Netanyahu plots ‘intensive' onslaught on Gaza as millions of Palestinians face famine
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says a new offensive in the Gaza Strip will be an intensive military operation aimed at defeating Hamas but has stopped short of detailing just how much of the enclave's territory will be seized.
An Israeli defence official said the operation would not be launched before US President Donald Trump concludes his visit next week to the Middle East.
The decision, after weeks of faltering efforts to agree a ceasefire with Hamas, underlines the threat that a war heaping international pressure on Israel amid dwindling public support at home could continue with no end in sight.
A report by Israel's public broadcaster Kan, citing officials with knowledge of the details, said the new plan was gradual and would take months, with forces focusing first on one area of the battered enclave.
Netanyahu said in a video message the operation would be 'intensive' and would see more Palestinians in the Gaza Strip moved 'for their own safety'.
He said Israeli troops would not follow previous tactics based on short raids by forces based outside the enclave.
'The intention is the opposite,' he said, echoing comments from other Israeli officials who have said Israel would hold on to the ground it has seized.
Israel to seize more of Gaza Strip
Israeli troops have already taken over an area amounting to about a third of the Gaza Strip, displacing the population and building watchtowers and surveillance posts on cleared ground the military has described as security zones but the new plan would go further.
One Israeli official said the newly approved offensive would seize the entire territory of the Gaza Strip, move its civilian population southward and keep humanitarian aid from falling into Hamas' hands.
The defence official said aid distribution, which has been handled by international aid groups and United Nations organisations, would be transferred to private companies and handed out in the southern area of Rafah once the offensive begins.
The Israeli military, which throughout the war has shown little appetite for occupying the Gaza Strip, declined to comment on the remarks by government officials and politicians.
Israel resumed its offensive in March after the collapse of a US-backed ceasefire that had halted fighting for two months.
Millions face famine as aid blocked from Gaza residents
It has since imposed an aid blockade, drawing warnings from the UN that the 2.3 million population faces imminent famine.
The defence official said Israel would hold on to security zones seized along the Gaza Strip perimeter because they were vital for protecting Israeli communities around the enclave.
But he said there was a 'window of opportunity' for a ceasefire and hostage release deal during Trump's visit.
'If there is no hostage deal, Operation 'Gideon Chariots' will begin with great intensity and will not stop until all its goals are achieved,' he said.
Hamas official Mahmoud Mardawi rejected what he called 'pressure and blackmail'.
'No deal except a comprehensive one, which includes a complete ceasefire, full withdrawal from Gaza, reconstruction of the Gaza Strip and the release of all prisoners from both sides,' he said.
Israel has yet to present a clear vision for a post-war Gaza Strip after a campaign that has displaced most of the enclave's population and left it depending on aid supplies that have been dwindling rapidly since the blockade.
'We are finally going to conquer Gaza'
'We are finally going to conquer Gaza. We are no longer afraid of the word 'occupation',' Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich told a pro-settler conference in an online discussion.
However, opinion polls suggest the Israeli public increasingly wants a deal to bring back the remaining 59 hostages still held in the Gaza Strip and there were angry scenes outside parliament with dozens of protesters scuffling with police.
'All the families are tired,' said Ruby Chen, whose son Itay was killed in the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023.
'All the families have been scared about this new manoeuvring because there is no guarantee that it will get us to where the families want.'
The war was triggered by the Hamas October 7, 2023 attack on Israel that killed 1200 people, mostly civilians, according to Israeli tallies, and involved 251 people being taken hostage.
