Israel blames UN for Gaza food shortage, 800 truckloads of aid wait for UN delivery Security official says UN refuses to deliver aid waiting at the Kerem Shalom crossing, aiming for Hamas to once again control the aid and its distribution; after pressure from EU, Israel allows aid to enter from Egypt, Jordan HJl86ht7Y_0_0_200_200_0_medium Elisha Ben Kimon|Yesterday | 13:26 Add a comment Related Topics United Nations humanitarian aid starvation Gaza Strip IDF Some 800 trucks carrying food and essential supplies are waiting inside Gaza, the IDF said, while the UN and aid agencies fail to collect them because of disputes with Israel. "The UN is working to prevent the supply of aid, aiming for the distribution to be in the hands of Hamas to control and dispense the aid to the population. We are aware of the disturbing images coming from the Strip, but Israel is not causing the catastrophe," A security official said. Top Videos 2 View gallery חלוקת מזון בעזה Food distribution in Gaza (Photo: Mahmoud Issa / Reuters) by TaboolaSponsored Links. Easy Trick to Protect Your Kids From Mosquitoes (They Can't Stand This) Squito Stickers Locate Anyone By Entering Their Name (It's Addicting) Been Verified Do You Have Mice in Your House? (Do this) Vamoose הסיוע ההומניטרי בכרם שלום Humanitarian aid on the Gaza side of the Kerem Shalom crossing (Photo: COGAT) Amid worldwide criticism and accusations that Israel was starving the civilian population in the Strip, the IDF brought reporters to see the trucks that were parked on the Gaza side of the border near Kerem Shalom. Officials said that Israel had come under increased pressure from the European Union in recent weeks and was warned that sanctions may be imposed. As a result, the government decided to allow aid to be brought in through Jordan and Egypt and to deliver fuel for the UN's critical facilities. More Stories 'He spoke Hebrew and the police was called,' boy removed from flight in Spain says jewish scene Jewish children kicked off Spanish plane told to remove Jewish symbols before boarding new flight jewish scene 'Outstanding and beloved': IDF lone soldier dies after suicide attempt during basic training news Israel also reopened a border crossing to northern Gaza, at Zikim, after it was closed following armed men confiscating the aid. Ad Get the Ynetnews app on your smartphone: Google Play: https://bit.ly/4eJ37pE | Apple App Store: https://bit.ly/3ZL7iNv "We are constantly assessing the humanitarian aid situation in Gaza to provide an adequate response to the needs," the security official said. "We are aware of the disturbing images coming from the Strip, but Israel is not causing the catastrophe," the official said. The UN claims most of the population in Gaza is at risk of starvation. The Hamas Health Ministry said 70,000 children are showing signs of malnutrition and since the start of the war, 113 people have died of hunger, two of them in the last day. The IDF said on Tuesday that their daily investigations have not revealed hunger in the Strip however, the Israeli claims have been rejected by major media outlets as images of starvations have spread around the world. "We are trying to survive on an hourly basis," one woman said. "I must go on. I have an eight-month-old baby who does not know the taste of fruit."
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
-
-
-
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment