Trump hopeful for Gaza ceasefire, possibly ‘next week'
US President Donald Trump voiced optimism Friday about a new ceasefire in Gaza, saying an agreement involving Israel and Hamas could come as early as next week.Asked by reporters how close a ceasefire was in Gaza, Trump said: "We think within the next week, we're going to get a ceasefire."
The United States brokered a ceasefire in the devastating conflict in the waning days of former president Joe Biden's administration, with support from Trump's incoming team.
Israel declared the ceasefire over in March, launching new devastating attacks on Hamas, which attacked Israel on October 7, 2023.Israel also stopped all food and other supplies from entering Gaza for more than two months, drawing warnings of famine.
Israel has since allowed a resumption of food through the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which involves US security contractors with Israeli troops at the periphery.
Witnesses and Gaza officials have reported multiple instances of Palestinians killed while waiting for aid.The United States on Thursday announced it would begin funding the initiative with $30 million approved.
"We're supplying, as you know, a lot of money and a lot of food to that area," Trump said Friday.
"We're involved because people are dying. And look at those crowds of people that have no food, no anything," she said.
Left-leaning Israeli daily Haaretz quoted unnamed soldiers as saying commanders ordered troops to shoot at crowds near aid distribution centres to disperse them even when they posed no threat.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denied the account.
Agence France-Presse
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
an hour ago
- Gulf Today
Heat domes, wildfires and drought: Where's outrage?
As I write this, the temperature is climbing past 100 degrees Fahrenheit in the mid-Atlantic states, and 170 million Americans are under warnings about a dangerous combination of intense heat and humidity. Is this latest weather extreme linked to global warming? Of course it is, as has been the case with record-setting floods, extreme hurricanes, droughts and wildfires that go back decades and afflict every corner of the globe. Amid these extremes, we have the Trump administration seemingly trying to roll back or reverse every environmental initiative of the past 55 years. Yet nobody seems to care. In the early 1990s, I gave a lot of talks about how environmental awareness had become an American value. The early 1970s saw the passage of the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency. Within 20 years, Time magazine was making planet Earth its 'Man of the Year,' and the first Earth Summit met. But now I think I spoke too soon. On June 14, several million people took to the streets in the 'No Kings' protests against Trump's assault on the Constitution, demonstrating that Americans can still be mobilised in support of something they hold dear. By contrast, while there has been ample media coverage of the administration's gutting of the agencies monitoring climate change, pollution, the weather and other environment-related issues, the devastation hasn't produced any major protests. This is all the more striking as many of the looming environmental concerns that provoked action in the 20th century are unfolding faster and causing far worse damage than predicted. To take just one example, climate change is inflicting far higher costs on Americans at a far faster pace than experts predicted back when the public started clamoring for action on global warming. In 1991, for instance, economist William Nordhaus used a model he developed (work for which he became a Nobel laureate in 2018) to predict that 3 degrees Celsius warming would cause a mere 1% drop in global income. As recently as 2018, a refined version of his model predicted that the roughly 1.5-degree Celsius warming already happening would inflict only 0.5% damage to the economy. This number stands in dramatic contrast to a new analysis by Bloomberg Intelligence: In the 12 months ending May 1, 2025, damage from events attributable to climate change amounted to roughly 3% of US GDP, or nearly $1 trillion. Contributing to this number were such catastrophes as Hurricanes Helene and Milton and wildfires in California. While skeptics might question how analysts can precisely measure how much of the damage caused by such events is attributable to climate change, one major tributary to this number is a dramatic increase in insurance costs, and insurers take estimating risk very seriously. Thirty years ago, the president of the Reinsurance Assn. of America told me'global warming can bankrupt the industry.' But the industry, motivated by the competitive pressures to continue to write policies, and protected by its ingenuity at limiting exposure and offloading risk, underpriced these risks well into the 2000s. No longer. As Californians are well aware, many insurers have pulled out of markets vulnerable to fires, floods, sea level rise and storms, and those that remain have been raising prices where they can. The Bloomberg Intelligence analysis found that insurance premiums have doubled since 2017 (and may still underprice risk in many markets), and even those who are insured will find that many of their losses aren't covered, and that government recovery help falls short as well. Climate change is costing Americans real money — $7.7 trillion since 2000, according to the Bloomberg Intelligence analysis. To put this in perspective, it is substantially more than the total costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions taken together. And these costs are certain to rise as climate change intensifies. Given that the administration's actions are going to leave Americans more vulnerable to climate change at a time when weather-related events are already affecting the average voter's budget, it would be natural to expect protests at least as vigorous as those against deportations or cuts to Medicaid. Instead, in the relative absence of public interest, many large corporations have abandoned climate-related policies, something that began even before Trump was elected. Simple issue overload might explain some of the silence. It's understandably hard to process all the ramifications of what we might call the Trump Blitzkrieg — bizarre, unqualified Cabinet appointments, attacks on due process, attempts at mass deportations, sending troops into Los Angeles to quell garden-variety unrest, bombing Iran without congressional authorisation. He has indeed flooded the zone.
