logo
Postscript On Ethnic Cleansing, Genocide And New Zealand Recognition Of Palestine

Postscript On Ethnic Cleansing, Genocide And New Zealand Recognition Of Palestine

Scoop04-06-2025
My last Political Bytes post (28 May) discussed why New Zealand should officially recognise the state of Palestine: New Zealand should recognise Palestinian state.
The heading I gave the post was Reasons for supporting ethnic cleansing, through genocide, in Palestine. This was my attempt at irony; by exploring the reasons that underpin the support for the genocidal ethnic cleansing in order to rebut them.
Broadly speaking it appeared to work although, for some, it raised some eyebrows of initial confusion; was I actually supporting ethnic cleansing. It also generated two particularly thoughtful responses that deserve further comment.
The first concerned Jews who are horrified over, and vehemently opposed to, Israel's war against Palestinians, particularly in Gaza but also the occupied West Bank. The second involved the two-state solution proposal. Both are worthy of further consideration.
Jews against ethnic cleansing (and genocide)
Dr David Galler is a retired intensive care specialist who spent most of his medical career in Middlemore Hospital.
He was also a longstanding National Executive member of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists (including as Vice President and President) while I was its Executive Director.
Today he is actively involved in Healthcare Aotearoa with its strong focus on public (population) heath and is a health commentator.
Dr David Galler outraged by genocide pursued in the name of Jews like him
Coincidentally Dr Galler emailed the Israeli Embassy in New Zealand the day before my above-mentioned post. I reprint it below (with his express permission):
I am Jewish
My parents were Polish Jews
My mother was a child in Auschwitz and survived the Death March
She lost her family in the Katowice ghetto and at Auschwitz
She arrived in Haifa in 1947
My father escaped Poland in 1939 but lost most of his family and married my mother in Tel Aviv
My great father was the Chief Rabbi of Poland
I am writing to express my utter disgust at Israel's vile and horrific genocide in Gaza
Say what you will, but there's no excuse for what you are doing there – you have destroyed any good will the world had for you and the plight of my ancestors. You have brutalised your own population and actively stoked the fires of antisemitism across the world
How dare your PM, a man who has done more damage to Israel than the Palestinians ever could, and your state accuse people like me of antisemitism for criticising your disregard for international law and human rights.
Shame on you and shame on your government.
David Galler
Jews opposed to Zionism is not new
Opposition among Jews to Zionism is not new. On 15 March I posted in Political Bytes about the relationship between apartheid and Zionism: When Apartheid met Zionism.
Jewish immigration to South Africa from the late 19th century brought two powerful competing ideas to from Eastern Europe. One was Zionism while the other was the Bundists with a strong radical commitment to justice.
It is easy to forget that historically speaking, since Palestine in the time of Jesus Christ, Zionism is a relatively new ideology. Further, Jewish opposition to Israel is as old as Zionism itself.
A critical turning point in my understanding of Palestine and Israel was reading Maxime Rodinson's Israel and the Arabs first published in 1968. Rodinson was from a Jewish family (his father was a prominent Bundist leader).
His central argument was that the Israel-Palestinian conflict was essentially
…the struggle of an indigenous population against the occupation of its normal territory by foreigners…
I was also struck by his clarifying explanation of the word 'semitic.' The common perception is that semitic refers to the Hebrew language.
In fact, it also includes the Arabic language. In other words, Palestinians are as semitic as Jews, but Zionism has monopolised the use of the term to apply exclusively to the latter.
Joseph Massad, of Christian Palestinian origin and from Jordan, is Professor of Modern Arab Politics at New York's Columbia University.
In Middle East Eye (29 February 2024) he reports that European and American Jews have been at the forefront of opposition to Zionism since its birth as a colonial-settler movement at the end of the 19th century: Jewish opposition to Zionist Israel is as old as Zionism itself.
Witness this article published in the UK Jewish News (16 April) on the critical views of some Jewish leaders to Israel's conduct in Gaza now: UK Jewish leaders oppose Israel's war in Gaza.
It is noteworthy that many Jews are at the forefront of the large protests over Israel's war against Palestinians in Gaza (and oppression of Palestinians on the West Bank) throughout the world, including New Zealand.
