Trump Says Deal for Ceasefire in Gaza Is Closer After Israel Agrees on Terms
Neither side has accepted the proposal announced Tuesday by Trump, who has admonished Hamas that if the group does not buy into the offer, its prospects will get worse. It's not clear what conditions Israel agreed to.
The efforts to reach a truce are unfolding in the wake of powerful Israeli and American strikes on nuclear sites in Iran, which has long supported Hamas, and just days before Trump is scheduled to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington.
Here's a look at the situation and the challenges it might present.
Details are murky
Details of the proposed ceasefire are just beginning to emerge. But rather than being completely new, the potential deal seems to be a somewhat modified version of a framework proposed earlier this year by Trump's Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff.
Trump said Tuesday in a social media post that Qatar and Egypt have been working on the details and would deliver a final proposal to Hamas.
An Egyptian official involved in the ceasefire talks told The Associated Press that the proposal calls for Hamas to release 10 more hostages during the two-month period — eight on the first day and two on the final day. During that period, Israel would withdraw troops from some parts of Gaza and allow badly needed aid into the territory.
The war began on Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas-led fighters attacked southern Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking roughly 250 hostages. The group is believed to still have some 50 hostages, with fewer than half of them thought to be alive.
The Egyptian official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to reporters, said a sticking point over how aid would be distributed had been resolved with Israel.
He said both sides have agreed that the United Nations and the Palestinian Red Crescent would lead aid operations and that the Israeli- and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Fund would also continue to operate.
Hamas has been weakened
The unraveling of Iran's regional network of proxies, capped by the blow inflicted on Iran during the recent 12-day war with Israel, has left Hamas weaker and more isolated in the region. Iran was a key backer of the group, but its influence has waned, and it's now preoccupied with its own problems.
At the same time, Trump has made it clear to Israel that he wants to see the Israel-Hamas war end soon. While he has been supportive of Netanyahu, Trump had tough words for Israel in the opening hours of last week's ceasefire with Iran, when he pressured Israel to scale back its response to an Iranian missile attack. That could help persuade Hamas to embrace a deal.
A diplomat briefed on the talks said there is now a 'big opportunity' to reach an agreement. 'The indications we're getting are people are ready.'
He said Trump's harsh talk toward Israel has 'given a bit of confidence to Hamas' that the US will guarantee any future deal and prevent a return to fighting. The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing behind-the-scenes diplomatic contacts.
Israeli military positions and future talks pose obstacles
The Egyptian official said Israel has not yet agreed to a proposal to withdraw its forces to positions held in early March after a previous ceasefire officially expired. Since then, the Israeli army has seized large swaths of Gaza to put pressure on Hamas, and it's not clear whether Israel is ready to return to those same positions.
An Israeli official characterized the agreement as a 60-day deal that would include a partial Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and a surge in humanitarian aid to the territory.
The mediators and the US would provide assurances about talks on ending the war, but Israel is not committing to that as part of the latest proposal, said the official, who was not authorized to discuss the details of the deal with the media and spoke on condition of anonymity.
The Egyptian official said Hamas will have to review the proposal with other factions before submitting an official response.
One point that does seem to have been ironed out is the question of who will administer Gaza.
Israel has said Hamas cannot run the territory, and the Egyptian official said the proposal would instead put Gaza under a group of Palestinians without political affiliations known as the Community Support Committee once a ceasefire is reached.
Potentially complicating the effort, Netanyahu reiterated his hard-line position Wednesday, vowing that 'there will be no Hamas' following the 60-day ceasefire plan.
Previous ceasefire did not last
A previous ceasefire agreed to in January established three phases, but the two sides never made it past phase one.
During that time, however, there were multiple exchanges of Hamas-held hostages for prisoners held by Israel, and critical humanitarian aid was able to reach Gaza.
When phase one expired on March 1, Israel sought to extend it while Hamas argued that phase two should go ahead as planned.
The second phase would have compelled Hamas to release all the remaining living hostages in exchange for more Palestinian prisoners, a lasting ceasefire and a full Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.
That was always seen as difficult, because it would have forced Israel to choose between its two main war goals — the safe return of the hostages and the annihilation of Hamas.
On March 18, Israel broke the ceasefire with new airstrikes and resumed hostilities.
In Gaza, residents expressed hope that this time, a ceasefire will bring an end to the war.
