Newsom's California: A Green Agenda Meets Economic Reality

Isaac Bennett

Energy

Political

Economic

Remarks of Officials

Summary:

California, under Newsom, mirrors European centralism: a radical Green Deal fuels deficits and capital flight.

California, once nicknamed the "Golden State" for its 19th-century Gold Rush, long symbolized the American Dream—a place of ambition and prosperity. Today, however, the state is the center of a political experiment that increasingly mirrors European centralist ideology, with significant economic and social consequences.

The contrast was on full display at this year's World Economic Forum in Davos. While U.S. President Donald Trump used his speech to declare EU-style, centrally planned climate policies a failure, California Governor Gavin Newsom offered a starkly different performance.

The day after Trump’s address, Newsom, a potential Democratic presidential candidate, presented his counter-vision. In a move widely seen as bizarre, he accused Western leaders of a "pathetic" and cowardly response to the Trump administration. As a political prop, he carried bright red "Trump Signature Knee Pads," suggesting he should have brought a pair for every world leader present. This conduct raised questions about his seriousness as a statesman, especially as his own policies back home are creating deep economic and social challenges.

California's European-Style Climate Agenda

If California were a nation, it would be the world's fourth-largest economy. Governor Newsom, however, often seems to prioritize the role of a climate activist over that of a pragmatic governor.

He has consistently attributed events like the 2024 wildfire disaster to climate change, using the immediate shock of catastrophe to push his policy agenda. Similarly, state-induced water shortages are framed as the result of extreme droughts caused by CO₂ emissions. This narrative loop reinterprets every major weather event as a climate catastrophe, sidelining normal conditions in a media-driven panic.

Newsom’s approach extends beyond environmental policy. Under his leadership, California has become a hub for progressive social policies, often prioritizing gender politics and state control over individual autonomy. This shift away from the traditional American spirit of a minimal state mirrors the bureaucratic model of the European Union.

Since Newsom took office in 2019, California has become the U.S. model for implementing a radical Green Deal. Regulatory codes for industry, agriculture, and transportation are structured much like Brussels' playbook, with a goal of eliminating CO₂ emissions by 2045.

The Soaring Costs of a Green Transformation

This green transformation, funded by debt and subsidies, has come at a staggering cost. Over the last three years, California's budget deficit has reached approximately $110 billion. The state's total debt, including unfunded social obligations, now stands at an estimated $1.8 trillion.

Newsom's tenure has also seen the rise of a state-funded, privately managed system of homelessness care. The number of people managed by this social complex has surged tenfold to 180,000. Critics argue this system functions similarly to a network of immigrant-run daycares in Minnesota that created a tax-extraction model. In California, poverty is managed and monetized, with major beneficiaries often connected to the Democratic Party, creating a political donation machine to finance future campaigns.

Despite these fiscal realities, Newsom continues to position himself as a savior of the American Dream, a message he delivered on the friendly turf of the WEF, where belief in a centrally planned Net-Zero economy remains strong.

Tax Hikes and the Billionaire Exodus

To delay an economic collapse, California is pursuing aggressive fiscal measures. Alongside heavy burdens on the middle class and businesses, a so-called "billionaire tax" is close to being enacted. This populist tool mirrors policies seen in Europe, where wealth taxes are used to assign blame for economic decay while distracting from its root causes.

Newsom’s billionaire tax is seen by many as a Trojan horse. Initially proposed as a one-time plunder of the private wealth of roughly 200 California billionaires, it is expected to become a recurring levy. The proposal calls for a five percent tax on total net worth, payable at once or over five years.

This policy ignores the fact that much of this capital is invested in companies that create jobs and fund the state's future. Newsom needs liquidity to fund the green transformation, especially as the Trump administration's deregulation of the energy sector is encouraging businesses to leave California for "Red States" that value market freedom.

The state's billionaires have responded decisively:

• Larry Page, former CEO of Alphabet/Google, is spinning off parts of his companies to Delaware.

• Elon Musk relocated Tesla long ago.

• Peter Thiel, co-founder of Palantir, is moving capital to Miami, Florida.

• David Sachs of Craft Ventures has also left California for Austin, Texas.

This industrial exodus is a direct boost for business locations that protect private property, a dynamic nearly identical to the one currently unfolding in Germany under similar policies.

