alarm that magma may be nearing the surface nearby. the recent earthquakes are beyond what anyone is used to. the wrench of having to leave your home — beyond words. jessica parker, bbc news, in grindavik. time for a look at the weather. here's sarah keith—lucas. not for suella braverman, the adage that "revenge is a dish best served cold". she delivers a blistering attack on rishi sunak — politically and personally — and accuses him of never having any intention of keeping his promises. suella braverman�*s incendiary attack sounds like a rallying call for the right of the party, so how politically dangerous is she for the prime minister? we'll be speaking to the tory mp martin vickers. and ahead of tomorrow's supreme court ruling on the government's rwanda policy, we'll be joined by diana johnson, the labour chair of the home affairs select committee. also tonight... in a major investigation, we have, for the first time, established an apparent financial link between the russian oligarch roman abramovich and vladimir putin, after years of abramovich denials. it is new material which justifies those uk and eu sanctions and raises the question of whether the united states should follow. and the white house says it now has its own evidence hamas has been using gaza's al—shifa hospital as a military hq. we ask an adviser to israel's prime minister about the assault on the compound, which has become a lighting rod for the debate on a ceasefire. good evening. suella braverman was never going to go quietly, but her three—page letter reads like a comprehensive, coldly—furious takedown of the prime minister. she reminded rishi sunak that her support had been pivotal to his victory, after he had been rejected by a majority of party members during the summer leadership contest, and accused him of never having had any intention of keeping his promises he'd made to her, particularly on migration. she accuses him of equivocation, disregard and a lack of interest, and is scathing about his handling of the rwanda legislation, which she believes will hole her plans for deportation below the waterline, whichever way the supreme court ruling goes tomorrow. that crucial ruling is due in about 11 hours from now. nick's here. tell me about that letter from suella braverman today. well, this is no less than a full—frontal assault on rishi sunak�*s personality and failings as prime minister. you have to go all the way back to 1990 and that electrifying resignation speech by geoffrey howe after he felt margaret thatcher had made his position in cabinet absolutely impossible. this is what the late deputy prime minister had to say. it the late deputy prime minister had to sa . , . ~ the late deputy prime minister had to sa . , ., ~ , to say. it is rather like sending our to say. it is rather like sending your opening _ to say. it is rather like sending your opening batsmen - to say. it is rather like sending your opening batsmen to - to say. it is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the l to say. it is rather like sending - your opening batsmen to the crease, only for— your opening batsmen to the crease, only for them to find the moment the first balls_ only for them to find the moment the first balls are bowled that their bats have been broken before the game _ bats have been broken before the game by— bats have been broken before the game by the team captain. we bats have been broken before the game by the team captain. we are not in that territory — game by the team captain. we are not in that territory now, _ game by the team captain. we are not in that territory now, but _ game by the team captain. we are not in that territory now, but suella - in that territory now, but suella braverman is on the warpath and she is providing ammunition to the prime minister's critics.— minister's critics. there was so much that _ minister's critics. there was so much that letter _ minister's critics. there was so much that letter it _ minister's critics. there was so much that letter it had - minister's critics. there was so much that letter it had big - minister's critics. there was so much that letter it had big red| minister's critics. there was so - much that letter it had big red pens all over it, take us through it. highly personal attack on the integrity of rishi sunak and his policy failings. so on rishi sunak�*s personality, suella braverman says he can't be trusted. that is because he allegedly broke a deal they had which prompted her to support his bid for number 10. that deal, she said, covered reducing legal migration, excluding the echr from disrupting their plans to stop the small boats, and introducing "unequivocal statutory guidance" to schools to protect biological sex. suella braverman says none of that happened, and just look at what she says. "you have manifestly and repeatedly failed to deliver on every single one of these key policies. either your distinctive style of government means you are incapable of doing so or, as i must surely conclude now, you never had any intention of keeping your promises." it must be one of the strongest ever attacks in a letter like that, so thatis attacks in a letter like that, so that is the personal side, but drill down into policy. yes, an attack on two core areas — a failure to deal properly with small boats and a failure to crack down on antisemitism and extremism. so, on small boats, suella braverman says the prime minister is guilty of a double failure — failure to prepare for a loss in the supreme court tomorrow and