Israeli troops kill at least 25 people waiting for aid in Gaza
The Awda hospital in the urban Nuseirat refugee camp, which received the victims, said the Palestinians were waiting for the trucks on the Salah al-Din Road south of Wadi Gaza.
Witnesses told the Associated Press that Israeli forces opened fire as people were advancing eastward to be close to the approaching trucks.
The Israeli military did not immediately comment.
READ MORE: Iran denies launching missiles at Israel after IDF claims
'It was a massacre,' said Ahmed Halawa. He said tanks and drones fired at people, 'even as we were fleeing. Many people were either martyred or wounded'.
Hossam Abu Shahada, another eyewitness, said drones were flying over the area, watching the crowds first, then there was gunfire from tanks and drones as people were moving eastward.
He described a 'chaotic and bloody' scene as people were attempting to escape.
He said he saw at least three people lying on the ground motionless and many others wounded as he fled the site.
The Awda hospital said another 146 Palestinians were wounded. Among them were 62 in critical condition, who were transferred to other hospitals in central Gaza, it said.
In the central town of Deir al-Balah, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs hospital said it received the bodies of six people who were killed in the same incident.
Palestinian witnesses and health officials say Israeli forces have repeatedly opened fire on crowds seeking desperately needed food, killing hundreds of people in recent weeks. The military claims it has fired warning shots at people it said approached its forces in a suspicious manner.
The deaths were the latest in Israel's brutal assault on Gaza which has so far killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, most of whom were women and children.
READ MORE: More than 100 Labour MPs threaten to halt welfare cuts in biggest rebellion yet
Human rights agencies have widely condemned the new aid distribution system and have refused to take part.
Ahead of a briefing on Tuesday, the United Nations urged Israeli forces to "stop shooting at people trying to get food".
In a written statement, the UN human rights office strongly condemned the "weaponisation of food" in Gaza, warning that such actions amount to a war crime.
"The weaponisation of food for civilians, in addition to restricting or preventing their access to life-sustaining services, constitutes a war crime," the statement read.
"Israel's militarised humanitarian assistance mechanism is in contradiction with international standards on aid distribution."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
37 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Any appeasement of anti-Israel fanatics is doomed to fail
Next week is shaping up to be one of the most exciting since the general election. There will be two key votes – the first on the Government's welfare reform plans in which dozens of Labour MPs are expected to rebel, risking losing the party whip and, therefore, putting their parliamentary careers in jeopardy. That will be closely followed by a vote on legislation to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group, which the Government will find easier to win than the welfare Bill, even if ministers anticipate the Lords will kick up a bit of a fuss over the definition of terrorism and whether it applies to the hard-Left pro-Palestinian group. How Keir Starmer handles these challenges will tell us a great deal about his style of Government and his relationship with his own party. He already outraged parts of Labour by removing the whip from a number of MPs who rebelled against the whip over the continuation of the Conservatives' two-child benefit policy. A handful of those rebels still haven't been restored to the bosom of the parliamentary party and if that doesn't change before the next general election, they will not be permitted to stand as Labour candidates. That is the threat, explicit or otherwise, that will (probably) secure a parliamentary majority for the welfare Bill. And the number of potential rebels who would risk their careers in defence of Palestine Action is considerably smaller. But feelings are running high nonetheless. It's quite the conundrum for the Government. The Prime Minister and his foreign secretary, David Lammy, have made great efforts to avoid any accusation of exhibiting any form of leadership on the continuing crisis in the Middle East. Where previous Labour administrations stood proudly alongside their American and Israeli allies in opposition to the terrorist ambitions of Iran through its funding of various Islamist proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, this Labour government prefers a strategy that the Foreign Office might describe as 'diplomatic discretion', or which the late Baroness Thatcher might have called 'being frit'. Iran has repeatedly promised to wipe Israel – an ally of the UK's right up until the loss of four previously safe Labour parliamentary seats to independent pro-Gaza candidates last year – from the map and has hardly bothered to hide its support for the principle of suicide bombings in Tel Aviv. Yet the prospect of the regime gaining possession of a nuclear weapon seems not to bother UK Government ministers overmuch, despite the nightmare scenario that is certain to materialise should the Ayatollahs ever get a big red button of their own. This is the context of next week's debate on whether, finally and belatedly, the Government ought to get tough with groups like Palestine Action who have gone so much