Germany and Finland say more pressure needed on Israel over aid
AP image
FINLAND: Germany and Finland on Tuesday called for nations to "put pressure" on Israel to allow urgently-needed humanitarian aid into Gaza.
Israel has in recent weeks expanded its offensive in the Gaza Strip, drawing international condemnation as aid has just started trickling in again following a months-long blockade that has caused severe food and medical shortages.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who in recent days has strongly criticised Israel, said humanitarian aid must be allowed into Gaza "immediately".
"We must put pressure on Israel to ensure the aid truly reaches its target. But it is also crucial that Hamas must not prevent humanitarian aid from arriving," he told reporters alongside Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo in Finland.
"What we have seen in the Gaza Strip is in no way acceptable," Merz said, describing the impact on the civilian population as "excessive" while calling for an end to the killing and suffering.
Orpo also pressed for humanitarian aid to enter Gaza urgently.
"Humanitarian aid must get through immediately and we must put pressure on Israel to ensure that humanitarian aid does indeed get through, but also to ensure that Hamas does not prevent it from getting through either," Orpo said.
"This is a terrible human catastrophe and we must be able to tackle it," Orpo added.
In neighbouring Sweden, the Israeli ambassador was summoned to the foreign ministry with the Nordic country calling on Israel to "immediately ensure safe and unhindered humanitarian access to Gaza".
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
9-Sekunden-Methode lässt Nagelpilz keine Chance
Heilratgeber
Weiterlesen
Undo
The Swedish foreign ministry in a statement noted Israel's right to defend itself but said that "the current way the war is waged is unacceptable".
"Israel must fulfil its obligations to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure in accordance with international humanitarian law," the statement said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
37 minutes ago
- Time of India
'Stopped for tea break': RJD leader Tejashwi Yadav escapes unhurt as his convoy hit by truck in Bihar; 3 security personnel injured
Tejashwi Yadav NEW DELHI: Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Tejashwi Yadav escaped unharmed when a speeding truck collided with two vehicles in his convoy in Bihar's Vaishali district early Saturday, injuring three security personnel. The incident occurred around 12.30am near Goraul on the Patna-Muzaffarpur national highway when the convoy had stopped for a tea break while returning to Patna from Madhepura. The opposition leader's vehicle was not struck in the accident, according to a senior police officer. The three injured security personnel were taken to the nearest government hospital, where their condition was reported as stable. Yadav visited the injured personnel at the hospital to check on their condition. "The accident took place when we were returning from Madhepura to Patna. We had stopped for a tea break near Goraul. A speeding truck rammed into two vehicles of my convoy, injuring three security personnel. I immediately alerted the district police and the administration. The accident took place just five feet away from my vehicle," Yadav told reporters at the hospital. The police have arrested the truck driver and seized the vehicle. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng CFDs với mức chênh lệch giá thấp nhất IC Markets Đăng ký Undo "Action should be taken against those who violate traffic rules," Yadav said. The authorities are investigating the incident, which occurred just five feet away from the opposition leader's vehicle during their return journey from Madhepura to Patna. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Trump's ambition collides with law on sending migrants to dangerous countries
As the Trump administration ships migrants to countries around the world, it is abandoning a long-standing US policy of not sending people to places where they would be at risk of torture and other persecution. The principle emerged in international human rights law after World War II and is also embedded in US domestic law. It is called "non-refoulement," derived from a French word for return. The issue came into sharp relief in the past month as the Trump administration has tried to deport migrants with criminal records to Libya and South Sudan, countries considered so dangerous that they are on the State Department 's "do not travel" list. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Birla Evara 3 and 4 BHK from ₹ 1.68 Crore* Birla Estates Learn More Undo "What the US is doing runs afoul of the bedrock prohibition in US and international law of non-refoulement," said Robert K. Goldman, faculty director of the War Crimes Research Office at American University's law school. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) In a recent affidavit, Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the Trump administration's efforts to send migrants to those two countries as part of a diplomatic push to improve relations. He acknowledged that the Libyan capital, Tripoli, was wracked by violence and instability. Live Events You Might Also Like: Trump administration proposes $1,000 fast-track fee for US tourist visas: memo To critics of the administration, the sworn statement shows that the United States is no longer considering whether a deportee is more likely than not to be at risk of abuse through repatriation or transfer to a third country. State Department employees were also recently told to stop noting in annual human rights reports whether a nation had violated its obligations not to send anyone "to a country where they would face torture or persecution." The State Department said in a statement that it dropped that requirement to focus the reports on "human rights issues themselves rather than a laundry list of politically biased demands and assertions." "Enforcing US immigration law, including removing those without a legal basis to remain in the United States, is critical to upholding the rule of law and protecting Americans," the statement said. You Might Also Like: Trump's ban on Harvard international students blocked by US judge A judge blocked the transfer of migrants to South Sudan, which is teetering on the brink of civil war, and the men were being held at a US military outpost in Djibouti pending more court action. The Trump administration is also in a showdown in another court over its transfer of Venezuelan deportees described as dangerous gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador without due process. "If they were sending them to Sweden, that would be a different thing than sending them to South Sudan, which is one of the most dangerous places on the planet," said Michael H. Posner, director of the Center for Business and Human Rights at New York University's Stern School of Business. Posner, who was the assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor from 2009 to 2013, said the United States could send someone from Cuba or Venezuela to another country if it had been determined