Trump to meet Qatar's PM to discuss Gaza ceasefire deal: Report
Israeli and Hamas negotiators have been taking part in the latest round of ceasefire talks in Doha since July 6, discussing a US-backed proposal for a 60-day ceasefire that envisages a phased release of hostages, Israeli troop withdrawals from parts of Gaza and discussions on ending the conflict.
Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff had said on Sunday that he was "hopeful" on the ceasefire negotiations underway in Qatar, a key mediator between the two sides.
US, Qatari and Egyptian mediators have been working to secure an agreement, however, Israel and Hamas are divided over the extent of an eventual Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian enclave.
The latest bloodshed in the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict was triggered in October 2023 when Hamas attacked Israel. Israel says Hamas killed 1,200 and took about 250 hostages.
Gaza's health ministry says Israel's subsequent military assault has killed over 58,000 Palestinians. It has also caused a hunger crisis, internally displaced Gaza's entire population and prompted accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice and of war crimes at the International Criminal Court. Israel denies the accusations.
A previous two month ceasefire ended when Israeli strikes killed more than 400 Palestinians on March 18. Trump earlier this year proposed a US takeover of Gaza, which was condemned globally by rights experts, the UN and Palestinians as a proposal of "ethnic cleansing."
Trump and Sheikh Mohammed are also expected to discuss efforts to resume talks between the US and Iran to reach a new nuclear agreement, Ravid added citing a source familiar with the matter.
[[nid:720258]]
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
an hour ago
- Business Times
International Court of Justice to deliver landmark climate ruling on Jul 23
[THE HAGUE] The top United Nations court will on Wednesday (Jul 23) hand down a landmark global legal blueprint for tackling climate change that also sets out top polluters' responsibilities towards the countries suffering most. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been tasked with crafting a so-called advisory opinion on countries' obligations to prevent climate change and the consequences for polluters whose emissions have harmed the planet. Experts say this is the most significant in a string of recent rulings on climate change in international law, with major potential repercussions for states and firms around the world. Climate-vulnerable countries and campaign groups hope it will have far-reaching legal consequences in the fight against climate change, unifying existing law, shaping national and international legislation, and impacting current court cases. 'It will be the compass the world needs to course correct,' said Vishal Prasad, director of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change. 'It will give new strength to climate litigation, inspire more ambitious national policies and guide states toward decisions that uphold their legal duties to protect both people and planet,' said Prasad. A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU Friday, 12.30 pm ESG Insights An exclusive weekly report on the latest environmental, social and governance issues. Sign Up Sign Up But some critics argue the ruling will be toothless, as ICJ advisory opinions are not binding and major polluters can choose simply to ignore it. 'Acts and omissions' The UN, pushed by tiny island state Vanuatu, asked the court to answer two questions. First, what obligations do states have under international law to protect the Earth's climate from polluting greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences for states which 'by their acts and omissions have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment?' The second question was explicitly linked to the damage that climate change is causing to small, more vulnerable, countries and their populations. This applies to countries facing increasingly damaging weather disasters and especially to island nations under threat from rising sea levels like those in the Pacific Ocean. 'David vs Goliath' In what was termed a 'David versus Goliath' battle, advanced economies and developing nations clashed at the ICJ during December hearings on the case. The iconic Peace Palace in the Hague, the seat of the ICJ, played host to more than 100 oral submissions – the largest number ever, many from tiny states making their first appearance. 'This may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity,' said Vanuatu's representative Ralph Regenvanu, opening the two weeks of hearings. 'The outcome of these proceedings will reverberate across generations, determining the fate of nations like mine and the future of our planet,' he told the 15-judge panel. Major polluters argued the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was sufficient and new guidelines on countries' obligations were not necessary. US representative Margaret Taylor said this framework was 'the most current expression of states' consent to be bound by international law in respect of climate change'. Taylor urged the court 'to ensure its opinion preserves and promotes the centrality of this regime'. Meanwhile, the speaker from India was even more explicit. 