failure to prepare for a win. the court will be ruling in the morning on the government's plan to send illegal migrants to rwanda. and this is what she said. "you opted instead for wishful thinking as a comfort blanket to avoid having to make hard choices. this irresponsibility has wasted time and left the country in an impossible position." and finally, suella braverman accuses the prime minister of failing to attack anti—semitism and extremism. she accused him of resisting her calls to introduce new legislation to ban what she calls the "hate marches" that have been held since the hamas massacre on october 7th. again, this is what she wrote. "as on so many other issues, you sought to put off tough decisions in order to minimise political risk to yourself. in doing so, you have increased the very real risk these marches present to everyone else." so, a really big moment. downing street have completely lost patience with suella braverman. but conservative mps on the right to night, hearing from people in the home office who might not be on the side of suella braverman, saying, she has got this one right.- she has got this one right. queue very much. _ she has got this one right. queue very much, nick. _ she has got this one right. queue very much, nick. -- _ she has got this one right. queue very much, nick. -- thank- she has got this one right. queue very much, nick. -- thank you i she has got this one right. queue i very much, nick. -- thank you very very much, nick. —— thank you very much. well, tomorrow's ruling by the supreme court will certainly not be the end of the story. new home secretary james cleverley has made it clear that he too wants to stop the boats. it's also one of the prime minister's five pledges. one of the most contentious elements of the law alluded to by suella braverman is rule 39 of the european convention on human rights. here's sima with all the details around tomorrow's judgement and the potential next steps. tonight, five supreme courtjudges are the only ones who are likely to know which way tomorrow's much—awaited judgment will go. the supreme court is the final court of appeal in the uk and is set to deliver a decision on whether the government can send asylum seekers to rwanda. this ruling comes afterjudges at the court of appeal injune ruled that the plan was unlawful and could breach article 3 of the european convention of human rights, which prohibits torture and inhumane treatment. the prime minister has made stopping the boats a central part of his immigration policy. rwanda, he and his ministers argue, will deter people from making the dangerous journey across the channel. in recent years, many people have died from making that trip. the government says the travelling must stop to cut levels of illegal migration and to reduce the number of people dying. 116,000 people crossed the channel last year. so far this year, more than 27,000 have done the same. that's 19,000 fewer people so far. ever since the rwanda policy was created, its been bogged down in the courts and nobody has been sent to the country, with planes halted at the last minute. the supreme court judges will have looked at the following when making theirjudgement: were the right tests applied when determining whether removal to rwanda would breach article 3? if the right tests were applied, was the court of appeal entitled to interfere with its conclusion that rwanda was a safe third country? were there substantial grounds for believing asylum seekers sent to rwanda would face a real risk of bad treatment? they'd also be looking at whether it's right that judges are able to interrogate a government agreement, basically. so you've got this government agreement between the governments of the united kingdom and rwanda, saying that everything will be, everybody will be properly looked after, everything is going to be fine. and really, is it appropriate and right thatjudges are able to review that and make an assessment for themselves as to whether that agreement will be respected by both governments? labour has called the plan "unworkable, unethical and extortionately expensive". so far, the uk has paid the rwandan government £140 million. some campaigners have argued assurances from the african countries' ministers were not sufficient to ensure that there is no real risk to asylum seekers. sophie lucas represents several clients who are at risk of deportation. well, many of our clients are survivors of torture, of trafficking, they've fled war—torn countries. they have been living in limbo, many of them, since may last year. so the repercussions of tomorrow's decision will be felt very strongly by them and many others in the uk who came to seek refuge. which brings us to the allegations made by suella braverman in her letter this evening. she says the european court of human rights' rule 39 would mean even if the government wins tomorrow, it could mean months of delay, as claimants can use interim orders to appeal the decision. some lawyers agree with the former home secretary that the government could have legislated more firmly to prevent this and make clear it would ignore rule 39 in future. but others argue this year's illegal migration act does give the government the power to ignore rule 39, meaning migrants could be deported within weeks, though it could be a breach of international law to do this. it is by no means certain that the european court would reconsider the case if the ruling is clear on human rights. even before suella braverman�*s attack