Tuesday briefing: Is a ceasefire in Gaza on the table as Netanyahu and Trump meet in Washington?
So far every attempt to end the conflict has failed. But the the fraying patience of the US president, Donald Trump, who has promised to deliver peace to Gaza, has seen Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu dispatch a team of negotiators to Qatar for indirect talks with Hamas, with the Israeli leader expected to come under pressure on this week's trip to Washington DC to agree to a ceasefire.
Yet despite Trump's desire to end the war, and Israel and Hamas making positive noises about the prospect of a ceasefire, the two sides are still far apart on a number of crucial negotiating points.
Last night, just hours before Netanyahu told Trump at a White House dinner that he had nominated him for the Nobel peace prize, Israel laid out its vision for a post-war Gaza with a plan that would force all Palestinians in Gaza into a camp on the ruins of Rafah, in a scheme that legal experts described as 'a blueprint for crimes against humanity'.
For today's newsletter, I talked to the Guardian's Middle East correspondent Emma Graham-Harrison about the prospects for peace, and what is at stake for everyone involved. First, the headlines.
Immigration | Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron are expected to announce plans for French police to do more to block small boats crossing the Channel at a summit in London this week, but a wider deal on returning asylum seekers is still up in the air.
Iran | The Iranian president, Masoud Pezeshkian, said in an interview released on Monday that Israel, which last month fought a 12-day war with Iran, had attempted to assassinate him by bombarding an area in which he was holding a meeting.
Poverty | Children in England are living in 'almost Dickensian levels of poverty' where deprivation has become normalised, the children's commissioner has said, as she insisted the two-child benefit limit must be scrapped.
Environment | Millions of tonnes of treated sewage sludge is spread on farmland across the UK every year despite containing forever chemicals, microplastics and toxic waste. An investigation by the Guardian and Watershed has identified England's sludge-spreading hotspots and shown where the practice could be damaging rivers.
US news | The Texas senator Ted Cruz ensured the Republican spending bill slashed funding for weather forecasting, only to then go on vacation to Greece while his state was hit by deadly flooding – a disaster that critics say was worsened by cuts to meteorology.
A few hours before Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump met yesterday, the latest rounds of indirect ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas in Doha ended without a breakthrough. Despite this, Trump insisted at a dinner with Netanyahu last night that negotiations were 'going along very well'.
If a new ceasefire is agreed and does come into effect, it will be the third during a war that has claimed the lives of at least 57,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians.
The first ceasefire – in November 2023 – lasted just 10 days. The second, in February and March this year, collapsed after Israel reneged on its promise to move to a second phase that could have seen a definitive end to the conflict.
In the months since, a new Israeli offensive has claimed the lives of thousands more Palestinians. Extreme hunger is everywhere after an 11-week siege and ongoing tight blockade, with only minimal food and aid allowed in.
What are the terms of this new proposed ceasefire?
The details of this new deal include the staggered release of 10 living hostages still held in Gaza by Hamas, and the return of the bodies of 18 more, in exchange for a number of Palestinians held in Israeli jails. There would also be more aid entering the area and a phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from some parts of the Gaza Strip.
Like the previous ceasefires, it will last for 60 days, with Trump and regional allies guaranteeing Hamas that Israel will engage in 'meaningful' talks to bring about a permanent end to the war.
The deal would leave 22 hostages, 10 of them believed to be alive, still held in Gaza.
How strong is Netanyahu's position with Trump?
Emma Graham-Harrison said that, on paper, Donald Trump has most of the leverage, which he is using to push a reluctant Netanyahu to the negotiating table.
Two weeks ago, the world watched as Trump publicly eviscerated Israel for breaking a tentative ceasefire with Iran. He had already forced the Israeli prime minister to turn around fighter jets on their way to Iran – a display of raw power over Israel's leader that Emma said is 'unprecedented'.
Since Trump's F-word outburst, the two allies have once again appeared in lockstep, with the US going on to launch a bombing run in support of Israel against Iran's nuclear programme, handing Netanyahu a huge political boost.
Trump has also backed Netanyahu on a number of other key political issues, calling for corruption charges facing the Israeli prime minister to be dropped and continuing to back his policy for distributing food to Palestinians in Gaza through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), despite hundreds of Palestinians being shot and killed while trying to reach the distribution points.
'Netanyahu has made sure that he appears to be taking Trump's demands for an end to the war seriously; for example sending a team of negotiators to the ceasefire talks in Doha,' said Emma.
At last night's dinner, Trump was upbeat about the prospect of a ceasefire. When the US president was asked about Israel's reported plans to force all Palestinians in Gaza into a new 'humanitarian city' built on the ruins of Rafah, Trump directed Netanyahu to answer the question. In response Netanyahu said he was working with the US on finding countries that will 'give Palestinians a better future'.
