Qatar’s prime minister traveled to Egypt to discuss a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, the latest sign of a revival in negotiations to help end almost two years of devastating war.
Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani met with Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi on Monday, with discussions focusing on the importance of a truce and need to improve aid deliveries to Gaza’s 2 million-strong population, according to statements from both sides.
Hamas has agreed to a ceasefire-hostage deal with Israel, according to a senior official.
Egyptian and Qatari mediators have been holding talks with Hamas in their latest effort to broker a ceasefire with Israel in Gaza.
The Hamas official did not provide further details of the agreement or what had been accepted.
Hamas has responded positively to such deals in the past, while proposing amendments which have proved unacceptable to Israel.
Sky’s International Correspondent Diana Magnay in Jerusalem said the agreement appears to be similar to the plan put forward by Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, for a 60-day ceasefire deal.
“What we understand from Hamas, in relation to this deal, is that it would be within the 60-day ceasefire framework, but it would be a release of prisoners and detainees in two parts.
“What we understand from Arab channels is that Hamas agreed to it without major alterations,” she said.
An Egyptian official source told Reuters that, during the ceasefire, there would be an exchange of Palestinian prisoners in return for the release of half of the Israeli hostages held in Gaza.
There has been no word from Israel about the proposed ceasefire.
Diana Magnay said it is clear that mediators from Egypt and Qatar, potentially along with Hamas, felt under pressure because of Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to push further into Gaza City, “and that’s why you’ve had mediators over the weekend in Cairo trying to get some kind of plan on the table.”
“So the big question is, will Benjamin Netanyahu agree to this? We shall have to see whether it is his intention at any point to agree to a ceasefire or whether this is just too late now and he will use the opportunity to push on in Gaza,” she added.
Earlier on Monday, US President Donald Trump appeared to cast doubt on peace talks.
“We will only see the return of the remaining hostages when Hamas is confronted and destroyed!!! The sooner this takes place, the better the chances of success will be,” he posted on his Truth Social site.
Egypt’s Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty said mediators had been “exerting extensive efforts” to revive a US proposal for a 60-day ceasefire, during which hostages would be released and the sides would negotiate a lasting cessation of violence.
This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.
Please refresh the page for the latest version.
You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.
Hamas has agreed to the latest proposal from regional mediators for a Gaza ceasefire and hostage release deal with Israel, a source in the Palestinian armed group has told the BBC.
According to a Palestinian official familiar with the talks, the proposal from Egypt and Qatar is a comprehensive two-stage plan based on a framework advanced by US envoy Steve Witkoff.
It would see Hamas free around half of the 50 remaining Israeli hostages – 20 of whom are believed to be alive – in two stages during a 60-day temporary truce. During that time, there would be negotiations on a permanent ceasefire and an Israeli troop withdrawal.
There was no immediate comment from Israeli officials.
On Sunday night, hundreds of thousands of people gathered in Tel Aviv to demand that Israel’s government agree a deal with Hamas to return the hostages.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused the demonstrators of hardening the negotiating position of Hamas.
The latest development comes two days after Netanyahu’s office said Israel would “agree to a deal on condition that all the hostages are released in one go”.
Meanwhile Israel’s cabinet is expected later this week to approve the military’s plans to expand its offensive in Gaza and occupy Gaza City.
Netanyahu announced Israel’s intention to do so after indirect talks with Hamas on a ceasefire deal broke down last month.
Hamas said at the time that it would only free the remaining hostages if Israel agreed to end the 22-month war. But Netanyahu said that would only happen once Hamas was disarmed and released all the hostages.
The Israeli military launched a campaign in Gaza in response to the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.
At least 62,004 people have been killed in Gaza since then, according to the territory’s Hamas-run health ministry.
The European leaders held a preparatory meeting with the Ukrainian president in Washington on Monday morning, while Zelensky also met Trump’s Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg.
Zelensky described the talks at the White House as “very serious” — and sought to flatter Trump ahead of the meeting, by echoing his trademark “peace through strength” language.
“President Trump has that strength. We have to do everything right to make peace happen,” he said.
