'Deadly blockade' leaves Gaza aid work on verge of collapse
GENEVA: Humanitarians on Friday described horrific scenes of starving, bloodied children and fights over water in Gaza, two months into Israel's full blockade on aid, with dire warnings that aid operations are on the brink of total collapse.
The Norwegian Refugee Council's humanitarian access manager in Gaza, Gavin Kelleher, said "thousands of people will die" if nothing is done, as other aid agencies called for urgent international action.
"The humanitarian response in Gaza is on the verge of total collapse," the International Committee of the Red Cross warned.
"Without immediate action, Gaza will descend further into chaos that humanitarian efforts will not be able to mitigate."
Israel strictly controls all inflows of international aid vital for the 2.4 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
It halted aid deliveries to Gaza on March 2, days before the collapse of a ceasefire that had significantly reduced hostilities after 15 months of war.
Since the start of the blockade, the United Nations has repeatedly warned of the humanitarian catastrophe on the ground, with famine again looming.
The UN's World Food Programme (WFP) said last week that it had sent out its "last remaining food stocks" to kitchens, and the 25 bakeries it supports in Gaza have closed due to a lack of flour and fuel.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
26 minutes ago
- India Today
Far-right Israeli ministers hit with sanctions by UK, Canada and western allies
The United Kingdom, Canada, and several of their Western allies have placed sanctions on two Israeli government ministers. The countries stated that the two men have repeatedly encouraged violence against sanctions targeted Israel's National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. Both ministers are known for leading far-right political parties supporting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's fragile governing to the UK government, the ministers will face a travel ban and a freeze on any assets in the sanctioning countries. "These two ministers have incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights," the governments said in a joint statement released by Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, and the UK. "Extremist rhetoric advocating the forced displacement of Palestinians and the creation of new Israeli settlements is appalling and dangerous," the statement read."We have engaged the Israeli Government on this issue extensively, yet violent perpetrators continue to act with encouragement and impunity."The joint action is a crackdown on Israel's traditional allies. These countries allege that the current Israeli leadership's support for settlers in the occupied West Bank and its handling of Gaza is making the conflict are steadfastly committed to the two-state solution which is the only way to guarantee security and dignity for Israelis and Palestinians and ensure long term stability in the region," the foreign ministers Gvir and Smotrich have previously said that many in the international community view as provocative and PUSHES BACK AGAINST SANCTIONSHowever, not all Western leaders agree with the move. In a strong response, US Secretary Marco Rubio criticised the sanctions and defended the two ministers."The United States condemns the sanctions imposed by the governments of United Kingdom, Canada, Norway, New Zealand, and Australia on two sitting members of the Israeli cabinet," Rubio posted on social media platform X."These sanctions do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home, and end the war." Rubio added that the United States sees a clear distinction between Israel and Hamas, labelling the militant group as the real threat."We reject any notion of equivalence: Hamas is a terrorist organisation that committed unspeakable atrocities, continues to hold innocent civilians hostage, and prevents the people of Gaza from living in peace," he remind our partners not to forget who the real enemy is. The United States urges the reversal of the sanctions and stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel."SHIFT IN WESTERN POLICY?The move by the five countries comes amid a shift in their international policy. While Washington has continued to support for Israel, even vetoing in United Nations resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, other countries have started to draw clearer lines."Of course this cannot be seen in isolation from the catastrophe in Gaza. We continue to be appalled by the immense suffering of civilians, including the denial of essential aid," the statement Watch
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Israel cancels waiver on cooperation with Palestinian banks
Israel's Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich ordered on Tuesday the cancellation of a waiver on cooperation between Israeli and Palestinian banks, in a move that puts the Palestinian banking system at said the decision came against the "delegitimisation campaign" by the Palestinian Authority against Israel globally, according to a statement from his waiver had allowed Israeli banks to process shekel payments for services and salaries tied to the Palestinian Authority, without the risk of being charged with money laundering and funding Without it, Palestinian banks would be cut off from the Israeli financial decision comes as the Palestinian Authority continues to face mounting financial pressure from a slowdown in aid, a squeeze on a system of tax revenue transfers by Israel and a slump in contributions from Palestinians who have been shut out of the Israeli labour market by the war in comes hours after the United Kingdom and four other nations imposed sanctions on him and another far-right minister for inciting violence in the West Bank. The sanctions included a freeze on assets and travel InMust Watch
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
The hazards of going global on India-Pakistan issues
