Berlin says aid that entered Gaza this week is 'too little, too late'
BERLIN, May 23 (Reuters) - The aid trucks that Israel has allowed into the Gaza Strip this week are "too little, too late," a spokesperson for the German government said on Friday.
"This is far too little, too late and too slow," the spokesperson said.
"Now it's a matter of increasing it significantly ... and ensuring that these aid supplies reach the people so that the suffering in the Gaza Strip comes to an end," he added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
There's much more to Zia Yusuf's dramatic resignation from Reform than a row over the burqa
Zia Yusuf 's departure had more to do with his failure to persuade donors to part with cash than a row over Reform's attitude to the burqa, insiders have told The Independent. But more than that, it was the now- former chairman 's inability to work with people and get on with them that was at the heart of his sudden announcement on Thursday, it has been claimed. It came after he described Reform's new MP Sarah Pochin as 'dumb' after she asked a question about banning the burqa during Prime Minister's Questions. But in reality, there were many more problems building. The Independent has contacted Mr Yusuf for his version of events and has not received a response. But his critics have not waited long to get their joy over his departure out and give their account of why he was ousted. 'The trouble is that while Zia was a very hard worker, he was a bit of a kn**,' said one associate of Nigel Farage. 'He just could not get on with people or work with people. But the much bigger problem was that donors did not want to hand over their money to the party after they spoke to him.' Mr Yusuf had, along with former Tory donor Nick Candy, been responsible for pitching to wealthy potential backers to fund Reform's push for power. 'There's a lot of money there to be released, but Zia wasn't getting it.' Even with the party's charge in the polls and a growing lead over Labour, with the Tories collapsing for various reasons, many donors were still sitting on their hands and not won over by the Yusuf/Candy charm offensive. Although in Mr Yusuf's case it was 'more of a lack of charm and pretty offensive', an insider claimed. For Mr Farage to fulfil his dream of getting to 10 Downing Street by 2029, reform needs cash to fund its push for power. But even the Tories - in complete crisis under Kemi Badenoch's leadership and with dwindling support - have been beating Reform with donations. But it was not just the failure to win the hearts and minds of millionaires and billionaires that was troubling senior figures in Reform. Several party figures have claimed that the 'writing was on the wall for Zia since March' when the fallout with Great Yarmouth MP Rupert Lowe almost derailed their local election campaign. Mr Lowe blames Farage equally for what happened and has confirmed that he will not be seeking to rejoin Reform, after he was ousted over claims he harassed two women and Mr Yusuf reported him to the police for allegedly threatening him with violence. Police later dropped the case, and no charges were brought against Mr Lowe. This had already been a problem with him previously throwing members out en masse in various new branches for minor infractions of party (or his) rules or not taking instructions from the centre. Supporters of Mr Yusuf, who included Nigel Farage until this week, at least publicly, pointed out he was there to professionalise the party and to ensure that the problem of rogue candidates with appalling views that had dogged Ukip and the Brexit Party did not continue to be a problem for Reform. It is also true that he had been subject to an incredible amount of abuse from former and current supporters of Reform, much of it Islamophobic. The final meltdown over Ms Pochin's question to Sir Keir Starmer on banning the burqa is thought to have been the last straw for Mr Yusuf, dealing with what is increasingly becoming an anti-Muslim party in its membership, if not leadership. Mr Lowe was not the only previously loyal foot soldier ousted. Some, such as ex-deputy leader Ben Habib and former London mayoral candidate Howard Cox, are highly unlikely to come back. Others. including former director of communications, Gawain Towler, will be welcomed back. Mr Towler, an effective communicator and long-term part of the Farage cause, was sacked by Mr Yusuf when the Reform leader was out of the country. He was also banned from Reform HQ despite being a loyal party member. Apparently, that ban has now been lifted and Mr Towler is expected to return, possibly on the board representing members. Perhaps the biggest issue for those now feeling they can vent their anger about him was Mr Yusuf's inability to build loyalty with party staff and volunteers. One insider noted: 'Perhaps now we can have a culture where we can learn from our mistakes.' Another joked: 'Champagne corks were popping in misery at the announcement.' Mr Yusuf had some powerful opponents within the party lined up against him as well, even with Farage's continued public support. This included Raheem Kassam, a former Farage aide now a key figure in the MAGA movement in the US, who is very close to the Donald Trump camp. Mr Kassam told The Independent back in March that Mr