tonight on the prime minister, tomorrow was already set to be a big moment for one of its flagship policies. all eyes tomorrow on courtroom one at the supreme court. in a moment, we hope to speak to conservative mp for cleepthorpes' martin vickers, but first let's talk to labour's dame diana johnson, who chairs the home affairs select committee. the government says it is not stopping here, what can it legally do? ~ . stopping here, what can it legally do? ~' ., ., ., ., , do? i think we have to wait and see what happens _ do? i think we have to wait and see what happens tomorrow. _ do? i think we have to wait and see what happens tomorrow. i - do? i think we have to wait and see what happens tomorrow. i think - do? i think we have to wait and see | what happens tomorrow. i think the thing about the rwanda case, whether it is lawful or unlawful, we don't actually know whether this policy would work in practice. the home affairs select committee was really clear that the government are pursuing the rwanda policy because they say will deter people from getting the small boats. we don't have evidence of that. whether tomorrow they find that yes, you can go ahead and implement it, still a test about whether it practically works. if it doesn't and they say it is unlawful, the prime minister, the new home secretary are going to going to have to up with plan b because their approach to small boats is based on the rwanda policy. they would say small boats are down by a third this year and that could be about the potential issue, it could be that. let's talk about the rule 39. so what suella braverman seems to be getting at is that actually there is a way if you leave the echr that that doesn't matter, no matter what happens tomorrow, what is your reaction to that? the home affairs _ what is your reaction to that? tie: home affairs select committee has always looked at this in regard to international law, complying with our international obligations. we think that the government should have a range of policy responses to the small boats issue, notjust the rwanda policy, where there is not the direct evidence they need. so we say within international law, there are a range of policy options the government could pursue to tackle the small boats issue. you government could pursue to tackle the small boats issue.— the small boats issue. you are talkinu the small boats issue. you are talking with — the small boats issue. you are talking with your— the small boats issue. you are talking with your chair- the small boats issue. you are talking with your chair of - the small boats issue. you are talking with your chair of the l the small boats issue. you are - talking with your chair of the home affairs select committee now, but let's talk to you as an labour mp. —— you are talking as chair. let's talk to you as an labour mp. -- you are talking as chair.- let's talk to you as an labour mp. -- you are talking as chair. what is labour's approach? _ -- you are talking as chair. what is labour's approach? yvette - -- you are talking as chair. what is labour's approach? yvette cooperl -- you are talking as chair. what is i labour's approach? yvette cooper has set out clearly what labour would do, range of things from improving cross—border policing involvement, going after the people smugglers. taking action with our european colleagues to enter into arrangements.- colleagues to enter into arranrements. _, colleagues to enter into arranrements. ,., ., , arrangements. the government has already made _ arrangements. the government has already made cross-border- already made cross—border arrangements with the police in calais and they have been doing the checks, they have been doing the returns. ladle checks, they have been doing the returns. ~ ., , checks, they have been doing the returns. ~ ~' , ., ., returns. we think there is more that can be done — returns. we think there is more that can be done and _ returns. we think there is more that can be done and they _ returns. we think there is more that can be done and they are _ returns. we think there is more that can be done and they are not - returns. we think there is more that can be done and they are not doing l can be done and they are not doing the returns. but we think there is more they could do. but the home affairs select committee, which is cross—party, came up with a report last year and a series of policies we thought the government should look at, putting all their eggs into one basket with rwanda, we don't know what will happen tomorrow, is going to be a problem for them. let's turn now to tomorrow's debate on the king's speech. there is an snp mm calling for a ceasefire. we know tonight there is going to be a labour —— a labour amendment and that will say, far too many deaths of innocent civilians in gaza, including children. we back, the uk backs a rules—based international order and calls on israel to protect hospitals. you are vice chair of labour friends of israel, due hospitals. you are vice chair of labourfriends of israel, due back the labour amendment? iam i am pleased it has been tabled and i am pleased it has been tabled and i will vote for it. it sets out a framework for what we would like to see in terms of the development of humanitarian causes moving on helpfully to the cessation of fighting. but we do back international law and backed the fact that israel and taking action to protect themselves has got to be within international humanitarian law. ., ., ., ~ ., law. original we do not know if there would — law. original we do not know if there would be _ law. original we do not know if there would be a _ law. original we do not know if there would be a labour- law. original we do not know if - there would be a labour amendment and a number of your colleagues were going to back the snp amendment. and backed calls for a ceasefire. keir starmer has consistently refused to call for a ceasefire. if your labour colleagues think the labour amendment is not strong enough and back the snp amendment calling for a ceasefire should keir starmer sack them? i ceasefire should keir starmer sack them? . ., ., ~ , them? i chaired the home affairs select committee _ them? i chaired the home affairs select committee and _ them? i chaired the home affairs select committee and i _ them? i chaired the home affairs select committee and i am - them? i chaired the home affairs select committee and i am a - select committee and i am a backbencher, i'm not on the labour party front bench and i hope all my colleagues will feel that the amendment setting out what the labour position is in full and recognising what kier starmer said in his chatham house speech and building on the dreadful events of the last few weeks, i hope that amendment will mean we can all bunny around that labour amendment and vote for it tomorrow. we around that labour amendment and vote for it tomorrow.— vote for it tomorrow. we are having technical issues _ vote for it tomorrow. we are having technical issues trying _ vote for it tomorrow. we are having technical issues trying to _ vote for it tomorrow. we are having technical issues trying to speak - vote for it tomorrow. we are having technical issues trying to speak to l technical issues trying to speak to the conservative mp martin vickers but will keep trying. the billionaire russian oligarch roman abramovich who, for years, enjoyed a high—profile life in the uk, including the ownership of chelsea football club, has spent much of the past two decades denying his links with the russian president vladimir putin. those denials continued even after he was sanctioned by the uk and the eu council last year, but not the us, for his proximity to the russian leader and for allegedly profiting from the kremlin regime. abramovich has launched legal action to get the eu sanctions overturned. but now a major investigation by this programme — with bbc verify, panorama and the bureau of investigativejournalism — has found new evidence of an apparent financial link between the two men. here's ben. the most famous russian oligarch in the west. someone we've read a lot about over the past few years. 0il tycoon and politician roman abramovich... britain's most famous russian... russian billionaire - roman abramovich... a fixture in headlines for two decades — thanks to his purchases of football clubs, yachts, art, property. but it all came crashing down for roman abramovich in february 2022. it was unprovoked, but this is what russian president vladimir putin unleashed on ukraine. abramovich has links to putin, who is mounting a barbaric and evil attack against the people of ukraine. abramovich was sanctioned in march 2022 by the uk government and the eu council. his assets frozen, banned from travelling. the justification — that he had supported and profited from putin's regime. but abramovich said that it's unfair, that he had no significant financial connection to putin. so was this a case of rough justice? was the oligarch wronged? to find out, we've been on a journey from london to cyprus. speaking to politicians... it's almost like peeling back layers of an onion. ..financial experts... i find it hard to believe that this is an innocent transaction. ..former kremlin insiders... when he came into government. offices, like, everybody stood up. ..and anti—corruption campaigners. cyprus cannot be used by oligarchs to support to support the dirty wars of putin. the journey started with some leaked documents from the international consortium of investigativejournalists, cyprus confidential project. allegations of a financial, as well as a political, connection between roman abramovich and vladimir putin have swirled for years, but newsnight and the bureau of investigativejournalism have uncovered a paper trail of evidence which apparently shows it. it's new material which justifies those uk and eu sanctions and raises the question of whether the united states should follow. so what is this financial connection between roman abramovich and vladimir putin that newsnight, bbc verify and the bureau of investigativejournalism have uncovered? roman abramovich was the beneficiary of a trust which ultimately owned two cypriot—registered shell companies called finoto and grosora through a series of other shell companies. in 2003, these two companies each acquired a 12.5% stake in russia's monopoly tv advertising company video international for a mysteriously low price ofjust $130,000 each. by 2010, the entities had made $30 million in dividends from video international. but in late 2010, finoto sold its lucrative stake in video international to another cypriot shell company called med media network, and grosora sold its stake in the advertising company to yet another cypriot shell company called namiral trading. despite video international reporting revenues of $3 billion in that year, these stakes were sold forjust $20 million each — a price that appears to be below a reasonable assessment of theirfair value. the nominal beneficial owner of med media network was a man called sergei