of the alleged proposed changes were workable, but some went beyond what the group had previously agreed to in talks for a ceasefire. speaking in qatar wednesday, secretary blinken reiterated that hamas was the party holding back an agreement. a deal was on the table that was virtually identical to the proposal that hamas put forward on may 6th. a deal that the entire world was behind, a deal israel has accepted, and hamas could have answered with a single word, "yesi._ instead, hamas waited nearly two weeks, and then proposed more changes, a number of which go beyond positions it had previously taken and accepted. the senior hamas official mentioned earlier responded to secretary blinken. osama hamdan told the bbc that mr blinken is part of the problem, not the solution. he said hamas designated a terrorist organization by the us maintains its demands for a permanent ceasefire and a complete withdrawal of israeli forces from gaza. that's a slight variation from the three—phased plan put forth byjoe biden, where phase one involves an initial six—week ceasefire, an undefined number of hostage and prisoner released, as well as a withdrawal of israeli forces "from all populated areas of gaza". that's followed by phase two, which includes all remaining hostages released and a full israeli withdrawal from gaza. and phase three, which involves a reconstruction plan for gaza. as we heard from secretary blinken, israel accepts that plan, but prime minister netanyahu has stood firm that the war won't be over until hamas is completely defeated, leaving an agreement very much in the balance, as jon donnison reports. i don't think this deal is dead, but it's not looking terribly healthy. there's no doubt that the americans, the qataris, the egyptians, the world really, wants this deal to go ahead. but the two people who really matter, the people who are calling the shots are prime minister benjamin netanyahu, here in israel and yahya sinwar, the hamas leader in gaza. and it doesn't really seem like either of them are committed to what the americans are saying they have agreed to. so the key issues that there's disagreement on, are phase two of the proposal that was announced byjoe biden a few weeks ago. so that would involve the complete withdrawal of israeli forces from gaza and a permanent ceasefire between israel and hamas. now, hamas is seeking greater reassurances, guarantees that that is going to happen. they don't trust that israel will stick to that. and the truth is that although america says that israel has signed up to that, benjamin netanyahu has not said that publicly. he's not said that explicitly. and he knows that if he were to do that, there are people within his government on the extreme right of his coalition who have said they will pull out of the government and that would mean fresh elections and possibly the end of benjamin netanyahu's time in power. so the americans seem to think this deal is close. theyjust need to push a little bit harder. they're going to continue, they say, to put pressure on the qataris and the egyptians to put pressure on hamas. but it really doesn't feel like on the ground, it's terribly close at the moment. i spoke to lieutenant general mark schwartz, former us security coordinator for israel and the palestinian authority. what do we know about the changes proposed by hamas? i think the principal negotiating position hamas is trying to bring forward is the full withdrawal of israeli security forces from the gaza strip which candidly would result in chaos if that occurred because there is no other security entity to take its place and you certainly do not want to have hamas re—establish security and control within the gaza strip. so i think that is the principal negotiating position that they are holding steadfast to at this point. an anonymous official speak into the palestinian armed groups response amounted to a rejection. what do you think the qatari and egyptian mediators and partners in the region can do at this point if secretary blinken is to some extent hitting a wall? i certainly do not have the benefit of being inside the internal discussions but my concern is that there is not a lot of leverage i think that we have with the hamas terrorist leadership, either inside hamas or other political entities of the terrorist organisations or movement outside of gaza. i think a guarantee by qatar or egypt that will be passed on by the israeli government that hamas could somehow be allowed to remain in governance of gaza would certainly bolster the negotiating position to the benefit of hamas but i do not think it is realistic at this point and goes contrary to the strategic objectives that the prime minister of israel has laid out, that the us president and i think many in the international community have supported so i think it is a very tough position right now because hamas knows that their time is limited and certainly yahya sinwar knows he is a targeted individual as well as his lieutenants and if israel had the ability to remove them now they would be doing so. that is the question, when president biden outlined this proposal, he said hamas�*s capabilities had been degraded to a point they could not launch the type of attack we saw on october seven. is that actually the case, what do we know about hamas�* capabilities at the moment? i do not agree with that statement. clearly, hamas has got the will and the resolve and the capability. certainly, you look at the significant military presence of the israeli security forces, that is certainly a deterrent for a october 7 type attack but i think it is very clear, based on the rhetoric from the hamas leadership both inside of gaza and outside, since this war began, that if they had the opportunity to carry out an attack like october 7 again, they would certainly do it. so, again, i think that was a little shortsighted to make that type of statement on behalf of another state. the israelis have the best sense of what the capability and will of hamas because they have experienced it. at the same time, they do not have not said what defeating hamas might look like. what do you think it would look like? you're not going to get rid of the ideology, certainly. that has been discussed at length. but the ability to remove hamas as the governing body inside the gaza strip, to remove hamas and palestinian islamichhad and other illegally armed groups out of the west bank as well, because in the broader context that is extremely important, remove the military capability inside the gaza strip and the west bank, those objectives can be achieved