No aid has reached Palestinians in Gaza yet, despite Israeli claim of delivery
No aid has reached Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip as of Wednesday, despite Israeli claims that dozens of trucks have entered.
Since 2 March, Israel has enforced a total blockade on Gaza, preventing any food, medical supplies, or goods from entering the besieged enclave.
On Sunday, Israel stated it would allow a 'basic amount of food' into Gaza for what it described as 'diplomatic reasons' aimed at easing international pressure that could force an end to the ongoing war.
The Israeli military claimed that over 90 aid lorries have entered the strip this week.
However, sources inside Gaza told Middle East Eye trucks remain stalled on the Palestinian side of the Karem Abu Salem (Kerem Shalom ) crossing.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
Aid organisations confirmed that no humanitarian relief has been distributed.
'No aid has entered the Gaza Strip since 2 March,' said Nahed Shuhibar, head of Gaza's Private Transport Association, in an interview with Alaraby TV.
'Aid lorries are still stuck at the Karem Abu Salem crossing.'
Unrwa spokesperson Adnan Abu Hasna confirmed that while thousands of aid lorries are queued at the crossing, none have entered storage facilities or reached those in need inside Gaza.
UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said the delay is complicated by Israeli requirements, which involves offloading supplies on the Palestinian side and reloading them separately once UN access from within Gaza is secured.
'For more than two months now, we've had no food'
- Hajj Ahmad, Gaza resident
Palestinians across Gaza are experiencing worsening conditions and say the promises of aid are nothing more than media illusions.
Barham Zarroub, a resident of Gaza, expressed skepticism over the reports.
'They said trucks would enter, supposedly bringing aid into the Gaza Strip. But not a single truck made it into Gaza. We didn't see anything in the institutions, or even inside Gaza itself, that indicated any deliveries,' he told MEE.
Even if some aid were to arrive, he added, 'it wouldn't cover even 2 percent of the population' based on the number of trucks set to enter.
'That means only a few families might receive something, and many people might not get anything at all,' Zarroub said.
'Drop in the ocean'
According to UN estimates, at least 600 lorries per day are required to begin addressing Gaza's severe humanitarian crisis.
Dujarric said while the arrival of aid was a positive sign, it was "a drop in the ocean" compared to what is needed.
Razan Ahmad, speaking from Khan Younis market, described the situation as desperate.
'Right now, I'm in the Zahra area trying to find flour for my children, and I can't find any,' she said.
Israel is starving Gaza to death, and still the world does nothing Read More »
'Honestly, everything being spread on social media and through both Hebrew and Arabic media is completely false.'
She dismissed reports of trucks entering Gaza as 'malicious rumors'.
Hajj Ahmad, another Gaza resident, shared similar frustration.
'For more than two months now, we've had no food, no meat, no milk. We need calcium, we need protein - these are all things we've been deprived of,' he told MEE.
'When they said aid trucks would enter, we were thrilled. But it was all for nothing. Just look at the markets, there's nothing, absolutely nothing.'
The Israeli war on Gaza has killed 53,655 Palestinians since 7 October 2023, including over 15,000 children, according to the Palestinian health ministry.
