‘It's close': Trump says Gaza ceasefire between Israel, Hamas possible within a week
Palestinians inspecting the site of an Israeli air strike on a house in Gaza City on June 27. PHOTO: REUTERS
'It's close': Trump says Gaza ceasefire between Israel, Hamas possible within a week
WASHINGTON - US President Donald Trump said on June 27 he believes it is possible that a ceasefire in the Gaza conflict between Israel and Iran-backed Hamas militants will be reached within a week.
At an Oval Office event celebrating a Congo-Rwanda accord, he told reporters that he believes a ceasefire is close. He said he had been just been talking to some of the people involved in trying to reach a cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hamas in the Palestinian enclave.
Hamas has said it is willing to free remaining hostages in Gaza under any deal to end the war, while Israel says it can only end if Hamas is disarmed and dismantled. Hamas refuses to lay down its arms.
The war in Gaza was triggered when Hamas-led militants attacked Israel on Oct 7, 2023, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli tallies.
Gaza's health ministry says Israel's post-Oct7 military assault has killed over 56,000 Palestinians. The assault 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.
Interest in resolving the Gaza conflict has picked up steam in the wake of the US and Israeli bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. A ceasefire to the 12-day Israel-Iran conflict went into effect early this week.
'I think it's close. I just spoke to some of the people involved,' Mr Trump said. 'We think within the next week we're going to get a ceasefire.'
He did not say who he has been talking to, but he has told reporters he was in near-daily contact with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the Israel-Iran conflict.
Mr Trump's surprise prediction of a possible ceasefire deal in coming days comes at a time when there have been few signs that the warring parties were ready to restart serious negotiations or budge from entrenched positions.
A spokesperson for US special envoy Steve Witkoff's office said they had no information to share beyond Mr Trump's comments.
Mr Witkoff helped former President Joe Biden's aides broker a ceasefire and hostage release agreement shortly before Mr Trump took office in January but the deal soon unravelled.
The Israeli embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer plans to visit Washington starting on June 30 for talks with Trump administration officials about Gaza, Iran and a possible White House visit by Mr Netanyahu, according to a source familiar with the matter.
Mr Netanyahu said on June 26 that the outcome of Israel's war with Iran presented opportunities for peace that his country must not waste.
'This victory presents an opportunity for a dramatic widening of peace agreements. We are working on this with enthusiasm,' Mr Netanyahu said in a statement. REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AsiaOne
an hour ago
- AsiaOne
Rwanda and Congo sign peace deal in US to end fighting and attract investment, World News
WASHINGTON/PARIS/KINSHASA - Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo signed a US-brokered peace agreement on Friday (June 27), raising hopes for an end to fighting that has killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands more this year. The agreement marks a breakthrough in talks held by US President Donald Trump's administration and aims to attract billions of dollars of Western investment to a region rich in tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper, lithium and other minerals. At a ceremony with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington, the two African countries' foreign ministers signed the agreement pledging to implement a 2024 deal that would see Rwandan troops withdraw from eastern Congo within 90 days, according to a copy seen by Reuters. Kinshasa and Kigali will also launch a regional economic integration framework within 90 days, the agreement said. "They were going at it for many years, and with machetes - it is one of the worst, one of the worst wars that anyone has ever seen. And I just happened to have somebody that was able to get it settled," Trump said on Friday, ahead of the signing of the deal in Washington. "We're getting, for the United States, a lot of the mineral rights from the Congo as part of it. They're so honoured to be here. They never thought they'd be coming." Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe called the agreement a turning point. Congo Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner said it must be followed by disengagement. Trump later met both officials in the Oval Office, where he presented them with letters inviting Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi and his Rwandan counterpart Paul Kagame to Washington to sign a package of agreements that Massad Boulos, Trump's senior adviser for Africa, dubbed the "Washington Accord". Nduhungirehe told Trump that past deals had not been implemented and urged Trump to stay engaged. Trump warned of "very severe penalties, financial and otherwise", if the agreement is violated. Rwanda has sent at least 7,000 soldiers over the border, according to analysts and diplomats, in support of the M23 rebels, who seized eastern Congo's two largest cities and lucrative mining areas in a lightning advance earlier this year. The gains by M23, the latest cycle in a decades-old conflict with roots in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, sparked fears that a wider war could draw in Congo's