Israel agreed to terms of a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza, Trump says
U.S. President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday night that Israel agreed to the 'necessary conditions' that would lead to a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza, during which time Washington 'will work with all parties to end the war.'
'My representatives had a long and productive meeting with the Israelis today on Gaza,' the president stated on Tuesday.
'The Qataris and Egyptians, who have worked very hard to help bring peace, will deliver this final proposal,' Trump stated. 'I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this deal, because it will not get better. It will only get worse.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
35 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
American bombs in Iran also reverberate in China and North Korea
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — President Donald Trump campaigned on keeping the United States out of foreign wars, but it didn't take long to convince him to come to the direct aid of Israel, hitting Iranian nuclear targets with bunker-buster bombs dropped by B-2 stealth bombers and Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from a submarine. Beyond the attack's immediate impact on helping bring the 12-day war to a close, experts say Trump's decision to use force against another country also will certainly be reverberating in the Asia-Pacific, Washington's priority theater.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
American bombs in Iran also reverberate in China and North Korea
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — President Donald Trump campaigned on keeping the United States out of foreign wars, but it didn't take long to convince him to come to the direct aid of Israel, hitting Iranian nuclear targets with bunker-buster bombs dropped by B-2 stealth bombers and Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from a submarine. Beyond the attack's immediate impact on helping bring the 12-day war to a close, experts say Trump's decision to use force against another country also will certainly be reverberating in the Asia-Pacific, Washington's priority theater. 'Trump's strikes on Iran show that he's not afraid to use military force — this would send a clear message to North Korea, and even to China and Russia, about Trump's style,' said Duyeon Kim, a senior analyst at the Center for a New American Security based in Seoul, South Korea. 'Before the strikes, Pyongyang and Beijing might have assumed that Trump is risk averse, particularly based on his behavior his first presidency despite some tough talk,' Kim said. China, North Korea and Russia all condemn US strike Ten days into the war between Israel and Iran, Trump made the risky decision to step in, hitting three nuclear sites with American firepower on June 22 in a bid to destroy the country's nuclear program at a time while negotiations between Washington and Tehran were still ongoing. The attacks prompted a pro forma Iranian retaliatory strike the following day on a U.S. base in nearby Qatar, which caused no casualties, and both Iran and Israel then agreed to a ceasefire on June 24. North Korea, China and Russia all were quick to condemn the American attack, with Russian President Vladimir Putin calling it 'unprovoked aggression,' China's Foreign Ministry saying it violated international law and 'exacerbated tensions in the Middle East,' and North Korea's Foreign Ministry maintaining it 'trampled down the territorial integrity and security interests of a sovereign state.' While the strikes were a clear tactical success, the jury is still out on whether they will have a more broad strategic benefit to Washington's goals in the Middle East or convince Iran it needs to work harder than ever to develop a nuclear deterrent, possibly pulling the U.S. back into a longer-term conflict. US allies could see attack as positive sign for deterrence If the attack remains a one-off strike, U.S. allies in the Asia-Pacific region likely will see the decision to become involved as a positive sign from Trump's administration, said Euan Graham, a senior defense analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. 'The U.S. strike on Iran will be regarded as net plus by Pacific allies if it is seen to reinforce red lines, restore deterrence and is of limited duration, so as not to pull the administration off-course from its stated priorities in the Indo-Pacific,' he said. 'China will take note that Trump is prepared to use force, at least opportunistically.' In China, many who have seen Trump as having a 'no-war mentality' will reassess that in the wake of the attacks, which were partially aimed at forcing Iran's hand in nuclear program negotiations, said Zhao Minghao, an international relations professor at China's Fudan University in Shanghai. 'The way the U.S. used power with its air attacks against Iran is something China needs to pay attention to,' he said. 'How Trump used power to force negotiations has a significance for how China and the U.S. will interact in the future.' But, he said, Washington should not think it can employ the same strategy with Beijing. 'If a conflict breaks out between China and the U.S., it may be difficult for the U.S. to withdraw as soon as possible, let alone withdraw unscathed,' he said. China and North Korea present different challenges Indeed, China and North Korea present very different challenges than Iran. First and foremost, both already have nuclear weapons, raising the stakes of possible retaliation considerably in the event of any attack. There also is no Asian equivalent of Israel, whose relentless attacks on Iranian missile defenses in the opening days of the war paved the way for the B-2 bombers to fly in and out without a shot being fired at them. Still, the possibility of the U.S. becoming involved in a conflict involving either China or North Korea is a very real one, and Beijing and Pyongyang will almost certainly try to assess what the notoriously unpredictable Trump would do. North Korea will likely be 'quite alarmed' at what Israel, with a relatively small but high-quality force, has been able to achieve over Iran, said Joseph Dempsey, a defense expert with the International Institute for Strategic Studies. At the same time, it likely will be seen internally as justification for its own nuclear weapons program, 'If Iran did have deployable nuclear weapons would this have occurred?' Dempsey said. 'Probably not.' The U.S. decision to attack while still in talks with Iran will also not go unnoticed, said Hong Min, a senior analyst at South Korea's Institute for National Unification. 'North Korea may conclude that dialogue, if done carelessly, could backfire by giving the United States a pretext for possible aggression,' he said. 'Instead of provoking the Trump administration, North Korea is more likely to take an even more passive stance toward negotiations with Washington, instead focusing on strengthening its internal military buildup and pursuing closer ties with Russia, narrowing the prospects for future talks,' he said. China and Taiwan will draw lessons China will look at the attacks through the visor of Taiwan, the self-governing democratic island off its coast that China claims as its own territory and President Xi Jinping has not ruled out taking by force. The U.S. supplies Taiwan with weapons and is one of its most important allies, though Washington's official policy on whether it would come to Taiwan's aid in the case of a conflict with China is known as 'strategic ambiguity,' meaning not committing to how it would respond. Militarily, the strike on Iran raises the question of whether the U.S. might show less restraint than has been expected by China in its response and hit targets on the Chinese mainland in the event of an invasion of Taiwan, said Drew Thompson, senior fellow with the Singapore-based think tank RSIS Rajaratnam School of International Studies. It will also certainly underscore for Beijing the 'difficulty of predicting Trump's actions,' he said. 'The U.S. airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities caught many by surprise,' Thompson said. 'I think it demonstrated a tolerance and acceptance of risk in the Trump administration that is perhaps surprising.' It also gives rise to a concern that Taiwan's President Lai Ching-te, who in recent speeches has increased warnings about the threat from China, may be further emboldened in his rhetoric, said Lyle Goldstein, director of the Asia Program at the Washington-based foreign policy think tank Defense Priorities. Already, Lai's words have prompted China to accuse him of pursuing Taiwanese independence, which is a red line for Beijing. Goldstein said he worried Taiwan may try to take advantage of the American 'use of force against Iran to increase its deterrent situation versus the mainland.' 'President Lai's series of recent speeches appear almost designed to set up a new cross-strait crisis, perhaps in the hopes of building more support in Washington and elsewhere around the Pacific,' said Goldstein, who also is director of the China Initiative at Brown University's Watson Institute. 'I think that is an exceedingly risky gambit, to put it mildly,' he said. ___ Tong-hyung Kim in Seoul, South Korea, and Didi Tang and Albee Zhang in Washington contributed to this report.
