FRANKLIN FOER: Right.

Nancy, the foreign policy story that actually was dominating the week and that did dominate the week was Gaza.

And Donald Trump has not been especially loquacious talking about the consequences of the war for civilians, but he had this to say.

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. President: that's real starvation stuff.

I see it.

And you can't fake that.

So, we're going to be even more involved.

FRANKLIN FOER: So help us rewind, why did Trump feel compelled to weigh in that way?

NANCY YOUSSEF, Staff Writer, The Atlantic: So, on Sunday Netanyahu said that there wasn't starvation happening amid sort of, evidence to the contrary.

We started to see more photos coming out of people starving United Nations agency responsible said one in three Gazans are not getting meals from multiple days in a row.

And so we started to hear from aid agencies, even inside Israel, and organizations sort of assessing that that there was an increased starvation risk in Gaza.

And this comes, remember, after there was a blockade, essentially, and that nothing could get in for 2.5 months, and then in May, things started to trickle in.

So, just we knew things weren't getting in.

And so the totality of that, I think, compelled the president to say something.

And I think, arguably, he was moved by the photos that he did see.

And so this all comes as we're seeing increased pressure from the international community as well.

He was in Europe when he said that.

And in the days that followed, we heard from France, from Canada and the U.K. that they wanted -- there was a sense of urgency to the humanitarian crisis there.

FRANKLIN FOER: We'll get back to the way that those European states are pressuring Israel.

But, Alex, my colleagues at The Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire and Isaac Stanley-Becker, published a piece that I want to quote from.

They wrote, Trump has come to believe what many in Washington have thought for months, that Netanyahu is looking to prolong the conflict in Gaza in open defiance of Trump's wishes for the war to end, and that Netanyahu has continued Israel's assault, which has claimed tens of thousands of civilian lives to maintain his own political power.

The White House also believes that Netanyahu is taking steps that interfere with the potential ceasefire deal.

I want you to interpret some of the psychodrama here.

And I want to know if you're reporting tracks with what they had, but does this mean that Trump's going to begin to push Netanyahu harder for an end to the war, or to actually increase the level of civilian aid coming into Gaza.

ALEXANDER WARD, National Security Reporter, The Wall Street Journal: So, a couple things we need to unpack here.

The first one is, it is astounding that the president is getting major foreign policy decision-making ideas from television, not from his own intelligence community.

Let's just start there.

Second, when it comes to Bibi, Trump believes that he has the ability and the leverage over Netanyahu.

When you talk to White House officials, what they say is that, well, what happens is Netanyahu basically steps over a line that Trump doesn't like, Trump calls him and then he steps back.

And then you ask officials, well, how do you stop Netanyahu from crossing the line in the first place?

And in this case, you know, blocking aid from -- lifesaving aid from getting to people in Gaza, they'll go, what are you talking about?

Like Trump just calls him and then he does it.

We haven't seen that.

The reason there isn't as much leverage as the Trump team believes there is because Netanyahu has his own politics too.

And his politics are where he has to -- he has his own trial and corruption issues where staying in power keeps him out of that.

But the right flank of his governing coalition is what keeps him in that seat and possibly out of the courtroom or larger courtroom setting.

And they don't want to see Israel participate in any sort of plan that helps the people of Gaza.

In fact, they'd rather the Palestinians in Gaza leave the territory and perhaps even settle it -- send Israeli settlers there.

So, when you are Netanyahu and you're trying to -- you are between Trump, who is urging more aid now and urging for end of the war, but not really pushing that hard, and Trump doesn't have that much leverage and you're worried about your own personal stake, professional stake, and your governing coalition, you're not likely to move.

So, Netanyahu's kind of operating in this little space where he's giving some, he's getting some, but he's not doing that much.

FRANKLIN FOER: Yes.

ANDREA MITCHELL: And what has changed a little bit is that as of last week, the Israeli parliament, the Knesset is on a summer break.

