Can Trump get Netanyahu to stop Gaza genocide?
US President Donald Trump vowed Tuesday to be 'very firm' in his stance on ending the genocide in Gaza when he meets next week with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
ADVERTISEMENT
The remarks by the president, made during a tour of a migrant detention center in Florida, came after he said earlier that he was hoping for a truce in the nearly 21-month conflict by 'sometime next week'.
The Republican leader is set to host Netanyahu at the White House on 7 July and the swift resolution of Israel's 12-day war with Iran has revived hopes for a halt to the Gaza fighting.
Almost relentless combat in the Palestinian territory since Hamas's 7 October 2023 attack on Israel has created dire humanitarian conditions for the population of more than two million.
Trump was asked Tuesday by reporters if a ceasefire could be in place before Netanyahu's visit.
ADVERTISEMENT
'We hope it's going to happen, and we're looking for it to happen sometime next week,' he said before departing for Florida.
Trump has previously urged Israel to 'make the deal in Gaza,' but on the ground, Israel has continued to pursue its offensive across the Palestinian territory.
The end of Israel's 12-day war with Iran – which followed a US bombing mission on Tehran's nuclear sites – has provided a window of opportunity for a deal, with Trump keen to add another peace agreement to a series of recent deals he has brokered.
Asked at the detention centre how firm he will be with Netanyahu on ending the genocide, Trump replied: 'Very firm.'
'But he wants it too…. He wants to end it too,' Trump added.
Netanyahu's third visit to the US in 2025
The visit next Monday will be Netanyahu's third since Trump returned to power in January, and comes on the heels of the US president making a rare intervention into domestic Israeli politics.
Trump appeared over the weekend to threaten US aid to Israel as he called in a social media post for prosecutors to drop long-running corruption charges against Netanyahu.
Netanyahu became the first foreign leader to visit Trump in his second term in February, when the US president surprised him by suddenly announcing a plan for the United States to 'take over' Gaza.
The Israeli premier visited again in April.
Do you think Trump will get Israeli prime minister to cease the attacks on Gaza?
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1.
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
© Agence France-Presse
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
an hour ago
- eNCA
Iran ends cooperation with UN nuclear watchdog after Israel, US strikes
Iran on Wednesday officially suspended its cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, a move triggered by the unprecedented Israeli and US strikes on its nuclear facilities. Last month's 12-day conflict between Iran and Israel has sharply escalated tensions between Tehran and the International Atomic Energy Agency. On June 25, a day after a ceasefire took hold, Iranian lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to suspend cooperation with the Vienna-based IAEA. State media confirmed the legislation had now taken effect. The law aims to "ensure full support for the inherent rights of the Islamic Republic of Iran" under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, with a particular focus on uranium enrichment, according to Iranian media. While IAEA inspectors have had access to Iran's declared nuclear sites, their current status is uncertain amid the suspension. On Sunday, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, said the inspectors' work had been suspended but denied any threats against them or IAEA chief Rafael Grossi. He said the "inspectors are in Iran and are safe", but "their activities have been suspended, and they are not allowed to access our sites". Uranium enrichment has long been a core sticking point in nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington, which have since stalled due to the conflict. Israel and some Western countries accuse Iran of seeking nuclear weapons -- claims Tehran denies. The law did not specify exact steps following the suspension. The ISNA news agency cited lawmaker Alireza Salimi as saying the inspectors now needed approval from Iran's Supreme National Security Council to access nuclear sites. Separately, the Mehr news agency cited lawmaker Hamid Reza Haji Babaei as saying Iran would stop allowing IAEA cameras in nuclear facilities, though it was unclear if this is required by the new law. After parliament passed the bill, it was approved by the Guardian Council and President Masoud Pezeshkian formally enacted the suspension on Wednesday, according to state television. - 'Deceptive and fraudulent' - In response, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar urged European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal to trigger the "snapback" mechanism and reinstate all UN sanctions on Iran. The snapback, set to expire in October, was part of the nuclear accord that collapsed after the United States withdrew in 2018. Iran began scaling back commitments a year later. Iranian officials have warned the mechanism could prompt their withdrawal from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Israel, widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, is not an NPT signatory. Germany's foreign ministry spokesman Martin Giese said Iran's move to suspend cooperation with the IAEA was a "disastrous signal". Since the Israeli and US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, Tehran has sharply