It's a very long way - in every possible sense - from Deir al-Balah in the centre of the Gaza Strip to Durham in north-eastern England.

"It's another planet, not just another world," says Sana el-Azab, who arrived in the cathedral city late last month after being evacuated to the UK with 33 other students.

"No-one can understand what I lived through in Gaza."

In June, the 29-year-old former teacher was awarded a scholarship at Durham University to study educational leadership and change.

Weeks of uncertainty followed, as British politicians and academics lobbied for her - and dozens of other Gazan students with fully-funded places - to be allowed to come to the UK.

But in the dead of night, on 17 September, "the big moment" that she'd been waiting for finally arrived and Sana left her home first for Jordan, for biometric tests, and then for Durham.

This is the first time that she, and other Gaza students who have been brought to the UK, have spoken publicly.

"There's no chance to continue your higher education in Gaza," she told me. "All the universities are destroyed. There's no education system at all anymore."

The main campus of Al-Azhar University – one of the biggest and oldest Palestinian academic institutions, where Sana did a BA in English literature - is now reported to have been reduced to rubble by Israeli bombardment and controlled demolitions.

For two years, all formal face-to-face education has been on hold, with the UN warning of a "lost generation" of children.

Schools were turned into shelters for displaced people.

And 97% of them have sustained some level of damage from the war, according to the Global Education Cluster, a partnership of UN agencies and NGOs.

Many were directly hit by air strikes which the Israeli military said targeted operatives of Hamas and other armed groups.

Almost 660,000 children remain out of school. About 87,000 university students have also been affected.

In June, a UN independent international commission of inquiry said Israel had "obliterated Gaza's education system".

"My six-year old niece asked me what it's like to be in school," Sana says. "She doesn't know. Imagine what they've all missed out on. This is now the third year."

In April last year, Sana set up her own makeshift school in a roof-less building at her home in Deir al-Balah. Twenty girls between the ages of seven and 12 usually attended class. At times, she had up to 50 students.

"I saw displaced children just spending their time in queues for food and water - not having a childhood, and I wanted to do something, for them," she says. "There were drones overhead 24 hours and bombing around us."

But the children were keen. "I wanted to give them a little normalcy."

She taught them English at first, adding a bit of maths, at the children's request.

There were weekly art classes to allow the girls to express their trauma. "No parent had time to talk to their children about their feelings," she says.

And there was a simple daily meal because: "It's not easy to teach hungry kids."

She says she also taught them "survival skills" – including how to filter water with charcoal to make it safer to use.

Leaving them and her extended family behind was a tough decision. For her, and all the students who have arrived in the UK, there's a mixture of pride and guilt.

"I left with just my mobile phone and the clothes I was wearing - that's all I was allowed to take," she says. "I'm so proud that I made it here. But it's very complicated. I can't process everything. It's overwhelming.

"I'm relieved and grateful and happy that I got out but I feel sorrow at leaving behind my precious siblings, and nieces and nephews, and elderly parents in that dire situation."

In all, 58 students from Gaza have now arrived to take up scholarships at more than 30 universities around the UK. After the first group of 34 arrived last month, another group of 24 came last week. Twenty more are waiting to come out of Gaza.

"It's been a relentless and very, very difficult process, when it should have been much easier," says Nora Parr, an academic and researcher at Birmingham University, who has co-ordinated the educational evacuations.

"These are the people who are going to rebuild Gaza," she says. "They want to do everyone proud and learn as much as they can. I wish they could have come a week or two before their courses started to help them settle in."

She adds: "But I hope this is an opportunity that can be built on because the needs are massive."

A UK Foreign Office spokesperson said the evacuation had been a "highly complex process" and that more students were expected to arrive in the coming weeks.

For Sana, leaving Gaza to study in Durham was an unmissable chance.

Education has always been a sanctuary for her and a bridge to the future. But she says she is struggling to concentrate.

"It's hard to go from survival mode to learning. Half of my mind is in class and the other half is still in Gaza.

"I'm still discovering Durham. It's a beautiful place that's safe and small and there are a lot of supportive people. It's like therapy for me just to walk around."

During her first trip to a supermarket, she was unable to tear herself away from the bread aisle - and the sights and smells of so much plenty. But she still can't eat or sleep properly.

She wants to gain all that she can from the experience in the UK.

"And then I want to go back to Gaza and bring the change," she says.

There is a higher risk of a serious fall in US stocks than is currently being reflected in the market, the head of JP Morgan has told the BBC.

Jamie Dimon, who leads America's largest bank, said he was "far more worried than others" about a serious market correction, which he said could come in the next six months to two years.

