Israel's aid access to Gaza insufficient, offensive must stop, France says
By John Irish
PARIS (Reuters) -Israel's easing of humanitarian aid access to Gaza is insufficient, France's foreign minister said on Tuesday, warning its ally that the new offensive on Gaza had to stop or there would be consequences.
Facing mounting pressure over an aid blockade it imposed in March and the risk of famine, Israel on Monday eased its blockade and let limited amounts of food into Gaza.
But it has also stepped up its military campaign in the enclave, where Palestinian health officials said hundreds have been killed in attacks in the past week, including 50 on Tuesday after 130 overnight on Sunday to Monday.
"It (the situation) is unsustainable because the Israeli government's blind violence, the blocking of humanitarian aid have turned Gaza into a place for dying, not to say a cemetery," Jean-Noel Barrot told France Inter radio.
The Israeli campaign, triggered after Hamas Islamist militants attacked Israeli communities on October 7, 2023, killing about 1,200 people, has devastated Gaza and pushed nearly all of its two million residents from their homes. The offensive has killed more than 53,000 people, many of them civilians, according to Gaza health authorities.
Five U.N. trucks carrying humanitarian aid, including food for babies, were allowed into Gaza via the Kerem Shalom Crossing on Monday.
"This is completely insufficient," Barrot said. "All this must stop. We cannot turn a blind eye to the suffering of the Gazans. This aid must be immediate, massive and without any hindrance."
In a rare strongly-worded statement, the leaders of Britain, Canada and France on Monday threatened concrete actions against Israel if it did not stop the renewed military offensive in Gaza and lift aid restrictions, piling further pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
However, they did not outline what actions could be taken and diplomats said the countries will remain prudent given their close strategic partnership with Israel in the region.
Relations between France and Israel have soured in recent months as Paris has increasingly taken a tougher stance on events in Gaza and suggested it could recognise a Palestinian state at a meeting in New York on June 18, depending on certain conditions, drawing Netanyahu's ire.
Netanyahu on Monday criticised the three leaders.
"By asking Israel to end a defensive war for our survival before Hamas terrorists on our border are destroyed and by demanding a Palestinian state, the leaders in London, Ottowa and Paris are offering a huge prize for the genocidal attack on Israel on October 7 while inviting more such atrocities," he said on X.
When asked what concrete measures the three were referring to, Barrot indicated that at European Union level there was a growing call from some countries, including France, to review a long-standing association agreement with Israel to determine whether it is reneging on the clauses related to human rights.
"Once (human rights) violations are established then it is possible that the (accord) can be suspended," Barrot said, adding that such a decision would have a trade impact on Israel.
"The images coming back to us from Gaza, the situation of civilians, women and children, force us today to move forward," he said.
(Additional reporting by Dominique Vidalon and Charlotte Van Campenhout, Editing by William Maclean)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge halts Florida's social media ban for kids
A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction against Florida's HB 3, a law regarding youth and social media accounts. Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in Tallahassee says in court documents obtained by FOX Business that the law is a violation of the First Amendment's protections on free speech. Walker's ruling on Tuesday sides with trade groups NetChoice and Computer and Communications Industry Association, putting HB 3 on hold until the litigation is resolved. "Today's ruling is yet another affirmation that the government cannot control or censor online speech. Like all Americans, Floridians have the right to access lawful speech without the government controlling what they say, share or see online," Chris Marchese, NetChoice Director of Litigation, said in a statement. Texas Bill Pushes Strictest Social Media Ban For Minors In The Nation "Lawmakers should focus on real, constitutional alternatives that respect both family autonomy and free speech," he continued. Read On The Fox Business App Jeremy Redfern, a spokesman for Republican Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, whose office is defending the law, said in a statement obtained by Reuters that the "platforms do not have a constitutional right to addict kids to their products." Uthmeier's office plans to appeal it to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, he said. Snapchat 'Openly Defying' Law, Allowing Kids Access To Harmful, Addictive Content: Florida Ag HB 3 requires social media platforms to bar users under the age of 14 and requires users under 16 to get parental consent before opening an account. It was supposed to go into effect Jan. 1, but was put on hold due to litigation. NetChoice, which represents social media platforms, has won injunctions in recent months against similar laws in Utah and California that restricted the use of social media platforms by youths. Click Here To Read More On Fox Business In Tuesday's ruling, Walker said he appreciated that parents are concerned about their children's social media use, but that other, unchallenged provisions of the law offered them recourse. The industry groups did not address some parts of the law that directed social media companies to delete youth accounts at parental request. Reuters contributed to this report. Original article source: Federal judge halts Florida's social media ban for kids
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump defeats Democrats' lawsuit over election commission independence
By Jonathan Stempel (Reuters) -A Washington, D.C. judge has dismissed the Democratic Party's lawsuit accusing U.S. President Donald Trump of violating federal election law by trying to assert control over the independent Federal Election Commission. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled on Tuesday night that three national Democratic committees lacked a "concrete and imminent injury" to justify suing now, because they did not show Trump would violate election law. The lawsuit filed on February 28 was the Democratic Party's first against Trump during the Republican's second White House term. Hundreds of lawsuits challenging the administration's actions have been filed. Neither the Democratic party nor its lawyers immediately responded to requests for comment on Wednesday. The White House did not immediately respond to a similar request. Democrats challenged Trump's February 18 executive order giving the White House more control over traditionally independent agencies including the election commission, National Labor Relations Board and Securities and Exchange Commission. They objected to language making Trump's and Attorney General Pam Bondi's views on questions of law "controlling" for federal employees performing their official duties, and bans executive branch employees from advancing contrary views. The plaintiffs included the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In a 14-page decision, Ali said White House lawyers assured that the administration would not invoke Trump's order to dictate election commission activity, and commissioners would not interpret the order as a command to vote a particular way. Ali, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, also found no imminent injury based on Democrats' claim they were "chilled" from pursuing campaign strategies because a Trump-controlled election commission might reject them. "The court does not doubt that the committees would have cause for profound concern were the FEC's independence to be compromised," the judge wrote. But he said Supreme Court precedent required the committees to show that their relationship with the bipartisan commission has changed or will change. "They have not done so," he said. The election commission oversees elections and enforces campaign finance laws. Congress created it in 1974 in the wake of the Watergate scandal. The case is Democratic National Committee et al v Trump et al, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, No. 25-00587.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US sees no viable path for California High-Speed Rail project, may rescind $4 billion
(Reuters) -The Trump administration said Wednesday there is no viable path forward for California's High-Speed Rail project and warned it may rescind $4 billion in government funding in the coming weeks. The U.S. Transportation Department released a 315-page report from the Federal Railroad Administration that cited missed deadlines, budget shortfalls and questionable ridership projections. One key issue cited is that California has not identified $7 billion in additional funding needed to build an initial segment between Merced and Bakersfield, California. USDOT gave California until mid-July to respond and then the administration could terminate the grants.