At least 58 people have died due to malnutrition and 242 due to a lack of food and medicine, according to the Gaza-based Government Media Office.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arabian Post
an hour ago
- Arabian Post
India Abstaining During Voting On UN Resolution For Ceasefire In Gaza Is The Lowest Point Of Diplomacy
By Nitya Chakraborty On Thursday June 12, Indian diplomacy under the Prime Minister Narendra Modi reached its lowest ebb when India abstained in the United Nations General Assembly from a vote on a resolution demanding an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza. The 193 member UN general assembly passed the resolution overwhelmingly with 149 countries in favour, 12 against and 19 countries including India, once the real leader of the global South. India did not support this resolution at a time when Israel is engaged in genocide in Gaza and other areas of Palestine killing even the hungry and sick people who were going for food and medicines to the aid centres. Even the G-7 members excepting the U.S. have strongly spoken against the latest killings by Israel and they all excepting USA voted for the resolution. But India did not, it abstained. The 19 countries who abstained included apart from India, countries like Albania, Cameroon, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Malawi, Panama, South Sudan and Togo. These countries are not significant players in UN. All the leading members of the Global South including BRICS and SCO voted in favour of the resolution. USA and Israel, as usual, voted against the resolution. The Indian abstention from voting in such a critical situation when Israel is in its most aggressive form even without listening to the U.S. President Donald Trump, has triggered a big distrust among the leading members of the developing countries as also the two big powers Russia and China. The next summit of BRICS will be taking place in July this year in Brazil. Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be attending that. Israel's action including its attacks against Iran on June 13 will also be on the agenda. How Can Indian Prime Minister face the other members of the BRICS at the summit on the issue of Israel and Gaza? In the explanation of vote on the resolution titled 'Protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations', India's permanent representative to the UN, ambassador Parvathaneni Harish said the resolution comes against the backdrop of worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza.. He then said India is deeply concerned at the deepening humanitarian crisis and condemns the loss of civilian lives but a joint effort should be directed towards bringing the two sides closer. So, India would abstain from the resolution. What an argument under the new normal Modi doctrine? Everyone knows what is the latest attitude of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to any bilateral talks? The immediate need is to save the lives of Gaza people and organize humanitarian aid for sick and hungry. The ceasefire is imperative for that. 149 countries out of the total of 193 members supported the resolution on the basis of this understanding. They wanted to stop the killings with immediate effect. The resolution demanded that Israel, the 'occupying power', immediately end the blockade, open all border crossings and ensure that aid reaches the Palestinian civilian population throughout the Gaza Strip immediately and at scale, in line with its obligations under peace international law and humanitarian principles. It seems that the Narendra Modi government has objection to the term 'occupying power' given to Israel. Even France, Britain are agreeing to this resolution, why not India? The resolution demanded that the parties fully, unconditionally and without delay implement all the provisions of Security Council resolution of June 2024, including an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages, the return of the remains of hostages who have been killed, the exchange of Palestinian prisoners, the return of Palestinian civilians to their homes and neighbourhoods in the Gaza Strip and the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip. The UNGA vote came after the 15-nation Security Council failed to adopt a similar resolution last week after the sole veto by permanent member the United States. For the active members like South Africa and Brazil, there was no other way but to organize a fresh resolution for voting in the UN general assembly where the resolution is decided by voting and no veto power is allowed. On Thursday, the draft resolution was moved by Spain which is a member of the European Union. Prime Minister Sanchez belongs to the socialist part of the coalition and Deputy Prime Minister is Yolanda Diaz, a prominent leader of the Communist Party of Spain.. Spain could organize most members of the European Union in favour of the Resolution. The latest Israeli attack on Iran on Friday and the possibility of the war spreading with serious implications for the Middle East as also global peace poses another challenge to the Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The PM has cultivated special relations with Israel while Iran is very crucial from India's geopolitical strategy. It will be another big challenge to PM's diplomatic acumen. (IPA Service)
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Iran says Israel's actions a 'declaration of war' and accuses US of supporting strikes