roldugin, and the nominal beneficial owner of namiral was alexander plekhov. roldugin is a russian cellist and conductor, but he's known putin since childhood and is godfather to his daughter, and he's been described as putin's "wallet" by the swiss government. plekhov has been identified by the uk government as another close friend of putin. so what this paper trail suggests is that abramovich effectively transferred a 25% stake in a russian company with multibillion dollar revenues to individuals close to putin for a price that appears to be below fair market value. abramovich was well—connected in top power circles. when he came into government offices, like, everybody stood up. vladimir milov is a former deputy energy minister of russia under putin in the early—20005, now turned opponent in exile. i can see that brick by brick, international investigative community is building a pretty solid tower of evidence connecting abramovich to putin. and i think this desire to hide it was intentional because putin needed such people at the international stage who nominally have no connection with him on surface, but are also very loyal and might be used in projecting his interests abroad. so in this regard, they both undertook very significant measures to hide their connection, and it's very good that the investigative community keeps exposing it. we showed our findings to tom keating, a veteran finance and security analyst. they might argue that this is simply an innocent transaction between two parties. how credible is that, do you think? i find it hard to believe that this is an innocent transaction between two parties. firstly, because the individuals involved have a track record of facilitating this kind of transaction. and secondly, this is a sort of mechanism that we've seen on a number of occasions before to transfer value between individuals connected with the kremlin and the kremlin. so, on the face of it, this would seem to be far from innocent. their friendship is something that's been long understood, _ but that confirmation is really important because it's - almost like peeling back layers of an onion. - people don't want to get - to the heart of the truth of this, but the reporting that you've found gives us the clearest indicator- we have yet that everything the government has done l is absolutely legally sound, that there is a link. - how do you establish a link? you follow the money. and the road led us to a sunny mediterranean island, with a reputation for hiding fortunes in dark corners. so how did we get this vital information, this confirmation of an apparent financial connection between roman abramovich and vladimir putin? it's because of a leak of documents from a firm here in cyprus called meritservus, which had been looking after roman abramovich's global financial fortune. why cyprus? well, because for the past two decades, cyprus — or moscow—on—the—med, as it's sometimes known — had played a key role in taking russian money, distributing it around the globe in a way that couldn't be linked back to its ultimate owners. so, troublingly, an eu member state's legal and accounting services had helped to conceal a link between the most famous russian oligarch in the west and the russian president. i think what we can see here for the first time is a much larger picture of the scale of the operation, the scale of the entanglement of cyprus with russia, the importance of cyprus as a member of europe and part of the eurozone, and how vital it is to russian interests. what we are actually seeing is an operation within europe. a sophisticated, clandestine operation that's at odds, completely at odds with western interests. but the sanctions imposed on russian oligarchs by europe and the us — and by the uk government directly on meritservus — means the island has now finally been forced to change its ways, says one anti—corruption campaignerand mp. the sanctions brought home that cyprus cannot be used by oligarchs to support the dirty wars of putin. i believe that cyprus got the message. i believe that professionals in cyprus, banks and the financial sector got the message that this is the end. whatever happened happened. we have to clean our act. we have to put an end to people coming to cyprus because we had a very relaxed system. now, the system, on the contrary, is very, very strict. and i believe that cyprus is going to gain again its place in the financial industry of the european union. though some analysts say the jury is still out on cyprus compliance and there is also other unfinished business. abramovich has still not been sanctioned by the us government, reportedly because the ukrainian president, volodymyr zelensky, requested it, in light of abramovich's role in peace talks in the wake of the invasion. negotiating behind the scenes, the russian billionaire - roman abramovich. today, the kremlin... there was some hope associated with him in the early months of putin's aggression against ukraine that he might be useful as some form of intermediary in some kind of negotiations and so on. but i think nearly two years down the road, as the war rages on, we can see that it's largely a false hope. it's pretty useless, and he should be sanctioned. he's one of the major enablers of the putin system, who still evades us sanctions, and i think that should be corrected. and are there lessons from this story for the uk and the network of industries that has arisen to profit from foreign money of questionable provenance? we still haven't done enough to