UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher fears that thousands of babies are at imminent risk of death in Gaza unless aid reaches them. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fears that foreign politicians could see too many pictures of Palestinian children like these.
Two months after all supplies were cut off, the Israeli government denies the obvious truth: that Gaza is on the brink of famine. However, on Monday night, the prime minister announced that “minimal” aid deliveries would restart, saying his country’s “greatest friends in the world” had told him that they could not “accept images of … mass hunger.”
Netanyahu’s entirely cynical response saw a handful of trucks permitted to cross; reportedly, 100 a day would be allowed — grotesquely inadequate given the vast scale of need. Reaching the most vulnerable would be perilous and difficult anyway amid Israel’s intensified offensive. Netanyahu vowed that Israel would “take control” of all of Gaza.
His words show both that Western allies can shift Israeli behavior — and that they are insufficiently willing to do so. The trickle of supplies is meant to ensure the continuation of a war that enables his political survival, but has killed more than 53,500 Palestinians. That death toll might be a grave underestimate, researchers said.
Foreign leaders are finally stirring as Palestinians starve and the enormity of Israel’s plan sinks in. Britain, France and Canada have described conditions in Gaza as intolerable and threatened further “concrete” actions if Israel’s “egregious” campaign continues and aid restrictions are not lifted. An unrepentant Netanyahu accused them of “offering a huge prize” for the murderous Hamas attack of Oct. 7, 2023, which triggered Israel’s assault.
In a separate statement, 23 countries, including Australia and New Zealand, condemned the aid blockade and military offensive. On Tuesday, the European Commission launched a review of trade ties. Relatives of Israeli hostages have again pressed for a ceasefire and release deal. Outrage has broken through in mainstream domestic politics, with Yair Golan, leader of the Democrats, saying that Israel was “on the path to becoming a pariah state.”
The growing condemnation is spurred not only by the grotesque suffering in Gaza and ministers’ explicit calls for ethnic cleansing, but also by a new distance between Netanyahu and the administration of US President Donald Trump.
Trump did not bother stopping in Israel and repeatedly overrode its interests — on Syria, on the Houthis and on Iran — on his Middle East tour. He has emboldened the Israeli government’s annihilationist approach and would be happy to see a Gaza without Palestinians, but might be tiring of the conflict.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly called Netanyahu three times in 24 hours over the aid blockade. The limited return on his efforts shows that the shift in approach should not be overstated. Striking support for Israel endures in Washington even as other governments — and American voters — think again.
Others must match rhetoric with action. British Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs David Lammy condemned the “repellent” words of the extremist Israeli Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich. However, suspending trade talks is barely a start. The same goes for the sanctioning of settler activists: David Cameron has said that as British foreign secretary he wanted to impose sanctions on Smotrich and his colleague Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir last year.
The UK should follow the example of France, which has said it is “determined” to recognize a Palestinian state. Most of all, it should ensure that no arms, including parts for F-35 jets, continue to reach Israel. Until it does so, it will be complicit in these crimes.
The US has the ability to stop the slaughter and achieve a desperately needed ceasefire, but pressure from other allies can make a difference. If they care about saving lives — and not just their own optics — it is time for decisive action.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS