than larger munitions. us officials have pushed israel to use these bombs rather than heavier ones, in order to reduce the risk of civilian casualties. the white house made clear it would limit weapons supplies to israel, if forces entered rafah�*s "population centres" or launched a major ground operation. hugo bachega has more. the remarks by the israeli national security adviser appeared to reject the idea that we could be near the end of the war in gaza. he said fighting might continue for at least the rest of the year — although he didn't give details about how intense the conflict might be. now all eyes are rafah, near the border with egypt. the israeli authorities say it is vital to enter the city because they believe four hamas battalions are still operating there. but israel is under a lot of international pressure to limit its operations in the city to minimise civilian casualties, and officials are describing what's happening there as a "limited operation". still, scores of palestinians have been killed in recent days, and the un says more than one million people have fled rafah because they are concerned that the israeli military may launch a full—scale operation. virtually everyone outside israel — including the united states, which is the country's main ally — is against the idea of a major operation in rafah, because they fear that this could have a catastrophic impact on the civilian population, so the main phase of this operation is still to come. now, hamas still holds many israeli hostages, and recent efforts to try to reach a deal for those hostages to be released in order for a cease—fire in gaza have collapsed. so, as the israeli national security adviser suggested, the indications are that we are still far from the end of the war in gaza. joining me live now is former pentagon correspondent barbara starr. barbara, great to have you back on the bbc. i want to start on those reports by cnn and other us media saying that us weapons were likely used in this strike that killed dozens of people on sunday. if those reports are true, what do you think the fallout will be here?- true, what do you think the fallout will be here? well, i think it'll— fallout will be here? well, i think it'll clearly _ fallout will be here? well, i think it'll clearly add - fallout will be here? well, i think it'll clearly add to - fallout will be here? well, i think it'll clearly add to the | think it'll clearly add to the pressure on israel. but look, but we are talking about is so—called precision guided bombs, laser—guided bombs by the israelis, they see the target they are aiming at, they let the bomb go from there launch platform and it drops to the ground. but it's supposed to be a military target, not a refugee camp, not an area where there are civilians over a wide area. because it's going to hit what it's aimed at because of this guidance system, this position that these kinds of weapons have. so if they are going to use them in this kinds of areas, this is what will happen — and that's what we'll add to the pressure on israel, because you either go in on the ground and ratified and have a major operation, oryou ground and ratified and have a major operation, or you do it from the air. —— on the ground in rafah. history shows us air campaigns rarely if ever win the war or the object is a country has in going to war. this will be a very tough fall, and it's tough on the biden administration. unassailable us support for israel — but they don't want to see this happen, and they've already halted or postponed some weapons deliveries. we have to wait and see if they're doing that again. see if they're doing that a . ain. see if they're doing that aaain. . ., , see if they're doing that aaain. , , ., , again. of course it should be said that _ again. of course it should be said that israel _ again. of course it should be said that israel says - again. of course it should be said that israel says this - said that israel says this strike did kill two senior hamas officials. now president biden, as we heard, drew this red line earlier this month, warning against an israeli invasion of wrath, saying his policy might change if that were to happen —— invasion of wrath. where does that redline light, and how will the white house go about explaining where it is —— invasion of wrath i. that's the tough part, not the first president or us official to talk about redlines in a war zone. we can recall president obama talking about redlines vis—a—vis syria at one point, and these redlines, the cliche is they can turn pink as time goes on, they become more flexible. this week, we saw the national security spokesman john kirby actually asked by a reporter, what does this redline mean? how many bodies are you willing to see a pile of? and kirby became a bit agitated, if you will, at the answer, saying no civilian casualties are what they want to see — that's not realistic in a war zone, you won't see that from the israelis. so again, what you're seeing is a very tough spot for the biden administration, especially as these days tick down to the us election and all the controversy across this country hear about us support for israel, and us support for the palestinians. if israel does a major operation in wrath, if we see another one of these incidences —— in rafah, it'll be tougher president biden to come to any kind of decision on what, if anything he wants to do to change us policy towards israel. �* a ., do to change us policy towards israel. �* ., , israel. and barbara, 'ust lookinu israel. and barbara, 'ust looking ahead, �* israel. and barbara, 'ust looking ahead, we h israel. and barbara, just looking ahead, we heard israel. and barbara, just i looking ahead, we heard a senior israeli official saying this work at last through the end of the year — what might a drawn—out conflict mean for the parties involved here, for the us, israel, and hamas and the palestinians living in gaza? {iii palestinians living in gaza? of course it's the palestinians living there that will obviously suffer the most, won't they? i think we all know that, unless something fundamentally changes on the escape of aid delivery into gaza, which does not appear to be likely, and a plan for after the war. a lot of behind—the—scenes pressure for israel to develop a day after gaza plan, if you will. what will you do about governance and infrastructure about providing goods and services, about a political structure in gaza? but i think, before you can even get there, it still comes down to the notion to eradicate, which is the