A Gaza ceasefire is the closest it has been in months. Here's what we know
Christian Edwards
and
Lauren Kent
, CNN
US President Donald Trump welcomes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House in Washington, DC, on 7 April, 2025.
Photo:
AFP
US President Donald Trump says he's "optimistic" a ceasefire deal in Gaza could be agreed next week after Hamas announced that it had
"submitted a positive response" to a proposal for a 60-day truce with Israel
.
"We have to get it over with," Trump said Friday. "We have to do something about Gaza."
Israel and Hamas have long had conflicting demands that negotiators have been unable to bridge, but with both now agreeing the revised proposal, for the first time in months an agreement seems within reach.
The renewed efforts gathered steam following
a truce between Iran and Israel
but also reflect US pressure and a shift in Israel's war goals. Here's what to know.
Since the Israel-Iran ceasefire on 24 June, mediators Qatar and Egypt - as well as the United States - have redoubled their calls for a new Gaza truce. A Qatari foreign ministry spokesman told CNN the Israel-Iran agreement had created "momentum" for the latest talks between Israel and Hamas.
Netanyahu's government has faced mounting international criticism for the suffering its war is inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza.
Israel imposed a total blockade on humanitarian deliveries to the enclave in March. It somewhat eased the blockade in May, after a chorus of
global experts warned
that hundreds of thousands of people could soon starve.
Hundreds of Palestinians in Gaza have been killed by Israeli strikes in recent days. And aid distribution has been marred by violence, with hundreds killed on their way to try to obtain food from the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), the controversial US-backed aid initiative that began operating at the end of May.
A Palestinian child looks on as smoke billows in the distance during Israeli bombardment in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, on 11 June 2025.
Photo:
AFP
Pressure is also growing on Netanyahu from within Israel.
His government is propped up by far-right figures who want to escalate the fighting in Gaza, but Opposition leader Yair Lapid said Wednesday that he would join the coalition government to make a hostage deal possible. Polls have repeatedly shown that a majority of the country wants a deal to bring the hostages home, even if it means an end to the war.
Talks could begin as early as Monday in Qatar. Meanwhile there has been no let up in the Gaza offensive, with the health ministry reporting scores of people killed in Israeli strikes over the weekend.
In addition to the aim of bringing the hostages home, Netanyahu has not wavered from his more maximalist aims: disarmament of Gaza and the destruction of Hamas' military capabilities and governance abilities.
But last weekend, the prime minister made a rhetorical shift in laying out Israel's goals - for the first time prioritising the return of hostages ahead of what he once called the "supreme objective" of defeating Hamas.
Netanyahu said "many opportunities have opened up" following Israel's military operations in Iran, including the possibility of bringing home everyone still held captive by Hamas. "Firstly, to rescue the hostages," he said. "Of course, we will also need to solve the Gaza issue, defeat Hamas, but I believe we will accomplish both missions."
The comments were welcomed by families of hostages held in Gaza, who have criticized him for not clearly placing releasing their loved ones as Israel's primary goal. Only a small number of hostages have been rescued in military operations rather than freed under truces.
The Israeli military this week recommended pursuing a diplomatic path in Gaza after nearly two years of fighting and the elimination of much of Hamas' senior leadership.
On Tuesday, a military official told CNN that Israel has not fully achieved all of its war goals, but as Hamas' forces have shrunk and gone into hiding, it has become more difficult to effectively target what remains of the militant group. "It's harder now to achieve tactical goals," the official said.
Palestinian children wait with others for food at a distribution point in Gaza City.
Photo:
AFP / Majdi Fathi
The militant group has three main demands: a permanent end to the fighting, for humanitarian assistance to be carried out by the United Nations, and for Israel to retreat to the positions it held on 2 March this year, before it renewed its offensive and occupied the northern part of the Strip.
A senior Hamas official told CNN in late May that the group is "ready to return the hostages in one day - just we want a guarantee that war will not come again after that." The hostages are Hamas' key leverage in negotiations, and the militant group has refused to agree to a release without a path to end the conflict.
In response to the earlier Trump administration-backed ceasefire proposal in May, Hamas requested US assurances that permanent ceasefire negotiations will continue and that fighting will not resume after the 60-day pause.
Whether the ceasefire will be temporary or a pathway to a permanent truce is the biggest sticking point between the warring parties.
While Israel wants to eradicate Hamas following the 7 October attacks, the group has shown little willingness to relinquish its political and military power in Gaza.
Officials in the group have given contradictory statements as to Hamas' role in a post-war Gaza. The group's spokesperson, Hazem Qassem, has said that the group is
not "clinging to power"
and does not have to be part of arrangements "in the next phase."
What's in the proposed deal?
While the fine detail of the proposal is yet to be released it is clear that the revised plan is an attempt to bridge some of the differences between Israel and Hamas.
A source familiar with the negotiations said that the timeline of the latest proposal calls for the release of 10 living Israeli hostages and 18 deceased hostages spread out over the full 60-day period.
Of the 50 hostages still in Gaza, at least 20 of them are believed to be alive, according to the Israeli government.
Similar to previous ceasefires, on the first day of the truce, Hamas would release eight living hostages. In exchange, Israel would release an unspecified number of Palestinian prisoners and detainees, and withdraw its forces from pre-agreed locations in northern Gaza.
Israeli-Argentinian hostage Yair Horn (C) stands next to Palestinian militants as others take pictures of him on stage during a handover to a Red Cross team in Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip on 15 February 2025, as part of the sixth hostage-prisoner exchange.
Photo:
Eyad Baba / AFP
Israel and Hamas would also immediately enter into negotiations for a permanent ceasefire once the initial truce goes into effect, the source said.
Under the deal, hostages will be released without ceremonies or fanfare at Israel's request - unlike during the last truce, when Hamas staged public propaganda events around hostage transfers that sparked outrage in Israel.
Humanitarian aid will immediately begin to flow into Gaza at the start of the ceasefire, including from the United Nations and from other aid organisations, similar to the previous ceasefire which began on January 19.
This leaves the fate of the US-backed GHF and its role in Gaza unclear.
The US and the mediators have provided stronger assurances about reaching a settlement to end the war in Gaza as part of the updated proposal, an Israeli official told CNN, something that in principle should address one of Hamas' key concerns. The official did not provide the specific language in the document, but said the wording is stronger than previous assurances.
Although both sides have accepted the proposal, more talks must take place before a ceasefire begins.
In these proximity talks, negotiators shuttle back and forth between the two sides to hammer out the final details of the agreement.
Hamas said on Friday night that they had submitted a "positive response" to the proposal, but an official involved in the talks said Hamas had introduced some "amendments."
Hamas did not publicly state what changes they wanted to the proposal put forward by Qatar earlier this week, but the militant organisation has long sought stronger assurances about a comprehensive end to the war, as well as the entrance of humanitarian aid entering Gaza. Hamas has sought to channel that aid through the traditional United Nations mechanism, not the controversial US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
Israel has sent a delegation to participate in the talks in Doha, but the prime minister's Office said the changes Hamas is seeking to the latest Qatari proposal are "unacceptable."
One of the key issues to resolve during proximity talks will be the timeline and location of the withdrawal of Israeli forces in Gaza during the 60-day ceasefire, according to the source.
Head of the political wing of the Palestinian Hamas movement in the Gaza Strip Yahya Sinwar.
Photo:
AFP / MAHMUD HAMS
In the 21 months of war between Israel and Hamas, ceasefires have been in place for a total of only nine weeks.
More than 57,000 people, of which more than 17,000 are children, have been killed in Gaza during the fighting, according to the Palestinian health ministry.
The first ceasefire
came into effect in November 2023
, but lasted only a week. In that time, 105 hostages were released from Gaza, in exchange for scores of Palestinian prisoners.
A second ceasefire was not struck until January 2025, shortly before Trump's return to the White House. In just over eight weeks - the first "phase" of the ceasefire - Hamas freed 33 hostages, with Israel releasing around 50 Palestinian prisoners for every Israeli freed.
Under the planned second stage, Israel was supposed to agree to a permanent ceasefire. But Israel resumed its offensive on 18 March,
shattering the ceasefire and derailing the talks
, saying it did so to put pressure on Hamas to release the remaining hostages.
