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 militant 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 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 militants 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 U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Fund would also continue to operate.
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 militant 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 U.S. 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.
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 U.S. 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.
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.'
___
Rising reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Associated Press writers Josef Federman in Jerusalem and Wafaa Shurafa in Deir al Balah, Gaza Strip, contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
3 minutes ago
- Business Insider
How Trump wants to narrow a major student-loan forgiveness program that millions of borrowers rely on
The lengthy process of changing a student-loan forgiveness program for millions of public servants is underway. President Donald Trump signed an executive order in March aimed at limiting the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, created in 2007 to forgive student debt for government and nonprofit workers after 10 years of qualifying payments. While it's unclear which specific organizations — and how many borrowers — could lose PSLF eligibility, the executive order signaled that organizations facilitating transgender healthcare or engaging in disability discrimination, which the administration defined as "anti-American" activities, could be on the line. That question dominated the discussion during negotiation sessions that took place on June 30 through July 2, during which representatives of the Department of Education met with a range of stakeholders to help craft new language for PSLF. A draft of the department's proposal to change PSLF, circulated among negotiators, shed more light on how the administration seeks to change the debt relief program. Specifically, the proposal includes revising the definition of a qualifying employer "to ensure that organizations that engage in activities that have a substantial illegal purpose" are not eligible for PSLF. Those illegal purposes, per the proposal, include discrimination, like a violation of the federal disabilities act; violations of federal immigration law; what the department characterizes as "chemical castration or mutilation," like the use of puberty blockers or hormones to help a transgender person transition; and acts of terrorism. The education secretary would determine if an employer has engaged in any of those activities on or after July 1, 2026. If the secretary finds any violations, payments a borrower made toward PSLF while working for the ineligible employer would not count. Some of the negotiators on the committee expressed concerns with making changes to the PSLF eligibility criteria. "I don't see where the secretary has the authority to remove the employer eligibility definition," Betsy Mayotte, the president of The Institute of Student Loan Advisors and a representative of student-loan borrowers, said during a session. She added that "these jobs are essential to the communities that they serve. So the intent of Congress was not to narrow the eligibility. It was to make it as expansive as possible under the statute that they wrote." Jacob Lallo, a general attorney with the Department of Education, said that "there is broad rulemaking power for the secretary to promulgate regulations that interpret statutes. That is a long-standing part of American agency and administrative law." While negotiations have concluded, the committee ultimately did not reach consensus, and any changes will take time to become finalized. As the Department of Education works on the final text to amend PSLF, there will be more opportunities for public comment. "I'm proud that the committee members representing institutions of higher education, veterans, taxpayers, borrowers, and the business community have helped fulfill one of President Trump's promises to ensure that PSLF does not subsidize organizations that are breaking the law," Acting Under Secretary of Education James Bergeron said in a statement. 'Borrowers organized entire careers around this promise' Some negotiators raised the alarm on establishing new definitions in areas that are not directly related to student loans, like the clause seeking to include the use of puberty blockers as an example of chemical castration. "I don't think that the folks assembled to be part of this rulemaking were assembled for their medical expertise," Abby Shafroth, a representative from the Student Loan Borrower Assistance Project, said. "I think we're here with student loan expertise, and so I would feel very uncomfortable setting a new legal definition for these medical terms." Negotiators on behalf of the Department of Education maintained that the intent of limiting PSLF is not to completely overhaul the program; it's to ensure that those participating in the program have employers who are delivering a public service to the American public. The proposal would also allow employers that the secretary determines to be ineligible for PSLF to respond to and challenge the department's findings before a final decision. Trump's original executive order said that PSLF has previously "misdirected tax dollars into activist organizations that not only fail to serve the public interest, but actually harm our national security and American values, sometimes through criminal means." It did not provide specific examples of those activities, leaving some borrowers who rely on the program on edge. One borrower advocate, who spoke during the public comment period of negotiations, said that "people are paralyzed by anxiety because rules keep shifting." "Borrowers organized entire careers around this promise, and now they live in constant fear of the next change," she said. "The currently proposed barriers will do little to stop wrongdoing, but will create enormous administrative burden." Borrowers who rely on the program previously told Business Insider that any change to the program puts the relief they are depending on at risk. "I'm so close to the finish line," Jeff Hughes, a public service worker enrolled in PSLF, said. "I really hope that the program continues as is because we need some more good people out there doing good work."
