this is bbc news, we will have the headlines for you at the top of the hour, which is straight after this programme. welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. the fragility of the israel—hamas ceasefire deal is obvious. over the coming days, more israeli hostages may be freed, more palestinian prisoners released, and gazans may enjoy a respite from bombs and gunfire. but the strategic aims of the netanyahu government and hamas are as incompatible as ever, and no amount of trump leverage can change that. my guest is a former israeli prime minister,

ehud olmert, a fierce critic of prime minister netanyahu, who says only territorial compromise can save israel from a grim future. but is his simply a voice in the political wilderness? ehud olmert in tel aviv, welcome to hardtalk. hi. mr olmert, does it seem to you that this fragile, complex, ceasefire deal in gaza is actually an end to the war orjust a pause? i wish it were, but i'm not certain.

i think the agreement is obviously a partial agreement and limited in time, and in the number of hostages that are going to be released. so the question is, er, what is the next step? we in israel would have liked it to have been, in the first place, a comprehensive deal with the end of the war and the return of all the hostages. prime minister netanyahu waited almost eight months, since may, until he finally agreed, perhaps as a result of the pressure of the new president of america, donald trump. but at this point, this is a partial agreement. it's interesting that while national security minister ben—gvir, one of the most extreme right members of the cabinet, chose to resign, calling the deal a surrender, one of the other far—right members of cabinet, mr smotrich, the finance minister, chose to stay in the government, and he claimed that he'd got a promise from netanyahu on the eve of the signing

of the deal, saying that the war would be resumed and that, ultimately, hamas would be eliminated. how much do you read into that? well, number one, ithink the fact that a minister in a senior position, the minister of finance in a government, says that the prime minister promised him that he will resume the war after the completion of this agreement means, in my mind, two things. number one, that there is a likelihood that this agreement will not be completed. if hamas knows in advance that they are going to have to face the israeli attack at the end of this, why should they release all of the hostages that they are committed to release at this stage? that's number one. number two, i think that, er, this is something that i don't believe minister smotrich would have created had it not been true.

mm. that doesn't mean that netanyahu will keep his commitment. i don't remember anything that netanyahu ever promised that he actually lived up to. so that does not mean that he will actually resume the military actions, but it means that he is now manipulating and that there is no certainty as to what will be the next phase. how strong is netanyahu's position right now? because not only does he have to deal with the extreme right in his cabinet — and you've talked about the influence you think that smotrich is wielding upon him — but we also have other pressures upon him. for example, the israeli top general, herzi halevi, has just announced that he's resigning in march because he needs to acknowledge his failures connected to the october 7th hamas attack on southern israel. the general in charge of southern command is also

quitting, and that's led some opposition figures to say netanyahu, netanyahu himself has to take responsibility. how much is all this eroding netanyahu's authority? i don't think that it will make a dramatic impact on his political partners presently, except for mr smotrich. if netanyahu will not resume the fighting about a0 days from now. but in terms of public opinion, you have to understand that netanyahu may have the majority in parliament, present parliament in israel, but in all of the polls which were conducted in israel over the last year and more, week after week after week after week by every single channel and media in israel, in all of these netanyahu is lagging behind dramatically. he's losing about 20% of his political power in parliament. so if there were to be

elections today, i would say that most likely netanyahu will not be elected, re—elected. that may be wishful thinking, because although his party standings may be falling somewhat, his own personal standings in terms of most likely prime minister, as seen by most israelis, netanyahu is still far ahead of rivals like benny gantz. so you could say that his position is still strong. i know that this is a serious risk taken to oppose a bbc anchor of your calibre, but i do have to do it because in all of the polls, more than 60%, close to 70% of the electorate, says that they don't trust netanyahu. they don't trust him, they don't believe him. they don't think that he is conducting the national affairs on the basis of a sound judgment of what the real national security interest of the state of israel is, and that he prefers his personal political interests.

