Guterres Deplores Israeli Strike On Gaza Church
Three people were killed and at least 10 others were injured in the bombing of the Holy Family Church in Gaza City, according to media reports.
Stephanie Tremblay, a spokesperson for the Secretary-General, noted that the church was both a place of worship and a sanctuary for civilians.
'Attacks on places of worship are unacceptable. People seeking shelter must be respected and protected, not hit by strikes,' she said during the daily media briefing from New York.
'Too many lives have already been lost,' she added, before stressing the urgent need for an immediate ceasefire and the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.
Strikes continue amid widespread displacement
Meanwhile, Israeli strikes over the past 24 hours have hit sites hosting displaced Palestinians, some of whom were injured and killed.
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported that more than 11,500 people in Gaza were newly displaced between 8-15 July.
Overall, more than 737,000 people have been uprooted since the latest escalation of hostilities on 18 March, or roughly 35 per cent of the population
Furthermore, nearly everyone in Gaza has been displaced, in many cases multiple times, since the war began in October 2023.
Ms. Tremblay reminded journalists that most housing in Gaza is flattened or otherwise unhabitable and families are staying in the open because the UN has not been allowed to bring in tents and other shelter materials since early March.
Mediterranean swimming ban
She also highlighted a 'worrying development' as humanitarians report that many displaced people are wary of bathing in the Mediterranean Sea after Israeli reinstated a ban prohibiting swimming and fishing.
'OCHA says that for many, the sea has been their only option to wash, as there is barely any functioning water infrastructure and almost no fuel to pump water, a much-needed outlet in the hot weather in Gaza,' she explained.
More fuel needed
Humanitarians also continue to report that the amount of fuel Israel is allowing into Gaza is still nowhere enough to keep life-saving services operating and shutdowns are a real risk.
Ms. Tremblay mentioned 'a small but important step' that occurred on Thursday, as the UN was finally allowed to bring in some benzene – used to power ambulances and other critical services - for the first time in more than 135 days.
'That's in addition to the limited amounts of diesel allowed over the past week. But it's not enough,' she said.
'We are calling for more fuel – both benzene and diesel – to come in regularly. And the ban on shelter materials needs to be lifted immediately. Lives depend on both.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
8 hours ago
- Newsroom
Disregard for indigenous rights comes straight from the top
Opinion: Earlier this week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said he 'fully agrees' with a letter the Minister of Regulation David Seymour wrote to Dr Albert K Barume, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Barume recently criticised New Zealand for breaching international human rights standards relating to Indigenous peoples. Among other things, Seymour's letter to Barume called these criticisms 'an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty'. This is significant, but the timeline of how we got here is a bit complex, so here's some background. A special rapporteur is a person, appointed by the UN, who has expertise in a particular area of human rights and has a responsibility to investigate, advocate for, and encourage countries to uphold those rights. First, what is a special rapporteur and how does this role relate to NZ? One high-profile special rapporteur you may have recently heard of is Francesca Albanese, who has a specific mandate relating to human rights in Palestine. Barume holds an equivalent position relating to the rights of Indigenous peoples around the world, including Māori. Barume's criticisms, contained in a letter to the New Zealand Government, reportedly addressed a range of things, all broadly related to the Government's failure to uphold both te Tiriti o Waitangi and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). We don't know all the details of the letter but the part that seems to have annoyed Seymour relates to the Regulatory Standards Bill. Alongside his comment about New Zealand's sovereignty, Seymour called the letter 'presumptive, condescending, and wholly misplaced'. Remember, there