(Dave DeCamp, Antiwar.com) President Trump was asked on Tuesday whether he supported a reported plan for Israel to escalate in Gaza with the goal of fully occupying the Palestinian territory, and said it was “pretty much up to Israel.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened a meeting of his senior officials on Tuesday and, according to Israeli media, he said he favored a full Israeli military occupation of Gaza even if it means the remaining Israeli captives could be harmed or executed by Hamas.
Previous Israeli reports said that Netanyahu had the green light from the Trump administration to launch a “more aggressive military operation against Hamas in Gaza.” Israel relies on US military aid to sustain its genocidal war in Gaza, meaning it needs US backing to escalate.
When asked about the occupation plan, Trump also said the US was “trying to get people fed” in Gaza, referring to the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a food distribution system that has been plagued by IDF massacres of unarmed Palestinians near aid sites. “As far as the rest of it, I really can’t say. That’s going to be pretty much up to Israel,” the president said.
According to a report from Axios, the Trump administration is preparing to “take over” management of the aid distribution system in Gaza because the US believes Israel isn’t handling it adequately. US officials didn’t detail what exactly that would entail, but there have been signs that the US is just considering expanding the GHF.
One US official told Axios that Trump is not “thrilled” about the plan but that there “doesn’t seem to be another way,” although the UN and other aid groups that operate in Gaza are calling for Israel to lift all restrictions on aid and agree to a ceasefire, which they say is necesarry to bring real relief to starving Palestinians in Gaza.
The Axios report said that the US was seeking contributions from other countries, including regional Arab states and European nations, to support the aid plan. However, an Israeli official said that the US would be spending “a lot of money.”
This article originally appeared at Antiwar.com.
