logo
‘I had a home, apartment, career' … the Guardian's Gaza diarist on the life he lost – and his journey into exile

‘I had a home, apartment, career' … the Guardian's Gaza diarist on the life he lost – and his journey into exile

The Guardian2 days ago
On the morning of 7 October 2023, the author of the Guardian's Gaza diary woke up planning to play tennis. 'This year I decided to take care of my mental and physical health,' he wrote in his first entry, published six days later. 'This means no stress, no negative energy and definitely more tennis.'
Instead, with the news full of how Hamas had broken out of the territory, killing 1,200 people, he found himself scrambling desperately for the documents showing he owned his apartment in Gaza City, in the north of the strip. 'If our building gets bombed, I need evidence that this apartment belongs to me,' he wrote.
The thirtysomething had long been used to what Palestinians in Gaza called 'situations' – escalations in the battle between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Hamas. But he soon realised this situation was different. Israel's response has, so far, killed more than 57,000 and left 1.9 million people – 90% of the Gazan population – displaced.
On 13 October, Gaza City's residents were told to evacuate and head south. 'It feels like 1948,' the diarist wrote, a reference to the Nakba ('catastrophe'), when 700,000 Palestinians were expelled from a newly independent Israel.
'It is group migration,' he said. 'There are many people walking while carrying their children and their bags because they couldn't find a car. Some people are leaving in buses and others in the back of trucks. Whenever they see people walking, they invite them to jump in. It breaks my heart.'
His diaries were full of questions. 'Is the abnormal going to become the normal? Is two weeks of misery all it takes?'
A gentle man, he looks back at what he wrote at that time and says: 'I see all these questions I was asking. I had no answers back then. Now I've seen how it turned out. And it was horrible.'
I've known him for perhaps five years, so find myself in the odd position of interviewing someone who exudes life – but who now, afraid for that life, is retreating ever further into secrecy and darkness.
The prospect of these diaries, which ran over six months and 48 columns in the Guardian, being published as a book has been causing him panic attacks. More than 180 journalists have been killed in Gaza since October 2023 (some sources suggest that figure is closer to 210). So the book is credited to Anonymous – not even a pseudonym.
So, forgive me if certain details here are hazy. The diarist and I first met because I try to help young journalists in authoritarian states and war zones to get published in English language media. He was the perfect candidate, wanting to tell the stories we normally don't hear from Gaza – of musicians, sportspeople, even the trouble Palestinian men have with crying.
He says of his life then: 'I had a home, an apartment, a career, friends, normal things that no one thinks about, like the pharmacist in my street handing me my medicine, knowing I'd pay on my next visit.'
He's in his 30s, and one of Gaza's intellectuals: middle-class Palestinians are known for their education throughout the Middle East. His parents are dead, and he lived with his sister, their cats and a goldfish. 'Before 7 October, there were many places around me that had witnessed me feeling happy, laughing, crying,' he says.
As the IDF began its assault, first in retribution, then in annihilation, he sent me news of his new life between falling bombs.
At the time, I was struck by how his diary entries arrived devoid of the sectarian fury that sticks like phosphorus to all opinions on Israel/Palestine. What emerged were descriptions of the reality of the people around him, innocent people, told in his simple poetic style. Now, he talks of how important it was for him to portray Palestinians in Gaza as normal – particularly the men, who are often seen as monsters. 'The men are nice people, they have feelings. They are not some kind of a different species.'
In the first fortnight of the war, he had to evacuate three times, to a friend's house, to another friend's house and then, when they, too, had to evacuate, to a house in a town in the south of the Gaza Strip, belonging to a man called Ahmad, who didn't know them but took them in regardless.
'My sister and I are among the lucky ones,' he wrote. The unlucky were those collecting in the schools and open spaces, who he would visit with fresh water. 'The school is no longer an educational entity,' he wrote. 'It is literally a camp.'
He wrote about the changes in those around him. 'Making decisions was the most difficult thing,' he says now. 'I know people who distributed their children among different homes, so that if one house got bombed, the rest would live. Too often, they were right to do so.'
His goldfish didn't last, but he and his sister went to great lengths to keep their cats alive. They became a motif that attracted a remarkable number of the Guardian's readers. Saving them, even putting himself in danger to do so, became an act of faith and a point of dark humour. A friend wrote to say she had created a 'prayer bubble' to keep him safe, and he asked for the cats to be included.
There were other stories: 'I go with Ahmad to get some stuff for the house. On our way, we see a boy of about 14 walking with what seems like his two younger sisters. They are holding bags of crisps in their hands, unopened. He tells them: 'Eat your crisps before we get bombed and die.''
And, of course, there was news of deaths: 'I wonder how scared my friend was. Was he hugging his girls when they all died?'