so i don't think that there is such a bright future for netanyahu as far as elections are concerned. let me ask you about one specific element of the ceasefire deal. and you've had to think about this a lot in the past, as a former israeli prime minister who fought for years, when you were in the pm's office, to get the freedom of one israeli soldier held in gaza, gilad shalit, who ultimately was released after you left office. but the deal that got shalit out ultimately saw a thousand and more palestinian prisoners released. one of them was yahya sinwar, who turned out, ultimately, to be the leader of hamas, who masterminded the october 7th attack. and here we are today with israel making a pledge, if this deal is followed through, of releasing many palestinian prisoners who, to most israelis, have blood on their hands, some who have been convicted of multiple murders, including bus bombs. do you think that any israeli

prime minister right now should be releasing those kinds of people? look, when i was prime minister, i didn't fight so much. ijust refused to make the deal with hamas because i thought that under no circumstances should we release one israeli soldier for a few hundred palestinian murderers and killers. and i didn't do it, full stop. so what you're saying that even though you're a man who opposes netanyahu because you think he actually needs to make compromises for peace, you're now telling me he shouldn't be releasing palestinian prisoners? oh, you didn't hear a thing. i didn't say it. you just have to be patient. what i said is that i refused to do it. when there was one israeli soldier who was abducted in the course of fighting, which is a normal, sometimes inevitable, unfortunate event, but it does take place.

here, there was an entirely different situation. we deserted these israelis that were abducted in their living rooms, in their bedrooms, in their homes inside the state of israel. we failed to provide the israelis the basic, elementary, fundamental protection, which we are supposed to provide with our security forces and ourarmies. we failed. and when we failed, we have to bear responsibility. and we have to bear responsibility by bringing all of them back knowing what the price is. we will deal with this price. this is an entirely different situation from the one that i had to face when i had to... ..i had to release prisoners for one israeli soldier that was abducted. this is entirely different. we have to release all of them, and the sooner

the better because already, because of the delay from may until now, many of the hostages were assassinated, and we have proof for it. and if we will wait a lot more, then maybe we will lose all of them. you talk of the importance of... yeah, hang on, mr olmert, i just want to move it to this. you talk of the importance of israeli public opinion, and you cite polls which you say show that netanyahu is losing support. but surely one of the biggest impacts that will be had on israeli public opinion comes from those pictures from the first hostage releases of a multitude of masked hamas gunmen surrounding the vehicle in southern gaza from which those hostages emerged — a show of defiance, a show of their continued presence, which surely says to many israelis, "you know what, "this war is nowhere near done." hamas still has the capacity to put on that kind of show, and therefore this war

must go on. this is a gross exaggeration. and we have to put things in the right place. there were a couple of hundred hamas guys with guns. israel, from day one — i thought and many of us thought — is so much more powerful, so much stronger. and at the same time, no—one thought and no—one believed and no—one argued that we can eliminate every single person that is somehow associated from hamas forever, from under the sun. this is stupid, childish, arrogant and not serious. we destroyed most of the elite of the military power of hamas. we killed tens of thousands, many who are not even hamas fighters and they were victims of a turmoil and turbulence which took place as a result of the initial hamas attack in october.

but we killed thousands of hamas fighters. we destroyed most of the tunnels, most of the bunkers, most of the command positions, most of the launchers, most of the rockets. all this we did. israel is strong enough to bear with the margin that has... ..still exists with hamas, and we will be able to deal with it any time in the future if we will need to. there is, you know, a certain ridiculous attitude. on the one hand, some of the leaders of israel, particularly the prime minister netanyahu, talks about destroying iran and destroying all the, you know, internationalforces that are threatening the state of israel. and on the other hand, he is creating a sense of terrible fear and panic because a few thousand hamas fighters that are not near threatening the very existence of the state of israel. this is... all right, so you say israel can live securely with a remnant of hamas in gaza?

i just want to...very quickly i want to move onto... i want to move onto the west bank, if i may. i know, i know, but let me finish what i say, please, ok? don't interfere. israel is capable of defending itself against hamas. had we been...we stopped the war eight months ago, it may have been much better for the hostages. and considering there's so many soldiers that were killed during this period, now it's the right time to end the war, to stop it, to bring back all the hostages and to be ready for any eventual confrontation that we may have with hamas. we will be able to defeat them again if necessary. and thus far in this conversation, we've only talked about gaza. how worried are you that a second, and perhaps in the long run, much more dangerous front could right now be opening up in the west bank? we have a new idf operation injenin.

