News organisations voice concern over journalists' safety in Gaza
The statement released on social media said the outlets are "deeply alarmed" by the starvation threat facing journalists, with many unable to feed themselves and their families.
The statement says: "We are desperately concerned for our journalists in Gaza, who are increasingly unable to feed themselves and their families. For many months, these independent journalists have been the world's eyes and ears on the ground in Gaza. They are now facing the same dire circumstances as those they are covering.
READ MORE: MEPs call for emergency EU meeting on sanctioning Israel
"Journalists endure many deprivations and hardships in warzone. We are deeply alarmed that the threat of starvation is now one of them.
"We once again urge the Israeli authorities to allow journalists in and out Gaza. It is essential that adequate food supplies reach the people there."
The statement comes after a striking front page from the right-wing Daily Express newspaper was widely shared on social media.
The newspaper's powerful splash featured an image of a starving one-year old child in Gaza accompanied by the headline 'for pity's sake stop this now'.
A sub-heading detailed how the child Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq was 'clinging on to life' and how his suffering 'shames us all'.
Many highlighted the move by the paper as a significant turning point in the media's coverage of the atrocities in Gaza.
It came after more than 100 aid organisations warned of 'mass starvation' in the enclave with more than two million people facing shortages of food and other essentials after 21 months of brutal bombardment by Israel.
READ MORE: Scottish community-owned island announces boycott of Israel
The UN has said at least 1054 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military while seeking food since May 27, when a new aid method run by the US and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) began.
The UN also said 766 people were killed "in the vicinity" of GHF sites and 288 others "near UN and other humanitarian organisations' aid convoys" up until July 21.
The GHF uses private security contractors to distribute aid from sites in Israeli military zones.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Force the 1% to cough up for their climate damage
Land ownership in Scotland is incredibly concentrated in a small number of hands. Fewer than 500 people own more than half of our private land. This motley group includes our own aristocrats, whose families have owned huge estates for centuries and whose wealth is often a result of their forebears' brutal actions during the Highland Clearances. But in recent decades they've been joined by a new group, the elite of global capitalism. The biggest landowner in Scotland used to be the Duke of Buccleuch, but now it's Danish billionaire Anders Povlsen. And the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum isn't far behind. READ MORE: More Scots need to benefit from Scotland's screen industry, John Swinney says And he might not be in the same league as Povlsen or the Sheikh in terms of hectares, but Scotland's most infamous landowner is undoubtedly Donald Trump. Thankfully, the US president has now returned home after a brief stint of shaking hands, being drowned out by bagpipes and teeing off at his Scottish golf courses. Last year, I proposed a private jet tax which would see Trump and his cronies charged a 'super rate' of up to £250,000 every time they fly here for non-government business. This is something which should be within the powers of the Scottish Government, but is now a decade overdue. In the aftermath of the independence referendum, all parties agreed to devolve air passenger duty to the Scottish Parliament. An Act was passed by MSPs to replace it with a new Scottish air departure tax. But it can't start until the UK Government resolves an issue with the exemption for lifeline island flights – and neither they nor the [[Scottish Government]] seem to be in any rush to do that. If this was resolved, the Scottish Government could immediately bring in a super-tax on private jets, reflecting the fact that they are about twenty times more polluting than regular flights. Personally, I'd rather ban most private air travel. It is the perfect example of how the world's richest 1% are disproportionately responsible for the climate crisis. Unfortunately, full powers over air travel are still reserved to Westminster for now. Trump doesn't care about the climate, but he would care about the £250,000 tax bill every time his huge private plane arrives here. Some super-rich elites would undoubtedly take the financial hit and still fly here anyway, but the money raised could at least then be used to fund climate-friendly policies like cheaper buses and trains. And private air travel is just one example of how the super-rich play by different rules to the rest of us, all whilst avoiding paying their fair share. For too long, they have been allowed to avoid not just paying their fair share in tax, but also having their often deeply damaging activities scrutinised. All while ordinary people suffer the consequences of budgets for schools, hospitals and social care being squeezed. Tax is the price we pay for living in a civilised society, one with public services capable of meeting all of our needs throughout our lives. But the richest among us do not pay nearly enough towards maintaining the services needed for that kind of society. The Scottish Greens have long called for a wealth tax, one which would see the richest 10% of people who hold almost half the total