justified pursuit, do you think it is acting within international law? it has to act in accordance with international law. this is not an extra, it has to be in accordance with international law. and that is a point that we have repeatedly pressed on is real and other countries have pressed on israel. it has to act in accordance with the law. as to whether each and every actor is in accordance with law, that will have to be adjudicated in due course. i think it is unwise for politicians to stand on stages like this or to sit in television studios and pronounce it day by day which acts may or may not be in accordance with international law. i think it is not the role of politicians. i do not think it is wise to do it. i, the benefit of a lawyer of having litigated over issues like this in the past and in my experience it often takes or months to assimilate the evidence and to then work out whether there may or may not have been a breach of international law. the call for politicians to look at have a picture on the screen without the full information and form an instantjudgment as to whether it is this side of the line or the other side of the line is extremely unwise and i'm not going to get involved in that kind of exercise. thank you. thank you for that put up a good ask a follow—up but that would take us into the question of international law itself and why israel has to do that. instead to ask, to pick your own questions. relation to the media. ., ~' , own questions. relation to the media. ., ~ , . media. thank you very much. i will no media. thank you very much. i will go straight — media. thank you very much. i will go straight to _ media. thank you very much. i will go straight to the _ media. thank you very much. i will go straight to the media. - media. thank you very much. i will go straight to the media. i've - media. thank you very much. i will go straight to the media. i've got l media. thank you very much. i willj go straight to the media. i've got a list, i think, for those who want to ask a question and i will try to get to as many as i possibly can. i think, first we have got vicky young at the bbc. ., ~ , think, first we have got vicky young at the bbc. ., ~' ,, , . , at the bbc. thank you very much put u . at the bbc. thank you very much put u- in at the bbc. thank you very much put up in about — at the bbc. thank you very much put up in about a — at the bbc. thank you very much put up in about a year's _ at the bbc. thank you very much put up in about a year's time _ at the bbc. thank you very much put up in about a year's time you're - up in about a year's time you're hoping to be prime minister. if that happens, will you allow your own ministers to undermine your authority and publicly disagree with you on the most important issues of the day. you on the most important issues of the da . ., . you on the most important issues of theda. ., . , the day. collective responsibility is really important. _ the day. collective responsibility is really important. there - the day. collective responsibility is really important. there is - the day. collective responsibility is really important. there is no i is really important. there is no doubt about that. as is unity. what is really important in answering this question and addressing this point is to understand what is driving people at the moment. i think it is impossible for anyone to see the suffering we are seeing in gaza and not feel compelled to try to do something about it. and that is why i said a short speech that i understand why people are asking for a but, equally, i do not think that a but, equally, i do not think that a ceasefire now is the right way forward for the reasons i set out. so there is unity here. obviously engaging with my front benches but there is unity and what we wanted to see is the alleviation of the awful situation in gaza. it is for me to address collective responsibility and i recognise that is my duty. it matters. and i take that duty extremely seriously. i do it in the context of understanding what is driving people. in the call for a ceasefire. which is, in myjudgment, not the call that we should be making as things for the reasons i set out. thank you, they key. itv. the reason that dozens of labour mps are urging you to call for a ceasefire are because every 3000 children are dead. because you have not done that today we know that shadow ministers are considering resigning. the mayors of london and manchester disagree with you. the labour leader in scotland says that you have heard ms them communities. how on earth are you going to bring your party back from this level of division? ~ ., ., your party back from this level of division? ~ . ., , division? well, we have all seen those images — division? well, we have all seen those images of _ division? well, we have all seen those images of children - division? well, we have all seen those images of children dead. l division? well, we have all seen i those images of children dead. and there is no and seeing those images and i think it is really important to understand that. the reasons i set out, notwithstanding i do understand why some are calling for a ceasefire. i do not think that is the right call now because it does freeze the situation as it currently is and if we freeze the it currently is and if we freeze the it currently is that is that means that hamas is left of the capability to carry on with the type of attacks are carried on on the 7th of october and is continuing to carry out. it is still attacking and of course it is holding 200 plus hostages. you cannot freeze that situation without effectively denying a sovereign state itself defends. but, allied to that, to alleviate the thing that is driving others to argue for a ceasefire, the humanitarian pause to allow aid in, are they practicable, workable solutions that can be implemented in the nearfuture workable solutions that can be implemented in the near future to allow that to happen? for both of those reasons, my strong argument is that a ceasefire is not right now because it freezes the situation. humanitarian pauses allow for an alleviation of the awful situation on the ground. thank you. i've got paulfrom channel 4. on the ground. thank you. i've got paul from channel 4.— paulfrom channello. leucine until death and paulfrom channellt. leucine until death and destruction _ paulfrom channellt. leucine until death and destruction gaza. - death and destruction gaza. thousands of children lost their lives and the un agency for palestinian refugees lost 63 staff member since october. 