Netanyahu at crossroads as Trump's Hamas ceasefire deal offers clear route to peace
Israel has already accepted a US -brokered framework on a 60-day truce. On Friday, Trump was equivocal on Hamas ' acceptance of the deal, which, sources have told The Independent, hinge on whether or not it will lead to further negotiations for a permanent cessation of hostilities.
The Independent 's chief international correspondent Bel Trew looks at the main sticking points to the deal for both sides, and whether Netanyahu's third visit to Trump's White House in six months will finally mark the beginning of the end of the war.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
8 minutes ago
- NBC News
Trump to meet Netayahu at the White House as Israel and Hamas discuss ceasefire
On Friday, Hamas said it had responded to a U.S.-backed Gaza ceasefire proposa l in a 'positive spirit,' a few days after Trump said Israel had agreed 'to the necessary conditions to finalize' a 60-day truce. It has also said it will free all the hostages in exchange for an end to the war and the full withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza. But Netanyahu has called for the full elimination of Hamas and asked the group to surrender, disarm, and go into exile — something it refuses to do. While he travels to Washington, a separate Israeli negotiating team traveled to Qatar on Sunday for indirect talks with Hamas and Netanyahu said they had clear instructions to achieve a ceasefire agreement under conditions that Israel has accepted. Inside Gaza, at least 80 were killed in Israeli strikes, Dr. Marwan Al-Hams, the Director of the enclave's field hospitals, told NBC News on Sunday. He added that the number was likely to increase due to the ongoing shelling and airstrikes on the Gaza Strip. More than 56,000 people have been killed and thousands more seriously injured since Israel launched its offensive in Gaza following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023 terror attacks, according to health officials in the enclave. Some 1,200 people were killed and around 250 taken hostages that day. Elsewhere, Israel on Sunday launched fresh strikes in areas of Yemen controlled by the Houthi militant group, targeting ports in Hodeida, Ras Isa, and Saif, along with the commercial ship Galaxy Leader that they hijacked in 2023. 'These ports are used by the Houthi terrorist regime to transfer weapons of the Iranian regime that are used to carry out terrorist plots against the State of Israel and its allies,' an Israel Defense Forces spokesperson said in a statement Sunday. In a separate post on X, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz said the strikes were part of 'Operation Black Flag,' adding that the Iran-backed militant group would 'continue to pay a heavy price for their actions.' 'The fate of Yemen is the same as the fate of Tehran,' Katz added, referring to the Iranian regime. But a Houthi spokesperson downplayed the Israeli attack in a statement Monday, saying that the militant group's air defenses had "successfully countered" it by 'using locally manufactured surface-to-air missiles.' The attacks on the Iran-backed Houthis came after Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made his first public appearance since the 12-day war with Israel. Iranian state television showed the Supreme Leader greeting worshippers at a mosque on Saturday.
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
Israel and Hamas are inching toward a new ceasefire deal for Gaza. This is how it might look
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in Washington Monday to meet U.S. President Donald Trump, who has been pushing for a ceasefire that might lead to an end to the 21-month war in Gaza. Israel and Hamas are considering a new U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal that would pause the war, free Israeli hostages and send much-needed aid flooding into Gaza. It also aims to open broader talks about ending the conflict. Negotiations have repeatedly stalled over Hamas' demands for an end to the war and complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, while Israel wants Hamas to surrender and disarm before it ends the war. While the final details have yet to be agreed to by the sides, The Associated Press obtained a copy of the proposal sent by mediators to Hamas. Here is a look at how the truce might look, according to that draft: — The truce would last 60 days. — 10 living hostages and the remains of 18 would be released in phases throughout the truce. — Palestinian prisoners held by Israel will be released in exchange for the hostages, although precise numbers were not detailed. — Humanitarian aid entering Gaza would be ramped up significantly and would be distributed by the United Nations. The proposal makes no mention of the U.S.- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. — Israeli forces would withdraw to a buffer zone along Gaza's borders with Israel and Egypt. Israel has seized large swaths of the territory since ending a previous ceasefire in March. — On the first day of the truce, the sides are expected to begin negotiations toward an end to the war, but no timeline is mentioned. — The mediators — the U.S., Egypt and Qatar — will serve as guarantors to make sure the sides negotiate in good faith. — While there is no guarantee the war would end, the proposal states that Trump insists the talks during the truce 'would lead to a permanent resolution of the conflict.' — If the negotiations toward ending the war are not complete after 60 days, the ceasefire may be extended. — The proposal says Trump will personally announce the ceasefire deal once it is reached. ___
