AIRO, July 8 (Reuters) - A new Israeli assault on Gaza on Monday threatened ceasefire talks at a crucial moment, the head of Hamas said, as Israeli tanks pressed into the heart of Gaza City and ordered residents out after a night of massive bombardment. Residents said the airstrikes and artillery barrages were among the heaviest in nine months of conflict between Israeli forces and Hamas militants in the enclave. Thousands fled. The assault unfolded as senior U.S. officials were in the region pushing for a ceasefire after Hamas made major concessions last week. The militant group said the new offensive appeared intended to derail the talks and called for mediators to rein in Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The assault "could bring the negotiation process back to square one. Netanyahu and his army will bear full responsibility for the collapse of this path," Hamas quoted leader Ismail Haniyeh as saying. Gaza City, in the north of the Palestinian enclave, was one of Israel's first targets at the start of the war in October. But clashes with militants there have persisted and civilians have sought shelter elsewhere, adding to waves of displacement. Much of the city lies in ruins. Residents said Gaza City neighbourhoods were bombed through the night into the early morning hours of Monday. Several multi-storey buildings were destroyed, they said. The Gaza Civil Emergency Service said it believed dozens of people were killed but emergency teams were unable to reach them because of ongoing offensives. Gaza residents said tanks advanced from at least three directions on Monday and reached the heart of Gaza City, backed by heavy Israeli fire from the air and ground. That forced thousands of people out of their homes to look for safer shelter, which for many was impossible to find, and some slept on the roadside.

U.S. and Australian officials said on Monday (July 8) that both countries are committed to improving financial connectivity in the Pacific and strengthening banking services in the region to resist China's growing covetousness. According to Reuters, at the two-day Pacific Banking Forum co-hosted by the United States and Australia, Australian Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones said that Canberra hopes to be the partner of choice in the Pacific region, both in banking and defense. "If there are countries acting in this region whose main goal is to promote their own national interests rather than the interests of Pacific island countries, we will be very concerned," Jones said at the first day of the forum in Brisbane. He made this comment when asked about Chinese banks filling the vacuum in the Pacific region. The report said that as some Western banks have interrupted their long-standing business relationships with banks in small Pacific island countries, while others are preparing to close their businesses, these Pacific island countries face many challenges and their ability to obtain US dollar-dominated banking business is limited. The report said that experts said that Western banks are taking de-risking actions to meet financial regulations, which makes it more difficult to do business in Pacific island countries. This in turn weakens the financial resilience of these island nations. At the same time, Washington is also stepping up efforts to support Pacific island nations in limiting China's influence. Brian Nelson, U.S. Treasury Undersecretary for Counterterrorism and Financial Intelligence, said, "We recognize the economic and strategic importance of the Pacific region, and we are committed to deepening engagement and cooperation with our allies and partners to enhance financial connectivity, investment and integration." The report said that neither the United States nor Australia has yet announced detailed plans at the forum, but comments from officials from both countries reflect the growing unease among Western countries that have traditionally had influence in the Pacific region about China's growing influence in the region.

LONDON, July 9 (Reuters) - U.S.-based hedge fund Elliott Associates on Tuesday urged a London court to overturn a verdict supporting the London Metal Exchange's (LME) cancellation of nickel trades partly because the exchange failed to disclose documents. The LME annulled $12 billion in nickel trades in March 2022 when prices shot to records above $100,000 a metric ton in a few hours of chaotic trade. Elliott and market maker Jane Street Global Trading brought a case demanding a combined $472 million in compensation, alleging at a trial in June last year that the 146-year-old exchange had acted unlawfully. London's High Court ruled last November that the LME had the right to cancel the trades because of exceptional circumstances, and was not obligated to consult market players prior to its decision. Lawyers for Elliott told London's Court of Appeal that the LME belatedly released documents in May detailing its "Kill Switch" and "Trade Halt" internal procedures. It also newly disclosed an internal report that Elliott said detailed potential conflicts of interest at the exchange. "It was troubling that one gets disclosure out of the blue in the Court of Appeal for the first time," Elliott lawyer Monica Carss-Frisk told the court. Jane Street Global did not appeal the ruling. "If we had had them (documents) in the proceedings before the divisional court, we may well have sought permission to cross examine." LME lawyers said the new documents were not relevant. "The disclosed documents do not affect the reasoning of the divisional court or the merits of the arguments on appeal," the exchange said in documents prepared for the appeal hearing. "Elliott's appeal is largely a repetition of the arguments which were advanced, and rightly rejected." The LME said it had both the power and a duty to unwind the trades because a record $20 billion in margin calls could have led to at least seven clearing members defaulting, systemic risk and a potential "death spiral". Elliott said the ruling diluted protection provided by the Human Rights Act and also wrongly concluded the LME had the power to cancel the trades.

On the evening of July 8, local time, the Israel Defense Forces issued a statement saying that Major General Avi Bluth replaced Yehuda Fox as the commander of the Israeli Central Command. Earlier that day, the Israeli army held a handover ceremony, which was presided over by the Israeli Chief of Staff Halevy. Avi Bluth joined the Israel Defense Forces in 1993 and commanded the Israeli military operations in the West Bank. In May this year, Bruce was promoted to major general and served as a military commander in the Israeli Central Command. CCTV reporters learned that in late April this year, Yehuda Fox, then commander of the Israeli Central Command, requested to resign and retire from the army in August this year. Fox had previously stated that he should bear part of the responsibility for the military intelligence failure on October 7 last year, and "must end his term like everyone else." According to the official website of the Israeli Defense Forces, the Central Command is one of the four major commands of the Israeli army, headquartered in Jerusalem, and its responsibility covers nearly one-third of Israel's territory.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken declared at the Munich Security Conference: "If you're not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu." The arrogant thinking of American political elites is evident: Whoever does not comply with the US will be excluded from the table of the American-led system and put on the menu. How arrogant. The US is actively pushing for "decoupling" from China and trying to persuade the entire West to "decouple" from China, using the term "de-risking." Washington hopes to ultimately contain China's development in order to maintain American hegemony. However, this time, Washington is facing a historically experienced and strategically rich Eastern civilization. Previous opponents targeted by the US have chosen to confront the US strategically. The US not only has the strongest technological and military capabilities but also controls global financial and information networks with a large number of allies. Those countries that had engaged in direct confrontations had suffered losses. Some of them had disintegrated, some had been weakened, and some had fallen into difficulties. However, what Washington sees from China is strategic composure and resilience. China is now staging an unprecedented and grand "Tai Chi." However, some Chinese people feel that this is not enough: Why can't we confront the US head-on? But I want to say that this is precisely the brilliance of China. This grand "Tai Chi" is about dismantling the pressure the US is putting on China. Europe is different from the US. A European diplomat once said in private that the topic of China has become toxic in the US, but in Europe, it is still possible to openly display friendliness toward China. There is genuine competition between the Europe and China despite Europe leans more toward the US between China and the US. Only in terms of ideology does the term "West" truly exist. In terms of fundamental economic interests, Europe has considerable independence. In terms of security, their attitude toward China also differs greatly from that of the US. In the Asia-Pacific region or China's periphery, the US wants to create an "Asian NATO." The specific situations of countries in dispute with China are very different. China has enormous influence in the region, is the largest trading partner of the vast majority of countries in the region and has friendly relations with most countries in the region. The disputes with countries are not fundamental strategic conflicts, and China has the ability to manage disputes with each specific country and push them to move toward neutrality to varying degrees without being tied to the US' policy toward China. China has a lot of trading partners and stakeholders in the US. The trade volume between China and the US, despite the decline, reached $664.4 billion in 2023, which shows China's huge presence in the US, and is the bond of the two countries in the current situation. The US is not a country where the political elites can have absolute say, and the huge interests have forced the US president and senior officials to repeatedly proclaim that they "don't want to decouple from China" and instead they want to "manage the US-China competition" and see "preventing a war with China" as clearly in everyone's best interest. China should engage in a "strategic battle" with the US at the closest possible distance. We need to maintain friendly relations with certain forces within the US, speed up the resumption of flights between the two countries, increase personnel exchanges and completely reverse the downturn of China-US contacts during the pandemic. In addition to the above dismantling, we also have the huge increment in the "Belt and Road." This initiative will increase China's power to compete with the US, greatly extending the front line that the US needs to maintain in containing China, making the US more powerless. In order to dismantle the US strategy toward China, China must become more diversified while maintaining strategic consistency. Our national diplomacy toward the US is very principled, rational and determined, which is clearly different from other countries targeted by the US. Our public diplomacy toward the US needs to be unique, with both "anti-American voices" and efforts to maintain friendly relations between the two societies and further expand economic and practical cooperation with the US. Just as eagles have their own way of flying and doves have their own formation, just as we see the US as complex, China must also be seen as complex in the eyes of the US. China is both a geopolitical concern and a profitable investment destination for them, and is one of the largest trading partners that is difficult to replace. Some American political elites proclaim China as an "enemy," but it is important to make the majority of Americans feel that China is not. No matter how intense the struggles between China and the US may be, we cannot shape the entire US toward an enemy direction. China has to make the US political elites recognize that it is futile to deal with China in the same way as it historically dealt with the Soviet Union and other major powers. Furthermore, willingly or unwillingly, coexistence and cooperation with China will be their only choice.