blocking

Gaza Government Media Office says just 24 percent of agreed aid allowed into Gaza since ceasefire deal came into force.

Authorities in Gaza say that Israel has only allowed a fraction of the humanitarian aid deliveries agreed on as part of the United States-brokered ceasefire into the enclave since the agreement came into effect last month.

In a statement on Saturday, Gaza’s Government Media Office said that 3,203 commercial and aid trucks brought supplies into Gaza between October 10 and 31.

This is an average of 145 aid trucks per day, or just 24 percent of the 600 trucks that are meant to be entering Gaza daily as part of the deal, it added.

“We strongly condemn the Israeli occupation’s obstruction of aid and commercial trucks and hold it fully responsible for the worsening and deteriorating humanitarian situation faced by more than 2.4 million people in the Gaza Strip,” the office said in a statement.

It also called on US President Donald Trump and other ceasefire deal mediators to put pressure on Israel to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza “without restrictions and conditions”.

While aid deliveries have increased since the truce came into force, Palestinians across Gaza continue to face shortages of food, water, medicine and other critical supplies as a result of Israeli restrictions.

Many families also lack adequate shelter as their homes and neighbourhoods have been completely destroyed in Israel’s two-year military bombardment.

A spokesperson for United Nations chief Antonio Guterres said on Thursday that the UN’s humanitarian office reported that aid collection has been “limited” due to the “rerouting ordered by the Israeli authorities”.

“You will recall that convoys are now forced to go through the Philadelphi Corridor along the border with Egypt, and then up the narrow coastal road. This road is narrow, damaged and heavily congested,” Farhan Haq told reporters.

“Additional crossings and internal routes are needed to expand collections and response.”

Meanwhile, the Israeli military has continued to carry out attacks across Gaza in violation of the ceasefire agreement.

On Saturday, Israeli fighter jets, artillery and tanks shelled areas around Khan Younis, in the south of the territory. The army also demolished residential buildings east of the Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza.

Al Jazeera’s Tareq Abu Azzoum reported that witnesses in Khan Younis described “constant heavy shelling and drone fire hitting what’s left of residential homes and farmland” beyond the so-called yellow line, where Israeli forces are deployed.

“We have also been told by Gaza’s Civil Defence agency that it’s struggling to reach some sites close to the yellow line because of the continuation of air strikes and Israeli drones hovering overhead,” Abu Azzoum said.

Israeli attacks on Gaza have killed at least 222 Palestinians and wounded 594 others since the ceasefire took effect, according to the Ministry of Health in the enclave.

Israeli leaders have defended the continued military strikes and accused Hamas of violating the ceasefire agreement by not returning all the bodies of deceased Israeli captives from the enclave.

But the Palestinian group says that retrieval efforts have been complicated by widespread destruction in Gaza, as well as by Israeli restrictions on the entry of heavy machinery and bulldozers to help with the search.

Late on Friday, the International Committee of the Red Cross said it had transferred the bodies of three people to Israel after they were handed over by Hamas.

But Israel assessed that the remains did not belong to any of the remaining 11 deceased Israeli captives, according to Israeli media reports.

US Embassy urges citizens to leave Mali immediately on commercial flights as blockade makes daily life more dangerous.

Parts of Mali’s capital have been brought to a near standstill as a group affiliated with al-Qaeda imposes an economic siege on the country by blocking routes used by fuel tankers, in a bid to turn the screw on the military government.

As the Sahel country plunges deeper into crisis, the United States Embassy in Mali on Tuesday urged US citizens to “depart immediately” as the fuel blockade renders daily life increasingly dangerous.

Long queues have formed at petrol stations in the capital Bamako this week, with anger reaching the boiling point as the blockade bites harder. A lack of supplies has caused the price of fuel to shoot up 500 percent, from $25 to $130 per litre, according to Al Jazeera’s Nicolas Haque.

The Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM) armed group, which imposed the blockade last month in retaliation for the military banning fuel sales in rural areas, appeared to be succeeding in turning public anger against the country’s rulers, Haque noted.

“It’s up to the government to play a full role and take action, to … uncover the real reason for this shortage,” Omar Sidibe, a driver in Bamako, told Al Jazeera.

