Gaza hunger presents Trump with moral test familiar to past presidents
It was unclear what Trump meant by getting 'more involved.' Days earlier, he had withdrawn his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, from talks between Israel and Hamas in pursuit of a ceasefire to end the war in Gaza.
Advertisement
But Witkoff will now travel to Israel on Thursday to discuss Gaza, and Israeli news outlets reported that he might even visit a food distribution center in the territory.
Witkoff's change of plans comes as aid groups say hunger in Gaza is reaching crisis levels. One United Nations-affiliated group said in a report this week that a 'worst-case' famine scenario is unfolding, and Gaza health officials say that dozens of Palestinians, including children, have died of starvation in recent weeks. Those grim facts have been driven home by gut-wrenching images of skeletal toddlers and people fighting for food.
Advertisement
Israeli officials reject responsibility for food shortages in Gaza, which they say are exaggerated and caused by Hamas. 'There is no policy of starvation in Gaza, and there is no starvation in Gaza,' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said. Hamas 'robs, steals this humanitarian aid and then accuses Israel of not supplying it,' he added. But Hamas denies that, and Israeli military officials privately say they have found no evidence that Hamas systematically steals aid.
Such protests have not defused global anger. France announced this week that it would recognize an independent Palestinian state at the United Nations in September, and Britain said it would follow suit if Israel did not agree to a ceasefire with Hamas.
And in Washington this week, one of Trump's fiercest Republican allies in Congress, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, condemned Israel's actions in Gaza as 'genocide.'
Trump has few good options. The United States supplies Israel, its close partner, with billions in annual military aid. Even if Hamas is the main obstacle to aid delivery, Trump lacks influence over the militant group. His only real hope is to insist that Israel, which controls Gaza's borders, does more to clear roads and protect aid convoys.
And a long-term solution may require leveraging American aid to force Netanyahu to accept a ceasefire on terms short of his longtime demands.
Stephen Wertheim, a senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the quandary is a familiar one for U.S. presidents.
'President Trump's excuse-making over Gaza resonates with a long line of presidents who were pressured to address humanitarian catastrophes,' Wertheim said.
Advertisement
That pressure comes from a sense of moral duty in the country's DNA, dating as far back as John Winthrop's 1630 'City on a Hill' sermon, in which he told Puritan Massachusetts colonists that 'the eyes of all people are upon us.'
As the United States grew in power and wealth, so did its sense of obligation to people in need everywhere. When President Herbert Hoover, a free-market Republican, ordered aid to famine-stricken Soviet Russia in 1921, he declared: 'Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!' Cold War competition for global influence with the Soviet Union reinforced the instinct, on strategic grounds.
Many conservatives argue that America is not a charity, and should help people abroad only when it advances the national interest. Trump has made that argument explicit in his 'America first' foreign policy, his deep cuts to foreign aid spending and his dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Stephen Pomper, the chief of policy at the International Crisis Group, noted that a president who preaches an 'America first' foreign policy has undermined an international system built over decades to prevent foreign atrocities. The United States, he said, 'looks increasingly like it rejects or is indifferent to the founding principles of the order that it helped create.'
Still, the crisis in Gaza has echoes of past humanitarian crises that left presidents wringing their hands over how to respond.
President Bill Clinton took office in 1993 as a champion of human rights and international institutions. But when machete-wielding Hutu militias started to slaughter ethnic Tutsi in Rwanda in 1994, he rejected calls for U.S. action. Scarred by the deaths of 18 American soldiers on a peacekeeping mission in Somalia, Clinton feared that even modest steps could escalate dangerously. Unchecked, Hutu killers carried out the genocide of an estimated 800,000 Tutsi. Clinton later said he regretted not doing more to stop it.
Advertisement
Clinton also hesitated as Serbian forces slaughtered civilians in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the mid-1990s, rebuffing direct pleas from the likes of Elie Wiesel by saying the problem did not warrant risking American lives. The 1995 massacre of 8,000 men and boys at a U.N.-declared 'safe area' in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica finally moved Clinton to act. A U.S.-led bombing campaign against Serbian forces led to a peace deal credited with stabilizing the region.
Stopping mass killings in the Darfur region of Sudan in the early 2000s became a campaign for activists and celebrities, including Angelina Jolie and George Clooney. But even after the State Department formally declared the atrocities there a 'genocide' in 2004, President George W. Bush refused calls to deploy U.S. troops to stop it. He cited, among other things, concern about intervening 'in another Muslim country' at the time of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By the time Barack Obama became president, activists and scholars -- fueled by the American failure in Rwanda -- had developed new legal theories to support cross-border intervention to protect victims of atrocities. Among them was Samantha Power, an influential national security aide to Obama, who helped engineer a 2011 presidential directive on the subject. 'Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States,' it declared.
