Tunisian-led aid bus convoy departs for Gaza
Tunisian-led aid bus convoy departs for Gaza
Around 1,500 participants of the so-called Resilience Convoy depart from Tunis on Monday. Photo: AFP
Jamie Clarke reports
A humanitarian convoy named Soumoud, meaning "steadfastness" in Arabic, departed from the Tunisian capital Tunis on Monday, with a goal to challenge the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip, according to the Tunis Afrique Presse (TAP).
Organised by the Coordination of Joint Action for Palestine in Tunisia, the land convoy brings together approximately 1,500 Tunisians and 200 Algerians, united in a call for global solidarity with the Palestinian people.
"This is primarily a land-based convoy, mobilising all available resources to transport stockpiled humanitarian aid to Rafah," said Jaouaher Chamma, a member of the organising committee.
Algerian, Mauritania, Moroccan and Libyan activists were also among the group, Chamma noted.
The convoy is expected to pass through several Tunisian regions before entering Libya, where it will continue its journey in coordination with local NGOs.
From there, it will head to the Saloum border crossing in eastern Libya and on into Egyptian territory, with the goal of reaching the Rafah crossing into Gaza.
"This initiative aimed to send a message to all free people of the world to stand against occupation and genocide," TAP quoted convoy spokesperson Wael Naouar as saying.
"Breaking the blockade is not just about delivering aid," Naouar said. "It's also about evacuating the wounded so they can receive medical treatment outside the occupied territories."
The convoy's journey comes amid growing international concern over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where access to essential supplies and medical care remains severely restricted due to the ongoing conflict and blockade. (Xinhua)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTHK
2 hours ago
- RTHK
Lebanon says two dead in Israel strike
Lebanon says two dead in Israel strike The Lebanese village of Shebaa lies close to the border with Israel. File photo: AFP An Israeli strike killed a Lebanese father and son on Tuesday in a southern village, the Lebanese health ministry and state media said, the latest deaths despite a November ceasefire. A second son was also wounded in the strike in Shebaa, the state-run National News Agency reported. "An Israeli enemy drone carried out a strike in the village of Shebaa, killing two people and wounding one," a health ministry statement said. The Israeli army said in a statement that it had killed a Hezbollah member and a man who operated in the "Lebanese Resistance Brigades," which it says are directed by Hezbollah. The military alleged that the two men were "handling weapons used by Hezbollah for terrorist purposes and for observation of (Israeli) soldiers in the area." Israel had warned on Friday that it would keep up its strikes on Hezbollah targets across Lebanon despite the condemnation expressed by the Lebanese government after a massive strike on south Beirut the previous night, on the eve of the Eid al-Adha holiday. Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran, said the strikes levelled nine residential blocks. The Israeli military said the strikes targeted underground drone factories. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun condemned the attack as "a flagrant violation" of the November 27 ceasefire agreement, which was supposed to end more than a year of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah that culminated in two months of full-blown war. (AFP)
HKFP
14 hours ago
- HKFP
Two Chinese aircraft carriers seen in Pacific for first time, Japan says
Japan said Tuesday that two Chinese aircraft carriers had been seen operating in the Pacific for the first time as Beijing boosts its military capability in far-flung areas. On Monday, China's Shandong carrier and four other vessels, including a missile destroyer, sailed inside the Japanese economic waters surrounding the remote Pacific atoll of Okinotori, Tokyo's defence ministry said. Its fighter jets and helicopters conducted take-offs and landings there, the ministry said. The fleet of five warships was also seen sailing on Saturday 550 kilometres (340 miles) southeast of Miyako Island near Taiwan, it added. China's other operational aircraft carrier Liaoning and its fleet entered Japan's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Pacific over the weekend, before exiting to conduct drills involving fighter jets, Tokyo previously said. 'This is the first time two Chinese aircraft carriers were spotted operating in the Pacific at the same time,' a defence ministry spokesman told AFP on Tuesday. 'We believe the Chinese military's purpose is to improve its operational capability and ability to conduct operations in distant areas,' he said. China's use of naval and air assets to press its territorial claims has rattled the United States and its allies in the Asia-Pacific region. Japanese and US defence officials say China wants to push the American military out of the so-called 'first island chain' from Japan down through the Philippines. Eventually, its strategy is to dominate areas west of the 'second island chain' in the Pacific between Japan's remote Ogasawara Islands and the US territory of Guam, they say. The Liaoning's recent cruise eastwards marked the first time the Japanese defence ministry has said a Chinese aircraft carrier had crossed the second island chain. In September, the warship sailed between two Japanese islands near Taiwan and entered Japan's contiguous waters, an area up to 24 nautical miles from its coast. At the time, Tokyo called that move 'unacceptable' and expressed 'serious concerns' to Beijing. Under international law, a state has rights to the management of natural resources and other economic activities within its EEZ, which is within 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres) of its coastline.
Asia Times
16 hours ago
- Asia Times
Can Israel still claim self-defense to justify its Gaza war?