criticised the IAEA for its silence and condemned a June 12 UN resolution accusing Iran of non-compliance, which Iranian officials say provided a pretext for the attacks. On Wednesday, senior judiciary official Ali Mozaffari accused Grossi of "preparing the groundwork" for Israel's raids and called for him to be held accountable, citing "deceptive actions and fraudulent reporting". Iran has rejected Grossi's requests to visit bombed sites, accusing him of "malign intent", while insisting no threats have been made against him or inspectors. Britain, France and Germany and have condemned unspecified "threats" against the IAEA chief. Iran's ultra-conservative Kayhan newspaper on Saturday accused Grossi of being an Israeli spy who should be executed. - Damage - On Monday, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said the parliament vote to halt cooperation reflected the "concern and anger of the Iranian public opinion". The 12-day war began when Israel launched a major bombing campaign on Iran and killed top military commanders and nuclear scientists, with Tehran responding with waves of missiles and drones launched at Israel. On June 22, Israel's ally the United States launched unprecedented strikes of its own on Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz. More than 900 people were killed in Iran during the conflict, according to the judiciary. Iran's retaliatory attacks killed 28 people in Israel, according to authorities. President Donald Trump said the US attacks had "obliterated" Iran's nuclear programme, though the extent of the damage was unclear. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has admitted "serious" damage to nuclear sites. But in a recent interview with CBS, he said: "One cannot obliterate the technology and science... through bombings". By Payam Doost Mohamadi
eNCA
an hour ago
- eNCA
Israel's top diplomat urges seizing chance after Trump ceasefire push
Israel's top diplomat on Wednesday said any chance to free hostages held in Gaza "must not be missed", after US President Donald Trump urged Palestinian group Hamas to agree to a 60-day ceasefire that he said had Israel's backing. Nearly 21 months of war have created dire humanitarian conditions for the more than two million people in the Gaza Strip, where Israel has recently expanded its military operations against Hamas militants. The civil defence agency said Israeli forces killed at least 33 people on Wednesday. Trump on Tuesday urged Hamas to accept a 60-day ceasefire, saying Israel had agreed to finalise such a deal. Without directly mentioning Trump's remarks, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said that "a large majority within the government and the population is in favour of the plan to free the hostages" held by Hamas in Gaza. AFP | Jack GUEZ "If the opportunity arises, it must not be missed!" Saar wrote on X. Out of 251 hostages seized by Palestinian militants during Hamas's 2023 attack that triggered the war, 49 are still held in Gaza, including 27 the Israeli military says are dead. On the ground in southern Gaza, civil defence spokesman Mahmud Bassal told AFP that five members of the same family were killed in an Israeli air strike on Wednesday that hit a tent housing displaced people in the coastal Al-Mawasi area. Despite being declared a safe zone by Israel in December 2023, Al-Mawasi has been hit by repeated Israeli strikes. - Children covered in blood - AFP footage from the area showed makeshift tent structures blown apart as Palestinians picked through the wreckage trying to salvage what was left of their belongings. One man held a pack of nappies, asking: "Is this a weapon?" "They came here thinking it was a safe area and they were killed... What did they do?" said another resident, Maha Abu Rizq, against a backdrop of destruction. AFP footage from nearby Khan Yunis city showed infants covered in blood being rushed into Nasser Hospital. One man carrying a child whose face was smeared with blood screamed: "Children, children!" Some appeared terrified while others lay still on hospital beds in bloodied bandages and clothes as medics treated them. AFP | - Further north, Bassal said four people from the same family were killed in a pre-dawn Israeli air strike on a house in Gaza City, and another five in a drone strike on a house in the central Deir el-Balah area. Bassal later reported seven killed in a strike in Gaza City, five more killed by Israeli army fire near an aid distribution site close to the southern city of Rafah, and a further death following Israeli fire near an aid site in the centre of the territory. They are the latest in a string of deadly incidents targeting those waiting for much-needed food aid. He said a further four people were killed in an air strike on a tent for displaced people southwest of Gaza City and two in an air strike on a school housing displaced people in Gaza City's Zeitun neighbourhood. Media restrictions in Gaza and difficulties in accessing many areas mean AFP is unable to independently verify the tolls and details provided by rescuers. Contacted by AFP, the Israeli military said it "is operating to dismantle Hamas military capabilities" in line with "international law, and takes feasible precautions to mitigate civilian harm". On Tuesday the military said that in recent days its forces had expanded operations across Gaza, "eliminating dozens of terrorists and dismantling hundreds of terror infrastructure sites". - Ceasefire push - After months of stalled mediation efforts to bring an end to the war, Trump on Tuesday said on social media that a new ceasefire