Israel announces ‘tactical pause in military activity' in parts of Gaza to allow aid
Some air drops have begun – although aid agencies have repeatedly warned this will do little to ease the humanitarian catastrophe. While more Palestinians were reported killed trying to reach an aid distribution hub near Gaza City.
A warning that Andrew Misra's report contains distressing images.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Channel 4
17 minutes ago
- Channel 4
‘No Other Land' director on contributor's death in West Bank
The world's eyes are on Gaza as the enclave faces mass starvation, but the war there is also emboldening Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank. Odeh Hadalin is a Palestinian teacher and activist who campaigned against illegal Israeli settlements and settler violence. He also helped make this year's Oscar-winning film No Other Land which documents Israeli attacks on the Palestinian community of Masafer Yatta. It was there that he was shot dead, reportedly after a confrontation between villagers and settlers who were using a bulldozer to destroy property. An extremist settler, previously sanctioned by the US, has been arrested. Around a thousand Palestinians have reportedly been killed in the West Bank in the last two years amid an increasing wave of settler and Israeli military violence. Joining Matt Frei on this week's episode of The Fourcast is the Palestinian film-maker Basel Adra. He co-wrote and co-directed No Other Land and was a friend of Odeh.
Sky News
17 minutes ago
- Sky News
What does recognising a Palestinian state mean?
The UK is making a major policy shift to recognise Palestine as a state. Sir Keir Starmer has been under pressure after more than 250 MPs - over a third of the Commons - signed a cross-party letter demanding he take the step. The prime minister had initially resisted calls, saying recognition needs to be part of a wider peace plan. But he has now changed his position, albeit with certain conditions. It also comes after France's recent decision to recognise Palestine as a state - becoming the first country to do so in the G7, a group which represents seven of the world's largest advanced economies. 1:20 Here is what you need to know about the significance of recognising a Palestinian state, the timing of the decision, and whether other countries are likely to follow France. What does recognising a Palestinian state mean? Under the Montevideo Convention of 1933, there are several criteria before Palestine can be recognised as a sovereign state under international law. The process requires the state to have: • a permanent population • a defined territory • an effective government and international relations • formal diplomatic processes including embassies, ambassadors and treaties Out of the 193 United Nations member states, 147 already recognise Palestine as a state as of March 2025. That includes Russia, China and India, as well as more than a dozen in Europe, including Spain, Ireland and Norway, and more recently France. 2:02 Why have the UK and France acted now? Sir Keir says the time to recognise Palestine is now, as it will have the highest impact, as the hope of a two-state solution - a "secure" Israel alongside a "viable" Palestinian state - is at risk. He says it is part of an "eight-part plan", already discussed with France and Germany, but denies it represents a U-turn after pressure from Labour MPs, saying instead it was always part of the plan to recognise Palestine. After addressing a UN summit on a two-state solution, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy described what's been happening in Gaza as "horrific" and called for a ceasefire. "The time has come to see those hostages released, and the time has come to abate the suffering of the Palestinian people, to get them the aid and medical equipment and supplies they need," he added. Emmanuel Macron has been leaning towards recognising a Palestinian state for months as part of a bid to keep the idea of a two-state solution alive, despite pressure from other countries not to do so. What is a two-state solution? A two-state solution would see an independent Palestinian state established alongside the existing state of Israel - giving both peoples their own territory. The Palestinians seek an independent state in the occupied West Bank, annexed east Jerusalem and Gaza, territories that have been occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and most of Israel's political class have long been opposed to Palestinian statehood, and argue that it would reward militants after the 7 October attacks launched by Hamas in 2023. One of the biggest obstacles to a two-state solution would be deciding what the borders of a potential Palestinian state would be. Many believe they should be the same ones that existed before 1967, but since then, increasing numbers of Israeli settlements have been established inside the West Bank, with around 600,000 Israelis now living there and in Occupied East Jerusalem. How have Israel and Palestine responded? Perhaps unsurprisingly, Israel has condemned the decision. The country's foreign ministry said in a post on X: "The shift in the British Government's position at this time, following the French move and internal political pressures, constitutes a reward for Hamas and harms efforts to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza and a framework for the release of hostages." Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has strongly condemned France, saying recognising a Palestinian state now would be a "launch pad to annihilate Israel - not to live in peace beside it". Meanwhile, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Jerusalem expressed "thanks and appreciation" to the French leader. 1:20 What about other countries? In response to France's decision, the German government said Berlin still backs a two-state solution but won't recognise a Palestinian state for now, instead stressing the need for a Gaza ceasefire, hostage release, and urgent humanitarian aid. Canada also pressed Israel to seek peace, with Prime Minister Mark Carney reiterating support for a two-state solution, but has so far stopped short of recognising Palestine as a state. Australia 's prime minister, Anthony Albanese, described the situation in Gaza as a "humanitarian catastrophe" and said his country is "committed to a future where both Israeli and Palestinian people can live in peace and safety within secure and internationally recognised borders". Italy 's foreign minister said the recognition of a Palestinian state must also recognise Israel as a state. "A Palestinian state that does not recognise Israel means that the problem will not be resolved," Antonio Tajani told a meeting of his conservative Forza Italia party in Rome. Spain, which already recognises Palestinian statehood, welcomed Mr Macron's announcement. Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez wrote in a statement on X: "Together, we must protect what Netanyahu is trying to destroy. The two-state solution is the only solution."
