Targeting the last lifeline': Israel strikes Red Crescent compound
Three separate strikes all but destroyed the Red Crescent buildings, killed one worker, and wounded two others. The strikes triggered a widespread fire in the compound. A civilian who was helping extinguish the fire was wounded as well when Israeli forces struck again, for the third time. "The repeated strikes during evacuation and rescue operations clearly demonstrate that the shelling was deliberate and systematic," the PRCS statement said.
"Despite being clearly marked with the internationally recognized Red Crescent emblem, the building was deliberately tageted by Israeli forces," the statement reaffirmed.
The society not only blamed the Israeli military for the attack, but the world for its silence over what is going on in Gaza.
"PRCS holds the international community fully responsible for its continued silence in the face of ongoing violations targeting its personnel, facilitirs, and ambulances, despite the emblem's clear proitection under law," the PRCS statement said.
The Red Crescent worker killed on Saturday night, named as Omar Isleem, was the 51st staff member or volunteer killed since the Israeli attacks began on 7 October 2023, following the Hamas-led attacks in Israel on that day.
The International Federation of Red Cross (IFRC) condemned the attack on its Red Crescent headquarters. "I am outraged and devastated by the horrific news from Gaza," IFRC President Kate Forbes said Sunday in a statement.
IFRC Secretary General, Jagan Chapagain, said: "I am horrified and appalled by news of this attack. I cannot stress enough that humanitarian workers and facilities must be protected. It's a moral and legal imperative."
For almost two years, the PRCS has been providing ambulance services and critical healthcare under relentless and extremely dangerous conditions in Gaza, caring for the many wounded amidst continuous hostilities. With the healthcare system on the brink of collapse and medical resources nearly depleted, PRCS teams remain a lifeline for civilians in desperate need of life-saving support. Any attack on their facilities or personnel is an attack on humanitarian assistance itself, the IFRC statement said.
This incident is a stark reminder of the dire and unacceptable conditions facing humanitarian workers and civilians in Gaza, the statement added.
Saturday night's attack coincides with intensified Israeli operations in Gaza and follows the UN's warning of "full-blown famine" in the enclave. Human rights groups accuse Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war—a charge Israel denies.
Historical Parallel: "Cast Thy Bread" and the Policy of Starvation
The current humanitarian crisis in Gaza has drawn comparisons to lesser-documented atrocities during the 1948 Nakba, including Operation Cast Thy Bread. Declassified Israeli archives reveal that biological warfare units poisoned water wells in Palestinian villages and bread supplies in Gaza, sickening thousands to force mass displacement. Historians like Benny Morris (The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem) and research by Haaretz (2013) confirm these acts, though they remain excluded from mainstream Israeli narratives.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
2 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Israeli government votes to dismiss attorney general, escalating standoff with judiciary
JERUSALEM (AP) — The Israeli Cabinet on Monday voted unanimously to fire the attorney general, escalating a long-running standoff between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the judiciary that critics see as a threat to the country's democratic institutions. The Supreme Court froze the move while it considers the legality.
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Israeli government votes to dismiss attorney general, escalating standoff with judiciary
JERUSALEM (AP) — The Israeli Cabinet on Monday voted unanimously to fire the attorney general, escalating a long-running standoff between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the judiciary that critics see as a threat to the country's democratic institutions. The Supreme Court froze the move while it considers the legality. Netanyahu and his supporters accuse Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara of exceeding her powers by blocking decisions by the elected government, including a move to fire the head of Israel's domestic security agency, another ostensibly apolitical office. She has said there is a conflict of interest because Netanyahu and several former aides face a series of criminal investigations. Critics accuse Netanyahu, who is on trial for corruption, of undermining judicial independence and seeking to concentrate power in the hands of his coalition government, the most nationalist and religious in Israel's history. Netanyahu denies the allegations and says he is the victim of a witch hunt by hostile judicial officials egged on by the media. An attempt by Netanyahu's government to overhaul the judiciary in 2023 sparked months of mass protests, and many believe it weakened the country ahead of Hamas' Oct. 7 attack later that year that triggered the war in the Gaza Strip. The Movement for Quality Government in Israel, a prominent watchdog group, said it filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court following Monday's vote. It said more than 15,000 citizens have joined the petition, calling the dismissal 'illegal' and 'unprecedented.' In a statement, the group accused the government of changing dismissal procedures only after failing to legally remove Baharav-Miara under the existing rules. It also cited a conflict of interest related to Netanyahu's ongoing trial. 'This decision turns the role of the attorney general into a political appointment,' the group said. 'The legal battle will continue until this flawed decision is overturned.'
