UN Security Council to Try for Fifth Time to Adopt Resolution on Israel-Hamas War 

Smoke rises from Gaza following an explosion, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas, as seen from southern Israel November 15, 2023. (Reuters)
Smoke rises from Gaza following an explosion, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas, as seen from southern Israel November 15, 2023. (Reuters)
TT

UN Security Council to Try for Fifth Time to Adopt Resolution on Israel-Hamas War 

Smoke rises from Gaza following an explosion, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas, as seen from southern Israel November 15, 2023. (Reuters)
Smoke rises from Gaza following an explosion, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas, as seen from southern Israel November 15, 2023. (Reuters)

After four failed attempts, the UN Security Council is trying for a fifth time to come up with a resolution on the Israel-Hamas war, but it remains to be seen whether serious divisions can be overcome to produce a consensus on wording.

The current draft under negotiation would demand “immediate extended humanitarian pauses” throughout the Gaza Strip to provide civilians with desperately needed aid. It also would demand that “all parties” comply with international humanitarian law that requires protection for civilians, calls for special protections for children, and bans hostage-taking.

But the draft, proposed by council member Malta and obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, makes no mention of a ceasefire. It also doesn’t refer to Hamas’ surprise attack on Israel on Oct. 7 that killed around 1,200 people and took some 240 others hostage. Nor does it cite Israel’s retaliatory airstrikes and ground offensive in Hamas-ruled Gaza that the Gaza health ministry says has killed more than 11,000 Palestinians, two-thirds of them women and children.

The 15-member council, which has the responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, has been paralyzed since the war began by its internal divisions. This is especially the case between China and Russia, which want an immediate ceasefire, and the United States, Israel’s closest ally that has called for humanitarian pauses but objects to any mention of a ceasefire.

In the four previous tries, a Brazil-drafted resolution was vetoed by the United States, a US-drafted resolution was vetoed by Russia and China, and two Russian-drafted resolutions failed to get the minimum nine “yes” votes needed for adoption.

Several council diplomats said the opposing sides were getting closer. Two said that a vote on the latest draft could come as early as Wednesday but that delegations were still checking with their capitals. The diplomats insisted on speaking anonymously because the negotiations are supposed to be private.

The resolution under consideration says the humanitarian pauses should be “for a sufficient number of days” to open corridors for unhindered access by UN, Red Cross and other aid workers to get water, electricity, fuel, food and medical supplies to all those in need. It says the pauses also should allow repair of essential infrastructure and enable urgent rescue and recovery efforts.

After the failure of the fourth Security Council resolution, Arab nations turned to the 193-member General Assembly and succeeded in getting wide approval for a resolution calling for a “humanitarian truce” in Gaza meant to lead to a cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hamas.

It was the first United Nations response to the war. But unlike Security Council resolutions, General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, though they are a barometer of world opinion.

The vote was 120-14 with 45 abstentions. Of the five veto-holding Security Council members, Russia, China and France voted in favor, the United States voted against and the United Kingdom abstained.

The General Assembly resolution was adopted Oct. 27 and Israel agreed Nov. 9 to four-hour pauses. But only very limited aid has been delivered to Gaza through the Rafah crossing from Egypt, and a humanitarian catastrophe has been brewing.

Richard Gowan, UN director for the International Crisis Group, said US opposition to a ceasefire “is a gift that keeps on giving for Russia diplomatically.” He said that while many diplomats think Russia is demanding a ceasefire “for largely cynical reasons to make the Americans look bad,” Moscow’s position “is closer to the mainstream of council thinking, and the US looks isolated.”

The irony is that the Security Council has called for ceasefires in wars from the Balkans to Syria “with little or no impact,” Gowan said.

“A UN ceasefire call would embarrass but not really constrain the Israelis,” he said. “But the US clearly feels that even such a symbolic move is too much of a political risk.”



