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
The Advertiser
42 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Leader won't condemn police after protest violence
A state leader has refused to condemn the "brutal" actions of police who broke up a pro-Palestine protest that left a one-time federal Greens candidate with an eye injury. Hannah Thomas was among five people arrested while protesting Israel's war in Gaza on Friday outside an Australian firm reportedly linked to the manufacturing of components for fighter jets used by the Israeli Defence Force. NSW Police are now facing questions over their actions after Ms Thomas said their intervention could result in permanent vision loss in her right eye. "I'm five-foot-one, I weigh about 45kg, I was engaged in peaceful protest," the 35-year-old said in a social media post from her hospital bed. "I'm in this position because people like (NSW Premier) Chris Minns and (Police Minister) Yasmin Catley have demonised protesters and passed draconian anti-protest laws which license police to crack down on peaceful protest in extremely violent, brutal ways." While expressing sympathy for Ms Thomas, Mr Minns refused to criticise police conduct until further information comes to light, adding that enforcing the law while allowing freedom of political expression was a delicate balance. "From the police's perspective, I'm certainly not prepared to condemn them in these circumstances when we haven't gotten to the bottom of the situation," he told reporters on Monday. "You're entitled to protest, but businesses in NSW are entitled to run their companies as well." The protesters accused SEC Plating, in southwest Sydney, of making parts for F-35 jets used by Israel, a claim the firm denies. Mr Minns denied controversial protest laws passed in February were used by police to move on the demonstrators on Friday morning, as claimed by Greens MPs, or that the laws had emboldened the police force when it came to managing demonstrations. NSW Police said the protest at SEC Plating was unauthorised and blocked access to the Belmore business. It defended the lack of an investigation into police actions at the protest, saying officers had tried at least four times to get further information from Ms Thomas without success. "I am comfortable based on the information provided to me that I did not declare the matter a critical incident," Assistant Commissioner Brett McFadden told Sydney radio 2GB on Monday. Ms Thomas, who ran second to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in the inner west Sydney seat of Grayndler in May's federal election, was charged on Sunday with hinder or resist police and refuse/fail to comply with directions to disperse. A video of the incident showed police dragging one of the protesters as onlookers repeatedly shouted "get off her" and "let go of her". NSW Police said "a scuffle ensued between police and protesters" during attempts to arrest the protesters for not complying with move-on directions. Ms Thomas is set to appear at Bankstown Local Court in August. Footage of Ms Thomas circulating online showed her eye swollen shut and with blood on her face before she was taken to hospital. NSW Greens MP Sue Higginson labelled the policing "excessive" and has written to Ms Catley, the NSW police commissioner and the state's police watchdog demanding an investigation. Protest organisers say another protester was grabbed by the neck and choked, while others were knocked to the ground. Mr Minns said the lack of a critical incident declaration would not stop the police watchdog from stepping in if it saw fit. All five protesters arrested during the scuffle were granted bail, and four will appear in Bankstown Local Court on July 15. A state leader has refused to condemn the "brutal" actions of police who broke up a pro-Palestine protest that left a one-time federal Greens candidate with an eye injury. Hannah Thomas was among five people arrested while protesting Israel's war in Gaza on Friday outside an Australian firm reportedly linked to the manufacturing of components for fighter jets used by the Israeli Defence Force. NSW Police are now facing questions over their actions after Ms Thomas said their intervention could result in permanent vision loss in her right eye. "I'm five-foot-one, I weigh about 45kg, I was engaged in peaceful protest," the 35-year-old said in a social media post from her hospital bed. "I'm in this position because people like (NSW Premier) Chris Minns and (Police Minister) Yasmin Catley have demonised protesters and passed draconian anti-protest laws which license police to crack down on peaceful protest in extremely violent, brutal ways." While expressing sympathy for Ms Thomas, Mr Minns refused to criticise police conduct until further information comes to