WSJ What’s News - How Israel Plans to Take Over All of Gaza

Episode Date: August 7, 2025

P.M. Edition for Aug. 7. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that his country will take control of the entire Gaza Strip. WSJ correspondent Dov Lieber fills us in on what we know about the plan so far. Plus, President Trump has called for Intel’s CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign over his ties to China. Amrith Ramkumar, who covers tech policy for the Journal, joins the podcast to discuss what this might mean for the troubled chip maker. And Firefly Aerospace becomes the third space or defense company to make its stock market debut this year. We hear from WSJ capital markets reporter Corrie Driebusch about what makes this sector so appealing to investors. Alex Ossola hosts. Sign up for the WSJ's free What's News newsletter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How Netanyahu plans to take control of all of Gaza. Plus, what Intel's future looks like after President Trump has called for its CEO to resign. And why Trump's tariffs have so far not fostered a U.S. manufacturing boom. Right now, American consumers are pretty reluctant to spend, and so manufacturers are feeling that. And then, obviously, with some tariffs already imposed and more tariffs coming, firms are refraining from making big investments. It's Thursday, August 7th.

I'm Alex Osala for the Wall Street Journal. This is the PM edition of What's News, the top headlines and business stories that move the world today. We begin in the Middle East, where Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that his country will take control of the entire Gaza Strip. The plan, a risky gamble that defies international. national pressure to end the war and lacks broad domestic support, comes after a month-long

operation in Gaza that failed to advance Israel's aims of freeing the hostages still held in the Palestinian enclave or to pressure Hamas to surrender. Speaking before Israel's cabinet gathered to vote on the new war plan, Fox News Channel's Bill Hemmer asked Netanyahu, will Israel take control of all of Gaza? We intend to. In order to assure our security, we move Hamas there, enable the population to be free of Gaza, and to pass it to civilian governance. That is not Hamas and not anyone advocating the destruction of Israel. That's what we want to do. Netanyahu didn't discuss further specifics, but said that he doesn't plan to

hold on to Gaza and would transfer control of the territory to Arab forces. He said that Israel would keep what he called a security perimeter around the enclave. For more, I'm joined by by WSJ correspondent Dove Lieber. Dove, what details do we know about this plan so far? According to people familiar with the plans, it will most likely begin with the evacuation of Gaza City, where up to a million people are currently living. So we'll start to see evacuation notices.

And this could be a weeks-long process whereby Israel tries to evacuate Gaza City and at the same time set up humanitarian infrastructure that could absorb all of these new displaced people and if there isn't any change in Hamas' stance, after that, they can move on to what they call the central camps, this area of central Gaza, which Israel has not operated very seriously in those areas, and there are about a half a million people living there. And ultimately, that would displace the entire Gaza Strip. It's not clear what happens if Hamas doesn't surrender after all

of this. This is a huge question, and one of the big points of criticism. Why is Netanyahu suggesting this plan now? The reason is because everything they've done so far hasn't worked. They've tried raids going in and out of Gaza. Then in the last several months, they tried a different plan, which was taking over a large portion of the Gaza trip, around 75%. And they thought that that word pressure Hamas into finally agreeing to Israel's demands at the negotiating table, but that didn't work either.

And they also say there's kind of a time issue here because the hostages currently left in Hamas' control could die soon due to their die humanitarian situation. So they have to move now. And what they say is if we give up now, Hamas will we group, rearm, and attack us in the future. Do we have a sense of how it's being received by the U.S., by the international community, by the stakeholders in this war? The international community has already called for this war to end many times.

And Israel's standing in the international community as plummeted. So generally, Israeli officials understand they're going to pay a very serious price in the international community. but there's one person who hasn't expressed opposition, and that's President Trump. In fact, President Trump was asked about this a few days ago, and he said, it's up to the Israelis. We're going to concentrate on the aid distribution, and the Israelis are going to do what the Israelis are going to do. And from Israel's perspective, especially from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's perspective, the only vote that counts is the vote of Donald Trump.

That was WSJ correspondent, Dove Leber. Thanks so much, Dove. Thank you for having me. Trump has called on Intel CEO Lib Bhutan to resign because of his past ties to China. A White House official said that the president is committed to making sure leaders in cutting-edge sectors can be trusted by Americans. Intel didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. Tom's previous ties to China as a venture capitalist who invested in Chinese tech companies before starting to work in the semiconductor industry have also invited scrutiny from lawmakers.

Earlier this week, Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton wrote an open letter to Intel's board, questioning Tan's ties to the Chinese government, including apparent connections to the country's military and investments in other semiconductor companies. Several other senators amplified the comments and called for Tan's resignation. In response to Cotton's letter, Intel defended Tan and dismissed suggestions that the company posed a threat to U.S. national security. The pressure from Washington comes about five months after Tan took over to turn around the company and could add to its challenges.

