European foreign ministers condemn Israeli plans for Gaza escalation
The Foreign Ministers of Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Slovenia, and Spain have expressed "grave concern" about the reported Israeli plans to expand its military operations in Gaza and to establish a prolonged Israeli presence in the Strip.
"A further military escalation in Gaza will only exacerbate an already catastrophic situation for the civilian Palestinian population and threaten the lives of the hostages that remain in captivity," the joint statement reads.
"This would mean crossing yet another line, marking a dangerous new escalation and jeopardizing any prospects of a viable two-state solution.
"We firmly reject any demographic or territorial change in Gaza, including any scheme that would force or facilitate the permanent displacement of its population, which would be in violation of international law. We also strongly oppose a system that does not ensure that the entire population gets access to humanitarian aid. Gaza is an integral part of the State of Palestine, which belongs to the Palestinian people."
The statement adds that for more than two months, Israeli authorities have blocked all humanitarian aid and commercial supplies from reaching the civilian Palestinian population in Gaza.
Tánaiste Simon Harris has issued a joint statement along with five other European counterparts. Picture: SAM BOAL/Collins Photos
Despite repeated calls on Israel to lift these measures and to facilitate relief, Israel has instead further tightened, rather than eased, the measures.
"We call on Israel to immediately lift the blockade. It is essential to facilitate relief for all civilians in need, without discrimination, and to follow the other humanitarian principles of impartiality, independence and neutrality.
"Together, we call on the Israeli authorities to show restraint. We further call on Israel to take all necessary and effective measures to ensure, without delay, in full cooperation with the United Nations and humanitarian organizations, the unhindered provision at scale of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance.
"What is needed more urgently than ever is a resumption of a ceasefire, and the unconditional release of all hostages. We reaffirm our unwavering support for the two-state solution — Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security."
The statement has been signed by:
Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iceland
Simon Harris, Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of Ireland
Xavier Bettel, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of Luxembourg
Espen Barth Eide, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Norway
Tanja Fajon, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of Slovenia
José Manuel Albares Bueno, Minister for Foreign Affairs, EU and Cooperation of Spain
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
10 minutes ago
- RTÉ News
26 EU leaders say Ukraine should have freedom to decide its future
Twenty-six European heads of state and government have said in a statement that Ukrainians must have the freedom to decide their future and that a diplomatic solution must protect Ukrainian and European interests. "Meaningful negotiations can only take place in the context of a ceasefire or reduction of hostilities," the leaders said, adding that "we share the conviction that a diplomatic solution must protect Ukraine's and Europe's vital security interests." The statement, which was agreed late last night and published this morning, was endorsed by leaders of all EU member countries except Hungary.
RTÉ News
24 minutes ago
- RTÉ News
EU and UN condemn Israel's killing of journalists in Gaza