has been virtually unanimous condemnation of the Regulatory Standards Bill by te Tiriti experts, as well as by the Waitangi Tribunal. So, you can decide for yourself whether Seymour's comments are accurate. Didn't the coalition agreements say something about UNDRIP? Yes. The NZ First and Act coalition agreements with National both mention the New Zealand Government should no longer recognise UNDRIP. However, an Official Information Act request last year revealed nothing had been done about it – there was no correspondence with the UN and no express withdrawal of the government's endorsement of UNDRIP. In any case, the rights of Indigenous peoples now carry weight on their own, as they are a recognised set of norms in international law. How did the PM get involved? In comments to reporters this week, the Prime Minister said that Seymour shouldn't have sent the letter because this was Foreign Minister Winston Peters' job. But while initially appearing to criticise Seymour for not following the right process, Luxon then said he 'completely agrees' with Seymour's letter to Barume. He called Barume's letter 'bunkum' and said the special rapporteur's comments were 'completely without substance'. Remember that Barume is appointed as a world-leading expert on these matters, so again, you decide who might be right here. To summarise so far, Seymour – in his capacity as the Minister of Regulation – wrote to a UN official criticising him for criticising New Zealand for breaching Indigenous peoples' rights, and then the Prime Minister publicly agreed with Seymour's comments. Indigenous rights scholar Tina Ngata has pointed out the message from New Zealand that we reject Indigenous peoples' rights therefore isn't a matter of Seymour going rogue. It is a message that comes straight from the top. This matters and is something we should all be embarrassed about. How did the UN find out about this so quickly? This week, an annual meeting was held at the UN by a group called the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (known as EMRIP). On the same day Luxon made his comments, New Zealand had its speaking slot at EMRIP. The Prime Minister's comments were reported by members of the New Zealand delegation to the group, such as Auckland University professor Claire Charters (members are independent, not part of the government). So, the UN, and therefore the rest of the world, heard about it the same day it happened (credit again to Tina Ngata for highlighting this). What's the bigger picture here and what happens next? As much as this might seem like just an egg on your face moment for the government, the broader implications are pretty serious. We all know by now about this Government's willingness to repeatedly disregard its Treaty obligations here at home, with the Waitangi Tribunal conducting an unprecedented number of urgent inquiries in 2024, all of which found breaches of te Tiriti and its principles. But this is bigger. The statement made by Seymour, and later endorsed by the Prime Minister, that the letter from the special rapporteur 'is an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty' will weaken our standing internationally when it comes to human rights. This is because the affront to sovereignty line is one wheeled out any time a country commits human rights abuses and gets told off. Israel and the US, for example, are currently using it in response to Francesca Albanese's criticisms of human rights abuses in Palestine. So, when New Zealand says the same thing, we undermine any moral authority we might have had to call out other countries over other things. This is one of the things Claire Charters pointed out this week when she spoke to EMRIP. It's bigger than just te Tiriti. We'll probably hear more about this in the next few weeks, but sadly it may not persuade the Government to do anything differently. We have seen over and over this term how willing the coalition is to disregard Māori rights. The only difference is that this time it has happened on a global stage.
Newsroom
8 hours ago
- Newsroom
Changes to flagship bill: ‘You never play poker with your cards on the table'
David Seymour says he's willing to make practical changes around the implementation of his Regulatory Standards Bill, but it's unclear if the core principles are up for discussion. This week has seen the three coalition leaders at odds over a letter Seymour wrote to the UN special rapporteur in defence of the Regulatory Standards Bill.