In a rare and wide-ranging interview, the bank boss also said that the US had become a "less reliable" partner on the world stage.

He cautioned he was still "a little worried" about inflation in the US, but insisted he thought the Federal Reserve would remain independent, despite repeated attacks by the Trump administration on its chair Jerome Powell.

Jamie Dimon was in Bournemouth, where he was announcing an investment of about £350m in JP Morgan's campus there, as well as a £3.5m philanthropic investment in local non-profits.

Commenting on the investment, Chancellor Rachel Reeves said: "As one of Dorset's biggest private sector employers, JP Morgan Chase expanding their Bournemouth campus is fantastic news for the local economy and people who live here."

Ahead of the interview, Dimon appeared before a town hall on the campus - cutting a figure more akin to an off-duty rock star than bank CEO - wearing an open-collar shirt and jeans, and high-fiving staff on his way to the stage.

Opening with his take on the UK's economy, Dimon said he felt Rachel Reeves was doing a "terrific job", and he felt optimistic about some of the government's attempts to boost innovation and cut regulation.

However, in the broader economic picture, he felt there were increased risks US stock markets were overheated.

"I am far more worried about that than others," he said.

There were a "lot of things out there" creating an atmosphere of uncertainty, he added, pointing to risk factors like the geopolitical environment, fiscal spending and the remilitarisation of the world.

"All these things cause a lot of issues that we don't know how to answer," he said.

"So I say the level of uncertainty should be higher in most people's minds than what I would call normal."

Much of the rapid growth in the stock market in recent years has been driven by investment in AI.

On Wednesday, the Bank of England drew a comparison with the dot com boom (and subsequent bust) of the late 1990s - and warned that the value of AI tech companies "appear stretched" with a rising risk of a "sharp correction".

"The way I look at it is AI is real, AI in total will pay off," he said.

"Just like cars in total paid off, and TVs in total paid off, but most people involved in them didn't do well."

He added some of the money being invested in AI would "probably be lost".

Bullets, guns and bombs

Global security has been a recent focus for the JP Morgan boss, with his letter to shareholders earlier this year warning the US would run out of missiles in seven days of a South China Sea war.

Reflecting on how the world could combat risk factors, he pointed to greater military investment.

"People talk about stockpiling things like crypto, I always say we should be stockpiling bullets, guns and bombs.

"The world's a much more dangerous place, and I'd rather have safety than not."

Another risk factor which many in the global economy believe the US could be facing is pressure placed on the independence of the Federal Reserve, America's central bank.

On this, he said he thought central bank independence was important - but was willing to take Trump "at his word" that he would not interfere in Fed independence, despite the president describing current Fed chair Jerome Powell as a "moron" and a "numbskull" for failing to lower interest rates more quickly.

Dimon acknowledged the US had become a "little less reliable" but said that some of the Trump administration's action had pushed Europe to act over underinvestment in Nato and its lack of economic competitiveness.

Dimon also shared insights into a potential breakthrough in trade negotiations between India and the US.

He said he wanted to "bring India closer" and he believed a deal was close to reduce additional tariffs on India, which were imposed as a penalty for its continued trade with Russia, particularly its oil purchases.

"In fact, I've spoken to several of the Trump officials who say they want to do that, and I've been told that they are going to do that."

Jamie Dimon's name has been frequently mentioned among the big financial players capable of making a transition into politics.

Ahead of Trump's re-election last year, influential investor Bill Ackman said he would be an "incredible choice" as treasury secretary, and he has also been the subject of speculation about a potential presidential run.

Asked about his political ambitions, Dimon said it "wasn't on the cards", and his focus was on keeping JP Morgan as a "healthy and vibrant company".

"If you gave me the presidency, I'd take it," he joked. "I think I'd do a good job."

Last week Kemi Badenoch announced that the Conservative Party would take the UK out of the European Convention of Human Rights if they won the next election.

"I have not come to this decision lightly," the Tory leader said. "But it is clear that it is necessary to protect our borders, our veterans, and our citizens."

Her words came on the eve of the party's annual conference, at a time when the Conservatives are under enormous pressure from Reform UK.

Nigel Farage's party also wants out of the ECHR, as well as other international treaties that he thinks stand in the way of curbing illegal immigration. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey, meanwhile, has been just as strident the other way.

"Kemi Badenoch has chosen to back Nigel Farage and join Vladimir Putin," he declared - adding "this will do nothing to stop the boats or fix our broken immigration system".

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has weighed in, though he hovers somewhere in between. He told the BBC he does not want to "tear down" human rights laws, but backs changing how international law is interpreted to stop unsuccessful asylum seekers blocking their deportation.