we have warplanes bombing jenin. we havejewish settlers going on rampages in palestinian villages, torching properties and cars. how likely is it that if there is this fragile ceasefire in gaza, there may be a surge of violence in the west bank? there may be a surge of violence in the west bank, not because of the fragility of the ceasefire in gaza, but because of the circumstances in the west bank. there is terror, there always was terror and there will continue to be terror. and we have to deal with it and we have to fight it, and we are capable of doing it. don't forget that we are in complete control, security—wise, of the west bank. it's fully occupied by israel, and we can deal with it. it's not easy, and sometimes, in spite of the assistance that we get from the palestinian authority... and i have to emphasise the palestinian authority, in spite of the criticism against it by israeli spokespeople, is very,

very helpful in combating terror coming from the west bank. but there is always terror that can't be controlled, and it may continue. we have to try and reduce it to the inevitable minimum, and at the same time, to prevent all the settlers that are provoking and manipulating and trying to lynch the innocent people that live in the west bank in response or in retaliation for certain terrors. there is a danger that the third intifada will erupt if we will not be more measured, more restrained. and we will try and look for possible political process with the palestinians and the palestinian authority in order to conclude this historic conflict between us and the palestinians.

all right, let's talk about the political and diplomatic picture then. you seem to me to be putting an awful lot of trust and faith and hope in donald trump. you said recently, "trust me, netanyahu will not dare to do "anything to infuriate trump. "he fears trump more than he fears anyone." but what makes you think that donald trump is actually going to put any serious pressure on mr netanyahu? do me a favour. don't make me more important and more powerful and more influential than i am. i didn't say that i have complete, total, unlimited trust in trump. i say that i listen to him, and i try to understand what he wants. everyone says that trump is very unpredictable. however, i remember that in the four years that he was president of the united states, he refrained from any possible engagement in military actions in any part of the world, which is true about

north korea, is true about afghanistan and pakistan. he pulled out american soldiers from the middle east. he started the process. then biden continued it, but he started it. so the question now is — what does president trump want? if he wants to conclude the hostilities in the middle east, to conclude that instability and to bring the two sides into some meaningful process of negotiations, i think he has the power to do it more than any president before him. but surely, surely, mr olmert, judge him by his actions. he's already lifted limited us sanctions on militant jewish settlers. he's already said that "there is no restriction on any arms we can sell to israel", lifting some restrictions put on by the biden administration. he's appointed an ambassador to israel who doesn't believe in the idea of a palestinian people. this is who donald trump is.

probably. you started by saying that maybe donald trump is the opposite. i don't know. i'm not a friend of donald trump. i don't... i'm not in a position to be able to predict what the most unpredictable person in the world will do. i can only say one thing. if donald trump indeed is interested in peace, which he said he is yesterday in his inaugural speech and he said that this is going to be his legacy, then the only way to make peace is to force the israeli government to move forward towards a two—state solution of the conflict between us and the palestinians. and the fact that, for the time being, he took certain measures that lifted some sanctions against the settlers in the west bank doesn't mean anything in terms of his long—range strategy, if he has one. it's taken us a while in this interview, but you've just used

the phrase "two—state solution", a phrase which many israelis and palestinians have totally given up on. i called you at the beginning of this interview maybe a voice in the wilderness, and your use of that phrase "two—state solution" maybe points to the fact that you are really out of touch with your own people. they don't believe in that any more. i'm in touch with the only possible political solution that can take place in the middle east. wars — where, are and maybe. peace can only be on the basis of two states. and therefore i am not out of touch. i'm the only realistic person. now, i'll tell you something. you are young, but i am an older person. in 1976—77, when i was a member of the parliament of likud and menachem begin was elected prime minister of israel, everyone in great britain said he is the terrorist that was responsible for terror

in israel prior to �*a8. the guy will never make peace. and a year after, he agreed with sadat to pull out completely from sinai, which was a dramatic change in every posture that was ascribed to him. when ariel sharon was prime minister and i was privileged to be his senior deputy, we decided to pull out completely from gaza and dismantle all the settlements that sharon himself built. that someone told you a year before that he will do it, you would've said that he is out of touch with reality. so... yeah, you make some interesting points and maybe, you know, israel could find a leader who might make some dramatic change in policy. but i would put it to you, and i'm not such a young guy. i'm an old guy. i've been around following israel for many, many years. and the truth is that israel has changed profoundly in recent years, and you know it, because you talk now consistently about the dangers

within israel, of an israel that is at war with itself, between those messianic, national, religious settlers and their supporters, who want a very different kind of country from the country you believe in. look, i'm not out of a genuine understanding of the different forces that are now influencing the public opinion in israel. there are messianic groups. they are very dangerous. i call them "the enemy within". and i use every single channel that i have on the media and in public meetings, in private meetings, in order to warn of the possible dangers that they pose to the state of israel. however, at the same time, i am not unaware of the fact that more and more and more people are sick and tired of fighting and of defeating and of killing and of continuing this bloodshed

