Its got to be much more subtle than that. It got to be about helping each side see where there might be limited areas where they could work together. Im not the great believer in the grand bargain. Now sit down and have a discussion about every in. It is unlikely to be good but they will be some areas where people have quite significant differences and nonetheless have it limited junior level of communication which delivers from a practical benefit to both sides. We will obviously return in some detail of course and the next session. The secretary has made it very clear [inaudible] there is a general concern that we seem to lack a strategy on the full spectrum response with their business is taking them on when it comes to do social media before we even get into iraq with the iraq ema to make significant programs and indeed perhaps a more direct relationship with the kurds in trying to combat. The putting all that aside can you tell us what you would hope to achieve from participation by u. K. Aircraft and airstrikes in syria given the contribution would be limited to americans already putting in come even if you put inside the legalities, and also take into account that air power without effect is land forces is unlikely to succeed as most military commentators would expect. The key to this is seen in iraq and syria as a single theater at the moment for our military operation in a limited set of permissions that stop the artificial border. As far as the enemy is concerned there is no borderline on the iraq syria border, but we are operating onesided at delivering lethal strike and on the other side of a delivering surveillance and reconnaissance only. I think there are a number of points. On any logical assessment that his military action militarily inefficient. They are operating unarmed. If it acquires target information common to does then got to target another asset belonging to a Coalition Partner to make the effect give him a strike if that is required. There is this some old efficiency logic about being able to conduct operations. More importantly, it is difficult to see how dinesh will be effect to be militarily defeated without being defeated and its home. So the fed eventually has to go over the iraq order into syria. At the moment the u. K. Commissions have limited to iraq. [inaudible] lately artificially and that without ground horses, you dont really expect to defeat daish stir airstrikes alone. There are Ground Forces. They are being painstakingly rebuilt. In defense of the kr gene as the various shia militias which re spoken about her playing a role. The fact that now im not suggesting they have an op tamale configured set of Ground Forces in the region but im equally clear object in western boots on the ground as you said would not be a solution. I would not deliver the solution. So far there shows western boots on the ground. We are complaining serious when it comes to military intervention. Inside man [inaudible] thank you, mr. Chairman. To johns point, what kind of analysis is being done for what you hope to achieve with airstrikes. Its more of a convention of Ground Forces in terms of stabilizing but we are talking about taking military action without planning subsequently been done for what happens after and what was the analysis for the situation after militarys ranks. The overall plan and syria remains to see a political transition in the machine to a government which has legitimacy from the majority of groups in syria can then take the final two daish. That is the outcome we see. It is not easy to deliver. We recognize that. In the meantime, it is easy to challenge the efficacy of airstrikes and i dont think anyone certainly in relation to this campaign has suggested the airstrikes alone can finish off the enemy. They cannot. But they have arrested may of last year i they were stopped and were still up rate more as a terrorist organization with the cellular structure rather than conventional military force because of their vulnerability to airstrike and their lack of any counter air capability. They have degraded not only military capability but prevented them from carrying out atrocities have degraded their ability to exploit economic Infrastructure Oil infrastructure in particular. And aside militating effect on their occupation of the territory. That is not the same as saying that we do more airstrike it will eventually threaten them. Of course they wont. I dont think Justice John Barron has said nobody believes airstrikes alone could destroy on the ground. I dont think any sensible military commander would be prepared to clear the ground without having the benefit of a campaign of areas delivering degradation of military capability before the boots on before the boots on the ground women. Just one quick way. When you talk about boots on the ground and syria, who are you talking about . Well, we have a longterm strategy to train and equip a moderate. Not as efficient and i would be the first to recognize that is proving a painstaking process. That has to be the way we go. There are a few different dynamics. The battle between the islamist fundamentalist and others in the battle between the regime and its defense. We have always been clear that what we must do in syria, what we dont vote for in syria is to repeat the mistakes that were made in iraq of dismantling the entire structure and leaving nothing in its place, leaving a void. What we need to do at the regime collapses, and is not precisely a . Depends what you mean by regime collapse. The institutions of the regime collapsed that night is that the effect would read and that is not the desired outcome. The desired outcome is political change to create a situation where the basic infrastructure can be preserved with their political legitimacy that is shared by all the major groups competing. Is in the