Appeals and negotiations won't make Israel stop starving Gaza
After the attack, there were statements of condemnation. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni called it 'unacceptable'. Pope Leo said he was 'deeply saddened' by it – a statement many saw as 'vague' and 'cowardly'.
The Israeli government was quick to declare it 'regretted' the attack.
Amid the global outrage, the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem was able to negotiate for church officials to visit the Christian community, deliver limited food and medicine to both Christian and Muslim families, and evacuate some of the injured for treatment outside Gaza.
These humanitarian actions, while welcomed by those in dire need in Gaza, are yet another sign of international failure. Why must the delivery of food, water and medicine be 'earned' through negotiation? Why are basic rights enshrined in international law subject to political bargaining?
Palestinians deeply appreciate the church leaders' efforts. Their actions reflect compassion and moral clarity. But such steps should not be necessary. Under international humanitarian law, occupying powers have binding obligations to the people under their control. Securing access to food, water, medicine and critical services cannot be charitable favours – they are legal duties.
The 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention and the 1907 Hague Regulations clearly state that civilians in occupied territory must be protected and provided with essential services, especially when the occupying power controls access to borders, infrastructure and life-sustaining resources. Blocking or delaying aid isn't just inhumane – it amounts to a war crime.
International law also forbids the occupying power from forcibly transferring the local population or settling its own citizens on occupied land – practices that Israel continues in Gaza and the West Bank with impunity. The occupier must ensure uninterrupted humanitarian access free from delay, political conditions or coercive trade-offs.
Israel has failed to comply on all these counts. But instead of facing consequences for its use of collective punishment, starvation tactics and attacks on civilian infrastructure – churches, hospitals, bakeries, schools – Israel receives concessions in exchange for promising to comply with basic legal norms. These 'deals' are then spun as diplomatic 'successes' by the powers that engage in them.
During a recent lecture in Amman, the European Union's ambassador to Jordan, Pierre-Christophe Chatzisavas, revealed as much. According to him, EU 'discussions' about taking action on Israel's failure to comply with human rights provisions of the EU-Israel partnership agreement led to 'effective political pressure'. As a result, Israel 'agreed' to allow increased food and aid deliveries, fuel for electricity and desalination, infrastructure repairs, the reopening of humanitarian corridors through Egypt and Jordan, and access for UN aid workers and observers.
This agreement led to the shelving of 10 proposed sanctions by the EU. Amnesty International described the move as a 'cruel and unlawful betrayal' of its stated principles.
The problem with this 'deal' is that Israel is failing to implement it, just like with all others before it. According to EU sources quoted in the media, Israel allows just 80 trucks per day to go in, when Gaza needs more than 500. Whether 80 trucks indeed enter and how much of this aid actually reaches its intended recipients is unclear.
Gangs regularly attack aid convoys, and the Israeli army shoots at anyone trying to protect these trucks from looters.
Various agencies and organisations are ringing alarm bells about the epidemic of malnutrition killing children on a daily basis. Famine is real even if the UN, under pressure, is not yet willing to declare it.
Meanwhile, Israeli forces and foreign mercenaries continue to kill people seeking aid at distribution sites operated by the Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which was set up to take away the functions of United Nations agencies, most notably UNRWA, its aid agency for Palestinian refugees. Nearly 900 people have been killed at these sites since GHF's operations began in late May.
If the EU as a whole will not act, individual member states still bear legal responsibility. At a minimum, European countries should suspend arms transfers, ban trade with illegal settlements and end cooperation with institutions complicit in the occupation and apartheid. These are not optional political stances. They are legal obligations. And this applies to the rest of the world.
The danger of appealing to Israel to allow in aid instead of forcing it to do so through sanctions is clear: When war crimes are overlooked in exchange for temporary relief, impunity becomes normalised. Starvation becomes an acceptable weapon of war. Civilian lives turn into bargaining chips.
The international community – including the EU, church institutions and world leaders – must continue to extend compassion and aid. But this must not replace justice. Mercy should be paired with resolve: Israel must be held to its legal and moral obligations. Palestinians – Christian and Muslim – must not be treated as pawns but as human beings entitled to dignity, safety and peace.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
The Take: Gaza's starvation crisis. When will it end?
