People in Gaza are thanking Trump for aid, leader of US-backed group says
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's (GHF) new chairman is ignoring critics and keeping his focus on what he calls the group's "singular mission" of making sure the people of Gaza have food.
"Our mission has nothing to do with Hamas. It has nothing to do with Israel. It has everything to do with making sure that hungry Gazans get food. That is our singular mission. No other mission," Rev. Johnnie Moore, GHF's executive chairman, told Fox News Digital.
Moore took the helm June 3, just a few days after the Israeli- and U.S.-backed aid group began its distribution operations.
Hamas Working To 'Sabotage' Trump-backed Aid Group With 'Fake News': Israeli Official
Even before GHF began distributing aid, it faced criticism in the weeks leading up to its launch. The United Nations came out strongly against the group. U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher was a vocal critic, claiming the U.N. already had the infrastructure and ability to distribute aid.
Moore, however, believes GHF is "trying to solve a problem that the U.N. hasn't been able to solve," namely, the issue of Hamas stealing aid. Rather than admonish critics, Moore is urging them to join GHF's efforts to get food to people on the ground in Gaza.
Read On The Fox News App
The GHF chief also noted that, despite what critics have said, Gazans have been "incredibly grateful" to receive the support. Not only have the beneficiaries been thanking the U.S., they've been thanking President Donald Trump. Moore attributes this to a promise the commander in chief made in the Oval Office.
Us-backed Gaza Aid Group Pauses Food Distribution After Days Of Violence
"They're thanking President Trump specifically because a few weeks ago, in the Oval Office, in one of the many, many press briefings that President Trump does, he made a passing comment," Moore said.
"And the comment related to how Hamas was treating the Gazan people very badly when it came to humanitarian aid. And he made a promise that the United States would do something about it. And the people in Gaza are attributing our free distribution of food as a direct response to the promise of the president of the United States."
Israel and the U.S. have repeatedly said that GHF is the best mechanism for distributing aid to Gazans and ensuring that Hamas does not get anything. Moore told Fox News Digital humanitarian aid officials have faced a "false choice" for years between Hamas and the people of Gaza.
"I think for many, many years, the aid community thought that the cost of giving aid to the people of Gaza is that you had to lose a certain amount of that aid to all of these other nefarious purposes. We're just showing that that's a false choice. That doesn't have to be the case. We can actually give aid without facing these dilemmas," Moore said.
Tensions Rise As Israel Strongly Denies Firing On Palestinians At Gaza Humanitarian Site
"Since the Israeli authorities allowed the U.N. to resume bringing limited aid into Gaza after nearly 80 days of a total blockade of any supplies, there have been understandable instances of trucks carrying food being offloaded by hungry civilians," Eri Kaneko, spokesperson for the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, told Fox News Digital.
"In some cases, we have also seen unacceptable looting by armed, criminal gangs, which posed tremendous risk to our drivers' safety. To meet humanitarian needs in Gaza and help reduce looting, far more essential supplies should be allowed into Gaza through multiple crossings and routes."
In late May, Israeli U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon revealed the international institution was using "mafia-like" tactics against NGOs that were open to working with GHF. The U.N. removed several NGOs from a shared aid database, which acts as a "central system for tracking aid deliveries into Gaza," according to Danon.
The following week, after Danon exposed the U.N.'s actions, the U.S. vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The resolution also addressed humanitarian aid, though Danon said it would have undermined, rather than advanced, such efforts.
Just minutes before vetoing the resolution, U.S. Chargé d'Affaires Dorothy Shea urged the U.N. to support GHF "to help it safely deliver aid without being diverted by Hamas. The GHF has emphasized it will deliver aid consistent with the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence."Original article source: People in Gaza are thanking Trump for aid, leader of US-backed group says
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Netanyahu: ‘Operation Rising Lion' Will Last as Many Days as It Takes
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed a military operation against Iran called 'Rising Lion' had begun and could last 'as many days as it takes.'
The Intercept
11 minutes ago
- The Intercept
Did Israel Just 'Blow Up' Trump's Bid For an Iran Nuke Deal?
