The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) is now Germany’s largest opposition group and even topped several opinion polls – briefly putting it ahead of now-Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s center-right party – in the weeks after February’s federal election.

At the same time, the AfD is facing growing calls for an outright ban, most recently from another major political party.

In May, the country’s domestic intelligence agency formally classified the AfD as an extremist entity that threatens democracy. In a 1,100-page report, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, or BfV, also laid out its findings that the party was racist, anti-Muslim, and devaluing of “entire segments” of Germany’s population.

That move, which enables the BfV to better monitor the group , has reignited attempts to impose a ban, despite the party claiming a significant 20.8% of the vote in February’s national election – the best performance by a far-right party in the country since World War II.

The AfD has also enjoyed very vocal support from the Trump administration, with Tesla billionaire Elon Musk – who has since left his position in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) – urging Germans to vote for the party in the run-up to the election. More recently, both US Vice President, JD Vance, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have criticized Germany’s decision to classify the AfD as extremist.

On Monday, the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), which is currently serving as the junior coalition partner in Berlin’s conservative-led government, voted unanimously to begin efforts to outlaw it.

Legal basis?

Yet the legal path to banning the AfD is lengthy – and largely unprecedented.

Set up to avoid a repeat of Nazi rule, Germany’s political system operates on the basis of streitbare Demokratie, or “militant democracy,” meaning it is a democracy “determined and able to defend itself.”

In other words, the German state can actively defend itself against internal threats to its democratic principles and constitutional order, including through the banning of political parties.

However, two criteria must be met by Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court to form a legal basis for a ban.

Firstly, the party in question must be found to work against the country’s free democratic order, demonstrating an “actively belligerent, aggressive stance.” Secondly, the party must be popular enough to pose a tangible threat to democracy, a provision created in 2017 and called “potentiality.”

Parties found to meet the first criterion, but not the second, can be prohibited from accessing public campaign financing, but are allowed to continue with other activities.

“The opposite is true: its size demonstrates that it fulfills the criterion of ‘potentiality.’”

To begin the process of banning a party, a formal request must be made to the federal court. This request can only be made by either the government itself, the Bundestag, Germany’s lower house of parliament, or the Bundesrat, the legislative body that represents the country’s 16 regional states.

The court then decides whether to begin proceedings or throw out the application as unsubstantiated.

It must hold a full trial, examining thousands of pages of evidence and hearing witnesses, and considers whether the party violates the constitution in practice, Holterhus explained.

The court can then declare a party unconstitutional. The party would then be dissolved and banned from all political activity. It would also be prohibited from creating any substitute organizations.

At least two-thirds of the court’s justices must be in agreement in order to make the declaration.

In practical terms, if the AfD were to be banned, its sitting lawmakers would receive an automatic loss of mandate at the regional and federal level as well as in the European parliament.

Of the 152 seats the AfD currently has in the Bundestag , 42 are direct seats, where the respective candidates individually won the districts by majority. These 42 districts would need to vote again to fill the seats with new candidates from other parties. The other 110 AfD seats, which are allocated using a party list system, would remain vacant until the next election cycle. Similarly, the AfD’s seats in the European Parliament would remain vacant.

In either case, this would result in a shifting of the majority ratio, meaning that the seats of all other parties would gain a higher significance.

The German Federal Constitutional Court has only banned two parties in the country’s history – and both were in the early postwar years. The Socialist Reich Party (SRP), a successor to the Nazi Party, was outlawed in 1952. Four years later, in 1956, the far-left Communist Party of Germany (KPD) was also banned.

Repeated attempts – in 2003, 2016 and 2021 – to ban the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) have failed. Although the court in 2017 openly acknowledged the party was unconstitutional, it found that it didn’t pose a significant threat to the constitutional order. In January 2024, the court approved the freezing of the NPD’s state funding for six years.

Overall, Holterhus believes that it is difficult to impose a ban on a political party in Germany. “A party ban is considered a measure of last resort against the enemies of a democracy,” he said.

Adding fuel to the fire?

The rise of the AfD has triggered widespread unease, with protesters calling for it to be outlawed – most notably in early 2024, when tens of thousands of demonstrators descended on cities across Germany after it emerged that senior AfD party members had discussed a plan to deport migrants en masse.

Yet German lawmakers remain divided over the issue, with some fearing the move could backfire and fuel far-right sympathies.