light, adding that enforcing the law while allowing freedom of political expression was a delicate balance. "From the police's perspective, I'm certainly not prepared to condemn them in these circumstances when we haven't gotten to the bottom of the situation," he told reporters on Monday. "You're entitled to protest, but businesses in NSW are entitled to run their companies as well." The protesters accused SEC Plating, in southwest Sydney, of making parts for F-35 jets used by Israel, a claim the firm denies. Mr Minns denied controversial protest laws passed in February were used by police to move on the demonstrators on Friday morning, as claimed by Greens MPs, or that the laws had emboldened the police force when it came to managing demonstrations. NSW Police said the protest at SEC Plating was unauthorised and blocked access to the Belmore business. It defended the lack of an investigation into police actions at the protest, saying officers had tried at least four times to get further information from Ms Thomas without success. "I am comfortable based on the information provided to me that I did not declare the matter a critical incident," Assistant Commissioner Brett McFadden told Sydney radio 2GB on Monday. Ms Thomas, who ran second to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in the inner west Sydney seat of Grayndler in May's federal election, was charged on Sunday with hinder or resist police and refuse/fail to comply with directions to disperse. A video of the incident showed police dragging one of the protesters as onlookers repeatedly shouted "get off her" and "let go of her". NSW Police said "a scuffle ensued between police and protesters" during attempts to arrest the protesters for not complying with move-on directions. Ms Thomas is set to appear at Bankstown Local Court in August. Footage of Ms Thomas circulating online showed her eye swollen shut and with blood on her face before she was taken to hospital. NSW Greens MP Sue Higginson labelled the policing "excessive" and has written to Ms Catley, the NSW police commissioner and the state's police watchdog demanding an investigation. Protest organisers say another protester was grabbed by the neck and choked, while others were knocked to the ground. Mr Minns said the lack of a critical incident declaration would not stop the police watchdog from stepping in if it saw fit. All five protesters arrested during the scuffle were granted bail, and four will appear in Bankstown Local Court on July 15. A state leader has refused to condemn the "brutal" actions of police who broke up a pro-Palestine protest that left a one-time federal Greens candidate with an eye injury. Hannah Thomas was among five people arrested while protesting Israel's war in Gaza on Friday outside an Australian firm reportedly linked to the manufacturing of components for fighter jets used by the Israeli Defence Force. NSW Police are now facing questions over their actions after Ms Thomas said their intervention could result in permanent vision loss in her right eye. "I'm five-foot-one, I weigh about 45kg, I was engaged in peaceful protest," the 35-year-old said in a social media post from her hospital bed. "I'm in this position because people like (NSW Premier) Chris Minns and (Police Minister) Yasmin Catley have demonised protesters and passed draconian anti-protest laws which license police to crack down on peaceful protest in extremely violent, brutal ways." While expressing sympathy for Ms Thomas, Mr Minns refused to criticise police conduct until further information comes to light, adding that enforcing the law while allowing freedom of political expression was a delicate balance. "From the police's perspective, I'm certainly not prepared to condemn them in these circumstances when we haven't gotten to the bottom of the situation," he told reporters on Monday. "You're entitled to protest, but businesses in NSW are entitled to run their companies as well." The protesters accused SEC Plating, in southwest Sydney, of making parts for F-35 jets used by Israel, a claim the firm denies. Mr Minns denied controversial protest laws passed in February were used by police to move on the demonstrators on Friday morning, as claimed by Greens MPs, or that the laws had emboldened the police force when it came to managing demonstrations. NSW Police said the protest at SEC Plating was unauthorised and blocked access to the Belmore business. It defended the lack of an investigation into police actions at the protest, saying officers had tried at least four times to get further information from Ms Thomas without success. "I am comfortable based on the information provided to me that I did not declare the matter a critical incident," Assistant Commissioner Brett McFadden told Sydney radio 2GB on Monday. Ms Thomas, who ran second