Witkoff urges Hamas to accept ceasefire proposal
Earlier on Thursday, the bodies of Judith Weinstein Haggai and her husband, Gadi Haggai, were recovered by the military. They held Canadian and American citizenships.
US Envoy Steve Witkoff on Thursday said that Hamas must accept the current ceasefire proposal to ensure the remaining hostages are returned.
"Although those who were murdered can never be replaced, this closure is absolutely critical and a minimum of human dignity."
The bodies of hostages Judith Weinstein Haggai and her husband, Gadi Haggai, were retrieved by the IDF in the early hours of Thursday morning in a special forces operation performed in collaboration with intelligence from the Shin Bet and the IDF, the military announced. They held American and Canadian citizenships.
The Mujahideen Brigades kidnapped and held the bodies of the two in Gaza after they were murdered on October 7 in Kibbutz Nir Oz. Their deaths were determined in December 2023.
IDF forces carried out the rescue operation under the Southern Command. The information that allowed their retrieval into Israeli territory was learned during an interrogation of a captured terrorist.
Negotiations between Israel and Hamas, mediated by Egypt, Qatar, and the US, are ongoing despite significant gaps, a source familiar with the matter told The Jerusalem Post.
Qatar's Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, met with senior Hamas officials based in Doha. These officials emphasized that Hamas demands US guarantees that negotiations for a deal, including a ceasefire, will continue after the initial 60-day period, the source told the Post.
Efforts are being made to reach new understandings with Hamas before Eid al-Adha, which begins on Friday. In Doha, Bishara Bahbah, an envoy of Steve Witkoff, continued to engage with senior Hamas officials.
The mediators, Egypt, Qatar, and the US administration, are working to advance a deal or at least secure agreements between the parties despite the challenges.
Jerusalem Post Staff and Yonah Jeremy Bob contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
35 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What it would take to convert a jet from Qatar into Air Force One to safely fly Trump
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump really wants to fly on an upgraded Air Force One — but making that happen could depend on whether he's willing to cut corners with security. As government lawyers sort out the legal arrangement for accepting a luxury jet from the Qatari royal family, another crucial conversation is unfolding about modifying the plane so it's safe for the American president. Installing capabilities equivalent to the decades-old 747s now used as Air Force One would almost certainly consign the project to a similar fate as Boeing's replacement initiative, which has been plagued by delays and cost overruns . Air Force Secretary Troy Meink told lawmakers Thursday that those security modifications would cost less than $400 million but provided no details. Satisfying Trump's desire to use the new plane before the end of his term could require leaving out some of those precautions, however. A White House official said Trump wants the Qatari jet ready as soon as possible while adhering to security standards. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, did not provide details on equipment issues or the timeline. Trump has survived two assassination attempts , and Iran allegedly also plotted to kill him, so he's well aware of the danger he faces. However, he seems willing to take some chances with security, particularly when it comes to communications. For example, he likes to keep his personal phone handy despite the threat of hacks. He boasted this week that the government got the jet 'for free,' saying, 'We need it as Air Force One until the other ones are done.' Here's a look at what it would take to make the Qatari plane into a presidential transport: What makes a plane worthy of being Air Force One? Air Force One is the call sign for any plane that's carrying the president. The first aircraft to get the designation was a propeller-powered C-54 Skymaster, which ferried Franklin D. Roosevelt to the Yalta Conference in 1945. It featured a conference room with a bulletproof window. Things are a lot more complicated these days. Boeing has spent years stripping down and rebuilding two 747s to replace the versions that have carried presidents for more than three decades. The project is slated to cost more than $5.3 billion and may not be finished before Trump leaves office. A 2021 report made public through the Freedom of Information Act outlines the unclassified requirements for the replacement 747s under construction. At the top of the list — survivability and communications. The government decided more than a decade ago that the new planes had to have four engines so they could remain airborne if one or two fail, said Deborah Lee James, who was Air Force secretary at the time. That creates a challenge because 747s are no longer manufactured, which could make spare parts harder to come by. Air Force One also has to have the highest level of classified communications, anti-jamming capabilities and external protections against foreign surveillance, so the president can securely command military forces and nuclear weapons during a national emergency. It's an extremely sensitive and complex system, including video, voice and data transmissions. James said there are anti-missile measures and shielding against radiation or an electromagnetic pulse that could be caused by a nuclear blast. 