But while strongly-worded opinions over whether or not to pull out of the treaty make for easy headlines, the consequences are deeply complicated. Even Badenoch acknowledged last year that leaving would not be a "silver bullet" for tackling immigration.

So how is it that such a nuanced issue has been reduced to a political hot potato?

Dodging political bullets

It was back in 2011 - not far into David Cameron's tenure as prime minister - that this issue came to the forefront of domestic politics.

It centred around the case of John Hirst, a man convicted of manslaughter, who argued the UK's blanket ban on prisoners voting in any circumstances was a breach of human rights. In 2005 Strasbourg had ruled in his favour. It essentially said the UK's policy was too black and white.

Cameron's Labour predecessors Tony Blair and Gordon Brown dodged the political bullet of being seen to give in to the court.

But when the relatively new Tory PM said he felt "physically ill" at the prospect of giving jailed criminals the vote, his soundbite propelled the ECHR to the heart of public consciousness.

The ECHR had been largely drafted by a British team and aimed to impose on post-fascist Europe a "never-again" package of legal rights.

Its content drew heavily on historic laws - for example the concept of Habeas Corpus (banning unlawful detention), can be seen in the ECHR's Article 5.

Officially, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg polices those rights. And when it rules that a country is in breach, the member states come together to find a way of fixing the problem in the Council of Europe (nothing to do with the EU).

But in the UK, there is also the Human Rights Act, which means ECHR cases can be dealt with by its own judges.

Disputes between UK courts and Strasbourg can be worked through too - what happened following the John Hirst case is testament to this.

In 2017, ministers allowed offenders who had been released on licence the right to vote - but made clear that Parliament would never allow votes for criminals still in prison cells. The Council of Europe closed the case. And just weeks ago the Strasbourg court threw out a fresh attempt by a prisoner to re-open the issue.

Yet it was the original clash, together with Cameron's comments in 2011, that stuck in many minds.

Adding fuel to the fire that same year, Theresa May - home secretary at the time - shared a story during party conference about a Bolivian man who avoided deportation because of his pet cat.

This illustrated the problem with human rights laws, she argued.

Only the story, as May told it, wasn't entirely correct, according to England's top judges.

The Home Office indeed wanted to send the man home as an illegal immigrant. And the cat - called Maya - had featured in the man's appeal. But that was only a tiny part of the detailed evidence he provided.

A spokesperson for the Judicial Office at the Royal Courts of Justice, which issues statements on behalf of senior judges, said at the time that the cat was "nothing to do with" the eventual judgement, which allowed the man to stay.

Yet the pet became a source of unintentional humour - and when a judge cracked a joke about the cat no longer needing to fear adapting to Bolivian mice, the case took on a life of its own.

By that autumn, a mood had begun to take hold about human rights that, 14 years later, has culminated in the Conservatives pledging to leave the ECHR.

'Open-ended and obscure obligations'

Richard Ekins KC, a professor at the University of Oxford, is a staunch critic of the ECHR on the basis that membership in his view compromises UK sovereignty.

"But there is a more fundamental problem," he argues. "And the fundamental problem can be observed by paying attention to what the court has been doing, which really is quite openly to expand the Convention's reach over time."

He references a case last year, where the court ruled that Switzerland had breached human rights by failing to tackle climate change.

The incredibly complex judgement was celebrated by campaigners as a game-changer - but a British judge, Tim Eicke KC, said the majority on the panel had "gone beyond what it is legitimate and permissible for this court to do".

"The judgment… imposes very far reaching, but also open ended and obscure obligations on member states," argues Prof Ekins.

"Domestic courts are going to be invited to apply the European Court's new approach to discipline, supervise [and] control climate policy, which obviously is a highly complicated and tangled set of considerations that intersect with social policy, economic policy, foreign policy."

This is the heart of his argument: a court completely divorced from the political will of the British people is now making the UK do things that are far beyond its original remit.

"It's incompatible - its intention at least - with parliamentary democracy," he argues.

Hijacked by the immigration debate

Nowhere is the allegation of overreach stronger in British politics than in Reform's claim that the ECHR is to blame for problems with the UK's migration system.

Yet the evidence supporting this claim is often anecdotal and complex - as was the case with Maya the cat.

A study of media stories about the ECHR by the University of Oxford's Bonavero Institute for Human Rights found that fewer than 1% of all foreign criminals who have appealed against their deportation in the UK have won their case on human rights grounds.

When cases went as far as Strasbourg, the court tended to throw them out.

That's not to say there are no issues at all.

