and see our loved ones. but we lost so many people we love, and so many people we love lost their homes. but there's lots of scepticism about whether it'll hold — why? because they think of the 2006 lebanon war, which ended pretty conclusively. —— pretty inconclusively. and after that war, hezbollah was supposed to stay north of the litani river — but they didn't. if hezbollah try to rebuild their terriorist infrastructure near our border, we will attack them. with me for the next hour is nina dos santos, former cnn anchor and political commentator. lots of things to discuss over the next hour, not least the situation in the middle east.

first, the latest headlines. displaced civilians are returning to their homes in southern lebanon as a ceasefire between israel and hezbollah takes hold. both sides have said they are ready to deal with any new attack. israel has informed the international criminal court it will appeal against the arrest warrants for the prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, and his former defence minister over the gaza conflict. earlier, france opened the possibility that it might not arrest mr netanyahu, were he to enter the country. a seventh arrest has been made in connection with suspected activity linked to the banned militant group the kurdistan workers party, known as the pkk. police said it was part of a "significant" counter—terrorism operation. several of donald trump's cabinet nominees and appointees for his incoming administration have been targeted according to the fbi. it said it was aware of "numerous bomb threats" as well as "swatting incidents" — that is when prank calls is made to police to encourage an armed response to the target's home.

if you arejustjoining the programme, a warm welcome. it has been a day of celebration in lebanon. in spite of warnings not to return to home, many were already on the road today. an estimated 1.2 million people were displaced from towns and villages damaged in the south, where the israeli army is still in place. it remains a delicate situation. the idf ordered a curfew in those occupied areas tonight, that began at 5pm — it lasts until 7am tomorrow morning. and they have warned they will deal "firmly" with any movement that "violates" that curfew. back in israel, the mood is more muted. a snap poll for one israeli news channel suggests only 37% of israelis are in favour of this deal. one cabint member described it as a "historic mistake". the authorities in northern israel have told some 60,000 people who were displaced from their home not to return, not until there is some confidence the ceasefire will hold. having negotiated a truce, the united states must now

maintain the calm along what is, one of the most volatile borders in the middle east — during a presidential transition — and during a broader regional crisis that is far from over. let's bring in nina. and we're joined by david satterfield, president biden�*s former special envoy to the middle east, and director of rice university's baker institute for public policy. you're very welcome to the programme, david, good to have you alongside. it clearly is a success for the biden administration, but maintaining calm along that line during a transition and at a time of a broader regional crisis will be quite a challenge. how did they go about it?— go about it? first, relying uon, go about it? first, relying upon. this— go about it? first, relying upon, this time, - go about it? first, relying| upon, this time, extensive go about it? first, relying - upon, this time, extensive and credible monitoring of whether hezbollah violates the agreement, and secondly, the assurance that in the event of

assurance that in the event of a violation, that israel has the right to respond. now in 2006, the results were notjust inconclusive to the fighting, but disastrous, with respect to israel. hezbollah never up complied with revolution 1701, there was no effective monitoring, and the build up over the 18 years to what has happened in the past year began. this time we hope is different, and it is beyond hope. it is a greater assurance of direct watching, eyes on, and the ability by israel to respond. am i optimistic would be the question — i am cautiously hopeful. i be the question - i am cautiously hopeful. i want you to listen to — cautiously hopeful. i want you to listen to the _ cautiously hopeful. i want you to listen to the thoughts - cautiously hopeful. i want you to listen to the thoughts of i to listen to the thoughts of your successor in the job, he's spent months travelling between the capitals, washington and jerusalem. have a listen to what he said, i'll get your thoughts off the back. now hamas is —

