New details revealed on Israel's tragic strike on Catholic church in Gaza
On July 19, a shell fired by the Israel Defense Forces hit the Holy Family Catholic Church, which is the only Catholic church located in Gaza. The strike left 3 people dead and 10 people injured, including the parish priest. At the time, the Israel Defense Forces claimed that the church was 'mistakenly' hit by fragments from a shell that was fired as part of 'operational activity in the area.'
According to The Intercept, the deceased victims included Saad Salama, a 60-year-old janitor; Fumya Ayaad, an 84-year-old woman who had been receiving psychosocial aid at the church's compound; and Najwa Abu Dawood, a 71-year-old mother with a hip fracture. The outlet noted that the injured victims included Father Gabriel Romanelli, the parish priest, and Najeeb Tarazi, a man with disabilities.
The Intercept reported that July's strike by the Israel Defense Forces left the church's compound with significant damage, including heavy damage sustained by the primary church building.
READ MORE: Video: 3 killed, 10 injured in Israeli strike on Catholic church in Gaza
According to The Intercept, the Catholic church's compound served as a shelter for 500 to 600 Palestinian Christians. The outlet noted that 54 people with disabilities received shelter at the church compound and that many children and elderly individuals were also housed at the Catholic church in Gaza.
The Intercept reported that 46-year-old Shadi Abu Dawood's mother, Najwa Dawood, was killed in the Israeli strike, while his son Suhail was critically injured in the attack. Shadi Dawood told The Intercept that the 'massacre' took place at 10 a.m.
'The scene was horrifying — my mother was covered in blood and wounded in the head,' the 46-year-old said. 'I kept calling her: 'Mom, wake up, Mom, wake up.' She's now gone to a place where there is no pain, no sorrow.'
Mosa Ayaad, whose aunt, Fumya Ayaad, was killed in the Israeli strike, told The Intercept, 'Seeing the church targeted was a wound to the soul. For us, it is not just a building — it is a house of prayer, a house of gathering, a refuge for the weak.'
'Here, Muslims and Christians share the same fate: the same fear, the same loss, the same siege,' Mosa Ayaad added. 'And under these conditions, our bonds grow even stronger, because we are all fighting to survive and to protect what remains of our lives and dignity.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
33 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Lebanon releases Israeli citizen held in detention for a year
TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — An Israeli citizen detained in Lebanon has been returned to Israel after more than a year in detention, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said on Thursday. There was little information given about the man, identified as Salah Abu-Hussein, an Arab citizen of Israel. His imprisonment had not garnered public attention in Israel or Lebanon. Israeli media reported that the man's family had reported him missing around a year ago and was unaware he was in Lebanon. Four Lebanese security and judicial officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the case, said the man had entered the country illegally by crossing the land border between the two countries and was then caught by Lebanese security officials. At the time of his crossing, Israeli forces and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah were engaged in ongoing low-level clashes in the border region, which escalated into a full-scale war in September 2024. It was halted by a U.S.-brokered ceasefire two months later. Abu-Hussein's release was negotiated in secret over the past few months in cooperation with the Red Cross, according to Gal Hirsch, Netanyahu's coordinator for the Hostages and the Missing, who is also Israel's point of contact for the hostages in Gaza. On Thursday, Lebanese Authorities handed Abu-Hussein to Hirsch at the Rosh Hanikra crossing between Lebanon and Israel, which is not open to the public. Lebanon and Israel do not have diplomatic relations and Israeli citizens are prohibited from entering Lebanon under Lebanese law, with rare exceptions for Palestinians holding Israeli citizenship. Netanyahu hailed the return of Abu-Hussein. 'This is a positive step and a sign of things to come,' he said after Abu-Hussein returned. There was no official comment from the Lebanese government on his release. A group advocating for Lebanese citizens held in Israeli prisons denounced the move. The Representative Committee of Lebanese Prisoners and Freed Prisoners said in a statement that 19 Lebanese citizens are imprisoned in Israel and called the release of the Israeli citizen by Lebanon 'blatant betrayal.'