'The point is, it remains in flight no matter what,' she said. Will Trump want all the security bells and whistles? If the Qatari plane is retrofitted to presidential standards, it could cost $1.5 billion and take years, according to a U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide details that aren't publicly available. Testifying before Congress this week, Meink discounted such estimates, arguing that some of the costs associated with retrofitting the Qatari plane would have been spent anyway as the Air Force moves to build the long-delayed new presidential planes, including buying aircraft for training and to have spares available if needed. In response, Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., said that based on the contract costs for the planes that the Air Force is building, it would cost about $1 billion to strip down the Qatar plane, install encrypted communications, harden its defenses and make other required upgrades. James said simply redoing the wiring means 'you'd have to break that whole thing wide open and almost start from scratch.' Trump, as commander in chief, could waive some of these requirements. He could decide to skip shielding systems from an electromagnetic pulse, leaving his communications more vulnerable in case of a disaster but shaving time off the project. After all, Boeing has already scaled back its original plans for the new 747s. Their range was trimmed by 1,200 nautical miles, and the ability to refuel while airborne was scrapped. Paul Eckloff, a former leader of protection details at the Secret Service, expects the president would get the final say. 'The Secret Service's job is to plan for and mitigate risk,' he said. 'It can never eliminate it.' If Trump does waive some requirements, James said that should be kept under wraps because 'you don't want to advertise to your potential adversaries what the vulnerabilities of this new aircraft might be.' It's unlikely that Trump will want to skimp on the plane's appearance. He keeps a model of a new Air Force One in the Oval Office, complete with a darker color scheme that echoes his personal jet instead of the light blue design that's been used for decades. What happens next? Trump toured the Qatari plane in February when it was parked at an airport near Mar-a-Lago, his Florida resort. Air Force chief of staff Gen. David Allvin was there, too. The U.S. official said the jet needs maintenance but not more than what would be expected of a four-engine plane of its complexity. Sen. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said it would be irresponsible to put the president and national security equipment aboard the Qatari plane 'without knowing that the aircraft is fully capable of withstanding a nuclear attack.' 'It's a waste of taxpayer dollars,' she said. Meanwhile, Boeing's project has been hampered by stress corrosion cracks on the planes and excessive noise in the cabins from the decompression system, among other issues that have delayed delivery, according to a Government Accountability Office report released last year. Boeing referred questions to the Air Force, which said in a statement that it's working with the aircraft manufacturer to find ways to accelerate the delivery of at least one of the 747s. Even so, the aircraft will have to be tested and flown in real-world conditions to ensure no other issues. James said it remains to be seen how Trump would handle any of those challenges. 'The normal course of business would say there could be delays in certifications,' she said. 'But things seem to get waived these days when the president wants it.' ___ AP writer Lolita C. Baldor in Washington contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
BROADCAST BIAS: Networks downplay illegal immigrant's alleged antisemitic attack in 'sanctuary city'
Violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants are typically not considered "newsworthy" by ABC, CBS, or NBC. The subject is too "Trumpy." Their collective reflex is to ignore each murder or injury as some sort of obscure local news anecdote that doesn't rise to a national news story. On Sunday, June 1, an illegal immigrant from Egypt named Mohamed Soliman allegedly tried to kill Jewish protesters in Boulder, Colorado, who were advocating for the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas in Gaza. The first headlines from the networks were aerobically vague. NBC News drew the most social-media mockery for "Multiple Gaza hostage awareness marchers injured in attack in Boulder. "People" were "set on fire," it said underneath. Jews were just "Gaza-hostage-awareness marchers." CBS's vague headline — "Attack at Boulder's Pearl Street Mall in Colorado burns several people, police say" — gave no indication that the assailant was antisemitic. The attack first drew police attention at about 3:30 pm Eastern time. On Sunday night's CBS "Weekend News," they began with the Boulder attack, but only stuck with it for about 40 vague seconds before moving to a story blaming Israel for shootings of civilians looking for food in Gaza. "PBS News Weekend" never mentioned Boulder on Sunday evening. Sunday night's "All Things Considered" on NPR didn't consider a segment on this. On Monday morning, the vagueness continued. The attacker was an "Egyptian national" and his victims were "people" in