Pointing to its classification as a right-wing extremist organisation, SPD co-leader Lars Klingbeil told party members at a conference Monday that efforts to ban the AfD should begin.

“The moment the domestic intelligence agency says this is a confirmed right-wing extremist party, there can be no more tactics,” he said.

Yet Merz’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) – which leads Germany’s coalition government – is hesitant.

German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt, a member of the Christian Social Union (CSU) – the CDU’s Bavarian sister party – poured cold water on the SPD’s motion. Speaking to German news podcast “Table. Today,” he said that “decisions made at the SPD party conference are not yet a mandate for the interior minister.”

Merz has himself expressed caution over the move, telling newspaper Die Zeit in May that he is “skeptical” of procedures to ban political parties.

The AfD’s unparalleled public approval, not to mention support from the Trump administration, a powerful transatlantic ally, means its prohibition could have significant reverberations.

Some opinion polls found that, in the weeks after the Germany’s election , support for the AfD had crept up even higher than its 20.8% official result, briefly making it the most popular party in the country.

National polling agency Forsa in April found that the AfD was polling at a record 26% – putting it two percentage points higher than the CDU, on 24%. Currently, Forsa shows the AfD at 24% – four points behind the CDU.

With the AfD’s support reaching such heights, Holterhus sees a risk of creating a “martyr effect” in the case of a ban, with the AfD “staging itself as a victim of political opponents.” This, he said, could result in further radicalization of some of its supporters and even politically motivated violence.

Lengthy legal proceedings, he said, could further heighten the AfD’s platform while the move also risks the “wrath” of the Trump administration and could play into the populist narrative of an “undemocratic Europe.”

Massive wildfires have torn through Syria’s coastal mountain region of Jabal Turkman since Thursday, destroying thousands of hectares of forest and overwhelming emergency services.

Abdel Kafi Kayyal, director of civil defense in Lattakia province, said efforts to control the fires have been hampered by strong winds, rugged terrain and the danger of landmines left behind from years of war.

The fires come as Syria’s new government tries to drive the country’s recovery after more than a decade of war and crippling sanctions, with basic services non-existent in many parts of the country.

The fires have burned along a line of 20-kilometers (12 miles), cutting off roads and forcing thousands to flee their homes. They have also left some areas without power.

Drone video showed fires advancing along a broad front in rugged territory, occasionally flaring up as they encounter tinder-dry woodland.

The fires have now spread into parts of Tartous province, despite the efforts of more than 60 firefighting units.

Syrian authorities have appealed for international assistance. Turkey has sent two helicopters and 11 firefighting vehicles, and on Sunday Jordanian civil defense teams crossed the border to join efforts to contain the fires.

Satellite data from NASA’s FIRMS service indicates the burned area now exceeds 180 square kilometers, an area larger than the capital, Damascus.

According to Syrian government figures from 2023, the country’s forest cover stands at around 5,270 square kilometers, suggesting that these fires have consumed more than 3% of the country’s total forested land in just three days.

The country is also in the grip of a long-running drought. The Carnegie Endowment Middle East program reported last year that the entire Euphrates Basin region, particularly the southern and eastern desert areas of Syria, had suffered from low rainfall and exceptionally high temperatures for four years.

Families are demanding answers after authorities in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, discovered that 383 bodies had been stored in a crematorium for months and years after the people had died.

Norma Guardado Meraz was one of many locals who visited the Chihuahua Prosecutor’s Office this week to get more information about its investigation into the discovery, fearing that among the bodies are those of their relatives.

The discovery was made on June 26 after several municipal police officers found a hearse containing two bodies and other corpses piled up in a room in the building’s courtyard.

Prosecutor César Jáuregui said the pile of bodies had accumulated since 2020, suggesting that the Plenitud crematorium had failed to perform services it had been subcontracted for by six funeral homes.

She and her family want clarity about the fate of the remains of her mother, María Nieves Meraz, who died three years ago and was mourned at one of the funeral homes that had subcontracted the crematorium.

Another resident, Javier Ramírez, went to the prosecutor’s office Wednesday to determine if the remains he had received actually belong to his father, who died two months ago and whose wake was held at one of the other funeral homes.

The office said Tuesday that of the 383 bodies found, 218 were men, 149 were women and the gender of 16 could not been identified.

As the case moves forward, the prosecutor’s office is promising a thorough investigation and says it encourages more people to come forward and demand answers.

