The Latest: 7 Israeli soldiers killed in Gaza as Iran-Israel ceasefire holds
The announcement comes a day after witnesses and hospitals in Gaza said Israeli forces and drones opened fire toward hundreds of Palestinians waiting for aid in separate incidents in southern and central Gaza early Tuesday, killing at least 44.
Meanwhile, people in Iran began returning to their lives as a ceasefire with Israel, negotiated by President Donald Trump, appeared to be holding. State media described heavy traffic around the Caspian Sea area and other rural areas outside of the capital, Tehran, as people began returning to the city.
The Iran-Israel conflict lasted 12 days with Israel targeting Iranian nuclear and military sites, saying it could not allow Tehran to develop atomic weapons. On Sunday, the U.S. intervened by dropping bunker-buster bombs on Iranian nuclear sites. Iran has long maintained that its nuclear program is peaceful.
Here is the latest:
Trump says ceasefire going 'very well'
U.S. President Donald Trump described the ceasefire between Iran and Israel as going 'very well' while speaking to journalists at a NATO summit at The Hague.
'They're not going to have a bomb and they're not going to enrich,' Trump added.
Official describes attack on Israeli soldiers in Gaza
Israel's military spokesperson says that the seven Israeli soldiers killed in Gaza Tuesday died when a bomb was attached to their tank, setting the armored vehicle aflame.
'Helicopters and rescue forces were sent to the spot. They made attempts to rescue the fighters, but without success,' said Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin, the military's spokesperson.
'This is a complex event that is still being investigated. When the investigation is completed, we will present it first to the families and then to the public. This our duty.'
Turning to Iran, Defrin claimed that Israel had 'significantly damaged' its nuclear program and 'set it back by years.'
China hopes for 'lasting and effective' ceasefire
China, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council and close Iranian partner, says it hopes a 'lasting and effective ceasefire can be achieved so as to promote the realization of peace and stability in the Middle East.'
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun added Wednesday that China was 'willing to maintain friendly cooperation with Iran to benefit the two peoples and inject positive factors to safeguard peace and stability in the Middle East.'
China is a major buyer of Iranian oil and has long supported the regime politically, blaming Israel for starting the latest conflict and destabilizing the region.
Iranian Parliament takes step toward ending cooperation with IAEA
Iran's Parliament voted nearly unanimously Wednesday to fast-track a proposal that would effectively stop the country's cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, according to Iranian state TV.
The move comes a day after a ceasefire deal took hold between Iran and Israel following a destructive 12-day war.
If successful, the legislation would make any external oversight of the country's nuclear program much more difficult.
Yesterday, Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Arab media that it was too early to determine whether his government will continue working with the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, saying that the IAEA treaty 'failed to protect our rights and our facilities.'
While Iran's Parliament has the ability to pass legislation, the final decision on any security-related matter would ultimately come from Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Israeli forces kill a Palestinian woman in East Jerusalem, official says
An local Palestinian official says Israeli forces shot and killed a 66-year-old Palestinian woman in East Jerusalem Tuesday night.
Israeli forces stormed the Shuafat refugee camp overnight, killing Zahia Obeidi with a shot to the head around 10pm and seizing her body, said Marouf Al-Refai, an advisor to the Palestinian Authority in Jerusalem.
Israeli forces arrested her husband and sons later that night, Refai said. It was not clear by morning whether they had been released.
Israeli police said they were investigating her death, saying she arrived at the Shuafat checkpoint with 'penetrating' injuries and was pronounced dead by paramedics on scene.
7 Israeli soldiers killed in Gaza
Israel's military said Wednesday that seven soldiers had been killed the day before inside Gaza.
A military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity in line with military regulations, said that the seven were killed around 5pm when an explosive affixed to their armored vehicle in the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis detonated.
The military said another soldier was badly wounded Tuesday from RPG fire.
The incident was an unusually deadly one for Israel's troops operating inside Gaza.
The military says over 860 soldiers have been killed since the war began with the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack — including more than 400 during fighting inside Gaza.
——
By Julia Frankel in Jerusalem
Hamas claims attack on Israeli soldiers
Al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas' military wing, said on its Telegram channel Tuesday it had ambushed Israeli soldiers taking cover inside a residential building in the southern Gaza Strip.
