Trump urges Hamas to accept ‘final proposal' for 60-day Gaza ceasefire
In a social media post, Trump said his representatives had a 'long and productive' meeting with Israeli officials about Gaza.
He did not identify his representatives but US special envoy Steve Witkoff, secretary of state Marco Rubio and vice-president JD Vance were due to meet Ron Dermer, a senior adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Trump said Israel has agreed to the conditions to finalise a 60-day ceasefire, 'during which time we will work with all parties to end the war'. He said representatives for Qatar and Egypt will deliver 'the final proposal' to Hamas.
'I hope, for the good of the Middle East, Hamas takes this deal, because it will not get better, it will only get worse. Thank you for your attention to the matter,' he said.
Trump told reporters earlier in the day that he is hopeful a ceasefire-for-hostages agreement can be achieved next week between Israel and Hamas. He is set to meet Netanyahu at the White House on Monday.
Hamas has said it is willing to free the remaining hostages in Gaza under any deal to end the war, while Israel said it can only end if Hamas is disarmed and dismantled. Hamas refuses to lay down its arms.
The war in Gaza was triggered when Hamas-led militants attacked Israel on October 7 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli tallies.
The two sides have shown little sign of a readiness to budge from their entrenched positions.
The US has proposed a 60-day ceasefire and the release of half the hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners and the remains of other Palestinians.
Israeli foreign minister Gideon Saar said earlier this week Israel has agreed to a US-proposed 60-day ceasefire and hostage deal, and put the onus on Hamas.
Trump and his aides appear to be seeking to use any momentum from US and Israeli strikes on Iran nuclear sites, and a ceasefire that took hold last week in that conflict, to secure a lasting truce in the war in Gaza.
Trump told reporters during a visit to Florida he would be 'very firm' with Netanyahu on the need for a speedy Gaza ceasefire while noting the Israeli leader also wants one.
'We hope it's going to happen. We're looking forward to it happening sometime next week,' he told reporters.
'We want to get the hostages out.'
Gaza's health ministry said Israel's post-October 7 military assault has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians. The assault has also caused a hunger crisis, internally displaced Gaza's entire population and prompted accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice and of war crimes at the International Criminal Court. Israel has denied the accusations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
37 minutes ago
- Daily Maverick
All your questions about Israel's short war on Iran answered
Daily Maverick foreign affairs journalist Peter Fabricius answers your questions on the 13-day War on Iran by Israel and the US. Question: Do you think the US action in Iran, to deter it from the ability to make a nuclear weapon – even though US intelligence services consider this an unlikely aim – echoes the US and UK decision to invade Iraq because of their claim about WMD? Or is it more about Israel's ambition to control the region? Answer: I think the concerns that Iran intended to build nuclear weapons are somewhat more credible than the claims that Saddam Hussein had WMD in 2003. For example, IAEA director general Rafael Grossi is ambivalent. He declines to say if he thinks Iran intends to construct nuclear weapons. He has said that he has not seen conclusive evidence pointing to that, but also that Iran has not answered all the IAEA's questions about its nuclear programme. Q: And should Iran wish to have its own nuclear deterrent, would that be any more of a threat to peace than the nuclear weapon capability that Israel (and/or other states) has? A: This is a good question. Of course Israel should not have nuclear bombs either. However, the objective view should be that any nuclear proliferation should be prevented if possible. We cannot say that it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons because Israel has them. Any proliferation of nuclear weapons represents an increase in the danger of nuclear war, which would endanger not only the direct belligerents. Q: How credible is the view that Iran is trying to kill all Jews? Could it be that they are in support of measures to liberate Palestinians who are currently in occupied territory or being mistreated in Gaza? A: It is impossible to assess Iran's attitude. I strongly doubt that it intends to kill all Jews. But it does oppose the existence of Israel as a Jewish state – which is not the same thing. Q: How sure can we be that the US' bombardment of Iran's nuclear facilities – and what we are told is the outcome – without verification from the IAEA, is not another huge scam à la WMD in Iraq? A: I have partly answered this in Question 1. I don't think this is a complete scam, as I believe Israel and the US – and several other Western states – really believe Iran is intending to build nuclear weapons. Whether they are right or wrong is less clear. Q: Why is Israel allowed to have a nuclear bomb but not Iran? A: This comes down to who is 'allowing,' of course. In theory, Israel should not be allowed to have an atomic weapon, but I believe the US and other allies tolerate this because they believe it is a deterrent against an existential threat – or just because they support Israel. As I said, though, the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons does not mean Iran should be allowed to have them. Neither country should. Q: The truth as to whether Iran's nuclear-building capabilities have been or have not been totally wiped out. We hear/read 'yes', we hear/read 'only for a few