a "peaceful crowd." Once legal proceedings kicked in, the specifics followed in Monday night's coverage. Soliman reportedly confessed to police that he planned the attack for a year, and he wanted to kill all Zionist people and wished they were all dead, and he said he would do it again. CBS White House reporter Nancy Cordes suggested Trump and his aides were exploiting the attack. "The president and the White House, more generally, they are using this case to hammer the Biden administration over its immigration policies, which they are arguing enabled the suspect to stay in the country." Anchor John Dickerson then asked Cordes what might have happened to the assailant under Trump's border policies. She conceded it was "unlikely" he would have been allowed to enter the country and claim asylum. On Monday, PBS White House reporter Laura Barron-Lopez also noted the information was "seized" for political benefit. "President Trump today seized upon that on his social media, writing: 'This is yet another example of why we must keep our border secure.'" By Wednesday night, the story had turned to the Trump administration moving to deport Soliman's wife and five children, who are also illegal immigrants. As usual, a judge stepped in to delay it. While they usually highlight judges acting as the "resistance," ABC, CBS and PBS barely touched on it. At least NBC devoted a full story to this. Reporter Morgan Chesky even relayed a video shared on a pro-Hamas Telegram channel, shot before Sunday's attack, which showed Soliman saying in Arabic "God is greater than the Zionists… than America, and its weapons." NBC could have aired a fuller, subtitled version of the alleged firebomber's remarks to include "Jihad is more beloved to me than my mother, wife, and children." That would seem relevant to the question of America deporting his wife and children. The networks didn't talk about how the liberals who run Boulder proclaimed themselves a "sanctuary city," protecting illegal immigrants from federal law enforcement. Daily Caller White House reporter Reagan Reese asked White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt about that topic, but no one expected liberal networks would notice. NBC News drew the most social-media mockery for "Multiple Gaza hostage awareness marchers injured in attack in Boulder. "People" were "set on fire," it said underneath. Jews were just "Gaza-hostage-awareness marchers." A week before the attack, the state of Colorado doubled down on its sanctuary "protections" in new legislation signed by Gov. Jared Polis, which underlined that, by nature, Democrats in blue states want to keep all illegal immigrants, including criminals, from being deported. This has been a disturbing trend in antisemitic attacks in recent weeks. On April 13, a man started a fire at Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro's home. Shapiro is Jewish, and the suspect allegedly did the attack to support the Palestinian cause. And on 21, two Israeli employees were gunned down outside the Capital Jewish Museum. In each case, the networks covered the crime for a few days and then moved on. It's likely that these broadcast networks will be eager to put Boulder in the rearview mirror as well.
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
Sometimes a Parade Is Just a Parade
President Donald Trump has gotten his way and will oversee a military parade in Washington, D.C., this summer on the Army's birthday, which also happens to be his own. Plans call for nearly 7,000 troops to march through the streets as 50 helicopters buzz overhead and tanks chew up the pavement. One option has the president presiding from a viewing stand on Constitution Avenue as the Army's parachute team lands to present him with an American flag. The prospect of all this martial pomp, scheduled for June 14, has elicited criticism from many quarters. Some of it is fair—this president does not shy away from celebrating himself or flexing executive power, and the parade could be seen as an example of both—but some of it is misguided. Trump has a genius for showmanship, and showcasing the American military can be, and should be, a patriotic celebration. The president wanted just such a tribute during his first term, after seeing France's impressive Bastille Day celebrations. Then–Secretary of Defense James Mattis reportedly refused, effectively threatening to resign by telling the president to ask his next secretary of defense. Three secretaries of defense later, Trump has gotten enthusiastic agreement from current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Criticism of the display begins with its price tag, estimated as high as $45 million. The projected outlay comes at a time of draconian budget cuts elsewhere: 'Cutting cancer research while wasting money on this? Shameful,' Republicans Against Trump posted on X. 'Peanuts compared to the value of doing it,' Trump replied when asked about the expense. 'We have the greatest missiles in the world. We have the greatest submarines in the world. We have the greatest army tanks in the world. We have the greatest weapons in the world. And we're going to celebrate it.' Other prominent critics of the Trump administration have expressed concern that the parade's real purpose is to use the military to intimidate the president's critics. The historian Heather Cox Richardson wrote on her Substack, 'Trump's aspirations to authoritarianism are showing today in the announcement that there will be a military parade on Trump's 79th birthday.' Ron Filipkowski, the editor in chief of the progressive media company MeidasTouch, posted, 'The Fuhrer wants a Nuremberg style parade on his birthday.' Experts on civil-military relations in the United States also expressed consternation. 