'We are seriously tired,' said Asmaa al-Gendy, who has been living in a tent camp in Deir al Balah with her two children. The family has been displaced and starved and endured "every form of torture in the world.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asharq Al-Awsat
an hour ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Trump, Putin to Talk on Thursday ahead of Possible Zelenskiy Call
US President Donald Trump said he will talk to Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday, while a Ukrainian source told Reuters Trump may speak with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Friday. "Will be speaking to President Putin of Russia at 10:00 A.M. Thank you!" Trump wrote on his social media platform. He did not say what they would discuss. On Friday, Trump and Zelenskiy are expected to discuss the abrupt halt in some key US weapons deliveries to Kyiv, with Zelenskiy expected to raise potential future arms sales, the Financial Times earlier reported on Thursday, Reuters reported. The timing of that call could change, the FT added, citing people familiar with the planning. The US has paused some shipments of critical weapons to Ukraine due to low stockpiles, sources earlier told Reuters. That decision led to Ukraine calling in the acting US envoy to Kyiv on Wednesday to underline the importance of military aid from Washington continuing, and caution that the move would weaken Ukraine's ability to defend against intensifying Russian airstrikes and battlefield advances. The Pentagon's move led in part to a cut in deliveries of Patriot air defense missiles that Ukraine relies on to destroy fast-moving ballistic missiles, Reuters reported on Wednesday.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
America risks upsetting the balance of powers at its peril
Picture the scene: it is January 2029 and the 48th US president, a Democrat, is in the Oval Office, having achieved a comfortable win over Republican candidate J.D. Vance in the November 2028 election. As is the custom for newly elected presidents, the fiery former New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (for it is she) is ensconced behind the Resolute Desk signing a slew of executive orders. Her first one restricts the possession of firearms to police officers, the armed forces and the National Guard, and requires all armed American civilians to hand over their weapons or have them forcibly confiscated. Inevitably, there is uproar: it is a brave president who would deny every freeborn American their inalienable right to go shopping for a rotisserie chicken and a quart of milk in Walmart while strapped up with a Smith & Wesson M&P15 assault rifle. The National Rifle Association files a lawsuit in the state of New York, where it is incorporated, demanding that the order be overturned because it breaches the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, whereby 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' It is an open and shut case, the order is overturned, but the plaintiffs' victory is limited. Previously, a ruling by a federal judge would have applied nationwide ('federal' is a clue). In this case, however, the judgment applies only in the state of New York and only to members of the NRA. The reason we know this would happen is that it just did. Executive orders are increasingly being used to avoid the tricky business of actually passing legislation Ross Anderson The first executive order signed by Donald Trump in his second term in office denied automatic citizenship to children born in the US to a parent or parents deemed to be in America illegally. Like our imaginary Ocasio-Cortez weapons ban, on the face of it the order breaches the constitution — in this case, the 14th Amendment, which explicitly confers citizenship on almost any US-born child, regardless of parentage. Lawsuits against Trump's executive order followed and federal judges in Maryland and New Hampshire issued nationwide injunctions preventing the birthright ban from taking effect. The administration appealed to the Supreme Court and deployed a masterstroke. Trump's lawyers were not born yesterday: their basis for appeal was not that the birthright ban was in accordance with the constitution — they knew perfectly well that it almost certainly was not. Instead, they argued that there was no constitutional imperative for a federal judge's ruling in one court to apply nationwide and that injunctions overturning the executive order should apply only in the jurisdictions where they were issued and only to the plaintiffs in each case. Last week, by six votes to three, the Supreme Court agreed. Now, to anyone other than a legal scholar, this may all seem like angels dancing on the head of a pin, but in fact it has profound implications for how the US is governed. Supporters of Trump's executive order welcomed the judgment as a triumph and opponents view it as a defeat. They are both wrong: it is neither. The court was not asked to, and did not, make any determination on the constitutionality of the executive order. This case was not about birthright, it was about the law. There are striking parallels with another controversial Supreme Court ruling: the decision in 2022 to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 judgment that women had a constitutional right to abortion. As with the 'birthright case,' anti-abortion activists viewed the 2022 ruling as a victory and supporters of women's right to choose viewed it as a defeat. They were both wrong: it was neither. The case was not about abortion, it was about the law. The Supreme Court ruled, correctly, that the Roe vs. Wade judgment was flawed because, in 1973, the court had given itself a power to which it was not entitled — to make the law. It ruled, correctly, that the justification for the 1973 verdict — the 14th Amendment 'right to privacy' — was wholly spurious. And it ruled, correctly, that in the absence of a federal law regulating the provision of abortion, such regulation was a matter for individual states and not the Supreme Court. No such law exists, nor is it ever likely to. Any US president who even contemplated one would look at the experience of Barack Obama and shudder. Obama, you may recall, tried to repair a US healthcare system that, by common consent, is terminally dysfunctional, ruinously expensive, delivers medical outcomes that are among the worst in the developed world, and is ripe for reform. Obama spent eight tortuous and combative years wrangling with Congress, herding cats in the House and Senate, expending political capital he could barely afford, dividing the country — and ended up with a truncated Affordable Care Act that delivered a level of universal healthcare viewed in Europe and elsewhere as not even close to what they take for granted. Opponents complain that executive orders are in fact 'royal decrees' — an emotive phrase for a US audience Ross Anderson And this was healthcare, which you would think most people might agree on: can you imagine the mayhem that would ensue if a president