Iran 's envoy to the UN accused the US on Friday of providing full political and intelligence support to Israeli strikes on Iranian territory, calling the attacks a 'declaration of war' that killed dozens, including civilians. Iranian ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani told the UN Security Council that 78 people had been killed in the strikes, with more than 320 others injured. 'The majority of them are civilians, including women and children,' he said. 'We will not forget that our people lost their lives as a result of the Israeli attacks with American weapons. These actions amount to a declaration of war.' He accused Israel of seeking to derail nuclear deal negotiations with the US and escalate tension in the region. 'This aggression was intentional, co-ordinated and fully backed by a permanent member of this council,' he said. 'The United States' complicity in this terrorist attack is beyond doubt." Israel's ambassador to the UN Danny Danon echoed this, saying the strikes on Iran are an act of "national preservation' which it undertook alone. 'Imagine when the head of the snake would do with a nuclear warhead?' he said. 'We acted because history has taught us that silence is complicity and hesitation is fatal.' He told the council that Israeli intelligence had confirmed that Iran could have produced enough fissile material for several nuclear bombs within days. 'We struck the core of the nuclear programme, the underground enrichment facilities at Natanz. This facility was operating at a military grade capacity. Intelligence confirmed that within days, Iran could have produced enough material for multiple bombs,' he said. On Thursday, Iran was censured by the UN's nuclear watchdog for not complying with obligations meant to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon. US senior State Department official McCoy Pitt told the council that Washington was informed in advance of Israel's strikes on Iranian targets but was not militarily involved. Mr Pitt said Israel had advised the US that 'this action' was necessary for its self-defence. 'Every sovereign nation has the right to defend itself, and Israel is no exception,' he said. 'President [Donald] Trump has repeatedly said, this dangerous regime cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.' He added that Washington continues to pursue a diplomatic solution aimed at preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons or 'threatening' regional stability. 'Iran's leadership would be wise to negotiate at this time,' he asserted. The head of the UN nuclear watchdog told the Security Council that the aboveground section of Iran's pilot fuel enrichment plant at Natanz where uranium was being enriched up to 60 per cent has been destroyed in recent Israeli strikes. 'This facility houses both the main fuel enrichment plant and the pilot enrichment plant,' said International Atomic Energy Agency director general Rafael Grossi. Mr Grossi said radiation levels at the Natanz site remained unchanged, with no external radiological impact on the population or the environment. However, he warned of contamination risks within the facility. 'There is radiological and chemical contamination inside the Natanz facilities due to the impacts,' he said. Mr Grossi also said that Iranian authorities informed them of attacks on two other nuclear facilities, Fordow and Isfahan, 'where a fuel plate fabrication plant, a fuel manufacturing plant, a uranium conversion facility … are located'. Russia strongly condemned Israel's attacks on Iran, with its ambassador saying the "military adventure pushes the region to the brink of a large-scale war, and the responsibility for all of the consequences of these actions lies fully with the Israeli leadership and those who encourage them". 'One is left with the impression that the leadership of Israel is convinced that they have a completely free hand in the region, and they probably think that Israel can flout any legal norms and replace all international bodies, including the Security Council and IAEA,' Vasily Nebenzya said. China's ambassador Fu Cong urged Israel to immediately cease all military 'adventurism' and called on countries with 'significant' influence over Israel to play a 'constructive' role.
Middle East Eye
3 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
These questions are often ignored in the Israel-Iran story. We asked a panel of experts
Israel's attacks on Iran on Friday and the killing of several high-level figures in its military and science sectors have roiled the region. Tensions between the two nations are well-documented and longstanding, and both the US and Israel have carried out attacks like this, albeit on a smaller scale, on other prominent Iranian figures in the past. But why does this keep happening, and how is the US trying to distance itself from it? Can Israel go this far without expecting its own officials to be targeted? And exactly how dangerous is it to strike nuclear facilities on either side? Middle East Eye put the lesser-asked questions to five experts on international relations, conflict, nuclear proliferation, and the region at large. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Here is what they said, edited for length and clarity. If the US was informed ahead of time and also supplied weapons to Israel, how can Secretary of State Marco Rubio say the US was not involved? Jamal Abdi, President, National Iranian American Council: "This is about creating a narrative of plausible deniability to potentially give Iran a face-saving way to continue talking to the United States [towards a new nuclear deal]. I don't think it's going to work, and I think Trump has already stepped all over that by now, basically taking credit, after seeming to distance the US." Anthony Wanis-St John, conflict resolution specialist, American University: "It's a verbal obfuscation. It means that operationally, we didn't support it." Miles Pomper, Senior Fellow, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation: "Because the Russians and the Chinese are affiliated with the Iranians, [the US will] try not to