Are you concerned about starvation in Gaza? Should US do more to help? Tell us.
Those recently criticizing Israel include people like popular children's content creator "Ms. Rachel," who said she'll no longer work with anyone not speaking out about Gaza, as well as right-wing congressional member Marjorie Taylor Greene, who called the situation "genocide." They point to children perishing in the Palestinian enclave where the death toll, made up mostly of civilians, now exceeds 60,000.
Greene's Republican Party has historically stood with Israel, but continued reports of starvation and civilian suffering are peeling away supporters, such as the United Kingdom, which announced it would recognize Palestine as a country if Israel doesn't improve conditions for noncombatants.
But outspoken allies of Israel, from the president to the creator of a culture-defining comedy, say we should remember the horrific surprise attack by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, that kicked off the war and killed 1,200 Israelis, a majority of them civilians. Of the 251 hostages taken on that day, there are 50 still in captivity.
Actor and comedian Jerry Seinfeld has made a statement about living briefly in the Jewish state and the heartbreak he felt over the Oct. 7 atrocities, saying, "I will stand with Israel." President Donald Trump, meanwhile, recently said recognizing Palestine as a nation and similar pressure on Israel amount to "rewarding Hamas."
'Every ounce of food': Trump presses Israel on starvation in Gaza; 'children look very hungry'
What is the US doing in Israel, Gaza?
In terms of actions to stop the humanitarian crisis, the United States pressured Israel to allow aid after it cut off deliveries in March by the United Nations and other groups for 11 weeks because Israeli officials said Hamas was seizing food. The U.N. said those renewed deliveries were a "drop in the ocean" of what was urgently needed.
Now $30 million in U.S. aid is to be delivered through a controversial private, for-profit U.S. and Israel-backed contractor, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Critics say GHF is not getting enough food to people, who are being killed as they try to get help from the aid sites.
People are starving in Gaza. Why are we so comfortable just letting that happen? | Opinion
Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, is set to travel to Israel on July 31, Thursday, to address the humanitarian crisis. Witkoff called off the most recent efforts to broker a ceasefire deal on July 24, saying Hamas showed "a lack of desire.'
Should the US do more to help Palestinians? Should celebrities be weighing in?
Now we're asking you, our readers, if you think the U.S. government is taking the right actions in terms of Israel and Gaza. And who do you think should be weighing in on the argument? Fill out our form below or send us an email to forum@usatoday.com with the subject line "Forum Gaza." We'll pick a collection of responses to share in a follow-up post.
Here are some questions to help you respond:
Does the U.S. have a responsibility to do more to end the hunger crisis in Gaza? Why or why not?
Is it helpful to have celebrities and other people not involved with foreign policy weigh in? Or does it distract? Why or why not?
How would the recognition of a Palestinian state change the situation?
What factors about the war in Gaza are not being covered enough in the news?
Joel Burgess is a Voices editor for the USA TODAY Network.
Do you want to take part in our next Forum? Join the conversation by emailing forum@usatoday.com.You can also follow us on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and sign up for our Opinion newsletter to stay updated on future Forum posts.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Should US, Trump recognize a Palestinian state? Tell us | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
7 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Can Israel Win its War in Gaza? - Opinion: Free Expression
While Israel continues to achieve great military successes against Hamas, Hezbollah and most recently Iran in its almost two year campaign, the humanitarian consequences of the conflict in Gaza are growing worse. There is growing evidence of famine throughout Gaza, caused by disruptions in the delivery of aid, and both sides are being accused of causing the crisis. International pressure on Israel is mounting. Last week, Emmanuel Macron of France announced he would recognize a Palestinian state and Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, has said he could do the same in September. So can Israel effectively finish its war in the face of the human cost and growing international isolation? Full Transcript This transcript was prepared by a transcription service. This version may not be in its final form and may be updated. Speaker 1: From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Free Expression with Gerry Baker. Gerry Baker: Hello and welcome to Free Expression from the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal. I'm Gerry Baker, editor-at-large of the Journal. If you're not already subscribing to Free Expression, please do at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you do your listening. This week, Israel once again finds itself under intense international pressure as it continues to prosecute the wars against its enemies after almost three years of a multi-front conflict that started when the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas murdered more than a thousand Israelis and took hundreds hostage. Israel again faces something of a watershed war. The Jewish state has so far prosecuted that war incredibly successfully. Initially, of course, pounding Hamas in Gaza, then neutering Hezbollah in Lebanon, and most dramatically of course, in the last few months, delivering massive blows against Iran, the sponsor of anti-Israeli and indeed wider terrorism. But as it continues to try to press the war against Hamas in Gaza, it continues to struggle to complete that war, both because of the immediate challenges of fighting in the difficult circumstances it finds itself in Gaza and also because of the inevitable humanitarian consequences of that war. The most dramatic of those