Trump says it is ‘up to Israel' whether to occupy all of Gaza
When asked on Tuesday about reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has decided to occupy the entire Palestinian territory, Trump said he is focused on getting 'people fed' in Gaza.
'As far as the rest of it, I really can't say. That's going to be pretty much up to Israel,' the US president told reporters.
Washington provides Israel with billions of dollars in military aid annually, assistance that significantly increased following the start of Israel's war on Gaza in October 2023.
Israel has used forced displacement orders to squeeze Palestinians into ever-shrinking pockets in Gaza, turning 86 percent of the territory into militarised zones.
But increased military operations in the remaining part of the territory would further endanger the lives of Palestinians, who already endure daily bombardment and Israeli-imposed starvation.
Netanyahu's purported plans to conquer Gaza have also raises concerns about the safety of the remaining Israeli captives held in the enclave by Hamas and other Palestinian groups.
Top United Nations official Miroslav Jenca said on Tuesday that a complete occupation of Gaza would 'risk catastrophic consequences'.
'International law is clear in the regard. Gaza is and must remain an integral part of the future Palestinian state,' Jenca told the UN Security Council.
Israel withdrew its forces and settlements from the Palestinian territory in 2005, but legal experts have said that the enclave remained technically under occupation, since the Israeli military continued to control Gaza's airspace, territorial waters and ports of entry.
Since the start of the war in 2023, right-wing Israeli officials have called for the re-establishment of Israel's military presence and settlements inside Gaza.
Netanyahu has also suggested that Israel aims to remove all Palestinians from the enclave, in what would amount to ethnic cleansing, a plan that Trump himself echoed in February.
Trump, at the time, proposed clearing Gaza of its people to construct a 'riviera of the Middle East' in its stead.
The recent reports about Israel's intention to expand its ground operations in Gaza come amid growing international outcry over the deadly hunger spreading across the territory.
Israel has blocked nearly all aid from entering Gaza since March, making US-backed GHF sites almost the only places for Palestinians to get food.
Hundreds of Palestinians have been shot by the Israeli military while trying to reach GHF facilities deep inside Israel's lines of control. Nevertheless, the US has continued to support the organisation, despite international pleas to allow the UN to distribute the aid.
In recent days, Israel has allowed some food trucks and air drops to distribute aid to Gaza, but the assistance is still far from meeting the needs of the population.
The Israeli military has also been accused of targeting aid seekers trying to reach assistance trucks away from GHF sites in northern Gaza.
On Tuesday, Trump reiterated his often-repeated claim that the US has provided $60m in aid to Gaza. His administration had provided $30m to GHF.
'As you know, $60m was given by the United States fairly recently to supply food – a lot of food, frankly – for the people of Gaza that are obviously not doing too well with the food,' he told reporters.
'And I know Israel is going to help us with that, in terms of distribution and also money. We also have the Arab states [which] are going to help us with that in terms of the money and possibly distribution.'
