Winter storms plague Palestinians left in desperate need of aid by Gaza war

Thousands of tents sheltering displaced Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have been flooded as heavy rains and high winds have lashed the enclave

Hundreds of Palestinians sought refuge from the storm early on Tuesday amid the remnants of buildings largely destroyed by the Israeli army in Gaza City, according to witnesses.

Gaza Civil Defence spokesman Mahmoud Basal warned that thousands of partially destroyed buildings are at risk of collapse due to the rain and wind.

“These homes pose a grave danger to the lives of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have found no shelter,” Basal told Turkish news agency Anadolu. “We have warned the world repeatedly, but to no avail.”

Mazen al‑Najjar, the mayor of the nearby city of Jabalia, warned that “the weather depression came as displaced people were already living in catastrophic conditions.”

More than 90% of the buildings and streets in Jabalia and the northern Gaza Strip are destroyed, forcing Palestinians to live in worn‑out tents, the mayor said.

He added that the area’s infrastructure has completely collapsed, which meant that the streets were quick to flood, and sewage to overflow, in the early hours of the bad weather.

Palestinians living in buildings at risk of collapse are at great risk, he warned, with dozens of deaths and injuries recorded during a previous storm.

Noting that the efforts of municipalities, civil defence teams, and local and international organisations cannot “meet the great and growing need”, al-Najjar also called for urgent action from the international community.

Mobile homes are needed as a temporary relief measure, while safe camps must be established and infrastructure and sewage networks quickly rehabilitated, he stressed.

At least 14 people were killed in a winter storm in Gaza last week. More than 53,000 displacement tents were partially or fully flooded, swept away by torrents or torn apart by strong winds, and 13 buildings collapsed across Gaza.

Thailand demands unilateral ceasefire announcement from Cambodia

Thailand has demanded Cambodia must be the first to declare a halt in fighting in order to bring an end to the latest round of clashes between the southeast Asian neighbours.

“As the aggressor onto Thai territory, Cambodia must announce the ceasefire first,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maratee Nalita Andamo said during a briefing in Bangkok on Tuesday, the AFP news agency reported.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

She added that Cambodia must also cooperate “sincerely” in efforts to clear landmines in the border regions.

There was no immediate response from Cambodia. Each country has blamed the other for instigating the clashes, claiming self-defence and blaming the other for attacks on civilians.

Dozens killed

Fighting between the neighbours, prompted by longstanding rival claims to territory along their 817km (508-mile) land border, was reignited by a skirmish on December 7.

The renewed clashes at various locations have killed at least 32 people, including soldiers and civilians, on either side of the border, and displaced some 800,000, officials said.

Reporting from a temple hosting internally displaced people in Thailand’s Sisaket province, Al Jazeera’s Jack Barton said the sound of fighting echoed around the area.

“We can still hear the fighting … [including] the outgoing Thai artillery and the incoming Cambodian Grad [rockets],” he said.

The clashes have shattered a ceasefire pushed by United States President Donald Trump that ended five days of bloody combat in July.

Trump, who used the threat of trade tariffs as leverage to end the fighting, has also attempted to intervene in the latest clashes, claiming last week that the two countries had agreed to a ceasefire beginning Saturday night.

But daily fighting has continued since the latest outbreak of violence began, and Bangkok has denied Trump’s claim of a truce.

No pressure for ceasefire: Thai PM

Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul told journalists that there was no international pressure for a ceasefire, the Reuters news agency reported on Tuesday.

“No one is pressuring us. Who is pressuring whom? I don’t know,” he said, declining to answer a question on whether Trump was attempting to use the threat of tariffs to encourage Bangkok to end the fighting.

Meanwhile, Thai authorities were trying to find a way to repatriate up to 6,000 citizens who had been stranded by Cambodia’s closure of a checkpoint in the city of Poipet.

Hun Sen, Cambodia’s influential former leader and current Senate president, said the closure aimed to protect civilians from what he claimed was indiscriminate firing by Thai forces in the area.