He settled into his anything but routine life with his host family, all the while expressing his luck to have such shelter. At moments of despair, he would refer to a piece of poetry, such as Mary Elizabeth Frye's Do Not Stand at My Grave and Weep. 'Do not stand by my grave and weep / I am not there. I do not sleep / I am a thousand winds that blow.'
There were moments of intense fear, when bombs landed nearby, or further moves were contemplated. And there were moments when the internet was cut, leaving him isolated. Worried messages would then flood in from readers, and I would hear from Tracy, the outwardly hard-bitten editor on the Guardian who became his most concerned and loyal supporter.
He never lost his spirit, though. 'There was this awful seed of hope inside of me,' he says now. 'It never died. But deciding to remain hopeful was very difficult and it took a lot of energy.'
Ahmad's family was large. At times there were 35 people in the house. There was Ahmad's mother, grandmother to three children who were also there. She kept everyone alive, somehow creating at least one meal a day.
'Gaza's children hadn't been able to go to school because of Covid,' he tells me. 'Then came the war. So there are children who are eight years old who don't know how to write their name. The grandmother used to dedicate an hour of her day to teaching her grandchildren. How come she's not known as one of the most impressive people ever?'
Early in the diaries, he revisited a subject, reporting that Gazan men do cry: 'I saw one collapsed building with three men standing opposite, looking at it, and heavy tears were falling from their eyes.'
Then came the day the diaries stopped. The diarist, his sister and the cats had crossed Gaza's southern border, to become exiles. I asked him to keep writing, and he has, but he no longer wanted to publish. He said he was too identifiable, that the danger was far from over. 'And what about when I return?' he asked.
There was also his overwhelming guilt that he had managed to survive and get out. 'Ahmad's family, who hosted us, are still in Gaza. And you know what? In this very tough moment, when people are starving, every time I talk to them, they say, 'We are fine. We are managing.' And I know that they are not managing – they weren't managing when I was there. Those great people, who helped others, who welcomed me and my sister, oh my God, I will always be for ever in debt to them.'
He pauses to collect himself, then adds: 'It seems that those who were killed were the lucky ones, because they did not have to see what came next.'
He prefers not to reveal too much about his life now, or where he is, but is happy to talk about exile. 'It feels like your soul has been snatched out of your body,' he says.
'What are we as human beings, if not our stories and memories and moments? If you walk by a street and remember: 'Here, I met my friends,' or: 'Here I held someone's hand who I was in love with,' or: 'Here I cried,' or: 'Here I buried my mother.' If those things are taken, what is left?'
Having looked after his family within Gaza, he now finds himself struggling to look after himself. 'A friend gave me a plant and I had a panic attack. I cannot commit to a plant.'
At present, he is surrounded by fellow refugees, and has noticed a new decisiveness. 'I know people who decided to get a divorce. When they were in Gaza, they couldn't because of the traditions. Now they say, 'We were about to be wiped off the earth, so at least let me live the life I wanted.''
Others have taken different directions. He has heard of people turning to drugs, alcohol, sex, 'or hurting the people in their lives, being physically aggressive'. He instead has returned to sport. 'So I'm blessed, until this moment.'
He has to keep moving, he says. His sister tells him they have to stay ahead of tragedy. 'She says, 'This is history repeating itself. It's not something new.''
And all the while, he swings from hope to despair. 'I met a guy, not Gazan, who is working hard because he wants to get an apartment, and I said, 'Please take time to smell the flowers. Take time to enjoy your life. You can lose it all in a moment.''
His hopes of returning to Gaza have been fading. He tells me to look at Google satellite images of Gaza. I do and it is horrifying, but he says it's more about the people.
A friend was talking about how entire peoples can be eclipsed – the Native Americans, say, or Indigenous Australians. 'I replied, 'Are you telling me that in 100 or 200 years, when people think about the culture in this land next to Egypt, they will say, 'Well, there were people here called the Gazans, but then a new culture came. We should apologise to those Gazans'? Are you telling me we will end up being a line in someone's story?'
Having received his diaries in real time, I have of course spent much of the last 21 months thinking about my friend, a bit like a helpless idiot calling down to someone at the bottom of a well.
But I believe, strongly, that while his instinct has been to write as an anonymous everyman, this is no diary of a nobody. It has felt like the diary of a point of light, moving through a darkening landscape, one among millions of points of light, being eclipsed one by one.
The clock has ticked round to 1am as we talk. I ask who he hates. 'Believe it or not, I don't hate anyone,' he says. 'It is not my nature, hating people.'
I ask about the cats. 'Oh, they have grown fat!' It's late, but he wants to keep talking. 'I miss sleeping well,' he says.
Who Will Tell My Story? by Anonymous (Guardian Faber, £12.99). To support the Guardian, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