Zelensky later called on social media for a “reliable and lasting peace for Ukraine and for the whole of Europe” and said they would discuss Western security guarantees for Ukraine.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told reporters on the plane to Washington: “We’ve got to make sure there is peace, that it is lasting peace, and that it is fair and that it is just.”
Reports had said Putin would be open to Western security guarantees for Ukraine in the event of any peace deal — but had ruled out Kyiv’s long-term ambition to join NATO.
Russia kept up its attacks on Ukraine ahead of the new talks, killing at least seven people, including two children, in dozens of drone and ballistic missile strikes overnight, Ukrainian officials said.
The Trump-Putin summit in Alaska failed to produce a ceasefire in the nearly three-and-a-half-year war that began with Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022.
After, Trump dropped his previous insistence on a ceasefire in favor of seeking a complete peace deal, meaning negotiations could proceed while the war goes on. He also alarmed Kyiv and European capitals by repeating a number of Russian talking points.
Trump said Sunday that Zelensky could end the war “almost immediately, if he wants to” but that, for Ukraine, there was “no getting back” Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014, and “NO GOING INTO NATO.”
US media reports have said Putin would consider freezing much of the current frontline in Ukraine if Kyiv agreed to completely give up the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine.
Trump envoy Steve Witkoff said Moscow had made “some concessions” on territory.
But such a move is widely viewed as unacceptable for Ukraine, which still holds much of the resource-rich area.
Yevgeniy Sosnovsky, a photographer from the captured Ukrainian city of Mariupol, said he “cannot understand” how Ukraine would cede land already under its control.
“Ukraine cannot give up any territories, not even those occupied by Russia,” he told AFP.
Kyiv and European leaders have warned against making political and territorial concessions to Russia, whose assault on Ukraine has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths.
On August 5 and 7, Lebanon’s cabinet met to discuss the fraught issue of Hezbollah’s disarmament. The first session ended with an announcement from the government that the Lebanese army would be tasked with forming a plan of action and carrying it out before the end of the year. The second session ended with all four Shia members of the cabinet who attended the session walking out in protest. The cabinet then voted in favor of a plan, pushed by the US, to disarm Hezbollah.
Bringing Hezbollah’s weapons under the control of the Lebanese state would bring an end to the era in which the group maintained military superiority. It would also be a boon to Hezbollah’s domestic opponents; both reformers and members of the sullied political establishment that created the conditions under which Hezbollah kept their weapons after the 1989 Taef Agreement that ended the civil war, and despite the 2000 Israeli withdrawal and subsequent end to the south’s occupation (with the exception of the Shebaa Farms area).
Some of those opponents treat Hezbollah’s arms as the sole issue holding back the country. While that is hardly true, bringing Hezbollah’s weapons under state control would be a big victory for the reformist government and president which have been in power since the beginning of the year. And they need all the support they can get, locally and internationally.
Eight months into their tenure, however, few of the promises [Aoun and Salam] had made have come to pass
Hezbollah’s military and political influence was heavily diminished after last year’s brutal Israeli war on Lebanon. This gave the opportunity for a new president, Joseph Aoun, and prime minister, Nawaf Salam, to be named earlier this year, marking a potential new phase in Lebanese politics. Eight months into their tenure, however, few of the promises they had made have come to pass, and Lebanon is currently going through its most sensitive phase with the current attempts to bring Hezbollah’s weapons under the control of the Lebanese state.
For the Lebanese government to gain the faith of the population, exert its control over the entirety of Lebanese territory, and convince Hezbollah and a segment of their supporters that it can disarm and that the state has the best interest of all citizens at heart, it needs to stabilize South Lebanon. However, Israel has continued to act with impunity, violating the ceasefire that has been in place since November 2024 hundreds of times, and is still occupying Lebanese land.
Israel’s aggression undermines the Lebanese government’s efforts at state building and reconstruction, and only one party can get them to stop: the United States. Instead, Aoun and Salam reportedly risked losing US and international support over the lack of progress in disarming Hezbollah, as the US is pushing for an unrealistic timeline to resolve the issue.
In September 2024, Israel launched a full-on war and major ground invasion of Lebanon for the fourth time in 50 years. A ceasefire that aimed to end the war, stop Israeli attacks, withdraw the Israeli military from southern Lebanon within two months, pull back Hezbollah’s fighters north of the Litani River and to deploy the Lebanese Armed Forces in their place, came into effect on November 27, 2024.