-
CNN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Spinoff
2 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Appeasing Trump in the Middle East is not cost-free for New Zealand
The government's responses to recent events in the Middle East indicate that its desire not to offend the Trump administration has compromised New Zealand's commitment to uphold an international rules-based order, argues Robert Patman. While distant in geographic terms, brutal violence in Gaza, the West Bank and Iran marks the latest stage in the unravelling of an international rules-based order on which New Zealand depends for its prosperity and security. It should be emphasised that New Zealand's founding document, the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, emphasises partnership and cooperation at home, and, after 1945, helped inspire a New Zealand worldview enshrined in institutions such as the United Nations and norms such as multilateralism. In the wake of Hamas' terrorist attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023, the National-led coalition government has in principle emphasised its support for a lasting ceasefire in Gaza and the need for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the occupied territories of East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank. However, in practice, this New Zealand stance has not translated into firm diplomatic opposition to the Netanyahu government's quest to control Gaza and annex the West Bank. Nor has it been a condemnation of the Trump administration for prioritising its support for Israel's security goals over international law. Foreign minister Winston Peters has described the situation in Gaza as 'simply intolerable' but the National-led coalition had little specific to say as the Netanyahu government resumed its cruel blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza in March and restarted military operations there. Even more striking was the government's silence on president Trump's proposal to own Gaza with a view to evicting two million Palestinian residents from the territory and the US-Israeli venture to start the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) in late May in a move which sidelined the UN in aid distribution and has led to the killing of more than 600 Palestinians while seeking food aid. While New Zealand, along with the UK, Australia, Canada and Norway, imposed sanctions on two far-right Israeli government ministers, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar ben Gvir, in June for 'inciting extremist violence' against Palestinians – a move that was criticised by the Trump administration – it was arguably a case of very little very late. The Hamas terror attacks on October 7 killed around 1,200 Israelis, but the Netanyahu government's retaliation by the Israel Defence Force (IDF) against Hamas has resulted in the deaths of more than 56,000 Palestinians – nearly 70% of whom were women or children – in Gaza. Over the same period, more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank as Israel accelerated its programme of illegal settlements there. In addition, the responses of the New Zealand government to pre-emptive attacks by Israel (13-25 June) and Trump's America (June 22) against Iran to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities were strangely ambivalent. Despite indications from US intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran had not produced nuclear weapons, foreign minister Peters said New Zealand was not prepared to take a position on that issue. Citing provocative behaviour by both Iran and Israel, Peters adopted a neutral stance toward the 12-day war between the two nations. With respect to the attacks by the US on three Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, the current New Zealand government seems to have echoed the view of Mark Rutte, the secretary-general of NATO, that such actions were consistent with international law. Peters and deputy PM David Seymour reiterated Iran could not be allowed to have nuclear weapons and tacitly supported the US decision to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran. Peters noted that the Trump administration's targeted attacks were aimed at 'degrading Iran's nuclear capabilities' and acknowledged the US statement to the UNSC claiming these attacks were taken 'in collective self-defence consistent with the UN charter'. Taken together, the coalition government's responses to recent events in the Middle East indicate that its desire not to offend the Trump administration has compromised New Zealand's commitment to uphold an international rules-based order. To be clear, Israel's conduct in Gaza is clearly at odds with its legal responsibilities as an occupying power, and the pre-emptive attacks by nuclear armed Israel and America on Iran cannot be justified legally when the clerical regime in Teheran does not have nuclear weapons and the diplomatic process had not been exhausted. Of course, some observers maintain that a relatively small state like New Zealand has no choice but to tacitly accept flagrant violations of international law when they are committed by big powerful friends like Trump's America. However, such a perspective understates the capacity of small and middle powers to shape what is an increasingly interconnected world. In 2003, then prime minister Helen Clark bravely refused to support an illegal US invasion of Iraq and the wisdom of that stance was subsequently confirmed in what was a disastrous military adventure for the George W. Bush administration. Moreover, New Zealand's leadership in promoting the 2021 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) – which has been ratified by 73 states – means it should have a strong voice on the military actions by Israel and the Trump team that have effectively incentivised Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Confronted with Trump's 'might is right' approach, the National-led coalition faces stark choices. The government can continue to fudge fundamental moral and legal issues in the Middle East and risk complicity in the further weakening of an international rules-based order it purportedly supports, or it can get off the fence, stand up for the country's values, and insist that respect for international law must be observed in the region and elsewhere without exception.
