Australia pledges extra $20m in aid for Gaza, urges Israel to allow 'unimpeded' access
"We continue to call on Israel to allow immediate and unimpeded aid access into Gaza."
Foreign Minister Penny Wong said her government had "consistently been part of the international call on Israel to allow a full and immediate resumption of aid to Gaza, in line with the binding orders of the International Court of Justice". "Australia will continue to work with the international community to call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, the release of hostages and a two-state solution — the only path to enduring peace and security for the Israeli and Palestinian peoples," she added.
According to the statement, the newly announced aid will consist of:
$2 million for relief support with the UK, through our existing partnership arrangement
$6 million to the UN World Food Programme for the provision and distribution of food supplies
$5 million to UNICEF for nutritional support to children at risk of starvation
$5 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross to meet essential needs, including access to healthcare
$2 million to the Jordan Hashemite Charity Organization to provide medical supplies to support the operation of field hospitals in Gaza — With additional reporting from Reuters.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Can Jim Chalmers reap a healthy crop with the help of his big worm farm?
One observer describes next week's economic roundtable this way: "Chalmers has opened a can of worms — and everybody has got a worm." Even those close to the roundtable are feeling overwhelmed by the extent of the worm farm. There are many hundreds of submissions, five Productivity Commission reports, Treasury background papers, and stakeholders in the media spruiking their opinions ahead of the event. Business, unions and the welfare sector have largely settled into their predictable wish lists. In areas such as the housing crisis, it's actually not difficult to say what should be done — you hardly need this meeting to tell you. It just seems near impossible to get the relevant players (whether they be states, local councils, the construction industry) to do it, or be able to do it. On issues of deregulation generally, when it comes to specifics, a lot is contested. As the ACTU's Sally McManus, who'll be at the roundtable, says, "one person's regulations are another person's rights". As much as Treasurer Jim Chalmers might like to project the sunny side of Australia's situation, independent economist Chris Richardson (who will be at the summit's day three tax session) puts it more bluntly. "We have a problem: the average Australian saw their living standards rise by just 1.5% over the past decade," he posted on X. "That's embarrassingly shy of the 22% lift in living standards enjoyed across the rich world as a whole, and way below what Australians achieved in times past. "You'd have hoped that both sides would have talked about tackling that challenge at the last election, but they didn't." Richardson is hoping the roundtable can achieve "enough consensus to change some things", which the government can use as a springboard. But he's worried the meeting could underperform, given its "lead-up hasn't seen much consensus", Economist Richard Holden from UNSW says to be successful, the roundtable needs to get "broad agreement on some version of the 'Abundance agenda' [a reference to a currently fashionable book focusing on loosening regulatory blocks] — especially as it applies to housing. "In addition, to be successful would require that big issues like federation and tax reform are referred to Treasury for serious consideration and to present the government with options by year's end." There are two approaches for a government that wants to promote economic reform. It can, as then-treasurer Paul Keating did at the 1985 tax summit, put up a model and see how much it can make fly. Or it can, as Chalmers is doing, ask a wide range of participants for their ideas, and then decide how much of what emerges to pursue — in terms of what has wide support and what fits the government's agenda. The closer we get to the meeting, the harder it becomes to anticipate its likely import (or lack of). Signposts are there, but they could be false signals, or ignored later. Despite all the talk about tax, the government — specifically the prime minister — has flagged it doesn't have the stomach for radical reform. Certainly not this term. Anthony Albanese said last week, "The only tax policy that we're implementing is the one that we took to the election." This doesn't rule out new initiatives this term — the phrasing is carefully in the present tense — but from what we know of the PM's approach they would likely be limited rather than sweeping. Independent economist Saul Eslake said that a few weeks ago, he was optimistic the summit would give Chalmers the licence to spend some of the vast political capital the election