months'. Once and for all, which is it? A: I am inclined to believe the leaked US intelligence report and the assessment of IAEA director-general Grossi that Iran's nuclear programme has been retarded for several months—not 'completely obliterated,' as Trump has claimed. However, Israel and the US could attack again. Q: Did the US really destroy Iranian nuclear power? A: Well, the answer to that question depends, of course, on whether Iran was intending to become a nuclear power – by which I assume the questioner means acquiring nuclear weapons. If it was, it would appear that the US and Israel failed to destroy its ambitions to become a nuclear power. (See also Question 6.) Q: Is the US president allowed to just attack any other country without having to get authorisation from the US government? A: If by 'the US government' this questioner means 'the US Congress', my understanding is that the US Constitution is rather ambiguous on this point. It gives very wide scope to the president in matters of war, according to the doctrine of the separation of powers. In any case, Republicans control both houses of Congress and I am sure would support Trump's actions. Q: How much of this war is related to oil? So many US interventions have been related to this. A: I don't believe this intervention is related to oil. The US and Israeli attacks have not – and were probably not intended to – topple the Iranian government, which therefore continues to retain control of its oil reserves. Q: What is wrong with Iran having a nuclear bomb? Other countries have it too. A: I think I have answered this question already, in my reply to Question 1. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – which most countries, including South Africa, support – forbids any countries other than the five original nuclear powers (the US, UK, China, Russia and France) from possessing nuclear weapons. This is in principle unjust, as those five have no more right to possess nuclear weapons than anyone else. But when the NPT was first extended in 1995, South Africa, like most countries, took the pragmatic view that it would be better to support the treaty anyway, rather than facing the risk of an uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear weapons, which would present a grave danger to the world. But in any case, not only Israel but also India, Pakistan and probably North Korea have developed atomic weapons outside the parameters of the NPT. DM
Daily Maverick
38 minutes ago
- Daily Maverick
Hamas seeks ceasefire guarantees as scores more killed in Gaza
By Nidal al-Mughrabi and Dawoud Abu Alkas Israeli officials said prospects for reaching a ceasefire deal and hostage deal appeared high, nearly 21 months since the war between Israel and Hamas began. On the ground, intensified Israeli strikes across Gaza continued unabated, killing at least 59 people on Thursday, according to health authorities in the territory. Efforts for a Gaza truce have gathered steam after the U.S. secured a ceasefire to end a 12-day aerial conflict between Israel and Iran. On Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump said that Israel had accepted the conditions needed to finalise a 60-day ceasefire with Hamas, during which the parties will work to end the war. Hamas is seeking clear guarantees that the ceasefire will eventually lead to the war's end, the source close to the group said. Two Israeli officials said that those details were still being worked out. Ending the war has been the main sticking point in repeated rounds of failed negotiations. A separate source familiar with the matter said that Israel was expecting Hamas' response by Friday and that if it was positive, an Israeli delegation would join indirect talks to cement the deal. It was unclear whether those would be held in Egypt or Qatar, the two countries that have been mediating talks. The proposal includes the staggered release of 10 living Israeli hostages and the return of the bodies of 18 more in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, sources say. Of the 50 remaining hostages in Gaza, 20 are believed to still be alive. A senior Israeli official close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said preparations were in place to approve a ceasefire deal even as the premier heads to Washington to meet Trump on Monday. 'READINESS TO ADVANCE' Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen, who sits on Netanyahu's security cabinet, told news website Ynet that there was 'definitely readiness to advance a deal.' In Gaza, however, there was little sign of relief. At least 17 people were killed in an Israeli strike that hit a school in Gaza City where displaced families were sheltering, according to medics. 'Suddenly, we found the tent collapsing over us and a fire burning. We don't know what happened,' one witness, Wafaa Al-Arqan, told Reuters. 'What can we do? Is it fair that all these children burned?' According to medics at Nasser hospital farther south, at least 20 people were killed by Israeli fire en route to an aid distribution site. The Israeli military said it was looking into the reports and that its forces were taking precautions to mitigate harm to civilians as it battled Palestinian militants throughout Gaza. The war began when Hamas fighters stormed into Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages back to Gaza, according to Israeli tallies. Israel's subsequent military assault has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza health ministry, while displacing most of the population of more than 2 million, triggering widespread hunger and leaving much of the territory in ruins. Israel says it won't end the war while Hamas is still armed and ruling Gaza. Hamas, severely weakened, says it won't lay down its weapons but is willing to release all the hostages still in Gaza if Israel ends the war.
