Netanyahu meets Trump at White House
Speaking to reporters at the beginning of a dinner between US and Israeli officials, Netanyahu said the US and Israel were working with other countries who would give Palestinians a "better future," suggesting that the residents of Gaza could move to neighboring nations.
"If people want to stay, they can stay, but if they want to leave, they should be able to leave," Netanyahu said.
"We're working with the US very closely about finding countries that will seek to realize what they always say, that they wanted to give the Palestinians a better future. I think we're getting close to finding several countries." Trump, who initially demurred to Netanyahu when asked about the relocating of Palestinians, said the countries around Israel were helping out. "We've had great cooperation from ... surrounding countries, great cooperation from every single one of them. So something good will happen," Trump said.
The president earlier this year floated relocating Palestinians and taking over the Gaza Strip to turn it into the "Riviera of the Middle East." Gazans criticized the proposal and vowed never to leave their homes in the coastal enclave. Human rights groups condemned the plan as ethnic cleansing.
Trump and Netanyahu met for several hours in Washington while Israeli officials continued indirect negotiations with Hamas aimed at securing a US-brokered Gaza ceasefire and hostage-release deal. Netanyahu returned to the Blair House guest house late on Monday, where he was due to meet Vice President JD Vance.
Netanyahu's visit follows Trump's prediction, on the eve of their meeting, that such a deal could be reached this week.
Before heading to Washington, the right-wing Israeli leader said his discussions with Trump could help advance negotiations under way in Qatar between Israel and the Palestinian militant group.
It was Trump's third face-to-face encounter with Netanyahu since returning to office in January, and came just over two weeks after the president ordered the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites in support of Israeli airstrikes. Trump then helped arrange a ceasefire in the 12-day Israel-Iran war.
Trump said his administration would be meeting with Iran.
"We have scheduled Iran talks, and they ... want to talk. They took a big drubbing," he said.
Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff said the meeting would take place in the next week or so.
Trump said he would like to lift sanctions on Iran at some point. "I would love to be able to, at the right time, take those sanctions off," he said.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said in an interview released on Monday that he believed Iran could resolve its differences with the US through dialogue.
Trump and his aides appeared to be trying to seize on any momentum created by the weakening of Iran, which backs Hamas, to push both sides for a breakthrough in the 21-month Gaza war.
The two leaders, with their top advisers, held a private dinner in the White House Blue Room, instead of more traditional talks in the Oval Office, where the president usually greets visiting dignitaries.
Outside, hundreds of protesters, many wearing Palestinian keffiyeh scarves and waving Palestinian flags, gathered near the White House, waving banners that read "Stop Arming Israel" and "Say No to Genocide." They also called for Netanyahu's arrest, referring to the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant against the Israeli leader over alleged war crimes in Gaza.
Netanyahu met earlier on Monday with Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He planned to visit the US Capitol on Tuesday to see congressional leaders.
During their meeting, Netanyahu gave Trump a letter that he said he had used to nominate the US president for the Nobel Peace Prize. Trump, appearing pleased by the gesture, thanked him.
Ahead of their visit, Netanyahu told reporters Israeli negotiators were driving for a deal on Gaza in Doha, Qatar's capital.
Israeli officials also hope the outcome of the conflict with Iran will pave the way for normalization of relations with more of its neighbors such as Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia. (Reuters)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
![[Noah Feldman] The Supreme Court's majority is playing the long game](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwimg.heraldcorp.com%2Fnews%2Fcms%2F2025%2F07%2F08%2Fnews-p.v1.20250708.e97200c838e34d339b7c1374aa510318_T1.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
![[Noah Feldman] The Supreme Court's majority is playing the long game](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fall-logos-bucket.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fkoreaherald.com.png&w=48&q=75){kind=small}
Korea Herald
30 minutes ago
- Korea Herald
[Noah Feldman] The Supreme Court's majority is playing the long game
Many legal commentators apparently believe that, in the term that just ended, the Supreme Court further enabled President Donald Trump. The court did, in fact, issue a series of conservative decisions that Trump likes. However, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, the court also simultaneously pursued a careful strategy aimed at preserving the rule of law in the face of Trump's unprecedented challenges to it. The court picked its battles, upholding a meaningful number of lower court orders that blocked unlawful Trump initiatives. At the same time, the justices worked hard to avoid a direct confrontation in which Trump might overtly declare his intention to ignore a court ruling. Even its most controversial recent decision — ending the Trump-era judicial practice of issuing universal injunctions against presidential action — may be understood as an effort to prevent lower courts from creating a direct conflict with the administration that might lead to a showdown the courts would lose. On this interpretation, Roberts wants to exercise his own careful judgment about when to go toe-to-toe with Trump. His goal is to avoid a constitutional crisis that could undermine the power of the judiciary for generations. Let me be crystal clear: I disagree strongly with essentially all of the ideologically conservative decisions the court issued this term. (You can read my columns on each of them to see why.) Yet these decisions, wrong though they are, were not the most important element of the Supreme Court's job since Trump took office. No, since Jan. 20, 2025, the court's essential function has been to fight for the preservation of the rule of law. That fight cannot be won simply by bluster, for a very specific constitutional reason: The Supreme Court has no direct enforcement power and no power of the purse. It is, as Alexander Hamilton famously wrote, 'the least dangerous branch' — which also means it is the least powerful. In the end, the Supreme Court has power only because the executive obeys it. If the president defies the courts, the only constitutional remedies available are congressional attempts to withhold funds (which is not going to happen under this Congress) and impeachment (good luck). Maybe — one can only hope — millions of people would go into