'The court should avoid the creation of any new or additional obligations beyond those already existing under the climate change regime,' said Luther Rangreji. The USs under President Donald Trump has since pulled funding for the UNFCCC and withdrawn from its landmark pact, the Paris climate agreement. 'Watery graves' But smaller states said this framework was inadequate to mitigate climate change's devastating effects. 'As seas rise faster than predicted, these states must stop. 'This court must not permit them to condemn our lands and our people to watery graves,' said John Silk from the Marshall Islands. After bitterly fought UN climate talks in Azerbaijan last November, wealthy countries agreed to provide at least US$300 billion a year by 2035 to help developing nations transition to clean energy and prepare for an increase in extreme weather. The vulnerable nations argued this is simply not enough and urged the ICJ to push for more. 'This is a crisis of survival. It is also a crisis of equity,' said Fiji's representative Luke Daunivalu. 'Our people are unfairly and unjustly footing the bill for a crisis they did not create. They look to this court for clarity, for decisiveness and justice.' AFP
Business Times
an hour ago
- Business Times
ICJ to deliver landmark climate ruling
[THE HAGUE] The top United Nations court will on Wednesday hand down a landmark global legal blueprint for tackling climate change that also sets out top polluters' responsibilities towards the countries suffering most. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been tasked with crafting a so-called advisory opinion on countries' obligations to prevent climate change and the consequences for polluters whose emissions have harmed the planet. Experts say this is the most significant in a string of recent rulings on climate change in international law, with major potential repercussions for states and firms around the world. Climate-vulnerable countries and campaign groups hope it will have far-reaching legal consequences in the fight against climate change, unifying existing law, shaping national and international legislation, and impacting current court cases. 'It will be the compass the world needs to course correct,' said Vishal Prasad, director of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change. 'It will give new strength to climate litigation, inspire more ambitious national policies and guide states toward decisions that uphold their legal duties to protect both people and planet,' said Prasad. A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU Friday, 12.30 pm ESG Insights An exclusive weekly report on the latest environmental, social and governance issues. Sign Up Sign Up But some critics argue the ruling will be toothless, as ICJ advisory opinions are not binding and major polluters can choose simply to ignore it. 'Acts and omissions' The UN, pushed by tiny island state Vanuatu, asked the court to answer two questions. First, what obligations do states have under international law to protect the Earth's climate from polluting greenhouse gas emissions? Second, what are the legal consequences for states which 'by their acts and omissions have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment?' The second question was explicitly linked to the damage that climate change is causing to small, more vulnerable, countries and their populations. This applies to countries facing increasingly damaging weather disasters and especially to island nations under threat from rising sea levels like those in the Pacific Ocean. 'David Vs Goliath' In what was termed a 'David versus Goliath' battle, advanced economies and developing nations clashed at the ICJ during December hearings on the case. The iconic Peace Palace in the Hague, the seat of the ICJ, played host to more than 100 oral submissions - the largest number ever, many from tiny states making their first appearance. 'This may well be the most consequential case in the history of humanity,' said Vanuatu's representative Ralph Regenvanu, opening the two weeks of hearings. 'The outcome of these proceedings will reverberate across generations, determining the fate of nations like mine and the future of our planet,' he told the 15-judge panel. Major polluters argued the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was sufficient and new guidelines on countries' obligations were not necessary. US representative Margaret Taylor said this framework was 'the most current expression of states' consent to be bound by international law in respect of climate change'. Taylor urged the court 'to ensure its opinion preserves and promotes the centrality of this regime'. Meanwhile, the speaker from India was even more explicit. 'The court should avoid the creation of any new or additional obligations beyond those already existing under the climate change regime,' said Luther Rangreji. The United States under President Donald Trump has since pulled funding for the UNFCCC and withdrawn from its landmark pact, the Paris climate agreement. 'Watery graves' - But smaller states said this framework was inadequate to mitigate climate change's devastating effects. 'As seas rise faster than predicted, these states must stop. 'This court must not permit them to condemn our lands and our people to watery graves,' said John Silk from the Marshall Islands. After bitterly fought UN climate talks in Azerbaijan in November, wealthy countries agreed to provide at least US$300 billion a year by 2035 to help developing nations transition to clean energy and prepare for an increase in extreme weather. The vulnerable nations argued this is simply not enough and urged the ICJ to push for more. 'This is a crisis of survival. It is also a crisis of equity,' said Fiji's representative Luke Daunivalu. 'Our people... are unfairly and unjustly footing the bill for a crisis they did not create. 'They look to this court for clarity, for decisiveness and justice.' AFP
