Gaza: Ireland joins Spain and four other nations to warn of 'dangerous new escalation' by Israel
The joint statement from Harris and ministers from Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway, Slovenia and Spain condemns Israel's plans for a prolonged occupation of Gaza and rejects the prospect of any measure that would forcibly displace Gaza's population.
International pressure on Israel is mounting as it continues to
impose a total blockade on Gaza
, preventing any supplies like food or medicine from entering the Palestinian region.
Community kitchens and bakeries in Gaza have been forced to close because of the blockade and what little medical care is still available has been put under even further strain.
At the same time, Israel is preparing to deepen its attacks on Gaza even further and implement plans to hold onto control of Gaza for an indefinite amount of time and force its residents into specific parts of the region.
The group of European ministers said that Israel's plan 'would mean crossing yet another line, marking a dangerous new escalation and jeopardizing any prospects of a viable two-state solution'.
They said that further military escalation in Gaza 'will only exacerbate an already catastrophic situation for the civilian Palestinian population and threaten the lives of the hostages that remain in captivity'.
We firmly reject any demographic or territorial change in Gaza, including any scheme that would force or facilitate the permanent displacement of its population, which would be in violation of international law.
'We also strongly oppose a system that does not ensure that the entire population gets access to humanitarian aid. Gaza is an integral part of the State of Palestine, which belongs to the Palestinian people.'
The ministers noted that Israeli authorities have blocked all humanitarian aid and commercial supplies from reaching the civilian Palestinian population in Gaza for more than two months.
Advertisement
'Despite repeated calls on Israel to lift these measures and to facilitate relief, Israel has instead further tightened, rather than eased, the measures,' they said, adding: 'We call on Israel to immediately lift the blockade. It is essential to facilitate relief for all civilians in need, without discrimination, and to follow the other humanitarian principles of impartiality, independence and neutrality.'
They called on Israel to 'show restraint' and to 'take all necessary and effective measures to ensure, without delay, in full cooperation with the United Nations and humanitarian organisations, the unhindered provision at scale of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance'.
What is needed more urgently than ever is a resumption of a ceasefire, and the unconditional release of all hostages.
'We reaffirm our unwavering support for the two-state solution — Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security,' the ministers concluded.
Alongside Simon Harris, the signatories of the statement are Thorgerdur Katrin Gunnarsdottir, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iceland; Xavier Bettel, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of Luxembourg; Espen Barth Eide, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Norway; Tanja Fajon, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of Slovenia; and José Manuel Albares Bueno, Minister for Foreign Affairs, EU and Cooperation of Spain.
The most recent Israeli strikes on Gaza have killed at least 59 people, according to hospital officials.
Overnight, Israel attacked a school building that was sheltering hundreds of displaced Palestinians, killing 27 people, including nine women and three children.
It was the fifth time this particular school building has been struck since October 2023.
Additionally, a strike early this morning on another school building being used as a shelter killed 16 people.
Strikes in other areas killed at least 16 more people.
'Annihilation'
This afternoon, a group of more than 20 UN experts said countries were at a moral crossroads over their response to Israel's escalation of hostilities and ongoing siege of Gaza.
States face a choice between acting to halt the violence and looking on at 'the annihilation of the Palestinian population' in the territory, the experts said.
Related Reads
Israel's nine-week blockade on Gaza is 'clearly' a war crime, says Taoiseach
'My baby died of malnutrition': The suffering and starvation in Gaza as Israel blocks all supplies
'The decision is stark: remain passive and witness the slaughter of innocents or take part in crafting a just resolution,' they said in a statement, urging the world to avert the 'moral abyss we are descending into'.
Also today, UN aid officials condemned Israel's proposed plan for its military to take over the distribution of aid in Gaza.
'It appears to be a deliberate attempt to weaponise the aid and we have warned against that for a very long time. Aid should be provided based on humanitarian need to whomever needs it,' said Jens Laerke, spokesperson for UN aid coordination office, OCHA.
'Israeli officials have sought to shut down the existing aid system run by 15 UN agencies and 200 NGOs and partners,' Laerke said.
With reporting from David Mac Redmond and AFP
Need more information on what is happening in Israel and Palestine? Check out our FactCheck Knowledge Bank for essential reads and guides to navigating the news online.
Visit Knowledge Bank
Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.
Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Learn More
Support The Journal
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
40 minutes ago
- Irish Examiner
Colin Sheridan: I'd be the perfect president — I wouldn't interfere in anything
It is with deep humility, mild vanity, and a complete lack of preparation that I announce my intention to succeed Michael D Higgins as the next president of Ireland. This is not a decision I arrived at lightly. No, this is the result of careful reflection, at least two long runs in the Phoenix Park, and a chance encounter with a sika deer who looked at me as if to say: 'Colin, your time is now.' Some will wonder what qualifies me for the highest office in the land. Well, 26 years' service as an officer of the State and peacekeeper with the United Nations. That's longer than Netflix has existed, longer than we've had the euro, and longer than Michael D's hair has been blowing in the breeze on Áras lawns. For over a quarter of a century, I stood between opposing forces, negotiating tense stand-offs, all the while wearing a beret and looking calm in the face of unimaginable chaos. Do you know how hard it is to look good wearing a beret? This makes me uniquely suited to the presidency, where my role will be to stand between warring government factions, look concerned for the cameras, then drift off toward the canapé table without saying anything incendiary. I have no intention of interfering in anything. This is not apathy. This is strategy. Interference is the enemy of peace — I learned that in Lebanon, Liberia, and Kabul. When you've seen men point rifles at each other over an imaginary line in the sand, you learn that sometimes the greatest intervention is no intervention at all My presidency will be a masterclass in dignified, studied inaction. I will be genocide-indifferent, a welcome break from our current president, who seems to prioritise principles over politics. Such nonsense! Unlike my rival Catherine Connolly, I am, in fact, a man. This is not an attack — merely a biographical detail. She, presumably, will run on the radical ticket of 'having opinions'. I, however, will run on the far safer platform of 'not upsetting anyone'. In this increasingly polarised climate, that is no small feat. And while Catherine might speak eloquently in the Dáil, I bring something no other candidate can match: The ability to run 10km through the Phoenix Park without looking like I'm being chased. I have spent countless mornings pounding those paths, nodding at other joggers in that silent fraternity of the slightly unhinged. Running there has taught me many things about endurance, resilience, and which bushes contain ... um ... adult adventurers. Independent TD Catherine Connolly, presumably, will run on the radical ticket of 'having opinions', but Colin Sheridan doesn't want to upset anyone. Picture: Brian Lawless/PA It's also where I refine my thoughts on the central issues of my campaign: The canapés. The Irish presidency has been crying out for someone to take the State's finger food seriously. Too often have visiting dignitaries been fobbed off with a stale vol-au-vent or a micro-quiche that tastes like ambition left out in the rain. Under my leadership, the Áras will be a fortress of hors d'oeuvres excellence. There will be smoked salmon blinis that make French ambassadors weep, sausage rolls of substance, and prawn skewers that actually contain prawn. Food diplomacy is real diplomacy. I know this because I have seen ceasefires tentatively agreed over tabbouleh I have watched suspicious men in camouflage soften at the sight of a decent mini-spring roll. My canapé doctrine is simple: Feed them well and they will listen to you, or at least stop shouting long enough for the band to finish Amhrán na bhFiann. Some of you might be wondering about my 'vision' for Ireland. Here it is: To be exactly the kind of president you forget is there until you see them on the news shaking hands with someone important, at which point you think: 'Fair play, he's still going.' That's the job. This is not America. We don't want a president who interferes with policy, only with the placement of the Laphroaig at New Year's. My years with the UN have equipped me perfectly for ceremonial life. I can stand very still while being photographed. I can nod meaningfully during speeches I don't understand. I can smile politely while someone tells me their entire family history in a language I do not speak. I am also capable of remembering the names of at least three people at any given reception — a skill honed under fire, both literal and metaphorical. The Phoenix Park will, of course, remain central to my presidency. It is both my training ground and my metaphor. Just as the park contains majestic beauty, occasional chaos, and the faint smell of shit, so too will my term in office. I will invite foreign leaders to join me on runs there, at a pace slow enough to preserve diplomacy but fast enough to discourage overly long conversations about trade deficits. Critics may accuse me of lacking substance. They are correct. Most exes agree. Substance is for the Government The president's role is to be the oil painting in the nation's living room — always there, rarely the subject of an argument. I will be that oil painting, but one with excellent cardio and an eye for a decent canapé spread. Michael D Higgins has set the bar high. He is learned, articulate, and capable of quoting obscure poets at a moment's notice. I will not attempt to compete in that arena. Instead, I will focus on making guests feel welcome through my flagrant mediocrity. In summary, 26 years of peace-keeping have prepared me to maintain harmony in the Áras without lifting more than an eyebrow. I promise to interfere in absolutely nothing, unless the smoked salmon runs out, in which case all bets are off. Ireland, I stand ready. Ready to host, to smile, to run, to nod, and to preside over the greatest finger-food renaissance our Republic has ever known. If you elect me, I will bring dignity, calm, and a discreet but determined focus on the important things, chiefly, remaining indifferent in the face of global entropy. Now, if you'll excuse me, I must train. Not for the campaign trail — for the canapé table.
