Israel may change tack to allow aid groups in Gaza to stay in charge of non-food aid

Israel may change tack to allow aid groups in Gaza to stay in charge of non-food aid
Workers unload cargo from a truck carrying humanitarian aid for the Gaza Strip at the offload area of the Kerem Shalom border crossing between Israel and Gaza, southern Israel, Thursday, May 22, 2025. (AP)
Short Url
Updated 25 May 2025
Follow

Israel may change tack to allow aid groups in Gaza to stay in charge of non-food aid

Israel may change tack to allow aid groups in Gaza to stay in charge of non-food aid
  • The group says it plans to handle food aid, initially from a handful of hubs in southern and central Gaza with armed private contractors that would guard the distribution

TEL AVIV, Israel: As pressure mounts to get more aid into Gaza, Israel appears to be changing tack and may let aid groups operating in the battered enclave remain in charge of non-food assistance while leaving food distribution to a newly established US-backed group, according to a letter obtained by The Associated Press.
The development indicates Israel may be walking back from its plans to tightly control all aid to Gaza and prevent aid agencies long established in the territory from delivering it in the same way they have done in the past.
Israel accuses Hamas of siphoning off aid but the United Nations and aid groups deny there is significant diversion. The UN has rejected Israel’s plan, saying it allows Israel to use food as a weapon, violates human humanitarian principles and won’t be effective.
Israel had blocked food, fuel, medicine and all other supplies from entering Gaza for nearly three months, worsening a humanitarian crisis for 2.3 million Palestinians there. Experts have warned of a high risk of famine and international criticism and outrage over Israel’s offensive has escalated.

 

Even the United States, a staunch ally, has voiced concerns over the hunger crisis.
The letter, dated May 22, is from Jake Wood, the head of the Israel-approved Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, or GHF, and is addressed to COGAT, the Israeli military agency in charge of transferring aid to the territory.
It says that Israel and GHF have agreed to allow non-food humanitarian aid — from medical supplies to hygiene items and shelter materials — to be handled and distributed under an existing system, which is led by the United Nations. UN agencies have so far provided the bulk of the aid for Gaza.
The foundation would still maintain control over food distribution, but there would be a period of overlap with aid groups, the letter said.
“GHF acknowledges that we do not possess the technical capacity or field infrastructure to manage such distributions independently, and we fully support the leadership of these established actors in this domain,” it said.
The foundation confirmed the authenticity of the letter. A spokesman for GHF said the agreement with Israel came after persistent advocacy. While it acknowledged that many aid groups remain opposed to the plan, it said GHF will continue to advocate for an expansion of aid into Gaza and to allow aid groups’ work in the enclave to proceed.

 

