Proposed Gaza Ceasefire Puts Netanyahu at a Crossroads That Could Shape His Legacy 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks at a ceremony for the “Remembrance Day for the Fallen of Israel's Wars and Victims of Terrorism” at Yad LeBanim in Jerusalem, Israel, Sunday, May 12, 2024. (AP)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks at a ceremony for the “Remembrance Day for the Fallen of Israel's Wars and Victims of Terrorism” at Yad LeBanim in Jerusalem, Israel, Sunday, May 12, 2024. (AP)
TT

Proposed Gaza Ceasefire Puts Netanyahu at a Crossroads That Could Shape His Legacy 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks at a ceremony for the “Remembrance Day for the Fallen of Israel's Wars and Victims of Terrorism” at Yad LeBanim in Jerusalem, Israel, Sunday, May 12, 2024. (AP)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks at a ceremony for the “Remembrance Day for the Fallen of Israel's Wars and Victims of Terrorism” at Yad LeBanim in Jerusalem, Israel, Sunday, May 12, 2024. (AP)

The ceasefire proposal announced by President Joe Biden has placed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a crossroads, with either path likely to shape the legacy of Israel’s longest-serving and deeply divisive leader.

The proposal offers the possibility of ending Israel's war against Hamas, returning scores of hostages held by the armed group and quieting the northern border with Lebanon.

But it would also likely shatter Netanyahu’s governing coalition, potentially sending him into the opposition and making him more vulnerable to a conviction in his corruption trial. The full withdrawal of Israeli forces called for in the agreement could allow Hamas to claim victory and reconstitute itself.

Netanyahu’s rejection of the deal, on the other hand, could deepen Israel’s international isolation, worsen ties with an American administration eager to wind down the war and expose him to accusations of having abandoned the hostages to save his own skin.

It’s a conundrum, and that may explain the strange choreography of Biden’s Friday night address: An American president, announcing what he says is an Israeli proposal, during the Jewish sabbath, when Israel’s political class goes largely silent.

Netanyahu acknowledged the proposal, which has been shared with Hamas through mediators, but then appeared to contradict Biden’s remarks. He said Israel remains committed to dismantling Hamas’ military and governing capabilities and that any talk of a permanent ceasefire before then was a “nonstarter.”

On Monday, he said the destruction of Hamas is “part of the proposal” and was quoted as telling a closed parliamentary hearing that Israel reserves the right to return to war if its objectives are not met.

But it has never been clear what the destruction of Hamas entails or whether it's even possible. Biden said Israel had degraded Hamas to the point where it could no longer carry out an Oct. 7-style attack, and that that by continuing the war, Israel risked getting bogged down in Gaza.

But Netanyahu appears to be seeking a much bigger victory.

‘NETANYAHU’S ENDGAME IS TO SURVIVE’ Netanyahu’s critics fear he will reject any ceasefire to appease his ultranationalist governing partners, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. They want to continue the war, fully reoccupy Gaza and rebuild Jewish settlements there.

They have already vowed to leave the government if the proposal announced by Biden comes to pass. Netanyahu’s political opponents have offered a safety net if he reaches a deal to release hostages but they are unlikely to help him stay in office long-term.

“Everything that Ben-Gvir and Smotrich demand or threaten to do, you see Netanyahu is very attentive to that,” said Tal Schneider, an Israeli political commentator. “Netanyahu’s endgame is to survive.”

Netanyahu’s current government, formed in late 2022 after five consecutive elections, is the most nationalist and religious in Israel’s history. Months before the war, it pushed policies that entrenched Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, deepened the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community’s reliance on state subsidies and set in motion an overhaul of the judicial system that tore the country apart.

The coalition initially had a slim majority of 64 seats in Israel’s 120-seat parliament - enough to govern but with a fragility that would keep Netanyahu’s fate tied to the whims of any of the smaller parties that form the government.

A VETERAN OF ‘DIFFICULT' POLITICS Shortly after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack ignited the war in Gaza, Benny Gantz, a former military chief and a top political rival of Netanyahu, joined the government in a show of unity. Netanyahu, Gantz and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant formed a three-man War Cabinet to direct the offensive.

Mazal Mualem, a Netanyahu biographer, said that effort largely succeeded in sidelining the ultranationalists and allowing Netanyahu to govern in a more pragmatic mold that has defined his 17 years in office going back to the 1990s.

She pointed to Israel’s limited response to an aerial attack by Iran in April, which Ben-Gvir criticized as “weak,” and to a ceasefire and hostage release deal reached with Hamas in November that Smotrich had initially opposed but later voted for.

“Over the years, Bibi has taught himself to do what he wants to do in difficult political environments,” she said, referring to Netanyahu by his popular nickname.