Haque said the al-Qaeda fighters were burning fuel trucks as supplies ran out.

Schools and universities have also been shut for two weeks, and airlines are now cancelling flights from Bamako.

Meanwhile, the US Embassy has warned Americans to leave Mali immediately using commercial flights rather than travelling over land to neighbouring countries, owing to the risk of “terrorist attacks along national highways”.

It advised citizens who choose to remain in Mali to prepare contingency plans, including for sheltering in place for an extended period.

Yet, Haque said, the military rulers were insisting “everything is under control”.

The army first seized power in a 2020 coup, pledging to get a grip on a spiralling security crisis involving armed groups affiliated with al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS), but years later, the crisis has only escalated.

Tanks ’empty’

Amid tense scenes from a fuel pit stop in Senegal, which neighbours Mali, truck drivers ready to travel across the border did not want to speak to Al Jazeera on camera. Haque said some transport companies had been accused of paying al-Qaeda fighters to move their trucks.

“They’ve been waiting here not days, but months, their tanks empty. Ahead for them is a dangerous road or journey into al-Qaeda territory,” Haque said from Dakar.

Meanwhile, in Bamako, citizens are growing increasingly desperate. “Before, we could buy gas everywhere in cans. But now there’s no more,” gas reseller Bakary Coulibaly told Al Jazeera.

“We’re forced to come to gas stations, and even if we go there, it’s not certain that there will be gasoline available. Only a few stations have it.”

JNIM is one of several armed groups operating in the Sahel, a vast strip of semi-arid desert stretching from North to West Africa, where fighting is spreading rapidly, with large-scale attacks.

Under the military’s control, the country severed ties with its former coloniser, France, and thousands of French soldiers involved in the battle against the armed groups exited the country.

The fighting has resulted in thousands of deaths, while up to 350,000 people are currently displaced, according to Human Rights Watch.

Reporting from Washington — By a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court kept in place Wednesday its order blocking video coverage of the trial of California’s Proposition 8, with a conservative majority ruling that defenders of the ban on same-sex marriage would likely face “irreparable harm” if the proceedings were broadcast to the public.

“It would be difficult — if not impossible — to reverse the harm of those broadcasts,” the court wrote in an unsigned opinion. The witnesses, including paid experts, could suffer “harassment,” and they “might be less likely to cooperate in any future proceedings.” The high court also faulted U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker for changing the rules “at the eleventh hour” to “allow the broadcasting of this high-profile trial” that will decide whether gays and lesbians have a right to marry in California.

The unsigned opinion clearly speaks for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The four liberal justices dissented and accused their colleagues of changing the court’s rules so as to “micromanage” a trial judge.

“The Court today issues an order that will prevent the transmission of proceedings in a nonjury civil case of great public interest to five other federal courthouses,” wrote Justice Stephen G. Breyer. “The majority’s action today is unusual. It grants a stay in order . . . to intervene in a matter of local court administration that it would not (and should not) consider. It cites no precedent for doing so. It identifies no real harm, let alone ‘irreparable harm’. . . . And the public interest weighs in favor of providing access to the courts.”

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor agreed.

The court’s order means that the trial can be seen only inside the courthouse in San Francisco.

Last week, Walker said the trial would be taped each day and posted on YouTube each evening. On Monday, he revised that plan somewhat and said the video coverage would appear on the court’s website. He also planned to have the proceedings streamed live to several courthouses around the country.

But the high court issued a temporary order Monday morning to stop the video coverage. The extent of the split became apparent Wednesday afternoon when the court issued the 17-page opinion and 10-page dissent.

The majority cited newspaper accounts from the last year to bolster its contention that opponents of same-sex marriage have been “subject to harassment,” including “confrontational phone calls and e-mail messages” and even “death threats.” Under the court’s rules, the justices do not intervene in pending cases unless they are convinced that the appealing side has a strong legal claim as well as evidence of “an irreparable harm” if the court fails to act.

Breyer scoffed at the notion that the witnesses in this case would face harm, because they have gone on television in the past to advocate their views. “They are all experts or advocates who have either already appeared on television or Internet broadcasts, already toured the state advocating a ‘yes’ vote on Proposition 8,” he said.

Advocates for equal marriage rights lambasted the decision. “The Supreme Court just struck a huge blow against transparency and accountability,” said Rick Jacobs, chairman of the Courage Campaign in Los Angeles. “The five conservative justices are enabling Prop. 8 supporters to mask their radical views. This historic trial will remain largely hidden from public view.”

Edward Whelan, a conservative critic of Walker, praised the majority for acting to rebuke him. He accused Walker of seeking a “show trial” in San Francisco to intimidate and embarrass the defenders of California’s voter initiative prohibiting same-sex marriage.

[email protected]

The Home Office has been refused permission to appeal against a temporary injunction blocking an Eritrean man from being removed to France as part of the “one in, one out” agreement between the two countries.

Last week, the 25-year-old, who arrived in the UK on a small boat, was due to be among the first people sent to France under the pilot scheme.

However, in a last-minute reprieve, the High Court in London gave him at least 14 days to make representations to support his claim that he was a victim of modern slavery.

The government had argued the order risked undermining the new returns policy, but the Court of Appeal refused Home Office lawyers permission to appeal against that decision.

The “one in, one out” scheme was announced by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron in July.

Under the treaty, France agreed to take back migrants who had travelled to the UK by small boat and had their asylum claim withdrawn or declared inadmissible.

For each person returned to France, the UK will accept someone with a case for protection as a refugee who has not attempted to cross the Channel.

Lawyers for the Home Office had argued that Mr Justice Sheldon, the High Court judge that granted the last-minute order halting the removal, had made a mistake when he did so.

“The judge’s decision to grant interim relief, and for such a significant period in the context of this policy, causes real damage to the public interest and undermines a central policy objective,” Kate Grange KC said on behalf of the Home Office.

Sonali Naik KC, who represented the asylum seeker, said the judge was “entitled to grant the order in the urgent circumstances he did, for the reasons he gave and for the period he did”.

Ms Naik said the man’s case “should be considered in its own context and on its own facts”, adding that it did not have wider significance for others whom the government might seek to remove as part of the returns pilot scheme.

In their judgement on Tuesday, Court of Appeal judges said the lower court had been “correct to hold that there was a serious issue to be tried on the question of whether the Secretary of state was acting unlawfully” by seeking to remove the man in those circumstances.

The United States has blocked yet another United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and for Israel to lift all restrictions on the entry of humanitarian aid.

Under the UN charter, the Security Council is responsible for maintaining international peace and security.

It’s made up of 15 members – 10 elected and five permanent, which have the power to veto resolutions.

This time, the 10 elected members plus the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China supported the resolution.

But Israel’s biggest ally – the US – refused, saying it did not condemn Hamas or recognise Israel’s right to defend itself.

Does it mean the UN Security Council is unable to carry out its mandate?

Presenter: Sami Zeidan

Guests:

William Lawrence – Professor of political science and international affairs at American University

Ardi Imseis – Associate professor of law at Queen’s University and a former UN legal officer

Xavier Abu Eid – Political scientist and former adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s administration on Wednesday appealed a ruling blocking him from firing Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook as he seeks more control over the traditionally independent board.

The notice of appeal came hours after U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb handed down the ruling. The White House has insisted Trump, a Republican, has the right to fire Cook over over allegations raised by one of his appointees that she committed mortgage fraud related to two properties she bought before she joined the Fed.

The case could soon reach the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority has allowed Trump to fire several board members of other independent agencies but has suggested that power has limitations at the Federal Reserve.

Cook’s lawyers have argued that firing her was unlawful because presidents can only fire Fed governors for cause, which has typically meant poor job performance or misconduct. The judge found the president’s removal power is limited to actions taken during a governor’s time in office.

Cook is accused of saying that both her properties, in Michigan and Georgia, were primary residences, which could have resulted in lower down payments and mortgage rates. Her lawsuit denied the allegations without providing details. Her attorneys said she should have gotten a chance to respond to them before getting fired.

Trump has repeatedly attacked Fed Chair Jerome Powell for not cutting the short-term interest rate the Fed controls more quickly. If Trump can replace Cook, he may be able to gain a 4-3 majority on the Fed’s governing board.

No president has sought to fire a Fed governor before. Economists prefer independent central banks because they can do unpopular things like lifting interest rates to combat inflation more easily than elected officials can.

Cook is set to participate in a Fed meeting next week. The meeting is expected to reduce its key short-term rate by a quarter-point to between 4% and 4.25%.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from carrying out speedy deportations of undocumented migrants detained in the interior of the United States.

The move is a setback for President Trump’s efforts to expand the use of the federal expedited removal statute to quickly remove some undocumented migrants without appearing before a judge first.

Trump promised to engineer a massive deportation operation during his 2024 campaign if voters returned him to the White House. And he set a goal of carrying out 1 million deportations a year in his second term.

But U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb suggested the administration’s expanded use of the expedited removal of migrants is trampling on due process rights.

“In defending this skimpy process, the Government makes a truly startling argument: that those who entered the country illegally are entitled to no process under the Fifth Amendment, but instead must accept whatever grace Congress affords them,” Cobb wrote in a 48-page opinion issued Friday night. “Were that right, not only noncitizens, but everyone would be at risk.”

The Department of Homeland Security announced shortly after Trump came to office in January that it was expanding the use of expedited removal, the fast-track deportation of undocumented migrants who have been in the U.S. less than two years.

The effort has triggered lawsuits by the American Civil Liberties Union and immigrant rights groups.

Homeland Security said in a statement that Cobb’s “ruling ignores the President’s clear authorities under both Article II of the Constitution and the plain language of federal law.” It said Trump “has a mandate to arrest and deport the worst of the worst” and that ”we have the law, facts, and common sense on our side.”

Before the administration’s push to expand such speedy deportations, expedited removal was used only for migrants who were stopped within 100 miles of the border and who had been in the U.S. for less than 14 days.

Cobb, an appointee of President Biden, didn’t question the constitutionality of the expedited removal statute or its application at the border.

“It merely holds that in applying the statute to a huge group of people living in the interior of the country who have not previously been subject to expedited removal, the Government must afford them due process,” she wrote.

She added that “prioritizing speed over all else will inevitably lead the Government to erroneously remove people via this truncated process.”

Cobb earlier this month agreed to temporarily block the administration’s efforts to expand fast-track deportations of immigrants who legally entered the U.S. under a process known as humanitarian parole. The ruling could benefit hundreds of thousands of people.

In that case the judge said Homeland Security exceeded its statutory authority in its effort to expand expedited removal for many immigrants. The judge said those immigrants are facing perils that outweigh any harm from “pressing pause” on the administration’s plans.

Since May, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have positioned themselves in hallways to arrest people after judges accept government requests to dismiss deportation cases. After the arrests, the government renews deportation proceedings but under fast-track authority.

Although fast-track deportations can be put on hold by filing an asylum claim, people may be unaware of that right and, even if they are, can be swiftly removed if they fail an initial screening.

Madhani writes for the Associated Press.

California and a coalition of other liberal-led states sued the Trump administration Monday over new rules barring undocumented immigrants from accessing more than a dozen federally funded “public benefit” programs, arguing the restrictions target working mothers and their children in violation of federal law.

President Trump and others in his administration have defended the restrictions as necessary to protect services for American citizens — including veterans — and reduce incentives for illegal immigration into the country.

One of the programs facing new restrictions is Head Start, which provided some 800,000 low-income infants, toddlers and preschoolers with child care, nutrition and health assistance.

Others include short-term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and at-risk youth; emergency shelters for people during extreme weather conditions; soup kitchens, community food banks and other food support services for the elderly, such as Meals on Wheels; healthcare services for those with mental illness and substance abuse issues; and other adult education programs.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office said states have been allowed to extend such programs to undocumented immigrant families at least since 1997, and the Trump administration’s “abrupt reversal of nearly three decades of precedent” amounted to a “cruel” and costly attack on some of the nation’s most vulnerable residents.

“This latest salvo in the President’s inhumane anti-immigration campaign primarily goes after working moms and their young children,” Bonta said. “We’re not talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, we’re talking about programs that deliver essential childcare, healthcare, nutrition, and education assistance, programs that have for decades been open to all.”

