Category: 2. World

On July 31, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a 25 percent “reciprocal” tariff on Indian imports, effective August 7, aimed at forcing New Delhi to lower its barriers to trade for American goods. Trump subsequently signed an executive order imposing an additional 25 percent tariff on imports from India, beginning August 27, for its continued purchases of Russian oil. However, after the last week’s summit meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, it is unclear whether this second tariff will still go into effect in late August. If it does, the total tariff on India would be the steepest rate applied to a U.S. trading partner, thus locking the United States and India in their most serious trade dispute in decades.

The Indian government has decried the tariffs, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has pledged to protect his domestic producers no matter the cost. Nevertheless, both sides have kept diplomatic channels open for discussion of a possible deal. CFR turned to Distinguished Fellow Kenneth I. Juster—who served as ambassador to India during the first Trump administration—to better understand the nuances behind the trade dispute, the response in India, and the pathways that remain to a resolution.

The Trump administration recently raised tariffs on Indian imports to 25 percent and, possibly, to 50 percent. What is the strategy behind the levy, and why has the White House placed its highest tariff level on a strategic partner?

Trump tends to approach issues with other countries primarily with a bilateral focus and largely in the context of a particular set of concerns. He also believes deeply in the concept of reciprocity. From the president’s perspective, the economic relationship between the United States and India has been out of balance for many years. He is concerned about India’s high barriers to trade and the significant U.S. trade deficit with India. The administration’s 25 percent reciprocal tariff on Indian imports is designed to put pressure on India to open the market further opening measures and agree to a trade deal.  

The White House has also threatened to impose an additional 25 percent tariff beginning August 27 if India does not eliminate its sizable imports of Russian oil. In this case, the president’s concern is that payments for the large volume of Indian oil imports provide critical financial support for Russia’s war against Ukraine and the killing of many innocent civilians. Trump’s objective, if he moves forward with this second tariff, is to indirectly pressure Putin to agree to a plan to end the war by cutting off some of Russia’s financial resources. Trump could also be trying to incentivize Modi to appeal directly to Putin in this regard. However, following Trump’s meeting with Putin, there are reports that he could suspend the implementation of this additional tariff. Of course, this situation could change depending on Trump’s assessment of progress in the Russia-Ukraine talks.

Ultimately, the high tariff rates on India appear to me to be part of a negotiation. This is a similar tactic to what the president has used in other deals, including the trade agreements with Japan and the European Union. Nonetheless, Trump’s rhetoric and public threats could well make it more difficult domestically for Modi to take the desired measures.

I do not believe that Trump approaches these trade issues as part of a broader Indo-Pacific strategy, or as inconsistent with U.S. and Indian joint strategic objectives in the Indo-Pacific region. It would therefore be a mistake—and certainly premature—for the government of India to view these tariffs as fundamentally undercutting the strategic partnership that the two countries have developed over the last twenty-five years. I believe the president still has a strong interest in the U.S.-India partnership and enjoys his good relationship with Modi. But he also favors the use of tariffs to try to rebalance the economic relationship and, if he imposes the additional tariff, to help close another deal—one between Russia and Ukraine—for an end to hostilities.

What has the reaction been from the Indian side? What position does this put Modi in at home politically and economically?

The reaction in India has been multifaceted. Initially, because the government of India felt the parties were close to announcing a trade deal, the reaction was one of surprise that there were additional issues to address. When the level of the rhetoric from the White House increased by labeling India’s tariffs “obnoxious” and calling the Indian economy “dead,” there was a sense of indignation among Indian commentators. This was exacerbated by the president’s repeated statement that he had brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, which the Indians have publicly disputed (thereby irritating Trump in the process).

More recently, when the president announced the threatened imposition of a 25 percent additional tariff on August 27, India’s Ministry of External Affairs called this action “unfair, unjustified, and unreasonable,” and asserted that India “will take all necessary steps to protect its national interests.” Modi also vowed not to compromise the welfare of India’s farmers, dairy sector, or fishermen, and stated that he is personally ready “to pay a heavy price for it.” Regrettably, respected voices in India are now questioning the value of their strategic partnership with the United States.

The United States, however, is India’s largest and most important trading partner. Almost 20 percent of India’s total merchandise exports go to the United States. Even though the reciprocal tariff exempts some key sectors, such as pharmaceuticals, electronics, and energy—which account for approximately 40 percent of India’s total merchandise exports to the United States—the detrimental impact of the tariff will still be significant, especially in sectors such as textiles, gems and jewelry, and auto parts.

