Israeli military says it has launched first stages of major offensive in Gaza, same day Trump leaves region with no deal
Mohammed Tawfeeq
and
Jeremy Diamond
, CNN
Palestinians carrying their belongings as they flee Gaza City on 16 May.
Photo:
AFP / BASHAR TALEB
The Israeli military says it has launched the first stages of a new major offensive in Gaza, in a development that comes on the same day that US President Donald Trump concluded his visit to the region without securing a ceasefire deal.
In a statement, the Israel Defence Forces said it launched "extensive attacks and mobilised forces to seize strategic areas in the Gaza Strip, as part of the opening moves of Operation 'Gideon's Chariots' and the expansion of the campaign in Gaza, to achieve all the goals of the war in Gaza, including the release of the hostages and the defeat of Hamas".
The development comes after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said earlier this month that the population of Gaza would be displaced to the south following his security cabinet's approval of an expanded military operation that one minister described as a plan to "conquer" the territory.
"IDF troops in the Southern Command will continue to operate to protect Israeli citizens and realize the goals of the war," the military said in its statement.
Since Thursday, the Israeli military has intensified operations across Gaza, killing more than 100 people, as Netanyahu pledged to continue bombings - even as Trump suggested establishing a "freedom zone" in the enclave.
Many of the casualties were in Jabalya in northern Gaza and in Khan Younis in the south, according to Gaza Civil Defense.
Netanyahu has pledged to eradicate Hamas with a strategy that would see the military hold more territory in Gaza and push the entire civilian population into a smaller area in the south.
The new Israeli offensive comes amid what appear to be growing differences between the US and Israeli governments. Trump said last week that he wanted an end to the "brutal war" in Gaza and he did not visit Israel during his tour of the Middle East this week.
He also bypassed Israel twice this month in reaching bilateral deals with regional militant groups. Hamas released an Israeli-American hostage last week, and the Houthis agreed to stop firing at American ships in the Red Sea while pledging to continue fighting Israel.
On Wednesday, Trump denied that Israel had been sidelined. "This is good for Israel," he said. But on Thursday, he said he wanted the US to "take" Gaza and turn it into a "freedom zone".
"I have concepts for Gaza that I think are very good, make it a freedom zone, let the United States get involved and make it just a freedom zone," Trump said in Qatar.
While in the Gulf, Trump also acknowledged that people are starving in Gaza and said the US would have the situation in Gaza "taken care of".
"We're looking at Gaza. And we're going to get that taken care of. A lot of people are starving," he told reporters in Abu Dhabi.
Meanwhile, UN agencies are calling for urgent action as the situation for civilians grows increasingly dire.
Around 436,000 people have been estimated to have been forcibly displaced since March, according to a report from the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, when Israel launched a fresh ground campaign as part of its renewed assault on the enclave.
For nearly 11 weeks, Israel has imposed a complete siege on Gaza, denying entry of food, medical supplies and other aid to the more than two million Palestinians who live in the territory.
Israel says the blockade, along with the military's expansion of its bombardment of Gaza, is intended to pressure Hamas to release hostages held in the enclave - but international organisations say it violates international law, with many accusing Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war.
A UN study this week warned one in five people in the Gaza Strip are facing starvation and that the entire population of Gaza is at "high risk" of famine, the most severe type of hunger crisis.
The US and Israel are backing the newly established Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a tightly controlled mechanism for Gaza aid deliveries that seeks to supplant the traditional role of UN agencies in delivering aid to the enclave.
The foundation's executive director, Jake Wood, told CNN on Friday that Israel has agreed to allow some food into Gaza before a newly approved mechanism for aid deliveries is up and running later this month, but he did not yet know when or how many aid trucks Israel would allow in.
The Israeli government has not been swayed by a growing tide of international criticism over the blockade on aid reaching Gaza, now in its third month.
Netanyahu said earlier this week: "We are destroying more and more homes, they have nowhere to return to. The only inevitable outcome will be the desire of Gazans to emigrate outside of the Gaza Strip," a goal that Trump had supported soon after coming into office.
The announcement of Israel's intensifying operations came as the Palestinian Ministry of Health said that the number of people killed by the Israeli offensive in Gaza since October 2023 now exceeds 53,000, the majority of whom are women and children.