Irish Examiner
40 minutes ago
- Irish Examiner
Barry Malone: When Israel decides to silence the 'voice' of Palestinians
Anas al-Sharif was a born storyteller with an innate sense of the dramatic. I'll never forget watching him live on air from Gaza just after a ceasefire, which wasn't to last, was announced in January 2024 after more than a year of relentless horror. A crowd had gathered as he stood in front of the camera, preparing to talk to tens of millions of Al Jazeera viewers across the Arab world, ready to convey the mixture of happiness, relief, and very cautious optimism people were feeling now that the bombs would stop raining down on Gaza. Another journalist stood weeping to his right. 'There is great joy among these residents, finally, after these hard days,' he said. And then, without missing a beat as he continued speaking to camera, he slowly removed his helmet and flak jacket, people cheering him on. They hoisted him on their shoulders and held their phones up to capture the moment. It was a moment to be recorded because, if Anas felt briefly safe, they all did. That was one of the things that made him a special journalist. People saw themselves reflected in him. He wasn't afraid to show his fellow Palestinians that he was suffering with them, that the terror Israel was unleashing on Gaza affected him too, that he sometimes struggled. That's not to say he didn't convey strength. His backbone was apparent every time he appeared on air, and it was apparent when he refused to bow to threats. On another occasion, just weeks ago, Anas broke down during a broadcast and began to cry after a day of watching Palestinians being brought to hospital, some wounded, some weakened by starvation. As he wept, shouts from the crowd began to ring out. 'Keep going, Anas. Keep going. You are our voice,' they called. And they knew he would keep going. Because he always did. This week, though, a decision was made to silence that voice in the most ruthless manner possible when the Israeli military targeted and killed not only Anas but the entire Al Jazeera team in Gaza City. It was an act of censorship so extreme, so brutal — and so blatant — that it shocked people all over the world and plunged Palestinians into despair. Mourners sit around the grave of Al Jazeera correspondent Anas al-Sharif following his burial at the Sheikh Radwan cemetery in Gaza City on August 11. Picture: AFP via Getty Images But the killing of Anas, alongside his colleagues Mohammed Qreiqeh, Ibrahim Zaher, and Mohammed Noufal, shouldn't have been a shock at all. The UN says that at least 242 journalists and media workers have been killed by Israel since the war on Gaza began. The UN and the Committee to Protect Journalists say that, in many of these cases, journalists were likely deliberately targeted. Israel itself has often admitted to killing journalists, usually accusing them of being Hamas members with either no proof at all or only the flimsiest veneer of it. Such was the case with Anas. He was a member of Hamas, Israel said. Not only a member but a leader of a cell responsible for 'advancing rocket attacks'. Again, as is now standard, no real evidence was offered to back up the accusations. No claims were made against the rest of the Al Jazeera crew. Perhaps Israel felt it only had to justify the killing of such a famous face. Lesser-known Palestinians can be snuffed out with no excuse needed, as they have been daily for 22 months. Where Anas, who seemed to spend every waking moment standing in front of a camera, would have found the time to organise rocket attacks on the side is unclear. Here's the thing: If Anas really was a target because of Hamas activity, the Israeli military could have killed him any time it wanted. They wouldn't have needed any sophisticated intelligence to locate him. All they had to do was switch on the TV. Members of the NUJ and fellow journalists take part in a protest organised by the NUJ at The Spire in O'Connell St, Dublin, to condemn the killing of journalists due to Israeli attacks. Picture: Niall Carson/PA So why now? Many observers believe the answer is clear. Israel's cabinet last week approved prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's plan for a full military occupation of Gaza City. And just two days later, Anas and the Al Jazeera crew — the most prominent witnesses left in the city, the only people with the ability to broadcast to the entire world what is about to happen — were executed. That theory, though, was smothered by the endless repetition of Israel's version of events in the coverage of almost every prominent Western news organisation. Headlines began with the words, 'Israel says'. TV bulletins were scripted similarly. Israel's accusations were rarely followed up with the context that no real proof had been provided. Anchors asked question after question