it's the sound of four friends making music across time and space — and maybe the final chapter of rock's most influential band. mark savage, bbc news. time for a look at the weather. here's stav da naos. cheering. until all people, israelis and palestinians between the river and the sea, can live in peaceful liberty. free, free palestine. days after being suspended for using that controversial phrase at a rally for gaza, the labour mp andy mcdonald doubles down on his choice of language, telling us it wasn't provocative but a call for peace. suspended from the labour party, but andy mcdonald tells newsnight his speech was misunderstood, his critics inside the labour party should be careful about their words, and he meant it to support the right of israel to exist alongside a palestinian state. absolutely not to be provocative but to pursue the cause of peace. i mean, please, i beg everybody to look at the words that i used, calling for israelis and palestinians to li in peaceful liberty together. we'll ask two influential figures his intervention is enough to get him back into the labour party. also tonight. the covid inquiry hears more explosive testimony — this time from the witness statement for the head of the nhs, who claims the then health secretary matt hancock, wanted to be the one who decided who lived and who died if the nhs was overwhelmed. i certainly wanted to discourage the idea that an individual secretary of state should be deciding how care would be provided. and a major newsnight investigation revels how putin's cronies are still dodging british anti money laundering laws by going through the seychelles. you don't have to file anything ever again, there are no accounts. that's it, just a piece of paper with a couple of names and an address on, and you have now got yourself an english limited partnership. good evening. in an exclusive interview for newsnight, andy mcdonald, who has been suspended as a labour mp, following his fiery speech at a pro—palestinian rally on saturday, for using the phrase "between the river and the sea," is standing by his comments which have been deemed by the labour party as "deeply offensive." the phrase "between the river and the sea" refers to the land between the riverjordan and the mediterranean sea. critics of the expression argue it implicitly calls for the destruction of israel. but andy mcdonald refused to apologise, on the grounds that he'd been misunderstood and that he used the phrase to express his desire for israelis and palestinians to live side by side in the middle east. speaking to nick, he added that keir starmer was wrong to refuse to call for a ceasefire. nick spoke to andy mcdonald earlier this evening, and asked him whether, at such a sensitive time, did he not need to be exceptionally careful in his use of language? after all, a senior labour source told newsnight that it was a provocative phrase. absolutely not to be provocative, but to pursue the cause of peace. i mean, please, i beg everybody to look at the words that i used, calling for israelis and palestinians to live in peaceful liberty together. you know, i'm not provoking a view to say that israel should not exist, or palestinian should be eradicated, and that the settlements expand and so on, i'm saying the exact opposite. i'm saying please, the only way we will resolve this isn't through military means, it is through a peace process that needs to be resurrected. so you are saying your wording was actually a call for a two—state solution. it's a call for peace. and a two state solution. and a two—state solution. but why didn't you say two state solution outright, because you ended that particular part of your speech, and indeed ended your speech saying "free palestine" twice? well, let's examine that, because the people have called for free palestine, and i have empathy and sympathy with their cause, because what they want for themselves, in the west bank and in gaza, is to live in freedom, without the threat of violence, to be able to conduct their lives in accordance with basic human rights. is that really too much to ask? they were asking for their freedom in the west bank, and in gaza, not to be caged in the biggest open air prison in the world. that surely is not an unreasonable ask. i would say it's a legitimate ask for palestine, in gaza and in the west bank, to be free, for the people to live free and fulfilled lives, without fear of violence, without their lands and their properties being taken from them by force. i think that's perfectly proper, and it is legitimate aspiration and ambition. given what is seen as the historical resonance of that phrase, "between the river and the sea", do you regret using it? i used those words to calibrate and move the debate in the direction of peace and a two—state solution. we are talking about geography in the middle east. that term has been used by a number of actors to mean a variety of things — freedom for palestine in the west bank and in gaza. it has been abused by people wanting a different outcome, a different solution, and not a two—state solution but predicated on the eradication of palestine or of israel. and i depart from that vehemently, and this is why i am using the words that i did, carefully calibrated, to make sure that my meaning was clear. so no apology now, but if the chief whip was to say so you, "andy mcdonald, you need to apologise, to get the whip back", would you do that? well, we have just started the conversation, i have said that i trust that my clarification and explanation will be satisfactory to the labour party. and when lord mandelson picks up on the phrase you used the other day and says that you deserve to be out of the tent, he has the ear of keir starmer, do you think he is speaking for himself or reflecting some leadership thinking? i can only take peter mandelson, lord peter mandelson, at his word, and for him to interpret my remarks that seek peace and a two—state solution, and people living side by side in peace, as somehow capable of being interpreted as promoting the destruction of israel, is quite frankly kafka—esque and perverse, and he should withdraw his remark. what we need now is careful comments, not factional indulgence and personal vendettas, whatever it may well be that peter mandelson is conducting. i think he should consider his words much more carefully than he has. in your speech you said that hamas was guilty of terrible crimes in israel on the 7th october, but you are saying — you then said, but that is not the reason why israel is taking the action in gaza, and you quoted a resident of the rafah area of gaza, saying "this is about ethnic cleansing." so are you saying that what israel is doing now in gaza is not an act of self—defence, you are saying it is ethnic cleansing? look, let's wind that back because 1,400 people in israel were butchered by hamas, and i condemn their barbarity outright. they have taken hostages, innocent people, and they have got to be returned to their families. that has to be stressed and said. but we have to also understand that the origins and the context of this dreadful upsurge in horrific violence didn't start in october 2023. this has a long history of people being denied their rights. i'm joined now by andrew fisher, who was executive director of policy for labour underjeremy corbyn. and in our salford studio, the former labour mp and honorary president of thejewish labour movement — dame louise ellman. good evening to you both 678 louise ellman you said on monday it was outray ask just he ellman you said on monday it was outray askjust he used the phrase river to the sea. you have heard him telling us there he supports a two—state solution, so are you in agreement? two-state solution, so are you in agreement?— two-state solution, so are you in aureement? , ., , ., , agreement? the use of the phrase between the _ agreement? the use of the phrase between the river _ agreement? the use of the phrase between the river and _ agreement? the use of the phrase between the river and the - agreement? the use of the phrase between the river and the sea, - agreement? the use of the phrase between the river and the sea, in i between the river and the sea, in the context of a very angry rally, a very angry pro palestine rally does mean the annihilation of israel and it is taken to mean that, we have a very, very difficult background building up here, there have been 800 anti—jewish hate crimes in this country since the massacre of moo people in israel, the biggest loss of life since the holocaust, when jewish children are afraid to show they arejewish and going to school and jewish students are having trouble. the jewish and jewish students are having trouble. thejewish community are very uneasy an fearful as british citizens here in this country. so people should think what they are saying, in the context of that rally that phrase is known to mean the anigh laying of israel. 50 that phrase is known to mean the anigh laying of israel.— that phrase is known to mean the anigh laying of israel. so you don't believe what _ anigh laying of israel. so you don't believe what he saying? _ anigh laying of israel. so you don't believe what he saying? well, - anigh laying of israel. so you don't| believe what he saying? well, andy anigh laying of israel. so you don't i believe what he saying? well, andy i no will cive believe what he saying? well, andy i no will give his _ believe what he saying? well, andy i no will give his explanation _ believe what he saying? well, andy i no will give his explanation to - believe what he saying? well, andy i no will give his explanation to the . no will give his explanation to the investigation, he has to explain himself, but i know what those words sound, i know what they voke, i know what fear they bring to many citizens of the country, notjust jewish