rid ourselves of these ill—gotten rubles and other currencies from around the world. we've taken action against the banks, but it's the enablers. we need to deal with the estate agents, the accountants, the lawyers, all these people who've created for themselves an industry around these high—net—worth individuals who stole their money from the russian people, who stole their money from people around the world, who... imagine what could have been achieved, had that money been invested in the futures of those countries instead. despite attempts to contact mr abramovich, mr roldugin and mr plekhov for a comment, we did not get a response. the true relationship between the oligarch and the president comes into focus and raises uncomfortable questions about how it was facilitated and concealed for so long, and who it profited. the white house said tonight that it has its own intelligence that hamas was using al—shifa hospital in gaza city to run its military operations, and probably to store weapons, saying those actions constituted a war crime. in the last hour, hamas — recognised, of course, as a terrorist group by many western nations — responded to say america's statement gave a green light to israel to "commit further brutal massacres, targeting hospitals, with the goal of destroying gaza's healthcare system". tonight, israeli forces surround the hospital where a mass grave has been dug to bury patients who have not been able to have family burials because of the intense fighting. hundreds of patients have little food or water, there are babies dependent on incubators which hospital staff say are now no longer working, medical staff, and ordinary gazans, are all trapped in the hospital. here's mark, with what we know. the fate of gaza's hospitals has now becomes a major matter of international concern, with president biden insisting "they must be protected", and the belligerents waging information warfare about those inside. israeli advances in gaza have brought bombardments to the gates of the indonesian and al-quds hospitals. but it's the biggest complex, the al—shifa, which is now key to what happens next. hamas says there are 650 patients and around 6,000 others sheltering there. the israelis argue that the number sheltering is smaller, maybe 2,000, and have said since the outset that hamas uses tunnels underneath the hospital as a headquarters. the israelis have released footage of palestinians with a rocket—propelled grenade, using the al-quds hospital as cover. and yesterday, they showed soldiers delivering 300 litres of fuel to the al—shifa for use in its generators. independent analysts have verified both bits of footage. but the palestinians say it was too dangerous to get the fuel deposited outside by the israelis and that the amount was completely inadequate to serve their generators for any significant amount of time. the complex itself is now tightly encircled. moving from one building to another inside the hospital is a risk and he said even, like, burying the people is a risk because tanks are surrounding the hospital from all around the four... i mean, the hospital is quite big. i've been to this hospital hundreds of times. it's about, like, six, seven huge buildings in one complex and it's facing four directions. i mean, tanks were in three directions up until yesterday. but overnight, he said tanks are also close to the main gate of the hospital. inside, they've released pictures of premature babies removed from incubators because of the power shortage, saying some have died. israel has countered with images of incubators it says it can deliver. the problem, evidently, is with fuel, not the actual equipment. fuel shortages are also being blamed by humanitarian organisations for having to shut down a water de—salination plant. the israelis have mocked those agencies for saying that they were about to run out of fuel for weeks now. you may remember a couple of weeks ago, a big un agency saying it would start to shut down the next day. so how have they kept going? evidently, there were some stores of fuel under the control of hamas and the un. but we've also heard that in the last couple of weeks, some fuel shipments have been distributed in gaza, under the auspices of a united nations agency, un 0perations, or unops. neither side was keen to publicise this — the israelis having said early on that not a drop would get in until hostages were released, and the palestinians not wanting to flag up that some generators were being kept running with israeli cooperation. but in the last couple of days, fuel shortages have caused the closure of the al-quds hospital and greatly hampered other facilities too. so why is fuel now not reaching the shifa hospital? with israeli troops closely surrounding it and intermittent exchanges of gunfire, it mayjust be too dangerous. that question of safety also applies to why ambulances haven't been used to evacuate palestinian patients down the two routes that are now subject to periodic ceasefires. efforts are under way to build additional field hospitals in the south, as well as hospital ships from italy, turkey, and france being en route. there are logistic and security questions to be resolved, but both sides right now see the shifa hospital as a powerful symbol of control. it may also be that the issue has become linked again with the release of hostages, that fuel is deliberately being held up by israel as part of a negotiation. once again, there's speculation about a possible phased release of those kidnapped people being linked to a humanitarian ceasefire — rumours fed by president biden today. any decision by israel to enter the shifa hospital in the coming hours could be linked to the progress, or otherwise, of the hostage negotiation. joining us now is mark regev, senior advisor to the israel prime minister. thank you forjoining us. just repeating what the white house said, they have the intelligence that hamas is using al—shifa as a military headquarters. hamas is using al-shifa as a military headquarters.