A choice between starvation or being shot at. That's the decision many Palestinians in Gaza have been forced to make. More than 900 people have been killed at the GHF's aid distribution sites. Why is this happening, and what is being done to make it stop? In this episode: Diana Buttu (@dianabuttu) – Human Rights Lawyer and Analyst Episode credits: This episode was produced by Tracie Hunte, Sarí el-Khalili, and Diana Ferrero with Phillip Lanos, Spencer Cline, Melanie Marich, Tamara Khandaker, and our guest host, Manuel Rapalo. It was edited by Kylene Kiang. The Take production team is Marcos Bartolomé, Sonia Bhagat, Spencer Cline, Sarí el-Khalili, Diana Ferrero, Tracie Hunte, Tamara Khandaker, Kylene Kiang, Phillip Lanos, Chloe K. Li, Melanie Marich, Haleema Shah, Khaled Soltan, Amy Walters, and Noor Wazwaz. Our editorial interns are Marya Khan, and Kisaa Zehra. Our guest host is Manuel Rapalo. Our engagement producers are Adam Abou-Gad and Vienna Maglio. Aya Elmileik is lead of audience engagement. Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Our video editors are Hisham Abu Salah and Mohannad al-Melhem. Alexandra Locke is The Take's executive producer. Ney Alvarez is Al Jazeera's head of audio. Connect with us: @AJEPodcasts on X, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube
Al Jazeera
13 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Countries denounce Israel but keep trading with it
As Israel's killing of Palestinians continues fast and slow, through air strikes and starvation, the foreign ministers of 28 countries have signed a statement calling for an end to Israel's war on Gaza. As these countries deploy words months after the United Nations and other groups warned of an oncoming famine, there has been little action on other fronts. Some of these countries have recognised the Palestinian state while France last week angered Israeli officials by announcing it would do the same in September. Still, many critics have pointed out that as countries make these statements, many of them continue to benefit from trade with Israel and have not imposed sanctions or taken any other action that could push Israel to end its genocidal war on Gaza. The war has killed at least 59,821 people in Gaza and wounded 144,477. Here's all you need to know about the countries profiting from Israel while condemning its military action: How much do the signatories of the statement trade with Israel? Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom all have more than $1bn in imports, exports or both with Israel, according to 2023 figures from the Observatory of Economic Complexity. What do these countries trade with Israel? Among the top items being traded are cars and other motor vehicles, integrated circuits, vaccines and perfumes. About $3.58bn in integrated circuits is the largest individual product going to Ireland, making up the overwhelming majority of Ireland's imports from Israel. Meanwhile, Italy exports to Israel more than any other country that signed the statement. Its $3.49bn of exports included $116m in cars in 2023. Do these countries recognise Palestine? Of those countries that issued the statement, Ireland and Spain recognised Palestine in 2024 and have spoken strongly against Israel's actions in Gaza. Still, that hasn't stopped them from continuing trade with Israel. Seven other countries that signed the statement also recognise the State of Palestine, including Cyprus, Malta and Poland, all of which recognised Palestine in 1988, shortly after the Palestinian Declaration of Independence. Iceland (2011), Sweden (2014), Norway (2024) and Slovenia (2024) also recognise the State of Palestine while France said it will do so in September at the United Nations General Assembly. Who signed the statement? Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. All of them are still trading with Israel. What was Israel's reaction to the statement? As expected. Oren Marmorstein, a spokesperson for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, wrote on X that Israel rejects the statement, saying 'it is disconnected from reality and sends the wrong message to Hamas.' What else are countries trading with Israel doing? France, Germany and the UK called for an 'immediate ceasefire' in Gaza and 'unconditional release of all hostages' after they held an emergency call to discuss the war and the hunger crisis created by Israel's siege and aid blockade on the enclave. Has any of this made Israel change its behaviour? Attention has turned heavily towards the starvation of Palestinians in Gaza, leading even longtime Israeli stalwart supporters like former US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to address the issue. Aid organizations report that thousands of children in Gaza are at risk of starvation while trucks full of food sit waiting across the border. The full flow of humanitarian assistance must be restored — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) July 24, 2025 This pressure has led Israel to announce 'tactical pauses' for 'humanitarian purposes' from 10am to 8pm (07:00 to 17:00 GMT) in al-Mawasi, Deir el-Balah and Gaza City. They started on Sunday. Despite the pauses, Israeli forces killed at least 43 Palestinians early on Sunday. The Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza said on Sunday that it had recorded six more deaths over 24 hours due to famine and malnutrition, including two children. This brings the total number of starvation deaths to 133, including 87 children.
