Netanyahu says ‘opportunities have opened up' to free Gaza hostages following Iran operation
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said 'many opportunities have opened up' following Israel's military operations in Iran, including the possibility of bringing home the remaining hostages held in Gaza.
Speaking at a Shin Bet security agency facility in southern Israel on Sunday, Netanyahu said, 'As you probably know, many opportunities have opened up now following this victory. Firstly, to rescue the hostages. Of course, we will also need to solve the Gaza issue, defeat Hamas, but I believe we will accomplish both missions.'
Netanyahu's comments mark one of the first times he has clearly prioritized the return of the hostages over the defeat of Hamas.
For months, Netanyahu has prioritized the defeat of Hamas in Gaza and talked about a 'total victory.' At the beginning of May, he called defeating Hamas the 'supreme objective,' not freeing the hostages.
His comments Sunday mark a potentially significant change in how he has talked about Israel's goals in the war. He has repeatedly faced criticism from the families of hostages, opposition politicians and large segments of the Israeli public for not clearly placing the return of the hostages as Israel's primary goal.
Reacting to his comments Sunday, the Hostages Families Forum Headquarters called for a single comprehensive deal to bring back all 50 hostages and end the fighting in Gaza.
'What is needed is release, not rescue. This difference of one word could mean the difference between salvation and loss for the hostages,' the forum said in a statement.
Elsewhere in his speech, Netanyahu also said 'wider regional opportunities are opening up,' an apparent reference to efforts to expand the Abraham Accords that saw Israel normalize relations with several Gulf states.
The comments by Netanyahu come amid increasing pressure on Israel from US President Donald Trump to make a ceasefire deal. Since the end of the conflict with Iran, negotiators have been pushing to restart stalled negotiations with Hamas in Gaza.
Netanyahu held a high-level meeting on Gaza Sunday evening, according to two Israeli sources, meeting with some of his closest advisers, including Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer, Defense Minister Israel Katz and others, to discuss the latest on Israel's military operation in the Palestinian enclave.
Dermer is scheduled to hold meetings with the Trump administration in Washington, DC, on Monday.
Trump has made clear his desire to secure a ceasefire deal to end the war in Gaza and bring home the 50 hostages held by Hamas, at least 20 of whom are still alive.
In a post on social media early Sunday morning, Trump pushed Israel to 'MAKE THE DEAL IN GAZA. GET THE HOSTAGES BACK!!!'
Trump had earlier thrown his support behind Netanyahu, calling his ongoing trial on corruption charges a 'POLITICAL WITCH HUNT' – the second time the president had called for an end to the prosecution of the long-time Israeli leader.
With the conclusion of the operation in Iran – and Trump's sudden foray into Israel's legal system – Netanyahu has requested to postpone his upcoming trial sessions this week.
After twice rejecting the requests, the court granted the delay following a confidential session in which the judge said there had been a change to the 'evidentiary structure' compared to the previous requests.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Congress Won't Act on the Iran Strikes. That Doesn't Make Them Legal.
President Donald Trump has insisted that the sites in Iran targeted by American airstrikes last week have been 'obliterated,' decimating its nuclear program—a claim that has been backed up by key administration officials despite an initial intelligence report finding that the damage was more moderate. But alongside the question of whether significant damage has been done to Iran's nuclear ambitions, there is another thorny issue that lawmakers must now address: the legality of Trump's decision to authorize the strikes in the first place. 'It's not just a matter of statutory interpretation, it's a matter of [the] Constitution requiring that Congress be the one to play a critical role in making a decision and using force,' said Oona Hathaway, professor of international law at Yale Law School. 'For the president to make that decision unilaterally, without going to the Security Council, without going to Congress, and putting U.S. troops and allies at risk is really extraordinary and clearly unlawful.' The president's power to use military force is constrained by the U.S. Constitution, the United Nations Charter, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. According to Article 1 of the Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war, although it has not done so since World War II. The War Powers Resolution was enacted in response to the Vietnam War as an attempt to counter presidents' approval of military action without the consent of Congress. It was pushed through over President Richard Nixon's veto. The law requires that a president consult with Congress before engaging military forces, and report within 48 hours why the action was taken, under what authority, and 'the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.' It also says a president must terminate the use of military force within 60 days if he has not sought approval from Congress. Despite its intention to ensure a conflict such as the Vietnam War never occurred without congressional consent again, the War Powers Resolution has often been ignored by the White House. For decades, presidents have pushed the limits of their power to engage in conflicts, while Congress has continued to take the back seat in enforcing its constitutional authority to declare war. Several presidents have taken military action without following the letter of the War Powers Resolution, including President Bill Clinton ordering airstrikes in Kosovo and President Barack Obama authorizing intervention in Libya. But Michael Glennon, professor of constitutional and international law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, argued Trump's actions were unique in that 'the risks entailed in this particular action are orders of magnitude greater than any of the supposed recent precedents.' He cited the threat of retaliation to the tens of thousands of U.S. troops posted around the Middle East, as well as 'stoking long-term regional animosities' and 'degrading the American reputation in diplomatic dealings with other countries.' 'In none of these recent cases was the context the same—the context being the exposure of the United States to a level of risk and cost that has not occurred before,' Glennon said. Trump's actions do follow a pattern of presidential engagement in conflict being followed by congressional dithering. Over several decades, presidents have learned that there will be little consequence for ignoring the War Powers Resolution. Hathaway said that cases challenging a president's actions do not typically go to court due to lack of legal standing. 'I don't think that that should lead us to think that there is no relevant law here, that this is a law-free zone where the president can do whatever he wants because he knows no one can actually enforce the rules,' said Hathaway. 