US envoy visits Gaza sites as UN says hundreds of aid-seekers killed
The UN's rights office in the Palestinian territories said at least 1,373 people had been killed seeking aid in Gaza since May 27.
GAZA CITY - President Donald Trump's special envoy
inspected a US-backed food distribution centre in war-torn Gaza on Aug 1, as the UN rights office reported that Israeli forces had killed hundreds of hungry Palestinians waiting for aid.
The visit by Mr Steve Witkoff came as a report from global advocacy group Human Rights Watch (HRW) also accused Israeli forces of presiding over 'regular bloodbaths' close to the US-backed aid points.
The UN's rights office in the Palestinian territories said at least 1,373 people had been killed seeking aid in Gaza since May 27 – 105 of them in the last two days of July.
'Most of these killings were committed by the Israeli military,' the UN office said, breaking down the death toll into 859 killed near the US-backed food sites and 514 along routes used by UN and aid agency convoys.
The US ambassador to Israel, Mr Mike Huckabee, posted on X that he and Mr Witkoff had visited Gaza 'to learn the truth' about the private aid sites run by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which is supported by the United States.
'We received briefings from IDF (the Israeli military) and spoke to folks on the ground. GHF delivers more than one million meals a day, an incredible feat!' Mr Huckabee said.
'Hamas hates GHF because it gets food to people without it being looted by Hamas.'
Top stories
Swipe. Select. Stay informed.
Tech Reporting suspected advanced cyber attacks will provide a defence framework: Shanmugam
Singapore Tanjong Katong sinkhole: Affected road will open progressively to motorists from noon on Aug 2
Business Singapore's US tariff rate stays at 10%, but the Republic is not out of the woods yet
World As China-US tariff truce talks drag on, what are prospects for a 'big deal' for Trump?
Singapore Thundery showers expected on most days in first half of August
Singapore Synapxe chief executive, MND deputy secretary to become new perm secs on Sept 1
Singapore 5 women face capital charges after they were allegedly found with nearly 27kg of cocaine in S'pore
Business Sumo Salad had valid insurance coverage for work injury claims: MOM
The foundation, on its own X account, posted that it had been a 'privilege and honor' to host Mr Witkoff and Mr Huckabee as the group delivered its 100-millionth meal in Gaza, fulfilling Mr Trump's 'call to lead with strength, compassion and action'.
Gaza's civil defence agency said 11 people were killed by Israeli fire and air strikes on Aug 1, including two who were waiting near an aid distribution site run by GHF.
GHF largely sidelined the longstanding UN-led humanitarian system just as Israel was beginning to ease a more than two-month aid blockade that exacerbated existing shortages of food and other essentials.
'Beyond imagination'
In its report on the GHF centres on Aug 1, Human Rights Watch accused the Israeli military of
illegally using starvation as a weapon of war .
'Israeli forces are not only deliberately starving Palestinian civilians, but they are now gunning them down almost every day as they desperately seek food for their families,' said Mr Belkis Wille, associate crisis and conflict director at Human Rights Watch.
'US-backed Israeli forces and private contractors have put in place a flawed, militarised aid distribution system that has turned aid distributions into regular bloodbaths.'
Responding to the report, the military said GHF worked independently, but that Israeli soldiers operated 'in proximity to the new distribution areas in order to enable the orderly delivery of food'.
It accused Hamas of trying to prevent food distribution and said that it was conducting a review of the reported deaths, adding it worked to 'minimise, as much as possible, any friction between the civilian population' and its forces.
After arriving in Israel on July 31, Mr Witkoff held talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over how to resolve the almost 22-month-old war, feed desperate civilians and free the remaining hostages held by Palestinian militants.
Mr Netanyahu has vowed to destroy Hamas and free the captives, but is under international pressure to end the bloodshed that has killed more than 60,000 Palestinians and threatened many more with famine.
Following his discussions with Mr Witkoff, Mr Netanyahu met Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul of Germany, another staunch Israeli ally, who nonetheless delivered a blunt message.
'The humanitarian disaster in Gaza is beyond imagination,' Mr Wadephul told reporters after the meeting, urging the government 'to provide humanitarian and medical aid to prevent mass starvation from becoming a reality'.
'I have the impression that this has been understood today,' he added.
Hostage video
On July 31, the armed wing of Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad released a video showing German-Israeli hostage Rom Braslavski, 21, watching recent news footage of the crisis in Gaza and pleading with the Israeli government to secure his release.