As the dust settled from Israel’s offensive, much of the eastern Bekaa Valley, the South, and Beirut’s southern suburbs were devastated and lying in rubble. Already amid one of the worst economic and financial collapses, Lebanon does not have the funds to rebuild, though it desperately needs to rebuild the destroyed areas. The World Bank estimates $11 billion is needed for reconstruction and recovery.
After coming to power, Aoun and Salam announced reformist agendas aimed at rebuilding the damaged parts of Lebanon, pushing for accountability for the financial collapse and port explosion, and bringing all military capability under the supervision of the state—essentially a call to disarm Hezbollah as a militia. They both brought with them a wave of optimism, both domestically and internationally. However, the international community, primarily the United States but also the countries of the Arab Gulf, tied badly needed reconstruction aid to the issue of reforms and disarming Hezbollah, limiting the new leadership from the beginning.
Patience is starting to wear thin among the Lebanese population and there is a deep desire to see progress
The Lebanese government made some progress concerning economic reforms that had been blocked for at least five years, including an important win by lifting banking secrecy and some other banking reform legislation. Lebanon’s Minister of Social Affairs Haneen Sayed also wrote on X that her ministry was giving “more than 260,000 Lebanese in areas directly impacted by the war…direct cash assistance…for a period of six months.” Still, patience is starting to wear thin among the Lebanese population and there is a deep desire to see progress.
The US has been more openly active in Lebanon. It seemingly has tied support for the reformist government to the issues of disarmament and economic reform, though the latter issue seems to have taken a back seat these last few months. While the US has pressed the Lebanese government hard, it has failed to ensure that their Israeli allies uphold their end of the ceasefire bargain.
In fact, the continued Israeli attacks and lack of power by the Lebanese state to react have led to some conspiracies that the new government, Salam in particular, are working either directly or indirectly on behalf of Israel. In May, when Salam visited Sports City in Beirut for the inaugural match of the Lebanese Premier League football championship, he was met with chants of “Zionist, Zionist, Nawaf Salam is a Zionist.”
It was an acute example of how a failure to stop Israeli assaults on Lebanese territory fuels misinformation campaigns and narratives that undercut the reform projects Salam and Aoun are undertaking, as well as emboldens calls from Hezbollah and their supporters for the need to hold onto their arms.
The Lebanese army was tasked by the government to submit a plan on September 2 that will see them disarm Hezbollah before the end of the year. The initial cabinet session, held on August 5, to discuss the issue ended with two ministers—who are reportedly aligned with Hezbollah and their allies Amal—leaving in disapproval. The follow-up session ended with all of the Shia ministers in attendance leaving the session altogether.
Hezbollah is clearly displeased with the decision. The party’s chief Naim Qassem said he will treat the decision as though “it doesn’t exist,” while prominent Hezbollah MP Mohammad Raad called it akin to “suicide” for the group and Hezbollah MP Ali Mokdad said that the statement is only “ink on paper.” During a speech on August 15, Qassem said that the cabinet would “bear responsibility for any internal explosion and any destruction of Lebanon,” and accused the leadership of “leading the country to ruin.”
Aoun mentioned Qassem’s speech, and said that the threats of civil unrest were “words, and were not justified.”
For his part, President Aoun mentioned bringing all arms under the state’s authority in his inaugural speech after he was elected, and in the following months, he admitted that the process was “delicate.” After the cabinet decision of August 7, and ahead of US Special Envoy Tom Barrack’s visit, Aoun and Salam gave television interviews to discuss the matter. Salam said that “What matters to [the government] is that all these weapons come under the authority of the state,” and explained that “concretely, Lebanon [was] leaving the camp it has been in for decades.” Aoun mentioned Qassem’s speech, and said that the threats of civil unrest were “words, and were not justified.” He further explained that the country faced “two options: either accept the document and ask” the international community to have Israel stop attacking Lebanon, “or not accept it and see the aggressions and economic isolation of Lebanon intensify.”
Lebanon’s government has to make progress on various issues, but it cannot succeed if Israel does not stop attacking Lebanese territory and undermining all efforts at state building and reconstruction. The United States has a big role to play in this matter.
