Israeli air strikes kill 20 in Gaza as Netanyahu visits the US
Agency spokesman Mahmud Bassal told AFP the first hit a tent housing displaced people in Khan Yunis in the south shortly after midnight local time (2100 GMT Tuesday) and the second struck a camp in the north soon afterwards.
The Israeli military said it was looking into the report when contacted by AFP.
The bombings came as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met US President Donald Trump in Washington and discussed the ongoing campaign to defeat Hamas in Gaza.
Afterwards, he restated Israel's aims to secure the release of all hostages taken during the Palestinian militants' October 7, 2023 attack, and "the elimination" of its "military and governing capabilities".
Gaza's civil defence agency said 29 people were killed in Israeli strikes across Gaza on Tuesday, with victims also including people displaced by 21 months of conflict.
Bassal said the first strike on Wednesday killed 10 members of the same family sheltering in the Al-Mawasi area of Khan Yunis while the second, on the Al-Shati camp near Gaza City, also left more than 30 wounded.
The victims were from two families, he added.
"The explosion was massive, like an earthquake," said Zuhair Judeh, 40, who saw the Al-Shati air strike.
"It destroyed the house and several nearby homes. The bodies and remains of the martyrs were scattered," he added, calling it "a horrific massacre".
Several people remained missing, presumed trapped under the rubble, he said.
Abeer al-Sharbasi, 36, described the air strike as "terrifying" and said it happened as she and her family were asleep in a nearby tent.
"You can't predict when or why they'll bomb you. We have nothing left but to surrender ourselves to God."
Due to restrictions imposed on media in the Gaza Strip and difficulties accessing the area, AFP is unable to independently verify the death tolls and details shared by the parties involved.
Hamas's October 7, 2023 attack on Israel resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on Israeli official figures.
Of 251 hostages seized during attack, 49 are still held in Gaza, including 27 the Israeli military says are dead.
Israel's retaliatory campaign has killed at least 57,575 people in Gaza, also mostly civilians, according to the Hamas-run territory's health ministry. The UN considers the figures reliable.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Golden urn or Chinese political tool? The future of the Dalai Lama institution
It is indeed ironic that an atheist State believes in 'religious rituals' and has suddenly become knowledgeable in an esoteric issue such as the soul migration read more Advertisement Tibetan leader the Dalai Lama speaks in a video broadcast at the start of the 15th Tibetan Religious Conference, a meeting of religious leaders in McLeod Ganj, near Dharamsala on July 2, 2025. (Photo: Sanjay Baid/AFP) A lot has recently been written since the Dalai Lama's statement of July 2; as promised in November 2011, a press release of the Tibetan leader reaffirms that the Institution of the Dalai Lamas will continue. The Tibetan leader also reiterated, '…responsibility for doing so will rest exclusively with members of the Gaden Phodrang Trust, the Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama'; it will be 'the sole authority to recognise the future reincarnation; no one else has any such authority to interfere in this matter.' It was a clear message to China. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Beijing was quick to react; The Global Times asserted, '[The Dalai Lama's] intention remains the same—to deny the traditional religious rituals and historical conventions that have governed the Dalai Lama reincarnation system for centuries, and to manipulate the reincarnation process for his own purposes.' It is indeed ironic that an atheist State believes in 'religious rituals' and has suddenly become knowledgeable in an esoteric issue such as the soul migration. Apart from the statements from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing and the Chinese Ambassador in Delhi, other groups in China have put their views forth. On July 3, the Buddhist Association of China reacted to the Dalai Lama's announcement: 'The central government has the right to make the final decision on the reincarnation, which is by no means subject to the 14th Dalai Lama's individual discretion.' The Association added, 'Throughout the historical process of the searches for the spiritual successors of Dalai Lamas, a complete set of traditional religious rituals and historical conventions has been developed.' The Golden Urn The statement put forward Communist China's favourite ritual, the Golden Urn: 'Since the establishment of the lot-drawing ceremony from the golden urn, the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama has required adherence to the drawing of lots from the golden urn procedure, with the selected candidate subject to approval by China's central government. This process is the only way for the candidate to earn public credibility and religious authority.