Israel's assault on Gaza has killed more than 61,000 people and flattened most of the territory in what rights groups and UN experts have called a genocide.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Public opinion is split as US marks 80th anniversary of Hiroshima bombing
On August 6, 1945, the United States became the first and only country in history to carry out a nuclear attack when it dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. While the death toll of the bombing remains a subject of debate, at least 70,000 people were killed, though other figures are nearly twice as high. Three days later, the US dropped another atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, killing at least 40,000 people. The stunning toll on Japanese civilians at first seemed to have little impact on public opinion in the US, where pollsters found approval for the bombing reached 85 percent in the days afterwards. To this day, US politicians continue to credit the bombing with saving American lives and ending World War II. But as the US marks the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, perceptions have become increasingly mixed. A Pew Research Center poll last month indicated that Americans are split almost evenly into three categories. Nearly a third of respondents believe the use of the bomb was justified. Another third feels it was not. And the rest are uncertain about deciding either way. 'The trendline is that there is a steady decline in the share of Americans who believe these bombings were justified at the time,' Eileen Yam, the director of science and society research at Pew Research Center, told Al Jazeera in a recent phone call. 'This is something Americans have gotten less and less supportive of as time has gone by.' Tumbling approval rates Doubts about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the advent of nuclear weapons in general, did not take long to set in. 'From the beginning, it was understood that this was something different, a weapon that could destroy entire cities,' said Kai Bird, a US author who has written about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. His Pulitzer Prize-winning book, American Prometheus, served as the basis for director Christopher Nolan's 2023 film, Oppenheimer. Bird pointed out that, even in the immediate aftermath of the bombing, some key politicians and public figures denounced it as a war crime. Early critics included physicist Albert Einstein and former President Herbert Hoover, who was quick to speak out against the civilian bloodshed. 'The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul,' Hoover wrote within days of the bombing. Over time, historians have increasingly cast doubt on the most common justification for the atomic attacks: that they played a decisive role in ending World War II. Some academics point out that other factors likely played a larger role in the Japanese decision to surrender, including the Soviet Union's declaration of war against the island nation on August 8. Others have speculated whether the bombings were meant mostly as a demonstration of strength as the US prepared for its confrontation with the Soviet Union in what would become the Cold War. Accounts from Japanese survivors and media reports also played a role in changing public perceptions. John Hersey's 1946 profile of six victims, for instance, took up an entire edition of The New Yorker magazine. It chronicled, in harrowing detail, everything from the crushing power of the blast to the fever, nausea and death brought on by radiation sickness. By 1990, a Pew poll found that a shrinking majority in the US approved of the atomic bomb's use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Only 53 percent felt it was merited. Rationalising US use of force But even at the close of the 20th century, the legacy of the attacks remained contentious in the US. For the 50th anniversary of the bombing in 1995, the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, had planned a special exhibit. But it was cancelled amid public furore over sections of the display that explored the experiences of Japanese civilians and the debate about the use of the atomic bomb. US veterans groups argued that the exhibit undermined their sacrifices, even after it underwent extensive revision. 'The exhibit still says in essence that we were the aggressors and the Japanese were the victims,' William Detweiler, a leader at the American Legion, a veterans group, told The Associated Press at the time. Incensed members of Congress opened an investigation, and the museum's director resigned. The exhibit, meanwhile, never opened to the public. All that remained was a display of the Enola Gay, the aeroplane that dropped the first atomic bomb. Erik Baker, a lecturer on the history of science at Harvard University, says that the debate over the atomic bomb often serves as a stand-in for larger questions about the way the US wields power in the world. 'What's at stake is the role of World War II in legitimising the subsequent history of the American empire, right up to the current day,' he told Al Jazeera. Baker explained that the US narrative about its role in the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan — the main 'Axis Powers' in World War II — has been frequently referenced to assert the righteousness of US interventions around the world. 