed forces. i'm the owner of a one—man business. i chose to set up my business after years of employment because i saw the benefit of working for myself. i've worked hard as

a salaried director. i earn considerably less than miss phillipson. but it seems that because i take earnings as salary and dividends, i'm not being classed as a working person. i find this an insult. it seems, from what philippa's saying, if you're employed by big business or the state, you are ok. anything else? you are game." and that's the problem is what do the public going to make of this? because it's one thing saying, oh, we're protecting people's payslips, but not everybody gets a payslip from a big employer. but i think henry you are absolutely right. and someone described the budget to me this week as like budgets always being a moment where you get a flash of lightning in the sky and what a government is really all about is suddenly illuminated, because on a day to day basis, there's all these clouds and all these storms, you know, roaming around. but on a budget, they're in control on that day. and suddenly, their priorities are there for everyone to see. the other thing that we didn't

see today, though, was rachel reeves doing interviews, and we were discussing this in the last episode of newscast, laura, about how that tradition of the chancellor going out and saying, "i can't say anything other than what i'm willing to say to you." and it's a slightly frustrating interviewing process. that's not happening this time around, and she's going to do the interviews afterwards. so all we're left with of rachel reeves own words today is this editorial she's written for the sun on sunday, which there's a big picture of her with the red box. and what can we glean from that from that bit of writing? well, she had a new word of strivers. yes. which was... which was last used by george osborne. yeah. and it's one of those political words that do people ever really use in real life? i'm not sure. so i don't know if that was. i'm fairly sure that was rachel reeves trying to move on from saying working people. yes. it's like, well, oh, you don't like that one? here's another one. she also gave an interview to the observer, where she pitched her budget as being as big a deal as the 1945 post—world war ii labour budget — which was obviously

a massive reforming mega big bazooka budget. so, i mean, look, ithink that they have done a similar kind of careful choreography to previous treasury iterations. they've done a bit of money for housing. we know there's going to be money for the nhs, and it will have to reform as well. we know from today there's going to be money from schools. but i think also what's interesting about it is, as i was saying, i think there's going to be some tension between the initial labour message, which was growth, growth, growth, growth, growth, growth, growth. and look, here we are schmoozing with all these business people. because it's going to be big business tax rises. but quite a lot of it feels quite gordon brown—ish to me. you know, and you can see some of the lines being very familiar about, you know, i think they're going to say, you know, more investment, not less. although rachel reeves version is investment, not decline. economic stability, schools and hospitals first, more investment, not less. now that could be a line... i think that's very similar to a line from some gordon brown budgets in the early new labour years. and actually as a government, maybe that is sort of where they're kind of pitching

themselves, as henry was saying — less comfortable than the sort of, you know, uber—blairy kind of end of new labour, more comfortable with the sort of soft—leftish, more brownie kind of we'll work with business. and we take them seriously, but they're not our priority. and as someone in government said to me, explained it the best i've heard it said, we're not going to mess around with people's payslips. we're not going to mess around with people's weekly shop, and therefore there's not very many other places left to look. well, the other reason for that, which we can't get away from in the run up to the budget, is labour are so boxed in by their own decisions in opposition. and i don't think there are many senior people at the top of this government — previously at the top of the opposition — who think they made a mistake there. i think they are, you know, adamant that had they left any sense that they might increase income tax or vat or the employees rate of national insurance during the general election, then it would have become a more traditional tory

tax bombshell election. and they believe they closed all that off. and that's not necessarilyjust about people voting labour. that was also about former conservative voters feeling relaxed to vote lib dem because they weren't scared about what a labour government might mean forthem. that said, that is the main reason all of this is operating in such a sort of limited room for manoeuvre. and i think the particular political choice that we should identify, given it sounds like labour are going to increase a rate of national insurance by two percentage points, is labour's decision in opposition to support the conservatives' successive cuts in national insurance, albeit the employee rate, by two points — i think that is one area where some labour people are now thinking, well, actually it might have been more straightforward if they'd opposed those. that still probably wouldn't have quite opened a sort of full tory tax bombshell campaign. and instead, you end up with essentially

reimposing it, but putting it on the business's balance sheet rather than coming off the employees payslips. and interesting. i'm told that the treasury suggested that they reversed that completely to rachel reeves and she said no. so she wasn't going to reimpose that cost on everybody. but it does look like she's going to reimpose that cost on business. but henry used the word "straightforward" there, and i think there's a danger of all of this becoming not straightforward. and so, for example, if you look at the announcement today from bridget phillipson — and the reason she was on yourshow, laura — was to talk about protecting the schools budget and topping it up a bit. now, i'm not sure many people watching your programme will have known that there was a threat to the schools budget in the first place that needed to be protected or not gone ahead. and it comes back to have labour successfully said to people, "oh, the spending cuts that were priced into the conservative party's plans that could make the cuts to national insurance that jeremy hunt and rishi sunak did," has that message landed that therefore there is like, oh, there's labour are taking

