Hamas says US truce proposal means ‘continuation of killing' in Gaza
A ceasefire proposal with Israel tabled by the administration of United States President Donald Trump is 'still under discussion' by Hamas, but in its current form will only result in 'the continuation of killing and famine' in Gaza, an official from the Palestinian group has said.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Thursday that Israel had 'signed off' on the ceasefire proposal, and the Trump administration's Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, had submitted it to Hamas for consideration.
Hamas political bureau member Basem Naim told the Reuters news agency that the deal 'does not meet any of our people's demands, foremost among them, halting the war'.
'Nonetheless, the movement's leadership is studying the response to the proposal with full national responsibility,' Naim added.
The details of the new proposal have not been made public, but senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters that, crucially, it did not contain commitments from Israel to end its war on Gaza, withdraw Israeli troops from the enclave, or allow aid to freely enter the war-torn territory.
The Israeli government has not publicly confirmed that it approved the latest proposal.
Reports in Israeli media this week suggested that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the families of captives still held in Gaza that he is prepared to move forward with Witkoff's temporary ceasefire proposal.
Akiva Eldar, an Israeli political analyst, told Al Jazeera it was 'unusual' for Israel to come out and agree to a proposal first, and that Netanyahu may be betting on the plan being impossible for Hamas to accept so that he can paint them as the 'bad guys' and continue the war.
'It happened before… and Netanyahu put the blame on them,' Eldar said.
Attempts to restore a ceasefire in Gaza have been scuppered by deep differences on conditions for ending the conflict, including Israel's demand that Hamas completely disarm, and the Palestinian group's demand that Israeli forces withdraw from Gaza.
Reports of this latest proposal follow conflicting reports earlier this week, when Hamas claimed it had reached an understanding for a ceasefire 'general framework' with Witkoff and only awaited a 'final response'.
'We have reached an agreement on a general framework with Witkoff that ensures a permanent ceasefire, a complete withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from Gaza, and the unhindered entry of humanitarian aid,' the group said in a statement.
The agreement also reportedly included 'the establishment of a professional committee to manage Gaza's affairs once a ceasefire is declared', according to the Hamas statement.
As part of the deal, Trump would also reportedly guarantee that a ceasefire would be established within 60 days and ensure the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza.
Witkoff, however, later denied that these were the terms of any deal he had proposed, telling Reuters that what he had seen was 'completely unacceptable'.
An anonymous US official close to Witkoff also rejected the claim, telling Al Jazeera that the group's claims were 'inaccurate' and 'disappointing'. Israel also dismissed the claim, with one unnamed official calling the statement 'psychological warfare' and 'propaganda' in comments to The Times of Israel.
Israel resumed its war on Gaza on March 18, after breaking a six-week temporary ceasefire, with Netanyahu announcing that fighting had resumed with 'full force'.
The months since have seen the Israeli military resume its relentless assault across Gaza, killing close to 4,000 people since breaking the truce and propelling the overall death toll in the enclave to more than 54,000, according to health authorities in Gaza.
Israel has also imposed a deadly, months-long blockade on humanitarian aid entering the Palestinian enclave, which UN officials say has pushed the population to the brink of famine.
Israel partially lifted its blockade on May 19, allowing a trickle of aid to enter Gaza, but United States Secretary-General Antonio Guterres described it as a mere 'teaspoon' of what is needed.
There were chaotic scenes this week as crowds of starving Palestinians attempted to reach life-saving supplies distributed by the US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation – a new and controversial group that said it would deliver aid in the besieged enclave.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Saudi Arabia says it will jointly fund Syria state salaries with Qatar
Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud has said that the kingdom and Qatar will offer joint financial support to state employees in Syria. His statements came on Saturday during a joint press conference with his Syrian counterpart Asaad al-Shibani in Damascus. The two Gulf nations have been among the most important regional supporters of Syria's new authorities, who ousted longtime ruler Bashar al-Assad in December after nearly 14 years of war. Saturday's statement did not provide details on the exact amount of the support for Syria's public sector. However, it comes after Syrian Finance Minister Mohammed Yosr Bernieh said earlier in May that Qatar was going to provide Syria with $29m per month for an initial three months to pay civilian public sector worker salaries. The Reuters news agency had also reported that the United States had given its blessing to the Qatari initiative, which came a few days before President Donald Trump announced that sanctions on Syria imposed during the al-Assad regime would be lifted. The European Union has since also lifted sanctions on Syria. Further evidence of Saudi Arabian and Qatari support came in mid-May, when it was announced that the two countries had paid off Syria's debt to the World Bank, a sum of roughly $15m. Syria's new government, led by interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa, has sought to rebuild the country's diplomatic ties and convince wary Western states that he has turned his back on past ties with groups such as al-Qaeda. The Syrian leader has repeatedly disavowed extremism and expressed support for minorities, but incidents of violence that has led to hundreds of deaths continue to cause international trepidation – even as the government and al-Sharaa denounce the killings. Syria's new government has also made a concerted effort to solidify ties to Gulf Arab states who have begun to play a pivotal role in financing the reconstruction of Syria's war-ravaged infrastructure and reviving its economy. On Tuesday, the European Union announced it had adopted legal acts lifting all economic restrictive measures on Syria except those based on security grounds. It also removed 24 entities from the EU list of those subject to the freesing of funds and economic resources, including the Central Bank of Syria. And after Saudi Arabia and Qatar cleared Syria's debt to the World Bank, the US-based financial institution said that it would restart operations in the country following a 14-year pause. The World Bank has begun to prepare its first project in Syria, which will focus on improving electricity access – a key pillar for revitalising essential services like healthcare, education, and water supply. It also marked the start of expanded support to stabilise Syria and boost long-term growth. Syria's gradual re-integration into the global economy is in large part due to Trump's dramatic shift in Washington's policies towards the country. After announcing the lifting of US sanctions on May 13, Trump also became the first US president in 25 years to meet with a Syrian counterpart. The US had already removed a $10m reward for the capture of al-Sharaa, and the Syrian president has been able to travel internationally and meet world leaders, including in Saudi Arabia and France. Still, there is a lot to be done. A February report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) estimated that at current growth rates, Syria would need more than 50 years to return to the economic level it had before the war, and it called for massive investment to accelerate the process. The UNDP study said nine out of 10 Syrians now live in poverty, one-quarter are jobless and Syria's gross domestic product 'has shrunk to less than half of its value' in 2011, the year the war began.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
India top general admits ‘losses' in recent conflict with Pakistan
India's chief of defence staff says the country suffered initial losses in the air during a recent military conflict with neighbouring Pakistan, but declined to give details. 'What was important is, why did these losses occur, and what we will do after that,' General Anil Chauhan told the Reuters news agency on Saturday on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue security forum in Singapore. India and Pakistan were engaged in a four-day conflict this month, their worst standoff since 1999, before a ceasefire was agreed on May 10. More than 70 people were killed in missile, drone and artillery fire on both sides, but there are competing claims on the casualties. India says more than 100 'terrorists' were killed in its 'precision strikes' on several 'terror camps' across Pakistan, which rejects the claim, saying more than 30 Pakistani civilians were killed in the Indian attacks. New Delhi, meanwhile, says nearly two dozen civilians were killed on the Indian side, most of them in Indian-administered Kashmir, along the disputed border. The fighting between the two nuclear powers was triggered by an attack on tourists in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir on April 22 that killed 26 people, almost all of them tourists. New Delhi blamed Pakistan for supporting the armed group behind the attack, an allegation Islamabad denied. During their conflict, Pakistan had also claimed to have downed at least five Indian military jets, including at least three Rafale fighters. But Chauhan on Saturday dismissed it as 'absolutely incorrect', confirming his country had lost at least one aircraft. 'I think what is important is that, not the jet being down, but why they were being down,' he told Bloomberg TV in a separate interview in Singapore. On May 11, a day after the ceasefire, India's Air Marshal AK Bharti told reporters in New Delhi that 'all our pilots are back home', adding that 'we are in a combat scenario, and that losses are a part of combat'. Chauhan said on Saturday India switched tactics after suffering losses in the air on the first day of conflict and established a decisive advantage. 'So we rectified tactics and then went back on the [May] 7th, 8th and 10th in large numbers to hit airbases deep inside Pakistan, penetrated all their air defences with impunity, carried out precision strikes,' he said. Islamabad has denied it suffered any losses of planes but has acknowledged its airbases suffered some hits, although losses were minimal. Chauhan said while the fighting had ceased, the Indian government had made it clear that it would respond 'precisely and decisively should there be any further terror attacks emanating from Pakistan'. 'So that has its own dynamics as far [as] the armed forces are concerned. It will require us to be prepared 24/7,' he said. Chauhan also said that although Pakistan is closely allied with China, which borders India in the north and the northeast, there was no sign of any actual help from Beijing during the conflict. 'While this was unfolding from [April] 22nd onwards, we didn't find any unusual activity in the operational or tactical depth of our northern borders, and things were generally all right,' he told Reuters. Asked whether China may have provided any satellite imagery or other real-time intelligence to Pakistan during the conflict, Chauhan said such imagery was commercially available and could have been procured from China as well as other sources.
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Enlightened Americans should stay and fight, not leave
For all his faults and hubris, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy possesses one unmistakable quality: courage. That became apparent during a memorable moment more than three years ago when Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine. A foreboding, endless column of Russian tanks and other armoured vehicles had breached the border in a pincer pattern. In the halting face of such an intimidating display of overwhelming force, defeat seemed close by. Kyiv looked bound to fall. Zelenskyy and company would be arrested or killed as a lethal exclamation point while Russian President Vladimir Putin installed a puppet regime to bow and obey. The comedian turned unlikely wartime leader did not flinch. He stood his ground – on the sacred soil of Ukraine. To reassure fretful Ukrainians, Zelenskyy posted a short video on social media featuring himself surrounded by several solemn-looking officials and cabinet ministers. 'The president is here,' he said. 'We are all here … defend[ing] our independence.' I was reminded of that remarkable scene while I read accounts over the past few months from a disparate group of Americans, including artists and academics, departing their beloved homeland in the distressing wake of President Donald Trump's jarring return to the Oval Office. Before I continue, I am obliged to make two instructive points. First, by invoking Zelenskyy's vow to remain in Ukraine despite the ominous risks, I do not mean to imply that enlightened Americans opting to forgo living and working in the United States, lack courage. Far from it. Each of us has confronted or will confront in due course a defining dilemma: to stay or to go. Answering the prickly question can stir doubt and anxiety. Making a choice, regardless of the direction, is a bold act. It takes resolve to exchange the familiar for the unknown. Second, I have avoided the word 'flee' to describe why some Americans choose to emigrate due to Trump's egregious modus operandi. 'Flee' evokes impulsive panic or self-preservation, rather than thoughtful, deliberate decision-making. Still, Zelenskyy offers a compelling example of why it is necessary to stay instead of escaping to Canada or Europe when a bully threatens the values and principles that you hold dear – fairness, truth, empathy, tolerance, justice, diversity, and intelligence. So, enlightened Americans, I urge you to insist like Zelenskyy: We are all here. Your presence in America to fight for its promise is a duty and responsibility. Together, you can fashion a formidable, immovable buttress against the wretched aspects of Trumpism – its assault on facts, erosion of democratic norms, embrace of authoritarianism, and corrosive pursuit of division and fear. This contest cannot be won remotely – far from the epicentre of the urgent battle. It has to be fought face-to-face with an uncompromising adversary and hand-in-hand with other enlightened Americans, thin on the privileges and resources that have enabled your exit. Trumpism thrives when opposition retreats. Absence creates space for extremism to entrench itself even more deeply and widely into America's already frayed and discordant fabric. Withdrawal only comforts the Trumpists determined to quash dissent and erase resistance through edicts, threats, and coercion. Leaving can also be seen as an admission of defeat – a concession that an angry, ruptured country is beyond redemption or salvation. Dynamic governance is not self-sustaining; it requires citizens to keep up the struggle, particularly when it is trying. By forsaking the arena, some enlightened Americans forfeit their ability to shape the present and the future. In contrast, standing with and by enlightened Americans remaining behind, confirms that America belongs to all its people, not just the cartoonish characters shouting the loudest or demanding the most attention. Trump welcomes the idea of disheartened Americans building new lives in new places because he is president. It is, I suspect, a point of pride since it suggests his vindictive agenda is working. For Trump, the exodus of 'liberal elites' or 'out-of-touch' entertainers is proof that the old establishment, never subscribers to his jejune notion of America's 'greatness', is being replaced by 'authentic' patriots. This response is, of course, symptomatic of Trump's broader political strategy – drawing a Berlin-Wall-like line between 'real' Americans – his supporters – and everyone else. By celebrating the phenomenon of Americans parting in protest, he promotes the insidious attitude that protest is not an essential ingredient of a mature, confident nation, but a form of disloyalty. Trump is not interested in unity or persuasion. As such, he frames his presidency as a litmus test of fidelity. If you don't worship him, you're encouraged to join the despondent diaspora – and, in his jaundiced view, good riddance. Despite their arguments and reservations about resettling to avoid the depressing capitulation of major law firms, universities, and corporate media, Americans face an uncomfortable truth: walking out won't help drive change. Scholars and intellectuals with the mettle and means to challenge obstinate power should rejoin the fight where it counts: in classrooms, on airwaves, in town halls. Declarations from abroad, however poignant, are not substitutes for showing up, time and again, in person to remind America that kindness, resiliency, and decency matter. Trumpism thrives on spectacle, and few understand the potency of spectacle better than celebrities. Many bidding America adieu did so defiantly, wielding a righteous pulpit from foreign shores. Even so, symbolism without substance is hollow. Returning means tackling – head-on – the mess, the contradictions, the tarnished ideals of a battered nation still worth the imagination and effort. Public figures ought to leverage their popular platforms not just to condemn, but to galvanise, to convey resistance not as elitist scorn but as shared obligation. That would impress more than a pointed opinion column in the New York Times or a thread of disparaging tweets ever could. Zelenskyy knows that hard work is always done on the ground. This is where returnees can make a tangible difference – not as saviours parachuting in, but instead as allies to like-minded collaborators who do that hard work without notice or applause. Trumpism may be ascendant, but it is not invincible. What it fears most is solidarity that bridges class, race, and background – solidarity that declares that America is not Donald Trump's to disfigure or define. The bruised and disillusioned exiles can reclaim their rightful place in that grave fray – if they come home. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