that we've seen in the last few weeks. Concern growing evidence of famine in Gaza, real evidence of starvation caused by the disruptions to the delivery of humanitarian aid. International opinion, of course, is rarely favorable to Israel, has turned even more hostile in the light of this evidence of a new humanitarian crisis. And though Hamas has proved itself expert at manipulating circumstances extraordinarily well, both domestically in Gaza and of course with international opinion, and indeed of course we can all agree Hamas should be ultimately responsible for all of the suffering that's taking place in Gaza. It is also true that even many friends of Israel are starting to express growing concern about the delivery of humanitarian aid and about the genuine crisis that exists. President Trump this week talked about real evidence of starvation going on there. There's been criticism from within Israel itself about the way in which Israel is preventing food from being distributed. So at the same time, of course, this international pressure is reflected in activity around the world. Emmanuel Macron, the French president last week said France was ready to recognize a Palestinian state. Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, who's been meeting of course with Donald Trump this week in Scotland, indications that he will commit Britain to the recognition of Palestine. These leaders are under intense domestic political pressure in the context of what's going on in Gaza. And of course, they are extremely unpopular at home and looking to alleviate some of their political problems. They seem to think obviously, that this diplomatic move would somehow solve that even though there's not much evidence that it would achieve really anything in terms of the recognition of a Palestinian state. So where does all this leave Israel's war against its enemies? The enemies who would destroy it? Can it continue to prosecute this war in Gaza to the desired conclusion of the destruction of Hamas? What's the wider picture for Israel? Is Israel going to have to accept less than optimal settlements? Could we really end up with a two-state solution as many of the world's leaders insist is necessary? I'm delighted to say I'm joined this week to discuss all this by one of Israel's most prominent and eminent journalists and commentators. Nadav Eyal is the winner of the Sokolov Award, which is Israel's equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize. He writes columns for Yeret, Aharonot, and Ynet, Israel's most widely circulated newspaper and news website. He's the author also of many articles and indeed a book he wrote, the bestseller, Revolts: The Worldwide Praising Against Globalization published in 2021. And I'm delighted to say that Nadav Eyal joins me now from Israel. Nadav, thanks very much indeed for joining Free Expression. Nadav Eyal: Thanks for having me, Gerry. Gerry Baker: Nadav, just start, if you would, just telling us what the debate is like in Israel. We're obviously following it from a distance from around the world. Once again, as I said in my introduction, there's mounting pressure on Israel, particularly over this issue of the distribution of food aid and the mounting concerns and evidence of starvation. But yet the Israeli government continues to insist that it is achieving its objectives and can continue to achieve its objectives by prosecuting the war in Gaza. Give us a sense of what the domestic political debate is about the war currently about this issue over starvation and what people want to see happen next. Nadav Eyal: So I think that we had a watershed week here in Israel in the sense that for the first time since the beginning of the war, the humanitarian condition in Gaza became number one topic in the news. And of course this didn't happen because of international aid groups saying what they were saying, but mainly because of reports coming from the Gaza Strip to some extent, to a very real extent, I think, delivered by Israeli journalists that were speaking with their sources in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian sources of course. And they have continued speaking with them since the beginning of the war. And for me, as someone who's not covering the Gaza Strip on a daily basis, I'm a columnist for Yadot and Weinert. It's not my beat, but I saw one Israeli journalist who I really respect, (foreign language). And he was interviewing a Palestinian source in Gaza who's actually in opposition to Hamas. And he was saying that he's hungry and he was quoting the food cost, just the market cost for one kilogram of flour in the Deir al-Balah market. And for me as an Israeli, the minute I heard that one kilogram of flour in that local market in the central Gaza Strip is now being sold for more than a hundred shekels, that means about $30 per kilogram. Immediately hearing that it was clear that these are prices that will lead to hunger and to famine. And together with the reports coming from Gaza about people dying of starvation and the international outcry, that made it front page news, just the humanitarian issue, not only the international response. And as a result, of course the government can say whatever they want in their public statements, but they changed policy in a week. They changed policy for the first time since the beginning of the war. The government is now allowing humanitarian pauses across the Gaza Strip something that Israel didn't allow since October 7th, unless it's a ceasefire. Gerry Baker: How are those pauses supposed to work and what's the idea? Is it just to replenish the supplies of food, as you say, which have become so scarce, the prices have come up so that Israel can then resume its operations? I mean, what's the long-term plan for alleviating this, as you say, what is pretty clear now is a serious humanitarian crisis? Nadav Eyal: Well, first of all, the assumption that they have a plan I'll need to push back against this. Right now, they're just tackling with the crisis. And to some extent, this crisis is of course related to two major mistakes that Israel made. And I'm using the term mistakes because I'm not going to delve right now into some moral judgments. We can do that, of course. But just tactically