'Even the strongest person has a breaking point,' his family said in a statement released by the Hostages and Missing Families Forum in Israel.
'Rom is an example of all the hostages. They must all be brought home now.'
On Aug 1, Mr Wadephul also met relatives of hostages still held in the Gaza Strip. According to the German foreign office, among the 49 hostages still held, a 'single-digit' number are German-Israeli dual nationals
'Germany continues to do everything in our power to achieve the release of the hostages,' Mr Wadephul said, expressing outrage at the video release.
This 'horrible' footage reveals 'once again the utter depravity of the kidnappers', he added.
The Hamas-led October 2023 attack resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, mostly civilians, according to a tally based on official figures.
Of the 251 people taken hostage, 49 are still held in Gaza, including 27 declared dead by the Israeli military.
The retaliatory Israeli offensive has killed at least 60,249 Palestinians, most of them civilians, according to Hamas-run Gaza's health ministry.
This week UN aid agencies said deaths from starvation had begun.
Media restrictions in Gaza and difficulties accessing many areas mean AFP cannot independently verify tolls and details provided by the civil defence and other parties. AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Trump's deal-making with other elite US schools scrambles Harvard negotiations
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox WASHINGTON – By the start of last week, Harvard University had signalled its readiness to meet President Donald Trump's demand that it spend US$500 million (S$643 million) to settle its damaging, monthslong battle with the administration and restore its crucial research funding. Then, two days after The New York Times reported that Harvard was open to such a financial commitment, the White House announced a far cheaper deal with Brown University: US$50 million, doled out over a decade, to bolster state workforce development programs. The terms stunned officials at Harvard, who marvelled that another Ivy League school got away with paying so little, according to three people familiar with the deliberations. But Harvard officials also bristled over how their university, after months of work to address antisemitism on campus and with a seeming advantage in its court fight against the government, was facing a demand from Mr Trump to pay 10 times more. The people who discussed the deliberations spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing talks that are supposed to remain confidential. White House officials are dismissive of the comparison between Brown and Harvard, arguing that their grievances against Harvard are more far-reaching, including assertions that the school has yet to do enough to ensure the safety of Jewish students and their claim that the school is flouting the Supreme Court's ruling on race-conscious admissions. 'If Harvard wants the Brown deal, then it has to be like Brown, and I just think it's not,' Ms May Mailman, the top White House official under Mr Stephen Miller who has served as the architect of the administration's crusade against top schools, said in an interview in the West Wing last week. Ms Mailman, who graduated from Harvard Law School, pointed out that Brown, unlike Harvard, did not sue the administration. She challenged Harvard to reach an agreement that included terms that would allow the government to more closely scrutinise its behaviour. 'If Harvard feels really good about what it's already doing, then great,' she said. 'Let's sign this deal tomorrow.' Harvard said on Aug 4 that it had no comment. But the White House's recent record of deal-making threatens to complicate the settlement talks, according to the people familiar with the talks. University officials were sensitive to the possibility that a deal with the government – after Harvard spent months waging a public fight against Mr Trump – would be seen as surrendering to the president and offering him a political gift. The terms of the Brown agreement, though, added new complexity to Harvard's internal debates about the size of a potential financial settlement. For many people close to those discussions, spending US$500 million is less of a concern than what forking that money over would signal on the Cambridge, Massachusetts, campus and beyond. For those close to the discussions, Mr Trump's demand is far too large and they argue that acquiescing to it would be seen as the university scrambling to buy its way out of Mr Trump's ire. They contend that Harvard has taken far more aggressive steps than Columbia University – which agreed to a US$200 million fine in July – to combat antisemitism. They also note that Harvard, unlike Brown, did not publicly agree to consider divesting from Israel as a condition of ending campus protests lin 2024. (Brown's board ultimately voted not to divest.) Others at Harvard regard Mr Trump's proposal as a bargain for the school to get back billions of dollars in funding that make much of its society-shaping research possible. Before the Brown deal, Harvard leaders and the school's team were studying settlement structures that could insulate the nation's oldest and wealthiest university from accusations that it caved to Mr Trump. In their stop-and-start talks with the White House, they are expected to maintain their insistence on steps to shield the university's academic freedom. To that end, they are also likely to remain equally resistant to a monitoring arrangement that some fear would invite intrusions and stifle the school's autonomy. But Harvard has been exploring a structure in which any money the university agrees to spend will go to vocational and workforce training programs instead of the federal government, Mr Trump, his presidential