US envoy Witkoff to inspect aid distribution in Gaza
Steve Witkoff, who has been involved in months of stalled negotiations for a ceasefire and hostage release deal, met Mr Netanyahu shortly after his arrival, the Israeli leader's office said.
Later today, Mr Witkoff is to visit Gaza, the White House announced.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Mr Witkoff, who visited Gaza in January, would inspect "distribution sites and secure a plan to deliver more food and meet with local Gazans to hear firsthand about this dire situation on the ground".
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul also met Mr Netanyahu in Jerusalem, and afterwards declared: "The humanitarian disaster in Gaza is beyond imagination.
"Here, the Israeli government must act quickly, safely and effectively to provide humanitarian and medical aid to prevent mass starvation from becoming a reality.
"I have the impression that this has been understood today."
In an example of the deadly problems facing aid efforts in Gaza, the territory's civil defence agency said that at least 58 Palestinians were killed late Wednesday when Israeli forces opened fire on a crowd attempting to block an aid convoy.
Hostage video
The armed wing of Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad meanwhile released a video showing German-Israeli hostage Rom Braslavski.
In the six-minute video, Mr Braslavski, speaking in Hebrew, is seen watching recent news footage of the crisis in Gaza. He identifies himself and pleads with the Israeli government to secure his release.
Mr Braslavski was a security guard at the Nova music festival, one of the sites targeted by Hamas and other Palestinian fighters in the October 2023 attack that sparked the Gaza war.
"They managed to break Rom. Even the strongest person has a breaking point," his family said in a statement released by the Hostages and Missing Families Forum in Israel.
"Rom is an example of all the hostages. They must all be brought home now."
Hungry crowd
The Israeli military said troops had fired "warning shots" as Gazans gathered around the aid trucks. An AFP correspondent saw stacks of bullet-riddled corpses in Gaza City's Al-Shifa Hospital.
Jameel Ashour, who lost a relative in the shooting, told AFP at the overflowing morgue that Israeli troops opened fire after "people saw thieves stealing and dropping food and the hungry crowd rushed in hopes of getting some".
Mr Witkoff has been the top US representative in indirect negotiations between Israel and Hamas but talks in Doha broke down last week and Israel and the United States recalled their delegations.
Israel is under mounting international pressure to agree a ceasefire and allow the world to flood Gaza with food, with Canada and Portugal the latest Western governments to announce plans to recognise a Palestinian state.
International pressure
Mr Trump criticised Canada's decision and, in a post on his Truth Social network, placed the blame for the crisis squarely on Palestinian militant group Hamas.
"The fastest way to end the Humanitarian Crises in Gaza is for Hamas to SURRENDER AND RELEASE THE HOSTAGES!!!" declared Trump, one of Israel's staunchest international supporters.
Earlier this week, however, the US president contradicted Mr Netanyahu's insistence that reports of hunger in Gaza were exaggerated, warning that the territory faces "real starvation".
UN-backed experts have reported "famine is now unfolding" in Gaza, with images of sick and emaciated children drawing international outrage.
The US State Department said it would deny visas to officials from the Palestinian Authority, which exercises limited self-rule in parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank -- the core of any future Palestinian state.
'This is what death looks like'
The October 2023 attack resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, mostly civilians, according to a tally based on official figures.
Of the 251 people seized, 49 are still held in Gaza, including 27 declared dead by the Israeli military.
The Israeli offensive, nearing its 23rd month, has killed at least 60,249 Palestinians, most of them civilians, according to Hamas-run Gaza's health ministry.
This week UN aid agencies said deaths from starvation had begun.
The civil defence agency said Israeli attacks across Gaza on Thursday killed at least 32 people.
"Enough!" cried Najah Aish Umm Fadi, who lost relatives in a strike on a camp for the displaced in central Gaza.
"We put up with being hungry, but now the death of children who had just been born?"
Further north, Amir Zaqot told AFP after getting his hands on some of the aid parachuted from planes, that "this is what death looks like. People are fighting each other with knives."
"If the crossings were opened... food could reach us. But this is nonsense," Zaqot said of the airdrops.
Media restrictions in Gaza and difficulties accessing many areas mean AFP cannot independently verify tolls and details provided by the civil defence and other parties.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
17 minutes ago
- Irish Examiner
Colin Sheridan: ICC justice for Netanyahu? Maybe not — but the arrest warrant still changes everything
In school, most of us learned about The Hague the way one learns about algebra or Shakespeare — with begrudging reverence. A solemn Dutch city, home to two of the most formidable-sounding institutions ever cooked up by the sober minds of the post-Second World War West — the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). One for disputes between states. The other for the monsters among us — war criminals, genocidaires, and heads of state with more skeletons than mistresses. But lately, those halls of justice have grown quiet. The problem isn't just that people have stopped listening to the verdicts. It's as if they've stopped pretending to care at all. If all the courts can do is issue warrants nobody will enforce, then what is the point? Last year, the ICC's chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, requested arrest warrants for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant. Charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, tied to Israel's genocide in Gaza. We know by now who said what, but it's instructive to go back in time a little, and learn that none of what we heard came as a surprise. In March 2021, the ICC formally launched an investigation into alleged violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, covering actions by Israel and Hamas dating back to 2014. The investigation focused on alleged war crimes in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. The announcement triggered strong, sharply divided reactions from governments, human rights organisations, and legal observers. Israel, unsurprisingly, strongly condemned the ICC's decision. Netanyahu called it 'the essence of anti-Semitism and hypocrisy', further citing that the ICC had no jurisdiction, as Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute (the founding treaty of the ICC), and that Palestine, in Israel's view, is not a sovereign state capable of delegating jurisdiction. The Israeli government doubled down, vowing to protect its military personnel and refuse co-operation. The Palestinian Authority (the much-maligned Fatah-controlled government body that exercises partial civil control over the Palestinian enclaves in the Israeli-occupied West Bank) welcomed the decision as a long-awaited step toward justice, calling it 'a historic day for the principle of accountability'. It viewed it as international recognition of its right to seek legal redress for Israeli actions. The International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands. Two decades on, the court has handed down just five convictions for core crimes. Most of those were against African warlords. Picture: AP The US, under the Biden administration at that point, strongly opposed the ICC investigation. Then US secretary of state Antony Blinken said: 'We firmly oppose and are deeply disappointed by the ICC prosecutor's announcement.' Washington took the opportunity to reaffirm its support for Israel's right to 'self-defence' and echoed concerns over jurisdiction. So, although president Biden had lifted Trump-era sanctions on the ICC, the administration remained hostile to this investigation. In Europe, reactions ranged from the technical (Germany and Hungary opposed on jurisdictional grounds) to tentative support (France and Belgium respected the court's independence, even if they had concerns). It is important to note that the 2021 investigation pre-dated October 2023 by over two years, and while no arrest warrants were issued at that point, it marked a turning point in international law regarding how Israel would be treated in its ongoing occupation of Palestine, and its military operations therin. In essence, the reactions in 2021were just an appetiser for those that followed the May 2024 decision that 'there were reasonable grounds' to believe Netanyahu, Gallant, and several Hamas officials had committed international crimes since October 7. On that basis, the court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and Hamas commander Mohammed Deif (later withdrawn after reports of his death). Israel, if it were so inclined to take heed, had been warned by the ICC in 2021. It ploughed on regardless. Today, in August 2025, Netanyahu isn't in a holding cell. Neither is Vladimir Putin, who had his own ICC warrant slapped on his name last year. Sudan's Omar al-Bashir evaded capture for over a decade despite indictments and a passport that read like a serial offender's travel diary. The ICC shouts into the void, and the void responds with billions of dollars of military aid and state dinners. So what went wrong? Or perhaps more honestly, was it ever really right? The roots of these courts are noble, born from the most ignoble chapters of human history. After the unthinkable horrors of the Holocaust, the international community collectively said 'never again'. The Nuremberg Trials in 1945 introduced the novel idea that even heads of state could be held accountable. The precedent gave rise to the ICJ in 1945, the UN's 'principal judicial organ', meant to settle disputes between countries. Think of it as marriage counselling for nations with nuclear weapons. Then, in 2002, came the ICC — a separate body entirely. Born of the Rome Statute, it was designed to prosecute individuals for four core crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the elusive crime of aggression, which sounds like something out of a philosophy exam paper. The ICC was supposed to be the last line of defence for victims when national courts were unwilling or unable to act. A legal lighthouse amid stormy seas. But