Last month, US Special Envoy Barrack did not give assurances to the government about having Israel stop its attacks and has delivered conflicting messages on the US’ stance and support on multiple occasions. However, after his latest meeting with President Aoun on August 18, Barrack stated “the Lebanese government has done their part. They’ve taken the first step. Now what we need is Israel to comply.” Only time will tell if actions follow this statement.
The failure to hold Israel accountable undercuts any efforts the Lebanese state makes toward disarmament. And the fact that there has been no aid for reconstruction hurts the government directly. Indeed, many of the Lebanese from the most impacted areas of Israel’s attacks have seen little to no state support enter, increasing their frustration toward the authorities and not necessarily the countries that have been withholding the aid. Thousands of others are still displaced from villages that were razed during the war or during the ceasefire period.
Europe and the Gulf states also have a role to play. Gulf leaders, including Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman, showed they have the ear of US President Donald Trump when they convinced him to lift sanctions on Syria. A few Gulf leaders also want to see Hezbollah’s power diminished and have been thawing relations with the current government, after nearly a decade of disengagement with Lebanon.
They could also tell the Trump administration and Israel that the best way to build a strong Lebanese state and counter Hezbollah’s influence is to let the Nawaf government build faith among the Lebanese people. Stopping the attacks and abiding by the November 2024 ceasefire agreement is the first step toward building that faith. Supporting the reconstruction of the country is another priority that needs to be encouraged.
Should Aoun and Salam fail, the political establishment which led Lebanon to the current reality will potentially rebound and consolidate its control
The last six years have been brutal for residents of Lebanon, Lebanese and non-Lebanese alike. The endemic corruption and culture of impunity established at the tail end of Lebanon’s civil war from 1975 to 1990 manifested in complete economic collapse, mass emigration, and, for many, a loss of hope in Lebanon’s future. For decades, Lebanon’s political establishment has hoarded the country’s wealth and resources at the expense of citizens and residents of the country. It has derailed any attempts at justice or accountability for historic crimes.
For the first time in the post-civil war period, Lebanon has a chance at taking the first steps to build a state for all its citizens in a country that prioritizes justice and accountability and includes segments of the population historically under or unserved by the state. These are the bare minimums needed for Lebanon to begin rebuilding, reforming, and becoming a place where people can live in dignity. Should Aoun and Salam fail, the political establishment which led Lebanon to the current reality will potentially rebound and consolidate its control over every lever of government and return to the status quo where all efforts at reform were stifled.
As the talk over disarmament heats up, so too does political and social tension in Lebanon. The Lebanese government will need to walk a tightrope to manage that tension by showing they are building a project for all Lebanese citizens, no matter the sect or geographical disposition. To walk that tightrope, the government will need all the help it can get.
Justin Salhani is a Nonresident Fellow at TIMEP focusing on misinformation and disinformation in the Levant.
ReutersEuropean leaders may have rushed to Washington ostensibly to throw a protective arm around President Zelensky and head off any repeat of February’s Oval Office bust-up.
But their real aim is to stop US President Donald Trump threatening long-term European security after his abrupt change of course over how best to end the war in Ukraine.
Not only did Trump drop calls for a ceasefire as a prerequisite for talks about long-term peace, he also – diplomats say – made clear he had no intention of imposing further economic sanctions on Russia.
In short, the travelling European heads of government – plus EU and Nato leaders – want to avoid not just confrontation, but also capitulation.
President Macron of France was the latest to use the C word, saying on Sunday: “There is only one state proposing a peace that would be a capitulation: Russia.”
It takes a great deal for heads of government to upend their schedules at short notice – especially in August – when some are on holiday.
The French leader was enjoying water sports on the Riviera. The Italian leader, Giorgia Meloni, had been in Greece.
But such was the scale of President Trump’s change of strategy after meeting President Putin – and the consequent potential threat to Europe – that the European leaders changed their plans fast.
Officials say Meloni was first to invite herself along, followed closely by Macron, after which it became inevitable others would have to go too.
The leaders spent the weekend working the phones, holding no fewer than five separate group chats.
Their concern was Trump’s decision to change the diplomatic goal posts after meeting the Russian leader in Alaska.