British American position running the risk that the forces and institutions of the regime would collapse if the policy was successful leaving a void in making the situation as far as taking on isil significantly worse than the challenge we face today . Our political strategy is to work with other players including the russians and hopefully in the postnuclear deal will increasingly be iranians. To find a solution that allows a transition from the existing leadership to a new leadership and eventually a transition to a Democratic Syria where the regime has legitimacy. It is much to be preferred to the collapse of the regime. I recognize the pressure the regime is under, there is a risk of Something Different happening. That is our intention. That is our desired outcome. Clearly the regime is under pressure and a significant number of areas. So sorry we are short of time. I [inaudible] whether the u. K. Could be doing more and Kurdish Forces in iraq is syria. And just to remind you about the flight, particularly the people and the Kurdish Peshmerga. Who failed to assist . I think we failed to assist them. I think that its a little harsh. Last summer we delivered a considerable operation designed to rest you these cds stranded on mount in jar. We did intervene where we thought specific intervention that could be helpful. Youve asked me a number of times about the fate of the women who have been captured by isil. Im afraid to say that you see the women captured by isil. We have little clarity about what is happening. From what we do know we cannot be optimistic about their faith. We know that many women who have been captured have been effect really enslaved, and abused and maybe killed. Going back to the question of can we do more to use the military capacity of the Kurdish Peshmerga and also the peshmerga in syria. Just to be clear, we dont control peshmerga and the kurds are very clear about what they will do what they want to. They see the peshmerga primarily as a force for defending kurdish territory and further very keen kurdish populations. What they are prepared to do beyond that and supported the wider object to and deliberation in the area is limited. So we have very good relations with them, but they are quite frank about their limits on what activity they will engage in. We want to turn now to judaism. I like we will have time with questions arising. That people insist on the 26th of june didnt lead to an immediate British Government to restrict travelers advice. They change their position on the night of july. Can you tell us the reasons for that . Yes intelligence. As we embedded more and more to keep old with the authorities and as they uncovered more of the picture around this attack, the picture that we developed made us more concerned that a further attack targeting western interests was likely. Who made that decision . Was it the National Security council . I took a decision. The traveling advice is determined in the Foreign Office on any major absent a piece of travel advice. I take the ultimate decision personally. In this case i did discuss it with the dirt because we were very much aware, that this would have a Significant Impact on the economy and we have made clear we want to support every way possible but we have to put security and sanctity as our number one priority. I understand that. Other european countries, have not taken the same position and as far as i understand it tourists from france, germany at this time. Why is that weve got intelligence which gives us the view we need to evacuate british people and maybe they didnt than the irish too. Spanish changed ahead of a number of countries have changed in sweden. It also changed travel at rice. The simple answer which is the other country that has a significant amount of tourists only arrived in geneva yesterday to start doing the work we started to learn in the immediate aftermath of the attack. We have developed a picture very clearly. Our experts through the joint terrorist estimate committee hamlet at the thread and we get regular updates on the threat picture. We have to look at the scale of the threat. We have to look at the mitigation in place and we have to make a judgment on the balance of brad and mitigation whether or not we can continue to advise british terrorists that it is sensible to travel to a particular destination a decision is not at the present time. We very much hope that a combination of action the government is taking to deal with than not work behind the attack and action the government is taking to reinforce Preventative Security will allow us to revisit that decision in due course. The government was obviously publicly and privately very disappointed by the decision and clearly have terrible implications on the economy. Can you data from the discussions weve had . I understand you had a meeting with geneva and officials, is that correct . I had a meeting yesterday in brussels. He was invited to attend the Foreign Affairs council and wrestles. The trinity ends must obviously be disappointed we changed our travel at ways. I have to say the Prime Minister very graciously again said yesterday in the Foreign Affairs council that he recognized why we have to do that and respected the decision we have made an trinitys response is not to sulk about it, but to work with us to try and create conditions in which we would be able to review that as soon as possible. We have been extremely constructive relationship with trinity ends at the political level, working model a Security Intelligence agencies and the police and we have found them very willing to engage with our expert and very keen to build the capacity. Have you given any consideration of giving assistance to the trinity and government to help them through this difficult time . Yes, we are at Different Levels. Technical assistance to