Israel's ground and air campaign in Gaza has since killed more than 52,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians according to local health authorities, and left much of Gaza in ruins.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
36 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Can Israel still claim self-defence to justify its Gaza war? Here's what the law says
On October 7, 2023, more than 1000 Hamas militants stormed into southern Israel and went on a killing spree, murdering 1,200 men, women and children and abducting another 250 people to take back to Gaza. It was the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. That day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the country, "Israel is at war". The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) immediately began a military campaign to secure the release of the hostages and defeat Hamas. Since that day, more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children. Israel has maintained its response is justified under international law, as every nation has "an inherent right to defend itself", as Netanyahu stated in early 2024. This is based on the right to self-defence in international law, which is outlined in Article 51 of the 1945 United Nations Charter as follows: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[...]" At the start of the war, many nations agreed Israel had a right to defend itself, but how it did so mattered. This would ensure its actions were consistent with international humanitarian law. However, 20 months after the October 7 attacks, fundamental legal issues have arisen around whether this self-defence justification still holds. Can Israel exercise self-defence ad infinitum? Or is it now waging a war of aggression against Palestine? Self-defence has a long history in international law. The modern principles of self-defence were outlined in diplomatic exchanges over an 1837 incident involving an American ship, The Caroline, after it was destroyed by British forces in Canada. Both sides agreed that an exercise of self-defence would have required the British to demonstrate their conduct was not "unreasonable or excessive". The concept of self-defence was also extensively relied on by the Allies in the Second World War in response to German and Japanese aggression. Self-defence was originally framed in the law as a right to respond to a state-based attack. However, this scope has broadened in recent decades to encompass attacks from non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Israel is a legitimate, recognised state in the global community and a member of the United Nations. Its right to self-defence will always remain intact when it faces attacks from its neighbours or non-state actors, such as Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthi rebels in Yemen. However, the right of self-defence is not unlimited. It is constrained by the principles of necessity and proportionality. The necessity test was met in the current war due to the extreme violence of the Hamas attack on October 7 and the taking of hostages. These were actions that could not be ignored and demanded a response, due to the threat Israel continued to face. The proportionality test was also met, initially. Israel's military operation after the attack was strategic in nature, focused on the return of the hostages and the destruction of Hamas to eliminate the immediate threat the group posed. The legal question now is whether Israel is still legitimately exercising self-defence in response to the October 7 attacks. This is a live issue, especially given comments by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz on May 30 that Hamas would be "annihilated" unless a proposed ceasefire deal was accepted. These comments and Israel's ongoing conduct throughout the war raise the question of whether proportionality is still being met. The importance of proportionality in self-defence has been endorsed in recent years by the International Court of Justice. Under international law, proportionality remains relevant throughout a conflict, not just in the initial response to an attack. The principle of proportionality also provides protections for civilians. Military actions are to be directed at the foreign forces who launched the attack, not civilians. While Israel has targeted Hamas fighters in its attacks, including those who orchestrated the October 7 attacks, these actions have caused significant collateral deaths of Palestinian civilians. Therefore, taken overall, the ongoing, 20-month military assault against Hamas, with its high numbers of civilian casualties, credible reports of famine and devastation of Gazan towns and cities, suggests Israel's exercise of self-defence has become disproportionate. The principle of proportionality is also part of international humanitarian law. However, Israel's actions on this front are a separate legal issue that has been the subject of investigation by the International Criminal Court. My aim here is to solely assess the legal question of proportionality in self-defence and international law. Israel could separately argue it is exercising legitimate self-defence to rescue the remaining hostages held by Hamas. However, rescuing nationals as an exercise of self-defence is legally controversial. Israel set a precedent in 1976 when the military rescued 103 Jewish hostages from Entebbe, Uganda, after their aircraft had been hijacked. In current international law, there are very few other examples in which this interpretation of self-defence has been adopted - and no international consensus on its use. In Gaza, the size, scale and duration of Israel's war goes far beyond a hostage rescue operation. Its aim is also to eliminate Hamas. Given this, rescuing hostages as an act of self-defence is arguably not a suitable justification for Israel's ongoing military operations. If Israel can no longer rely on self-defence to justify its Gaza military campaign, how would its actions be characterised under international law? Israel could claim it is undertaking a security operation as an occupying power. While the International Court of Justice said in an advisory opinion last year that Israel was engaged in an illegal occupation of Gaza, the court expressly made clear it was not addressing the circumstances that had evolved since October 7. Israel is indeed continuing to act as an occupying power, even though it has not physically reoccupied all of Gaza. This is irrelevant given the effective control it exercises over the territory. However, the scale of the IDF's operations constitute an armed conflict and well exceed the limited military operations to restore security as an occupying power. Absent any other legitimate basis for Israel's current conduct in Gaza, there is a strong argument that what is occurring is an act of aggression. The UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibit acts of aggression not otherwise justified under international law. These include invasions or attacks by the