about the alleged Hamas affiliation. This credulous reporting of Israel's accusations persists despite it being proven to have lied repeatedly throughout the conflict. There is no other source as unreliable as the Israeli government given such a free pass by the world's media. Imagine if Russia killed a Ukrainian journalist, accusing him of being a member of an armed group. Would its claims be treated seriously? Would they lead the headlines? Of course not. None of this is lost on Palestinian journalists, who have felt let down by the way Israel's relentless targeting of their comrades and friends has been reported and by a lack of solidarity from some of the most prominent journalists in the West, many of whom have stayed conspicuously silent as the bodies of brave reporters in Gaza pile up. 'I will not speak to foreign media about the killing of Palestinian journalists. I will not sit on your global channels to be part of a segment you'll forget by tomorrow,' Al Jazeera's Hind Khoudary, another fierce journalist who has reported ceaselessly from Gaza throughout the war and continues to, said on X after her colleagues were killed. 'We are being hunted and killed in Gaza while you watch in silence. For two years, your fellow journalists here have been slaughtered. What did you do? Nothing.' Hind added her belief that many Western journalists don't consider Palestinian journalists colleagues at all. She's right and, though that had been apparent even before October 7, the last two years have confirmed it beyond any doubt. It's why Palestinian journalists are not trusted, it's why they are dehumanised, it's why the dirt that Israel throws sticks and, ultimately, it's why they can be killed with impunity. Mask-drop moment There was a mask-drop moment on BBC this week when an anchor seemed confused that Al Jazeera used what she called 'local people' to report from Gaza. 'Are they able to operate truly independently?' she asked her guest. There's an implication there. It's an implication that these 'local people' cannot be trusted, that Palestinians are too close to the story to report it accurately. It's not an implication we ever hear about, say, British journalists reporting on Britain. The fact that Palestinian journalists are reporting on a genocide while also living through it has made their reporting stronger. How can knowledge of every street corner, a wide network of sources, deep subject expertise, and the familiarity that comes with living in a place be a problem? The answer is it's not. Unless the reporters are from Gaza. I worked at Al Jazeera for almost a decade and none of this was unusual to us. The network doesn't employ Palestinian journalists because it is forced to. They work for Al Jazeera and always have because they are excellent at their jobs. They are the most qualified journalists available to cover the story. It's as simple as that. The fact that a prominent and experienced BBC anchor and many other top Western journalists can't get that through their heads is a problem and says more about their own bias than it does about anyone else's. International journalists are now pushing for Israel to give them access to Gaza, having been barred for the duration of the conflict so far. They should be given that access. But the Western press corps, decked out in khaki chic, shouldn't go to Gaza thinking it is their job to verify the devastation. It's already been verified by the best and bravest journalists we have. The foreign correspondents must acknowledge they are standing on those shoulders, and that Palestinians will always be the authors of their own story. A vigil outside the Fox News and NBC News headquarters in Washington, DC, honouring journalists killed in Gaza. Picture: AFP via Getty Images The evening of that ceasefire announcement, after Anas removed his flak jacket and helmet, he paid tribute to colleagues who had already been killed by Israel: Ismail Al-Ghoul, Rami Al-Rifi, Samir Abu Daqqa, and Hamza Dahdouh. Al-Ghoul, he said, would have been standing in his place reporting this historic moment had he lived. Anas didn't want his friend, or his reporting, to be forgotten. As he stood in Ismail's place, someone will soon stand in his, because Palestinian journalists refuse to be broken and giants like Anas, through their bravery and dedication, provide the blueprint for those who come behind them. That new generation of journalists will remember Anas, Ismail, the Al Jazeera Gaza City crew, and the more than 200 other Palestinian journalists killed by Israel. Without them, we would have been blind. Barry Malone is an independent journalist and former Al Jazeera executive producer. He writes 'Proximities', a newsletter focused on under-reported stories.
Irish Examiner
40 minutes ago
- Irish Examiner
Mick Clifford: Is it time to cut Bono a little slack over Gaza?
