Gaza ceasefire: What is the deal and how would it work?

Published

1 year ago

June 2, 2024

admin

In a surprise announcement on Friday, President Joe Biden said Israel had offered Hamas a ceasefire deal to end the war in Gaza.

Mr Biden outlined the proposal’s three phases during an address at the White House.

However, since the announcement, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggested the proposal is a “non-starter” until Israel’s long-standing conditions for ending the war are met. Hamas said it viewed the proposal “positively”.

Here’s a look at what we know about the deal so far, how it compares with previous proposals and how both sides have reacted to the US president’s address.

First phase

This would be a “full and complete ceasefire” lasting six weeks, Mr Biden said, adding it would see Israeli forces withdraw from all densely populated areas of Gaza.

During this time, Hamas would release an unspecified number of hostages, including women, the elderly and the wounded, in exchange for the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. Israel says around 100 hostages are still captive in Gaza, along with the bodies of around 30 more.

American hostages would be released at this stage, the US president said, adding the remains of some hostages who have been killed would be returned to their families.

Palestinian civilians would return to their homes and neighbourhoods across Gaza and humanitarian assistance would surge during the first phase, with 600 trucks being allowed into Gaza each day.

He said Israel and Hamas would negotiate a permanent end to the fighting while this ceasefire was in place. If the negotiations were to take longer than six weeks, the ceasefire would continue for as long as it takes to strike a deal, he added.

Second phase

Mr Biden described this as a “permanent end to hostilities”.

It would include the release of all remaining living Israeli hostages, including male soldiers, and Israel would withdraw all its forces from Gaza.

The president admitted there were “a number of details to negotiate to move from phase one to phase two”.

Third phase

The final phase calls for the start of a major reconstruction of Gaza, which faces decades of rebuilding from devastation caused by the war.

Any final remains of hostages who have been killed would be returned to their families.

What has Israel said?

The office of Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, released a statement on X after Mr Biden’s address.

It read: “The government of Israel is united in its desire to return the hostages as soon as possible and is working to achieve this goal.

“The prime minister authorised the negotiating team to present a proposal to that end, which would also enable Israel to continue the war until all its objectives are achieved, including the destruction of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities.

“The actual proposal put forward by Israel, including the conditional transition from one phase to the next, allows Israel to uphold these principles.”

While Mr Netanyahu’s office confirmed he authorised negotiators to present the deal, sources close to the Israeli prime minister have told Sky News they do not “wholly recognise or agree with” the proposal outlined by Mr Biden.

In a further statement on Saturday morning, Mr Netanyahu’s office said: “Israel’s conditions for ending the war have not changed: the destruction of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities, the freeing of all hostages and ensuring that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel.

“Under the proposal, Israel will continue to insist these conditions are met before a permanent ceasefire is put in place. The notion that Israel will agree to a permanent ceasefire before these conditions are fulfilled is a non-starter.”

Israel’s government has always maintained its objective in the Gaza offensive is to annihilate Hamas, which rules Gaza, in response to the attack by the group on 7 October.

What has Hamas said?

The militant group said it “views positively” what was included in Mr Biden’s speech, adding it will deal “constructively with any proposal based on a permanent ceasefire, complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, reconstruction, the return of the displaced to all their places of residence, and the completion of a serious prisoner exchange deal if the occupation declares its explicit commitment to that”.

How does this compare to the last ceasefire proposal?

Hamas claimed it agreed to a ceasefire deal proposed by Egypt and Qatar last month, which was similarly said to have three phases.

That proposal came after two days of talks in Cairo, with a delegation from Hamas – and intermediaries from Egypt, Qatar and the United States.

A senior Biden administration official who briefed reporters on Friday said the ceasefire deal Israel has agreed to now is “nearly identical to Hamas’s own proposals of only a few weeks ago”.

But Mr Netanyahu’s office previously said the truce proposal published by Hamas fell short of its demands, and an Israeli official described the Hamas deal announcement as “a ruse intended to make Israel look like the side refusing a deal”.

Here’s what Hamas claimed the proposal last month would have looked like:

First phase

Fighting would have paused for 42 days and Hamas would have released 33 hostages, including the remaining Israeli women – both civilians and soldiers – as well as people under age 19 who weren’t soldiers, adults over 50 and people who were ill.

Israel would have released 30 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for each Israeli civilian hostage and 50 in exchange for each female soldier.

IDF troops would have started withdrawing from Gaza in phases and displaced Palestinians would begin returning to their home neighbourhoods.