neighbours. Economic deals Boulos told Reuters in May that Washington wanted the peace agreement and accompanying minerals deals to be signed simultaneously this summer. Rubio said on Friday that heads of state would be "here in Washington in a few weeks to finalize the complete protocol and agreement." However, the agreement signed on Friday gives Congo and Rwanda three months to launch a framework "to expand foreign trade and investment derived from regional critical mineral supply chains". A source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Friday that another agreement on the framework would be signed by the heads of state at a separate White House event at an unspecified time. There is an understanding that progress in ongoing talks in Doha - a separate but parallel mediation effort with delegations from the Congolese government and M23 - is essential before the signing of the economic framework, the source said. [[nid:718669]] The agreement signed on Friday voiced "full support" for the Qatar-hosted talks. It also says Congo and Rwanda will form a joint security coordination mechanism within 30 days and implement a plan agreed last year to monitor and verify the withdrawal of Rwandan soldiers within three months. Congolese military operations targeting the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a Congo-based armed group that includes remnants of Rwanda's former army and militias that carried out the 1994 genocide, are meant to conclude over the same timeframe. Reuters reported on Thursday that Congolese negotiators had dropped an earlier demand that Rwandan troops immediately leave eastern Congo, paving the way for the signing ceremony on Friday. Congo, the United Nations and Western powers say Rwanda is supporting M23 by sending troops and arms. Rwanda has long denied helping M23, saying its forces are acting in self-defence against Congo's army and ethnic Hutu militiamen linked to the 1994 Rwandan genocide, including the FDLR. "This is the best chance we have at a peace process for the moment despite all the challenges and flaws," said Jason Stearns, a political scientist at Simon Fraser University in Canada who specialises in Africa's Great Lakes region. Similar formulas have been attempted before, Stearns added, and "it will be up to the US, as they are the godfather of this deal, to make sure both sides abide by the terms." The agreement signed on Friday says Rwanda and Congo will de-risk mineral supply chains and establish value chains "that link both countries, in partnership, as appropriate, with the US and US investors." The terms carry "a strategic message: securing the east also means securing investments," said Tresor Kibangula, a political analyst at Congo's Ebuteli research institute. "It remains to be seen whether this economic logic will suffice" to end the fighting, he added.
Business Times
an hour ago
- Business Times
Trump's court win opens a path to clear hurdles to his agenda
[WASHINGTON, DC] The US Supreme Court's ruling curbing the power of judges to block government actions on a nationwide basis has raised questions about whether dozens of orders that have halted US President Donald Trump's policies will stand. The conservative majority's ruling Friday (Jun 27) came in a fight over Trump's plan to limit automatic birthright citizenship. But it may have far-reaching consequences for the ability of US courts to issue orders that apply to anyone affected by a policy, not just the parties who filed lawsuits. Judges entered nationwide preliminary orders halting Trump administration actions in at least four dozen of the 400 lawsuits filed since he took office in January, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. Some were later put on hold on appeal. Nationwide orders currently in place include blocks on the administration's revocation of foreign students' legal status, freezes of domestic spending and foreign aid, funding cuts related to gender-affirming care and legal services for migrant children, and proof-of-citizenship rules for voting. The Supreme Court's new precedent doesn't instantly invalidate injunctions in those cases. But the Justice Department could quickly ask federal judges to revisit the scope of these and other earlier orders in light of the opinion. 'Fair game' 'Everything is fair game,' said Dan Huff, a lawyer who served in the White House counsel's office during Trump's first term. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment. Trump said at a press conference in the White House Friday that the administration will 'promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis'. Trump listed cases that they would target, including suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding and 'stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries'. The Trump administration has made it a priority to contest court orders that block policies on a nationwide, or universal, basis, although the controversy over whether those types of rulings are an appropriate use of judicial power has been brewing for years. Conservative advocates won such orders when Democratic presidents were in office as well. Noting the mounting pushback and debate, judges in dozens of other cases involving Trump's policies have limited their orders against the administration to the parties that sued or within certain geographical boundaries. Anastasia Boden, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation whose practice includes suing the federal government, said she didn't see the ruling as a total 'retreat' from judges' authority to enter universal orders going forward. Multiple paths 'It's addressing the case where a plaintiff is getting relief that applies to everyone across the country merely because judges think that it's an important issue,' she said. 