Category World News

According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Israeli soldiers intentionally shot at Palestinians who were being “ordered” to aid in Gaza.

According to Haaretz, Israel reportedly ordered an investigation into possible war crimes based on the allegations made by some soldiers on Friday.

The Gaza Government Media Office reported on Thursday that at least 549 Palestinians had been killed and 4, 066 were hurt while waiting for food to be distributed at locations supported by Israel and the United States, according to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). Since its establishment in May, the GHF has received a lot of negative feedback.

Unnamed Israeli soldiers were cited in the Haaretz report as saying that Israeli troops were instructed to fire at Palestinians’ crowds and use unnecessary force against those who appeared to be ineffective.

One soldier told Haaretz, “We threw grenades and fired machineguns from tanks.” A group of civilians were hit while moving under the cover of fog once, according to one incident.

Another soldier claimed that between “one and five people were killed every day” while stationed in Gaza.

That soldier said, “It’s a killing field.”

Method of “control”

According to a military statement made available on Telegram, the Israeli army “strongly rejected” the claims in the report. Any claim of a deviation from the law or [military] directives will be thoroughly examined, and appropriate action will be taken. The article’s claims of deliberate fire directed at civilians are not acknowledged in practice, it said.

However, the report was denounced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz, who called it “blood libel” against the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), according to a statement released by The Times of Israel news outlet.

They claimed that “the IDF operates under difficult circumstances against a terrorist enemy that targets civilians.” “IDF soldiers follow through on their orders to avoid harming innocent civilians,” they say.

The Military Advocate General has instructed the army’s General Staff’s Fact-Finding Assessment Mechanism to look into alleged war crimes at these aid sites, according to Haaretz.

Nir Hasson, one of the report’s authors, claimed that the Israeli directive to fire on civilians was intended to “control” the aid seekers.

From West Jerusalem, he said, “You use fire to move people from one point to another, like if you wanted the crowd to run away [from] a place, you shoot them at them,” he said.

Hasson said he would likely hold a position in the army, even though the journalist and his colleagues are unaware of the name of the commander who might have issued a directive.

Despite this practice at these locations, the majority of Israeli soldiers and soldiers still hold the same conviction that the conflict in Gaza is legitimate, according to the journalist.

More and more people are asking themselves whether this war is necessary, as well as what the Gazan population is [paying] for this war, he said.

“A death trap,” that is.

According to the government media office of the enclave, “war crimes” are occurring at Gaza’s GHF aid distribution sites, referring to “the shocking confessions” published by Haaretz.

The statement added that the Israeli occupation army is using heavy machine guns, artillery, and shells against peaceful gatherings waiting for food as additional evidence that it is using a systematic policy of genocide under the false pretense of “relief.”

Hamdah Salhut, a journalist from Amman, Jordan, called the Haaretz report “shocking.”

Salhut claimed that Palestinians have now died at these distribution centers because of “people in Gaza.” Palestinians are left with no choice, according to aid organizations, who have stated that they must either starve themselves or go hungry in the GHF’s distribution centers.

Attacks on aid seekers have only increased since an Israeli blockade was lifted, and the GHF started distributing food at the end of May, and there are four locations where the GHF operates in Gaza, one in the center and three in the south.

In southern Gaza, doctors claimed on Friday that six people had been shot while trying to get food.

Aid organizations, including the UN, have condemned the GHF vehemently for its “weaponization” of crucial items.

In response to a question from Al Jazeera about the Haaretz report, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said, “We don’t need a report of that nature to acknowledge that there have been massive violations of international law in Gaza.” At a press conference in New York, he continued, “There must be accountability when there is a violation of international law.”

The GHF’s aid distribution sites were described as “slaughter masquerading as humanitarian aid,” according to the medical charity Doctors Without Borders, which is known by its French initials as MSF.

In an effort to end a trade war between the world’s two largest economies, the United States and China have reached an agreement to speed up the delivery of rare earth minerals to the US.

Donald Trump, the president of the US, claimed on Thursday that he had already signed a deal with China the day before, but he would not provide further details. He also said that he anticipates signing a trade agreement with India in the coming days.

The US and China’s reduction of mutual tariffs came after talks in Geneva in May led to Thursday’s announcement.

Talks in London began in June, setting the stage for negotiations. The announcement made on Thursday appeared to confirm that understanding.

A White House official stated on Thursday that the Trump administration and China had reached an additional understanding regarding the implementation of the Geneva agreement.

China’s Ministry of Commerce stated that it would review and approve applications for items that fall under the export control laws, as well as providing a framework for a deal.

What are our current knowledge of the US-China deal?

Following Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement on April 2 during US-China trade talks in Geneva, Beijing pledged to remove non-tariff countermeasures imposed against the US.

Washington first announced so-called “reciprocal” import duties when it halted them for 90 days, with the exception of its 145 percent tariff on China. On July 9, this pause is scheduled to come to an end.

China retaliated by imposing a 125 percent tariff on US goods, suspending exports of a wide range of crucial minerals, and endangering US carmakers, semiconductor companies, and military contractors’ supply chains.

However, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stated to Bloomberg TV on Thursday that “they’re]China going to deliver rare earths to us,” and that “we’ll take down our countermeasures” once they do so. Export restrictions on materials like chip software and ethane, which are used to make plastic, are among those US countermeasures.

The Chinese Commerce Ministry’s spokesperson stated on Friday that “both sides have further confirmed details about the framework after approval.”

According to the spokesperson, “The Chinese side will evaluate and approve eligible applications for controlled item exports in accordance with the law.” A number of restrictive measures against China will also be repealed by the US side.

According to two people with knowledge of the situation, China granted temporary export licenses to the top three US automakers in early June as supply chain disruptions started to appear as a result of export restrictions on those goods.

By codifying the conditions set out in Geneva, such as a commitment from China to deliver rare earths to all US businesses, Lutnick claimed the agreement from this week, which was signed on Wednesday, would amount to a wider agreement.

What makes Chinese rare earth minerals so crucial?

The US’s ongoing trade negotiations with China are centered on their export of rare earth elements. The world’s rare earths are mined to roughly 90 percent of their size, and Beijing is almost at the top of that field.

The auto industry, which relies on rare earth magnets for steering systems, engines, and catalytic converters, has grown particularly interested in critical minerals, a group of 17 elements that are crucial to a number of manufacturing processes.

Automobile manufacturers have already voiced concerns about the lack of rare earths and the magnets used to make them in their factories, which have already been shut down. A Ford executive claimed earlier this week that the business was “hand to mouth.”

Rare earths are used in a variety of products, including televisions, smartphones, and windmills, which are essential for the transition to clean energy. Additionally, they are used to produce AI processors, missile systems, and fighter jets.

What other trade agreements does Trump claim to be close to reaching?

Before his July 9 deadline for reinstating higher trade tariffs, which he paused on April 9, Lutnick told Bloomberg that Trump is also working on a number of trade agreements in the near future.

He said, “We’re going to do the top 10 deals, put them in the right category, and then these other countries will fall behind.”

Which countries would be included in that first wave of trade agreements, Lutnick did not specify. Trump made the suggestion that the US was close to reaching an agreement with India earlier on Thursday.

According to Bloomberg News, chief negotiator Rajesh Agarwal and other Indian trade officials are scheduled to meet in Washington for two days this week.

US officials have also spoken with nations like Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, and the EU in recent months.

Only the UK and the US have so far reached a trade agreement, while China and the United Kingdom have both signed lower reciprocal tariffs in Geneva.

Despite the agreement with the UK, there were still some issues raised, including the discounts that were imposed on some British metal exports.

What agreements are the US still trying to strike?

Prior to the expiration of reciprocal tariffs in early July, the majority of America’s major trade partners, including Canada, Vietnam, and South Korea, are anticipated to engage in contentious discussions with Washington.

There is no certainty for any of them as of yet, but the majority of nations are hoping to have their tariffs as much as possible and, if not, to extend the deadline for July.

Talks on particular topics have included:

European Union

A deal with the European Union, which had a $ 235.6 billion trade surplus with the US in 2024, remains a significant stumbling block.

The issue is whether EU leaders and the European Commission, which oversees trade issues for the 27-member bloc, agree to an “asymmetrical” trade agreement with the US, which would require terms that would be more advantageous to the US in order to close a deal more quickly.

Some member states are viewed as opposed to tit-for-tat retaliation, favoring a quick tariff cut over a flawless one.

Others are in opposition, though. France has pushed for the removal of tariffs and has rejected the idea of any deal favoring the US.

Japan

Japan wants to ratchet up any potential US tariffs in one go. However, Trump’s 25 percent tariffs on cars and car parts have been a sticking point in the negotiations.

Because autos account for the majority of its trade deficit with Japan, Washington is focused on the auto industry.

Tokyo’s automotive sector, which accounts for about 10% of the country’s GDP, is seen as a key component of its economy.

Tokyo’s top trade negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, reiterated Tokyo’s position on Thursday by saying, “We find the 25 percent car tariff to be unacceptable.”

Could the US’s tariff deadline go beyond July?

The White House said on Thursday that President Trump might choose to extend the deadline for reimposition of tariffs on most of the world’s nations.

Trump’s July deadline for resuming tariffs is “not critical,” according to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.

Leavitt said, “Perhaps it could be extended, but the president has to make that choice.”

She added that the president can “merely provide these countries with a deal” if any of those nations refuse to sign a trade agreement with the US by the deadlines.

The president can choose a reciprocal tariff rate that she believes will benefit both the American worker and the United States, she continued.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that lower courts likely overstepped their authority in issuing nationwide injunctions against presidential actions, limiting the ability of the judicial branch to check executive power.

Friday’s decision came in response to injunctions from federal courts in Washington, Maryland and Massachusetts which sought to block President Donald Trump’s ability to curtail the right to birthright citizenship.

“Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts,” the court’s majority said in its decision. “The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions.”

But the majority added that its decision applies “only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary”. The injunctions could still apply, the court suggested, to the plaintiffs in the cases at hand.

The ruling split the court once again along party lines, with its six conservative judges forming the majority and its three liberal judges issuing a dissent. Amy Coney Barrett, the court’s newest judge and a Trump appointee, penned the majority’s decision.

The Supreme Court’s decision was a major victory for the Trump administration, which has denounced “judicial overreach” as an unconstitutional obstacle to its policies. It will likely have wide-ranging ramifications for other cases where Trump’s agenda has been blocked by lower-court injunctions.

“Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump,” Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on the social media platform X.

Trump himself celebrated the decision on his platform Truth Social: “GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court!”

The Supreme Court’s ruling, however, did not allow Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship to come into immediate effect.

It provided a 30-day period before Trump’s order could be applied and ordered the lower courts to bring their injunctions in line with the new decision. Class action appeals are likely to be filed within that window.

How did this case arrive at the Supreme Court?

Lower courts had come out strongly against Trump’s efforts to redefine birthright citizenship, a right established under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which was adopted in the wake of the US Civil War.

The amendment declared that “all persons born” in the US and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would be citizens.

The courts have repeatedly interpreted that text as granting citizenship to nearly all people born in the US, regardless of their parents’ nationalities. There were limited exceptions, including for the children of diplomats.

But in his 2024 re-election bid, Trump campaigned on a platform that would see the Fourteenth Amendment reinterpreted to exclude the children of undocumented immigrants.

The new policy, his platform said, “will make clear that going forward, the children of illegal aliens will not be granted automatic citizenship”.

On the first day of his second term, January 20, he followed through on that campaign promise, signing an executive order called, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”.

But immigration advocates said that Trump’s policy violated the Constitution and could render some children stateless. Lower courts sided with them, issuing nationwide injunctions that barred the executive order from taking effect.

What did the Supreme Court majority say?

In Friday’s decision, the Supreme Court sidestepped making any decisions about the constitutionality of Trump’s proposed interpretation of birthright citizenship.

Instead, it focused specifically on the federal court injunctions that would stymie the president’s executive orders.

The decision came on the last day of the Supreme Court’s 2024-2025 term, when big decisions are often unveiled.

Writing for the majority, Justice Coney Barrett advanced an argument with threads of originalism, saying that the judicial system had strayed from its original mandate with such wide-reaching injunctions.

“Nothing like a universal injunction was available at the founding, or for that matter, for more than a century thereafter,” she wrote.

The majority asserted that injunctions historically had a limited scope, pertaining to the specific parties involved in a lawsuit.

“Traditionally, courts issued injunctions prohibiting executive officials from enforcing a challenged law or policy only
against the plaintiffs in the lawsuit,” Coney Barrett wrote.

Violence begets violence, so many religions say. Americans should know. After all, the United States – a nation founded on Indigenous genocide, African enslavement and open rebellion against an imperial power to protect its wealthiest citizens – cannot help but be violent. What’s more, violence in the US is political, and the violence the country has carried out overseas over the generations has always been connected to its imperialist ambitions and racism. From the US bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites on June 21 to the everyday violence in rhetoric and reality within the US, the likes of President Donald Trump continue to stoke the violent impulses of a violence‑prone nation.

The US news cycle serves as continual confirmation. In June alone, there have been several high‑profile shootings and murders. On June 14, Vance Boelter, a white male vigilante, shot and killed former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, after critically wounding State Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette. That same day, at a No Kings mass protest in Salt Lake City, Utah, peacekeepers with the 50501 Movement accidentally shot and killed Samoan fashion designer Arthur Folasa Ah Loo while attempting to take down Arturo Gamboa, who was allegedly armed with an AR‑15.

On June 1, the start of Pride Month, Sigfredo Ceja Alvarez allegedly shot and murdered gay Indigenous actor Jonathan Joss in San Antonio, Texas. On June 12, Secret Service agents forcibly detained and handcuffed US Senator Alex Padilla during Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s news conference in Los Angeles.

Mass shootings, white vigilante violence, police brutality, and domestic terrorism are all normal occurrences in the United States – and all are political. Yet US leaders still react with hollow platitudes that reveal an elitist and narcissistic detachment from the nation’s violent history. “Such horrific violence will not be tolerated in the United States of America. God bless the great people of Minnesota…” said Governor Tim Walz after Boelter’s June 14 shootings. On X, Republican Representative Derrick Van Orden wrote: “Political violence has no place in America. I fully condemn this attack…”

Despite these weak condemnations, the US often tolerates – and sometimes celebrates – political violence. Van Orden also tweeted, “With one horrible governor that appoints political assassins to boards. Good job, stupid,” in response to Walz’s message. Senator Mike Lee referred to the incident as “Nightmare on Waltz Street” before deleting the post.

Political violence in the US is commonplace. President Trump has long fostered it – such as during a presidential debate in Philadelphia, when he falsely claimed Haitian immigrants “eat their neighbours’ pets”. This led to weeks of threats against the roughly 15,000 Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. On June 9, Trump posted on Truth Social: “IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT… harder than they have ever been hit before.”

That led to a federally-sanctioned wave of violence against protesters in Los Angeles attempting to end Trump’s immigration crackdowns, including Trump’s takeover and deployment of California’s National Guard in the nation’s second-largest city.

But it’s not just that Trump may have a lust for political violence and is stoking such violence. The US has always been a powder keg for violence, a nation-state that cannot help itself.

Political violence against elected officials in the US is too extensive to list fully. Assassins murdered Presidents Abraham Lincoln, James A Garfield, William McKinley, and John F Kennedy. In 1804, Vice‑President Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Populist candidate Huey Long was assassinated in 1935; Robert F Kennedy in 1968; Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was wounded in 2011.

Many assassins and vigilantes have targeted those fighting for social justice: Dr Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, Elijah Parish Lovejoy, Marsha P. Johnson, and civil‑rights activists like Medgar Evers, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, Viola Liuzzo, and Fred Hampton. Jonathan Joss and Arthur Folasa Ah Loo are more recent examples of marginalised people struck down in a white‑supremacist society.

The most chilling truth of all is that, because of the violent nature of the US, there is no end in sight – domestically or overseas. The recent US bomb mission over Iran is merely the latest unprovoked preemptive attack the superpower has conducted on another nation. Trump’s unilateral use of military force was done, presumably, in support of Israel’s attacks on Iran, allegedly because of the threat Iran poses if it ever arms itself with nuclear weapons. But these are mere excuses that could also be violations of international law.

It wouldn’t be the first time the US has sought to start a war based on questionable intelligence or reasons, however. The most recent example, of course, is the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, a part of George W Bush’s “preemptive war” doctrine, attacking Iraq because they supposedly had a stockpile of WMDs that they could use against the US in the future. There was never any evidence of any stockpile of chemical or biological weapons. As many as 2.4 million Iraqis have died from the resulting violence, statelessness, and civil war that the initial 2003 US invasion created. It has not gone unnoticed that the US mostly bombs and invades nation-states with majority people of colour and non-Christian populations.

Malcolm X said it best, a week after Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated John F Kennedy in 1963: “Being an old farm boy myself, chickens coming home to roost never did make me sad; they’ve always made me glad.” Given that Americans consume nine billion chickens a year, that is a huge amount of retribution to consider for the nation’s history of violence. Short of repealing the Second Amendment’s right-to-bear-guns clause in the US Constitution and a real commitment towards eliminating the threat of white male supremacist terrorism, this violence will continue unabated, with repercussions that will include terrorism and revenge, domestically and internationally. A country with a history of violence, elitism, and narcissism like the US – and an individual like Trump – cannot divorce themselves from their own violent DNA, a violence that could one day consume this nation-state.