there were always caveats. Big ones. The US, China, and Russia never ratified the Rome Statute. Israel signed it but later 'unsigned' it — an act that should be impossible, but like many things in geopolitics, defies logic. Without these major players on board, the ICC became a court with jurisdiction over everyone except the people most likely to ignore it. So, how is the ICC doing two decades on? It has handed down just five convictions for core crimes. Most of those were against African warlords. Critics have long accused the court of selective justice, a phrase that sounds like something from a dystopian menu: 'Would you like your international law with or without hypocrisy?' Emergency services personnel work to extinguish a fire following a Russian attack in the Kharkiv region of Ukraine. Picture: Ukrainian Emergency Service via AP Meanwhile, the ICJ, for its part, has presided over more than 180 disputes, many of them relating to maritime boundaries. It has done admirable work in the dry, academic realm of state-to-state conflict resolution. But unlike the ICC, the ICJ can't issue arrest warrants or hold individuals responsible. It depends on voluntary compliance. That's a bit like having a referee at a boxing match who can only politely ask you to stop punching. Despite their apparent impotence, there is an argument that if neither court existed, you'd invent them both tomorrow. 'Both the ICJ and ICC have major political impact, that perhaps supersedes any ability it lacks to follow through on arrest warrants,' argues Maryam Jamshidi, an associate professor of law at the University of Colorado Law School. 'The legal arguments the ICJ and ICC are making remain the most effective way to shut down any discussion that what Israel is doing is anything other than war crimes.' There is huge symbolism, too, in those who are bringing the cases to the courts, and those who are rejecting them. 'The construct of contemporary international law is, in and of itself, very much a product of the West and Western interests. But over time, especially since decolonisation after the Second World War, the Global South has asserted its role and place in holding actors accountable. 'This moment — with Israel's crimes in Palestine front and centre — is a moment that the Global South is shaping. It is holding a mirror to the West. How we think about genocide, how we think about occupation and colonisation. That is incredibly important. If international law is to have a future, the Global South needs to continue to lead the way, because the Global South understands better than anyone.' Last year, ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan requested arrest warrants for Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant. Picture: AP So here we are. Two international courts, plenty of legal muscle on paper, but little in the way of teeth when it comes to the powerful. They can indict. They can admonish. But increasingly, they cannot compel. 'Yes,' Jamshidi agrees, 'but the courts are a critical weapon in a wider ideological war. They use sound legal arguments to shape the narrative and apply political pressure. The most significant aspect of the ICC warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant was that they were the first issued for 'Western' leaders. That's not nothing.' Power has shifted. The UN Security Council, still stuck in 1945 with its five permanent members, can't agree on lunch, never mind accountability. Multipolarity has returned, and with it, a jostling of narratives. Everyone's got a skeleton to show, and no one wants to open the closet. And yet, the need for justice hasn't disappeared. If anything, it's more acute. In Gaza, in Sudan, in Ukraine, in Myanmar, real people continue to pay the price for the hubris and avarice of their leaders. The legal frameworks exist. The moral arguments are clear. But the enforcement mechanisms are laughably absent. What's next? So what comes next? Some argue for regional courts — African, Asian, or European criminal tribunals, more culturally and politically embedded, less burdened by the Global North-South mistrust. Others speak of truth and reconciliation commissions, like those pioneered in South Africa, which trade prosecution for collective healing. There's also the tech-utopian fantasy: AI-driven evidence collection, blockchain-protected war crime registries, crowdsourced justice via global citizen tribunals. But these ideas, while shiny, are fraught with their own dangers and easily co-opted. Realistically, what we may see is a shift toward informal legitimacy over formal legality. Sanctions, visa bans, public shaming, asset freezes — none of these are justice in the Nuremberg sense, but they may be the closest we get in a world where power trumps process. Perhaps, too, we must rethink what justice looks like. Less about punishment, more about prevention. Less about dragging leaders to The Hague, more about making it politically impossible for them to commit atrocities in the first place. That's a long road. It involves education, diplomacy, and strengthening domestic institutions. But then, so did the building of these courts. What, then, will we teach our children? There's a bench in The Hague. It sits silently beneath a row of flags and beside the empty dock where tyrants are supposed to face their reckoning. Today, it feels like theatre — well-meaning theatre, perhaps, but theatre all the same. A performance of justice rather than its practice. And yet, something nags at the conscience. That small, stubborn belief that laws matter. That truth has weight. That even in an age of polarisation and propaganda, the idea of accountability shouldn't die so easily. Maybe the ICC is failing. Maybe the ICJ is ignored. But the alternative isn't attractive, and perhaps, as Jamshidi argues, the symbolism of its rulings and the discomfort those rulings impart outweigh the futility of its warrants.
The Journal
2 hours ago
- The Journal
US to deploy two nuclear submarines in response to 'highly provocative' comments from Russia
LAST UPDATE | 3 hrs ago US PRESIDENT DONALD Trump has said he ordered that two nuclear submarines be deployed in response to 'highly provocative' comments by a senior Russian official. Trump did not say whether he meant nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed submarines. He also did not elaborate on the locations, which are kept secret by the US military. The United States and Russia control the vast majority of the world's nuclear weaponry, and Washington keeps nuclear-armed submarines on patrol as part of its so-called nuclear triad of land, sea and air-launched weapons. 'Based on the highly provocative statements of the Former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev…, I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that,' Trump posted on his Truth Social platform. 'Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances.' Trump did not refer specifically to what Medvedev had said to prompt the highly unusual public display of nuclear sabre-rattling. On Monday, Medvedev harshly criticised Trump's threat of new sanctions against Russia over the continuing invasion of Ukraine. Advertisement Accusing Trump of 'playing the ultimatum game,' he posted on X that Trump 'should remember' that Russia is a formidable force. 'Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country,' the Russian official said. Medvedev is currently deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council and a vocal proponent of President Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine – and generally antagonistic relations with the West. He served one term as president between 2008-2012, effectively acting as a placeholder for Putin, who was able to circumvent constitutional term limits and remain in de facto power. - © AFP 2025 Want to know more about what's happening in Ukraine and why? Check out our FactCheck Knowledge Bank for essential reads and guides to finding good information online. Visit Knowledge Bank
The Journal
2 hours ago
- The Journal
Mapped: The growing global support for Palestinian statehood
MOMENTUM IS BUILDING behind Palestinian statehood, as a growing number of Western powers signal their intent to formally recognise it. France, the United Kingdom and Canada have all announced plans to recognise a Palestinian state, a major policy shift for the key US allies, joining more than 140 countries that already do. Their decisions come amid worsening famine conditions in Gaza, as starvation is rampant across the territory. While recognition of Palestine is not new among nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, these latest developments mark a significant shift within the West, particularly among G7 and NATO countries that have historically aligned with Israel. Growing recognition mapped Recognition by these major Western powers would mark the first such move by any member of the G7, and would increase pressure on others, including Germany, Italy and the United States, to reconsider their stance. France plans to formalise recognition in September. The UK has said it will proceed unless Israel agrees to a ceasefire. Canada has tied its decision to democratic reforms by the Palestinian Authority, including elections in the West Bank that exclude Hamas. Israel and the United States have strongly opposed the announcements, arguing they 'reward Hamas' and undermine ceasefire efforts. US President Donald Trump warned Canada that its decision could threaten a future trade deal. Palestinian statehood has long been recognised by much of the Global South, as well as by key G20 members including China, India, Brazil and South Africa. In Europe, support has grown steadily over the past year. Ireland, Spain and Norway formally recognised Palestine in May 2024 in a joint move, and Slovenia, Malta and others are signalling similar intentions. Ireland is among 15 nations that have called for the world to recognise a Palestinian state and reiterated commitment for a two-state solution at the High-level International Conference which took place in New York this week. The joint foreign ministers statement expressed the call for a ceasefire, concern over the high number of civilian casualties and humanitarian situation in Gaza, and calls on countries across the world to recognise the state of Palestine. France's minister for foreign affairs, Jean-Noel Barrot, posted the letter to his X account alongside the message: 'In New York, along with 14 other countries, France is launching a collective appeal: we express our desire to recognise the State of Palestine and invite those who have not yet done so to join us.' Advertisement The statement is backed by Ireland, Andorra, Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Iceland, Luxembourg, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia, and Spain. Palestine state recognition Palestine currently holds non-member observer status at the United Nations. In 2024, a US veto at the Security Council blocked an attempt to grant full UN membership, despite 12 countries voting in favour. Proponents of recognition argue that statehood is essential for advancing a credible two-state solution. As one senior Egyptian official told the New York Times, 'The Israelis used to claim they had no partner for peace. The problem now is that there is no partner for peace in Israel.' What does recognition mean? Palestine exists, and does not. It has embassies, Olympic teams, and wide international support, but lacks the basic features of a fully functioning state: borders, sovereignty and control of its territory. The Palestinian Authority has limited authority in parts of the West Bank under Israeli occupation. In Gaza, also considered occupied, Israel is waging devastating attacks. Palestinians continue to demand East Jerusalem as their capital, while Israel maintains control across the region. In practical terms, recognising a Palestinian state changes little on the ground. But symbolically, it matters. After decades of stalled diplomacy, expanding Israeli settlements and cycles of violence, many now see recognition as a long-overdue statement, not a solution in itself, but a step towards one. If the UK and France recognise a Palestinian state, it also means that four out of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (France, the UK, Russia and China) will speak with a single voice on the issue. This would effectively isolate the US and their support for Israel, in theory. Lastly, there could be implications for the International Criminal Court (ICC), which issued warrants for the arrest of Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant in November for 'crimes against humanity and war crimes' in Gaza. Netanyahu has called the charges 'outrageous' and the international court an 'enemy of humanity.' Experts say the recognition of Palestine could have legal consequences in the context of the ICC jurisdiction. However, France has said it would not arrest Netanyahu and Gallant because it would be incompatible with international legal obligations concerning immunities granted to states not party to the ICC, such as Israel. Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
