UN condemns 'weaponisation of food' in Gaza
UN condemns 'weaponisation of food' in Gaza
Palestinians killed on Sunday by Israeli fire while seeking aid at Al-Shifa Hospital in northern Gaza are mourned. Photo: Reuters
The United Nations condemned on Tuesday the "weaponisation of food" in Gaza as a war crime and urged Israel's military to "stop shooting at people trying to get food".
"Israel's militarised humanitarian assistance mechanism is in contradiction with international standards on aid distribution," the UN human rights office said in written notes provided before a briefing.
"The weaponisation of food for civilians, in addition to restricting or preventing their access to life-sustaining services, constitutes a war crime."
That came as the head of the UN's Palestinian aid agency said that if funding is not found soon, he may have to take unprecedented decisions about the services it provides to Palestinian refugees.
"Cash flow is managed on a weekly basis," UNRWA chief Philippe Lazzarini said in Berlin.
"Without additional funding I will soon have to take unprecedented decision affecting our services to Palestinian refugees."
Lazzarini also said the new aid delivery mechanism in Gaza is an "abomination" and "a death trap".
Gaza's civil defence agency said Israeli forces killed 21 people waiting for aid near a distribution site in the centre of the Palestinian territory on Tuesday, the latest deadly incident targeting aid-seekers.
Civil defence spokesman Mahmud Bassal said 21 people were killed and around 150 wounded "as a result of the Israeli occupation forces' targeting of gatherings of citizens waiting for aid... in the central Gaza Strip with bullets and tank shells" in the early hours of Tuesday.
Israeli restrictions on media in the Gaza Strip and difficulties in accessing some areas mean AFP is unable to independently verify the tolls and details provided by rescuers and authorities in the Palestinian territory. (AFP/Reuters)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTHK
5 hours ago
- RTHK
Both Israel and Iran violate ceasefire, says Trump
Both Israel and Iran violate ceasefire, says Trump A man walks near an anti-Israeli billboard in Tehran during the early hours of the truce. Photo: Reuters US President Donald Trump said Israel and Iran violated ceasefire terms with attacks following an early Tuesday deadline to cease hostilities. Trump, in comments to reporters at the White House before departing for the Nato summit at The Hague, expressed disappointment about the continued attacks. 'They violated it but Israel violated it too,' Trump said. He added, 'I'm not happy with Israel.' His comments came as Israel accused Iran of launching missiles into its airspace after the ceasefire was supposed to take effect, and vowed to retaliate. Iran's military denied firing on Israel, state media reported – but explosions boomed and sirens sounded across northern Israel mid-morning, and an Israeli military official said two Iranian missiles were intercepted. The conflict, now in its 12th day, began with Israel targeting Iranian nuclear and military sites, saying it could not allow Tehran to develop atomic weapons. Iran has long maintained that its programme is peaceful. Many worried the war might widen after the US joined the attacks by dropping bunker-buster bombs over the weekend and Israel expanded the kinds of targets it was hitting. But after Tehran launched a limited retaliatory strike on a US military base in Qatar on Monday, Trump announced a ceasefire. Both sides accepted the agreement, but it is now unclear if it will hold. 'Tehran will tremble,' Israeli Finance Minister Betzalel Smotrich warned on X, raising the spectre that the war might continue. Israel accuses Iran of violating the truce. Iran denies that. An Israeli military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity in line with military regulations said Iran launched two missiles at Israel hours into the tenuous ceasefire. Both were intercepted, the official said. Iranian state television reported that the military denied firing missiles after the start of the ceasefire, while accusing Israel of conducting strikes. (AP)
Asia Times
5 hours ago
- Asia Times
Will a fragile Iran-Israel ceasefire hold?
After 12 days of war, US President Donald Trump has announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran that would bring to an end the most dramatic, direct conflict between the two nations in decades. Israel and Iran both agreed to adhere to the ceasefire, though they said they would respond with force to any breach. If the ceasefire holds – a big if – the key question will be whether this signals the start of lasting peace, or merely a brief pause before renewed conflict. As contemporary war studies show, peace tends to endure under one of two conditions: either the total defeat of one side, or the establishment of mutual deterrence. This means both parties refrain from aggression because the expected costs of retaliation far outweigh any potential gains. The war marked a turning point for Israel in its decades-long confrontation with Iran. For the first time, Israel successfully brought a prolonged battle to Iranian soil, shifting the conflict from confrontations with Iranian-backed proxy militant groups to direct strikes on Iran itself. This was made possible largely due to Israel's success over the past two years in weakening Iran's regional proxy network, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shiite militias in Syria. Over the past two weeks, Israel has inflicted significant damage on Iran's military and scientific elite, killing several high-ranking commanders and nuclear scientists. The civilian toll was also high. The damaged headquarters of Iran's state television headquarters in Tehran. Photo: Vahid Salemi / AP via The Conversation Additionally, Israel achieved a major strategic objective by pulling the United States directly into the conflict. In coordination with Israel, the US launched strikes on three of Iran's primary nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Despite these gains, Israel did not accomplish all of its stated goals. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had voiced support for regime change, urging Iranians to rise up against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's government, but the senior leadership in Iran remains intact. Additionally, Israel did not fully eliminate Iran's missile program, as Iran continued striking to the last minute before the ceasefire. And Tehran did not acquiesce to Trump's pre-war demand to end uranium enrichment. Although Iran was caught off-guard by Israel's attacks — particularly as it was engaged in nuclear negotiations with the US — it responded by launching hundreds of missiles towards Israel. While many were intercepted, a significant number penetrated Israeli air defences, causing widespread destruction in major cities, dozens of fatalities and hundreds of injuries. Iran demonstrated its capacity to strike back, though Israel succeeded in destroying many of its air defense systems, some ballistic missile assets (including missile launchers) and multiple energy facilities. Since the beginning of the assault, Iranian officials have repeatedly called for a halt to resume negotiations. Under intense pressure, Iran realized it would not benefit from a prolonged war of attrition with Israel — especially as both nations faced mounting costs and the risk of depleting their military stockpiles if the war continued. As theories of victory suggest, success in war is defined not only by the damage inflicted but by achieving core strategic goals and weakening the enemy's will and capacity to resist. While Israel claims to have achieved the bulk of its objectives, the extent of the damage to Iran's nuclear program is not fully known, nor is its capacity to continue enriching uranium. Both sides could remain locked in a volatile standoff over Iran's nuclear program, with the conflict potentially reigniting whenever either side perceives a strategic opportunity. Iran faces even greater challenges as it emerges from the war. With a heavy toll on its leadership and nuclear infrastructure, Tehran will likely prioritise rebuilding its deterrence capability. That includes acquiring new advanced air defence systems — potentially from China — and restoring key components of its missile and nuclear programs. (Some experts say Iran did not use some of its most powerful missiles to maintain this deterrence.) Iranian officials have claimed they safeguarded more than 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium before the attacks. This stockpile could theoretically be converted into nine to ten nuclear warheads if further enriched to 90%. Trump declared Iran's nuclear capacity had been 'totally obliterated', whereas Rafael Grossi, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog chief, said damage to Iran's facilities was 'very significant.' However, analysts have argued Iran will still have a depth of technical knowledge accumulated over decades. Depending on the extent of the damage to its underground facilities, Iran could be capable of restoring and even accelerating its program in a relatively short time frame. And the chances of reviving negotiations on Iran's nuclear program appear slimmer than ever. The war has fundamentally reshaped how both Iran and Israel perceive deterrence — and how they plan to secure it going forward. For Iran, the conflict reinforced the belief that its survival is at stake. With regime change openly discussed during the war, Iran's leaders appear more convinced than ever that true deterrence requires two key pillars: nuclear weapons capability and deeper strategic alignment with China and Russia. As a result, Iran is expected to move rapidly to restore and advance its nuclear program, potentially moving towards actual weaponization — a step it had long avoided, officially. At the same time, Tehran is likely to accelerate military and economic cooperation with Beijing and Moscow to hedge against isolation. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi emphasized this close engagement with Russia during a visit to Moscow this week, particularly on nuclear matters. Russian President Vladimir Putin (left) shakes hands with Iran's ambassador to Russia, Kazem Jalali, as Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi (centre) looks on during their meeting at the Kremlin. Photo: Sputnik pool Israel, meanwhile, sees deterrence as requiring constant vigilance and a credible threat of overwhelming retaliation. In the absence of diplomatic breakthroughs, Israel may adopt a policy of immediate preemptive strikes on Iranian facilities or leadership figures if it detects any new escalation, particularly related to Iran's nuclear program. In this context, the current ceasefire appears fragile. Without comprehensive negotiations that address the core issues — namely, Iran's nuclear capabilities — the pause in hostilities may prove temporary. Mutual deterrence may prevent a more protracted war for now, but the balance remains precarious and could collapse with little warning. Ali Mamouri is research fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
South China Morning Post
7 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Why blocking the Strait of Hormuz is a recipe for disaster
US and Israeli military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in mid-June have pushed Middle East security to a dangerous new precipice. In response, Tehran's intention to retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz , a chokepoint for around a third of global seaborne oil, has further placed international law and the world economy in the line of fire. With commercial vessels reportedly beginning to divert, the critical question is not just whether Iran can disrupt traffic, but whether it will implement a complete blockade. A careful examination of the legal framework, strategic considerations and economic realities suggests that, although the risk of miscalculation is high, a sustained closure of the strait remains an unlikely and counterproductive option for Tehran. From the perspective of international law, Iran's hands are largely tied. In principle, the Strait of Hormuz should be governed by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). This convention establishes the right of 'transit passage', which guarantees all ships and aircraft continuous and expeditious passage. Crucially, Unclos states this right 'shall not be impeded' or suspended by coastal states. While Iran has signed but not ratified Unclos, the transit passage regime is accepted as customary international law, binding on all nations. Even under the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, one of four treaties agreed on at the first UN Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1958 and which has since been replaced by the 1982 law, straits used for international navigation are subject to a non-suspendable right of innocent passage. Tehran may attempt to justify a blockade under Article 51 of the UN Charter, claiming self-defence in response to the air strikes. However, this argument is unlikely to withstand legal scrutiny. The principles of necessity and proportionality are central to the right of self-defence. A blanket closure of the strait would inflict disproportionate harm on neutral third countries, including energy-hungry economies in Asia and Europe – arguably making it an illegal act of collective punishment as opposed to a legitimate act of self-defence. According to international humanitarian law, self-defence measures must not unduly harm third parties.