- hamas is using al-shifa as a military headquarters. what israel has been saying — military headquarters. what israel has been saying for— military headquarters. what israel has been saying for some - military headquarters. what israel has been saying for some time - military headquarters. what israel. has been saying for some time now. however, there are hundreds of sick babies, there are ordinary gazans and doctors and nurses, can you tell us that the israeli defense forces will not try and go into the hospital? i will not try and go into the hospital?— will not try and go into the hosital? .., , ., ., hospital? i can tell you that we have offered _ hospital? i can tell you that we have offered fuel _ hospital? i can tell you that we have offered fuel for _ hospital? i can tell you that we have offered fuel for the - hospital? i can tell you that we i have offered fuel for the hospital, for the incubators for the babies. that was refused by hamas and hamas pressure. and we have also offered to help evacuate the hospital, as was done with the other hospital, the rantisi hospital, that was also refused. quite frankly, even the babies, we could have had ambulances or something like that take them out and it could have been done. but hamas is interested in a humanitarian catastrophe. it is their way of putting pressure for a ceasefire. it is clear what they want, we are hitting them hard, they want, we are hitting them hard, they want a ceasefire. but want, we are hitting them hard, they want a ceasefire.— want a ceasefire. but joe biden said toda that want a ceasefire. but joe biden said today that no _ want a ceasefire. but joe biden said today that no matter _ want a ceasefire. but joe biden said today that no matter hamas - want a ceasefire. but joe biden said| today that no matter hamas actions, hospitals and patients must be protected. we want no firefights in hospitals. so i ask you again, will the idf not go into al—shifa, will there be no firefights in hospitals? ijust there be no firefights in hospitals? i just want to finish my previous pointjust one second, please. hamas has torpedoed deliberately all attempts to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in the hospital. but as your question, we do not target hospitals, we target hamas. but it is clear to everyone hamas has built an elaborate military structure underneath the hospital, a subterranean network of bunkers, command posts and rocket launching sites that goes for kilometre after kilometre after kilometre —— but to answer your question. this has been confirmed by the americans and i dare say that i believe, i know that the population of gaza city knows this very well, too. if the population of gaza city knows this very well, too.— the population of gaza city knows this very well, too. if the idf were to no this very well, too. if the idf were to go into — this very well, too. if the idf were to go into al-shifa _ this very well, too. if the idf were to go into al-shifa hospital, - this very well, too. if the idf were to go into al-shifa hospital, theyl to go into al—shifa hospital, they could not protect patients, nurses and doctors, no matter what hamas does with nurses, patients and doctors, if the idf went in, you could not protect patients, nurses and doctors. joe biden is saying the hospitals are not to be used in such a way. hospitals are not to be used in such a wa . . hospitals are not to be used in such a wa , . ., ., hospitals are not to be used in such a wa . . ., ., �* hospitals are not to be used in such awa. . . . �* a way. once again, i didn't say we were going _ a way. once again, i didn't say we were going to _ a way. once again, i didn't say we were going to go _ a way. once again, i didn't say we were going to go into _ a way. once again, i didn't say we were going to go into the - a way. once again, i didn't say we | were going to go into the hospital. i am just asking if you are not going to go in. there are more than 200 hostages, many of whom are israeli. how can you be sure that some of those hostages are not at al—shifa hospital? ladle some of those hostages are not at al-shifa hospital?— some of those hostages are not at al-shifa hospital? we cannot be 100% sure where al-shifa hospital? we cannot be 10096 sure where the — al-shifa hospital? we cannot be 10096 sure where the hostages _ al-shifa hospital? we cannot be 10096 sure where the hostages are _ sure where the hostages are unfortunately. we have intelligence, but we cannot be 100% sure where they all love. there was information that when the hostages were taken, they were taken first to the hospital. —— where they all are. from there, they were distributed to other places. this is another sign hamas has used the hospital as its command and control underneath the hospital. and anyone who has concerns about the hospital as i do and the israeli government does, ultimately, who has turned the hospital into a war zone? it is hamas. we have no intention of attacking the hospital. 