UN Chief Slams US-Backed Gaza Aid Operation: ‘It Is Killing People'
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said on Friday that a US-backed aid operation in Gaza is "inherently unsafe," giving a blunt assessment: "It is killing people."
Israel and the United States want the UN to work through the controversial new Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, but the UN has refused, questioning its neutrality and accusing the distribution model of militarizing aid and forcing displacement.
"Any operation that channels desperate civilians into militarized zones is inherently unsafe. It is killing people," Guterres told reporters.
Guterres said UN-led humanitarian efforts are being "strangled," aid workers themselves are starving and Israel as the occupying power is required to agree to and facilitate aid deliveries into and throughout the Palestinian enclave.
"People are being killed simply trying to feed themselves and their families. The search for food must never be a death sentence," Guterres told reporters.
"It is time to find the political courage for a ceasefire in Gaza."
Since Israel lifted an 11-week aid blockade on Gaza on May 19, allowing limited UN deliveries to resume, the United Nations says more than 400 Palestinians have been killed seeking aid from both the UN and GHF operations. A senior UN official said on Sunday that the majority of those people were trying to reach GHF sites.
Responding to Guterres on Friday, Israel's Foreign Ministry said Israel's military never targets civilians and accused the UN of "doing everything it can" to oppose the GHF aid operation.
"In doing so, the UN is aligning itself with Hamas, which is also trying to sabotage the GHF's humanitarian operations," it posted on X.
A GHF spokesperson said there have been no deaths at or near any of the GHF aid distribution sites.
"It is unfortunate the UN continue to push false information regarding our operations," the GHF spokesperson said. "Bottom line, our aid is getting securely delivered. Instead of bickering and throwing insults from the sidelines, we would welcome the UN and other humanitarian groups to join us and feed the people in Gaza."
GHF uses private US security and logistics firms to operate. It began operations in Gaza on May 26 and said on Friday so far it has given out more than 48 million meals.
The US State Department said on Thursday it had approved $30 million in funding for the GHF and called on other countries to also support the group.
Israel and the United States have accused Hamas of stealing aid from the UN-led operations, which the group denies.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
35 minutes ago
- Arab News
Netanyahu sees ‘opportunities' to free Gaza hostages
JERUSALEM: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that his country's 'victory' over Iran in their 12-day war had created 'opportunities,' including for freeing hostages held in Gaza. 'Many opportunities have opened up now following this victory. First of all, to rescue the hostages,' Netanyahu said in an address to officers of the security services. 'Of course, we will also have to solve the Gaza issue, to defeat Hamas, but I estimate that we will achieve both goals,' he added, referring to his country's campaign to crush the Palestinian militant group. In a statement late Sunday, the main group representing hostages' families welcomed 'the fact that after 20 months, the return of the hostages has finally been designated as the top priority by the prime minister.' 'This is a very important statement that must translate into a single comprehensive deal to bring back all 50 hostages and end the fighting in Gaza,' the Hostages and Missing Families Forum said. Palestinian militants seized 251 hostages during Hamas's attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Of these, 49 are still believed to be held in Gaza, including 27 the Israeli military says are dead. Hamas also holds the body of an Israeli soldier killed there in 2014. The forum called for the hostages' 'release, not rescue.' 'The only way to free them all is through a comprehensive deal and an end to the fighting, without rescue operations that endanger both the hostages and (Israeli) soldiers.'
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
Iran says no threat to UN nuclear watchdog chief, inspectors after call for execution
Iran said Sunday it posed no threat to the head of the UN nuclear watchdog and its inspectors after an Iranian newspaper called for the execution of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi. 'No, there is not any threat' against the inspectors or the director general, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, said in an interview with US broadcaster CBS when asked about calls in an ultra-conservative newspaper for the agency's chief to be executed as a spy. The ambassador said inspectors in Iran were 'in safe conditions.' On Saturday, Argentina condemned what it said were threats against Argentine Grossi after Iran rejected his request to visit nuclear facilities bombed by Israel and the United States. Tehran has accused Grossi of 'betrayal of his duties' for not condemning the Israeli and US strikes on Iran's nuclear sites this month, and Iranian lawmakers voted to suspend cooperation with the IAEA which he leads. On Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on X that 'Grossi's insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent.' Iran has said it believes an IAEA resolution on June 12 that accused Iran of ignoring its nuclear obligations served as an 'excuse' for the 12-day war Israel launched on June 13.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
Is UK government principled or realist in the Middle East?
The UK's Labour government was probably thankful that Donald Trump found a way to strike Iran's nuclear facilities without using British bases. After the June 22 attacks occurred, London was quick to emphasize that, though it had been informed in advance, the UK played no role. In the run-up, British officials were concerned that any American request to use the UK base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia would put Prime Minister Keir Starmer in a difficult position. While Britain would feel obliged to aid its most important ally, there were questions over the legality of Washington's strikes. Immediately afterward, David Lammy, the UK's foreign secretary, declined to comment on the legal concerns, stating they were 'for the Americans to discuss.' But the question of international law and the UK's approach to the Middle East is not insignificant. As a lawyer and former head of Britain's Crown Prosecution Service, many expected Starmer to place considerable emphasis on upholding international law and the so-called rules-based order when he came to office. Indeed, Starmer's attorney general, the UK government's chief legal adviser, told the BBC recently that international law 'goes absolutely to the heart' of London's foreign policy. Lammy, another lawyer, stated when he came to power that Labour would pursue 'progressive realism' in office — using realist means to pursue progressive ends. But the Middle East, especially Israel's actions, have at times appeared a blind spot for this supposedly progressive foreign policy. For all its rhetoric, is Starmer's government ultimately more realist than principled in the region? During its year in office so far, Starmer's Labour government has been keen to emphasize its principles when it comes to the Middle East. Unlike some states like Hungary, which withdrew from the International Criminal Court to allow Benjamin Netanyahu to visit, Starmer's government has stated that, were the Israeli premier to enter the UK, he would be arrested in accordance with the court's warrant. Similarly, in recent months, London has stepped up its criticism of Israel's war in Gaza and initiated legal measures. These have included canceling free trade talks with Israel and 30 arms licenses, as well as sanctioning two Israeli ministers. In May, Lammy stated that Israel's recent actions in Gaza were 'an affront to the values of the British people,' and that ministers' calls to expel Palestinians were 'monstrous' and 'extremist.' During Israel's recent war with Iran, London similarly stuck to its principles of promoting a diplomatic not an armed solution — in contrast to its allies in Israel and the US. As Israel launched its attacks on Iran, Starmer's office released a statement emphasizing 'the need for de-escalation and a diplomatic resolution, in the interests of stability in the region.' However, critics complain that the Labour government's principles in the Middle East appear quite elastic and inconsistent. While calling for Israel to de-escalate, Starmer also emphasized Israel's right to 'self-defense,' offering a degree of legitimacy to the attacks — 'self-defense' being the criteria needed under the UN Charter to legally justify military action. Critics complain that the Labour government's principles in the Middle East appear quite elastic and inconsistent. Christopher Phillips Similarly, while London has become increasingly critical of Israel's actions in Gaza, for a long time it was more supportive. As leader of the opposition, Starmer caused waves by saying Israel had 'the right' to cut off water and power to Gaza, despite this being considered illegal collective punishment by many international lawyers. And lawyers supporting the Palestinians have repeatedly challenged the legality of the UK continuing to supply Israel with arms — with the 320 continuing licenses far greater than the 30 that were suspended. Though there is always legal ambiguity with these issues, London's apparent unwillingness to seriously reduce arms supplies, despite its foreign secretary calling Israel's actions in Gaza 'monstrous,' suggests its commitment to principles in the region can be selective. Yet the government's supporters would offer a more nuanced take. In his interview with the BBC, Attorney General Richard Hermer, a long-term friend of Starmer, said that international law was 'important in and of itself, but it's also important because it goes absolutely to the heart of what we're trying to achieve, which is to make life better for people in this country.' The suggestion is that the latter point, making life better for Britons, is the ultimate priority. Principles like upholding and promoting international law are important, but not at any expense. Labour must balance these principles with other concerns. At home, the Middle East is a hugely divisive issue. In 2024's general election, Labour lost five parliamentary seats to candidates overtly criticizing Starmer's Gaza policy, while the issue has repeatedly caused ruptures within the party itself. A significant number of MPs on the left wing of the party were vocally against the UK playing any role in the US strikes on Iran. Internationally, the UK is in a relatively weak position. Its primary concern is facing down Russia and pursuing rearmament alongside European allies in response to an apparent American reluctance to come to their aid. He is also determined to keep US President Donald Trump onside and to position the UK as a reliable friend to the White House. Grandstanding on international law to either Israel or the US risks damaging that relationship. The Middle East is low down the UK's list of core interests, perhaps explaining why London is often selective about when it wants to push international law — only doing so when it does not clash with core interests. Perhaps this selectiveness is what Lammy regards as progressive realism, but it is not clear whether this is having any effect in the Middle East or whether the US and Israel are more likely to adhere to progressive principles because of Britain's actions. A more cynical read is that Labour are being realist progressives: led by principle when they can but ultimately falling back on realpolitik when it comes to the crunch. The risk, of course, is that key actors not standing up for international laws and rules at these crucial moments means they wither away, making the world more dangerous. In such cases, there are fewer progressive opportunities and realism becomes the only option.
