MAHAR Slams Militarised Aid In Gaza, Urges Humanitarian Access
Palestinians gather to receive food cooked by a charity kitchen, amid a hunger crisis, as the Israel-Gaza conflict continues, in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, December 4, 2024. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
KUALA LUMPUR, July 22 (Bernama) -- Malaysian Humanitarian Aid and Relief (MAHAR) has condemned the continued use of starvation, blockades, and militarised aid mechanisms in Gaza, calling for urgent international action to end the suffering.
In a statement, MAHAR said the worsening humanitarian crisis exacerbated by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) with foreign backing, has resulted in engineered famine, widespread child malnutrition, and the deaths of hundreds at so-called 'aid sites.'
MAHAR Adviser Nurul Izzah Anwar said the genuine humanitarian assistance must be unconditional and free from coercion or military control.
"What we are witnessing in Gaza is the brutal erosion of humanity. The international community must act now and silence is complicity,' she said in the statement.
Meanwhile, MAHAR President Jismi Johari said that the suffering of the Palestinians cannot be allowed to continue under the guise of controlled humanitarianism.
"GHF has stripped civilians of their dignity and turned aid into a weapon of fear. MAHAR stands resolutely in support of restoring full access to United Nations (UN)-coordinated relief efforts and reopening all land borders for safe and unrestricted humanitarian assistance,' he said.
The organisation has joined the international call to immediately dismantle the GHF system, restore UN-led humanitarian operations and reopen all border crossings for safe and unimpeded aid delivery.
In full solidarity with the Palestinians, MAHAR rejects widespread aid airdrops over Gaza, citing Israeli control of the airspace and concerns over safety and effectiveness.
"Previous airdrops have tragically resulted in civilian casualties, including people being crushed while attempting to retrieve aid. In several cases, the aid landed in militarised zones, exposing desperate civilians to sniper fire -- mirroring the same fatal risks reported at GHF-controlled sites,' it said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
22 minutes ago
- New Straits Times
Oil rises on Japan trade deal and stronger demand indicated by US inventories
BEIJING: Oil prices steadied in early trading on Wednesday after falling for three consecutive sessions as a US trade deal with Japan signaled progress on tariffs and a poll showed US crude stockpiles fell last week, indicating stronger demand. Brent crude futures rose 33 cents, or 0.48 per cent, to US$68.92 a barrel by 0023 GMT. US West Texas Intermediate crude futures rose 33 cents, or 0.51 per cent, to US$65.64 per barrel. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that the US and Japan had struck a trade deal that includes a 15 per cent tariff on US imports from Japan. He also said Japan had agreed on US$550 billion in investments in the US Oil had fallen in the previous session after the EU said it was considering countermeasures against US tariffs, as hope faded for a deal ahead of the August 1 deadline. And US crude oil stockpiles were expected to have fallen last week, along with distillate and gasoline inventories, an extended Reuters poll showed on Tuesday. Nine analysts polled by Reuters ahead of weekly inventory data estimated on average that crude inventories fell by about 1.6 million barrels in the week to July 18. US crude and gasoline stocks fell last week while distillate inventories rose, market sources said, citing American Petroleum Institute figures on Tuesday. In another bullish sign for the market, the US energy secretary said on Tuesday that the US would consider sanctioning Russian oil to end the war in Ukraine. The EU on Friday agreed its 18th sanctions package against Russia, lowering the price cap for Russian crude. But analysts said a lack of US participation would hinder the effectiveness of the package.