at a hearing that the place was safe. "We should not be deporting people to third countries where they have no connections and where their lives will be in serious jeopardy," he said. You Might Also Like: Trump travel ban: Why is Trump banning millions from entering the US again? The White House likens its crackdown on illegal migration to combating a national security threat from a hostile enemy. It has pressed military troops into service at the southwestern border and at a small detention operation for migrants at Guantánamo Bay. But even after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United States abided by its non-refoulement obligation for prisoners it was holding at Guantánamo Bay, during a period when it flouted international law by torturing other detainees in secret overseas prisons called black sites. In 2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell concluded that the United States would not repatriate Chinese citizens from the Uyghur Muslim minority who had been rounded up in the war against terrorism in 2001 and held at the military base at Guantánamo. The United States believed that the men would be at risk if they were sent to China. Eventually, in 2013, the State Department found other countries to take in all of the Uyghurs. In the past, State Department officials have essentially asked two questions to determine where a detainee could be sent: Would the destination be safe for the individual? Would the United States and its allies be safe if the person was sent there? US officials had to assess whether the receiving country could monitor the activities of the detainees to prevent them from endangering the United States or an ally. Officials were also required to assess whether a deportee would be subjected to torture or other inhumane treatment. The United States adopted the same approach to its efforts to send home Islamic State group members or their relatives who were being housed in camps in northern Syria. "Consistent with both long-standing policy and its legal obligations, the US government cannot send people to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe that they will be mistreated," said Ian Moss, a lawyer and a former senior counterterrorism official at the State Department. In his affidavit, Rubio accused the courts that were reviewing deportation challenges of undermining US foreign policy. He also said that plans to announce "expanded activities of a US energy company in Libya" had been postponed. Rubio did not mention whether any diplomatic agreements surrounding the proposed resettlement included guarantees about how the migrants would be treated. "If these individuals are as dangerous as the administration represents them to be," Moss said, "sending them to a conflict area or country where there is a lack of capacity to manage them undermines the national security justification," Moss said. The State Department statement referred questions about "the removals process, including screening for credible or reasonable fear," to the Department of Homeland Security . The eight men who were to be sent to South Sudan were at a holding site in Texas when they were informed of their destination. An immigration division official, Garrett J. Ripa, said in a sworn statement May 23 that none of the men declared himself afraid to go. Court records showed that an immigration officer gave the men a form that listed their intended place of deportation. None signed the document. "By not signing, people are protesting being sent to a third country in the only way they know how," said Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the migrants in the case. Administration officials had previously planned to deport one of the men to Libya, which has been so unstable that Congress has since 2015 not allowed detainees who are cleared for release from Guantánamo Bay to be sent there.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Indian diaspora to benefit as Canada proposes expansion of citizenship by descent
In a significant move expected to benefit the Indian diaspora and other immigrant communities, the Canadian government has introduced a new bill to remove the existing limit on citizenship by descent. The legislation, titled Bill C-3, was presented in Parliament on Thursday by Immigration Minister Lena Metlege Diab, as per a report by Lubna Kably in the Times of India. The current rule, introduced in 2009, restricts Canadian citizenship by descent to only the first generation born outside Canada. This means that a Canadian citizen who was themselves born outside Canada could not pass on their citizenship to a child born abroad. Similarly, they could not apply for direct citizenship for a child adopted overseas. The proposed bill aims to change this. According to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada ( IRCC ), 'As a result of the first-generation limit to citizenship by descent for individuals born abroad, most Canadian citizens who are citizens by descent cannot pass on citizenship to their child born or adopted outside Canada. The current first-generation limit to citizenship no longer reflects how Canadian families live today—here at home and around the world—and the values that define our country.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Infertile Man Visits Orphanage And Hears, 'Hi Daddy.' Then He Realizes His Late Wife's Cruel Lies Crowdy Fan Undo As per Lubna's report in TOI, the issue has drawn legal scrutiny in recent years. In January 2024, a Canadian court ruled the first-generation limit unconstitutional. The government chose not to appeal the ruling. Although similar legislation was proposed in March 2024 by then-Immigration Minister Marc Miller, it did not pass, prompting its reintroduction this week. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) If passed, Bill C-3 would automatically grant citizenship to individuals who would have been eligible if not for the earlier restrictions. It also proposes a new system under which Canadian parents born abroad can pass on citizenship to their foreign-born children—provided the parent has lived in Canada for at least 1,095 days (or three years) before the child's birth or adoption. Live Events You Might Also Like: Canada's new bill to grant citizenship to thousands of people Ken Nickel-Lane, managing director of an immigration services firm, said to The Times of India, 'While Bill C-3 certainly addresses and rectifies a fault, or faults in the current Citizenship Act which certainly is warranted and just, it may face challenges given current public opinion towards immigration.' He added that the bill might put pressure on immigration quotas, potentially affecting temporary foreign workers critical to infrastructure and housing development. The IRCC has confirmed that, 'If the bill passes both Houses of Parliament and receives Royal Assent, we will work as quickly as possible to bring the changes into effect.' For many Indian-origin Canadians with children or adopted children born outside Canada, the bill—if passed—will mark a major shift in access to citizenship and legal status. You Might Also Like: Canada's first Express Entry draw under new Immigration Minister invites 277 applications