A man set the door of a synagogue alight and a group of protesters stormed an Israeli restaurant in Melbourne on Friday night, the latest in a wave of antisemitic attacks in Australian cities.

About 20 people were inside the synagogue in the downtown area of East Melbourne when a man poured flammable liquid on the front door of the synagogue on Albert Street before setting it on fire, Victoria state police said.

The group was having Shabbat dinner, marking the beginning of the Jewish day of rest, when the attack took place at 8 p.m. local time, Alex Ryvchin, the co-CEO of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), wrote on X.

No one was injured and firefighters extinguished the small blaze, police said, adding that the perpetrator, who remains unidentified, fled the scene.

Just over 1 kilometer to the west on Hardware Lane – one of the city’s most popular areas for restaurants and nightlife – about 20 protesters stormed into an Israeli restaurant, chanting slogans, police said. A 28-year-old was arrested for hindering police, and has been released on a summons.

Speaking at a press briefing, Acting Commander Zorka Dunstan of Victoria state police said officers were also investigating a third attack early Saturday morning in which three cars were set on fire near a business in the northeastern suburb of Greensborough.

Suspects spray-painted the cars and the walls of the buildings, she said, adding that the business has been targeted by pro-Palestine protesters in the past.

The security investigation unit, part of the counter-terrorism command, is investigating all the incidents, though police have yet to declare whether they constitute a terrorism incident, Dunstan said.

“We will examine the intent and the ideology of the persons or person involved,” she said.

Many among Australia’s 117,000-strong Jewish population are anxious after spate of antisemitic attacks in the country’s two biggest cities, Sydney and Melbourne, since late last year – including arson attacks on synagogues, and swastikas scrawled on buildings and cars.

The latest attacks drew condemnation from officials and community leaders on Saturday.

Denouncing the synagogue attack on X Saturday, Premier of Victoria Jacinta Allan said it was “designed to shatter…peace and traumatize Jewish families.”

“That it happened on Shabbat makes it all the more abhorrent,” she added, noting that children and women were among the people present at the venue.

“Any attack on a place of worship is an act of hate, and any attack on a Jewish place of worship is an act of anti-Semitism,” she said.

Melbourne’s Lord Mayor Nicholas Reece described the attack as “shocking,” according to Nine News.

“I cannot condemn this sort of behavior in stronger terms… this is a city of peace and tolerance, and we will not stand for this,” he said.

Ryvchin, from the ECAJ, urged the nation to condemn “these deplorable crimes.”

“Those responsible cannot be reasoned with or appeased. They must be confronted with the full force of the law,” he wrote on X.

As Denmark takes over the presidency of the European Union, Danes are more strongly pro-European than at any time in the past two decades – a shift in sentiment that can at least partly be attributed to US President Donald Trump.

An eye-opening survey published in March by Berlingske, a Danish daily newspaper, said 41% of Danes now see the United States as a threat. It also said 92% of respondents either “agree” or “mostly agree” that the Nordic nation needs to rely more on the European Union than the US for its security.

Given the recent tensions between Washington and Copenhagen, those statistics may not be surprising.

Since his return to the White House, Trump has spoken frequently and aggressively about Greenland, an autonomous crown dependency of Denmark, saying he would like the US to own it.

Vice President JD Vance and members of the Trump family have made what many see as provocative trips to and statements about the world’s largest island.

After Vance’s visit to the US military’s Pituffik Space Base in Greenland in March, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen pushed back on his claim that Denmark isn’t doing enough for defense in the Arctic, calling her country “a good and strong ally.”

Back in Trump’s first administration, too, Greenland was a hot topic. In 2019, he reportedly accused Frederiksen of making a “nasty” and “absurd” statement in discussions about the island.

Sinking trust in Trump

“Now we have a different Denmark,” she said.

“Things have dramatically changed in Denmark and our attitude toward Europe,” she said, without mentioning the president’s name directly.

She was also very clear that Denmark feels a sense of disappointment in its longtime ally.

Denmark would still like to have a strong relationship with the US, Bjerre said, “but in a situation where the US is closing itself more around itself… is threatening us with tariffs and also criticizing Europe, our freedom of expression and all sorts of other things. Of course, in that situation, we have to be stronger on our own.”

She added, “The world order, as we have known it since the Second World War, is changing and we have to deliver to that geopolitical new situation that we are standing in.”