the streets in defense of the rule of law. Maybe the financial markets would decline sharply. But these are extreme contingencies, and they might not work. Trump, more than any president before has shown he is prepared to openly violate the Constitution and the laws of the United States. His attacks on the judiciary, echoed by his vice president, are clearly intended to signal his openness to outright defiance. And in a direct constitutional crisis triggered by defiance of judicial orders, it's hard to say with confidence that Trump wouldn't win. So the job of the court over the last six months has been to hold the line. It has done so — not resoundingly, but cautiously, as befits judges who aren't politicians and don't have a constituency to rely on. When the lower courts blocked some of the president's efforts to freeze federal grant money and fire career government employees, the Supreme Court mostly left those orders in place. When District Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been deported to El Salvador without due process, the justices upheld the order — and he is now back in the US, albeit facing new criminal charges. When other detainees slated for deportation sought their day in court, the justices affirmed their due process rights. Of course, the court's majority hasn't stood up to the Trump administration in every instance. Sometimes that has been for technical legal reasons. But it is also because Roberts wants, ideally, to avoid a situation where Trump directly defies a court order. And if the confrontation must happen, Roberts and the other justices want it to be on an issue where the court's legal and rhetorical power is at its maximum. That means trying to pick an issue where the law is clearly against Trump; all nine of the justices agree; and no foreign actors outside the court's jurisdiction are necessary to effectuate the court's judgment. During Trump's second administration, universal injunctions have revealed another worrisome attribute: They have allowed any district court judge in the country to create a nationwide, direct conflict with the administration. From the perspective of Roberts and the justices, that is like giving battlefield colonels the power to launch a major war. As the senior generals, the justices would prefer to make the tactical and strategic decisions about when to fight the president — the most dangerous adversary they've ever faced. Ending universal injunctions gives them that discretion. And it continued the partial restructuring of the administrative state — a holding in the emergency docket that appears to permit the president to fire even the heads of multimember independent agencies. These decisions reflect ongoing trends in conservative jurisprudence. They aren't fundamentally tied to the court's broader project of preserving the rule of law. A fair assessment of the Supreme Court term should focus not only on these decisions, but also how the court is doing on the most consequential issue: keeping the Constitution alive. The answer is the court is doing all right. It doesn't need to win any awards. It just has to do its part in the existential struggle to save democracy and the rule of law.
Korea Herald
9 hours ago
- Korea Herald
Special counsel raids police, lawmakers in ex-first lady probe
A special counsel team raided the national police agency as well as the offices and homes of current and former lawmakers Tuesday as part of its investigation into corruption allegations involving former first lady Kim Keon Hee, legal sources said. In a statement to the media, the team said it was executing a search warrant at the Korean National Police Agency to obtain relevant materials in cooperation with the agency. The team also dispatched prosecutors to a police station in Chuncheon, about 75 kilometers northeast of Seoul, to carry out search and seizure operations to secure investigation records related to alleged overseas gambling by Unification Church leadership. The investigation appears to focus on allegations that the Unification Church, after learning of a police probe, lobbied influential figures close to former President Yoon Suk Yeol in an attempt to derail the investigation. In June 2022, Chuncheon Police Station launched an investigation into suspicions that church leader Han Hak-ja and senior executives gambled about 60 billion won (US$44 million) at casinos in Las Vegas between 2008 and 2011. The church allegedly obtained information about the investigation, and suspicions have since emerged that the probe was quashed with the help of "pro-Yoon" figures. The special counsel is expected to investigate whether the church was aware of the police probe and whether it engaged in lobbying efforts to obstruct it. Earlier in the day, the team searched the office and home of main opposition People Power Party (PPP) Rep. Yoon Sang-hyun in Seoul, as well as the home of former PPP Rep. Kim Young-sun in the southeastern city of Changwon, the sources said. In addition, investigators were searching the home of former prosecutor Kim Sang-min, they said. The raids are part of special counsel Min Joong-ki's investigation into allegations the former first lady, the wife of former President Yoon Suk Yeol, meddled in the PPP's nomination of candidates for the 2022 parliamentary by-elections and 2024 general elections. In the case of the 2022 elections, the former president has also been suspected of involvement. In a previously disclosed phone call, allegedly recorded in May 2022, Yoon suggested to self-proclaimed power broker Myung Tae-kyun that he would instruct Rep. Yoon to make sure Kim Young-sun wins the party's nomination for a district in the 2022 parliamentary by-elections. Meanwhile, in the case of the 2024 general elections, the former first lady is suspected of having tried to get the former prosecutor nominated for the district previously won by Kim Young-sun. (Yonhap)
Korea Herald
13 hours ago
- Korea Herald
People Power Party lawmakers briefed by Israeli envoy in Seoul
Rafael Harpaz, the Israeli ambassador in Seoul, held a closed-door briefing with People Power Party lawmakers on Tuesday at the invitation of Rep. Yu Yong-weon. According to the Israeli Embassy, the briefing focused on the recent Israel-Iran conflict and its implications for the Korean Peninsula and the surrounding region. Among the lawmakers who attended Tuesday's briefing is Rep. Kim Jung-jae, who heads the People Power Party's policy committee. Yu, who arranged the briefing, said in a press statement that given the close relationship between Iran and North Korea, the conflict "holds profound relevance for South Korea's own security." Yu added that the conflict between Israel and Iran "presents significant implications that extend beyond the Middle East to the broader global security landscape." Tuesday's briefing was intended to "gain an in-depth understanding of the evolving security dynamics and explore opportunities to strengthen security and diplomatic cooperation between South Korea and Israel," Yu said. The Israeli Embassy said in its press release that the dialogue with Seoul lawmakers "explored new avenues for strategic cooperation between the two nations."
