&w=3840&q=100)
Israeli strikes kill 82 in Gaza, including 38 waiting for aid: Officials
AP Tel Aviv
Airstrikes and shootings killed 82 Palestinians in Gaza overnight, including 38 while attempting to get much-needed humanitarian aid, hospitals and the Health Ministry said on Thursday.
Israel's military did not have immediate comment on the strikes Wednesday night and Thursday morning.
Five people were killed around sites associated with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the newly created, secretive American organization backed by Israel to feed the Gaza Strip's population, while 33 others were killed waiting for aid trucks in other locations across the Gaza Strip.
Earlier, Hamas and Israel staked out their positions on Wednesday ahead of expected talks on a Washington-backed ceasefire proposal, with the militant group suggesting it was open to an agreement while the Israeli prime minister vowed there will be no Hamas in postwar Gaza.
Both stopped short of accepting the ceasefire proposal announced by US President Donald Trump on Tuesday. Hamas insisted on its longstanding position that any deal bring an end to the war in Gaza.
Trump said Tuesday that Israel had agreed on terms for a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza and urged Hamas to accept the deal before conditions worsen.
The US leader has been increasing pressure on the Israeli government and Hamas to broker a ceasefire, and hostage agreement and bring about an end to the war.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
24 minutes ago
- Mint
Elon Musk's ‘America Party' idea gets 40% backing in new poll
Around 40% of Americans say they might support a new political party created by Elon Musk, according to a new poll. The survey by Quantus Insights found 14% would be "very likely" and 26% "somewhat likely" to back Musk's proposed 'America Party'. Musk announced this idea during a fight with former ally Donald Trump over a huge government spending bill. He called Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" – which adds $3.3 trillion to the U.S. debt – 'insane'. Musk argues America needs an alternative to the two major parties, which he claims actually work together as a "uniparty" against regular people's interests. The poll shows clear splits in who likes Musk's idea. Republican men are most interested – 57% said they'd likely support the America Party. Independent men followed at 47%. But Democrats largely dislike the plan, with just 7% of Democratic men saying they'd strongly back it. The survey of 1,000 voters also found deep unhappiness with both main parties: 59% of independents said neither Republicans nor Democrats represent American values well. Experts note this openness to a third party isn't really about Musk himself – it reflects widespread frustration with the current political system. Musk's feud with Trump exploded after the spending bill passed Congress last week. The Tesla CEO had served in Trump's government but quit in May. After Musk criticized the bill, Trump warned he might cancel government contracts for Musk's companies and even suggested deporting him (Musk was born in South Africa). Trump ally Steve Bannon attacked Musk as a "foreigner" trying to split conservative voters. Meanwhile, Musk's poll on X about starting the party got over 1.25 million votes, with 65% saying 'yes'. Even with his $361 billion fortune, experts say Musk would struggle to create a real national party. Each state has different rules for new parties to get on ballots – California alone requires 75,000 registered members or 1.1 million signatures! Election lawyer Brett Kappel explained: 'The state laws... make it as difficult as possible for a third political party'. Campaign funding laws also limit individual donations to parties to just $10,000 per state yearly.
The Hindu
24 minutes ago
- The Hindu
The nuclear policeman
On July 2, Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian ordered his country to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear watchdog. He explained this decision as 'a natural response to the unjustified, unconstructive, and destructive conduct' of the IAEA's Director General Rafael Grossi. Tehran believes Mr. Grossi cleared the ground for Israel's unprovoked strikes on its nuclear facilities by preparing a 'misleading' report on Iran's compliance with non-proliferation obligations. On the basis of this report, the IAEA's Board of Governors on June 12, one day before Israel's attack, adopted a resolution stating that Iran had 'failed to cooperate fully' with the Agency and accused it of 'repeatedly failing to provide the Agency with technically credible explanations' to its various queries. Israel and the U.S. used this resolution to push forward the narrative that Iran was on the verge of making a nuclear bomb and the only way to stop it was to destroy its nuclear installations through 'pre-emptive' military strikes. Subsequently, after Israel struck Iran's nuclear sites, Mr. Grossi made a clarification that seemed to walk back the impression created by the June 12 resolution. In an interview with CNN, he said, 'We did not have any proof of a systematic effort by Iran to make a nuclear weapon.' A spokesperson of Iran's Ministry of External Affairs shared the video clip of Mr. Grossi's interview on social media with the comment, 'This is too late, Mr. Grossi: you obscured this truth in your absolutely biased report…Do you know how many innocent Iranians have been killed/maimed as a result of this criminal war? You've made IAEA a partner to this unjust war of aggression.' It cannot be denied that Mr. Grossi and the IAEA have played a major role in shaping the discourse around Iran's nuclear programme. But is there merit in the Iranian claim that under Mr. Grossi, the IAEA has been acting in alignment with Western, and in particular, Israeli political interests? Mr. Grossi, 64, is a diplomat from the Argentine Foreign Service. In a career spanning 40 years, he carved a niche for himself in nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, serving as president of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (2014-2016) before assuming office as Director General of the IAEA on December 3, 2019. He said in a 2020 interview, 'I feel like I prepared for this my whole life.' As the IAEA chief, Mr. Grossi made headlines in 2022 for his energetic efforts to secure Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, which was caught in the cross-fire of the Ukraine-Russia war. An accidental strike on it could unleash a nuclear disaster that would impact much of Europe. Mr. Grossi, at some risk to his own life, personally visited the nuclear plant near the frontline even as shells rained down not far away. With the consent of the Ukrainian leadership, he shut down all but one reactor, and