But Gantz has threatened to quit the government unless Netanyahu lays out a postwar plan by June 8, which would leave him far more reliant on Smotrich and Ben-Gvir.

Netanyahu’s decision to press ahead with Israel’s massive military campaign in Gaza as scores of hostages languish in captivity has opened him up to fierce criticism from many Israelis, including families of the captives. Thousands have joined weekly mass protests.

“The government of Israel has given up on the hostages,” Yehi Yehud, who has an adult child being held hostage in Gaza, told Israeli Army Radio. “Bibi, you don’t have the permission or the moral validity to sacrifice them on the altar of your political survival.”

OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS Netanyahu’s hard-line stance has also weighed heavily on Israel’s relations with its closest ally, the United States, which has provided crucial military support but expressed exasperation with civilian casualties and the lack of any realistic Israeli postwar plans.

Internationally, it has exposed Israel to charges of genocide, which it denies, and a potential international arrest warrant against Netanyahu himself.

In his address on Friday, Biden appeared to be offering Netanyahu a way out: Claim victory by saying a battered Hamas can no longer mount an Oct. 7-style attack, bring all the hostages home and then work with the US and Arab nations to build a new regional security architecture.

But the fear of losing power could prevail.

Netanyahu has spent years nurturing an image that only he can lead Israel through its myriad diplomatic and security challenges. That legacy suffered a major blow on Oct. 7, with many Israelis directly blaming him for the most devastating security failure in the country’s history. Public opinion polls indicate that Netanyahu is trailing behind Gantz and would struggle to form a government if elections were held today.

For all their threats, his far-right allies are in a similar predicament. They would likely join him in the opposition if early elections are held, losing the power he has granted them over the Israeli police and settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank.

If Netanyahu can hold his coalition together until the next scheduled elections in 2026, he might be able to rehabilitate his image. His poll numbers have already started to climb from the depths they hit after Oct. 7 as he has presented himself as withstanding international pressure to end the war.

Aviv Bushinsky, a former Netanyahu adviser, said Netanyahu’s wartime decision-making has less to do with immediate political survival and more with securing a legacy that would not be entirely overshadowed by Oct. 7. That requires some kind of victory over Hamas.

“From a historical perspective, Netanyahu’s only option is to go all the way,” he said. Ben-Gvir and Smotrich “are helping him reach that destination, to keep his head above water.”



The Perfect Storm That Turbocharged Venezuela’s Twin Quakes

A view of a building destroyed by the June earthquakes; in Catia La Mar, Venezuela, 05 August 2026. (EPA)
A view of a building destroyed by the June earthquakes; in Catia La Mar, Venezuela, 05 August 2026. (EPA)
TT

The Perfect Storm That Turbocharged Venezuela’s Twin Quakes

A view of a building destroyed by the June earthquakes; in Catia La Mar, Venezuela, 05 August 2026. (EPA)
A view of a building destroyed by the June earthquakes; in Catia La Mar, Venezuela, 05 August 2026. (EPA)

A dangerous cocktail of tectonic positioning, loose earth and shoddy construction contributed to the unprecedented damage caused by Venezuela's twin earthquakes, experts say.

Jennire Garcia's home in the coastal Catia La Mar neighborhood was rendered unlivable by the tremors in late June, which devastated the state of La Guaira.

The 7.2 and 7.5 magnitude quakes killed over 6,300 people and sent 190 buildings crashing down, while 856 more sustained damage.

Garcia and her family are now living in tents next to the ruins, and the 42-year-old says she is "sick with stress all day long."

This was the same site as deadly mudslides that killed thousands of people in 1999.

The region's "unconsolidated" soils, where construction requires specific geotechnical studies, added to the severity of the damage, according to engineer Feliciano De Santis.

"These soils generally tend to be loose soils" and caused the ground to move with even greater intensity, said De Santis, who is president of the Venezuelan Geologists Society.

Garcia's residential complex, which was declared uninhabitable, was built after the landslide.

Deep cracks run through its yellow walls, several balconies have dislodged from the building and some high-rises have crumbled altogether.

- 'So anxious' -

Rescuers across the quake zone have not abandoned the search for victims under the rubble, and are working through the debris of buildings up to 12 stories high.

The last adjustment made to earthquake regulations for buildings was in 2019, and before that, in 1967 when a horrific 6.6 magnitude tremor struck the country.

A closer look at La Guaira's infrastructure reveals significant construction flaws, said Japanese engineer Kit Miyamoto, who is touring the state with support from Washington.

For instance, large quantities of steel "seems like it's really good," he told AFP.

"But once you get down to look at how actually the rebar (steel reinforcement) is connected to the foundation, it's not much," the engineer added.

In the early 2010s, the government of late leader Hugo Chavez built 43 flagship social housing high-rise buildings.

The quakes flattened 16 of them, crushing hundreds of residents underneath.