speaking, these were big mistakes for the Israelis. The first mistake was of course, that Israel stopped all food and aid supply to the Gaza Strip between March 2nd and May 19th in a formal cabinet decision. And this was actually the government, to some extent, surrendering to demands made by Smotrich and Ben-Gvir and the far right ministers. And I think the idea there was to try and pressure Hamas to get to another deal, another ceasefire deal. And that as of itself, of course, created in the Gaza Strip a lot of demand. Now granted during the ceasefire January, March, huge amounts of food and aid got in the Gaza Strip and Israel wasn't limiting it at all. By the way, Israel said since the beginning of the war, "We're not limiting food and aid to the Gaza Strip." After the first week of October 7th with all kinds of ministers making just empty threats. The truth is that the Israeli position all along were not limiting aid to the Gaza Strip at all. We're not using this as leverage. At least formally that was the position of the Israelis. Suddenly on March 2nd, it became the formal position of the government that they're not allowing any aid to the Gaza Strip. And they also assessed that because of the huge amounts of aid and food that came in during the second ceasefire, there's no need to that for at least four to six months. That was a mistake on many levels. And it became clear that as a result of that, food insecurity was created overnight. So even if you had food, you wanted to hoard as much food as you could, and the people who hoarded the food were both Hamas officials and of course traders in the Gaza Strip that could profit from it, profiteers, and all the rest, Gerry. So that led in about 70 days to a full-blown crisis that Israel reacted to on May 19th with allowing aid to go into Gaza again and having no deal. But by this time you already had a crisis of demand, and this is actually what we're seeing in these terrible images of people running to the aid distribution centers or getting on trucks and looting everything. It's all about demand, right? Gerry Baker: No, let me interrupt you because I do want you to come on to your second mistake, obviously, but of course there are those who said, and you've mentioned it yourself, that Hamas has been seizing much of this aid both to make the humanitarian situation worse, to bring all of that international pressure that we talk about on it, but also for its own purposes. To what extent is that accusation true that we can all agree that Hamas is certainly responsible overall for the humanitarian condition in Gaza because of what it did on October 7th. But in the current particular circumstances, the claim by many that there was food would've been available, but it's Hamas that seized it that's creating the problem. Nadav Eyal: Well, there it's a question of the truth lies in nuances most of the time, and I want to differentiate between two issues. The first issue is saying whether or not Hamas is taking control of the UN aid to the Gaza Strip, which is not as saying the aid to the Gaza Strip. This is something that people don't understand. Much of the aid that came into the Gaza Strip since October 7th was not facilitated by the UN, by different aid groups that are sometimes not the UN at all. And the answer to the question roughly speaking, is of course that Hamas is manipulating everything within the Palestinian society in the Gaza Strip. Hamas officials are definitely not starving and they're not hungry. They know how to use aid in certain areas. They have their branches of interference within the aid groups. If you do not cooperate with Hamas officials on the ground, whether you are a journalist, an aid worker and hospital, if you won't work with them, these are the people with the guns in those enclaves left in the Gaza Strip. I'll just give you, Gerry, one example because I mentioned prices, and one thing that people should understand about famine or about starvation in war conditions is that not everything looks and feels like Ethiopia during the 1980s. Or the type of crisis that we sometimes talk about. In this case, it's a matter of price. It's the market prices. And how are these controlled by Hamas? I'll just give you one example. So much of the money in the Gaza Strip, just the money flow in the Gaza Strip is assisted through apps, through applications on your mobile phone, and you get some aid or assistance not by getting cash, but as a family from getting a credit on an app. Then in order to actually buy food, you need to get it to get cash. In order to get cash, you go to a money exchange and these money exchanges are paying their taxes and are associated with the Hamas rule in the Gaza Strip. And here's the thing, Gerry, they're taking between 40 to 50% commission on your money in your app in order to get you some cash. And without that cash, you can't have food bought to your family. Gerry Baker: So who heads up with the 40 to 50%? Nadav Eyal: So of course the money exchange gets some food, but Hamas gets a lot of it. And this is exactly what they did with the aid last time. It's not that they stole the aid and opened a Hamas shop in the center of Gaza, sometimes it's being presented. They work their way as countries do through taxation and other means, and they profited from demand and they still profit from demand. And this is, by the way, one of the reasons I think that what Israel did was a mistake because if they profit from a demand, you need to make sure even just completely coldly speaking about the aims of the war without talking about what I think is essential, humanitarian issues and moral issues. You need to make sure that there is an overflow of food, material in the Gaza Strip, so they won't leverage this in order to gain more traction and actually get more funds. It's the assessment of the Israeli government that because of aid, and since the beginning of the war, Hamas has managed to garner at least half a billion dollars. That's the formal position of the Israeli government. Gerry Baker: And again, I think it's important to say exactly as you've said, Nadav, Hamas is expert at manipulating circumstances for its own benefit, especially to an often rather credulous international media. We saw