Lord Jonathan Sumption, the former Supreme Court judge, believes that some decisions by immigration tribunal judges have become "extravagant" and far removed from the original boundaries of the right to family life.

"I have no problem about the text of the Convention," he says. "I do have a problem about the unlimited expansion which it's undergone at the hands of the Strasbourg Court.

"It's unfortunate that the whole issue has been hijacked by the question of immigration.

"I think that it will make some difference to the ability to keep people out or deport them if we are not members of the ECHR. But I think the extent that it will make a difference is not widely understood - and has been greatly exaggerated."

Would leaving the ECHR 'stop the boats'?

So, would leaving the ECHR really "stop the boats", to use Rishi Sunak's phrase?

"The number one problem about deporting illegal immigrants, first of all, is finding a place which will take them and which is not unsafe," argues Lord Sumption.

"And secondly, [there is] the Refugee Convention. It doesn't require us to take in asylum seekers. It does require us to adjudicate on their claims and give them certain rights once they've got here, even if they got here illegally.

"The ECHR is certainly an additional difficulty, but not as great a difficulty, as is suggested."

The UK government has already promised to devise clearer and stricter rules that will tell immigration officials and judges how to interpret the right to family life.

"I think it is a runner," argues Sir Jonathan Jones, who was the Treasury Solicitor until 2020. This, he believes, could be the best way forward - particularly around the definition of the ECHR's Article 8, which guarantees the right to, among other things, family life.

"It's legitimate for the government to say we will take a tighter view, as a proper, reasoned, good faith attempt to rein in what we think Article 8 covers and what it doesn't."

But Alex Chalk, the last Conservative Lord Chancellor before Labour won power, argues that the UK government needs to seek reform faster.

"The ECHR is not holy writ," he told the BBC during the Conservative party conference. "This government should be moving much more quickly to seek urgent reform. [It] should have been saying, look, we want to lead on this to do this in six weeks.

"The US Constitution was drafted in 15 weeks or so. This really can be done."

'Rights are going to suffer'

Human rights lawyer Harriet Wistrich is concerned about what could be lost if the UK does leave the ECHR. It has, she argues, been at the forefront of challenging the state's treatment of victims of awful abuses.

"We were able to hold Greater Manchester Police accountable on behalf of Rochdale grooming gang victims through civil [damages] proceedings.

"The Hillsborough inquests were possible by having Article 2 [the right to life] inquiries into deaths, where you want to examine what went wrong and what the state could have done differently.

"If we withdraw fully… it's those rights that are going to suffer," says Ms Wistrich, who is also the founder of the Centre for Women's Justice.

Beyond legal battles at home, there are big international questions too around leaving.

The 1998 Belfast Agreement, the cornerstone of peace in Northern Ireland, and the post-Brexit deal with the European Union placed respect for human rights law at their centre. Critics of withdrawing from the EHCR predict both could come crashing down.

But Professor Ekins believes that you can have human rights safeguards without a supranational court overseeing all nations.

He and colleagues wrote a detailed proposal on Northern Ireland that argue the historic arrangements don't require the UK to remain in the ECHR, providing it honours human rights and cross-community power-sharing arrangements by other means.

The issues in Northern Ireland and the Republic could, however, go deeper. Sir Jonathan Jones for one is sceptical about how leaving the ECHR would go down in both places - because the ECHR's role in the agreement was to demonstrate to a lot of people who do not trust the British state that there are laws in place to protect them.

"The thing about the Convention is that it constrains governments, and it constrains the way that governments can treat minorities and people it doesn't like," he says.

"If we were out of the ECHR, you wouldn't have that constraint."

Alex Chalk warns there could be an international price to leaving, too. There is value, he says, in sitting at the Council of Europe and raising issues with French and German counterparts at international conferences.

"You should try to reform before you yank your way out because inevitably there could be cost to doing so," he argues.

But ultimately, he adds, "this is a matter of politics more than it is of law".

Top image: Getty Images

BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.

It was another busy day at work.

Russian forces had attacked my home region of Zaporizhzhia again: a region in the south of Ukraine, split between the Russian invaders, who claim it all as theirs, and the defending Ukrainians.

Sitting in my office in central London, I was feeling nostalgic. I decided to take a quick look at the latest satellite images of my childhood village - the poetically titled Verkhnya Krynytsya (or Upper Spring in English), in the Russian-occupied part of the region, just a few kilometres from the front lines.

I could see the familiar dirt tracks, and the houses drowning in lush vegetation. But something caught my eye.

Amid all the apparent quiet of a small village that I remember so well, a new feature had appeared: a well-used road. And it led right to my childhood home.