people, and we should be calling for peace, and israel is right, to try to stop hamas being able to stop more massacre, yesterday hamas were saying they were going to commit more and more massacres until the jewish were going to commit more and more massacres until thejewish state was annihilated so israel is right to try and stop that happening, and then there does need to be a proper peace initiative where we can hopefully arrive at a two—state solution but that maybe some time away. solution but that maybe some time awa . �* , , ., ., away. andrew fisher, when you heard that, when away. andrew fisher, when you heard that. when you _ away. andrew fisher, when you heard that, when you heard _ away. andrew fisher, when you heard that, when you heard reports- away. andrew fisher, when you heard that, when you heard reports or - that, when you heard reports or perhaps you actually heard it at first hand, between the river and the sea, do you agree with louise ellman it can't mean anything else other than that in the context of which it was spoken {iii other than that in the context of which it was spoken— other than that in the context of which it was spoken of course not. he said he — which it was spoken of course not. he said he wants _ which it was spoken of course not. he said he wants all— which it was spoken of course not. he said he wants all people, - he said he wants all people, israelis _ he said he wants all people, israelis and palestinians, those two people. _ israelis and palestinians, those two people, that do live between the river and — people, that do live between the river and the sea, to live in peaceful— river and the sea, to live in peaceful liberty, that is calling for the — peaceful liberty, that is calling for the peaceful existence of two slaieses — for the peaceful existence of two stateses which he has called for before — stateses which he has called for before that rally, he has called for today— before that rally, he has called for today and — before that rally, he has called for today and at that rally, so it is very— today and at that rally, so it is very clear. _ today and at that rally, so it is very clear, and to say when people use the _ very clear, and to say when people use the phrase from the river to the sea use the phrase from the river to the see it— use the phrase from the river to the see it means — use the phrase from the river to the sea it means the anigh laying of israel_ sea it means the anigh laying of israel is — sea it means the anigh laying of israel is don honest because it has been _ israel is don honest because it has been used — israel is don honest because it has been used by people in likud, the israeli _ been used by people in likud, the israeli ambassador to the uk who called _ israeli ambassador to the uk who called for— israeli ambassador to the uk who called for a greater israel of eradicating palestine by that phrase _ eradicating palestine by that phrase. i eradicating palestine by that hrase. ~ , eradicating palestine by that phrase-_ so - eradicating palestine by that phrase._ so did | eradicating palestine by that - phrase._ so did likud phrase. i think she... so did likud in their charter. _ phrase. i think she... so did likud in their charter. let _ phrase. i think she... so did likud in their charter. let me _ phrase. i think she... so did likud in their charter. let me just - phrase. i think she... so did likud in their charter. let me just andy | in their charter. let me 'ust andy mcdonald told h in their charter. let me 'ust andy mcdonald told us, _ in their charter. let me 'ust andy mcdonald told us, told _ in their charter. let me just andy mcdonald told us, told us, - in their charter. let me just andy mcdonald told us, told us, that l in their charter. let me just andy l mcdonald told us, told us, that he does support a two—state solution, but in the speech he shared with us, he didn't is a that, should he have said explicitly at such a tempest which is time? he said explicitly at such a tempest which is time?— said explicitly at such a tempest which is time? . ., ., ., , which is time? he condemned hamas. he didn't call — which is time? he condemned hamas. he didn't call for _ which is time? he condemned hamas. he didn't call for a _ which is time? he condemned hamas. he didn't call for a two-state - he didn't call for a two—state solution. he didn't call for a two-state solution. ,., he didn't call for a two-state solution-— he didn't call for a two-state solution. ., , ., ._ solution. he said he wants to say israelis solution. he said he wants to say israelis and _ solution. he said he wants to say israelis and the _ solution. he said he wants to say israelis and the palestinians - solution. he said he wants to say| israelis and the palestinians living side by— israelis and the palestinians living side by side in peace, that means a two-state _ side by side in peace, that means a two—state solution