Gunfire Communication With 'Zombie Hordes': The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation And The IDF
As things stand, the system of aid distribution in the Gaza Strip is intended to cause suffering and destruction to recipients. Since May 26, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an opaquely structured entity with Israeli and US backing, has run the distribution of parcels from a mere four points, a grim joke given the four hundred or so outlets previously operated by the United Nations Palestinian relief agency. The entire process of seeking aid has been heavily rationed and militarised, with Israeli troops and private contractors exercising murderous force with impunity. Opening times are not set, rendering the journey to the distribution points even more precarious. When they do open, they do so for short spells.
Haaretz has run reports quoting soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces claiming to have orders to deliberately fire upon unarmed crowds on their perilous journey to the food sites. In a June 27 piece, the paper quotes a soldier describing the distribution sites as 'a killing field.' Where he was stationed, 'between one and five people were killed every day.' Those seeking aid were 'treated like a hostile force – no crowd-control measures, no tear gas – just live fire with everything imaginable: heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars. Then, once the center opens, the shooting stops, and they can approach. Our form of communication is gunfire.'
The interviewed soldier could recall no instance of return fire. 'There's no enemy, no weapons.' IDF officers also told the paper that the GHF's operations had provided a convenient distraction for continuing operations in Gaza, which had been turned into a 'backyard', notably during Israel's war with Iran. In the words of a reservist, the Strip had 'become a place with its own set of rules. The loss of human life means nothing. It's not even an 'unfortunate incident', like they used to say.'
An IDF officer involved in overseeing security at one of the distribution centres was full of understatement. 'Working with a civilian population when your only means of interaction is opening fire – that's highly problematic, to say the least.' It was 'neither ethically nor morally acceptable for people to have to reach, or fail to reach, a [humanitarian zone] under tank fire, snippers and mortar shells.'
Much the same story can be found with the security contractors, those enthusiastic killers following in the footsteps of predecessors who treat international humanitarian law as inconvenient if not altogether irrelevant. Countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq can attest to the blood-soiled record of private military contractors, with the killing of 14 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad city's Nisour Square by Blackwater USA employees in September 2007 being but one spectacular example. While those employees faced trial and conviction in a US federal court in 2014 on an assortment of charges – among them murder, manslaughter and attempted manslaughter – such a fate is unlikely for any of those working for the GHF.
On July 4, the BBC published the observations of a former contractor on the trigger-happy conduct of his colleagues around the food centres. In one instance, a guard opened fire on women, children and elderly people 'moving too slowly away from the site.' Another contractor, also on location, stood on the berm overlooking the exit to one of the GHF sites, firing 15 to 20 bursts of repetitive fire at the crowd. 'A Palestinian man dropped on the ground motionless. And then, the other contractor who was standing there was like, 'damn, I think you got one'. And then they laughed about it.'
The company had also failed to issue contractors any operating procedures or rules of engagement, except one: 'if you feel threatened, shoot – shoot to kill and ask questions later.' No reference is made to the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers. To journey to Gaza was to go to a land unencumbered by laws and rules. 'Do what you want,' is the cultural norm of GHF operatives. And this stands to reason, given the reference of 'team leaders' to Gazans seeking aid as 'zombie hordes'.
The GHF, in time honoured fashion, have denied these allegations. Ditto the IDF, that great self-proclaimed stalwart of international law. It is therefore left to such contributors as Anas Baba, NPR's producer in the Gaza Strip, to enlighten those who care to read and listen. As one of the few Palestinian journalists working for a US news outlet in the strip, his observations carry singular weight. In a recent report, Baba neatly summarised the manufactured brutality behind the seeking of aid in an enclave strangled and suffering gradual extinction. 'I faced Israeli military fire, private US contractors pointing laser beams at my forehead, crowds with knives fighting for rations and masked thieves – to get food from a group supported by the US and Israel called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation'.
If nothing else, it is high time that the GHF scrap any pretence of being humanitarian in its title and admit to its true role: an adjutant to Israel's program of extirpating Gaza's Palestinian population.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Israel 'quite clearly' breaking international law
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says Israel has "quite clearly" breached international law by limiting food deliveries to starving civilians in Gaza as he escalates his criticism of the Jewish state. Mr Albanese spoke of his emotional response to images of gaunt and dying children in the Palestinian territory, while acknowledging increased airdrops of aid by Israel was "a start". "It just breaks your heart," he told ABC's Insiders on Sunday. "A one-year-old boy is not a Hamas fighter, and the civilian casualties and deaths in Gaza is completely unacceptable. It's completely indefensible. "Quite clearly it is a breach of international law to stop food being delivered, which was a decision that Israel made in March. It's a breach of decent humanity and of morality, and everyone can see that." But the prime minister would not commit Australia to following the lead of France in recognising Palestinian statehood at the UN General Assembly in September. Any resolution would need to guarantee Hamas, the defacto ruling authority in Gaza which is listed as a terrorist organisation by Australia, had no part in Palestine's future, he said. "We need security for the state of Israel, but you need to have the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians for their own state realised as well," Mr Albanese said. "That will mean security arrangements, it will need agreements as well about the rebuilding of Gaza and the West Bank. It will need the issue of settlements to resolve as well." Recognising a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution in the Middle East is included in Labor's national platform. "Are we about to imminently do that? No, we are not," Mr Albanese said. "But we will engage constructively. The United States as well will have a critical role in this, they have to play a role." Mr Albanese once again called for an immediate ceasefire and for Gaza to release Israeli hostages. But opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Michaelia Cash said the government had failed to lay the blame for the war at the feet of Hamas in a statement condemning Israel's denial of aid on Friday. "What this statement does not do is squarely say to the global community, we would like to see the end of the war in Gaza. And the next sentence should have been, 'and we call on the terrorists Hamas, who commenced this war, and who are ensuring the suffering of the civilians in Gaza, to end this war tomorrow'," Senator Cash told Sky News.