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Buddhist Association only forgot to mention that the Golden Urn has seldom been used in Tibet. It was only when the Tibetan State was weak during the 19th century that the Chinese Amban, representing the Manchu Court in Lhasa, imposed it on the Tibetans for the 8th and 9th Panchen Lamas and the 10th Dalai Lama. That does not add up to much… Retrospectively, Beijing admitted that in 1940 Lhamo Dhondup, the present Dalai Lama, had been 'exempted' from the ritual that Beijing wants now to impose on his successor. In January 2021, The Global Times published a long article dealing with the ritual; the article starts by saying, 'It is well-known that the reincarnation of the living Buddhas is by no means a purely religious affair.' Then, it explained how the Communist Party sees the process: 'Due to the prominent and leading role of the influential living Buddhas, various political and religious forces in Tibetan society vied for dominant power and control over the reincarnation of the living Buddhas.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It concluded that the reincarnation system 'gradually lost its original meaning and caused great harm to the Dharma as well as endangering social stability and national security. Therefore, the then central government adopted the system of lot-drawing from a golden urn in 1793 to improve the reincarnation order of the living Buddhas.' It explained further: 'The current Dalai Lama was enthroned in the Potala Palace on February 22, 1940, during a ceremony presided over by Wu Zhongxin, minister of the Commission for Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs …the boy with the reincarnated soul of the 13th Dalai Lama [was enthroned] without the requirement of carrying out the established method of drawing a lot from the golden urn.' The report that Wu Zhongxin presided is simply untrue; he was merely an invitee to the ceremony and had nothing to do with the 'recognition' of the 14th Dalai Lama. The Practice Having seen the theory of the 'Golden Urn', it is necessary to study the facts of this rarely used ritual. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD We have a trustworthy record of a Tibetan Lama, Arjia Rinpoche, who attended the ceremony (one could call it a farce) for the selection of the 11th Panchen Lama. Was it a rehearsal for the recognition of the 15th Dalai Lama? In his book 'Surviving the Dragon: A Tibetan Lama's Account of 40 Years under Chinese Rule', Arjia Rinpoche, then Abbot of the Kumbum monastery in today's Qinghai Province and also a member of the 'selection committee' for the Panchen Lama, recounted what happened after the Tenth Panchen Lama passed away, under mysterious circumstances, while on a visit to Tibet. The Chinese government formed a 'search team' under Gyayak Rinpoche, the Panchen Lama's dharma teacher. Chadrel Rinpoche, abbot of the Panchen Lama's Tashi Lhunpo Monastery, and Arjia Rinpoche were to assist the old Lama. Arjia noted, 'The Chinese government trusted Chadrel Rinpoche to do their bidding … asking only that he report frequently to the central government on his progress.' Chadrel Rinpoche was clear that it was Tashi Lhunpo monastery's responsibility to discover the newly born Lama. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The problem started after Gyayak's demise, when Beijing discovered that Chadrel Rinpoche had secretly been in contact with the Dalai Lama to find a 'consensus' candidate: 'The Tibetans clearly wanted the Fourteenth Dalai Lama to be the final voice,' noted Arjia, who further recalled, 'On May 14, 1995, I was stunned by the news that, in India, His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama had announced the name of the reincarnated Eleventh Panchen Lama. My immediate fear was that the Chinese government would not accept his decision. … And I was right.' Beijing was furious that the Dalai Lama had 'unilaterally' decided on the new incarnation of the 10th Panchen Lama. At that time, observed Arjia, 'The Tibetans clearly wanted the Fourteenth Dalai Lama to be the final arbiter of the identity of the true reincarnation of the Panchen Lama.' Events started to heat up in early November 1995, when an emergency meeting was called in Beijing to 'clarify' the Communist Party's position. According to the former Abbot of Kumbum, 'This was when I learnt that Chadrel Rinpoche had been arrested. …[then], we were bombarded with statements like 'We must not allow the Dalai's separatist clique to interfere in the Golden Urn Ceremony.'' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Three points were on the meeting's agenda. Eliminating from contention the boy selected by the Dalai Lama (Gedun Choekyi Nyima, who since then has been under house arrest); Denouncing and removing Chadrel Rinpoche from his official position on the search team; and Mandating a Golden Urn Ceremony. The rinpoches present had no choice but to accept Beijing's diktat. The Communist officials told the lamas, 'The Golden Urn Ceremony will take place tonight, so please be prepared. … If a separatist clique [followers of the Dalai Lama] attempts any disruption of the ceremony, everyone will be protected [by the police].' The ceremony was held on November 29, 1995, at 2 am: 'We were called together and ushered into vehicles bound for Jokhang Temple. Although the night was dark, again we could see soldiers in their heavy bulletproof vests every few steps along the deserted streets. … As we walked toward the statue of the Buddha [the famous Jowo], we saw undercover policemen standing in every corner and shadow.' Arjia Rinpoche continued the narration of the dramatic event: 'In front of the statue of Sakyamuni Buddha was a large table covered with a yellow silk cloth. Alone on the table stood a golden urn about 15 inches high, surrounded by seated high officials.