library or allies, according to the three people briefed on the matter. Harvard officials believe that such an arrangement would allow them to argue to their students, faculty, alumni and others in academia that the funds would not be used to fill Mr Trump's coffers. Harvard's consideration of putting money toward workforce programmes aligns with some of what Mr Trump has espoused. In a social media post in May, the president talked up the prospect of taking US$3 billion from Harvard and 'giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land. What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!' But no matter the structure, White House officials have made clear that an extraordinary sum will be required to reach a settlement. Last week, after the Times reported the US$500 million figure, a journalist asked Mr Trump whether that amount would be enough to reach a deal. 'Well, it's a lot of money,' he replied. 'We're negotiating with Harvard.' Although Brown and Harvard are among the nation's richest and most prominent universities, the schools have significant differences, especially around their finances. The Trump administration has repeatedly castigated Harvard for its US$53 billion endowment, which is loaded with restrictions that limit how it may be used, but it has made far less fuss about Brown's similarly tied-up US$7 billion fund. Harvard also has much more federal research money at stake. The Trump administration has warned that it could ultimately strip US$9 billion in funding for Harvard; it threatened US$510 million in funding for Brown. One reason the Brown deal has so miffed Harvard officials is that some terms look much like those they expected for themselves. The government agreed, for instance, that it could not use the deal 'to dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech.' Brown avoided a monitoring arrangement, and the university won the right to direct its US$50 million settlement payment toward workforce programmes of its choosing. But Harvard has a more antagonistic relationship with the Trump administration, as the university has sued the administration to stop its retribution campaign against the school. That dynamic has fuelled worries at Harvard that the White House is seeking a far higher financial penalty as a punishment for fighting, not because the school's troubles alone warrant US$500 million. After Harvard refused a list of Trump administration demands in April, the university sued. In July, a federal judge in Boston appeared skeptical of the government's tactics when it blocked billions in research funding from Harvard. Before and after the July 21 hearing, the administration pursued a wide-ranging campaign against the university. In addition to its attack on Harvard's research money, the government has opened investigations, sought to block the school from enrolling international students, demanded thousands of documents and tried to challenge the university's accreditation, which is essential for students to be eligible for federal student aid programmes, such as Pell Grants. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services told Harvard that it had referred the university to the Justice Department 'to initiate appropriate proceedings to address Harvard's antisemitic discrimination.' 'Rather than voluntarily comply with its obligations under Title VI, Harvard has chosen scorched-earth litigation against the federal government,' Ms Paula Stannard, the director of the health department's Office for Civil Rights, wrote on July 31, referring to the section of federal civil rights law that bars discrimination on the basis of race, colour or national origin. 'The parties' several months' engagement has been fruitless.' As Harvard President Alan Garber and other university leaders face the White House's fury, they are also confronting campus-level misgivings about a potential deal with a president many at the school see as bent on authoritarianism. At best, many at Harvard view him as duplicitous and believe it would be risky for the university to enter a long-term arrangement. 'I think even the simplest deals with untrustworthy people can be challenging,' said Professor Oliver Hart, an economics professor at Harvard who won a Nobel Prize for his work on contract theory. 'But a continuing relationship is much, much worse, much harder.' Prof Hart warned that, no matter the written terms of a settlement, the federal government would retain enormous power with effectively limitless financial resources to take on Harvard. Ms Mailman, who recently left the full-time White House staff but remains involved in the administration's higher-education strategy, all but dared Harvard to stay defiant. 'I think there's still a deal to be had, but from our perspective, at the end of the day, Harvard has a US$53 billion endowment,' she said. 'They don't need federal funds. And even if they win a lawsuit, great. But what happens next year? What happens the year after?' NYTIMES
AsiaOne
an hour ago
- AsiaOne
Trump again threatens India with harsh tariffs over Russian oil purchases, World News