A recent investigation by Armando.info revealed that "contracts awarded at discretion to companies whose experience was unknown" fueled the damage.

In Caracas' worst-hit neighborhood Chacao, 68 people died while three buildings collapsed and dozens more are uninhabitable.

Most of these buildings were constructed before the 1967 earthquake, Venezuela's Engineering Order said.

"Some had been reinforced," said organization representative and engineer Felix Ojeda, adding that rubble samples taken on site can provide clues about the state of the infrastructure.

"The obvious next step," said Miyamoto, "is to take down the buildings," adding that retrofitting and strengthening buildings was also important to do as much as possible.

Public fury about the government's slow response to the quakes is widespread.

Interim leader Delcy Rodriguez -- who effectively governs under Washington's thumb since her predecessor Nicolas Maduro's ouster -- has promised to deliver around 4,000 housing units this year.

Back in Catia La Mar, Garcia pines for her former home.

"It makes me sad because I see it there every day. I think about the comforts I had and that I can't have here," she said.

"We are so anxious," she said, "waiting for an answer, and we don't have one."


China Missile Test Deepens Pacific Divide Over Growing Militarization

The headquarters for the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji, August 7, 2026. (Reuters)
The headquarters for the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji, August 7, 2026. (Reuters)
TT

China Missile Test Deepens Pacific Divide Over Growing Militarization

The headquarters for the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji, August 7, 2026. (Reuters)
The headquarters for the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji, August 7, 2026. (Reuters)

China's test of a nuclear-capable missile last month has exposed the limits of Pacific leaders' ambition to make the region an "Ocean of Peace", free from the crossfire of major-power rivalry.

The July launch, China's first known ballistic-missile test into the Pacific since September 2024, was fired into the Pacific just hours after Fiji and Australia signed a major defense treaty, marking Fiji's first ever alliance.

More than a month after the test, Pacific Islands foreign ministers were unable to agree on a collective statement condemning Beijing's missile test, despite individual leaders expressing alarm, publicly and privately, about militarization of the region.

The test was "totally inappropriate", Papua New Guinea Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko told Reuters on the sidelines of the foreign ministers' meeting in Suva last week.

"China is a very close friend and ally to Papua New Guinea, but we feel this doesn't help at all," he said, adding that Beijing had given PNG advance notice of the launch but no details on where ‌the missile would ‌land.

At the time of the launch, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said it was ‌conducted "safely", ⁠adding: "We hope relevant ⁠countries will not over-interpret the matter."

The missile launch capped a year of more visible military activity across the Pacific, which is fiercely contested between the US and China for influence. That has included Chinese naval deployments and live-fire drills in the Tasman Sea, US-allied exercises around Guam and Hawaii, and a steady flow of warship visits linked to expanding security partnerships.

The United States, meanwhile, retains a substantial military presence across the region, including in Hawaii, Guam and the Marshall Islands.

Tuvalu permanent foreign secretary Pasuna Tuaga, who was speaking in a personal capacity, was concerned about growing militarization, not only because of the missile test but also security arrangements such as the AUKUS partnership between Australia, ⁠Britain and the United States.

UNITED, BUT DIVIDED

In September 2025, Pacific Leaders endorsed the Ocean ‌of Peace Declaration, which committed to safeguard the region, recognized the right of the ‌people to peace, and resolved to contribute to and strengthen international peace and security.

David Peebles of the Australian National University's Pacific Security College said ‌Pacific countries had long resisted having peace and security defined by outside powers and their competing Indo-Pacific strategies. The Ocean ‌of Peace initiative was an attempt to reclaim that agenda, he said.

The regional declaration inspired the defense pact signed between Australia and Fiji last month, known as the Ocean of Peace Alliance.

Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade did not immediately respond to a request for comment on concerns that the growing number of regional security pacts could further militarize the Pacific.

For many governments, security partnerships bring benefits: surveillance against illegal fishing, ‌disaster response, policing support and access to equipment and training. But critics fear a proliferation of bilateral arrangements could leave Pacific countries with little say over how their territory, waters and infrastructure ⁠are used.

Solomon Islands Foreign Minister ⁠Rick Houenipwela, who chaired the talks in Suva, said the region's agenda must remain "conceived by the Pacific, shaped by the Pacific and only by the Pacific."

Yet by the end of the one-day meeting, no unified statement in response to the missile test had emerged.

Kiribati and Nauru, which have deepened ties with Beijing since switching diplomatic recognition from Taiwan in 2019 and 2024 respectively, did not support the statement's wording, according to an official familiar with the discussions.

New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters blamed foreign influence for the failure to reach consensus, without naming a country.

The impasse illustrates the central challenge facing these small island nations which have different economic, political and security interests.

In the northern Pacific, where the US has maintained a military presence for decades, some governments want deeper security engagement with the US while others remain wary.

