US Proposes 60-Day Ceasefire for Gaza; Hostage-Prisoner Swap, Plan Shows
Reuters
A Palestinian woman reacts in the aftermath of an Israeli strike on a house, in Gaza City, May 30, 2025.
May 30 (Reuters) – The U.S. plan for Gaza, seen by Reuters on Friday, proposes a 60-day ceasefire and the release of 28 Israeli hostages – alive and dead – in the first week, in exchange for the release of 1,236 Palestinian prisoners and the remains of 180 dead Palestinians.
The document, which says the plan is guaranteed by U.S. President Donald Trump and mediators Egypt and Qatar, includes sending humanitarian aid to Gaza as soon as Hamas signs off on the ceasefire agreement.
The aid will be delivered by the United Nations, the Red Crescent and other agreed channels.
The White House said on Thursday that Israel had agreed to the U.S. ceasefire proposal.
Israeli media said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the families of hostages held in Gaza that Israel had accepted the deal presented by Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff. The prime minister's office declined to comment.
The Palestinian militant group Hamas said it had received the Israeli response to the proposal, which it said 'fails to meet any of the just and legitimate demands of our people' including an immediate cessation of hostilities and an end to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Hamas official Basem Naim said the Israeli response 'fundamentally seeks to entrench the occupation and perpetuate policies of killing and starvation, even during what is supposed to be a period of temporary de-escalation'.
However, he said Hamas' leadership was carrying out a 'thorough and responsible review of the new proposal'.
The U.S. plan provides for Hamas to release the last 30 of the 58 remaining Israeli hostages once a permanent ceasefire is in place. Israel will also cease all military operations in Gaza as soon as the truce takes effect, it shows.
The Israeli army will also redeploy its troops in stages.
Deep differences between Hamas and Israel have stymied previous attempts to restore a ceasefire that broke down in March.
Israel has insisted that Hamas disarm completely, be dismantled as a military and governing force and return all 58 hostages still held in Gaza before it will agree to end the war.
Hamas has rejected the demand to give up its weapons and says Israel must pull its troops out of Gaza and commit to ending the war.
Israel launched its campaign in Gaza in response to the Hamas attack in its south on October 7, 2023, that killed some 1,200 people and saw 251 Israelis taken hostage into Gaza, according to Israeli tallies.
The subsequent Israeli military campaign has killed more than 54,000 Palestinians, Gaza health officials say, and has left the enclave in ruins.
MOUNTING PRESSURE
Israel has come under increasing international pressure, with many European countries that are usually reluctant to criticise it openly demanding an end to the war and a major relief effort.
The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said on Friday that Israel is blocking all but a trickle of humanitarian aid from entering Gaza, with almost no ready-to-eat food entering what its spokesperson described as 'the hungriest place on earth'.
Witkoff told reporters on Wednesday that Washington was close to 'sending out a new term sheet' about a ceasefire by the two sides in the conflict.
'I have some very good feelings about getting to a long-term resolution, temporary ceasefire and a long-term resolution, a peaceful resolution, of that conflict,' Witkoff said then.
The 60-day ceasefire, according to the plan, may be extended if negotiations for a permanent ceasefire are not concluded within the set period.
Senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said on Thursday the terms of the proposal echoed Israel's position and did not contain commitments to end the war, withdraw Israeli troops or admit aid as Hamas has demanded.
AID DISTRIBUTION
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a private group backed by the United States and endorsed by Israel, said it had distributed a total of more than 1.8 million meals this week and it expanded its aid distribution to a third site in Gaza on Thursday. GHF plans to open more sites in coming weeks.
The group, heavily criticised by the United Nations and other aid groups as inadequate and flawed, began its operation this week in Gaza, where the U.N. has said 2 million people are at risk of famine after an 11-week blockade by Israel on aid entering the enclave.
There were tumultuous scenes on Tuesday as thousands of Palestinians rushed to distribution points and forced private security contractors to retreat.
The chaotic start to the operation has raised international pressure on Israel to get more food in and halt the fighting in Gaza.