and again, it does not remove the ideology of hamas and it is an organisation potentially but it creates the security environment in which israel would feel much safer than they have since hamas took over in 2006. if this ceasefire agreement does not come to bear, what are we looking at? are we looking at months more of fighting? i think we are. it was stated by i think the chief of general staff of the idf and minister gallant. at least 7 more months given the number that have joined israel and her were accused of human rights abuses will. the report accuses israel of having committed acts including intentional attacks on civilians, murder, giving unclear evacuation orders and the attacking of evacuation routes, it gives —— at accuses hamas of indiscriminate firing towards israeli towns and city, deliberate killing and hostagetaking, the report calls on israel and hamas to stop attacking each other and release more hostages. we heard from a former ambassador at large for war crimes issues. it brings us back to the various violations that have been alleged and certainly this commission has found some proof, those are war crimes, evenit proof, those are war crimes, even it is important to note they bring the focus back on october seven, the report leads with the hamas crimes killing civilians in cold blood including children and the sexual violence and torture and hostagetaking things done intentionally they were not done accidentally and our collateral damage they are provable or crimes and crimes against humanity, dinner deals with the israeli response and goes further than the icc has gone or the icj has gone so far, and looking at the combat operations itself and saying there is intentional use of force and intentional destruction by israel and as well, it is disproportionate in many cases. this of course is a challenging area for those of us who have had to prosecute war crimes because if you deal with bombardment you are dealing with the issue of what was the target, what was the military advantage to be gained, was it disproportionate. around the world and across the uk, this is bbc news. let's look at a story making news in the uk. the conservative and labour leaders faced tough questions wednesday evening from an audience in grimsby, in their latest election campaign grilling during a sky news special. prime minister rishi sunak and sir keir starmer answered questions on various topics, and faced criticism. labour leader sir keir says his approach to tax is different from his predecessors. i accept that previous labour leaders have pulled the tax lever every single time and driven up spending. i want to grow our economy. the manifesto tomorrow it would be a manifesto and plan for wealth creation. conservative prime minister sunak was asked about what he would do for young people. what we announced yesterday in the manifesto is going to make a big difference because it is going to mean it is much easierfor young people to get on the housing ladder and buy theirfirst home. whether it is an apprenticeship, national service or buying your home it is a great opportunity around. you can find more uk election coverage on our website bbc.com/news. we have what all the parties are promising and interviews with major party leaders. you're live with bbc news. four russian naval vessels arrived in havana bay, a port in cuba, as tensions between moscow and the west grow over the war in ukraine. havana bay is just about 90 miles from the us state of florida. our media partner cbs reports the us navy used sea drones to watch the ships as they got closer to cuba. on wednesday russia's defence ministry said two of the vessels are carriers of advanced weapons, including hypersonic zircon missiles. they conducted drills earlier in the atlantic. but cuba's foreign ministry says none of those ships are carrying nuclear arms, and that russia's five day visit does not pose a threat to region. this all comes as cuba's foreign minister bruno rodriguez and his russian counterpart sergei lavrov, met in moscow. earlier i spoke with our cuba and america correspondent for more. what are cuban officials saying about this? you have heard there that they are at pains to stress that there is no threat to the region by these naval exercises. that this is simply — and they have been underlining this word — a friendship between the communist—run island and russia. that it underscores that friendship, that sense of co—orperation between long—standing allies, notjust as russia, but previously of course with the soviet union. they want to remove any senses of echoes of the cold war at such a time of heightened tensions, and focus, if you like, on the fact that there is a bilateral relationship here between russia and cuba that has nothing to do with the united states and that is where their focus is but it comes in a particularly difficult international global context of heightened tensions around the war in ukraine. why are we seeing this now? i think that is part of it, to be perfectly honest. i think if there is a message from russia to cuba it is that of friendship, of collaboration, cooperation together but if there is one from moscow to washington, it is very clearly not to meddle in our backyard because we can do the same. it is essentially saying, if you are getting involved, if you are going to continue to fund ukraine in the war in ukraine, continued to back our enemies, we will do the same with yours and they are only 90 miles off your coast. that is the global context in which it is taking place and why it's happening now. of course, that does send a sort of an echo of the cold war but american officials have been very careful to say they do not perceive this in any way as a threat to the united states, although of course they are monitoring it. indeed they have been playing it down. does this tell us more about the health of russia's relationship with cuba and latin america than it does washington's? i do. basically what it says at the moment in many ways is that the us has taken its eye off the ball in the americas, not just in cuba and the caribbean, but across the region. the next place these warships are expected to go is cuba's ally, venezuela. let's not forget, the last time we saw ships or one of the last times we saw ships coming into havana bay, they were us cruise ships coming in with a sense of a new future a sense of detente between the old enemies during the obama administration. of course, all of that was cancelled under president trump. the change if you like for observers in havana to watch the same stretch of water where those cruise ship came in with a sense of a new future now being replaced by russian warships was lost on nobody, let's say. has there been any reaction in the rest of the region, in latin america to this incident? not specifically or at least not that i have seen. what we can certainly imagine is that it would be applauded by cuba's allies, particularly nicolas maduro in venezuela, long—standing allies, daniel ortega in nicaragua, they will always be celebrating this kind of a relationship and the strengthening of it. interestingly, you speak to cubans on the streets about what they feel about it and they would far rather see economic backing from russia at this time than military backing. i spoke with ryan bird the director of the american �*s programme for the centre for strategic studies. we talked about about the message that russia is sending to washington, what do you think that messages? i washington, what do you think that messages?