NZ Herald
12 hours ago
- NZ Herald
New US assessment finds underground site at the focus of US strikes in Iran badly damaged
Iran most likely still has a stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% purity, which is just below the level that is usually used in nuclear weapons, US and Israeli officials say. But the officials believe it is buried under rubble, and Israeli officials believe that only the stockpile at Iran's nuclear laboratory at Isfahan is accessible despite the strikes on it. The crucial question of how long the American strikes have set back either the overall Iranian nuclear programme or Iran's ability to use its existing uranium to make a crude bomb continues to be debated within the US Government. The new US assessment was earlier reported by NBC News. The main target of the American bombing was Fordow, which was hit by a dozen GBU-57 bunker-busting bombs. The assessment concludes those explosions wiped out the thousands of delicate nuclear centrifuges buried under the mountain, a finding consistent with statements by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Multiple US officials said it would take at least two years of intensive work before the Fordow facility could be operational again. Other experts say that if Iran seeks to restart its programme, it is likely to do so at other underground sites. In addition to Fordow and Isfahan, the US Air Force dropped two bombs on Iran's older enrichment plant at Natanz, which had facilities above and below ground. A US Navy submarine fired cruise missiles at Isfahan, trying to destroy above-ground facilities there. While the underground facilities at Natanz and tunnels at Isfahan were far less damaged, US officials said that any effort by Iran to repair or gain access to them could be detected. Rebuilding the conversion facilities would also probably be spotted. With much of Iran's air defences destroyed, Israeli or US forces could attack again, stopping any reconstruction efforts, US officials said. An Israeli official repeated last week that the country was prepared to 'mow the lawn', suggesting sites could be reattacked. While US President Donald Trump has declared that all three sites were 'obliterated' and that Iran has given up its nuclear ambitions, US officials do not yet know whether the country is determined to restart the effort, nor whether it will try to move towards a bomb with whatever enriched uranium that remains. Trump and Israeli officials say their willingness to strike again may deter the Iranians from even trying. In the strikes at Fordow, the United States sent some of the bunker-busters down air ventilation shafts that took them closer to the buried control room and the centrifuge halls. That avoided having to blast through hundreds of yards of rock. Even if the bombs did not reach the centrifuge halls, US and Israeli officials say, the blast wave would have wiped out the centrifuges, including some of Iran's most advanced and efficient models. In contrast, Natanz was struck by only two of the Massive Ordnance Penetrators. Those strikes left much of the facility intact, though they probably destroyed the centrifuges and cut off Iran's ability to reach specific parts of the facility. Military planners in US Central Command had proposed multiple plans to the White House that would have utilised multiple waves of strikes against the sites that could have potentially done more damage. Current and former military officials had cautioned before the strike that any effort to destroy the Fordo facility, which is buried more than 75m under a mountain, would probably require waves of airstrikes, with days or even weeks of pounding the same spots. But Trump decided on a more limited single strike on the three sites and then pushed Israel to end its war against Iran. After the strikes, the Defence Intelligence Agency conducted an early assessment that said the Iranian nuclear programme had been set back by only a few months. But soon afterwards, John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, announced that 'a body of credible intelligence' indicated the nuclear programme had been severely damaged. 'Several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years,' Ratcliffe wrote. Ratcliffe's comments reflected growing confidence by US officials that Fordow's nuclear facilities were badly damaged and that the facility at Natanz that was meant to convert uranium into a metal that could be used in weapon was also destroyed. Ratcliffe delivered a more detailed report to lawmakers, saying it would take years to rebuild the metal conversion facility. Sean Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesperson, said in a statement that it would take 'years to recover' Iran's nuclear facilities, and reiterated Trump's announcement that Iran's facilities were 'obliterated'. 'There is no doubt about that,' Parnell said. 'Operation Midnight Hammer was a significant blow to Iran's nuclear capabilities.' Some experts have criticised the US focus on just the three sites, arguing that Iran has others that it could use to restart the programme. 'We're too caught up in the stories about the big three sites — Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan — when really Iran's capabilities are much more sprawling and sophisticated, and include many sites that the US and Israel did not bomb,' said Rosemary Kelanic, an expert with Defence Priorities, a think-tank advocating a restrained foreign policy. 'Focusing too much on the big three sites misses the larger point that even if those three sites and their contents — centrifuges, stockpiles — were destroyed, Iran could likely still rebuild quickly.' Jeffrey Lewis, a professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies who has studied commercial satellite imagery of Iran, said he believed that three underground sites in Iran were not struck, one near Natanz, one at the Parchin military complex and a third secret site. He was sceptical that the additional sites could be easily struck, despite the US officials' certainty. 'If it were easy, they would have done it right away,' Lewis said. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Julian E. Barnes, David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