Some officials think the huge impact of these two decisions – which overturned months of western strategy – has been under-priced. Both moves shifted the US position more closely in Russia’s favour.
“Things have moved very significantly and quite quickly to a timetable that no one was expecting,” one European official said.
“The US sees this as a moment to strike while the iron is hot. Our question is what are we trying to achieve here?”
They added: “The European position has long been that Putin needs to show a genuine desire to get around a table and stop the war, and that would involve a ceasefire. But since Friday we have moved on from that. The question now is how we can get out of today without a blow-up. This is a moment of extreme jeopardy.”
The aim for European leaders, diplomats say, is to shift White House thinking on two issues.
One, the idea that peace can be achieved simply by Ukraine ceding the Donbas to Russia. And two, that this is not just about the future of Ukraine.
“This is fundamentally about the security of our continent,” one British diplomat said.
In other words, any discussion about security guarantees – as part of a final deal – would be about ensuring the wider security of Europe and not just Ukraine.
That means convincing Trump of two things: one, that questions about territory and security guarantees cannot be separated, and two, that security guarantees must be about more than verbal or textual promises.
US negotiators have talked about giving Ukraine as yet ill-defined Nato-style assurances that the west would come to Kyiv’s aid against future Russian aggression.
“Nobody is clear what Trump means about a security guarantee,” one official said.
“He believes that him simply saying to Putin “don’t attack” is enough. That’s not good enough for Ukraine or us.”
ReutersThe Europeans, instead, are expected to argue that Ukraine’s security will be guaranteed only by allowing its army to remain strong, with long-term and substantial allied military and financial support.
That would include American weapons bought by Europeans and gifted to Ukraine, plus continued Ukrainian access to US intelligence.
By definition, all that would exclude Russian demands for the demilitarisation of Ukraine.
The risk for the Europeans today is that they push Trump too hard, that he thinks he is being bullied, and that the meetings go badly.
The European delegation has been thrown together at the last minute.
It is – one official said – “quite unwieldy”, and some differ on how much Europe should commit to Ukraine’s future security.
What role a future European-based “reassurance” force might play in a post-conflict Ukraine remains unclear.
So the European aim today may be to slow things down and calm fevered talk about land-swap deals that should really be part of the endgame of a negotiation.
To some, that would be putting the cart before the horse.
Instead, the European leaders may look for progress on a possible trilateral summit with Trump, Zelensky and Putin; the carving out of some broad principles of any future deal; and how to have talks about talks deciding the location and framework of any negotiations.
And above all, whether this can happen only when a ceasefire of sorts has been agreed.
Rescue workers in northern Nigeria are still searching for about 25 missing passengers after a boat accident in Sokoto state on Sunday, a local councillor has said.
The National Emergency Management Agency (Nema) said the boat was carrying more than 50 people to a local market when it capsized in the River Goronyo.
Aminu Bare, a councillor in Sokoto, said that 25 people had been found alive, as rescue efforts continued on Monday.
Earlier, Nema said it was “intensifying efforts alongside local authorities to locate [those] still missing”. Boat accidents occur regularly in Nigeria due to overcrowding, poorly maintained boats and the failure to enforce safety regulations.
In December 2024, 54 bodies were recovered from the River Niger after a boat that may have been carrying more than 200 passengers capsized.
A month earlier, a wooden dugout canoe, packed with nearly 300 passengers, overturned and sank in the middle of the Niger killing nearly 200 people.
In another accident that gained a lot of attention, more than 100 people drowned two years ago in the south-western part of the country.
The vessel they were in was carrying around 300 passengers travelling from Kwara state to Niger state after a wedding celebration.
According to government regulations all passengers are supposed to wear life jackets, but they are not always available, especially in rural areas.
Wia dis foto come from, ABIR SULTAN/POOL/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
Plans for a controversial settlement project wey Israeli far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich say go “bury di idea of a Palestinian state” don spark widespread criticism.
Di so-called E1 scheme to build 3,401 homes in di occupied West Bank – between East Jerusalem and di Maale Adumim settlement – don dey frozen for many years sake of fierce opposition.
Di vast majority of di international community consider di settlements illegal under international law, although Israel no agree.
