Netanyahu denounces report IDF soldiers had orders to shoot Gaza aid-seekers
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz have rejected a report in the left-leaning Israeli daily Haaretz that claimed Israeli soldiers were given orders to shoot at Palestinians approaching aid sites inside Gaza.
More than 500 Palestinians have been killed and hundreds more wounded while seeking food since the newly formed US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) began distributing aid at four main hubs across the territory about a month ago, according to Gaza's health ministry.
Thousands of Palestinians walk for hours to reach the hubs, moving through Israeli military zones where Palestinian witnesses say Israeli troops have opened fire on the aid seekers.
Haaretz quoted unnamed Israeli soldiers as saying they were told to fire at the crowds to keep them back, using unnecessary lethal force against people who appeared to pose no threat.
Mr Netanyahu and Mr Katz on Friday called the allegations in Haaretz's report "malicious falsehoods designed to defame" the Israeli military.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) confirmed it was investigating incidents in which civilians had been harmed while approaching the sites, but rejected any allegations "of deliberate fire toward civilians".
GHF, meanwhile, said on social media it was "not aware of any of the incidents" in the report, but the allegations were too grave to ignore.
"We therefore call on Israel to investigate them and transparently publish the results in a timely manner," the group said.
Palestinians trying to find food have frequently encountered chaos and violence on their way to, and on arrival at, GHF aid sites.
In one such incident on Thursday, 18 people were killed after an Israeli air strike hit a street in central Gaza's Deir al Balah, where a crowd was collecting bags of flour from a Palestinian police unit, witnesses said.
The police unit had confiscated the food supplies from gangs that have been looting aid convoys across Gaza in recent weeks.
Tens of thousands of Palestinians are desperate for food after Israel imposed a two-and-a-half month aid blockade on Gaza, preventing any food, water and medicine from entering the territory pending the set-up of the GHF sites.
Looting of aid has escalated since Israel resumed entry of supplies into Gaza in mid-May, albeit only a fraction of what is needed.
Shifa Hospital director Mohamed Abu Selmyiha told the Associated Press a further eight bodies arrived on Friday from a GHF site in Netzarim, although it was not immediately clear how they had died.
A GHF spokesperson challenged that assertion, saying they did not know of any incidents at or near their sites on Friday.
Twenty other bodies Dr Semlyiha's hospital received on Friday were the result of air strikes across northern Gaza, he said.
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres on Friday urged a return to the UN's long-tested distribution system for aid in Gaza, where he said Israeli military operations have created "a humanitarian crisis of horrific proportions".
"The search for food must never be a death sentence," Mr Guterres told UN reporters, while also urging Israeli and Palestinian leaders to show "political courage" and agree to a ceasefire like the one forged between Israel and Iran.
Humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders also condemned the GHF aid distribution system as "a slaughter masquerading as humanitarian aid", and called for it to be immediately shut down.
An association of Gaza's influential clans and tribes said on Wednesday they had started an independent effort to guard aid convoys to prevent looting.
The National Gathering of Palestinian Clans and Tribes said it helped escort a rare shipment of flour that entered northern Gaza that evening.
AP/Reuters
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
14 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
How does the Lattouf judgment affect employees' freedom of speech?
Those hoping the Federal Court's findings in the Antoinette Lattouf case will go some way to answering a question surrounding the rights of workers to express their political opinion ‒ and the rights of employers to prevent them ‒ will probably be disappointed. Lattouf's case was mounted on the basis that her employment contract was unlawfully terminated, in breach of section 772 of the Fair Work Act, due to her expression of her political opinion, or, alternatively, her race and political opinion. A secondary but related issue was that the ABC breached the staff enterprise agreement. The ABC relied on the defence that it had terminated Lattouf's employment for reasons that did not include her political opinion, race or national extraction but because of her failure to follow a direction from her producer not to post anything about the Israel-Gaza war and because she had contravened the ABC's 'Personal use of social media - Guidelines'. The court found in Lattouf's favour, noting that Lattouf had not been given a direction, but simply general guidance. It also found that the ABC was ultimately unable to identify any breaches of the social media guidelines or editorial guidelines or policies. The decision is helpful in highlighting that employers are in general able to issue directions to employees about publicly expressing their views. The judgment refers to the established right of employers to issue 'lawful and reasonable' directions. It also suggests that these directions must be made clearly and, ideally, rely on established and accessible policies. Loading Doing so enables employers to point to a specific employee breach if they wish to take disciplinary action. If they can't, then they leave themselves open, as did the ABC, to accusations of discrimination under provisions such as section 772. The decision is helpful, but not groundbreaking, leaving one big question unanswered: the one we are still asking after a series of messy disputes ‒ think Folau, Khawaja, Gillham to name some recent examples. That is, how far can employers go in attempting to control employees' 'freedom of speech'? In the Lattouf case, the Federal Court was not required to make any finding on this. It was required only to consider whether a direction was issued or a policy in place, not when the making of such directions or policies itself impinges on an individual's freedom of political expression. In thinking about this question, we must consider the delicate balance between employers' rights to protect their reputation and their obligation to maintain a safe workplace and employees' rights to self-expression. Where is the line that can't be crossed? And what are the institutional protections that might come into play in deciding where to draw that line?
The Age
14 minutes ago
- The Age
How does the Lattouf judgment affect employees' freedom of speech?
Those hoping the Federal Court's findings in the Antoinette Lattouf case will go some way to answering a question surrounding the rights of workers to express their political opinion ‒ and the rights of employers to prevent them ‒ will probably be disappointed. Lattouf's case was mounted on the basis that her employment contract was unlawfully terminated, in breach of section 772 of the Fair Work Act, due to her expression of her political opinion, or, alternatively, her race and political opinion. A secondary but related issue was that the ABC breached the staff enterprise agreement. The ABC relied on the defence that it had terminated Lattouf's employment for reasons that did not include her political opinion, race or national extraction but because of her failure to follow a direction from her producer not to post anything about the Israel-Gaza war and because she had contravened the ABC's 'Personal use of social media - Guidelines'. The court found in Lattouf's favour, noting that Lattouf had not been given a direction, but simply general guidance. It also found that the ABC was ultimately unable to identify any breaches of the social media guidelines or editorial guidelines or policies. The decision is helpful in highlighting that employers are in general able to issue directions to employees about publicly expressing their views. The judgment refers to the established right of employers to issue 'lawful and reasonable' directions. It also suggests that these directions must be made clearly and, ideally, rely on established and accessible policies. Loading Doing so enables employers to point to a specific employee breach if they wish to take disciplinary action. If they can't, then they leave themselves open, as did the ABC, to accusations of discrimination under provisions such as section 772. The decision is helpful, but not groundbreaking, leaving one big question unanswered: the one we are still asking after a series of messy disputes ‒ think Folau, Khawaja, Gillham to name some recent examples. That is, how far can employers go in attempting to control employees' 'freedom of speech'? In the Lattouf case, the Federal Court was not required to make any finding on this. It was required only to consider whether a direction was issued or a policy in place, not when the making of such directions or policies itself impinges on an individual's freedom of political expression. In thinking about this question, we must consider the delicate balance between employers' rights to protect their reputation and their obligation to maintain a safe workplace and employees' rights to self-expression. Where is the line that can't be crossed? And what are the institutional protections that might come into play in deciding where to draw that line?
ABC News
32 minutes ago
- ABC News
Falling missile debris smash West Bank villages and terrify residents
While Israel's war on Iran claimed hundreds of Iranian lives and dozens in Israel, Palestinian villages were being showered by missile debris and interceptor shrapnel. Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank said they were put at risk by Israeli interceptions over the territory, which sent more than 200 pieces of debris raining down onto villages and cities, damaging homes and businesses and starting fires. Palestinians do not have bomb shelters or reinforced rooms in their homes and the Palestinian Authority said it does not have the equipment, expertise or budget to set up a missile alert system, as Israel has, leaving West Bank residents without any warning of missile waves. "We don't even know where these missiles are coming from. Whether they're incoming or outgoing, we have no idea. You could be walking down the street and suddenly you can die," Raed Ahmad Robeh, from the village of Hajje, told the ABC. An 11-metre section of an Iranian missile fell onto Mr Robeh's house during the war, damaging the roof. "I got a call saying a missile had struck my house. I was terrified; this is a home built over many years, and seeing it hit like that was devastating," he said. "Thank God it didn't fall vertically; it landed horizontally on the stairway instead." The large piece was one of several that fell in Mr Robeh's village. The Palestinian Authority, the internationally-recognised government that has limited self-rule over parts of the West Bank, says eight people, mainly children, were injured in the territory by missile debris, over the course of the 12-day war. Ziad Abu Arkub's son had a lucky escape when a piece of missile fell on the street near him. "He says that he felt a danger near him. He escaped the missile. The bigger part of the missile could have killed him as it fell in the same place where he was," Mr Abu Arkub said. Some of the missile debris also released chemicals, strange liquids and gases that Palestinians fear could be dangerous. A two-metre-long piece of missile released both gas and liquid when it fell in the small village of Deir as-Sudan, leaving stains from unknown liquids on the ground. "It released a substance that could be poisonous, potentially dangerous to people. If any resident had been inside their homes at the time, they could have been injured or even killed," village mayor Sufian Suleyman said. "The sound of the strikes was scary. You have children here and women, the sound was really scary." The Israeli government said 550 missiles were fired by Iran towards Israel during the war, with most of them intercepted by Israel's sophisticated air defences. The interceptors were also shooting down debris above Israeli cities, ensuring it did not fall on homes. But the Palestinian Authority said debris fell on 35 homes and three factories in the West Bank, as well as starting two bush fires. Israel's military has also closed many West Bank roads to Palestinians since the war in Gaza began and set up extra checkpoints, making it difficult for emergency services to respond. "Our biggest problem is that the crossings are always closed; ambulances and firefighters can't reach us. We have no shields, no shelters, and no way to protect ourselves," Raed Ahmad Robeh said. Father Ziad Abu Arkub said Palestinians felt the Israeli military was deliberately putting them in danger. "Israel could not care less about our safety. The fact is that their interception missiles are purposely done over our villages provoking damage on our livelihood, our village main squares and schools up to the point of becoming quite dangerous," he said. The Israeli military said it had no comment regarding that allegation or about missile interceptions or debris in the West Bank.
