Israel military says 'approved' plan for new Gaza offensive
Israel has said it will launch a the offensive and seize control of Gaza City, which it captured shortly after the war's outbreak in October 2023 before pulling out.
Israeli planes and tanks kept up their bombardment of eastern areas of Gaza City overnight.
Meanwhile, Hamas leader Khalil Al-Hayya arrived in Cairo yesterday for talks to revive a US-backed ceasefire plan.
The latest round of indirect talks in Qatar ended in deadlock in late July with Israel and Palestinian militant group Hamas trading blame over the lack of progress on a US proposal for a 60-day truce and hostage release deal.
Hamas' meetings with Egyptian officials, scheduled to begin today, will focus on ways to stop the war, deliver aid, and "end the suffering of our people in Gaza," Hamas official Taher al-Nono said in a statement.
Foreign ministers of 24 countries said yesterday that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza had reached "unimaginable levels" and urged Israel to allow unrestricted aid into the territory.
Israel denies responsibility for hunger in Gaza, accusing Hamas of stealing aid. It says it has taken steps to increase deliveries, including pausing fighting for parts of the day in some areas and announcing protected routes for aid convoys.
A Palestinian official with knowledge of the mediated ceasefire talks said Hamas was prepared to return to the negotiating table, and the leaders who were visiting Cairo yesterday would reaffirm that stance.
Latest Middle East stories
"Hamas believes negotiation is the only way to end the war and is open to discuss any ideas that would secure an end to the war," the official, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the matter, said.
However, the gaps between the sides appear to remain wide on key issues, including the extent of any Israeli military withdrawal and demands for Hamas to disarm.
A Hamas official said the Islamist movement was ready to relinquish Gaza governance on behalf of a non-partisan committee, but it would not relinquish its arms before a Palestinian state is established.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose far-right ultranationalist coalition allies want an outright Israeli takeover of all of Gaza, has vowed the war will not end until Hamas is eradicated.
The war began on 7 October 2023, when Hamas-led militants stormed into southern Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli figures.
Israel's offensive against Hamas in Gaza since then has killed more than 61,000 Palestinians, according to local health officials.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Independent
an hour ago
- Irish Independent
Caoilfhionn Gallagher and Jodie Ginsberg: Why Ireland must lead the way in protecting Gaza's journalists
Three years ago, just weeks after an Israeli soldier shot and killed Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, the Taoiseach made clear Ireland's unequivocal commitment to upholding press freedom and the safety of journalists. Speaking in the Dáil, Micheál Martin said: 'It is quite a shocking killing, without question… we have called for a swift, thorough and independent investigation and will pursue this through all forums at our disposal as a government.'
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Trump's tariffs evolve from confused to chaotic
It takes quite a lot to make you feel sorry for the Swiss but US president Donald Trump has managed it, imposing 39 per cent tariffs on its exports for a reason no one can entirely fathom. He's also turned his import tax scattergun on Brazil and India , but his most extraordinary recent act is the ad hoc 15 per cent quasi-export tax on chipmakers Nvidia and AMD 's sales of semiconductors to China. The wrongly-named 'reciprocal' tariffs Trump announced on April's so-called 'liberation day' were always risible, but the deficit-based formula that generated them was at least vaguely related to their stated aim of reducing trade imbalances. The transmutation of those tariffs and others into a Christmas tree on which different parts of the administration and Trump himself have hung their geopolitical and commercial whims has demolished any sense of coherence. The Brazil tariffs were imposed to support former president and fellow conservative election-truther Jair Bolsonaro , while India's punishment supposedly reflected its purchases of Russian oil, despite Trump's apparent closeness to Russian president Vladimir Putin. READ MORE The chip export levy makes no sense. If Trump is trying to deprive China of advanced technology, a 15 per cent charge won't remotely do it; if he wants to raise revenue, then by definition it will only work if it doesn't deter Chinese buyers. And by his own logic, hampering exports will increase, not reduce, trade deficits. The administration has entertainingly claimed its campaign of ad hoc coercion is a coherent philosophy for running world trade. US trade representative Jamieson Greer recently called it the 'Turnberry system' after the Scottish hotel where Trump put together a typically vague and nonbinding tariff agreement with the EU. (Of the 'Mar-a-Lago Accord' to realign currencies, which Trump's tariff policy was supposed to catalyse, there was strangely no mention – how quickly these plans for a fundamental global economic reordering change.) Did the EU have its hands tied before striking a trade deal with the US? Listen | 23:32 Coherent it is emphatically not, especially since it's not clear what's agreed. No one believes Japan will finance a $550 billion (€470 billion) sovereign wealth fund. The United Kingdom is still waiting for the relief on tariffs for its steel exports, supposedly agreed in May. Nor are Trump's antics conspicuously a success for the US economy. The financial markets have been (perhaps naively) sanguine about growth, and Tuesday's inflation data was benign. But the job market, gross domestic product and forward-looking survey-based measures of output are all looking pretty