just in this last week, we're learning more about some of these images of people. A famous image now of the young child who was starving, in fact, we're learning more and discovering that actually that child might well have been suffering from particular medical conditions. So again, we can absolutely acknowledge- Nadav Eyal: But that's classic examples. (inaudible) Gerry Baker: It's an example. Again, the media goes for that, but I take the point that there is a real humanitarian crisis there, and as you say, in your view, at least in part, caused by that critical Israeli mistake in terms of suspending food aid, essentially between March and May. Nadav Eyal: I just want to say something about these images because nobody cares, right? If there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza and then people bring an image of a very frail and sick looking child, of course it's being carried by everyone in the world from the New York Times and nobody cares about the truth. That according to CNN, I'm quoting now CNN, I'm not quoting the Israeli government, this specific child that you remarked as to his image is suffering from a muscular condition since birth and he's not healthy since birth. By the way, I want to say something about that. These kids and children need specific food. And one of the questions that, as a journalist, I'm trying to find out, to investigate, is there a scarcity in this type of food, for instance, because that is a legitimate question. But the fact that nobody would be interested and they would just connect the dots. The Gaza Health Ministry controlled by Hamas is saying that dozens of people have died as a result of starvation. "Let's bring a photo of a frail child who looks like he's being starved." And without bringing the entire story, this is exactly how we came to the position in which we came. But the second mistake that Israel made is that it actually assumed control of the entire humanitarian situation in Gaza Strip by deciding to support and push the idea of the GHF. The GHF is the Gaza Humanitarian Fund. It's an organization supported by... It's a humanitarian organization, but it's clearly supported by Israel and probably by at least elements in the United States, and they have a different way to distribute food. And the idea there was that Hamas won't take control of the aid and the food and won't profit from it because it's not going to go through the traders and the market. But each family would be able to come and take a box of food about, 18 kilograms, which should last about a week for a family of five or six people. And this was the idea in very rough terms. And by doing that, whether that is a good idea or a bad idea, a humanitarian organization said from the beginning, you don't want to ask the population to move and collect food outside of the population centers. The food should reach the population centers and not the other way around because it's dangerous. And I know this is not... In retrospect, this was said in real time. But the thing is that even by saying that, by Israel assuming that position, Israel was saying, "I am now responsible for the humanitarian aid and food assistance in the Gaza Strip." Because the Israelis were celebrating this as a solution, and if they're saying they're responsible, then Hamas immediately seized this opportunity. Israel was building its own trap in that regard because then it just opened the door to Hamas to say, "Israel is saying we're distributing food, or the GHF is distributing food. So let's say there isn't any food." It is just a classic ploy for them to do, and this is exactly what they're doing. Now, by saying that, I don't mean that there isn't a crisis right now in the Gaza Strip, there is a crisis, and I can explain how it was created. That was the first mistake, but this was a perfect moment for Hamas, and Hamas is using this moment to the extreme. Gerry Baker: I ant to take a short break there, but when we come back, I'll have more with Nadav Eyal talking about Israel's wars and what may come next. Stay with us. Speaker 1: You're listening to Free Expression with Gerry Baker. Don't forget you can listen to the latest episode anytime on your smart speaker. Just say, "Play the Opinion Free Expression podcast." Now back to Gerry Baker. Gerry Baker: Welcome back. I'm speaking with Nadav Eyal, one of Israel's most prominent and distinguished commentators and journalists, and we're talking about Israel's war in Gaza and the wider geopolitical context that Israel find itself in the Middle East. All right, before we move on to the wider question of the war and what comes next and some other matters, what's happening now? As you say, Israel is having these pauses for humanitarian aid to be dropped in. We've seen these images sort of overnight of food being parachuted into different parts of Gaza. You picked me up, you pushed back when I talked about a plan because you say there is no plan. Is Israel going to have to keep doing this? Are other countries going to get involved? What's the plan that Israel may have for continuing its efforts to destroy Hamas while at the same time trying to avoid the humanitarian catastrophe that seems to be unfolding with it? Nadav Eyal: So the first thing I think is obvious that Israel decided and Prime Minister Netanyahu, again, it's not my analysis. So commentary, one only needs to read what Prime Minister Netanyahu wrote in his X account last night. By the way, only in English, Jerry, only in English. Not in Hebrew, in which he said that the situation in Gaza is indeed difficult. He promised to continue on fighting against Hamas, but he was promising all different actions by Israel that are now being made in order to make sure that the situation in Gaza will improve. And just one of them is the humanitarian pauses. Others are opening humanitarian corridors, which actually means areas in which the IGF is not going to operate in fighting or fighting Hamas. Another one is easing the kind of monitoring that Israel had on some aid in order to make sure it doesn't fall to the hands of Hamas. Basically what they're doing, if we're talking about a plan, at least short term, is just flooding the Gaza Strip with food. That's the idea. And why are they doing