Given the vibrant political discourse in India, Modi needed to respond publicly and firmly to the new tariffs. But he should also be careful not to paint himself into a corner and to remain open to discussing ways to resolve the current trade dispute. I understand that the two leaders are trying to arrange a meeting in the United States in late September, when both plan to attend the UN General Assembly.

U.S.-India relations have progressed a long way over the past two-and-a-half decades. How do these tariffs affect the U.S.-India relationship and their respective relationships with China?

The steady progress in U.S.-India relations over the past twenty-five years, through changes in government on both sides and across political parties, has been extraordinary. This includes Trump’s first term, when he and Modi developed a warm friendship. However, the economic component of the bilateral relationship has always underperformed relative to its potential.

While there have been trade disputes in the past between the United States and India, this one is more acute though still solvable. Despite the initial rhetorical flourish by both sides, Washington and New Delhi are keeping open lines of communication and, hopefully, beginning to discuss constructive ways to close a trade deal. Ultimately, the planned meeting in September between Trump and Modi is probably needed to resolve outstanding issues and get the relationship back on track.

Continuation of this trade dispute would inevitably have a negative impact on certain sectors of India’s economy, as the tariffs affect over 55 percent of Indian shipments to the United States. For example, in the textile and apparel sector, India competes with Vietnam and Bangladesh, which each have a lower reciprocal tariff rate. If American companies shift their sourcing away from India and toward these other countries, the damage to India in terms of lost business and jobs would be significant. In the estimation of some experts, the loss of export trade could lower India’s domestic growth by approximately 0.5 percent or more, depending on how long the high tariffs last. 

The tariffs will also impose costs on U.S. companies and consumers. To the degree that U.S. companies incorporate Indian parts or components into their products, the cost of these inputs will increase (or substitute inputs will need to be found where possible). And U.S. consumers of Indian products will have higher costs and less choice in sectors such as textiles, gems and jewelry, auto parts, and certain foodstuffs. The impact in both countries will depend on a combination of factors, including product differentiation, demand, quality, and contractual arrangements. 

Beyond these economic issues, the failure to conclude a deal could cause spillover collateral damage to other aspects of the bilateral relationship, including in defense and technology cooperation. The weakening of the U.S.-India relationship would inevitably be of strategic benefit to China—and that is not in the interest of either the United States or India. Both Washington and New Delhi should recognize that their bilateral relationship is more significant and impactful than any arrangement either of them can work out with China, which remains a strategic challenge for both countries.

Both sides have emphasized their desire to make a deal in the past. What is their best path to progress from this moment of trade tension?

The United States and India need to address two issues: The 25 percent reciprocal tariff related to a trade agreement and the possible additional 25 percent tariff related to India’s oil imports from Russia. 

Regarding the potential tariff relating to Russian oil imports, India’s initial position seems to be to wait and see what the impact will be of the talks between Trump and Putin. While an early resolution of the Russia-Ukraine conflict would eliminate any tariff on Russian oil imports, this protracted conflict is unlikely to be settled soon. Accordingly, while it would probably be impractical for the Indians to terminate all oil imports from Russia, they could wish to quietly lower their level of Russian oil imports and substitute them with more energy imports from the United States. Some reports indicate that this process could already be starting. If so, that could enable New Delhi to request Washington to delay any implementation of the threatened tariff. And if Trump and Modi can resolve outstanding trade issues when they meet in late September, perhaps the United States will agree to drop the extra 25 percent tariff altogether, even if the Russia-Ukraine conflict has not been resolved.

Regarding the 25 percent reciprocal tariff, Trump’s imposition of this is, in my mind, a negotiating tactic rather than a desire to jettison the U.S.-India strategic partnership. Under these circumstances, New Delhi should avoid the temptation to impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports, which would likely be counterproductive. Fortunately, I see no evidence that India is planning to take such action. However exasperated the Indian government could be by recent events, it should try to be as creative as possible in presenting further ideas for discussion with its U.S. counterparts. 