0ur enemy is not the patients in the hospital, our enemy is hamas. and we will be a surgical as is possible in a complex combat situation. we distinguish between hamas who is our enemy and the innocent civilians in the hospital, of course we don't target them. ., . , hospital, of course we don't target them. ., ., , ,., hospital, of course we don't target them. ., ., , ., them. you have 'ust said you have absolutely no _ them. you have just said you have absolutely no intention _ them. you have just said you have absolutely no intention of- them. you have just said you have | absolutely no intention of attacking the hospital. but the terrible truth is if there is a firefight in that hospital, you will lose doctors, nurses, patients, babies. you may also lose hostages. and in a way, the problem with that is that these hostages who had such a terrible, terrible ordeal for the last five weeks and for their families, the very idea that they could be in that hospital and in even greater danger is so terrifying for them. edi hospital and in even greater danger is so terrifying for them.— is so terrifying for them. of course we have to — is so terrifying for them. of course we have to take _ is so terrifying for them. of course we have to take all— is so terrifying for them. of course we have to take all these - we have to take all these things into consideration. but we have to be clear, our goal in this operation is to destroy hamas �*s military machine and that cannot be done without destroying their network of underground tunnels that are under this hospital. 0nce underground tunnels that are under this hospital. once again, we have to be a surgical as we can in a difficult combat situation. you seem to be saying — difficult combat situation. you seem to be saying you _ difficult combat situation. you seem to be saying you will— difficult combat situation. you seem to be saying you will be _ difficult combat situation. you seem to be saying you will be surgical- to be saying you will be surgical and there will be some form of attack. at the same time, i want to ask you about the hostages because in parallel with everything going on on the ground, we understand there are negotiations for the release of the hostages. as we know, there have not been any releases for some time now. can you give us any sense of where these negotiations are? weill. where these negotiations are? well, obviousl , where these negotiations are? well, obviously. i— where these negotiations are? well, obviously, i cannot _ where these negotiations are? well, obviously, i cannot go _ where these negotiations are? well, obviously, i cannot go into _ where these negotiations are? -tt obviously, i cannot go into too much detail, but i can say the following. if there is now more optimism that a hostage release could be forthcoming. 0nce hostage release could be forthcoming. once again, we're not there yet. but if there is more optimism, it is precisely because hamas has been put under massive pressure. they kidnapped about 240 people, of which 32 are children. they kidnapped babies, they kidnapped infants. disgusting behaviour. they showed us who they are. what sort of people kidnapped babies and infants? we believe the pressure on hamas, the military pressure on hamas, the military pressure we are playing now will expedite the release of hostages. because hamas has to understand this is the only way... i because hamas has to understand this is the only way- - -_ is the only way... i am so sorry to interrupt. — is the only way... i am so sorry to interrupt. we _ is the only way... i am so sorry to interrupt, we have _ is the only way... i am so sorry to interrupt, we have run _ is the only way... i am so sorry to interrupt, we have run out - is the only way... i am so sorry to interrupt, we have run out of- is the only way... i am so sorry to l interrupt, we have run out of time, thank you forjoining us, mark regev. before we go, we started tonight with a sense of problems tomorrow for the prime minister. nick's back now with details on what could be an equally challenging day for keir starmer, as he faces down critics within his own party who want him to call for a ceasefire in gaza. nick. sorry, we had to cut off mark regev because you have news. in sorry, we had to cut off mark regev because you have news.— because you have news. in the last 30 minutes. _ because you have news. in the last 30 minutes. we — because you have news. in the last 30 minutes, we have _ because you have news. in the last 30 minutes, we have seen - because you have news. in the last 30 minutes, we have seen the - because you have news. in the last i 30 minutes, we have seen the labour amendment to the king's speech tomorrow on gaza and we are seeing some movement by keir starmer. until now, he has been saying no to an immediate ceasefire and jester humanitarian pause is. this is what he is saying tomorrow and hopefully we can see this, the importance of daily humanitarian pause is and crucially, he says, they must belong to do —— to deliver humanitarian assistance on a scale that begins to meet the desperate needs of the goals people. and that is a necessary step to an enduring cessation of fighting. talking to people close to keir starmer, they say no change in the principle, it is wrong to have an immediate ceasefire because that would freeze the conflict in favour of hamas. but they are saying he's recognising the changes taking place in the two weeks since he delivered his big speech on this at chatham house. his language is designed