On Wednesday, Smotrich bin back di scheme, call di decision a “historic achievement”.
Di Palestinian foreign ministry don call di plan “extension of crimes of genocide, displacement and annexation” – accusations Israel don reject.
Di UN, di EU and various kontris, such as di UK and Turkey, don also criticise di E1 settlement plan and call for am to dey stopped.
Wia dis foto come from, Reuters
Wia dis foto come from, Reuters
Settlements na one of di most contentious issues between Israel and di Palestinians.
Di E1 settlement project, wey first dey proposed under Yitzhak Rabin for di 1990s, begin wit initial plans for 2,500 homes.
For 2004 e bin dey expanded to around 4,000 units along wit commercial and tourism facilities.
Between 2009 and 2020 new phases dey announced, including land confiscations, design plans and road construction.
But di proposals dey frozen each time sake of international pressure.
Developing di E1 area dey seen as effectively blocking di establishment of a Palestinian state.
Dat na sake of say di E1 site strategic position: e separate areas south of Jerusalem from those to im north and go prevent a contiguous Palestinian urban area wey connect Ramallah, East Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
According to di Israeli group Peace Now, wey dey monitor settlement activity in di West Bank, di new housing units go represent a 33% increase in di size of di Maale Adumim settlement, wey currently get population of around 38,000 residents.
Di project go connect di residential area to surrounding industrial zones and go pave di way for expanding Israeli control over large parts of di West Bank, according to Peace Now.
Di group tok say di final approval hearing for di E1 settlement plan go hold next Wednesday by a technical committee wey don already reject all objections to di proposals.
Wia dis foto come from, Reuters
Di West Bank na di land between Israel and di River Jordan and na home to an estimated three million Palestinians.
Along wit East Jerusalem and Gaza, e be part of wetin dey widely known as di Occupied Palestinian Territories.
E get about 160 Israeli settlements, housing about 700,000 Jews, in di West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Di Palestinians don always oppose Israel presence in dis areas. Israel still get overall control of di West Bank, but since di 1990s, a Palestinian govment – known as di Palestinian Authority – don run most of im towns and cities.
Since Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, Israel pressure on West Bank Palestinians don increase sharply, wey justify as legitimate security measures.
In June, di UN recorded di highest monthly injury toll of Palestinians in over two decades – state say 100 Palestinians don dey injured by Israeli settlers.
During di first half of 2025, e bin record 757 settler attacks wey bin result in Palestinian casualties or property damage – a 13% increase on di same period in 2024.
Palestinians and human rights groups also accuse di Israeli security forces say dem fail for dia legal duty as occupiers to protect Palestinians as well as dia own citizens – not just turning a blind eye to settler attacks, but even join in, according to a 2024 report from Human Rights Watch.
Israel claims say di Geneva Conventions wey forbid settlement for occupied territories no apply – a view disputed by many of im own allies as well as international lawyers.
Palestinians want all Israeli settlements to dey removed as dey see di occupied West Bank as land for a future independent Palestinian state.
However, di Israeli govment no recognise di right of di Palestinians to have dia own state and argue say di West Bank na part of di Israeli homeland.
In July 2024, di top court of di UN, di International Court of Justice (ICJ), tok say Israel kontinu presence in di Occupied Palestinian Territories dey illegal and Israel should withdraw di settlers.
Among im oda far-reaching conclusions, di court tok say Israeli restrictions on Palestinians in di occupied territories constitute “systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin”.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu say court don make a “decision of lies”.
“Di Jewish pipo no be occupiers in dia own land – not in our eternal capital Jerusalem, nor in our ancestral heritage of Judea and Samaria [di West Bank]”, Mr Netanyahu tok for statement.
Wia dis foto come from, Reuters
Following im announcement on di plan, Smotrich bin thank US President Donald Trump and Ambassador Mike Huckabee for dia support, affirm say, in im view, di West Bank na “one inseparable part of di Land of Israel promised by God”.
E also tok say di Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu support im plans to bring one million new settlers into di West Bank.
Di Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned di E1 project, call am an attack on di unity of Palestinian territory and a blow to di possibility to establish a state.
Tok na say di plan undermine geographic and demographic cohesion and entrenches di division of di West Bank into isolated areas wey dey surrounded by colonial expansion, making annexation easier.
