&w=3840&q=100)
Israel kills 27 Palestinians at Gaza aid site; UN calls it 'a war crime'
UN human rights chief Volker Turk said that the "deadly attacks" targeting civilians near aid distribution centres in Gaza amount to "a war crime".
In a statement, Turk said, "Deadly attacks on distraught civilians trying to access the paltry amounts of food aid in Gaza are unconscionable." He further added, "For a third day running, people were killed around an aid distribution site run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. This morning, we have received information that dozens more people were killed and injured."
The Israeli military claimed that soldiers fired at 'a few' individuals who had left the designated route and failed to heed warning shots. The military described them as 'suspects' who allegedly posed a threat to the troops.
This latest episode of violence unfolded roughly 550 yards from the food distribution site and follows another deadly shooting on June 1, when troops opened fire on Palestinians approaching the same location. Palestinian officials said that the attack killed at least 23 people. These incidents add to the growing tensions surrounding the newly implemented Israeli-backed food aid system in Gaza.
Contentious new food aid system
The new aid distribution programme is run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an American-funded private aid group that replaced the United Nations-led system that had operated across 400 sites throughout Gaza. The new system distributes food from a handful of locations in Israeli-controlled southern Gaza, the New York Times reported.
Aid agencies have warned that Gaza is facing severe food shortages after an 80-day blockade on food deliveries between March and May. Israel argues that the new system is essential to prevent Hamas from seizing and reselling aid at inflated prices to finance its war efforts.
'Today's events have shown once again that this new system of aid delivery is dehumanising, dangerous and severely ineffective,' said Claire Manera, an emergency coordinator for Doctors Without Borders, as quoted by the New York Times report.
'It has resulted in deaths and injuries of civilians that could have been prevented," Marena added.
UN chief calls for independent investigation
UN Secretary-General António Guterres voiced deep concern, expressing that he was 'appalled' by reports of Palestinians being killed and wounded while seeking aid. He emphasised the urgent need for an independent investigation into the incident, Reuters reported.
Late Monday, the Israeli military issued fresh evacuation orders targeting several districts in Khan Younis, located in the southern Gaza Strip. The army warned residents that it would take decisive action against militants allegedly operating in these areas. Civilians were directed to move west toward the Mawasi humanitarian zone.
Palestinian and United Nations officials contend that there are no truly safe areas within the enclave. They note that most of Gaza's 2.3 million residents have already been internally displaced during the months of conflict.
The Gaza Health Ministry warned on Tuesday that the latest evacuation orders could jeopardise the functioning of Nasser Hospital, the largest still-operational medical centre in southern Gaza. The ministry stressed that these orders risk the lives of those currently receiving critical treatment.
Israel launched its military campaign in Gaza in response to the October 7, 2023 assault by Hamas-led gunmen, who killed 1,200 people and took 251 hostages, according to Israeli figures. Since then, more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed in the fighting, according to local health authorities, Reuters reported.
(With agency inputs)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
8 minutes ago
- The Print
India, US troops to undertake joint military exercise next month, first after Op Sindoor
The joint exercise comes at a time when Pakistan and US have come closer than ever before under the Trump administration. The US President hosting Pakistan's army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir at the White House to undertaking joint anti-terror talks with Islamabad, both sides have a long way from 2018 when Trump had described Pakistan as a 'safe haven for terrorists'. Termed 'Yudh Abhyas', the annual exercise from 1 to 16 September in US' Alaska will see an all-arms contingent going from the Indian Army led by the Madras Regiment, ThePrint has learnt. New Delhi: Amid heightened tensions between New Delhi and Washington, and a growing synergy between the Pakistan government and US President Donald Trump, Indian and American troops will undertake a joint military exercise next month. 'The upcoming edition will see participation from both sides in high-altitude conditions in Alaska, a factor that adds operational complexity to the drills. Such settings will also allow troops to train in environments that mirror potential conflict zones,' said a source. Launched in 2004 under the framework of the Indo-US defence Cooperation Agreement, 'Yudh Abhyas' alternates annually between locations in India and the US, with the previous edition held in Rajasthan in 2024. In the exercise, the Indian Army and US Army typically take part in tactical field training which covers counter-insurgency, counter-terrorism and peacekeeping scenarios with command post drills that focus on mission planning, joint operations and coordination under United Nations mandates. Beyond such tactics, the exercise also serves as a platform for sharing military technology, operational best practices and disaster relief coordination methods. Separately, India and the US are also preparing to finalise the proposed 10-year framework for the US-India Major Defence Partnership, expected to be signed during the next meeting between Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth. The plan aims to expand cooperation beyond arms purchases to include co-production of systems such as the Javelin ATGMs (anti-tank guided missiles) and the Stryker combat vehicle. Furthermore, amidst tensions with the US, the Ministry of Defence had last week dismissed media reports claiming India had paused talks for major US defence purchases. Calling such reports 'false and fabricated', MoD officials had said procurement cases 'are being progressed as per the extant procedures'. (Edited by Viny Mishra) Also read: India sees the value of US defence ties, but MAGA-style tariffs threaten long-term stability