that? Well, if you look at the scenes at the GHF distribution centers, and if you look at those convoys of the UN and other groups that are entering the Gaza Strip, everything is being taken or looted almost immediately. So the convoy of trucks, it just passes the border and it'll be almost immediately seized by thousands of Palestinians. So you can see the demand there. And in order to make sure that there isn't a humanitarian crisis of food at least, you need to have just more supply into the Gaza Strip. And Israel is working hard now in order to get as much as it can. It's also parachuting now or allow... Both parachuting itself, by the way, first time during the war or allowing the Jordanians then the Egyptians to parachute aid. This, by the way, just the people will know back in America or in Europe listening to this, parachuting means almost nothing. When you see parachuting aid, it's two trucks, So it means almost nothing. But the point is that you want the aid and the food to reach the population centers and not be hoarded somewhere else by people who are saying, "Maybe the war is going to resume. Maybe it's worthwhile to take that flour and store it somewhere until the prices will go up." So you want to flood the Strip. This is the first element. The second element is that the truth is that the prime minister still wants a deal, he wants a hostage deal, he wants a ceasefire. Now, this might change in the coming days, but if you ask me today based on my sources, what does the prime minister want here? And it's not about the plan, it's about what he wants. He wants a ceasefire deal with Hamas. One of the things that's happening right now is that Hamas is just overjoyed. He's overjoyed by the attention that this issue is getting worldwide, by the condemnations to Israel, by the way that Israel has been pushed. And for Hamas, this is a big deal. If they manage to improve the general situation of the Gaza Strip and get humanitarian pauses with no ceasefire and without returning any hostages. For them, this is just a big... They don't care about the population starving. And again, this is not my commentary. Hamas officials have said very clearly that they think that these sacrifices, the sacrifices of the civilians are worthwhile for the religious cause of freeing the entire Palestine. So for them, this is just almost ideal what's happening right now. Israel is caving in as far as they're concerned, more aid is going into the Strip. They have sort of ceasefires in certain areas, and now they can negotiate much more comfortably with Israelis, if at all. Gerry Baker: The large question here is there a military solution here that really will leave Israel stronger? Again, we've seen extraordinary successes by the Israeli military over the last two and a half years in Gaza, in Hezbollah, taking on obviously Iran, most notably. Obviously the particular challenge, and it's a classic challenge, Israel is by no means the first war fighting power to see... This when you are fighting an enemy, literally in the civilian context of Gaza, however much effort you make to limit casualties, and whether that be through your tactics or through, again, what we're doing with humanitarian aid. There will be large numbers of civilian casualties. Those will be exploited obviously by the enemy. They will be interpreted by your critics as a condemnation of what you're doing. And of course, they have the effect of only reinforcing, particularly among Palestinians, the sense that you are a hostile power committing genocide and all of these kinds of things, which only of course leads to further support for Hamas. We're all familiar with this. This is what the United States went through in Iraq, this idea that the war in Iraq is the greatest recruiting sergeant for America's enemies. And it does look as though however much military damage, which is clearly Israel has done to Hamas over the last three years. The political context is, if anything that... Again, we know a lot of the Palestinians are very unhappy, rightly with Hamas. But the political context seems to be that if anything, Hamas is certainly getting international support, but it's getting some domestic support too. How does Israel resolve this sort of classic dilemma that by prosecuting the war you run the risk that, however much military damage that you do, you will actually strengthen the standing and the morale of your enemy? Nadav Eyal: I think that this was not taken too much into account, and I'm speaking mildly, it's an understatement. I have to say, Gerry, that from my own conversations, I'm not sure that Hamas has strengthened that right now in the Palestinian arena in Gaza, and I'm speaking both with Palestinian sources, but also with aid groups and what they're hearing on the ground. Channel 12, which is the main kind of commercial Israeli channel, most popular Israeli channel, just aired the piece of 12 minutes of their crew in the Gaza Strip. Not the Israeli... Israelis journalists, foreign journalists can go into population centers in the Gaza Strip, but they probably used the Palestinian stringer to that. And they were asking people questions about the Hamas rule, and I guess they weren't... I'm not sure that that stringer was saying exactly that this interview is for this and that station. I have no idea. But people there we're saying very clearly what they think about Hamas in October 7th, and we're speaking about this as a mistake. And this is what I'm hearing too, but I think that there are two distinct levels here. The first level is the one that you mentioned, what is this going to do to radicalization across the region, specifically within the Palestinian society? And I think that your assessment that it's not going to be good for, let's say, the security of Israel long-term. I think that assessment is a good one. A second element is what does it do to Israel's standing in the international community? And I think they are... We can be much more clear that... I just saw Megyn Kelly, former Fox News host talking about how she supports Israel, but enough is enough and how Israel is losing conservatives in the US as a result of the war. Again, I don't see poll numbers right now in front of me, but I think that this sentiment is