The minister also referenced the historic ties and shared past experiences of both nations, expressing a degree of frustration, if not anger, about how that relationship has changed.

“You could not put a paper in between the US and Denmark, we have always supported the US. We went into war with our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan… Seeing us, as a country, being criticized for not being a good ally, of course, that does affect our opinion,” Bjerre said.

Per capita, Denmark lost the second-highest number of soldiers of all the US-led coalition partners fighting in Afghanistan. In total, 43 Danish soldiers died, equating to 7.82 deaths per million citizens. The US, by comparison, lost 7.96 soldiers per million.

“We used to be a very, very transatlantic country… that has plummeted,” said Friis. “There is now the feeling… we simply cannot trust him,” she said – the “him” being Trump.

‘Huge’ change in tone

The shift in Danes’ opinions coincides with Denmark taking up the rotating, six-month EU presidency.

Denmark has long worried about the EU wading into Danes’ lives, fearing in particular for its relatively unregulated labor market. It has various opt-outs on EU policy, including not joining the EU’s single currency, the euro.

“We do things differently to other European nations,” said Bjerre.

Politicians and citizens used to fear that the EU “would become too dominating and too powerful,” Friis said, but now “the fear is the complete opposite.” Danes feel the bloc is “too weak” to deal with Putin to the East and Trump to the West, she said.

Friis also described the prime minister’s shift in tone as “huge,” saying Frederiksen used to be “very skeptical towards the EU.”

In June, Frederiksen announced that Denmark was quitting the so-called “Frugal Four,” an informal group of EU nations that had pushed to limit common spending, saying that “the most important thing is to rearm Europe.”

Laying out Denmark’s priorities for the EU presidency later that month, she reiterated that view, saying: “Now more than ever Europe needs to step up and stand together. We have to build an even stronger Europe, a more secure Europe where we are able to protect our democracies.”

EU-commissioned, biannual polls show a clear trend of increased trust in the EU over the past two decades, rising from 46% in spring 2005 to 74% this past spring. Steeper increases can be seen during Trump’s first term, after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and as Trump’s second term began.

The war in Ukraine has had a significant influence on Danish views on the EU, Friis said.

“The very fact that you had a war in our backyard has sort of created a completely new sort of atmosphere around security in Denmark, people are worried. People are prepping now because they’re scared about what could happen also to our own security,” she said.

Bjerre said Copenhagen’s EU presidency would prioritize a “stronger Europe and a changing world,” with Europe having a real focus on security.

Denmark takes the European helm, then, at a time of increasingly pro-European sentiment among its own population and a wider recognition in Europe that it must do more to stand on its own. The problem is that some of Europe’s most pressing issues – Ukraine, trade tariffs and security – mean talking to the US and Trump. And at the moment, there may not be much love lost between the two.

For the first time in over a century, Parisians and tourists will be able to take a refreshing dip in the River Seine. The long-polluted waterway is finally opening up as a summertime swim spot following a 1.4 billion euro ($1.5 billion) cleanup project that made it suitable for Olympic competitions last year.

Three new swimming sites on the Paris riverbank will open on Saturday – one close to Notre Dame Cathedral, another near the Eiffel Tower and a third in eastern Paris.

Swimming in the Seine has been illegal since 1923, with a few exceptions, due to pollution and risks posed by river navigation. Taking a dip outside bathing areas is still banned for safety reasons.

The Seine was one of the stars of the Paris Olympics in 2024, whether as the scene of the ambitious opening ceremony or the triathlon and marathon swimming competitions. That didn’t go without challenging hurdles such as rainfall increasing levels of bacteria, which postponed some competitions.

The city’s authorities have given the green light for the public opening, with water quality results consistently in line with European regulations.

“It’s a symbolic moment when we get our river back,” said sports coach and influencer Lucile Woodward, who will participate in the first amateur open water competition in the Seine on Sunday.

Woodward, who enjoyed a dip alongside Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo just before the start of the Olympic Games, is confident things will go well.

“We’re going to enjoy swimming in it, being there and setting an example,” she said. “Once people will see that in the end there are hundreds of people who have fun and enjoy it, everyone will want to go!”

“For families, going to take a dip with the kids, making little splashes in Paris, it’s extraordinary,” Woodward added.

Olympic athletes competing in the river was a spectacular reward for the cost of the cleanup effort.