Here's a line that will most likely elicit some derision: Maybe Bono is entitled to be cut a little slack. Last week, the singer and his U2 bandmates released individual statements about the genocide in Gaza. An ageing rock band collectively making a pronouncement on such a matter at this point in time is highly questionable. That the four members released their own individual statements borders on the ridiculous. Notwithstanding that, the reaction to Bono in particular has been savagely negative. On social media, comments about the singer's statement were was visceral, vitriolic, and here and there even freighted with a form of hatred. The whole farrago spoke volumes, not just about Bono's image in some quarters of this country, but how comments around the attack on Gaza have evolved A few matters require laying out before cutting the singer some slack. The first is that the only people who matter a whit in any discussion on Gaza are those being murdered and starved from the ruins created by the Israeli Defense Forces. The second matter of note is that it could all stop tomorrow if the US — and not just Donald Trump — ceased providing the means to perpetrate the genocide. In previous decades, at various spots around the world, the US did step in the prevent slaughter of innocents. Here, it is enabling such slaughter. That brings us back to Bono. Skill and status Whatever one thinks of the singer, his music, or his musings, there is one incontrovertible fact about the work he has done on Aids, hunger, and debt relief in the developing world: An unaccountable number of people who would otherwise be dead are alive today because of his efforts. This plaudit also applies to thousands of workers on the ground across the globe, but Bono brings a particular skill and status to his work. Those who have benefitted live in the poorest outposts of Africa and Asia, and are probably so preoccupied in trying to stay alive and provide for families that they haven't an iota who he is. But their lives matter as much as any life in Tel Aviv or Gaza, Ireland or the US. Palestinian and Israeli activists take part in a protest against the killing of journalists in the Gaza Strip as they gather in the West Bank town of Beit Jala on Friday. Picture: Mahmoud Illean/AP There has been criticism of his work, particularly along the lines that he represents a white man interfering in the lives of black people, making them dependent rather than minding his own business. Much of this criticism is informed by an ideology that dictates it is preferable to allow people die today in order to contribute towards some abstract form of justice tomorrow. To suggest in some ways that Bono's work and focus has been flawed is entirely justified. To infer that he should therefore have done nothing at all in this area is wantonly misguided — to put it as its most charitable When the October 7 massacre by Hamas on innocent Israelis occurred, U2 were playing a residency in Las Vegas. The following night, during Pride, the band's song about Martin Luther King, Bono took a moment to pay tribute to 'those beautiful kids at that music festival'. It was an appropriate intervention and in keeping with the band's long-standing ethos. Months later, that clip was circulated on social media. By then, Israel's murderously disproportionate response to Hamas was well under way. The Gaza Strip was being laid to ruin, innocents killed by the thousand. Any initial sympathy for Israelis was being ground down by the relentless bombing of a whole people as if they were collectively culpable for Hamas's crimes. At this time of growing anger against the Israeli government and its defence forces, U2 — and Bono in particular — were cast as viewing the whole thing through the lens of the oppressor. It was, like so much on social media, both a gross distortion and most likely highly effective in its aim. Since then, as the genocide has developed, as the forced starvation has begun to kill, Bono's silence has been used as a stick to beat him. The basest of motives — principally concern for his money and celebrity — have been ascribed to him as if the main thrust of his life's work has been all about material acquisition. Focus on catastrophes Last weekend, the long-awaited statement condemning Israel was released and, in addition, Bono penned an opinion piece for the Atlantic magazine. In both, he referenced the work he has done over the last 30-plus years. 'As a co-founder of the One Campaign, which tackles Aids and extreme poverty in Africa, I felt my experience should be focused on the catastrophes facing that work and that part of the world,' he wrote. 'The haemorrhaging of human life in Sudan or Ethiopia hardly makes the news. The civil war in Sudan alone is beyond comprehension, leaving 150,000 dead and 2m people facing famine.' Surely he has a point. If so, his silence up to this juncture makes perfect sense. Along with Bob Geldof, he has a crucial role in getting the US to intervene in the Aids and debt crises in Africa 20 years ago. That has made a difference to the lives of anonymous Africans who exist far from any media focus. Last January, Trump began dismantling foreign aid to the developing world by closing the national agency, USAid. A study published in The Lancet in June estimated that USAid had saved 90m lives over the last 20 years. Mourners sit around the grave of Al Jazeera correspondent Anas al-Sharif, who was killed alongside other journalists in an overnight Israeli strike on their tent in Gaza City. Picture: Omar Al-qatta/AFP The research also concluded that, if the current approach to aid from the Trump administration continues, 14m people will die by 2030. Against such a febrile background, Bono may well have concluded it was best for the sake of the work he has been involved in to keep his own counsel rather than anger Trump's administration. The current US president has a record of lashing out against those who irritate or anger him, and there would be every possibility that he could do so against any of the projects to which Bono has lent his weight. Any high profile intervention on his part would have no effect on the US's enablement of the Gaza genocide, but it may well have had repercussions for the lives of others who are struggling against the ravages of famine and war. On that basis, his silence was not just understandable but morally sound The reality is that the US's moral authority in the world at large has been severely damaged through a combination of Trump's policies and the complete capitulation of the country's power centres to a war criminal such as Benjamin Netanyahu. All sorts of leaders in other countries, in business, in the arts, and in development work are scrambling to come to terms with the current global dispensation. It certainly looks like Bono had some struggles in this regard. For those who revel in casting him as one who is only concerned with his own welfare, such struggles had precious little to do with considerations for the dispossessed. A more nuanced view might concede that his record suggests he has as much social conscience, if not far more, than many of his critics.