which is taking place in our part of the world. and we have to change it. it's a difficultjob. it's very complex. it will not be easy, but there is a... these days, let's be honest, mr olmert, it would probably lead... ..it would probably lead to civil war, would it not? i was in israel in 1995 when rabin was shot by a messianic extreme settler, yigal amir, who regarded rabin as a traitor. if any israel today tried to, for example, withdraw fully from the territories occupied in �*67, including, of course, all of the west bank, he would be regarded by so many powerful israelis as a traitor. probably there will be israelis that would look at him as a traitor. i'm sure that there are quite a few that listen to me, the bbc, and think that i am a traitor, but they didn't kill me yet. so we will continue to battle

against these voices. and it's not simple. i didn't say that it's simple. i didn't say that it's not without dangers. it is with dangers. it is with risk. it is with strong opposition. it is with messianic groups that are absolutely committed to fulfil the divine providence commitment to the jewish people to annex and integrate all of the territories. but there are powerful forces within the israeli society that are against it, and i believe that we will prevail and we will win and we will defeat them. it will not be an easy battle. it will be difficult... well, the problem is that those forces are in power and you're out of power. and i'm just...to end, i'm mindful that you're now, what, a couple of years older than the state of israel itself. you've lived throughout israel's history. i just wonder whether, hand on heart, you believe that your vision of an israel living peacefully side by side

with a palestinian state will ever come to pass? absolutely. i believe. iam certain. as i said, it will be difficult. it will be painful. it will be long. but the forces that align with what i say, we will win and we'll bring israel back to the main course of what it was supposed to be from the very beginning — ajewish, decent, honest, moral government that recognises the rights of others and that finds the way to make peace with them. ehud olmert, we have to end there. thank you forjoining me on hardtalk. thank you. hello. the weather is certainly

turning a lot livelier over the next couple of days. thursday bringing some wind and rain, but for friday, storm eowyn, and so this met office amber warning with the risk of 90 mph wind gusts in some parts of the uk. now that storm is developing right now in the atlantic. this is the satellite picture from a little earlier on, and you can see this stripe of cloud and just the beginnings of a hook appearing in that cloud as that area of low pressure begins to form. and it is going to strengthen, it is going to deepen rapidly as it approaches the uk, arriving and moving across the north of the uk during the day on friday. more on that in a moment. we start with thursday's forecast, which brings this band of rain eastwards, some snow developing over high ground in the north of scotland as that wet weather arrives. some very windy weather around the coasts of wales, the south and the southwest of england — gusts of 50—60mph here. some sunny skies following from the southwest as the day wears on.

temperatures around 5—9 degrees in most places. now during thursday night, that first band of rain clears, but then here comes storm eowyn — this swirl of wet and windy weather, we're going to see some really very, very strong winds indeed across the republic of ireland. but those winds at that core of really strong winds is likely to migrate northwards and eastwards. and so we have our met office amber warning. these are the areas covered by that amber warning — inland spots seeing gusts of 60—70mph, some coasts and hills 80—90mph. and in fact, it is possible that some very exposed spots could see winds even stronger than that, pretty unusual for the uk. and then we also have widespread gales even away from that amber warning area. yellow warnings covering other parts of the uk. also some outbreaks of rain, some snow for a time up towards the north. and those temperatures, well, i think, they'll be the least of our worries, but actually a little bit milder down towards the south. now as we head through friday night, our area of low

pressure, our storm gradually pulls northwards. still very, very windy, you'll notice, in the north of scotland for a time on saturday, further gales to come here. another weather system pushing in from the west bringing rain, some snow for some of us. and then actually through sunday and into next week, it looks like we could see more wet and windy weather.

live from washington, this is bbc news. president trump signs an executive order suspending the entry of migrants into the united states at the southern border with mexico in one of his first interviews since his commutation by president trump, oath keepers founder stewart rhodes speaks to the bbc. and another wildfire is rapidly growing in the los angeles area — prompting multiple evacuation orders. hello, i'm sumi somaskanda. thank you forjoining us. donald trump is ordering that migrants are barred from what's described as �*physical entry�* into the us, including by claiming asylum. the proclamation invokes article 4 of the us constitution, which obliges the federal government to protect states

from foreign invasion.