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Luo Gan, a State Counsellor (and later, a member of the Politburo's Standing Committee), and Gyaltsen Norbu (the TAR governor) were present. Then the ceremony began: 'Inside the gold urn was a small case, which contained three ivory lots, an inch wide and seven or eight inches long, with cloud scrolls etched at one end. The names of the three candidates were written on three separate pieces of paper and pasted to the ivory sticks, each of which was then slipped into a tightly fitted pouch of yellow silk. … The three ivory lots were placed into the Golden Urn.' Bumi Rinpoche, who had been appointed Ganden Tripa (throne holder of the Yellow School) by Beijing, drew the lot. The name of the 'selected' candidate was Gyaltsen Norbu, like the governor. Arjia remembered: 'When we made our selection, we left nothing to chance. In the silk pouches of the ivory pieces, we put a bit of cotton at the bottom of one of them so it would be a little higher than the others and the right candidate would be chosen.' The pedigree of Norbu was considered the best. That was it. Nothing could be done: 'Jamyang Shepa Rinpoche and I kept silent, our heads lowered,' wrote Arjia. Years later Arjia managed to escape to the US. After three decades, Gedun Choekyi Nyima, selected by the Dalai Lama as the Panchen Lama, is still under house arrest somewhere in China. A tragic farce, indeed—and a rehearsal for the 15th Dalai Lama. The writer is Distinguished Fellow, Centre of Excellence for Himalayan Studies, Shiv Nadar Institution of Eminence (Delhi). Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
X vs the government: The mysterious case of who wanted to block Reuters' accounts in India
India is currently witnessing a strange 'they said, they said' situation involving X (formerly Twitter) and the Government of India regarding accounts belonging to Reuters, an international news organisation. Combined with other recent developments, this raises several questions about how the Indian state's information restriction apparatus operates with opacity, across different political ideologies, and in the absence of meaningful oversight and accountability. At the time of writing, X and GoI have contradicted each other's version of events surrounding the suspension and subsequent restoration of two X accounts associated with Reuters (@Reuters and @ReutersWorld); they were restricted in India on July 5. Users were greeted with a now-familiar message that this was in response to a 'legal demand,' but the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) denied issuing such orders. After the accounts were restored, X's Global Affairs account contested MeitY's position, stating that it received orders to block 2,355 accounts in India on July 3 and expressed concerns about 'ongoing press censorship'. MeitY has refuted issuing 'fresh orders' on this date and that it did not intend to block any prominent international news channel. Questions like how/why these accounts may have been referenced in a correspondence between MeitY and X are unlikely to be answered. There have been other recent instances of friction and confusion. During the India-Pakistan conflict in May, X's Global Affairs alleged its account was temporarily restricted in India, a day after it revealed having received orders to block over 8,000 accounts in India, with threats of fines, liability and imprisonment of local representatives. There are suggestions, though, that it was an inquiry rather than a blocking order. That such miscommunication can occur raises questions about the normal terms of engagement and lends credence to civil society fears of overcompliance by platforms. Once military operations stopped, X accounts of some Turkish and Chinese state media entities were briefly restricted. In early July, there was ambiguity surrounding restrictions on social media accounts from Pakistan being temporarily lifted. The reasons and circumstances leading up to these flip-flopping actions are not clear. Many of these orders were likely issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act under procedures defined in the colloquially-named 2009 Blocking Rules. This mechanism lets the government invoke confidentiality clauses, meaning that the contents of orders (including their reasoning) cannot be disclosed even to people/groups whose content has been restricted. Reviews, if conducted, are limited to the executive branch. These recent instances of confusion and friction spotlight the problems with the opacity of the current process, the robustness of the purported procedural safeguards, and the tendency of the state to resort to broad restrictions of accounts limiting access to past, current, and future speech. Apart from Section 69A, Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act creates a 'grey area' which allows various government departments to direct internet services to remove/restrict content without the same procedures as Section 69A. X is currently challenging the use of this mechanism in the Karnataka High Court, arguing that it creates a parallel blocking regime, as does the 'Sahyog