Gaza ceasefire talks held up by Israel withdrawal plans: Palestinian sources
Delegations from both sides began discussions in Qatar last Sunday (July 6, 2025) to try to agree on a temporary halt to the 21-month conflict sparked by Hamas's attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
Both Hamas and Israel have said that 10 living hostages who were taken that day and who are still in captivity would be released if an agreement for a 60-day ceasefire were reached.
But one well-informed Palestinian source said Israel's refusal to withdraw all of its troops from Gaza was holding back progress on securing a deal.
'The negotiations in Doha are facing a setback and complex difficulties due to Israel's insistence, as of Friday, on presenting a map of withdrawal, which is actually a map of redeployment and repositioning of the Israeli army rather than a genuine withdrawal,' the source said.
Hamas has said it wants the complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, which is home to more than two million people.
The source said, however, that the Israeli delegation presented a map at the talks which proposed maintaining military forces in more than 40% of the Palestinian territory.
'Hamas's delegation will not accept the Israeli maps... as they essentially legitimise the reoccupation of approximately half of the Gaza Strip and turn Gaza into isolated zones with no crossings or freedom of movement,' the source added.
Mediators have asked both sides to postpone the talks until the arrival of U.S. President Donald Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, in Doha, they added.
A second Palestinian source said 'some progress' had been made on plans for releasing Palestinian prisoners and getting more aid to Gaza.
But they accused the Israeli delegation of having no authority, and 'stalling and obstructing the agreement in order to continue the war of extermination'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
44 minutes ago
- First Post
Macron urges EU to stand firm against US tariff threats
US President Donald Trump on Saturday warned that Mexico and the EU would be slapped with 30-percent tariffs starting on August 1, raising the stakes in already tense negotiations with two of the largest US trading partners read more French President Emmanuel Macron on Saturday condemned US President Donald Trump's threat to impose 30-percent tariffs on the European Union, calling on the bloc to 'resolutely defend European interests'. US President Donald Trump on Saturday warned that Mexico and the EU would be slapped with 30-percent tariffs starting on August 1, raising the stakes in already tense negotiations with two of the largest US trading partners. Expressing France's 'very strong disapproval' of the announcement, Macron called on the bloc to 'step up the preparation of credible countermeasures by mobilising all instruments at its disposal' if the two sides failed to reach agreement by August 1. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'France fully supports the European Commission in the negotiation that will intensify to reach a mutually acceptable agreement by August 1, so that it reflects the respect that trade partners such as the European Union and the United States owe each other,' he wrote on social media. Earlier Saturday, European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen hit out at the new tariffs threatened by Trump, but said the EU still sought a deal to avert the measures.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
US federal court blocks indiscriminate immigration arrests in 7 California counties
Immigrant advocacy organisations filed the lawsuit last week, accusing President Donald Trump's government of purposefully targeting brown individuals in Southern California as part of its continuing immigration crackdown read more People wait outside of Glass House Farms, a day after an immigration raid on the facility, Friday, July 11, 2025, in Camarillo, Calif. AP On Friday, a federal court ordered the Trump administration to suspend indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in seven California counties, including Los Angeles. Immigrant advocacy organisations filed the lawsuit last week, accusing President Donald Trump's government of purposefully targeting brown individuals in Southern California as part of its continuing immigration crackdown. The claimants include three detained immigrants and two US citizens, one of whom was arrested despite giving agents his ID. The lawsuit filed in US District Court asked a judge to prevent the government from using what they describe unconstitutional techniques in immigration sweeps. Immigrant groups accuse immigration officers of detaining people based on their race, making unwarranted arrests, and refusing prisoners access to legal representation at a holding facility in downtown Los Angeles. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Judge Maame E. Frimpong also issued a separate order barring the federal government from restricting attorney access at a Los Angeles immigration detention facility in response to a request from nonprofit law firm Public Counsel. Frimpong issued the emergency orders, which are a temporary measure while the lawsuit proceeds, the day after a hearing during which advocacy groups argued that the government was violating the Fourth and Fifth amendments of the Constitution. She wrote in the order there was a 'mountain of evidence' presented in the case that the federal government was committing the violations they were being accused of. The White House responded quickly to the ruling late Friday. 'No federal judge has the authority to dictate immigration policy — that authority rests with Congress and the President,' spokesperson Abigail Jackson said. 'Enforcement operations require careful planning and execution; skills far beyond the purview (or) jurisdiction of any judge. We expect this gross overstep of judicial authority to be corrected on appeal.' Communities on edge as administration steps up arrests Immigrants and Latino communities across Southern California have been on edge for weeks since the Trump administration stepped up arrests at car washes, Home Depot parking lots, immigration courts and a range of businesses. Tens of thousands of people have participated in rallies in the region over the raids and the subsequent deployment of the National Guard and Marines. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The order also applies to Ventura County, where busloads of workers were detained Thursday while the court hearing was underway after federal agents descended on a cannabis farm, leading to clashes with protesters and multiple injuries. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the recent wave of immigration enforcement has been driven by an 'arbitrary arrest quota' and based on 'broad stereotypes based on race or ethnicity.' When detaining the three day laborers who are plaintiffs in the lawsuit, all immigration agents knew about them is that they were Latino and were dressed in construction work clothes, the filing in the lawsuit said. It goes on to describe raids at swap meets and Home Depots where witnesses say federal agents grabbed anyone who 'looked Hispanic.' Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security, said in an email that 'any claims that individuals have been 'targeted' by law enforcement because of their skin color are disgusting and categorically FALSE.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD McLaughlin said 'enforcement operations are highly targeted, and officers do their due diligence' before making arrests. After the ruling, she said 'a district judge is undermining the will of the American people.' ACLU attorney Mohammad Tajsar said Brian Gavidia, one of the US citizens who was detained, was 'physically assaulted … for no other reason than he was Latino and working at a tow yard in a predominantly Latin American neighborhood.' Tajsar asked why immigration agents detained everyone at a car wash except two white workers, according to a declaration by a car wash worker, if race wasn't involved. Representing the government, attorney Sean Skedzielewski said there was no evidence that federal immigration agents considered race in their arrests, and that they only considered appearance as part of the 'totality of the circumstances', including prior surveillance and interactions with people in the field. In some cases, they also operated off 'targeted, individualized packages,' he said. 'The Department of Homeland Security has policy and training to ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment,' Skedzielewski said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Order opens facility to lawyer visits Lawyers from Immigrant Defenders Law Center and other groups say they also have been denied access to a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in downtown LA known as 'B-18' on several occasions since June, according to court documents. Public Counsel lawyer Mark Rosenbaum said in one incident on June 7 attorneys 'attempted to shout out basic rights' at a bus of people detained by immigration agents in downtown LA when the government drivers honked their horns to drown them out and chemical munitions akin to tear gas were deployed. Skedzielewski said access was only restricted to 'protect the employees and the detainees' during violent protests and it has since been restored. Rosenbaum said lawyers were denied access even on days without any demonstrations nearby, and that the people detained are also not given sufficient access to phones or informed that lawyers were available to them. He said the facility lacks adequate food and beds, which he called 'coercive' to getting people to sign papers to agree to leave the country before consulting an attorney. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Friday's order will temporarily prevent the government from solely using apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the basis for reasonable suspicion to stop someone. It will also require officials to open B-18 to visitation by attorneys seven days a week and provide detainees access to confidential phone calls with attorneys. Attorneys general for 18 Democratic states also filed briefs in support of the orders. US Customs and Border Protection agents were already barred from making warrantless arrests in a large swath of eastern California after a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in April.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Key issues that could jeopardise India-U.S. trade talks
The India-US Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) is yet to see the light of day. The July 9 deadline — marking the end of the 90-day exemption period for the imposition of reciprocal tariffs by the US — just passed by without a deal. Now, a new deadline has emerged: August 1. India was the first country to initiate Free Trade Agreement (FTA) talks with the US after its newly elected President Donald Trump threatened high tariffs on countries running trade surpluses with Washington. With a trade deficit of over $40 billion in favour of India, Trump repeatedly took jabs at India, dubbing it the 'Tariff King'. While India began negotiations aiming to 'pacify' Trump, whose unpredictable stance on tariffs and trade unsettled many, it soon became clear that the US was seeking far more than symbolic gestures. As talks progressed, India toughened its position on several issues, leading to the current stalemate. In a last-ditch effort ahead of the new deadline, a team of Indian negotiators is likely to visit the US soon to iron out the remaining differences. While dates are yet to be finalised, the team may travel to Washington next week. Meanwhile, India's stance appears to have shifted — indicating it would rather have no deal than accept a bad one. Contentious issues There are multiple sticking points between the two countries, with the most contentious being tariffs on agriculture, dairy products, automobiles & auto components, and steel. Beyond tariffs, the US is also reportedly pushing for large-scale commercial deals involving oil and LNG, civilian and military aircraft from Boeing, helicopters, and