It is hardly surprising that David Galler is so frustrated and angry. Ethnic cleansing through genocide is being justified in the name of his ethnicity.
The extremist Israeli government has weaponised antisemitism to apply to genocide in his and many other Jews names.
Two-state solution: a delusion?
The second response came from retired journalist John Trezise who publishes on his Kiwis website.
He posted the following:
New Zealand should recognise Palestinian statehood as an expression of solidarity with the Palestinians in their struggle for equal rights against the Zionists and their apartheid state Israel.
However, I agree with Gideon Levy that the possibility of a Palestinian state becoming a reality is long gone:
'The two-state solution died a long time ago, unfortunately, and it cannot be revived in the present circumstances. We have a government that in the last 15 years did anything possible to destroy this solution; it was destroyed. There are 7,00,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank who will never be replaced or evacuated. Without their evacuation, there is no room, no physical room for a Palestinian state, not for a viable one. Therefore, I think it's time to stop dreaming about the two-state solution. The only vision left, except for an apartheid state, is obviously a democracy between the river and the sea. I don't see any other alternative. It's a long way to go, but at least let's start talking about it. Let's start dreaming about it. Let's start realising that the only choice now is between an apartheid state between the river and the sea or a democracy between the river and the sea.'
His quote from Gideon Levy is important. Levy is an Israeli journalist and author. He writes opinion pieces and a weekly column for the newspaper Haaretz that often focus on the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.
Levy is a courageous journalist who truly practices truth to power. He has won prizes for his articles on human rights in the Israeli-occupied territories. In 2021 he won Israel's top award for journalism.
In short, I agree with what he says in the above quote forwarded by John Trezise. Levy was right to advocate starting a conversation over a democratic one-state solution from the Jordanian River to the Mediterranean.
That is what British Mandate Palestine was (minus the democratic bit) before 1948. Subsequently, but still decades ago, Fatah advocated a secular democratic Palestine on the same landmass as under the Mandate.
I agreed with this position then and still do, despite how inconceivable this appears in this moment of historical time.
Interestingly, when he was close to Fatah 'back in the day' (when this organisation was dominant among Palestinians) Palestinian intellectual Edward Said advocated a two-state solution. It was rejected by Fatah at the time.
However, Said promoted it on a more robust geographic basis than what the Oslo Accords subsequently provided for. He saw his proposal as providing the basis for discussion on transitioning to the single state idea.
Rightly so Said was a strong critic of the Oslo Accords because it was well short of this objective. Instead, they resembled the infamous and racist 'Bantustans' of apartheid South Africa.
Recognising Palestinian Territories as a sovereign country could be the starting point for a wider conversation about the future of Israel and Palestine
My support for New Zealand recognising the Palestinian Territories as the official state of Palestine, however, was in the context of a small step in the right direction towards Gideon Levy's above-mentioned conversation and the importance of solidarity with the victims of repression in one territory and genocide in the other.
Final word
I will leave the final word to Don Carson who has been persistently and cogently advocating for Palestinian rights since the 1970s.
An email he sent me after reading my post prompted this postscript. In his words:
Great piece Ian, especially the historical context and demography
Only issue I would have is that sanctions on Israel should be the priority;
IDF [Israel Defence Force] visitors
Close the Embassy
Trade and bilateral
Suspend Israel from the UN
I could not agree more.
Ian Powell
Otaihanga Second Opinion is a regular health systems blog in New Zealand.
Ian Powell is the editor of the health systems blog 'Otaihanga Second Opinion.' He is also a columnist for New Zealand Doctor, occasional columnist for the Sunday Star Times, and contributor to the Victoria University hosted Democracy Project. For over 30 years , until December 2019, he was the Executive Director of Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The 109-year-old pact that looms over European moves to recognise a Palestinian state
The 109-year-old pact that looms over European moves to recognise a Palestinian state

