UK, France and other nations call for an immediate end to war in Gaza
LONDON — Britain and more than 20 other countries called on Monday for an immediate end to the war in Gaza and criticized the Israeli government's aid delivery model after hundreds of Palestinians were killed near sites distributing food.
France, Italy, Japan, Australia, Canada, Denmark and other countries said more than 800 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid and condemned what it called the "drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians."
The majority of those killed were in the vicinity of Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) sites, which the United States and Israel backed to take over aid distribution in Gaza from a network led by the United Nations.
"The Israeli government's aid delivery model is dangerous, fuels instability and deprives Gazans of human dignity," the countries' foreign ministers said in a joint statement.
The call for an end to the war and the way Israel delivers aid comes from several countries which are allied with Israel and its most important backer, the United States.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation uses private US security and logistics companies to get supplies into Gaza, largely bypassing a UN-led system that Israel alleges has let Hamas-led militants loot aid shipments intended for civilians. Hamas denies the accusation.
The UN has called the GHF's model unsafe and a breach of humanitarian impartiality standards, which GHF denies. — Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
GMA Network
2 hours ago
- GMA Network
US and EU close in on 15% tariff deal, FT reports
The EU and United States are closing in on a trade deal that would impose 15% tariffs on European imports, similar to the agreement US President Donald Trump struck with Japan this week, the Financial Times reported on Wednesday. Both the EU and US would waive tariffs on some products, including aircraft, spirits and medical devices, the report said, citing people familiar with the matter. The bloc will continue to prepare a possible €93-billion ($109-billion) package of retaliatory tariffs, set at up to 30 per cent, in case they cannot agree a deal by August 1, the report added. The White House and a spokesperson for the European Union did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. Reuters could not immediately verify the FT report. The Commission earlier said on Wednesday its primary focus was to achieve a negotiated outcome with the United States to avert 30% US tariffs that Trump has said he will impose on the 27-nation bloc on August 1. In 2024, the US imported more than $55 billion of vehicles and automotive parts from Japan. From the EU, the equivalent figure was €47.3 billion ($55.45 billion), with far fewer US models sold into the EU or Japanese market. — Reuters
GMA Network
4 hours ago
- GMA Network
In landmark opinion, World Court says climate change an ‘existential threat'
Climate activists and campaigners demonstrate outside the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ahead of the reading of an advisory opinion that is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world, The Hague, Netherlands,July 23, 2025. REUTERS/ Marta Fiorin THE HAGUE — The United Nations' highest court on Wednesday underlined "the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change" as it started to read out an opinion on the legal obligations of states to take action. The non-binding opinion by the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world. "Greenhouse gas emissions are unequivocally caused by human activities which are not territorially limited," judge Yuji Iwasawa said. The reading of the opinion was ongoing and the court had not yet announced its conclusions. Ahead of the ruling, supporters of climate action gathered outside the ICJ, chanting: "What do we want? Climate justice! When do we want it? Now!" Although it is non-binding, the deliberation of the 15 judges of the ICJ in The Hague will nevertheless carry legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say. "It is so important, it could be one of the most consequential legal rulings of our times because of the scope of the issues that it touches, which run to the very heart of climate justice," said Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law. The two questions the UN General Assembly asked the judges to consider were: what are countries' obligations under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for countries that harm the climate system? In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities. Developing nations and small island states argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid. Paris Agreement In 2015, at the conclusion of UN talks in Paris, more than 190 countries committed to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). The agreement has failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Late last year, in the most recent "Emissions Gap Report," which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the UN said that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3°C (5.4°F) above pre-industrial levels by 2100. As campaigners seek to hold companies and governments to account, climate?related litigation has intensified, with nearly 3,000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. So far, the results have been mixed. A German court in May threw out a case between a Peruvian farmer and German energy giant RWE, but his lawyers and environmentalists said the case, which dragged on for a decade, was still a victory for climate cases that could spur similar lawsuits. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries, said in another advisory opinion its members must cooperate to tackle climate change. Campaigners say Wednesday's court opinion should be a turning point, even if the ruling itself is advisory. The ruling could also make it easier for states to hold other states to account over climate issues like pollution or emissions. "The court can affirm that climate inaction, especially by major emitters, is not merely a policy failure but a breach of international law," said Fijian Vishal Prasad, one of the law students that lobbied the government of Vanuatu in the South Pacific Ocean to bring the case to the ICJ. Although it is theoretically possible to ignore an ICJ ruling, lawyers say countries are typically reluctant to do so. "This opinion is applying binding international law, which countries have already committed to," Chowdhury said. — Reuters
GMA Network
9 hours ago
- GMA Network
Economists say 19% Trump tariff to have limited impact on PH GDP
President Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos Jr. meets with US President Donald Trump in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C. on July 22, 2025. REUTERS/ Kent Nishimura While Philippine exports to the United States are still set to face a 19% tariff, economists expect only limited impact on the country's economy given its relatively low dependence on American demand compared with other Asian economies, with local exporters bearing the brunt. Early morning on Wednesday (Philippine time), US President Donald Trump announced a new 19% tariff rate for Philippine goods. This is lower than the 20% announced in a letter earlier this month, but higher than the 17% rate announced last April on what the US president referred to as Liberation Day. "The impact on the Philippines economy from the trade deal is unlikely to be huge—the country is one of the least dependent economies in Asia on US final demand," Capital Economics senior Asia economist Gareth Leather said in a commentary. "The fact that it has had to settle for tariffs of 19%, suggests other countries still in negotiations with the US will have difficulty negotiating tariff rates much below 20%, which looks set to become the benchmark for the rest of the region (excluding China)," he added. Latest data available from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) show that Philippine exports stood at $7.288 billion in May, with the United States accounting for $1.109 billion or 15.2%. Imports for the month were recorded at $10.578 billion, of which $647.34 million or 6.1% came from the US. According to Leather, the latest rate removes some downside risks facing the Philippines, as it remains close to what other countries in the region are likely to face, and that the country is not expected to see a loss of competitiveness against other countries in the region. Compared to others Based on Trump's recent announcements, the Philippines' 19% tariff compares with Japan's 15%, Indonesia's 19%, Vietnam's 20%, South Korea and Malaysia's 25%, China's 30%, Thailand and Cambodia's 36%, and Laos and Myanmar's 40%. "Unlike the deals that were announced with Vietnam and Indonesia, there was no mention of the Philippines being required to clamp down on rerouting from China. We suspect this is probably something that will be inserted into a final agreement, but it was notable that Trump sounded relatively relaxed about the relationship between the Philippines and China, noting 'your dealing with China wouldn't bother me at all,'" Leather said. Posting on his Truth Social media platform, Trump initially said the Philippines is going open market with the United States with zero tariffs, while the Philippines would pay a 19% tariff. However, President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr., who had a meeting with Trump before the 19% rate was announced, has since clarified that the zero tariffs on US products would only apply to certain markets such as automobiles. Exporters to bear brunt Leather's remarks were echoed by Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. (RCBC) chief economist Michael Ricafort, who said the adjustment does not come as a complete surprise as other economies in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) regional bloc were also slapped with tariffs higher than those reported in April. "Limited drag on Philippine GDP, as the Philippine economy is less reliant on exports as a source of economic growth. Philippine merchandise exports are three to five times lower compared to major ASEAN countries on a yearly basis," he said in a separate commentary. "Philippine exports are not that huge compared to other ASEAN/Asian countries, so more limited adverse impact on the Philippines by the US reciprocal tariffs," he said in a separate commentary. Ricafort noted, however, that exporters would still bear the brunt of the impact, and that the Philippines could still be affected indirectly. "The biggest hit would still be on Philippine exporters with the 19% tariffs/tax (except for electronics; according to the leading Philippine negotiators), since the US is the Philippines' biggest export market, accounting for 17% of the total, thereby could slow down Philippine exports sales/demand that, in turn, could indirectly slow down the overall economy," he said. He added that the higher reciprocal tariffs and uncertainties could slow demand for exports to the US, slow down global investments, global trade, employment, and the overall world economy, dragging down Philippine growth. Philippine Exporters Confederation (PhilExport) president Sergio Ortiz-Luis Jr. earlier said a 17% or 20% tariff rate for the Philippines would still be okay "on face value," but this would also depend on rates being imposed on other countries. "Initially, we expected that when we were 17%, the manufacturers would move to the Philippines. Actually, they haven't moved yet… Even now, even at 17%, we have difficulty competing with Vietnam," he said. No relative advantage For Aris Dacanay, ASEAN economist of Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. (HSBC), the latest rate is in line with Indonesia and Vietnam, removing the relative advantage that the Philippines earlier stood to gain from a substantially lower tariff, which could have potentially led to manufacturers relocating to the country. "Without the relative advantage of a lower tariff rate, economic growth will face headwinds, and it will also be harder to attract FDI (Foreign Direct Investments) to the Philippines," he said in a separate report. "The Philippine economy gained only a minimal competitive advantage compared to its ASEAN peers during this period due to the strong peso and high inflation. A reciprocal tariff of 19% would erase this advantage and risks putting Philippine exports at a disadvantage in the US market," he added. Dacanay expects the Philippines to rely on its playbook of maintaining a "robust reform narrative" to attract investments and technologies, and push through with its ambitious infrastructure agenda, and liberalizing different sectors. The Philippine economic team last month slashed its economic growth targets for this year and the next three years, citing heightened global uncertainties including the implementation of reciprocal tariffs. The Development Budget Coordination Committee (DBCC) now targets economic growth to average between 5.5% to 6.5% this year, down from the previous target range of 6.0% to 8.0%. It also lowered its target range for 2026 to 2028 to 6.0% to 7.0% from the previous range of 6.0% to 8.0%. Moving forward, Philippine officials are expected to continue negotiating with the US in the hope of decreasing the tariff rate further. — VDV, GMA Integrated News
