Israeli strikes in Gaza kill 93 Palestinians, including several families, health officials say
One strike in the northern Shati refugee camp killed a 68-year-old Hamas member of the Palestinian legislature, as well as a man and a woman and their six children who were sheltering in the same building, according to officials from Shifa Hospital, where the casualties were taken.
One of the deadliest strikes hit a house in Gaza City's Tel al-Hawa district on Monday evening and killed 19 members of the family living inside, according to Shifa Hospital. The dead included eight women and six children. A strike on a tent housing displaced people in the same district killed a man and a woman and their two children.
There was no immediate comment from the Israeli military on the strikes.
Gaza's Health Ministry said in a daily report Tuesday afternoon that the bodies of 93 people killed by Israeli strikes had been brought to hospitals in Gaza over the past 24 hours, along with 278 wounded. It did not specify the total number of women and children among the dead.
The Hamas politician killed in a strike early Tuesday, Mohammed Faraj al-Ghoul, was a member of the bloc of representatives from the group that won seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council in the last election held among Palestinians, in 2006.
Hamas won a majority in the vote, but relations with the main Fatah faction that had long led the Palestinian Authority unraveled and ended with Hamas taking over the Gaza Strip in 2007. The legislative council has not formally convened since.
The Israeli military says it only targets militants and tries to avoid harming civilians. It blames civilian deaths on Hamas because the militants operate in densely populated areas. But daily, it hits homes and shelters where people are living without warning or explanation of the target.
The latest attacks came after U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held two days of talks last week that ended with no sign of a breakthrough in negotiations over a ceasefire and hostage release.
Israel has killed more than 58,400 Palestinians and wounded more than 139,000 others in its retaliation campaign since Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. Just over half the dead are women and children, according to the ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and militants in its tally.
Sundays
Kevin Rollason's Sunday newsletter honouring and remembering lives well-lived in Manitoba.
The ministry, part of the Hamas-run government, is led by medical professionals. Its count, based on daily reports from hospitals, is considered by the United Nations and other experts to be the most reliable.
Israel has vowed to destroy Hamas after its attack 20 month ago, in which militants stormed into southern Israel and killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians. They abducted 251 others, and the militants are still holding 50 hostages, less than half of them believed to be alive.
Israel's air and ground campaign has destroyed vast areas of Gaza and driven some 90% of the population from their homes. Aid groups say they have struggled to bring in food and other assistance because of Israeli military restrictions and the breakdown of law and order, and experts have warned of famine.
___
Follow AP's war coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/israel-hamas-war
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
28 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Arkansas farmer launches bid to challenge US Sen. Tom Cotton's reelection bid
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — A sixth-generation farmer from northeast Arkansas announced Tuesday that she is seeking the Democratic nomination to challenge Sen. Tom Cotton, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee who is seeking a third term. Hallie Shoffner of Newport announced her bid for the nomination to unseat Cotton, who was first elected to the Senate and is widely viewed as a potential 2028 presidential hopeful. 'I'll cut taxes for blue-collar workers, fight to restore Medicaid, save Social Security, cut the deficit, and be radically focused on bringing costs down for regular people,' Shoffner said in a release. 'I'll fight this rigged system every day — Tom Cotton's the guy who did the rigging.' Cotton was first elected to the Senate in 2014, defeating two-term Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor in a nationally watched race that drew millions of dollars in outside spending. Cotton easily won reelection in 2020 after his Democratic challenger dropped out of the race days after filing to run. Cotton, who announced in February that he was seeking reelection, has more than $8 million in the bank for his bid and the endorsement of President Donald Trump. The rest of the state's congressional delegation and Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders have also endorsed Cotton. In a fundraising email to supporters Tuesday afternoon, Cotton defended his record. 'I'm proud to support President Trump and proud to have his endorsement,' Cotton wrote. 'And I'm proud to fight for secure borders, lower taxes, and a strong America because it's what's best for Arkansas.' Arkansas' 2026 primary will be held in March. The filing period for candidates in the state is Nov. 3-11.