Obama put that idea into practice in 2011, when he ordered airstrikes in Libya against government forces preparing to crush a rebellion in the city of Benghazi. Obama said he acted to avert 'a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.'
Advertisement
But that supposedly limited intervention expanded into a monthslong NATO bombing campaign, and Libya collapsed into violent anarchy, leaving Obama regretting the experience. So when he was pressured again to intervene in Syria's civil war against the country's brutal regime, he rejected pleas for airstrikes from top officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry.
Obama did, however, order limited airstrikes in Syria in 2014 against Islamic State group fighters, in part to save thousands of Yazidi people trapped on a mountain in Iraq and at risk of genocidal massacre.
'Earlier this week, one Iraqi cried that there is no one coming to help,' Obama said in an address to the nation. 'Well, today America is coming to help.'
Gaza presents Trump with an especially difficult case, as it did for President Joe Biden.
Biden faced withering questions about his support for Israel's military campaign, and was shouted down at public events by protesters accusing him of complicity in 'genocide.' But while Biden often harangued Netanyahu to allow more aid into Gaza -- usually with limited and temporary results -- he never risked a full break with the prime minister over the matter.
One reason, Biden officials say, was intelligence showing that Hamas responded to signs of a potential split between the United States and Israel by hardening its negotiation position in ceasefire talks.
Biden felt enough of a responsibility -- and also perhaps political vulnerability -- that he resorted to dramatic displays of support for hungry Palestinians, sending military planes to airdrop supplies and ordering the construction of a $230 million pier to allow aid delivery by sea. Critics dismissed both measures as made-for-TV substitutes for putting decisive pressure on Netanyahu.
Advertisement
Ultimately, Wertheim said, America's real problem in Gaza is itself.
'It's not that other parties are engaged in atrocities and the question is whether the United States will use its righteous power to stop,' he said. 'In this case, the issue is that the United States is complicit in Israel's conduct.'
This article originally appeared in
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump plans to meet with Putin as soon as next week, New York Times reports
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump plans to meet in person with Russian President Vladimir Putin as early as next week, the New York Times reported on Wednesday, citing two people familiar with the plan. Trump then plans to meet with Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the newspaper reported, adding that the plans were disclosed in a call with European leaders on Wednesday. The White House did not immediately respond to the report but earlier on Wednesday Trump acknowledged that he spoke with European leaders after U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff's "highly productive" meeting with Putin in Russia. While noting that "great progress" was made during the meeting, Trump wrote on Truth Social: "Everyone agrees this War must come to a close, and we will work towards that in the days and weeks to come." Trump, who promised to end Russia's war in Ukraine on "day one" during his presidential campaign, has held several phone calls with Putin and has met with Zelenskiy since returning to the White House in January. However, in recent weeks, he has become increasingly frustrated with Moscow over a lack of progress towards ending the three-year conflict.
Miami Herald
10 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Visitors to the U.S. on business and tourist visas may have to pay $15,000 bonds
Some international visitors to the United States might be required to pay up to $15,000 deposits as part of a new visa bond pilot program announced by the State Department this week in a document published in the Federal Register. The pilot program is another strategy the Trump administration is utilizing to crack down on illegal immigration and is meant to discourage the number of visitors who overstay their visas. The State Department said in the filing that those who overstay their visas pose a national security threat to the U.S. The program is being formed as part of the enforcement of a January executive order in which President Donald Trump declared there was an invasion by illegal immigration through U.S. borders. The consular officers in the respective U.S embassies will determine the amount of the bond during the issuance of the visa. Travelers will have to post the assigned bond amount before they are issued a single-entry visa, which will be valid for three months. Travelers with visa bonds would also be limited to traveling in and out of pre-selected airports. The list of airports has yet to be announced. The administration said 500,000 people overstayed their visas in 2023, based on data from the Department of Homeland Security. The pilot bond program will focus on those countries that the administration has identified as having high visa overstays. The program is limited to only B-1 business and B-2 tourist visas. It does not affect students applying for F-1 student visas. The full list of countries has yet to be announced. A State Department spokesperson said business and tourist visitors from Malawi and Zambia who are eligible for the B-1/B-2 visas will have to post bonds starting Aug. 20. According to Homeland Security's 2023 fiscal year visa overstay data, Malawi had a total visa overstay rate of 14% from 1,655 visitors, and Zambia had 11% from 3,493 visitors. The complete list of countries will be published when the program takes effect. This new program comes as South Florida airports saw a decline in the number of domestic and international travellers compared to the previous year. Dan Linblade, the president and CEO of the Greater Fort Lauderdale Chamber of Commerce, which represents more than 1,250 companies, said in a statement that international business and tourism were vital to the economy and the new bond pilot program is a 'disincentive to travel from abroad.' 'We are concerned of the potential negative impact on international tourism at a time when we see declining numbers related to foreign travel,' said Lindblade. 'If the State Department's focus is only targeted to bad players then the impact will be smaller.' The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, which covers the Sixth District of the Federal Reserve, including Florida, reported in July that group bookings from international travel to the U.S from Canada, Asia, and Europe continued to slow, but there was some growth in overall travel and tourism. In the filing this week, the Department of State said that after reviewing reports going back as far as 2000, when the Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act was introduced, the reports of entry and exits of nonimmigrant visa holders to the U.S. who overstayed their visas show that thousands of visitors failed to depart by their visa terms. The first Trump administration had tried to initiate a six-month visa-bond pilot program in November 2020. The program was to 'serve as a diplomatic tool to encourage foreign governments to take all appropriate actions to ensure their nationals timely depart the United States after making temporary visits.' It was to run from December 2020 through June 2021. The State Department scrapped the pilot program due to the reduction of global travel because of COVID-19. 'Data collected during the Pilot may also be used to determine the effectiveness of visa bonds at reducing overstays, evaluate concerns about insufficient identity verification, and the extent to which visa bonds may deter otherwise legitimate B-1 and B-2 visa applicants from traveling to the United States,' the State Department said. The bond program will run until August 2026, and the countries on the list will continually be updated over the year. Visitors with bonds will have to file for a refund within 30 days of their departure from the United States. Failure to do so results risks forfeiting the deposits.