yielded. "But the prime minister has made it clear he is not getting that licence. The government is not prepared to venture much beyond its limited mandate from the election. "The best that can be hoped for is a willingness to have an adult conversation with the electorate between now and the next election with a view to seeking a bold mandate in 2028," Eslake says. Predictably, the roundtable is putting the spotlight on the Albanese-Chalmers relationship. This can be summed up in a couple of ways. The PM is more cautious when it comes to economic reform, the treasurer is more ambitious. In political terms, it's that "old bull, young bull" syndrome. The different styles are clear. The "old bull" is blunt, sounding a touch impatient, for example, when he's asked about tax. The "young bull" is publicly deferential to his leader. One of the most potentially significant discussions at the roundtable will be around AI. Unlike many well-worn issues, this is a relatively new, and quickly changing, area of policy debate. There are varying views within government about whether firm or light guardrails are needed and whether they should be in a separate new act or just via changes to existing laws. Chalmers is in favour of light-touch regulation. The unions are not on the same page as Chalmers's regulatory preference, and they want a say for workers. The unions were the winners from the 2022 jobs and skills summit — the government delivered to them in spades at the meeting, and later. It's not clear they are in as strong a position this time. Their big claim for the roundtable — a four-day working week — has already been dismissed by the government. The ACTU doesn't seem much fussed by the rejection — it is on a long march on that one. Regardless of the diversity of views among those rubbing shoulders in the cabinet room next week, one man will stand out as something of an oddity. Ted O'Brien, shadow treasurer, invited as a participant, will be as much an observer. O'Brien might say he wants to be constructive, but his role means he will want to be critical. But he has to tread carefully. Others in the room, and outside observers, will be making judgements about him. For O'Brien, the gathering should be a networking opportunity more than an occasion for performative display. Michelle Grattan is a professorial fellow at the University of Canberra and chief political correspondent at The Conversation, where this article first appeared.
ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are meeting, but peace may be more than a conversation away
When Vladimir Putin arrives in Anchorage today for peace talks with Donald Trump to try to end the war in Ukraine, he's likely to walk in believing he has the upper hand. Russian forces have advanced at least 10 kilometres on a front in Ukraine's east this week — a breakthrough, of sorts, after months of incremental territorial gains. Moscow's drones and missiles have been pounding its neighbour's cities, killing scores of people and chipping away at the morale of those who remain. Despite all that aggression, Putin — considered a pariah by much of the international community since his full-scale invasion in 2022 — has been rewarded. An in-person meeting with the leader of the free world awaits on Friday, local time. Trump, for his part, has said he's searching for a pathway to peace. That idea could be unrealistic. A chasm remains between the Kremlin and Kyiv's ceasefire wish lists. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy this week outlined several demands he said Trump had "agreed" to raise with Putin. Among them was that Russia cannot veto his country's ambitions to join the European Union and NATO. Putin, however, has consistently framed that prospect as a dealbreaker. Zelenskyy also said Ukraine had to be involved in any ceasefire discussions. As the country that was invaded, that might seem obvious. But it hasn't been invited to Friday's meeting. "So whatever might come out of that summit between the US and the Russian presidents, those will not be terms that can be simply imposed on Ukraine," said Jaroslava Barbieri, a research fellow at London think tank Chatham House. She added Trump would need to be wary of Putin's spin. "One of the key objectives of the Kremlin … is putting forward proposals that are unacceptable for Ukraine in order to present Ukraine as an uncooperative and ungrateful actor to Trump's peace brokering efforts," she said. Since the Alaska summit was announced last week, Trump has made several references to the possibility of "land-swapping" between Russia and Ukraine. Judging by the rhetoric coming from both Moscow and Kyiv, the idea either side would be prepared to do that in exchange for peace appears far-fetched. The Kremlin's stance on ending its invasion has not budged since Putin set out conditions last year. He wants Ukraine to abandon its NATO aspirations, reduce its military, become a neutral state, and cede territory occupied by Russian forces during the war. Two territories in Ukraine's east — Donetsk and Luhansk — are particularly prized by Putin, and analysts say it will likely be a key demand discussed in Alaska. Russia has partially occupied both since 2014, and last month claimed it had captured all of Luhansk, more than three years after its full-scale invasion was launched. Zelenskyy has said his troops will not leave either. Ukraine's leader has also said he would not cede his country's territory, arguing tens of thousands of soldiers had died defending it and Russia could use it to launch future attacks. Such a move would not only be unpopular among Ukrainians. It's illegal under the country's constitution to redraw borders set in 1991. Putin, too, has constitutional headaches. Back in 2022, seven months after his full-scale invasion began, he signed amendments to Russia's constitution that four Ukrainian territories — Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia — had been integrated into his country. After years of fighting and massive casualties, his troops control only one of those completely. Zelenskyy says he's already warned Trump: "Putin is bluffing" when it comes to peace. "He is trying to put pressure before the meeting in Alaska along all parts of the Ukrainian front. Russia is trying to show that it can occupy all of Ukraine," he said. Zelenskyy isn't the only key player not going to Alaska. European allies, who like the US have tipped billions of dollars in financial and military aid into Ukraine, have also been barred from taking part. This week they, and Ukraine's leader, had a video call with Trump. It was a last-ditch attempt to shape his approach. "We as Europeans are doing everything we can to help set the agenda for that meeting," German Chancellor Frederich Merz said on Wednesday, after the hook-up. Among the European Union's main concerns is that after Ukraine, an emboldened Putin will launch further invasions on the continent. At most risk, they say, are the Baltic states, and Poland. Boris Bondarev, a former Russian diplomat to the United Nations, who resigned in 2022 because he was "ashamed" of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, said he did "not have very high expectations" for Friday's meeting. "What Vladimir Putin wants goes strictly against the national interest of the United States and the Western countries," he said. "To accept Putin's demands and his conditions would mean surrender, not only of Ukraine, but of the West itself — surrender to open aggression, to rewriting of national borders, and it would be a green light for the continuation of such policy by Russia or any other would-be aggressor." So when is peace possible? Anna Mateeva, a visiting fellow at Kings College London who specialises in Russian politics and security, said Friday's summit should be viewed as the first step in a long process. "The most important thing which can be achieved is the two-leaders assessment of each other, and to what extent they are serious about what they are saying they can do," Dr Mateeva said. Many analysts argue the in-person meeting between Trump and Putin has the potential to be something constructive en route to a ceasefire. But actually getting there appears a distant goal. On the battlefield, fighting remains ferocious, and off it, the gulf between Kyiv and Moscow's lists of demands has not been closed. It could take more than a conversation to change that reality.
ABC News
5 hours ago
- ABC News
Military, MAGA and 'anti-government extremist' links behind shadowy Gaza aid agency GHF
The American security contractor listed his new employer as "confidential" but spelled out details of the job online. Michael Reynolds was working on a project he described as a "US-Israel partnership". According to his LinkedIn profile, he previously held a senior role with what a prominent US civil rights legal centre claimed was an "anti-government extremist organisation". In May, Mr Reynolds became a security contractor for a "humanitarian aid program" in Gaza. Further online searches by the ABC identified Mr Reynolds as an employee of UG Solutions, a security provider for a mysterious aid agency embroiled in international controversy. The US and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) has supplanted the United Nations as the main provider of aid in Gaza, home to about 2.1 million people. Half a million are on the brink of famine and the rest are experiencing emergency levels of hunger, according to the World Food Programme. As Israel faces a groundswell of international pressure amid growing evidence of starvation — which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu disputes — GHF aid hubs have become known among Palestinians, human rights campaigners and UN-appointed experts as "death traps". Almost 800 people were killed near GHF sites in the first eight weeks of operation, the UN says. Critics say GHF's provision of aid at just four sites on a "first come, first