The deaths of an Al Jazeera news team, including prominent correspondent Anas al-Sharif, in an Israel strike in Gaza City, have been condemned by the United Nations, the EU and media rights groups. Dozens of Gazans stood amid bombed-out buildings in the courtyard of Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City to pay their respects to Mr Sharif and four of his colleagues who were killed on Sunday. Hospital director Mohammed Abu Salmiya said a sixth journalist, freelance reporter Mohammed Al-Khaldi, was also killed in the strike that targeted the Al Jazeera team. Mourners, including men wearing blue journalists' flak jackets, carried their bodies, wrapped in white shrouds with their faces exposed, through narrow alleys to their graves. Israel confirmed it had targeted Mr Sharif, 28, whom it labelled a "terrorist" affiliated with Hamas, alleging he "posed as a journalist". Al Jazeera said four other employees - correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh, and cameramen Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal and Moamen Aliwa - were killed when the strike hit a tent set up for journalists outside the main gate of Al-Shifa. An Israeli military statement accused Mr Sharif of heading a Hamas "terrorist cell" and being "responsible for advancing rocket attacks" against Israelis. According to local journalists who knew him, Mr Sharif had worked at the start of his career with a Hamas communication office, where his role was to publicise events organised by the group that has ruled in Gaza since 2006. Mr Sharif was one of Al Jazeera's most recognisable faces working in Gaza, providing daily reports on the now 22-month-old war. Media freedom groups have condemned the Israeli strike on journalists, which the UN human rights agency called a "grave breach of international humanitarian law". European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said that "the EU condemns the killing of five Al Jazeera journalists". 'Attempt to silence' A posthumous message, written by Mr Sharif in April in case of his death, was published online saying he had been silenced and urging people "not to forget Gaza". In July, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) called for his protection following online posts by an Israeli military spokesman. The group had accused Israel of a "pattern" of labelling journalists militants "without providing credible evidence", and said the military had levelled similar accusations against media workers in Gaza including Al Jazeera staff. "International law is clear that active combatants are the only justified targets in a war setting," said Jodie Ginsberg. Unless Israel "can demonstrate that Anas al-Sharif was still an active combatant, then there is no justification for his killing". Al Jazeera called the attack "a desperate attempt to silence voices exposing the Israeli occupation" and described Mr Sharif as "one of Gaza's bravest journalists". The Qatari broadcaster also said the strike followed "repeated incitement" and calls by Israeli officials to target Sharif and his colleagues. Reporters Without Borders said that nearly 200 journalists have been killed in the war, which was sparked by Hamas's deadly October 2023 attack on Israel. Israel prevents international reporters from entering Gaza, except on occasional tightly-controlled trips with the military. The strike on the news team in Gaza City came days after the Israeli security cabinet approved plans to send troops into the area, a decision met with mounting domestic and international criticism. 'Another calamity' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the military will conquer the remaining quarter or so of the territory not yet controlled by Israeli troops, including much of Gaza City and Al-Mawasi, an Israeli-designated safe zone where huge numbers of Palestinians have sought refuge. The plan, which Israeli media reported had triggered bitter disagreement between the government and military leadership, drew condemnation from protesters in Israel and numerous countries, including Israeli allies. Notably Germany, a major weapons supplier and staunch ally, announced the suspension of shipments of any arms that could be used in Gaza. . Mr Netanyahu has remained defiant, telling journalists that "we will win the war, with or without the support of others". The United Nations and humanitarian agencies have condemned the planned offensive, which UN Assistant Secretary-General Miroslav Jenca said "will likely trigger another calamity in Gaza". UN agencies warned last month that famine was unfolding in the territory, with Israel severely restricting aid entry. Israel's offensive has killed at least 61,499 Palestinians, according to the health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza, figures the United Nations says are reliable. Hamas's 2023 attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, according to an AFP tally based on official figures.