Some of the soldiers were killed and other injured after they were targeted by a Yassin 105 missile and another missile south of Khan Younis, Hamas said.
Al-Qassam fighters then targeted the building with machine guns.
It was not immediately clear whether the incident was related to the Israeli military's announcement that seven of its soldiers were killed Tuesday in Gaza.
Iran executes more prisoners
Iran executed three more prisoners Wednesday over allegedly spying for Israel, its state-run IRNA news agency reported, the latest hangings connected to its war with Israel.
Iran identified the three men executed Wednesday as Azad Shojaei, Edris Aali and Iraqi national Rasoul Ahmad Rasoul.
Iran is one of the world's top executioners. After the brutal 1980s Iran-Iraq war, Iran carried out the mass execution of thousands of political prisoners and others, raising concerns among activists about a similar wave coming after the war with Israel.
The hangings happened in Urmia Prison in Iran's West Azerbaijan province, which is the country's most northwestern province.
IRNA cited Iran's judiciary for the news, saying the men had been accused of bringing 'assassination equipment' into the country.
Wednesday's executions bring the total number of hangings for espionage around the war up to six.
Israeli strikes killed more than 1,000 in Iran, group says
Israeli strikes on Iran have killed at least 1,054 people and wounded 4,476 others, according to figures released Wednesday by the Washington-based group Human Rights Activists.
The group, which has provided detailed casualty figures from multiple rounds of unrest in Iran, said of those killed, it identified 417 civilians and 318 security force personnel.
Iran's government provided sporadic casualty information throughout the war. Its latest update on Tuesday put the death toll at 606 people killed, with 5,332 others being injured.
In Israel, at least 28 people have been killed and more than 1,000 wounded in the war.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Factbox-How Fed Chair Powell has used Jackson Hole to signal what's next
(Reuters) -One last time since President Donald Trump nominated him to lead the U.S. central bank in late 2017, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell on Friday will walk through the Jackson Lake Lodge's expansive lobby, past the taxidermied grizzly bear, and into a ballroom lighted with elk-antler chandeliers to deliver a speech at the global central bankers' influential symposium in Wyoming. In his seven previous Jackson Hole speeches, Powell has touched on a range of issues, from esoteric economic concepts and monetary policy history lessons to pledges of policy support through the COVID-19 pandemic and the central bank's determination to win the inflation war that followed. Each speech, too, has included some measure of preview for the Fed's next interest rate moves, and that above all else is why Powell will have the world's attention at 10 a.m. EDT (1400 GMT) on Friday. Here is what he has previously said, and what happened next: 2018: STARS AND RATE HIKES AHEAD Powell's first - and longest - Jackson Hole speech set out his approach to policymaking, focused on "navigating by the stars" - the economics world's shorthand for concepts like the natural rate of unemployment and neutral interest rate. He did, though, offer a view on what was coming down the pike. What Powell said: "Let me conclude by returning to the matter of navigating between the two risks I identified - moving too fast and needlessly shortening the expansion, versus moving too slowly and risking a destabilizing overheating. ... I see the current path of gradually raising interest rates as the FOMC's approach to taking seriously both of these risks." What the Fed did: Following the two quarter-percentage-point rate hikes in the first half of the year, the central bank's policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee delivered two more quarter-percentage-point hikes before the end of the year. 2019: TRUMP TARIFFS 1.0 AND RATE CUTS Part history lesson and part dissection of the trade policy moves in Trump's first term in the White House that were starting to blur the outlook, Powell's 2019 speech was met within hours by the U.S. president asking on social media "who is our bigger enemy" - Powell or Chinese leader Xi Jinping? What Powell said: "We have been monitoring three factors that are weighing on this favorable outlook: slowing global growth, trade policy uncertainty, and muted inflation. ... we will act as appropriate to sustain the expansion, with a strong labor market and inflation near its symmetric 2% objective." What the Fed did: It followed a quarter-percentage-point rate cut that July with two more such reductions in borrowing costs in September and October, far less than what Trump had demanded. Then the pandemic arrived, and everything changed. 