being definitely signaled by Israel's best friends in Washington DC who are right now mostly Republicans to the Israeli leadership. One thing I should say, the argument against that says, "Look, it's true, but if we don't win this, if the end of the October 7th story is that we hit Iran and we hit Hezbollah, and that was incredibly efficient. But a day will come in Gaza, in which Hamas would be able to have its victory rally and say, 'We in this tiny enclave managed to survive the IDF and everything that's being done, and they'll be able to have their terror state again.'" If this is the result of October 7th, that is the worst result that you could imagine. Specifically, by the way, because of the enormous cost to civilian life in Israel in the October 7th attack. And of course, frankly to civilians in Gaza too. And that argument goes, you need to end this with a decisive victory over Hamas or your existence in the region is endangered. And this is what Israel friends across the region like Egypt and Jordan, although they won't admit it, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and others, all of them won't admit it. This is what they want because what is Hamas? Hamas is a Muslim brotherhood organization, and for them, it's the clearest threat to their own governments and they want Israel to win. They definitely don't want it to win through mass civilian casualties. But if you're going to go to Israel's friends across the region and say, "After all of this, Israel didn't even manage to win against Hamas." So what's the long-term plan for Israel's security in the region? It's standing, it's deterrents and all the rest. That's the argument made by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Gerry Baker: I mean, I think I heard you make an incredibly powerful point in another interview earlier this week talking about this accusation against Israel of genocide, which again, I think most reasonable people can see is absurd. But nonetheless, it has its historical utility, particular utility for Hamas because again, the offensive and absurd, but nonetheless politically powerful historical analogy between the Holocaust, the real genocide of Jews, which ultimately led to the creation of the Jewish state and claim now that this so-called genocide against them is going to result in the same outcome for them. I wanted to move on to this Emmanuel Macron. It looks now like the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, we are hearing. Maybe about to come out in support of the Palestinian state. What do you make of this in terms of the diplomatic... The Wall Street Journal wrote a very good editorial the other day pointing out that Macron's call for a Palestinian state is sort of meaningless when there is no such thing and there's no reasonable way of understanding what it would even mean. But where does this fit in right now with all of this, with Israel's prosecution of the war, with the diplomatic conditions in which it finds itself? Nadav Eyal: So first of all, these leaders are playing to their own local audience, and they're definitely not doing this because they think it's going to shorten the war or it's going to really pressure Israel. What it does, and I'm saying this as someone who's been covering policymaking and the Israeli political arena for over 20 years now. It only strengthens the right wing initial because Israelis right now are... It's a consensus that they're not going to go for a territorial compromise considering that Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, took out the IDF from the Gaza Strip, and of course evacuated forcefully all its settlements and settlers. I was there, Jerry, in 2005. I was there for weeks, I've seeing people dragged from their houses in the disengagement of Ariel Sharon. So the idea that now you will have some sort of a forced solution, it's just playing into the Israeli far right and right wing saying, "Look at the world. Don't listen to what they're saying because now they don't only want to stop the war. They also want us to get some territories. This time much closer to Tel Aviv and get them to the Palestinians and do this by dictating to Israel what it should do." But it also assists Hamas. So if you speak with friends from our sources, from the Fatah, the ruling party that controls the Palestinian authority. To some extent, they want the Palestinian state or they're talking about Palestinian state, but they don't think it's a good idea that the way that it's going to go down in history is Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th. There was a terrible, terrible war in which Hamas, by the way, is killing unfortunately Israeli soldiers every week. You don't read about this in international press usually. You don't see those photos and images because this is never described as a war. This is described as Israel's onslaught on the poor civilian population in Gaza. And the truth is that Israel is fighting a very difficult war in which it has casualties last few weeks, every day. Every day. And the same channels of Hamas that are complaining on the humanitarian condition in Gaza are distributing the videos in which they show how they kill IDF soldiers in the Gaza Strip. So if you look at this from a purely political Palestinian viewpoint, what you see here is actually an incentive to the idea that an independent Palestine can be born only through massive violence against Israelis. And this is what these ideas are right now doing, both enforcing, I think Hamas and Islamic Jihad and also basically rewarding them, but also pushing that through the Israeli right, and far right. And now by saying that, I'm not saying that my own position isn't of a two-state solution. It's actually on my (inaudible) level with this. But what I'm saying is that unilaterally speaking, Macron is not really looking here to find the most efficient way to end the war or to advance peace, right? He's doing this because of his political standing and internationally, and I sort of suspect that it's the same case with Keir Starmer. Gerry Baker: They're under tremendous domestic political pressure. Again, let's come back to where we started, which is in Israel. And again, Israel is an incredibly vibrant and diverse democracy