wealth of the country taxed fairly. Introducing just a 1% annual tax on all wealth and assets above £1 million would massively boost the efforts to create a fairer, better Scotland for everyone. For context, the other 90% of Scots households hold nowhere near enough wealth to be considered for such a tax, with the average having about £214,000 in assets. This would be an extremely well-targeted tax, raising billions from those who can more than afford to pay. We are not the only people calling for a wealth tax. Just this week, leading economists from across the world have called on Labour to introduce a UK-wide wealth tax to tackle extreme levels of inequality and poverty. They have warned the Government what the Greens have argued for years: that far too much wealth is concentrated in the hands of far too few people in the UK, and it is damaging society at large. Sadly, Labour seem determined to rule this out. It is time for Keir Starmer to seriously rethink his approach and what he wants his legacy to be: a society where everyone has what they need to get by, or one where far too many children are left in desperate poverty whilst a tiny number of people hoard more wealth than they could spend in a thousand lifetimes. The Scottish Greens are clear on what we need to do: tax the super-rich now, for the good of people and planet.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
How David Lammy went from human rights lawyer to genocide apologist
You would be forgiven for thinking that I'm quoting a frustrated political commentator – someone who has witnessed the deconstruction of international law by the Labour Government over the last year, and who is exasperated by their inertia. You'd be wrong. These are the words of Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, as he addressed the Bingham Centre for International Law in July 2023. During this speech, he said: 'There should be no power beyond or above the law. The law applies equally to all people.' READ MORE: Palestine Action gets green light for ban challenge He lamented that too many international crimes go unpunished, that too many dictators escape justice, and promised "wholeheartedly" to strengthen protections for humanitarian access and put the UK at the forefront of international legal debates. Well, he's certainly put the UK at the forefront of debates on international law. At best, because of his continued apology for Israel's war crimes. At worst, because of his active role in enabling these crimes. How does a human rights lawyer go from 'standing up for human rights and challenging impunity' to 'I am a steadfast supporter of Israel's security' after the state with which he so steadfastly stands has been accused of genocide, has murdered over 60,000 humans, and has gaslit many into thinking that it is the calling out of these atrocities which is the crime. Is he playing a geopolitical long game? The deep pockets of the Israeli lobby? Genuine callousness? As I write this, we have seen the bloodiest day in Gaza in 20 months. And yet, nothing from the UK Labour Government to suggest that this is a Cabinet which has 'international law fundamentally in its DNA', as Lammy once stated. When lawyers talk broadly about the UK breaching their obligations under international humanitarian law, they are usually referring to Geneva Conventions Common Article 1. This states that all High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and ensure respect for the convention in all circumstances. This means that states must act to prevent breaches of international law in every situation of armed conflict. However, the UK – along with two others – interprets this as meaning that they only have an obligation to uphold international humanitarian law when breaches occur in their own territory. The other states are Israel and the US. As well as Common Article 1, the ICJ confirmed that all states must act to prevent a genocide as soon as they are aware of a serious risk – mirroring the Genocide Convention – and reiterated by credible findings of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. However, during the Al-Haq case, Labour confirmed that the reason that they are not acting to prevent a genocide is because they have found no credible evidence to suggest a genocide is ongoing. The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits transferring a population within occupied territory and Article 59 demands that occupying states allow unimpeded humanitarian aid for all civilians, while Additional Protocol I prohibits the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. Yet, repeatedly Labour MPs and the UK Government have excused Israel's siege and failed to prevent the mass forced displacement of Palestinians. The latest announcement to airdrop aid into Gaza is simply a self-congratulatory distraction. READ MORE: SNP to press ahead with Palestine recognition vote The UK should have immediately and unequivocally suspended all Israeli trade arrangements, as they are prohibited from assisting situations created by breaches of international law, as per the ICJ and the ILC Articles on State Responsibility. Instead, Lammy and the Labour Government have sent a trade envoy to Israel, brag about their crucial trade partnerships, and still support Israel militarily. All of these obligations apply to the UK Labour Government. All of them are being breached. In January 2024, Lammy said that '…the rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law, just as in national law. Labour agrees.' However, in July 2025, when speaking of Israel – a state accused of genocide –Lammy said he 'treasures the many connections