NZ Herald

timea day ago

  • NZ Herald

The 109-year-old pact that looms over European moves to recognise a Palestinian state

To many Arabs, who view it as a great betrayal, it seeded a legacy of strife and bloodshed in the Middle East. The real-time crisis unfolding in the Gaza Strip — the starving children, the Israeli restrictions on aid, the Palestinians killed as they try to collect food — undoubtedly had a greater impact on Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain and President Emmanuel Macron of France than the stains of the past. Yet their momentous decisions have cast a light on the shadowy roles of both countries in a region where they once vied for influence. 'The history is so relevant,' said Eugene L. Rogan, a professor of modern Middle Eastern history at the University of Oxford in England. 'It shows there's always a chance for historical actors who screwed up in the past to make up for their mistakes.' Rogan praised the moves towards recognition for reasons both past and present. On its current course, he said, Israel was opening the door to unthinkable treatment of the Palestinians: expulsion from Gaza or worse. Recognising a Palestinian state does Israel a favour by opening the way to 'a form of cohabitation that is sustainable', he said. Speaking at the United Nations, the British Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, cited another century-old document in arguing that recognition would redress a historical injustice: the Balfour Declaration, issued a year after the signing of Sykes-Picot, which endorsed 'the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people'. It had a proviso that 'nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine'. After 21 months of relentless Israeli attacks in Gaza, with the spectre of famine across the enclave, Lammy said that Britain had a responsibility to act on behalf of the territory's long-oppressed Palestinian population. 'His argument is that it's time to make good on the second half of that promise,' said Rogan, whose books include The Arabs: A History. 'At the time of the Balfour had a worldwide empire, which in 1917, they could not imagine losing. David Lammy is operating in a postcolonial, post-EU Britain. But he's using history as a legitimating factor.' Lammy said that Britain could be proud that it 'helped lay the foundations for a homeland for the Jewish people'. Yet the country's motive in backing what later became Israel was less moral than strategic, Rogan said. It was seeking a client community in Palestine that would prevent the territory from falling into enemy hands. London feared the territory could be used as a launchpad for attacks on the Suez Canal, which was then controlled by Britain. Moreover, Britain backed away from its pro-Zionist stance as it found it hard to reconcile a Jewish state with preserving relations with the Arab world. In a later document, the White Paper of 1939, Britain proposed that the Jewish homeland would be created within a majority-Arab Palestinian state and that Jewish immigration to Palestine be limited to 75,000 for five years. 'Israel was not created because of the Balfour Declaration; it was created in spite of the Balfour Declaration,' said Michael B. Oren, an Israeli American historian who served as Israel's ambassador to Washington and later as a deputy minister in the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Oren argued that the decisions of Britain and France to recognise a state would not hasten an end to the conflict in Gaza but prolong it. By offering this concession to the Palestinians now, he said, the West had given Hamas even less incentive to agree to a ceasefire. He chalked it up to a bid for relevance by two postcolonial powers. 'These are former Middle Eastern powers that want to feel like Middle Eastern powers,' said Oren, who wrote Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East. 'There's a pathetic quality to it.' Others argue that if these moves had no impact, they would not have drawn the furious reactions they did from Netanyahu and other Israeli officials. The addition of Britain and France — plus Canada and Malta, which said last week that they, too, would back recognition at the United Nations General Assembly in September — means that more than three-quarters of the UN's 193 member states will have recognised a Palestinian state. France had a less direct stake in Palestine than Britain did after ceding its claims in the Sykes-Picot treaty. But its move towards Palestinian recognition represents another fateful turn in its relationship with Israel. From 1945 to 1967, France was Israel's biggest backer in the West. Part of that was rooted in its wrenching experience with decolonisation. In 1954, France faced an anti-colonial uprising in Algeria, where the nationalists were backed by Egypt's nationalist president, Gamal Abdel Nasser. France, viewing Israel as a bulwark against Nasser, drew close, supplying the country with Mirage fighter planes and nuclear technology that became the foundation of its undeclared nuclear weapons programme. But in 1967, days before Israel launched a military strike against Egypt, de Gaulle, then France's president, imposed an arms embargo on Israel and shifted his gaze to the Arab states. Gérard Araud, who served as France's ambassador to Israel from 2003 to 2006, said that rupture cast a long shadow. 'I felt there was always a sense of 'Don't trust the French,'' he recalled. By supporting Israel in the Arab-Israeli war of 1967, the United States had in any case supplanted France as its No. 1 ally. France went on to become the first Western country to develop close ties to the Palestine Liberation Organisation, which represents Palestinians internationally and is led by the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. The decision to recognise a Palestinian state nevertheless carries significant political risk for Macron, Araud said. France has both the largest Jewish and the largest Muslim communities in Western Europe. It has been scarred by a string of Islamist terrorist attacks. In recognising Palestinian statehood, historians said, France and Britain would do well to recognise their diminished sway over a region they once ruled. Such recognition was sorely lacking for decades after the authors of Sykes-Picot divvied up the Middle East, with lasting consequences. 'Neither country understood that the age of colonialism was over,' Araud said. 'They behaved as if they were still all powerful. It's not the most glorious page of history for either country.' This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Mark Landler Photographs by: Saher Alghorra ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES

Diplomatic Merchandise: Exploiting The Issue Of Palestinian Recognition
Diplomatic Merchandise: Exploiting The Issue Of Palestinian Recognition

Scoop

timea day ago

  • Scoop

Diplomatic Merchandise: Exploiting The Issue Of Palestinian Recognition

They have been the playthings of powers for decades, and there is no promise that this will end soon. Empires and powers seem to come and go, yet the plight of the Palestinians remains more horrific than ever. Now, in the next instalment of the grand morality game, France, the United Kingdom and Canada promise to recognise Palestinian statehood at the September meeting of the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly. From the perspective of soothing the conscience, this is a mighty thing – for those in Paris, London and Ottawa. It does not save a single life on the ground in Gaza or the West Bank, provide a single meal for a starving family, or rebuild a single destroyed school. But President Emmanuel Macron, and Prime Ministers Sir Keir Starmer and Mark Carney can all commune as a triumvirate of principled statesmen. Macron, the first of the three, had been making signals on the issue earlier in the year. The French leader had hoped that a UN conference sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia would be the venue for joint recognition, but it came to naught with the resumption of hostilities in Gaza and Israel's attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. In turning to the G7 nations, he hoped to amplify the urgency of recognition. In doing so, the onus was also on the Palestinian Authority to make certain concessions to add momentum. A letter from PA President Mahmoud Abbas sent to Macron duly came, condemning the attacks of October 7, 2023 by Hamas, demanding the immediate release of all hostages and pledged the holding of elections and reforms to governance. Hamas – not that Abbas had any claims on this point – would also 'no longer rule Gaza' and would have to surrender 'weapons and military capabilities to the Palestinian Security Forces, which will oversee their removal outside the occupied Palestinian territory, with Arab and international support'. On July 24, Macron confirmed in a letter to Abbas conveyed via France's Consul General in Jerusalem that recognition of a Palestinian state would follow in September 'in light of the historic commitments that were made' and the threatened two-state solution. On July 28, in his opening speech to a plenary session of the High-Level International Conference on the Peaceful Settlement on the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, France's Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Nöel Barrot stated the 'prospect of two States, whose rights are recognised and respected, is in mortal danger.' But assurances and momentum had been achieved, with Barrot acknowledging the condemnation by the Arab League of the Hamas attack and the insistence by its members on the release of the remaining hostages, the disarming of the group and conclusion of its rule in the Strip. Of the G7, Starmer was the next to be swayed, but with a notable proviso: 'the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a Two-State Solution.' To this could be added the need for Hamas to release the hostages, accept a ceasefire, disarm and 'play no part in the government of Gaza.' In shabby fashion, room is left to withdraw the offer for recognising Palestinian statehood. 'We will make an assessment in September on how far the parties have met these steps.' Carney, the latest addition, claimed on July 30 that the two-state solution growing from a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority had been eroded as a prospect by four factors: the threat of Hamas to Israel; accelerated building across the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including numerous instances of Israeli settler violence; the E1 Settlement Plan and the July vote by the Knesset calling for the annexation of the West Bank; and the ongoing failure by the Israeli government to arrest 'the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian disaster in Gaza, with impeded access to food and other essential humanitarian supplies.' The Canadian PM, in reasons almost identical to Macron, had also been swayed by 'the Palestinian Authority's commitment to much-needed reforms' in governance, including the promise to hold elections in 2026 that will exclude Hamas, undertaking anti-corruption measures and the creation of a demilitarised Palestinian state. A resounding theme comes through in the latest flurry of statements: Palestinians continue to be lectured and harangued under the guise of humanitarian understanding, told who can represent them or not (a reformed Palestinian Authority promisingly good, Hamas decidedly bad), and whether they can have any semblance of a military force. 'Recognising a State of Palestine today,' states Barrot, 'means standing with the Palestinians who have chosen non-violence, who have renounced terrorism, and are prepared to recognise Israel.' Standing, it would seem, with a certain type of idealised Palestinian. The Palestinians have become diplomatic merchandise or bits of currency, to be gambled with in the casino of power politics. Starmer is the worst exponent of this, hoping for such returns as Israel's halt to the slaughter and famine in Gaza and the release of the hostages by Hamas and its disarmament. But the idea of Palestinian recognition remains, at this stage, a moot point. At the end of any diplomatic tunnel on this lies certain requirements that would have to be met, not least the criteria of the Montevideo Convention from 1933. Despite gathering some dust over time, it outlines the relevant requirements for statehood: any recognised state in international law must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a discernible government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. In the UK, some 43 cross-party peers have sent a letter of warning to Starmer arguing against recognising a Palestinian state, citing such familiar, legal grumbles. There was, for instance, 'no certainty over the borders of Palestine' nor 'a functioning single government, Fatah and Hamas being enemies'. Neither could enter into relations with foreign states, with one entity having not held elections for decades, and the other being a 'terrorist organisation'. Despite the UK not signing the Montevideo Convention, recognising Palestine 'would be contrary to the principles of governing recognition of states in international law,' the convention having become part of international customary law. On the bloodied ground, where legal abstractions dissolve into fleshy realities, Israel is doing its level best to make sure that there will be nothing left of a Palestinian state to recognise. For Israel, the case is not one of if or when, but never. The machinery of slaughter, deprivation and dislocation is now so advanced it risks smothering the very idea of a viable Palestinian entity. Israeli policy till October 2023 was engineered to stifle and restrain any credible progress towards a Palestinian state, crowned by feeding the acrimonious divisions between Hamas and Fatah. After October 7 that year, the sharpened focus became one of expulsion, subjugation, or plain elimination of the general populace. Palestinian sovereignty remains, to date, incipient, a bare semblance of a political self. This egregious state of affairs continues to be supported, even by those wishing to recognise Palestine. In some ways, those sorts are arguably the worst.