Israel would allow “intensive and sufficient quantities” of humanitarian aid, with 600 trucks entering Gaza daily.

Second phase

This would also have lasted 42 days, but similarly to the new proposal, the exact terms of this phase would need to be negotiated during the first.

Hamas said it may have entailed the release of all the remaining Israeli men, both civilians and soldiers, in Gaza. In return, Israel could have freed an agreed-upon number of Palestinian prisoners and detainees.

But the group said all Israeli troops must have withdrawn from Gaza in order for the second phase to begin.

Third phase

This would have included the release of the remains of deceased hostages still in Gaza, more prisoners held by Israel, and the start of a five-year reconstruction plan, Hamas claimed.

Hamas also wanted an end to the blockade on Gaza by Israel in cooperation with Egypt at this point.

The plan also stated Hamas would agree not to rebuild its military arsenal.

Has there been a ceasefire since Israel’s offensive began?

There was a temporary pause in place from 24 November to 1 December last year.

During that time, 79 Israeli hostages were released by Hamas, with hundreds of Palestinians freed from prisons in exchange.

International mediators – including diplomats from Qatar, Egypt and the US – had been working to extend the temporary truce, but reaching agreements on hostage releases became harder as most women and children had already been released.

Israel’s military ultimately resumed combat in Gaza on 1 December after accusing Hamas of violating the seven-day truce.

World

Defiant Netanyahu sets out plan for military escalation in Gaza – and describes photographs of starving babies as ‘fake news’

Published

5 hours ago

August 10, 2025

admin

Defiant Netanyahu sets out plan for military escalation in Gaza - and describes photographs of starving babies as 'fake news'

Israel’s prime minister added more detail to his deeply controversial plans for military escalation in Gaza at a news conference with foreign media yesterday – despite the condemnation of the UN Security Council, which met in an emergency session and urged him to rethink.

Benjamin Netanyahu spoke of a “fairly short timetable” to establish designated “safe zones” for the one million or so set to be displaced from Gaza City.

He also vowed to seize and dismantle Hamas’s final strongholds there – in the central refugee camps, and in al Mawasi, along Gaza’s southwestern coast.

This, per Netanyahu, is the only way to destroy the terror group, which he claimed “subjugates Gazans, steals their food and shoots them when they try to move to safety”.

Al Mawasi is already home to a significant displaced population, most of whom live in tents cramped up against the Mediterranean Sea, in what is already a designated humanitarian zone.

If members of Hamas live among them, rooting them out will be hugely complicated and will involve significant civilian casualties. If the residents of Gaza City can’t evacuate south to al Mawasi, where will they go?

Netanyahu’s plan is to set up more aid distribution sites through the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) and to flood Gaza with food.

He claimed his policy was not one of forced starvation – describing particular photos of starving babies as “fake news”, and accusing the media of painting a false picture.

“The only ones who are being deliberately starved in Gaza are our hostages,” the prime minister claimed.

I asked Netanyahu how he would go about preventing the kinds of daily killings taking place at aid distribution points in the months since GHF has been operating.

Doctors Without Borders has described these incidents as deliberately orchestrated.

The prime minister said increasing the amount of aid heading into the Strip was the answer.

“And by the way, a lot of the firing was done by Hamas seeking to have a response by our forces,” he added. “And very often they didn’t, they held back. They stayed their own fire even though their own lives were on the line.”

This was Israel’s prime minister trying to get on the front foot in a propaganda war he acknowledged he was losing. He was loath to admit the presence of famine in Gaza.

It took two questions before he acknowledged there was “deprivation”, even if he would not be drawn on whether his 11-week total blockade of the strip earlier this year had played any role.

He recognises that the appalled response of the international community to the human cost of this war, and the accusations of war crimes and genocide which Israel so vehemently rejects, are a terrible look.

This was his attempt to reclaim the narrative.

World

Journalist killed in Israeli strike feared his own assassination – as IDF claims he was a ‘terrorist’

Published

7 hours ago

August 10, 2025

admin

Journalist killed in Israeli strike feared his own assassination - as IDF claims he was a 'terrorist'

Five Al Jazeera journalists have been killed in an Israeli strike in Gaza – including a reporter who feared he was going to be assassinated.

Anas al Sharif died alongside four of his colleagues from the network: Mohammed Qreiqeh, Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal and Moamen Aliwa.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) had recently expressed “grave” concerns about al Sharif’s safety, and claimed he was “being targeted by an Israeli military smear campaign”.