between our peoples'. Despite their legal obligations and public and parliamentary outrage, the UK Labour Government could not be further from the vision that Lammy established in 2023. When Lammy gave his speech, there were echoes of Tony Benn's anti-war speech from 1998. Lammy ended his address by quoting the Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations, as Benn had. Lammy spoke of the responsibility of governments to make the right decisions to protect people, as Benn had. He warned against the mistakes that led to the Second World War, as Benn had. He praised the legacy of Britain in pursuing the international rules-based order in the 1940s, mirroring Benn's calls for continued progression towards peace. Lammy's transition from Benn-to-barely-able-to-muster-up-a-sentence-without 'Israel's right to defend herself' is not just due to the grip of the Israeli lobby, but can be likened to a child who hasn't done their homework and is hoping that the teacher doesn't ask them a question in class. As though if his tone drips with enough condescension people will be distracted from the words coming out of his mouth. Lammy has spent a year trying to convince us that the mass atrocities being committed against Palestinian civilians is normal. He has gone from forging a 'foreign policy underpinned by a fundamental belief in the rule of law' to facing claims that he is perpetuating Israeli war crimes. David Lammy has reduced himself from an eminent human rights lawyer to a genocide apologist. The support for Israel's genocide will be this Labour Government's legacy, just as the illegal Iraq war was the legacy of the 1997 Labour government. David Lammy will always be the Foreign Secretary who forgot about international law because he was too busy trying to sound clever. The Foreign Secretary that condemned the Palestinian people to genocide because he liked the sound of a speech more than he liked the idea of implementing it. Lara Bird-Leakey is a senior policy researcher for foreign affairs in Westminster for the SNP group
The National
an hour ago
- The National
People are using slurs we thought we left in the 70s
Celebrating its 10th birthday a few weeks ago, it looked back on real achievements reflecting this country's embrace of a more progressive future. Thanks to its efforts, LGBTQ school pupils are able to feel more recognised in our education system. TIE has expanded from an organisation campaigning against the prejudice and bullying faced by [[LGBT]]Q pupils to one with its own staff creating resources and training for teachers on behalf of the Scottish Government. At the heart of its success is a deep friendship between a young gay man and an older, straight trade unionist, which sparked the energy needed to power real change. READ MORE: Labour's governing fiasco shows Scots the urgency of independence, says John Swinney That friendship was rightly celebrated at TIE's 10th birthday party, but the smiles were tinged with an unease over a rise in right-wing rhetoric, which has more recently threatened to undermine some of the advances TIE has made. The National talked to TIE founders Jordan Daly and Liam Stevenson about their work, their friendship, their achievements, and the difficult challenges which lie ahead. THE BIRTH OF A FRIENDSHIP Jordan: I was 19 when I first met Liam, and an undergraduate student at the University of Glasgow. I was about a year out of school, and it was just after the independence referendum. So like most people of my age, that was the first seismic political event [we had experienced]. I think the thing that struck Liam and I was the Radical Independence Campaign's slogan 'Another Scotland is Possible'. A lot of the discussions around the referendum for me were very much about another Scotland that looks after vulnerable communities, that prioritises and enhances equality and addresses inequality. I was really engaged by the referendum but none of my close friends were very politically engaged. One of my mum's friends told me about this guy who was involved in politics and was organising a food bank fundraiser. When I contacted him, Liam and I clicked very quickly. We were both passionate about issues related to poverty. It was the start of a very fast friendship. Liam: My activism at that time was trying to promote the message of what an independent socialist Scotland could look like, and what people should be striving for. After the agonising defeat in 2014 I remember thinking that this isn't done; there's going to be another go at this in the future. For me, this was about a better Scotland. It was about an opportunity to try and wipe the slate clean and ask what would a new country look like, and how do we start going about building that? After the referendum I accepted a random friend request from Jordan on Facebook. Back then I was really self-conscious, even more so than I am now. I was 36 years old, a petrol tanker driver and a trade unionist. But I wasn't university educated. I firmly believed that was a huge barrier for me. (Image: Danny Lawson) I had never read all these books. My political outlook and worldview have been shaped by my life, not by books. So when I met this impressive, bright, young guy, I'm thinking, this is going to be interesting. Jordan and I just clicked. Although there was a massive age gap, we had a lot in common: how we viewed the world, and what we thought a better world would look like. I'm not a religious guy. I'm not a spiritual guy. But when I look back, I am absolutely convinced that we've been put together for a purpose. Jordan: I was the first out gay person that Liam had as a friend. I often