further than peaceful and legal protesting. Much of the current wave of protests is founded on opposition to the West. In the last few days, the sea of Palestinian flags that has become so familiar in protest marches in our cities has started to be intermixed with placards warning the Government not to attack Iran and that doing so would put Britain and the US 'on the wrong side of history'. Those protesters should be clear that their preferred vision for the Middle East does not include Israel, with its very anti-Arab notions of democracy and tolerance. Those who protest that Iran should be allowed to develop their own nuclear 'deterrent' know exactly how such a deterrent would be used, and they're fine with that. This is the root of the conflict currently playing out in the region, a war, not just between nations but between ideologies. And supporters of Palestine Action, along with its reprehensible and violent tactics, are unequivocally on the side of the gay-hanging, women-murdering Ayatollahs. That, rather than any niceties as to the definition of terrorism, is what next week's debate should be about. Independents like Jeremy Corbyn and his motley crew of pro-Gaza MPs and perhaps a handful of former Labour colleagues can always be relied upon to oppose any measure that smacks of pro-Westernism, and they will vote accordingly. Starmer, meanwhile, will find himself in an unusual position. He has gone to great lengths in the last year to position his Government between two stools, between his own instinct to support Israel in its fight against Hamas terrorism and the need to avoid losing any more of the UK Muslim vote. He should have worked out by now that turning on former allies, allowing the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for Israeli ministers and placing restrictions on military exports to Israel will never satisfy the crazed hatred of the Jewish state by a segment of the population. By lining up his MPs in explicit opposition to a group that wears its pro-Palestinian credentials on its keffiyeh, Starmer risks undermining much of his previous efforts to assuage an audience that can never be satisfied. We must hope that he accepts the futility of those efforts and abandons them.
New Statesman
40 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Chaos engulfs Iran. What can Britain and Europe do?
Whether it is a democracy or a dictatorship, a state that loses a long war usually faces a dangerous reckoning. For four decades the ideological foundations of the Islamic Republic of Iran were anchored on recurring confrontations with the United States and Israel. This struggle was not only a geopolitical fault line, it also provided a foundational narrative for the domestic legitimacy of Iran's ruling elite. As the prospect of Iran losing that conflict becomes real in the wake of relentless Israeli and American airstrikes, the Iranian state now teeters on the edge of destabilisation that may prove profoundly dangerous for the wider world. In the wake of the Hamas attack on Israeli communities along Gaza's borders on 7 October 2023 and the attacks on Israel by Hezbollah and other Iran-backed militias in the months that followed, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seized every opportunity to weaken Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's theocratic regime in Tehran. The airpower campaign Israel initiated on 13 June to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons programme cannot topple the Khamenei regime overnight, but economic collapse and public frustration after a military defeat would undermine the foundations of the Islamic Republic. Despite long standing demands for regime change in Iran among American neo-conservatives and Israeli hawks, the US and Israeli governments have not produced a credible plan for what comes next after Iran's social order falls apart. Dreams of victory among Israeli and US policymakers were bolstered by signs of Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps overstretch abroad, even as the Khamenei regime's economic mismanagement led to cycles of revolt among a frustrated populace at home. The Israeli military's brutal evisceration of Hamas in Gaza, its decisive victory over Hezbollah in Lebanon and the fall of the Assad regime to Syrian rebel forces in the autumn of 2024 marked the humiliating collapse of a network of alliances that the IRGC had propped up for decades. But for all these setbacks, there is no sign of an opposition movement strong enough to restore stability if the Khamenei regime does fall apart. Though the pressure Israeli and US airstrikes have exerted on the IRGC has led many commentators to draw comparisons with America's invasion of Iraq in 2003, such analogies are not useful for understanding the distinct geopolitical context of 2025 that will shape Iran's trajectory. The legacy of Colin Powell's so-called Pottery Barn Rule of 'you break it, you own it' underscoring US responsibility for any post war outcome no longer holds. Unlike Iraq twenty years ago, there is no American land army waiting in the wings to occupy and govern Iran. Instead, in his quest to shatter the Iranian state Netanyahu in particular seems intent on using Israel's military advantage to pursue chaos as a strategic goal. If the Khamenei regime is toppled with no viable plan for what comes next, then Syria's recent civil war may prove a more salient precedent. Though central power would eventually reassert itself in a society as urbanised as Iran, a collapse of state structures is less likely to empower reformist elites than