Fiji Foreign Minister Sakiasi Ditoka said Pacific governments faced an unavoidable tension.

Countries wanted "to be free of all these war-making paraphernalia," he said, but also recognized that some security capabilities helped keep them safe. "I believe it's maintaining that balance."

Fiji for the first time participated last month in US-led war games in the Pacific known as RIMPAC.

Pacific leaders will meet in Palau in three weeks for the Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting, where the missile test and regional unity are expected to return to the agenda.


One year after Putin-Trump Summit, 'Spirit of Anchorage' Dissipated

FILE - US President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin, Aug. 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)
FILE - US President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin, Aug. 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)
TT

One year after Putin-Trump Summit, 'Spirit of Anchorage' Dissipated

FILE - US President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin, Aug. 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)
FILE - US President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin, Aug. 15, 2025, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)

In the year since Donald Trump hosted Vladimir Putin on US soil for a summit designed to broker an end to Russia's offensive on Ukraine, the diplomatic initiative has fizzled out and the conflict has escalated.

For months, Russian officials talked up the "spirit of Anchorage" -- a supposed climate of detente, renewed dialogue with Washington and a framework for finding a way out of the deadliest European conflict since World War II, said AFP.

Now there are few traces of that atmosphere. US mediation efforts are at a standstill, both Russia and Ukraine are ramping up attacks and more civilians are being killed than at any point since the first months of the war.

- 'Ending the war'-

On August 15, 2025, Trump broke with the West's policy of isolating Putin, rolling out the red carpet as the Kremlin chief stepped off his plane at the Elmendorf-Richardson air base in Alaska.

It remains unclear what was decided or discussed behind closed doors.

Russia has always maintained some kind of understanding on a peace deal was struck -- "a compromise proposal", as Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called it.

Washington has rebuffed any talk of a deal being reached.

"There was a proposal in Alaska, but there was no agreement. If there had been an agreement, we would have had an end of the war," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in June.

Moscow had hoped the summit would lay the foundations for a "lasting peace" by addressing what it calls the "root causes" of the conflict, said political analyst Sergei Markov -- designated a "foreign agent" but still close to the Russian authorities.

For years -- including right before launching its offensive in February 2022 -- Russia has called for a new overarching security deal with the United States over Europe, NATO and arms control.

The "compromise" Russia tabled in Alaska, Markov told AFP, was to limit its territorial claims on Ukraine to the eastern Donbas region in exchange for recognition of Russia's new borders by Washington and the lifting of sanctions.

- Disenchantment -

Those Russian demands were included in a 28-point document drafted by the United States -- later cut down to 19 -- after separate negotiations with Kyiv and Moscow.

The document was never published officially and never came to fruition.

US-brokered direct talks between Russia and Ukraine in early 2026 broke down, chiefly over the issue of territory.

Ukraine refuses to cede land it still controls and wants an immediate ceasefire along the current front line, with territorial status to be decided during fuller peace talks.

And since late February, Washington's attention has been consumed by the war on Iran.

Trump has since issued fresh sanctions on Russia and the last remaining nuclear arms control agreement -- New Start -- has been allowed to lapse.

Having once sensed a window of opportunity to press its demands and been at pains to praise Trump's efforts, Russia has lately allowed itself to publicly question Washington's commitment to diplomacy.

"I don't even want to imagine that Alaska ... was conceived to gain time in order to strengthen Ukraine militarily," Lavrov said in June.

A meeting between Lavrov and Rubio in Manila in July -- their first since September 2025 -- lasted only around 30 minutes.

"We'll have to find new suggestions and new ideas" that both "Russia and Ukraine can agree to," Rubio said after that meeting.

"That's going to require a lot of work," he added.

- Escalation -

The two sides' conditions for peace are irreconcilable.

Russia demands territory alongside political and military concessions that Ukraine rejects as capitulation.

At the same time, both are convinced force can improve their negotiating position.

"The Russian armed forces will continue their mission to liberate the Donbas and Novorossiya in line with the approved plan," Russia's army chief Valery Gerasimov told Putin in a televised meeting in early July -- referring to land stretching across eastern and southern Ukraine.

Buoyed by European support, Kyiv is banking on its long-range strike campaign to tip Russia's economy and society over the edge.

Its attacks triggered a nationwide fuel crisis over the summer, and have forced Moscow-installed authorities to put the annexed Crimean peninsula under a local "state of emergency".

Russia has upped its missile attacks on Kyiv, killing dozens there in recent weeks.

It has also brought Ukrainian exports through the Black Sea to a standstill through a campaign of port and ship strikes.

"The spirit of Anchorage has dissipated," said Russian political analyst Fyodor Lukyanov -- close to the ruling elite -- in August.

The result? "Brutal escalation."