Israeli strikes kill journalists and aid-seekers as Australia backs Palestinian statehood
Advertisement
A dozen more people killed seeking aid
Among the dead were at least 12 aid seekers killed by Israeli gunfire while trying to reach distribution points, or awaiting aid convoys, according to officials at two hospitals and witnesses.
The Palestine Red Crescent Society said its Saraya Field Hospital received about 30 injured from the Zikim area. Al-Shifa hospital received five bodies and over 70 wounded, said Mohamed Abu Selmiya, the hospital's director.
Relatives said casualties included children and an infant. Witnesses to gunfire near the Morag corridor said they saw barrages of bullets and later dead bodies, describing the grim scene as a near-daily occurrence.
The AP spoke to five witnesses who were among the crowds in central Gaza, the Teina area and the Morag corridor. All said that Israeli forces had fired toward the crowds.
Advertisement
'The occupation (forces) targeted us, as they do every day,' said Hussain Matter, a displaced father of two who was in the Morag corridor. 'Out of nowhere, you find bullets from everywhere.'
Ahmed Atta said he helped carry a wounded man from the Teina area who had been shot in his shoulder and was bleeding. 'It's a pattern,' Atta said of the Israeli gunfire toward aid seekers.
Aid seekers were killed from 3 kilometers (nearly 2 miles) to just hundreds of meters (yards) from sites operated by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, according to Nasser and Awda hospitals.
The United States and Israel support the American contractor as an alternative to the United Nations, which they say allows Hamas to siphon off aid. The U.N., which has delivered aid throughout Gaza for decades when conditions allow, denies the allegations.
The latest deaths raise the toll to more than 1,700 people killed while seeking food since the new aid distribution system began in May, according to Gaza's Health Ministry.
U.N. agencies generally do not accept Israeli military escorts for aid trucks, citing concerns over neutrality, and its convoys have come under fire amid severe food shortages.
The deaths came hours after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called reports about conditions in Gaza a 'global campaign of lies,' and announced plans to move deeper into the territory and push to dismantle Hamas.
Five more Palestinians, including a child, died of malnutrition-related causes in Gaza in the past 24 hours, the health ministry said.
Israel increased the flow of supplies two weeks ago amid such concerns.
Israeli strike targets and kills Al Jazeera journalists
Israel's military targeted an Al Jazeera correspondent with an airstrike Sunday, killing him. The strike killed a total of eight people, including six journalists and two other civilians, according to Shifa Hospital. Press advocates described the attack as a brazen assault on those documenting the war.
Advertisement
The network said that along with its correspondent, four others of the slain journalists also worked for Al Jazeera.
The Israeli military claimed responsibility for the strike. It came less than a year after Israeli army officials first accused correspondent Anas al-Sharif and other Al Jazeera journalists of being members of the militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, an allegation that Al Jazeera and al-Sharif have previously dismissed as baseless.
Al Jazeera called the strike a 'targeted assassination' while press freedom groups denounced the rising death toll facing Palestinian journalists working in Gaza. Mourners laid the journalists to rest in Gaza City.
Hamas-led militants abducted 251 people and killed around 1,200 people, mostly civilians, in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack that triggered the war. Most of the hostages have been released in ceasefires or other deals but 50 remain inside Gaza. Israel believes around 20 are still alive.
Israel's air and ground offensive has since displaced most of the population, destroyed vast areas and pushed the territory toward famine. It has killed more than 61,400 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which does not say how many were fighters or civilians but says around half were women and children.
Besides those killed, 121 adults and 101 children have died of malnutrition-related causes, including five in the past 24 hours, the ministry said. One was a child.
The ministry is part of the Hamas-run government and staffed by medical professionals. The U.N. and independent experts consider it the most reliable source on war casualties. Israel disputes its figures but has not provided its own.
Advertisement
International reaction
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Monday added his country to a list moving toward recognition of a state of Palestine, along with France, Britain and Canada. He said his government's decision aimed to build momentum toward a two-state solution, which he called the best path to ending violence and bringing leadership other than Hamas to Gaza.