In response to di plans to build in di E1 area, di US State Department tok say “a stable West Bank keep Israel secure and dey in line wit dis administration goal to achieve peace in di region”.
However, di UN and di EU don instead urge Israel not to progress di plan.
Di UN tok say construction in di E1 area go sever di northern and southern West Bank, “severely undermine di prospects for di realization of a viable, contiguous Palestinian State”.
Kaja Kallas, di EU foreign policy chief, tok say di E1 new settlement plan “further undermine di two-state solution while e be breach of international law”.
UK Foreign Minister David Lammy bin oppose di plans, say dey go “divide a future Palestinian state in two and mark a flagrant breach of international law”.
Turkey foreign ministry also condemn di decision, say e “disregards international law” and targets di “territorial integrity” of di state of Palestine.
Egypt bin call di project a “flagrant violation of international law and Security Council resolutions.”
Di Jordanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs also oppose di scheme, describe am as assault on di “inalienable right of di Palestinian pipo to establish an independent and sovereign state based on di 4 June 1967 borders, wit East Jerusalem as im capital”.
Di E1 announcement come shortly afta various kontries, such as France and Canada, say dey plan to recognise one Palestinian state later dis year.
Currently most kontries – 147 of di UN 193 member states – formally recognise a Palestinian state.
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer say di UK go also recognise a Palestinian state in September unless Israel meet certain conditions, including agreeing to a ceasefire in Gaza and revive di prospect of a two-state solution.
Following di announcement of di E1 new settlement plan, Smotrich tok say go be “no state to recognise”.
“Whoever in di world dey try to recognise a Palestinian state today go receive our answer on di ground. No be wit documents nor wit decisions or statements, but wit facts. Facts of houses, facts of neighbourhoods,” e add.
Additional reporting by Alla Daraghme and Muhannad Tutanji from BBC News Arabic.
Countries were unable to reach consensus on the text of an agreement on plastic pollution during the resumed fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2), held in Geneva, Switzerland, August 5-14, 2025. Plastics play a critical role in every sector of every economy, including food packaging, medical devices, information technology, aerospace, and automobile production. The U.S. delegation pushed for common-sense and pragmatic approaches in the agreement that will reduce plastic pollution in our environment while also protecting American industries that rely on plastic to produce high-performance and cost-effective products used by Americans every day. The United States supports an agreement that allows countries to use tailored and cost-effective solutions that will work best in their country. We did not support prescriptive top-down regulatory approaches that will stifle innovation and drive consumer inflation across the U.S. economy and all over the world.
As the number of foreign children living and attending school in Japan grows, the pressure is on to give them the communication skills they need to get their education. But the systems in place for their Japanese language training are falling behind, leaving tens of thousands of kids in situations where they cannot understand their school lessons.
According to the Immigration Services Agency of Japan, the number of foreign nationals living in the country as of the end of 2024 was 3,769,000. This represents an increase of 358,000 from the end of 2023 and is 1.8 times higher than a decade ago.
A particularly fast-growing category is foreigners with the “engineer/specialist in humanities/international services” visa, which includes a wide range of occupations such as technicians, interpreters, designers, language instructors, and more. Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare data shows that the number of foreign workers in this ESHIS category reached 411,000, a 3.9-fold increase in the 10 years leading up to 2024.
ESHIS visa holders are permitted to bring their families to Japan, just like those with visas for work such as university teaching, legal services, and accounting. Naturally, this has led to a rise in the number of foreign children living in Japan. It’s within the context of these structural changes that the urgent need for Japanese language education for foreign children has arisen.
The number of foreign children enrolled in public elementary and junior high schools reached some 129,000 in fiscal 2024, a 9.0% increase from the previous year, according to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT).
The problem is that many schools lack the staff needed to teach JFL, or Japanese as a foreign language, to these children. As a result, more and more children are growing up without sufficient Japanese language skills. Without a shared base in language, which is crucial for communication, their academic and career prospects will be adversely affected and they will tend to be isolated in their communities.
In MEXT’s statistics for fiscal 2023, there were almost 70,000 students that require JFL instruction in public schools, double the number from a decade earlier.
