US proposes 60-day ceasefire for Gaza, hostage-prisoner swap, plan shows
Israel has insisted Hamas disarm completely, be dismantled as a military and governing force and return all 58 hostages held in Gaza before it will agree to end the war.
Hamas has rejected the demand to give up its weapons and said Israel must pull its troops out of Gaza and commit to ending the war.
Israel launched its campaign in Gaza in response to the Hamas attack in its south on October 7 2023, that killed 1,200 people and saw 251 Israelis taken hostage into Gaza, according to Israeli tallies.
The subsequent Israeli military campaign has killed more than 54,000 Palestinians, Gaza health officials said, and left the enclave in ruins.
Israel has come under increasing international pressure, with many European countries usually reluctant to criticise it openly demanding an end to the war and a major relief effort.
Witkoff told reporters on Wednesday Washington was close to "sending out a new term sheet" about a ceasefire by the two sides in the conflict.
"I have some very good feelings about getting to a long-term resolution, temporary ceasefire and a long-term resolution, a peaceful resolution, of the conflict," Witkoff said at the time.
The 60-day ceasefire, according to the plan, may be extended if negotiations for a permanent ceasefire are not concluded within the set time.
Senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri said on Thursday the terms of the proposal echoed Israel's position and did not contain commitments to end the war, withdraw Israeli troops or admit aid as Hamas has demanded.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a private group backed by the US and endorsed by Israel, expanded its aid distribution to a third site in Gaza on Thursday.
Heavily criticised by the UNs and other aid groups as inadequate and flawed, the group began its operation this week in Gaza, where the UN said 2-million people are at risk of famine after Israel's 11-week blockade on aid entering the enclave.
The launch was marred by tumultuous scenes on Tuesday as thousands of Palestinians rushed to distribution points and forced private security contractors to retreat.
The chaotic start to the operation has raised international pressure on Israel to get more food in and halt the fighting in Gaza. The GHF has so far supplied about 1.8-million meals and plans to open more sites in coming weeks.
Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
8 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
At least 27 Palestinians killed near Gaza aid site: UN demands investigation
At least 27 Palestinians were killed and dozens wounded by Israeli fire near a food distribution site in the southern Gaza Strip on Tuesday, health officials said, in a third day running of chaos and bloodshed to blight the aid operation. The Israeli military said its forces had opened fire on a group of people who had left designated access routes near the distribution centre in Rafah and approached their positions. It added it was still investigating what had happened. The deaths came hours after Israel said three of its soldiers had been killed in fighting in the northern Gaza Strip, as its forces pushed ahead with a months-long offensive against Hamas militants that has laid waste to much of the enclave. Reuters could not independently verify the reports in northern and southern Gaza. A spokesperson for the International Committee of the Red Cross told Reuters that its field hospital in Rafah had received 184 casualties, adding that 19 of those were declared dead upon arrival, and eight died of their wounds shortly after. Video showed injured people, including at least one woman, being rushed to a medical centre on carts drawn by donkeys, before being transferred onto stretchers or into ambulances.
IOL News
10 hours ago
- IOL News
GNU's Fragile Unity: Israel and the Ideological Crisis Within SA's Ruling Coalition
A child waits with others to receive food at a distribution point in Nuseirat, central Gaza Strip, June 2, 2025. The supposed GNU is not united on core policy pillars, particularly foreign affairs. This dissonance undermines South Africa's moral authority and strategic coherence, says the writer. Image: Eyad BABA / AFP Clyde N.S. Ramalaine Since the 2024 national elections, South Africa has been governed by a new coalition misleadingly branded as a Government of National Unity (GNU). This alliance, led by the African National Congress (ANC) and the Democratic Alliance (DA), excludes major opposition parties like uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) while it accommodates much smaller parties like the PA. Despite its name, the coalition resembles a Grand Coalition formed out of electoral necessity, and political machinations, not ideological consensus. This dissonance is increasingly visible in policy disputes, most glaringly in the lack of a unified foreign policy, especially on South Africa's stance toward Israel. While the term 'GNU' is repeatedly invoked by the state and its coalition members, some of us have persistently argued that it inaccurately describes the coalition's identity and structure. The 7th Administration, inaugurated in June 2024, has already faced serious internal tensions: National Budget : The DA and Freedom Front Plus (FF+) voted against it, exposing fiscal division. BELA Bill : The DA challenged President Ramaphosa's assent to the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill through legal action. Expropriation and NHI Bills : The DA declared formal disputes, accusing the ANC of violating coalition commitments. Internal Trust : The ANC has been accused of unilateralism, particularly after Ramaphosa claimed the ANC remained ' in charge ' despite lacking a majority. Cabinet Disputes : The DA initially rejected the six ministerial positions offered, demanding greater power. Policy Vacuum : The coalition lacks a coherent agenda, with criticism that economic and industrial interests are prioritised over urgent social needs. While each of these tensions merits attention worth unpacking, this article focuses on the coalition's failure to articulate a coherent foreign policy, with particular attention to the South African state's position on Israel. The ICJ case against Israel, alleging genocide in Gaza, was initiated under the ANC-led sixth administration before the coalition's formal establishment. However, its continuation under the 7th Administration places shared accountability on all coalition partners. The critical question: Can these parties, having entered into government, reasonably distance themselves from state actions on the international stage? Can coalition members simultaneously maintain pro-Israel positions while serving in a government prosecuting Israel for genocide? These contradictions expose not just fragility within the coalition but a deeper ideological incoherence. This has implications for both domestic accountability and South Africa's credibility on the world stage. A closer look at the DA and Patriotic Alliance (PA), two vocal coalition partners, reveals shared support for Israel. Often painted as ideological rivals, both parties converge in their staunch backing of Israel, underpinned by different but overlapping motivations. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad Loading The DA frames its support through a purported liberal-democratic lens, casting Israel as a fellow constitutional democracy. It has routinely criticised the ANC's pro-Palestinian stance as biased, reaffirming Israel's right to security and sovereignty. This position is echoed by party leaders and in parliamentary debates, often aligning with mainstream pro-Israel rhetoric. The PA's support is more overtly religious, grounded in its alignment with Coloured Pentecostal and Charismatic communities. The party has sent several delegations to Israel, praising its economic and security frameworks. This pro-Israel stance is not incidental; it reflects both ideological affinity and, arguably, strategic political alignment. Though unproven, allegations persist that both parties receive support from Israeli-linked institutions. Regardless of their accuracy, the frequency and visibility of DA and PA engagements with Israel, amid a state-led genocide case against that very country, raise at least three critical questions. 1. Can coalition partners conduct parallel diplomacy that contradicts official policy? Parallel diplomacy by coalition members, especially when it directly opposes formal state positions, raises serious constitutional and political challenges. It undermines South Africa's diplomatic identity, weakens international trust, and confuses global partners about who represents the state. While ideological diversity is inherent to coalition governance, the lack of a binding foreign policy framework risks turning pluralism into instability. 2. Does public support for Israel breach collective governance and cabinet responsibility? In parliamentary systems, coalition members with executive roles are bound by collective governance and cabinet responsibility. Public dissent, especially on significant matters such as the ICJ case, can erode cabinet cohesion and undermine state credibility. Yet, the current coalition lacks a transparent agreement that clarifies such responsibilities. Without a formalised framework, parties like the DA and PA may argue their actions fall within party autonomy, especially if they do not control foreign affairs portfolios. 3. What does this reveal about South Africa's foreign policy credibility under the so-called GNU? The contradictory positions of coalition partners on Israel reflect a broader governance crisis. The supposed GNU is not united on core policy pillars, particularly foreign affairs. This dissonance undermines South Africa's moral authority and strategic coherence. Without a clear, binding coalition framework, foreign policy risks becoming a terrain of partisan expression rather than a reflection of national interest. The ANC's long-standing solidarity with Palestine, rooted in anti-colonial struggle, clashes with the DA and PA's pro-Israel stances. This ideological disconnect renders key diplomatic positions vulnerable to internal sabotage or ambiguity, weakening South Africa's moral clarity and domestic trust in the state's international engagements. The invocation of 'national unity' masks what is, in reality, a fragile arrangement between actors with divergent worldviews. The absence of a formal coalition agreement available to the public deepens concerns about the ad hoc nature of governance. Foreign policy, like other key domains, appears to be negotiable rather than principled. The Israel question thus becomes a prism for understanding deeper contradictions within South Africa's coalition government. Until the 7th Administration resolves these ideological fractures, it remains a government of convenience, not unity. The claim of national consensus is untenable when major foreign policy initiatives are undermined by internal dissent. Conversely, it can be argued that parties like the DA and PA have every constitutional right to maintain independent foreign policy positions. The coalition was not founded on ideological unity or a detailed agreement binding all members to specific international stances. The Grand Coalition 'GNU', born of electoral arithmetic and political sophistication rather than shared vision, does not require unanimity on all matters.