armed forces of a state, military occupations, bombardments and blockades. All of this has occurred - and continues to occur - in Gaza. The international community has rightly condemned Russia's invasion as an act of aggression in Ukraine. Will it now do the same with Israel's conduct in Gaza? On October 7, 2023, more than 1000 Hamas militants stormed into southern Israel and went on a killing spree, murdering 1,200 men, women and children and abducting another 250 people to take back to Gaza. It was the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. That day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the country, "Israel is at war". The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) immediately began a military campaign to secure the release of the hostages and defeat Hamas. Since that day, more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children. Israel has maintained its response is justified under international law, as every nation has "an inherent right to defend itself", as Netanyahu stated in early 2024. This is based on the right to self-defence in international law, which is outlined in Article 51 of the 1945 United Nations Charter as follows: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[...]" At the start of the war, many nations agreed Israel had a right to defend itself, but how it did so mattered. This would ensure its actions were consistent with international humanitarian law. However, 20 months after the October 7 attacks, fundamental legal issues have arisen around whether this self-defence justification still holds. Can Israel exercise self-defence ad infinitum? Or is it now waging a war of aggression against Palestine? Self-defence has a long history in international law. The modern principles of self-defence were outlined in diplomatic exchanges over an 1837 incident involving an American ship, The Caroline, after it was destroyed by British forces in Canada. Both sides agreed that an exercise of self-defence would have required the British to demonstrate their conduct was not "unreasonable or excessive". The concept of self-defence was also extensively relied on by the Allies in the Second World War in response to German and Japanese aggression. Self-defence was originally framed in the law as a right to respond to a state-based attack. However, this scope has broadened in recent decades to encompass attacks from non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Israel is a legitimate, recognised state in the global community and a member of the United Nations. Its right to self-defence will always remain intact when it faces attacks from its neighbours or non-state actors, such as Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthi rebels in Yemen. However, the right of self-defence is not unlimited. It is constrained by the principles of necessity and proportionality. The necessity test was met in the current war due to the extreme violence of the Hamas attack on October 7 and the taking of hostages. These were actions that could not be ignored and demanded a response, due to the threat Israel continued to face. The proportionality test was also met, initially. Israel's military operation after the attack was strategic in nature, focused on the return of the hostages and the destruction of Hamas to eliminate the immediate threat the group posed. The legal question now is whether Israel is still legitimately exercising self-defence in response to the October 7 attacks. This is a live issue, especially given comments by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz on May 30 that Hamas would be "annihilated" unless a proposed ceasefire deal was accepted. These comments and Israel's ongoing conduct throughout the war raise the question of whether proportionality is still being met. The importance of proportionality in self-defence has been endorsed in recent years by the International Court of Justice. Under international law, proportionality remains relevant throughout a conflict, not just in the initial response to an attack. The principle of proportionality also provides protections for civilians. Military actions are to be directed at the foreign forces who launched the attack, not civilians. While Israel has targeted Hamas fighters in its attacks, including those who orchestrated the October 7 attacks, these actions have caused significant collateral deaths of Palestinian civilians. Therefore, taken overall, the ongoing, 20-month military assault against Hamas, with its high numbers of civilian casualties, credible reports of famine and devastation of Gazan towns and cities, suggests Israel's exercise of self-defence has become disproportionate. The principle of proportionality is also part of international humanitarian law. However, Israel's actions on this front are a separate legal issue that has been the subject of investigation by the International Criminal Court. My aim here is to solely assess the legal question of proportionality in self-defence and international law. Israel could separately argue it is exercising legitimate self-defence to rescue the remaining hostages held by Hamas. However, rescuing nationals as an exercise of self-defence is legally controversial. Israel set a precedent in 1976 when the military rescued 103 Jewish hostages from Entebbe, Uganda, after their aircraft had been hijacked. In current international law, there are very few other examples in which this interpretation of self-defence has been adopted - and no international consensus on its use. In Gaza, the size, scale and duration of Israel's war goes far beyond a hostage rescue operation. Its aim is also to eliminate Hamas. Given this, rescuing hostages as an act of self-defence is arguably not a suitable justification for Israel's ongoing military operations. If Israel can no longer rely on self-defence to justify its Gaza military campaign, how would its actions be characterised under international law? Israel could claim it is undertaking a security operation as an occupying power. While the International Court of Justice said in an advisory opinion last year that Israel was engaged in an illegal occupation of Gaza, the court expressly made clear it was not addressing the circumstances that had evolved since October 7. Israel is indeed continuing to act as an occupying power, even though it has not physically reoccupied all of Gaza. This is irrelevant given the effective control it exercises over the territory. However, the scale of the IDF's operations constitute an armed conflict and well exceed the limited military operations to restore security as an occupying power. Absent any other legitimate basis for Israel's current conduct in Gaza, there is a strong argument that what is occurring is an act of aggression. The UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibit acts of aggression not otherwise justified under international law. These include invasions or attacks by the armed forces of a state, military occupations, bombardments and blockades. All of this has occurred - and continues to occur - in Gaza. The international community has rightly condemned Russia's invasion as an act of aggression in Ukraine. Will it now do the same with Israel's conduct in Gaza? On October 7, 2023, more than 1000 Hamas militants stormed into southern Israel and went on a killing spree, murdering 1,200 men, women and children and abducting another 250 people to take back to Gaza. It was the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. That day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the country, "Israel is at war". The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) immediately began a military campaign to secure the release of the hostages and defeat Hamas. Since that day, more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children. Israel has maintained its response is justified under international law, as every nation has "an inherent right to defend itself", as Netanyahu stated in early 2024. This is based on the right to self-defence in international law, which is outlined in Article 51 of the 1945 United Nations Charter as follows: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[...]" At the start of the war, many nations agreed Israel had a right to defend itself, but how it did so mattered. This would ensure its actions were consistent with international humanitarian law. However, 20 months after the October 7 attacks, fundamental legal issues have arisen around whether this self-defence justification still holds. Can Israel exercise self-defence ad infinitum? Or is it now waging a war of aggression against Palestine? Self-defence has a long history in international law. The modern principles of self-defence were outlined in diplomatic exchanges over an 1837 incident involving an American ship, The Caroline, after it was destroyed by British forces in Canada. Both sides agreed that an exercise of self-defence would have required the British to demonstrate their conduct was not "unreasonable or excessive". The concept of self-defence was also extensively relied on by the Allies in the Second World War in response to German and Japanese aggression. Self-defence was originally framed in the law as a right to respond to a state-based attack. However, this scope has broadened in recent decades to encompass attacks from non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Israel is a legitimate, recognised state in the global community and a member of the United Nations. Its right to self-defence will always remain intact when it faces attacks from its neighbours or non-state actors, such as Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthi rebels in Yemen. However, the right of self-defence is not unlimited. It is constrained by the principles of necessity and proportionality. The necessity test was met in the current war due to the extreme violence of the Hamas attack on October 7 and the taking of hostages. These were actions that could not be ignored and demanded a response, due to the threat Israel continued to face. The proportionality test was also met, initially. Israel's military operation after the attack was strategic in nature, focused on the return of the hostages and the destruction of Hamas to eliminate the immediate threat the group posed. The legal question now is whether Israel is still legitimately exercising self-defence in response to the October 7 attacks. This is a live issue, especially given comments by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz on May 30 that Hamas would be "annihilated" unless a proposed ceasefire deal was accepted. These comments and Israel's ongoing conduct throughout the war raise the question of whether proportionality is still being met. The importance of proportionality in self-defence has been endorsed in recent years by the International Court of Justice. Under international law, proportionality remains relevant throughout a conflict, not just in the initial response to an attack. The principle of proportionality also provides protections for civilians. Military actions are to be directed at the foreign forces who launched the attack, not civilians. While Israel has targeted Hamas fighters in its attacks, including those who orchestrated the October 7 attacks, these actions have caused significant collateral deaths of Palestinian civilians. Therefore, taken overall, the ongoing, 20-month military assault against Hamas, with its high numbers of civilian casualties, credible reports of famine and devastation of Gazan towns and cities, suggests Israel's exercise of self-defence has become disproportionate. The principle of proportionality is also part of international humanitarian law. However, Israel's actions on this front are a separate legal issue that has been the subject of investigation by the International Criminal Court. My aim here is to solely assess the legal question of proportionality in self-defence and international law. Israel could separately argue it is exercising legitimate self-defence to rescue the remaining hostages held by Hamas. However, rescuing nationals as an exercise of self-defence is legally controversial. Israel set a precedent in 1976 when the military rescued 103 Jewish hostages from Entebbe, Uganda, after their aircraft had been hijacked. In current international law, there are very few other examples in which this interpretation of self-defence has been adopted - and no international consensus on its use. In Gaza, the size, scale and duration of Israel's war goes far beyond a hostage rescue operation. Its aim is also to eliminate Hamas. Given this, rescuing hostages as an act of self-defence is arguably not a suitable justification for Israel's ongoing military operations. If Israel can no longer rely on self-defence to justify its Gaza military campaign, how would its actions be characterised under international law? Israel could claim it is undertaking a security operation as an occupying power. While the International Court of Justice said in an advisory opinion last year that Israel was engaged in an illegal occupation of Gaza, the court expressly made clear it was not addressing the circumstances that had evolved since October 7. Israel is indeed continuing to act as an occupying power, even though it has not physically reoccupied all of Gaza. This is irrelevant given the effective control it exercises over the territory. However, the scale of the IDF's operations constitute an armed conflict and well exceed the limited military operations to restore security as an occupying power. Absent any other legitimate basis for Israel's current conduct in Gaza, there is a strong argument that what is occurring is an act of aggression. The UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibit acts of aggression not otherwise justified under international law. These include invasions or attacks by the armed forces of a state, military occupations, bombardments and blockades. All of this has occurred - and continues to occur - in Gaza. The international community has rightly condemned Russia's