Horrifying look at Gaza remains as city left in ruins ahead of Israel invasion plan
Children can be seen running from the sites of Israeli airstrikes, toddlers huddling with their families in makeshift shelters, and relatives mourning over the bodies of loved ones. Flattened homes and buildings stretch across the devastated landscape, while parachutes carrying scarce aid float down over the territory.
Israel's plan to occupy the city has sparked international outrage and condemnation from leaders warning of devastating humanitarian consequences. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was "gravely alarmed" by the move. "This decision marks a dangerous escalation and risks deepening the already catastrophic consequences for millions of Palestinians' and Israeli captives in Gaza, his office said in a statement, adding further escalation will lead to "additional forced displacement, killings and massive destruction".
More than 61,000 people have been killed in Gaza since October 2023, including over 18,000 children, with another 151,000 civillians injured. 50 hostages are believed to remain in Gaza "with those still alive held in unthinkably inhumane and appalling conditions," Ramesh Rajasingham, Head of the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, said.
At least 266 people have starved to death in the region following an almost three-month long aid blockade imposed by Israel. Parachuted aid deliveries were later allowed into the strip, despite repeated warnings they were dangerous, ineffective and far from meeting Gaza's desperate need for food, baby formula and medical supplies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Western Telegraph
an hour ago
- Western Telegraph
Israeli military to call up 60,000 reservists as it plans new phase of Gaza war
Speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to speak publicly, the official said that the military will be operating in parts of Gaza City where the Israeli military has not yet operated and where Hamas is still active. Israeli troops are already operating in the Zeitoun neighbourhood of Gaza City, and the Jabaliya refugee camp in northern Gaza, in order to prepare the groundwork for the expanded operation, which is expected to receive approval from the chief of staff in the coming days. It remains unclear when the operation will begin. Smoke rises following an Israeli army airstrike in Khan Younis (Mariam Dagga/AP) The official said 60,000 reservists will be called up in the coming month, nearly doubling the number of active reservists to 120,000. Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said earlier this month that the objective was to secure the release of the remaining hostages and ensure Hamas and other militants can never again threaten Israel. Hamas-led militants started the war when they attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, killing some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and abducting 251. Israeli soldiers work on their tanks (Ariel Schalit/AP) Most of the hostages have been released in ceasefires or other deals. Hamas says it will only free the rest in exchange for a lasting ceasefire and an Israeli withdrawal. The planned offensive into Gaza City and the central camps has heightened international condemnation of Israel and fuelled fears of another mass displacement among Palestinians. Hundreds of thousands of displaced people are sheltering in the city and its holds some of the last remnants of critical infrastructure remaining in Gaza. Mediators and Hamas say they have agreed to ceasefire terms, but Israel's response remains unclear as members of Mr Netanyahu's coalition oppose a phased deal that does not 'complete the defeat of Hamas'.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
UN case will determine who is entitled to call an indy referendum
However, Campbell seems to be under the illusion that either Westminster or the United Nations (UN) will grant us independence when in reality neither will for different reasons. In the case of Westminster, they lose territory, people, revenue and power, so they will never grant us the right to hold another referendum or grant us independence even if the polls were at 100% in favour. As such, we need a way forward to hold a legal referendum that Westminster can't do anything about. READ MORE: Every plan to achieve indy must be subject to the test of practicality With the UN, they act as a final court in international matters of decolonisation. As with any court, it is up to the petitioner to prove the case and by the same standard, for others to disprove the case. That can take a few years to reach a final decision. If we win, it doesn't mean that we automatically get independence, it means that the legal position of who can call an independence referendum changes from Westminster to Holyrood and it also means that the majority of UN members will back our claim if we become independent. It also means that whomever is in power in Holyrood at any time can call an independence referendum at a time of their choosing. In other words, Westminster can't veto a future referendum or tell us how many years we have to wait before the next one, and we can hold as many as we need to get the majority we need. I would say that's to our benefit. Yes, Campbell is correct in that we need to do a lot more to shift figures towards a large majority, but is it wasting the time of the UN to appeal to them for help when we have been at stalemate for the last 11 years and can't find a way forward, and the Westminster position is that we are subservient to them? After all, independence is the ultimate goal and that's a long-term solution and not a chant during a march with some flag-waving thrown in as well, no matter how enjoyable the marches are. READ MORE: Octopus Energy steps in as SNP members call to pause Scottish renewable projects One problem we have at present is the laws around electioneering outwith an official referendum/election. That effectively prevents open debate of all the issues from both sides, and we know that the Unionists don't want to debate the matter anyway. If you can't openly debate the issue, then you can't persuade the electorate to come over to the side of independence, and you can't persuade them that your points are valid. As it stands, if certain facts and figures have not been published in the red-top newspapers or by the BBC, then Unionists don't want to know them and claim that we are making them up. It was that open debate in 2014 that made a lot of people move from No to Yes. We need to be careful how we take the independence movement forward. Campbell isn't the first to advocate a more forceful protest and I've done so in the past myself so I'm not totally against the idea. However, I'm 70 years old with just a basic pension. The poll tax and bridge tolls were a long time ago now, it's time for us older ones to hand over the baton to the more active and just as willing Scots who want independence. Alexander Potts Kilmarnock IN his letter 'One election outcome in 2026 could open up multiple routes to indy' (Aug 18), Alistair Potter writes: 'The first-past-the-post plural voting system awards the majority of seats to the largest minority. Scotland uses the identical voting system in the constituencies, and then uses a list system to