describe Liam, in a joking way, as the kind of GI Joe stereotype of masculinity. He's got the shaved head, he's quite buff … if you were to draw a masculine man from Scotland, you would draw Liam. I used to say to him, 'you're the kind of person that I would cross the street to avoid, because I would have expected that someone that looked like you might be homophobic towards me.' But I was making stereotypical assumptions. What I found in Liam as a friend was someone who was deeply empathetic and understanding and prepared to stand up for me. I remember going down to Liam's house one night for a drink and having conversations which in hindsight led to TIE. THE ORIGINS OF TIE Liam: I always admired most those people that were confident enough to be authentic and live their lives with their true identity. There were no out gay people in my school. When I initiated some conversations with Jordan about what school was like for him, I was completely dumbfounded. Jordan: If my objective was to do well in my exams and go to university, then I had a successful education. The challenging aspect for me was the extent of how normalised homophobia was from early on. I heard the word gay all the time. I heard words like lesbian all the time. But I heard them in the playground, and I heard them as insults and jokes and slurs. There was never any sensible education about what gay or lesbian meant. That was my primary school experience. Everyone in my generation who grew up with that, hearing this really casual, normalised homophobic language and having it addressed, we all went into secondary school thinking that casual homophobia was acceptable. Like any form of prejudice, it often starts with everyday language and escalates into more serious behaviours. It was probably about six months or so into my first year of high school that the bullying started. A group of boys that just assumed that I was gay decided to bully me for it. Bullying is hard to speak to a staff member about, because you're worried about consequences and that it will make things worse. You're not quite sure how the school will react. Liam: All this was absolutely surprising to me. I was shocked and disappointed. I started looking online and pulling up data from surveys of young people in schools across the United Kingdom. I realised this was still a real problem. A homophobic culture was emanating in schools, which were failing to protect young people who were potentially lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Jordan: I think the friendship with Liam helped me process some of what I had experienced at school. He was the first person that I really opened up to and spoke to. Even some of my family members didn't know about how serious things had become for me at school. What I learned from Liam was that solidarity, support and friendship can come from quite unlikely sources. I think that was a really important lesson for me. At school I learned about racism and how dangerous it could be, I learned about sexism and the unequal treatment of women and misogyny, the Suffragettes and Emmeline Pankhurst. And I learned about religious discrimination. And I remember saying to Liam, why couldn't I have also learned about the introduction and repeal of Section 28 [legislation which banned discussion of homosexuality in schools], or the Stonewall uprising, or LGBT history that I ultimately had to learn for myself when I left school? Why couldn't we have learned about that at school? Liam: I think it was me who first suggested creating an organisation to tackle this. I had no idea about the enormity of the task that was ahead of us. Had I known then what I know now, I wouldn't have put my shoes on. Jordan showed me a documentary, How To Survive A Plague, about the Aids epidemic. One of the things that struck me was that we've structured our society in a way that made these people feel shame instead of being immensely proud of the community to which they belong. That gave me the absolute urgency to say we need to be teaching young people this, because we need to give young people that confidence to know that just because you're gay or bi or lesbian or trans, you shouldn't be ashamed. You should be proud of that because you come from a really rich tapestry of resistance, people fighting literally for their lives. TIE: THE FIRST STEP Liam: The first-ever donation to the TIE campaign came from my branch of petrol tanker drivers at Unite. I didn't ask for it. Another member asked for it. Jordan was crying when they gave us 500 quid to produce a booklet to send to every MSP in the country containing stories of people who had a really difficult time at school. That donation was very important to me. Jordan: We were talking about things we could do and I said I learned at school about petitions. We found out that the Scottish Parliament would accept petitions from the public. So the very first thing we did was to draft up a petition calling for LGBT education to be included on the school curriculum. Liam: We walked Buchanan Street asking people to sign the petition. Our first press coverage was an interview with The National. Jordan: I wasn't quite sure what people's responses would be, but it was really positive. A lot of people were surprised LGBTQ education wasn't already happening. People assumed that education was up to speed with the modern world. THE NEXT STEPS Jordan: I remember the first time we gave evidence at the Scottish Parliament. I had only ever been there on a school trip when I was in primary seven. Liam had never been there. Both of us were terrified. We were only supposed to be there for 15 minutes. They