Israel Defence Forces confirmed the strike – and alleged al Sharif was a “terrorist” who “served as the head of a terrorist cell in the Hamas terrorist organisation”.

It claimed he was “responsible for advancing rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and IDF troops”.

Last month, the reporter had said he lived with “the feeling that I could be bombed and martyred at any moment” because his coverage of Israel’s operations “harms them and damages their image in the world”.

As of 5 August, at least 186 journalists and media workers have been killed in Gaza – but foreign reporters have been barred from covering the war independently since the latest conflict began in 2023.

The Hamas-run government has described Israel’s killing of these five Al Jazeera journalists as “brutal and heinous”.

A statement added: “The assassination was premeditated and deliberate, following a deliberate, direct targeting of the journalists’ tent near al Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.

“The targeting of journalists and media institutions by Israeli aircraft is a full-fledged war crime aimed at silencing the truth and obliterating the traces of genocidal crimes.”

Following Anas al Sharif’s death, a post described as his “last will and testament” was posted on X.

It read: “If these words of mine reach you, know that Israel has succeeded in killing me and silencing my voice.”

The 28-year-old added that he laments being able to fulfil his dream of seeing his son and daughter grow up – and alleged he had witnessed children “crushed by thousands of tonnes of Israeli bombs and missiles”.

“Do not forget Gaza … and do not forget me in your prayers for forgiveness and acceptance,” he wrote.

The CPJ reported that his father was killed by an Israeli airstrike on their family home in December 2023 after the journalist received telephone threats from Israeli army officers instructing him to cease coverage.

Israel shut down the Al Jazeera television network in the country in May last year.

World

Stakes high for Trump-Putin summit as Zelenskyy faces nightmare deal

Published

17 hours ago

August 10, 2025

admin

Stakes high for Trump-Putin summit as Zelenskyy faces nightmare deal

For Ukraine – its exhausted, brave soldiers, its thousands of bereaved families mourning their dead, and its beleaguered president – it is exactly what they feared it would be.

They fear the compromise they will be forced to make will be messy, costly, unfair and ultimately beneficial to the invading tyrant who brought death and destruction to their sovereign land.

Six weeks ago, I spoke to President Zelenskyy in London.

War latest: Team Trump ‘risk being out of their depth’ at Putin meeting

I put it to him in our Sky News interview that Presidents Trump and Putin were heading towards making a deal between themselves, a grand bargain, in which Ukraine was but one piece on the chessboard.

Zelenskyy smiled as if to acknowledge the reality ahead.

He paused and then he said this: “We are not going to be a card in talks between great nations, and we will never accept that… I definitely do not want to see global deals between America and Russia.

“We don’t need it. We are a separate story, a victim of Russian aggression and we will not reward it.”

It was a response that betrayed his greatest fear – that this will become essentially a Trump negotiation in which Zelenskyy and Ukraine will be told “take it or leave it”.

And, by the way, if you “leave it”, then it will be painful.

Harsh realities

It’s the prospect that now confronts Zelenskyy as Trump and Putin plough ahead on a course that has clear attractions for both of them.

Of course, Zelenskyy is right to say there can be no deal without Ukraine. But there are harsh realities at play here.

Trump wants a deal on Ukraine – any deal – that he can chalk up as a win. He wants it badly and he wants it now.

It’s the impediment to a broader strategic deal with Putin and he wants it out of the way. It’s what he does, and it’s the way he does it. And President Putin knows it.

He knows Trump, he sees an opportunity in Trump, and he can’t get across Russia to Alaska fast enough. He will be back at global diplomacy’s top table.

Always a deal to be done

Make no mistake, when Trump says he just wants to stop the killing, he means it. Such wanton loss of young lives offends him. He keeps saying it.

He sees war, by and large, as an unnecessary waste of life and of money. Deals are there to be done. There’s always a deal.

Sadly for Ukraine, in this case, it is unlikely to be a fair deal.

How can any deal be “fair” when you are the victim of outrageous brutality and heinous crimes.

But it may well be the deal they have to take unless they want to fight an increasingly one-sided war with much less help from Trump and America.

A senior UK diplomat told me if things turn out as feared, it should not be called a land-for-peace deal. It should be called annexation “because that’s what it is”.

But here’s the rub.

Peace, calm, the end of the nightly terror of war has much to recommend it. In short, a bad peace can often seem better than no peace. But, ultimately, rewarded dictators always come back for more.

If Ukraine has to accept a bad peace, then it will want clear security guarantees to make sure it cannot happen again.

It is the very least they deserve.

There is much at stake in Alaska.