'But it doesn't change the case where the plaintiff needs that relief.' Boden offered the example of a challenge to government spending, in which the only way to halt an unlawful action would be to stop payment of federal dollars across the country, not just to individual plaintiffs or in certain areas. Trump's opponents say the justices' decision still leaves them with multiple paths to sue the administration over actions they contend are unlawful and even to argue for nationwide relief. Those options include class action lawsuits, cases seeking to set aside agency actions under a US law known as the Administrative Procedure Act and even continuing to argue that nationwide relief is the only way to stop harm to individual plaintiffs, like parties did in the birthright citizenship cases. But they also acknowledged the court significantly raised the burden of what they have to prove to win those types of orders. 'This is going to make it more challenging, more complicated, potentially more expensive to seek orders that more broadly stop illegal government action,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said. 'It is watering down the power of federal courts to check government misconduct.' The Supreme Court sent the birthright citizenship cases back to lower court judges to reconsider the scope of orders pausing Trump's restrictions while the legal fight on its constitutionality continues. The justices did not rule on the core question of whether the policy itself is lawful. The administration can't fully enforce the birthright policy for at least another 30 days. Democratic state attorneys general involved in the birthright litigation highlighted language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion that the court didn't shut off the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. Speaking with reporters after the ruling, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said he and his Democratic colleagues would 'assess' the impact on other cases. He said they already had been judicious in asking judges for nationwide relief as opposed to orders that restricted administration policies in specific states. 'The court confirmed what we've thought all along – nationwide relief should be limited, but it is available to states when appropriate,' Platkin said. BLOOMBERG
AsiaOne
an hour ago
- AsiaOne
"I saved him from a very ugly and ignominious death," he said., World News
WASHINGTON - US President Donald Trump sharply criticised Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei, on Friday (June 27), dropped plans to lift sanctions on Iran and said he would consider bombing Iran again if Tehran is enriching uranium to worrisome levels. Trump reacted sternly to Khamanei's first remarks after a 12-day conflict with Israel that ended when the United States launched bombing raids last weekend against Iranian nuclear sites. Khamanei said Iran "slapped America in the face" by launching an attack against a major US base in Qatar following the US bombing raids. Khamanei also said Iran would never surrender. Trump said he had spared Khamanei's life. US officials told Reuters on June 15 that Trump had vetoed an Israeli plan to kill the supreme leader. "His Country was decimated, his three evil Nuclear Sites were obliterated, and I knew exactly where he was sheltered, and would not let Israel, or the US Armed Forces, by far the Greatest and Most Powerful in the World, terminate his life," Trump said in a social media post. "I saved him from a very ugly and ignominious death," he said. Iran said a potential nuclear deal was conditional on the US ending its "disrespectful tone" toward the Supreme Leader. "If President Trump is genuine about wanting a deal, he should put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, and stop hurting his millions of heartfelt followers," Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said in a post on X in the early hours of Saturday. Trump also said that in recent days he had been working on the possible removal of sanctions on Iran to give it a chance for a speedy recovery. He said he had now abandoned that effort. "I get hit with a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust, and immediately dropped all work on sanction relief, and more," he said. Trump said at a White House news conference that he did not rule out attacking Iran again, when asked about the possibility of new bombing of Iranian nuclear sites if deemed necessary at some point. "Sure, without question, absolutely," he said. Trump said he would like inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency - the UN nuclear watchdog - or another respected source to be able to inspect Iran's nuclear sites after they were bombed last weekend. Trump has rejected any suggestion that damage to the sites was not as profound as he has said. [[nid:719583]] The IAEA chief, Rafael Grossi, said on Wednesday that ensuring the resumption of IAEA inspections was his top priority as none had taken place since Israel began bombing on June 13. However, Iran's parliament approved moves on Wednesday to suspend such inspections. Araqchi indicated on Friday that Tehran may reject any request by the head of the agency for visits to Iranian nuclear sites. Trump said Iran still wants to meet about the way forward. The White House had said on Thursday that no meeting between the US and an Iranian delegation has been scheduled thus far.