Gulf Today
an hour ago
- Gulf Today
The Supreme Court's deference to Trump is astounding
The nation's federal judges — including appointees of presidents of both parties, Donald Trump's among them — have been the bulwark against Trump's reign of lawlessness on deportations, spending, federal appointments and more. Repeatedly, lower courts have been standing up for the Constitution and federal law, trying to constrain a president contemptuous of both, at demonstrable danger to themselves. But too often, the administration disregards their orders. You'd think the Supreme Court — in particular Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the overseer of the judicial branch — would have the lower courts' backs. But no, as the high court's conservative majority shamefully showed in a ruling on Monday. That decision in one of many deportation challenges wasn't the court's first such display of deference to a president who doesn't reciprocate. And, safe bet, it won't be the last. The court allowed the Trump administration to at least temporarily continue deporting migrants to countries not their own, unsafe ones at that, with little or no notice and no chance to legally argue that they could face torture or worse. No matter that lives are at stake — the justices blithely lifted an injunction by Judge Brian E. Murphy, of the US District Court in Boston, that had blocked the administration's slapdash deportations while legal challenges wend through the courts. In a blistering 19-page dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, marshaled legal arguments, damning examples of Trump administration dissembling and defiance of lower courts, and warnings of more defiance of federal courts from an emboldened president. In contrast, the ruling from the Supreme Court majority was just one paragraph — unsigned legal mumbo-jumbo, its decision wholly unexplained, as is typical in the cases that the court takes all too frequently on an emergency basis, the aptly named 'shadow docket.' (In two other shadow docket rulings in May, Trump was allowed to revoke the legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, Cubans, Nicaraguans and Haitians, many of whom were here under programs created to protect refugees from violent, impoverished and repressive countries. Why? Who knows?) What's all the more maddening about the Supreme Court's opacity in overriding both Judge Murphy and an appeals court that backed him is that its preliminary support for Trump in this case contradicts the plain language of the justices' unanimous ruling in April that people subject to deportation 'are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.' 'Fire up the deportation planes,' crowed a spokeswoman for the Homeland Security Department. Such callous gloating surely didn't surprise Sotomayor. Her dissent began, 'In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution. In this case, the Government took the opposite approach.' And so did her conservative colleagues. As Sotomayor wrote, historically the Supreme Court stays a lower court order only 'under extraordinary circumstances.' Typically it doesn't grant relief when, as in this case, both district and appeals courts opposed it. And certainly it doesn't give the government a W when the record in the case, like this one, is replete with evidence of its misconduct, including openly flouting court orders. Examples: A judge agreed a Guatemalan gay man would face torture in his home country, yet the man was deported there anyway. The administration violated Judge Murphy's order when it put six men on a plane to civil-war-torn South Sudan, which the US considers so unsafe that only its most critical personnel remain there. And in a third case, a group was unlawfully bound to Libya before a federal judge was able to halt the flight. Thus, Sotomayor said, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration 'relief from an order it has repeatedly defied' — an order that didn't prohibit deportations but only required due process in advance. As she put it, the decision to stay the order was a 'gross' abuse of the justices' discretion. It undermines the rule of law as fully as the Trump administration's lawlessness, especially given that Americans look to the nation's highest court as the last word on the law. 'This is not the first time the Court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last,' Sotomayor said. As if on cue, the Supreme Court's decision was followed on Tuesday by news that underscored just how dangerously misplaced the conservative justices' deference toward Trump is. A former Justice Department official, who was fired for truthfully testifying in court that Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia had been wrongly deported to El Salvador, blew the whistle on his former colleagues — all Trump appointees — confirming in a 27-page document that they'd connived to defy court orders. Emil Bove on Wednesday told the Senate he had 'no recollection' of saying that; he might have denied it, as a DOJ associate did to the media, but Bove was under oath.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
UAE welcomes peace deal between DR Congo and Rwanda
The UAE has welcomed the signing of a peace deal between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. State news agency Wam on Saturday reported the agreement was a significant step towards reinforcing peace, security and stability across Africa. The US-brokered agreement, signed on Friday in Washington, aims to bring to an end a three-decade conflict in the eastern DRC, which escalated earlier this year, when the Rwanda-backed M23 rebels seized the key cities of Goma and Bukavu. The conflict is fuelled by the rich mineral resources in eastern Congo. Sheikh Shakhbout bin Nahyan, Minister of State, commended the efforts of US President Donald Trump, and Sheikh Tamim, Amir of Qatar, in facilitating the positive and constructive achievement, which comes in support of the African Union's mediation efforts and the outcomes of the joint summit of the Southern African Development Community and the East African Community. Sheikh Shakhbout underscored that the international co-operation, which led to the signing of this agreement, reflects the significance of collective action in addressing regional issues and the importance of resolving disputes through diplomatic action. He also emphasised the historic ties between the UAE and the countries of the African continent, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Rwanda. And he reiterated the country's support for any efforts that contribute to enhancing security, peace and sustainable development on the continent.