WASHINGTON — US President Donald Trump again threatened on Monday (Aug 4) to raise tariffs on goods from India over its Russian oil purchases, while New Delhi called his attack "unjustified" and vowed to protect its economic interests, deepening the trade rift between the two countries. In a social media post, Trump wrote, "India is not only buying massive amounts of Russian Oil, they are then, for much of the Oil purchased, selling it on the Open Market for big profits. They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine." "Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA," he added. A spokesperson for India's foreign ministry said in response that India will "take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security." "The targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable," the spokesperson added. Trump has said that from Friday he will impose new sanctions on Russia as well as on countries that buy its energy exports, unless Moscow takes steps to end its 3-1/2 year war with Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown no public sign of altering his stance despite the deadline. Over the weekend, two Indian government sources told Reuters that India will keep purchasing oil from Russia despite Trump's threats. India has faced pressure from the West to distance itself from Moscow since Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022. New Delhi has resisted, citing its longstanding ties with Russia and economic needs. Trump had already in July announced 25 per cent tariffs on Indian imports, and US officials have cited a range of geopolitical issues standing in the way of a US-India trade accord. Trump has also cast the wider BRICS group of developing nations as hostile to the United States. Those nations have dismissed his accusation, saying the group promotes the interests of its members and of developing countries at large. Crude buyer India is the biggest buyer of seaborne crude from Russia, importing about 1.75 million barrels per day of Russian oil from January to June this year, up 1 per cent from a year ago, according to data provided to Reuters by trade sources. [[nid:720925]] India began importing oil from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict, the Indian spokesperson said, calling it a "necessity compelled by global market situation." The spokesperson also noted the West's, particularly the European Union's, bilateral trade with Russia: "It is revealing that the very nations criticising India are themselves indulging in trade with Russia." Despite the Indian government's defiance, the country's main refiners paused buying Russian oil last week, sources told Reuters. Discounts to other suppliers narrowed after Trump threatened hefty tariffs on countries that make any such purchases. Indian government officials denied any policy change. The country's largest refiner, Indian Oil Corp, has bought seven million barrels of crude from the United States, Canada and the Middle East, four trade sources told Reuters on Monday. India also has been frustrated by Trump repeatedly taking credit for an India-Pakistan ceasefire that he announced on social media in May, which halted days of hostilities between the nuclear-armed neighbours. The unpredictability of the Trump administration creates a challenge for Delhi, said Richard Rossow, head of the India programme at Washington's Centre for Strategic and International Studies. "India's continued energy and defence purchases from Russia presents a larger challenge, where India does not feel it can predict how the Trump administration will approach Russia from month to month," he said. [[nid:720581]]
Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
US reverses pledge to link disaster funds to Israel boycott stance
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox The Federal Emergency Management Agency posted on Aug 1 saying states must follow its 'terms and conditions' to qualify for disaster preparation funding. WASHINGTON - The Trump administration on Aug 4 reversed course on requiring US cities and states to rebuke boycotts of Israeli companies in order to receive disaster funds , according to a statement, and deleted the earlier policy from its website. The Department of Homeland Security removed its statement that said states must certify they will not sever 'commercial relations specifically with Israeli companies' to qualify for the funding. Reuters reported on Aug 4 that the language applied to at least US$1.9 billion (S$2.45 billion) that states rely on to cover search-and-rescue equipment, emergency manager salaries and backup power systems, among other expenses, according to 11 agency grant notices reviewed by Reuters. This is a shift for the administration of President Donald Trump, which has previously tried to penalise institutions that do not align with its views on Israel or antisemitism. The disaster funding requirement took aim at the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement designed to put economic pressure on Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories. The campaign's supporters grew more vocal in 2023, after Hamas attacked southern Israel and Israel invaded Gaza in response. 'Fema grants remain governed by existing law and policy and not political litmus tests,' said DHS Spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin in a statement on the afternoon of Aug 4. DHS oversees the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema). Fema in grant notices posted on Aug 1 said states must follow its 'terms and conditions' to qualify for disaster preparation funding. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Singapore launches review of economic strategy to stay ahead of global shifts Singapore A look at the five committees reviewing Singapore's economic strategy Opinion Keeping it alive: How Chinese opera in Singapore is adapting to the age of TikTok Life Glamping in Mandai: Is a luxury stay at Colugo Camp worth the $550 price tag? Sport World Aquatics C'ships in S'pore deemed a success by athletes, fans and officials Singapore Strong S'pore-Australia ties underpinned by bonds that are continually renewed: President Tharman World Trump says he will 'substantially' raise tariffs on India over Russian oil purchases Those conditions required that they not support what the agency called a 'discriminatory prohibited boycott', a term defined as refusing to deal with 'companies doing business in or with Israel'. The new terms, posted later on Aug 4, do not include that language. REUTERS