as we know. So trying to kind of capture the Israeli view is of course impossible. There are many, many views, but again, just tell us what the mood is. For three years now, we've seen the ups and downs of this war, the horror of October 7th, the extraordinary military successes Israel has had particularly this year against Iran doing things that many, many, until very recently, thought was possible. Now we've got this crisis, this watershed moment in the war. What's Netanyahu's support like? What's the state of the coalition? You've talked about again, some of these right-wing religious parties being strengthened by some of this international activity that's going on. Give us a picture just of where you think of what's likely to unfold in Israel itself as it continues to try to essentially secure its own future and its own existence over the next few months or so. Nadav Eyal: So first of all, the main question is, is there going to be a deal, Gerry, here? And that's a huge question. If there is going to be a deal, and again, I suspect the prime minister wants a deal, then we'll see hostages coming back. We'd see a ceasefire in Gaza. The soldiers would stop dying. If you are asking me what's the main thing that now troubles the Israeli public? It's not press being all over Israel, what they described as war crimes or crimes against humanity. Israelis are used to that. Since October 7th, by the way, since October 8th. What really bothers the Israeli public right now is the feeling that the war in Gaza isn't going anywhere, and that soldiers who are there on mandatory service or reserve service, meaning they can be your kids, they could be your neighbors or your family, that they're dying. And Israelis don't understand exactly what's the plan, which is exactly your question. Let's say there isn't a deal, does it mean that Israel tries to occupy the entire Gaza Strip? What would this mean to the fate of the hostages, which are the second issue? If the first issue is that soldiers are dying in the Gaza Strip by Hamas bullets and bombs, the second issue sometimes the first issue is the hostages. It's definitely the original issue of the war. And how will they be able to survive this kind of operation of the IDF if indeed ordered to take the entire Gaza Strip? And then there are a bunch of questions there. Humanitarially speaking, how do you make sure that this doesn't become an even wider disaster? I think that politically speaking, Netanyahu is back to square one. If before the war with Iran, his position was endangered, relatively weak in the Israeli public, although much stronger than in the first year of the war, still weak losing every poll. That the Iran war gave him an enormous boost. And what I'm saying now, again, is not my interpretation. I'm just looking at numbers. I'm going to publish them on my column this Friday of a new poll and it says that he's back to square one. He's back to his numbers from the beginning of May of this year, meaning nothing has happened in the Iran war. It didn't shift, it didn't tilt anything. The coalition is still incredibly unpopular. The Israelis, according to every poll I know that isn't by an affiliate of the government, are very untrustworthy of this government, are extremely critical. And this is a new thing. Many Israelis, although not the majority, definitely not the majority, are starting to see what's happening in Gaza as a disaster of itself. I'm talking about what's happening to Palestinians in Gaza. This is new. That it will be a topic of conversation in Israel, and that's also a change. In terms of making sure that Israel's existence is secured... I think that everybody is looking here for a fix, and that fix is to have a deal in Gaza that isn't just two-phase hostage deal, but an end to the war in which Hamas doesn't control the Gaza Strip, although it's going to be in the background. It's not preparing another attack against Israel. The hostages are back home and the Gaza Strip can start its rebuilding with the assistance of Saudi Arabia and the gulf countries and the world. And of course, Israel. I think that this is something that the US president, President Trump is looking for. I think that to a large extent, this is something that the same parts of the Israeli governments are looking for. I'm not talking about the far right and of course, the Palestinian authority. The only thing here is that Hamas, you come with this very rational idea of how this should look like, and you are dealing really with a fundamentalist organization. And it's very difficult sometimes to get that message out that I get reports on what was said in a crucial decision of Hamas leadership. And in the middle of that conversation that would sound lucid to you and me. And someone would say, "We'll use a prophecy or a verse in order to make a religious argument of deliverance. And to make that argument in order to push back against the idea of a ceasefire." Gerry Baker: Is some kind of a deal, as you describe, is it feasible? Nadav Eyal: I think it's extremely feasible in the sense that Hamas has already said that they're ready not to control formally the Gaza Strip. They're not willing to disarm. The Israelis are saying you need to disarm. They're willing to entertain the idea of exile. For some of its leadership, Israel demands more exile. I think that it's more of a change of mode for both the mediators and frankly for Israel to go for a full deal right now. And I think it's extremely feasible and it's relevant. Whether or not that's going to happen, I think it's very much is resting on domestic politics, both in Israel in terms of Netanyahu's coalition and the election day, and both in the region and of course within the Palestinian society and between the factions in Hamas that are right now arguing with each other as to the ceasefire. And that's one of the reasons we don't have a ceasefire. Gerry Baker: Nadav Eyal, Israeli commentator and journalist. Thank you very much indeed for joining Free Expression. Nadav Eyal: Thank you so much for having me. Gerry Baker: Well, that's it for this week's episode. Thanks very much indeed for joining us. I'll be back next week with another episode. In the meantime, have a great week and thanks for listening.
