Israel probes alleged civilian shootings near Gaza aid sites
JERUSALEM: Israel's Military Advocate General has ordered an investigation into possible war crimes over allegations that Israeli forces deliberately fired at Palestinian civilians near Gaza aid distribution sites, Haaretz newspaper reported on Friday.
Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed over the past month in the vicinity of areas where food was being handed out, local hospitals and officials have said.
Haaretz, a left-leaning Israeli newspaper, quoted unnamed Israeli soldiers as saying they were told to fire at the crowds to keep them back, using unnecessary lethal force against people who appeared to pose no threat.
The military told Reuters that the Israel Defense Forces had not instructed soldiers to deliberately shoot at civilians. It added that it was looking to improve "the operational response" in the aid areas and had recently installed new fencing and signs, and opened additional routes to reach the handout zones.
Haaretz quoted unnamed sources as saying that the army unit established to review incidents that may involve breaches of international law had been tasked with examining soldiers' actions near aid locations over the past month.
The military told Reuters that some incidents were being reviewed by relevant authorities.
It added: "Any allegation of a deviation from the law or IDF directives will be thoroughly examined, and further action will be taken as necessary."
There is an acute shortage of food and other basic supplies after the nearly two-year-old military campaign by Israel against Hamas militants in Gaza that has reduced much of the enclave to rubble and displaced most of its two million inhabitants.
Thousands of people gather around distribution centres desperately awaiting the next deliveries, but there have been near daily reports of shootings and killings on the approach routes. Medics said six people were killed by gunfire on Friday as they sought to get food in the southern Gaza Strip.
MORE THAN 500 HAVE DIED, GAZA AUTHORITIES SAY
In all, more than 500 people have died near aid centres operated by the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) or in areas where U.N. food trucks were set to pass since late May, the Gaza health authorities have said.
The unnamed Israeli soldiers told Haaretz that military commanders had ordered troops to shoot at the crowds of Palestinians to disperse them and clear the area.
During a closed-door meeting with senior Military Advocate General officials this week, legal representatives rejected IDF claims that the incidents were isolated cases, Haaretz reported.
There has been widespread confusion about access to the aid, with the army imposing for a time a 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew on approach routes to GHF sites. But locals often have to set out well before dawn to have any chance of retrieving food.
In a statement late on Friday, a GHF spokesperson said there had been no incidents or fatalities to date at or in the immediate vicinity of its distribution sites. The statement said the IDF is tasked with providing safe passage for aid-seekers to all humanitarian organizations operating in Gaza, including GHF.
"GHF is not aware of any of these incidents but these allegations are too grave to ignore and we therefore call on Israel to investigate them and transparently publish the results in a timely manner," the spokesperson said.
The Gaza war began when Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, killing nearly 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking 251 others hostage into the enclave.
In response, Israel launched a military campaign that has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, the majority of them civilians, according to local health authorities in Gaza.
The Gaza health ministry said on Friday that at least 72 people were killed and more than 170 wounded by Israeli fire across Gaza Strip in the past 24 hours.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
17 minutes ago
- The Star
Thai protesters call for Prime Minister Paetongtarn's resignation
FILE PHOTO: Thailand's Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra looks during a press conference after a meeting on measures to solve transnational crimes,at the Government House, following a leak on Wednesday of a phone call between her and Cambodia's former Prime Minister Hun Sen, amid a border dispute between the two countries, in Bangkok, Thailand, June 23, 2025. Government House of Thailand Handout via REUTERS/File Photo BANGKOK (Reuters) -Hundreds of protesters gathered in the Thai capital Bangkok on Saturday demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, as her government faces rising anger over a border row with Cambodia. The rally, the largest anti-government protest since her Pheu Thai party came to power in 2023, increases pressure on Paetongtarn, 38, who is battling to revive a faltering economy and keep a fragile government coalition together ahead of a potential no confidence vote next month. Protesters waved flags beside Victory Monument, a war memorial at a busy intersection, in a demonstrationorganised by the United Force of the Land, a coalition of largely nationalist activists who have rallied against other Shinawatra-backed governments over the last two decades. While the past protests did not directly cause the downfall of those governments, they built up pressure that led to judicial interventions and military coups in 2006 and 2014. The political turmoil in Thailand threatens to further damage the country's struggling economic recovery. Paetongtarn said on Saturday that she was not concerned about the protest and had instructed authorities to ensure the gathering was peaceful. "It's within people's rights and I will not retaliate," she said. The prime minister, who now controls a slim majority coalition following the exit of former partner Bhumjaithai Party last week, could face a no confidence vote when parliament reconvenes next week. Bhumjaithai Party last