A Familiar Playbook for a New Socialism

Like his European counterparts, Newsom uses media skirmishes with political opponents like Donald Trump to distract from economic decline, capital flight, and criticism of his misplaced priorities.

The proposed solutions in both California and the EU follow a similar pattern of controlled "green socialism." This includes social scoring models based on carbon footprints, expansive censorship on social media, and digital central bank currencies that would grant the state total control over the private sector. The ultimate goal is to forcibly reshape society to fit a political ideology, regardless of the cost, using "woke" rhetoric to soften its brutal reality.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.

Add to Favorites

Daniel Foster

Commodity

Data Interpretation

Traders' Opinions

Political

Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Economic

Energy

As countries worldwide pour investment into expanding their liquid natural gas (LNG) production and export capacity, the market is bracing for a potential oversupply. With a record-breaking 2025 in the books and even more gas expected to come online in 2026, a critical question emerges: how much LNG is truly needed to bridge the gap during the global transition to renewable energy?

The US Dominates the Global LNG Market

Last year marked a historic peak for the LNG trade, with export volumes surpassing multiple industry forecasts. This expansion has been overwhelmingly led by the United States, which shipped over 100 million metric tonnes of LNG in 2025 as several new plants became operational.

According to data analysis firm LSEG, the U.S. exported an estimated 111 million metric tonnes (mmt) in 2025. This figure represents a 23 mmt increase from the previous year and towers over the 20 mmt exported by Qatar, the world's second-largest supplier.

U.S. shipments accounted for roughly 25% of all global LNG exports in 2025. A key contributor was the new Plaquemines facility, operated by Venture Global, which shipped a reported 16.4 mmt after starting operations in December 2024. In December alone, the U.S. set a monthly export record of 11.5 mmt.

Jason Feer, head of business intelligence at shipping firm Poten and Partners, highlighted the rapid growth. "It is remarkable that in nine years the U.S. has gone from zero LNG exports to over 100 mmt," he stated, validating the American approach of selling free-on-board and the reliability of its supplies.

Europe's Shift and the Risk of Oversupply

While the U.S. ramped up its LNG capacity, initial fears of a market glut were offset by geopolitical events. Following sanctions on Russia after its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, many European nations urgently sought alternative gas suppliers. The United States was perfectly positioned to fill this void. In December alone, Europe purchased 9 mmt of LNG from the U.S. as it continued to reduce its reliance on Russian imports.

However, this has created a new set of concerns. One is Europe's growing dependence on the United States, which could supply up to 80% of the region's LNG imports by 2030. At the same time, as Europe accelerates its own renewable energy development, fears of an LNG glut in 2026 and beyond are resurfacing.

Supply Is Set to Surge, Squeezing Profit Margins

The wave of new supply is far from over. The Plaquemines facility is expected to reach full production capacity this year. Meanwhile, Cheniere's smaller modular plants are set to hit their capacity, with potential for further expansion. The Golden Pass LNG project, a venture between QatarEnergy and ExxonMobil, is also slated to begin production this year. Combined, these projects could add another 20 mmt to annual U.S. LNG production.

Looking further ahead, the International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that new LNG export capacity will increase by about 300 billion cubic meters per year between 2025 and 2030—a staggering 50% rise. The U.S. is expected to account for 45% of this growth.

This flood of supply is expected to drive down profit margins. While this is welcome news for consumers facing high energy bills, it poses a challenge for producers. Saul Kavonic, head of energy research at MST Marquee, noted that while "U.S. LNG has made outstanding margins since late 2021," these have now returned to more normal levels.

If margins fall further, producers may be forced to scale back production to support prices. Conversely, lower LNG prices could make the fuel more attractive compared to more expensive options like coal and oil, potentially boosting demand.

The Long-Term Outlook for LNG Demand

The exact timing of when LNG supply will definitively outpace global demand remains uncertain. However, a consensus among energy experts is that the world's appetite for LNG will continue to grow until 2050.

This prediction marks a reversal from a previous IEA forecast, which suggested that demand for all fossil fuels would peak much sooner. The updated outlook reflects two key realities:

• Several countries are failing to meet their renewable energy capacity goals.

• Power demand is rising sharply, driven by the tech sector's plans for massive new data centers to fuel advancements in artificial intelligence.