And so he can't be taken down by the two ministers in that coalition right now, the right-wing coalition and his government collapse for the next month or so, or six weeks.

So, this is a little bit of a window.

Steve Witkoff, the U.S. envoy is there and actually went to Gaza today.

My caution is that Witkoff went to see a site of the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which is a joint U.S.-Israeli operation that has been almost universally criticized by the aid communities because it's set up just this trickle of aid you're talking about was four sites in Southern Gaza, in Rafah, where the people from the north would have to come to those sites to get those four locations guarded by the IDF, which is in violation of established international law for the way aid is supposed to be distributed.

And the occupiers, which in this case is Israel, in Gaza have an obligation, a legal obligation, and a moral obligation, but a legal obligation to feed the people there.

And it's not only food.

It's fuel, fuel for the hospitals, which now have not enough fuel for the NICU unit and the incubators, children, infants, newborns are being stacked.

They've, in some instances, in a nurse I interviewed, an American nurse doing three weeks there, she said we're doing operations without full anesthesia.

It is appalling.

And we're also, you know, interrupting dialysis because we don't have the fuel.

This is in the Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, Khan Younis.

So, the issue is this is not just a trickle, and that is why the international community, 100 aid agencies, 28 countries, have condemned this process for not using the U.N. World Food Program that distributed to 400 places.

Now, the counterargument is that Hamas is attacking and stealing the food.

That has been the U.S. and the Israeli argument.

But some officials within Israel in this past week from agencies said that's not the case.

FRANKLIN FOER: That's what they told The New York Times.

Have you heard any competing evidence that it's actually true?

ANDREA MITCHELL: I think it's probably partially true, but it's also that people are desperate and they themselves are, you know, jumping when there's food.

I mean, they have to walk so, so many miles to get to it.

But just very briefly, not only are they starving, but they are then coming into the hospitals with the kind of wounds, artillery, and other kinds of shrapnel wounds, that indicate that they've been shot.

FRANKLIN FOER: Right.

LEIGH ANN CALDWELL: But the Steve Witkoff trip today, though, is going to be really important based on what he says for U.S. foreign policy coming back and how Congress responds to this.

So many Republicans in Congress have been saying they are interested to see what Steve Witkoff says based on his tour of these feeding centers, these humanitarian centers in Gaza.

And it, as you laid out, Andrea, is not likely to be the full picture.

And so it could be a very skewed response.

FRANKLIN FOER: Are they waiting for that because they would want more political space to criticize Israel, and if he's critical, that's where they instinctually want to go?

LEIGH ANN CALDWELL: No.

I think that the chances that the Republican Party becomes critical of Israel are very, very slim outside of a few outliers, like Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene and some on the MAGA influencers, like, you know, Steve Bannon or Tucker Carlson.

But I think that they're looking for justification to continue the current policies of standing step -- you know, holding hands very closely with Israel rather than having to find, to have to make it in order for it to be less difficult for them to separate themselves.

ALEXANDER WARD: This Witkoff trip, to me, it's all brave and good that he went there.

That said, they know what the answer to this is, right?

The GHF plan did not work.

Israel stopped aid from going in for a long time.

The Trump administration did not act when that happened.

FRANKLIN FOER: Right.

ALEXANDER WARD: And so they know what the answer is.

The fact that Witkoff and Huckabee are going in, and then they're going to brief Trump and they're going to come up with some master plan, all of a sudden in one day, when they haven't been coordinating, the people that state that don't know anything about this, it is -- FRANKLIN FOER: Can I get you just to -- so why - - so the Gaza Humanitarian Fund was something that was concocted by management consultants, private security contractors.

It was the favored solution of Israel and the favored solution of the Trump administration.

As you point out, it's failed in many ways.

But why is the Trump administration so unwilling to abandon it?

ALEXANDER WARD: I truly believe they just weren't paying that much attention to it.

I mean, Israel said this was the right way forward.