extended the session to an hour, and I remember being quite emotional at the end of it. The petition ended up getting rejected on a technicality. We don't have a statutory curriculum in Scotland, so they couldn't include it. Liam: I think we were supposed to have just gone away after the petition was rejected. When I was asked for a statement on the petition being closed, I said: 'That's a setback, nothing more.' And that was the spirit that we adopted. We went away. We thought about a new strategy and came back with it. THE FIRST BIG SUCCESS Liam: When the door opened for us to speak to government officials, they asked us how to progress. Jordan and I, always the pragmatists, said: 'We need a working group with every stakeholder in education on it, because we need to get it right first time.' It reported in 16 months with 33 recommendations. Jordan: Simultaneously, we were meeting with MSPs and support was really building. The trade union movement was coming out in support; the National Parent Forum of Scotland came out in support. I remember when we walked into the first working group meeting. [[Education]] Scotland were there. So were the National Parent Forum and the Scottish Catholic [[Education]] Service, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and Cosla. We both had real impostor syndrome. Liam was still working nightshift as a petrol tanker driver. I was working part-time in a bar at the time. I would finish there at 1am and work in my car outside my house because my little sister had just been born, so I couldn't go in and wake them up. Liam would be working nightshift and he would have a phone call on his headphones and we'd talk about what we would do, what we could ask for at a working group meeting the next morning. Nowadays we laugh about conspiratorial ideas suggesting that TIE is a quango that's been propelled along the way and been given all this money. The reality genuinely was two people who had to prove themselves time after time. Thirty-three quite detailed policy recommendations were agreed unanimously by every stakeholder on that group, which, in hindsight, was a quite remarkable achievement. And those recommendations were then accepted in full by Scottish ministers. TODAY'S CHALLENGES Liam: There seems to be a culture just now that has shifted back in time, when it's cool to be cruel again. The rise of the so-called 'manosphere' online and normalisation of hate has had an impact on young people for example. I can remember the 1990s as a young guy growing up, when we were often encouraged to display our masculinity in very different ways from the way we did five years ago, when it was encouraged to be better men and softer, kinder men. I feel as if things started to shift in a different direction due to some of the influences on social media targeted at specific groups of people. Some of the political narratives that have been introduced and normalised are really distressing. Jordan: We've had the Me Too movement, which rightly and accurately called out men's violence against women. We had equal marriage. And we had Black Lives Matter. I think that quite a lot of what we're seeing now culturally is the kind of last-gasp backlash to that progress. That's impacted us as an organisation in that we're seeing US culture war rhetoric imported here. In 2018 it would not have been normal or acceptable to target an education organisation – one that is working on a daily basis to address homophobic bullying in schools, that employs teachers to deliver those education services – to call their staff groomers, and yet that is now a normal experience for us. Even doing this interview, we have to prepare not only ourselves but our family and staff for the online harassment that will come from that. I think we're seeing LGBT topics and education initiatives like ours being weaponised and misrepresented to distract from decades of consecutive economic failure that have made people's lives harder. In the United States, we see the impact of that disinformation and false claims such as 'children are being told to transition in schools'. We had that with Section 28. We've had that censorship. It's dangerous and it's damaging, and I think that we have to be very careful not to give credence to that type of rhetoric, to this idea that there's inappropriate or extreme teaching happening in schools. The reality of the situation is children are learning about same-sex families alongside lots of other types of families. They're learning about the impact of homophobia that they already see and experience at school, and they're given factual information about historical events. We have to challenge these false narratives, these lies, with the truth. Liam: Allyship is also very important, where people who are not members of minorities stand up against those who attack them. We're currently living in a period in which truth doesn't matter. Before truth has brushed its teeth, the lies are two times around the world. People are using slurs that we thought we left in the 1970s and 1980s and maybe at the start of the 1990s about LGBT people being predators and being paedophiles and being people who can't be trusted to be positive influences around young people. Some of this stuff leads to people like me and Jordan having rapid response alerts on our properties for the police so that if we dial 999 and give an address, every officer in the vicinity has to drop their stuff and get to a property, because we are viewed by the police as vulnerable to harm simply because we want all children to go to school and to learn in an environment where they're safe, respected and protected.