week withdrew its support for the government citing the risk of a loss of Thai sovereignty and integrity after a leaked phone conversation between Paetongtarn and Cambodia's former premier Hun Sen. During the call, Paetongtarn appeared to seek to appease the veteran Cambodian politician and criticised a Thai army commander, a red line in a country where the military has significant clout. She has apologised for her comments. The prime minister also faces judicial scrutiny after a group of senators petitioned the Constitutional Court and a national anti-graft body with a wide remit to investigate her conduct over the leaked phone call. Decisions from either bodies could lead to her removal. Hun Sen, a former ally of the Shinawatras, madean unprecedented public attack on Paetongtarn and her family in an hours-long televised speech on Friday, calling for a change in government in Thailand. The Thai foreign ministry described the speech as "extraordinary" while insisting that Thailand prefers to use diplomacy to resolve the escalating bilateral dispute. (Reporting by Panu Wongcha-um; Editing by Sam Holmes)
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court wraps up its term
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its current term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that may make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power. With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Friday curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called "universal" injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The court's decision has "systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion," said Paul Rosenzweig, an attorney who served in Republican President George W. Bush's administration. Friday's ruling said that judges generally can grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions. The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017-2021. Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. The court also permitted implementation of Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, let his administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labor boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes. 'A BULLY PULPIT' "President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases," George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said. "Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency," Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. "It recognizes that the executive branch is a bully pulpit with a wide range of authorities to implement the promises of a campaign platform." Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward. The rulings in favor of Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts Court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence," Luther said. The cases involving Trump administration policies this year came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found that it was likely unconstitutional. "One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers," Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said. In other cases during the nine-month term, the court sided with a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, endorsed South Carolina's plan to cut off public funding to reproductive healthcare and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and made it easier to pursue claims alleging workplace "reverse" discrimination. The court also spared two American gun companies from the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, and allowed parents to opt elementary school children out of classes when storybooks with LGBT characters are read. 'NOT THE COURT'S ROLE' In several cases involving federal statutes, the message from the justices is that people unhappy with the outcome need to take that up with Congress, according to Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. "The court is implicitly saying, 'That's Congress' problem to fix, and it's not the court's role to solve those issues,'" Levinson said. This is the second straight year that the court ended its term with a decision handing Trump a major victory. On July 1, 2024, it ruled in favor of Trump in deciding that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken in office. It marked the first time that the court recognized any form of presidential immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court's next term begins in October but Trump's administration still has some emergency requests pending that the justices could act upon at any time. It has asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. It also has asked the justices to rein in the judge handling a case involving deportations to so-called "third countries." Recent rulings "have really shown the court for what it is, which is a deeply conservative court," Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis said. The court's jurisprudence reflects a larger shift in the national discourse, with Republicans feeling they have the political capital to achieve long-sought aims, Kreis said. The court's conservative majority, Kreis said, "is probably feeling more emboldened to act." (Reporting by Jan Wolfe and Will Dunham, Editing by Rosalba O'Brien)
The Sun
3 hours ago
- The Sun
From tweets to tectonics
