Gazans should be able to leave if they choose: Israel envoy
(NewsNation) — Hamas is speeding up its hostage exchange with Israel, announcing six people will be released Saturday instead of three, and handing over the bodies of four more hostages Thursday.
These changes to the planned schedule apparently came in exchange for Israel allowing mobile homes and construction equipment to go into Gaza.
Israel says it now will begin negotiating the second phase of the ceasefire this week.
'It's very difficult to have any level of confidence with a terrorist regime, which is what Hamas is in Gaza,' Fleur Hassan-Nahoum, Israeli foreign ministry special envoy, told 'NewsNation Now.'
'The only thing we can hope for is that the American pressure on their interlocutors like Qatar will actually do the work.'
Courts to rule over DOGE accessing Americans' personal information
Speaking to President Donald Trump's proposal for the Gaza Strip, Hassan-Nahoum believes Gazans should have the choice to leave.
'Nobody's talking about deporting,' she said. 'I think what we should give the Gazans is the choice to leave if they want to.
'If people have the opportunity to find themselves a better life with peace and prosperity somewhere else. Why should we stop them?'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: The oil chokepoint Iran could threaten — but probably won't
As President Trump weighs whether to join Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear weapons program, one major factor is how Iran might respond. That leads to a crucial bit of water known as the Strait of Hormuz. For decades, strategists have fixated on the channel linking the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea and open waters. The Strait of Hormuz, ranging in width from 35 to 60 miles, passes between Iran on the north and Oman on the south. About 20% of the world's petroleum and seaborne natural gas shipments flow through the strait, making it the world's single most important passageway for fossil fuel. Iranian officials routinely threaten to block energy shipments through the strait when involved in some kind of conflict. They've done so again since Israel began attacking Iranian nuclear weapons and military targets on June 13. That's a big part of the reason Brent crude (BZ=F) prices jumped more than 15%, to $76 per barrel, as traders anticipated and then reacted to the fresh outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Iran. An Iranian effort to shut the strait would roil energy markets, easily pushing crude prices above $100. But it would also be extremely risky for Iran, whose theocratic leaders have to map out what would happen next. Trump, meanwhile, has to gauge whether a US attack on Iran might trigger an effort to close the strait and how he would respond in turn. "It will be one of the central factors as the US considers whether to join Israel in attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities," Dan Marks of the British think tank RUSI wrote on June 18. The whole question of whether US forces should attack Iran hinges on a uranium enrichment site at Fordow, southwest of Tehran, that is buried at least 250 feet under a mountain and hardened against attack. Israel doesn't have conventional weapons able to penetrate that deep and destroy hardened targets. But the US does, and those giant bombs can only be carried by US warplanes. Taking out Fordow and wiping out the Iranian nuclear program would eliminate the risk of one of the world's nastiest regimes getting nukes anytime soon. That's a plus in the world peace column. But an American attack on Iran would open the door to Iranian retaliation. Iran can't beat the US in a war, but it can inflict pain on its adversaries and put Trump at odds with his pledge to end US involvement in foreign wars. Iran ships much of its own oil through the Strait of Hormuz, so it benefits from keeping the ships chugging. But it might make more sense to shut the strait if Israel or the US attacked Iran's oil facilities and it had less oil to ship, or Iran tried, there would be three basic ways it could try to stop oil shipments from exiting the Persian Gulf. It could mine the waters around the strait, attack oil tankers and military escorts with drones and missiles, or mount direct naval attacks on tankers and their escorts with ships, submarines, and naval drones. The US Navy and its allies in the region have war-gamed these scenarios for decades. The first thing that would happen is oil prices would soar, prompting quick action from a coalition of nations. "Closing the Strait of Hormuz would be such a severe threat to oil exports that the U.S. and other Western powers (and conceivably even China) would be virtually certain to use force to reopen the export routes," former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack wrote recently in Foreign Affairs. Iran could cause trouble for "a number of bloody weeks," in Pollack's phrase, but it couldn't stop oil shipments out of the Gulf indefinitely. The US military and its allies are fully able to clear minefields, track and destroy missile launchers, and fend off a hostile navy, in time. Read more: How to protect your money during turmoil, stock market volatility An outgunned Iran, however, would probably use "asymmetric" tactics meant to preserve its most valuable military assets and create confusion. That could include missile and drone attacks on oil tankers, US warships, and energy infrastructure in other Gulf nations. The Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen have used those types of tactics to target ships in the Red Sea. They've only hit a few vessels but have still forced many shippers to avoid the area and take longer, costlier routes. In the Gulf region, there are no alternative shipping routes. Producers ship some oil by pipeline, but capacity isn't nearly enough to replace tankers transiting the strait. Capital Economics recently outlined four scenarios for how the Israel-Iran conflict could play out. One is that it dies down without much effect on markets. But two other scenarios could have a more severe impact on energy markets and the global economy. The battle could intensify either because Iran preemptively attacks US forces or because the US decides to join Israel in striking Iranian nuclear facilities. The fighting could also drag on with no obvious exit ramp, with pressure rising on Iran to execute some kind of desperate breakout move, such as a closure of the strait. Under those scenarios, oil prices could rise from $75 per barrel now to $130 or more, causing a stock market sell-off and raising the odds of a global recession. The fourth possible outcome is the demise of Iran's Islamic government, a wild-card possibility that could go a number of ways. There's no obvious replacement regime waiting in the wings, so it's not clear if another hard-line group would materialize or something more benign might ensue. The direction of oil prices also factors into other global hotspots. A surge in crude prices would directly benefit Russia, for instance, bringing fresh cash into the government coffers financing Russia's effort to seize Ukraine. And a global energy crisis weakening the US economy could forestall other Trump priorities, such as his effort to realign trade. Under virtually any scenario, the US would eventually reopen the Strait of Hormuz and energy supplies would return to normal. The question is what the cost would be to everybody involved. It's a complex matrix of what-ifs currently under intense study in Washington and many other world capitals. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump installs pair of 88-foot-tall new flag poles at the White House
WASHINGTON ― Massive new flag poles hoisting United States flags have been installed on the White House grounds after President Donald Trump said they were desperately needed and that he would pay for them himself. The placement of the two 88-foot-tall flagpoles — one on the north lawn and one on the south lawn — began early in the morning of June 18. A U.S. flag was later raised on the south lawn around 1 p.m. at a ceremony that included Trump's daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner. The couple was at the White House to watch the swearing in of Charles Kushner, Jared's father, as U.S. ambassador to France. 'How do you like it, everybody?' Trump said to reporters after the flag reached the top of the pole. Soon afterward, the second flag pole of identical height was installed on the north lawn. A few hours later, after thunderstorms rolled through Washington D.C., a second flag with the same dimensions was raised. Presidents have long put their own mark on how the White House is decorated, and Trump, who built his personal brand flipping commercial properties, is no exception. "It is a GIFT from me of something which was always missing from this magnificent place," Trump said in a social media post. "Hopefully, they will proudly stand at both sides of the White House for many years to come!" Trump said he paid out of his own pocket to install the poles, which cost about $50,000 each. This week, the White House traded a bust sitting in the Oval Office of the civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. for one of former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Trump said earlier this year he'd like to see a new ballroom built in the White House. When asked what gave him the idea to install the flag poles, Trump said he first considered the flags during his first term but blamed distractions caused by the media for getting in the way. 'I was the hunted. And now I'm the hunter,' Trump told reporters on June 18. "It's a big difference." Contributing: Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump installs pair of 88-foot-tall new flag poles at the White House
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Stoking the fire — Trump has edged on political extremism
During his 10 years as a dominant political force, President Donald Trump has thrived on chaos and with his harsh and cruel vitriolic language and actions against anyone he dislikes or scorns, he encourages division, the opposite of what leaders should do. This nasty atmosphere encourages hatred and extremism and it has contributed to a culture marked by political violence, like the Jan. 6 sacking of the U.S. Capital by Trump supporters or the two men who tried to assassinate Trump last year or the assassin who murdered Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband as well as wounding state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife on Saturday. The Minnesota gunman, now captured, had an apparent hit list found on him. While more particulars on his motivations and ideology will no doubt come into focus in the coming days and weeks, he committed these atrocious acts in an atmosphere heavy with recriminations and suspicions. And the tone comes from the top. Adding to this is the kind of garbage put on Twitter by Utah Sen. Mike Lee insinuating a connection between the killer and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. That idea seems to be an extrapolation from the fact that the shooter had served as one of 41 gubernatorial appointees on a minor unpaid workforce development board, to which he was reappointed by Walz after an earlier appointment by his predecessor, a position that is unlikely to have brought him into much if any direct contact with the governor. Yet Lee and others have fixated on this and the fact that the shooter had flyers for the nationwide 'No Kings' protests to assert that this must have been some sort of leftist terrorist. Who knows. What we do know is that the coast-to-coast anti-Trump marches went on largely peacefully, including 50,000 protesters here in New York. If there was violence at the marches, Trump might have used it as an excuse to exceed his authority and bring in the National Guard 'to restore order' like he did in L.A., a clearly illegal and unconstitutional move. Rather than seeking calm and condemning violence, Trump has sought to exploit it for a decade, going back to saying that 'Second Amendment people' could handle his opponent Hillary Clinton back in 2016 to telling militant extremists to 'stand back and stand by' in 2020 to pardoning all Jan. 6 insurrectionists on his first day in office this year. The past few years have seen acts of political violence perpetrated by people at various points on the political spectrum against targets including Trump himself, who was very nearly assassinated last year. For a few days after his brush with death last July in Butler, Pa., Trump did cool down his rhetoric. But that pause didn't last and soon enough returned the acid language from the former president, who is now president again. When forced on the question of whether he supports violence, Trump has had enough sense to never endorse it outright, but his actions have done nothing but point would-be instigators on the right to the conclusion that the president is tacitly on their side and will take concrete actions, like pardons, to facilitate their ends. Trump, sadly, just doesn't realize that political violence can't be controlled, once the seeds of hate that fuel it have been sown. _____