In the run-up to the Games, authorities opened new disinfection units and created a huge storage basin meant to prevent as much bacteria-laden wastewater as possible from spilling directly into the Seine when it rains.

Houseboats that previously emptied their sewage directly into the river were required to hook up to municipal sewer systems. Some homes upstream from Paris also saw their wastewater connected to treatment plants instead of the rainwater system flowing directly into the river.

Green flag for swimming

Paris Deputy Mayor Pierre Rabadan said water is tested daily to confirm it’s safe to swim. As on French beaches, different colored flags will inform visitors whether or not they can go in.

“Green means the water quality is good. Red means that it’s not good or that there’s too much current,” he said.

Tests have been in line with European regulations since the beginning of June, with only two exceptions due to rain and boat-related pollution, Rabadan said.

“I can’t make a bet on the numbers of days when we’ll have to close this summer, but water quality seems better than last year,” he added. “We’re in a natural environment… so weather condition variations necessarily have an impact.”

Last year, several athletes became ill after competing in the triathlon and open water races during the Olympics, though in most cases it was not clear if the river was to blame for their sickness.

World Aquatics stressed the conditions met the sport’s accepted thresholds.

“The legacy of these efforts is already evident, with the Seine now open for public swimming – a positive example of how sports can drive long-term community benefits,” the organization said in a statement to The Associated Press.

Skepticism remains about water quality

Dan Angelescu, founder and CEO of Fluidion, a Paris and Los Angeles-based water monitoring tech company, has routinely and independently tested bacterial levels in the Seine for several years. Despite being in line with current regulations, the official water testing methodology has limitations and undercounts the bacteria, he said.

“What we see is that the water quality in the Seine is highly variable,” Angelescu said. “There are only a few days in a swimming season where I would say water quality is acceptable for swimming.”

“All we can say is that we can raise a hand and say look: the science today does not support the current assessment of water safety used in the rivers around Paris, and we think that there is major risk that is not being captured at all,” he said.

Some Parisians also have shown skepticism toward the idea of swimming in the Seine. The feeling is often reinforced by the water’s murky color, floating litter and multiple tourist boats in some places.

Enys Mahdjoub, a real estate agent, said he would not be afraid of swimming, but rather “a bit disgusted. It’s more the worry of getting dirty than anything else at the moment.”

A dream come true

Until the end of August, swimming sites will be open for free at scheduled times to anyone with a minimum age of 10 or 14 years, depending on the location. Lifeguards will keep a watchful eye on those first dips.

“It’s an opportunity, a dream come true,” said Clea Montanari, a project manager in Paris. “It’d be a dream if the Seine becomes drinkable, that would be the ultimate goal, right? But already swimming in it is really good.”

US President Donald Trump says he’s “optimistic” a ceasefire deal in Gaza could be agreed next week after Hamas announced that it had “submitted a positive response” to a proposal for a 60-day truce with Israel.

“We have to get it over with,” Trump said Friday. “We have to do something about Gaza.”

Israel and Hamas have long had conflicting demands that negotiators have been unable to bridge, but with both now agreeing the revised proposal, for the first time in months an agreement seems within reach.

The renewed efforts gathered steam following a truce between Iran and Israel but also reflect US pressure and a shift in Israel’s war goals. Here’s what to know.

Why now?

Netanyahu’s government has faced mounting international criticism for the suffering its war is inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza.

Israel imposed a total blockade on humanitarian deliveries to the enclave in March. It somewhat eased the blockade in May, after a chorus of global experts warned that hundreds of thousands of people could soon starve.

Hundreds of Palestinians in Gaza have been killed by Israeli strikes in recent days. And aid distribution has been marred by violence, with hundreds killed on their way to try to obtain food from the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), the controversial US-backed aid initiative that began operating at the end of May.

Pressure is also growing on Netanyahu from within Israel.

His government is propped up by far-right figures who want to escalate the fighting in Gaza, but opposition leader Yair Lapid said Wednesday that he would join the coalition government to make a hostage deal possible. Polls have repeatedly shown that a majority of the country wants a deal to bring the hostages home, even if it means an end to the war.

What are Israel’s demands?

In addition to the aim of bringing the hostages home, Netanyahu has not wavered from his more maximalist aims: disarmament of Gaza and the destruction of Hamas’ military capabilities and governance abilities.