Does Netanyahu really want to end the war?
While Netanyahu is aware he needs to appease Trump's desire to present himself as a peacemaker by announcing a ceasefire, Emma said that Netanyahu's critics say he has multiple, compelling reasons not to want a lasting end to the war.
He is still very much beholden to far-right parties within his coalition government who are vehemently opposed to a ceasefire. National security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich have both threatened to leave the government if Netanyahu ends the war.
'There are very powerful voices in the Israeli government who are openly on a messianic mission to ethnically cleanse Gaza ,' said Emma.
There is also the separate issue of that corruption trial which, even with Trump's support, he may not be able to avoid if he loses political office.
A third reason Netanyahu might want to keep the war going, Emma said, is that it allows him to delay any official examination of how the 7 October attacks happened on his watch. She thinks one possible option is that Netanyahu could attempt a 'political fudge', accepting a ceasefire and appearing to agree to Trump's plan that it should lead to a permanent end to the war, while telling allies at home that Israel can return to fighting once the 10 hostages are home.
What about Hamas?
The hostages held by Hamas are the group's only significant leverage in the talks, said Emma.
Militarily, Hamas has been crippled by Israel's relentless assault and obliteration of its senior leadership, (although Emma pointed out that Hamas is far from eliminated as a fighting force.
'Agreeing to give up more hostages in a situation that doesn't seem to be concretely leading to a permanent end to the war is arguably not that attractive an option for them,' says Emma. 'I think their key aim now will be to end the war in a way that preserves some kind of power and influence in Gaza and trying to making sure that some elements of their organisation are still functioning.'
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
What if the talks fail?
The Israeli offensive has reduced most of Gaza to ruins since 2023, displaced almost the entire 2.3 million population, destroyed its healthcare system and killed more than 57,000 people, burying thousands of others under the rubble.
The total siege imposed for 11 weeks after the collapse of the last ceasefire has only partly been lifted to allow a small amount of food aid and medical supplies into the territory. Aid workers are saying that fuel stocks are close to running out, which would lead to the 'complete collapse' of humanitarian operations, the health system and communications.
Amid all the discussions about the ceasefire, the voices of Palestinian people themselves have seldom been heard, so I want to end this newsletter with Lama, a 12-year Palestinian girl who was interviewed by our Gaza correspondent Malak A Tantesh about what is really at stake if peace is not achieved.
'I was so happy during the last ceasefire. We felt a bit safe. When the war returned, I cried a lot because it meant going back to the suffering of tents, the summer heat and repeated displacement,' Lama said.
When asked about what she was afraid of if the ceasefire talks failed, she told Malak that she was scared of being 'torn apart, killed, paralysed or losing a limb'.
If you weren't tuned in to Australia's extraordinary 'mushroom murders' trial, in which Erin Patterson was found guilty on Monday of deliberately poisoning three relatives, Nino Bucci has a startling breakdown of every twist and turn in the unbelievable tale. Charlie Lindlar, acting deputy editor, newsletters
Hugh Muir looks back on Ken Livingstone's speech of defiance and unity that followed the 7/7 London terrorist attacks through the prism of our increasingly divisive politics 20 years on. Annie
One often hears that we can't raise taxes on the super-rich or they'll leave the UK and take their money with them … but is it really true? Lauren Almeida digs into the data in this fascinating piece. Charlie
Amid the tsunami of Oasis coverage, I loved this piece by Lauren Cochrane on how the band's fans are having a fashion moment and dusting off their bucket hats and parkas for the reunion tour. Annie
A compelling piece in the Atlantic (£) from a former New York precinct police chief, Brandon del Pozo, who argues that as ICE agents 'rack up arrests on the road to 1 million deportations', the ghoulish practice of dressing in masks and refusing to identify themselves must end. Charlie
Tennis | Jannik Sinner was fortunate to advance to the Wimbledon quarter-finals as Grigor Dimitrov was forced to retire through injury when leading by two sets. Novak Djokovic lost the first set in 30 minutes before recovering to beat Alex de Minaur 1-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 and advance. Iga Świątek had a 6-4, 6-1 win over Clara Tauson to set up a quarter-final against 19th-seeded Liudmila Samsonova. The 18-year-old Mirra Andreeva beat Emma Navarro 6-2, 6-3 while Belinda Bencic reached her first Wimbledon quarter-final.
Cycling | Tim Merlier took stage three of the Tour de France in Dunkirk after the peloton's top sprinter and points leader Jasper Philipsen crashed out of the race 60km from the finish.
