Dozens killed seeking aid in Gaza as Israel considers further military action
The Israeli military said it had fired warning shots when crowds approached its forces.
The latest deaths came as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was expected to announce further military action – and possibly plans for Israel to fully reoccupy Gaza.
Experts say Israel's ongoing military offensive and blockade are already pushing the territory of some two million Palestinians into famine.
Another escalation of the nearly 22-month war could put the lives of countless Palestinians and around 20 living Israeli hostages at risk, and would draw fierce opposition both internationally and within Israel.
Mr Netanyahu's far-right coalition allies have long called for the war to be expanded, and for Israel to eventually take over Gaza, relocate much of its population and rebuild Jewish settlements there.
US President Donald Trump, asked by a reporter on Tuesday whether he supported the reoccupation of Gaza, said he was not aware of the 'suggestion' but that 'it's going to be pretty much up to Israel'.
At least 28 Palestinians were killed overnight and into Wednesday in the Morag Corridor, an Israeli military zone in southern Gaza where UN convoys have been repeatedly overwhelmed by looters and desperate crowds in recent days, and where witnesses say Israeli forces have repeatedly opened fire.
The Israeli military said troops fired warning shots as Palestinians advanced towards them, and that it was not aware of any casualties.
Nasser Hospital, which received the bodies, said another four people were killed in the Teina area, on a route leading to a site in southern Gaza run by the Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), an American contractor.
The Al-Awda Hospital said it received the bodies of six people killed near a GHF site in central Gaza.
Another 12 people were killed in Israeli air strikes, according to the two hospitals.
The GHF said there were no violent incidents at or near its sites.
The military says it tries to avoid harming civilians and blames their deaths on Hamas because its militants are entrenched in heavily populated areas.
Israel facilitated the establishment of four GHF sites in May after blocking the entry of all food, medicine and other goods for two-and-a-half months.
Israeli and US officials said a new system was needed to prevent Hamas from siphoning off humanitarian aid.
The United Nations, which has delivered aid to hundreds of distribution points across Gaza throughout the war when conditions allow, has rejected the new system, saying it forces Palestinians to travel long distances and risk their lives for food, and that it allows Israel to control who gets aid, potentially using it to advance plans for further mass displacement.
The UN human rights office said last week that some 1,400 Palestinians have been killed seeking aid since May, mostly near GHF sites but also along UN convoy routes where trucks have been overwhelmed by crowds.
It says nearly all were killed by Israeli fire.
This week, a group of UN special rapporteurs and independent human rights experts called for the GHF to be disbanded, saying it is 'an utterly disturbing example of how humanitarian relief can be exploited for covert military and geopolitical agendas in serious breach of international law'.
The experts work with the UN but do not represent the world body.
The GHF did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Israeli military says it has only fired warning shots when crowds threatened its forces, and the GHF says its armed contractors have only used pepper spray and fired into the air on some occasions to prevent deadly crowding at its sites.
Israel's blockade and military offensive have made it nearly impossible for anyone to safely deliver aid, and aid groups say recent Israeli measures to facilitate more assistance are far from sufficient.
Hospitals recorded four more malnutrition-related deaths over the last 24 hours, bringing the total to 193 people, including 96 children, since the war began in October 2023, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.
Jordan said Israeli settlers blocked roads and hurled stones at a convoy of four trucks carrying aid bound for Gaza after they drove across the border into the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
Israeli far-right activists have repeatedly sought to halt aid from entering Gaza.
Jordanian government spokesperson Mohammed al-Momani condemned the attack, which he said had shattered the windscreens of the trucks, according to the Jordanian state-run Petra News Agency.
The Israeli military said security forces went to the scene to disperse the gathering and accompanied the trucks to their destination.
Hamas-led militants killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, in the October 7 attack and abducted another 251.
Most of the hostages have been released in ceasefires or other deals.
Of the 50 still held in Gaza, around 20 are believed to be alive.
Israel's retaliatory offensive has killed more than 61,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which does not say how many were fighters or civilians but says around half were women and children.