For more on this, WSJ Tech Policy reporter Amrith Ram Kumar joins me now from Washington. Amrith, part of the issue here is Taan's investments in China. How worried should other companies or executives be if they have similar interests in that market? It's a tricky situation to navigate because a lot of tech executives have a lot of business relationships in China because it's such a huge market for them. But there are some unique elements here for 10 that have made this a bit more challenging for Intel. It's also notable that tech companies that invest a lot in the U.S. have been getting favorable treatment from the president, but Intel's financial situation is so bad, basically, that they can't really increase their U.S. investments that much and do a splashy announcement with the president to sort of appeal to him that way. So, yes, there is the China concern, but other sector industry experts have made the point that this sort of who's investing more in the U.S. and it's not Intel dynamic is also at play.

Yeah, what does this mean for Intel? I mean, it's coming off of a difficult couple of years. Ton has only been in this position for a few months, as I mentioned. Does this further imperil the company's immediate future? It's definitely an enormous crisis moment for them because of what you weighed out. It's definitely a tricky dynamic for the CEO and also the board of directors to navigate. He's also put in this turnaround plan that hasn't really had time to take effect. And he was reversing his predecessor. turn around planned in some ways are modifying it. And so, again, changing the direction at a time when others in the industry are accelerating and developing cutting-edge AI chips. It's a tough situation. That was WSJ reporter.

Amrith Rob Kumar. Thanks so much, Amrith. Thanks for having me. U.S. tariffs kicked in on dozens of countries just after midnight. In today's trading, major U.S. indexes closed mixed with the NASDAQ hitting its 17th record of the year, up about 0.4%. The Dow dropped roughly half a percent, and the S&P 500 slid about 0.1%. President Trump said he would nominate Stephen Myron, the head of the White House

Council of Economic Advisors, to fill a vacancy on the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors on a short-term basis. Myronin will take over the seat from Fed Governor Adriana Coogler. She said unexpectedly last week that she would leave the Central Bank this Friday. Coming up, what's got investors excited about a space company's stock market debut? That's after the break. After landing on the moon earlier this year, the next stop for Firefly Aerospace is Wall Street. The Texas-based space company debuted on the NASDAQ stock exchange today, closing at about $60 a share, up about 34% from.

its IPO price. That makes Firefly the third company tied to space and defense to go public so far this year. Corey Dreebush covers capital markets for the journal and explains what makes the sector so appealing to investors. For one thing, these companies have a lot of cash burn. Think of how expensive it is. This isn't building a piece of software. This is trying to send rockets to the moon potentially. This is a very cash-intensive business. So it makes sense to want to to be public, to want to have a regular access to the capital markets to be able to raise more money. Also, I would say from an investor point of view, let's be honest, what is the hottest or one of the top three hottest private companies out there right now that everyday investors

can't get their hands on? It's SpaceX. And these types of companies, from what we hear, provide almost a proxy for the everyday investor who can't buy a share of SpaceX, then maybe they can get involved in the space race this way. President Trump has claimed that his sweeping tariff regime will reshor American companies and revive manufacturing in the U.S. So far, that hasn't happened. From March to July, U.S. manufacturing activity contracted. According to the Institute for Supply Management's monthly survey, the manufacturing PMI last registered at 48, below the 50 score that differentiates growth and decline.

Chao Dang covers the U.S. economy for the Wall Street Journal and joins me now. Chao, why is U.S. manufacturing in this slump? Right now, American consumers are pretty reluctant to spend, and so manufacturers are feeling that, and then obviously with some tariffs already imposed and more tariffs coming, firms are refraining from making big investments. They want to see what comes of the trade wars before they make big investments in capital decisions, and all that is contributing to a very sluggish sector right now. The White House has touted nearly 80 U.S. manufacturing projects announced since the start of the year.

Yesterday, Apple announced $100 billion in new investment in U.S. manufacturing. What would it take for these projects to materialize? Some of these projects were already in the works before Trump came to office. In terms of reason to doubt, policy could change local policies could make an impact and interrupt plans. Trump's tariffs might change. In a few years, there might be a different president and a different economic policy. And so in the time that it takes to expand a production line or build a factory, there are just so many variables that could change. So what would it take for U.S. manufacturing to get out of this lump and to expand? One thing manufacturing executives complain a lot about right now is obviously the lack of clarity with the tariffs and where rates will eventually settle.

And to some extent, they're getting more clarity on that, although everyone knows that Trump's trade wars are always unpredictable. It looks like some of the tariffs are settling around 15%, especially on South Korea, European and Japan. and some economists have said that rate is actually fairly manageable, and so therefore, at those rates, we won't necessarily see a lot of reshoring. So one could make the argument that tariffs may need to go even higher before companies are really pushed to take dramatic action and move factories back to the U.S. But then, of course, the flip side is that tariffs at the end of the day are being paid by U.S. importers buying goods from abroad. Higher tariffs will all. ultimately hurt American companies looking to expand production.

That was Wall Street Journal reporter Chow Dang. And that's what's news for this Thursday afternoon. Today's show is produced by Pierre Bienname, with supervising producer Michael Cosmides. I'm Alex Oscella for the Wall Street Journal. We'll be back with the new show tomorrow morning. Thanks for listening. Thank you.