nuclear reactors. Washington may additionally be urging New Delhi to ease FDI restrictions in multi-brand retail, benefiting companies like Amazon and Walmart. India, for its part, is determined to safeguard the livelihood of its farmers and over 8 million dairy cooperative members, as well as protect MSMEs and labour-intensive sectors from potential adverse impacts of the deal. Agriculture & related concerns The pressure on Indian negotiators to protect farmers' interests is immense. According to Ajay Srivastava, founder of GTRI, agricultural goods make up less than 5% of US exports to India, yet Washington is aggressively pushing on this front. He warns that any tariff concessions could embolden the US to later demand dilution of India's minimum support prices (MSP) and public procurement systems — pillars of India's food security framework. Ashwani Mahajan, National Co-Convener of the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch (SJM), sees this as a major red flag. 'International prices of agricultural goods are half of the MSP provided by India. Any compromise on agricultural goods in the trade talks could jeopardise the livelihoods of thousands of farmers,' he says. A March report by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) flagged India's farm subsidies, particularly the MSP system for rice and wheat, as distorting global prices and disadvantaging US farmers. Currently, Indian farm exports to the US face a modest 5.3% tariff, while US farm exports to India are hit with a much steeper 37.7% tariff — a 32.4% gap. At a proposed 26% reciprocal tariff, Indian agri exports could be more heavily taxed in the US, while lowering tariffs on US farm imports might flood Indian markets with cheaper goods. Disagreements on dairy sector On dairy, the US argues that India's GM-free feed certification and facility registration protocols effectively amount to a ban on American dairy imports. Indian rules prohibit imports of animal products fed on animal-derived feed — for example, butter from cows fed meat — due to deep religious sensitivities. India considers this policy non-negotiable. Pushback on GM crops The US has also been pressing India to allow imports of GM crops such as soybean meal and distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) for animal feed, a demand that has faced growing opposition in India. Initially, the Indian government did not strongly oppose the idea of some tariff cuts on farm goods or even selective GM imports. A Niti Aayog report earlier this year argued that the US would remain a key market for India's surplus food exports, suggesting that a 'strategic opening for US imports' could help secure broader export gains. The report even proposed importing GM soybean seeds under a controlled model, where seeds would be crushed at coastal facilities, oil sold domestically, and soymeal (with GM traits) exported to avoid domestic contamination. However, experts cautioned that enforcing tight control on GM material would be nearly impossible given India's weak regulatory oversight, fragmented supply chains, and informal markets. 'Once GM products enter the country, there is a high risk they will leak into domestic agriculture, raising serious concerns over food safety, environmental impact, and potential export bans from countries that don't accept GM contamination,' one expert noted. Following public outrage, Niti Aayog quietly withdrew the report. Auto components The US has already slapped a 25% tariff on auto and auto components. While India's passenger vehicle exports to the US are minimal (just 0.21%), auto components make up 28% of India's total exports to the US. This high tariff thus poses a serious threat to revenues of Indian component manufacturers. According to an ICRA report, the recent US tariff hikes could add roughly `9,000 crore in costs across the supply chain, ultimately to be borne by US consumers, importers and Indian exporters. 'The extent to which Indian auto component exporters absorb this burden will depend on their competitiveness and the price elasticity of exported products,' ICRA noted. India has since notified the World Trade Organization (WTO) of its intention to impose retaliatory tariffs on select US auto parts, targeting exports valued at approximately $2.9 billion annually, with the duties expected to yield an additional $723 million. Steel & aluminium Similarly, the US has imposed a steep 50% tariff on steel and aluminium, directly impacting India. In FY2025, India exported $4.56 billion worth of iron, steel and aluminium products to the US, including $587 million in iron and steel, $3.1 billion in articles of iron or steel, and $860 million in aluminium and related products. These exports are now vulnerable to sharply higher tariffs, threatening profitability. India has already filed a formal notice at the WTO outlining plans to impose retaliatory tariffs on US goods. Domestically, the US move has also resulted in a surge of cheaper Chinese imports into India, prompting New Delhi to impose a 12% safeguard duty on steel imports. However, a 50% tariff is seen as unsustainable, and Indian negotiators have reportedly raised the issue with Washington. Beyond tariffs: Other friction points The BTA negotiations are not confined to tariffs alone. The USTR report cited earlier also highlighted India's restrictive digital trade rules, weak intellectual property enforcement, and opaque procurement practices as key hurdles for US businesses. The USTR flagged India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) for restricting cross-border data transfers and mandating data localisation. As mentioned earlier, agriculture subsidy remains another key point of difference between the two countries. While India has expressed interest in striking a mini deal before the August 1 deadline that focuses solely on tariffs, it remains to be seen if the US is willing to temporarily set aside more contentious issues such as IP and farm subsidies. In the case of a no deal, India would be hoping the US levies a lower tariff (lower than 26% announced earlier) on its goods exported to the US.