thoughts off the back. now hamas is a _ thoughts off the back. now hamas is a loan, _ thoughts off the back. now hamas is a loan, and - thoughts off the back. now hamas is a loan, and you l thoughts off the back. now hamas is a loan, and you know who— hamas is a loan, and you know who swported _ hamas is a loan, and you know who supported this _ hamas is a loan, and you know who supported this deal? - hamas is a loan, and you know who supported this deal? iran, the summer— who supported this deal? iran, the supporter of— who supported this deal? iran, the supporter of hamas. - who supported this deal? iran, the supporter of hamas. so . who supported this deal? iran, i the supporter of hamas. so iran betrayed — the supporter of hamas. so iran betrayed hamas _ the supporter of hamas. so iran betrayed hamas here _ the supporter of hamas. so iran betrayed hamas here as - the supporter of hamas. so iran betrayed hamas here as they. betrayed hamas here as they walked — betrayed hamas here as they walked wood _ betrayed hamas here as they walked wood and _ betrayed hamas here as they walked wood and understoodi betrayed hamas here as they. walked wood and understood —— walked — walked wood and understood —— walked away— walked wood and understood —— walked away and _ walked wood and understood —— walked away and understood. . walked wood and understood ——| walked away and understood. so hamas. — walked away and understood. so hamas. youte _ walked away and understood. so hamas, you're on _ walked away and understood. so hamas, you're on your— walked away and understood. so hamas, you're on your own. - hamas, you're on your own. you're — hamas, you're on your own. you're not — hamas, you're on your own. you're not in— hamas, you're on your own. you're not in doha - hamas, you're on your own. you're not in doha any- hamas, you're on your own. i you're not in doha any more hamas, you're on your own. . you're not in doha any more in villages — you're not in doha any more in villages and _ you're not in doha any more in villages. and what _ you're not in doha any more in villages. and what president. villages. and what president biden— villages. and what president biden said _ villages. and what president biden said yesterday - villages. and what president biden said yesterday from i villages. and what president. biden said yesterday from the rose — biden said yesterday from the rose garden. _ biden said yesterday from the rose garden, these _ biden said yesterday from the rose garden, these guys, - biden said yesterday from the - rose garden, these guys, hamas, have _ rose garden, these guys, hamas, have not— rose garden, these guys, hamas, have not come _ rose garden, these guys, hamas, have not come to _ rose garden, these guys, hamas, have not come to the _ rose garden, these guys, hamas, have not come to the table - have not come to the table negotiating _ have not come to the table negotiating in _ have not come to the table negotiating in good - have not come to the table negotiating in good faith i have not come to the table negotiating in good faith ini negotiating in good faith in months _ negotiating in good faith in months. they— negotiating in good faith in months. they have - negotiating in good faith in. months. they have hostages amongst _ months. they have hostages amongst americans- months. they have hostages amongst americans who - months. they have hostages amongst americans who are| amongst americans who are sitting — amongst americans who are sitting in— amongst americans who are sitting in what _ amongst americans who are sitting in what kinds - amongst americans who are sitting in what kinds of- sitting in what kinds of horrific— sitting in what kinds of horrific conditions- sitting in what kinds of horrific conditions for. sitting in what kinds of- horrific conditions for over a yean — horrific conditions for over a yean come _ horrific conditions for over a year. come to _ horrific conditions for over a year. come to the _ horrific conditions for over a year. come to the table, . horrific conditions for over a | year. come to the table, but will not _ year. come to the table, but will not get _ year. come to the table, but will not get a _ year. come to the table, but will not get a deal _ year. come to the table, but will not get a deal unless - year. come to the table, but| will not get a deal unless you release — will not get a deal unless you release the _ will not get a deal unless you release the hostages. - will not get a deal unless you release the hostages. so- will not get a deal unless you release the hostages. so i. release the hostages. sol think— release the hostages. sol think this _ release the hostages. sol think this deal— release the hostages. sol think this deal yesterday i release the hostages. so i- think this deal yesterday opens two doors _ think this deal yesterday opens two doors -i _ think this deal yesterday opens two doors —1 is _ think this deal yesterday opens two doors —1 is for— think this deal yesterday opens two doors —1 is for a _ think this deal yesterday opens two doors —1 is for a deal- think this deal yesterday opens two doors —1 is for a deal with. two doors —1 is for a deal with hanras— two doors —1 is for a deal with hamas on— two doors —1 is for a deal with hamas on getting _ two doors —1 is for a deal with hamas on getting the - two doors —1 is for a deal with. hamas on getting the hostages out and — hamas on getting the hostages out and ending _ hamas on getting the hostages out and ending the _ hamas on getting the hostages out and ending the conflict - hamas on getting the hostages out and ending the conflict — i out and ending the conflict — and — out and ending the conflict — and two. _ out and ending the conflict — and two. if— out and ending the conflict — and two, if we _ out and ending the conflict — and two, if we get _ out and ending the conflict — and two, if we get that - out and ending the conflict —| and two, if we get that done, and _ and two, if we get that done, and normalisation— and two, if we get that done, and normalisation deal- and two, if we get that done, i and normalisation deal between saudi _ and normalisation deal between saudi arabia _ and normalisation deal between saudi arabia and _ and normalisation deal between