63 un workers dead since october seven. are you saying that israel's actions in gaza at the moment are justifiable? and, if so, where do you draw the line? firstly, in relation to your description of the aid workers and ngos, we met some of the ngosjust days ago and they described to as the conditions in which they are trying to work and describe to our staff members who had lost members of theirfamily, one staff members who had lost members of their family, one staff member searching through the rubble in gaza to try to find his 13—year—old niece who was dead. and i a 12—year—old girl. and you cannot be unmoved by those stories. the question is not how awful is that? because it is truly awful. the question is, what is the most practical way to do something about it. that is why my speech i have been driven by the response the october seven tragedy and the humanitarian tragedy but also bearing in mind what is practical that will make a material difference on the ground and i think it is humanitarian pauses. particularly with other countries, allied countries, the us, etc, making that similar call. they had a practical way to achieve that so i'm not quarrelling with the need to address that. i'm saying, what is the best way, the right way to address that in the circumstances as they are? and my answer to that is humanitarian pauses for the specific purpose of aid and provision into gaza. but not a ceasefire that actually these hamas in a position to continue what it is doing now and continue attacking, to continue holding hostages, to have the of doing what it did on october seven again. that cannot be now, at this point, the right answer to the awful suffering we see in gaza. thank you very much, paul. tamara, sky. ski; very much, paul. tamara, sky. sky news. very much, paul. tamara, sky. sky news- would _ very much, paul. tamara, sky. sa:: news. would you very much, paul. tamara, sky. sat; news. would you accept that this issueis news. would you accept that this issue is telling your party apart? you've made clear you do not support a ceasefire. a seniorfigures in your party continue to call for one will they face any consequences? and can also ask about the government's plan for humanitarian pauses. what, if anything, do you think the government are getting wrong in their response to this crisis? tamara, continuing the party apart, think it is really important to recognise the unity in the labour party and the key issues. there is unity in trying to bring about an alleviation of the awful situation in gaza. nobody in the labour party is making any other case but that we have got to alleviate the suffering. we have got to speak out for israel's right to self—defence we got to alleviate so there is complete unity on that. there's also unity, notjust in the short term but what is the long—term answer to this and that is the two state solution. we had a big affirmation of our policy, united affirmation of our policy injuly of this year that a two state solution is the only way forward. we are not tearing the party apart. there is unity on that and there is differences of view on how you achieve that and that is why i say i understand why people argue for a ceasefire but i do not think thatis for a ceasefire but i do not think that is the right argument and we need to focus on where that unity is. we need to ensure collective responsibility, i accept that. and we do need collective responsibility and i take their duty extremely seriously and in relation to the government, look. the government is sharing intelligence with us on a regular basis for which we are grateful and, at the moment, we are making the same calls to israel, to others in the region and with allies and we are talking to the americans credited to the middle east leaders, as you would expect and at the stage, with 200 people being held hostage, i do not think for me trying to find points of difference with the government is what the families of those hostages most want to hear. we met some of them just two weeks ago with harrowing stories of what has happened and their fears, understandable. that the united kingdom stand as united and strong as it can in support of their right to have their loved ones back and i heed what they say in answering your question. thank you. lee. circularstammered answering your question. thank you. lee. circular stammered a labour party leader setting out his position on the israel gaza war. this is amid growing tensions within the party over the conflict in the party stands over it. we did reiterate his support for a humanitarian pause but again emphasised he did not think the time is right for a ceasefire which he said would be the mass in its efforts to continue its attacks on israel. let's get some analysis on what he had to say with our political correspondent. what you think about the words he said? will it bring unity back to the party? i think it is interesting what he stressed. there was unity in the party. you would expect him to do that, i guess quite accentuate the positive and that their descent, given his current position. he said there was unity in alleviating suffering of the palestinian people in gaza. unity, too, on the long—term future for the region. labour's support for a two state solution and a palestinian state and is real living side by side in security. but it was pretty clear from his answer is that he is not minded to take any action against those on his front bench, those who have official roles party and speak in the labour party's behalf and who have broken ranks with him over this question of a ceasefire. those who have called for a ceasefire rather than his position of a shorter term humanitarian pause to get humanitarian pause to get humanitarian aid into gaza. he said he would engage with them. he said he would engage with them. he said he is aware of the dangers of acting against those in his own party, and constituencies with large numbers of muslim constituents, for example. it is a bit of a soft approach. he had been criticised by the scottish labour leader of being hurtful to what some people the muslim community with his staunch support of israel's right to self—defence initially and there was a bit of corrective in the speech where he was saying, for example, not talking about gaza specifically but talking about gaza specifically but talking about the west bank and suggesting that settlements there by some israelis were not only unlawful but unacceptable and had to stop and he also said that while israel had a right to self—defence it did not have a blank cheque and again, he emphasised it had to act within international law so i think he was trying to be very, very evenhanded indeed. the question now, though, is whether that'll be enough to allay some of the descent in his own ranks and whether it will be enough to stop those considering designing from official positions to do so. at its core, despite the language and despite the tone, he is still sticking to the line that his position is that a ceasefire would embolden hamas and a humanitarian pause, as he calls it, would be very much more in line with the international community, with the eu and us position so he has not really in any way deviated from that but i think his tone has been sympathetic, saying he understands those watching the humanitarian crisis in gaza local for a ceasefire but he simply doesn't think it is the right position at the moment. ian, in westminster, _ position at the moment. ian, in westminster, thank _ position at the moment. ian, in westminster, thank you. - position at the moment. ian, in westminster, thank you. let'sl position at the moment. ian, in i westminster, thank you. let's get more now on the covid inquiry. we are in the last week of phase of the inquiry which is examining uk decision—making and political governments during the pandemic. severalformer downing governments during the pandemic. several former downing street employees have given evidence and hear from employees have given evidence and hearfrom borisjohnson�*s, director of communications. he is giving evidence later today. dominic cummings is taking the hot seat. let's listen back in.— cummings is taking the hot seat. let's listen back in. covid as ever, to back let's listen back in. covid as ever, go back out. _ let's listen back in. covid as ever, go back out. get _ let's listen back in. covid as ever, go back out, get back _ let's listen back in. covid as ever, go back out, get back to _ let's listen back in. covid as ever, i go back out, get back to work, crowd yourself onto trains, going to restaurants and enjoy pizzas with friends and family. you know, really build up that social mixing. now,