Time of India
8 minutes ago
- Time of India
Daimler, Volvo, other truckmakers sue California to block emissions rules
Four major truckmakers, including Daimler and Volvo, sued California to block the state from enforcing strict emissions standards that U.S. President Donald Trump declared void in June. Daimler, Volvo, Paccar and International Motors , formerly Navistar, said they have been "caught in the crossfire" after Trump reversed waivers issued during the Biden administration that let California set its own standards. In a complaint filed on Monday, the truckmakers said Trump's rescinding U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approval of California's plan to boost zero-emission heavy-duty truck sales and reduce nitrogen oxide emissions preempted the state's enforcement. They said this included enforcing the Clean Truck Partnership , a 2023 program giving the truckmaking industry flexibility to meet emissions requirements while advancing California's goal of lowering emissions. The truckmakers said the regulatory uncertainty has caused irreparable harm because they cannot plan production in advance without knowing which vehicles they will be permitted to sell. Monday's complaint names the California Air Resources Board and Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom as defendants, and was filed in the federal court in Sacramento, the state's capital. Newsom's office and the board did not respond on Tuesday to requests for comment. On Tuesday evening, the Federal Trade Commission ended an antitrust probe into the Clean Truck Partnership, and said Daimler, Volvo, Paccar and International Motors agreed to avoid future anticompetitive agreements with state regulators. "CARB's regulatory overreach posed a major threat to American trucking," Taylor Hoogendoorn, deputy director of the FTC bureau of competition, said in a statement. Trump, a Republican, is trying to curb California's power under the federal Clean Air Act to set tighter pollution limits than federal law requires, and Newsom's ability to promote electric vehicles as the governor fights climate change. California has received more than 100 waivers under the Clean Air Act since 1970. During his June signing of joint congressional resolutions, Trump also blocked California's effort to end sales of gasoline-only vehicles by 2035. The state is also suing to undo Trump's actions. The case is Daimler Truck North America LLC et al v. California Air Resources Board et al, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, No. 25-02255.
Hindustan Times
8 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
How scared should you be of 'the China squeeze'?
'CHINA BEATS you with trade, Russia beats you with war,' mused President Donald Trump on August 11th. His reflection came mere hours before he extended a fragile trade truce with China for another 90 days. After months of tit-for-tat tariffs, the Sino-American trade war has settled into uneasy stasis. But China is using the time to hone a sophisticated arsenal of devastating economic weaponry. Even as the sides contemplate a broader deal to stabilise the planet's most important trading relationship—worth $659bn each year—China knows that its power is not in what it buys, but in what it sells. That is a far cry from the last time President Xi Jinping and Mr Trump went head-to-head on trade in 2019. Mr Xi agreed to buy more American goods in a deal much criticised in China. It fitted a clumsy pattern. Back then China tended to punish transgressions by cutting access to its consumer market, such as for Australian wine or Lithuanian beef. No longer. Now Mr Xi's economic weaponry squeezes supply chains and the foreign industries which depend on them. Chinese victories have piled up in recent months. First came Mr Xi's masterstroke in April: retaliating against American tariffs by choking off supplies of Chinese-refined rare-earth minerals and magnets critical to American industry. Within weeks, America's $1.5trn carmaking industry, among others, panicked and Mr Trump sought peace. In July the European Union squealed in the lead-up to an EU-Chinese summit after flows of rare-earth minerals and battery technology to Europe slowed without explanation. Speeding them up then became a subject of negotiation. It all appears in line with Mr Xi's very careful plan. In 2020 he called for China to create asymmetric dependencies, by ridding its own supply chains of foreign inputs, while seeking to 'tighten international production chains' dependence on China'. At a meeting held in secret in April that year, Mr Xi told a powerful Communist Party body that such dependencies are 'a powerful countermeasure and deterrent capability against foreigners who would artificially cut off supply [to China].' It wants other countries to depend on it without it depending on them. China's use of economic sanctions of all sorts has reached an all-time high in 2025 according to data collected by Viking Bohman of Tufts University and co-authors. Like American export controls on which China's new regime is modelled, Mr Xi's weapons are hard to resist using, even at the risk of blowback. 