'If the fact that there may not be consequences means that there's no law, then we've really got a problem on our hands.' Any pushback to unilateral presidential action may come from public disapproval of extended conflict rather than direct congressional action. A new Quinnipiac poll shows that the public is largely reacting to Trump's strikes in Iran with disapproval, although Republicans remain on board with the president's actions. 'Ultimately, Congress has not, in a significant way, constrained presidents from acting in these cases,' said Jordan Tama, professor in the Department of Foreign Policy and Global Security at American University's School of International Service. 'The members of Congress who have been most concerned about violations of the War Powers Resolution, or presidential actions that are not authorized by Congress … have not been able to muster the majority you need in Congress to pass new binding legislation that explicitly prohibits the president from pursuing military action.' Trump's actions in Iran have been met with some pushback from lawmakers, particularly after a scheduled briefing by administration officials for lawmakers was postponed this week. Axios further reported that the White House is limiting the sharing of classified information with Congress. Democratic Senator Tim Kaine is leading a resolution that would require Trump to seek congressional approval before engaging in further military hostilities in Iran, with an added amendment intended to alleviate concerns that it might hamper American support for Israel's activities in the region. Although the Senate is set to vote on the measure on Friday evening, it's unclear whether it would garner any Republican support in the upper chamber. Moreover, GOP Representative Thomas Massie, the Republican co-sponsor of a parallel measure in the House, said that a vote on his bipartisan resolution might be made moot if the ceasefire between Iran and Israel holds. Even if either of these measures makes it to the floor, however, it's unclear how much bipartisan support they would receive. Indeed, there is little political will to repudiate the president, and even if there was, lawmakers would need to marshal a veto-proof majority to take concrete action. Overturning a presidential veto would require support from two-thirds of members, which is unlikely in a Republican-majority Congress. In 2019, Congress approved a measure that would have pulled American support for Saudi Arabia's conflict in Yemen, but that resolution was vetoed by Trump. This puts Congress in a 'terrible fix,' said Hathaway: Rather than the president going to Congress to authorize military action, Congress must take the initiative to repudiate it. 'We end up with this learned helplessness in the sense that Congress chooses to stop trying, because what's the point?' said Hathaway. 'The president has learned that [he] can use military force without seeking authorities from Congress without consequence.' Aside from a seeming unwillingness to counter smaller-scale military engagements by presidents, Congress has similarly struggled to repeal or update authorizations for the use of military force in Iraq and Afghanistan approved ahead of the Gulf War and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The 2001 authorization, which applied to perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, has been treated by presidents as an umbrella approval to strike at other organizations affiliated with Al Qaeda. Efforts to overturn or narrow these authorizations have floundered in recent years, even decades after they were approved. Countering the president invites risk for members of Congress. For Republicans, resistance to the president's aims will only court Trump's retaliation. More generally, however, lawmakers take the view that authorizing the commencement of military engagements—or ordering them to cease—comes with unintended political consequences. Voting in favor of the 2003 authorization of military force in Iraq became a major political albatross for Democratic primary candidates in the 2008 presidential election. That said, repealing such an authorization invites blowback, as well, if, for example, the move to do away with such a law was followed by a terrorist attack on American soil, or U.S. interests getting threatened abroad. The status quo has a latent appeal to lawmakers, who get to offset the political risk of military intervention while maintaining the ability to criticize it—or take credit. 'Casting a dangerous vote on an issue of war and peace is a perilous political act, and they would prefer to avoid that, because they would prefer their careers be extended and not hindered,' said Glennon.
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Rages at Democratic Senator Who Exposed Reality of His Iran Plan
Early Monday morning, President Donald Trump lashed out against Democratic Senator Chris Coons for mentioning reports that the Trump administration is looking to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran eerily similar to the Obama-era agreement Trump discarded during his first term. On Thursday, CNN, citing four sources familiar with the matter, reported that 'the Trump administration has discussed possibly helping Iran access as much as $30 billion to build a civilian-energy-producing nuclear program, easing sanctions, and freeing up billions of dollars in restricted Iranian funds.' Trump at the time called such reports a 'HOAX' propagated by a 'SleazeBag' within the 'Fake News Media.' Coons cited the reports in a Sunday appearance on Fox News, telling host Shannon Bream, 'I'll just note that President Trump, by press accounts, is now moving towards negotiation and offering Iran a deal that looks somewhat similar to the Iran deal that was offered by Obama: tens of billions of dollars of incentives and reduced sanctions in exchange for abandoning their nuclear program.' A piqued Trump took to Truth Social just before 3 a.m., posting, 'Tell phony Democrat Senator Chris Coons that I am not offering Iran ANYTHING, unlike Obama, who paid them $Billions under the stupid road to a Nuclear Weapon JCPOA (which would now be expired!), nor am I even talking to them since we totally OBLITERATED their Nuclear Facilities.' Trump set off the chain of events leading to his June 21 bombing of Iran by withdrawing from President Obama's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018—a decision which prompted Iran to 'accelerate its nuclear program,' per Axios, which in turn led Trump, upon resuming office, to consider a renewed deal that geopolitics expert Jeffrey Lewis called 'a dollar-store' JCPOA. 'He's trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again,' Lewis said earlier this month. This, of course, went up in smoke as the self-proclaimed dealmaker President Trump resorted to unlawful military action.
Wall Street Journal
27 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Israeli Settlers Turn on Israel's Military After Attacking Palestinians in West Bank
Israelis from West Bank settlements have attacked Israel's troops and vandalized military sites in the occupied territory in recent days, after the country's military took measures to combat assaults on Palestinians. On Sunday night, a demonstration outside a military installation in the West Bank turned violent with some Israeli civilians attacking security forces, including with pepper spray, the Israeli military said. They also damaged military vehicles and set fire to an electronic installation the army said was used to maintain security in the area.