Al Jazeera
14 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Iran's plan to abandon GPS is about much more than technology
For the past few years, governments across the world have paid close attention to conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. There, it is said, we see the first glimpses of what warfare of the future will look like, not just in terms of weaponry, but also in terms of new technologies and tactics. Most recently, the United States-Israeli attacks on Iran demonstrated not just new strategies of drone deployment and infiltration but also new vulnerabilities. During the 12-day conflict, Iran and vessels in the waters of the Gulf experienced repeated disruptions of GPS signal. This clearly worried the Iranian authorities who, after the end of the war, began to look for alternatives. 'At times, disruptions are created on this [GPS] system by internal systems, and this very issue has pushed us toward alternative options like BeiDou,' Ehsan Chitsaz, deputy communications minister, told Iranian media in mid-July. He added that the government was developing a plan to switch transportation, agriculture and the internet from GPS to BeiDou. Iran's decision to explore adopting China's navigation satellite system may appear at first glance to be merely a tactical manoeuvre. Yet, its implications are far more profound. This move is yet another indication of a major global realignment. For decades, the West, and the US in particular, have dominated the world's technological infrastructure from computer operating systems and the internet to telecommunications and satellite networks. This has left much of the world dependent on an infrastructure it cannot match or challenge. This dependency can easily become vulnerability. Since 2013, whistleblowers and media investigations have revealed how various Western technologies and schemes have enabled illicit surveillance and data gathering on a global scale – something that has worried governments around the world. Iran's possible shift to BeiDou sends a clear message to other nations grappling with the delicate balance between technological convenience and strategic self-defence: The era of blind, naive dependence on US-controlled infrastructure is rapidly coming to an end. Nations can no longer afford to have their military capabilities and vital digital sovereignty tied to the satellite grid of a superpower they cannot trust. This sentiment is one of the driving forces behind the creation of national or regional satellite navigation systems, from Europe's Galileo to Russia's GLONASS, each vying for a share of the global positioning market and offering a perceived guarantee of sovereign control. GPS was not the only vulnerability Iran encountered during the US-Israeli attacks. The Israeli army was able to assassinate a number of nuclear scientists and senior commanders in the Iranian security and military forces. The fact that Israel was able to obtain their exact locations raised fears that it was able to infiltrate telecommunications and trace people via their phones. On June 17 as the conflict was still raging, the Iranian authorities urged the Iranian people to stop using the messaging app WhatsApp and delete it from their phones, saying it was gathering user information to send to Israel. Whether this appeal was linked to the assassinations of the senior officials is unclear, but Iranian mistrust of the app run by US-based corporation Meta is not without merit. Cybersecurity experts have long been sceptical about the security of the app. Recently, media reports have revealed that the artificial intelligence software Israel uses to target Palestinians in Gaza is reportedly fed data from social media. Furthermore, shortly after the end of the attacks on Iran, the US House of Representatives moved to ban WhatsApp from official devices. For Iran and other countries around the world, the implications are clear: Western platforms can no longer be trusted as mere conduits for communication; they are now seen as tools in a broader digital intelligence war. Tehran has already been developing its own intranet system, the National Information Network, which gives more control over internet use to state authorities. Moving forward, Iran will likely expand this process and possibly try to emulate China's Great Firewall. By seeking to break with Western-dominated infrastructure, Tehran is definitively aligning itself with a growing sphere of influence that fundamentally challenges Western dominance. This partnership transcends simple transactional exchanges as China offers Iran tools essential for genuine digital and strategic independence. The broader context for this is China's colossal Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). While often framed as an infrastructure and trade project, BRI has always been about much more than roads and ports. It is an ambitious blueprint for building an alternative global order. Iran – strategically positioned and a key energy supplier – is becoming an increasingly important partner in this expansive vision. What we are witnessing is the emergence of a new powerful tech bloc – one that inextricably unites digital infrastructure with a shared sense of political defiance. Countries weary of the West's double standards, unilateral sanctions and overwhelming digital hegemony will increasingly find both comfort and significant leverage in Beijing's expanding clout. This accelerating shift heralds the dawn of a new 'tech cold war', a low-temperature confrontation in which nations will increasingly choose their critical infrastructure, from navigation and communications to data flows and financial payment systems, not primarily based on technological superiority or comprehensive global coverage but increasingly on political allegiance and perceived security. As more and more countries follow suit, the Western technological advantage will begin to shrink in real time, resulting in redesigned international power dynamics. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