Perhaps the Indians can carefully review other U.S. trade deals to see if there are elements that they could borrow to enhance what they have already put on table. This could include pledges of further investment by Indian companies in the United States, the allowance of duty-free access for certain agricultural items such as cotton and blueberries, and the acceptance of some other items under limited quotas. I also recall during Trump’s first term that the two countries had outlined a proposal for limited U.S. dairy imports. Perhaps that could be resurrected. 

Based on my experience, Modi is an extremely skillful interlocutor and is well suited to a high-stakes meeting with Trump. The prime minister would likely want to emphasize the strategic importance of the bilateral relationship and his appreciation for the good rapport between the two leaders over time. While Modi should be prepared to provide ideas on how to sweeten India’s offers on trade, procurements, and investments, he could also reference his own constraints as the head of a democratic government and the areas where he will need some U.S. understanding and flexibility. 

Hopefully, the two leaders can then reach an agreement, with a final reciprocal tariff rate conceivably at 15 percent but in no event greater than 20 percent. Such a resolution would also pave the way for a visit by Trump to New Delhi later in the year for the Quad summit.

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising associated legal practices that are separate entities, including Mayer Brown LLP (Illinois, USA), Mayer Brown International LLP (England & Wales), Mayer Brown Hong Kong LLP (a Hong Kong limited liability partnership) and Tauil & Chequer Advogados (a Brazilian law partnership) (collectively, the “Mayer Brown Practices”). The Mayer Brown Practices are established in various jurisdictions and may be a legal person or a partnership. PK Wong & Nair LLC (“PKWN”) is the constituent Singapore law practice of our licensed joint law venture in Singapore, Mayer Brown PK Wong & Nair Pte. Ltd. More information about the individual Mayer Brown Practices and PKWN can be found in the Legal Notices section of our website.

“Mayer Brown” and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of Mayer Brown.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

If there was a sign that Volodymyr Zelenskyy wasn’t going to be immediately voted off the island of the Donald Trump diplomacy show, it came early on when a familiar voice commended his choice of attire.

“President Zelensky, you look fabulous in that suit,” said Brian Glenn, a pro-Trump pundit and member of the White House press corps, who had attacked him for wearing military fatigues during the infamous Oval Office meeting in February. “I said the same thing,” Trump added.

“You are in the same suit,” Zelenskyy shot back, earning smiles and laughter from the room including the US president. “I changed, you did not.”

Thus did Zelenskyy survive his first media appearance at the White House with Trump on Monday as the US president focused less on belittling the leader of a wartime ally than boasting – and in many cases exaggerating – his exploits as a peacemaker in world conflicts.

Zelenskyy, dressed reluctantly in a black military-style suit to appease sticklers for protocol in the White House, largely sat by quietly as Trump claimed to have hammered out peace deals in six wars including one the veteran real estate developer said had taken place in the “Republic of the Condo”.

From Trump there was hyperbole about his ability to broker peace deals, digressions to internal US political battles over mail-in ballots, nebulous declarations about how he would end the conflict and evasions over how he would do that without negotiating a ceasefire.

But there were no explosions – which meant for Zelenskyy it probably went as well as it could have.

Luckily, Zelenskyy had some help, as he was joined by the UK’s Keir Starmer and the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Finland and the European Union in order to keep the discussion on track and to prevent a similar meltdown as took place in February.

It was billed as a European summit at the White House on Monday, but it might as well have been an intervention.

The European leaders were all smiles as they arrived at the White House on Monday afternoon, but they were there to steer Trump away from being sweet-talked by Vladimir Putin into a bad deal on Ukraine and Europe.

Before Trump rolled out the red carpet (literally) for Vladimir Putin in Alaska last week, he said that he would know within two minutes of meeting the Kremlin leader whether it would be possible or not to negotiate with him.

But within two minutes of meeting Zelenskyy, Trump sent a message when he was asked early in a press conference whether Russia or Ukraine “had the better cards”.

“I don’t want to say that,” said Trump, who in February directly told Zelenskyy that he “didn’t have the cards to negotiate”.

Then, he went back and played the classics: “Look, this isn’t my war. This is Joe Biden’s war.”

The Ukrainian leader’s arrival at the White House on Monday had potentially threatened the kind of political fireworks – or some could say depth charges – that scuttled the Ukrainian leader’s last visit to Washington in February.

Then Trump and vice-president JD Vance teamed up for a brutal takedown of Zelenskyy during which Trump told him that he was “playing with world war III”.