to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in the inner west Sydney seat of Grayndler in May's federal election, was charged on Sunday with hinder or resist police and refuse/fail to comply with directions to disperse. A video of the incident showed police dragging one of the protesters as onlookers repeatedly shouted "get off her" and "let go of her". NSW Police said "a scuffle ensued between police and protesters" during attempts to arrest the protesters for not complying with move-on directions. Ms Thomas is set to appear at Bankstown Local Court in August. Footage of Ms Thomas circulating online showed her eye swollen shut and with blood on her face before she was taken to hospital. NSW Greens MP Sue Higginson labelled the policing "excessive" and has written to Ms Catley, the NSW police commissioner and the state's police watchdog demanding an investigation. Protest organisers say another protester was grabbed by the neck and choked, while others were knocked to the ground. Mr Minns said the lack of a critical incident declaration would not stop the police watchdog from stepping in if it saw fit. All five protesters arrested during the scuffle were granted bail, and four will appear in Bankstown Local Court on July 15. A state leader has refused to condemn the "brutal" actions of police who broke up a pro-Palestine protest that left a one-time federal Greens candidate with an eye injury. Hannah Thomas was among five people arrested while protesting Israel's war in Gaza on Friday outside an Australian firm reportedly linked to the manufacturing of components for fighter jets used by the Israeli Defence Force. NSW Police are now facing questions over their actions after Ms Thomas said their intervention could result in permanent vision loss in her right eye. "I'm five-foot-one, I weigh about 45kg, I was engaged in peaceful protest," the 35-year-old said in a social media post from her hospital bed. "I'm in this position because people like (NSW Premier) Chris Minns and (Police Minister) Yasmin Catley have demonised protesters and passed draconian anti-protest laws which license police to crack down on peaceful protest in extremely violent, brutal ways." While expressing sympathy for Ms Thomas, Mr Minns refused to criticise police conduct until further information comes to light, adding that enforcing the law while allowing freedom of political expression was a delicate balance. "From the police's perspective, I'm certainly not prepared to condemn them in these circumstances when we haven't gotten to the bottom of the situation," he told reporters on Monday. "You're entitled to protest, but businesses in NSW are entitled to run their companies as well." The protesters accused SEC Plating, in southwest Sydney, of making parts for F-35 jets used by Israel, a claim the firm denies. Mr Minns denied controversial protest laws passed in February were used by police to move on the demonstrators on Friday morning, as claimed by Greens MPs, or that the laws had emboldened the police force when it came to managing demonstrations. NSW Police said the protest at SEC Plating was unauthorised and blocked access to the Belmore business. It defended the lack of an investigation into police actions at the protest, saying officers had tried at least four times to get further information from Ms Thomas without success. "I am comfortable based on the information provided to me that I did not declare the matter a critical incident," Assistant Commissioner Brett McFadden told Sydney radio 2GB on Monday. Ms Thomas, who ran second to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in the inner west Sydney seat of Grayndler in May's federal election, was charged on Sunday with hinder or resist police and refuse/fail to comply with directions to disperse. A video of the incident showed police dragging one of the protesters as onlookers repeatedly shouted "get off her" and "let go of her". NSW Police said "a scuffle ensued between police and protesters" during attempts to arrest the protesters for not complying with move-on directions. Ms Thomas is set to appear at Bankstown Local Court in August. Footage of Ms Thomas circulating online showed her eye swollen shut and with blood on her face before she was taken to hospital. NSW Greens MP Sue Higginson labelled the policing "excessive" and has written to Ms Catley, the NSW police commissioner and the state's police watchdog demanding an investigation. Protest organisers say another protester was grabbed by the neck and choked, while others were knocked to the ground. Mr Minns said the lack of a critical incident declaration would not stop the police watchdog from stepping in if it saw fit. All five protesters arrested during the scuffle were granted bail, and four will appear in Bankstown Local Court on July 15.