tried to legislate on abortion? It would be irrelevant whether the proposed legislation expanded or restricted access to pregnancy termination services — an already polarized country would explode. No president will even try, the political risks are too great. Which brings us back to executive orders, a device increasingly used by US presidents of all political stripes to avoid the tricky and inconvenient business of actually passing legislation. Until recently, you could count on your fingers the number issued by presidents in their early days in office and most averaged about 12 a year. That changed with Obama, who signed 19 in his first 100 days in 2009. Trump beat that in 2017 with 33, but Joe Biden smashed it out of the park in 2021 with 42. The incumbent president is, however, now a class apart: in the first 100 days of his second term in office, he issued a frankly astonishing 143. Supporters of executive orders advance two arguments. First, legal: Article II of the US Constitution vests executive power in the hands of the president. Second, moral: a president, especially a newly elected one, has obtained the support of a majority of Americans and should be permitted to give effect to campaign promises. Opponents complain that executive orders are in fact 'royal decrees' — an emotive phrase for a US audience. Here in the Gulf, we are accustomed to laws enacted by royal decree and no one bats an eyelid: but Americans fought an eight-year war of independence to rid themselves of a king as head of state and view aspirations toward royal privilege with deep suspicion. For this reason, the Constitution, although 250 years old, imposes a system of checks and balances that is sophisticated even by 21st-century standards. Presidential power is countered by the Congress, and vice versa, and the power of each is constrained by a Supreme Court independent of both. It is a balance that has stood the test of time, but it is a delicate one. With presidential executive orders, Americans risk upsetting that balance at their peril.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
Children of war: The lost generation in Palestine
For decades, the world has watched the Palestinian-Israeli conflict unfold via headlines, footage and diplomatic statements. But beneath the geopolitics and shifting battle lines lies a quieter, more devastating tragedy: a generation of Palestinian children growing up amid violence, trauma and deprivation. These are the children of war — a lost generation whose education, mental health and dreams for the future are being systematically shattered. In Gaza, where Israeli military operations have left entire neighborhoods in ruins, children have been disproportionately affected. According to UNICEF and Save the Children, more than half of Gaza's population is under the age of 18. That means every airstrike, every siege and every blockade hits them the hardest — physically, emotionally and mentally. Thousands of children have been killed, maimed or left orphaned by Israeli operations since Oct. 7, 2023. Many more have witnessed the death of siblings, parents or friends. These are not just statistics — they are young lives permanently scarred. Education, one of the most fundamental rights of every child, is among the first casualties in such a conflict. Schools in Gaza and the West Bank are often closed for long stretches due to bombardment or military operations. Some are turned into shelters. Others are directly targeted. Since October 2023, hundreds of schools have been damaged or destroyed, and thousands of children have been deprived of safe and consistent access to education. The result is a generation that is increasingly falling behind — not for lack of intelligence or will, but because their environment denies them the tools they need to grow. Even when the fighting stops — temporarily — the trauma continues. Mental health professionals working in Palestine report staggering levels of post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression and night terrors among children. These are not isolated cases. They are symptoms of a deeply broken context, where childhood has been replaced by fear and resilience is forced, not nurtured. Children draw pictures of tanks and funerals. They play games that mimic escape from drone attacks. Their worldview is shaped by checkpoints, rubble and the haunting sound of air raids. There are staggering levels of post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression and night terrors among children Hani Hazaimeh The long-term consequences of such sustained trauma are difficult to fully comprehend, but early signs are already emerging. Studies have shown that war-affected children are more likely to suffer from behavioral and developmental issues, poor academic performance and emotional withdrawal. The trauma does not just vanish when the guns fall silent — it lingers, passed on silently from one generation to the next. Yet perhaps the most damning aspect of this tragedy is how invisible these children have become to the international community. The war in Gaza and the broader Palestinian territories is often discussed in terms of ceasefires, security and statehood — rarely in terms of its human toll, particularly on the young. The language of diplomacy too often sanitizes the brutal reality on the ground. In global forums, the deaths of children are described as 'collateral damage,' and the destruction of schools is brushed aside as 'unfortunate consequences.' But behind these euphemisms are real human stories — of 10-year-olds who no longer speak, of toddlers who flinch at the sound of thunder, of teenagers who have never known a single day without the threat of war. Perhaps the most damning aspect is how invisible these children have become to the international community Hani Hazaimeh There is, of course, no simple solution to the broader conflict. But there is a moral imperative — urgent and universal — to protect children. That means demanding accountability for attacks on schools and civilian infrastructure. It means providing funding for trauma counseling and mental health services in war zones. It means supporting organizations that rebuild classrooms, train teachers and offer safe spaces for learning. It means treating the right to a childhood not as a luxury, but as a cornerstone of any sustainable peace. We must stop thinking of Palestinian children merely as victims of a political conflict. They are not footnotes to be skimmed over. They are the heart of the story — and if we allow their suffering to continue, we are complicit in the creation of a generation that has known only violence and despair. In every war, there are casualties we can count and others we cannot. The lost innocence of children falls in the latter. Let us not wait for another headline, another outrage, another round of violence. The children of Palestine need more than sympathy. They need solidarity. They need protection. And, above all, they need hope — something far too many of them have been forced to live without.