CBC
an hour ago
- CBC
Carney: Canada will continue to focus on 'building a strong Canadian economy'
Prime Minister Mark Carney said Tuesday that a trade agreement with the United States may include accepting some levies on exports. Carney is set to meet with his cabinet on Tuesday to discuss Canada's response to the latest tariff threat from U.S. President Donald Trump.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Trump reshaped the Supreme Court. Now emergency appeals are helping him reshape the government
WASHINGTON (AP) — Six months into his second term, President Donald Trump has gotten almost everything he has wanted from the Supreme Court that he reshaped during his first. The justices, three of whom were appointed by Trump, have cleared the way for stripping legal protections from more than 1 million immigrants, firing thousands of federal employees, ousting transgender members of the military, removing the heads of independent government agencies and more. The legal victories are noteworthy on their own, but how the president is achieving them is remarkable. Administration lawyers are harnessing emergency appeals, which were used sparingly under previous presidencies, to fast-track cases to the Supreme Court, where decisions are often handed down with no explanation. Trump's use of the emergency docket reflects his aggressive approach to governing in his second term, with fewer voices of caution within his administration and the Republican Party. He regularly seeks any possible leverage to advance his agenda, regardless of past practices or tradition. The result is a series of green lights from the nation's highest court without any clarity on how the law should be interpreted in the future. The latest example came Monday, when the court allowed the Trump administration to move forward on a key campaign promise to unwind the Education Department and lay off nearly 1,400 workers. No rationale given by the majority The six conservative justices did not provide a reason for their vote, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissent on behalf of the court's three liberals. 'When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary's duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,' Sotomayor wrote. In an earlier case allowing migrants to be sent to countries other than their own with little or no chance to object, Sotomayor complained that 'the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial.' David Warrington, the White House's top lawyer and Trump's former personal attorney, said the president's team works 'around the clock to advance his agenda.' Senior administration officials who declined to be identified while discussing legal strategy said the White House is relying on the emergency docket because political opponents have been so aggressive in seeking temporary restraining orders from lower-ranking judges to halt proposals. Skye Perryman, who leads the Democracy Forward nonprofit that has repeatedly sued the administration, said emergency appeals have been pursued 'prematurely and inappropriately.' 'There is a concern that this Supreme Court is not checking this administration's power grab in the way the American people expect them to and the constitution would mandate,' she said. Trump repeatedly turns to justices for help Almost since Trump took office, the court's emergency docket has been packed with appeals from his administration. For a while, the justices were being asked to weigh in almost once a week as Trump pushed to lift lower court orders slowing his ambitious conservative agenda. The rulings on the court's shadow, or emergency docket, have come in some of the more than 300 lawsuits that have challenged parts of Trump's second-term agenda. Administration officials have harshly criticized lower-court judges who they see as getting in Trump's way. Top policy adviser Stephen Miller has spoken of 'judicial tyranny.' Trump himself called for impeaching U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, which prompted a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts. Boasberg has found that members of the administration may be liable for contempt after ignoring his order to turn around planes deporting people under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The administration initially resisted court orders to 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongly deported to El Salvador. Yet the Supreme Court has not seemed especially skeptical of the administration's actions, critics have said. 'District judges have recognized this is not normal. What the administration is trying to do is not normal and it has to be stopped,' Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan said on the 'Original Jurisdiction' podcast. 'The Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry and for what, I am not clear.' Final decisions are yet to come The high court has not issued final decisions in any of the cases, which are continuing in lower courts. It's possible, if not likely, that the court eventually will hear appeals in some of these cases and issue final rulings. But by then, even if the court finds a policy illegal, it may be too late, said Alicia Bannon, director of the Judiciary Program at New York University law school's Brennan Center for Justice. 'In a lot of these cases, you can't unring the bell,' Bannon said. Pointing to the Education Department order, she said, 'Once those firings have moved forward, once that department has been effectively obliterated, you can't just, you know, press a button and bring us back to the status quo.' The liberal justices also have pointed to what they see as the damage their colleagues are doing to lower-court judges. 'Perhaps the degradation of our rule-of-law regime would happen anyway. But this Court's complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote last month in her dissent from a decision limiting judges' authority to issue nationwide, or universal, injunctions. The decision to scale back nationwide injunctions came in the administration's emergency appeal of orders blocking Trump's effort to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion said nothing about whether the birthright citizenship policy violates the Constitution. The issue could soon return to the high court; judges are evaluating whether their earlier orders need to be changed to comply with the Supreme Court ruling.