israeli goal, a terrorist group, israeli goal again, the use of military powerfrom israeli goal again, the use of military power from the air and ground — it's something the us has a long and sad history of not achieving in iraq and afghanistan. the israelis have been cautioned an awful lot by senior, senior us military officials and national security officials and national security officials to be very careful about this. what even is eradicating gaza? —— pardon me, her erratic democrat eradicate and hamas? how will you do that? we've already seen hamas come back in the areas that israelis thought they had cleared and moved on —— eradicating hamas. cleared and moved on -- eradicating hamas. barbara, thank you — eradicating hamas. barbara, thank you very _ eradicating hamas. barbara, thank you very much. - eradicating hamas. barbara, l thank you very much. thanks. day one ofjury deliberations in donald trump's hush—money trial has wrapped up without a verdict. thejurors — seven men and five women — will return to court on thursday. they're tasked with deciding whether the former us president is guilty of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to adult film star stormy daniels. just hours after the jury began meeting behind closed doors, they returned to the courtroom to request to re—hear testimony from david pecker, publisher of the tabloid the national enquirer. he testified early—on in the trial about a "catch—and—kill" scheme to buy and bury stories that might harm mr trump's political campaign. before deliberations began, judgejuan merchan, told jurors they should set aside whatever bias they might have about mr trump, and only consider the evidence presented in court. during the six—week trial, the jurors heard from 22 witnesses, including miss daniels, who described in detail the 2006 sexual encounter she says she had with the former president — mr trump denies the affair. and from michael cohen, donald trump's former attorney and fixer, who paid ms daniels $130,000 to allegedly buy her silence shortly before the 2016 presidential election. the defence argued the case was built on lies told by mr cohen — a point mr trump echoed while speaking earlier. mother teresa could not beat these charges. - these charges are rigged, the whole thing is rigged. | the whole country's a mess, between the borders - and the fake elections. and you have a triali like this with a judge who's so conflicted, he can't breathe. i he's gotta do hisjob — and it's not for me, i that i can tell you. n-s a disgrace - — and i mean that, motherteresa could not beat those charges, but we'll see. _ mr trump faces 3a charges of falisfying business records, which he has pleaded not guilty to. if convicted, he could face anything from a large fine — to prison time, although that is unlikely. and donald trump would become the first major—party candidate to run for president as a felon. 0ur correspondent nada tawfik has more from outside the new york courthouse. the jury went home without reaching a verdict on the first day, deliberating for nearly five hours. the judge started off the morning by instructing them, telling them to not let any bias against donald trump get in the way and to decide this case on the facts. and he instructed them that they need to find two parts to find donald trump guilty. first, that he personally or in concert with others falsified business records. and secondly, that he did that to conceal and with intent to conceal another crime. they said that other crime could include a violation of new york or federal election law, or even tax violations. and he also told them that they can't convict donald trump on michael cohen's word alone. he said under the law, michael cohen is an accomplice and they must find corroborating evidence to back up his testimony. well, jurors got the deliberations under way. the first time they were able to discuss the evidence after nearly five weeks of testimony, hearing from 22 witnesses. and after about three—and—a—half hours, they came back with a note asking to see testimony from the first witness in the trial under the prosecution's case, the former publisher of the national enquirer, david pecker. they also wanted testimony read back to them from the prosecution's star witness, michael cohen. they were concerned about an august 2015 meeting in trump tower, a meeting which prosecutors said was where the so—called "catch and kill" scheme was formulated, where david pecker would notify michael cohen about any negative stories about donald trump to try to buy them and then bury them — and all of that to help donald trump's campaign. so the jury, clearly wanting a closer look at what was said in that meeting with pecker, cohen and donald trump. they also want to see pecker�*s testimony from a call he had with donald trump, where trump allegedly told him that he knew karen mcdougal and also testimony where pecker said he ultimately abandoned a plan to be reimbursed by trump for paying karen mcdougal, the former playboy model, hush money to also stay quiet about her story. and then after a bit more time, jurors had another note for thejudge asking that he reread his instructions to them from the morning. all of this signalling that the jury is taking their job extremely seriously. these notes are common during deliberations when jurors have additional questions and want clarification. but here we are, day one of deliberations down, and they will return again to resume those deliberations on what will be a historic decision. earlier i spoke to kelly hyman, a trial attorney and analyst. it's great to have you here with us. those jury deliberations wrapping up with us. thosejury deliberations wrapping up for the day — can you take us inside thejury room? the day — can you take us inside the jury room? what can we expect to actually take place there? what are those discussions like? so place there? what are those discussions like?