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Readers should know that journalists in Gaza are not free to report the truth
The killing of the well-known Al Jazeera journalist Anas al-Sharif by the Israeli military has become a flashpoint in the global discourse around Gaza. Israel claims that al-Sharif was not only a reporter but a Hamas operative, citing documents that suggested he once received a salary from the group. Al Jazeera (where I am sometimes interviewed on Middle East developments) rejected the charge, and many observers cast doubt on the evidence Israel produced. Some noted that, even if there was an affiliation, it may have been in the past. Having served as the Associated Press bureau chief in Jerusalem and later as the agency's Middle East editor, I have been asked repeatedly what I make of the allegations. The truth is, like many, I don't know what to believe. Israel has not covered itself in glory with any sort of transparency about its conduct of the war — and that itself is the point. Israel's claims about al-Sharif might have some basis. But it is deeply problematic to suggest that past affiliation alone justifies attacking someone who was functioning, at the time, as a journalist. By that logic, most Israeli civilians would be considered legitimate targets by many Palestinians, given the country's near-universal conscription. Of course, there is no comparing the army of a democratic state with the terrorist mafia that rules Gaza. But one must acknowledge how such reasoning will be read outside Israel. For years at AP, we relied mostly on Palestinian staff in Gaza to report stories, take photographs and document events under conditions of exceptional danger. Since the war began almost two years ago, that reliance has become total, because Israel has blocked all foreign journalists from entering the territory, except on heavily stage-managed embeds with the military. Many of our staffers in Gaza were, in my view, indisputably heroic in their willingness to risk not only the fire raining from the sky but also the ire of Hamas. I rarely had evidence that they were sympathizers of the group; if anything, they tended to be pro-Western and inclined toward the opposite outlook. For one thing, they were loyal colleagues to bosses who, in many cases, were Jews and Israelis in their employer's Jerusalem bureau. That said, I will not pretend that Hamas's rule was not an ever-present reality that had to be calibrated in coverage. During my time, we managed to report on rocket fire from civilian areas, on militants killed in action, on the use of human shields. Contrary to later critics, such as the famously disgruntled former AP staffer Matti Friedman, we did not suppress these facts as a matter of principle. But was coverage sometimes shaped by the risks our local staff faced? It would be dishonest to deny the possibility — indeed the likelihood. Here is the larger point: Gaza is in its way singular, but it is also a case study in a global problem. The enclave is a warzone, a prison and a propaganda lab. Foreign journalists on their embeds see what Israeli military escorts allow and are forbidden from speaking to Palestinians. That this has gone on for almost two years is an extraordinary and somewhat unprecedented situation in modern journalism. The Foreign Press Association, which I once chaired, has repeatedly petitioned Israeli courts to reverse the ban only to be stonewalled. The military claims it is for safety, and that is not entirely unreasonable. But the consequence is that the world's understanding of Gaza is mediated either by Palestinian freelancers, working under Hamas's shadow, or by official Israeli military briefings, often presented by officials granted anonymity for no reason that is justifiable on journalistic or ethical grounds. Israel has not taken serious steps to find creative ways to allow access, or even to indicate that they have anything but indifference to the fact that this is no way to cover a war. The press has been in a similar position before. In North Korea, Iran, Cuba, China and Russia (before the Ukraine war and the resulting sanctions regime drove away foreign reporters), journalists operate under government surveillance, restrictions that are sometimes unspoken yet clear, and implied physical threats. Yet this reality almost is never explained to the reader. The conditions of reporting — the intimidation, the constraints, the lack of access — are treated as footnotes or left unsaid altogether. How to fix this, what the boilerplate language describing the situation would be, how to handle possible blowback to staff — these are questions that I cannot definitively answer. But this is a discussion that major news organizations must have, preferably banding together, perhaps under the aegis of international journalism organizations. Absent such steps, the result is a distortion: Audiences think they are receiving unvarnished facts when they are actually consuming stories shaped by fear, access and proximity to power. So this is not just about Gaza. It is about the very definition of journalism. The analogy I find most apt is to organized crime. When reporters in the U.S. cover the mafia, they know certain doors are closed, certain questions unwise to ask. The threat is rarely stated for attribution. Hamas operates by similar rules, only on a larger scale. Gaza is run by a militia that jails or kills opponents. Gaza's civilians are victims of that rule. Gaza's journalists — which, as said, the media currently depends on exclusively for voices from the ground — are civilians, even if some of Israel's claims are true. That does not invalidate the work, but it does mean the media has a responsibility to be transparent about the conditions under which such journalism