invasion as an act of aggression in Ukraine. Will it now do the same with Israel's conduct in Gaza? On October 7, 2023, more than 1000 Hamas militants stormed into southern Israel and went on a killing spree, murdering 1,200 men, women and children and abducting another 250 people to take back to Gaza. It was the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. That day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the country, "Israel is at war". The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) immediately began a military campaign to secure the release of the hostages and defeat Hamas. Since that day, more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children. Israel has maintained its response is justified under international law, as every nation has "an inherent right to defend itself", as Netanyahu stated in early 2024. This is based on the right to self-defence in international law, which is outlined in Article 51 of the 1945 United Nations Charter as follows: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[...]" At the start of the war, many nations agreed Israel had a right to defend itself, but how it did so mattered. This would ensure its actions were consistent with international humanitarian law. However, 20 months after the October 7 attacks, fundamental legal issues have arisen around whether this self-defence justification still holds. Can Israel exercise self-defence ad infinitum? Or is it now waging a war of aggression against Palestine? Self-defence has a long history in international law. The modern principles of self-defence were outlined in diplomatic exchanges over an 1837 incident involving an American ship, The Caroline, after it was destroyed by British forces in Canada. Both sides agreed that an exercise of self-defence would have required the British to demonstrate their conduct was not "unreasonable or excessive". The concept of self-defence was also extensively relied on by the Allies in the Second World War in response to German and Japanese aggression. Self-defence was originally framed in the law as a right to respond to a state-based attack. However, this scope has broadened in recent decades to encompass attacks from non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Israel is a legitimate, recognised state in the global community and a member of the United Nations. Its right to self-defence will always remain intact when it faces attacks from its neighbours or non-state actors, such as Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthi rebels in Yemen. However, the right of self-defence is not unlimited. It is constrained by the principles of necessity and proportionality. The necessity test was met in the current war due to the extreme violence of the Hamas attack on October 7 and the taking of hostages. These were actions that could not be ignored and demanded a response, due to the threat Israel continued to face. The proportionality test was also met, initially. Israel's military operation after the attack was strategic in nature, focused on the return of the hostages and the destruction of Hamas to eliminate the immediate threat the group posed. The legal question now is whether Israel is still legitimately exercising self-defence in response to the October 7 attacks. This is a live issue, especially given comments by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz on May 30 that Hamas would be "annihilated" unless a proposed ceasefire deal was accepted. These comments and Israel's ongoing conduct throughout the war raise the question of whether proportionality is still being met. The importance of proportionality in self-defence has been endorsed in recent years by the International Court of Justice. Under international law, proportionality remains relevant throughout a conflict, not just in the initial response to an attack. The principle of proportionality also provides protections for civilians. Military actions are to be directed at the foreign forces who launched the attack, not civilians. While Israel has targeted Hamas fighters in its attacks, including those who orchestrated the October 7 attacks, these actions have caused significant collateral deaths of Palestinian civilians. Therefore, taken overall, the ongoing, 20-month military assault against Hamas, with its high numbers of civilian casualties, credible reports of famine and devastation of Gazan towns and cities, suggests Israel's exercise of self-defence has become disproportionate. The principle of proportionality is also part of international humanitarian law. However, Israel's actions on this front are a separate legal issue that has been the subject of investigation by the International Criminal Court. My aim here is to solely assess the legal question of proportionality in self-defence and international law. Israel could separately argue it is exercising legitimate self-defence to rescue the remaining hostages held by Hamas. However, rescuing nationals as an exercise of self-defence is legally controversial. Israel set a precedent in 1976 when the military rescued 103 Jewish hostages from Entebbe, Uganda, after their aircraft had been hijacked. In current international law, there are very few other examples in which this interpretation of self-defence has been adopted - and no international consensus on its use. In Gaza, the size, scale and duration of Israel's war goes far beyond a hostage rescue operation. Its aim is also to eliminate Hamas. Given this, rescuing hostages as an act of self-defence is arguably not a suitable justification for Israel's ongoing military operations. If Israel can no longer rely on self-defence to justify its Gaza military campaign, how would its actions be characterised under international law? Israel could claim it is undertaking a security operation as an occupying power. While the International Court of Justice said in an advisory opinion last year that Israel was engaged in an illegal occupation of Gaza, the court expressly made clear it was not addressing the circumstances that had evolved since October 7. Israel is indeed continuing to act as an occupying power, even though it has not physically reoccupied all of Gaza. This is irrelevant given the effective control it exercises over the territory. However, the scale of the IDF's operations constitute an armed conflict and well exceed the limited military operations to restore security as an occupying power. Absent any other legitimate basis for Israel's current conduct in Gaza, there is a strong argument that what is occurring is an act of aggression. The UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibit acts of aggression not otherwise justified under international law. These include invasions or attacks by the armed forces of a state, military occupations, bombardments and blockades. All of this has occurred - and continues to occur - in Gaza. The international community has rightly condemned Russia's invasion as an act of aggression in Ukraine. Will it now do the same with Israel's conduct in Gaza?