'If it was justifiable for the US to not just go to war but to do 'whatever was necessary' to defeat the Axis powers, by a similar token, there can't be any objection to the US doing what is necessary to defeat the 'bad guys' today,' he added. A resurgence of nuclear anxiety But as the generations that lived through World War II grow older and pass away, cultural shifts are emerging in how different age groups approach US intervention — and use of force — abroad. The scepticism is especially pronounced among young people, large numbers of whom have expressed dissatisfaction with policies such as US support for Israel's war in Gaza. In an April 2024 poll, the Pew Research Center found a dramatic generational divide among Americans over the question of global engagement. Approximately 74 percent of older respondents, aged 65 and up, expressed a strong belief that the US should play an active role on the world stage. But only 33 percent of younger respondents, aged 18 to 35, felt the same way. Last month's Pew poll on the atomic bomb also found stark differences in age. People over the age of 65 were more than twice as likely to believe that the bombings were justified than people between the ages of 18 and 29. Yam, the Pew researcher, said that age was the 'most pronounced factor' in the results, beating out other characteristics, such as party affiliation and veteran status. The 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing also coincides with a period of renewed anxiety about nuclear weapons. US President Donald Trump, for instance, repeatedly warned during his re-election campaign in 2024 that the globe was on the precipice of 'World War III'. 'The threat is nuclear weapons,' Trump told a rally in Chesapeake, Virginia. 'That can happen tomorrow.' 'We're at a place where, for the first time in more than three decades, nuclear weapons are back at the forefront of international politics,' said Ankit Panda, a senior fellow in the nuclear policy programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a US-based think tank. Panda says that such concerns are linked to geopolitical tensions between different states, pointing to the recent fighting between India and Pakistan in May as one example. The war in Ukraine, meanwhile, has prompted Russia and the US, the world's two biggest nuclear powers, to exchange nuclear-tinged threats. And in June, the US and Israel carried out attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities with the stated aim of setting back the country's ability to develop nuclear weapons. But as the US marks the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombings, advocates hope the shift in public opinion will encourage world leaders to turn away from nuclear sabre-rattling and work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. Seth Shelden, the United Nations liaison for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, explained that countries with nuclear weapons argue that their arsenals discourage acts of aggression. But he said those arguments diminish the 'civilisation-ending' dangers of nuclear warfare. 'As long as the nuclear-armed states prioritise nuclear weapons for their own security, they're going to incentivise others to pursue them as well,' he said. 'The question shouldn't be whether nuclear deterrence can work or whether it ever has worked,' he added. 'It should be whether it will work in perpetuity.'
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Syria signs $14bn infrastructure deals, will revamp Damascus airport
Syria has signed a series of investment deals with international companies, covering 12 major strategic projects in infrastructure, transportation and real estate valued at a total of $14bn, the latest lifeline aimed at reviving its war-ravaged economy. The plans included a $4bn investment project for Damascus airport signed with Qatar's UCC Holding and a $2bn deal with the United Arab Emirates national investment corporation to establish a metro in the Syrian capital, Talal al-Hilali, head of the Syrian Investment Authority, said during the ceremony at the presidential palace in Damascus on Wednesday. It's a welcome development for President Ahmed al-Sharaa's new government as it has been grappling with the heavy fallout from sectarian violence that broke out on July 13 in the southern province of Suwayda between Bedouin and Druze fighters. Government troops were deployed to quell the conflict. The bloodshed worsened, and Israel carried out strikes on Syrian troops and also bombed the heart of the capital Damascus, under the pretext of protecting the Druze. Other major developments on the investment front destined for Damascus include the $2bn Damascus Towers project signed with the Italian-based company UBAKO, a $500m deal for the Baramkeh Towers project and another $60m agreement for Baramkeh Mall. Since the overthrow of longtime ruler Bashar al-Assad in December in a lightning rebel offensive, Syria's new authorities have worked to attract investment for the reconstruction of infrastructure destroyed in the country's devastating, nearly 14-year-long civil war. The projects 'will extend across Syria and represent a qualitative shift in infrastructure and economic life', al-Hilali said on Wednesday, adding that the agreements were 'a turning point' for Syria's future. Al-Sharaa and United States special envoy for Syria Tom Barrack were both present at the signing ceremony, Syria's official SANA news agency reported on Wednesday. Barrack congratulated Syrian authorities on 'another great accomplishment', saying they will witness the rise of a 'new hub' in 'trade and prosperity'. The United Nations has put Syria's post-war reconstruction costs at more than $400bn. Several deals have already been announced. Last month, Saudi Arabia signed major investment and partnership deals with Syria, valued at $6.4bn. Also in July, Syria signed an $800m deal with UAE-based company DP World to develop the port of Tartous, state media reported. In May, Syria signed a $7bn energy deal with a consortium of Qatari, Turkish and US companies as it seeks to revive its crippled power sector. The US and European Union have recently lifted sanctions on Syria in the wake of al-Assad's ouster, opening the nation to further investment and trade deals.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
What Trump's tariffs mean for Shein and Temu shoppers
Are US tariffs about to end the 'add to cart' era? United States President Donald Trump's move to end the de minimis exemption closes a loophole used by Shein, Temu and others to ship duty-free. With costs likely passed to shoppers, consumers are starting to rethink the real price of ultra-cheap clothing.