Israel launched the war after Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups carried out a surprise attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, killing 1200 people, mostly civilians, and taking 251 hostages. This attack marked the deadliest terror attack in Israel's history.
- CNN
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
Which countries recognise the state of Palestine. What would statehood look like?
By Zena Chamas Moroccans chant slogans and wave the Palestinian flag during a march to express their solidarity with the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, in Rabat on 19 July, 2025. Photo: AFP As of 2025, there are about 147 countries that officially recognise the state of Palestine. France is set to recognise a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly in September, bringing the total to 148 countries. Currently, there is no Palestinian state. Instead, there are the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which include Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Only the Jewish state - Israel - exists. Some Palestinians live in Israel as citizens. Others live as refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. As of March 2025, the state of Palestine has been recognised as a sovereign nation by 147 of 193 member states of the United Nations, about 75 percent. In 2024, a group of UN experts called on all United Nations member states to recognise the State of Palestine, in order to bring about an immediate ceasefire in Gaza amid the Israel-Gaza war. Since then, nine countries - Armenia, Slovenia, Ireland, Norway, Spain, the Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and Barbados - formally recognised the State of Palestine. Most of the Middle East, Africa and Asia recognise Palestinian statehood. On Thursday (local time), France's President Emmanuel Macron announced that France would recognise a Palestinian state in hopes it would bring peace to the region. In response to Macron's move, Netanyahu said that such a move "rewards terror and risks creating another Iranian proxy". "A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel - not to live in peace beside it," Netanyahu said in a post on X. In other parts of Europe, Slovenia, Malta and Belgium are yet to recognise Palestinian statehood. Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, Japan and South Korea also do not. Australia does not recognise a Palestinian state. On its website, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade states Australia is: "Committed to a two-state solution in which Israel and a future Palestinian state coexist, in peace and security, within internationally recognised borders." Public outrage as the Palestinian death toll has climbed has been followed only slowly by official statements from governments reluctant to criticise Israel - until now. The Australian Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) has argued that Australia symbolically recognising Palestinian statehood would mean "establishing a formal diplomatic relationship with Palestine". Australia currently has an ambassador to Israel, but only a representative to Palestine. In recent comments, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese did not refer directly to recognising Palestine, but pointed to Australia's long-standing ambitions around recognition. "Recognising the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for a state of their own has long been a bipartisan position in Australia," Albanese said. "The reason a two-state solution remains the goal of the international community is because a just and lasting peace depends upon it. "Australia is committed to a future where both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples can live in peace and safety, within secure and internationally recognised borders." Last year, Foreign Minister Penny Wong indicated Australia was considering recognising a Palestinian state as part of a peace process, rather than at the endpoint. This week, Australia joined 27 other countries demanding an immediate end to the war. In November 2024, Australia voted in favour of a draft United Nations resolution recognising "permanent sovereignty" of Palestinians and the Golan Heights to natural resources in the Occupied Territories for the first time in more than two decades. A total of 159 countries voted in favour of the draft resolution in a UN committee, including Australia, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, France, Germany and Japan. The State of Palestine was formally declared by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) on 15 November, 1988. It claims sovereignty over the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. According to senior lecturer in law at the University of South Australia, Juliette McIntyre, a state has certain defining features under international law. These features include a permanent population, a determinate territory, an "effective" government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. "In some ways, the most important thing is recognition by other states - this enables entering into diplomatic relations, and membership of international organisations," McIntyre said. She added that the governance of a Palestinian state could look like "free and fair elections for all Palestinians exercising their right of self-determination". "It is up to the Palestinian people to elect their representatives and decide on their form of governance," she said. Recognising a Palestinian state could mean the beginning of a "two-state solution" where both a Jewish state and an Arab state would exist at the same time. "A two-state solution requires two states. Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory has been found to be unlawful. "Recognition of Palestine is not hostile to Israel, Israel is an established state and recognition of Palestine does nothing to impact on this," McIntyre said. The two-state solution is still widely regarded by world leaders as the only way to end the conflict, but is not as popular in Israel and parts of the occupied Palestinian territories. "The territorial integrity of both states should be respected, and new borders could only come about by treaty agreement between both states," McIntyre said. What are the one-state and two-state solutions? Photo shows Benjamin Netanyahu stands in front of two Israeli flags. Benjamin Netanyahu stands in front of two Israeli flags. On Wednesday, Israel's parliament, the Knesset, voted 71-13 in favour of annexation of the West Bank, raising questions about the future of a Palestinian state. The non-binding vote was backed by members of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing coalition, as well as some opposition members of parliament. In a recent post on X, Netanyahu said: "Let's be clear: the Palestinians do not seek a state alongside Israel; they seek a state instead of Israel." Both Netanyahu and other members of Israel's parliament have shown their lack of support for a two-state solution. This year, the UN, which largely supports a two-state solution, will hold an international conference on the question of Palestine and the implementation of the two-state solution in New York from 28 to 29 July. The United States has opted out of attendance. - ABC
Otago Daily Times
13 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
US 'will sell so much' beef to Australia after relaxed restrictions: Trump
The United States will sell "so much" beef to Australia, US President Donald Trump said today after Canberra relaxed import restrictions. He added that other countries that refused US beef products were on notice. Australia on Thursday said it would loosen biosecurity rules for US beef, something analysts predicted would not significantly increase US shipments because Australia is a major beef producer and exporter whose prices are much lower. "We are going to sell so much to Australia because this is undeniable and irrefutable Proof that US Beef is the Safest and Best in the entire World," Trump said in a post on Truth Social. "The other Countries that refuse our magnificent Beef are ON NOTICE," the post continued. Trump has attempted to renegotiate trade deals with numerous countries he says have taken advantage of the United States – a characterisation many economists dispute. "For decades, Australia imposed unjustified barriers on US beef," US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement, calling Australia's decision a "major milestone in lowering trade barriers and securing market access for US farmers and ranchers." Australia is not a significant importer of beef, but the United States is, and a production slump is forcing it to step up purchases. Last year, Australia shipped almost 400,000 metric tons of beef worth $US2.9 billion ($NZ4.8 billion) to the United States, with just 269 tons of US product moving the other way. Australian officials say the relaxation of restrictions was not part of any trade negotiations but the result of a years-long assessment of US biosecurity practices. Canberra has restricted US beef imports since 2003 due to concerns about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease. Since 2019, it has allowed in meat from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the US but few suppliers were able to prove that their cattle had not been in Canada and Mexico. On Wednesday, Australia's agriculture ministry said US cattle traceability and control systems had improved enough that Australia could accept beef from cattle born in Canada or Mexico and slaughtered in the United States. The decision has caused some concern in Australia, where biosecurity is seen as essential to prevent diseases and pests from ravaging the farm sector. "We need to know if [the government] is sacrificing our high biosecurity standards just so Prime Minister Anthony Albanese can obtain a meeting with US President Donald Trump," shadow agriculture minister David Littleproud said in a statement. Australia, which imports more from the US than it exports, faces a 10% across-the-board US tariff, as well 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium. Trump has also threatened to impose a 200% tariff on pharmaceuticals. Asked whether the change would help achieve a trade deal, Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell said: "I'm not too sure." "We haven't done this in order to entice the Americans into a trade agreement," he said. "We think that they should do that anyway."