Hamilton Spectator
10 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
New supply management law won't save the system from Trump, experts say
OTTAWA - A new law meant to protect supply management might not be enough to shield the system in trade talks with a Trump administration bent on eliminating it, trade experts say. 'It's certainly more difficult to strike a deal with the United States now with the passage of this bill that basically forces Canada to negotiate with one hand tied behind its back,' said William Pellerin, a trade lawyer and partner at the firm McMillan LLP. 'Now that we've removed the digital service tax, dairy and supply management is probably the number 1 trade irritant that we have with the United States. That remains very much unresolved.' When Trump briefly paused trade talks with Canada on June 27 over the digital services tax — shortly before Ottawa capitulated by dropping the tax — he zeroed in on Canada's system of supply management. In a social media post, Trump called Canada a 'very difficult country to TRADE with, including the fact that they have charged our Farmers as much as 400% Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products.' Canada can charge about 250 per cent tariffs on U.S. dairy imports over a set quota established by the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement. The International Dairy Foods Association, which represents the U.S. dairy industry, said in March the U.S. has never come close to reaching those quotas, though the association also said that's because of other barriers Canada has erected. When Bill C-202 passed through Parliament last month, Bloc Québécois MPs hailed it as a clear win protecting Quebec farmers from American trade demands. The Bloc's bill, which received royal assent on June 26, prevents the foreign affairs minister from making commitments in trade negotiations to either increase the tariff rate quota or reduce tariffs for imports over a set threshold. On its face, that rule would prevent Canadian trade negotiators from offering to drop the import barriers that shield dairy and egg producers in Canada from price shocks. But while the law appears to rule out using supply management as a bargaining chip in trade talks with the U.S., it doesn't completely constrain the government. Pellerin said that if Prime Minister Mark Carney is seeking a way around C-202, he might start by looking into conducting the trade talks personally, instead of leaving them to Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand. Carney dismissed the need for the new law during the recent election but vowed to keep supply management off the table in negotiations with the U.S. Pellerin said the government could also address the trade irritant by expanding the number of players who can access dairy quotas beyond 'processors.' '(C-202) doesn't expressly talk about changing or modifying who would be able to access the quota,' he said. Expanding access to quota, he said, would likely 'lead to companies like grocery stores being able to import U.S. cheeses, and that would probably please the United States to a significant degree.' Carleton University associate professor Philippe Lagassé, an expert on Parliament and the Crown, said the new law doesn't extend past something called the 'royal prerogative' — the ability of the executive branch of government to carry out certain actions in, for example, the conduct of foreign affairs. That suggests the government isn't constrained by the law, he said. 'I have doubts that the royal prerogative has been displaced by the law. There is no specific language binding the Crown and it would appear to run contrary to the wider intent of the (law that it modifies),' he said by email. 'That said, if the government believes that the law is binding, then it effectively is. As defenders of the bill insisted, it gives the government leverage in negotiation by giving the impression that Parliament has bound it on this issue.' He said a trade treaty requires enabling legislation, so a new bill could remove the supply management constraints. 'The bill adds an extra step and some constraints, but doesn't prevent supply management from eventually being removed or weakened,' he said. Trade lawyer Mark Warner, principal at MAAW Law, said Canada could simply dispense with the law through Parliament if it decides it needs to make concessions to, for example, preserve the auto industry. 'The argument for me that the government of Canada sits down with another country, particularly the United States, and says we can't negotiate that because Parliament has passed a bill — I have to tell you, I've never met an American trade official or lawyer who would take that seriously,' Warner said. 'My sense of this is it would just go through Parliament, unless you think other opposition parties would bring down the government over it.' While supply management has long been a target for U.S. trade negotiators, the idea of killing it has been a non-starter in Canadian politics for at least as long. Warner said any attempt to do away with it would be swiftly met with litigation, Charter challenges and provinces stepping up to fill a federal void. 'The real cost of that sort of thing is political, so if you try to take it away, people are screaming and they're blocking the highways and they are calling you names and the Bloc is blocking anything through Parliament — you pay a cost that way,' he said. But a compromise on supply management might not be that far-fetched. 'The system itself won't be dismantled. I don't think that's anywhere near happening in the coming years and even decades,' said Pellerin. 'But I think that there are changes that could be made, particularly through the trade agreements, including by way of kind of further quotas. Further reduction in the tariffs for outside quota amounts and also in terms of who can actually bring in product.' The United States trade representative raised specific concerns about supply management in the spring, citing quota rules established under the CUSMA trade pact that are not being applied as the U.S. expected and ongoing frustration with the pricing of certain types of milk products. Former Canadian diplomat Louise Blais said that if Canada were to 'respect the spirit' of CUSMA as the Americans understand it, the problem might actually solve itself. 'We jump to the conclusion that it's dismantlement or nothing else, but in fact there's a middle ground,' she said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 3, 2025.