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Trump's ‘reciprocal' tariff pause is about to expire: cue the confusion
By Elisabeth Buchwald , CNN US President Donald Trump holds a chart titled 'Reciprocal Tariffs' during an event in April. Photo: AFP / Brendan Smialowski The 90-day deadline US President Donald Trump set for countries to make trade deals with the United States or risk substantially higher tariffs is just days away. What will happen after that's reached at 12:01am ET on 9 July (4pm, July 9 NZT) is anyone's best guess. The stakes could not be higher, with the entire global economy on notice. On 2 April (3 April NZT), a date Trump dubbed "Liberation Day," he unveiled new, "reciprocal" tariff rates for key US trading partners, with some levies as high as 50 percent. Collectively, the rates were the highest the US has charged on foreign goods in over a century. Economists quickly sounded alarms about a recession hitting not just certain countries, but rather the whole world. As the tariffs went into effect on 9 April, they sparked a sell-off on Wall Street and the bond market rebelled, forcing Trump to announce a three-month pause to give countries more time to solidify deals with the US, saying investors "were getting a little bit yippy, a little afraid." Since then, almost all goods the US imports have been subject to a minimum 10 percent tariff. Stocks, meanwhile, have not only recovered all those losses but have set multiple new record highs. And inflation has barely budged. But if tariffs start to rise again and inflation roars back, those gains could quickly get erased all over again. After months of meeting with foreign government officials and countless claims that several trading partners were on the cusp of completing deals, only three have been announced. One of those, with Vietnam, has yet to be finalized and few details are known about it. Still, the Trump administration is advertising that a flurry of deals are forthcoming. At the same time, the president has threatened to send letters to countries that don't ink deals, telling them the rate at which their exports to the US will be taxed. Leading up to 9 July, Trump administration officials threatened to simply return to April tariff rates, or possibly even higher levies. They also floated the possibility of extending the pause for countries "negotiating in good faith," without defining what that means or which it includes. It's not clear where Trump, who will get the ultimate say, stands. "We can do whatever we want. We could extend it; we could make it shorter," Trump recently said. "I'd like to make it shorter. I'd like to just sent letters out to everybody, 'Congratulations, you're paying 25 percent.'" "We'll look at how a country treats us - are they good, are they not so good - some countries we don't care, we'll just send a high number out," Trump also recently said. On Friday, he said he'd begin sending letters over the coming days. "They'll range in value from maybe 60 percent or 70 percent tariffs to 10 percent and 20 percent tariffs," Trump said. For many countries, such rates would deal an even bigger economic blow compared to the levels Trump announced in April. But countries may have the opportunity to still negotiate, given Trump said most new rates won't take effect until 1 August. The deal Trump announced on Wednesday with Vietnam, which calls for minimum tariffs of 20 percent on Vietnamese goods, double the rate throughout the three-month pause, has raised the possibility that countries may not be able to score lower rates even if they reach a trade agreement. But considering tariffs on Vietnam were set to rise to a minimum of 46 percent if the rates Trump announced in April held - which was among the highest Trump announced - 20 percent suddenly feels like a relief. That may be an intentional strategy on Trump's part, allowing him to stick to his major campaign promise of levying higher tariffs on other nations in an effort to raise revenues and bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. "On balance, we take the US-Vietnam accord as a positive step toward more durable bilateral deals for the US and toward greater clarity for investors," Ulrike Hoffmann-Burchardi, global head of equities at UBS Global Wealth Management, said in a note last week. "Headline risks around trade may persist as negotiations continue, but we think the market impact should moderate as President Trump's negotiating tactics become increasingly familiar," he said. "Ultimately, we expect the US administration to prioritise economic stability over more maximalist tariffs, especially ahead of the 2026 midterm elections." - CNN
Otago Daily Times
5 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
First session of Hamas-Israel talks ends inconclusively
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Photo: Reuters The first session of indirect Hamas-Israel ceasefire talks in Qatar ended inconclusively, two Palestinian sources familiar with the matter said today. They added that the Israeli delegation didn't have a sufficient mandate to reach an agreement with Hamas. The talks resumed Sunday (local time), ahead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's third visit to the White House since US President Donald Trump returned to power nearly six months ago. "After the first session of indirect negotiations in Doha, the Israeli delegation is not sufficiently authorized and is not authorized to reach an agreement with Hamas, as it has no real powers", the sources told Reuters. Netanyahu said, before his departure to Washington, that Israeli negotiators taking part in the ceasefire talks have clear instructions to achieve a ceasefire agreement under conditions that Israel has accepted.