The Intercept
10 minutes ago
- The Intercept
An Unexpected Path to Hold War Criminals Accountable
Benjamin Netanyahu arrives at the Capitol to meet with U.S. lawmakers on July 9, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Photo: Samuel Corum/Sipa USA via AP Images Tyler McBrien is the managing editor of Lawfare and a 2024-25 Law & Justice Journalism Project Fellow. Many of those watching the horrors unfold in Gaza have hung their highest hopes and deepest frustrations on the world's apex courts: the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. Nearly two years into the war, these judicial bodies have neither prevented atrocities from occurring nor punished perpetrators. Journalists and activists amassed ample evidence documenting war crimes committed by the Israeli military, and yet its soldiers continue to operate in Gaza with impunity. It's a mistake to laser-focus on the ICJ, established by the United Nations Charter to settle disputes between states, and the ICC, which prosecutes individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression under the Rome Statute. Doing so misunderstands and overemphasizes their role. 'The ICC takes up way too much oxygen in discussions of international criminal justice and accountability,' the International Crisis Group's Brian Finucane told me. The myopia also misses important work happening in national courts. It's here at the domestic level where Palestinians have the best chance to see justice, as nation-states attempt to fulfill their international obligations through homegrown investigations and prosecutions. In many ways, the hopes and frustrations lavished on the ICC and ICJ are understandable. 'When people think of international trials, they think of Nuremberg and the signal to the international community that these are the most serious crimes that are being perpetrated,' said Jake Romm, a human rights lawyer and U.S. representative for the Hind Rajab Foundation. Gaza is exactly the kind of grave situation for which these courts were founded, and they have not been completely dormant since October 7, 2023. In early 2024, after South Africa brought a case against Israel alleging that it violated the U.N. Genocide Convention, the ICJ issued several rounds of provisional measures ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts, halt military action, and ensure the flow of humanitarian aid. In November that same year, the ICC put out arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant (along with three top Hamas commanders) for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts. But the wheels of justice in general turn slowly, and, for Palestinians, it can often feel like the wheels of international justice in particular seldom turn at all. The ICJ likely won't rule on the genocide case until the end of 2027 at the earliest. And while the prospects of seeing Netanyahu or Gallant in the dock at The Hague were always dim, they look even dimmer after Hungary, a state party to the Rome Statute, allowed Israel's wanted prime minister safe passage through Budapest, shirking its obligation to arrest him. The ICC also remains embroiled in crisis after its chief prosecutor took leave amid allegations of sexual misconduct, as perennial resource problems and political pressure continue to plague the court and the Trump administration targets the institution with sanctions and other threats. Even special international criminal tribunals, like the ad hoc structures created in the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda, are subject to a United Nations Security Council veto, an insurmountable hurdle for Palestinians. These international courts have surely not met the moment, but they cannot fight for global justice alone, nor were they designed to. Without an independent enforcement mechanism, international law functions as a voluntary system, dependent on states — as both its subjects and principal agents — to carry it out. And, according to associate professor of criminal law at the University of Milan and senior legal adviser to the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights Chantal Meloni, the Rome Statute set out 'a very clear logic that not every international crime committed everywhere in the world can be under the jurisdiction of the ICC, and states have to take their share of the responsibility to prevent and punish these crimes.' National courts, on the other hand, often don't face the same resource constraints and can go after perpetrators up and down the chain of command. The pursuit of justice through domestic courts 'involves potentially hundreds, even thousands of potential suspects as opposed to the ICC, which is only ever going to be dealing with a handful of cases,' said Mark Lattimer, executive director at the Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights. While states also face their own political pressures, they do not have to perform the ICC's difficult dance of appeasing its many patrons. Lattimer added that domestic efforts can also 'act as a break on double standards' all too present in international courts, especially for countries with a strong, independent judiciary insulated from prevailing geopolitical power shifts and free to pursue the gravest breaches of international law irrespective of the perpetrator's nationality. Read our complete coverage Efforts to activate domestic jurisdiction for international crimes are not new. A growing body of case