Israel-Hamas ceasefire negotiations resume as Trump pushes for deal
"Indirect negotiations are continuing this morning in Doha, with a fourth meeting being held... the discussions are still focused on the mechanisms for implementation, particularly the clauses related to withdrawal and humanitarian aid," a Palestinian official close to the talks told Agence-France Presse (AFP).
"No breakthrough has been achieved so far, and the negotiations are ongoing," another Palestinian official said.
Israel and Hamas began their latest round of negotiations on Sunday, with representatives of the two sides seated in different rooms in the same building.
With the talks underway, Netanyahu travelled to Washington for his third visit since Trump's return to power, where the US president on Monday voiced confidence a deal could be reached.
"I don't think there is a hold-up. I think things are going along very well," the US leader told reporters when asked what was preventing a peace deal.
Sitting on the opposite side of a long table from the Israeli leader, Trump also said Hamas was willing to end the conflict in Gaza, which is entering its 22nd month.
"They want to meet and they want to have that ceasefire," Trump told reporters at the White House when asked if clashes involving Israeli soldiers would derail talks.
Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff was set to join the talks in Doha this week.
'We don't care'
Netanyahu meanwhile ruled out a full Palestinian state, insisting Israel would "always" keep security control over the Gaza Strip.
"Now, people will say it's not a complete state, it's not a state. We don't care," Netanyahu said.
On the ground, five Israeli soldiers were killed in combat in northern Gaza, the military said Tuesday, one of the deadliest days for Israeli forces in the Palestinian territory this year.
Netanyahu lamented a "difficult morning", saying: "All of Israel bows its head and mourns the fall of our heroic soldiers, who risked their lives in the battle to defeat Hamas and free all our hostages."
Israeli military correspondents reported the deaths occurred when improvised explosive devices detonated in the area of Beit Hanun in the north of the territory.
At least 445 Israeli soldiers have been killed since the start of the war in Gaza, according to an AFP tally.
On Monday, the civil defence agency said Israeli forces killed at least 12 people in Gaza, including six in a clinic housing people displaced by the war.
Media restrictions in Gaza and difficulties in accessing many areas mean AFP is unable to independently verify the tolls and details provided by the civil defence agency.
The war has created dire humanitarian conditions for Gaza's more than two million people.
While Israel has the full backing of the Trump administration, the US leader has increasingly pushed for an end to what he called the "hell" in Gaza and said on Sunday he believes there is a "good chance" of an agreement this coming week.
"The utmost priority for the president right now in the Middle East is to end the war in Gaza and to return all of the hostages," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said.
Leavitt said Trump wanted Hamas to agree to a US-brokered proposal "right now" after Israel backed the plan for a ceasefire and the release of hostages held in Gaza in exchange for Palestinian prisoners.
Envoy trip
The US proposal included a 60-day truce, during which Hamas would release 10 living hostages and several bodies in exchange for Palestinians detained by Israel, two Palestinian sources close to the discussions had earlier told AFP.
The group was also demanding certain conditions for Israel's withdrawal, guarantees against a resumption of fighting during negotiations, and the return of the UN-led aid distribution system, they said.
Of the 251 hostages taken by Palestinian militants during the October 2023 Hamas attack that triggered the war, 49 are still being held in Gaza, including 27 the Israeli military says are dead.
Hamas's October 2023 attack resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on Israeli official figures.