'Having tanks rolling down streets of the capital doesn't look like something consistent with the tradition of a professional, highly capable military,' the scholar Risa Brooks told The New York Times. 'It looks instead like a military that is politicized and turning inwardly, focusing on domestic-oriented adversaries instead of external ones.' Even the military leadership has been chary. During Trump's first term, then–Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Paul Selva reflected that military parades are 'what dictators do.' But these critics may well be projecting more general concerns about Trump onto a parade. Not everything the Trump administration does is destructive to democracy—and the French example suggests that dictatorships are not the only governments to hold military displays. The U.S. itself has been known to mount victory parades after successful military campaigns. In today's climate, a military parade could offer an opportunity to counter misperceptions about the armed forces. It could bring Americans closer to service members and juice military recruitment—all of which is sorely needed. The American military is shrinking, not due to a policy determination about the size of the force needed, but because the services cannot recruit enough Americans to defend the country. In 2022, 77 percent of American youth did not qualify for military service, for reasons that included physical or mental-health problems, misconduct, inaptitude, being overweight, abuse of drugs or alcohol, or being a dependent. Just 9 percent of Americans ages of 16 to 24 (a prime recruitment window) are even interested in signing up. In 2023, only the Marine Corps and Space Force met their recruiting goals; the Army and Navy recruited less than 70 percent of their goals and fell 41,000 recruits short of sustaining their current force. Recruiting picked up dramatically in 2024 but remains cause for concern. One possible reason for this is that most Americans have little exposure to men and women in uniform. Less than 0.5 percent of Americans are currently serving in the military—and many who do so live, shop, and worship on cordoned military bases. Misperceptions about military service are therefore rife. One is that the U.S. military primarily recruits from minority groups and the poor. In fact, 17 percent of the poorest quintile of Americans serve, as do 12 percent of the richest quintile. The rest of the military is from middle-income families. Those who live near military bases and come from military families are disproportionately represented. The Army's polling indicates that concerns about being injured, killed, or suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder are major impediments to recruitment. Women worry that they will be sexually harassed or assaulted (the known figures on this in the U.S. military are 6.2 percent of women and 0.7 percent of men). Additionally, a Wall Street Journal –NORC poll found that far fewer American adults considered patriotism important in 2023 (23 percent) than did in 1998 (70 percent)—another possible reason that enthusiasm for joining up has dampened. A celebratory parade could be helpful here, and it does not have to set the country on edge. Americans seem comfortable with thanking military men and women for their service, having them pre-board airplanes, applauding them at sporting events, and admiring military-aircraft flybys. None of those practices is suspected of corroding America's democracy or militarizing its society. Surely the nation can bear up under a military parade once every decade or two, especially if the parade serves to reconnect veterans of recent wars, who often—rightly—grumble that the country tends to disown its wars as matters of concern to only those who serve in them. The risk, of course, is that Trump will use the occasion not to celebrate the troops but to corrode their professionalism by proclaiming them his military and his generals. This is, after all, the president who claimed that Dan Caine, his nominee to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wore a MAGA hat and attested his willingness to kill for Trump, all of which Caine denies. This is also a president known to mix politics with honoring the military, as he did in Michigan, at Arlington National Cemetery, at West Point's commencement, and in a Memorial Day post on Truth Social calling his opponents ' scum.' Even so, the commander in chief has a right to engage with the military that Americans elected him to lead. The responsibility of the military—and of the country—is to look past the president's hollow solipsism and embrace the men and women who defend the United States. Being from a military family or living near a military base has been shown to predispose people toward military service. This suggests that the more exposure people have to the military, the likelier they are to serve in it. A big celebration of the country's armed forces—with static displays on the National Mall afterward, and opportunities for soldiers to mix with civilians—could familiarize civilians with their armed forces and, in doing so, draw talented young Americans to serve.