Telegraph
17 minutes ago
- Telegraph
This is the darkest day in British foreign policy since the invasion of Iraq
What on Earth is Keir Starmer playing at? His threat to recognise a state of Palestine unless Israel obeys his imperious demands, against the interests of its own citizens, avoids contact with reality and constitutes an abysmal betrayal. First, the emperor of Downing Street has commanded the Jewish state to end the war in Gaza. Would that be with or without its hostages, Prime Minister? With or without Hamas remaining in power? Because if Israelis remain in captivity and Hamas remains in place, further rounds of bloodshed are a certainty, extending the suffering down generations. These are the hard realities that the Israelis must consider, although Starmer has the luxury of ignoring them. Secondly, the PM wants Israel to allow the United Nations to retake control of aid distribution. But the reason Jerusalem intervened was that it believed the UN was working hand-in-glove with Hamas, which was taking much of the aid and selling it at inflated prices, raising the money it needed to pay its fighters. Surely not? Surely yes. According to Israeli intelligence, ten per cent of UN employees in Gaza, about 1,200 men, are card-carrying members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad, and terrorists have made good use of UN facilities. About 12 members of UN staff were allegedly involved in the October 7 atrocities. The UN aid operation was keeping Hamas in power. Without that source of income, the jihadi grip on the Strip was weakening. That is exactly why Hamas made returning aid to UN hands a key negotiating demand. Ramallah has repeatedly turned down offers of a state that satisfied 100 per cent of its demands. In 2008, for instance, Ehud Olmert offered 94 per cent of the West Bank with land swaps for the remainder, East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital and the Old City turned over to international control, not to mention a tunnel between the West Bank and Gaza and the right of return for quotas of diaspora Palestinians. The Palestinians missed the opportunity. Why? Because their government was playing a long game to destroy the Jewish state using both the bullet and the ballot, both the suicide bomb and international diplomacy. I'm not just talking about Hamas. Even the regime in Ramallah pays monetary rewards to anybody convicted of terrorism and failed to condemn October 7 until last month. Take a step back and the Prime Minister's blind betrayal of the Jewish state is breathtaking. Of course the war is horrendous; of course the Israeli government includes some regrettable far-Right figures; of course mistakes have been made. But how would Starmer's Britain fare if we were invaded by jihadis, saw 1,200 of our citizens butchered, lost 258 hostages, and faced an enemy embedded in tunnels beneath one of the most densely-populated areas on Earth? I shudder to think. Here are the facts. Israel did not start this war. Israel did not want conflict; it withdrew from Gaza in 2005, handing the keys to the Palestinians, who then lost control of the territory to Hamas. Israel is not trying to kill, starve or oppress civilians. It is simply trying to defeat the enemy that attacked its people so brutally almost two years ago, and get its hostages back. Is that really so much to ask? As messy and imperfect as any democracy may be, you'd have thought that the international community would understand that it is preferable to jihadism, and stand firm until the war is won. Instead, we have all the pressure piling up on Israel, and nothing at all upon the Palestinian side, let alone upon Hamas. Worst of all, Starmer's treachery is emboldening the jihadis. Why should they release the hostages and surrender when the world is on their side? International condemnation of Israel was the main reason why Hamas hardened its negotiating position in Qatar last week, resulting in the talks failing. Rather than a ceasefire deal, Hamas found itself delightedly congratulating Emmanuel Macron on his proposal to recognise Palestine, and encouraging other countries to do the same. The international community has created an environment in which it is in the interests of Hamas to keep the Palestinians starving, keep the war going, and to keep the hostages in the catacombs. At this point, it is no exaggeration to suggest that Starmer and the other turncoats are doing exactly what Hamas wants them to. And it will only produce one outcome: more cycles of violence in the future. Why is the Prime Minister doing this? A look at some of the Labour MPs who are pressing him to take this action is revealing. Shabana Mahmood, whose Birmingham Ladywell constituency has a Muslim population of 46 per cent. Wes Streeting, whose Ilford North seat is 23 per cent Muslim (he won it by only 528 votes). A pattern emerges here. The fact that Starmer appears to care more about domestic politics than he does about true peace in the Middle East is as hypocritical as it is deplorable. The worst of it is that Hamas predicted this all along. Yahya Sinwar knew that October 7 would trigger a war; as a student of recent history, he also understood that before long, the West would side with him. All he had to do was ensure a steady stream of footage of suffering Palestinian civilians, whether genuine, exaggerated or fabricated. He knew our leaders would fall for it. This is the darkest day in British foreign policy since the invasion of Iraq.