'The situation in Gaza has gone beyond the world's worst fears,' he said. 'The Israeli government continues to defy international law and deny sufficient aid, food and water to desperate people, including children.'
Also on Monday Italy's Premier Giorgia Meloni announced new aid to Gaza in a phone conversation with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. She stressed the need to bring hostilities with Israel to an immediate halt and 'shared her deep concern about recent Israeli decisions that appear to be leading to further military escalation,' her office said in a statement.
Meloni reiterated that 'the humanitarian situation in Gaza is unjustifiable and unacceptable.'
Italy's Defense Minister Guido Crosetto also told the Italian daily La Stampa Monday that Israel's government has 'lost reason and humanity' over Gaza and raised the possibility of imposing sanctions.
Egypt seeking talks
Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty confirmed Monday that Egypt is pushing for negotiations to reach a deal that would end the war in Gaza, release Israeli hostages, guarantee aid entry and ultimately agree on a political road map that would lead to establishing a Palestinian state.
Deploying international forces to support establishing a Palestinian state was previously proposed throughout the war, but Israel has opposed the idea.
Advertisement
Abdelatty's comments in a news conference in Cairo came as mediators from Egypt and Qatar were working on a new framework that would include the release of all hostages — dead and alive — in one go, in return for an end of the war in Gaza and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the strip, according to two Arab officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the issue.
U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff met with the Qatari prime minister in Spain on Saturday to discuss new efforts.
___
Metz reported from Jerusalem and Magdy from Cairo. Associated Press writers Fatma Khaled in Cairo and Charlotte Graham-Mclay in Wellington, New Zealand, contributed to this report.
___
Follow AP's war coverage at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
20 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Tariff ‘Mission Accomplished' hype is just that
On May 1, 2003, George W. Bush announced, 'Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.' He was standing below a giant banner that read, 'Mission Accomplished.' At the risk of inviting charges of understatement, subsequent events didn't cooperate. But it took a while for that to be widely accepted. We're in a similar place when it comes to President Trump's experiment with a new global trading order. 'Tariffs are making our country Strong and Rich!!!' proclaims Trump, making him not only the first Republican president in living memory to brag about raising taxes on Americans, but also the first to insist that raising taxes on Americans makes us richer. MAGA's mission-accomplished groupthink relies primarily on three arguments. The first is that Trump has successfully concluded a slew of beneficial trade deals. The truth is that some of those deals are simply 'frameworks' that will take a long time to be ironed out. But Trump got the headlines he wanted. The second argument is a kind of populism-infused sleight of hand. The 'experts' — their scare quotes, not mine — are wrong once again. The White House social media account crows, 'In April, 'experts' called tariffs 'the biggest policy mistake in 95 years.' By July, they generated OVER $100 BILLION in revenue. Facts expose the haters: tariffs WORK. Trust in Trump.' But the high-fivers are leaving things out. The most-dire predictions of economic catastrophe were based on the scheme Trump announced on April 2, a.k.a. 'Liberation Day.' Trump quickly backed off that plan ('chickened out' in Wall Street parlance) in response to a bond and stock market implosion. Saying the experts were wrong under those circumstances is like saying experts opposed to defenestration were wrong when they successfully convinced a man not to jump out a window. The third argument, made by the White House and many others — that tariffs are working because they're raising money — is a response to a claim no one made. To my knowledge, no expert claimed tariffs wouldn't raise money. The estimates of these revenues from Trump world are stratospheric. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick expects somewhere between $700 billion and $1 trillion per year. Last month, the government collected $29 billion. It's likely this number will significantly increase as more tariffs come online and businesses run down the inventory they stockpiled earlier this year in anticipation of more tariffs to come. Normally, Republicans don't exult over massive revenues from tax hikes. But Trump's defenders get around this problem by insisting that money is 'pouring' and 'flowing' into America from someplace else. It's true that tariff revenue is pouring into the Treasury, but that money is coming out of American bank accounts, because American importers pay the tariff. Even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent cannot deny this when pressed. So yes, tariffs are 'working' the way they're supposed to; the problem is Trump thinks tariffs work differently than they do. It's possible some foreign exporters might lower prices to maintain market share, and some American businesses might absorb the costs — for now — to avoid sticker shock for inflation-beleaguered consumers, but what revenue is generated still comes from Americans. Ultimately it means higher prices paid here, reduced profits for businesses here or reduced U.S. trade overall. Sometimes, when pressed, defenders of the administration will concede the true source of the revenues, but then they say the pain is necessary to force manufacturers and other businesses to build and produce in the United States. It's backdoor industrial policy masquerading as trade policy. That, too, might 'work.' But all of this will take time, no matter what. And, if it works, that will have costs, too. Manufacturing in America is more expensive — that's why we manufacture so much stuff abroad in the first place. If this 'reshoring' happens, our goods will be more expensive, and less money will 'pour in' from tariffs. It's difficult to exaggerate how well-understood all of this was on the American right until very recently. But the need to grab any argument available to declare Trump's experiment a success has a lot of people not only abandoning their previous dogma but leaping to the conclusion that the dogma was wrong all along. Maybe it was, though I don't think so. The evidence so far suggests that problems are looming. The dollar is weakening. Prices continue to rise. The job market is reeling. The stock market (an unreliable metric, according to MAGA, when it plummeted after Liberation Day) is holding on, thanks to tech stocks. The truth is we won't have real evidence for a while. It's worth remembering that Americans don't live by headlines and press releases and they don't live in the macro economy either. Declaring 'Mission Accomplished' for the macro economy won't convince people they're better off in their own micro-economies when they're not. @JonahDispatch
Los Angeles Times
20 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Israel says it struck militants posing as aid workers in Gaza
JERUSALEM — The Israeli military said Tuesday that it recently struck a group of militants in the Gaza Strip who were disguised as aid workers and using a car with the logo of World Central Kitchen, an international charity founded by celebrity chef José Andrés. The army said it carried out an airstrike on the men after confirming with the charity that they were not affiliated with it and that the car did not belong to it. World Central Kitchen confirmed that the men and the vehicle were not affiliated with it. 'We strongly condemn anyone posing as World Central Kitchen or other humanitarians, as this endangers civilians and aid workers,' it said in a statement. The military shared video footage showing several men in yellow vests standing around a vehicle with the charity's logo on its roof. The military said five of the men were armed. The relief group, founded in 2010, has worked from Haiti to Ukraine, dispatching teams that can quickly provide meals on a mass scale in conflict zones and after natural disasters. The group prides itself on providing food that fits with local tastes. In April, an Israeli strike killed seven World Central Kitchen workers in Gaza. Israel quickly admitted it had mistakenly killed the aid workers and launched an investigation. In November, an Israeli strike killed five people, including a World Central Kitchen worker who Israel said was part of the Hamas attack that sparked the war. WCK said at the time that it was unaware the employee had any connection to the attack. Hamas-led militants abducted 251 people and killed around 1,200 people, mostly civilians, in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack that triggered the war. Most of the hostages have been released in ceasefires or other deals but 50 remain inside Gaza. Israel believes around 20 are still alive. Israel's air and ground offensive has since displaced most of the population, destroyed vast areas and pushed the territory toward famine. It has killed more than 61,400 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which does not say how many were fighters or civilians but says around half were women and children. Besides those killed, 121 adults and 101 children have died of malnutrition-related causes, the ministry has said. The ministry is part of the Hamas-run government and staffed by medical professionals. The U.N. and independent experts consider it the most reliable source on war casualties. Israel disputes its figures but has not provided its own.
