Netanyahu to convene cabinet as Israel decides next steps in Gaza after ceasefire talks collapse
Last Saturday, during a visit to the country, U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff had said he was working with the Israeli government on a plan that would effectively end the war in Gaza.
But Israeli officials have also floated ideas including expanding the military offensive in Gaza and annexing parts of the shattered enclave.
The failed ceasefire talks in Doha had aimed to clinch agreements on a U.S.-backed proposal for a 60-day truce, during which aid would be flown into Gaza and half of the hostages Hamas is holding would be freed in exchange for Palestinian prisoners jailed in Israel.
After Netanyahu met Witkoff last Thursday, a senior Israeli official said that "an understanding was emerging between Washington and Israel," of a need to shift from a truce to a comprehensive deal that would "release all the hostages, disarm Hamas, and demilitarize the Gaza Strip," - Israel's key conditions for ending the war.
A source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Sunday that the envoy's visit was seen in Israel as "very significant."
But later on Sunday, the Israeli official signalled that pursuit of a deal would be pointless, threatening more force:
"An understanding is emerging that Hamas is not interested in a deal and therefore the prime minister is pushing to release the hostages while pressing for military defeat.
Israel's Channel 12 on Monday cited an official from his office as saying that Netanyahu was inclining towards expanding the offensive and seizing the entire Palestinian enclave.
"Strategic clarity"
What a "military defeat" might mean, however, is up for debate within the Israeli leadership. Some Israeli officials have suggested that Israel might declare it was annexing parts of Gaza as a means to pressure the militant group.
Others, like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir want to see Israel impose military rule in Gaza before annexing it and re-establishing the Jewish settlements Israel evicted 20 years ago.
The Israeli military, which has pushed back at such ideas throughout the war, was expected on Tuesday to present alternatives that include extending into areas of Gaza where it has not yet operated, according to two defence officials.
While some in the political leadership are pushing for expanding the offensive, the military is concerned that doing so will endanger the 20 hostages who are still alive, the officials said.
Israeli Army Radio reported on Monday that military chief Eyal Zamir has become increasingly frustrated with what he describes as a lack of strategic clarity by the political leadership, concerned about being dragged into a war of attrition with Hamas militants.
A spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) declined to comment on the report but said that the military has plans in store.
"We have different ways to fight the terror organization, and that's what the army does," Lieutenant Colonel Nadav Shoshani said.
On Tuesday, Qatar and Egypt endorsed a declaration by France and Saudi Arabia outlining steps toward a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which included a call on Hamas to hand over its arms to the Western-backed Palestinian Authority.
Hamas has repeatedly said it won't lay down arms. But it has told mediators it was willing to quit governance in Gaza for a non-partisan ruling body, according to three Hamas officials.
It insists that the post-war Gaza arrangement must be agreed upon among the Palestinians themselves and not dictated by foreign powers.
Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar suggested on Monday that the gaps were still too wide to bridge.
"We would like to have all our hostages back. We would like to see the end of this war. We always prefer to get there by diplomatic means, if possible. But of course, the big question is, what will be the conditions for the end of the war?" he told journalists in Jerusalem.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
10 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Sweden, Norway and Denmark pledge $500 million for NATO arms package for Ukraine
Sweden, Norway and Denmark have promised to give about $500 million to a NATO-run plan to send US-made weapons to Ukraine, including Patriot missiles, to help it defend against Russia. Last month, US President Donald Trump said the United States would supply weapons to Ukraine, with European countries paying for them. However, he did not give details on how the plan would work. Norwegian Defence Minister Tore O. Sandvik said in a statement, 'With this contribution, we want to ensure that Ukraine quickly receives the equipment it needs, while strengthening NATO cooperation on Ukraine's defence and securing peace on Ukrainian terms.' Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen said the funds would be available immediately. 'Speed is absolutely critical,' he said, adding that Denmark may provide more money later. Denmark is contributing about $90 million. Norway is giving around 1.5 billion Norwegian crowns, which is roughly $146 million. Sweden is contributing $275 million. The Swedish government said the package includes Patriot air defence systems, anti-tank weapons, and other military equipment. Swedish Deputy Prime Minister Ebba Busch said, according to Reuters, 'Continued supply of this kind of American defence materiel, which Europe can't deliver in sufficient quantity, is decisive for Ukraine's defence capability.' NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte thanked the three countries for their quick decision to support the package. NATO is coordinating the initiative through its Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL). The programme is funded by European NATO members and Canada and will be split into packages worth around $500 million each. Reuters reported that the Netherlands was the first country to join the effort, announcing a contribution of 500 million euros on Monday. According to Sweden's government website, the country had donated 92.8 billion Swedish crowns to Ukraine by the end of March this year. (With inputs from Reuters)