COGAT declined to comment on the letter and referred the AP to the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which did not respond to a request for comment.
UN officials also did not reply to requests for comment.
Unclear who is funding GHF
The GHF, which is not yet up and working in Gaza, is run by security contractors, ex-military officers and humanitarian aid officials, and has the backing of Israel.
The group says it plans to handle food aid, initially from a handful of hubs in southern and central Gaza with armed private contractors that would guard the distribution. Additional sites will be opened within a month, including in northern Gaza.
The letter says aid agencies will continue providing food assistance in parallel to the GHF until at least eight sites are up and running.
Aid groups have been pushing back on the GHF and Israel’s plans to take over the handling of food aid, saying it could forcibly displace large numbers of Palestinians by pushing them toward the distribution hubs and that the foundation doesn’t have the capacity to meet the needs of the Palestinians in Gaza.
It’s also unclear who is funding the GHF, which claims to have more than $100 million in commitments from a foreign government donor but has not named the donor.
’Functioning aid’
The letter says that GHF’s Wood was on a call with the CEOs of six aid groups discussing the new plans, including Save the Children, International Medical Corps, Catholic Relief Services, Mercy Corps, CARE International and Project HOPE.
Rabih Torbay, head of Project HOPE, confirmed the call and said his organization was encouraged to hear that the delivery of medicines and other non-food items would continue under the current system.
Still, Torbay appealed for food aid to be allowed into Gaza without “obstruction or politicization.”
A spokesperson for CARE said it has shared its concerns regarding GHF’s proposal for food distribution in the hubs and reiterated the importance of using existing distribution mechanisms under the UN The spokesperson said the meeting was an opportunity to ask a lot of questions, but CARE’s attendance was not an endorsement of the effort.
Mairav Zonszein, a senior analyst on Israel for the International Crisis Group, says the letter is a clear sign that both Israel and the GHF recognize the humanitarian catastrophe people face in Gaza and the need for immediate aid.
“The GHF and Israel are clearly scrambling to get something that works — or at least the appearance of functioning aid — and that this mechanism is not ready or equipped or fitting for the needs of the population in Gaza,” Zonszein said.
Ahmed Bayram, Middle East spokesperson for the Norwegian Refugee Council, said that Israel is part of the conflict and should not be in control of the aid distribution.
“Israel interfering in parts or all of that process would be damaging to the independence and neutrality of humanitarian aid,” Bayram said.
Humanitarian principles
The GHF came under more scrutiny this week, with TRIAL International — a Geneva-based advocacy group focusing on international justice — saying Friday that it was taking legal action to urge Swiss authorities to monitor the group, which is registered in Switzerland.
The foundation’s spokesperson has insisted that it abides by humanitarian principles and operates free from Israeli control. The spokesperson, speaking anonymously under the foundation’s policy, told the AP earlier this week that it is not a military operation and that its armed security guards are necessary for it to work in Gaza.
The war in Gaza began on Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas-led militants attacked southern Israel, killing 1,200 people and abducting 251 others. Israel’s retaliatory offensive has killed more than 53,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, which doesn’t differentiate between civilians and combatants in its count.


Demand by UN for access to Iran’s uranium

Demand by UN for access to Iran’s uranium
Updated 16 sec ago
Follow

Demand by UN for access to Iran’s uranium

Demand by UN for access to Iran’s uranium
  • ‘We must ... go back to Iran’s nuclear sites and account for the stockpiles of uranium, including, most importantly, the 400 kg enriched to 60 percent,’ IAEA chief says

VIENNA: The UN nuclear watchdog on Monday demanded access to highly enriched uranium that Iran is thought to have moved before US attacks last weekend on its nuclear development sites.

“Iran, Israel and the Middle East need peace,” said Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. “We must ... go back to Iran’s nuclear sites and account for the stockpiles of uranium, including, most importantly, the 400 kg enriched to 60 percent.”

US strikes on the underground Fordow nuclear site had probably caused “significant damage,” Grossi said, but it was impossible to assess without a visit.

Meanwhile Israel launched new strikes on Monday on the notorious Evin prison and Revolutionary Guard command centers in Tehran. Video footage showed rescue workers combing the flattened wreckage of a building at the prison, and carrying an injured man on a stretcher.

Israel said its strikes on Tehran were intended to hit the Iranian ruling apparatus broadly, and its ability to sustain power. Evin has long been Iran’s primary jail for political and security detainees. Several high-profile foreign prisoners are also held there.
 


Iraq removes, South Korea eases restrictions on import of Brazil chicken meat

Iraq removes, South Korea eases restrictions on import of Brazil chicken meat
Updated 15 min 24 sec ago
Follow

Iraq removes, South Korea eases restrictions on import of Brazil chicken meat

Iraq removes, South Korea eases restrictions on import of Brazil chicken meat
  • South Korea ow restricts only chicken meat from the region affected by the bird flu, the ministry said, without providing more details

SAO PAULO: Iraq removed a trade ban it had imposed on Brazilian chicken meat after a bird flu case on a commercial farm last month, while South Korea eased its restrictions, the Brazilian Agriculture Ministry said on Monday.
South Korea ow restricts only chicken meat from the region affected by the bird flu, the ministry said, without providing more details. Both Iraq and South Korea had imposed nationwide trade bans to Brazilian chicken meat.
Brazil hopes to reverse trade bans after declaring last week itself free of the bird flu virus in commercial flocks following a 28-day period without any new commercial farm outbreaks.