Satellite images show a path first appearing in the summer of 2022, four months after the occupation began. Images from winter showed it reappearing and a car making use of it in January 2023.

I could think of only one group of people who could be using the path in an occupied village so close to the front line: Russian soldiers. Only they have reason to be out and about in a war zone.

Verkhnya Krynytsya

The truth is that my childhood village is not quiet anymore. Verkhnya Krynytsya was occupied by Russia shortly after the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022.

By that point, my old house was likely vacant. My family had sold it long ago, but I visited Verkhnya Krynytsya at least once a year before it was occupied, and saw the house sitting apparently abandoned, its garden overgrown.

It was hardly surprising: the village was small and sleepy at the best of times, and for anyone still under retirement age, looking for work meant moving elsewhere.

But many stayed, and more than a thousand people were still there when Russia launched its invasion. Two days later, Ukrainian authorities handed out 43 Kalashnikov rifles to help the villagers fight off the Russians.

At a community gathering, residents decided not to use them against the invaders. A month later, village head Serhiy Yavorsky was captured by the Russians, who beat and tortured him with electricity, needles and acid, according to testimony given in a Ukrainian court.

The Russians also targeted a sewage treatment works outside the village and set up a command post there once the Ukrainians had abandoned the facility.

Even the village's surroundings have changed irreparably.

Before Russia's full-scale invasion, Verkhnya Krynytsya sat on the beautiful Kakhovka reservoir, which was so vast we used to call it "the Sea".

You could see it from pretty much anywhere in the village. It's where locals went swimming in the summer, and where visitors from across the region came in the winter to go ice-fishing. One of my earliest memories is of local women singing Ukrainian folk songs as the sun was setting into the Kakhovka on a warm summer evening.

The Sea disappeared after the Kakhovka dam was destroyed in June 2023, leading to devastating floods that ruined homes and farmland.

To find out what conditions in Verkhnya Krynytsya are like now, I tried reaching out to locals.

Predictably, obtaining answers was very difficult.

Many have left, and those who are still in the village - as is the case in the other occupied parts of Ukraine - are afraid of speaking to the media. Frontline locations are particularly lawless places, where retribution from Russian forces can be swift and brutal.

Social media groups about Verkhnya Krynytsya went silent after it was occupied, and the questions I posted there were left unanswered.

Asking someone to go and have a look at my house was out of the question. What used to be a peaceful, sleepy village has turned into a zone of fear.

The danger in Verkhnya Krynytsya also comes from the sky. The village's proximity to the front line means it is a dangerous location, exposed to frequent aerial attacks from the Ukrainians.

One acquaintance told me that locals preferred to stay indoors for fear of being hit by drones. "It's very dangerous there," I was told. "They are active, and they can target you, your house or your car. Our village has changed a lot, Vitaly."

New residents

So, given the danger and devastation caused to Verkhnya Krynytsya by the war, who could have possibly made the track marks leading to and from my old home?

It is highly unlikely anyone would choose to move to the village now - with the exception of Russian soldiers.

Many of them moved into vacant houses after capturing Verkhnya Krynytsya. In June 2022 authorities in Zaporizhzhia said they had information that Russian troops were staying in the village. This is when satellite images first show signs of the path at my old home.

To check if I was right in assuming that Russian soldiers had likely moved into my old house, I approached the Ukrainian 128th Detached Heavy Mechanised Brigade, which is involved in operations in the area.

"You're not wrong. It's extremely likely," its spokesman Oleksandr Kurbatov told me.

As locals have been fleeing frontline areas, they are being replaced with Russian military, he said.

"If there are not enough empty houses, demand is running high. Of course, it's usually military personnel from the occupation army," he told me.

Because nobody in the village was willing to take the risk of having a look at my house, I asked my BBC Verify colleague Richard Irvine-Brown to obtain and analyse recent satellite images. They showed a pattern of movement around the house where I grew up.

There was no sign of a path to the property in March 2022, a month into the invasion.

Aside from the faint path seen in two satellite images in June, the property seemed ignored. Then the path reappeared in December, and a car was seen using it in January 2023. We don't have any images for the property again until August, by when the track had become well established.

The path fades and reappears with the seasons, showing that whoever is using it only does so periodically.

It seems the property is being used during the winter - and likely by Russian soldiers, who have been moving into vacant properties. This is plausible, as biting Ukrainian winters can make it too cold for men or their supplies to stay in trenches, makeshift dwellings and storage.

The truth about what happened to my house may not become known for a long time yet - certainly not while the village is under occupation.