In 2026, the continued expansion of global LNG production is set to exert downward pressure on prices, potentially revealing the first signs of a supply glut. At the same time, global LNG demand will likely keep rising, buoyed by the tech sector's energy needs, until renewable sources can fully close the gap.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Alexander

Central Bank

Remarks of Officials

Traders' Opinions

Political

Economic

Forex

Foreign exchange traders are bracing for a volatile week after Japan’s government issued a clear signal that it may intervene to halt the yen's recent slide. Officials warned that speculative currency moves have gone too far, putting the market on notice for direct action.

Prime Minister Takaichi Sanae stated that the government is prepared to act if trading becomes "speculative and abnormal." This comment immediately shifted market sentiment after weeks of one-sided bets against the Japanese currency.

Tensions escalated late Friday when reports surfaced that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had contacted financial institutions to inquire about the yen exchange rate. That move alone was enough to rattle traders. Earlier the same day, Japan’s top currency official had pointedly refused to confirm whether Tokyo had conducted its own rate check, deepening the uncertainty.

Fed 'Rate Checks' Trigger Sharp Yen Rebound

Talk of intervention intensified as news of the New York Fed’s calls spread. Michael Brown at Pepperstone noted that rate checks are often the final warning before authorities step into the market. He added that the Takaichi administration has shown less tolerance for speculative currency moves than previous governments.

This message forced a rapid reassessment among traders who had accumulated massive short positions on the yen, which had grown to their largest level in over a decade. The currency reacted violently, reversing a decline and surging by as much as 1.75% to 155.63 per dollar. The move marked the yen's biggest single-day gain since August, catching many short sellers off guard.

Tokyo's Firm Line on 'Abnormal' Market Moves

Prime Minister Takaichi reiterated her stance during a televised debate on Sunday. While acknowledging that exchange rates are determined by the market, she emphasized that "all necessary steps would be taken to deal with speculative and highly abnormal moves."

Although she did not specify a market, officials have recently highlighted risks associated with both the yen and Japanese government bond yields. The bond market had already flashed warning signs last week, with yields on the longest-dated bonds jumping to record highs before retreating. This convergence of currency volatility and rising debt costs has increased pressure on policymakers.

Nick Twidale of AT Global Markets advised caution ahead of Monday's trading open, suggesting the yen could trade near the 155-per-dollar level, a new focal point after last week's sharp reversal.

Is Coordinated US-Japan Intervention on the Table?

The yen’s recovery began shortly after Bank of Japan Governor Kazuo Ueda's press conference on Friday. It gained momentum during the U.S. trading session as Wall Street interpreted the Fed’s rate checks as a precursor to a possible joint intervention. Some traders even began pricing in the possibility of U.S. participation.

Twidale noted that while the underlying desire to short the yen remains, traders will proceed with caution given the official warnings. He stressed that confirmed U.S. involvement would have significant ripple effects across global markets.

This has led to comparisons with the 1985 Plaza Accord, where major economies coordinated to weaken the U.S. dollar. According to New York Fed data, the U.S. has only intervened in currency markets three times since 1996. The most recent instance was in 2011, when G7 nations jointly sold the yen to stabilize markets following Japan's earthquake.

Anthony Doyle at Pinnacle Investment Management argued that Japan would struggle to support the yen alone without causing domestic or global fallout, making coordination a more viable strategy. He said that inquiries from the U.S. Treasury typically indicate the situation has escalated beyond routine market fluctuations.

Politics and Key Price Levels to Watch

Japan has a recent history of direct intervention, having spent nearly $100 billion buying yen in 2024. Those four interventions all occurred near the 160 yen-per-dollar level, establishing it as an unofficial line in the sand.

Homin Lee at Lombard Odier said that authorities must take real action to anchor the USD/JPY exchange rate, noting that a joint move by Japan and the U.S. would be a powerful signal of direct coordination.

Political factors are also at play. Lee pointed out that 160 is a psychologically important level ahead of Japan's snap lower-house election scheduled for February 8. Prime Minister Takaichi's campaign pledge to cut food taxes has already unsettled the debt market, pushing the 40-year bond yield above 4% for the first time since its introduction in 2007.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Political

The Post-2003 Financial Architecture

More than twenty years after the U.S.-led invasion, Iraq’s oil revenues remain deeply embedded in a financial framework shaped by Washington. Following the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s government in 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority established the Development Fund for Iraq, with all oil export revenues deposited into an account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. This arrangement was formalized through an executive order signed by George W. Bush and renewed by every subsequent U.S. administration.