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Texas dispute highlights nation's long history of partisan gerrymandering. Is it legal?
When Democratic lawmakers fled Texas to try to prevent the Republican-led Legislature from redrawing the state's congressional districts, it marked the latest episode in a long national history of gerrymandering. The word 'gerrymander' was coined in America more than 200 years ago as an unflattering means of describing political manipulation in legislative map-making. The word has stood the test of time, in part, because American politics has remained fiercely competitive. Who is responsible for gerrymandering? In many states, like Texas, the state legislature is responsible for drawing congressional districts, subject to the approval or veto of the governor. District maps must be redrawn every 10 years, after each census, to balance the population in districts. But in some states, nothing prevents legislatures from conducting redistricting more often. In an effort to limit gerrymandering, some states have entrusted redistricting to special commissions composed of citizens or bipartisan panels of politicians. Democratic officials in some states with commissions are now talking of trying to sidestep them to counter Republican redistricting in Texas. How does a gerrymander work? If a political party controls both the legislature and governor's office — or has such a large legislative majority that it can override vetoes — it can effectively draw districts to its advantage. One common method of gerrymandering is for a majority party to draw maps that pack voters who support the opposing party into a few districts, thus allowing the majority party to win a greater number of surrounding districts. Another common method is for the majority party to dilute the power of an opposing party's voters by spreading them among multiple districts. Why is it called gerrymandering? The term dates to 1812, when Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed a bill redrawing state Senate districts to benefit the Democratic-Republican Party. Some thought an oddly shaped district looked like a salamander. A newspaper illustration dubbed it 'The Gerry-mander' — a term that later came to describe any district drawn for political advantage. Gerry lost re-election as governor in 1812 but won election that same year as vice president with President James Madison. Is political gerrymandering illegal? Not under the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court, in a 2019 case originating from North Carolina, ruled that federal courts have no authority to decide whether partisan gerrymandering goes too far. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: 'The Constitution supplies no objective measure for assessing whether a districting map treats a political party fairly.' The Supreme Court noted that partisan gerrymandering claims could continue to be decided in state courts under their own constitutions and laws. But some state courts, including North Carolina's highest court, have ruled that they also have no authority to decide partisan gerrymandering claims. Are there any limits on redistricting? Yes. Though it's difficult to challenge legislative districts on political grounds, the Supreme Court has upheld challenges on racial grounds. In a 2023 case from Alabama, the high court said the congressional districts drawn by the state's Republican-led Legislature likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of Black residents. The court let a similar claim proceed in Louisiana. Both states subsequently redrew their districts. What does data show about gerrymandering? Statisticians and political scientists have developed a variety of ways to try to quantify the partisan advantage that may be attributable to gerrymandering. Republicans, who control redistricting in more states than Democrats, used the 2010 census data to create a strong gerrymander. An Associated Press analysis of that decade's redistricting found that Republicans enjoyed a greater political advantage in more states than either party had in the past 50 years. But Democrats responded to match Republican gerrymandering after the 2020 census. The adoption of redistricting commissions also limited gerrymandering in some states. An AP analysis of the 2022 elections — the first under new maps — found that Republicans won just one more U.S. House seat than would have been expected based on the average share of the vote they received nationwide. That was one of the most politically balanced outcomes in years.