Mail & Guardian
15 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Why South Africans must stand with Palestine and why the world must act
Solidarity with Palestine at the World Cup in 2022. The world must stand against apartheid in all its forms, including against Palestinians. Photo: Supplied The recent stances taken by the United Kingdom, Canada and France, albeit belatedly, regarding Israel's actions in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories should be welcomed as an overdue, yet necessary, shift in global diplomatic discourse. These declarations represent a small, yet meaningful, turning point in the international community's reaction to what prominent human rights organisations have long labelled as an apartheid system. For South Africans, this matter transcends politics, touching on profound moral and historical dimensions. Having suffered under the harsh legacy of apartheid, South Africans are in a unique position to empathise with the Palestinian people's oppression and to express their support. The global community cannot continue to overlook the suffering of Palestinians living under occupation. Apartheid, regardless of where it occurs, is a crime against humanity. In this undertaking, I would like to examine the historical similarities between apartheid-era South Africa and contemporary Palestine, highlighting the significance of South African solidarity and suggesting possible solutions to the conflict. But it is important to first unpack the apartheid historical context of both South Africa and Palestine to shed more light on why these two countries should stand by each other and have strong diplomatic relations. Historical Parallels: Apartheid South Africa and Occupied Palestine To begin with, the term 'apartheid' should not be taken lightly. It carries profound historical, legal and emotional weight. In international law, apartheid is defined by the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid as inhumane acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group over another. South Africans lived through such a regime, where race determined every aspect of one's life: where you could live, work, go to school and whom you could marry. This system was enforced through draconian laws, forced removals, passbooks and a militarised state apparatus. Similarly, Palestinians today live under the regime of segregation and control. In the West Bank, there exists a dual legal framework implemented by the Israeli government: one system applies to Israeli settlers, while a different one governs Palestinians. Israeli settlers are governed by civil law and benefit from well-supported infrastructure, whereas Palestinians are governed by military law, encounter movement limitations and live under the constant threat of demolition or eviction. Meanwhile, Gaza has been subjected to a stifling blockade for over 15 years, effectively transforming the area into what numerous human rights organisations have termed an open-air prison. In 2022, both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch published reports asserting that Israeli actions in the occupied territories amount to apartheid. These concerns extend beyond mere territorial disputes or security concerns as they involve systemic control and entrenched discrimination. As South Africans, we recognise this language. We have witnessed the strategies of divide and conquer; collective punishment; suppression of political voices and the use of security narratives to legitimise oppression. These are the very tactics once employed by the apartheid regime in Pretoria. South Africa's moral responsibility and legacy of solidarity South Africa bears a distinct moral responsibility to denounce apartheid in all its manifestations, wherever they might occur. During our own fight for freedom, the support of the international community was crucial. Nations, organisations, religious institutions and individuals worldwide backed the movement for boycotts, divestments and sanctions against the apartheid government. The global indignation and moral conviction contributed significantly to our democratic transition in 1994. Palestinians have consistently looked to the South African experience as a source of hope. The ANC, the South African Council of Churches and figures such as the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu, have long been vocal in their support for Palestinian rights. South Africa's foreign policy after apartheid has frequently been guided by this ethical framework. At the United Nations, South Africa has regularly supported Palestinian self-determination through its votes. In South Africa, civil society remains engaged, with groups like the South African Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions Coalition advocating for peaceful opposition to Israeli policies until international law is respected. While the situations are not identical, the similarities are significant enough to warrant action. As South Africans, we must amplify the voices advocating for justice. Remaining silent or neutral in the face of such suffering betrays our own history and principles. The role of the international community: A call for moral consistency The tepid response of many Western powers to the crisis in Palestine has long been a source of frustration for the Global South. While nations are quick to condemn violations of international law in one context, there has been a notable reluctance to hold Israel accountable for its actions. This double standard undermines the credibility of international institutions and erodes the foundations of a rules-based international order. That is why the recent shift in rhetoric by countries such as the UK, France and Canada is important. It signals a growing recognition that the international community can no longer turn a blind eye. Words must now translate into action: through arms embargoes, economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure — tools that were effectively used against the South African government in the 1980s. I am also of the view that the International Criminal Court must also be allowed to do its work without political interference. War crimes, the use of collective punishment and the illegal annexation of land must be investigated and prosecuted, where evidence warrants it. These are not radical demands, they are the minimum requirements of international law. Toward a just and inclusive solution The path to peace must be based on justice, equality and dignity for all. Any solution that does not recognise the full rights of the Palestinian people — whether in the form of a viable two-state solution or a democratic, binational state — will not endure. The goal must be an end to occupation, equal rights for all people between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea and a just resolution for Palestinian refugees. One potential model is a federated or confederal solution, in which Israelis and Palestinians share sovereignty over the land while maintaining distinct national identities. This would require mutual recognition, compromise and international guarantees — but it is not impossible. The South African experience teaches us that even the most entrenched systems of oppression can be dismantled when there is moral courage, principled leadership and sustained public pressure. Crucially, such a solution must be inclusive. It must ensure that both Palestinians and Israelis live in safety and dignity, free from fear, occupation and discrimination. The struggle is not against Jews or Israelis, it is against policies that deny rights and perpetuate suffering. Justice must be indivisible. History will judge us by where we stood in moments of great moral crisis. As South Africans, we have the benefit of hindsight and the burden of memory. We know what it means to be dehumanised, displaced and silenced. We also know the power of international solidarity and the possibility of reconciliation after conflict. Most importantly, the world must act to end apartheid in all its forms, including in Palestine. We must call for accountability, support peaceful resistance and work toward a just and lasting solution that respects the humanity of all. Anything less is a betrayal of the very principles upon which our own freedom was built. Sifiso Sonjica is an ANC member in Ward 13 Mtubabtuba, KwaZulu-Natal. He writes in his personal capacity.