Over time, the Development Fund was transformed into an account formally held by the Central Bank of Iraq at the Federal Reserve. While Iraqi authorities regained administrative control over budget execution, the location of these funds ensured that ultimate oversight of oil-derived dollar flows remained in U.S. hands. Given that oil revenues account for roughly 90% of Iraq’s state budget, this structure created a persistent channel of influence.

Why Oil Revenue Custody Matters

The significance of this arrangement lies not in ownership of the oil itself, but in control over the financial system that converts crude exports into usable dollars. By hosting Iraq’s reserves, Washington retains the ability to monitor, delay, or restrict access to funds. This leverage has translated directly into political influence. In 2020, when Baghdad called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, officials cited by Reuters reported that Washington considered limiting Iraq’s access to its account at the Fed, after which Iraq’s stance softened.

According to Toby Dodge of the London School of Economics, this mechanism represents a form of soft power comparable in effect to military presence. By influencing liquidity, imports, and currency stability, the United States can shape economic outcomes without direct intervention.

Stability Benefits And Hidden Trade-Offs

The arrangement has not been without advantages for Iraq. Iraqi officials have acknowledged to Reuters that holding reserves at the Fed helps maintain international confidence, facilitates access to dollars for trade, and shields oil revenues from legal claims by creditors linked to the pre-2003 era. The International Monetary Fund noted in a 2023 report that this custody framework supported exchange-rate stability and reduced systemic risk while Iraq’s banking sector remained fragile.

However, these benefits come with structural constraints. As U.S. authorities intensified scrutiny of dollar flows to enforce sanctions against Iran, Iraq found itself increasingly exposed. Washington expanded oversight and imposed penalties on Iraqi banks accused of allowing dollars to reach sanctioned entities, effectively tightening control over Iraq’s financial arteries.

The Dollar Auction And Market Distortions

For years, the Central Bank of Iraq relied on daily dollar auctions to supply foreign currency to the economy. Under U.S. pressure, this mechanism was terminated in early 2025, marking a major shift in Iraq’s monetary operations. While the move aimed to curb illicit dollar leakage, it also reduced the availability of official dollars, contributing to a widening gap between the official exchange rate and the black-market rate.

This development illustrates a clear causal relationship between external financial control and domestic economic stress. As official dollar access shrank, parallel markets expanded, raising transaction costs, fueling inflation, and eroding household purchasing power.

Why Iraq Cannot Easily Break Free

Despite growing political emphasis on economic sovereignty, analysts argue that a clean break from the Fed-centered system is unlikely in the near term. Iraq’s economy remains heavily dependent on oil exports priced in dollars, and alternative reserve arrangements would struggle to offer comparable legal protection and market credibility.

Energy analyst Ben Cahill has argued that as long as Iraq relies on oil and the dollar-based global financial system, it will continue to accept a trade-off between stability and autonomy. The current framework, while limiting sovereignty, provides predictability in an otherwise volatile regional environment.

A Legacy Of War That Still Shapes The Present

The U.S. grip on Iraq’s oil revenues is not simply a technical financial arrangement but a lasting legacy of the 2003 invasion. By embedding Iraq’s most vital income stream within the U.S. financial system, Washington secured a form of influence that has endured long after troop levels declined.

Today, control over oil revenues functions as a quiet but powerful constraint on Iraqi policymaking. It demonstrates how modern power is often exercised not through territory or troops, but through financial infrastructure that continues to shape state behavior decades after the original conflict has ended.

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Political

Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Abu Dhabi Talks As A Diplomatic Turning Point

According to U.S. officials cited by Axios, recent negotiations in Abu Dhabi involving delegations from the United States, Russia, and Ukraine have moved the conflict into a more advanced diplomatic phase. These discussions are widely seen as a necessary preparatory step toward any potential face-to-face meeting between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky.

One U.S. official indicated that the process is now “very close” to enabling a direct encounter between the two leaders, provided upcoming meetings continue to build on the current trajectory. Another official noted that successful trilateral engagement could eventually pave the way for negotiations to be hosted in Kyiv or Moscow, underscoring growing confidence in the diplomatic channel.

