Israeli strikes kill 30 in Gaza, health officials say
The 21-month war triggered by Hamas' October 7 attack is raging on after two days of talks between US president Donald Trump and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu ended last week with no sign of a breakthrough in negotiations over a ceasefire and hostage release.
Twelve people were killed by strikes in southern Gaza, including three who were waiting at an aid distribution point, according to Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, which received the bodies.
Shifa Hospital in Gaza City also received 12 bodies, including three children and two women, after a series of strikes in the north, according to the hospital's director, Dr Mohammed Abu Selmia.
Al-Awda Hospital in central Gaza reported six killed and eight wounded in strikes in the built-up Nuseirat refugee camp.
The Israeli military says it only targets militants and tries to avoid harming civilians. It blames civilian deaths on Hamas because the militants operate in densely populated areas.
The military said a June 19 strike killed Muhammad Nasr Ali Quneita, who it said had taken part in the October 7 attack and held hostage Emily Damari, a dual Israeli-British citizen, in his home at the start of the war.
There was no comment from Hamas nor independent confirmation.
Thousands of Hamas-led militants stormed into Israel that day, killing some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and abducting 251 people, most of whom have since been released in ceasefire agreements or other deals. The militants are still holding 50 hostages, less than half of them believed to be alive.
Israel's retaliatory offensive has killed more than 58,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which has said women and children make up more than half of the dead.
It does not distinguish between civilians and militants in its tally.
The ministry is part of the Hamas-run government and is led by medical professionals. The United Nations and other experts consider its figures to be the most reliable count of war casualties.
Israel's air and ground war has destroyed vast areas of Gaza and driven some 90% of the population from their homes. Aid groups say they have struggled to bring in food and other assistance because of Israeli military restrictions and the breakdown of law and order, and experts have warned of famine.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
15 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Record-breaking Bitcoin soars above $120k - up by more than double from a year ago
Bitcoin climbed above $120,000 to a record high yesterday as investors piled into the world's biggest cryptocurrency. The digital coin rose as high as $123,200 –more than double the $60,000 it was valued at a year ago. The latest rally came as so-called 'crypto week' got underway in the US. This refers to a series of debates taking place in Washington DC that could lay the foundations for a regulatory framework for digital assets. Tim Chen, global head of strategy at financial services firm Mantle, said the discussions should provide investors with 'some semblance of clarity' over the future of crypto – making it more attractive. Bitcoin has rallied strongly since crashing to around $16,000 following the collapse of crypto exchange FTX three years ago. The rally accelerated following the election of Donald Trump as investors and speculators welcomed his pledge to make the US the crypto capital of the world. Josh Fraser, co-founder of decentralised platform Origin Protocol, said: 'Gold has been a primary store of value for hundreds of years, and bitcoin now competes as a better version of gold.' Dan Coatsworth, investment analyst at broker AJ Bell, said: 'Traders are expecting something significant during crypto week. 'Bitcoin has now risen by nearly 10 per cent in just five days. This implies some FOMO – fear of missing out – a trend we've seen plenty of times in the past when bitcoin hit the headlines. Crypto believers are convinced digital assets are the future of finance. While there is certainly momentum in terms of investor, government and corporate interest, it is not a slam dunk. There are still more questions than answers.' Nigel Green, chief executive of financial advisory deVere Group, said he expects bitcoin to hit $125,000 'in the coming days' before moving up to $150,000. 'It's being powered by deep political backing, new regulatory clarity and sustained institutional inflows. This is a powerful combination we haven't seen at this scale before,' he said. 'This is not crypto on the fringe anymore. This is front and centre of US financial policy. Trump is championing it, lawmakers are acting on it and Wall Street is all-in.'
