Trump urges Hamas to accept 'final proposal' for 60-day Gaza ceasefire, World News
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 had been due to meet Ron Dermer, a senior adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Trump said Israel has agreed to the conditions to finalize 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 "this final proposal" to Hamas.
"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. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" he said.
Trump told reporters earlier in the day that he is hopeful that a ceasefire-for-hostages agreement can be achieved next week between Israel and Hamas militants in Gaza. He is set to meet Netanyahu at the White House on Monday.
Hamas has said it is willing to free remaining hostages in Gaza under any deal to end the war, while Israel says 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 Oct 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, as well as 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 that he would be "very firm" with Netanyahu on the need for a speedy Gaza ceasefire while noting that the Israeli leader wants one as well.
"We hope it's going to happen. And we're looking forward to it happening sometime next week," he told reporters. "We want to get the hostages out."
Gaza's health ministry says Israel's post-Oct 7 military assault has killed over 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 denies the accusations.
[[nid:719433]]
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
an hour ago
- Business Times
The surprising tariff lesson buried in inflation data
IF THE Trump administration's tariff policies result in higher overall inflation – a scenario that will play out in the coming weeks – the question is who will pay for it. A surge in prices will presumably raise the cost of doing business. Less clear is whether, and to what extent, companies will pass on those higher costs to consumers. Any inflationary impact from tariffs should first show up in the Producer Price Index (PPI), which reflects changes in the cost of producing goods and services sold to consumers. Over time, producer inflation is passed on to consumers and shows up in the better-known Consumer Price Index (CPI). The PPI and CPI's long history shows that the two are closely related. They have grown at roughly similar rates – the PPI by 2.8 per cent a year since 1913 through May, and the CPI, at a slightly higher rate of 3.2 per cent a year. Annual changes in the two indexes have also been highly correlated over that time (0.8, counting monthly). The relationship was as strong during the past 30 years (0.81), marked by the increasing globalisation of trade, as it was during the first three decades of the data series (0.79). That long and consistent history supports the intuition that in the long run, businesses do – indeed, must – pass on their higher costs to consumers. Looking at shorter periods, however, the numbers tell a more nuanced story. The first thing that jumps out is that annual changes in the PPI have been twice as volatile as those of the CPI, as measured by annualised standard deviation. This suggests that businesses have routinely shielded consumers from much of the turbulence in producer inflation. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Notably, most of that shielding occurred when producer inflation spiked. The median annual change in PPI has been 2.3 per cent since 1913. During 12-month periods when producer inflation was lower than the median, roughly half the time, CPI outpaced PPI more than 90 per cent of the time, and by a median of 2.2 percentage points. But when annual producer inflation was higher than 2.3 per cent, it was just the opposite. On those occasions, PPI outstripped CPI more than 70 per cent of the time and by a median of 1.6 percentage points. The results are nearly identical when annual changes in PPI and CPI are compared on a six- or 12-month lag. In other words, the higher the inflation, the more likely businesses were to absorb most of the higher cost, at least in the near term, and vice versa. One way to understand that divergence is that there may be a limit to how much price inflation consumers can digest at one time. It would explain why businesses seem to have little trouble passing on their own higher costs to consumers in normal inflation environments, but struggle to do so when inflation spikes. Companies may also have a strategic incentive to internalise cost surges, given competing considerations of volume and margin. Raising prices would protect profit margins in the near term, but could imperil them down the road if higher prices result in lower volume and market share. Passing on higher costs to consumers gradually might be a way to protect both, particularly if companies have margin to spare. Fortunately, many big US companies do – the profit margin for the S&P 500 Equal Weight Index is near an all-time high, and expected to grow this year and next. That may explain why the stock market has been so sensitive to tariff news this year. The White House's Liberation Day announcement was greeted with one of the worst two-day US stock market routs on record, and the tariff delays were routinely celebrated with surging stock prices. The seemingly single-minded focus on levies makes sense if companies have the most to lose. One countervailing consideration is that heightened inflation expectations may give companies more room than usual to raise prices. A notable outlier in the data is that during the hyperinflationary years of the late 1970s and early 1980s, CPI mostly kept pace with PPI despite double-digit producer inflation. Businesses may have been able to raise prices more aggressively because consumers had come to expect big price hikes. Memories of the pandemic's price surge are a big reason Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has called for caution on cutting interest rates until the implications of tariffs are more clear. With inflation expectations for next year nearly double the long-term inflation rate, businesses may be able to push costs to consumers more quickly. The PPI and CPI do not overlap perfectly, so they can only be a rough guide to the way businesses and consumers navigate higher prices. But given the behaviour of producer and consumer inflation during previous periods of surging prices, do not be surprised if any tariff-related inflation is initially absorbed mostly by companies. BLOOMBERG
Straits Times
3 hours ago
- Straits Times
Hiroshima mayor urges Trump visit after A-bomb comments
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox Around 140,000 people died in Hiroshima and about 74,000 others in Nagasaki. TOKYO - US President Donald Trump should visit Hiroshima to see the effects of nuclear weapons, the Japanese city's mayor said on July 2, after Mr Trump likened the 1945 atomic bombings to recent air strikes on Iran. 'It seems to me that he does not fully understand the reality of the atomic bombings, which, if used, take the lives of many innocent citizens, regardless of whether they were friend or foe, and threaten the survival of the human race,' Mayor Kazumi Matsui told reporters. 'I wish that President Trump would visit the bombed area to see the reality of the atomic bombing and feel the spirit of Hiroshima, and then make statements,' Mr Matsui said. The United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on Aug 6, 1945, and then another on Nagasaki three days later. Shortly afterwards, Japan surrendered, ending World War II. Around 140,000 people died in Hiroshima and about 74,000 others in Nagasaki, including many from the effects of radiation exposure. It was the only time that atomic weapons were used in warfare. On June 22, 2025 , following days of Israeli strikes on the Islamic republic, the United States bombed Iranian nuclear facilities. Soon afterwards, Iran and Israel agreed to a ceasefire, ending their 12-day war. 'I don't want to use an example of Hiroshima, I don't want to use an example of Nagasaki, but that was essentially the same thing,' Mr Trump said on June 25. 'That ended that war and this ended (this war),' Mr Trump said at a Nato summit in The Hague. His comments prompted anger from survivors and a small demonstration in Hiroshima. Last week, the city's assembly passed a motion condemning remarks that justify the use of atomic bombs. Japan's atomic bomb survivors' group Nihon Hidankyo won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2024 , and while accepting the prize, called on countries to abolish the weapons. AFP
Business Times
3 hours ago
- Business Times
The US' bombing of Iran was a win for ... Putin
THE consensus after Israel's 12-day war with Iran seems to be that it ended in humiliation – not just for the Islamic Republic, but also Russia, which failed to lift a finger for a loyal ally and lost a supplier of critical drones. But this profoundly misreads both Russian President Vladimir Putin's priorities and the timescale on which he conducts his foreign policy. There is no doubt that Putin's ambition to reassert Russia as a force in the Middle East has been set back. The fall of President Bashar Al-Assad in Syria was a significant loss. His failure to come to the aid of Iran, with whom he had just signed a 20-year strategic partnership, was embarrassing. A year ago, that would indeed have hurt Moscow's war effort in Ukraine, but Russia now makes its own version of the Iranian Shahed drones. It is more important to understand where all this fits into Putin's world view and priorities. Destroying the Ukrainian state ranks much higher for him than any other foreign-policy goal, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere. And on that score, the US-Israeli attack on Iran was a net positive. In a broad sense, the outbreak of another war in the Middle East has sucked attention, energy and resources away from Ukraine, leaving Putin with a free hand. Even at last week's Nato summit, the core deliverable of a pledge to boost defence spending – to levels justifiable only by the threat from Russia – was shunted to the corner. Nobody wanted to anger Donald Trump during his victory lap. More concretely, Israel was able to blunt the impact of the Islamic Republic's missile barrages only by consuming a significant part of its air-defence stockpiles, as well as some from the US, which lent a hand using shipborne air-defence systems. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Equally, the US could only involve itself once it was confident it had enough Patriot batteries in place to protect its military bases around the region. The threat may have receded for now, but planners at the Pentagon are obliged to assume the war restarts and more air defence will be needed, making less available for Ukraine. So the recent dramatic boost in Russian missile and drone strikes on Ukraine was well-timed. Overnight on Monday, Russia launched its biggest single barrage since the start of the war, including 477 drones and decoys, as well as 60 ballistic missiles that require high-level interceptors, such as Patriots. The fact that Ukraine lost an F-16 and its pilot trying to shoot down some of the barrage is a clear indication of the strain on the country's air-defence systems. The attacks in previous days had been only a little smaller, so there was an air of desperation around Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's request for more Patriot interceptors when he met his US counterpart at Nato. There was also truth to Trump's comments afterward; he said he had told Zelensky that he would see what the US could do, but that the Patriots were hard to get, because 'we need them too. We were supplying them to Israel'. This is what matters to Putin, far more than the optics abroad of his failure to come to Iran's aid. For this war will define a legacy that he sees in the context of the Russian empire's construction over centuries. Or as his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, reportedly quipped in 2022, his boss has just three advisers: 'Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great and Catherine the Great.' Nothing that has happened in the last three years has dented this vision of the great Russian restoration. To Putin, not only is the very existence of Ukraine an affront, but the reabsorption of its resources – human, economic and military – into mother Russia is the sine qua non for Moscow's ability to remain at the top of the multipolar world order he sees replacing Western dominance. This is the reason for which Ukraine's plan to sign a trade treaty with the European Union so enraged him in 2013; it meant Kyiv would not join his own rival group, the Eurasian Union. 'All of Ukraine is ours,' Putin told an enthusiastic domestic audience at the annual St Petersburg Economic Forum on Jun 20. He was not shy about adding a new city, Sumy, as a new public target for occupation, either. Make no mistake, Odesa and Kharkiv would be next on the list, whose extent and end will be determined solely by what the Kremlin deems possible at acceptable cost. Ukraine is at a critical juncture. Until Trump came to office, it was evenly balanced whether Putin would be able to continue to exchange swathes of his armed forces for small increments of Ukrainian land long enough for Kyiv's defences to collapse. With Trump's withdrawal of US military support, those calculations have shifted and the long-range missile and drone war forms an essential part of Russia's path to victory. From the moment Ukraine runs out of air-defence interceptors, Russia's air force –still menacing in its scale and capabilities – would for the first time be able to impose air superiority across the country. The impunity that Israeli jets enjoyed over Iran should serve as a timely reminder of exactly what this could mean for Ukraine: A catastrophic collapse of defensive lines as its troops were bombed into submission from the air. Trump has switched from the moral obscenity of blaming Ukraine for being invaded, to complaining about Putin's disinterest in peace talks. But he needs to do better than that. He needs to recognise, at least to himself, that Putin has played him. The intelligence operative running the Kremlin has leveraged Trump's desperation for a ceasefire to further Russia's war aims, and at a time when he too has growing vulnerabilities, including a looming credit crisis. It may be years before anyone can say with certainty that the US military intervention in Iran was a success or failure. But if there is one conclusion Trump can draw from its success in imposing a ceasefire on Israel and Iran, it is that for peace-through-strength to work, you need to first show the strength – and that is something he has woefully failed to do in his dealings with the Kremlin. BLOOMBERG