Structure And Substance Of The Negotiations

The most recent round of talks took place over two days, January 23 and 24, in Abu Dhabi. According to sources cited by RBC-Ukraine, the first day functioned largely as an introductory session, while the second day moved into expanded discussions before splitting into two focused working groups: one political and one military.

The military track appears to have generated the most tangible progress so far. Discussions concentrated on ceasefire mechanics, including whether troop withdrawals would be required, how a ceasefire could be monitored, how hostilities might be formally halted, and the potential establishment of a joint monitoring and coordination center. Talks also examined which countries could participate in overseeing any ceasefire arrangement.

Ceasefire Mechanics Before Political Decisions

While progress was reported on military-technical issues, sources emphasized that no concrete decisions have yet been made regarding territorial questions. This sequencing suggests a deliberate approach in which ceasefire implementation and verification mechanisms are addressed first, before moving on to politically sensitive issues.

The military working group reportedly agreed to prepare concrete proposals outlining next steps toward a ceasefire within one week, ahead of the next scheduled round of talks.

Next Steps And Prospects For A Leaders’ Meeting

Axios reports that the next trilateral meeting is expected to take place on February 1, again in Abu Dhabi. U.S. officials view this upcoming round as critical in determining whether conditions will be sufficiently stable and structured to justify a direct meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian presidents.

If momentum is maintained, the emerging diplomatic process could mark the most serious movement toward de-escalation since the conflict began. While a Putin–Zelensky meeting is not yet confirmed, the current negotiations indicate that such an encounter is no longer viewed as a distant or hypothetical possibility, but as a realistic next phase in the peace process.

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Julia Daniels

Cryptocurrency

Central Bank

Remarks of Officials

Stocks

Traders' Opinions

Political

Economic

Forex

The Federal Reserve is widely expected to hold interest rates steady at its upcoming meeting, but that doesn't mean markets will be quiet. The real action will be at Chairman Jerome Powell's press conference, where his commentary could spark significant moves across stocks, crypto, and currency markets.

Traders will be dissecting Powell's every word for clues about the Fed's future plans and his views on pressing economic issues, including President Donald Trump's affordability policies and challenges to the central bank's independence. Here’s a breakdown of what’s priced in and what could trigger the next big market swing.

A Rate Hold Is Almost a Certainty

After three consecutive quarter-point cuts, the Fed is signaling a pause. Markets are aligned with this outlook, with CME's FedWatch tool showing a 96% probability that the federal funds rate will remain in its current 3.5%-3.75% range.

This aligns with guidance from Chairman Powell in December, when he suggested the committee would hold off on further cuts into 2026. Reinforcing this stance, Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari, a voting member this year, recently told The New York Times it is "way too soon" for another rate cut.

Barring a major surprise, the rate announcement itself is shaping up to be a non-event. An unexpected cut could cause the dollar to fall sharply while boosting assets like Bitcoin and stocks, but few are betting on that outcome.

The Key Question: A Hawkish or Dovish Pause?

With a rate hold all but guaranteed, the focus shifts to the tone of the Fed's message. Traders need to know if this is a temporary, "dovish" pause before more cuts, or a firm, "hawkish" halt driven by persistent inflation concerns.

• A Hawkish Pause: If Powell emphasizes lingering inflation risks, it would dampen expectations for future rate cuts and likely put downward pressure on risk assets.

• A Dovish Pause: If the Fed signals that further easing is still on the table for the coming months, it could provide a lift to Bitcoin and equity markets.

Morgan Stanley analysts anticipate a more dovish signal. They believe the Fed will retain key wording in its policy statement—"considering the range and timing for further adjustments"—to keep the door open for future easing. The statement is expected to acknowledge economic strength while preserving this flexibility.

The number of dissenting votes will also be critical. Stephen Miran, an appointee of President Trump, is expected to dissent in favor of an aggressive 50-basis-point cut. If more committee members join him, it would strengthen the case for future easing and support risk assets.

Currently, most market observers expect one or two rate cuts later this year. JPMorgan stands as a notable outlier, predicting no rate changes in 2024, followed by a hike next year.

Powell Under Pressure: Trump, Inflation, and Politics

Chairman Powell will likely face tough questions on the Fed's rationale for holding rates steady, especially given the performance of U.S. markets and economic activity.

According to analysts at ING, Powell will have a hard time arguing that financial conditions are too restrictive. This stance could "pour cold water on the notion of a second Fed rate cut," potentially strengthening the U.S. dollar against currencies like the yen and euro. For greenback-denominated assets like Bitcoin, a stronger dollar typically acts as a headwind.