Yusuf would be forced out. Yesterday, he said: 'I said months ago something like this would happen because in such a new party with many competing personalities and priorities, being chairman or even leader is an almost thankless and gargantuan task. Pressure getting the better of Zia Yusuf should make people even more appreciative of Nigel Farage's personal indefatigability.' Another long-term ally and fellow 'Brexit bad boy', the businessman Arron Banks, was not a fan either. Mr Banks, who came to prominence as founder of the pro-Brexit site was already moving in on the Reform DOGE project which Mr Yusuf had wanted for himself and is now one of the frontrunners to be the next chairman. He posted on X/ Twitter: 'Astonishing that everyone thinks they are responsible for the meteoric Reform rise, as the old saying goes, success has many fathers and failure an orphan. Zia worked very hard but struggled with relationships and people. The corks will be popping in party HQ this evening. Reform will power on.' The issue now is who should replace Mr Yusuf. One Farage ally said: 'It needs to be a diplomat, not somebody like Zia who wanted to be front and centre all the time. It needs to be someone who can talk to the members, persuade people to give money to the cause and work behind the scenes. You need a backroom man and you can't have two Caesars.' The feeling, though, is that it also needs to be someone with their own funds and good business connections. Another supporter said: 'Nigel needs someone who can give money but also raise money. That's going to be the most important job going forward if Reform is to succeed.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Global aid cuts are a massive wake-up call. It's time to give Africa a bigger voice
In less than a month, Seville will host the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in a climate of uncertainty following the abrupt decision by the US to dismantle its aid programmes. But Washington is not alone in this posture. The European Union agreed to reallocate €2 billion (£1.7bn) reallocation from development budgets in February 2024 —and many individual European countries have made cuts to their aid budget. It is a clear signal that the landscape of Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) is shifting. For Africa, this isn't just a reshuffle, it is a wake-up call for deep reflection and action: will we adapt, or will aid simply become a relic of the past? The timing is bad, the rationale questionable, and the ripple effects threaten to impact the lives and health of millions depending on aid programmes. Let's be honest: aid has had a mixed impact. The spectrum of aid's legacy in Africa, including my country, Guinea, runs from positive to disastrous. On the positive side, aid has contributed to infrastructure development – I'm thinking for instance about a project in northwest Guinea to replace an old ferry with a new road and bridge. During a visit, a cunning minister of public works convinced a skeptical partner to go on a very 'special' field trip via the old route, one that left a senior official so sore and tired that all doubters saw the project's true necessity. Once it was completed, traffic soared, proof that aid can work when it's aligned with real needs. But aid can fall flat. When I was serving as minister of finance, I led efforts to curb directly awarded contracts and boost transparency following an audit of public procurement procedures. The goal was to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of public spending. But some donors were not willing to support this effort. I deplored one particular partner's failure to listen and, above all, a stubborn insistence on taking us backwards by ignoring our analysis. I said no to the help on offer. It was hard but necessary. Aid must serve the real priorities, not satisfy bureaucratic checkboxes. In a recent discussion with the director of an incubator to help small and medium-sized businesses grow – funded by a government donor – I was struck by the emergence of shortcomings I thought belonged to the past. These included a laziness to question one's own model for delivering results, despite warnings about the risks of inefficiency. We also see a narrow focus on so-called "easily accessible" geographic areas, such as capitals, and on disbursements. Aid, in many cases, has helped sustain corrupt elites or fostered unhealthy alliances with public administrations – perpetuating dependency rather than solving problems. When I look back on my own experience in development – a journey close to an out-of-body experience for an African – I realise we are at a critical juncture. It's the moment to question the very foundations of aid institutions inherited from the post-colonial era. Despite some positive reforms, such as untying aid, the core premise remains unequal. It is predominantly driven by the donors, with African countries still being passive recipients rather than active partners. How can this be changed? Change starts with listening. The 'receiving hand' is not dumb and has ideas. It knows its needs. Recipient countries, especially in Africa, must be at the centre of the discussions. Conversations largely driven by donors are a recipe for failure. Furthermore, African organisations and think-tanks must be