US not serious about ending Gaza war, says Hamas official
Mahmoud Taha, an official at the Hamas media office in Beirut, was speaking after US President Donald Trump asserted that Israel is moving towards a ceasefire.
Mr Taha described Washington's policy as a 'blatant contradiction, clear lies, and hypocrisy' in light of violence on the ground.
Mr Trump said on Tuesday that Israel has agreed to the 'necessary conditions' to finalise a 60-day truce. During that period, 'we will work with all parties to end the war', he said on his Truth Social platform.
'The Qataris and Egyptians, who have worked very hard to help bring peace, will deliver this final proposal,' Mr Trump said. 'I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this deal, because it will not get better – it will only get worse.'
Mr Trump also said he would be 'very firm' with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who will visit Washington next week, on the need to end the 20-month conflict.
However, Mr Taha said Hamas officials 'do not trust these statements because the reality on the ground contradicts what they are saying in the media'.
He said no official proposal had yet been put forward for a ceasefire.
Trump says he hopes for Gaza ceasefire 'sometime next week'
'They talk about a proposal and a potential ceasefire next week, while at the same time Trump is sending a multi-million-dollar weapons deal to Israel to kill children and women. How does that make sense?' Mr Taha said.
'The US administration is not serious about ending the aggression on Gaza and bears direct responsibility for supporting and participating in the massacres. The death toll is rising daily.'
Contact between Hamas and Israel on one side and mediators from Egypt, Qatar and the US on the other has increased over the past week in Cairo. The objective is to find enough common ground to hold another round of talks, sources have told The National.
A senior Israeli official, Ron Dermer, has also been in Washington holding discussions.
Hamas officials previously told The National that the group was engaging positively with the mediators, but that the fate of a possible ceasefire lies in the talks between the US and Israel.
Mr Taha reiterated that message on Wednesday. 'We hope to reach an agreement that ends the aggression and leads to the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza as soon as possible,' he said. 'But the issue lies with the Israeli side and with the US administration, which is aligned with Netanyahu and his fascist government.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
17 minutes ago
- The National
European leaders make last-ditch appeal to Trump ahead of Alaska summit
Leaders in Europe want to get a deal done on Ukraine, the US President Donald Trump has said ahead of a call with several of them on Wednesday. European leaders are eager to show a united front to help avoid a bad outcome for Ukraine from a meeting between Mr Trump and the Russian President Vladimir Putin later this week. "They are great leaders who want to see a deal done," Mr Trump wrote on Truth Social. Germany, which is hosting a virtual call meeting between Mr Trump and European leaders, also invited Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to attend the call. It comes two days before a Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska on Friday - the first US-Russia summit since 2021. "Pressure must be exerted on Russia for the sake of a just peace. Ukraine's and our partners' experience must be used to prevent deception by Russia," Mr Zelenskyy wrote on X. The Ukrainian president, who has has been sidelined from the Friday meeting, met German Chancellor Friedrich Merz before a video conference with the leaders of Germany, Finland, France, Britain, Italy, Poland and the European Union. Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte was also scheduled to attend. Mr Trump and Vice President JD Vance were due to join the call mid-afternoon. Later, wider partners in the region were to be updated by Germany, France and the UK on the day's discussions in a format known as the "coalition of the willing." The coalition of the willing is an international effort to support Ukraine towards a lasting peace, led by the London, Paris and Berlin. It is made up of 31 countries that have pledged strengthened support for Kyiv, including 27 European countries, as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Mr Trump has said the Alaska talks will be a "feel-out" meeting as he pursues a ceasefire in Moscow's war on Ukraine, having said last week, to consternation in Kyiv and Europe, that any deal would involve "some swapping of territories". It remains unclear what Mr Putin might be expected to surrender. The Europeans and Ukraine are wary that Mr Putin, who has waged the biggest land war in Europe since 1945 and used Russia's energy might to try to intimidate the EU, might secure favourable concessions and set the outlines of a peace deal without them. European countries' overarching fear is that Mr Putin will set his sights on one of them next if he wins in Ukraine. "Most European leaders recognise the summit's high stakes and risks—hence this week's diplomatic flurry, including today's pre-summit virtual meeting between EU leaders, Trump, and Zelenskyy," said Jana Kobzova, senior policy fellow at the ECFR think-tank. "Europe's future hinges on whether Ukraine becomes stable and prosperous (even without full territorial control) or remains a weak, unstable state vulnerable to Russian attacks." Ahead of Wednesday's call, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer spoke to his Dutch counterpart Dick Schoof and agreed 'there should be no decisions about the future of Ukraine without Ukraine." "They discussed their sustained support for Ukraine and the ongoing work to end Russia's barbaric war," a UK government spokesperson said. Meanwhile, Mr Vance, who is on holiday in the UK, is set to meet US troops stationed at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire.
The National
17 minutes ago
- The National
Europe leaders make last ditch appeal to Trump ahead of Alaska summit
European leaders want to get a deal done on Ukraine, US President Donald Trump has said ahead of a call with European leaders on Wednesday. Europe's heads of state are eager to show a united front in a bid to avoid a bad outcome for Ukraine at a meeting between Mr Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin later this week. "They are great leaders who want to see a deal done," Mr Trump wrote on Truth Social. Germany, which is hosting a virtual call meeting between Mr Trump and European leaders, also invited to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to attend the call. It comes two days before a Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska on Friday - the first US-Russia summit since 2021. "Pressure must be exerted on Russia for the sake of a just peace. Ukraine's and our partners' experience must be used to prevent deception by Russia," Mr Zelenskyy wrote on X. The Ukrainian president, who has has been sidelined from the Friday meeting, met German Chancellor Friedrich Merz before a video conference with the leaders of Germany, Finland, France, Britain, Italy, Poland and the European Union. Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte was also scheduled to attend. Mr Trump and Vice President JD Vance were due to join the call mid-afternoon. Later, wider partners in the region were to be updated by Germany, France and the UK on the day's discussions in a format known as the "coalition of the willing." The coalition of the willing is an international effort to support Ukraine towards a lasting peace, led by the London, Paris and Berlin. It is made up of 31 countries that have pledged strengthened support for Kyiv, including 27 European countries, as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Mr Trump has said the Alaska talks will be a "feel-out" meeting as he pursues a ceasefire in Moscow's war on Ukraine, having said last week, to consternation in Kyiv and Europe, that any deal would involve "some swapping of territories". It remains unclear what Mr Putin might be expected to surrender. The Europeans and Ukraine are wary that Mr Putin, who has waged the biggest land war in Europe since 1945 and used Russia's energy might to try to intimidate the EU, might secure favourable concessions and set the outlines of a peace deal without them. European countries' overarching fear is that Mr Putin will set his sights on one of them next if he wins in Ukraine. "Most European leaders recognise the summit's high stakes and risks—hence this week's diplomatic flurry, including today's pre-summit virtual meeting between EU leaders, Trump, and Zelenskyy," said Jana Kobzova, senior policy fellow at the ECFR think-tank. "Europe's future hinges on whether Ukraine becomes stable and prosperous (even without full territorial control) or remains a weak, unstable state vulnerable to Russian attacks." Ahead of Wednesday's call, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer spoke to his Dutch counterpart Dick Schoof and agreed 'there should be no decisions about the future of Ukraine without Ukraine." "They discussed their sustained support for Ukraine and the ongoing work to end Russia's barbaric war," a UK government spokesperson said. Meanwhile, Mr Vance, who is on holiday in the UK, is set to meet US troops stationed at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire.