served" basis during restricted hours has exposed huge crowds to the risk of deadly encounters with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). A former UG Solutions contractor, Anthony Aguilar, went public last month with allegations he witnessed war crimes by IDF soldiers firing on crowds with guns, mortars and tank rounds. Both UG Solutions and GHF denied the claims. A retired US special forces officer, Mr Aguilar said the chequered backgrounds of some security contractors around him fed his concern about a lack of professionalism among those delivering aid in Gaza. Many had been recruited from the ranks of a US military motorcycle club, "Infidels MC", he said. Sami Muamar, a Palestinian-born educator in Brisbane, says he has implored family members living in southern Gaza to avoid the GHF aid site at Khan Younis altogether. Instead, he sends money for them to buy food at inflated prices on the black market. "It costs me a lot of money, we pay probably $50 per kilo of flour right now," he says. "I said I don't want you to risk anybody's life, just to stay home. Israel blocked all aid to Gaza for 11 weeks from March 2 to May 21, banning staff from the UN's own relief agency from entering the strip over contested claims of Hamas infiltration. It says the new scheme stops Hamas profiteering from aid. However, an internal US government analysis reportedly found no evidence of this happening with US aid, findings that were challenged by the White House. US members of Congress have raised concerns about the "militarisation" of aid through GHF's involvement with both the IDF and armed US contractors, and its lack of experience delivering humanitarian aid. Many observers say aid providers should be impartial and independent of military forces. Australian lawyer Chris Sidoti, who co-chaired the UN Commission of Inquiry into the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel, says the secrecy around GHF raises suspicions about its true purpose. "No one really knows where [GHF] came from, who set it up, whose idea it was, who's funding it, and where they're sourcing their personnel," Mr Sidoti told the ABC. "Except, we do know that a number of the American security guards are former military personnel, so whether that means that they've totally divorced themselves from any contact with the military — or for example with the CIA — is something that no one knows. GHF planned to set up a Swiss bank account option for donors but settled on registration in the secretive US tax haven of Delaware in February. Its executive director, former US Marine Jake Wood, quit before its aid hubs even opened. "I am proud of the work I oversaw, including developing a pragmatic plan that could feed hungry people, address security concerns about diversion, and complement the work of longstanding NGOs in Gaza," Mr Wood said in a statement. "However, it is clear that it is not possible to implement this plan while also strictly adhering to the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence, which I will not abandon." He was replaced by Reverend Johnnie Moore, a "close ally" of US President Donald Trump, according to Democrat lawmakers, and a leader of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. GHF claimed to have launched operations with almost $US120 million ($183 million) of funding from "other government donors". Israel denied it was among them, despite reports that the government covertly poured about $US280 million into the GHF "aid mechanism". The US state department approved a $US30m grant to GHF in June, reportedly despite objections from USAID officials, including one who found it failed to meet "minimum technical or budgetary standards". Democrat lawmakers say this is "troubling" and that GHF aid hubs appear to "operate at a reduced capacity at an exorbitant cost" way beyond those of "experienced humanitarian organizations". They have demanded an investigation of GHF and say full disclosure of its funding is "imperative". GHF runs its aid hubs in Gaza with two private American firms — Safe Reach Solutions and UG Solutions — providing security and logistics. The online footprints of some of these contractors offer a glimpse of GHF's close alignment with the US and Israeli governments. They are also a window into the backgrounds of some of those now responsible for delivering most of the aid in Gaza. According to his LinkedIn profile, contractor Michael Reynolds's role with UG Solutions includes ensuring "the safety and operational continuity of US and Israeli personnel". It also involves following "US Department of State and host nation security directives" and coordinating "closely with multinational military [and] governmental partners". Anthony Aguilar told the ABC that he recognised Mr Reynolds as one of those providing "static site" security for GHF in southern Gaza. He said Mr Reynolds's role was "crowd control" and that he was "armed with a fully automatic rifle, a combat pistol, stun