as an additional safety measure, left behind a team of UN inspectors — an arrangement that continues to this day. But his efforts did not stop there. A month later, he went to St. Petersburg and met Russian President Vladimir Putin. His mission: to extract an assurance that Russian forces would not target the Zaporizhzhia plant. Mr. Grossi's trip had the intended effect, with the Russians steering clear of attacking the facility. IAEA's mandate Mr. Grossi's actions were fully in keeping with the mandate of the IAEA, which is to promote and safeguard peaceful nuclear programmes all over the world. Today, however, the IAEA is known more as an agency tasked with verifying that nuclear materials meant for civilian use are not diverted for weaponisation. In fact, IAEA inspectors cannot, and are not mandated to, search for weapons. They merely monitor nuclear facilities to ensure that the signatory country is fulfilling its obligations under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA). Critically, IAEA inspections, by design, are incapable of generating verifiable evidence of the absence of a military nuclear programme. Nor can its reports — with their catalogue of 'failures' in compliance or cooperation — serve as a proxy for the existence of a weaponisation programme, in the absence of independent intel proving as much. Since IAEA inspections cannot possibly cover every square inch of a vast country, the problem of 'unknowns' at 'undeclared' locations are a given. While these might warrant further investigation, it is questionable whether they can be used to fuel speculation about a country's intentions at a time of escalating tensions. And yet, the ambiguous wording in the IAEA resolution and Mr. Grossi's public statements did precisely that, lending credence to the narrative of Iran building a nuclear bomb. Ironically, American intel leaked to the media, as well as a statement in March 2025 by the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, confirmed that Iran was not building a bomb. Another major element of this narrative was that Iran had 400 kg of highly enriched uranium (HEU), which is not needed for civilian use. Mr. Grossi dwelled on this aspect often in his public pronouncements. Yet, it is not illegal under the NPT for a signatory country to hold uranium enriched to 60%. For Iran, however, it was prohibited, but only under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 agreement which limited its enrichment rights to 3.67% and capped its stockpiling of enriched uranium at 300kg. But the JCPOA became defunct — at least from the Iranian perspective — the moment the U.S. withdrew from it in 2018 and the sanctions relief guaranteed under it for Iran failed to materialise. But Mr. Grossi went along with the position of holding Iran to a JCPOA the West had already scuttled, while disregarding the IAEA's own resolutions that prohibit military attacks on civilian nuclear installations. Attacks prohibited The IAEA's General Conference resolution (407) adopted in November 1983 states that 'all armed attacks against nuclear installations devoted to peaceful purposes should be explicitly prohibited'. A draft resolution of September 26, 1985, submitted jointly by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden not only forbade Israel from targeting Iraq's civilian nuclear facilities, it further called 'upon Israel urgently to place all its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards' – something difficult to envisage at a time when exemption for Israel from international law is getting increasingly normalised. Incidentally, both these resolutions were from a time when the IAEA was led by Mr. Grossi's illustrious predecessor, Hans Blix. Under the IAEA statutes and the UN charter, Iran is entitled to a peaceful nuclear programme. It is also entitled to protection of its nuclear installations from military attacks. And yet, Mr. Grossi never condemned the Israeli and U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. On the contrary, his words and deeds amplified suspicions about Iran's intentions, which were used by Israel and the U.S. to justify their attack. Today, in the aftermath of a fragile and difficult ceasefire, Mr. Grossi is back to stoking fears about Iran's nuclear programme by claiming it could start enriching uranium again in a matter of months. Not surprisingly, Iran has refused to allow IAEA inspection of its bombed-out nuclear facilities, with the Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, stating, 'Grossi's insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent.' Had Mr. Grossi displayed a little of the same urgency for protecting Iran's civilian nuclear facilities that he did for Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, it may have gone some way toward protecting the IAEA's credibility among nuclear threshold states.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Israel to send delegation to Qatar for Gaza ceasefire talks: Report
Israel will send a delegation to Qatar on Sunday for talks on a possible ceasefire and hostage deal in Gaza, an Israeli official told Reuters. The move comes after the Palestinian group Hamas said it had responded to a US-backed proposal 'in a positive spirit.' The Israeli official, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the talks, said the delegation will travel to Qatar in an effort to push forward the negotiations. The discussions aim to finalise a 60-day truce in Gaza. Earlier this week, US President Donald Trump said that Israel had agreed to 'the necessary conditions to finalise' the deal. While Hamas has not confirmed the full details of its response, a Palestinian official linked to the group said there were still concerns. These include issues around humanitarian aid, access through the Rafah crossing into Egypt, and a clear timetable for Israeli troop withdrawal. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not yet commented on Trump's statement. He is expected to meet the US president in Washington on Monday. Although both sides appear engaged in the process, there are still major differences. Netanyahu has insisted that Hamas must be disarmed, a demand the group has so far rejected. According to Israeli sources, Hamas is still holding 20 living hostages. Israeli media reported on Friday that Israel had received Hamas' latest response and was reviewing it. The current phase of conflict began on 7 October 2023, when Hamas attacked southern Israel, killing about 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli figures. Since then, Israel's military response in Gaza has led to over 57,000 deaths, according to Gaza's health ministry. The fighting has displaced nearly the entire population and worsened the humanitarian crisis. Israel denies allegations of genocide and war crimes.