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fourteen nations join France in push to recognise Palestinian state
France and 14 other countries have co-signed a declaration that suggests a wave of future recognitions of an independent Palestinian state, including by Canada, New Zealand and Australia, could take place in the coming months. The New York Call, which was published by the French foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, on Wednesday, said that signatories 'have already recognised, have expressed or express the willingness or the positive consideration of our countries to recognise the State of Palestine'. The signatories include Andorra, Australia, Canada, Finland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Portugal and San Marino, each of which has not yet recognised an independent Palestinian state. They also include Iceland, Ireland, Malta, Norway, Slovenia and Spain, which have. Emmanuel Macron last week said that France would recognise Palestinian statehood in the near future. The statement, which was published before the conclusion of a three-day UN conference set on reviving a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, also said the states would 'reiterate our unwavering commitment to the vision of the two-state solution where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognised borders'. It stressed the 'importance of unifying the Gaza Strip with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority'. The remarks come amid growing pressure on Israel to end its military campaign in Gaza, which began in October 2023 in response to a Hamas raid that led to the deaths of 1,200 people, mainly Israelis, and the taking of more than 250 prisoners. More than 60,000 people have died in Gaza in the ensuing conflict, according to the Hamas-led health ministry in Gaza. Keir Starmer on Tuesday said that the United Kingdom would recognise the state of in September 'unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution'. Related: Why is UK preparing to recognise Palestinian statehood? Donald Trump had initially said he didn't 'mind [Starmer] taking a position. I'm looking for getting people fed right now.' But later he condemned the decision to recognise a Palestinian state, saying onboard Air Force One that 'you could make the case that you're rewarding Hamas if you do that. I don't think they should be rewarded. So I'm not in that camp, to be honest … because if you do that you are really rewarding Hamas. And I'm not about to do that.' The Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese, said this week that he wanted to time a recognition of Palestinian statehood to help deliver a breakthrough in negotiations. 'What we're looking at is the circumstances where recognition will advance the objective of the creation of two states,' Albanese said on Wednesday. 'My entire political life, I've said I support two states, the right of Israel to exist within secure borders and the right of Palestinians to have their legitimate aspirations for their own state realised. That's my objective.' Canadian state media have also reported that the government under the prime minister, Mark Carney, is also weighing whether to recognise Palestinian statehood but that no decision has yet been made. Carney plans to hold a virtual cabinet meeting on the Middle East on Wednesday, Canada's national public broadcaster reported. Israel's ambassador to the UN, Danny Damon, condemned the declaration. 'While our hostages are languishing in Hamas terror tunnels in Gaza, these countries choose to engage in hollow statements instead of investing their efforts in their release,' said Damon. 'This is hypocrisy and a waste of time that legitimizes terrorism and distances any chance of regional progress. Those who truly want to make progress should start with an unequivocal demand for the immediate return of all the hostages and the disarmament of Hamas.' Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Marjorie Taylor Greene Knifes GOP as She Goes Rogue
Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has had enough of the Republican Party. 'I don't know if the Republican Party is leaving me, or if I'm kind of not relating to the Republican Party as much anymore,' Greene told the Daily Mail. 'The course that it's on, I don't want to have anything to do with it.' 'I just don't care anymore,' she added. While Greene steered clear of criticizing President Donald Trump directly, she took issue with the White House rescinding Elise Stefanik's nomination for United Nations ambassador in favor of Mike Walz of Signalgate fame. In March, The Atlantic revealed that Waltz had added its editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, to a Signal chat in which top administration officials discussed plans to bomb Yemen. 'How does he get awarded after Signalgate?' Greene said. Greene said the episode reflects Republicans' treatment of women. 'She got screwed by Mike Johnson, and she got screwed by the White House,' Greene told the Mail. 'I'm not blaming Trump, particularly. I'm blaming the people in the White House.' 'I think there's other women in our party that are really sick and tired of the way men treat Republican women,' Greene added. 'I think there's other women, Republican women, and I'm just giving my opinion here, who are really sick and tired of them.' Greene also has issues with how the GOP 'has turned its back on America First and the workers and just regular Americans.' As evidence of this, she cited a lack of party support on a number of moves she's made in recent months, adding she feels 'I'm going alone right now on the issues that I'm speaking about.' Greene has indeed been busy since the start of the current House session, spearheading efforts on such burning questions of national interest as renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the 'Gulf of America,' introducing legislation to make English the official language, defunding NPR and PBS, and criminalizing 'deadly' weather manipulation. She further told the Mail Saturday she only wishes the GOP would renew its focus on curbing foreign aid, using the Department of Government Efficiency to hack back at federal spending, decreasing the national debt, and combating inflation. 'What happened to all those issues?' she said. 'You know that I don't know what the hell happened with the Republican Party. I really don't.'