The National
23 minutes ago
- The National
We must take to the streets and raise our voices for the world
More than 70 medics killed in 50 days. Entire health systems levelled. Children maimed, entire families erased and infrastructure bombed into dust, the illegal detention of medics and individuals, the torturing of these Palestinians and murder at the hands of the IDF when collecting food, the land grab in the West Bank! These are not unfortunate by-products of war – they are part of a deliberate and systematic campaign to destroy a people's ability to survive. And our government stands idly by, shielding Israel diplomatically and supplying weapons – including F-35 components – used to carry out this destruction. The UK High Court has now refused, in a legally weak decision, to halt arms exports, effectively greenlighting continued sales while Palestinians are slaughtered. And while brave UN officials speak out, Labour and Tory front benches compete in cowardice, too spineless to condemn crimes against humanity when they fear political fallout. Even the right to speak about Palestine is under attack. The proscription of Palestinian movements, the labelling of all resistance as terrorism, the censorship and threats faced by those who speak out – all form part of a growing war on free expression and dissent in the UK. The 100+ BBC journalists who have criticised the BBC for its spineless reporting on the Gaza Genocide speaks volumes The Arab world offers handwringing and silence. The US under Trump, and formerly Biden, has aided and encouraged Israel's brutality. But the Scottish people must speak with moral clarity. We say this clearly: You do not govern in our name. Scotland did not vote for the arming of an apartheid state. Scotland did not consent to being complicit in genocide. We demand an end to all arms exports to Israel, an end to diplomatic protection, and a public reckoning for those who have allowed this mass killing to continue unchallenged and that includes UK politicians! If Westminster will not act, then Scotland must. We must raise our voices, take to the streets and tell the world – we are not with them. Not now. Not ever. Enough. Not in our name. Peter Macari Aberdeen I AM glad that Stan Grodynski took the time to read and even re-read my recent long letter on the subject of the many policy promises made by and sadly broken by our SNP Scottish Government. In the minds of the public, these broken promises are often more relevant than the constant further promises of improvement, after 18 years in government, and the almost endless list of 'free' stuff which dominate the SNP's PR output these days. Stan has even invented a new political language – 'seemingly misleading, from reference to factual sources' is a phrase I have certainly never heard before. I do, however, agree with Stan that with Alex Salmond's passing, Scotland lost a powerful voice that his successors, both in the SNP and Alba parties, as well as in the wider independence movement, have struggled to emulate. I was initially attracted to Stan's suggestion that the SNP should separate the roles of first minister from 'someone else to step up and take the lead in campaigning for independence'. However, that says quite a lot about the ability of the current first minister and his apparent failure to lead the party as well as the Parliament. A reasonable person might expect the SNP's deputy leader to then lead the independence campaign but I suspect that more than 90% of the Scottish electorate, and even a fair number of SNP members, have no idea who that person actually is. I have to admire Stan's considerable efforts to defend both the SNP and the Scottish Government – especially as he is not even a member of the party. His volume of correspondence in this letters page as well as that of several other well-known newspapers is to his credit. It is a shame that the SNP and its considerable army of politicians, well-paid special advisers and spin doctors fail to do the same. The SNP have until May 2026 (appropriately, nine months) to conceive, gestate and produce a strategy which they can then ask the electorate to vote on. That strategy must include a viable route to independence. If the manifesto for 2026 to 2031 is restricted to a list of past achievements, vague promises of vast pots of independence jam tomorrow and better management of devolution, many potential SNP supporters will be asking: just what is the point – and who can blame them. PS. The SNP's current deputy leader is Keith Brown MSP. He has been in that post since June 8, 2018 – seven long years! John Baird Largs THE recent deliberations asked of the Supreme Court by the SNP were narrowly focused on the jurisdictional extent of the Scotland Act so far as relates to the power of the Scottish Government to hold a referendum. More to the point is that question so far as relates to the Treaty of Union. The Treaty of Union predates the Scotland Act. Scotland's jurisdiction outwith the ambit of the Scotland Act was not touched on and therefore remains. That would include the powers to hold a referendum. Calum I Duncan via email