India.com
10 minutes ago
- India.com
'Will raise tariffs on India substantially in...': US Presidents threatens India days after imposing 25% tariff
(Image: Reuters) Washington: US President Donald Trump on Tuesday said that he is going to further raise tariffs on India in the next 24 hours, after announcing 25 per cent tariffs from August 7. In an interview with CNBC, Trump said he will raise tariffs on India, revising the earlier settled rate of 25 per cent. 'India has the highest tariffs. We do very little business with India. We settled on 25 per cent, but I think I am going to raise that substantially within the next 24 hours,' the US President was quoted as saying. He claimed that India is buying Russian oil and fuelling the Russian war machine. This comes a day after the US President stated that he will 'substantially' raise US tariffs on India, accusing it of buying massive amounts of Russian oil and selling it for big profits. New Delhi has called the threat of additional tariffs 'unjustified and unreasonable.' Russia also responded strongly on Tuesday, labelling such US pressure tactics as 'illegitimate'. It backed India and, while criticising Trump over his threats to increase tariffs on New Delhi for buying oil from Moscow, contended that 'sovereign nations must have the right to choose their trading partners'. 'Russia notes US threats against India but does not consider such statements to be legitimate. Sovereign countries must have and have the right to choose their own trading partners, partners in trade and economic cooperation, and to choose those trade and economic cooperation regimes that are in the interests of a particular country,' the Russian President's spokesman Dmitri Peskov was quoted as saying by Russia's state-owned news agency TASS. After Trump threatened to impose hefty tariffs on New Delhi, the Indian government on Monday said that the targeting of the country by the US over Russian oil purchase is unjustified and unreasonable. A statement released by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson said that like any major economy, 'India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security'. According to the government, India has been targeted by the United States and the European Union for importing oil from Russia after the commencement of the Ukraine conflict. 'In fact, India began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict. The United States at that time actively encouraged such imports by India for strengthening global energy markets' stability,' it emphasised. –
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
40 minutes ago
- First Post
It's not just Trump: India has dealt with US bullying before
Over five decades earlier, President Richard Nixon and his National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger sought to strong-arm India, much like Trump is doing now, except that was with aircraft carriers and nuclear posturing read more President Richard Nixon also tried to bully India into following the US' strategic interests, instead of its own. File image/Reuters For a while now, the United States has been trying to strong-arm India into compliance with its strategic will. Despite his platitudes about deep friendship with India, President Donald Trump, once back into the White House, imposed a 25 per cent tariff on Indian goods after months of threats and extensions. India's refusal to bow to US demands in trade talks, denials over Trump mediating the India-Pakistan ceasefire, and New Delhi's continuing purchase of Russian oil, all seem to be the cause of the provocation. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The measure sent shockwaves through Indian markets. Steel and aluminium sectors reeled, exporters scrambled, and Fitch warned that the effective US tariff on Indian goods had jumped from 2.4 per cent to 20.7 per cent. India responded with steely calm to Washington's economic arm-twisting, drawing red lines in the stalled trade talks and warning that national interest would not be sacrificed for expediency. Officials said that while they remained open to dialogue, they would not be rushed or coerced into a deal. 'The era of unilateral compliance is long past,' one senior official said. US' bullying of India stretches back to 1971 But this was not the first time an American president tried to impose Washington's will on India. Over five decades earlier, President Richard Nixon and his National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger sought to do the same with aircraft carriers and nuclear posturing. It was December 1971. India had just intervened in the Bangladesh Liberation War, responding to a humanitarian crisis and a flood of millions of refugees created by Pakistan's violent crackdown in East Pakistan. Washington, however, saw the region through the lens of geopolitics: Nixon was courting Pakistan's dictator Yahya Khan to open the door to China. And so, when Indian forces advanced, Nixon ordered Task Force 74, including the nuclear-powered USS Enterprise, into the Bay of Bengal. The deployment of US Navy's Seventh Fleet in the Bay of Bengal was officially described as a non-combatant mission to protect American citizens. But it is well-known as a signal to India that any move on West Pakistan would cross a line. Moscow responded by dispatching nuclear submarines to shadow the US fleet. A Cold War face-off in the Indian Ocean ensued. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India refused to retreat. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi pressed forward, confident in the USSR's backing and resolute in her government's aim to end the genocide in East Pakistan. The gambit paid off: Pakistan surrendered on December 16, 1971, and Bangladesh was born. But the memory of American threats, and Kissinger's contemptuous remarks about Indian leadership, left a scar. The 1971 episode served as a reminder that American support for democracy was often transactional and that when push came to shove, Washington could side with dictators if it suited its interests. Now, India once again appears to be in a defiant mood, standing against the bullying and for its national interest.
