Israel-Iran ceasefire as it happened: Trump officials give classified briefing to US Congress over Iranian nuclear site bombings; Iran's supreme leader says strikes on US base a ‘slap to America's face'
2.35pm on Jun 27, 2025
US gives contentious Gaza aid group $30m
By Cassandra Morgan
Further to our previous post, the US has approved $30 million in funding for the contentious aid distribution system in Gaza, which is run mostly by American contractors and backed by Israel, The New York Times reports.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is relatively new to running food distribution centres on the Gaza Strip.
The Gaza health ministry says hundreds of people have been killed near food distribution points in the past month.
Humanitarian groups were raising the alarm about the sites since before the project's operations began in late May, saying having only a few distribution sites – most in southern Gaza – with Israeli soldiers stationed nearby displaced residents and militarised humanitarian aid, the Times reported.
US state department spokesman Thomas Pigott, in announcing the $30 million in funding, described the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation as a project that was 'absolutely incredible and should be commended and supported', the Times reported.
Pigott called for other countries to contribute funding to the group, which the United Nations has criticised, alongside many other humanitarian organisations, the Times reported.
It is reportedly the first time the US state department has publicly announced financial aid for the group.
2.08pm on Jun 27, 2025
Another 18 killed as turmoil mounts over Gaza food distribution
An Israeli strike hit a street in central Gaza on Thursday, where witnesses said people were getting bags of flour from a Palestinian police unit that had confiscated the goods from gangs looting aid convoys. Hospital officials said 18 people were killed.
The strike was the latest violence surrounding the distribution of food to Gaza's population, which has been thrown into turmoil over the past month. After blocking all food for 2½ months, Israel has allowed only a trickle of supplies into the territory since mid-May.
Efforts by the United Nations to distribute the food have been plagued by armed gangs looting trucks, and by crowds of desperate people offloading supplies from convoys.
Loading
The strike in the central town of Deir al-Balah on Thursday appeared to target members of Sahm, a security unit tasked with stopping looters and cracking down on merchants who sell stolen aid at high prices. The unit is part of Gaza's Hamas-led Interior Ministry, but includes members of other factions.
Video of the aftermath showed bodies, several torn, of multiple young men in the street. The dead included a child and at least seven Sahm members, according to the nearby Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital, where casualties were taken.
There was no immediate comment from the Israeli military. Israel has accused the militant Hamas group of stealing aid and using it to prop up its rule in the enclave. Israeli forces have repeatedly struck Gaza's police, considering them a branch of Hamas.
AP
1.45pm on Jun 27, 2025
Israelis love Trump. But some are unnerved by this vow
US President Donald Trump's call for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption trial to be thrown out has plunged the American leader into one of Israel's most heated debates, unnerving some in its political class just days after they unanimously praised his strikes on Iran.
Trump's social media post condemning the trial as a 'WITCH HUNT', and his vow that the US will be the one who 'saves' Netanyahu from serious corruption charges, came just two days after he called off an Israeli bombing raid in Iran to preserve a ceasefire.
Both were dramatic interventions in the affairs of an ally that previous US administrations had always insisted was a sovereign nation that made its own decisions. Now the one leader nearly all Israelis seem to support has fully embraced the one who most divides them.
'With all due respect for Trump, he is not supposed to interfere in a legal process in an independent country,' Opposition Leader Yair Lapid told Israeli media.
Loading
Trump is seen by Netanyahu – and many Israelis – as the greatest friend they have ever had in the White House. He has lent unprecedented support to Israel's claims to territories seized in war, he brokered the Abraham Accords with four Arab nations in his first term and over the weekend he ordered direct strikes on Iran's nuclear program, which Israel views as an existential threat.
Still, even some staunch supporters of Netanyahu and Trump seemed a bit unnerved.
Simcha Rotman, a lawmaker from the far-right Religious Zionist party and one of the architects of Netanyahu's controversial judicial overhaul, wrote on X that Netanyahu's trial 'may be an example of an accumulation of many faults' of the justice system.
'Still, it is not the place of the president of the United States to interfere in legal proceedings in Israel.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Julie Bishop makes rare diplomatic foray into Russia
London: Julie Bishop has made a rare trip to the Kremlin, meeting senior Russian officials during a visit that underscores Moscow's growing influence in Myanmar and its central role in shielding the country's military regime from global pressure. The former Australian foreign minister, who is now the United Nations special envoy for Myanmar, held talks with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin. She posted photos to her Instagram last week from inside Russia's Foreign Ministry and Red Square – a striking image for a Western diplomat given Russia's isolation over its ongoing invasion of Ukraine. Bishop, who rarely speaks publicly about her role, declined to comment when approached by this masthead, only confirming the visit as part of her role in engaging key United Nations Security Council members on Myanmar's political and humanitarian crisis. Russia is one of the junta's most powerful allies, supplying arms, vetoing UN resolutions, and expanding oil and gas co-operation. The Kremlin recently announced new strategic agreements with Myanmar's military, even as the regime continues its crackdown on political opponents, ethnic minorities, and pro-democracy forces. In an address to the UN General Assembly earlier this month, Bishop warned that since the February 2021 coup, 'Myanmar has been in polycrisis, with more than 14,000 civilian fatalities and 80,000 total fatalities recorded, more than 3.5 million internally displaced, and over 100,000 houses torched.' Loading She condemned the junta for continuing to 'fly airstrikes as part of its campaign against anti-junta forces and Myanmar's people, despite a ceasefire announcement', and said the plight of the Rohingya Muslim minority had 'only worsened' since the military seized power. 'Those who have been forcibly deported from Myanmar face an uncertain future, with life-saving support to refugees significantly reduced, while Rohingya inside Myanmar face continuing persecution, displacement, and denial of human rights amidst an intensifying conflict,' she said. She also warned that elections planned by the junta for December were aimed at whitewashing military rule.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Canada scraps its digital services tax following Trump's move to suspend trade talks
Canada will rescind its digital services tax on American technology companies following US President Donald Trump's move to suspend trade talks between both countries. In a statement, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney's office said both parties will resume negotiations to reach a deal by July 21, 2025. The tax would have applied to both domestic and foreign tech companies with a three per cent levy.
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Defence spending: the art of picking the moment to panic
The United States wants Australia to spend more on its armed forces. That's the way nations talk about these things. In everyday life, things are different. I don't make up my shopping list by noting down "spend more on chicken thighs": I want to buy a particular number of chicken thighs, the number the recipe calls for. The Albanese government is standing firm in the face of American pressure, sort of, saying that we'll spend more money on our armed forces because we want to, not because you want us to, so there! Which doesn't really resolve the question of how many chicken thighs we need. It's certainly true that we're facing unprecedented challenges. In his recent Quarterly Essay "Hard new world", independent defence analyst Hugh White points out that in the Trump era the American alliance is no longer worth the paper it was never printed on (the ANZUS treaty commits the parties only to "consult[ing] together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened" and to "act[ing] to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes". White concludes that Australia must stand up for itself, cancel AUKUS, and carve out its own foreign policy. Despite his differences with the government, however, he still suggests that "Australia will need to spend a lot more on defence if it wishes to manage the risk of aggression by a great power like China in the decades ahead." Various commentators have pointed out that we already spend rather a lot on our armed forces, coming in at about 11th on world rankings of dollar expenditure - more than Israel, more than Taiwan. For their payments, Taiwan gets a parade ground salute from 1,837,800 uniforms and Israel gets 642,000 (including large reserve forces in both cases). We check in at 79,990, reserves included - notably fewer. Even those critics who don't think we need to spend more on our defence don't suggest we need to spend less, but it would surely be odd if we had purely by chance ended up exactly in the Goldilocks zone. There are hints that we could do rather better. Analysis prepared for the Greens by the parliamentary library and reported by the ABC revealed that "the ranks of senior officers in the Australian military [have] almost doubled over the past 20 years, despite a steady decline in overall numbers of enlisted defence personnel". Critics - and some official reports - suggest "the Defence organisation is top- heavy, over-managed and under-led" (Michael Shoebridge, Strategic Analysis Australia) and "there are ... dangerous weaknesses in our defence capabilities" (Henry Ergas, in The Australian). Armed forces, though, are inherently difficult to manage efficiently. How do you measure the performance of an organisation that you hope is never going to be called upon to do what you would want it to be able to do? How, strategically, do you identify the threats that our forces are designed to combat, given that mentioning the names of these nations in public would move us appreciably closer to such conflicts? How, as a politician, do you cut back on the privileges of the generals without having them leak hostile reports to the media? Faced with these difficult problems, Australian ministers for defence tend to move on to another more compliant portfolio as soon as they can. Australian governments have historically retreated to arguing only about total spending, believing that the public can't cope with more than one number at a time. The other problem, of course, is productivity. Money spent on arms is, in economic terms, a dead end (although it could be said that our acquisition of warships supports our shipbuilding industry, or would, if we had one). There's not much spillover. Money invested almost anywhere else - education, research, infrastructure - would have a payoff down the track; adding more soldiers just withdraws resources from everywhere else and diminishes growth. READ MORE: The longer we can last before we arm up, the more resources we'll have when we need to. If Australia did believe that we were in actual danger of invasion, we would be spending on defence about what we spent in 1943, or 33 per cent of GDP, and we'd also be instituting conscription and rationing. The difference between 2 per cent and 33 per cent is a measure of how safe we feel when not specifically prompted to panic. The trick, of course, is picking the moment to panic. And one of the major tasks facing any Australian government is to make it absolutely clear when the answer is "not remotely yet". Our leaders are very, very bad at it. Then we need to talk about AI and its role in place of foot soldiers. That's a whole other debate. The United States wants Australia to spend more on its armed forces. That's the way nations talk about these things. In everyday life, things are different. I don't make up my shopping list by noting down "spend more on chicken thighs": I want to buy a particular number of chicken thighs, the number the recipe calls for. The Albanese government is standing firm in the face of American pressure, sort of, saying that we'll spend more money on our armed forces because we want to, not because you want us to, so there! Which doesn't really resolve the question of how many chicken thighs we need. It's certainly true that we're facing unprecedented challenges. In his recent Quarterly Essay "Hard new world", independent defence analyst Hugh White points out that in the Trump era the American alliance is no longer worth the paper it was never printed on (the ANZUS treaty commits the parties only to "consult[ing] together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened" and to "act[ing] to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes". White concludes that Australia must stand up for itself, cancel AUKUS, and carve out its own foreign policy. Despite his differences with the government, however, he still suggests that "Australia will need to spend a lot more on defence if it wishes to manage the risk of aggression by a great power like China in the decades ahead." Various commentators have pointed out that we already spend rather a lot on our armed forces, coming in at about 11th on world rankings of dollar expenditure - more than Israel, more than Taiwan. For their payments, Taiwan gets a parade ground salute from 1,837,800 uniforms and Israel gets 642,000 (including large reserve forces in both cases). We check in at 79,990, reserves included - notably fewer. Even those critics who don't think we need to spend more on our defence don't suggest we need to spend less, but it would surely be odd if we had purely by chance ended up exactly in the Goldilocks zone. There are hints that we could do rather better. Analysis prepared for the Greens by the parliamentary library and reported by the ABC revealed that "the ranks of senior officers in the Australian military [have] almost doubled over the past 20 years, despite a steady decline in overall numbers of enlisted defence personnel". Critics - and some official reports - suggest "the Defence organisation is top- heavy, over-managed and under-led" (Michael Shoebridge, Strategic Analysis Australia) and "there are ... dangerous weaknesses in our defence capabilities" (Henry Ergas, in The Australian). Armed forces, though, are inherently difficult to manage efficiently. How do you measure the performance of an organisation that you hope is never going to be called upon to do what you would want it to be able to do? How, strategically, do you identify the threats that our forces are designed to combat, given that mentioning the names of these nations in public would move us appreciably closer to such conflicts? How, as a politician, do you cut back on the privileges of the generals without having them leak hostile reports