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
Political analyst warns of severe repercussions for South Africa amid DA-ANC tensions
Political analyst had warned President Cyril Ramaphosa that removing the DA from the GNU would have consequences of economic crisis. Image: Jairus Mmutle/ GCIS If President Cyril Ramaphosa were to dare to fire the Democratic Alliance (DA) from the Government of National Unity (GNU), the Western powers might jump into action to punish South Africa severely, warns political analyst Zakhele Ndlovu. Ndlovu, who is from the University of KwaZulu-Natal, commented on the worsening standoff between the ANC and DA since the inception of the GNU. The DA had begun implementing its threat to frustrate Ramaphosa by rejecting the budget vote for two ANC-led departments, whose ministers it accused of corruption and incompetence. Among those ministers whom the DA wanted to be fired were Human Settlements' Thembi Simelane and Higher Education's Nobuhle Nkabane. The party also wanted Water and Sanitation Deputy Minister David Mahlobo out of the position. The DA's demands were sparked by Ramaphosa firing its MP, Andrew Whitfield, as the Trade, Industry and Competition deputy minister, last week. When Ramaphosa refused to succumb to the pressure, DA leader John Steenhuisen announced a boycott of some of the ANC departments' budget votes and that the party was pulling out of the National Dialogue. The DA said the National Dialogue was pro-ANC as Ramaphosa decided without consultation which eminent persons would participate. Steenhuisen threatened a vote of no confidence against the head of state, who has constitutional powers to appoint and remove members of his Cabinet. Said Ndlovu: 'Ramaphosa won't dare to use his power to fire DA ministers or force the DA to exit the GNU. The DA knows that investors and Western governments are on its side to severely punish the ANC and South Africans.' Ndlovu called on Ramaphosa to respect the GNU parties because the ANC did not receive the voters' mandate to govern alone. Ramaphosa's spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, said: 'As far as we understand, there's no standoff in the GNU. Parties joined the GNU voluntarily, equally, they'll leave the GNU if they so choose out of their own accord.' Ndlovu said Ramaphosa's hands were tied as kicking the DA out would have consequences. 'The economy would be sabotaged, and that would mean higher unemployment, more poverty, and South Africa doesn't want to become another Zimbabwe,' said Ndlovu. He said the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Act, the National Health Insurance Act, and the Land Expropriation Act were a result of bullying 'as if it (ANC) was still in control of the executive'. 'The ANC no longer has an outright majority and, therefore, needs to compromise to reach consensus with its coalition partners, particularly the DA (because) clearly, the gloves are off now. 'By pulling out of the National Dialogue, the DA hopes to frustrate and punish the ANC for acting as if it still has an outright majority,' said Ndlovu. Ndlovu said that although the DA felt like an abused partner in a marriage, it does not want the marriage to end because it has more to lose than to gain in a divorce. 'There is no hope to iron out the differences, but to hang in there until the end of the term of office. 'The only way to manage the differences is to keep reminding each other that they need each other. Already, these differences are disrupting the work of the GNU and making it ineffective,' said Ndlovu. During a media briefing in Cape Town on Saturday, Steenhuisen challenged the ANC when he said: 'If the ANC wants to kick the DA out for fighting against corruption, well, so be it.' Soon after Minister Simelane tabled her R33 billion budget vote in Parliament on Thursday, the DA rejected it. 'We cannot support allocating R33 billion to a department led by a minister implicated in serious corruption. Since President Ramaphosa refuses to act, the DA will take every possible step to prevent further misuse of public funds,' read its statement. The DA was joined by the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) in rejecting Nkabane's budget. DA national spokesperson Willie Aucamp said his party was not opposed to the budget, but to ministers who are handling it 'as part of the fight against corruption'. He said the ANC was not listening to the DA's input in the GNU. 'The ANC had become used to over 30 years of being in power alone, and it will take time for it to come to terms with the fact that they don't govern alone anymore. 'President Ramaphosa must have a Cabinet with people fit for the purpose and who are worthy of being members of the Cabinet,' said Aucamp. He said the parties should stick to the Statement of Intent, which the parties signed before the formation of the GNU, which says that there should be sufficient consensus in the government's decision. The ANC questioned the DA's commitment to the GNU, stating that its vote against the departments' budget was 'not only disruptive but also undermined the very spirit and functioning of the GNU, to which the DA has committed itself'. 'South Africans deserve clarity and leadership guided by national interest, not short-term political expediency,' said ANC national spokesperson Mahlengi Bhengu-Motsiri. Another political analyst, Sakhile Hadebe, said the DA was trying too hard to prove its existence and visibility in the GNU. He did not see the ANC voting against the budget of DA-led departments because, as the biggest party in the GNU, the ANC 'must lead by example and properly'. [email protected]