grenades, tear gas and riot baton". Mr Reynolds previously worked for Mayhem Solutions Group, an Arizona-based security and intelligence outfit that was involved in reconnaissance patrols of the Mexican border and was associated with the hard right of US President Donald Trump's MAGA movement. Mr Reynolds was "vice-president of global risk solutions" for Mayhem when it was alleged to be an "anti-government extremist organisation" by the Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) in 2022. SPLC has been monitoring and taking legal action against extremist groups since the 1970s, and partnered with law enforcement including the FBI. SPLC's claims about Mayhem would place it in the same category as militias such as the Oath Keepers, whose leader was jailed for seditious conspiracy over the January 6 insurrection in Washington before Mr Trump pardoned him. Mayhem was reportedly paid up to $US20 million by a Texas state contractor to help transport immigrants and asylum seekers interstate in what a whistleblower claimed were "disgusting and inhuman" conditions. Mayhem also shared intelligence and data on border crossings with The America Project, an organisation that was co-founded by former Trump national security advisor Lieutenant General Michael Flynn and funded political candidates who denied the results of the 2020 US election. SPLC claims "anti-government groups" such as Mayhem are "part of the anti-democratic hard-right movement". "They believe the federal government is tyrannical, and they traffic in conspiracy theories about an illegitimate government of leftist elites seeking a 'New World Order.'" A spokesman for UG Solutions did not directly address questions about specific employees. He said the company "hires only experienced professionals — primarily former US Special Operations Forces and intelligence personnel — who have demonstrated years of operational excellence". "Each individual undergoes extensive vetting, reference checks, and must meet our stringent standards for weapons proficiency and operational conduct prior to deployment, including qualifying on their weapons. "Every team member undergoes comprehensive background checks, and only qualified, vetted individuals are deployed on UG Solutions operations." UG Solutions's chief executive is a former US Army Special Forces soldier and its "head of talent acquisition" was an army counterintelligence officer. Neither man could be reached by phone. The ABC spoke briefly to a former US Army staff sergeant employed by UG Solutions as an "international humanitarian security officer". "I can't give a comment at this time, thank you." GHF's other security provider, Safe Reach Solutions, was founded by former senior CIA operative Philip Reilly. Mr Reilly was the deputy chief of Operation Jawbreaker, the CIA's response to the 9/11 attacks in 2001, and was then among the first US agents on the ground in Afghanistan, where he became chief of "the largest [CIA] station in the world at the time". Until last December, he was also a senior adviser at Boston Consulting Group, where two senior partners reportedly met with Israeli officials to work out how GHF would operate and set prices for the security contractors. Boston sacked the partners in June, saying the work for GHF was "unauthorised". Mr Reilly's employees now include a former Pentagon official who led a review of close-combat operations during the first Trump presidency, a former US State Department official who became an Air Force intelligence officer, and a former US Army logistics officer who advised the Palestinian Authority on vehicle and small arms maintenance. For all that, the US members of Congress demanding an investigation say they have "serious concerns" that GHF and its partners, with no prior humanitarian experience … could become the sole or primary aid provider in Gaza". Mohamed Duar, Amnesty International Australia's spokesperson on the occupied Palestinian territories, says GHF is an "illegitimate and inhumane aid agency" that was never going to replace the work of others in Gaza, including the UN's relief agencies. "The alarming concern is that GHF puts Israeli forces and possibly paid mercenaries in charge of aid delivery," he says. "Humanitarian aid principles should never be politicised or weaponised." Mr Duar offers the grim prediction that "more people will die from starvation than will die from bombardment to date". The Israeli military campaign has killed more than 60,000 Palestinians in almost 22 months, according to the Gaza health ministry. It was triggered by Hamas's attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, which killed about 1,200 people and took 251 hostage — 49 of them still held in Gaza, with 20 believed to be alive — by Israeli tallies. Mr Sidoti says the failures of GHF raise the possibility that it was merely a ploy to pay lip service to international concerns. "The killings continue. The whole exercise has been an absolute shambles," he says.