A question of intent
A question of intent

New Statesman​

time39 minutes ago

  • New Statesman​

A question of intent

'Operation 'Gideon's Chariots', Israel's latest assault on Gaza, began on the night of 16 May 2025. Sometimes the names of military operations carry a message. Gideon was the biblical liberator of Israel from its oppressors, who led a small force of 300 men to defeat the mighty host of the Midianites. 'Gideon's Chariots' expresses the traditional narrative that Israel is the underdog fighting for survival. It is a myth. Israel is one of the most highly militarised and technically advanced states in the world. In terms of GDP per head it is also one of the richest. It is an undeclared nuclear power. At $37bn, its defence budget is by far the biggest in the Middle East, after Saudi Arabia's. Its security is implicitly guaranteed by the United States, which contributes over $3bn a year to its defence. By comparison, Gaza was one of the world's poorest territories even before the destruction recently visited upon it. It has no armed forces apart from Hamas terrorists and a handful of other local militias. It is virtually defenceless against tanks and aircraft. Israel is in a position to do whatever it likes to Gaza, and it does. Hamas's professed ambition may be to eliminate the state of Israel, but it has no more chance of achieving it than a gnat has of killing an elephant. Israel once enjoyed a great deal of moral capital. The Holocaust and the long Jewish experience of persecution aroused sympathy across the West. The idealism surrounding the foundation of the Israeli state and the remarkable social, intellectual and economic achievements of Israel since then were rightly admired. This soft power was politically valuable to Israel. It masked the historic injustice inflicted on the indigenous population of Palestine at the foundation of Israel, when they were cleared out in order to make way for a Jewish state. That moral capital has now been largely dissipated. International hostility to Israel is particularly strong among the world's young, who will dominate its international outlook in the next generation. Anti-Semitism exists, but it is not the main reason for this significant shift of opinion. It has happened because of the way in which Israel has chosen to deploy its overwhelming strength against the vulnerable population of Gaza. This has already provoked the issue of arrest warrants against Benjamin Netanyahu and the former defence minister Yoav Gallant by the International Criminal Court, which is a serious and impartial court whatever the US government may say. Serious criticisms have been made of Israel's conduct in Gaza by the United Nations, and countries such as Britain, France, South Africa, Australia and Canada. Many countries have imposed total or partial arms embargoes. There is a strong case that Israel is guilty of war crimes. As a matter of international law, Israel has a right to defend itself, but the methods which it uses are circumscribed by treaty. Israel has signed up to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The Fourth Convention contains extensive protections for civilian populations caught in a war zone. It forbids attacks on hospitals in any circumstances, unless the hospitals are themselves being used to commit acts of war (articles 18 and 19). It forbids the destruction of private property except where this is 'rendered absolutely necessary by military operations' (article 53). As an occupying power in relation to most of Gaza, Israel is bound to ensure that food and medical supplies are provided to the population (article 55). The permanent displacement of the population is strictly forbidden (article 49). These provisions have been supplemented by a substantial body of binding customary law. International humanitarian law, the generic name given to this body of law, has been codified by the International Committee of the Red Cross in a way that is generally regarded as impartial and authoritative. Military operations must not be directed against civilian targets. This includes towns, cities and villages, residential areas and specific installations such as hospitals, water processing facilities, power plants and other facilities essential to the survival of the civilian population. Indiscriminate attacks are forbidden, including area bombardment and the use of weapons whose effects are uncontrollable. Starvation is specifically banned as a method of warfare. All forms of ethnic cleansing are ruled out. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Of all the rules of international humanitarian law the most important is the rule which requires proportionality in warfare. The International Committee of the Red Cross expresses it as follows: 'Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.' This means that some military operations are unacceptable although they may have an important military purpose and bring real military advantages, because the civilian casualties would simply be too high. It is easy to dismiss these principles as the dreams of unworldly professors and the misplaced idealism of lawyers. But that would be a serious mistake. They are included in the military manuals of most civilised states, including Israel's. They are based on a realistic assessment that war is unavoidable but can be at least partly humanised. This is a major achievement of our world and marks a significant advance in the regulation of warfare, drawing on the catastrophic experiences of the Second World War. We cannot really want to return to the barbarism of the area bombing of cities, the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the deliberate mass starvation of populations and the vast forced population transfers which characterised that conflict. We cannot without hypocrisy criticise the wholesale violation of civilised standards by Russia in Ukraine, and tacitly endorse them when practised by Israel in Gaza. At the outset, the declared object of Israeli military operations in Gaza was to destroy Hamas. The problem with this has always been that although much of the leadership of Hamas and some of its installations are identifiable, Hamas is not an organised and disciplined combatant force like a uniformed army. It is a paramilitary movement dispersed among the civilian population like needles in a haystack. It can be destroyed, if at all, only by burning the entire haystack. Yet every sprig of straw in the haystack is a human life. The destruction of Hamas is probably unachievable by any amount of violence, but it is certainly unachievable without a grossly disproportionate effect on human life. Hamas's attacks on 7 October 2023 killed 1,195 people. According to the Gaza health authorities (part of the Hamas administration) 57,645 Palestinians have so far been killed in Israeli military operations. In addition, over 180 journalists are reported to have died and over 224 humanitarian aid workers, 179 of them employees of the United Nations' relief organisation UNWRA, which Israel will no longer allow to operate in Gaza. These figures do not include indirect casualties from preventable disease and malnutrition caused by war. Most of the victims have been identified by name. A proportion of them are no doubt Hamas fighters. Assessments are necessarily conjectural, but plausible estimates suggest that Hamas may account for 20 per cent of the casualties. United Nations agencies estimate that about 70 per cent have been women and children. The casualties include those caused by grotesque acts of violence such as the bombing of hospitals full of patients, many of whom cannot be moved, because there are said to be Hamas command centres underneath them; or the destruction by bombing of entire apartment blocks whose residents are said to include some Hamas operatives. As of January 2025, more than nine-tenths of residential buildings in Gaza had been destroyed or badly damaged. These figures may be criticised at the margins, but they have been verified by reputable academic studies and responsible agencies of the United Nations. They are not just propaganda or figments of anti-Semitic imaginations. The total blockade of Gaza announced by Netanyahu on 2 March 2025 began to cause famine within a fortnight. It was thought likely to lead ultimately to the most extreme case of man-made famine since the Second World War. The defence minister, Israel Katz, explained in April 2025: 'Israel's policy is clear: no humanitarian aid will enter Gaza and blocking this aid is one of the main pressure levers preventing Hamas from using it as a tool with the population.' It would be hard to imagine a clearer statement that starvation was being used as a weapon of war. In May, Israel qualified the policy by setting up a system of food distribution from militarised 'hubs' organised by its own tame organisation, the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. That system has largely broken down and was never capable of feeding more than part of the population. Meanwhile, the United Nations Human Rights Agency has recorded nearly 800 Palestinians killed while gathering at distribution hubs, hoping for food. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz recently reported, on the basis of interviews with soldiers, that this has been done on the express orders of senior officers of the Israel Defence Forces. I have no ideological position on this conflict. I approach it simply as lawyer and a historian. But I sometimes wonder what Israel's defenders would regard as unacceptable, if the current level of Israeli violence in Gaza is not enough. It is impossible for any decent person to be unmoved by the scale of arbitrarily imposed human suffering, or the spectacle of a powerful army brutally assaulting a population already on its knees. This is not self-defence. It is not even the kind of collateral damage which can be unavoidable in war. It is collective punishment, in other words revenge, visited not just on Hamas but on an entire population. It is, in short, a war crime. Is it also genocide? That is a more difficult question. Genocide is defined by the Genocide Convention of 1951 (to which Israel is party) as acting with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, by killing its members, causing them serious bodily or mental harm or deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part. Because genocide depends on intent, there will always be room for argument about whether it is happening. Recently, a new war aim has emerged alongside the original plan to destroy Hamas. This is nothing less than the wholesale displacement of the population of Gaza to third countries. The Israeli minister of national security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, is a long-standing advocate of ethnic cleansing. The finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, is another. He announced at a public press conference on 6 May 2025, shortly after the decision to launch Operation Gideon's Chariots, that 'Gaza will be entirely destroyed.' He went on to explain that Palestinians would be herded into a Hamas-free zone, and from there would leave 'in great numbers' to third countries. These two men were recently sanctioned by Britain and four other countries 'in their personal capacity'. But they were not speaking in their personal capacity, and cannot so easily be distinguished from the rest of the Israeli government. Both of them are leaders of minor far-right parties in the Knesset belonging to Netanyahu's coalition. They have the rest of the cabinet over a barrel, because Netanyahu's coalition government has a small majority, and without their support it will fall. So the government cannot afford to depart too far from their policy positions. A week after Smotrich's remarks, Netanyahu, giving evidence to a Knesset committee, reported that Israel was destroying more and more housing so that the population would have nowhere to return to and would have to leave Gaza. More recently, on 7 July, the defence minister, Israel Katz, briefed Israeli media that it was proposed to incarcerate Palestinians in a vast camp to be built on the ruins of Rafah, pending their departure for other countries. Statements like these from the prime minister and senior ministers in his cabinet have to be considered together with the sheer scale of the human casualties and the indiscriminate physical destruction inflicted on their orders. The most plausible explanation of current Israeli policy is that its object is to induce Palestinians as an ethnic group to leave the Gaza Strip for other countries by bombing, shooting and starving them if they remain. A court would be likely to regard that as genocide. One of the main barriers to clear thinking about Gaza is the fact that debate is muffled by two dangerous falsehoods. One is the idea that this story began with the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023; the other is that any attack on Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is anti-Semitic. A fortnight after the attack, António Guterres, the secretary-general of the United Nations, pointed out in the Security Council that it 'did not happen in a vacuum'. It followed 56 years in which the Palestinians in Gaza had suffered 'suffocating occupation… their land steadily devoured by settlements and plagued by violence, their economy stifled, their people displaced and their homes demolished.' He was expressing the self-evident truth that if you persistently treat people like that, hatred, violence and terrorism will eventually be the response. The Israeli ambassador objected to his attempt to 'understand' terrorism and demanded his resignation on the ground that his words were an anti-Semitic blood libel. This neatly encapsulated both falsehoods. The tragedy is that what Israel is doing in Gaza is not even in its own interest, although it may be in the personal interest of Netanyahu if it helps him to stay in power. Hamas is, among other things, an idea. It is an idea which will not disappear and which Israel will have to live with, for it will never have peace until it learns to recognise and accommodate the natural attachment of Palestinians as well as Israelis to their land. That will involve considerable concessions by Israel, but the alternative will be worse. The Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 was unforgivable, and it is sometimes said that to understand it is tantamount to justifying it. 'Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner,' says Princess Bolkonsky in War and Peace. I would put it the other way round. That which we cannot forgive, we have a duty to understand. Otherwise we will get more of it. Related