In Matsudo, a city in Chiba Prefecture adjacent to Tokyo, 23,000 of its approximately 500,000 residents as of the end of 2024 were foreign nationals.
To address their needs, the city’s Board of Education set a policy to establish JFL classrooms in elementary schools with at least 18 students requiring instruction in fiscal 2022. As of fiscal 2025, 15 out of the city’s 45 public schools had established these classrooms. From fiscal 2024, a school readiness program was established, where foreign children receive 20 days of intensive instruction before entering school, covering Japanese language essentials for school life such as greetings and reporting health issues. The Board of Education has assigned 33 staff members for this language education and has also secured 37 paid volunteers.
Matsudo’s efforts are relatively comprehensive. In urban parts of Japan, such as the Tokyo metropolitan area and Aichi Prefecture, where there are many students requiring this instruction, it is easier for schools to provide adequate support.
On the other hand, the situation is particularly serious in more rural areas, where foreign children are more thinly dispersed. In terms of the rate of increase of foreign children requiring JFL instruction from 2021 to 2023, Tottori Prefecture was the highest, seeing growth of 2.4 times, from 18 to 44 students. It was followed by Ōita (2.3 times, from 50 to 114), Kōchi (2.3 times, from 12 to 27), Kagoshima (1.9 times, from 28 to 53), and Saga (1.9 times, from 40 to 74). Because the number of foreign children in these areas is much smaller than in urban areas and securing teaching staff is more of a challenge, local governments tend not to have sufficient systems in place.
In fiscal 2023, roughly 30% of public elementary and middle schools across Japan (9,241 schools) had students who needed JFL instruction. According to Wakabayashi Hideki, a visiting associate professor at Utsunomiya University’s School of International Studies who has been involved with the education of foreign children, 70% of these schools had four or fewer foreign children, demonstrating the situation of foreign children being thinly dispersed.
Looking at the breakdown of children requiring JFL instruction by their native tongue, the highest is Portuguese-speaking children, many of whom are of Japanese-Brazilian descent. The number of children native in Chinese, Filipino, and Vietnamese languages is also rising quickly, and some regions are seeing an increase in those with Nepali and Burmese backgrounds.
“The problem is more likely to go unrecognized when only a few students need support, and municipalities often can’t secure budgets and staff,” says Wakabayashi. “Homeroom teachers and other staff are often left to handle the situation alone. And when students come from multiple linguistic backgrounds, that can make the challenge even greater.”
Many children are unable to keep up with classes taught in Japanese through school instruction alone. That’s why, in urban areas, an increasing number of Japanese language classes are being offered outside of schools by public organizations, NPOs, and local governments to support their learning. By contrast, such programs are often lacking in certain regional areas.
MEXT has issued a Guide for Accepting Foreign Children, and included Japanese instruction in the national curriculum guidelines starting in fiscal 2018. While the government sets staffing standards, it leaves decisions about actual staffing levels and local JFL programs to municipalities, offering mainly subsidies.
There is also the more fundamental issue of children not attending school. In fiscal 2023, a record 970 foreign children of school age were not enrolled, a 24.6% increase from the previous year. Adding also children whose enrollment status could not be confirmed, MEXT puts the number of such children who may not be attending school at 8,601.
The Constitution of Japan guarantees children the right to receive an education and stipulates that guardians must ensure their children are educated. Legally speaking, this applies only to children with Japanese citizenship, but based on the International Covenants on Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, foreign children are guaranteed the opportunity, if desired, to receive the same education as Japanese children.
Japan’s foreign population is expected to hit 9.39 million in 2070, making up 10% of the nation’s total, according to 2023 projections by the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research. However, the inflow of foreign nationals is already outpacing these projections, making it likely that the 10% mark will be reached as early as 2050.
“In Japan, there is little awareness of the need to build social infrastructure with the settlement of foreign residents in mind,” says Menju Toshihiro, visiting professor at Kansai University of International Studies. “As a result, the education system for foreign children has largely been left to local governments and individual schools, leading to significant regional disparities. To ensure that foreign children, who will help support Japan’s future, can acquire the same academic abilities as Japanese children, the national government must establish a clear policy and restructure the education system.”
(Originally published in Japanese. Banner photo © Pixta.)