elevate the level to something beyond a regional conflict, to some global conflict." What is the difference between a 'preemptive strike' and a 'preventive strike'. Are they not both acts of war? Wanis-St. John: "These are certainly acts of war. There's no question about it, the Israelis like to call attention and use "preemptive" and "preventive" doctrines in their military strikes, since every country under international laws and norms is allowed to defend itself against aggression, but no country is supposed to lawfully commit aggressions against another country." Sam Ratner, policy director, Win Without War: "'Preemptive strike' does seem to be, from a definitional standpoint, a misnomer from Israel... this is a war of choice from [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu." Pomper: "It's not a preemptive strike, because that would be [like] the Six Day War, where the planes are on the tarmac and about to attack you, and then you hit them. 'Preventive' is a stop to a long-term threat to Israel. And you know the Iranians aren't shy about threatening." Negar Mortazavi, host of the Iran Podcast: "If it's not [couched as] preemptive, then it will be seen differently both from the public opinion and the global opinion... and we know that Israel cares a lot about its image, about its standing in the international community, and that has deteriorated very fast [since its war on Gaza]." The international community has long tolerated, and sometimes cheered on, Israel's string of extra-judicial assassinations. Why? Abdi: "Israel has a lot of political power and very important friends, most importantly, the United States." Mortazavi: "Powerful western countries have provided not just financial and armed support, but also diplomatic support and cover to Israel in the UN Security Council... the contradiction - or in a way, that oxymoron - that Israel is dealing with, is that they're a country that came out of the United Nations [in 1948]." Ratner: "In the post-9/11 era in particular, we've seen not just from the Israeli government, but from Iranian governments, including our own, in fact, and in particular our own, a real sort of generational change of attitude toward the use of assassination. We see it in our drone programme. The erosion of the norm against assassination is bad for diplomacy, bad for international relations, and bad for peace." Looking at the nature of Israel's attacks, can Iran retaliate in the same way? Wanis-St John: "I'm not sure that they can, operationally. I've never seen Iran do that against Israel.... you really need a lot of information about where [targets] are and where they're moving and how they're protected at night. That requires a lot of infrastructure. I'm not sure that the Iranians have that." Abdi: "If we're saying there are no laws, there is no accountability, you can conduct extra-judicial killings with impunity, then it would seem that would no longer restrain any actor from engaging in the same types of activities. But we know that that's not how the world works, and that certain countries have been given a carte blanche to do whatever they want." Mortazavi: "The condemnation would be so different... imagine if the same was done by Iran. Israeli officials also have homes and families." Why can't Iran have a nuclear bomb if Israel does? Mortazavi: "Iran is a signatory to the NPT, the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They have committed to not building nuclear weapons [and] they have a civilian programme. According to US intelligence, they don't have a weapons programme. At the same time, Israel has an undeclared weapons programme [and] many nuclear warheads. They're not a signatory to any international monitoring and safeguards." Ratner: "Our position on this is that we are opposed to nuclear proliferation and [in favour of] nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons are unimaginably destructive forces, and the more hands those weapons are in, the more likely that nuclear warfare becomes. If we add another country to the nuclear club, how many more countries will join?" Abdi: "Iran has threatened before that if something like [Friday's attacks] happened, they would abandon the NPT, and then there would be no international law saying they're not allowed to build nuclear weapons. They could do what Israel did, and develop a clandestine programme, and not be held accountable to any treaties or agreements or anything, and it's just the law of the jungle, and everybody gets a nuke." Israel has always said it wants to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Isn't that dangerous? Pomper: "I think, as opposed to attacking a nuclear power plant that's got actual radioactive material, like Zaporizhzhia in Ukraine, it's different... You don't have that kind of concentration. And so you may have environmental and other damages, but you're not likely to get a widespread radiation danger from it." Wanis-St John: "They shouldn't really be targeted if they're not military programmes. No one has said that the Iranians are building a nuclear weapon at this time. They don't claim to be making one, and nobody on the outside claims that they are making one... The Israeli attack is really meant to send them a signal that any progress towards weapons-grade enrichment is not going to be tolerated by Israel." Ratner: "The bigger concern... is that Iran has made clear statements and threats that if the Israeli government strikes its nuclear facilities, that it will respond by striking US targets in the region. And what we see from Benjamin Netanyahu is a desire for exactly that to happen. His interest is in starting a chain of events that drags the US into war on his side, because the Israeli military would have a very difficult time pursuing regime change in Iran on its own."
