UN experts call for US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to be dismantled
An exceptionally-large group of the UN-mandated experts voiced grave concerns over the GHF's operations.
The private organisation began distributing food in Gaza Strip in May as Israel began easing a more than two-month aid blockade on the Palestinian territory that had exacerbated existing shortages.
'The GHF ... is an utterly disturbing example of how humanitarian relief can be exploited for covert military and geopolitical agendas in serious breach of international law,' the experts said in a joint statement.
'The entanglement of Israeli intelligence, US contractors and ambiguous non-governmental entities underlines the urgent need for robust international oversight and action under UN auspices.
'Calling it 'humanitarian' adds on to Israel's humanitarian camouflage and is an insult to the humanitarian enterprise and standards.'
On July 22, the UN rights office said Israeli forces had killed more than 1,000 Palestinians trying to get food aid in Gaza since the GHF started operations -- nearly three-quarters of them in the vicinity of GHF sites.
'Without clear accountability, the very idea of humanitarian relief may ultimately become a casualty of modern hybrid warfare,' the special rapporteurs said.
'The credibility and effectiveness of humanitarian assistance must be restored by dismantling the GHF, holding it and its executives accountable, and allowing experienced and humanitarian actors from the UN and civil society alike to take back the reins of managing and distributing lifesaving aid.'
The joint statement was signed by Francesca Albanese, the UN's special rapporteur on the rights situation in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.
Israel accuses her of having an 'obsessive, hate-driven agenda to delegitimise the state of Israel'.
The statement was also signed by 18 other special rapporteurs, plus other UN experts and members of UN working groups -- a notably large number for such statements.
Special rapporteurs are independent experts mandated by the UN Human Rights Council to report their findings. They do not, therefore, speak for the United Nations itself.
More than two million people live in the Gaza Strip.
GHF says it has distributed more than 1.76 million boxes of foodstuffs to date.
'We continue to improve our operations,' GHF executive director John Acree said Monday.
'We urge the international humanitarian community to join us -- we have the scale and capacity to deliver more aid to the people of Gaza.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
39 minutes ago
- Arab News
Gaza civil defense says 20 killed by overturned aid truck
GAZA: Gaza's civil defense agency said Wednesday that 20 people were killed when an aid truck overturned near the Nuseirat refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip. 'Twenty people were killed and dozens injured around midnight last night in a truck carrying aid overturned... while hundreds of civilians were waiting for aid,' the agency's spokesperson Mahmud Bassal told AFP. Hamas accused Israel of forcing truck drivers to take unsafe routes to reach aid distribution centers. 'This often results in desperate crowds swarming the trucks,' its media office said in a statement.
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
Iran executes man convicted of spying for Israel: Judiciary
Iranian authorities on Wednesday executed a man convicted of spying for Israel by passing information about a nuclear scientist killed during the 12-day war with Israel in June. 'Roozbeh Vadi... was executed following judicial proceedings and confirmation of his sentence by the Supreme Court,' judiciary's Mizan Online website said, adding that the convict had leaked information about a 'nuclear scientist who was assassinated during the Zionist regime's recent aggression.'