Irish Independent
an hour ago
- Irish Independent
Letters: The scale of destruction and death by Israeli action is impossible to justify
Many believe the killings are intentional, despite the excuses or lies used by Israel to justify its killings. They regard it as the Israeli state's way of stopping the flow of on-the-ground news that captures the horrifying spectacle we see on our TVs each and every day. How can the intentional targeting of 1,400 medical staff, working in hospitals in Gaza, since the October 7 attacks by Hamas and its proxies, be justified? Where is the justification for the targeted killing of 61,430 people and over 200 who have starved to death, or those who have been killed in the process of trying to get food? While we need to see the end of Hamas and its militant comrades, with the release of hostages, how can America or those who supply weapons to Israel justify so much death and destruction? While we have condemned atrocities on both sides of this conflict, with a hamstrung and ineffective UN Security Council incapable of doing anything to stop this conflict, and an America under Donald Trump a willing participator that supplies weapons to this genocide, who will be held to account when this war is finally over? Christy Galligan, Letterkenny, Co Donegal The Tricolour is a symbol of unity between the green and orange – be proud of it Darragh McManus's piece 'Other countries fly their flags without embarrassment – it's time we did so too' (Irish Independent, August 11) is timely. The original Tricolour, handmade by a group of French-Irish women – descendants of the Irish Wild Geese – was presented to Thomas Francis Meagher in 1848. The tragedy of the Irish Tricolour emanated in 'political' hatred in the aftermath of the Civil War and the 1926 split in Sinn Féin. Post 1922, there was little official teaching of the origins, or symbolism, of the national flag in local museums or libraries. Its description varied according to the tutor, some refusing to accept the 'Orange' – opting for Green, White and 'Yellow'/ 'Gold' due to ingrained misunderstanding of the symbolism. Mr McManus's points out: 'The whole point of our flag's design, after all, was to promote reconciliation, not division: orange and green, the white of peace between them.' Politicians of all parties allowed the Irish national flag to be usurped by the murdering PIRA post 1970, instead of taking ownership of the flag and all it symbolises. We are all proud of the aeons of history of the island of Ireland; it is time every Irish person took complete ownership of a great symbol with pride. To do so would create a genuine reason for a united Ireland; a genuine reason that requires truth, decency and respectful acceptance of each citizen of the four provinces. Declan Foley, Melbourne, Australia A Putin win signals that borders are negotiable if you use enough brutality Your editorial warns of the dangers in sidelining Ukraine in any territorial negotiations ('Throwing Ukraine under the bus is not a legitimate solution', August 11, Irish Independent). History shows us that once a precedent is set, others are quick to exploit it. The world learnt this in 1938, when ceding the Sudetenland to Hitler in the name of peace only emboldened his appetite for conquest. Within a year, Poland was invaded and Europe was engulfed in war. To reward aggression by granting land is to signal to every autocrat that borders are negotiable if you bring enough force to bear. If Ukraine is carved up under diplomatic cover, the next decade will see a rise in opportunistic invasions – not only in Europe, but in regions where old disputes lie dormant, waiting for a signal that the strong may once again take from the weak. Enda Cullen, Tullysaran Road, Co Armagh Presidential hopefuls remember: the office is supposed to be impartial The programme that aired on TG4 last Sunday night discussing president Patrick Hillery's tenure over his two terms in office showed the principles regarding impartially that the next president should uphold. Mr Hillery was asked by taoiseach Garret FitzGerald of Fine Gael to dissolve the Dáil and call a general election in January 1982 when the budget failed to be passed. He refused to speak to several high-ranking politicians within the main opposition party, Fianna Fáil, who wanted to persuade him to not call a general election in order for it to try to form a government. As Mr Hillery was a former Fianna Fáil politician, I am sure he was under severe pressure to speak to his former party members. He showed great respect for the impartially of the office in calling a general election. We will hear a lot over the coming few months regarding the personalities and political ideologies of the citizens looking to become the next president, but once elected the president is bound by the Constitution. Eamonn O'Hara, Manorcunningham, Co Donegal Bureaucracy suffocates democracy and does so at great cost to the taxpayer By definition, 'democracy is a system of government where the power is held by the people'. The reality is that democratic values of public engagement have been replaced in recent years by a complicated maze of bureaucracy. Elected governments have farmed out the role to EU regulations and directives to unelected civil servants, who in turn act on the promptings of government-funded NGOs and vested interests who in turn profit from government investment. Local democracy has become redundant. Bureaucracy is the real thief of democracy and taxpayers' money; it creates a multiplicity of laws and regulations, which bamboozles the average citizen. It breaks one of the most basic rules of the law – that 'the law must be clear and precise'. It must be understandable to all who are bound by it. In Ireland's case, the president, who is the last signature on every bill brought into law, should keep this in mind. That would ensure that our courts are not taken up by petty squabbling among barristers and judges as to meaning of laws passed. It's often too costly for the average citizen to challenge any law or get justice, but not for those with deep pockets. Nuala Nolan, Bowling Green, Co Galway