Newsweek
11 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Approval Rating Underwater Across Multiple Polls
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's approval ratings remain underwater in multiple polls. Newsweek's tracking poll shows his net approval at –6 points, with 45 percent approving and 51 percent disapproving. While that's an improvement from last week's –10 net approval, it still leaves him in negative territory. A separate survey by Targoz Market Research and Overton Insights, conducted June 23 to 26 among 1,200 registered voters, put Trump's net approval even deeper underwater at –11 points—with 43 percent approving and 54 percent disapproving. That's a noticeable drop from a –5 net approval rating in March. The latest Quantus Insights poll, conducted June 30 to July 2 among 1,000 registered voters, showed Trump's net approval at –2 points, with 47 percent approving and 49 percent disapproving—relatively unchanged from previous Quantus polls. Pollster Jason Corley said the results reflected an "unsettled" national mood: More Americans believe the country is in decline (37 percent) than believe its best days are ahead (34 percent), while more than one in five think the nation's golden era is already behind us. Corley added that pessimism is "particularly strong" among older voters and rural Americans, key parts of Trump's base. "This is not mere partisanship. It reflects a deeper loss of faith in national direction, shared across ideological lines," he added. Why It Matters Trump's approval ratings initially dropped in early April after he announced his "Liberation Day" tariffs. Although they briefly rebounded, his recent actions—including deploying the National Guard and Marines to quell anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles and ordering airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites—have reignited public discontent. President Donald Trump outside the White House in Washington, D.C., on July 1. President Donald Trump outside the White House in Washington, D.C., on July 1. Mark Schiefelbein/AP What To Know Several recent polls have shown Trump's approval rating at an all-time low for his second term. The latest ActiVote survey, conducted June 1 to 30 among 523 adults, found Trump's national approval at 45 percent and disapproval at 52 percent—putting his net approval at –7 points, his worst showing since returning to office. Despite this record low for his second term, Trump's current approval still outpaces his own first-term average, which ActiVote tracked at 41 percent. It also remains slightly higher than former President Joe Biden's full-term average of 41 percent and Biden's final-year average of 40 percent. Other polls paint an equally bleak picture. A John Zogby Strategies poll from June 24 and 25 among 1,006 likely voters showed Trump's net approval at –8 points (45 percent approve, 53 percent disapprove), a sharp slide from –1 point in May. A Bullfinch Group poll, conducted June 17 to 20 among 1,223 adults, put his net approval even lower: at –13 points (41 percent approve, 54 percent disapprove), down from –5 points in May. Some surveys show deeper discontent. An Ipsos/Reuters poll, conducted June 21 to 23 among 1,139 registered voters, found Trump's net approval at –16 points (41 percent approve, 57 percent disapprove)—slipping from –12 the week prior. The American Research Group's June 17 to 20 poll among 1,100 adults showed his net approval plunging to –21 points (38 percent approve, 59 percent disapprove), down sharply from –14 in May. A few outliers offer Trump a silver lining. An RMG Research poll from June 18 to 26 showed the president still slightly above water, with a net approval of +4 points (51 percent approve, 47 percent disapprove)—though that, too, was down from +7 previously. Some polls suggest Trump's approval rating has ticked up slightly after a period of steady decline, underscoring how divided—and volatile—voter sentiment is in his second term. The latest Navigator Research poll, conducted June 26 to 30, found Trump at 45 percent approval and 53 percent disapproval—a slight recovery from early June when he hit a record low for this term at 43 percent approval and 55 percent disapproval. A YouGov/Economist survey from June 27 to 30 showed a modest uptick to 42 percent approval and 53 percent disapproval, up from a low of 40 percent earlier in the month. Similarly, Morning Consult's June 27 to 29 poll found 47 percent of respondents approved of Trump's job performance, with 50 percent disapproving—a slight improvement from May's 45 percent approval and 53 percent disapproval. Meanwhile, a Marist/NPR/PBS poll conducted June 23 to 25 put Trump's approval at 43 percent and disapproval at 52 percent, a tick up from April's low of 42 percent approval and 53 percent disapproval. What Happens Next Trump's approval ratings are likely to fluctuate in the coming weeks.