The National
31 minutes ago
- The National
Israel can inflict even more damage if Hezbollah doesn't disarm
The Lebanese government's decision last Thursday to endorse the objectives of a US-drafted plan provoked a negative response from Hezbollah and, to an extent, its ally within the Shiite community, the Amal Movement. However, the two parties, realising the risk of isolating themselves further, did not withdraw their ministers from the government of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam. The document presented to the Lebanese cabinet by the interim US envoy to Lebanon, Tom Barrack, outlined, among other things, a process for Hezbollah's disarmament. Prior to its Thursday session, the Salam government had ordered the Lebanese army to prepare a plan by the end of August. This plan would implement the decision taken by the state to secure a monopoly over weapons by the end of this year. The legal basis for this process is UN Security Council Resolution 1559, which calls for the disbanding of all militias in Lebanon, Lebanese and non-Lebanese; as well as Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 Lebanon war. Resolution 1701 had imposed a Hezbollah pullback to behind the Litani River, but also reaffirmed the provisions of Resolution 1559. It still remains unclear how the Lebanese government and army will be able to implement such decisions if Hezbollah continues to refuse to surrender its weapons. Both Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Mr Salam want to avoid violence at all cost, and seek to avert a rupture with the Shiite community, a majority of which supports Hezbollah and Amal. One aspect that has been left largely unmentioned in this context is what Israel might do if Hezbollah and Amal manage to derail the government's plan to disarm the party. Both parties, in their recklessness, have to grasp the real dangers if the Israelis resume their military campaign in Lebanon, especially given that they enjoy unconditional US support. Hezbollah finds itself very lonely in Lebanon today. Many people blame it for having carried the country into a war over Gaza that was unnecessary, highly destructive, and allowed Israel to reoccupy parts of Lebanon, after it had pulled its forces out of the country in 2000. Since last November, when the ceasefire was reached, Israel has continued to hit Hezbollah sites and target party officials, or alleged officials, almost on a daily basis. The Israelis also violated the ceasefire agreement by refusing to withdraw completely from Lebanon in January, as the agreement stipulated, a position supported by the Trump administration. Since last November, when the ceasefire was reached, Israel has continued to hit Hezbollah sites and target party officials, or alleged officials, almost daily A proposal by Mr Barrack subsequently tied an Israeli pull-out from the Lebanese areas that it still occupies to the demilitarisation of Hezbollah. By drawing this link, the US envoy effectively placed the burden of the continued Israeli presence on the party. The Israelis will certainly take this into consideration as they plan their strategy in Lebanon. If the Trump administration is willing to blame Hezbollah for the Israeli occupation, then this provides Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government several options for what to do next if the party continues to refuse to disarm. Israeli forces can occupy more Lebanese territory up to the Litani River, and proceed to destroy all Hezbollah infrastructure south of that – though this process has already begun under the Lebanese army. Israel's leaders can then make a condition for withdrawal that the Lebanese government disarm Hezbollah, or even sign a peace treaty with Israel. Barring Lebanese acceptance, an expansionist Israel could even permanently annex Lebanese land. A more ambitious plan would be for Israeli forces to occupy territory up to the Awwali River, at the level of the southern Lebanese city of Sidon, and make similar demands, or even contemplate annexation. This would empty the south of its Shiite population, while the ensuing humanitarian crisis would increase pressure on Hezbollah and the Lebanese state to comply with the Israeli government's demands. If the Lebanese fail to do so, Israel could use its new installations in southern Lebanon to mount a long campaign to destroy Hezbollah positions and arms depots around Lebanon, using aircraft, drones, or commandos flown in by helicopter, as they did against a Hezbollah missile factory in Masyaf, Syria, last September. Some observers feel that if the Israeli forces redeployed to southern Lebanon, this would provide a lifeline for Hezbollah, which could revive its resistance dimension by fighting the occupation. Perhaps, but the challenges are many. First, the party would be on its own in doing so, with many Lebanese wanting an end to the conflict with Israel. Second, without a regular arms supply line through Syria, the party's capacities to sustain such a military effort would suffer. And third, if Hezbollah tries to form a front against the Israeli presence, particularly along the Awwali, this would mean anchoring itself in non-Shiite areas, where local communities are deeply hostile to the group. Under such circumstances, Hezbollah would probably find it exceptionally difficult to mount an effective resistance struggle. The Shiite parties, above all Hezbollah, are certainly conscious of their vulnerabilities. Moreover, Hezbollah does not appear to have a credible plan B. It is now under direct Iranian control, since its leadership cadre was decimated last year, and has been reduced to trying to defend an untenable status quo. The possibilities open to Israel make such a strategy even less likely to succeed, while the potential outcomes are deeply alarming.