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
China stops US commerce employee from leaving, reports say
Find out what's new on ST website and app. The US Commerce Department employee, an American citizen, had travelled to meet relatives, the Washington Post said. China has stopped an American citizen who works for the US Commerce Department from leaving the nation for several months, according to media reports – an episode that coincides with Beijing and Washington trying to arrange a leaders' summit so they can address their differences on trade. The Chinese-American individual who works for the Patent and Trademark Office had travelled to meet relatives, the Washington Post reported, citing four people familiar with the matter, who asked not to be identified discussing the sensitive issue. The US sent a very high-level message to Beijing to let the man depart, the newspaper added, citing one person. It said it didn't know the name of the man facing a so-called exit ban, which was put in place over an apparent failure to disclose on a visa application that he worked for the US government. Officials from Beijing and Washington – including in the Commerce Department – are negotiating a trade deal after US President Donald Trump hit goods from China with heavy tariffs that he later paused. Mr Trump also wants a meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping to sort through their problems, which also touch on technology curbs, rare earths and the status of Taiwan. To get the sitdown and a trade pact, Mr Trump has recently softened his harsh campaign rhetoric that focused on the US's massive trade deficit with China and resulting job losses. Earlier this month, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said after meeting his Chinese counterpart, Mr Wang Yi, that there was 'a strong desire on both sides' for a Xi-Trump meeting. The outlook for such a meeting could be complicated if the episode involving the employee of the US Commerce Department escalates. The man, a veteran of the US army, was detained when he arrived in the southwestern city of Chengdu in April, the South China Morning Post reported on July 20 , citing a person familiar with the situation. He was being prevented from leaving China because his case was 'related to actions Beijing deemed harmful to national security,' the newspaper reported, though the specifics couldn't be confirmed. Since the man arrived in Chengdu, he had also traveled to the Chinese capital with a US official, the newspaper reported. The Patent and Trademark Office the man works for handles US patents and registers trademarks. It says on its website that its 'mission is to drive US innovation and global competitiveness'. A spokesperson US Embassy in Beijing said that its 'highest priority is the safety and security of US citizens overseas'. It added that 'we track these cases closely, and have raised our concern with Chinese authorities about the impact these arbitrary exit bans have on our bilateral relations and urged them to immediately allow impacted US citizens to return home'. The Foreign Ministry in Beijing didn't respond to a request for comment. China's use of exit bans has been a point of contention between Beijing and Washington in recent years. The US State Department has repeatedly advised citizens to reconsider travel to China based on what it called the 'arbitrary enforcement of local laws, including in relation to exit bans'. Wells Fargo recently suspended travel to the world's second-biggest economy after one of its top trade financing bankers was blocked from leaving. Ms Chenyue Mao, an Atlanta-based managing director who was born in Shanghai, was banned from departing after entering China in recent weeks, according to a person with knowledge of the situation. The case underscores multinational companies' fears about the risks of operating in China, especially in regard to staff safety and restrictions on movement. Among notable cases in recent years, the Wall Street Journal in 2023 reported a senior executive at US risk advisory firm Kroll was prevented from leaving China. In 2019, Bloomberg reported that a UBS Group AG wealth manager was detained for about three months before returning home. An academic analysis published in 2022, based on data from six governments, found 128 cases of foreign citizens facing Chinese exit bans, with at least a third of the cases driven by business disputes. Chinese law prohibits people suspected of crimes from leaving the country. Chinese citizens judged to have endangered national security can also face exit bans under the country's recently updated espionage law. BLOOMBERG