French President Emmanuel Macron said on Friday that his country could harden its position if Israel continues to block humanitarian aid to Gaza.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Today
4 hours ago
- Japan Today
World's nations to gather in France to tackle what U.N. says is a global emergency in oceans
By EDITH M LEDERER The world's nations are gathering in France this month to tackle what the United Nations calls a global emergency facing the world's oceans as they confront rising temperatures, plastic pollution choking marine life, and relentless overexploitation of fish and other resources. The third U.N. Ocean Conference aims to unite governments, scientists, businesses and civil society to take action and raise money to address these and other crises facing the oceans and the people who rely on them for their survival. Conference Secretary-General Li Junhua told reporters he hopes it will not be another routine meeting but 'the pivotal opportunity' to accelerate action and mobilize people in all sectors and across the world. The conference, co-sponsored by France and Costa Rica, takes place in Nice on the French Riviera from June 9 to June 13. It is expected to bring together more than 60 world leaders, dozens of ministers, about 4,000 government officials and 6,000 members of civil society, Li told The Associated Press. Costa Rica's U.N. Ambassador Maritza Chan Valverde said accelerating action to conserve and use the ocean sustainably 'means cutting decision-making time from years to months' and engaging all 193 U.N. member nations, more than 1,000 cities and over 500 corporations simultaneously. 'What is different this time around?,' she said. 'Zero rhetoric. Maximum results.' Valverde said she expects participants to make commitments totaling $100 billion in new funding to address the crisis facing the oceans. France's U.N. Ambassador Jérôme Bonnafont said his country's priorities for the conference include obtaining 60 ratifications for the treaty to protect biodiversity in the high seas adopted in March 2023 so it goes into effect. The treaty's mission is to ensure sustainable fishing, mobilize support to protect and conserve at least 30% of the oceans' waters, fight plastic pollution, 'accelerate decarbonization' of maritime transportation and mobilize financing. Conference participants are expected to adopt a declaration that says action is not advancing fast enough to address the impact of 'the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution.' 'We underscore the central role of a healthy and resilient ocean in sustaining life on Earth, ensuring global food security, and supporting billions of lives,' the final draft says. It supports new scientific research to meet the challenges of climate change and improve the scientific understanding of the oceans. It does not address the issue of deep-sea mining because a consensus could not be reached, Li said. The Trump administration said last week that it will consider selling leases to extract minerals from the seabed off the South Pacific island of American Samoa, a potential first step in a wider industry push to allow deep-sea mining, which environmentalists oppose because they say it could irreparably harm marine ecosystems. The declaration and voluntary commitments from governments and all sectors are expected to become the Nice Ocean Action Plan. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Yomiuri Shimbun
7 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Poles Begin Voting for a New President in a Pivotal Runoff Election
AP file photo This combination of photos shows Rafal Trzaskowski, left, in Warsaw, Friday, May 9, 2025, and Karol Nawrocki, right, in Warsaw, Poland, Tuesday, May 20, 2025 WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Poles began voting Sunday in a decisive presidential runoff that could set the course for the nation's political future and its relations with the European Union. The contest pits Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski, a liberal pro-EU figure, against Karol Nawrocki, a conservative historian backed by the right-wing Law and Justice party. The outcome will determine whether Poland continues along a nationalist path or pivots more decisively toward liberal democratic norms. With conservative President Andrzej Duda completing his second and final term, the new president will have significant influence over whether Prime Minister Donald Tusk's centrist government can fulfill its centrist agenda, given the presidential power to veto laws. Voting began at 7 a.m. local time and will end at 9 p.m., when an Ipsos exit poll is expected. Final results are likely to be announced Monday. The runoff follows a tightly contested first round on May 18, in which Trzaskowski won just over 31% and Nawrocki nearly 30%, eliminating 11 other candidates. The campaign has highlighted stark ideological divides. Trzaskowski, 53, has promised to restore judicial independence, ease abortion restrictions, and promote constructive ties with European partners. Nawrocki, 42, has positioned himself as a defender of traditional Polish values, skeptical of the EU, and aligned with U.S. conservatives, including President Donald Trump. Nawrocki's candidacy has been clouded by allegations of past connections to criminal figures and participation in a violent street battle. He denies the criminal links but acknowledges having taken part in 'noble' fights. The revelations have not appeared to dent his support among right-wing voters, many of whom see the allegations as politically motivated. Amid rising security fears over Russia's war in neighboring Ukraine, both candidates support aid to Kyiv, though Nawrocki opposes NATO membership for Ukraine, while Trzaskowski supports it in the future. Nawrocki's campaign has echoed themes popular on the American right, including an emphasis on traditional values. His supporters feel that Trzaskowski, with his pro-EU views, would hand over control of key Polish affairs to larger European powers like France and Germany. Many European centrists are rooting for Trzaskowski, seeing in him someone who would defend democratic values under pressure from authoritarian forces across the globe.