Trump to meet Qatar's PM to discuss Gaza ceasefire deal, Axios reports
Trump to meet Qatar's PM to discuss Gaza ceasefire deal, Axios reports

Reuters

timean hour ago

  • Reuters

Trump to meet Qatar's PM to discuss Gaza ceasefire deal, Axios reports

July 16 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump will meet with Qatar's Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani on Wednesday to discuss negotiations over a Gaza ceasefire deal, Axios reporter Barak Ravid posted on X. Israeli and Hamas negotiators have been taking part in the latest round of ceasefire talks in Doha since July 6, discussing a U.S.-backed proposal for a 60-day ceasefire that envisages a phased release of hostages, Israeli troop withdrawals from parts of Gaza and discussions on ending the conflict. Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff had said on Sunday that he was "hopeful" on the ceasefire negotiations underway in Qatar, a key mediator between the two sides. U.S., Qatari and Egyptian mediators have been working to secure an agreement, however, Israel and Hamas are divided over the extent of an eventual Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian enclave. The latest bloodshed in the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict was triggered in October 2023 when Hamas attacked Israel. Israel says Hamas killed 1,200 and took about 250 hostages. Gaza's health ministry says Israel's subsequent military assault has killed over 58,000 Palestinians. It has also caused a hunger crisis, internally displaced Gaza's entire population and prompted accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice and of war crimes at the International Criminal Court. Israel denies the accusations. A previous two month ceasefire ended when Israeli strikes killed more than 400 Palestinians on March 18. Trump earlier this year proposed a U.S. takeover of Gaza, which was condemned globally by rights experts, the U.N. and Palestinians as a proposal of "ethnic cleansing." Trump and Sheikh Mohammed are also expected to discuss efforts to resume talks between the U.S. and Iran to reach a new nuclear agreement, Ravid added citing a source familiar with the matter.

A stable future for Gaza is a distant prospect
A stable future for Gaza is a distant prospect

