At least 60 people have been killed in Israeli strikes across Gaza, health staff have said.

A dozen people were killed near the Palestine Stadium in Gaza City, which was sheltering displaced people, along with eight more living in apartments, according to staff at Shifa hospital, where the bodies were brought.

Six others were killed in southern Gaza when a strike hit their tent in Muwasi, according to the hospital.

Follow latest: ‘Death to America’ chants in Tehran

The strikes, which began late on Friday and continued into Saturday morning, came as US President Donald Trump said there could be a ceasefire agreement within the next week.

“We’re working on Gaza and trying to get it taken care of,” he told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday.

Ron Dermer, Israel’s minister for strategic affairs, will arrive in Washington next week for talks on Gaza’s ceasefire, Iran and other subjects, an official told the Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

The last ceasefire agreed back in mid-January ended in March.

The war in Gaza was sparked after Hamas launched its attack on Israel in October 2023, killing some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and abducting 251 people.

Some 50 hostages remain in Gaza, with fewer than half of them still believed to be alive.

More than 56,000 Palestinians have been killed during the war, according to Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants.

Read more from Sky News:
Truth about success of US strikes on Iran lies deep underground
Fury of helicopter crash victim’s son over sealed documents

Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

The UN has also warned that people in Gaza are “starving”, with Israel allowing a trickle of supplies into the territory since mid-May after blocking all food for more than two months.

Palestinians have been shot at and killed while on their way to get food at aid sites, according to Gaza’s health officials and witnesses.

Israel’s military said it was investigating incidents in which civilians had been harmed while approaching the sites.

As the president himself said, this was a “giant” of a decision – a significant moment to end a week of whiplash-inducing news.

The decision by the US Supreme Court is a big win for President Donald Trump.

By a majority of 6-3, the highest court in the land has ruled that federal judges have been overreaching in their authority by blocking or freezing the executive orders issued by the president.

Over the last few months, a series of presidential actions by Trump have been blocked by injunctions issued by federal district judges.

The federal judges, branded “radical leftist lunatics” by the president, have ruled on numerous individual cases, most involving immigration.

They have then applied their rulings as nationwide injunctions – thus blocking the Trump administration’s policies.

“It was a grave threat to democracy frankly,” the president said at a hastily arranged news conference in the White House briefing room.

“Instead of merely ruling on the immediate case before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,” he said.

In simple terms, this ruling – from a Supreme Court weighted towards conservative judges – frees up the president to push on with his agenda, less opposed by the courts.

“This is such a big day,” the president said.

“It gives power back to people that should have it, including Congress, including the presidency, and it only takes bad power away from judges. It takes bad power, sick power and unfair power.

“And it’s really going to be… a very monumental decision.”

The country’s most senior member of the Democratic Party was to the point with his reaction to the ruling.

Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer called it “an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court”.

In a statement, Schumer wrote: “By weakening the power of district courts to check the presidency, the court is not defending the constitution – it’s defacing it.

“This ruling hands Donald Trump yet another green light in his crusade to unravel the foundations of American democracy.”

Federal power in the US is, constitutionally, split equally between the three branches of government – the executive branch (the presidency), the legislative branch (Congress) and the judiciary (the Supreme Court and other federal courts).

They are designed to ensure a separation of power and to ensure that no single branch becomes too powerful.

This ruling was prompted by a case brought over an executive order issued by President Trump on his inauguration day to end birthright citizenship – that constitutional right to be an American citizen if born here.

A federal judge froze the decision, ruling it to be in defiance of the 14th amendment of the constitution.

The Supreme Court has deferred its judgment on this particular case, instead ruling more broadly on the powers of the federal judges.

The court was divided along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent.

👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈

In her dissent, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote: “​​As I understand the concern, in this clash over the respective powers of two coordinate branches of government, the majority sees a power grab – but not by a presumably lawless executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the constitution.

“Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are… (wait for it)… the district courts.”

Another liberal Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, described the majority ruling by her fellow justices as: “Nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution.”

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed during his first term, shifting the balance of left-right power in the court, led this particular ruling.

Writing for the majority, she said: “When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

The focus now for those who deplore this decision will be to apply ‘class action’ – to file lawsuits on behalf of a large group of people rather than applying a single case to the whole nation.

There is no question though that the president and his team will feel significantly emboldened to push through their policy agenda with fewer blocks and barriers.

Read more from Sky News:
DR Congo and Rwanda sign US-brokered peace deal
‘Life-changing’ drug for teenager who lost mother to genetic condition

The ruling ends a giddy week for the president.

Last Saturday he ordered the US military to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites. Within two days he had forced both Israel and Iran to a ceasefire.

By mid-week he was in The Hague for the NATO summit where the alliance members had agreed to his defence spending demands.

At an Oval Office event late on Friday, where he presided over the signing of a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, he also hinted at a possible ceasefire “within a week” in Gaza.

A truly consequential week seems set to be followed by another.

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda have signed a peace deal which Donald Trump said he brokered – resulting in the US getting “a lot” of mineral rights in the process.

The deal has been touted as an important step towards ending the decades-long conflict in eastern DRC which has caused the deaths of six million people.

US secretary of state Marco Rubio called it “an important moment after 30 years of war”.

The Congo-Rwanda conflict explained

Earlier on Friday, President Trump said he was able to broker a deal for “one of the worst wars anyone’s ever seen”.

“I was able to get them together and sell it,” Mr Trump said. “And not only that, we’re getting for the United States a lot of the mineral rights from Congo.”

‘Great deal of uncertainty’

The Rwanda-backed M23 rebel group, the most prominent armed group in the conflict, has suggested that the agreement won’t be binding for them.

It hasn’t been directly involved in the planned peace deal.

DRC foreign minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner invoked the millions of victims of the conflict in signing the agreement with Rwandan foreign minister Olivier Nduhungirehe.

The agreement, signed by the foreign ministers during a ceremony with Mr Rubio in Washington, pledges to implement a 2024 deal that would see Rwandan troops withdraw from eastern DRC within 90 days, according to a copy seen by Reuters.

Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

Read more from Sky News:
Diddy’s defence lawyer mocks case in closing argument
Nike says Trump tariffs could cost it $1bn

“Some wounds will heal, but they will never fully disappear,” Ms Wagner said. “Those who have suffered the most are watching. They are expecting this agreement to be respected, and we cannot fail them.”

Mr Nduhungirehe noted the “great deal of uncertainty” because previous agreements were not put in place.

“There is no doubt that the road ahead will not be easy,” he said. “But with the continued support of the United States and other partners, we believe that a turning point has been reached.”