For now, it seems that my old home has become a tiny cog in the wider machine of Russia's war in Ukraine.

Additional reporting by Richard Irvine-Brown

For more on this story listen to Vitaly Shevchenko on Ukrainecast

US special envoy Steve Witkoff and US President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner will join Gaza peace plan talks between Israeli and Hamas negotiators in Egypt on Wednesday.

Their arrival comes as a second day of indirect talks on Tuesday ended without tangible results, a senior Palestinian official familiar with the negotiations told the BBC.

Trump struck a positive tone on Tuesday, as Israel marked the second anniversary of the 7 October Hamas attacks, saying "there's a possibility that we could have peace in the Middle East".

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not comment on the status of the talks, but told Israelis they were in "fateful days of decision".

In a post on X, Netanyahu added that Israel would continue to act to achieve its war aims: "The return of all the kidnapped, the elimination of the Hamas regime and the promise that Gaza will no longer pose a threat to Israel".

Witkoff and Kushner were expected to depart the US on Tuesday evening and arrive in Egypt on Wednesday, a source familiar with the talks told the BBC.

Qatar's prime minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdul Rahman Al Thani, seen as a key mediator, will also join the talks, an official told the Reuters news agency.

Al Thani's attendance was aimed at "pushing forward the Gaza ceasefire plan and hostage release agreement", the official said.

Qatar's foreign minister and the head of Turkish intelligence are expected to join him.

• What are the key sticking points in Trump's Gaza peace plan?
• Read the full 20-point peace plan
• What is Hamas and why is it fighting with Israel in Gaza?
• Israel and the Palestinians: History of the conflict explained

A senior Palestinian official familiar with the negotiations told the BBC that an evening round of indirect talks on Tuesday began at 19:00 local time (16:00 GMT).

The official said the morning session ended without tangible results, amid disagreements over the proposed Israeli withdrawal maps from Gaza and over guarantees Hamas wants to ensure Israel does not resume fighting after the first phase of the deal.

He added that the talks were "tough and have yet to produce any real breakthrough," but noted that mediators were working hard to narrow the gaps between the two sides.

Earlier, a Palestinian official said the negotiations were focused on five key issues: a permanent ceasefire; the exchange of the hostages still held by Hamas for Palestinian prisoners and detainees from Gaza; the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza; arrangements for humanitarian aid deliveries; and post-war governance of the territory.

Chief Hamas negotiator Khalil al-Hayya, whom Israel targeted last month in a series of strikes on Qatar's capital, told Egyptian state-affiliated Al Qahera News TV the group had come "to engage in serious and responsible negotiations," according to the Reuters news agency.

Al-Hayya said Hamas was ready to reach a deal, but it needed "guarantees" that the war would end and not restart.

Senior Hamas official Fawzi Barhoum said the group's negotiators were working to remove "all obstacles to an agreement that meets the aspirations of our people".

Trump said the prospects for peace were "something even beyond the Gaza situation", adding that "we want the release of the hostages immediately".

Speaking on the anniversary of the 7 October attacks, the single deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust, UN Secretary General António Guterres called on all parties to agree to Trump's peace plan, describing it as a "historic opportunity" to "bring this tragic conflict to an end".

Opinion polls now consistently show that around 70% of Israelis want the war to end in exchange for the release of the hostages.

The Israeli military launched a campaign in Gaza in response to the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

At least 67,160 have been killed by Israeli military operations in Gaza since then, including 18,000 children, according to the territory's Hamas-run health ministry. Its figures are seen as reliable by the UN and other international bodies.

In August, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), a UN-backed body, said that more than half a million people across Gaza were facing "catastrophic" conditions characterised by "starvation, destitution and death".

Netanyahu has repeatedly denied starvation is taking place in Gaza.

A United Nations commission of inquiry found Israel had committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, in a report Israel's foreign ministry categorically rejected as "distorted and false".

French President Emmanuel Macron will name a new prime minister within 48 hours, the Elysee Palace has said, fending off speculation that fresh elections could be imminent.

Earlier on Wednesday, outgoing Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu said the possibility of dissolving parliament was beginning to fade following talks with political parties over the last two days.

"There is a majority in parliament and that is the majority that keen to avoid fresh elections," he said.

On Monday, Lecornu - a close ally of Macron - became the third French PM to leave his job in less than a year, driven out by a hung parliament deeply divided along ideological lines.

He was then asked by Macron to stay on for two days to form a consensus among parties on how to get out of the current political crisis.

In a much-awaited TV interview on Wednesday evening, Lecornu said that as well as not wanting fresh elections, most MPs also recognised the pressing need to pass a budget by the end of the year.