Trump's Affordability Policies in Focus

Powell's commentary on President Trump's recent housing affordability measures could inject further volatility into the markets. Trump recently announced he has directed his representatives to purchase $200 billion in mortgage bonds to lower interest rates. He also issued an executive order to limit large institutional investors from buying single-family homes.

Market observers believe these policies could be inflationary in the short term. Allianz Investment Management noted that the mortgage-backed securities purchase could "risk pulling forward demand, inflating prices and skewing benefits toward incumbents." Meanwhile, Trump's tariffs are already expected to have a delayed inflationary impact this year as higher import costs work their way through the supply chain.

Finally, Powell may be questioned about a DOJ investigation targeting him personally, which he has characterized as politically motivated, and recent volatility in the bond market. He is expected to avoid commenting on the probe while aiming to calm any fears about bond market instability.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

King Ten

Remarks of Officials

Middle East Situation

Latest news on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Palestinian-Israeli conflict

Political

Top US officials met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday to advance the second phase of the Trump administration's peace plan for Gaza. The discussions come amid ongoing tensions and a fragile ceasefire that has failed to stop the bloodshed.

The American delegation included Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Senior Advisor Jared Kushner, and White House advisor Josh Gruenbaum. Their primary goal is to implement the next stage of a 20-point peace plan, which involves a series of critical steps designed to stabilize the region.

Key components of this second phase include the reopening of the Rafah border crossing with Egypt, a further withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, and the transfer of the enclave's administration from Hamas to a committee of Palestinian technocrats. Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, the US, and several other nations.

US Delegation Pushes for Progress

Following the meeting, Witkoff stated that the US and Israel are "advancing together in close partnership" on the peace process. In an online post, he described the relationship as "strong and longstanding" and called the discussions with Netanyahu "constructive and positive."

Witkoff confirmed that both sides are aligned on the next steps and underscored "the importance of continued cooperation on all matters critical to the region."

According to a report from Israeli news site Ynet, which cited an unnamed Israeli official, Witkoff specifically pressed Israel to reopen the Rafah border crossing, a central and contentious element of the plan.

The Rafah Crossing: A Diplomatic Flashpoint

The Rafah crossing is a critical lifeline for the more than 2 million Palestinians living in Gaza, which has been devastated by two years of war. Israel's control of the crossing, which it seized in May 2024, created a major diplomatic rift with neighboring Egypt. After a brief withdrawal in January 2025, the IDF reoccupied it in March of the same year.

The issue remains a high priority for Egypt. On Sunday, the country's Foreign Ministry announced that top diplomat Badr Abdelatty had raised the need to reopen the crossing with US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau.

There are signs of potential movement. Ali Shaath, who is slated to chair the 15-member committee of Palestinian technocrats intended to govern Gaza, said on Thursday that he expects the crossing to reopen next week.

Israel's Stance: Hostage Return a Prerequisite

Despite US pressure, Netanyahu's government maintains a firm precondition for entering the second phase of the deal: the return of all hostages from Gaza.

The issue is focused on the remains of Ran Gvili, the last of the 251 Israelis taken hostage during the Hamas-led attacks on October 7, 2023. Gvili's family has been actively pressuring the administration to secure the return of his body before any further peace steps are taken.

On Wednesday, Hamas claimed it had provided ceasefire mediators with "all information" it possessed regarding Gvili's remains. The group also accused Israel of obstructing search efforts in areas it controls within Gaza. According to an anonymous US official cited by the AP, the visiting American delegation has been working closely with Netanyahu on this specific issue.

Fragile Ceasefire Overshadowed by Violence

The first phase of the peace plan established a ceasefire that took effect on October 10 of last year. This initial stage also involved the withdrawal of Israeli forces to a designated "yellow line" inside Gaza and the return of all living Israeli hostages.

However, the truce has not ended the violence. According to health authorities in Gaza, whose figures are considered reliable by the United Nations, at least 480 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire since the ceasefire began. In the same period, Israel has reported that four of its soldiers have been killed by militants.

Israeli forces often state they open fire on individuals approaching or trying to cross the "yellow line," or during operations targeting militants. In contrast, local civil and health authorities frequently report that the majority of those killed are civilians.

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites