The Biden administration has encountered significant obstacles in its efforts to broker a ceasefire in the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict, raising concerns within the White House about whether a resolution can be achieved before President Joe Biden’s term ends.

Despite months of intensive diplomatic efforts, recent developments have cast doubt on the prospects of a successful ceasefire agreement. U.S. officials now question whether Hamas, led by Yahya Sinwar, genuinely seeks a resolution. The situation was further complicated by Hamas’s recent execution of six hostages in Gaza, which has intensified skepticism about the group’s willingness to negotiate.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also dampened U.S. optimism. Netanyahu bluntly stated that a deal is not imminent and has advocated for a permanent Israeli presence in southwestern Gaza, contrary to international calls for a full withdrawal. This position clashes with U.S. and global expectations, which envision a phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.

Protests in Israel against Netanyahu’s government have surged, with many Israelis expressing frustration over the lack of progress in securing the release of over 100 hostages, including several Americans.

U.S. officials have placed much of the blame for the impasse on Hamas, with one senior administration official suggesting that the group may never be inclined to agree to a ceasefire. The official also noted that increased pressure on Netanyahu might not be effective, given the current composition of his government.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken emphasized that both Israel and Hamas need to agree on the remaining issues for a ceasefire to be realized. The failure to secure a deal in the coming months would represent a significant setback for Biden’s foreign policy efforts, which have been heavily focused on the Gaza conflict in recent weeks.

Biden has been described by aides as “obsessed” with resolving the issue, using his freed schedule following the suspension of his reelection campaign to engage with regional leaders. His recent phone calls with Egyptian and Qatari leaders reflect his commitment to the negotiations.

However, the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in July by Israeli forces has further complicated the situation. Biden and Netanyahu had met shortly before the assassination, and the killing of Haniyeh, a key negotiator for Hamas, has cast doubt on the feasibility of a ceasefire.

Despite these challenges, the White House remains hopeful. Officials claim that 90% of the ceasefire agreement’s details have been settled, with the remaining disputes focused on the withdrawal of Israeli troops and the release of Palestinian prisoners.

White House national security spokesman John Kirby emphasized the administration’s pragmatic approach, acknowledging the difficulty of the final 10% of negotiations. Meanwhile, CIA Director Bill Burns also noted the complexity of finalizing the agreement, underscoring the challenges that remain.

As the administration continues its efforts, Biden remains hopeful. When asked about the potential for a successful deal, Biden responded, “Hope springs eternal.”

In a tense courtroom in lower Manhattan on Friday, attorneys for former President Donald Trump and writer E. Jean Carroll clashed over whether Trump should be granted a new trial. This appeal follows a jury’s decision last year that found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll.

A nine-member jury had awarded Carroll $5 million in damages after a two-week trial in which Trump neither attended nor called any witnesses. Both Trump and Carroll appeared in court for Friday’s oral arguments, which concluded around 10:30 a.m. ET. A decision from the federal appeals court is not expected before November’s presidential election.

The hearing, though brief, underscored the high stakes for Trump, the Republican nominee for president. Unlike previous trials, such as those related to New York civil fraud or criminal hush money payments, which saw Trump publicly denounce the proceedings, there were no cameras allowed inside the federal court. However, media tracked his motorcade to the courthouse.

The oral arguments centered on the admissibility of evidence presented during the trial. Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, argued that the case was a “quintessential he-said-she-said” scenario, claiming Carroll was politically motivated and suggesting that evidence admitted at trial was improperly used. A judge interrupted Sauer to focus on the specific evidence in question.

The debate also delved into the testimony of Jessica Leeds, who claimed Trump groped her on an airplane in the 1970s. Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, defended the inclusion of this testimony, stating that it was relevant to establishing a pattern of behavior. Kaplan also argued that the “Access Hollywood” video, in which Trump made controversial comments about groping women, was appropriately admitted as it served as a form of confession.

Kaplan criticized Trump for not testifying or presenting any witnesses during the trial, emphasizing that Trump’s failure to rebut the evidence warranted its inclusion. “He had every opportunity to take the stand and rebut all this evidence,” Kaplan said.

The 2023 trial marked the first time Trump was found liable for sexually abusing a woman. Carroll testified that Trump raped her in a New York department store in the mid-1990s and later defamed her in 2019. The jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse but not for rape. Trump faces no jail time in this case.

In addition to the 2023 trial, a separate defamation trial earlier this year resulted in Carroll being awarded $83.3 million after Trump was found to have defamed her in 2022.

Trump’s appeal challenges several trial rulings, including the inclusion of testimonies from two other women who alleged sexual assault by Trump and the admission of the “Access Hollywood” video. His legal team argued that the trial judge’s decisions were prejudicial and restricted Trump’s ability to cross-examine witnesses.

Carroll’s lawyers countered that the trial judge’s rulings were correct and that the evidence presented was crucial in demonstrating Trump’s pattern of behavior. They argue that the overwhelming evidence supports the verdict and that Trump’s appeal should not result in a new trial.

As the legal battle continues, the implications of the case remain significant for Trump and for discussions surrounding accountability and evidence in high-profile litigation.