Japan Times
7 hours ago
- Japan Times
Trump tariffs face threat at top court — over rulings that blocked Biden
A legal argument that the U.S. Supreme Court used to foil Joe Biden on climate change and student debt now looms as a threat to President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs. During Biden's presidency, the court's conservative majority ruled that federal agencies can't decide sweeping political and economic matters without clear congressional authorization. That blocked the Environmental Protection Agency from setting deep limits on power-plant pollution and the Education Department from slashing student loans for 40 million people. The concept — known as the "major questions doctrine' — is now playing a central role in the case against Trump's unilateral imposition of worldwide import taxes. With Supreme Court review all but inevitable, the justices' willingness to employ the doctrine against Trump may determine the fate of his signature economic initiative. The U.S. Court of International Trade cited the Biden-era rulings and the major questions doctrine when it ruled 3-0 last week that many of Trump's import taxes exceeded the authority Congress had given him. The challenged tariffs would total an estimated $1.4 trillion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. Critics say the administration's tariffs would have an even bigger impact than the estimated $400 billion Biden student-loan package, which Chief Justice John Roberts described as having "staggering' significance in his 2023 opinion invalidating the plan. "If this is not a major question, then I don't know what is,' said Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School and one of the lawyers challenging the tariffs. "We're talking about the biggest trade war since the Great Depression.' Until they were partly suspended, Trump's April 2 "Liberation Day' tariffs marked the biggest increase in import taxes pushed by the U.S. since the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs and took the U.S.'s average applied tariff rate to its highest level in more than a century. The prospect of that massive tax increase and the resulting economic shock roiled financial markets and prompted fears of imminent recessions in the U.S. and other major global economies. The administration contends that the major questions doctrine doesn't apply when Congress gives authority directly to the president, rather than to an administrative agency. The government also says the doctrine is inapt when the subject is national security and foreign affairs — policy areas where the president has long been recognized to have broad powers. "No one doubts the significance of the challenged tariffs, but significance alone does not implicate the major questions doctrine, otherwise, it would apply to countless government actions, including every emergency statute,' the Justice Department said in a filing at the Court of International Trade. The legal clash centers on Trump's power under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which says the president may "regulate' the "importation' of property to address an emergency situation. The Court of International Trade said those words weren't clear enough to legally justify Trump's taxes given that the Constitution gives the tariff power to Congress. In addition to major questions, the panel also invoked the nondelegation doctrine, a related conservative-backed legal theory that says lawmakers can't give away their constitutional legislative and taxing powers. The two doctrines together "provide useful tools for the court to interpret statutes so as to avoid constitutional problems,' the trade court said. "These tools indicate that an unlimited delegation of tariff authority would constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government.' The ruling is now on temporary hold while a federal appeals court considers whether to keep the tariffs in force as the legal fight continues. So far, the major questions doctrine has divided the Supreme Court cleanly along ideological lines. The six conservative justices were united when the court first used the phrase in a 2022 ruling that said the EPA overstepped its authority with an ambitious emissions-reduction program during Barack Obama's presidency. The majority said it was doing nothing new by subjecting the plan to extra-tough scrutiny. "We 'typically greet' assertions of 'extravagant statutory power over the national economy' with 'skepticism,'' Roberts wrote, borrowing words from a 2014 ruling. Roberts said the court used similar reasoning, though without the "major questions' label, when it blocked Biden's pandemic eviction moratorium and his vaccine-or-test mandate for workers. The court's liberals accused their conservative colleagues of creating a convenient exception to their usual laserlike focus on statutory text. "The current court is textualist only when being so suits it,' Justice Elena Kagan said in dissent in the climate case. "When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the 'major questions doctrine' magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.' The sharp ideological divide masks a more subtle split among the court's conservatives about the purpose of the major questions doctrine. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has described it as a tool for ascertaining the most natural reading of a statute, while Justice Neil Gorsuch has cast it as a means of keeping Congress and the president in their proper constitutional lanes. The key question now is what the court will do with the major questions doctrine when it comes in the context of tariffs and a Republican president who appointed three of the justices. "The court has not been at all transparent about the grounds on which it will invoke this doctrine,' said Ronald Levin, an administrative law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. "It's left its options completely open.'
