These 28 countries called for Israel to end its war on Gaza: What they said
The joint statement, signed by the foreign ministers of these countries, condemned 'the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food'.
The statement comes as global pressure mounts on Israel over civilian casualties at aid sites, obstruction of humanitarian aid, and violations of international humanitarian law – as the occupied Palestinian territory simmers with starvation.
Israel's war on Gaza has killed more than 59,000 people and wounded 140,000 since the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas, in which 1,139 people were killed and more than 200 were taken captive.
So, what does the joint statement say? Who are these countries? And how have Israel and its closest ally, the United States, reacted?
What did the statement say?
The joint statement said the countries are coming together 'with a simple, urgent message: The war in Gaza must end now.'
The statement underlined that the suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached 'new depths' and that the Israeli government's aid delivery model is 'dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity'.
They called on the Israeli government to 'comply with its obligations under international humanitarian law' and immediately lift restrictions on the flow of aid.
The group of countries also noted that the captives 'cruelly held' by Hamas continue to 'suffer terribly' and called for their immediate and unconditional release.
They said in the statement that a negotiated ceasefire offers 'the best hope of bringing [the captives] home and ending the agony of their families'.
Demographic change, settler violence: What else did the countries say?
The countries criticised Israel's plan to establish a concentration zone – Israel's vision of relocating the entire Palestinian population into a fenced, heavily controlled zone built on the ruins of Rafah – as 'completely unacceptable'.
'Permanent forced displacement is a violation of international humanitarian law,' the joint statement said.
The group of countries also marked its opposition to 'any steps towards territorial or demographic change in the Occupied Palestinian Territories' and noted that the E1 settlement plan announced would divide a Palestinian state in two, 'marking a flagrant breach of international law and critically [undermining] the two-state solution'.
They also called out that the 'settlement building across the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, has accelerated while settler violence against Palestinians has soared. This must stop.'
Which countries signed the joint statement?
The joint statement was signed by the foreign ministers of a total of 28 countries:
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK.
These governments, many of them allies of Israel, issued some of their strongest language yet, condemning the obstruction of aid in the occupied Palestinian territory.
Which of those countries recognise Palestine?
Out of these 28 countries from the joint statement, nine recognise the State of Palestine as a sovereign state.
Cyprus, Malta, and Poland recognised Palestine shortly after the Palestinian Declaration of Independence in 1988.
Iceland followed in 2011, and Sweden in 2014. Ireland, Norway, Slovenia, and Spain recognised Palestine in 2024.
How did Israel respond?
Oren Marmorstein, a spokesperson for the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, wrote on X that Israel rejects the joint statement published by the group of countries, 'as it is disconnected from reality and sends the wrong message to Hamas'.
Israel further claimed that instead of agreeing to a ceasefire, 'Hamas is busy running a campaign to spread lies about Israel' and deliberately acting to increase friction and harm to civilians who come to receive humanitarian aid.
The statement further said there is a 'concrete proposal for a ceasefire deal' and Hamas 'stubbornly refuses to accept it'.
What does Hamas say about the ceasefire?
The spokesperson of the military wing of Hamas said Israel was the one that rejected a ceasefire agreement to release all captives held in Gaza.
Qassam Brigades spokesperson Abu Obeida said in a prerecorded video, released on Friday, that the group had in recent months offered a 'comprehensive deal' that would release all captives at once – but it was rejected by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right ministers.
'It has become clear to us that the government of the criminal Netanyahu has no real interest in the captives because they are soldiers,' he said, adding that Hamas favours a deal that guarantees an end to the war, a withdrawal of Israeli forces, and entry of humanitarian aid for besieged Palestinians.
Hamas is still holding 50 people in Gaza, about 20 of whom are believed to be alive.
What is Israel blocking from entering Gaza, claiming that Hamas can use it?
Israel continues to block the entry of essential humanitarian supplies into Gaza, claiming that Hamas could divert or repurpose them for military use.
Among the items withheld are: Baby formula, food, water filters, and medicines.
Medicine and medical supplies face blocks as part of Israel's 'dual-use' restrictions, where items like painkillers and dialysis equipment are held back, ostensibly for possible Hamas exploitation in military contexts.
Other medical equipment, such as oxygen cylinders, anaesthetics, and cancer medications, has been restricted.
Israeli authorities argue that some items, like certain chemicals or electronics, could have dual-use potential.