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Missed signals, lost deal: How India-US trade negotiations collapsed
After five rounds of trade negotiations, Indian officials were so confident of securing a favorable deal with the United States that they even signaled to the media that tariffs could be capped at 15 percent. Indian officials expected US President Donald Trump to announce the deal himself weeks before the August 1 deadline. The announcement never came. New Delhi is now left with the surprise imposition of a 25 percent tariff on Indian goods from Friday, along with unspecified penalties over oil imports from Russia, while Trump has closed larger deals with Japan and the EU, and even offered better terms to arch-rival Pakistan. Interviews with four Indian government officials and two US government officials revealed previously undisclosed details of the proposed deal and an exclusive account of how negotiations collapsed despite technical agreements on most issues. The officials on both sides said a mix of political misjudgment, missed signals and bitterness broke down the deal between the world's biggest and fifth-largest economies, whose bilateral trade is worth over $190 billion. The White House, the US Trade Representative office, and India's Prime Minister's Office, along with the External Affairs and Commerce ministries, did not respond to emailed requests for comment. India believed that after visits by Indian Trade Minister Piyush Goyal to Washington and US Vice President J.D. Vance to Delhi, it had made a series of deal-clinching concessions. New Delhi was offering zero tariffs on industrial goods that formed about 40 percent of US exports to India, two Indian government officials told Reuters. Despite domestic pressure, India would also gradually lower tariffs on US cars and alcohol with quotas and accede to Washington's main demand of higher energy and defense imports from the US, the officials said. 'Most differences were resolved after the fifth round in Washington, raising hopes of a breakthrough,' one of the officials said, adding negotiators believed the US would accommodate India's reluctance on duty-free farm imports and dairy products from the US It was a miscalculation. Trump saw the issue differently and wanted more concessions. 'A lot of progress was made on many fronts in India talks, but there was never a deal that we felt good about,' said one White House official. 'We never got to what amounted to a full deal - a deal that we were looking for.' Over-confidence and miscalculation Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who visited Washington in February, agreed to target a deal by fall 2025, and more than double bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030. To bridge the $47 billion goods trade gap, India pledged to buy up to $25 billion in US energy and boost defense imports. But officials now admit India grew overconfident after Trump talked up a 'big' imminent deal, taking it as a signal that a favorable agreement was in hand. New Delhi then hardened its stance, especially on agriculture and dairy, two highly sensitive areas for the Indian government. 'We are one of the fastest growing economies, and the US can't ignore a market of 1.4 billion,' one Indian official involved in the negotiations said in mid-July. Negotiators even pushed for relief from the 10 percent average US tariff announced in April, plus a rollback of steel, aluminum and auto duties. Later, India scaled back expectations after the US signed trade deals with key partners including Japan, and the European Union, hoping it could secure a similar 15 percent tariff rate with fewer concessions. That was unacceptable to the White House. 'Trump wanted a headline-grabbing announcement with broader market access, investments and large purchases,' said a Washington-based source familiar with the talks. An Indian official acknowledged New Delhi wasn't ready to match what others offered. South Korea, for example, struck a deal just before Trump's August 1 deadline, securing a 15 percent rate instead of 25 percent by offering $350 billion in investments, higher energy imports, and concessions on rice and beef. Communication breakdown 'At one point, both sides were very close to signing the deal,' said Mark Linscott, a former US Trade Representative who now works for a lobby group that is close to the discussions between the two nations. 'The missing component was a direct line of communication between President Trump and Prime Minister Modi.' A White House official strongly disputed this, noting other deals had been resolved without such intervention. An Indian government official involved in the talks said Modi could not have called, fearing a one-sided conversation with Trump that could put him on the spot. However, the other three Indian officials said Trump's repeated remarks about mediating the India-Pakistan conflict further strained negotiations and contributed to Modi not making a final call. 'Trump's remarks on Pakistan didn't go down well,' one of them said. 'Ideally, India should have acknowledged the US role while making it clear the final call was ours.' A senior Indian government official blamed the collapse on poor judgment, saying top Indian advisers mishandled the process. 'We lacked the diplomatic support needed after the US struck better deals with Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan and the EU,' the official said. 'We're now in a crisis that could have been avoided.' Trump said on Tuesday he would increase the tariff on imports from India from the current rate of 25 percent 'very substantially' over the next 24 hours and alleged that New Delhi's purchases of Russian oil were 'fueling the war' in Ukraine. Way forward Talks are ongoing, with a US delegation expected in Delhi later this month and Indian government officials still believe the deal can be salvaged from here. 'It's still possible,' one White House official said. The Indian government is re-examining areas within the farm and dairy sectors where concessions can be made, the fourth official said. On Russian oil, India could reduce some purchases in favor of US supplies if pricing is matched. 'It likely will require direct communication between the prime minister and the president,' said Linscott. 'Pick up the phone. Right now, we are in a lose-lose. But there is real potential for a win-win trade deal.'