But on Monday, Zelenskyy found a far more hospitable welcome from both Trump and Vance, and he kicked off the meeting with some high-level flattery, thanking Trump profusely for his efforts to end the conflict and praising Melania Trump for sending a letter to Putin about abducted Ukrainian children.

There was little detail about the peace deal that Trump wanted to hammer out, except for the fact that he wanted to skip past a ceasefire – too difficult to actually negotiate – and go straight for a peace deal.

And yet it appeared that all – or at least most – sides were keen to smooth over their differences in order to prevent Ukraine as being seen as the main obstruction to peace and of throwing the ball back to Putin.

The EU’s most substantive pushback (in public at least) came as the leaders all sat around a table and Germany’s Friedrich Merz and France’s Emmanuel Macron both called for a ceasefire before talks over territory or a peace deal moved forward.

Trump didn’t appear to take umbrage although he had ruled out a ceasefire earlier – and doubled down after Merz again called for a halt in the fighting.

But the most white-knuckle moment of the introductory remarks came as Zelenskyy began to delve into detail on Ukraine’s priorities for ending the war, all good points that Trump appeared to have little interest in discussing in depth.

As the minutes ticked by, Macron’s face grew dour. Trump tried to break in but Zelenskyy continued to speak.

Then suddenly, as though coming to, the Ukrainian leader straightened up in his seat and quickly wrapped up his remarks. Mark Rutte, the secretary general of Nato, quickly jumped in and, as soon as possible, said the main words that Trump wanted to hear: “Thank you.”

It’s now a week since Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced his government had begun to formally consider New Zealand’s position on the recognition of a Palestinian state.

That leaves three weeks until the United Nations General Assembly convenes on September 9, where it is expected several key allies will change position and recognise Palestinian statehood.

Already in a minority of UN member states which don’t recognise a Palestinian state, New Zealand risks becoming more of an outlier if and when Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom make good on their recent pledges.

Luxon has said the decision is “complex”, but opposition parties certainly don’t see it that way. Labour leader Chris Hipkins says it’s “the right thing to do”, and Greens co-leader Chloë Swarbrick has called on government MPs to “grow a spine” (for which she was controversially ejected from the debating chamber).

Former Labour prime minister Helen Clark has also criticised the government for trailing behind its allies, and for appearing to put trade relations with the United States ahead of taking a moral stand over Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Certainly, those critics – including the many around the country who marched during the weekend – are correct in implying New Zealand has missed several opportunities to show independent leadership on the issue.

The distraction factor

While it has been open to New Zealand to recognise it as a state since Palestine declared its independence in 1988, there was an opportunity available in May last year when the Irish, Spanish and Norwegian governments took the step.

That month, New Zealand also joined 142 other states calling on the Security Council to admit Palestine as a full member of the UN. But in a subsequent statement, New Zealand said its vote should not be implied as recognising Palestinian statehood, a position I called “a kind of muddled, awkward fence-sitting”.

It is still not too late, however, for New Zealand to take a lead. In particular, the government could make a more straightforward statement on Palestinian statehood than its close allies.

The statements from Australia, Canada and the UK are filled with caveats, conditions and contingencies. None are straightforward expressions of solidarity with the Palestinian right of self-determination under international law.

As such, they present political and legal problems New Zealand could avoid.

Politically, this late wave of recognition by other countries risks becoming a distraction from the immediate starvation crisis in Gaza. As the Israeli journalist Gideon Levy and UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese have noted, these considered and careful diplomatic responses distract from the brutal truth on the ground.

This was also Chloë Swarbrick’s point during the snap debate in parliament last week. Her private members bill, she noted, offers a more concrete alternative, by imposing sanctions and a trade embargo on Israel. (At present, it seems unlikely the government would support this.)

Beyond traditional allies

Legally, the proposed recognitions of statehood are far from ideal because they place conditions on that recognition, including how a Palestinian state should be governed.

The UK has made recognition conditional on Israel not agreeing to a ceasefire and continuing to block humanitarian aid into Gaza. That is extremely problematic, given recognition could presumably be withdrawn if Israel agreed to those demands.

Such statements are not exercises in genuine solidarity with Palestinian self-determination, which is defined in UN Resolution 1514 (1960) as the right of peoples “to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”.

Having taken more time to consider its position, New Zealand could now articulate a more genuine statement of recognition that fulfils the legal obligation to respect and promote self-determination under international law.

A starting point would be to look beyond the small group of “traditional allies” to countries such as Ireland that have already formally recognised the State of Palestine. Importantly, Ireland acknowledged Palestinian “peaceful self-determination” (along with Israel’s), but did not express any other conditions or caveats.

New Zealand could also show leadership by joining with that wider group of allies to shape the coming General Assembly debate. The aim would be to shift the language from conditional recognition of Palestine toward a politically and legally more tenable position.

That would also sit comfortably with the country’s track record in other areas of international diplomacy – most notably the campaign to abolish nuclear weapons, where New Zealand has also taken a different approach to its traditional allies.

The State Department has revoked more than 6,000 international student visas because of violations of US law and overstays, the department told the BBC.

The agency said the “vast majority” of the violations were assault, driving under the influence (DUI), burglary and “support for terrorism”.

The move comes as the Trump administration continues its crackdown on immigration and international students.

While the State Department did not specify what they meant by “support for terrorism”, the Trump administration has targeted some students who have protested in support of Palestine, arguing they had expressed antisemitic behaviour.

Of the 6,000 student visas that were revoked, the State Department said about 4,000 of those were revoked because visitors broke the law.

Another 200-300 visas were also revoked for “terrorism done under INA 3B”, the State Department said, referring to code that defines “terrorist activity” broadly as acts that endanger human life or violate US law.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration paused scheduling visa appointments for international students. In June, when they restarted appointments, they announced they would ask all applicants to make their social media accounts public for enhanced screening.

They said they would search for “any indications of hostility toward the citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles of the United States”.

State Department officers were also instructed to screen for those “who advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to national security; or who perpetrate unlawful anti-Semitic harassment or violence”.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers in May that he estimated “thousands” of student visas had been rescinded since January.

“I don’t know the latest count, but we probably have more to do,” Rubio told US lawmakers on 20 May. “We’re going to continue to revoke the visas of people who are here as guests and are disrupting our higher education facilities.”

Democrats have pushed back against the Trump administration’s effort to revoke student visas, describing it is an attack on due process.

More than 1.1 million international students from over 210 countries were enrolled in US colleges in the 2023-24 school year, according to Open Doors, an organisation that collects data on foreign students.

Relentless heat and raging wildfires continue to ravage southern Europe, with one-quarter of weather stations in Spain recording 40C temperatures, as the prime minister urged people to “leave the climate emergency outside of partisan struggles”.

The Spanish weather agency Aemet recorded a high of 45.8C in Cádiz on Sunday, while one in eight weather stations nationwide hit peaks of at least 42C (108F) . The agency warned of “very high or extreme fire danger” in most of the country in a post on social media on Monday.

“Although the heatwave is starting to subside, very high temperatures will still be reached today in the east and south of the peninsula,” it said. “Be cautious.”

Deadly fires have burned 348,000 hectares in Spain this year, according to preliminary data published by Copernicus on Monday, charring even more land than when the previous record was set in 2022.

A fourth person was killed by the fires in Spain when a firefighting truck overturned on a steep forest road, while in neighbouring Portugal, where 216,000 hectares have burned, another firefighter died, bringing the national death toll to two.

Civil protection authorities in Spain said 31,130 people have been evacuated from their homes in the last week.

The Spanish government said on Sunday that an extra 500 soldiers would join the 1,400 troops trying to bring deadly wildfires under control. The prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, announced a “state pact” to tackle the climate emergency as he visited Ourense and León, one of the regions engulfed by flames.

“We need a strategy that anticipates a better, more secure and more equitable response for our fellow citizens in the face of the worsening and accelerating effects of the climate emergency in our country,” Sánchez said. “And that requires a great state pact that leaves the climate emergency outside of partisan struggles and ideological issues, where we focus on scientific evidence and act accordingly.”

Sánchez’s proposed pact received a dismissive response from the opposition conservative People’s party (PP), which has called for more troop deployments and accused the prime minister of absenting himself from the crisis.

“State pacts don’t put out the flames, nor do they restore what’s been lost,” said Ester Muñoz, a PP spokesperson. “People were expecting a lot more than a smokescreen designed to save his reputation after he’d gone missing for a week.”

Extreme heat, made hotter by carbon pollution, has fuelled devastating wildfires across southern Europe this month, the latest in a series of disasters exacerbated by climate breakdown amid a continental rollback of green policies.

Data from last week shows the blazes have burned at least 530,000 hectares this year, more than double the average over the past two decades, forcing several overwhelmed governments from Spain to Bulgaria to seek firefighting help from the EU. Portugal activated the EU’s civil protection mechanism on Friday with a request for four Canadair water-bombing planes.

The prolonged heatwave has broken temperature records across the continent. It is expected to die down in Spain after Monday and subsided in some countries over the weekend.

Météo France, the French national weather agency, said temperatures had fallen on Sunday but the wildfire risk remained high or very high in several southern regions.

“The Mediterranean and south-western departments of the country are experiencing significant drought, which means that vegetation is highly sensitive to fire,” the agency said on Monday. It added that the rise in daytime temperatures had been limited by smoke from the Spanish and Portuguese wildfires, as well as plumes of Saharan sand.

In Portugal, which has been under a state of alert since the start of the month, large rural fires have killed two people and caused several injuries.

The minister for internal affairs, Maria Lúcia Amaral, extended the wildfire alert on Sunday until Tuesday night but left a press conference when journalists tried to ask questions, Portuguese media reported. André Ventura, the head of the far-right Chega party, called for her resignation. “We are reaching the limit of what is acceptable,” he said on Sunday.

In a radio interview on Monday morning, Spain’s defence minister, Margarita Robles, said the fires were unlikely to be brought under control until the heatwave ended later on Monday. “We’re not going to be able to end this situation until the heatwave dies down,” Robles told Cadena Ser. “We’re seeing fires with different characteristics because of climate change.”

She said the Military Emergencies Unit (UME), founded to help deal with disasters, had never faced such challenging conditions. “We’re seeing a fire situation that’s never been seen before. The UME hasn’t seen anything like this since it was established 20 years ago.”

Hamas officials say they have accepted a proposal for a Gaza ceasefire deal that would include the release of half of the approximately 20 remaining living Israeli hostages as part of a phased resolution to the war, as Gaza health officials said 62,000 Palestinians had died in the 22 months of war.

The proposed deal follows negotiations between Hamas and Egyptian and Qatari officials that have been taking place in Cairo in recent days, and comes after the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was confronted on Sunday by Israel’s biggest protests of the war, which called for a deal to secure the release of the hostages.

Netanyahu has criticised the large-scale street protests against his handling of the Gaza war, and his failure to secure the release of the remaining hostages, claiming that demonstrators were giving comfort to Hamas’s position in negotiations.

Organisers of the protests, for their part, have called for a fresh demonstrations this Sunday.

The latest Gaza ceasefire proposal agreed by Hamas includes a suspension of military operations for 60 days and could be seen as a path to reach a comprehensive deal to end the nearly two-year-long war, according to Egyptian sources.

During the period of suspension, Palestinian prisoners would be exchanged in return for half of the Israeli hostages held in Gaza.

The suggestion of movement in the long-running ceasefire negotiations comes as Egypt – long regarded as a key mediator between Hamas and Israel – has taken a more central role in the talks, and amid threats by Israel to launch a large new military offensive to take control of Gaza City, potentially displacing up to 1 million Palestinians.

The proposal was expected to be presented to Israel on Monday, although Netanyahu has said Israel is no longer interested in part deals, saying it will only agree to end the war if Hamas releases all of the hostages at once, disarms, and allows for the demilitarisation of Gaza.

Realistically, however, the latest round of talks – which Arab mediators suggest has gone a long way towards meeting previous Israeli objections, and is based on a US-proposed framework – is bound to feed into a febrile political situation in Israel, which is facing growing and acrimonious social and political divisions.

Netanyahu has faced high-profile pushback from senior security officials who have warned that the lives of the remaining hostages could be in peril in the event of a new offensive to take Gaza City, warnings that have fed into the mass protests.

The Israeli government’s plan to seize control of Gaza City has stirred alarm at home and abroad, as it has come under intensifying international pressure over growing starvation in Gaza, which it is blamed for, and accusations of genocide.

Talks have been continuing in Egypt with participants including the Qatari prime minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, the head of Egypt’s general intelligence service, and representatives of the Palestinian factions in Gaza, who are under pressure to reach a deal.

While Netanyahu received the backing of the US president, Donald Trump, on Monday for “confronting and defeating Hamas”, the vast scale of the demonstrations in Israel on Sunday – involving more than 400,000 people – suggested an increasing weariness in the country over the war and fury about missed opportunities to secure the hostages’ release.

In response to the protests, Netanyahu, who is wanted by the international criminal court over allegations of war crimes in Gaza, accused those participating of giving comfort to Hamas.

He said in a statement: “The people who are calling today for the war’s end without Hamas’s defeat are not only toughening Hamas’s stance and distancing our hostages’ release, they are also ensuring that the atrocities of October 7 will recur time and again, and that our sons and daughters will have to fight time and again in an endless war.

“Therefore, in order to advance our hostages’ release and to ensure that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel, we have to finish the job and defeat Hamas.”

With 50 hostages still held in Gaza – of whom about 20 are believed to be alive – some of those attending the march carried signs referencing the death of the dual US-Israeli citizen Hersh Goldberg-Polin, who was killed by his captors last October along with five other hostages as Israeli troops approached the place where they were being held.

Placards repeated a sentiment expressed by Goldberg-Polin’s father at his son’s funeral – “May your memory be a revolution” – adapting the familiar Jewish expression of condolence: “May your memory be a blessing.”

Responding to Netanyahu’s remarks, the Hostages and Missing Families Forum lambasted the Israeli prime minister, saying: “They have been languishing in Gaza for 22 months, on your watch.”

Netanyahu was also fiercely criticised by the leader of the Israeli opposition Democrats party, Yair Golan, as a man who “lies as he breathes”. He said: “The man who time and again refused to eliminate Hamas’s leaders before October 7, who funnelled hundreds of millions of dollars from Qatar to finance the tunnels and weapons that threaten our hostages.

“This is the same Netanyahu who strengthened Hamas back then, and it is he who is strengthening Hamas now as well. Netanyahu doesn’t know how to win and doesn’t want to free the hostages. He needs an eternal war in order to cling to his seat and to escape a commission of inquiry [into the 7 October Hamas attack that triggered the war].”

Amid the threat of an imminent Israeli ground offensive, thousands of Palestinians have left their homes in eastern areas of Gaza City, under constant Israeli bombardment, for points in the west and south of the shattered territory.

Donald Trump has ruled out a ceasefire in Ukraine as Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his European allies visited the White House to push for US-backed security guarantees as part of any long-term peace deal.

The US president, who only last week warned Russia of “very severe consequences” if Vladimir Putin failed to agree to a halt the fighting, made clear on Monday he had reversed his position.

Welcoming Zelenskyy to the hastily assembled meeting at the Oval Office, Trump referred to other conflicts which he claimed to have ended, telling reporters: “I don’t think you’d need a ceasefire. If you look at the six deals that I settled this year, they were all at war – I didn’t do any ceasefires.”

He did, however, say the US would help guarantee Ukraine’s safety – something Kyiv has long said would be essential for a lasting peace. Trump said: “When it comes to security, there’s going to be a lot of help.” But the US president made it clear that European countries would be expected to carry the burden, saying: “They are a first line of defence because they’re there. But we’ll help them out.”

Trump also expressed hope that the talks with Zelenskyy could lead to a trilateral meeting with Putin. “I think if everything works out well today we’ll have a trilat, and I think there will be a reasonable chance of ending the war when we do that.”

Trump added: “I just spoke to President Putin indirectly, and we’re going to have a phone call right after these meetings today – and we may or may not have a trilat.”

Trump’s meeting with Zelenskyy went more smoothly than their first encounter in the Oval Office six months ago, when the Ukrainian leader was ambushed and berated by Trump and Vice-President JD Vance.

This time, doubtless to the relief of European leaders who gathered for a second meeting at the White House, Zelenskyy gave Trump effusive thanks for the invitation and the pair even shared good-humoured banter while Vance remained silent.

Later, sitting with Keir Starmer and other European leaders in the east room, Trump acknowledged: “All of us would obviously prefer an immediate ceasefire while we work on a lasting peace. Maybe something like that could happen. As of this moment, it’s not happening.”

But some of the European allies refused to accept defeat on the issue, mindful that the lack of ceasefire buys Putin more time to wage his war of aggression. On Monday, Ukraine said Russian attacks on major cities had killed at least 10 people, including a toddler and her 16-year-old brother in Kharkiv.

Friedrich Merz, the chancellor of Germany, insisted that “we would all like to see a ceasefire” and he could not imagine the next meeting taking place without one.