Why not enough food is reaching Gaza even after blockade lifted
Why not enough food is reaching Gaza even after blockade lifted

1News

time2 days ago

  • 1News

Why not enough food is reaching Gaza even after blockade lifted

International outcry over images of emaciated children and increasing reports of hunger-related deaths have pressured Israel to let more aid into the Gaza Strip. This week, Israel paused fighting in parts of Gaza and airdropped food. But aid groups and Palestinians say the changes have only been incremental and are not enough to reverse what food experts say is a "worst-case scenario of famine" unfolding in the war-ravaged territory. The new measures have brought an uptick in the number of aid trucks entering Gaza. But almost none of it reaches UN warehouses for distribution. Instead, nearly all the trucks are stripped of their cargo by crowds that overwhelm them on the roads as they drive from the borders. The crowds are a mix of Palestinians desperate for food and gangs armed with knives, axes or pistols who loot the goods to then hoard or sell. Many have also been killed trying to grab the aid. Witnesses say Israeli troops often open fire on crowds around the aid trucks, and hospitals have reported hundreds killed or wounded. The Israeli military says it has only fired warning shots to control crowds or at people who approach its forces. The alternative food distribution system run by the Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has also been marred by violence. ADVERTISEMENT International airdrops of aid have resumed. But aid groups say airdrops deliver only a fraction of what trucks can supply. Also, many parcels have landed in now-inaccessible areas that Palestinians have been told to evacuate, while others have plunged into the Mediterranean Sea, forcing people to swim out to retrieve drenched bags of flour. Here's a look at why the aid isn't being distributed: The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including toddler found in suitcase on bus, Russian volcano erupts, and Liam Lawson pips former world champion. (Source: 1News) A lack of trust The UN says that longstanding restrictions on the entry of aid have created an unpredictable environment, and that while a pause in fighting might allow more aid in, Palestinians are not confident aid will reach them. "This has resulted in many of our convoys offloaded directly by starving, desperate people as they continue to face deep levels of hunger and are struggling to feed their families," said Olga Cherevko, a spokesperson for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, or OCHA. "The only way to reach a level of confidence is by having a sustained flow of aid over a period of time," she said. ADVERTISEMENT Israel blocked food entirely from entering Gaza for two and a half months starting in March. Since it eased the blockade in late May, it allowed in a trickle of aid trucks for the UN, about 70 a day on average, according to official Israeli figures. That is far below the 500-600 trucks a day that UN agencies say are needed — the amount that entered during a six-week ceasefire earlier this year. Palestinians rush to collect humanitarian aid airdropped in central Gaza Strip. (Source: Associated Press) Much of the aid is stacked up just inside the border in Gaza because UN trucks could not pick it up. The UN says that was because of Israeli military restrictions on its movements and because of the lawlessness in Gaza. Israel has argued that it is allowing sufficient quantities of goods into Gaza and tried to shift the blame to the UN "More consistent collection and distribution by UN agencies and international organisations = more aid reaching those who need it most in Gaza," the Israeli military agency in charge of aid coordination, COGAT, said in a statement this week. With the new measures