 


What the intensifying Israel-Iran conflict says about the future of diplomacy

What the intensifying Israel-Iran conflict says about the future of diplomacy
Updated 45 min 11 sec ago
Follow

What the intensifying Israel-Iran conflict says about the future of diplomacy

What the intensifying Israel-Iran conflict says about the future of diplomacy
  • Efforts in Geneva to restart diplomacy now hang in the balance, with Iran and the US hardening positions after recent strikes
  • Analysts warn that without regional diplomacy led by powers like Saudi Arabia, the Israel-Iran conflict risks spiralling into a wider war

LONON/DUBAI: The Iranian missile attack which was intercepted by Qatar on Monday night when it launched missiles against US troops stationed at Al-Udeid Air Base comes as a major setback for peace in the region.

As Iranian missiles lit up the sky over Doha in a retaliatory strike targeting the US military, a diplomatic solution to the Israel-Iran conflict, which has now drawn in the US, seemed further away than ever, with Tehran appearing to wash its hands of further nuclear talks.

Although no casualties were reported at Al-Udeid Air Base — the largest US base in the region — Iran’s counterattack is likely to invite additional American strikes and further regional escalation.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE have both condemned the attack on Qatari sovereignty. The Saudi foreign ministry lambasted Iran for its “unjustifiable” attack, offering to deploy “all its capabilities” to support Doha.

Since the Israeli-Iran conflict dramatically escalated over the weekend, the mixed global response to Israeli and US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities is testing the limits of modern diplomacy and exposing deep divisions among major powers.

This handout satellite picture provided by Maxar Technologies and taken on June 22, 2025, shows damage after US strikes on the Isfahan nuclear enrichment facility in central Iran. (AFP)

What most seem to agree on is that while diplomacy is on the decline, it could have been the solution.

Experts say the fractured international reaction to the escalation reflects a shifting global order and the erosion of the post-Cold War consensus.

“There is no ‘global response’ to speak of at this moment,” Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told Arab News. “This Israel-Iran war is taking place in a fractured geopolitical context.”

He argues that divisions among the US, China and Russia “make it next to impossible to marshal a collective diplomatic effort in the way that the world did in previous eras, like the immediate post-Cold War period of the 1990s.

“That’s why we will continue to see a lot of empty words disconnected from the actions that are actually reshaping the Middle East as we know it.”

On June 13, Israel launched airstrikes on Iranian military and nuclear sites including Natanz, Isfahan and Tehran, reportedly killing senior officials, nuclear scientists and civilians. In response, Iran launched “Operation True Promise III,” firing missiles and drones into Israel. Several struck Tel Aviv, Haifa and other cities, causing civilian casualties.

Despite initially assuring G7 allies that the US would stay out of the conflict, President Donald Trump reversed course on June 22, ordering B-2 bombers to strike Iran’s underground nuclear facilities with MOP “bunker-buster” bombs — weapons only the US possesses.

Although Trump declared that the strikes had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, it remains unclear whether Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was destroyed or relocated in time. If material and technical capacity remain, diplomacy may be the only path to prevent Iran from eventually building a nuclear weapon — a goal the regime could now prioritize more urgently.

Even with severe military losses and the effective loss of airspace control, Iran appears undeterred. Hostilities with Israel continue, and the possibility of Iranian retaliation against US targets is growing. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has indicated that the war will not end until Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is removed from power.