Iran Says It Has Conveyed Conditions to Re-Engage in Talks, End War with US

 Women draped in Iranian flags march during the state-organized military-style parade in Tehran, Iran, Friday, Sept. 18, 2026. (AP)
Women draped in Iranian flags march during the state-organized military-style parade in Tehran, Iran, Friday, Sept. 18, 2026. (AP)
TT

Iran Says It Has Conveyed Conditions to Re-Engage in Talks, End War with US

 Women draped in Iranian flags march during the state-organized military-style parade in Tehran, Iran, Friday, Sept. 18, 2026. (AP)
Women draped in Iranian flags march during the state-organized military-style parade in Tehran, Iran, Friday, Sept. 18, 2026. (AP)

‌Iran has conveyed its conditions to mediators for re-engaging in negotiations aimed at ending the war with the ‌US, Al ‌Jazeera cited ‌Iran's ⁠Security Chief Mohsen Rezaei ⁠as saying in an interview on Saturday.

The conditions ⁠include ending the ‌war ‌on all ‌fronts, unfreezing Iranian ‌funds and ending the naval blockade, Rezaei said, adding ‌that consultations were continuing with ⁠Qatari ⁠and Pakistani mediators and that Tehran was awaiting a response from US President Donald Trump.


Trump Says He Is Banning Media Outlets CNN, MS NOW, Politico from White House

The CNN booth at the White House after US President Donald J. Trump announced he would ban CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, from the White House in Washington, D.C., US, September 18, 2026. REUTERS/Evan Vucci
The CNN booth at the White House after US President Donald J. Trump announced he would ban CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, from the White House in Washington, D.C., US, September 18, 2026. REUTERS/Evan Vucci
TT

Trump Says He Is Banning Media Outlets CNN, MS NOW, Politico from White House

The CNN booth at the White House after US President Donald J. Trump announced he would ban CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, from the White House in Washington, D.C., US, September 18, 2026. REUTERS/Evan Vucci
The CNN booth at the White House after US President Donald J. Trump announced he would ban CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, from the White House in Washington, D.C., US, September 18, 2026. REUTERS/Evan Vucci

US President Donald Trump said on Friday he is banning three major news outlets – CNN, MS NOW and Politico – from the White House in his latest threat to the independent press.

The move is almost certain to face legal challenges as free speech experts said it conflicts with the US Constitution's First Amendment protections for free speech and a free press, Reuters said.

Trump accused the outlets of "reporting FAKE NEWS" in a social media post, and said they "shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they're covering the President of the United States." Trump added, "Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow."

Representatives of all three outlets could be seen working in the White House on Friday afternoon following Trump's post. The White House was informing all three they would be banned from the White House grounds as of Saturday, Fox News reported, citing an unnamed senior White House official.

Trump said there was no specific incident that prompted the ban, telling reporters in the Oval Office, "It's really just cumulative stories over the past few years."

Trump added, "I don't have to let them into my, into the people's house."

When asked what he meant by ‌others "to follow," Trump mentioned ‌the New York Times and Washington Post as what he called "fake news."

The extent of the ban announced by ‌Trump ⁠was not immediately clear, ⁠and the legality of any move could depend on its scope.

Courts have given presidents broad discretion over selective access to events such as Oval Office meetings and small press pools, while broader exclusions from generally available White House press facilities or credentials could face stronger challenges under the First Amendment and constitutional protections for due process.

Trump's move came weeks ahead of the November 3 midterm elections in which Trump's fellow Republicans are defending narrow majorities in Congress. Reuters/Ipsos polls show the public souring on Republicans, as Trump's own approval ratings stand near historic lows amid the deeply unpopular Iran war he kicked off that has sent energy prices soaring.

DECADES OF TRADITION

The Trump administration has upended decades of tradition in dealings between the White House and press, cutting back the access many major news organizations have had to the ⁠president while elevating the presence of new media outlets seen as more sympathetic to the administration.

CNN in a statement ‌said it stands behind its journalists who cover the White House.

"We have a right under the ‌US Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government," CNN said in a statement. "Should the ban which President Trump threatened go ahead, it would be ‌an illegal assault on that fundamental and constitutionally protected right."

Politico said on X that it would "continue to fairly report on this White House and future ‌ones."

"We will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights against any attempt to restrict them," Politico said.

MS NOW declined to comment.

"It's difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment than Trump banning news outlets from the People's House for criticizing the government," Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement.

Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said the First Amendment prohibits the president from punishing journalists because he does not like their coverage.