to the media? Faced with these difficult problems, Australian ministers for defence tend to move on to another more compliant portfolio as soon as they can. Australian governments have historically retreated to arguing only about total spending, believing that the public can't cope with more than one number at a time. The other problem, of course, is productivity. Money spent on arms is, in economic terms, a dead end (although it could be said that our acquisition of warships supports our shipbuilding industry, or would, if we had one). There's not much spillover. Money invested almost anywhere else - education, research, infrastructure - would have a payoff down the track; adding more soldiers just withdraws resources from everywhere else and diminishes growth. READ MORE: The longer we can last before we arm up, the more resources we'll have when we need to. If Australia did believe that we were in actual danger of invasion, we would be spending on defence about what we spent in 1943, or 33 per cent of GDP, and we'd also be instituting conscription and rationing. The difference between 2 per cent and 33 per cent is a measure of how safe we feel when not specifically prompted to panic. The trick, of course, is picking the moment to panic. And one of the major tasks facing any Australian government is to make it absolutely clear when the answer is "not remotely yet". Our leaders are very, very bad at it. Then we need to talk about AI and its role in place of foot soldiers. That's a whole other debate. The United States wants Australia to spend more on its armed forces. That's the way nations talk about these things. In everyday life, things are different. I don't make up my shopping list by noting down "spend more on chicken thighs": I want to buy a particular number of chicken thighs, the number the recipe calls for. The Albanese government is standing firm in the face of American pressure, sort of, saying that we'll spend more money on our armed forces because we want to, not because you want us to, so there! Which doesn't really resolve the question of how many chicken thighs we need. It's certainly true that we're facing unprecedented challenges. In his recent Quarterly Essay "Hard new world", independent defence analyst Hugh White points out that in the Trump era the American alliance is no longer worth the paper it was never printed on (the ANZUS treaty commits the parties only to "consult[ing] together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened" and to "act[ing] to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes". White concludes that Australia must stand up for itself, cancel AUKUS, and carve out its own foreign policy. Despite his differences with the government, however, he still suggests that "Australia will need to spend a lot more on defence if it wishes to manage the risk of aggression by a great power like China in the decades ahead." Various commentators have pointed out that we already spend rather a lot on our armed forces, coming in at about 11th on world rankings of dollar expenditure - more than Israel, more than Taiwan. For their payments, Taiwan gets a parade ground salute from 1,837,800 uniforms and Israel gets 642,000 (including large reserve forces in both cases). We check in at 79,990, reserves included - notably fewer. Even those critics who don't think we need to spend more on our defence don't suggest we need to spend less, but it would surely be odd if we had purely by chance ended up exactly in the Goldilocks zone. There are hints that we could do rather better. Analysis prepared for the Greens by the parliamentary library and reported by the ABC revealed that "the ranks of senior officers in the Australian military [have] almost doubled over the past 20 years, despite a steady decline in overall numbers of enlisted defence personnel". Critics - and some official reports - suggest "the Defence organisation is top- heavy, over-managed and under-led" (Michael Shoebridge, Strategic Analysis Australia) and "there are ... dangerous weaknesses in our defence capabilities" (Henry Ergas, in The Australian). Armed forces, though, are inherently difficult to manage efficiently. How do you measure the performance of an organisation that you hope is never going to be called upon to do what you would want it to be able to do? How, strategically, do you identify the threats that our forces are designed to combat, given that mentioning the names of these nations in public would move us appreciably closer to such conflicts? How, as a politician, do you cut back on the privileges of the generals without having them leak hostile reports to the media? Faced with these difficult problems, Australian ministers for defence tend to move on to another more compliant portfolio as soon as they can. Australian governments have historically retreated to arguing only about total spending, believing that the public can't cope with more than one number at a time. The other problem, of course, is productivity. Money spent on arms is, in economic terms, a dead end (although it could be said that our acquisition of warships supports our shipbuilding industry, or would, if we had one). There's not much spillover. Money invested almost anywhere else - education, research, infrastructure - would have a payoff down the track; adding more soldiers just withdraws resources from everywhere else and diminishes