On October 7, 2023, more than 1,000 Hamas militants stormed into southern Israel and went on a killing spree, murdering 1,200 men, women and children and abducting another 250 people to take back to Gaza. It was the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. That day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the country, 'Israel is at war.' The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) immediately began a military campaign to secure the release of the hostages and defeat Hamas. Since that day, more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children. Israel has maintained its response is justified under international law, as every nation has 'an inherent right to defend itself', as Netanyahu stated in early 2024. This is based on the right to self-defence in international law, which is outlined in Article 51 of the 1945 United Nations Charter as follows: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[…] At the start of the war, many nations agreed Israel had a right to defend itself, but how it did so mattered. This would ensure its actions were consistent with international humanitarian law. However, 20 months after the October 7 attacks, fundamental legal issues have arisen around whether this self-defense justification still holds. Can Israel exercise self-defense ad infinitum? Or is it now waging a war of aggression against Palestine? Self-defense has a long history in international law. The modern principles of self-defense were outlined in diplomatic exchanges over an 1837 incident involving an American ship, The Caroline, after it was destroyed by British forces in Canada. Both sides agreed that an exercise of self-defense would have required the British to demonstrate their conduct was not 'unreasonable or excessive.' The concept of self-defense was also extensively relied on by the Allies in the Second World War in response to German and Japanese aggression. Self-defense was originally framed in the law as a right to respond to a state-based attack. However, this scope has broadened in recent decades to encompass attacks from non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda following the September 11, 2001, terror attacks. Israel is a legitimate, recognized state in the global community and a member of the United Nations. Its right to self-defense will always remain intact when it faces attacks from its neighbours or non-state actors, such as Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthi rebels in Yemen. However, the right of self-defense is not unlimited. It is constrained by the principles of necessity and proportionality. The necessity test was met in the current war due to the extreme violence of the Hamas attack on October 7 and the taking of hostages. These were actions that could not be ignored and demanded a response, due to the threat Israel continued to face. The proportionality test was also met, initially. Israel's military operation after the attack was strategic in nature, focused on the return of the hostages and the destruction of Hamas to eliminate the immediate threat the group posed. The legal question now is whether Israel is still legitimately exercising self-defense in response to the October 7 attacks. This is a live issue, especially given comments by Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz on May 30 that Hamas would be 'annihilated' unless a proposed ceasefire deal was accepted. These comments and Israel's ongoing conduct throughout the war raise the question of whether proportionality is still being met. The importance of proportionality in self-defense has been endorsed in recent years by the International Court of Justice. Under international law, proportionality remains relevant throughout a conflict, not just in the initial response to an attack. While the law allows a war to continue until an aggressor surrenders, it does not legitimize the complete destruction of the territory where an aggressor is fighting. The principle of proportionality also provides protections for civilians. Military actions are to be directed at the foreign forces who launched the attack, not civilians. While Israel has targeted Hamas fighters in its attacks, including those who orchestrated the October 7 attacks, these actions have caused significant collateral deaths of Palestinian civilians. Therefore, taken overall, the ongoing, 20-month military assault against Hamas, with its high numbers of civilian casualties, credible reports of famine and devastation of Gazan towns and cities, suggests Israel's exercise of self-defense has become disproportionate. The principle of proportionality is also part of international humanitarian law. However, Israel's actions on this front are a separate legal issue that has been the subject of investigation by the International Criminal Court. My aim here is to solely assess the legal question of proportionality in self-defense and international law. Israel could separately argue it is exercising legitimate self-defence to rescue the remaining hostages held by Hamas. However, rescuing nationals as an exercise of self-defense is legally controversial. Israel set a precedent in 1976 when the military rescued 103 Jewish hostages from Entebbe, Uganda, after their aircraft had been hijacked. In current international law, there are very few other examples in which this interpretation of self-defense has been adopted – and no international consensus on its use. Israeli hostage Eliya Cohen is instructed to show a Hamas-issued certificate while being escorted by militants to be handed over to the Red Cross in central Gaza Strip in February 2025. Photo: Abdel Kareem Hana / AP via The Conversation In Gaza, the size, scale and duration of Israel's war goes far beyond a hostage rescue operation. Its aim is also to eliminate Hamas. Given this, rescuing hostages as an act of self-defence is arguably not a suitable justification for Israel's ongoing military operations. If Israel can no longer rely on self-defense to justify its Gaza military campaign, how would its actions be characterized under international law? Israel could claim it is undertaking a security operation as an occupying power. While the International Court of Justice said in an advisory opinion last year that Israel was engaged in an illegal occupation of Gaza, the court expressly made clear it was not addressing the circumstances that had evolved since October 7. Israel is indeed continuing to act as an occupying power, even though it has not physically reoccupied all of Gaza. This is irrelevant given the effective control it exercises over the territory. However, the scale of the IDF's operations constitutes an armed conflict and well exceeds the limited military operations to restore security as an occupying power. Absent any other legitimate basis for Israel's current conduct in Gaza, there is a strong argument that what is occurring is an act of aggression. The UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibit acts of aggression not otherwise justified under international law. These include invasions or attacks by the armed forces of a state, military occupations, bombardments and blockades. All of this has occurred – and continues to occur – in Gaza. The international community has rightly condemned Russia's invasion as an act of aggression in Ukraine. Will it now do the same with Israel's conduct in Gaza? Donald Rothwell is professor of international law, Australian National University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