active players. Decolonising aid must be more than just a buzzword. We are making progress, but it must be accelerated. We continue to see consultancies denied opportunities due to insufficient financial strength – despite their thorough knowledge of the field. It also means better coordination between donors. You would think this is obvious, and yet despite witnessing many innovative and pragmatic approaches, I still see some partners continue to burden governments' limited capacities by each imposing their own distinct systems and reporting requirements. This ends up being a distraction. Recipient governments are key and are the only ones who should replace any donor. I believe the cuts could be an opportunity to make fiscal compromises that (finally) prioritise the necessary and the productive over the superfluous and the personal gain of some actors. Aid must be used strategically and selectively. It should foster technical cooperation for Africa's economic transformation, its integration higher in global value chains. Aid should be a catalyst to reform the global financial architecture by leveraging innovation and the capital needed to finance our massive infrastructure programmes. It must be an instrument for the Africa Union's theme of the year: "Justice for Africans and People of African Descent Through Reparations'. It's time to make sure those people are at the table, and their voices are listened to.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Robert Jenrick is no kind of role model for Labour
Robert Jenrick isn't diagnosing disorder. He's manufacturing it (It's easy to dismiss Robert Jenrick's fare-dodging stunt. But he understands something Keir Starmer doesn't, 30 May). The issue isn't whether people are annoyed by fare-dodgers or spooked by barber shops that stay open late. It's why that resentment gets more political airtime than landlords hiking rents, billionaires dodging taxes, or private equity firms bleeding the NHS dry. What Jenrick is doing isn't tapping into some universal British frustration with rule-breaking. He's engaging in the oldest trick in the reactionary playbook. Inflate petty infractions into moral panics. Redirect public rage downward. Claim the mantle of common sense. It's the politics of distraction, dressed up as concern for order. When Freedland suggests Keir Starmer could learn from this, not the policies but the presentation, he endorses the very performance of power that makes people feel unheard. It's not that Starmer fails to appear tough enough on antisocial behaviour. It's that he fails to speak to the real antisocial behaviours that define life under late capitalism. Wage theft. Housing precarity. Digital surveillance. Austerity itself. Fare-dodging is often an act of desperation or defiance in a system designed to extract. 'Weird Turkish barber shops' is not a neutral observation. It is a dog-whistle wrapped in folksy suspicion. The real disorder is structural, not stylistic. Any politics that treats broken windows as more urgent than broken lives will only reinforce the rot. We don't need Labour to better mimic Tory talking points. We need courage. Courage to name the real villains. Courage to refuse the scapegoat circuit. Courage to believe the public can handle more than tabloid MarphenLondon Jonathan Freedland is correct when he says it is 'awkward to take lessons in politics from Robert Jenrick'. However, Jenrick glosses over his party's part in the causes and thus has no understanding of what brought us here. The society that my and my parents' generation knew had established, long-term employers, often with people working together on a large scale. We had mutuals, social societies, sports and social and working men's clubs. What we offer my children's generation is cellular working, the commodification of everything, self-absorption and social isolation. Margaret Thatcher started the decay of mutual support and shared interests, and it has worsened over the past 14 years, so it is no surprise that some see the expression of self‑interest in antisocial behaviour and low-level criminality. Andrew KyleEaling, London Jonathan Freedland suggests that Keir Starmer might copy the populist gestures of Robert Jenrick. But Starmer has already indulged in many of Freedland's 'nods to the right' with his gimmicky video showing the forcible deportation of asylum seekers, and then his Powellite 'island of strangers' speech. Better by far to 'nod to the left' by copying Bernie Sanders (Interview, 4 June), with his uncompromising opposition to all forms of bigotry while advocating traditional social-democratic politics of strong welfare and just redistribution. And nearer home, Starmer could listen to Gordon Brown (Opinion, 27 May) with his passionate commitment to ending child poverty, starting with the unhesitating end to the Tory two-child benefit Ben-Tovim University of Liverpool It is so distressing to find that I'm impressed by the actions of a politician whom I usually despise. Jonathan Freedland is correct, it's this kind of petty lawbreaking that infuriates those of us who think that as a society we all need to 'play by the rules'. But having Robert Jenrick (of all people) point this out? Talk about cognitive DownesBryneglwys, Denbighshire Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