Israel's retaliatory campaign has killed at least 57,523 people in Gaza, also mostly civilians, according to the Hamas-run territory's health ministry. The UN considers the figures reliable.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bangkok Post
a day ago
- Bangkok Post
Data war risks creating false calm
Political pressure on government statisticians and private forecasters risks sending markets down a rabbit-hole, which could suppress volatility today but lead to seismic reality checks in the future. US President Donald Trump has side-swiped both private and public sector economists this month, firing the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) boss for what he described as "rigged" jobs data and then lambasting Goldman Sachs for tariff-related research he didn't agree with. These moves seem alarming, even if there are some mitigating factors. Mr Trump is hardly the first person to criticise BLS payrolls data. It has been under scrutiny for years, not because of fears of bias, but because of low survey response rates and delays, which have often resulted in large changes to past data. The most recent report contained one of the biggest downward revisions in decades. The BLS can argue that it has suffered from years of underfunding, but it's still not a good look. What's more, similar questions about data collection have been lobbed at the BLS regarding its compilation of monthly consumer and producer price reports, which are critical now in assessing the impact of Mr Trump's tariff rises on inflation. These statistics, along with the US employment report, are the most important monthly updates for financial markets, mainly because they play a pivotal role in Federal Reserve thinking, given its dual mandate to maintain maximum employment and stable prices. Mr Trump this week appointed Heritage Foundation economist E J Antoni -- a contributor to the controversial Project 2025 wishlist of policies for a second Trump term -- to run the BLS. Mr Antoni recently suggested suspending the monthly payrolls report until data problems were fixed, which could result in long data gaps at a critical moment for the US economy, monetary policy and markets. Importantly though, the White House and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have pushed back on that idea. But then came Tuesday's attack on Goldman boss David Solomon, with calls for him to appoint a new chief economist following the release of a report on Sunday by his colleague Jan Hatzius. The report estimated US consumers had so far borne less than a quarter of the cost of tariffs but could see that rise to two-thirds over time. This may simply be nothing more than Mr Trump complaining about a forecast he doesn't like, but it's still a move that risks tinkering with one of the most basic market tenets: the plurality of views. There's an obvious concern that -- intentionally or not -- these public attacks could cause economic data, research and forecasts to become more pro-government or lead to self-censorship by those keen to avoid seeing their business or careers damaged by presidential opprobrium. To its credit, Goldman said it would keep doing its job regardless of the political pressure. But it would hardly say otherwise. Perhaps more telling was the lack of public outcry from other economists who might reasonably be concerned that Mr Trump's attacks on unflattering forecasts represent a worrying trend for their profession and market transparency overall. Of course, they or their institutions may simply have thought it best to stay quiet, assuming the issue would blow over soon. Does any of this matter long-term? To be sure, economic forecasting can hardly be held up as a sacred cow if accuracy is what matters. A University of California, Berkeley study late last year looked at more than 16,000 forecasts by banks and large firms and concluded that while 53% of forecasters were confident in their predictions, they were correct only 23% of the time. But economists' forecasts still play a role, accurate or not. So any type of bias, even unintentional, could have a significant impact on market thinking. Of course, if there were a consensus that official data was likely to be biased to flatter the government, then the process of forecasting those official numbers may just be to mechanically move in that direction. But that would undoubtedly create confusion. To better capture what's really going on, investors may be more inclined to commission private economic data. And yet the cost of doing that on a frequent basis would be prohibitive for smaller players, meaning big information gaps could open up, making markets less efficient overall. If political bias in official data and forecasting were to emerge in the current environment, one might expect to see firmer job creation and softer inflation readouts. That could keep markets calm in the short term. But any weakness in the real economy would emerge eventually, likely resulting in a rude awakening for many, no matter what the official data says. Reuters
Bangkok Post
a day ago
- Bangkok Post
EU leaders must master Trump management
It's like one of those slapstick comedies from the early days of silent films: the "Keystone Cops" movies, perhaps, or Buster Keaton's various efforts. Lots of people rushing around, constant reversals of fortune, and many pratfalls. Last Wednesday, on very short notice, the presidents and/or prime ministers of all the other major countries in the Nato alliance got together online to prep Donald Trump for his "summit" meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. He had to be coached about his newly adopted positions defending Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity because everybody knows that Mr Trump tends to echo the views of the last person who talked to him, especially in subjects he doesn't know about (which is most subjects). So French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte, and sundry other European Nato notables drilled Mr Trump on what to say and what not. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky also got a few words in. Most importantly, they all said, Mr Trump must insist that Russia accept a cease-fire before peace negotiations started. Otherwise, Mr Putin could drag the negotiations out forever while continuing to conquer more Ukrainian territory. Mr Trump was already quite cross about Moscow's foot-dragging on a cease-fire, so he seemed to take their advice seriously. Indeed, just before he stepped aboard Air Force One to fly to Alaska on Friday he told reporters: "I want to see a cease-fire rapidly...I'm not going to be happy if it's not today ... I want the killing to stop." But he was flying there to meet Mr Putin -- who would then become the last person he talked to on the subject. It was probably inevitable that Mr Trump would do a U-turn as soon as he was in Mr Putin's presence. All his promises of "severe consequences" (secondary tariffs on countries importing Russian oil) if Mr Putin would not agree to a cease-fire went out the window. The fifty-day deadline, the eight-day deadline, the tomorrow deadline -- all forgotten in a moment. Flying home from Alaska, Mr Trump wrote on Truth Social: "It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement." Who's "all"? Mr Trump, property tycoon Steve Witkoff and former Florida senator Marco Rubio (total 6 years of foreign affairs experience) vs Mr Putin, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, and foreign policy adviser Yuri Ushakov (total 133 years of foreign affairs experience). To be fair, Mr Trump probably didn't understand that this meant the Russians could go on fighting and bombing Ukraine until there was a peace settlement agreeable to Moscow -- which will only be reached if and when Russian's maximal demands, amounting in practice to the subjugation of all Ukraine, have been accepted. He's not a detail man. Mr Trump then summoned Mr Zelensky to Washington to hear the bad news, and he was to arrive yesterday. But so will almost all the European Nato leaders who prepped him last Wednesday. They are coming uninvited (although everybody will pretend otherwise) for a last-ditch effort to turn Mr Trump around again. It might even work again. Even if it works this time, it's impossible to be always the last person Mr Trump speaks to, and the effort to be that person soon degenerates into slapstick and pratfalls. The European Nato heads of government (and Canada's) will soon have to build a new Nato that does the old one's job of deterring Russia, but without the United States. They will, of course, carry on the pretence of the old Nato as long as possible, because although they have the money and the numbers to perform that task without American help, there will be many shortfalls and gaps in the new alliance during a lengthy transition (three to five years). It will take a lot of hypocrisy and a massive campaign of perpetual flattery for the old Nato countries to keep Mr Trump on side for that long while simultaneously keeping Ukraine out of Russia's hands. However, that is the task they have now set themselves, although some have yet to come fully to terms with the new strategic realities.