Aid groups report that the blanket denial of crucial medical items is pushing Gaza's health system towards total collapse, and say that these restrictions are collective punishment and violations of international humanitarian law.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
10 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Greek island residents stop Israeli cruise ship docking
Greek island residents stop Israeli cruise ship docking NewsFeed Residents on the Greek island of Syros prevented passengers on an Israeli cruise ship from getting off the vessel, in protest against Israel's genocide in Gaza. Video Duration 03 minutes 00 seconds 03:00 Video Duration 01 minutes 39 seconds 01:39 Video Duration 01 minutes 47 seconds 01:47 Video Duration 02 minutes 57 seconds 02:57 Video Duration 00 minutes 46 seconds 00:46 Video Duration 01 minutes 05 seconds 01:05 Video Duration 02 minutes 49 seconds 02:49
Al Jazeera
40 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Malaysia 'calls on world leaders' to restrain Israel
Malaysia 'calls on world leaders' to restrain Israel Quotable Video Duration 01 minutes 12 seconds 01:12 Video Duration 01 minutes 10 seconds 01:10 Video Duration 01 minutes 21 seconds 01:21 Video Duration 01 minutes 39 seconds 01:39 Video Duration 01 minutes 07 seconds 01:07 Video Duration 01 minutes 39 seconds 01:39 Video Duration 01 minutes 11 seconds 01:11
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Yes, The New York Times is committing genocidal journalism
The Israelis certainly owe Bret Stephens a favour. Yesterday, The New York Times opinion columnist took to the pages of the United States newspaper of record to promote his latest deranged argument, headlined: 'No, Israel Is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza'. Never mind that numerous global institutions, ranging from various United Nations bodies to Amnesty International, have determined that Israel is committing just that. These are organisations that hardly throw the G-word around lightly, but Stephens knows better. And he will tell us why. In the very first paragraph of his Times intervention – which should perhaps come accompanied by a trigger warning for readers prone to aneurysms – Stephens demands defiantly: 'If the Israeli government's intentions and actions are truly genocidal – if it is so malevolent that it is committed to the annihilation of Gazans – why hasn't it been more methodical and vastly more deadly?' It would seem, of course, that the Israeli military's near-comprehensive conversion of much of the Gaza Strip into rubble – via the bombardment of homes, hospitals, schools, and everything else that can be bombed – would be rather 'methodical'. As for the perceived insufficient deadliness of Israel's ongoing 'actions', Stephens cites the official Palestinian death count of 'nearly 60,000' in less than two years, and wonders why there are 'not, say, hundreds of thousands of deaths'. He goes on to proclaim that 'the first question the anti-Israel genocide chorus needs to answer is: Why isn't the death count higher?' Among the many questions that Stephens himself needs to answer, meanwhile, is why he thinks slaughtering 60,000 people is no big deal. As of November 2024, Israel had killed at least 17,400 children in Gaza – but even this is apparently not 'malevolent' enough. Furthermore, according to a study published in the Lancet medical journal more than one year ago, the true death toll in Gaza was already potentially set to exceed 186,000. How's that for 'hundreds of thousands'? In lieu of waiting for an answer from the 'anti-Israel genocide chorus', Stephens presents his own, which is that 'Israel is manifestly not committing genocide.' Citing the UN genocide convention's definition of the term as the 'intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such', Stephens proceeds to announce that 'I am aware of no evidence of an Israeli plan to deliberately target and kill Gazan civilians.' Objectively speaking, this is the equivalent in terms of ludicrousness of claiming that there is no evidence of a plan by the operators of a chicken slaughterhouse to deliberately end the lives of the poultry therein. You don't kill 17,400 children in 13 months by accident; nor do you repeatedly bomb hospitals and ambulances if you aren't, you know, deliberately aiming to kill civilians. But it's not just about bombs. Forced starvation is genocide, too. And on that note, another question Stephens might answer is how intentionally depriving a population of two million people of the food and water that is necessary for human survival does not constitute an 'intent to destroy' that group. Yesterday alone, Gaza health officials reported that at least 15 Palestinians had starved to death, including four children. Since the end of May, more than 1,000 Palestinians have also been killed while trying to procure food from the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). This diabolical outfit, backed by Israel and the US, not only concentrates large numbers of starving Palestinians in a single location for easier mowing down by the Israeli army, but also furthers Israel's US-backed vision of forcibly expelling the surviving Palestinian population. While Stephens does deign to mention the 'chaotic food distribution system' in Gaza, he insists that 'bungled humanitarian schemes or trigger-happy soldiers or strikes that hit the wrong target or [Israeli] politicians reaching for vengeful sound bites do not come close to adding up to a genocide.' And yet in his war on the use of the G-word in the Gaza context, Stephens refuses to acknowledge that Israel itself has been a genocidal endeavour from the get-go. Zionists were well aware of the need to dispense with the majority of the Indigenous population of Palestine even before the formal creation of the state of Israel on Palestinian land in 1948, a process that entailed mass killing and the destruction of hundreds of villages. Some three-quarters of a million people were made refugees. Since then, Israel has continued on what is fundamentally genocidal footing, working to disappear the Palestinians both physically and conceptually – as exemplified in the late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir's famous assertion that the Palestinians 'did not exist'. Indeed, Israel's existence as a Jewish settler-colonial state is predicated on the very 'intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such'. Anyway, forget history and reality. Stephens warns us that, if the word genocide 'is to retain its status as a uniquely horrific crime, then the term can't be promiscuously applied to any military situation we don't like'. Speaking of promiscuity, the Israeli military has long been in bed with The New York Times and a host of other US corporate media outlets, which do their best to sanitise Israeli atrocities as self-defence. But as Israel now continues to carry out a uniquely horrific crime in Gaza with the firm backing of the global superpower, Stephens's genocidal journalism is also uniquely horrific. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