Cricket | Jofra Archer is poised to make his long-awaited comeback in the third Test against India this week, with Brendon McCullum, the England head coach, calling for Lord's to deliver a pitch that has pace, bounce and sideways movement.
The Guardian is reporting this morning that 'Bosses face ban on non-disclosure deals that silence victims of abuse'. The i paper has '50,000 children will be lifted out of poverty due to rebellion on welfare reforms'. 'Trump grants three-week reprieve on return of 'reciprocal' trade tariffs' – that's the Financial Times while the Express takes aim at ''Hypocrisy' of Labour's homes plan'. The Telegraph heralds the French president's state visit with 'No borders between us, King to tell Macron'. 'Hand back our £771 million, Mr Macron' says the Daily Mail, tacking 's'il vous plait' on the end in mock courtesy. (A Tory says we've paid that money to France without it stopping the boats.) The Times sound more realistic with 'PM set to press Macron for 'one in, one out' deal'. 'Victims' fury as Epstein probe shut down' – by the 'Trump team', says the Mirror. Top story in the Metro today is 'Mushroom murderer targeted me four times'.
Trump's big beautiful betrayal
Ed Pilkington explains the president's 'Big Beautiful Bill' and what it will mean for millions of poorer Americans who voted for him last November.
A bit of good news to remind you that the world's not all bad
Sometimes it's the simple things that make all of the difference. Nikki Allen (above) was conditioned to say yes to requests – from a colleague at work, from the PTA, from a friend. But she discovered one night, after distractions kept her from responding to a request for help right away, that urgent queries were not always pressing.
'It was the start of a new habit: to stop saying yes on the spot. To pause and think about whether I really want to first,' writes Allen for The one change that worked. 'Now, since that night a few years ago, whenever someone asks me to do something … I tell them: 'Let me check and get back to you.''
It's a subtle change that has given her more time, energy and autonomy to focus on the things each day that matter much more than other people's approval.
Sign up here for a weekly roundup of The Upside, sent to you every Sunday
And finally, the Guardian's puzzles are here to keep you entertained throughout the day. Until tomorrow.
Quick crossword
Cryptic crossword
Wordiply
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
18 minutes ago
- The Guardian
US supreme court clears way for Trump officials to resume mass government firings
The US supreme court has cleared the way for Donald Trump's administration to resume plans for mass firings of federal workers that critics warn could threaten critical government services. Extending a winning streak for the US president, the justices on Tuesday lifted a lower court order that had frozen sweeping federal layoffs known as 'reductions in force' while litigation in the case proceeds. The decision could result in hundreds of thousands of job losses at the departments of agriculture, commerce, health and human services, state, treasury, veterans affairs and other agencies. Democrats condemned the ruling. Antjuan Seawright, a party strategist, said: 'I'm disappointed but I'm not shocked or surprised. This rightwing activist court has proven ruling after ruling, time after time, that they are going to sing the songs and dance to the tune of Trumpism. A lot of this is just implementation of what we saw previewed in Project 2025.' Project 2025, a plan drawn up by the conservative Heritage Foundation thinktank, set out a blueprint for downsizing government. Trump has claimed that voters gave him a mandate for the effort and he tapped billionaire ally Elon Musk to lead the charge through the 'department of government efficiency', or Doge, though Musk has since departed. In February, Trump announced 'a critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy' in an executive order directing agencies to prepare for a government overhaul aimed at significantly reducing the workforce and gutting offices. In its brief unsigned order on Tuesday, the supreme court said Trump's administration was 'likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order' and a memorandum implementing his order were lawful. The court said it was not assessing the legality of any specific plans for layoffs at federal agencies. Liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole member of the nine-person court to publicly dissent from the decision, which overturns San Francisco-based district judge Susan Illston's 22 May ruling. Jackson wrote that Illston's 'temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this court's demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this president's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture'. She also described her colleagues as making the 'wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground'. Illston had argued in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority in ordering the downsizing, siding with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments that challenged the administration. 'As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress,' she wrote. The judge blocked the agencies from carrying out mass layoffs and limited their ability to cut or overhaul federal programmes. Illston also ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs, though she delayed implementing this portion of her ruling while the appeals process plays out. Illston's ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul pursued by Trump and Doge. Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programmes or have been placed on leave. The administration had previously challenged Illston's order at the San Francisco-based ninth US circuit court of appeals but lost in a 2-1 ruling on 30 May. That prompted the justice department to make an emergency request to the supreme court, contending that controlling the personnel of federal agencies 'lies at the heartland' of the president's executive branch authority. The plaintiffs had urged the supreme court to deny the justice department's request. Allowing the Trump administration to move forward with its 'breakneck reorganization', they wrote, would mean that 'programs, offices and functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs'. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion The supreme court's rejection of that argument on Tuesday was welcomed by Trump allies. Pam Bondi, the attorney general, posted on the X social media platform: 'Today, the Supreme Court stopped lawless lower courts from restricting President Trump's authority over federal personnel – another Supreme Court victory thanks to @thejusticedept attorneys. Now, federal agencies can become more efficient than ever before. The state department wrote on X: 'Today's near unanimous decision from the Supreme Court further confirms that the law was on our side throughout this entire process. We will continue to move forward with our historic reorganization plan at the State Department, as announced earlier this year. This is yet another testament to President Trump's dedication to following through on an America First agenda.' In recent months the supreme court has sided with Trump in some major cases that were acted upon on an emergency basis since he returned to office in January. It cleared the way for Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In two cases, it let the administration end temporary legal status previously granted on humanitarian grounds to hundreds of thousands of migrants. It also allowed Trump to implement his ban on transgender people in the US military, blocked a judge's order for the administration to rehire thousands of fired employees and twice sided with Doge. In addition, the court curbed the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding presidential policies. On Tuesday the Democracy Forward coalition condemned the supreme court for intervening in what it called Trump's unlawful reorganisation of the federal government. It said in a statement: 'Today's decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy. 'This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution.'