The Advertiser
36 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Australian journo hit with rubber bullet at US protest
A senator wants the prime minister to seek an urgent explanation from US President Donald Trump after police shot an Australian TV reporter with a rubber bullet in Los Angeles. Nine Network's US correspondent Lauren Tomasi was recording a piece to camera about protests against immigration raids when she appeared to be struck in the leg, with the incident caught live on camera. "After hours of standing off, this situation has now rapidly deteriorated, the LAPD moving in on horseback, firing rubber bullets at protesters, moving them on through the heart of LA," Ms Tomasi said. Seconds later, she was shot with a rubber bullet. Footage of the incident appeared to show an officer taking aim in the direction of Ms Tomasi and then firing. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, Greens spokesperson for media and communications, condemned the shooting. "US authorities shooting an Australian journalist is simply shocking," she said. "It is completely unacceptable and must be called out. "The Prime Minister must seek an urgent explanation from the US administration." Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has yet to speak publicly on the incident. Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles declined to comment on US immigration policy under President Trump, but said he was glad to hear Ms Tomasi was OK. "At the end of the day, how America operates its own immigration system is really a matter for the United States, and how it manages its own internal law enforcement is a matter for the United States," he told Sky News. It follows a similar incident in 2020 when Seven Network correspondent Amelia Brace was shot by US police with non-lethal rounds and struck with a truncheon during a Black Lives Matter protest. Ms Brace and cameraman Tim Myers were in Washington DC's Lafayette Square when officers began aggressively clearing the area ahead of a surprise appearance by Mr Trump. She later told US Congress she was shot in the legs and backside and Mr Myers was hit in the neck by non-lethal rounds from a police automatic weapon. A senator wants the prime minister to seek an urgent explanation from US President Donald Trump after police shot an Australian TV reporter with a rubber bullet in Los Angeles. Nine Network's US correspondent Lauren Tomasi was recording a piece to camera about protests against immigration raids when she appeared to be struck in the leg, with the incident caught live on camera. "After hours of standing off, this situation has now rapidly deteriorated, the LAPD moving in on horseback, firing rubber bullets at protesters, moving them on through the heart of LA," Ms Tomasi said. Seconds later, she was shot with a rubber bullet. Footage of the incident appeared to show an officer taking aim in the direction of Ms Tomasi and then firing. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, Greens spokesperson for media and communications, condemned the shooting. "US authorities shooting an Australian journalist is simply shocking," she said. "It is completely unacceptable and must be called out. "The Prime Minister must seek an urgent explanation from the US administration." Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has yet to speak publicly on the incident. Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles declined to comment on US immigration policy under President Trump, but said he was glad to hear Ms Tomasi was OK. "At the end of the day, how America operates its own immigration system is really a matter for the United States, and how it manages its own internal law enforcement is a matter for the United States," he told Sky News. It follows a similar incident in 2020 when Seven Network correspondent Amelia Brace was shot by US police with non-lethal rounds and struck with a truncheon during a Black Lives Matter protest. Ms Brace and cameraman Tim Myers were in Washington DC's Lafayette Square when officers began aggressively clearing the area ahead of a surprise appearance by Mr Trump. She later told US Congress she was shot in the legs and backside and Mr Myers was hit in the neck by non-lethal rounds from a police automatic weapon. A senator wants the prime minister to seek an urgent explanation from US President Donald Trump after police shot an Australian TV reporter with a rubber bullet in Los Angeles. Nine Network's US correspondent Lauren Tomasi was recording a piece to camera about protests against immigration raids when she appeared to be struck in the leg, with the incident caught live on camera. "After hours of standing off, this situation has now rapidly deteriorated, the LAPD moving in on horseback, firing rubber bullets at protesters, moving them on through the heart of LA," Ms Tomasi said. Seconds later, she was shot with a rubber bullet. Footage of the incident appeared to show an officer taking aim in the direction of Ms Tomasi and then firing. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, Greens spokesperson for media and communications, condemned the shooting. "US authorities shooting an Australian journalist is simply shocking," she said. "It is completely unacceptable and must be called out. "The Prime Minister must seek an urgent explanation from the US administration." Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has yet to speak publicly on the incident. Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles declined to comment on US immigration policy under President Trump, but said he was glad to hear Ms Tomasi was OK. "At the end of the day, how America operates its own immigration system is really a matter for the United States, and how it manages its own internal law enforcement is a matter for the United States," he told Sky News. It follows a similar incident in 2020 when Seven Network correspondent Amelia Brace was shot by US police with non-lethal rounds and struck with a truncheon during a Black Lives Matter protest. Ms Brace and cameraman Tim Myers were in Washington DC's Lafayette Square when officers began aggressively clearing the area ahead of a surprise appearance by Mr Trump. She later told US Congress she was shot in the legs and backside and Mr Myers was hit in the neck by non-lethal rounds from a police automatic weapon. A senator wants the prime minister to seek an urgent explanation from US President Donald Trump after police shot an Australian TV reporter with a rubber bullet in Los Angeles. Nine Network's US correspondent Lauren Tomasi was recording a piece to camera about protests against immigration raids when she appeared to be struck in the leg, with the incident caught live on camera. "After hours of standing off, this situation has now rapidly deteriorated, the LAPD moving in on horseback, firing rubber bullets at protesters, moving them on through the heart of LA," Ms Tomasi said. Seconds later, she was shot with a rubber bullet. Footage of the incident appeared to show an officer taking aim in the direction of Ms Tomasi and then firing. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, Greens spokesperson for media and communications, condemned the shooting. "US authorities shooting an Australian journalist is simply shocking," she said. "It is completely unacceptable and must be called out. "The Prime Minister must seek an urgent explanation from the US administration." Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has yet to speak publicly on the incident. Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles declined to comment on US immigration policy under President Trump, but said he was glad to hear Ms Tomasi was OK. "At the end of the day, how America operates its own immigration system is really a matter for the United States, and how it manages its own internal law enforcement is a matter for the United States," he told Sky News. It follows a similar incident in 2020 when Seven Network correspondent Amelia Brace was shot by US police with non-lethal rounds and struck with a truncheon during a Black Lives Matter protest. Ms Brace and cameraman Tim Myers were in Washington DC's Lafayette Square when officers began aggressively clearing the area ahead of a surprise appearance by Mr Trump. She later told US Congress she was shot in the legs and backside and Mr Myers was hit in the neck by non-lethal rounds from a police automatic weapon.