It is part of the now largely defunct Hamas-run government and staffed by medical professionals.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
23 minutes ago
- Spectator
Deluded Americans are descending on Ireland
The American girl was listing her reasons for moving to Ireland in protest at Donald Trump. 'I cannot stay in a country where Roe vs Wade has been overturned. Did you know abortion is restricted in a lot of states? Oh no, I cannot wait to live in Ireland.' We are becoming used to Americans staying at our B&B while they are house-hunting in Ireland during a fit of pique. We let it all go over our heads. But the question remains. Why are these migrating anti-Trumpers so daft? They are flouncing out of America to come to Ireland in a reverse ferret of how the journey across the Atlantic has been done for centuries. When they explain their reasoning, they couldn't bark up a wronger tree if they tried. Although I would say, in their defence, the way Ireland markets itself is very misleading, with all the rainbow Pride flags and Palestinian embassies. But liberal Americans don't seem to understand that this is the image, tailored for tourism and EU grants, I suspect. The practical reality is very different. As wonderful as the Emerald Isle is, they're going the wrong way across the Atlantic. 'From Galway to Graceland' is the song title. There is no song entitled 'From California to Carlow'. Or Cork. Or Kerry. No young person living in New York or Los Angeles has ever dreamed of leaving the lights, the shops, the theatres and the endless opportunities to get on a boat to Rosslare to begin working on a cattle farm and going down the chipper for their dinner. But a whole load of overprivileged Yanks are descending on Ireland in a huff, invoking their Irish ancestry and sitting in the rain declaring 'This will show Trump!' – while Trump is enjoying White House room service and sunning himself in Palm Beach. I call it the Rosie O'Donnell syndrome. The actress and comedian makes no sense when explaining why she has moved from New York and Hollywood to Dublin, allegedly because she doesn't 'feel safe' surrounded by people who voted for Trump. I often amuse myself during the long, dark West Cork summer evenings by imagining Ms O'Donnell trying to call out a plumber. 'I wonder if she's had a blocked loo yet, or an overflowing gutter,' I remark to the builder boyfriend. 'No bother!' says the BB, impersonating a plumber who is not going to turn up. Ms O'Donnell keeps insisting it's all fantastic. Maybe the locals are saying 'Top of the morning to you, Rosie!' to amuse themselves. But at some point she's going to have someone say the following to her, very impatiently: 'So do you want to go on the waiting list for a call-out for a quote for a new bathroom in six months' time or not?' When the two girls from California came to stay at our B&B, they burst through the kitchen doors as we were eating our dinner and launched into a gushing speech about how much they loved Ireland and felt at home in Ireland, having been here a day. Yeah, all right, I thought. We don't tend to get five-star reviews from people who've just landed that morning. We get five-star reviews from people who've been on the road a week or two, and who fall into our red-hot, full pressure showers with a gratitude that's bordering hysteria. These two were at the idealistic stage. It only took them two minutes to get on to Trump and a pro-choice rant which we could have done without, for we were eating a plate of linguine. One girl stood outside smoking and asked if we had any weed, while the other girl made herself comfortable on the kitchen sofa and started explaining what happens to women in southern US states where abortion is restricted. She could not live in that kind of country. She wanted to live in a society where there was completely unfettered freedom for women in the pro-choice arena. That's why they were in Ireland on a mission to investigate relocating here… The BB looked at me, pausing the forking of linguine into his mouth. 'Er,' I said. And I put my fork down. 'Are you sure we can't offer you some pasta?' No, they said, they had just had pizza. 'Ice cream?' I said. 'Go on. Have some ice cream.' They said that would be nice. So I got five flavours of ice cream out of the freezer and set them on the table with bowls and spoons and the girls sat down at the table. I said: 'You do know Ireland is Catholic, don't you?' They looked blank, then started gushing again. 'We just love it here! We feel right at home, don't we?' 'We do! The people are wonderful! So welcoming! We're going to be so happy here!' While one puffed on a vape and the other ate ice cream, they told us how much they despaired for their country. They said there was some hope for women's rights and liberal ideology, though, because of the nice Muslim Democratic candidate being lined up for mayor of New York. By now, the BB and I were sitting there with our mouths slightly ajar, saying nothing. What was spilling out of their brains made no more sense than if they'd told us they were going to put the raspberry ripple in the oven to keep it frozen. They finished slagging off America, then went to bed saying they had to be up at 7.30 a.m. to go to Blarney Castle. The next day they came down at noon and said they might give the Blarney Stone a miss. They were going just to get in the car and drive and see where the road took them. 'That sounds like an excellent plan,' I said, wondering if the road would be so good as to take them back to the airport.