IT began, again, with a tweet. Donald Trump, from his digital podium, declared that Iran and Israel had 'come to him' asking for peace and that he was promising a future of 'love, peace and prosperity'. The post went viral. Commentators scrambled. Headlines reframed. But beneath the performance lay the more troubling reality: real peace is nowhere in sight and never was. Just hours after this so-called peace overture, Israel unleashed another wave of airstrikes. Yet, we already know Israel's operations are routinely underwritten by US logistics and satellite support. Emir Research has long highlighted this conceptual bifurcation within the US, now increasingly visible even to the most unscrupulous observers. On one side, a political class desperate to appear in control; on the other, a war economy that no longer answers to democratic oversight. These bombings expose not only Israeli aggression but also the extent to which Washington has become operationally fragmented. But perhaps the most revealing element is not the gap between Trump's rhetoric and reality but the possibility that this gap is intentional. What if Trump's apparent incoherence is not a miscalculation but a method? His declarations of peace are routinely followed by orchestrated escalation. Not because he controls outcomes but because he wants the world to see that he does not. The deeper message is strategic: that America cannot guarantee anything because it cannot even govern itself. Treaties signed today are disavowed tomorrow. Not that we did not know this before but with Trump the exposure becomes grotesque. Trump's theatre serves a darker purpose: to collapse the perception of US reliability. His actions – whether on foreign entanglements, tariffs or climate withdrawal – teach the world that American leadership is structurally incoherent. The chaos is not accidental; it is a form of exposure. And this is not lost on foreign capital. Even long-time allies now quietly ask: If the American state cannot ensure internal coherence, how can it offer global stability? If its wars continue without presidential oversight and its treaties collapse with each administration, what does it mean to be aligned with Washington? It is in this disillusionment that real geopolitical recalibration begins. While bombs fell and tweets spiralled, the Nato summit convened with all the theatre of importance but none of the coherence. Once a cornerstone of postwar Western security, the alliance now resembles a museum exhibit: elaborate, well-lit but out of time. South Korea's absence was not a matter of disengagement. As reported by the South China Morning Post, it reflected a pragmatic diplomatic recalibration. Across the Global South, Nato is viewed increasingly as a relic: obsessed with 2% defence spending while the world burns from climate shocks, cyber threats, pandemics and migratory collapse. Even Nato members struggle to meet its goals. Reuters reports only a few are on track for the 2% target by 2025. The rest offer rhetoric, not readiness. Yet, rather than recalibrating, Nato has now endorsed a new goal of 5% defence spending by 2035. This shift reflects more about worldview than actual threat. Many in the Global South are asking: Containment of what, exactly? Is Nato defending the world or defending its relevance? The problem is not just strategic. It is existential. Nato's core logic – big-state militarism, fixed enemies, endless deterrence – is ill-suited to a world of decentralised threats and non-linear crises. The alliance now projects the image of an inward-looking bloc. Across Latin America, Africa and Asia, new coalitions are forming around infrastructure, energy resilience, digital sovereignty and climate action. These are not military alliances but post-Western lifelines. If Nato wants to remain relevant, it must shift from fortress to forum. So far, the signs are unconvincing. Something deeper is unfolding behind the theatrics of war and summits: a realignment not of blocs but of meaning. Across countries, the question is no longer whom to side with but whether the old story still holds at all. Take Iran. Its administration is probably far from universally embraced, even domestically. But its refusal to collapse under sabotage, sanctions and psychological warfare has turned it into a symbol of dignity under siege. From South Africa to Indonesia, Pakistan to Latin America, solidarity with Iran stems not from ideology but from memory. It comes from a shared experience of being coerced, demonised, dehumanised and denied narrative parity. Across Africa, Southeast Asia and parts of Latin America, political leaders and civil society voices increasingly point to a common view. Iran is not being punished for aggression but for independence. The pattern is familiar: covert interference, sanctions and media vilification. These pressures mirror what many postcolonial nations face for refusing alignment with dominant powers. What the Global South is registering is a declaration of strategic sovereignty. In this climate, Malaysia has found its own voice. It does not project force or fund proxy wars. What it offers is narrative clarity. Through consistent diplomatic positioning, Malaysia has argued that peace without accountability is a false peace. Israel's nuclear ambiguity, Western impunity and the systematic erasure of Palestinian dignity are no longer seen as unfortunate contradictions. They are becoming untenable pillars of a collapsing order. In this emerging terrain, narrative is the new front line. The Global South is no longer waiting for permission. It is reframing what dignity, deterrence and diplomacy mean in a world unmoored from Western centrality. What we are witnessing is not just a contest of weapons but a reckoning of words. The old order relied on language to mask contradiction. Today, those words no longer conceal. They expose. The Nato summit only magnified irrelevance. Its metrics, even if not false, are out of sync with the world's pulse. Climate collapse does not ask for battalions – nor does a broken food system or digitally displaced generation. As for the US, the facade of unity has never looked thinner. It is no longer a singular actor but a split organism – one hand tweeting peace, the other fuelling war. This is not a strategy; it is entropy. And in the margins of this collapse, a new world is taking shape. Multipolar networks are forming not through grand treaties but through quiet refusal. These actors refuse to be lectured, intimidated or ignored. If a new system emerges, it will not be born in Cold War summits or Nato declarations. It will be built on the courage of coherence and on the dignity of those once silenced who are now speaking in full. The Global South, long treated as an audience, is now writing its own script.