shaky. As such, it's not exactly providing an inspiration to others to follow. Unlike former US president Joe Biden's industrial policy, which heavily subsidised green tech, Turnberry Trumponomics has essentially no tribute acts among governments abroad, and not just because hardly any other country has the market power to force similar concessions from trading partners. One view is that Trump is turning the US-China relationship with politically driven interventions. But China's industrial policy is far more deliberate and precise than Trump's practice of basing policy on the last person he spoke to. The rising Chinese dominance of global electric vehicle production reflects an industrial policy stretching back more than 20 years, including targeted R&D spending and consumption incentives. Critically, it also created a ferociously competitive domestic market out of which emerged a handful of world-beating champions like BYD. It didn't happen because a car executive buttonholed Hu Jintao at a golf club some time in the 2000s and persuaded him to give their company a tax credit in return for flattery and a few million in campaign contributions. Certainly, governments (and companies) are leaping to offer Trump whatever they can afford to keep him happy, whether substantive or symbolic. But there doesn't seem to be much sign of relations between those countries themselves being conducted in the same way. If you were keen to make an optimistic case for the world trading system, you might well argue that Trump's tariffs are hitting a sweet spot of malign incompetence in moderation. His trade policy is probably bad enough to discredit protectionism and push the US towards the margins of the global economy, but so far it's not destructive enough to actually trigger a serious world economic slowdown reminiscent of the 1930s or even the late 2000s. It's a cautionary tale but not a catalyst for global disaster. It's a bit like Brexit on a much bigger scale. Trump's assault on the independent institutions that underpin the US economic system, including the Federal Reserve and the statistical authorities, is, of course, much more serious. Subverting the Fed and causing it to fly blind without reliable data will be far more dangerous than clowning about with tariffs. But so far, Trump's trade follies are testing the resilience of the system without fundamentally destroying or remaking it. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Irish Examiner
5 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Barry Malone: When Israel decides to silence the 'voice' of Palestinians
Anas al-Sharif was a born storyteller with an innate sense of the dramatic. I'll never forget watching him live on air from Gaza just after a ceasefire, which wasn't to last, was announced in January 2024 after more than a year of relentless horror. A crowd had gathered as he stood in front of the camera, preparing to talk to tens of millions of Al Jazeera viewers across the Arab world, ready to convey the mixture of happiness, relief, and very cautious optimism people were feeling now that the bombs would stop raining down on Gaza. Another journalist stood weeping to his right. 'There is great joy among these residents, finally, after these hard days,' he said. And then, without missing a beat as he continued speaking to camera, he slowly removed his helmet and flak jacket, people cheering him on. They hoisted him on their shoulders and held their phones up to capture the moment. It was a moment to be recorded because, if Anas felt briefly safe, they all did. That was one of the things that made him a special journalist. People saw themselves reflected in him. He wasn't afraid to show his fellow Palestinians that he was suffering with them, that the terror Israel was unleashing on Gaza affected him too, that he sometimes struggled. That's not to say he didn't convey strength. His backbone was apparent every time he appeared on air, and it was apparent when he refused to bow to threats. On another occasion, just weeks ago, Anas broke down during a broadcast and began to cry after a day of watching Palestinians being brought to hospital, some wounded, some weakened by starvation. As he wept, shouts from the crowd began to ring out. 'Keep going, Anas. Keep going. You are our voice,' they called. And they knew he would keep going. Because he always did. This week, though, a decision was made to silence that voice in the most ruthless manner possible when the Israeli military targeted and killed not only Anas but the entire Al Jazeera team in Gaza City. It was an act of censorship so extreme, so brutal — and so blatant — that it shocked people all over the world and plunged Palestinians into despair. Mourners sit around the grave of Al Jazeera correspondent Anas al-Sharif following his burial at the Sheikh Radwan cemetery in Gaza City on August 11. Picture: AFP via Getty Images But the killing of Anas, alongside his colleagues Mohammed Qreiqeh, Ibrahim Zaher, and Mohammed Noufal, shouldn't have been a shock at all. The UN says that at least 242 journalists and media workers have been killed by Israel since the war on Gaza began. The UN and the Committee to Protect Journalists say that, in many of these cases, journalists were likely deliberately targeted. Israel itself has often admitted to killing journalists, usually accusing them of being Hamas members with either no proof at all or only the flimsiest veneer of it. Such was the case with Anas. He was a member of Hamas, Israel said. Not only a member but a leader of a cell responsible for 'advancing rocket attacks'. Again, as is now standard, no real evidence was offered to back up the accusations. No claims were made against the rest of the Al Jazeera crew. Perhaps Israel felt it only had to justify the killing of such a famous face. Lesser-known Palestinians can be snuffed out with no excuse needed, as they have been daily for 22 months. Where Anas, who seemed to spend every waking moment standing in front of a camera, would have found the time to