Newsroom
a day ago
- Newsroom
Why NZ must resist the trashing of international law
Opinion: Last week, the foreign ministries of 30 countries, including New Zealand, belatedly issued a joint statement that acknowledged the 'suffering of civilians in Gaza has reached new depths', demanded 'an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire', and warned Netanyahu's government of 'further action' if this was not achieved. However, this statement highlights something even bigger than the escalation of an Israeli-Palestinian conflict which, since the Hamas terror attack of October 7, 2023, has led to the death of more than 61,000 people – around 59,500 Palestinians and 1710 Israelis – and cost the lives of hundreds of journalists, academics and humanitarian aid workers. The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is a symptom of the post-9/11 erosion of an international rules-based order, enshrined in institutions like the United Nations and norms like multilateralism. The US' illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, China's assertiveness in the South China Sea, Putin's annexation of Crimea and subsequent full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 as well as recent US trade protectionism are examples of an increasing trend that has weakened the importance of rules in global politics. During this period, the United Nations Security Council, the organ with formal responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, has repeatedly been paralysed by the veto powers of its five permanent members. The biggest offenders in this regard have been Russia, the US and China, three states imbued with a strong sense of national exceptionalism, that have not hesitated to cast a veto or act unilaterally to protect their perceived national concerns even if it undermines international law. It should be emphasised that most states including relatively small players like New Zealand and middle powers like Australia are dependent on an international-rules based order for their prosperity and security. While rules are often seen as an encumbrance by great powers, they are viewed by most small and middle powers as essential in order to conduct their international activities in a relatively safe, equitable and predictable fashion. Nevertheless some observers believe that smaller states like New Zealand are powerless to prevent the slide towards the 'law of the jungle' in the international arena. According to the so-called realist perspective, great powers do what great powers do and 'little' New Zealand has no choice but to quietly accept blatant violations of international law when they are committed by powerful traditional friends like the US or its close allies such as Israel. However, such a perspective exaggerates the role of great powers in the interconnected world of the 21st century. We should recall the founders of the UN in 1945 conferred the right of veto on five great powers of that time to ensure they remained in the organisation and helped solve the world's problems. This logic explains why the Labour New Zealand government, led by Prime Minister Peter Fraser, was prepared to reluctantly concede the necessity of the veto mechanism in the Security Council when the UN was established. Fast forward 80 years. In 2025, it is clear that superpowers such as the US or China cannot run the world – even if they want to – simply because key challenges such as climate change, pandemics, transnational terrorism and financial contagion do not respect borders and are simply too big to be resolved unilaterally or with the assistance of a few allies. This means, despite intensified geopolitical rivalries, small states and middle powers are not doomed to be fast followers and can, if they choose to act strategically in a multilateral fashion, exert some agency and influence on international issues where there is a void in great-power leadership. The precedent of the Christchurch Call in 2020, when New Zealand collaborated with France in a bid to curb online extremism which won the support of more than 55 states, including Biden's America, points to the potential for bottom-up multilateral initiatives in the contemporary era. Confronted with the steady decline of international rules in trade and security matters, smaller powers cannot rely on veto-wielding states in the UN Security Council to reverse this damaging trend. But the New Zealand government does have the option of reaching out to other members of the UN to build international support for a diplomatic initiative to reinvigorate the idea of an international rules-based order. This vision would involve reforming the Security Council to make it a more reliable barrier to war by curtailing the use of the veto by the permanent five states or at least pressing for a new arrangement whereby General Assembly resolutions with more than two-thirds' support become binding and not subject to a veto. Without curbing the use of the veto in the Security Council or significantly increasing the power of the UN General Assembly, certain states will continue to believe they are 'above the law' and the prospect of more barbaric conflicts like Gaza will remain an ever-present possibility in our world.
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
White House seeks fines from other universities after Columbia deal
Harvard University. File photo: Getty Images The White House is seeking fines from several universities it says failed to stop antisemitism on campus, including Harvard University, in exchange for restoring federal funding, a Trump administration official said on Friday. The administration is in talks with several universities, including Cornell, Duke, Northwestern and Brown, the source said, confirming a report in the Wall Street Journal. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the administration is close to striking deals with Northwestern and Brown and potentially Cornell. A deal with Harvard, the country's oldest and richest university, is a key target for the White House, the official added. A spokesperson for Cornell declined to comment. Other universities did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Trump and his team have undertaken a broad campaign to leverage federal funding to force change at U.S. universities, which the Republican president says are gripped by antisemitic and "radical left" ideologies. Trump has targeted several universities since returning to office in January over the pro-Palestinian student protest movement that roiled college campuses last year. Columbia University said on Wednesday it will pay more than $200 million to the U.S. government in a settlement with the administration to resolve federal probes and have most of its suspended federal funding restored. The Trump administration has welcomed the Columbia deal, with officials believing the university set the standard on how to reach an agreement, the official said. Harvard has taken a different approach, suing the federal government in a bid to get suspended federal grants restored.