Scientific American
20 minutes ago
- Scientific American
Trump Order Gives Political Appointees Vast Powers over Research Grants
US President Donald Trump issued an expansive executive order (EO) yesterday that would centralize power and upend the process that the US government has used for decades to award research grants. If implemented, political appointees — not career civil servants, including scientists — would have control over grants, from initial funding calls to final review. This is the Trump administration's latest move to assert control over US science. The EO, titled 'Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking', orders each US agency head to designate an appointee to develop a grant-review process that will 'advance the President's policy priorities'. Those processes must not fund grants that advance 'anti-American values' and instead prioritize funding for institutions committed to achieving Trump's plan for 'gold-standard science'. (That plan, issued in May, calls for the US government to promote 'transparent, rigorous, and impactful' science, but has been criticized for its potential to increase political interference in research.) Impacts might be felt immediately: the latest order directs US agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to halt new funding opportunities, which are calls for researchers to submit applications for grants on certain topics. They will be paused until agencies put their new review processes in place. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Trump's EO comes after the US Senate — which, along with the House, ultimately controls US government spending — has, in recent weeks, mostly rejected his proposals to slash the federal budget for science, totalling nearly US$200 billion annually. The White House did not respond to questions from Nature about the EO. Negative reaction Trump, a Republican, has previously used EOs, which can direct government agencies but cannot alter existing laws, to effect policy change. In January, on his first day in office, he signed a slew of EOs with wide-ranging effects, from pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement to cutting the federal workforce, which had included nearly 300,000 scientists before he took office. Scientists and policy specialists have lambasted the latest EO on social media. 'This is a shocking executive order that undermines the very idea of open inquiry,' Casey Dreier, director of space policy for the Planetary Society, an advocacy group in Pasadena, California, posted to Bluesky. Also on Bluesky, Jeremy Berg, a former director of the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences, called it a 'power grab'. Speaking to Nature, he said: 'That power is something that has not been exercised at all in the past by political appointees.' In a statement, Zoe Lofgren, a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives from California, called the EO 'obscene'. It could lead to political appointees 'standing between you and a cutting-edge cancer-curing clinical trial', she said. The EO justifies the changes to the grant-awarding process by casting doubts on past choices: it accuses the US National Science Foundation (NSF) of awarding grants to educators with anti-American ideologies and to projects on diversity, equity and inclusion, which are disfavoured by the Trump team. It also points to senior researchers at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Stanford University in California who have resigned over accusations of data falsification. To 'strengthen oversight' of grants, the EO imposes several restrictions, including prohibiting grants that promote 'illegal immigration' and prohibiting grant recipients from promoting 'racial preferences' in their work or denying that sex is binary. In some cases, the restrictions seem to contradict Congressional mandates. For instance, the NSF has, for decades, been required by law to broaden participation in science of people from under-represented groups — an action that takes race into consideration. In addition to these broader restrictions, the EO directs grant approvals to prioritize certain research institutions, such as those that have 'demonstrated success' in implementing the gold-standard science plan and those with lower 'indirect costs'. As part of its campaign to downsize government spending and reduce the power of elite US universities, the Trump administration has repeatedly tried to cap these costs — used to pay for laboratory electricity and administrative staff, for instance. It has proposed a flat 15% rate for grants awarded by agencies such as the NSF and the US Department of Energy, but federal courts have so far blocked such policies. Some institutions with the highest indirect-cost rates are children's hospitals, Berg told Nature. 'Does that mean they're just not going to prioritize research at children's hospitals?' he asks. Out for review At the heart of the grant-awarding process is peer review. Project proposals have typically had to pass watchful panels of independent scientists who scored and approved funding. 'Nothing in this order shall be construed to discourage or prevent the use of peer review methods,' the EO notes, 'provided that peer review recommendations remain advisory' to the senior appointees. The EO worries many researchers, including Doug Natelson, a physicist at Rice University in Houston, Texas. 'This looks like an explicit attempt to destroy peer review for federal science grants,' he says. Programme officers at agencies, who have been stewards of the grant-review process, are similarly alarmed. 'The executive order is diminishing the role of programme officers and their autonomy to make judgments about the quality of the science,' says an NSF employee who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak with the press. 'That's disheartening, to say the least.'