clearly. to anybodyw _ two—state solution clearly. to anybody... not misrepresenting what he said _ anybody... not misrepresenting what he said. bul— anybody... not misrepresenting what he said. �* , ., , anybody... not misrepresenting what he said. �* , .,, ., anybody... not misrepresenting what he said. �* , ., , ., he said. but the phrase two state solution is _ he said. but the phrase two state solution is a _ he said. but the phrase two state solution is a very _ he said. but the phrase two state solution is a very important - he said. but the phrase two state solution is a very important one. | solution is a very important one. with hindsight, because it was a fiery rally, should he have explicitly said that, yes or no. think he has said it before, think he has used words that mean it and he has used words that mean it and he has used it in the interview with you tonight. it is clear where he stands, where i stand on it and i am sure where louise stands on it. shindig sure where louise stands on it. andy become donald _ sure where louise stands on it. andy become donald said _ sure where louise stands on it. andy become donald said he _ sure where louise stands on it. andy become donald said he has had a lot of support from labour mps, do you think there was a chance keir starmer is overreacting because he is haunted by the labour party's past? is haunted by the labour party's -ast? is haunted by the labour party's ast? ,, ., ., , , ., past? keir starmer was showing leadership. _ past? keir starmer was showing leadership, and _ past? keir starmer was showing leadership, and he _ past? keir starmer was showing leadership, and he knows- past? keir starmer was showing leadership, and he knows the i past? keir starmer was showing l leadership, and he knows the fear that that phrase evokes, among the jewish community. and among the country general, who i think do want to see a two—state solution and it is wrong to have fear on our streets, and to have people rallying together and evoking fear and making the jewish together and evoking fear and making thejewish community together and evoking fear and making the jewish community feel extremely insecure in this country, after the horrors of those corbyn years, and the sooner that hamas can lose their capacity to inflict more damage, to conduct more massacres and the rules to find a negotiating two state solution, the better it will be for everyone, but in the meantime people should not try to stir up hatred. andrew fisher, regardless of andy mcdonald's intention, arejewish people wrongs to be hurt? mcdonald's intention, are jewish people wrongs to be hurt? jewish eo - le people wrongs to be hurt? jewish people wrong _ people wrongs to be hurt? jewish people wrong to _ people wrongs to be hurt? jewish people wrong to be _ people wrongs to be hurt? jewish people wrong to be hurt? - people wrongs to be hurt? jewish people wrong to be hurt? no - people wrongs to be hurt? jewish | people wrong to be hurt? no there are hundreds if not thousands on that rally— are hundreds if not thousands on that rally not feeling afraid, endep didding _ that rally not feeling afraid, endep didding supporting the call for a ceasefire — didding supporting the call for a ceasefire which was a peaceful rally~ — ceasefire which was a peaceful rally. from the people who were on it had _ rally. from the people who were on it had a _ rally. from the people who were on it had a sombre mood. it wasn't a angry— it had a sombre mood. it wasn't a angry or— it had a sombre mood. it wasn't a angry or fiery rally. | it had a sombre mood. it wasn't a angry or fiery rally-— angry or fiery rally. i think he was ve , he angry or fiery rally. i think he was very. he was _ angry or fiery rally. i think he was very. he was very _ angry or fiery rally. i think he was very, he was very forthright, - angry or fiery rally. i think he was very, he was very forthright, he l angry or fiery rally. i think he was i very, he was very forthright, he was making a rallying speech, but i am asking you, if there arejewish people who are hurt, by what he said, are they wrong to be hurt? look, i think people have to listen to what— look, i think people have to listen to what he — look, i think people have to listen to what he said, it was reported initially— to what he said, it was reported initially in — to what he said, it was reported initially in the times as he said, yeah— initially in the times as he said, yeah he — initially in the times as he said, yeah he called for palestine from the river— yeah he called for palestine from the river to the sea. sea. they issued. — the river to the sea. sea. they issued, admitted they were wrong and unfortunately by that stage the labour — unfortunately by that stage the labour party panicked and decided to suspend _ labour party panicked and decided to suspend him. if the times can admit they got— suspend him. if the times can admit they