Israel’s president has defended his country’s attack on Hamas leaders in Doha, amid growing international condemnation of the targeted air strike on Qatari territory. “If you want to move on, you have to remove some of the people if they are not willing to get that deal,” said Isaac Herzog.

What did the commentators say?
By attacking “parties to a negotiation in the midst of their deliberations”, Israel has “literally blown up” Gaza ceasefire talks, said ABC News. The Hamas negotiators were the very people who “could approve a ceasefire and had already agreed to multiple proposals before”. This assassination attempt will “make any country or group question the point” of negotiating with Israel.

Whatever “diplomatic momentum existed” has “evaporated into thin air”, said Daniel DePetris in The Spectator. The latest draft ceasefire was “tabled just a few days ago” but “now lies in tatters, if it was a serious proposal to begin with”. Benjamin Netanyahu and his government have “dealt a serious blow to a diplomatic process that was already on life support”, which was probably their “goal all along”.

Netanyahu has “clearly concluded” that ceasefire negotiations were “leading nowhere”, said the Council on Foreign Relations, and that “decapitating Hamas” is a more efficient way for Israel to “advance its war aims of destroying the group, bringing home Israeli hostages” and making sure that Hamas “can never rule again”.

For Hamas, the strike “could be a warning to get on with things” and “accept the deal on offer”, said David Patrikarakos on UnHerd. Either way, Netanyahu has “staked his legacy” on the “gamble” that “overwhelming strength and the repeated destruction of Israel’s enemies” can achieve "what diplomacy with Hamas has not”.

What next?
The Qatari government has commissioned a legal team to look into holding Netanyahu responsible for breaking international law with the attack.

The EU may suspend bilateral support for Israel in the wake of the incident, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has warned. The proposed measures include sanctions targeting “extremist ministers and violent settlers”, as well as a partial freeze on trade agreements.

King Charles and Prince Harry shared a private tea in London yesterday, a 54-minute meeting that marked the first face-to-face encounter between the father and son in 19 months.

Harry’s “brief pseudo-royal tour” is a reminder of the prince’s “instinctive and eye-catching common touch”, which made him one of the most popular royals in the past, said Richard Kay in the Daily Mail. But “it will take more than an act of philanthropy and a cup of tea” to bury the hatchet.

‘Still a way back’
Despite being “19 months in the making" and under an hour in duration, the private tea between Harry and the King “marked a first step in the family reconciliation”, said Emily Nash in Hello! magazine. If the detente is to work, “it’s vital for the King to know that he can trust his youngest son to keep their discussions private” – especially in the wake of the publication of “Spare”, the prince’s candid memoir, in 2023.

Despite the years of friction, “as long as the royal family aren’t actively firing on Harry, there’s still a way back”, said Caitlin Moran in The Times. “The only real big-hitters left on active duty are the King, the Queen and William. And that’s just not enough manpower.” In due course, the prince will “have to come back to the franchise where it all started”.

‘Unseemly royal impasse’
Public opinion isn’t trending in the royals’ favour, said Tessa Dunlop in The Independent. In a 2023 survey, just 54% of the population “expressed any commitment to royalty”, and those who did skewed older. Younger generations have “signed out” of the royal's fan club, and as long as this “unseemly royal impasse persists”, they have little incentive to sign back in.

Harry “retains a reach and appeal in areas where traditional monarchy is at its weakest”, so he may be just what the royal family needs to recover; “after all, William is many things, but cool is not one of them”. Now, it may be up to William to embrace forgiveness – “an important life skill”, especially for a future monarch.

Young deacons await the start of a service marking Enkutatash, the Ethiopian New Year, at the Entoto St. Raguel Church in Addis Ababa. Like Catholic altar boys, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church’s deacons, or diyaqon, assist during divine services and liturgy.

Luis Tato / AFP / Getty Images

This adaptation of Ilya Kaminsky’s poetry collection is “every bit as urgent, humane and moving as the book that inspired it”, said Sarah Hemming in the Financial Times.

Dublin-based theatre company Dead Centre has joined forces with the sign language poet Zoë McWhinney to “deftly” bring the Ukrainian-American writer’s work to the stage. In a “smartly mischievous” opening, deaf actor Romel Belcher (pictured above) introduces Caoimhe Coburn Gray as his interpreter to help make the show “accessible” for hearing audiences. The sign language peppered throughout Kaminsky’s original collection “takes on living form as an ensemble of deaf and hearing actors” in this “richly textured” production, slipping between British Sign Language, surtitles and spoken dialogue.

Set in Vasenka, a fictional occupied city, the narrative stems from a tragic wartime atrocity: a deaf boy is shot and killed by a soldier for failing to follow a command that he couldn’t hear. In an act of solidarity, the entire town turns deaf overnight. It’s a “wondrous two hours of storytelling that renders the Russian invasion of Ukraine both enchantingly strange and newly shocking”, said Claire Allfree in The Telegraph. The “stylistically thrilling” production weaves together a “feast of theatrical techniques”, from acrobatics to live cinema.

Describing something as a “waking nightmare” would usually be a “straightforwardly bad thing”, said Alice Saville in The Independent. But there isn’t anything straightforward about this “unsettling, enthralling” show. An “experimental epic of war and resistance”, it’s a production that will make you “rub your eyes and reach desperately for something real to hold on to”.

How Labour can rebuild trust with business
The Financial Times editorial board
If the government is to “stand any chance of boosting growth – its “overwhelming priority – few things are more important than getting business back on side”, says the Financial Times. After “bearing the brunt” of tax rises and “costly employment rights legislation”, many companies have “rued” giving Labour the benefit of the doubt. Ministers should “rein back” the terms of the Employment Rights Bill and “pare back” plans to expand trade union access to workplaces.

Russia Just Attacked NATO. Again.
Christian Caryl in Foreign Policy
Russia “invaded” Nato on Tuesday, writes Christian Caryl. “Any other description is an obfuscation.” The “lesson” of Russia’s drone incursion into Polish airspace is “clear”: “accommodating dictators” – as Donald Trump did by inviting Vladimir Putin to Alaska “without getting anything in return” – almost always “ends badly”. Nato and the West need to learn that “encouraging an aggressor results in more aggression”. Instead, they should “respond decisively”, not least by supplying Ukraine with long-range strike weapons that can “hit targets deep inside Russia”.

Save our sausages!
Olivia Potts in The Spectator
Sausages have been around “since we began butchering animals”, writes Olivia Potts, and Britain produces “more than 400 different types”. But industry insiders are warning that “sausage supply is being strangled by Gen Z’s reluctance to get their hands dirty”. Producers “are investing in automation, but are still stymied by a lack of workforce”. If the younger generation “can’t handle working in a factory”, the great British sausage may end “not with a banger but a whimper”.