A firefighter calls out his colleagues at the scene of an explosion in a residence compound in northern Tehran, Iran, on June 13, 2025. Photo: Vahid Salemi/AP The attack had been predicted for weeks, but over the last few days, the chatter was taken seriously enough that the U.S. ordered non-essential diplomatic personnel to evacuate the region. By the time the Israeli military finally struck Iran on Thursday evening — early Friday morning in Tehran — the U.S. and Iran were just three days out from a sixth round of scheduled nuclear talks in Muscat, Oman. With the bombs dropped, questions hung in the air. How fierce would Iran's promised response be? Did Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu aim to scuttle the nuclear talks? President Donald Trump had been pursuing hard-nosed diplomacy with Iran, but did he even try to stop Israel? In what it deemed a 'preemptive strike,' the Israeli military claimed to target Iran's nuclear sites, like the one in Natanz, its ballistic missile program, nuclear scientists, and senior military officials. Among them was armed forces Chief of Staff Mohammad Bagheri, who was initially rumored to be dead but is apparently safe. Given that Iran had neither shown any preparations for an attack on Israel nor made any military threats against it, the preemptive strike was certainly illegal under international law—not that Netanyahu has shown any particular concern for such niceties. Netanyahu said the operation will continue. That, presumably, means war. Whatever damage Iran sustained in the overnight attack, Netanyahu stated in a speech that the operation targeting Iran's nuclear program will continue until he is satisfied that the threat it presents is eliminated. That, presumably, means war — one that will be increasingly difficult for the U.S. to stay out of, especially when it comes to defending Israel in the face of Iranian retaliation. At this early hour exact casualty numbers from the strikes are not known, but images coming out of Tehran show multiple residential buildings damaged and explosions across the capitol city. Several prominent figures in Iranian military, nuclear, and academic circles have been confirmed killed. The chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hossein Salami, was among them, as were Azad University president Mohammad Tehranchi, a theoretical physicist; Fereydoon Abbasi, a politician and former head of the Atomic Energy Organization; and Gen. Gholamali Rashid, commander of Khatam-al Anbiya Central Headquarters, Iran's unified military command. Ahead of the attack, Israel telegraphed its plans through leaks to the media — and Trump faced questions from a reporter on Thursday about the possibility. The president suggested a strike could happen at any time, though he maintained that he preferred diplomacy. It seems clear enough from Trump's response that, while the U.S. may not have given Netanyahu a green light to attack, it didn't demand that it refrain from doing so. Tellingly, in his answer to the reporter, Trump said that an attack by Israel could 'blow up' the scheduled talks between U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, but added that an attack may also be helpful. Presumably, Trump thought an attack might give the U.S. more leverage over a weakened and chastened Iran. It's impossible to know if Trump came up with the notion himself, or if it came out of the meeting on the Iran nuclear issue he held with his foreign policy team at Camp David on Sunday. Regardless, if meant seriously, the idea showed a fundamental misunderstanding of Iran, which is even less likely to compromise on its nuclear program than it might have been before the attack. Netanyahu may just have a better grasp on the Iranians than the Trump administration. It seems likely that the Israeli leader chose to attack Iran not to give Trump and Witkoff more leverage, but to put an end to the talks once and for all. Taken aback by Trump's announcement earlier this year that the U.S. would begin direct talks with Iran, Netanyahu has seemed determined since then to scupper the possibility of a new nuclear agreement. Netanyahu, echoed by Israel's staunchest supporters in Congress, demanded the talks result in a complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear program — which he is well aware was a non-starter for Iran — or threatening military action if the talks didn't accomplish his goal. The Israeli strike, in the end, could have more far-reaching consequences, scuttling not just the talks themselves, but any chance of an entente between the U.S. and Iran. In that sense, Netanyahu has succeeded. Even if talks continue, the idea Trump once had for a 'successful' Iran — at peace and integrated into the world economy — is today certainly blown up.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration blocked from deploying National Guard to LA
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration's deployment of California's National Guard to Los Angeles and called the move illegal. The judge's order to return control of the troops to California Governor Gavin Newsom will not go into effect immediately and the administration has filed an appeal. The state sued President Donald Trump on Monday over his order to deploy the troops without Newsom's consent. Trump said he was sending the troops - who are typically under the governor's authority - to stop LA from "burning down" in protests against his immigration crackdown. Local authorities have argued they have the situation in hand and do not need troops. US District Judge Charles Breyer said the question presented by California's request was whether Trump followed the law set by Congress on the deployment of a state's National Guard. "He did not," the judge wrote in his decision. "His actions were illegal... He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith." But the judge stayed the order until Friday afternoon to give the Trump administration time to appeal against it. The administration did so almost immediately after the order was issued. Newsom posted on social media on Thursday afternoon that "the court just confirmed what we all know — the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets". The Trump administration has said it took over California's National Guard to restore order and to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents as they swept up people in Los Angeles who were believed to be in the country illegally. Despite Newsom's objections, Trump ordered a total of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to help quell the unrest. Some of the Guard troops are now authorised to detain people until police can arrest them. A president last deployed the National Guard without a governor's consent more than 50 years ago - during the civil rights era. It is more common for a governor to activate troops to deal with natural disasters and other emergencies, and then ask for federal assistance. Before a packed courtroom on Thursday, a justice department attorney told Judge Breyer that Newsom did not need to be consulted when Trump issued his order. "Governor Newsom was fully aware of this order…he objected to it," Attorney Brett Shumate said. "There is one commander-in-chief of the US armed forces." "No," Judge Breyer, the younger brother of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, responded. "The president isn't the commander -in-chief of the National Guard," he said but added there were times and situations where the president could become the head of the troops. Breyer, who had donned a light blue bowtie, invoked the Constitution multiple times during the hearing, holding up a booklet copy of the document at one point. "We're talking about the president exercising his authority. And the president is, of course, limited in his authority," he said. "That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George.". The Trump administration used a law that allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when a "rebellion" is happening. But California said in its lawsuit that the protests that have spanned nearly a week in LA - and included more than 300 arrests and the shutting down of a major freeway - did not rise to that level. "At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection. Nor have these protests risen to the level of protests or riots that Los Angeles and other major cities have seen at points in the past, including in recent years," the lawsuit read. Additional reporting by Ana Faguy in Washington, DC Trump has long called for using the military to quash protests. Los Angeles gave him an opening Newsom v Trump holds promise and peril for California governor Downtown LA under curfew for second night after days of protests