military warlords and regional strongmen. If power flows to the peripheries, a society fractured into fiefdoms would face recurring cycles of civil conflict that could generate refugee flows and economic disruption whose impact would be felt far beyond Iran's borders. In such a worst case scenario the consequences for the Middle East and Europe would be disastrous. Yet the US and Israel show no indication of planning for a postwar regional order. The Netanyahu government's backing of the exiled Pahlavi dynasty whose corruption and incompetence brought about the Iranian Revolution and the rise of the Islamic Republic in 1979 borders on delusion. What is unfolding instead is a strategy of desiccating the Iranian state, letting it collapse, and then disengaging to leave others to clean up the mess. The EU and the UK will try to keep their distance from such a wild gamble while offering economic incentives to Tehran in the hopes of reviving diplomacy. Yet Europeans have no contingency plans to deal with a collapse of the Islamic Republic. With no answer to the question of how to engage with a fragmenting society in an environment in which Israel and the US pursue chaos as a strategy, the EU and the UK would struggle to prevent such a disaster from exacerbating Europe's other geopolitical and economic challenges. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Israel and America's war with Iran is not just a strategic throw of the dice. It is a fundamental shift in how power operates in a multipolar world. Though a transition toward new models of collective security remains theoretically possible, as the foundations of US global hegemony wither under Donald Trump the current trajectory favours entropy over order. The danger is not merely in acts of war, it is also in the chaos they leave behind. For the EU and UK the escalating crisis in the Middle East means more than diplomatic frustration and higher energy prices. It could shape Europe's strategic environment for decades to come. The Iranian state might not survive its long war, but nor will the illusion that chaos can be contained. [See also: Ayatollah Khamenei faces a nuclear nightmare] Related
STV News
41 minutes ago
- STV News
Scottish Labour MPs say enough is enough over benefits cuts
Keir Starmer hasn't had to worry too much about his 37 Scottish Labour MPs so far. They've been a pretty loyal bunch. And why wouldn't they be? All but one of them owe their elections to Labour's turnaround under Starmer – and the only one not elected last year, Ian Murray, is in the Cabinet. They all went through a ruthless selection process tightly controlled by Starmer and Anas Sarwar. Having had to deal with some tricky customers in the past, Labour HQ knew going into the general election that selection equals discipline, and by and large, they got the people they wanted. Because they're all new to Westminster, their expectations were limited when it came to big promotions – and Starmer delivered on his promise to put Scottish Labour at the heart of government, with many of the new MPs being given bag-carrying roles on the bottom rung of the front bench, as Parliamentary Private Secretaries. It takes being passed over for promotion at a reshuffle to really make an MP disgruntled and rebellious, and we haven't had one of those yet, so that's still to come. So far, only one Scottish Labour MP has become a serial rebel, and for a very specific cause: Brian Leishman, who represents Alloa and Grangemouth, has always been vocal in demanding more action on the closure of Scotland's last oil refinery in his constituency. The rest of the group has kept pretty quiet. That's not to say they've been totally happy – like Labour MPs across the board, there was real anger at the way cuts to Winter Fuel Payments were handled. But Scottish Labour MPs did most of their lobbying behind the scenes. Until now. For some of them, at least – enough is enough. This morning, we learned the names of more than 100 Labour MPs who have signed an amendment to welfare reform legislation that will cut around £5bn from the benefits bill. In England and Wales, the plans will restrict access to disability benefits, while across the UK, top ups to Universal Credit for those with long term health conditions will also be squeezed. Among the rebels are nine Scottish Labour MPs. Brian Leishman is among them, but the rest of the list are not your usual suspects. These aren't MPs on the left of the party, who have an ideological problem with Keir Starmer's government. A rebellion of over 100 MPs is more than enough to wipe out Labour's majority. If opposition parties also vote against the plans when they're scheduled to come before the Commons, it will inflict a huge blow on the Prime Minister. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch will be weighing up what would be more damaging and embarrassing for Starmer – defeating his flagship welfare reforms, or having them passed only thanks to Tory votes. The scale of the rebellion means some kind of u-turn is inevitable. Politics is about numbers, and the rebels have shown they have the numbers. By u-turning over Winter Fuel Payments earlier this month, Starmer will have emboldened Labour MPs and shown them that they could force more concessions elsewhere. A year into the Labour government, and finally we're seeing the Scottish group of MPs go in different directions. Labour whips won't forget the names of the nine Scots on the list, even if the government ends up conceding over its welfare reform plans. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