Israeli rescuers search through the rubble at the site of an overnight Iranian missile strike in Bat Yam on June 15, 2025. (AFP)

The US entry into the conflict has triggered a range of diplomatic responses — from enthusiastic support to fierce condemnation. Netanyahu praised Trump’s decision as a “courageous choice” that would “alter history.” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, meanwhile, called it an “outrageous, grave and unprecedented violation” of international law, insisting Tehran reserves “all options” to defend its interests.

Iran’s ambassador to the UN demanded an emergency Security Council session and called the strikes “premeditated acts of aggression.”

Russia, a close ally of Iran, “strongly condemned” the US action. Its Foreign Ministry labeled the strikes a “gross violation of international law,” while Dmitry Medvedev, deputy head of Russia’s Security Council, dismissed their impact and provocatively suggested some states might now help Iran obtain nuclear weapons.

China echoed the condemnation. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said the strikes “seriously violate the purposes and principles of the UN Charter,” and warned of regional destabilization.

FASTFACTS

  • China and Russia have condemned US strikes on Iran while the UN and Europe have appealed for deescalation.
  • Analysts say without regional diplomacy led by powers like Saudi Arabia, the Israel-Iran conflict risks spiraling into wider war.

Chinese Ambassador to the UN Fu Cong called on Israel to halt hostilities immediately and backed a UN resolution demanding an unconditional ceasefire. Chinese analysts have also warned that the conflict threatens global trade routes such as the Strait of Hormuz.

Other voices have called for diplomacy. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned of a “hazardous escalation,” stressing that “military solutions are not viable” and urging a return to negotiations.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer — positioning himself as a bridge between the US and Europe — highlighted the danger of the war spreading beyond the region. While stopping short of endorsing the US strikes, he reiterated that Iran must not develop nuclear weapons and called for negotiations to stabilize the region.

European powers had previously been pressing for a deal requiring Iran to halt uranium enrichment, curb its missile program and stop supporting proxy groups. But Iran has rejected a full halt, claiming its enrichment is for peaceful purposes.

With Western diplomacy faltering, regional actors are stepping in. Most Arab states — including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and the Gulf states — have condemned Israel’s strikes on Iran and are working to deescalate tensions.

Still, these efforts have so far achieved little. Strikes continue, ceasefire mechanisms remain absent and attempts to coordinate sanctions or arms embargoes have stalled.

A narrow diplomatic window may remain. Recent Geneva meetings involving Iranian, US, and European officials showed conditional openness to talks. But the latest US strikes have likely hardened positions.

A plume of heavy smoke and fire rise over an oil refinery in southern Tehran, after it was hit in an overnight Israeli strike, on June 15, 2025. (AFP)

Analysts say the only viable path forward begins with renewed diplomacy, ideally starting with a ceasefire. Yet fundamental disagreements over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and widespread distrust leave a comprehensive solution elusive.

Some fear that Israel, emboldened by US support, may escalate its military campaign to seek regime change in Tehran — a move that would risk greater instability across the Middle East, as the world has seen in the recent attack over Qatar. 

Others argue that Iran’s military retaliation is a necessary step before negotiations can resume. However, nobody seems to safely conclude just how far this retaliation will go. 

Firas Maksad, managing director for the Middle East and North Africa at Eurasia Group, told CNN that without such a response, Iran would lack both international leverage and domestic legitimacy to reenter talks.

Still, he later added: “Diplomacy is dead for the foreseeable future.”

With Iran and Israel entrenched and global powers divided, prospects for a diplomatic breakthrough appear slim. Yet Katulis believes regional “swing states” — such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE — could help shift the dynamic.

“One of the biggest brakes on further escalation lies right in the heart of the Middle East itself,” he said. “The key ‘swing states’ like Saudi Arabia and the UAE could lead more regional collective efforts to avoid further escalation by working publicly and quietly with the main combatants to find pathways toward a diplomatic settlement.”

In geopolitical terms, these “swing states” balance relationships with Washington, Moscow and Beijing — and can influence outcomes through neutrality or engagement. Katulis believes Riyadh, in particular, could help change the calculus.

Right now, he said, Israel and Iran “have more incentives to engage in military action than they do to pursue diplomacy.” But “the key powers in the region like Saudi Arabia could do even more than they are already doing to change the calculus for Israel and Iran.”

Saudi Arabia has condemned Israel’s actions as violations of international law and warned that continued escalation threatens long-term regional stability. The Kingdom has urged the UN Security Council to take meaningful steps to prevent further deterioration and has refused to allow its airspace to be used in military operations — a clear signal of its neutrality and strategic caution.

Israeli first responders gather in front of a building destroyed by an Iranian strike in Tel Aviv on June 22, 2025. (AFP)

Looking ahead, the stakes remain dangerously high. Maksad has warned that unchecked escalation could have serious consequences.

“The last step in that escalatory ladder is to go after American bases, whether it is in the GCC, or perhaps even attempt to disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, where some 20 percent of global energy passes through,” he told CNN.

As the war drags on, the fragmented international response highlights the fragility of global diplomacy and the difficulty of conflict resolution in an increasingly multipolar world.

For Tehran, halting enrichment altogether would not only undermine decades of strategic investment but also damage regime legitimacy. As Maksad put it, Tehran’s “entire prestige rests on enrichment.”

Still, he sees a potential way forward: Focusing not on enrichment itself, but on preventing a weapon. “That,” he said, “opens up the possibility of a negotiated outcome.”

 


13-year-old Palestinian boy shot and killed by Israeli forces in West Bank

13-year-old Palestinian boy shot and killed by Israeli forces in West Bank
Updated 23 June 2025
Follow

13-year-old Palestinian boy shot and killed by Israeli forces in West Bank

13-year-old Palestinian boy shot and killed by Israeli forces in West Bank
  • Soldiers briefly detained Ammar Mutaz Hamayel after he was shot near the village of Kafr Malik, 17 km from Ramallah
  • He was handed over to Palestinian paramedics who took him to hospital, where he was pronounced dead

LONDON: A Palestinian teenager died after being shot by Israeli forces on Monday in the occupied West Bank.

Israeli forces briefly detained 13-year-old Ammar Mutaz Hamayel after he was shot near the village of Kafr Malik, before handing him over to a Palestinian ambulance crew, the Wafa news agency reported. The paramedics took him to the Palestine Medical Complex in Ramallah, where he was pronounced dead.

Kafr Malik, which has a population of about 2,500 Palestinians, is located 17 kilometers northeast of Ramallah and is surrounded by the Israeli settlement of Kokhav HaShahar.


Risk of genocide in Sudan ‘very high’: UN

Risk of genocide in Sudan ‘very high’: UN
Updated 23 June 2025
Follow

Risk of genocide in Sudan ‘very high’: UN

Risk of genocide in Sudan ‘very high’: UN
  • The fighting has killed tens of thousands and displaced 13 million, including 4 million who fled abroad, triggering what the UN has called the world’s worst humanitarian crisis

GENEVA: The risk of genocide in Sudan’s devastating civil war remains “very high,” amid ongoing ethnically motivated attacks by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, a top UN official warned Monday.

Since April 2023, Sudan has been torn apart by a power struggle between army chief Gen. Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan and RSF commander Gen. Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo.

The fighting has killed tens of thousands and displaced 13 million, including 4 million who fled abroad, triggering what the UN has called the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

“Both parties have committed serious human rights violations,” said Virginia Gamba, a UN under-secretary-general  and acting special adviser to UN chief Antonio Guterres on the prevention of genocide.

“Of specific concern to my mandate is the continued and targeted attacks against certain ethnic groups, particularly in the Darfur and Kordofan regions,” she told the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

She highlighted in particular that the RSF and allied armed militias “continue to conduct ethnically motivated attacks against the Zaghawa, Masalit and Fur groups.”

“The risk of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in Sudan remains very high,” Gamba warned.