UN says cannot verify waiting Gaza aid due to lack of access
International criticism is growing over the plight of the more than two million Palestinians in Gaza, where more than 100 aid and rights groups have warned that 'mass starvation' is spreading.
The Israeli military denied Wednesday that it was blocking humanitarian aid from entering the Palestinian territory, claiming that 950 truckloads of aid were on the Gaza side of the border waiting for international organizations to collect and distribute it.
'Despite our repeated requests, Israel has not allowed the UN to be present at the crossings, which are militarized areas,' said Jens Laerke, spokesman for the UN humanitarian agency OCHA.
'We therefore cannot verify the amount of supplies currently at the crossing,' he told AFP.
Laerke explained that the UN needed multiple authorizations from the Israeli authorities: firstly to get aid across the border from Israel into the Gaza Strip, where it is dropped off -- the trucks returning to Israel -- followed by another approval to drive trucks from inside Gaza to the crossing point to pick it up.
'It is very important to stress that it is not just about denials of requests to pick up the cargo,' he added.
'Israel -- as the occupying power and a party to the conflict -- must facilitate humanitarian operations all the way till it reaches people who need it to survive.'
This means that, beyond simply authorization, 'they must provide the green light for trucks without unnecessary delays; allow teams to use multiple, safer routes; and order troops to stay away from the convoys, and never shoot at civilians along the allocated routes -- or anywhere else', Laerke explained.
'Without the full set of conditions in place, safe and principled delivery cannot take place at scale. So even when approved, those missions are often impeded on the ground.'
After talks to extend a six-week ceasefire broke down, Israel imposed a full blockade on Gaza on March 2, allowing nothing in until trucks were again permitted at a trickle in late May.
The October 2023 attack on Israel by Palestinian militant group Hamas triggered war in the Gaza Strip.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Meta facing $1bn lawsuit for livestreaming Oct. 7 Hamas attack
LONDON: Survivors and relatives of Israeli victims of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack have filed a lawsuit against Meta, accusing the American tech giant of enabling and amplifying the atrocities through its platforms. The plaintiffs are seeking nearly 4 billion shekels ($1.17 billion) in damages. The figure comprises 200,000 shekels for each victim whose suffering was broadcast or documented on Meta platforms and 20,000 shekels for every Israeli who was exposed to the footage. The suit, filed with the Tel Aviv District Court, could set a precedent for social media companies. It alleges that Facebook and Instagram became 'a pipeline for terror,' allowing Hamas militants to livestream and upload videos of killings, kidnappings and other atrocities. The plaintiffs claim Meta failed to block or remove the footage in real time and left some content online for hours or even days. Israeli news website Ynet reported that the legal action was initiated by the Idan family, who said Hamas gunmen stormed their home, held them hostage and murdered their eldest daughter, Maayan — all while livestreaming the attack on the mother's Facebook account. The father, Tsachi, was abducted to Gaza and later killed. 'They livestreamed the murder of our daughter, our other children's trauma and our cries for help,' the mother was quoted as saying. 'Facebook and Instagram enabled the broadcast of a brutal terror attack. And Meta is still allowing the footage to circulate.' Another plaintiff said she learned of her grandmother Bracha Levinson's abduction and death only after Hamas uploaded the footage to her Facebook page. The lawsuit also includes claims from members of the public who say they were exposed to graphic and traumatic content simply by logging on to the platforms that day. They accuse Meta of failing to act quickly to protect users from the livestreamed violence. The platforms, they argue, became 'an inseparable part of Hamas' terror infrastructure.' Meta is also accused of violating victims' privacy and dignity, and of profiting from the viral spread of the footage. Plaintiffs argue that the company failed to activate rapid response systems or prevent its algorithms from promoting the violent content. 'Our hearts go out to the families affected by Hamas terrorism,' a Meta spokesperson said, adding that the company had set up dedicated teams working round the clock to remove the content and continued to remove any material that supported or glorified Hamas or the Oct. 7 attack. The case is one of several filed in Israel and the US targeting actors accused of aiding or enabling Hamas propaganda and logistics. Last month, families of more than 120 victims sued the Palestinian Authority, claiming its 'pay-for-slay' policy — providing monthly stipends to convicted attackers or their families — constituted material support for the massacre.
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
Israel's Gaza strategy stirs internal division
In this episode of W News Extra, presented by Leigh-Ann Gerrans, we'll discuss US envoy Steve Witkoff's latest meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, as US President Donald Trump punishes India for their purchase of Russian oil. We also cover the war in Gaza, where Israel's defense minister says the military will carry out any government decisions on Gaza, amid reports of internal disagreements over a full occupation of the Palestinian territory.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
UK shift on Palestine reinforces a historical fact
The UK recently departed from decades of foreign policy, announcing plans to recognize Palestinian statehood unless Israel takes immediate action to address the crisis in Gaza. This announcement, coming alongside France and Canada's similar moves, marks a growing shift in international support for Palestine as the UN General Assembly approaches in September. The UK's announcement, while following France and Canada's lead, is notably different in its conditional nature. The Starmer government made it clear that it would proceed with recognizing Palestine as a state only if Israel agrees to a series of significant actions. These include a ceasefire in Gaza, a commitment not to annex the West Bank, and a pledge to work toward a credible, long-term peace process aimed at achieving a two-state solution. This move has been welcomed by many in the international community, yet it has also faced significant criticism, particularly given the UK's historical role in shaping the very conditions that have led to the conflict. Before British rule, the region now known as Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire, specifically the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, reorganized in 1872. This area was part of the larger Ottoman province of Syria, but was granted a special administrative status. It was only with the establishment of the British Mandate for Palestine in 1920 that the term 'Palestine' began to take on its modern political meaning. Under British administration, the land was known as Mandate Palestine, with Britain trying to balance its dual commitment to both the Zionist movement and the local Arab population. The 1917 Balfour Declaration, issued by the British foreign secretary at the time, expressed 'support for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine,' leaving a historical record of British diplomatic recognition of a territory named Palestine. Despite its longstanding presence in the region, Britain has never officially recognized Palestine as a state — until now. This shift is significant, but it comes with a complex legacy. During the First World War, Britain entered into negotiations with Sharif Hussein, the leader of the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire. In exchange for Arab support, Britain promised Arab independence, a commitment later known as the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence. Though the specific interpretation of Palestine's status in this agreement has been a point of contention, this is another colonial-era record of official British utilization of the term, Palestine. While Arabs saw it as a promise for the independence of Palestine, Britain later argued that Palestine was excluded from this promise due to its strategic importance and other conflicting commitments, such as the Balfour Declaration. These historical British footnotes regarding Palestine statehood have shaped the Palestinian cause just as they have defined the very recognition of the territory itself. During the British Mandate for Palestine, Britain assumed administrative control with the aim of helping the region transition toward self-governance. One of the notable steps taken by the British was the establishment of the Palestinian passport system, which formally recognized Palestinians as residents of the Mandate, though not as a sovereign nation. These passports, issued under the Passports and Immigration Regulations, granted Palestinians some travel and residency rights, but they did not recognize Palestine as a distinct nation-state. In the first decade of the Mandate alone, about 70,000 of these documents were issued. In the context of Palestine's century-long struggle, the issuance of these documents supports one more time British utilization of the term Palestine. While the UK's announcement to recognize Palestine is a significant diplomatic step, it must be understood within the context of Britain's historical involvement in shaping the region's political landscape. Besides, this recognition carries significant geopolitical and diplomatic implications. Both the UK and Canada have tied their recognition of Palestine to specific actions from Israel or the Palestinian Authority, such as halting the expansion of Israeli settlements and agreeing to a ceasefire in Gaza. In doing so, they are responding to the urgent need for change in the region, while at the same time pushing for conditions that reflect their vision of a lasting, sustainable two-state solution. The UK's recognition, in particular, carries considerable diplomatic weight as one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. If the UK follows through, it will join France, Canada, and several other nations in formally recognizing Palestinian statehood as the world gathers in New York this September. For the Palestinian Authority, this recognition is particularly pertinent as it legitimizes the organization's aspirations for a sovereign state and enhances its standing on the international stage. UK recognition carries considerable diplomatic weight. Zaid M. Belbagi In addition to this diplomatic shift, the UK has committed significant resources to alleviating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The UK government pledged £60 million ($80 million) in humanitarian aid in July 2025 alone, focusing on healthcare, food, water, shelter, and emergency services. This includes funding for UK-Med field hospitals, which have treated over 500,000 people during the conflict. The UK has coupled its recent diplomatic overture with a continued program of humanitarian assistance. However, this diplomatic announcement raises questions about the future of UK-Israel relations. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reacted strongly to the announcement, accusing the UK of rewarding 'Hamas' monstrous terrorism,' which signals potential strain in the longstanding bilateral relationship between the two nations, historically tied by economic, political, and diplomatic agreements. By the end of Q1 2025, total trade between the UK and Israel reached £5.8 billion, with Israeli investment in the UK contributing an additional £1 billion in gross value and creating about 16,000 British jobs. With an updated free trade agreement expected following the launch of talks in 2022, the UK's shift in policy could challenge the foundation of this economic partnership. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has made the UK's recognition of Palestine conditional, requiring Israel to take substantive steps to end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire, allow UN aid, halt annexations in the West Bank, and commit to a sustainable peace process aimed at reviving the two-state solution. The British government has made it clear that recognition will be upheld if these conditions are not met. However, given the current stance of Netanyahu's government, it seems unlikely that these conditions will be accepted, making the recognition of Palestine increasingly probable in the coming months. As such, the UK's recognition of Palestine before September seems all but certain, confirming what has been a historical fact.