"If ‌President Trump means to expel these news organizations from the White House press pool, his action is doubly unconstitutional because the press pool is a 'public forum' under the First Amendment, which means the president can't exclude ⁠journalists from it on the basis ⁠of their viewpoints," Jaffer said in a statement.

TABLOID HISTORY

Trump rose to fame as a New York developer skilled in getting the city's tabloid newspapers to cover his social life, and went on to build his profile as a reality television personality before making a serious push into politics.

Since his successful 2016 campaign, Trump has regularly criticized the press, stepping up his complaints during his second term in office. He has repeatedly urged broadcasters to drop comedy or news programs he dislikes or which have joked about or criticized him or his administration, calling on the Federal Communications Commission to strip disfavored broadcast stations of their licenses.

Trump has filed several lawsuits against the press, including the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the BBC and the Des Moines Register. The suits can have a chilling effect. His defamation suits against ABC and CBS were settled for $15 million and $16 million, respectively.

In his first term, Trump's White House sought to revoke or suspend the credentials of Playboy correspondent Brian Karem and CNN's Jim Acosta, but federal judges ordered their White House press passes restored.

Since returning to the presidency in January 2025, Trump has openly badgered reporters, particularly from US television networks.

Last year, he also banned the Associated Press from the usual pool of reporters that cover his movements because the news agency did not adopt Trump's preferred name for the Gulf of Mexico, which Trump has instructed executive branch employees to refer to as the Gulf of America.


US and Denmark Reach Deal on Greenland, Trump Says

US President Donald Trump (AFP/Getty)
US President Donald Trump (AFP/Getty)
TT

US and Denmark Reach Deal on Greenland, Trump Says

US President Donald Trump (AFP/Getty)
US President Donald Trump (AFP/Getty)

The United States, Denmark and Greenland have entered into an agreement for the US to develop a significant military presence on Greenland, while prohibiting US adversaries from building their own bases on the island, Donald Trump said on Friday.

In a Truth Social post, the US president wrote that no US enemies would be able to make sensitive investments on the island without the approval of the United States and that the agreement had no expiry date.

"At my direction, we worked with representatives of Denmark and Greenland to guarantee that the United States will FOREVER have the complete ability to do what is necessary ‌in Greenland in order ‌to secure and defend the security of Greenland, and the United States ‌of ⁠America," Trump wrote.

Earlier ⁠on Friday, Reuters exclusively reported that the US and Denmark were closing in on a deal that would result in an increased US military presence in Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, but would stop well short of Trump's long-held dream of acquiring the island for the United States.

The US already has nearly total overflight and basing rights in Greenland due to a 1951 treaty.

Trump's announcement suggests he was nonetheless pleased with the outcome of the negotiations and that he might not revive his territorial claims, at least in the near future. He said, without elaborating, that ⁠the US would soon be rolling out a large military presence on the ‌island, which already hosts one Space Force base in its remote ‌northwest.

"This is a dream come true for the United States of America," Trump wrote.

EXTENT OF AGREEMENT REMAINS UNCLEAR

The Danish ‌prime minister's office said on Friday that the agreement would strengthen North Atlantic and Arctic security.

Greenland's prime ‌minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said in a statement that the agreement recognized Greenland's interests and the Arctic island's place in international cooperation. "This benefits us all," he said.

Much was unclear as of Friday night, including whether any new US bases would be constructed as a result of the agreement. Trump's Truth Social posts about negotiations or agreements often lack context or specifics.

Imran Bayoumi, ‌a former Pentagon official now with the Atlantic Council think tank, said it would be new if the US can build bases without the approval of ⁠Greenland or Denmark but that ⁠largely "it seems that Washington could have achieved a lot of these objectives through diplomacy and dialogue without straining the broader US-NATO relationship.”

It was also unclear how the agreement would be received in Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark. The island's residents aspire to independence and have bristled at US attempts to assert control.

In a separate statement, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the deal "permanently and completely" addressed Washington's national security concerns with respect to the island.

"Greenland will forever be part of the strategic defense area of North America and exclude any adversary from it and the surrounding area," he wrote.

A State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss specific terms, said the deal prohibits non-NATO countries from building a base in Greenland and will allow only the US and its allies to make unspecified "sensitive investments." The official said the agreement grants the US permanent access, basing and overflight rights, and would continue to apply even if Greenland becomes independent.