an alternative approach to the public finances that's better than what the tories were going to do? do you see what i mean? there's a lot of stuff you have to explain there to just get to that point. well, yeah. and i think that message doesn't land because by the time you're halfway through the second sentence, you've lost the thread of thought. however, that is what that's not because you said it's too complicated. well, no, but that's what the argument about the black hole and the inheritance is all about. right? and it's going to be very interesting how rachel reeves threads this needle this week, because she's going to want to do a lot of blaming the tories. she's going to want to get a lot of credit for things being not as bad as they might otherwise have been, if the tories had carried on and won the election. in a spreadsheet... in her view. ..of spending in four years�* time you didn't know existed. and she's going to try and say, hey, good times are coming, and she's going to try and say, and we're starting to fix public services, and she's going to try and say, but i'm protecting you're your income and protecting your payslip and your shopping basket. and she's going to try and say,

but i really, really want the economy to grow. now i'm already on like six different messages there. and if you ask labour people, like, what's the sort of headline that they're looking for on wednesday? it's basically this is the beginning. we're on the way back. public services are going to get better and we've got your back. and that actually is the message in the rachel reeves piece today really is things are hard, but i've got your back. but that's a lot of messaging that might give some people indigestion. and they're a new government. and it is so, so interesting to see how rachel reeves, who's well—rated by a lot of people, how does she rise to that incredibly, terrifyingly important political moment at the dispatch box? you know, budgets can make or break governments. and, you know, it's unusualfor a journalist to be hyperbolic. but wednesday sets the political track, the economic track for whether or not this government is going to be a success or a failure. it's not their last chance. although, interestingly, some people in government talk about it being a last chance budget — not a last chance for labour, but they think sort of last chance to save public services and all that kind of stuff. but it's going to be absolutely

fascinating and crucial for so many different reasons to see what the atmosphere is like. when rachel reeves sits down at about 1:30 on wednesday lunchtime. it's just going to be such an interesting week. well, it's going to be fascinating. but, henry, and not to use a terrible cliche, and i did use this on broadcasting house today, and i'm sort of regretting it because it's a cliche, but the idea of a rabbit out of the hat, which is like this budget tradition that, at the end of the speech, the chancellor goes, "oh, and i'm going to do this, which hadn't been briefed in advance. you didn't know about it, you didn't expect me to do it. and it's going to be a great headline. and it means that the speech ends on a really high note, and everyone talks about that, rather than any bad economic news or difficult choices or things they haven't been able to do." i suspect that era might have gone forever, because of liz truss�*s mini budget, where the markets felt they hadn't been told in advance what was going to happen, that now budgets have to be very carefully trailed so that the people that lend the british government money on the international markets don't take fright,

which is why there's been so many leaks, briefings and big hints about what's going to be in it. maybe the era of the budget surprise is gone? there are a lot of political cliches, and rabbit out of the hat is the one i hate the most. and you've won the award for using it for the first time in this budget run—up. the award no one wants. i mean, i think there's two ways of reading it. it's certainly true that we know quite a lot of what is going to be in this budget without rachel reeves ever having formally confirmed it, other than the fiscal rules, which she has actually formally confirmed. and you could either think that that is an attempt at market reassurance, as you say, in complete contrast to the mini—budget. that's clearly a big part of it. or you could also think, "well, that's because they are delighted that a particular element that is massive, that will grab the headlines hasn't leaked, and that they want a clear run for that." i have to go in a sec, but i have to tell you what somebody told me about rabbits this week.

so it came to my attention there was apparently a load of labour staffers who've got a sweepstake on what the rabbit will be and guesses in sealed envelopes and all that sort of thing. but i asked somebody who i think actually does know what is in the budget if there was going to be any rabbit, and they said, there won't be any rabbits. it would be like watership down for the poor little sod. 0ops. that's right. henry's... henry's about to go cos we've run out of money on our video conferencing software. that is actually the truth. that little notification came up in the middle. well, my final geeky thought is labour's mission for growth. we will actually get a massive clue if it's potentially going to work, because the office for budget responsibility, who published their forecasts on the same day as the budget in their blue book, they have to pencil in what they think growth is going to be. and henry's gone! henry's gone. but i'm told that it's going to be better. and that labour are actually from what they know. and of course they don't.

you know, it's all this sort of smoke and mirrors. what do they know? what do they not know? i was told, actually, it would be our numbers look like these should be a lot rosier, but who knows. what we're also going to get from the 0br, apparently, is an actual menu of what the fabled 22 billion black hole is actually made up of. anyway, there'll be so much information, so much to talk about. and multiple newscasts. multiple newscasts. many, many casts. we'll be speaking to the chancellor, rachel reeves, next weekend. and but goodness me, a marathon to get through before then. whether or not there's any little rabbits or whether it really is like watership down. such a scary film. laura, lovely to see you. very nice to see you. very welcome to our weekend studio and have a wonderful week of casts. thinking about the budget on monday to friday. enjoy the rest of your weekend. bye—bye everyone! newscast. newscast from the bbc.