Bangkok Post
4 days ago
- Bangkok Post
A difference of opinion
When the moment of truth came -- that Thailand had been slapped with a 19% tariff by the US, down from the originally threatened 36% -- several implications for the government were spelt out by experts, both positive and cautionary. The fact that the government successfully negotiated the tariff rate down to 19% allows it to claim a diplomatic and economic victory. It positions the government as competent in international negotiations and responsive to economic threats, especially after an extended period of vulnerability from the Trump administration's tariffs, according to supporters. Public and business confidence in the government, particularly among exporters and investors, may temporarily improve. The government can exploit this as protecting national economic interests in a fragile post-pandemic and post-border conflict environment, experts said. Government supporters insisted the outcome of the negotiations has enhanced the stature of noted technocrats like Finance Minister Pichai Chunhavajira or government adviser Dr Prommin Lertsuridej as effective economic stewards, and shored up the beleaguered government's image. It has, in turn, helped stabilise an increasingly fragile coalition government under heavy scrutiny for lacking strong economic leadership or a long-term plan. Also, the concessions made to the US -- elimination of import duties on more than 10,000 American products -- may trigger criticism from domestic industries that now face heightened foreign competition. This includes agriculture and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) at risk of being undermined by cheaper US imports. Critics have framed the deal as capitulating to American pressure, portraying it as a win for Washington but a loss for Thailand's long-term competitiveness. The tariff issue also indicates a tilt towards the US at a time when Thailand must perform a careful diplomatic balancing act amid the Thailand-Cambodia border conflict, where regional alliances are under scrutiny. Pro-Beijing elements, or nationalist factions, are questioning the wisdom of relying too heavily on Western markets, according to observers. The tariff deal still requires parliamentary approval, which means the legislative process could revive political tensions if the opposition exploits the deal to question the government's transparency or economic strategy. At the same time, intra-coalition differences could emerge over how the tariff concessions align with broader industrial and agricultural policies. The experts agreed that while the lower US tariff is a strategic, diplomatic and economic relief, it is not without political cost. The government must play its cards right and manage the domestic industrial fallout, sell the deal politically, and prepare for parliamentary scrutiny -- all while navigating geopolitical sensitivities in a shifting regional order. Meanwhile, former finance minister Korn Chatikavanij has warned of long-term risks from the US tariff, urging the government to invest more in sharpening the country's competitive edge. Mr Korn has issued a sobering analysis of the 19% import tariff, which directly impacts Thai exporters. While acknowledging that Thailand avoided harsh penalties with the 36% tariff, he noted the compromise came at a high price and that urgent domestic reforms are needed to prevent the country falling further behind in a hostile global trade environment. In a post titled "What Will 19% Mean?", published on his Facebook page, Mr Korn expressed some relief that Thailand secured a tariff rate comparable to other Asean countries, despite the diplomatic challenges that led up to the outcome. "The 19% came at the cost of Thai people's blood and sweat," Mr Korn wrote. "There had been no indication that Trump saw value in our proposals -- until he seized the opportunity to play the hero in ending the [Thai-Cambodian] standoff. That's why some have called the outcome a 'Peace Dividend'." Notably, Mr Korn pointed out that the US did not distinguish between Thailand and Cambodia in assigning tariff rates, despite Cambodia initially facing a 49% rate. Both now face the same 19%, showing Washington's strategic rather than moral calculus. While Thailand managed to hold its ground diplomatically, Mr Korn stressed that international perceptions remain a concern and that there is more work to be done in communicating Thailand's position to the global community. The former finance minister warned that Thai exporters will inevitably suffer lower profit margins under the new tariff structure. The added costs, compounded by the potential drop in American consumer demand due to rising prices, could dampen Thailand's export performance. He also highlighted the indirect consequences of the US tariffs on global trade dynamics. With China facing growing difficulty rerouting its exports via transshipments to evade tariffs, Thailand may see a surge of cheap Chinese goods flooding into its domestic market, posing an additional hardship for local manufacturers. Mr Korn applauded Mr Pichai for outlining the correct policy direction -- preparing relief measures through low-interest credit packages for affected businesses and pushing for long-term competitiveness enhancements. He also hammered home the importance of