Operation Sindoor and subsequent events thereafter have, once again, highlighted the futility of bilateral and multilateral diplomacy in resolving differences between India and Pakistan. An entangled web of frozen ideas has enveloped the situation making it impossible to separate the different strands. The developments following the Second World War and the evolution of the Cold War have also impacted heavily on the situation. Thus, any initiative, however sincere and logical it may be, will be hampered by the existing literature formulated by the United Nations and other international bodies, not to speak of Pakistan's stubborn position that Kashmir is the core issue. It is for this reason that Pakistan finds the smokescreen of resolutions and concepts relating to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), terrorism, self-determination, non-proliferation and peaceful settlement of disputes spread over the last 70 years or more. For instance, in the briefing given to India's seven teams of special envoys sent out to various countries after Operation Sindoor, the very first point they were asked to assert was that J&K is an integral part of India. Most countries, particularly those which do not follow developments closely, would look up the literature and the UN maps and find that there is an inscription on UN maps depicting the India-Pakistan border, particularly in the region of J&K. The inscription says, 'Dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India and Pakistan. The final status of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the parties.' Sometimes, there is a more general disclaimer regarding boundaries on the map such as: 'the boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.' Therefore, most countries would not make a commitment on the question of borders. At best, they would tell us that a bilateral solution, as envisaged in the Simla Agreement, would be desirable. India's stand on terror Equally complex is India's position on terrorism. More than 30 years ago, India introduced in the UN General Assembly, a draft for a Comprehensive Convention against Terrorism, which was dismissed as an anti-Pakistan move in which others were not interested. A one man department against terrorism in Vienna was nothing more than a research post. It did not even define terrorism because of the dictum that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The support that India had given to fighters in Africa and Sri Lanka was pointed out as an example of the difficulty in defining terrorism. The only thing that the UN could do was to keep the definition of terrorism as vague as possible. The shocking events of 9/11 (2001) brought terrorism, which was considered to be confined to West Asia and South Asia, centre stage in the United States and Europe and it appeared that decisive action would be taken to deal with the menace globally. But after hectic activity in the political and legal bodies of the UN to finalise binding laws, the focus shifted to U.S. military action in Afghanistan, which resulted in the ouster of the Taliban government. The war in Afghanistan was meant to root out terrorism, but after decades of conflict, the U.S. fled the country, leaving the Taliban in power. The UN's approach The UN Security Council has established several mechanisms to combat international terrorism, that are primarily centred around the various resolutions. Under these all member-states are obliged to take various economic and security measures to prevent the commission of terrorist acts. The Counter-Terrorism Committee of the Security Council was authorised to monitor the implementation of the overall plan. As for action against terrorists, this can be covered under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which recognises the inherent right of self defence if an armed attack occurs against a member-state. Though the application of this right in the case of terrorist attacks is complicated, it can provide a basis for a state to take action against terrorist groups that have attacked it. India's position about surgical strikes on terrorist infrastructure will be judged as to whether such action is proportionate and in accordance with international humanitarian law. The Security Council's approach to counter-terrorism recognises that it requires a comprehensive 'whole-of-society' approach that respects human rights and the rule of law. It emphasises international cooperation, the importance of addressing the conditions conducive to terrorism, and the need to prevent and counter violent extremism. In these circumstances, it will be hard for India to get a clear endorsement of its actions against terrorism. India does bring up terrorist attacks to the Security Council, but the Counter Terrorism Committee has not taken a clear position on the right of nations to treat a terrorist attack as an act of war — the new doctrine advanced by India. The ceasefire along the Line of Control (LoC) and India's restraint in crossing the LoC even in conflict situations are the other factors which are likely to come into play in any discussion in the Security Council or other international fora on India's strategic strikes. India's special envoys may have faced these questions in discussions even with friendly countries. The issue of hyphenation When India took the issue of Pakistan's invasion of Kashmir to the UN, it was a pure case of aggression which should have been considered under Chapter VII of the Charter. But as it happened , the issue was discussed under Article VI on Pacific Settlement of Disputes. Consequently, several extraneous ideas were incorporated in the agenda. leading to western countries hyphenating India and Pakistan on every issue. When Pakistan and India acquired nuclear weapons, Kashmir was considered a nuclear hot spot. India has a non-first use doctrine, while Pakistan threatens to multiply its conventional military capability. India has an established position that any bilateral discussion would only be on terrorism and the status of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. Therefore, diplomacy at the bilateral level or multilateral level is unlikely to be effective. Pakistan will continue to internationalise the Kashmir issue, but India should refrain from seeking international intervention or support. The reports of the special envoys will indicate, if anything, that such efforts are futile, given the history of the evolution of 'the India-Pakistan question' in the Security Council. India has nothing to gain by raising its concerns internationally as its narrative has got entangled in several controversial concepts in the UN. India's only option is to ensure its security by appropriate military action as long as Pakistan continues its policy of inflicting a thousand cuts on India to gain Indian territory. T.P. Sreenivasan is a former Ambassador of India, who has specialised in multilateral diplomacy. He is the only Indian diplomat who has served at the Ambassadorial level at the United Nations in New York, Vienna and Nairobi and headed the UN Division in Ministry of External Affairs