New Statesman​

time2 hours ago

  • New Statesman​

A stable future for Gaza is a distant prospect

Photo by Omar AL-Qattaa/ AFP On 7 July Israel's defence minister presented the outline of a plan. Israel Katz explained to local journalists that he had instructed the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) to prepare what he called a 'humanitarian city', into which about 600,000 Gazans would be moved 'voluntarily'. This 'humanitarian city' would be built on top of the destroyed city of Rafah, in south Gaza, and eventually be home to the entire civilian population of the Strip. Those entering the area would be screened in order to weed out Hamas militants, said Katz, and would not be able to leave once admitted. With talks ongoing in Doha, a ceasefire in Gaza might be imminent – even a permanent one. This would end a 21-month war, the longest in Israel's history, that has killed at least 58,000 Palestinians according to Gaza's health ministry – a number many experts believe to be a gross undercount. But while the end of the war may be in sight, the proposal from Israel's ministry of defence suggests that a stable, safe future for Gaza is still a distant prospect. The plan has been met with considerable backlash. Even before the war, Gaza was one of the most densely populated areas in the world. Israel's former prime minister Ehud Olmert has said that the proposal – which would concentrate the population of Gaza into a purpose-built camp in an area the fraction of the size of the enclave – describes a 'concentration camp'. Some of Israel's most respected international law scholars, meanwhile, issued an open letter saying that 'any directive to prepare or advance the establishment of a 'humanitarian city' in Gaza constitutes a manifestly illegal order' and that, if implemented, 'the plan would constitute a series of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and under certain conditions, could amount to the crime of genocide'. Conditions within the 'city' would not be managed by the IDF, Katz said, though the military would 'provide security from a distance'. This raised the spectre that the proposed camp would be run in much the same way as Gaza's new aid delivery sites: with deadly force. In May, when Israel's full blockade on the Strip was partially lifted, a US-backed organisation called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which was set up with help from the Israeli authorities, began distributing aid to Gazans at just four locations, replacing the 400 aid points previously overseen, in part, by the UN. The scarcity of the sites not only requires Palestinians to travel long distances to receive food and other aid, but also forces them to stand in fenced-in, chaotic queues with thousands of other desperate people. The IDF patrols these distribution sites and, according to Gaza's health ministry, more than 600 people have been killed by Israeli forces while trying to get aid since May. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation says no shootings have taken place in the vicinity of its operations, but an investigation published by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on 27 June revealed IDF officers and soldiers say they have been ordered to fire at 'unarmed crowds' around these sites. 'It's a killing field,' one soldier said. Both Benjamin Netanyahu and Katz called the report 'blood libel'. Some media outlets have floated the possibility that Katz's proposal is not so much a concrete plan as it is a negotiating tactic, intended to pressure Hamas to bend to Israel's ceasefire demands. Yet Haaretz reported on 14 July that Netanyahu and other government ministers were angered by the IDF's suggestion that the 'humanitarian city' would take up to a year to build and could cost billions. In a cabinet meeting on 13 July, the prime minister reportedly demanded a more efficient plan. Even if the proposal is a tactic to force Hamas to negotiate, it doesn't seem to be working: at the time of writing, Israel and Hamas are still struggling to reach an agreement. Husam Badran, a senior member of Hamas, has said the camp plans were a 'deliberately obstructive demand' that were impeding ceasefire negotiations. 'This would be an isolated city that resembles a ghetto,' he told the New York Times. 'This is utterly unacceptable, and no Palestinian would agree to this.' Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe The broad contours of a ceasefire have already been established in a US proposal: a two-month truce, in which talks to forge a permanent ceasefire would continue. Half of the remaining 50 hostages still in Gaza, including some of the 20 who are thought to still be alive, would be released in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in Israel. Yet sticking points beyond the proposed camp in Rafah remain: Israel demands that the much-diminished Hamas agrees to fully disarm and its political leadership is exiled; Hamas wants guarantees that the ceasefire will be made permanent and that Israel will not resume the war after a brief pause. For all the reported resistance from Hamas in negotiations, critics of Netanyahu have suggested that it is he who is stalling in an effort to placate the far-right ministers within his fragile coalition who oppose any ceasefire at all. There is speculation that the Israeli prime minister wants to drag out talks until 27 July, when Israel's parliament, the Knesset, breaks for summer, and it would become more difficult for ministers to collapse the government. Though Netanyahu travelled to Washington earlier this month, where he was pressured by Donald Trump to agree to a deal, an official told the BBC that the trip itself was to buy time. In the absence of agreeing to a peace-deal and swiftly bringing an end to the war, Netanyahu instead nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. [See also: Gaza diary: Amid the rubble] Related

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