'Beijing was not surprised to find it has leverage, but it must be used discreetly,' says Xiang Lanxin of the National University of Singapore. So how does China's economic weaponry work? In recent years Mr Xi's officials have been drawing up a list of goods that China makes and the world needs. After Mr Trump's election last year, China's government steeled itself. It implemented a long-expected export-licensing scheme for more than 700 products, many of which are relied upon by Western armed forces, including advanced manufacturing machines, battery inputs, biotechnology, sensors and critical minerals. The listed items are not limited to inputs for weaponry, however. Many are also critical to industries that officials view as strategic, such as electric vehicles and solar technology. For some of the items, such as minerals and chemical precursors for medicines, Chinese producers hold a near-monopoly over global supply. That is partly a result of market forces concentrating production in China, where it is cheap, scalable and often subsidised, and partly a deliberate strategy to control industrial inputs. Crucially, the rules formalise officials' ability to switch off exports by revoking licences. Chinese producers applying for them must know who is the end user of their goods and report as much. This has allowed China to continue choking supplies of rare-earths to specific Western defence firms, even as it has resumed the flow into America as part of the trade truce. A shortage of heat-resistant magnets, for example, is pushing up costs for such things as jet-fighter engines. The legislation also includes so-called long-arm jurisdiction. It gives officials the ability to mandate that goods manufactured in third countries using Chinese-made inputs cannot be sold to specific end users. When China's policymakers consider which industries to target through such rules, they do not appear to focus on what will cause the most pain, but rather on what will be good for their own firms. Export controls follow a pattern of keeping high-value-added supply chains inside China, says Rebecca Arcesati of MERICS, a Berlin-based think-tank. If officials were to ban exports of finished goods, such as batteries or drones, it could hurt the strength of domestic producers. But by restricting the flow of industrial inputs needed to make those goods, policymakers in fact lower prices on domestic markets, and give their exporters a cost advantage against foreign competition in important sectors. This playbook appears to be in use in India today to prevent it from helping others break free of China's grip. Licences have stopped being approved for advanced manufacturing machines for India, where Apple is creating alternative supply chains. The restricted flow of machine tools and dysprosium, a rare-earth element, have apparently slowed production of iPhones and AirPods, respectively. And in June, Apple's in-country manufacturer, Foxconn, withdrew more than 300 Chinese engineers from India, suggesting that the recent moves were co-ordinated. Giving the game away China's use of its economic weapons this year has mainly been defensive—in response to American trade policies. But it all comes at a cost. Foreign officials and firms now fret about being suddenly cut off from Chinese suppliers, say, in a conflict over Taiwan. Chinese policymakers have done themselves 'enormous reputational damage', laments a foreign business leader in Beijing. Officials in Brussels, Tokyo and Washington are spooked and a flurry of deal-making is under way. That means Mr Xi is likely to confront a drawback that America knows well: the more sanctions are used, the less effective they risk becoming. For a chokehold to be effective, a country must have a near-monopoly on supplying a particular good or service, says Matteo Maggiori of Stanford University. 'Sanctioning power is non-linear, which means that the difference between controlling 95% and 85% of a market is the difference between whether the targets of sanctions can find alternative suppliers, or not,' says Mr Maggiori. He notes that whereas tariffs cause firms to increase prices, export controls tend to spur them to invest in alternatives. Some Chinese officials quietly understand. Certain senior ones have even indicated to European businesses that urgent cases of rare-earth shortages, such as those that would cause a plant to shutter, should be raised with the Ministry of Commerce to find informal work-arounds to keep supplies flowing. Such deft management of the controls by officials may help dull the desire of foreign firms focused on short-term profits to invest in alternatives. Wu Xinbo of the Centre for American Studies at Fudan University told CNN in June that the flow of exports could be dynamically managed. 'If the bilateral relationship is good, then I'll go a bit faster; if not, I'll slow down.' Ultimately China finds itself in a delicate position. It is simultaneously assuring foreigners that its supply chains are reliable while warning them off seeking alternatives. And its diplomats badger trade partners not to give in to American demands that would isolate China from global trade. 'Attempting to decouple and disrupt supply chains,' Mr Xi told foreign bosses in March, 'will only harm others and not benefit oneself.' Wise advice indeed. Subscribers can sign up to Drum Tower, our new weekly newsletter, to understand what the world makes of China—and what China makes of the world.