Portal' developed by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The acquiescence of other social media platforms should be noted here. More government departments across the country appear to be using this method, with recent reports and court documents revealing a pattern of problematic usage. The Department of Railways attempted to restrict posts about the tragic stampede at the New Delhi Railway Station in February, and content about overcrowded trains and incidents of vandalism. Law enforcement departments in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, West Bengal, and Bihar have sent notices for content critical of/ridiculing political figures associated with state governments and local administrations. This partisan use across the political spectrum suggests that the tendency to restrict information is a feature of Indian polity, not restricted to any particular entity, even as the degrees of use may vary. The default nature of the Indian state to resort to information suppression, whether through internet restrictions or content blocking, through a range of events like geopolitical conflicts, tragedies, or criticism, is deeply worrying and counterproductive. In such situations, people need access to more information, not less. Instead of short-term, arbitrary actions, the Indian state would be better off facilitating and supporting a deeper understanding of the complexities in the information ecosystem today. Political entities feigning concern, citing public order or security, should, first and foremost, stop constantly resorting to half-truths, fear-mongering, and poisoning the well themselves. Where content restrictions are absolutely necessary, they must be narrow and limited to specific pieces of content. Due process, sound reasoning, and rigorous accountability should be firm requirements rather than perfunctory acts. Any orders must be accompanied by adequate disclosures, and oversight (whether at the level of union/state governments) cannot be limited to the executive branch. Measures that build resilience, both in institutions and the public at large, will offer more in the long term than unbridled censoriousness. The writer is an independent technology policy researcher and former executive director of the Internet Freedom Foundation
India Gazette
an hour ago
- India Gazette
Heavy rainfall causes water logging in Uttam Nagar's Bindapur area
New Delhi [India], July 10 (ANI): Delhi is experiencing incessant rainfall since Wednesday causing water logging in several areas including Bindapur in Uttam Nagar, where roads are submerged under water. The water logging has made the day to day activities of residents difficult. The rains lashed parts of Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) on Wednesday, bringing relief from days of intense heat. Waterlogging was witnessed in several parts of Delhi. Traffic also came to a standstill in many parts of the national capital following the heavy rainfall. Aam Aadmi Party ( AAP) Delhi President Saurabh Bharadwaj and other leaders took to X, shared images of waterlogged streets and slammed the BJP for its repeated failure to tackle flooding, even with all four 'engines' in power. Sharing photos of waterlogging in Lutyens' Delhi, AAP Delhi State President Saurabh Bharadwaj said, 'This is Lutyens' Delhi. Just an hour of rain, and this is the state of the road near the official residence of PWD, Irrigation and Flood Control Minister Parvesh Verma.' Calling out the BJP's failed promises, Saurabh Bharadwaj stated, 'BJP's Chief Minister Rekha Gupta, PWD Minister Parvesh Verma, and other ministers and leaders made tall claims that Delhi won't drown this year. They said all necessary preparations had been made to prevent waterlogging. If everything was in place, then why did Delhi flood after just one hour of rain?' He sharply criticised the administration and said, 'The truth is, all four of BJP's so-called 'engines' in Delhi are junk. Neither the Delhi government, nor the MCD, nor the central government, nor even the LG cares about the people of Delhi. All their claims are pure hot air. And just one hour of rain was enough to wash away all their promises. BJP leaders only know how to talk big. They are simply misleading the people of Delhi. The reality is--they've done nothing concrete to tackle waterlogging in the city.' Meanwhile, senior AAP leader and Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the MCD House, Ankush Narang, shared a video of waterlogging on X (formerly Twitter), and said, 'Despite having a four-engine BJP government, Delhi has turned into a city of water. CM Rekha Gupta's promises have once again proven hollow. Mayor Raja Iqbal Singh had said Delhiites will enjoy the monsoon this time. Well, this time, waterlogging has turned the city into a swimming pool. Mayor sahab, now you too should come--let's swim together.' Ankush Narang stated in another post on X, 'All the promises made by the Delhi government and the BJP-run MCD about the monsoon have turned out to be hollow. Before the rains, they boasted that Delhiites would enjoy the monsoon. Now look at the BJP's definition of 'enjoyment'--buses submerged, vehicles stuck, people swimming on roads. They've now forced citizens to swim even in the underground. My heartfelt thanks to Mayor Raja Iqbal Singh for turning Delhi's streets into ponds and swimming pools.' (ANI)