“Let’s work on that and let’s try to put pressure on Russia – because the credibility of these efforts we are undertaking today depend on at least a ceasefire from the beginning of the serious negotiations,” Merz said.

Unmoved, Trump suggested that would be left to Zelenskyy and Putin: “Well, we’re going to let the president go over and talk to the president, and we’ll see how that works out.” He added: “And again I say it, in the six wars that I’ve settled, I haven’t had a ceasefire.”

Emmanuel Macron, the president of France, also backed the idea of a “truce” as a “necessity,” adding: “We all support this idea.”

Monday’s meeting came after Trump met Putin in Anchorage and said that the onus would now be on Zelenskyy to agree to concessions that he said could end the war. Some commentators saw it as a damage limitation exercise after Trump was apparently swayed by Putin and began to echo his talking points.

The US president told his fellow leaders: “We also need to discuss the possible exchanges of territory, taking into consideration the current line of contact – that means the war zone.”

But he also said Putin had accepted there would be security guarantees for Ukraine as part of any peace deal.

Trump said: “In a very significant step, President Putin agreed that Russia would accept security guarantees for Ukraine and this is one of the key points that we need to consider and we’re going to be considering that at the table, also who will do what essentially.”

Several of the leaders emphasised the importance of the security guarantees to deter Russia from attacking again. Macron said: “The first one is clearly a credible Ukrainian army for the years and decades to come.” Europe was also clear about carrying its “fair share” of the burden, he said, “so you can count on this as we can continue.”

Giorgia Meloni, the prime minister of Italy, said: ‘We will talk about many important topics. The first one is security guarantees, how to be sure that it won’t happen again, which is the precondition of every kind of peace.”

Trump has made a habit of carrying out high-stakes diplomacy before the cameras with a series of leaders who arrive in the Oval Office to face reporters’ questions. Monday was no different.

Asked by a journalist if it would be the “end of the road” for US support for Ukraine if no deal is struck, Trump said it was “never the end of the road. People are being killed and we want to stop that. So I would not say it’s the end of the road … I know the president, I know myself, and I believe Vladimir Putin wants to see it end.”

Trump added: “We’re going to make sure that if there’s peace, that peace is going to stay long-term … We’re not talking about a two-year peace and then we end up in this mess again.”

Zelenskyy outlined what he said his country needed to feel secure, which included a “strong Ukrainian army” through weapons sales and training. The second part, he said, would depend on the outcome of Monday’s talks and any guarantees European Union countries, Nato and the US would be able to offer to the war-torn country.

Trump declined to rule out sending US troops to Ukraine, noting it would be a discussion point with European leaders. “We’ll let you know that, maybe, later today. We’re meeting with seven great leaders of great countries, also, and we’ll be talking about that.”

He added: “They want to give protection and they feel very strongly about it and we’ll help them out with that. I think its very important to get the deal done.”

Zelenskyy’s charm offensive included presenting a letter from his wife, Olena Zelenska, for Trump’s wife Melania, who over the weekend wrote to Putin urging him to consider children impacted by the war.

In stark contrast to the acrimony in February, there were also lighter moments. Brian Glenn, a pro-Trump TV reporter, told Zelenskyy that “you look fabulous in that suit”. Glenn had asked the Ukrainian leader about his clothing during his last visit to the Oval Office, implying that his casual dress was disrespectful.

Trump jumped in, saying: “I said the same thing.” Turning to Zelenskyy, Trump said: “That’s the one that attacked you last time.”

“I remember that,” Zelenskyy said, before addressing Glenn: “But you are in the same suit … I changed, you have not.”

The European leaders held a preparatory meeting with the Ukrainian president in Washington on Monday morning, while Zelenskyy also met Trump’s Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg.

Zelenskyy described the talks at the White House as “very serious” and sought to flatter Trump by echoing his trademark “peace through strength” language.

But Trump had alarmed Kyiv and European capitals in recent days by repeating a number of Russian talking points.

Fiona Hill, a Russia expert former deputy assistant to the president, told Politico: “Trump has completely ceded narrative control to Putin. What Ukraine is just basically getting as a concession is for the Russians to stop fighting. And this is Putin’s way all the way through the 25 years of his presidency, which is: ‘I’m going to beat you up and my concession is that I stopped beating you up.’”