organise rocket attacks on the side is unclear. Here's the thing: If Anas really was a target because of Hamas activity, the Israeli military could have killed him any time it wanted. They wouldn't have needed any sophisticated intelligence to locate him. All they had to do was switch on the TV. Members of the NUJ and fellow journalists take part in a protest organised by the NUJ at The Spire in O'Connell St, Dublin, to condemn the killing of journalists due to Israeli attacks. Picture: Niall Carson/PA So why now? Many observers believe the answer is clear. Israel's cabinet last week approved prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's plan for a full military occupation of Gaza City. And just two days later, Anas and the Al Jazeera crew — the most prominent witnesses left in the city, the only people with the ability to broadcast to the entire world what is about to happen — were executed. That theory, though, was smothered by the endless repetition of Israel's version of events in the coverage of almost every prominent Western news organisation. Headlines began with the words, 'Israel says'. TV bulletins were scripted similarly. Israel's accusations were rarely followed up with the context that no real proof had been provided. Anchors asked question after question about the alleged Hamas affiliation. This credulous reporting of Israel's accusations persists despite it being proven to have lied repeatedly throughout the conflict. There is no other source as unreliable as the Israeli government given such a free pass by the world's media. Imagine if Russia killed a Ukrainian journalist, accusing him of being a member of an armed group. Would its claims be treated seriously? Would they lead the headlines? Of course not. None of this is lost on Palestinian journalists, who have felt let down by the way Israel's relentless targeting of their comrades and friends has been reported and by a lack of solidarity from some of the most prominent journalists in the West, many of whom have stayed conspicuously silent as the bodies of brave reporters in Gaza pile up. 'I will not speak to foreign media about the killing of Palestinian journalists. I will not sit on your global channels to be part of a segment you'll forget by tomorrow,' Al Jazeera's Hind Khoudary, another fierce journalist who has reported ceaselessly from Gaza throughout the war and continues to, said on X after her colleagues were killed. 'We are being hunted and killed in Gaza while you watch in silence. For two years, your fellow journalists here have been slaughtered. What did you do? Nothing.' Hind added her belief that many Western journalists don't consider Palestinian journalists colleagues at all. She's right and, though that had been apparent even before October 7, the last two years have confirmed it beyond any doubt. It's why Palestinian journalists are not trusted, it's why they are dehumanised, it's why the dirt that Israel throws sticks and, ultimately, it's why they can be killed with impunity. Mask-drop moment There was a mask-drop moment on BBC this week when an anchor seemed confused that Al Jazeera used what she called 'local people' to report from Gaza. 'Are they able to operate truly independently?' she asked her guest. There's an implication there. It's an implication that these 'local people' cannot be trusted, that Palestinians are too close to the story to report it accurately. It's not an implication we ever hear about, say, British journalists reporting on Britain. The fact that Palestinian journalists are reporting on a genocide while also living through it has made their reporting stronger. How can knowledge of every street corner, a wide network of sources, deep subject expertise, and the familiarity that comes with living in a place be a problem? The answer is it's not. Unless the reporters are from Gaza. I worked at Al Jazeera for almost a decade and none of this was unusual to us. The network doesn't employ Palestinian journalists because it is forced to. They work for Al Jazeera and always have because they are excellent at their jobs. They are the most qualified journalists available to cover the story. It's as simple as that. The fact that a prominent and experienced BBC anchor and many other top Western journalists can't get that through their heads is a problem and says more about their own bias than it does about anyone else's. International journalists are now pushing for Israel to give them access to Gaza, having been barred for the duration of the conflict so far. They should be given that access. But the Western press corps, decked out in khaki chic, shouldn't go to Gaza thinking it is their job to verify the devastation. It's already been verified by the best and bravest journalists we have. The foreign correspondents must acknowledge they are standing on those shoulders, and that Palestinians will always be the authors of their own story. A vigil outside the Fox News and NBC News headquarters in Washington, DC, honouring journalists killed in Gaza. Picture: AFP via Getty Images The evening of that ceasefire announcement, after Anas removed his flak jacket and helmet, he paid tribute to colleagues who had already been killed by Israel: Ismail Al-Ghoul, Rami Al-Rifi, Samir Abu Daqqa, and Hamza Dahdouh. Al-Ghoul, he said, would have been standing in his place reporting this historic moment had he lived. Anas didn't want his friend, or his reporting, to be forgotten. As he stood in Ismail's place, someone will soon stand in his, because Palestinian journalists refuse to be broken and giants like Anas, through their bravery and dedication, provide the blueprint for those who come behind them. That new generation of journalists will remember Anas, Ismail, the Al Jazeera Gaza City crew, and the more than 200 other Palestinian journalists killed by Israel. Without them, we would have been blind. Barry Malone is an independent journalist and former Al Jazeera executive producer. He writes 'Proximities', a newsletter focused on under-reported stories.