— discussions like? so this is the first time _ discussions like? so this is the first time that - discussions like? so this is the first time that the - discussions like? so this is| the first time that the jury's had the opportunity to discuss this case. before then, they weren't supposed to discuss it. so prior to them going into the jury so prior to them going into the jury room, thejudge read jury instructions for about an hour, basically laying out what certain factors that the judge told them, also explained in to them on the law as well. so some of the things that the judge told them was that they must decide this case based on the evidence that was presented to them. they can't hold anything against trump for not testifying, and that the people must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime. �* , . doubt every element of the crime. �*, ., , crime. it's a complex case, we saw many _ crime. it's a complex case, we saw many pieces _ crime. it's a complex case, we saw many pieces of— crime. it's a complex case, we saw many pieces of evidence, | saw many pieces of evidence, some 22 different witnesses called during this trial — what you think will be the key points that these jurors during these deliberations will focus in on? . ., in on? the evidence. so what we know so far _ in on? the evidence. so what we know so far from _ in on? the evidence. so what we know so far from the _ in on? the evidence. so what we know so far from the jury - in on? the evidence. so what we know so far from the jury room l know so far from the jury room — of course, they are discussing the case — that they have asked for certain evidence back. now all thejurors have with them is the evidence that the document evidence, but they do not have the jury instructions or the testimony. so what we've heard so far, that the jurors have asked for four separate parts of witness testimony, including the national enquirer on david pecker and on trump's fixer, michael cohen.— michael cohen. these deliberations - michael cohen. these deliberations will - michael cohen. these - deliberations will continue, it could be days, weeks or months — do you have a sense whether a longer deliberation by the story is a good sign for mr trump, ora bad sign? story is a good sign for mr trump, or a bad sign? there's different schools _ trump, or a bad sign? there's different schools of _ trump, or a bad sign? there's different schools of thought i trump, or a bad sign? there's| different schools of thought on this. the one school of thought is the fact that the longer the jury is the fact that the longer the jury deliberates, that there is one, two, multiple people who don't agree with the majority. so that could potentially be a hung jury. so that could potentially be a hungjury. in so that could potentially be a hung jury. in other school of thought is the fact that they are taking so long because, as you said, this is a very complex case, there are 3a counts in this case — so they are meticulously going through each one of the counts and the evidence to make sure that the evidence to make sure that the evidence backs up the causes of action. ., ., ., action. you mentioned one potential— action. you mentioned one potential outcome - action. you mentioned one potential outcome here - l action. you mentioned one i potential outcome here - that potential outcome here — that would be a hung jury, that the jury would be a hung jury, that the jury can't come to an agreement. just remind us, but are the potential outcomes here? ,, ,., are the potential outcomes here? ,, ., ., here? sure, so one potential outcome _ here? sure, so one potential outcome is — here? sure, so one potential outcome is the _ here? sure, so one potential outcome is the jury - here? sure, so one potential outcome is the jury convicts l here? sure, so one potential. outcome is the jury convicts on all three for crimes. another one is thejury all three for crimes. another one is the jury convicts, but not on all 3a of the counts. now potentially, this could happen because some of the checks were signed by trump and some were not. so they could come back and say, "the ones he signed, we'll find him guilty on those, but on the other ones we won't." and possible one is that all 12 of them decide the state did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt — so then he would be not guilty. the last one would be a hung jury, that after hours of deliberating, days after deliberating, days after deliberating, coming back to try one more time, coming back and saying, "your honour, we tried, we can't agree." then at that point, it would be a hung jury. that point, it would be a hung 'u _ . , , that point, it would be a hung jury. briefly, 'ust looking ahead, let's _ jury. briefly, just looking ahead, let's say - jury. briefly, just looking ahead, let's say the - jury. briefly, just looking ahead, let's say the jury| jury. briefly, just looking - ahead, let's say the jury does come back with a guilty verdict - i come back with a guilty verdict — i think a lot of our viewers want to know, what happens next? does that mean we will see a former president of the us actually in so i'm sort of jail or prison? if us actually in so i'm sort of jail or prison?— jail or prison? if he is convicted, _ jail or prison? if he is convicted, ultimatelyj jail or prison? if he is - convicted, ultimately that will be up to the judge. now most likely if he's convicted, since trump is first—time offender, that most likely he would not do jail time. that most likely he would not dojailtime. so that most likely he would not dojail time. so that do jail time. so that potentially dojail time. so that potentially could happen. do jailtime. so that potentially could happen. thank ou so potentially could happen. thank you so much — potentially could happen. thank you so much for— potentially could happen. thank you so much for walking - potentially could happen. thank you so much for walking us - you so much for walking us through that, and we'll be watching as the second day of those deliberations takes place tomorrow. thank you very much for your time. tomorrow. thank you very much for your time-— for your time. great to see ou. around the world and across the uk, this is bbc news. let's look at another story making news. rishi sunak has been campaigning in south west england. he pledged his party would replace what he called "rip—off" university degrees and fund 100,000 more apprenticeships instead. the south west is a key battle ground for the conservatives. 0ur political editor chris mason has been following the prime minister on the campaign trail. first up, a rail maintenance depot to talk up his idea on apprenticeships in england. a future conservative government will take the bold action of closing down underperforming university degrees that are letting our young people down, and instead using that money to fund 100,000 new high—quality apprenticeships. meet, greet, talk, and move on is the rhythm for all the party leaders out and about. meanwhile, labour's diane abbott said "the national party is insisting" she be banned from being a labour candidate in the general election. she was suspen