2020: 'INCLUSIVE' EMPLOYMENT, AVERAGE 2% INFLATION Delivered remotely because of the pandemic, Powell's speech in 2020 laid out a new approach to policy that placed greater weight on defending the Fed's employment mandate. What Powell said: "Our revised statement emphasizes that maximum employment is a broad-based and inclusive goal. ... Employment can run at or above real-time estimates of its maximum level without causing concern, unless accompanied by signs of unwanted increases in inflation or the emergence of other risks that could impede the attainment of our goals. ... Following periods when inflation has been running below 2%, appropriate monetary policy will likely aim to achieve inflation moderately above 2% for some time." What the Fed did: In September it adopted a new three-part test, seen at the time as an outgrowth of the new framework, for raising interest rates: the attainment of maximum employment and 2% inflation, and indications that inflation will "moderately exceed 2% for some time." The promise helped support the economy's recovery from the pandemic shock, but the stringent hurdle for restarting rate hikes was later blamed for slowing the Fed's response to inflation the following year. 2021: NO RATE HIKES NEEDED FOR NOW In a second straight virtual appearance, Powell dismissed signs of the coming inflation wave as "transitory" - a word he has come to regret ever uttering. What Powell said: "Current high inflation readings are likely to prove transitory ... If a central bank tightens policy in response to factors that turn out to be temporary, the main policy effects are likely to arrive after the need has passed ... Today, with substantial slack remaining in the labor market and the pandemic continuing, such a mistake could be particularly harmful." What the Fed did: It began slowing its asset purchases in November and held the policy rate steady at the near-zero level until March 2022. Critics at the time, and most Fed policymakers since, have said the assessment of inflation as "transitory" was a mistake that delayed the start of the rate hikes needed to fight inflation. 2022: RATE HIKES, AND PAIN, AHEAD Mincing no words in his shortest Jackson Hole speech, Powell made clear the Fed's intent to bring inflation to heel, no matter the pain it might cause. What Powell said: "While higher interest rates, slower growth, and softer labor market conditions will bring down inflation, they will also bring some pain to households and businesses. ... At some point, as the stance of monetary policy tightens further, it likely will become appropriate to slow the pace of increases. Restoring price stability will likely require maintaining a restrictive policy stance for some time." What the Fed did: It delivered two more 75-basis-point rate increases to follow the two it had done in the meetings before Powell's speech, and then increased the policy rate in smaller increments until it reached the 5.25%-5.50% range in July 2023. 2023: RATE HIKES STILL POSSIBLE In remarks that were less stern than those delivered the previous year, Powell held out the possibility of more rate hikes while acknowledging the signs of progress in reining in inflation. What Powell said: "We will proceed carefully as we decide whether to tighten further or, instead, to hold the policy rate constant and await further data. Restoring price stability is essential to achieving both sides of our dual mandate. ... We will keep at it until the job is done." What the Fed did: It held the policy rate in the 5.25%-5.50% range, set just weeks before Powell's speech, for a little over a year. 2024: RATE CUTS COMING SOON Risks had now shifted from inflation to employment, and Powell sent a clear signal that rate cuts were coming. What Powell said: "My confidence has grown that inflation is on a sustainable path back to 2%. ... We do not seek or welcome further cooling in labor market conditions. ... The time has come for policy to adjust." What the Fed did: It ended the year-long hold on the policy rate by cutting it by half of a percentage point in September 2024, and by another half a percentage point over the final two meetings of 2024. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
William Watson: The 'post-American world economy' will be a grim place
Unique in so many ways already, Donald Trump has broken yet another precedent and prompted a special pre-release of the Fraser Institute's 'Economic Freedom of the World' report. This week's spoiler details how Trump's tariffs are affecting freedom in a country whose anthem claims it's 'the land of the free' (also 'the home of the brave, except regarding Vladimir Putin'). The latest U.S. freedom news is not good. Largely because of the tariffs, the Americans have dropped from fifth place overall to 10th. The pre-release doesn't say where we stand but in last year's ranking we were eighth, so if that holds we're more free economically than they are. In terms of freedom to trade, the Americans are way down, falling from 56th place to 76th — compared with our own 34th place. Deciding for yourself who to buy goods and services from is clearly a big part of economic freedom. In that respect, Trump's tariffs substantially reduce Americans' freedom. And their effect isn't small. The president's trademark vagaries mean the tariffs have been a moving target, but in mid-April the U.S. had the second highest average tariffs of 165 countries tracked, behind only the Bahamas. World bests are often prized — ask the Guinness people — but being near the top of the tariff list put the U.S. in undistinguished company: numbers three, four and five were Sudan, Djibouti and Iran. No disrespect to the fine people who live in those places but they are not economic exemplars. The pre-release's authors (Robert Lawson of Southern