transparency, urging the government to disclose the terms of its negotiations with the US under Section 178 of the Constitution, which requires parliamentary oversight of international agreements. "Trump is the clearest winner," Mr Korn concluded. "He has succeeded in extracting US$300–500 billion annually in tariffs from global trade partners. The message is clear: in this era, friendship is irrelevant -- only mutual interests matter." Mr Korn closed his analysis with a warning: Thailand must not rely on diplomatic luck or external protection. The only sustainable path forward is internal development, reform, and innovation. "If we don't adapt," he warned, "we'll only become more disadvantaged." Waiting in the wings? With tensions along the Thai-Cambodian border showing no sign of easing and the prospect of a general election looming, observers now see the possible rise of a new political force. They envisage a fresh conservative party capable of tackling political, economic and security problems while putting forward a prime ministerial candidate who can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with those from existing political parties. Such a candidate need not be a career politician, but must possess an unblemished record, free of any links to Cambodia's leadership. And with many in the conservative camp increasingly dissatisfied with existing conservative parties, speculation is rife that any new party aligning itself with the armed forces could have an advantage at the polls. Stithorn Thananithichot, a political science lecturer at Chulalongkorn University, said a great deal of public support is directed towards the armed forces for its handling of the border conflict with Cambodia. And while such a party and candidate have yet to step up, existing political parties are likely to court the military and position themselves as its allies to capitalise on public sentiment as they prepare for the polls, he noted. While Bhumjaithai appears to be the most trusted option for conservative voters -- as opposed to the ruling Pheu Thai Party -- the party, as well as the United Thai Nation Party (UTN) and the Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP), have fallen short of expectations despite having been in the government for the past two years, he said. He said Bhumjaithai has seen a slight increase in popularity after withdrawing from the coalition government, which suggests that there are still millions of conservative voters up for grabs if the right strategy is in place. "When they see this significant voter base, all conservative parties will scramble for a strong prime ministerial candidate and economic policy, as well as a military reform plan that the public actually wants. But so far, no one has emerged," the analyst said. However, he said that outgoing central bank governor Sethaput Suthiwartnarueput appears to fit the bill. He is widely considered capable, committed to national interests, and did not bow to political pressure to safeguard the central bank's independence and maintain the country's international fiscal credibility. "Even if he is politically inexperienced, I don't think that voters will look at it as a problem. They're all too familiar with smooth-talking politicians with vested interests. The only question is whether Mr Sethaput has any interest in politics," he said. Mr Sethaput's five-year term at the central bank ends on Sept 30, and he will be succeeded by Vitai Ratanakorn, currently president and CEO of the state-owned Government Savings Bank (GSB). Thanaporn Sriyakul, director of the Political and Public Policy Analysis Institute, said a new conservative party will need figures like Mr Sethaput or former central bank governor Veerathai Santiprabhob to win over voters. Both have earned a lot of trust from technocrats and have shown that they have had no vested interests while in the jobs they occupied. This is in stark contrast to some towering figures who pull strings in politics, he said. However, he said if conservative voters feel deeply attached to the military, the chief of the defence forces, Gen Songwit Noonpakdee, who is scheduled to retire at the end of September, could be among their top choices for prime minister. Gen Songwit is regarded as a forward-thinking individual, as illustrated in his handling of Thai-Cambodian tensions, he said. "He's the first and only supreme commander to unify all branches of the armed forces under a strategic plan. In the past, each branch operated separately," he said. Whether the general harbours any political ambitions will only become clear after his retirement, he said. As for the Bhumjaithai Party, which is the most popular among the existing conservative parties, it still has much work to do if it wants to secure substantial support, according to Mr Thanaporn. First and foremost, it will have to come up with a military reform proposal to streamline the armed forces to make them lean, yet effective. However, Bhumjaithai will be competing with the People's Party (PP), which is reportedly devising its own ambitious reform platform, he said. According to the analyst, the PP's military reform plan is said to include trimming excess military spending and restructuring the armed forces to address not only the Cambodian border situation but also other potential flashpoints.