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
World Court is poised to mark the future course of climate litigation
THE HAGUE (Reuters) -The United Nations' highest court will deliver an opinion on Wednesday that is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world. Known as an advisory opinion, the deliberation of the 15 judges of the International Court of Justice in The Hague is legally non-binding. It nevertheless carries legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say. 'The advisory opinion is probably the most consequential in the history of the court because it clarifies international law obligations to avoid catastrophic harm that would imperil the survival of humankind," said Payam Akhavan, an international law professor. In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, also known as the World Court, Akhavan represented low-lying, small island states that face an existential threat from rising sea levels. In all, over a hundred states and international organisations gave their views on the two questions the U.N. General Assembly had asked the judges to consider. They were: what are countries' obligations under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for countries that harm the climate system? Wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities. Developing nations and small island states argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid. PARIS AGREEMENT AND AN UPSURGE IN LITIGATION In 2015, at the conclusion of U.N. talks in Paris, more than 190 countries committed to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). The agreement has failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Late last year, in the most recent "Emissions Gap Report," which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the U.N said that current climate policies will result in global warming of more than 3 C (5.4 F) above pre-industrial levels by 2100. As campaigners seek to hold companies and governments to account, climate‑related litigation has intensified, with nearly 3,000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. So far, the results have been mixed. A German court in May threw out a case between a Peruvian farmer and German energy giant RWE, but his lawyers and environmentalists said the case, which dragged on for a decade, was a still victory for climate cases that could spur similar lawsuits. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries, said in another advisory opinion its members must cooperate to tackle climate change. Campaigners say Wednesday's court opinion should be a turning point and that, even if the ruling itself is advisory, it should provide for the determination that U.N. member states have broken the international law they have signed up to uphold. "The court can affirm that climate inaction, especially by major emitters, is not merely a policy failure but a breach of international law," said Fijian Vishal Prasad, one of the law students that lobbied the government of Vanuatu in the South Pacific Ocean to bring the case to the ICJ. Although it is theoretically possible to ignore an ICJ ruling, lawyers say countries are typically reluctant to do so. "This opinion is applying binding international law, which countries have already committed to. National and regional courts will be looking to this opinion as a persuasive authority and this will inform judgments with binding consequences under their own legal systems," Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, said. The court will start reading out its opinion at 3 p.m. (1300 GMT). (Reporting by Stephanie van den Berg, additional reporting by Ali Withers in Copenhagen; editing by Barbara Lewis)
Malaysia Sun
2 hours ago
- Malaysia Sun
"We cannot give up our enrichment": FM Araghchi says Iran open to talks, firm on nuclear stance
Tehran [Iran], July 23 (ANI): Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has said Tehran will not abandon its uranium enrichment programme despite significant damage caused by recent US and Israeli airstrikes, calling the programme a matter of 'national pride', Al Jazeera reported. 'It is now stopped because, yes, damages are serious and severe, but obviously, we cannot give up our enrichment because it is an achievement of our own scientists, and now, more than that, it is a question of national pride,' Araghchi told US broadcaster Fox News in an interview aired on Monday. Araghchi also signaled Iran's willingness to re-engage in diplomacy, saying Iran is 'open to talks' with the United States, though not directly 'for the time being.' According to Al Jazeera, he stated, 'If they [the US] are coming for a win-win solution, I am ready to engage with them.' 'We are ready to do any confidence-building measure needed to prove that Iran's nuclear programme is peaceful and would remain peaceful forever, and Iran would never go for nuclear weapons, and in return, we expect them to lift their sanctions,' the minister added. 'So, my message to the United States is that let's go for a negotiated solution for Iran's nuclear programme,' Araghchi said, according to Al Jazeera. He also emphasised that there is still a diplomatic path forward: 'There is a negotiated solution for our nuclear programme. We have done it once in the past. We are ready to do it once again.' As Al Jazeera reported, talks between Tehran and Washington on the nuclear programme were underway earlier this year, following years of tension since Donald Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The deal had allowed for extensive international monitoring of Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. However, recent developments have strained relations further. On June 13, Israel launched a series of surprise bombing raids targeting Iran's military and nuclear facilities, which led to the deaths of more than 900 people in Iran and at least 28 in Israel before a ceasefire was established on June 24. The US also joined in the attacks, and the Pentagon later said it had set back Iran's nuclear programme by one to two years. Al Jazeera noted that Araghchi said Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation is still assessing the damage to enriched materials and will 'soon inform' the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of its findings. 'We have not stopped our cooperation with the agency,' he claimed, though he added that any request for IAEA inspectors would be 'carefully considered.' Inspectors had previously exited Iran after President Masoud Pezeshkian signed a law suspending cooperation with the IAEA. According to Al Jazeera, Iranian officials accused the IAEA of bias following a resolution passed by its board on June 12, which accused Tehran of non-compliance with nuclear obligations. Iran has said this resolution was one of the 'excuses' Israel used to justify its military strikes. Meanwhile, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric welcomed 'dialogue between the Europeans and the Iranians,' referring to planned talks between Iran, France, Germany, and the UK in Turkiye on Friday, Al Jazeera reported. European JCPOA signatories have warned that Iran's failure to re-enter negotiations could lead to the reimposition of international sanctions. (ANI)