Security Services to help them with the investigations into the attacks as you would expect, but also that capacity more generally to ensure that detention and interrogation processes are fully compliant with human rights requirements, which in turn enables us to share intelligence. We have undertaken some of our sophisticated assets to gather intelligence that will be of use in the ongoing investigation. We are also working with our e. U. Partners on a package of economic support recognizing the trinity and the economy has been significantly impacted and i think the e. U. High representative announced yesterday the e. U. Is working towards a package of temporary increases in olive oil quotas to the e. U. Which will provide a very immediate ocher relief to the fiscal and Foreign Exchange challenges they are facing. [inaudible] in talking for a good hour saudi arabia and deals id be interested on the disc passions when you went to tel aviv. And also they generally seems quite detached from being with the community in many ways. The u. S. Particularly president obama as well. Have you field israel could be made to be persuaded as marker to do and how would you feel if the International Community that the activity and settlement in gaza has got International Condemnation . Israel but the lat message gladly and clearly, the government is a friend of israel right to live in peace and security to defend itself. We will be quite prepared to speak up when what israel is doing is not acceptable and has spoken out. The Prime Minister has spoken out against settlement policy and was consistently urged israel to engage with the needs of population in gaza in a much more proactive way. To ask your first question, i went to israel last thursday and got a clear and distinctive message that Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahu was not pleased with the deal we designed in vienna. I did suggested that Prime Minister and i suggested in parliament on tuesday that there was no realistically deliverable nuclear deal with iran that israel wouldve endorsed. I think the reality is the israelis still think there is a last chance of possibly derailing by lobbying action in the u. S. So long u. S. So long as we are in the 60 day window that congress has to consider the deal usc israel maintaining a hostile position and lobby them very aggressively come to mean in the u. S. But also elsewhere. What the lobbying effort has failed that i expect it will, i would expect the israelis as they usually do to be pragmatic and to engage to try to make the best of what they see. That means making sure the commitments i have read has entered into our delivered and the delivery is properly policed and enforced and i hope in time we can persuade the israelis the possibility of a dividend from greater iranian engagement in the region can be positive. I fully understand why israel is our skip to go about this. They see iran through the prism of the nation which has repeatedly denied israels right to exist and which funds terrorist organizations to repeatedly attack israel israeli citizen and israeli interests. I understand the skepticism. I said to Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahu the approach to containing iran which we have been practicing the last decade has not delivered a cessation of the uranium behavior and doing more of it expecting to get a different result is frankly not likely to happen. We need to do Something Different. Bring me to be prepared to take a little bit of risking engaging more with iran and see if we can persuade iran that it is in its interest to moderate. To moderate its behavior in the region. At afternoon, foreign secretary. Thank you for your initial remarks in your overview of the situation with regard to our own approach of things that you mentioned the e. U. Extensively and you said that our partners in the e. U. Would feel that the e. U. Would be unrecognizable at written word to leave. Surely that should be our goal that we want the e. U. To be fundamentally challenged as the Prime Minister has given commitment to. Surely that should be an encouragement to us to be bold about the type of changes we want more towards trade and cooperation in less of a Political Union is my first question. The second question is this. You are the foreign secretary. The commonwealth has mentioned once in the opening remarks do we still have a say in ses when you put it at five years ago and the British Overseas Territories issues need to be addressed as well. Anyone in particular . The record will show it did mention the commonwealth in my opening remarks made. A set is one of the overlapping circles they gave us a unique footprint in the world. The point is very certainly in sco sa had to the commonwealth does bb and a new secretary general. This is an important moment to think about renewal of the commonwealth should think about restating the purpose and direction of the commonwealth Going Forward. It is an organization in my view in need of some ascension. It operates in a competitive environment for international organization. It is unique among them that it is at least arguable in some respects it is slightly lost in spite of its proper direction cores. After the meeting in the election of the new secretary general outlines certainly it is to reinvigorate the commonwealth in the commonwealth of the period in which the commonwealth recruits and reasserts itself as being a group of nations that have come together for a specific set to achieve a specific set of objectives distinct from what other International Organizations do. On the e. U. Agenda, what i said was all of our part as in europe have expressed to me and desire to remain part of the European Union and some have gone much further and said the European Union would be unrecognizable for britain not been on it.