You know, plus, as Andrea noted, Hamas is stealing this stuff, so we need to protect -- we, Israel, need to protect this aid so it can get to the right people, so Hamas can't take it.

We're fighting a war against Hamas after all.

And the Trump administration went, okay, fine.

Now, there are obvious issues with the U.N.-led system, which would still deliver aid and trucks into multiple areas.

FRANKLIN FOER: So -- but just to be clear there they shouldn't be mutually exclusive, the Gaza Humanitarian Fund and the U.N. system, but the U.N. system has certain virtues, Nancy that the Gaza Humanitarian Fund doesn't have.

NANCY YOUSSEF: Well -- and the U.N has said that it doesn't want to operate under that system.

And so you have trucks that are mounted nearby but aren't able to get in.

So, there's this conflict, either it's restrictions being put in by Israel.

It's just the chaos that what happens when those trucks come in and people are swarming them, and the onus said that it doesn't want to work within the system, it sees real problems with it.

To your question about why the Trump administration is tied to it, you know, in some ways, they were affiliated with it before the details were actually worked out.

And so this is an American proposal as much as it is a business one and one that's backed by the Israelis.

The one other thing I want to point out, as we talk about aid, is one of the solutions you've been hearing this week is using airdrops, and we saw some this week.

You need more than a hundred, maybe 200 flights to replicate in a day, by the way, to replicate what trucks could bring in if they were at the normal clip that Gaza needs, which is 500 trucks a day.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Some of those drops went into evacuation zones where people couldn't get to the food.

Some of the drops can hit people.

Parachute drops are just a terrible solution when trucks are right there.

And there were 400 trucks a day at one point.

FRANKLIN FOER: Well, let me ask you this question because it feels like the solution to Gaza is obvious.

When you have people who are starving, the obvious answer is food.

And it seems like there's aid that could roll in that there's a way to do this.

What is the impediment?

Why is this not happening?

ANDREA MITCHELL: First of all, antipathy to the United Nations by Israel, remember their response to UNWRA and to the other programs.

But the World Food Programme run by Cindy McCain has been validated by Lindsey Graham and others and has operated really admirably and knows how to do this in conflict zones.

The World Health Organization, which the U.S., under Donald Trump, got out of in the first term, has been operating in and out of Gaza, bringing out the injured and doing it successfully.

There are ways the U.N. knows what it is doing in this, and it's hostile environment.

Clearly, Hamas is a problem.

I'm going to be the last person to defend Hamas, which started the war, could end the war.

But one thing that is happening in the last 48 hours, 24 hours perhaps, is that Witkoff and his negotiators are beginning to reach a position different from the original position, which is don't do a 20 -- excuse me, a 40-day ceasefire.

Don't do a 60-day ceasefire.

Go back, go to an all-or-nothing.

Get all the hostages out.

The surviving 20 or however many and the remains of the two American families who were desperate for their young men to come home for proper burial, and end the war, Hamas has to, you know, put down their weapons, agree to a ceasefire and return the hostages and some sort of initial occupying force eventually, they hope, in Arab Gulf.

Well, you know, you were on some of those trips that I was on.

FRANKLIN FOER: Yes.

And, Alex, that plan, is that the bones of an ultimate solution?

And does it feel -- it feels pretty distant right now.

Is there -- I mean, is there any prayer for it?

ALEXANDER WARD: I mean, even going back to Witkoff trip today, this is -- I want to be clear, this is a scramble.

They're scrambling to figure out what to do.

They have some ideas where they could, you know, go back to a U.N. plan or they could -- you know, they have outlines concepts of a plan, I believe someone once said, in terms of what to do in a day after in Gaza, but they are scrambling to figure it out.

There's no coordination.

There's no high level, real engagement or understanding of what they want to do.

They are having conversations, they're working on it, but it is not in some sort of meaningful, strategic way as far as I understand it, talking to folks.

I mean, there are people at the State Department with equities to do this stuff that don't know anything about the contours of what's to come.