National Post
2 hours ago
- National Post
Avi Benlolo: The Jewish community deserves to live in peace
Canada is at a crossroads. In the face of growing hatred and escalating threats toward the Jewish community, we must confront a difficult truth: antisemitic violence is no longer a fringe concern — it is now a coordinated and dangerous threat to public safety and national values. Article content Over the past year, antisemitic incidents have surged. In cities like Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, Jewish schools, synagogues, and community centres have been targeted with threats, vandalism, arson, and even gunfire. These are not isolated events — they reflect a disturbing pattern of extremism taking root in the public square, online spaces, and protests where hate speech and glorification of terrorism go unchecked. Article content Article content Article content The case for a national response is stark. After the Hamas-led October 7th massacre in Israel, Canada experienced a sharp rise in antisemitism. Toronto recorded 443 hate incidents in 2024 alone — 40 per cent targeting Jews. Across Canada, there was a 670 per cent increase in antisemitic incidents since the attack. In Vancouver, Jewish institutions were threatened and set on fire. Most shockingly, a Jewish girls' school in Toronto was shot at three times. These are not abstract statistics — they reflect a wave of hate crossing into real-world violence. Article content Article content In response, I've begun writing a White Paper for a new national conversation — working with friends and leaders in government and law enforcement to explore concrete actions that protect the Jewish community and reinforce the values of our democracy. The response to having the conversation has been overwhelmingly positive across the country. Article content One of the greatest concerns is deterrence. Hate groups and extremists feel emboldened, often because they believe they can act with impunity. This must change. Deterrence theory offers a clear path forward: offenders must know they will be caught swiftly. In other words, the response must be immediate and the severity must be strong and unambiguous, with meaningful penalties that reflect the seriousness of these crimes. Article content Article content In order for this to succeed, first, we must reform how hate crimes are prosecuted. In Canada, charges require the consent of the Attorney General — a political hurdle that delays justice. That requirement should be removed, allowing police to lay charges based on evidence and the courts to determine outcomes. Article content Article content Second, existing hate crime laws must be applied consistently as the law of the land. Canada already prohibits hate speech, incitement to genocide, and the promotion of violence, but enforcement appears to be timid and selective. These laws must be used fully and without hesitation. Article content Third, we need a dedicated national enforcement unit focused on antisemitic and ideological hate. Canada has long had units to combat organized crime — this is no less urgent. Hate groups are becoming more coordinated and violent against Jewish citizens. Law enforcement must be equally coordinated in its response. Article content Fourth, I'm proposing a new national security strategy — S.N.A.P.: Share, Notify, Act, Protect. It calls for improved intelligence sharing across agencies, real-time alerts for Jewish communities, swift legal action, and visible protection of high-risk institutions. This model moves us from a reactive stance to a proactive one. Article content Fifth, we must modernize protest laws. Inspired by recent U.K. reforms, Canada should adopt clear rules: require and enforce advance notice of protest marches; place limits on time, location, and methods; prevent seriously disruptive protests; and restrict demonstrations near Jewish events. Issue immediate and heavy fines. These measures preserve freedom of expression while safeguarding public order and safety. Article content Sixth, legal definitions must be updated to reflect modern threats. Online radicalization, glorification of terror, and hate propaganda must be addressed with new legislation, including reinstating Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act curtailing hate online and digitally. Article content Canada also rightly recognizes that free speech has limits — especially when it infringes on the safety and rights of others. Pro-Hamas groups may have the right to protest peacefully, but they are not free to block Jewish Canadians from attending events or entering synagogues. They are not free to harass, intimidate, or chant genocidal slogans. This is not free speech — it is hate speech. And under Canadian law, it is not protected. Article content These ideas are drawn from my extensive consultation with political leaders and law enforcement leaders. They are not the final word — but the beginning of a critical national conversation. In the 1980s and 1990s, it was primarily the Jewish community that helped shape Canada's hate crime laws in response to a rising Neo-Nazi threat. Today, the threat is more lethal, more ideological, and more public — and reforms must rise to meet this moment. Article content