The Advertiser
37 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Australian protest as activist boat hits Gaza blockade
Protesters have demonstrated outside Anthony Albanese's electorate office after Israel blocked a boat carrying desperately needed aid to Gaza. Climate advocate Greta Thunberg was among a dozen activists on board the Freedom Flotilla Coalition's vessel Madleen when it was intercepted by Israeli forces in the Mediterranean Sea early on Monday. They were prevented from entering the blockaded enclave. Students for Palestine, one of the groups that called for a snap protest at the prime minister's electorate office in Sydney among others around the country, said Australia should expel the Israeli ambassador. "The Madleen crew represent the hopes of all those who stand for humanity against the starvation and bombardment of Gazans, and they must be immediately released," the group's co-convenor Jasmine Duff said on Monday. Carrying placards and umbrellas on a rainy Monday they vocalised their anger and demanded Australia diplomatically increase pressure on Israel. "We call on Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong to immediately expel the Israeli ambassador, cut all military and economic ties with Israel, and pressure Israel to release the illegally kidnapped crew," Ms Duff added. The Sicily-based coalition said the humanitarian boat was "unlawfully boarded, its unarmed civilian crew abducted, and its life-saving cargo - including baby formula, food and medical supplies - confiscated." But the Israeli foreign ministry pointed the finger at Thunberg saying it was a "selfie yacht of celebrities" and those on board would be deported to their home countries. The progressive Jewish Council of Australia also urged Australia to place sanctions on Israel. "The world is watching," the council's executive officer Sarah Schwartz said. "We don't have to be a 'major player' to show our commitment to the basic humanity of Palestinians and be part of the global movement to pressure Israel through sanctions to comply with international law," The lack of food reaching Gaza caused by Israeli aid obstruction is leaving hundreds of thousands of Palestinians "vulnerable to starvation", the United Nations warned earlier in June. More than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel's ongoing military offensive, according to Gaza health officials. The retaliatory campaign was in response to Hamas militants killing 1200 Israelis and capturing more than 250 hostages in October 2023. Israel has imposed a naval blockade on the coastal enclave since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007. Protesters have demonstrated outside Anthony Albanese's electorate office after Israel blocked a boat carrying desperately needed aid to Gaza. Climate advocate Greta Thunberg was among a dozen activists on board the Freedom Flotilla Coalition's vessel Madleen when it was intercepted by Israeli forces in the Mediterranean Sea early on Monday. They were prevented from entering the blockaded enclave. Students for Palestine, one of the groups that called for a snap protest at the prime minister's electorate office in Sydney among others around the country, said Australia should expel the Israeli ambassador. "The Madleen crew represent the hopes of all those who stand for humanity against the starvation and bombardment of Gazans, and they must be immediately released," the group's co-convenor Jasmine Duff said on Monday. Carrying placards and umbrellas on a rainy Monday they vocalised their anger and demanded Australia diplomatically increase pressure on Israel. "We call on Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong to immediately expel the Israeli ambassador, cut all military and economic ties with Israel, and pressure Israel to release the illegally kidnapped crew," Ms Duff added. The Sicily-based coalition said the humanitarian boat was "unlawfully boarded, its unarmed civilian crew abducted, and its life-saving cargo - including baby formula, food and medical supplies - confiscated." But the Israeli foreign ministry pointed the finger at Thunberg saying it was a "selfie yacht of celebrities" and those on board would be deported to their home countries. The progressive Jewish Council of Australia also urged Australia to place sanctions on Israel. "The world is watching," the council's executive officer Sarah Schwartz said. "We don't have to be a 'major player' to show our commitment to the basic humanity of Palestinians and be part of the global movement to pressure Israel through sanctions to comply with international law," The lack of food reaching Gaza caused by Israeli aid obstruction is leaving hundreds of thousands of Palestinians "vulnerable to starvation", the United Nations warned earlier in June. More than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel's ongoing military offensive, according to Gaza health officials. The retaliatory campaign was in response to Hamas militants killing 1200 Israelis and capturing more than 250 hostages in October 2023. Israel has imposed a naval blockade on the coastal enclave