is produced. Readers deserve to be told that this is not a free press environment. When access is denied, when intimidation is implicit, when the story comes from a place without freedom, that fact is not incidental — it is central. The coverage of the Gaza war is compromised on both sides. The media cannot be expected to continue putting up with it without taking countermeasures. At a minimum, every significant story should state that foreign journalists have not been allowed into Gaza for almost two years except on tightly controlled embeds. Moreover, editors should reconsider the use of Israeli military briefings without attribution. The only way to make Israel take notice is for a combined commitment by all accredited journalists — especially all Foreign Press Association members, who are the majority of foreign reporters — to refuse to attend these briefings. This will exact a certain journalistic price, so the media organizations they work for will have to back this and forego a few dubious 'scoops,' and the leaders of these outlets need to take the lead and not dump the decision on local reporters. Gaza is unique in scale, but not in principle. From Moscow to Tehran, journalists are often working in compromised environments. News organizations have tiptoed around this fact for far too long. Trust in journalism is already cratering — for many reasons. The public needs honesty — not only about what is happening, but about how we know it, and under what conditions we are reporting it. It is a cliche that truth is the first casualty of war. But it doesn't have to be. If journalists want to preserve truth, they must start by telling it — not only about the wars they cover, but about the conditions in which they themselves are forced to work. Dan Perry led Associated Press coverage in Europe, Africa and the Middle East (including Iran, Gaza, Syria and Afghanistan), and chaired the Foreign Press Association for Israel and the Palestinian areas. He publishes on Substack.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Georgia probe continues into alleged Ponzi scheme targeting conservative Christians
A scandal involving an alleged massive Ponzi scheme that's centered around right-wing Georgia businessman Brant Frost IV is threatening to roil Republican Party chapters across the country. Georgia's Republican secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, issued subpoenas Monday as part of his investigation into the alleged scheme. In July, the Securities and Exchange Commission alleged that a Ponzi scheme had been run out of an investment firm Frost launched called First Liberty Building & Loan. SEC investigators allege that approximately 300 investors were bilked out of at least $140 million and that about $17 million went toward personal expenses for Frost and his family, including more than $2.4 million in credit card payments and more than $570,000 in political donations. Frost apologized last month, saying in a statement: 'I take full responsibility for my actions and am resolved to spend the rest of my life trying to repay as much as I can to the many people I misled and let down.' His actions have sent ripples through the Republican Party. Frost's son, Brant Frost V, promoted First Liberty to conservatives on right-wing media — such as Real America's Voice — and has since stepped down from his post as head of a GOP county chapter in metro Atlanta. And there's a push underway to determine which conservatives and right-wing causes benefited from First Liberty's contributions. Last month, Raffensperger called on politicians who received donations to return them: Now is the time for every elected official, candidate or political action committee who received financial support from this entity currently under investigation to stand up and help the victims. Ill-gotten gains do not belong in the State Capitol. A recent investigation by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution found that the money reached beyond Georgia and into states nationwide. The AJC reported that House Speaker Mike Johnson and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis were among those who received donations, though the newspaper noted that it's 'not clear which contributions were paid with investors' money.' The Georgia Recorder reported that other high-profile Republicans — such as Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado and then-Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida — received contributions from First Liberty in last year's election cycle. (Johnson, DeSantis, Boebert and Gaetz did not immediately respond to MSNBC's requests for comment.) According to the Recorder, some people in Georgia have returned money they received to a court-appointed receiver, including Gov. Brian Kemp, whose donations appear to have come before the alleged scheme began, and Raffensperger. The receiver, Gregory Hays, basically said the scheme was meant to exploit right-wing Christians' generosity toward like-minded causes: 'We call these affinity frauds, where you base it on a certain group, and this is very religious Christians and Republicans,' said Gregory Hays of Atlanta-based Hays Financial Consulting, who was appointed by a U.S. district court judge to receive the money from those returning the funds. 'So most of all the victims are either in politics or very faith-based investors, and all of them that I talked to were influenced by the charitable giving and the feel-good side of the company.' Several officials in neighboring Alabama have returned campaign contributions, as well. Given how expansive these donations appear to have been, the list of such politicians seems likely to grow in the coming weeks and months. This article was originally published on Solve the daily Crossword