North Wales Chronicle
17 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Plan to strip citizenship from ‘extremists' during appeals clears Commons
The Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill was passed at third reading by MPs, and will now go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny. Under the legislation, alleged extremists who lose their British citizenship but win an appeal against the decision will not have it reinstated before the Home Office has exhausted all avenues for appeal. During the Bill's committee stage, Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy said black, Asian and ethnic minority communities will be 'alarmed' by the proposals. Home Office minister Dan Jarvis said the legislation has 'nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour'. Speaking in the Commons on Monday, Conservative former minister Kit Malthouse said: 'My trouble with this legislation is that it puts a question mark over certain citizens. 'When it's used with increasing frequency, it does put a question mark over people's status as a citizen of the United Kingdom, and that, I think, is something that ought to be of concern.' Intervening, Mr Jarvis said: 'He's making his points in a very considered way, but he is levelling quite serious charges against the Government. 'Can I say to him, in absolute good faith, that our intentions here have nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour.' Mr Malthouse said: 'I'm not concerned about it necessarily falling into his hands as a power, but we just don't know who is going to be in his place in the future, and we're never quite sure how these powers might develop.' He continued: 'What I'm trying to do with my amendment is to explain to him that this is an area of law where I would urge him to tread carefully, where I would urge him to think about the compromises that he's creating against our basic freedoms that we need to maintain.' The MP for North West Hampshire had tabled an amendment which would allow a person to retain their citizenship during an appeals process if they face 'a real and substantial threat of serious harm' as a result of the order. It would also have required a judge to suspend the removal of citizenship if the person's ability to mount an effective defence at a subsequent appeal was impacted, or the duration of the appeal process was excessive because of an act or omission by a public authority. Ms Ribeiro-Addy spoke in support of the amendment, she said: 'Certain communities are often wary of legislation that touches on citizenship, because it almost always – whether it is the stated intention or not – disproportionately impacts them. 'And to put this clearly to the minister, I'm talking about people of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, those who have parents who may have been born elsewhere, or grandparents, for that matter, they will be particularly alarmed by this legislation. 'Those of us who have entitlement to citizenship from other countries for no other reason than where our parents may have been born, or where our grandparents may have been born, or simply because of our ethnic origin, we know that we are at higher risk of having our British citizenship revoked. 'And when such legislation is passed, it creates two tiers of citizenship. It creates second-class citizens.' The MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill added: 'I would like to ask why the minister has not seen it fit to conduct an equality impact assessment on this Bill? I know it's an incredibly narrow scope, but these potential implications are vastly potentially impact-limited to specific communities.' At the conclusion of the committee stage, Mr Jarvis said: 'The power to deprive a person of British citizenship does not target ethnic minorities or people of particular faiths, it is used sparingly where a naturalised person has acquired citizenship fraudulently, or where it is conducive to the public good. 'Deprivation on conducive grounds is used against those who pose a serious threat to the UK, or whose conduct involves high harm. It is solely a person's behaviour which determines if they should be deprived of British citizenship, not their ethnicity or faith.' 'The impact on equalities has been assessed at all stages of this legislation,' he added. The Bill was passed on the nod.
Sky News
23 minutes ago
- Sky News
Trump is clearly fed up with Putin - but will his shift in tone force Russia to the negotiating table?
As ever, there is confusion and key questions are left unanswered, but Donald Trump's announcement on Ukraine and Russia today remains hugely significant. His shift in tone and policy on Ukraine is stark. And his shift in tone (and perhaps policy) on Russia is huge. Ever since Mr Trump returned to the White House he has flatly refused to side with Ukraine over the Russian invasion. He has blamed Ukraine and Joe Biden for the incursion but has never been willing to accept that Russia is the aggressor and that Kyiv has a legitimate right to defend itself. Today, all that changed. In a clear signal that he is fed up with Vladimir Putin and now fully recognises the need to help Ukraine defend itself, he announced the US will dramatically increase weapons supplies to Kyiv. But, in keeping with his transactional nature and in a reflection of the need to keep his isolationist "America-First" base on side, he has framed this policy shift as a multi-billion dollar "deal" in which America gains financially. American weapons are to be "sold" to NATO partners in Europe who will then either transfer them to Ukraine or use them to bolster their own stockpiles as they transfer their own existing stocks to Kyiv. "We've made a deal today," the president said in the Oval Office. "We are going to be sending them weapons, and they are paying for them. We are manufacturing, they are going to be paying for it. Our meeting last month was very successful... these are wealthy nations." 2:27 This appears to be a clever framing of the "deal". Firstly, America has always benefited financially by supplying weapons to Ukraine because much of the investment has been in American factories, American jobs and American supply chains. While the details are not entirely clear, the difference now appears to be that the weapons would be bought by the Europeans or by NATO as an alliance. The Americans are the biggest contributor to NATO, and so if the alliance is buying the weapons, America too will be paying, in part, for the weapons it is selling. However, if the weapons are being bought by individual NATO members to replenish their own stocks, then it may be the case that the US is not paying. NATO officials referred all questions on this issue to the White House, which has not yet provided clarity to Sky News. It is also not yet clear what type of weapons will be made available and whether it will include offensive, as well defensive, munitions. 1:49 A key element of the package will likely be Patriot missile batteries, 10 to 15 of which are believed to be currently in Europe. Under this deal, it is understood that some of them will be added to the six or so batteries believed to be presently in Ukraine. New ones would then be purchased from US manufacturers to backfill European stocks. A similar arrangement may be used for other weapons. The president also issued the Russian leader with an ultimatum, saying that Putin had 50 days to make a peace deal or else face 100% "secondary tariffs". It's thought this refers to a plan to tariff, or sanction, third countries that supply Russia with weapons and buy Russian oil. This, the Americans hope, will force those countries to apply pressure on Russia. But the 50-day kicking of the can down the road also gives Russia space to prevaricate. So, a few words of caution: first, the Russians are masters of prevarication. Second, Trump tends to let deadlines slip. And third, we all know Trump can flip-flop on his position repeatedly. 2:00 Maybe the most revealing aspect of all this came when a reporter asked Mr Trump: "How far are you willing to go if Putin sends more bombs in the coming days?" "Don't ask me questions like that..." Mr Trump doesn't really know what to do if Mr Putin continues to take him for a ride. Mr Biden, before him, supplied Ukraine with the weapons to continue fighting. If Mr Trump wants to end this, he may need to provide Ukraine with enough weapons to win. But that would prolong, or even escalate, a war he wants to end now.
