Twenty killed in crush at Israeli and US-backed aid site in Gaza, group says
According to the GHF, the people died in a 'chaotic and dangerous surge,' which it said was 'driven by agitators in the crowd.' The aid group said 19 people were trampled and one person was stabbed in the crowd crush.
The GHF alleged that individuals who were 'armed and affiliated with Hamas' deliberately instigated the chaos. 'For the first time since operations began, GHF personnel identified multiple firearms in the crowd, one of which was confiscated,' it said.
Hamas' Government Media Office (GMO) blamed the GHF for the incident, claiming the group called on Palestinians to receive aid at the site in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, then 'proceeded to lock the iron gates after herding thousands of starving people into narrow iron corridors.'
The Palestinian health ministry said 21 people were killed in the incident, 15 of whom died from suffocation after tear gas was fired at a crowd of people awaiting aid, triggering a crowd crush.
US security contractors operate inside the GHF's aid sites, and the Israeli military is usually positioned outside. CNN has approached the Israeli military for comment on the latest incident.
Hundreds of people have been killed while trying to access aid in Gaza since the GHF began operating in the Strip, according to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Nearly 800 people were killed in this way between late May and July 7, it said, 615 of whom were killed near GHF sites.
Palestinian officials and witnesses have said the Israeli military is responsible for most of those deaths. The military has acknowledged firing warning shots towards crowds in some instances, and denied responsibility for other incidents. In late June, the military said it had 'reorganized' the approach routes to aid sites to minimize 'friction with the population.'
On Saturday, the Palestinian health ministry said 27 people were killed and many more injured when Israeli troops opened fire on people trying to obtain aid from a distribution site run by the GHF near southern Rafah.
The GHF denied the claim, saying 'there were no incidents at or in the immediate vicinity of our sites' on Saturday.
The Israeli military also denied that anyone was injured by gunfire from its troops in the vicinity of the site but said it continued to review the reports. It told CNN Sunday it had no further comment.
A scathing US government assessment of the GHF reported on by CNN last week shows that USAID officials raised 'critical concerns' about the group's ability to protect Palestinians and to deliver them food.
The assessment flagged a range of concerns, from an overall plan missing 'even basic details' to a proposal to potentially distribute powdered baby formula in an area that lacks clean water to prepare it.
A GHF spokesperson defended the organization's work in Gaza and described the USAID assessment as normal for a funding application.
In its statement released Wednesday, the Palestinian health ministry said that 'the Israeli occupation and the American establishment are deliberately committing massacres in a systematic manner and using various methods against the starving people.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
a minute ago
- USA Today
Two big cases underway over Trump's higher education policy. Here are the key takeaways
BOSTON ― A federal courthouse was the epicenter of the legal world on July 21 as federal judges heard arguments in two cases surrounding the Trump administration's efforts to revoke federal funding from Harvard University and to deport foreign-born student protesters for pro-Palestinian activism. In courtroom 18 at the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, U.S. District Judge William Young heard closing arguments in American Association of University Professors (AAUP) v. Rubio. The organization's chapters at several universities, as well as the Middle East Studies Association, sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio in March over what it described as an "ideological deportation policy" the administration was using to retaliate against noncitizens for pro-Palestinian speech. Steps away, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs heard oral arguments in Harvard's lawsuit against the administration over the more than $2.5 billion in federal funding it pulled from the school, citing its alleged inaction on antisemitism. The First Amendment lies at the heart of both cases, which could have significant implications for the future of higher education and free speech in the U.S. Here are key takeaways from the trials. Research, civil rights and lives are at stake, attorneys say Harvard's attorneys argued that the loss of federal funding would significantly damage the school's ability to conduct research that serves a public benefit while not meaningfully addressing antisemitism, NPR reported. The Trump administration, on the other hand, said Harvard's Jewish students are harmed by the school's alleged inaction on antisemitism, which it has said amounts to a violation of federal civil rights law. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, along with co-counsel Sher Tremonte law firm, sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration on behalf of the association's chapters at several universities, including Harvard, and the Middle East Studies Association in March. In AAUP v. Rubio, attorneys from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and Sher Tremonte law firm argued that the Trump administration's 'ideological deportation policy' affected not only the activists who have been arrested thus far but created a chilling effect on the free speech of noncitizen students and faculty. The government's attorneys disputed the existence of such a policy. If it did exist, lawyer William Kanellis said, 'you'd see many more arrests.' Judges questioned some arguments Both judges were skeptical of some of the arguments attorneys attempted to make in their courtrooms. The notion that the government has the authority to slash Harvard's federal funding for any reason was a 'major stumbling block for me,' Burroughs said. She said there would be 'staggering' implications for constitutional law if the government had the power to make such decisions 'for reasons oriented around speech.' Burroughs also questioned how revoking Harvard's federal grants contributed to the government's stated objective of combatting antisemitism at the university, as the Harvard Crimson reported. Young, meanwhile, appeared skeptical of the AAUP's argument that the Trump administration created and implemented a new 'ideological deportation' policy. He also questioned the plaintiff's arguments surrounding Canary Mission, an organization that says it 'documents individuals and organizations that promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews on North American college campuses and beyond.' The plaintiff's attorneys characterized it as an extremist group the government relied upon to identify noncitizens for investigation and arrest. Young was skeptical of the attorneys' characterization of the group and said it's 'perfectly appropriate for the government to take leads from any source.' First Amendment issues at the heart of both cases Alexandra Conlon, a representing the plaintiffs in the deportation case, said that by revoking visas and green cards based on noncitizens' pro-Palestinian activism, the federal government was 'systematically violating the First Amendment' and seeking to chill speech it disagrees with. On the first day of the trial, Justice Department attorney Victoria Santora said the First Amendment applies to both citizens and noncitizens alike. But she later backtracked to say 'there are nuances to the First Amendment,' Politico reported. Department of Justice attorney Ethan Kanter continued that argument July 21, saying noncitizens do not have First Amendment rights to the same extent as U.S. citizens. While they may have such rights in some capacity, he said, they are 'context dependent and in relation to the compelling government interest at play.' Lawyer Steven P. Lehotsky, representing Harvard in the funding lawsuit, said the administration's actions against the university reflect a 'blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment,' the Harvard Crimson reported. Administration's moves are 'part of a broader attack' Ramya Krishnan, a Knight First Amendment Institute attorney representing the AAUP in the deportation case, said both that case and the one over Harvard's federal funding were part of the Trump administration's higher education "power grab." 'These are part of a broader attack on higher education in this country in weakening the independence of these institutions, in undermining them as a site for discourse and intellectual inquiry," she said, "and I think that people should be very worried about that.' The Trump administration has accused schools of engaging in "exploitative and unlawful practices" and said its steps to overhaul higher education would "rebuild public trust" in such institutions. Burroughs said she would issue an opinion in the Harvard case soon after oral arguments concluded on July 21, the Harvard Crimson reported. The school has requested a ruling by Sept. 3, which is its deadline for submitting paperwork to close out its federal grant funding. Young did not offer a timeline for issuing his opinion in the deportation case. BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@ USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
New York Times
2 minutes ago
- New York Times
Wednesday Briefing: Israel Expands Gaza Offensive
Israeli strikes hit a W.H.O. facility in Gaza The World Health Organization accused Israel of attacking its site in central Gaza after the Israeli military expanded its operations in the city of Deir al-Balah, which until recently had been left relatively unscathed. Israel had spared Deir al-Balah because it believed that Hamas was holding Israeli and foreign hostages there, but that strategy appears to be changing. A W.H.O. staff residence was damaged by airstrikes on Monday, the agency said in a statement. Israeli forces also entered the building, handcuffed and stripped male employees and family members sheltering there, and held them at gunpoint. Women and children were forcibly evacuated, the agency said. An Israeli military official said that the strike took place after the staff was evacuated, and that Israeli forces had come under fire in the vicinity, leading them to respond. Context: Deir al-Balah had been an informal refuge for Palestinians escaping other parts of Gaza, and huge tent camps have sprung up in the city. The city also hosts warehouses for the U.N. as well as guesthouses for U.N. staff. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Bloomberg
2 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
SpaceX Braces for Musk Return to US Politics
On today's Bloomberg Businessweek Daily, Carol Massar and Tim Stenovec speak with Stuart Paul on the increasing pressure on Jerome Powell, as Trump pushes the Fed to cut rates. Then, Morgan Stanley's Head of US Policy Monica Guerra joins to talk the importance of an Independent Fed as well as Trump lowering tariffs against the Philippines to 19% following his meeting with President Marcos. Kenneth Shea outlines Coca-Cola launching a cane sugar option in the US come fall, and David Welch breaks down General Motors suffering a billion dollar hit to its profits due to tariffs. Max Chafkin drops in to detail SpaceX warning its investors that Elon Musk could return to US politics, and Sonali Basak previews her conversation with Carlyle Group CEO Harvey Schwartz on her new show 'Bullish.' (Source: Bloomberg)