However, Lecornu recognised the path towards forming a government was still complicated due to the divisions within parliament and to politicians eyeing the next presidential election.

Whoever ends up in government "will need to be completely disconnected from any presidential ambition for 2027," Lecornu said.

Lecornu, a former armed forces minister, gave no indication about who the next prime minister would be, and although he said his mission was "finished" he also did not appear to rule himself out entirely.

France's political stalemate began following snap elections in July 2024. Since then no one party has had a majority, making it difficult to pass any laws or reforms including the yearly budget.

The big challenge facing Lecornu and his two predecessors has been how to tackle France's crippling national debt, which this year stood at €3.4tn (£2.9tn), or almost 114% of economic output (GDP), the third highest in the eurozone after Greece and Italy.

Previous prime Ministers Michel Barnier and Francois Bayrou were ousted in confidence votes after they presented austerity budgets.

Lecornu said his own draft budget would be presented next week, although it would be "open for debate".

"But the debate needs to begin... parties cannot say they'll vote it down without examining it," he added.

Similarly, Lecornu said, one big issue that has been plaguing French politics since 2023 will need to be revisited - Macron's highly contested pension reforms. "We have to find a way for the debate to take place," Lecornu said.

But some factions in parliament appear immovable from their positions.

Mathilde Panot of the radical left France Unbowed (LFI) said soon after Lecornu's TV interview that the only solution was "the resignation and departure of Emmanuel Macron".

Meanwhile, far right National Rally's leader Marine Le Pen, who has long been calling for fresh elections, stated on Wednesday that she would vote down any new government.

It is unclear, at this stage, which political forces would support a new government.

The so-called common platform of centrists and Republicans that have run the government since last year appears to have fallen apart.

The big question now is whether over the last 48 hours Lecornu was able to persuade the Socialists, who were part of that left bloc during the elections, to prop up a government in some way.

Asked about the calls by some political factions for Macron to resign, with even Macron's own former prime minister Edouard Philippe floating the idea earlier this week, Lecornu said France needed a stable, internationally recognised figure at its helm.

"This is not the time to change the president," Lecornu said.

However, Macron is appearing increasingly isolated, with even close allies beginning to distance themselves from him.

Earlier this week Gabriel Attal, widely seen as Macron's protégé, said he "no longer understood" Macron and called for the appointment of an independent negotiator to steer the government.

Macron has not yet spoken publicly since Lecornu's shock resignation on Monday morning. Lecornu promised the president would "address the French people in due course," without specifying when that may be.

• Spoiler warning: This article reveals details from the first episode of The Celebrity Traitors

TV shows with famous contestants usually have a loose definition of the word "celebrity". But there are no recycled Love Islanders among the 19 big names in the first series of The Celebrity Traitors, which has got off to a cracking start.

"When they came to me and said they wanted to do a celebrity version, I said, 'Oh I don't think we should do that, I like just doing it non-celeb'," said host Claudia Winkleman at the show's launch, only half joking.

"Thankfully I have absolutely zero power, because they said, 'Well, these are the people who have expressed interest.' And I couldn't believe it."

Granted, it's worth keeping things in perspective. It's not Taylor Swift and Tom Cruise entering Ardross Castle in Inverness. But frankly, if Kate Garraway is on board, so are we.

The ITV daytime star was joined by Jonathan Ross, Celia Imrie, Sir Stephen Fry and other familiar names as the series got under way on Wednesday.

Here are six highlights from the opening episode.

Spoilers below

1. The celebrities want to make each other laugh

As you'd expect, the celebrities are extremely comfortable in front of the cameras, creating a fun new dynamic and giving the show a new lease of life.

Many of them already know each other and had an immediate confidence that the regular contestants don't. All of them evidently know and love the format, and there were some genuinely funny moments as the stars tried to make each other laugh.

• "What was your name again?" joked singer Paloma Faith (a faithful, appropriately) as she introduced herself to her fellow players in the car
• "I'm worse than Linda!" remarked comedian Alan Carr later, referencing the notoriously awful but lovable traitor from series three
• When TV presenter Clare Balding pointed out that banishments are decided by a vote, Carr told her: "God, you're looking beautiful today"
• Later, Faith brilliantly pretended to drop dead on the round table after drinking an apparently poisoned glass of water just after the traitors had been selected
• The stars were even happy to make jokes about being traitors. As they left the round table, Sir Stephen shouted: "Traitors stay behind please!", while Ross commented later: "See you in the turret!"

2. Alan Carr is extremely good value

Making the comedian a traitor was exactly the kind of brilliant casting decision we were hoping for. ("How could you not?" said Claudia.)