Spectator
23 minutes ago
- Spectator
Mossad's secret allies in Operation Wrath of God
More than half a century ago Palestinian terrorists stormed the 1972 Munich Olympics, murdering two of the Israeli team and taking another nine hostage. The West German authorities, ill-equipped to deal with such incidents, agreed to fly the terrorists and their hostages to Egypt. Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, offered to mount a rescue operation. The Germans launched their own, resulting in the deaths of a police officer, four of the seven terrorists and all the hostages. One consequence was the Israeli government's Operation Wrath of God, a programme to assassinate any leaders or planners associated with the massacre. Ten missions were organised in Europe, each signed off by the Israeli prime minister Golda Meir on condition that no innocent bystanders were killed. There have been several books about the operation and a 2005 film by Steven Spielberg. Aviva Guttmann's account does not merely rehearse the stories, though each operation is outlined. Rather, she shows how the security services of European nations cooperated in identifying, monitoring and investigating international terrorists in general and how this aided Mossad in its pursuit of vengeance. Cooperation was via the Club de Berne, an intelligence exchange between eight countries founded in 1969 in response to the growth of international terrorism. Soon expanded to include other countries, among them Israel, it handled communications via encrypted telegrams (which Guttmann calls cables) using the code word Kilowatt. Guttmann found these communications in publicly available Swiss archives. She analyses each assassination, showing how the exchange of Kilowatt information helped Mossad identify and locate their targets, how the various security services learned about terrorist tactics, such as the recruitment or duping of young European women, and how hitherto unknown plots to murder or hijack were prevented. The first assassination was only a month after Munich. Wael Zwaiter, a young Palestinian translator in Rome, returned to his flat to find two men on the stairway leading to his apartment. They shot him 11 times, a bullet for each Munich victim. Journalistic opinion at the time and since concluded that Mossad got the wrong man – a bit-part player at best. But the Kilowatt telegrams show that he had an important logistical role. One operation that Mossad very definitely got wrong was in the small Norwegian town of Lillehammer in 1973 when they shot an innocent Moroccan waiter alongside his seven-months pregnant wife. Not only that, but the assassins were caught. Contributing factors to this debacle were an inexperienced, hurriedly assembled team and insufficient research – the poor man was confused with a real terrorist solely on photographic resemblance. Mossad teams generally comprised about 15 people – two to do the killing, two to guard them, two to organise cover and facilities, six to eight to research the target's routines and movements and two to communicate both within the team and back to Israel. Guttmann's principal concern – oft-repeated – is that European security services 'played a vital role in the organisation and execution of Operation Wrath of God'. The extent to which they did so knowingly is not always clear, although they could not have failed to know after Lillehammer. There is no doubt, though, that the information they exchanged with Israel (including their own investigations into Mossad killings) facilitated assassinations within their own borders. 'One would simply not expect Europeans to help kill Palestinians… Governments… failed in their duty to keep safe all citizens,' Guttmann notes. Her disapproval is evident throughout, though not explicitly stated or argued. This is a pity because the opposite case – whether it can be justifiable to murder those seeking to murder you – is nowadays too prevalent to be dismissed without argument. We witness its effects daily on our screens. She concedes, however, that all participants benefitted from the exchange and that Israel was itself a significant contributor. But in claiming that the various agencies 'did not need to respect the same normative considerations as official foreign policy lines' she implies that they acted independently or against their own governments' policies. On this side of the Channel at least, actions by the intelligence agencies, including exchanges with liaison services, require government approval. MI5 does not simply do what it likes. It is not the case that relying on 'foreign intelligence shows… weakness and dependency', as Guttmann says of Mossad. Nor are attributing information to 'friendly services within the region', or claiming a source has 'direct access', forms of boasting; they and other formulae are necessary and conventional guides to assessing reports. She is on firmer ground in questioning the effectiveness of targeted killings, as assassinations are now often called. In the short term they can be highly disruptive and satisfy an understandable thirst for revenge; but in the longer term leaders may be succeeded by those with renewed determination and security. Half a century on, the causes that prompted Wrath of God are with us still.
Spectator
24 minutes ago
- Spectator
My victory over Mohammed Hijab
One of the occupational hazards of being a journalist is being hounded by litigants. Indeed, one of the reasons why much of the media finds it easier to report fluff than to write about difficult issues is that the latter can be costly in terms of money, as well as time. Three years ago I wrote a column in this magazine about some of the downsides of diversity. At the time there had just been serious disturbances in Leicester between local Hindus and Muslims. One of the people who decided to throw himself into the middle of that trouble and to try to make things worse was an online pugilist known as Mohammed Hijab. Hijab had already been filmed intimidating Jews in Golders Green and whipping up a crowd of masked men outside the Israeli embassy in London. In Leicester he chose to make a derogatory speech about Hindus to a crowd of men and then picture himself leading a 'Muslim patrol' in the city. After I pointed this out, Hijab tried to sue me and The Spectator. I retained the excellent Mark Lewis as my lawyer and for years, along with the magazine's brilliant legal team RPC, we watched Hijab perform every known legal and rhetorical contortion. Hijab's lawyers repeatedly dragged out their case, avoided every opportunity to drop it and insisted not only that what I had written was untrue, but that Hijab had suffered serious emotional and mental distress, as well as financial loss, as a result. Hijab seemed to think that he could use the courts not just to pursue me but to debate me. Last month the case was heard in London before Mr Justice Johnson. Many of Hijab's witnesses failed to show up, claiming ill health or having appeared to have skipped the country. Hijab himself spent several days in the witness box. This week the judge delivered his verdict. Mr Justice Johnson found that what I had said in my article was accurate, that Hijab had hurt his own reputation more through his actions and social media posts than I could ever have done with my article, and that the number of lies Hijab told in court were so numerous that his 'evidence overall is worthless'. The judgment also noted that as well as being 'combative and constantly argumentative' when cross-examined by my barrister and The Spectator's barrister, Hijab also demonstrated a 'palpable personal animosity' towards your columnist. The judgment found that Hijab lied about events in Golders Green – which he refused to accept was a Jewish area. It found that he had lied about his demagogic and dangerous actions outside the Israeli embassy in London, that he had lied about events in Leicester, and that he had lied about – and indeed appeared to have concocted – his claim of lost earnings. These lost earnings were alleged to have come from three Muslim organisations, including a supplements company called Nature's Blends. All claimed to have been big readers of my Spectator column, as indeed, Hijab alleged – causing him yet more hurt – was a receptionist at his local gym. Witnesses to his alleged financial loss failed to attend court. Another – Mr Wasway from Nature's Blends – had to try to explain his recent conviction and time spent in prison for making false court claims after staging car accidents. Not many law case reports make good reading in their own right, but this one does. No doubt Hijab will bluster that the findings are unfair and anti-Islamic – just as he tried to claim in court that Tommy Robinson, Benjamin Netanyahu and myself are three examples of non-Hindu Hindu extremists. But the judge in the case said far more against Hijab than I ever did. In court Hijab boasted of having sued other publications. He seemed proud of trying to bully the press, as well as the courts. But time and again he could not stop himself from lying. He claimed that his demagogic street speeches were attempts to publicly debate 'theology' and 'eschatology'. The judge found they were no such thing. Hijab had gone to Jewish areas on the Sabbath and a Hindu area during a volatile moment to engage in a type of vigilantism. As the judge said, Hijab 'was deliberately acting irresponsibly, raising the temperature of a volatile and potentially dangerous situation with provocative and inflammatory language'. The judge found his denials of vigilantism to be 'self-defeating' and 'untenable'. In summary, the judge found that 'the claimant is a street agitator who has whipped up a mob on London's streets, addressed an anti-Israel protest in inflammatory terms, and exacerbated frayed tensions (which had already spilled over into public disorder) between Muslim and Hindu communities in Leicester by whipping up his Muslim followers including by ridiculing Hindus for their belief in reincarnation and describing Hindus as pathetic, weak and cowardly in comparison to whom he would rather be an animal'. The judge ruled that what I wrote three years ago was true and Hijab was a liar. What to conclude about all this? Only that the press in this country often has to put up with Hijab-like figures. Few readers will be aware of the fact that one of the perils of an otherwise wonderful profession is litigious individuals attempting to silence the press from saying things about them that are true. Indeed I know journalists who in recent years have had to spend more time dealing with their lawyers than dealing with their editors. It is inevitable that over time many editors, publications and journalists will decide to take an easier route. Hijab imagined he could use the court system to intimidate me and this magazine. He resolutely and comprehensively failed. It turned out that a London courtroom and a British judge are not X, YouTube or some other online echo-chamber. The court is a place where facts are able to come out and where lies can come out too. I am very proud that The Spectator stood up against this thug and bully, and that a judge has exposed him for everyone to see.