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Time to obliterate the off ramp for language's sake
This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to Truth might be the first casualty in war but language falls soon after. For 12 long days we were assailed with an unfamiliar and ugly term, which spread faster than COVID's Omicron strain. As the world held its breath over the Israel-Iran missile exchange, "diplomatic off-ramp" became the jargon du jour. It was trotted out by experts and repeated ad nauseam by journalists. For some reason, it made my teeth hurt every time I heard it. What was wrong with, say, "peaceful compromise", "diplomatic solution" or "exit strategy"? In the language of diplomacy, off-ramp means finding a way out without losing face. "Obliterated" grabbed all the attention after the US dropped its big bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities. When I first heard it uttered by Donald Trump, like many others I thought, "Hang on. How do you know?" Curious, I poked my nose into the dictionary to see what the word actually meant. "To remove all signs of something, either by destroying or covering it completely," the Oxford Dictionary told me. Fordo was out of sight before it was bombed. What it looks like after the strike is anyone's guess. Yet here we were, days later, arguing the toss over President Trump's hyperbolic language. Weekend Fox News anchor turned Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth didn't help matters when defending Trump's imprecise language by saying the facility at Fordo has been "decimated". That suggests its capacity had been reduced by 10 per cent, a far cry from "obliterated". Confusion in the hunt for a linguistic off-ramp for the President. Of course, this isn't the first war in which language has suffered. During the Vietnam War, the term "collateral damage" came into military usage, deployed as a sanitised euphemism for "civilian casualties". "Collateral damage" became a popular buzzword during the 1991 Gulf War. And in 1999, it earned the dubious distinction of being named the German Un Word of the Year after it was used by NATO forces to describe civilian casualties in the Kosovo war. And we shouldn't forget "extraordinary rendition", which entered the language after September 11. In a sane world it would mean a memorable performance of, say, a piano concerto. Somehow it became code for plucking terrorism suspects off foreign streets and flying them to black sites where the use of "enhanced interrogation" (torture) wasn't illegal. There's a host of war-related crimes against the language. "Ethnic cleansing" - in vogue during the Balkans conflict of the 1990s - seeks to sanitise genocide. "Pacification", which in military terms means eliminating an enemy. "Strategic withdrawal", a polite way of saying retreat. "Peace with honour" - Richard Nixon's favourite, which really means defeat with the dishonourable distinction of abandoning your erstwhile ally. The argument of whether or not Iran's nuclear ambitions were derailed is unlikely to last long. That's because it's only a matter of time before Donald Trump deploys another weapon of crass distraction, most likely in the dead of night from his Truth Social platform. Meanwhile, can we please obliterate the off-ramp? HAVE YOUR SAY: What are the buzz phrases and euphemisms which annoy you the most? Does military and diplomatic jargon hide ugly truths that ought to be out in the open? Are you irritated by the misuse of the word "decimated"? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The head of a man allegedly murdered and dismembered by his reality TV contestant partner is missing and police are calling on the public to help give his family "a peaceful outcome". - The online far-right extremist network Terrorgram has been listed as a terrorist organisation, with members facing decades in jail if convicted of an offence. - Carn, spew, and goon are some of the colloquialisms added to the Australian edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. THEY SAID IT: "Euphemism is a euphemism for lying." - Bobbie Gentry YOU SAID IT: Garry wants companies to sign up to his user agreement, rather than the other way around. "Having spent close to 50 minutes waiting to see my doctor recently, I was presented with the account for payment on departure," writes Brian. "Not having been amused with the wait, I suggested that my hourly rate at the time was about equal to the presented bill, so how about we call it quits and I get to see the doctor for nothing. Needless to say, I was kindly reminded that I needed to pay for my consultation." Deb writes: "Last year, after being on hold for two hours and 40 minutes trying to report an internet outage to Telstra, I decided to cancel my account. Although the recorded options list did not have a 'cancel' option, some helpful Google advice suggested just saying 'cancel' anyway, and it worked! I was put through to a human within 10 minutes. Funny how companies suddenly improve customer service when there's a threat of losing business." "Wonderful words once again," writes Sue. "Except you have made one mistake: you are not 'The User'. You are 'The Used'." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to Truth might be the first casualty in war but language falls soon after. For 12 long days we were assailed with an unfamiliar and ugly term, which spread faster than COVID's Omicron strain. As the world held its breath over the Israel-Iran missile exchange, "diplomatic off-ramp" became the jargon du jour. It was trotted out by experts and repeated ad nauseam by journalists. For some reason, it made my teeth hurt every time I heard it. What was wrong with, say, "peaceful compromise", "diplomatic solution" or "exit strategy"? In the language of diplomacy, off-ramp means finding a way out without losing face. "Obliterated" grabbed all the attention after the US dropped its big bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities. When I first heard it uttered by Donald Trump, like many others I thought, "Hang on. How do you know?" Curious, I poked my nose into the dictionary to see what the word actually meant. "To remove all signs of something, either by destroying or covering it completely," the Oxford Dictionary told me. Fordo was out of sight before it was bombed. What it looks like after the strike is anyone's guess. Yet here we were, days later, arguing the toss over President Trump's hyperbolic language. Weekend Fox News anchor turned Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth didn't help matters when defending Trump's imprecise language by saying the facility at Fordo has been "decimated". That suggests its capacity had been reduced by 10 per cent, a far cry from "obliterated". Confusion in the hunt for a linguistic off-ramp for the President. Of course, this isn't the first war in which language has suffered. During the Vietnam War, the term "collateral damage" came into military usage, deployed as a sanitised euphemism for "civilian casualties". "Collateral damage" became a popular buzzword during the 1991 Gulf War. And in 1999, it earned the dubious distinction of being named the German Un Word of the Year after it was used by NATO forces to describe civilian casualties in the Kosovo war. And we shouldn't forget "extraordinary rendition", which entered the language after September 11. In a sane world it would mean a memorable performance of, say, a piano concerto. Somehow it became code for plucking terrorism suspects off foreign streets and flying them to black sites where the use of "enhanced interrogation" (torture) wasn't illegal. There's a host of war-related crimes against the language. "Ethnic cleansing" - in vogue during the Balkans conflict of the 1990s - seeks to sanitise genocide. "Pacification", which in military terms means eliminating an enemy. "Strategic withdrawal", a polite way of saying retreat. "Peace with honour" - Richard Nixon's favourite, which really means defeat with the dishonourable distinction of abandoning your erstwhile ally. The argument of whether or not Iran's nuclear ambitions were derailed is unlikely to last long. That's because it's only a matter of time before Donald Trump deploys another weapon of crass distraction, most likely in the dead of night from his Truth Social platform. Meanwhile, can we please obliterate the off-ramp? HAVE YOUR SAY: What are the buzz phrases and euphemisms which annoy you the most? Does military and diplomatic jargon hide ugly truths that ought to be out in the open? Are you irritated by the misuse of the word "decimated"? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The head of a man allegedly murdered and dismembered by his reality TV contestant partner is missing and police are calling on the public to help give his family "a peaceful outcome". - The online far-right extremist network Terrorgram has been listed as a terrorist organisation, with members facing decades in jail if convicted of an offence. - Carn, spew, and goon are some of the colloquialisms added to the Australian edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. THEY SAID IT: "Euphemism is a euphemism for lying." - Bobbie Gentry YOU SAID IT: Garry wants companies to sign up to his user agreement, rather than the other way around. "Having spent close to 50 minutes waiting to see my doctor recently, I was presented with the account for payment on departure," writes Brian. "Not having been amused with the wait, I suggested that my hourly rate at the time was about equal to the presented bill, so how about we call it quits and I get to see the doctor for nothing. Needless to say, I was kindly reminded that I needed to pay for my consultation." Deb writes: "Last year, after being on hold for two hours and 40 minutes trying to report an internet outage to Telstra, I decided to cancel my account. Although the recorded options list did not have a 'cancel' option, some helpful Google advice suggested just saying 'cancel' anyway, and it worked! I was put through to a human within 10 minutes. Funny how companies suddenly improve customer service when there's a threat of losing business." "Wonderful words once again," writes Sue. "Except you have made one mistake: you are not 'The User'. You are 'The Used'." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to Truth might be the first casualty in war but language falls soon after. For 12 long days we were assailed with an unfamiliar and ugly term, which spread faster than COVID's Omicron strain. As the world held its breath over the Israel-Iran missile exchange, "diplomatic off-ramp" became the jargon du jour. It was trotted out by experts and repeated ad nauseam by journalists. For some reason, it made my teeth hurt every time I heard it. What was wrong with, say, "peaceful compromise", "diplomatic solution" or "exit strategy"? In the language of diplomacy, off-ramp means finding a way out without losing face. "Obliterated" grabbed all the attention after the US dropped its big bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities. When I first heard it uttered by Donald Trump, like many others I thought, "Hang on. How do you know?" Curious, I poked my nose into the dictionary to see what the word actually meant. "To remove all signs of something, either by destroying or covering it completely," the Oxford Dictionary told me. Fordo was out of sight before it was bombed. What it looks like after the strike is anyone's guess. Yet here we were, days later, arguing the toss over President Trump's hyperbolic language. Weekend Fox News anchor turned Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth didn't help matters when defending Trump's imprecise language by saying the facility at Fordo has been "decimated". That suggests its capacity had been reduced by 10 per cent, a far cry from "obliterated". Confusion in the hunt for a linguistic off-ramp for the President. Of course, this isn't the first war in which language has suffered. During the Vietnam War, the term "collateral damage" came into military usage, deployed as a sanitised euphemism for "civilian casualties". "Collateral damage" became a popular buzzword during the 1991 Gulf War. And in 1999, it earned the dubious distinction of being named the German Un Word of the Year after it was used by NATO forces to describe civilian casualties in the Kosovo war. And we shouldn't forget "extraordinary rendition", which entered the language after September 11. In a sane world it would mean a memorable performance of, say, a piano concerto. Somehow it became code for plucking terrorism suspects off foreign streets and flying them to black sites where the use of "enhanced interrogation" (torture) wasn't illegal. There's a host of war-related crimes against the language. "Ethnic cleansing" - in vogue during the Balkans conflict of the 1990s - seeks to sanitise genocide. "Pacification", which in military terms means eliminating an enemy. "Strategic withdrawal", a polite way of saying retreat. "Peace with honour" - Richard Nixon's favourite, which really means defeat with the dishonourable distinction of abandoning your erstwhile ally. The argument of whether or not Iran's nuclear ambitions were derailed is unlikely to last long. That's because it's only a matter of time before Donald Trump deploys another weapon of crass distraction, most likely in the dead of night from his Truth Social platform. Meanwhile, can we please obliterate the off-ramp? HAVE YOUR SAY: What are the buzz phrases and euphemisms which annoy you the most? Does military and diplomatic jargon hide ugly truths that ought to be out in the open? Are you irritated by the misuse of the word "decimated"? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The head of a man allegedly murdered and dismembered by his reality TV contestant partner is missing and police are calling on the public to help give his family "a peaceful outcome". - The online far-right extremist network Terrorgram has been listed as a terrorist organisation, with members facing decades in jail if convicted of an offence. - Carn, spew, and goon are some of the colloquialisms added to the Australian edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. THEY SAID IT: "Euphemism is a euphemism for lying." - Bobbie Gentry YOU SAID IT: Garry wants companies to sign up to his user agreement, rather than the other way around. "Having spent close to 50 minutes waiting to see my doctor recently, I was presented with the account for payment on departure," writes Brian. "Not having been amused with the wait, I suggested that my hourly rate at the time was about equal to the presented bill, so how about we call it quits and I get to see the doctor for nothing. Needless to say, I was kindly reminded that I needed to pay for my consultation." Deb writes: "Last year, after being on hold for two hours and 40 minutes trying to report an internet outage to Telstra, I decided to cancel my account. Although the recorded options list did not have a 'cancel' option, some helpful Google advice suggested just saying 'cancel' anyway, and it worked! I was put through to a human within 10 minutes. Funny how companies suddenly improve customer service when there's a threat of losing business." "Wonderful words once again," writes Sue. "Except you have made one mistake: you are not 'The User'. You are 'The Used'." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to Truth might be the first casualty in war but language falls soon after. For 12 long days we were assailed with an unfamiliar and ugly term, which spread faster than COVID's Omicron strain. As the world held its breath over the Israel-Iran missile exchange, "diplomatic off-ramp" became the jargon du jour. It was trotted out by experts and repeated ad nauseam by journalists. For some reason, it made my teeth hurt every time I heard it. What was wrong with, say, "peaceful compromise", "diplomatic solution" or "exit strategy"? In the language of diplomacy, off-ramp means finding a way out without losing face. "Obliterated" grabbed all the attention after the US dropped its big bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities. When I first heard it uttered by Donald Trump, like many others I thought, "Hang on. How do you know?" Curious, I poked my nose into the dictionary to see what the word actually meant. "To remove all signs of something, either by destroying or covering it completely," the Oxford Dictionary told me. Fordo was out of sight before it was bombed. What it looks like after the strike is anyone's guess. Yet here we were, days later, arguing the toss over President Trump's hyperbolic language. Weekend Fox News anchor turned Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth didn't help matters when defending Trump's imprecise language by saying the facility at Fordo has been "decimated". That suggests its capacity had been reduced by 10 per cent, a far cry from "obliterated". Confusion in the hunt for a linguistic off-ramp for the President. Of course, this isn't the first war in which language has suffered. During the Vietnam War, the term "collateral damage" came into military usage, deployed as a sanitised euphemism for "civilian casualties". "Collateral damage" became a popular buzzword during the 1991 Gulf War. And in 1999, it earned the dubious distinction of being named the German Un Word of the Year after it was used by NATO forces to describe civilian casualties in the Kosovo war. And we shouldn't forget "extraordinary rendition", which entered the language after September 11. In a sane world it would mean a memorable performance of, say, a piano concerto. Somehow it became code for plucking terrorism suspects off foreign streets and flying them to black sites where the use of "enhanced interrogation" (torture) wasn't illegal. There's a host of war-related crimes against the language. "Ethnic cleansing" - in vogue during the Balkans conflict of the 1990s - seeks to sanitise genocide. "Pacification", which in military terms means eliminating an enemy. "Strategic withdrawal", a polite way of saying retreat. "Peace with honour" - Richard Nixon's favourite, which really means defeat with the dishonourable distinction of abandoning your erstwhile ally. The argument of whether or not Iran's nuclear ambitions were derailed is unlikely to last long. That's because it's only a matter of time before Donald Trump deploys another weapon of crass distraction, most likely in the dead of night from his Truth Social platform. Meanwhile, can we please obliterate the off-ramp? HAVE YOUR SAY: What are the buzz phrases and euphemisms which annoy you the most? Does military and diplomatic jargon hide ugly truths that ought to be out in the open? Are you irritated by the misuse of the word "decimated"? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The head of a man allegedly murdered and dismembered by his reality TV contestant partner is missing and police are calling on the public to help give his family "a peaceful outcome". - The online far-right extremist network Terrorgram has been listed as a terrorist organisation, with members facing decades in jail if convicted of an offence. - Carn, spew, and goon are some of the colloquialisms added to the Australian edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. THEY SAID IT: "Euphemism is a euphemism for lying." - Bobbie Gentry YOU SAID IT: Garry wants companies to sign up to his user agreement, rather than the other way around. "Having spent close to 50 minutes waiting to see my doctor recently, I was presented with the account for payment on departure," writes Brian. "Not having been amused with the wait, I suggested that my hourly rate at the time was about equal to the presented bill, so how about we call it quits and I get to see the doctor for nothing. Needless to say, I was kindly reminded that I needed to pay for my consultation." Deb writes: "Last year, after being on hold for two hours and 40 minutes trying to report an internet outage to Telstra, I decided to cancel my account. Although the recorded options list did not have a 'cancel' option, some helpful Google advice suggested just saying 'cancel' anyway, and it worked! I was put through to a human within 10 minutes. Funny how companies suddenly improve customer service when there's a threat of losing business." "Wonderful words once again," writes Sue. "Except you have made one mistake: you are not 'The User'. You are 'The Used'."
News.com.au
4 hours ago
- News.com.au
Head of nuclear agency concedes he ‘doesn't know' whether Iran's nuclear material remains intact
The head of the international agency responsible for monitoring Iran's nuclear development has made a troubling admission, conceding he 'doesn't know' whether the country managed to move its stockpile of enriched uranium to safety before the American strikes. Rafael Grossi is Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Today he spoke to Face the Nation, a current affairs program on CBS News in the United States. 'People here are looking for clarity, and there's confusion,' host Margaret Brennan said. 'The Defence Intelligence Agency assesses that Iran's program was set back by a few months, but once they dig out they could resume in a number of months. 'The CIA and the Director of National Intelligence (Trump appointee Tusli Gabbard) say the facilities were destroyed and it would take years to rebuild. 'Israel says the military program is set back by many years. 'What's the truth here? What do you make of these assessments?' Ms Brennan could have also cited President Donald Trump himself, who claimed in the immediate aftermath of the strikes that Iran's nuclear sites had been 'obliterated'. Or Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, who said 'Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated'. Or White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who said the strikes 'took away Iran's ability to create a nuclear bomb'. 'You know what? This hourglass approach, with weapons of mass destruction, is not a good idea,' Mr Grossi said. 'All of that depends on your metrics. If you tell me it will take them two months or three months – for what? 'The capacities they have are there. They can have, in a matter of months I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium. Or less than that. 'But frankly, one cannot say that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there. Because first of all, it is clear that there has been severe damage, but it is not total damage. But Iran has the capacities there, industrial and technological capacities. 'If they wish, they will be able to start doing this again.' He did concede that Iran's 'protective measures' ahead of the American strikes could have included the 'movement of materials', as suggested by a series of satellite images from the days beforehand, which showed trucks leaving the Fordow nuclear facility. 'We don't know. We saw the same images that the whole world has seen,' Mr Grossi said, referring to those satellite images. The fear, here, is that Iran managed to move its stores of highly enriched uranium to safety. Ms Brennan noted that Iran possessed 'just under 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium' before Israel and the United States launched their attacks. 'Do you have any idea where that was moved, and if it was moved before the attack?' Ms Brennan asked. 'We presume, and I think it's logical to presume, that when they announced they were going to be taking protective measures, this could be part of it,' said Mr Grossi. 'But we don't know where this material could be, or whether part of it could have been under attack during those 12 days. 'Some could have been destroyed as part of the attack, but some could have been moved. 'There has to be, at some point, a verification. If we don't get that verification, this will continue to hang over our heads as a problem.' Ms Brennan said she was probing at the 'open question' of whether Iran 'could sprint towards a bomb'. 'If we don't know where the highly enriched uranium is, and cannot account for all the centrifuges, is that still a risk?' she asked. 'We don't want to be alarmist here, and I don't want to be part of a messaging that would be spreading alarm,' said Mr Grossi. 'But we need to be in a position to confirm what is there, and where is it, and what happened. Iran had a very vast, ambitious program. Part of it may still be there. And if not, there is also the self-evident truth that the knowledge is there. The industrial capacity is there. Iran is a very sophisticated country, in terms of nuclear technology. 'You can't disinvent this.' He stressed that 'we are not going to solve this in a definitive way militarily'. 'You are going to (have to have) an agreement, and an inspection system,' he said. Mr Grossi's point, repeated throughout the interview, was that Iran likely retains the capacity to develop nuclear weapons, despite the damage caused by America's attack. 'There is an agreement in describing this as a very serious level of damage. It can be described in different ways, but at facilities where Iran used to have capabilities in treatment and enrichment of uranium, (that has) been destroyed to an important degree. Some is still standing,' he said. 'So there is, of course, an important setback in terms of those capabilities. This is clear. Now the important issue is, what are the next steps? 'I think we have a snapshot of a program that has been very seriously damaged, and now what we need to focus on is the next steps.' He said he 'wholeheartedly' supports Trump envoy Steve Witkoff's attempts to reach a negotiated deal with Iran, but 'it's not going to be easy' in the aftermath of the strikes. Ms Brennan pointed out that Iran's parliament just passed a law saying it would not be co-operating with the IAEA, and the country's Foreign Minister had specifically said Mr Grossi would be barred from entering the country. 'This is why it's so important that we sit down around the table,' said Mr Grossi. 'Iran is party to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. That implies that they need to work with the agency. 'So we have been going through this law they approved, and we see that they are talking about co-operation on the basis of the security and the safety of their sites. I think that is not incompatible with the inspection work that needs to take place. 'At the end of the day, this whole thing, will have to have a long-term solution.' Pressed on whether Iran was kicking out IAEA inspectors, Mr Grossi hinted the answer was no, though he did not say as much directly. 'An international treaty takes precedence. You cannot invoke an internal law to not abide with an international law,' he said. 'I think we have to go down into the details, because the work will have to continue. Otherwise nobody will have an idea of what is happening in Iran. Iran will continue with a nuclear program, the contours of which are yet to be seen.'