— that messages? i think you cannot separate _ that messages? i think you cannot separate this - that messages? i think you i cannot separate this particular activity from the moment in time in which it occurs, we are 2.5 weeks out from when the biden administration revealed it is along with our european allies allowing weapons that have been given to ukraine, to fire into russia as an effort to protect areas around kharkhiv and the russians said immediately vladimir putin gave a press conference in which she said why would we not arm russia friendly countries and allow them to pose the same kind of threat to the united states. i think this is a power projection exercise for russia and the western hemisphere, it is being able to show we can be in the semis —— hemisphere just as you can be in our theatre in europe. as you can be in our theatre in euro e. ,, as you can be in our theatre in euroe. ,, , as you can be in our theatre in euroe. ,, ., , ., europe. the us says it does not see this as _ europe. the us says it does not see this as a — europe. the us says it does not see this as a threat _ europe. the us says it does not see this as a threat but - europe. the us says it does not see this as a threat but what. see this as a threat but what response could receive from washington?— response could receive from washinuton? , , .,, washington? the response has been so far— washington? the response has been so far a _ washington? the response has been so far a good _ washington? the response has been so far a good one, - been so far a good one, measured and not overplaying the role of russia in the region, it has been appropriate and rather calculated, we are looking to see what the russians are up to, the canadians are helping to keep surveillance with this, we have tailored them the entire way neighbourly and airily. you say russia's ties _ neighbourly and airily. you say russia's ties in _ neighbourly and airily. you say russia's ties in the _ neighbourly and airily. you say russia's ties in the region - neighbourly and airily. you say russia's ties in the region howj russia's ties in the region how close is russia to cuba and some of its allies like cuba and venezuela.— some of its allies like cuba and venezuela. , . ., , and venezuela. they are in many cases the only — and venezuela. they are in many cases the only allies _ and venezuela. they are in many cases the only allies the - cases the only allies the russians have in the region, they maintain relations with other countries but these are deep ties with the region the country is the russians visit before they are about to commit aggression and their immediate abroad in europe, every time the russians commit aggression in europe it is preceded by a visit to allies in the region, cuba, nicaragua and venezuela to show we have allies close to the united states, sphere of influence and they will back us with whatever activity we undertake in the european theatre. ~ , , theatre. do you think this is also a reflection _ theatre. do you think this is also a reflection of - theatre. do you think this is i also a reflection of washington losing influence in the region, and latin america? i losing influence in the region, and latin america?— and latin america? i certainly think washington _ and latin america? i certainly think washington has - and latin america? i certainly think washington has had - and latin america? i certainly think washington has had its| think washington has had its eye off the ball for a while within our own neighbourhood in the western hemisphere, no doubt about that successive present since of both parties have taken their eye off the ball but cuba has been one of those countries that has for a long time, we have had a bipartisan strategy towards cuba that has not managed to effect the type of change we would all like to see in cuba over the years. but russia is certainly doubling down in recent years on its support for cuba because cuba is going through a tremendously difficult time right now with its economic situation and the russians have been there and in recent months they have actually been trading with crew —— trading with cuba more than they have many years especially they have many years especially the energy sector providing them vital energy and oil they need to keep their economy afloat. ., , ., need to keep their economy afloat. . , ., , ., ., afloat. that is a question our correspondence _ afloat. that is a question our correspondence was - afloat. that is a question our- correspondence was mentioning, cubans want to see economic support from russia with this partnership, what can russia provide cuba in return? 50 partnership, what can russia provide cuba in return? so far it has been — provide cuba in return? so far it has been oil, _ provide cuba in return? so far it has been oil, there - provide cuba in return? so far it has been oil, there has - provide cuba in return? so far| it has been oil, there has been a lot of pledges many have noted around this context, pledges for investment in a number of areas pledges for investment in a number ofareas up pledges for investment in a number of areas up to and including hotels for tourism, and cuba we have seen russian citizens blocking two places like cuba for vacations as they are shut out of a lot of countries in europe, however much of that financing is yet to materialise from the russians and i think it is obvious why. they are busier spending money on the war effort in ukraine. we spending money on the war effort in ukraine.— spending money on the war effort in ukraine. we have also seen an expanding _ effort in ukraine. we have also seen an