push has Israel's support. "Israel has agreed to the necessary conditions to finalize the 60 Day CEASEFIRE, during which time we will work with all parties to end the War," Trump said. He added that Qatari and Egyptian mediators, who have been in direct contact with Hamas throughout the war, would deliver "this final proposal". AFP | - "I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this Deal, because it will not get better -- IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE." Nadav Miran, the brother of hostage Omri Miran, told AFP that he was against a partial agreement that "would leave Hamas in place". Such an agreement "would not ensure the return of all the hostages... they must all be brought back at once," added Miran, who is part of a grouping of hostage relatives opposed to negotiations with Hamas. Trump is due to host Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House next week. Israel launched its offensive in response to Hamas's October 7, 2023 attack which resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on Israeli official figures. Israel's retaliatory military campaign has killed at least 57,012 people in Gaza, also mostly civilians, according to Hamas-run territory's health ministry. The United Nations considers these figures to be reliable. By Alice Chancellor With Afp Team In Gaza
IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
NATO's Defence Spending: Washington's Political Will Trumps Brussels' Consensus Diplomacy
US President Donald Trump (C) flanked by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth (L) and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a press conference during the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in The Hague on June 25, 2025. Image: AFP Clyde N.S. Ramalaine The June 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague produced a landmark decision: member states, except for Spain, agreed to increase defence spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. This bold move, which marks a significant departure from the long-standing 2% benchmark agreed at the 2014 Wales Summit, represents more than a fiscal adjustment; it signals a seismic shift in the alliance's strategic orientation. At the heart of this recalibration is the reasserted influence of U.S. President Donald Trump, whose longstanding critiques of NATO burden-sharing have now crystallised into formal policy. This article explores the rationale, implications, and geopolitical consequences of NATO's spending leap, assessing whether this shift reflects authentic alliance consensus or a recalibration driven by American political will. When NATO's 32 member states gathered in The Hague for the June 2025 summit, few anticipated the alliance would break with over a decade of precedent. But they did, agreeing to a bold, controversial, and for some, economically staggering commitment: to spend 5% of their national GDP on defence by 2035. However, NATO did not shift this policy direction out of its own conviction or internal consensus; rather, it was compelled to do so, with U.S. President Donald Trump standing at the heart of this strategic pivot, having since his first stint advocated for greater burden-sharing among member states. Trump's framing was blunt: 'Why should the U.S. keep subsidising European security when Europe can afford to pay?' In many ways, this new 5% target represents the realisation of Trump's foreign policy worldview: as it relates to NATO, a five tenet blend of transactional diplomacy, fiscal pressure, nationalist recalibration, readiness and modernisation, and geopolitical deterrence. Trump's foreign policy is often described as transactional, meaning it treats international alliances less as values-based partnerships and more as quid pro quo arrangements. NATO, in this view, is not a sacred pillar of post-WWII order but a cost-benefit enterprise. Applied politically, fiscal pressure can describe the tactic of urging or coercing other member states to increase their defence budgets to meet alliance commitments, such as Trump urging NATO allies to spend 5% of GDP. The implicit threat: fail to meet spending demands, and U.S. protection may no longer be guaranteed. Under this logic, NATO is only worthwhile if the U.S. is not carrying a disproportionate share of the financial burden. Trump repeatedly framed the alliance as an economic deal, where allies were "delinquent" in their obligations. He demanded that U.S. support be conditional on financial commitments, reducing mutual defence to a pay-to-play system. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ This further aligns with Trump's broader nationalist recalibration "America First" doctrine. This interpretation is reinforced by Trump's domestic base, which is increasingly wary of foreign entanglements. According to analysis from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the U.S. accounted for roughly 68.7% of total NATO military spending in 2023, meaning that nearly seven in ten dollars spent by NATO members were American. With the U.S. contributing nearly 70% of NATO's total defence spending, Trump argued the arrangement was fiscally unjust. Requiring allies to spend more would redistribute responsibility and ease pressure on U.S. taxpayers. By pushing for the 2% target, and now 5%, Trump used fiscal pressure to compel policy alignment. His administration hinted that failure to meet the spending floor could lead to reduced U.S. commitment, threatening the alliance's coherence. Another component of Trump's rationale lies in readiness and modernisation. Higher