But last weekend, the prime minister made a rhetorical shift in laying out Israel’s goals – for the first time prioritizing the return of hostages ahead of what he once called the “supreme objective” of defeating Hamas.

Netanyahu said “many opportunities have opened up” following Israel’s military operations in Iran, including the possibility of bringing home everyone still held captive by Hamas. “Firstly, to rescue the hostages,” he said. “Of course, we will also need to solve the Gaza issue, defeat Hamas, but I believe we will accomplish both missions.”

The comments were welcomed by families of hostages held in Gaza, who have criticized him for not clearly placing releasing their Ioved ones as Israel’s primary goal. Only a small number of hostages have been rescued in military operations rather than freed under truces.

The Israeli military this week recommended pursuing a diplomatic path in Gaza after nearly two years of fighting and the elimination of much of Hamas’ senior leadership.

What about Hamas?

Hamas announced on Friday that it “submitted a positive response to the mediators, and the movement is fully prepared to immediately enter into a round of negotiations regarding the mechanism for implementing this framework.”

The militant group has three main demands: a permanent end to the fighting, for humanitarian assistance to be carried out by the United Nations, and for Israel to retreat to the positions it held on March 2 this year, before it renewed its offensive and occupied the northern part of the Strip.

In response to the earlier Trump administration-backed ceasefire proposal in May, Hamas requested US assurances that permanent ceasefire negotiations will continue and that fighting will not resume after the 60-day pause.

Whether the ceasefire will be temporary or a pathway to a permanent truce is the biggest sticking point between the warring parties.

While Israel wants to eradicate Hamas following the Oct. 7 attacks, the group has shown little willingness to relinquish its political and military power in Gaza.

Officials in the group have given contradictory statements as to Hamas’ role in a post-war Gaza. The group’s spokesperson, Hazem Qassem, has said that the group is not “clinging to power” and does not have to be part of arrangements “in the next phase.”

What’s in the proposed deal?

While the fine detail of the proposal is yet to be released it is clear that the revised plan is an attempt to bridge some of the differences between Israel and Hamas.

A source familiar with the negotiations said that the timeline of the latest proposal calls for the release of 10 living Israeli hostages and 18 deceased hostages spread out over the full 60-day period.

Of the 50 hostages still in Gaza, at least 20 of them are believed to be alive, according to the Israeli government.

Similiar to previous ceasefires, on the first day of the truce, Hamas would release eight living hostages. In exchange, Israel would release an unspecified number of Palestinian prisoners and detainees, and withdraw its forces from pre-agreed locations in northern Gaza.

Israel and Hamas would also immediately enter into negotiations for a permanent ceasefire once the initial truce goes into effect, the source said.

Under the deal, hostages will be released without ceremonies or fanfare at Israel’s request – unlike during the last truce, when Hamas staged public propaganda events around hostage transfers that sparked outrage in Israel.

Humanitarian aid will immediately begin to flow into Gaza at the start of the ceasefire, including from the United Nations and from other aid organizations, similar to the previous ceasefire which began on January 19.

This leaves the fate of the US-backed GHF and its role in Gaza unclear.

Although both sides have accepted the proposal more talks must take place before a ceasefire begins.

In these proximity talks, likely to take place in Doha or Cairo, negotiators shuttle back and forth between the two sides to hammer out the final details of the agreement.

One of the key issues to resolve during proximity talks will be the timeline and location of the withdrawal of Israeli forces in Gaza during the 60-day ceasefire, according to the source.

When were the previous ceasefires?

In the 21 months of war between Israel and Hamas, ceasefires have been in place for a total of only nine weeks.

More than 57,000 people, of which more than 17,000 are children, have been killed in Gaza during the fighting, according to the Palestinian health ministry.

The first ceasefire came into effect in November 2023, but lasted only a week. In that time, 105 hostages were released from Gaza, in exchange for scores of Palestinian prisoners.

A second ceasefire was not struck until January 2025, shortly before Trump’s return to the White House. In just over 8 weeks – the first “phase” of the ceasefire – Hamas freed 33 hostages, with Israel releasing around 50 Palestinian prisoners for every Israeli freed.

Under the planned second stage, Israel was supposed to agree to a permanent ceasefire. But Israel resumed its offensive on March 18, shattering the ceasefire and derailing the talks, saying it did so to put pressure on Hamas to release the remaining hostages.