law has arisen out of extraterritorial prosecutions in the Syrian war, the Balkan wars, various African conflicts, and, of course, World War II. Countries such as Spain and Belgium already had universal jurisdiction laws, which empower national authorities of any country to investigate and prosecute serious international crimes even if they were committed in another country, in place even before the adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998. Lawyers and activists are building on this historical precedent by pushing for domestic jurisdictions to investigate and prosecute allegations of atrocities by Israel's military in Gaza, the fruits of which have already led to tangible outcomes across several countries. Last month, Belgian authorities detained and questioned two Israeli soldiers on leave at a music festival in response to a legal complaint filed by the Hind Rajab Foundation and the Global Legal Action Network. The episode may have marked the first time national authorities detained Israeli soldiers on suspicion of crimes committed in Gaza, but these 'traveling soldiers,' some of them dual nationals, have faced other consequences. In January, the Israeli foreign minister helped Yuval Vagdani, as a vacationing soldier, escape from Brazil after learning that a federal judge there had opened a war crimes investigation stemming from another Hind Rajab Foundation legal filing. (Vagdani has denied the allegations in the filing.) In addition to filing a complaint with the ICC against more than 1,000 members of Israel's military, the Hind Rajab Foundation has filed complaints and arrest requests with the national authorities of at least 23 countries. In response to these activities and others, the Israeli government issued advisories for soldiers traveling to certain jurisdictions with legal resources and other advice. 'They're spooked,' said Romm. 'National legal systems are coming online to possibly arrest and incarcerate these Israeli soldiers for what they're doing to the Palestinians for the first time in history.' Though no complaint has resulted in a prosecution yet, these cases will likely continue and may even pick up speed. In July, 30 countries convened by The Hague Group committed to supporting 'universal jurisdiction mandates, as and where applicable in our legal constitutional frameworks and judiciaries, to ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes in the Occupied Palestine Territory.' Of course, the current political environment in several countries make any investigations of Israeli soldiers impossible, regardless of questions of jurisdiction and prosecutorial capacity. In April, the Hind Rajab Foundation filed an urgent request with the Justice Department to prosecute the Israeli soldier Yuval Shatel under U.S. federal law after learning he was spotted in Texas days prior. According to a press release from the foundation, the filing included a dossier of evidence in support of allegations that Shatel committed 'serious violations of international humanitarian law during Israel's military campaign in Gaza.' (Shatel and the Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment). At the same time, the Hind Rajab Foundation is not naive. The chance of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi directing the Justice Department to investigate its allegations against Shatel seems slim at best, especially since the U.S. War Crimes Act, passed in 1996, laid dormant until December 2023, when the Justice Department indicted four Russians for alleged violations of the federal war crimes statute — the first (and only) prosecution in the law's 30-year history. The apparent unwillingness to apply the statute elsewhere drew criticism as Israel's military campaign in Gaza intensified. On October 21, 2024, Justice Department attorneys wrote a letter to Bondi's predecessor, Merrick Garland, 'calling out the 'glaring gap' between the department's approach to crimes committed by Russia and Hamas — versus the department's silence on potential crimes committed by Israeli forces and civilians.' The Hind Rajab Foundation's request aims to close that gap. 'There is a discrepancy between what the letter of the law says and how the U.S. is acting,' said Romm. 'We filed this because we want them to prosecute, and because they can. They have jurisdiction, and the crimes are very clear.' The Shatel case is HRF's first U.S. prosecution request, but Romm says it won't be the last. 'All I can say is there will be more,' he told me. 'We're going to try to get everyone we possibly can.' 'Despite the fact that this carnage has gone on for almost two years now, it's still, by the standards of justice, in the early days.' There is no statute of limitations for the gravest transgressions of international law. For perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide, the prosecutor's sword of Damocles will hang over them for a lifetime. In December, German courts cleared the way for a 100-year-old former Nazi to stand trial nearly 80 years after the end of WWII. 'Despite the fact that this carnage has gone on for almost two years now, it's still, by the standards of justice, in the early days,' said Finucane. 'When it comes to atrocity crime accountability, there are very long tails, and these things spool over the course of decades.' For anyone demanding justice and accountability for Israel's crimes in Gaza, the message is clear: Let a thousand prosecutions bloom.