In the first episode, Carr was panicked, sweating and generally squirming over being a traitor. "I feel sick," he said. "It's the worst secret ever and it's just burning me, I'm so nervous."

He is a delight to watch - even just the sight of him strolling the corridors with his hood up trying to look menacing makes you laugh.

"I've had to have my cloak taken out because I'm so fat," he joked in the first traitors' meeting in the turret.

The traitors were completed by chat show host Ross and singer Cat Burns - both of whom seem to have more of the conniving mindset needed for a great traitor.

But Carr is the truly inspired choice. "My aim was to go under the radar, and I think I've pole-vaulted over it," he reflected at one point. We're in for some fantastic memes.

3. The celebrities literally dig their own graves

Instead of the traditional arrival by train, the stars were driven to a graveyard and set an opening challenge that saw them dig through soil in search of six available shields.

The lucky recipients included Ross, Garraway, rugby player Joe Marler, comedian Joe Wilkinson and singer Charlotte Church.

The sixth shield finder was actress Celia Imrie - albeit helped by Ted Lasso star Nick Mohammed.

"My aim was to try and get Celia a shield, because I love her," he explained. But this is exactly the sort of kindness that can make people suspicious in this show, so he'd better tread carefully.

Messing with the format isn't always a success - who can forget the disastrous "Seer" twist that ruined the climax of the last series? - but this was a terrific task, especially Carr's disappointment that the shield he thought he'd found was actually a rock.

4. Clare Balding is a liability in missions

The contestants were challenged to pull a giant Trojan horse up a hill and through a series of gates that each required a special code, before eventually setting the horse alight.

Unfortunately, Balding locked in an incorrect combination at the first gate before the contestants had even begun tackling the puzzle, not realising you only got one chance to enter the code.

"No! I didn't realise I locked it in, sorry!" she shouted. "I've made a complete mistake there."

She explained later: "I thought, oh we can guess lots of numbers, so while they're working that out, I'll just stick a number in."

"I would've done exactly the same," sympathised Winkleman. "She was mortified, she really was, so I felt terrible for her."

The mission raised a few eyebrows - some were suspicious that Church gave up her shield so willingly in exchange for Balding's error, while swimmer Tom Daley suspected Balding might have deliberately sabotaged the task because she's a traitor.

Luckily, the rest of the task went well, partly thanks to Mohammed, who Garraway described as a "puzzle ninja". Ultimately the contestants completed the mission, would you believe it, with just moments to spare.

5. It's a whole new ball game with celebrities

Some fans were nervous about the celebrity spin-off, but the bottom line is: it works.

"It's not often in our sheltered world that we are put in a position where we have no idea how we're going to react," noted Sir Stephen.

"I don't want to incriminate myself, but I've always wanted to murder a celebrity," added Ross.

But in some ways, the fact that the contestants are well-known makes strategising harder.

"I was thinking about going in speaking Welsh and pretending I've actually been Welsh all this time. Sort of a reverse of Charlotte," joked comedian Lucy Beaumont ahead of the series, referring to the last traitor standing in series three.

The celebrities are playing for a £100,000 prize for their chosen charity (although they also receive a separate appearance fee).

"You think you know these people," Winkleman reflected, "and then you watch them play this game, and I was awestruck by the way they played it - with empathy, with wit and with real smarts."

6. The cliffhanger is unbearable

Despite its extended running time, the episode ended without a murder or a banishment, leaving us with a huge number of questions.

We didn't find out if the celebrities are any better than previous contestants at spelling each other's names at the round table, or whether there will be another outbreak of contestants telling each other: "I'm voting for yourself."

But we know there will be drama. "Did the roundtables get heated? Yes," said Winkleman.

"They're polite, but they want to catch the traitors, and the traitors want to remain undetected, and both parties are excellent at what they do."

Sir Stephen's total dismissal of the "gut instinct" tactic was particularly refreshing.

"The idea that you can be good at reading people is absolute nonsense, and it's just like astrology or anything else," he said before heading into the castle. "Woo woo. You just can't do it.

"We can all be convinced, even though the facts tell us otherwise. These notions of 'I just knew, it's the way he lifted his glass, his eye doing that thing' – all nonsense."

As the episode drew to a close, the most pressing question was which star would be murdered by Carr in plain sight.

"I can't believe they've left me to it," he said. "I have people I want to kill, but it's not going to be easy. What am I going to do?"

We can't wait to find out.

The Celebrity Traitors is on BBC One and BBC iPlayer, and continues on Thursday at 21:00 BST.