So, in terms of the day after plan, in general, the idea is Hamas lays out its arms, they leave, the Palestinian Authority takes political control of the area again, and some Arab or Gulf-led force with maybe some US involvement from afar and some command post or advisory post helps.

But we are a long, long, long way away from that.

And it should be noted, the Biden team had a day after plan.

The Trump team rejected that.

They wanted to come up with their own.

But so far, the ideas that I've just discussed were still part of that original Biden plan.

FRANKLIN FOER: Nancy, just talk -- so let's just pull it all together.

So, there is no aid going in immediately in a significantly improved fashion.

There is no ceasefire plan that's imminent.

Talk about what's about to unfold.

NANCY YOUSSEF: So, there are about 70 trucks going in.

As Andrea mentioned, they need 400 or 500 a day to sort of operate normally, and that was before the sort of slowdown.

So, right now, you actually need more than that because they need medical supplies, they need water, they need cooking fuel, all these things that haven't gone in for a matter of months.

You have a ceasefire that right now is essentially stalled and you have European nations trying to sort of create a sense of urgency around a solution by putting forth this idea of recognizing a two-state solution at a time when it couldn't seem more farther away, right?

We have not just because of what's happening in Gaza, but we have West Bank settlements and an environment in Israel that is not interested in in reaching that kind of solution when we can't even deal with day-to-day operations.

So, I think what you're going to see, at least in the short-term, is increased pressure to ramp up the aid going in.

And because, arguably, we have already reached the tipping point.

FRANKLIN FOER: Pressure from?

NANCY YOUSSEF: I think the international community.

Because I think the images that you're seeing, there's no sign of them stopping.

When you have this level of starvation that we know about, there is a tipping point that makes it much, much harder to stop.

And even if we fixed everything today, there's permanent impacts on the populations there.

And so I think when we think about the ways ahead, it's really getting at this very urgent, short-term problem of getting some sort of sustained aid in to the Palestinian people.

ANDREA MITCHELL: And just briefly, there was criticism of Hamas now from the Arab world, a joint statement, and there is a total failure by the Palestinian Authority to reform itself, which Secretary Blinken experienced, which now they're experiencing, you know, in the current leadership.

FRANKLIN FOER: In a failure of the United States and the Arab states to impose reform on the Palestinian Authority, which they can do.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Well, it's really hard for them to have that kind of leverage, but they really need to.

And Mahmoud Abbas is an outdated, corrupt leader and is not a viable Leader to rule even temporarily over Gaza.

And there are very credible Palestinians of a different generation raising their hands and ready to take over, but nobody is forcing -- FRANKLIN FOER: Leigh Ann, I want to come back to the politics of this all and you talked about.

Republicans, and let's talk about Democrats.

Because there was a vote this week about -- that Bernie Sanders sponsored that would've stopped arms going to Israel, and there were a lot of divisions within the Democratic caucus over that.

Is Israel about to become a partisan issue or has it already become a partisan issue in this country?

LEIGH ANN CALDWELL: Well, the politics for Democrats is very complicated.

So, you can't say it's an evenly divided partisan issue at all.

All Republicans voted against that Sanders resolution to withhold armed sales to Israel.

But more Democrats voted for it this time than they have before.

This is the third time this has been voted on.

More than half of the Democratic caucus voted for it.

And so there is a lot of movement in the Democratic Party on this issue that has really challenged the party, who the party wants to stand with Israel.

This is a party that before Republicans stood more closely with Israel and then -- but is also very sympathetic to the Palestinians and especially with this crisis happening now.

And so the fact that the starvation crisis in Gaza is a continuation of moving the Democratic Party to be more critical of Israel, but this is also what they think is Israel's handling of this war that they say has gone on too long and has done too cruelly, and there needs to be changes.

FRANKLIN FOER: Unfortunately, we're going to have to leave it there for now.

Thank you to our guests for joining me, and thank you at home for watching us.