The Guardian
23 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Emmanuel Macron says Europeans will ‘never abandon Ukraine'
The French president said Britain and France must work together to protect the international order, in an address to the UK parliament on Tuesday. Macron was welcomed to Britain by King Charles for the first state visit by a European leader since Brexit. During his speech to parliament, the French leader said Europe would never abandon Ukraine, adding that Britain and France would work with the 'coalition of the willing' until the last minute to secure a ceasefire. He also spoke of a need for Britain and France to reduce risks posed by relying too much on the United States and China for trade
Reuters
24 minutes ago
- Reuters
Supreme Court lets Trump resume plans for mass federal layoffs
WASHINGTON, July 8 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Tuesday for President Donald Trump's administration to resume its plans to carry out mass job cuts and the restructuring of agencies, elements of his campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. In Trump's latest victory at the top U.S. judicial body, the justices lifted San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston's May 22 order that blocked large-scale federal layoffs called "reductions in force" affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, while litigation in the case proceeds. Workforce reductions were planned at the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs and more than a dozen other agencies. The Supreme Court in recent months has sided with Trump in several cases that were acted upon on an emergency basis since he returned to office in January including clearing the way for implementation of some of his hardline immigration policies. In addition, Trump last week claimed the biggest legislative win of his second presidential term with congressional passage of a massive package of tax and spending cuts. The court, in a brief unsigned order on Tuesday, said Trump's administration was "likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order" and a memorandum implementing his order were lawful. The court said it was not assessing the legality of any specific plans for layoffs at federal agencies. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole member of the nine-person court to publicly dissent from the decision. Jackson wrote that Illston's "temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this court's demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this president's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture." Trump in February announced "a critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy" in an executive order directing agencies to prepare for a government overhaul aimed at significantly reducing the federal workforce and gutting offices and programs opposed by his administration. A group of unions, non-profits and local governments that sued to block the administration's mass layoffs said Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling "dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy." "This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution," the plaintiffs said in a statement, adding that they would "continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent." U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi welcomed the court's action. "Today, the Supreme Court stopped lawless lower courts from restricting President Trump's authority over federal personnel," Bondi wrote on social media. "Now, federal agencies can become more efficient than ever before." Illston had ruled that Trump exceeded his authority in ordering the government downsizing. "As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress," Illston wrote. The judge's ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul being pursued by Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in the Republican president's drive to slash the federal workforce. Formerly spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk, DOGE has sought to eliminate federal jobs, shrink and reshape the U.S. government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30 and subsequently had a public falling out with Trump. The judge blocked the agencies from carrying out mass layoffs and limited their ability to cut or overhaul federal programs. Illston also ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs, though she delayed implementing this portion of her ruling while the appeals process plays out. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling on May 30 denied the administration's request to halt the judge's ruling. That prompted the Justice Department's June 2 emergency request to the Supreme Court to halt Illston's order. "The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the president does not need special permission from Congress to exercise core Article II powers," the Justice Department told the court, referring to the constitution's section delineating presidential authority. Allowing the Trump administration to move forward with its "breakneck reorganization," the plaintiffs told the court, would mean that "programs, offices and functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs." The Supreme Court in recent months has let Trump's administration resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and end temporary legal status previously granted on humanitarian grounds to hundreds of thousands of migrants. In addition, it has allowed Trump to implement his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military, blocked a judge's order for the administration to rehire thousands of fired employees, twice sided with DOGE and curbed the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding presidential policies.