saudi arabia and israel. - saudi arabia and israel. clearly— saudi arabia and israel. clearly important - saudi arabia and israel. clearly important that l saudi arabia and israel. i clearly important that he saudi arabia and israel. - clearly important that he talks about hamas coming to the table, you can't deal with one party — but he didn't talk about israel, and you've got prime minister netanyahu who rejects the very concept of a two state solution, and president trump incoming, who spent his first term actively promoting the israeli government's most expansionist ideals. so on the surface, it doesn't bode well — is there anything in these final months that he could do to advance a cease—fire and put in place a framework or basement structure for a two state solution? indeed, gaza is a much more complex problem then the lebanon situation presented. the goals of israel in lebanon were not fine eight, they were compliant with resolution 1701 with respect to withdrawal

beyond the litani river —— not finite. that was always an achievable goal. with their spec to gaza, the administration correctly has made it clear all along, with the support of the israel security establishment, the elimination by military means alone of hamas is not a possibility. it is notjust not realistic, but not doable. it requires both kinetic pressure, but also political horizon — which the administration, again, how to correctly — requires a commitment to a two state solution. now switching from the israeli side, where indeed there are difficulties because of the position of this coalition government on a two state resolution, to hamas, we've been three months now with no hamas response, none, to a proposal for a with no hamas response, none, to a proposalfor a cease—fire and hostage release presented by the us, qatar and egypt. will the situation in lebanon, the cease—fire change hamas's calculus? that needs to be

tested, and whatever scepticism may exist, the administration absolutely needs to exert maximum effort to see whether hamas is now ready for that cease—fire — which israel has already agreed to — or not. i think you make a really good point, the obviously if hamas released the prisoners, things would move very quickly, and that obviously is a key part of the negotiation. let me bring you in on this because we have the former us ambassador to lebanon and on the programme in the last hour. could they put forward a un resolution for a two state solution at the un before they leave office? were they to do that, what sort of effect do you think that might have here in the uk and in france?— france? sounds pretty ambitious, _ france? sounds pretty ambitious, given - france? sounds pretty ambitious, given their| france? sounds pretty - ambitious, given their only be 55 days— ambitious, given their only be 55 days left ofjoe biden's administration to run, and donald _ administration to run, and donald trump continues to shape the narrative before he's even entered — the narrative before he's even entered the oval office. i