this week, COGAT, says 220-270 truckloads a day were allowed into Gaza on Tuesday and Wednesday, and that the UN was able to pick up more trucks, reducing some of the backlog at the border. Aid mission still face 'constraints' Cherevko said there have been "minor improvements" in approvals by the Israeli military for its movements and some "reduced waiting times" for trucks along the road. ADVERTISEMENT But she said the aid missions are "still facing constraints." Delays of military approval still mean trucks remain idle for long periods, and the military still restricts the routes that the trucks can take onto a single road, which makes it easy for people to know where the trucks are going, UN officials say. Antoine Renard, who directs the World Food Program's operations in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, said Wednesday that it took nearly 12 hours to bring in 52 trucks on a 10km route. "While we're doing everything that we can to actually respond to the current wave of starvation in Gaza, the conditions that we have are not sufficient to actually make sure that we can break that wave," he said. Aid workers say the changes Israel has made in recent days are largely cosmetic. "These are theatrics, token gestures dressed up as progress," said Bushra Khalidi, Oxfam's policy lead for Israel and the Palestinian territories. "Of course, a handful of trucks, a few hours of tactical pauses and raining energy bars from the sky is not going to fix irreversible harm done to an entire generation of children that have been starved and malnourished for months now," she said. A Palestinian youth carries a sack of aid that landed in the Mediterranean Sea after being airdropped over central Gaza. (Source: Associated Press) Breakdown of law and order ADVERTISEMENT As desperation mounts, Palestinians are risking their lives to get food, and violence is increasing, say aid workers. Muhammad Shehada, a political analyst from Gaza who is a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said aid retrieval has turned into the survival of the fittest. "It's a Darwin dystopia, the strongest survive," he said. A truck driver said Wednesday that he has driven food supplies four times from the Zikim crossing on Gaza's northern border. Every time, he said, crowds a kilometre long surrounded his truck and took everything on it after he passed the checkpoint at the edge of the Israeli military-controlled border zones. He said some were desperate people, while others were armed. He said that on Tuesday, for the first time, some in the crowd threatened him with knives or small arms. He spoke on condition of anonymity, fearing for his safety. Ali al-Derbashi, another truck driver, said that during one trip in July armed men shot the tires, stole everything, including the diesel and batteries and beat him. "If people weren't starving, they wouldn't resort to this," he said. Israel has said it has offered the UN armed escorts. The UN has refused, saying it can't be seen to be working with a party to the conflict – and pointing to the reported shootings when Israeli troops are present. Uncertainty and humiliation ADVERTISEMENT Israel hasn't given a timeline for how long the measures it implemented this week will continue, heightening uncertainty and urgency among Palestinians to seize the aid before it ends. Palestinians say the way it's being distributed, including being dropped from the sky, is inhumane. "This approach is inappropriate for Palestinians, we are humiliated," said Rida, a displaced woman. Momen Abu Etayya said he almost drowned because his son begged him to get aid that fell into the sea during an aid drop. "I threw myself in the ocean to death just to bring him something," he said. "I was only able to bring him three biscuit packets".

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store