Ukraine’s Ministry of Economy acknowledges arms makers’ request to export abroad, but it said the final decision rests with the military top brass after a risk assessment.
Category: Full Text Articles – Audio Posts
Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed Wednesday that the Israel Defense Forces eliminated Muhammad Sinwar, the de facto leader of Hamas and younger brother of slain October 7 mastermind Yahya Sinwar.
The IDF killed Muhammad Sinwar as part of a May 13 airstrike targeting “Hamas terrorists in a command and control center” beneath the European Hospital in the southern Gazan city of Khan Younis, according to a report earlier this month by Jewish News. Hamas “continues to use hospitals in the Gaza Strip for terrorist activity, demonstrating its cynical and brutal use of the civilian population in the hospital and its surroundings,” Jewish News noted at the time. That report went unconfirmed until Wednesday, when Netanyahu announced to the Knesset that the strike had killed Sinwar.
Sinwar’s death comes after the IDF in October killed his older brother Yahya Sinwar, a longtime leader of Hamas who orchestrated the terror group’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel. Muhammad Sinwar effectively took over the leadership role following Yahya Sinwar’s death, according to reports.
Hamas has lost more than a dozen other high-ranking officials, including political leader Ismail Haniyeh and military leader Mohammed Deif.
Netanyahu said this month that “there will be no way we will stop the war” until Hamas is completely defeated. Nearly 60 hostages remain in Hamas captivity, with as many as 23 believed to be alive, according to Israeli officials.
Dan Shapiro, who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel under the Obama administration, described Muhammad Sinwar as a major obstacle in peace negotiations.
“There is little chance the war can end before he dies,” Shapiro told CNN before Sinwar’s death. “His removal could open the door for the release of all hostages and beginning to move toward a post-war future for Gaza without Hamas.”
The post IDF Eliminated Hamas Leader Muhammad Sinwar, Netanyahu Confirms appeared first on .
Sometimes the most important relationships are the hardest to maintain. If you fall off track—and many people who were once close do—it’s possible to find your way back to each other with time and effort. “I have so many clients who have strained emotional relationships,” says Jenny Shields, a psychologist and bioethicist in Houston. One of the most common refrains she hears: “I used to be so close with mom or dad, and now I don’t even know how to talk to them in a happy, healthy way.”
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
If you want to rebuild and reconnect, Shields suggests starting by asking the other person these five questions.
1. “What kind of relationship do you want us to build from here?”
Shields recalls clients who thought their parents were perfectly content with the widening chasm between them—only to discover that mom or dad didn’t know how to express they actually longed for a closer bond. Until you talk about what you both want out of your relationship, hold off on any assumptions. Once you’ve communicated your intentions, work on devising what Shields describes as a “future game plan,” or a way to ensure that you both remain dedicated to reviving the relationship. “If you don’t plan,” she says, “good intentions fall apart.”
2. “What’s one habit you hope we both keep practicing?”
Maybe you can vow to get less defensive, while your mom pledges not to offer unsolicited advice and your dad commits to actually asking you questions. Talking candidly about specific behaviors to prioritize “acknowledges the humanity in us,” Shields says. “It’s the humility of, ‘I don’t always get this right, and neither do you, and sometimes we’re going to fumble.’”
Read More: 10 Questions to Ask Your Parents While You Still Can
Yet you’re also going to keep striving to be better. As Shields puts it, “We both have room to grow, and we both want to grow, because having a close relationship matters to us.”
3. “What’s a small, real way we can stay connected that works for both of us?”
Staying in touch is hard even for those most dedicated to it. It can be helpful to talk through ways of nurturing connection that feel doable—which doesn’t necessarily mean a scheduled phone call or video chat. Maybe you could go on a walk together every Sunday morning, collaborate on a shared Spotify playlist, or read the same book at the same time once a month.
Make sure whatever you opt for feels fulfilling and feasible on both sides, because that will help ensure enduring gains in closeness.
4. “What’s one thing I did this week that helped you feel seen or understood?”
There are things each of us do that (we think) let our loved ones know we care. But are they the right use of our time and energy? There’s one way to find out: Ask your family member what they value the most, Shields suggests, and then prioritize doing much more of it.
Read More: 9 Ways to Set Healthy Boundaries With Your Parents
That might mean remembering to ask your sister how her presentation at work went, complimenting your mom’s cooking, or offering to babysit your grandkids so their parents can have a night to themselves.
5. “What helps us find our way back when we drift? How can we recognize it sooner, and reach for each other with care?”
Inevitably, time and space and other obstacles will start to gnaw away at your relationships. “Life happens, things get in the way, and there will be conflict and tension, because we’re humans,” Shields says.
Acknowledge that—and make it clear that you care about each other and are committed to being in each other’s lives. Remind your friend or family member that hard times are a normal part of healthy relationships, and then talk through how you’ll navigate them in the future.
Wondering what to say in a tricky social situation? Email timetotalk@time.com
PumaBot targets Linux IoT devices, using SSH brute-force attacks to steal credentials, spread malware, and mine crypto.
Darktrace researchers discovered a new botnet called PumaBot targets Linux-based IoT devices, using SSH brute-force attacks to steal credentials, spread malware, and mine cryptocurrency.
PumaBot skips broad internet scans and instead pulls a list of targets from its C2 server to brute-force SSH logins. Once in, it runs remote commands and sets up persistence by creating system service files. Researchers analyzed its core features and related binaries to better understand the campaign.
PumaBot is a Go-based botnet that brute-forces SSH credentials from IPs fetched via its C2 server to spread and maintain access. After login, it deploys itself, collects system info, and sends it back in JSON format with a unique header. It hides in /lib/redis, creates a fake systemd service, and adds SSH keys to maintain persistence. The malware runs cryptominers like xmrig, and related binaries, like ddaemon and networkxm, support its campaign by enabling updates and further brute-force activity.
“The malware begins by retrieving a list of IP addresses of likely devices with open SSH ports from the C2 server (ssh.ddos-cc[.]org) via the getIPs() function. It then performs brute-force login attempts on port 22 using credential pairs also obtained from the C2 through the readLinesFromURL(), brute(), and trySSHLogin() functions.” reads the report published by Darktrace. “Within trySSHLogin(), the malware performs several environment fingerprinting checks. These are used to avoid honeypots and unsuitable execution environments, such as restricted shells.”
The malware uses smart evasion tactics during its SSH brute-force process. It checks the environment to avoid honeypots or restricted systems and looks specifically for the term “Pumatronix,” a maker of surveillance and traffic cameras, hinting at IoT targeting or an attempt to bypass certain devices.
“Notably, the malware checks for the presence of the string “Pumatronix”, a manufacturer of surveillance and traffic camera systems, suggesting potential IoT targeting or an effort to evade specific devices.” states the report.
If the system passes these checks, PumaBot collects system info, sends it to its C2 server, and hides itself as a fake Redis file with a persistent systemd service.
The researchers also discovered additional related binaries, suggesting the bot is part of a larger, coordinated campaign targeting Linux systems.
Concluding, the botnet poses a persistent SSH threat by brute-forcing credentials, mimicking legit tools like Redis, and using systemd for stealthy persistence. Its fingerprinting helps evade honeypots, and while not fully self-propagating, its worm-like behavior reveals a semi-automated campaign aimed at compromising devices and maintaining long-term access.
“The botnet represents a persistent Go-based SSH threat that leverages automation, credential brute-forcing, and native Linux tools to gain and maintain control over compromised systems.”concludes the report. “While it does not appear to propagate automatically like a traditional worm, it does maintain worm-like behavior by brute-forcing targets, suggesting a semi-automated botnet campaign focused on device compromise and long-term access.”
To protect against threats like this botnet, monitor for unusual SSH login patterns, especially many failed attempts from different IPs. Regularly audit systemd services for suspicious entries, like oddly named ones (e.g., mysqI.service) or binaries stored in strange locations such as /lib/redis. Check for unknown SSH keys in authorized_keys files, and watch for outbound HTTP requests with odd headers (like X-API-KEY: jieruidashabi), which may signal botnet activity. Finally, secure SSH access by limiting exposure of port 22 with strict firewall rules.
Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon
(SecurityAffairs – hacking, malware)
With four weeks to go until New York City’s primary election on June 24 — and early voting set for June 14 through June 22 — candidates are entering the final stretch of campaigning.
One of the most closely watched contests is the Democratic City Council race in District 39, which covers parts of Kensington, Borough Park, Windsor Terrace, Park Slope, Gowanus, Carroll Gardens, Cobble Hill, Boerum Hill and the Columbia Waterfront.
Three candidates are competing in the Democratic primary: incumbent Council Member Shahana Hanif, progressive challenger Maya Kornberg, and Nickie Kane, a community advocate and grassroots organizer.
Meet the candidates
Shahana Hanif
Incumbent City Council Member
Elected in 2021, the Brooklyn-born and -raised incumbent has prioritized affordable housing, workers’ rights, economic justice and immigrant rights. During her first term, Hanif—who co-chairs the City Council’s Progressive Caucus and Task Force to Combat Hate—secured $20 million in funding for schools, parks and infrastructure. She has passed 14 bills as the lead sponsor, including laws aimed at strengthening reproductive healthcare, environmental justice and workers’ rights, such as the Workers’ Bill of Rights.
“As a Council Member and Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus, I have been at the forefront of the fight for transformational change,” Hanif said on her campaign website. “I’m proud of the innovative legislation I’ve written and passed, including measures to expand access to reproductive healthcare, establish universal compost for the first time in NYC, and create a Workers’ Bill of Rights that’s now posted at worksites across the city.”
Hanif has received a number of key endorsements from elected officials, major unions and advocacy groups, including U.S. Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Yvette Clarke, City Comptroller Brad Lander, Assembly Member Zohran Mamdani, the AFL-CIO’s New York City Central Labor Council, the New York State Nurses Association and Planned Parenthood of Greater New York.
Maya Kornberg
Progressive challenger and local activist
Maya Kornberg, a local activist and Park Slope resident, holds a doctorate in political science and is a senior research fellow at NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice. Her campaign priorities include affordable housing, climate resiliency and sustainability, and public safety.
“I am committed to creating a greener district with sustainable, safer, and more accessible transportation options and more affordable housing,” Kornberg said on her campaign website. “As a parent, I am passionate about expanding access to affordable childcare and great schools in our district and throughout the city. My experience working to stop political violence equips me to champion policies that promote safety and sustainability for our community.”
Kornberg’s supporters include former Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, former U.S. Rep. Max Rose, the Independent Neighborhood Democrats and the NYC Organization of Public Sector Retirees. She has also received a 100% candidate rating from Planned Parenthood of Greater New York.
Nickie Kane
Grassroots organizer
Nickie Kane is a community advocate and grassroots organizer. According to Kane’s campaign website, the candidate is running an “independent political campaign focused on bringing real change to Brooklyn,” with a platform centered on community-driven solutions and common-sense reforms. Kane says she is “dedicated to representing the people — not the political machine.”
“My campaign has always been about the people of this district, not the deep pockets of outside interests,” Kane said on her campaign website. “Each and every signature collected to get me on the ballot was personally gathered, and I am proud that my campaign is driven by my own determination and dedication — not by corporate donors or special interest groups. I like looking the people of the district in the eye and hearing their stories and finding out what they need.”
New York’s primary election will be held Tuesday, June 24, with early voting scheduled from June 14 to June 22. To find your polling site, visit vote.nyc. The winner of this race will face off against Brett Wynkoop of the Conservative Party in the general election on Nov. 4.
This roundup is part of an ongoing series. Check back for more information on candidates in competitive races across Brooklyn.
Russia’s capacity to act as a trustworthy and legally compliant contracting party has eroded significantly due to its widespread violations of international law, politicization of contracts, weaponization of energy and trade, disregard for international arbitration rulings, and increasing reliance on informal, non-transparent deals. For international partners—especially in the West—Russia can no longer be considered contractually capable in the traditional, rules-based sense.
1. Contractual Capability
Contractual capability refers to a state’s recognized and reliable ability to enter, honor, and enforce binding agreements, especially:
- In international law (e.g. treaties, trade agreements),
- In commercial law (e.g. investment protection, arbitration),
- And in institutional settings (e.g. multilateral organizations).
Russia increasingly violates all three dimensions.
2. Reasons Russia Is Not Contractually Capable
a. Systematic Breaches of International Law
- Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine violates the UN Charter and the Budapest Memorandum (1994), which guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
- Its illegal annexation of Crimea (2014) and attempts to annex further Ukrainian regions undermine the credibility of any territorial or diplomatic agreements.
➤ If a state cannot be trusted to honor borders, it cannot be trusted to honor contracts.
b. Disregard for Arbitration and Legal Norms
- Russia has ignored rulings from:
- The Permanent Court of Arbitration (e.g. Yukos shareholders),
- The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR),
- And Western national courts (e.g. asset seizures, gas disputes).
- In 2022, Russia withdrew from the Council of Europe, insulating itself from legal accountability.
c. Weaponization of Contracts
- Russia routinely uses contracts as weapons, especially in energy policy:
- Gas cutoffs to Europe (2006, 2009, 2022) breached long-term supply agreements.
- Arms contracts with African states are often conditional on loyalty, not legal merit.
➤ This undermines predictability and rule-of-law, a core requirement for trust in contracts.
d. Opaque and Politicized Contracting Environment
- Russian contracting relies heavily on:
- Corruption,
- State secrecy, and
- Political loyalty.
- Foreign companies are often expropriated or bullied (e.g., McDonald’s, Renault, BP) under Kremlin pressure.
➤ Contracts are reversible on political whim, not legal principle.
e. Economic Sanctions and Isolation
- Russia is excluded from SWIFT, blacklisted by investment institutions, and subject to asset seizures in the West.
- Most contracts with Russian entities are now non-enforceable internationally, as Western legal systems do not recognize them or allow payments.
3. Implications for International Partners
➤ Investors avoid Russia due to unpredictable contract enforcement.
➤ Multilateral institutions view Russia as a spoiler or outlaw.
➤ Developing countries (e.g. in Africa) risk exploitation in asymmetric contracts.
➤ No real recourse exists for any party harmed by Russian breach.
4. Policy Recommendations for Foreign Ministries
- Treat Russian contracts as geopolitical tools, not legal commitments.
- Do not recognize deals involving stolen Ukrainian assets, occupied territories, or illegal arms transfers.
- Support international efforts to create postwar restitution mechanisms.
- Enforce legal sanctions on Russian-backed private military companies and corporate fronts.
5. Conclusion
Russia’s repeated abandonment of international legal norms, weaponization of economic agreements, and erosion of transparency mean it cannot be treated as a contractually capable actor in the global system. For the foreseeable future, any agreements with Russia must be seen as tactical, temporary, and non-binding, unless backed by hard power or strategic necessity.
Russia’s violations of political commitments with the U.S. and EU are not anomalies but strategic choices. Rooted in a worldview that sees the Western-led liberal order as both illegitimate and hostile, the Kremlin approaches agreements as temporary tools, not enduring obligations. These violations reflect a deeper doctrine of sovereign exceptionalism, geopolitical revisionism, and zero-sum confrontation, especially since 2007. Moscow’s breaches of agreements—from arms control to ceasefires—are instrumental in undermining Western unity, buying time for military buildup, and reshaping the international system to serve its interests.
1. Key Violated Political Commitments
2. Strategic Motivations Behind Violations
a. Revisionist Foreign Policy Goals
- Russia seeks to revise the post-Cold War settlement, which it views as humiliating.
- Political commitments are seen as temporary tools, useful until balance of power shifts.
- Agreements are broken when they no longer serve Russia’s strategic interests.
b. Sovereign Exceptionalism
- Putin’s Russia promotes the idea that international rules apply only selectively, especially to great powers.
- Western-led legal frameworks are viewed as Western-imposed, not universal.
- Kremlin doctrine favors multipolarity, but acts as a unipolar power in its own sphere.
c. Use of Commitments as Delay Tactics
- Russia often signs agreements to buy time—for:
- Military buildups (e.g., Minsk agreements),
- Strategic repositioning (e.g., ceasefires in Syria),
- Dividing Western political consensus.
d. Instrumental View of Diplomacy
- The Kremlin treats diplomacy as information warfare, not conflict resolution.
- Political commitments are used to manipulate narratives, not to stabilize relations.
3. Ideological and Domestic Drivers
a. Putin’s Narrative of Western Betrayal
- Kremlin rhetoric frames past commitments (e.g., NATO enlargement) as Western treachery, justifying current breaches.
- Domestic propaganda demonizes the West, reinforcing support for confrontation.
b. Autocratic Paranoia
- Russia views U.S. and EU democracy promotion as a threat to regime survival.
- Political commitments that promote transparency, rule of law, or civil society are seen as Trojan horses for regime change.
4. Implications for the U.S. and EU
a. Agreements Are Not Trustworthy
- Any political commitment with Russia should be backed by deterrence, not trust.
- Arms control, trade, or security agreements with Russia will not be honored unless enforceable.
b. Diplomacy Must Be Strategic, Not Idealistic
- Treat Kremlin promises as tactical moves, not genuine commitments.
- Focus must be on capability-based deterrence, not paper-based security.
c. Resilience Is the New Diplomacy
- Strengthening institutional and societal resilience (cyber, energy, election security) is more effective than signing more agreements.
Russia’s violation of political commitments with the U.S. and EU is systemic, strategic, and ideological. These breaches are rooted in a deep rejection of the Western-led liberal order and are not anomalies to be negotiated away. For Washington and Brussels, effective policy must begin with the assumption that Moscow’s word is only as strong as Western leverage. The future of diplomacy with Russia must be shaped not by hope, but by power, verification, and resilience.
More on this story: Kremlin’s Strategy: Leveraging Diplomacy to Justify the Next Phase in Ukraine
When you get invited to a wedding or a party, “yes” might feel like the only socially acceptable response. If your RSVP is something short of that, you might put off responding at all—or stumble into a response that’s unintentionally rude.
“We’re raised to be polite or not rock the boat and to avoid hurting someone’s feelings, and yet in trying to be nice, we end up being vague and unclear and often more hurtful than if we were just candid,” says Priya Parker, a conflict resolution facilitator and author of The Art of Gathering: How We Meet and Why it Matters. “There are so many ways to decline with grace, but instead of saying we’d rather not, we flake, or we’re ambivalent and say ‘maybe,’ which is horrible for the host.”
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
When opting out of a gathering, Parker recommends following this formula: acknowledge the invitation; honor something about it, like the host’s creativity or vision; express gratitude for the fact that they thought of you; and then clearly decline, without putting the weight of your reasons on the person inviting you.
Here’s what that might look like in action.
“That sounds like such a great time. I can’t be there, but thank you so much for the invitation.”
If you can’t swing an event, say so confidently and directly: “What a lovely invitation! Thanks for thinking of me.” “All invitations are nice, even if you don’t want them,” says Lizzie Post, co-president of the Emily Post Institute (and great-great-granddaughter of renowned etiquette expert Emily Post). That said, “You have the agency to decline them. They’re requests, not demands—they’re hopeful wishes.”
“Unfortunately, the timing just doesn’t work out on that exact weekend—but we’re so touched you invited us.”
Instead of sticking to a simple “yes” or “no,” some people turn their RSVP into a soliloquy about why they can’t attend. Parker recently heard from a woman who, while planning a 30th wedding anniversary celebration, received a surprising number of emails from invitees who weren’t sure if they could make it or not. “She was getting these responses, like, ‘If I come to your party, I’ll miss X, Y, and Z,’” Parker recalls. “Or, ‘I’ll have to move mountains to get there, but I’m trying.’” These types of notes made the host feel so badly, she second-guessed even having the party. In some cases, she felt compelled to apologize for causing them distress. “Do not transfer your guilt onto the host,” Parker says.
Read More: 9 Ways to Set Healthy Boundaries With Your Parents
On the flipside, the woman received one denial that was so lovely, she told Parker she read it multiple times, including to her husband, and shared it with others. It read, in part: “I was waiting to RSVP for your celebration because I was hoping to resolve a conflict we had. Unfortunately, the timing just didn’t work out on that exact weekend. I want you to know that we’re really touched you invited us. It’s so important to mark special occasions with people you love and who love you back, and we consider ourselves in that last category.”
“You always have the most creative ideas for parties.”
Aim to compliment something about your host that you genuinely admire. Maybe they always throw the most epic birthday parties, know exactly which restaurant to book, or reliably plan out-of-office mixers for colleagues in a lonely profession. The point, Parker says, “is to honor and see what it is they’re trying to do.” That will make it clear you appreciate them and cushion the blow of the fact that you can’t attend.
“I can’t believe I can’t make it to this. I really want to come—please put me on the list if you do it again in the future.”
If you genuinely feel bad about declining an invite, and hope it doesn’t preclude you from being included in the future, don’t refrain from expressing your enthusiasm. You might tell your friend: “I want to say yes so badly.”
Read More: 9 Things to Say When Someone Asks Why You’re Not Drinking
“Let them know this isn’t you faking it,” Post adds. “My cousin does this a lot. He’s like, ‘I can’t say yes today, but ask me again any time you think of it. I really want to do this with you.’ It works.”
“I’m sorry, I won’t be able to make it.”
No matter what, a short and to-the-point response is better than fibbing about why you can’t make it to a gathering. “Saying you’re committed to something else when you’re not is unnecessary,” Post says. “Why do it when there’s potential to get caught later on?” The host, after all, will be much more likely to forgive you for sitting out her second cousin’s baby shower than for lying about why you can’t be there.
“I really want to make this happen, but it’s not financially feasible.”
You don’t have to share that you’re declining an invite due to financial reasons, but if you have a close relationship with the person, it might make sense to provide context. Post’s friend, for example, is traveling to New York City this summer, and Post hopes to meet her there—but can’t swing a whole week in a hotel. Post told her how much she’d like to attend, and then added: “For me it would have to be a budget trip, and I’d need to really look into it to make sure I could commit.” From there, the two brainstormed solutions, like a shorter stay in the city.
“That’s not going to work for me, but I appreciate the invite.”
By wording your response like this, you’re making it clear that you’re setting a boundary, which can be useful if someone keeps pushing you after you’ve said “no” once. It’s best used when you don’t want to leave anything open for negotiation. “It’s short, clear, and calm,” says Cheryl Groskopf, a therapist in Los Angeles. “You’re not apologizing. You’re also not being rude—just honest.” Consider this approach if you often get talked into doing things you don’t want to do, she suggests. “Directness isn’t cruelty,” Groskopf says. “It’s clarity.”
“I’ve got a lot on my plate, and I’m being really intentional with my time right now.”
This option makes sense for those who feel they have to justify why they’re not attending a gathering, Groskopf says. It’s an especially good choice “if you’re the kind of person who’s always been the helper, the listener, the one who shows up even when they’re drained,” she adds. It focuses on your capacity, rather than the event or person, which is key. You’re simply saying, “I don’t have it in me right now.” “This one also gives the other person something they can understand,” Groskopf says. “Most people get ‘I’m maxed out,’ even if they don’t know what’s behind it.”
Wondering what to say in a tricky social situation? Email timetotalk@time.com
At least one Palestinian was killed and 48 others wounded while collecting aid from a distribution hub in Rafah, Gaza’s Health Ministry said Wednesday.
Crowds of Palestinians had broken through chain fences on Tuesday where thousands massed in an attempt to reach aid distributed under a controversial new U.S. and Israeli-backed organization, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
Read More: $25 Butter and $40 Eggs: The Search for Food in Gaza
Adjith Sunghay, head of the U.N. Human Rights Office for the Palestinian territories, said it appeared that the casualties were a result of Israeli gunfire. An Associated Press journalist heard Israeli tank and gun fire, the news agency reported.
The Israel Defense Forces have not yet responded to TIME’s request for comment.
Israel has said it helped set up GHF to stop Hamas from stealing aid, but has provided no evidence of the systematic siphoning of aid. The U.N. and other agencies have rejected GHF’s aid distribution system, which uses U.S. security contractors, as unethical and unworkable.
“We warned against the militarized & politicized aid hubs that today ended in chaos and aid stolen & diverted from families in need. This fiasco could have been averted if our normal humanitarian system had not been blocked for months by Israel,” Jan Egeland, Secretary General of the Norwegian Refugee Council, wrote on X.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday “there was some loss of control momentarily” at the GHF distribution hub but that “happily, we brought it under control.”
Food security experts and aid groups have warned of an “imminent risk of famine” since Israel ended a two-month ceasefire on March 2 and launched a total blockade of Gaza. Israel said the measures were to pressure Hamas to release the remaining hostages held in Gaza.
A statement from Prime Minister Netanyahu’s office on May 19 said Israel would ease the blockade and let in a “basic” amount of food to Gaza. The statement came hours after the IDF began a major ground offensive dubbed Gideon’s Chariots that would “take control of all areas” of the Strip.
On Sunday, the head of GHF, Jake Wood, stepped down citing concerns over the humanitarian principles of neutrality and impartiality and urged Israel to allow more aid into the Strip. The resignation came a day before GHF was due to begin distribution.
In a statement on Wednesday, the head of the U.N.’s Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Aid (OCHA) for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Jonathan Whittall, said that the “new distribution model cannot possibly meet Gaza’s needs.”
GHF said on Sunday that 1 million Palestinians, just under half of those living in Gaza, would be given supplies by the end of the week.
Amid a lack of access to food and supplies, Israel has issued displacement orders as part of the expanded ground offensive. OCHA said Tuesday that an estimated 632,000 people have been displaced since Operation Gideon’s Chariots began earlier this month.