Natural disasters hit global economy for $220bn in 2025: Swiss Re

Natural disasters caused $220bn in global economic losses in 2025, according to projections by reinsurer Swiss Re.

The company, which insures insurance companies, issued its preliminary estimate for 2025 on Tuesday. Despite the staggering cost of natural catastrophes, ranging from hurricanes to wildfires, the level of the losses was actually an improvement on the previous year, when the world was hit for $327bn.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

The 33 percent drop was recorded despite the wildfires that ravaged wealthy neighbourhoods in Los Angeles in January, burning more than 9,308 hectares (23,000 acres), destroying homes and businesses and forcing thousands to flee.

Swiss Re put the insured losses from the inferno at $40bn, labelling it the globe’s costliest wildfire to date.

That single event was a major contributor to the $107bn in insured losses from natural catastrophes in 2025.

The Zurich-based reinsurer pointed out that total insured losses were down 24 percent on the previous year’s total of $141bn, largely thanks to a less severe hurricane season in the North Atlantic.

“For the first time in 10 years, none of these hurricanes made landfall on the US coast,” said Swiss Re in a statement.

Still, insured losses from storms reached $50bn in 2025, with 13 named tropical storms registered during the North Atlantic tropical cyclone season, including three Category 5 hurricanes: Erin, Humberto and Melissa.

Hurricane Melissa, which left a trail of destruction across Jamaica, Haiti and Cuba, was the costliest storm of the year, with insured losses estimated at $2.5bn.

With wind gusts reaching 298km (185 miles) per hour, the hurricane was one of the strongest Atlantic storms on record, causing significant flooding and landslides, and leaving dozens of people dead.

Severe storms “remain a major and persistent global loss driver”, Swiss Re noted, pointing out that 2025 was the third costliest year for extreme weather events. That completed a recent hat-trick, with  2023 and 2024 provoking the biggest losses.

Overall, US events account for 83 percent of global insured natural catastrophe losses.

Why are French farmers objecting to EU-Mercosur trade deal?

France is pushing to postpone a European Union vote to ratify a trade deal with the Mercosur bloc of four South American countries, citing concerns about its effects on farmers and ongoing protests at home. The move risks derailing an accord that has been 25 years in the making.

The EU’s trade agreement with Mercosur, which comprises Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, was concluded a year ago but still awaits ratification. It is intended to expand access to overseas markets for European exporters struggling with tariffs imposed recently by the United States and rising competition from China.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

However, the pact has met strong opposition from farmers across Europe, who worry that a flood of cheap agricultural imports produced under the more relaxed environmental and agricultural standards of some South American countries will put them under too much pressure.

Securing a resolution to this is viewed by some as a test of Europe’s ability to act as a unified bloc, shortly after US President Donald Trump hit out at EU leaders for being “weak” and warning of “civilisational erasure” across the bloc.

What is in the EU-Mercosur trade deal?

Once ratified, the trade deal between the European and South American blocs would be the largest free-trade agreement brokered by Brussels in terms of tariff relief.

While talks initially began in 1999, progress has been repeatedly stalled by competing interests. For years, EU farmers voiced concerns about excessively cheap agricultural imports, while environmentalists have raised objections over deforestation in the Amazon.

Designed to cut tariffs and boost trade in goods and services between the two blocs, Mercosur would allow the EU to export more vehicles, machinery and wines to South America, in exchange for easing the entry of beef, sugar, soya beans and rice from the region into Europe.

At present, tariffs between the two blocs are high – Mercosur levies up to 35 percent on EU cars, machinery and food, while the EU imposes steep duties of up to roughly 15 percent on South American farmed goods.

This agreement would phase out most of these tariffs over time, but not all. Several key agricultural products would be managed through quotas and partial tariff reductions. Still, critics worry that it gives away too much to the Mercosur countries and would flood Europe’s markets with cheap South American commodities.

The EU is Mercosur’s second-largest trading partner in goods, with exports worth 57 billion euros ($67bn) in 2024, according to the European Commission. The EU is also the biggest foreign investor in Mercosur, with a stock of 390 billion euros ($458bn) in 2023.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is due to travel to Brazil on Monday next week to sign the agreement and create the world’s largest free-trade area.

Why is France hoping to delay ratification?

France, the EU’s largest agricultural producer, has been trying to rally other EU member states to form a blocking minority against the deal. It wants more robust safeguards for farmers added to the accord.

Meanwhile, as many as 10,000 farmers are expected to descend on Brussels, the Belgian capital and the de facto capital of the EU, to protest against the deal during the bloc leaders’ summit on Thursday and Friday.

The European Commission proposed protective measures, such as the suspension of Mercosur imports if inbound goods volumes rose by more than 10 percent or prices fell by the same amount. However, France describes these safeguards as “incomplete”.

On Sunday, in an interview with the German financial daily Handelsblatt, French Economy Minister Roland Lescure said the treaty, as it stands, “is simply not acceptable”.

The same day, French Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu called on the EU to delay a vote planned in Brussels, ahead of von der Leyen’s visit to Brazil on December 20, where she is expected to sign the agreement.

The timing of the Mercosur vote coincides with efforts by Lecornu’s minority government to secure parliamentary approval for a budget, including suspending President Emmanuel Macron’s controversial pension reform, before the end of 2025.

It also follows an outbreak of lumpy skin disease – a highly contagious livestock virus – in France over the summer, which has resulted in animal culls and protests by cattle farmers against what they see as overly strict measures.

Opposition to the trade deal is deeply rooted in France, with both far-right and far-left parties presenting it as evidence that Paris is yielding to Brussels at the expense of rural communities.

France has set out three conditions for approving the agreement: safeguard mechanisms allowing imports to be stopped in cases of dumping, “mirror clauses” requiring Mercosur products to comply with EU rules on pesticides, and tighter food safety inspections.

But if France’s terms are not met, it could try to block the agreement altogether.

How could the deal be blocked?

By voting it down.

Denmark, which currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency under which member states take turns setting the collective agenda, will have to decide whether to press ahead with a vote this week as planned.

If Denmark defies the dissenting countries, the agreement could be shot down. A blocking minority requires support from at least four member states representing 35 percent of the EU’s population. Ireland, Poland, Hungary and Austria have openly opposed the Mercosur deal.

Together with France, this group of countries represents more than one-third of the EU’s population – enough to form a minority bloc.

What are other EU member states saying?

Elsewhere in Europe, reactions reflect existing splits. Poland, Hungary, Austria and Ireland have voiced support for France’s position. “Any postponement is a very good signal,” said Polish Agriculture Minister Stefan Krajewski.

The Netherlands has yet to declare its position.

European Commission deputy chief spokesperson Olof Gill told reporters on X: “In the view of the Commission signing the deal now is a matter of crucial importance economically, diplomatically, and geopolitically, but also in term of our credibility on the global stage.”

Echoing that sentiment, Volker Treier of the German Chamber of Commerce, DIHK, said: “The EU must not miss the opportunity to strengthen ties with key trade and raw material partners in South America and to reduce existing trade barriers.”

Responding to France’s stance, the European Commission said it still expects to sign the deal by the end of the year. “In the view of the Commission, signing the deal now is a matter of crucial importance – economically, diplomatically and geopolitically,” it said in a statement.

Have EU members objected to the deal on other grounds?

Yes. Several EU members have also objected to the deal on environmental grounds, arguing that Brazil has failed to do enough to protect the Amazon rainforest. Critics point to recent spikes in deforestation rates and forest fires, and warn that boosting beef exports could lead to more land clearing.

At the Group of Seven summit in Biarritz, France, in August 2019, the then‑European Commission President, Donald Tusk, said: “It is hard to imagine a harmonious process of ratification [of the deal] … as long as the Brazilian government allows for the destruction of the green lungs of Planet Earth.”