suppose hypothetically, that would — suppose hypothetically, that would be possible, the ambassador would probably be in ambassador would probably be in a better— ambassador would probably be in a better place to comment on such— a better place to comment on such an — a better place to comment on such an issue rather than a journalist _ such an issue rather than a journalist like myself. but it strikes _ journalist like myself. but it strikes me as though, yes, joe biden— strikes me as though, yes, joe biden is— strikes me as though, yes, joe biden is a _ strikes me as though, yes, joe biden is a man in a rush to cement— biden is a man in a rush to cement his legacy, particularly in terms — cement his legacy, particularly in terms of foreign policy, and he may— in terms of foreign policy, and he may well try and do that — but the — he may well try and do that — but the reality, i think we just— but the reality, i think we just have to get to grips with, it's more _ just have to get to grips with, it's more likely it will be donald _ it's more likely it will be donald trump who will be taking on the _ donald trump who will be taking on the role of, or at least the title — on the role of, or at least the title of— on the role of, or at least the title of peacemaker from here on, title of peacemaker from here on. if— title of peacemaker from here on, if indeed as we just heard there — on, if indeed as we just heard there from our guest at the cavalry— there from our guest at the cavalry is _ there from our guest at the cavalry is not coming for hamas. _ cavalry is not coming for hamas, now that there is the cease-fire _ hamas, now that there is the cease—fire with hezbollah in lebanon, and hamas is essentially on its own. the big question— essentially on its own. the big question here is to what extent that changes the political calculus, vis—a—vis the war in gaza — calculus, vis—a—vis the war in gaza that _ calculus, vis—a—vis the war in gaza that continues, the state and future of the hostages — it's believed 63 people are still— it's believed 63 people are still being held captive there.

and also, the question mark over— and also, the question mark over the _ and also, the question mark over the west bank and the future — over the west bank and the future - _ over the west bank and the future — donald trump has a very— future — donald trump has a very aggressive cabinet coming in with— very aggressive cabinet coming in with their own views over whether— in with their own views over whether or not the west bank and the — whether or not the west bank and the occupied territories should _ and the occupied territories should belong to israel, that's what _ should belong to israel, that's what his— should belong to israel, that's what his ambassador to israel, his candidate, mike huckabee, appears — his candidate, mike huckabee, appears to believe. sol his candidate, mike huckabee, appears to believe. so i think the political calculus could change _ the political calculus could change quite radically irrespective of any ambitious measures that could be put on the table — measures that could be put on the table in the next 55 days. it the table in the next 55 days. it sounds _ the table in the next 55 days. it sounds ambitious, but the reason i ventured it with the ambassador is because, although it sounds radical, actually if you put a resolution on the table of the un security council holding out the future of the two state solution, there are no vetoes, china and russia already recognised palestinian statehood, france and the uk have signalled they want the same. so what is

preventing biden from doing this? �* , preventing biden from doing this? , , this? because the un security council resolution, _ this? because the un security council resolution, with - this? because the un security council resolution, with all. council resolution, with all due respect to the united nations, is not the vehicle for mandating, or indeed impelling the kinds of political agreements which are necessary now on the israeli part, as well as the palestinians. and that's been a position in the united states has held to for quite a long while. the real issueis quite a long while. the real issue is — and your last commentator was raising this — is whether any president can indeed affect the calculations now, both of hamas and the tunnels as well as this government of israel. with respect to hamas, we need to test, notjust wait respect to hamas, we need to test, not just wait and see, but test, and that's what we understand the biden demonstration is aggressively pursuing literally as we speak, in terms of renewed initiative with turkey, qatar and egypt. if hamas denies, as it has these months, any association,

that in fact, it'll make it very difficult for any president or external intervention to change this calculus, because we do assess military pressure alone by israel. it has not and cannot bring about the fundamental changes in the equation here either for release of the hostages, or the alternate future, better and brighter future, better and brighter future for the people of god which we all wish to see. just a cuick which we all wish to see. just a quick final _ which we all wish to see. just a quick final one _ which we all wish to see. just a quick final one on _ which we all wish to see. just a quick final one on lebanon — do you have any concerns that as you bolster the lebanese army, and you put them in the position where they are engaging hezbollah directly in a fragile environment in lebanon, that you potentially stoke a civil war? it lebanon, that you potentially stoke a civil war?— stoke a civil war? it is as important _ stoke a civil war? it is as important as _ stoke a civil war? it is as important as we - stoke a civil war? it is as important as we in - stoke a civil war? it is as important as we in the i important as we in the international community have pursued our partners. for many years, to build the capacity

for capabilities, the integrity and capability of a lebanese armed forces that lebanese security services. but to expect the lebanese forces, who are the result of a complex sectarian and political mix thatis sectarian and political mix that is lebanon, to actually take on hezbollah is, that is l