spending is linked to greater military capability. Trump's advisers highlighted ageing equipment, low deployability, and interoperability challenges as evidence that current budgets were insufficient. NATO states lacked modern infrastructure, weaponry, and rapid deployment capacity. Chronic incompatibility in systems and doctrines undermined joint operations. The 5% target is not merely a financial benchmark but a demand for measurable improvements: mobile, modern, integrated forces ready for cyber warfare, space militarisation, and asymmetric threats. Trump saw increased spending as essential to transforming NATO into a technologically dominant and operationally agile force. The 5% target also serves a function of geopolitical deterrence. Trump argued that a wealthier, well-armed NATO would send a strong message to adversaries like Russia and China about the alliance's resolve. Defence spending becomes a litmus test of political will. Trump emphasised that deterrence is achieved not through communiqués but through visible military capability. By urging allies to raise spending, he sought to eliminate ambiguity that adversaries might exploit, especially in light of Russian aggression and China's assertiveness. The outcome of the Hague Summit marks an undeniable strategic win for Trump, validating his ideology for a reshaped NATO. What was once dismissed as provocative rhetoric is now policy. The agreement to move toward 5% signals not just a funding shift, but a transformation in the alliance's operational ethos. Trump hailed it as a "monumental win for the United States and the free world." This also underscores a broader realignment: NATO's direction is now synchronised with Washington's political will rather than Brussels' consensus-building. The U.S. model is assertive and top-down, driven by strategic imperatives. Brussels, by contrast, has favoured inclusive, deliberative processes. The Hague Summit reflects a power shift, where American momentum overrides European caution, reconfiguring NATO into a more hierarchical, pressure-sensitive alliance. Trump's assertiveness demonstrated that America is not only NATO's military backbone but also its ideological compass. The 5% target reflects Trump's insistence on fairness and strategic necessity. Under his leadership, burden-sharing has become a requirement, not a polite suggestion. In this context, Trump is not merely influencing NATO; he is directing it. He has repositioned the U.S. as the alliance's strategic lodestar, with the 5% threshold symbolising his imprint on NATO's long-term trajectory. Why then did the majority of NATO states agree to such an ambitious spending goal? A plausible argument is that European powers accepted the 5% benchmark not out of ideological alignment with Trump, but to ensure continued U.S. commitment to NATO—and, crucially, to Ukraine and their security. Given Trump's scepticism towards multilateral institutions and his past threats to withdraw from NATO, European leaders may have regarded the target as a calculated concession to keep the U.S. engaged. It constitutes a form of strategic appeasement: if meeting Trump's demands secures American support, then it is a price worth paying. Compounding this urgency is the perception, real or manufactured, of a renewed Russian threat. Remarks by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who recently referred to EU leaders as 'Brusselian cockroaches,' signal rhetorical escalation and reinforce NATO's view of Russia as an enduring adversary. Whether grounded in imminent threat assessments or strategic messaging, this antagonism sustains European anxiety and justifies increased military expenditure as a deterrent and necessity. By meeting Trump's demands, European leaders also give him political cover to maintain U.S. support for Ukraine's war effort. In this light, the 5% commitment becomes a tool to secure U.S. leadership for Europe's collective security. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's effusive praise of Trump reinforces this reading. His remarks lauding Trump's 'decisive action in Iran' and describing him as a 'man of peace' who is also willing to use force appeared more choreographed than spontaneous. Given NATO's growing reliance on U.S. leadership, Rutte's comments may have been a tactical gesture—an effort to affirm Trump's primacy while ensuring his continued commitment without conceding institutional authority. This shift could also enable strategic rebalancing. As Europe assumes more of the defence burden, the U.S. can reallocate resources to the Indo-Pacific, where China's rise poses a growing challenge. A more self-sufficient Europe gives Washington the bandwidth to pursue its global agenda while challenging perceptions of NATO as U.S.-dependent. With more skin in the game, Europe may gain strategic credibility and a stronger voice within the alliance. Nonetheless, challenges remain. Public sentiment in Europe remains cautious about large-scale military expansion. Polls in Germany, France, and Spain indicate a preference for diplomacy over deterrence. The political cost of sustaining 5% defence spending may prove substantial. If NATO states deliver, the Hague Summit may be remembered as the dawn of a fortified, globally relevant alliance. If not, it risks becoming another episode in summit theatre—where leaders agree in principle, delay in practice, and dilute in execution. For Trump, however, the optics are already favourable. He has altered how NATO operates, and with the 5% pledge, he has inscribed his foreign policy legacy into the alliance's future.