allocate seats on a proportional basis, which also serves the dual purpose of preventing a party that has done well in the constituencies from winning an even bigger disproportionate share of seats.' The plurality formula (known as FPTP or relative majority method) requires that to be elected a candidate only has to achieve a simple majority of votes (the largest amount of votes). READ MORE: SNP must not act as bystanders in run-up to next year's election List seats for the Scottish Parliament elections are allocated to the party or individual which has the highest regional figure at an allocation, after any recalculation has been made as a result of the previous allocation, NOT on a proportional basis. The effect of voting on the list for 'any indy party that is NOT the SNP' would be that the democratic legitimacy ends with the allocation of the first list seat because of the d'Hondt method being used in CONJUNCTION with FPTP. The sum of successful list allocation quotients for that party would be more than 400% greater than the actual votes received. The combination of the numbers of constituency seats won and list seats allocated (62 + 35) would be extremely disproportionate to the share of the vote (for the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections that would have meant 75% of the seats with only very slightly more than 50% of the vote). Scottish saying: Facts are chiels that winna ding – facts cannot lie. Michael Follon Glenrothes IT is refreshing to have a candidate for the Scottish Greens leadership stressing an environmental issue, in this case climate change ('I may be electoral risk but Greens need to focus on climate leadership', Aug 19). It makes a change from gender and other distractions. Remember, the Greens evolved from the Ecology Party, whose very name stressed environmental priority. Recognising the imminence of global population overshoot, they had a policy commitment to a birth rate well below the replacement rate (2.1 kids per woman). Some 25 years ago, however, that was airbrushed out of the 'Policy Reference Document' at a time when the gender brigade were taking over the party. READ MORE: Scottish Greens need to 'broaden appeal' outside middle class voters Sir David Attenborough has said there is no environmental problem which would not be eased through a lower population. Will the Greens take his message on board, especially now that even Scotland is in population overshoot as measured by our bio-capacity? George Morton Rosyth
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Comprehensive trade embargo would halt aggression by Israel
The severe human rights violations perpetrated by Israel in Palestine could be curtailed within a month through the implementation of a comprehensive trade embargo against Israel. This would entail prohibiting flights, maritime activities and tourism associated with the nation. Specifically, no overflights should be allowed through the airspace of civilised nations, no vessels should be permitted in territorial waters, and all engagement should be limited to communications through Israel's delegation at the United Nations – constituting an unequivocal boycott of what may be characterised as a terrorist state until the current regime, seen as criminal by many, is compelled to respond to the dissatisfaction of its own citizenry. READ MORE: Ken Loach protests against UK's Palestine Action terror label It is essential to acknowledge the complexities surrounding such an approach, particularly concerning the safeguarding of Israel from external assaults during a period of internal upheaval, with Iran being a potential aggressor. Moreover, Palestine must recognise that the reality of the situation has irrevocably changed, and the consequences of the controversial establishment of the Israeli state in 1947 must be confronted, even if it leads to heightened hostilities. Since its establishment, Israel has been a source of persistent conflict in the Levant, arguably contributing to many of the issues plaguing the Middle East today. An examination of the actions of the British government reveals a need for accountability. The superficial expressions of concern and ineffectual criticisms emanating from a government perceived as failing must be recognised for what they are: a façade intended to obscure its complicity and servitude to the current US administration. R Mill Irving Gifford, East Lothian I DISAGREE with Lorna Slater's suggestion concerning the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise. Checks are indeed necessary, in terms of the human rights inclusion, on firms in Scotland that are still supplying materials that enable armaments being sold to Israel. But to go on and suggest that there is no point in having 'human rights' checks if they are never carried out is totally wrong and defeatist. Of course we do need to have the power in place that enables the government to carry out its duty in carrying out human rights checks. Why it does not do so I have no idea, unless it's anything like the English government and more concerned with the business ethic ... if there is such a thing in this case! READ MORE: Politicians across UK demand Keir Starmer impose sanctions on Israel The Scottish Government is making the same pathetic excuse as David Lammy, that such enterprise funding goes towards research, training and apprenticeships. In much the same way Lammy says that Westminster money is for parts for F-35 jets which are supplying Nato as well Israel. All these pathetic excuses are a load of bollocks as well as a load of baloney. We need whatever rules are in place where armaments sales to other countries are concerned, in order to hold governments to account when they are misused or not used. We all know that Scotland is almost surrounded by the seas and so needs protection of its land, sea and air. In his excellent piece in The National, Paul Laverty questions Ian Murray about the Israeli genocide. He raises Article 3 of the 1951 Genocide Convention, and says that direct action is an 'international obligation'. Laverty goes on to suggests that 'even a semi-competent monk administrator in the Middle Ages could organise a system where one recipient did not receive materials from a pool, if the will was there'. Says it all, really!! Alan Magnus-Bennett Fife APPALLING though the images from Gaza are, the fact remains that so long as Hamas refuse to release their hostages and also to recognise the right of Israel to exist, then Netanyahu has all excuses he needs to just carry on. Starmer's position has rightly been recognised as at best being 'confused' and at worst 'hopelessly inept'. It needs to be revised, and we need a new and co-ordinated international approach. The UK et al should commit to an immediate recognition of a Palestinian state, including acting to support its security and viability, conditional upon Hamas releasing the hostages and renouncing their long-held policy of seeking the destruction of Israel. Faced with this, what excuses would Netanyahu and the Zionists have left past sheer prejudice for ending hostilities and recognising that peace and justice go hand in hand? Of course, the international community would be looking for reasons to believe any commitment made by Hamas, but does anyone have a better option? Michael Collie Dunfermline