the isle of man was the wettest place _ the isle of man was the wettest place in — the isle of man was the wettest place in the _ the isle of man was the wettest place in the country. _ the isle of man was the wettest place in the country. a - the isle of man was the wettest place in the country. a lot- the isle of man was the wettest place in the country. a lot of. place in the country. a lot of cloud — place in the country. a lot of cloud streaming _ place in the country. a lot of cloud streaming across - place in the country. a lot of cloud streaming across the i cloud streaming across the atlantic_ cloud streaming across the atlantic at _ cloud streaming across the atlantic at the _ cloud streaming across the atlantic at the moment. i cloud streaming across the . atlantic at the moment. that cloud streaming across the - atlantic at the moment. that is all coming _ atlantic at the moment. that is all coming our— atlantic at the moment. that is all coming our way— atlantic at the moment. that is all coming our way on - atlantic at the moment. that is all coming our way on these - all coming our way on these west— all coming our way on these west to _ all coming our way on these west to south—westerly - all coming our way on these . west to south—westerly winds, dragging — west to south—westerly winds, dragging on _ west to south—westerly winds, dragging on some _ west to south—westerly winds, dragging on some pretty- west to south—westerly winds, dragging on some pretty mild i dragging on some pretty mild air but— dragging on some pretty mild air but bringing _ dragging on some pretty mild air but bringing is _ dragging on some pretty mild air but bringing is weather- air but bringing is weather fronts _ air but bringing is weather fronts as— air but bringing is weather fronts as well. _ air but bringing is weather fronts as well. at - air but bringing is weather fronts as well. at the - air but bringing is weather- fronts as well. at the moment, we do — fronts as well. at the moment, we do have _ fronts as well. at the moment, we do have outbreaks - fronts as well. at the moment, we do have outbreaks of- fronts as well. at the moment, we do have outbreaks of rain i we do have outbreaks of rain pushing _ we do have outbreaks of rain pushing eastwards _ we do have outbreaks of rain pushing eastwards across - we do have outbreaks of rain| pushing eastwards across the uk. , , ,., , ., uk. they will be some mist and fou uk. they will be some mist and fog patches _ uk. they will be some mist and fog patches around _ uk. they will be some mist and fog patches around their - fog patches around their western coasts. these are the kind of temperature starting of monday morning. 11—14 for most. a mild mandate but a cloudier, damp start to day. there will the be extensive outbreaks of rain and drizzle initially. some of that will ease off in scotland and northern ireland through the afternoon. it was date mainly cloudy. still a few patches of drizzle across england and wales. 0urtemperatures

drizzle across england and wales. 0ur temperatures on the mild side. 15—16. a bit cooler in lerwick but at least here you might get to see some sunshine. into tuesday, we have the remnants of these weather fronts lying across the uk. they will be probably some mist and fog patches to start the day, a lot of cloud around, still 80 patches of drizzle for england and wales. you might well see some breaks in the cloud and some sunshine coming through at times, but very much hit and miss. around 17 celsius for most of us. the high pressure than built in for the middle part of the week, wednesday and thursday, but there is probably still quite a bit of cloud trapped underneath this. with lighter winds, you are more likely to see mr and fog patches to start the day on wednesday, and some of that could be very slow to clear. it is a mostly dry day and there could be some sunny spells developing by the time we get to the afternoon. still mild, with temperatures around 15-16 . the with temperatures around 15—16. the high with temperatures around 15—16 . the high pressure stays with us really threw the rest

of this week, still bringing rather cloudy weather. perhaps turning a bit brighter into the weekend, and a bit cooler across northern areas. this is bbc news... the iranian president says tehran is not looking for war — but will give an appropriate response to israel's airstrikes.

kamala harris heads back to the all—important state pennsylvania all—importa nt state pennsylvania world all—important state pennsylvania world donald trump speaks in new york. the georgian president has rejected the ruling party's announcement that it won saturday's election, saying the country had been the victim of a russian special operation. the leaders of israel and iran have made their first public comments about israel's air strikes on iran. iran's president, masoud pezeshkian, told a cabinet meeting that tehran is not looking for war but will give an "appropriate response" to israel's airstrikes. the supreme leader said they should neither be downplayed or exaggerated. and israel's prime minister benjamin netanyahu has said that his military�*s air strike on iran on friday night achieved all its objectives. he says his country had hit iranian defences and missile production heart. questions linger about how israel keeps its people safe from

threats inside the country following