Methodist University and Matthew D. Mitchell of the Fraser Institute) stress the strong inverse correlation between tariffs and GDP. Per capita GDP among the 15 countries with the highest average tariffs (not including the U.S.) was just US$9,703, while among the 15 countries with the lowest average tariffs it was US$43,502. Correlation isn't causality and the U.S. won't soon see its GDP falling to Sudanese or even Bahamian levels but those numbers do give pause. The U.S. tariff revolution has happened stunningly quickly. On Feb. 3, not yet 200 days ago, the average U.S. tariff rate was still 2.4 per cent, pretty much where it had been for 20 years, according to the Yale Budget Lab. As of this writing, it's 18.6 per cent, its highest level since the mid-1930s. In fairness, Donald Trump did run in 2024, as he had in 2016, on a platform of higher tariffs. But he ran on hundreds of other things, too, and while most of his supporters (and many of his opponents) almost certainly appreciate aggressiveness on trade policy, I doubt they expected tariffs this high. Which gives hope to us liberal-internationalists that, like the calamitous Smoot-Hawley tariff spikes in the early 1930s, the Trump episode can soon be reversed — though preferably more quickly than the two-plus decades it took to get average U.S. tariffs back down to their post-World War I lows. If that doesn't happen, a new article in Foreign Affairs Magazine argues that life as a U.S. ally and continental neighbour will not be fun. Titled 'The New Economic Geography,' it's by Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Both the magazine and the institute are arsenals of liberal-internationalist thinking, so you know where he's coming from. But his argument is persuasive. It is that in 'the post-American world economy,' the U.S. will no longer provide the extensive insurance services — military, financial and economic — that it has supplied for the past 80 years. These have included freedom of navigation, support for property rights, 'rules for international trade, and stable dollar assets in which to transact business and store money.' The U.S. itself benefited a lot from the relatively benign international environment its influence created. But now Donald Trump 'has switched the United States' role from global insurer to extractor of profit' — or, you might say, protection money. Today the U.S. itself is the threat, with the Trump administration promising 'to spare clients from its own assaults for a higher price than before.' Nice little economy you have here; you wouldn't want anything to happen to it, would you? Ironically, in this 'gangster's paradise,' the country 'whose behaviour most U.S. officials want to change (China's), will likely be least affected, while the United States' closest allies will be the most damaged.' That means us, of course — though perhaps we're not quite as close a U.S. ally as we like to think, given our absence from this week's Washington strategy session on Ukraine. Posen argues that other close U.S. allies will eventually follow our lead, such as it is, and try to diversify away from the U.S. But that will cost: 'If substitute markets, investments and products were just as valuable,' they would have been chosen in the first place. And what is the likely U.S. reaction to attempts to diversify? Suppose we follow through on this week's approach to Sweden by Industry Minister Mélanie Joly regarding our possible purchase of Gripen E fighter jets instead of U.S. F-35s. What sort of hissy fit will that prompt from Donald Trump? Closing the U.S. border to the six Canadian NHL teams? Diverting the Niagara River to shut down the falls? Non-CUSMA tariffs of 1,000 per cent or higher? Unilateral suspension of CUSMA? William Watson: Any help for tariff-hit firms needs to be temporary Terence Corcoran: CUPE and the 'crime' behind the Air Canada strike If you're easily depressed, don't read Posen all the way through. With hard times ahead, it's best to enjoy what's left of summer. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump backed a scramble to redraw congressional seats in Texas. Michigan ‘not engaging'
Michigan is a political battleground, but the state will likely stay out of the redistricting war threatening to upend the congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm election. In fact, Michigan's swing state status has yielded divided state government, essentially taking it out of a fight in which one-party rule is a kind of precondition for participation. The process of drawing new voting districts typically happens once every ten years following the decennial census. But a mid-decade redistricting shake-up began when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, called a special legislative session to redraw congressional districts in his state. President Donald Trump has expressed his hope that new lines will allow Republicans to pick up five more seats for Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has moved ahead with a plan to suspend the map drawn by his state's independent redistricting commission to ask voters to adopt lines that favor Democrats. Michigan has a redistricting commission similar to the one in California. Independent redistricting advocates have railed against politically skewed voting districts designed to benefit one political party, describing such gerrymandering as a way to distort election outcomes by letting politicians choose their voters instead of the other way around. In Michigan, voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2018 that wrested control of the redistricting process from lawmakers and put the pen in the hands of a group of randomly selected voters charged with drawing fair maps. Several factors mean Michigan is all but guaranteed to stay on the sidelines of the battle to control Congress by changing the map: legal safeguards protecting Michigan's citizen-led redistricting process, the partisan makeup of the state's Legislature, election timelines and a general disinterest among politicians to interfere. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said she has no interest in redrawing the lines. "We're not changing any maps in Michigan," she told reporters Aug. 20. "What's going on in Texas I think is an affront to democracy, and so it's understandable that you've got other states starting to have similar conversations about what's possible. We're not engaging in that here in Michigan." While the leaders of both major political parties in the state may not agree on much, they have one thing in common: neither is clamoring to see a new congressional map put in place before the 2030 census triggers the next redistricting cycle. Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel condemned Texas Republicans' redistricting push as a power grab and applauded Democratic governors for trying to fight the map with their own efforts to change their state's congressional districts. But Hertel said he's not calling on Michigan Democrats to try to follow in their footsteps, and he expressed pride in the redistricting process approved by Michigan voters to create fair maps. "I don't want to go back," he said. It also wasn't top of mind for Michigan GOP Chair state Sen. Jim Runestad, R-White Lake, who said he wanted to do more research on the redistricting fight playing out in Texas before commenting. In a follow-up call, Runestad characterized Newsom's redistricting push as a partisan endeavor in contrast to Texas, where he said lawmakers seemed to be focused on addressing concerns the U.S. Department of Justice raised about how their congressional map divided voters of color into different voting districts. Critics have characterized the department's allegations as a kind of pretext for partisan gerrymandering in Texas. Even if Michigan politicians wanted to try to take back control of the redistricting process now, they would have a steep hill to climb. Changing the process in Michigan would require an amendment to the state's constitution. With the support of two-thirds of members in both chambers of the Michigan Legislature, lawmakers could put forward a constitutional amendment asking voters to change the redistricting process again. But Michigan Democrats control the Michigan Senate while Republicans control the Michigan House, a composition that makes it highly unlikely lawmakers would come together across party lines to agree to such an amendment. Michigan voters could also propose a constitutional amendment, but no campaign has emerged to put redistricting back on the ballot to ask voters to essentially dismantle the redistricting process that they put in place. Even if it did, voters wouldn't have a chance to take it up until the November 2026 election. Christy McGillivray, who serves as executive director of Voters Not Politicians, which spearheaded the anti-gerrymandering campaign in Michigan, said she has faith that Michigan voters want to stick with a citizen-led, independent redistricting process, saying fairness is a principle that brings them together despite their political differences. "They're even-keeled and the current hyper-partisanship coming from the federal government doesn't reflect the majority of Michiganders. It really doesn't," she said. Like California and Texas, many of the other states that could become entangled in the mid-decade redistricting war are solidly Republican or solidly Democratic states. Michigan, meanwhile, has a competitive political geography. More: Mayor Mike Duggan, Chief Todd Bettison laud feds for helping decrease crime in Detroit The state's congressional map features some of the most highly contested districts in the U.S. Political operatives see a path to gerrymander Michigan voting districts to favor one political party. "It would be easy to do," said Jeff Timmer, the former Michigan GOP executive director who helped draw voting districts to favor Republicans before voters put an independent redistricting process in place. But Timmer also said that the state's map creates some obstacles to such an attempt. Someone could draw a map that makes the state's competitive congressional districts slightly more Republican- or Democratic-leaning, but he likened that to stepping on a balloon. For instance, a mapper couldn't make a competitive seat in Oakland County and still have one in Macomb County, Timmer said. An attempt to gerrymander wouldn't provide the "clear, decisive, slam dunk" for partisans in Michigan like it does in California or Texas, he said. Contact Clara Hendrickson at chendrickson@ or 313-296-5743. This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Michigan set to avoid mid-decade congressional map redraw