NZ Herald
17 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Trump targets ‘woke AI' with new federal contract rules
Experts on the technology say the answer to both questions is murky. Some lawyers say the prospect of the Trump Administration shaping what AI chatbots can and can't say raises First Amendment issues. Experts warn the order raises First Amendment issues and question the feasibility of bias-free AI. Photo / Getty Images 'These are words that seem great – 'free of ideological bias,'' said Rumman Chowdhury, executive director of the non-profit Humane Intelligence and former head of machine learning ethics at Twitter. 'But it's impossible to do in practice.' The concern that popular AI tools exhibit a liberal skew took hold on the right in 2023, when examples circulated on social media of OpenAI's ChatGPT endorsing affirmative action and transgender rights or refusing to compose a poem praising Trump. It gained steam last year when Google's Gemini image generator was found to be injecting ethnic diversity into inappropriate contexts – such as portraying black, Asian and Native American people in response to requests for images of Vikings, Nazis or America's 'Founding Fathers'. Google apologised and reprogrammed the tool, saying the outputs were an inadvertent by-product of its effort to ensure that the product appealed to a range of users around the world. ChatGPT and other AI tools can indeed exhibit a liberal bias in certain situations, said Fabio Motoki, a lecturer at the University of East Anglia. In a study published last month, he and his co-authors found that OpenAI's GPT-4 responded to political questionnaires by evincing views that aligned closely with those of the average Democrat. But assessing a chatbot's political leanings 'is not straightforward', he added. On certain topics, such as the need for US military supremacy, OpenAI's tools tend to produce writing and images that align more closely with Republican views. And other research, including an analysis by the Washington Post, has found that AI image generators often reinforce ethnic, religious and gender stereotypes. AI models exhibit all kinds of biases, experts say. It's part of how they work. Chatbots and image generators draw on vast quantities of data ingested from across the internet to predict the most likely or appropriate response to a user's query. So they might respond to one prompt by spouting misogynist tropes gleaned from an unsavoury anonymous forum – then respond to a different prompt by regurgitating DEI policies scraped from corporate hiring policies. Trump's AI plan: Federal contracts for bias-free models only. Photo / 123RF Training an AI model to avoid such biases is notoriously tricky, Motoki said. You could try to do it by limiting the training data, paying humans to rate its answers for neutrality, or writing explicit instructions into its code. All three approaches come with limitations and have been known to backfire by making the model's responses less useful or accurate. 'It's very, very difficult to steer these models to do what we want,' he said. Google's Gemini blooper was one example. Another came this year, when Elon Musk's xAI instructed its Grok chatbot to prioritise 'truth-seeking' over political correctness – leading it to spout racist and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and at one point even refer to itself as 'mecha-Hitler'. The Google Gemini app, an AI-based, multimodal chatbot developed by Google. Photo / Getty Images Political neutrality, for an AI model, is simply 'not a thing', Chowdhury said. 'It's not real.' For example, she said, if you ask a chatbot for its views on gun control, it could equivocate by echoing both Republican and Democratic talking points, or it might try to find the middle ground between the two. But the average AI user in Texas might see that answer as exhibiting a liberal bias, while a New Yorker might find it overly conservative. And to a user in Malaysia or France, where strict gun control laws are taken for granted, the same answer would seem radical. How the Trump Administration will decide which AI tools qualify as neutral is a key question, said Samir Jain, vice-president of policy at the non-profit Centre for Democracy and Technology. The executive order itself is not neutral, he said, because it rules out certain left-leaning viewpoints but not right-leaning viewpoints. The order lists 'critical race theory, transgenderism, unconscious bias, intersectionality, and systemic racism' as concepts that should not be incorporated into AI models. 'I suspect they would say anything providing information about transgender care would be 'woke,'' Jain said. 'But that's inherently a point of view.' Imposing that point of view on AI tools produced by private companies could run the risk of a First Amendment challenge, he said, depending on how it's implemented. 'The Government can't force particular types of speech or try to censor particular viewpoints, as a general matter,' Jain said. However, the Administration does have some latitude to set standards for the products it purchases, provided its speech restrictions are related to the purposes for which it's using them. Some analysts and advocates said they believe Trump's executive order is less heavy-handed than they had feared. Neil Chilson, head of AI policy at the right-leaning non-profit Abundance Institute, said the prospect of an overly prescriptive order on 'woke AI' was the one element that had worried him in advance of Trump's AI plan, which he generally supported. After reading the order, he said that those concerns were 'overblown' and he believes the order 'will be straightforward to comply with'. Mackenzie Arnold, director of US policy at the Institute for Law and AI, a nonpartisan think-tank, said he was glad to see the order makes allowances for the technical difficulty of programming AI tools to be neutral and offers a path for companies to comply by disclosing their AI models' instructions. 'While I don't like the styling of the EO on 'preventing woke AI' in government, the actual text is pretty reasonable,' he said, adding that the big question is how the Administration will enforce it. 'If it focuses its efforts on these sensible disclosures, it'll turn out okay,' he said. 'If it veers into ideological pressure, that would be a big misstep and bad precedent.'