growth. READ MORE: The longer we can last before we arm up, the more resources we'll have when we need to. If Australia did believe that we were in actual danger of invasion, we would be spending on defence about what we spent in 1943, or 33 per cent of GDP, and we'd also be instituting conscription and rationing. The difference between 2 per cent and 33 per cent is a measure of how safe we feel when not specifically prompted to panic. The trick, of course, is picking the moment to panic. And one of the major tasks facing any Australian government is to make it absolutely clear when the answer is "not remotely yet". Our leaders are very, very bad at it. Then we need to talk about AI and its role in place of foot soldiers. That's a whole other debate. The United States wants Australia to spend more on its armed forces. That's the way nations talk about these things. In everyday life, things are different. I don't make up my shopping list by noting down "spend more on chicken thighs": I want to buy a particular number of chicken thighs, the number the recipe calls for. The Albanese government is standing firm in the face of American pressure, sort of, saying that we'll spend more money on our armed forces because we want to, not because you want us to, so there! Which doesn't really resolve the question of how many chicken thighs we need. It's certainly true that we're facing unprecedented challenges. In his recent Quarterly Essay "Hard new world", independent defence analyst Hugh White points out that in the Trump era the American alliance is no longer worth the paper it was never printed on (the ANZUS treaty commits the parties only to "consult[ing] together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened" and to "act[ing] to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes". White concludes that Australia must stand up for itself, cancel AUKUS, and carve out its own foreign policy. Despite his differences with the government, however, he still suggests that "Australia will need to spend a lot more on defence if it wishes to manage the risk of aggression by a great power like China in the decades ahead." Various commentators have pointed out that we already spend rather a lot on our armed forces, coming in at about 11th on world rankings of dollar expenditure - more than Israel, more than Taiwan. For their payments, Taiwan gets a parade ground salute from 1,837,800 uniforms and Israel gets 642,000 (including large reserve forces in both cases). We check in at 79,990, reserves included - notably fewer. Even those critics who don't think we need to spend more on our defence don't suggest we need to spend less, but it would surely be odd if we had purely by chance ended up exactly in the Goldilocks zone. There are hints that we could do rather better. Analysis prepared for the Greens by the parliamentary library and reported by the ABC revealed that "the ranks of senior officers in the Australian military [have] almost doubled over the past 20 years, despite a steady decline in overall numbers of enlisted defence personnel". Critics - and some official reports - suggest "the Defence organisation is top- heavy, over-managed and under-led" (Michael Shoebridge, Strategic Analysis Australia) and "there are ... dangerous weaknesses in our defence capabilities" (Henry Ergas, in The Australian). Armed forces, though, are inherently difficult to manage efficiently. How do you measure the performance of an organisation that you hope is never going to be called upon to do what you would want it to be able to do? How, strategically, do you identify the threats that our forces are designed to combat, given that mentioning the names of these nations in public would move us appreciably closer to such conflicts? How, as a politician, do you cut back on the privileges of the generals without having them leak hostile reports to the media? Faced with these difficult problems, Australian ministers for defence tend to move on to another more compliant portfolio as soon as they can. Australian governments have historically retreated to arguing only about total spending, believing that the public can't cope with more than one number at a time. The other problem, of course, is productivity. Money spent on arms is, in economic terms, a dead end (although it could be said that our acquisition of warships supports our shipbuilding industry, or would, if we had one). There's not much spillover. Money invested almost anywhere else - education, research, infrastructure - would have a payoff down the track; adding more soldiers just withdraws resources from everywhere else and diminishes growth. READ MORE: The longer we can last before we arm up, the more resources we'll have when we need to. If Australia did believe that we were in actual danger of invasion, we would be spending on defence about what we spent in 1943, or 33 per cent of GDP, and we'd also be instituting conscription and rationing. The difference between 2 per cent and 33 per cent is a measure of how safe we feel when not specifically prompted to panic. The trick, of course, is picking the moment to panic. And one of the major tasks facing any Australian government is to make it absolutely clear when the answer is "not remotely yet". Our leaders are very, very bad at it. Then we need to talk about AI and its role in place of foot soldiers. That's a whole other debate.