since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007. Protesters have demonstrated outside Anthony Albanese's electorate office after Israel blocked a boat carrying desperately needed aid to Gaza. Climate advocate Greta Thunberg was among a dozen activists on board the Freedom Flotilla Coalition's vessel Madleen when it was intercepted by Israeli forces in the Mediterranean Sea early on Monday. They were prevented from entering the blockaded enclave. Students for Palestine, one of the groups that called for a snap protest at the prime minister's electorate office in Sydney among others around the country, said Australia should expel the Israeli ambassador. "The Madleen crew represent the hopes of all those who stand for humanity against the starvation and bombardment of Gazans, and they must be immediately released," the group's co-convenor Jasmine Duff said on Monday. Carrying placards and umbrellas on a rainy Monday they vocalised their anger and demanded Australia diplomatically increase pressure on Israel. "We call on Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong to immediately expel the Israeli ambassador, cut all military and economic ties with Israel, and pressure Israel to release the illegally kidnapped crew," Ms Duff added. The Sicily-based coalition said the humanitarian boat was "unlawfully boarded, its unarmed civilian crew abducted, and its life-saving cargo - including baby formula, food and medical supplies - confiscated." But the Israeli foreign ministry pointed the finger at Thunberg saying it was a "selfie yacht of celebrities" and those on board would be deported to their home countries. The progressive Jewish Council of Australia also urged Australia to place sanctions on Israel. "The world is watching," the council's executive officer Sarah Schwartz said. "We don't have to be a 'major player' to show our commitment to the basic humanity of Palestinians and be part of the global movement to pressure Israel through sanctions to comply with international law," The lack of food reaching Gaza caused by Israeli aid obstruction is leaving hundreds of thousands of Palestinians "vulnerable to starvation", the United Nations warned earlier in June. More than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel's ongoing military offensive, according to Gaza health officials. The retaliatory campaign was in response to Hamas militants killing 1200 Israelis and capturing more than 250 hostages in October 2023. Israel has imposed a naval blockade on the coastal enclave since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007. Protesters have demonstrated outside Anthony Albanese's electorate office after Israel blocked a boat carrying desperately needed aid to Gaza. Climate advocate Greta Thunberg was among a dozen activists on board the Freedom Flotilla Coalition's vessel Madleen when it was intercepted by Israeli forces in the Mediterranean Sea early on Monday. They were prevented from entering the blockaded enclave. Students for Palestine, one of the groups that called for a snap protest at the prime minister's electorate office in Sydney among others around the country, said Australia should expel the Israeli ambassador. "The Madleen crew represent the hopes of all those who stand for humanity against the starvation and bombardment of Gazans, and they must be immediately released," the group's co-convenor Jasmine Duff said on Monday. Carrying placards and umbrellas on a rainy Monday they vocalised their anger and demanded Australia diplomatically increase pressure on Israel. "We call on Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong to immediately expel the Israeli ambassador, cut all military and economic ties with Israel, and pressure Israel to release the illegally kidnapped crew," Ms Duff added. The Sicily-based coalition said the humanitarian boat was "unlawfully boarded, its unarmed civilian crew abducted, and its life-saving cargo - including baby formula, food and medical supplies - confiscated." But the Israeli foreign ministry pointed the finger at Thunberg saying it was a "selfie yacht of celebrities" and those on board would be deported to their home countries. The progressive Jewish Council of Australia also urged Australia to place sanctions on Israel. "The world is watching," the council's executive officer Sarah Schwartz said. "We don't have to be a 'major player' to show our commitment to the basic humanity of Palestinians and be part of the global movement to pressure Israel through sanctions to comply with international law," The lack of food reaching Gaza caused by Israeli aid obstruction is leaving hundreds of thousands of Palestinians "vulnerable to starvation", the United Nations warned earlier in June. More than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel's ongoing military offensive, according to Gaza health officials. The retaliatory campaign was in response to Hamas militants killing 1200 Israelis and capturing more than 250 hostages in October 2023. Israel has imposed a naval blockade on the coastal enclave since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007.