The lawsuit — which California filed along with 19 other states and the District of Columbia — contends the new restrictions were not only initiated in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner and without proper notice to the states, but will end up costing the states hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Bonta’s office said “requiring programs to expend resources to implement systems and train staff to verify citizenship or immigration status will impose a time and resource burden on programs already struggling to operate on narrow financial margins.”

It also said that the impact of the changes in California, which has a huge immigrant population compared to other states, would be “devastating — and immediate.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

The states’ claims run counter to arguments from Trump, his administration and other anti-immigration advocates that extending benefits to undocumented immigrants encourages illegal immigration into the country, costs American taxpayers money and makes it harder for U.S. citizens to receive services.

About a month after taking office, Trump issued an executive order titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,” in which he said his administration would “uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.”

The order required the heads of federal agencies to conduct sweeping reviews of their benefits programs and move to restrict access for undocumented immigrants, in part to “prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States.”

Trump cited the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 as providing clear restrictions against non-citizens participating in federally funded benefits programs, and accused past administrations of undermining “the principles and limitations” of that law.

Past administrations have provided exemptions to the law, namely by allowing immigrants to access certain “life or safety” programs — including those now being targeted for new restrictions.

In response to Trump’s order, various federal agencies — including Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Agriculture — issued notices earlier this month announcing their reinterpretation of the 1996 law as excluding “noncitizens” from more programs, including previously exempted ones.

“For too long, the government has diverted hardworking Americans’ tax dollars to incentivize illegal immigration,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “Today’s action changes that — it restores integrity to federal social programs, enforces the rule of law, and protects vital resources for the American people.”

“Under President Trump’s leadership, hardworking American taxpayers will no longer foot the bill for illegal aliens to participate in our career, technical, or adult education programs or activities,” said Education Secretary Linda McMahon.

“By ensuring these programs serve their intended purpose, we’re protecting good-paying jobs for American workers and reaffirming this Administration’s commitment to securing our borders and ending illegal immigration,” said Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer.

The Department of Agriculture also said it would apply new restrictions on benefits for undocumented immigrants, including under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. However, the states’ lawsuit does not challenge the Department of Agriculture, noting that “many USDA programs are subject to an independent statutory requirement to provide certain benefits programs to everyone regardless of citizenship,” which the department’s notice said would continue to apply.

Joining Bonta in filing the lawsuit were the attorneys general of the Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia.

GoFundMe has been accused of blocking “millions of dollars” of life-saving aid from reaching Gaza.

Charity leaders, activists and desperate Palestinians in Gaza have condemned the crowdfunding website for shutting down or blocking withdrawals for Palestine-related fundraising pages – and have accused bosses of having “blood on their hands”.

Despite questions from Al Jazeera, the company has not revealed the amount of money raised on its platform for Gaza that has been frozen in its system or has been refunded to donors.

But it has told Al Jazeera that more than $300m has been raised on the platform for both Palestinians and Israelis since Hamas’s October 7 attacks on Israel in 2023 and the beginning of Israel’s war on Gaza.

Hala Sabbah, the founder of mutual aid group The Sameer Project, said that in September, more than $250,000 of donations to her organisation was refunded.

The London-based NGO-sector worker described the closure of her GoFundMe page as a “disaster” for her group’s efforts to provide emergency aid in the enclave.

The Sameer Project runs a camp for displaced people in Deir el-Balah, providing healthcare and essentials to its residents – paid for by money that, until now, had been raised through GoFundMe, totalling more than $1m. It also funds food, water, shelter and clothing for people across Gaza.

Sabbah said she was “treated like scum” by GoFundMe, despite her group’s pages raising about $44,000 for it in transaction fees.

“Our GoFundMe page had daily updates with complete cost breakdowns of every single initiative we did – everything was well-documented, with receipts,” she said.

“This information – including all transfers – was forwarded to GoFundMe, yet they still chose to shut us down.”

GoFundMe notifies page organisers that there will be a “review” process after they launch fundraisers related to Palestine – or “the conflict in the Middle East”, as it is phrased by the company’s compliance team in emails seen by Al Jazeera. The company claims this is part of its “standard verification process”, but critics say it appears to inordinately restrict Gaza-related pages rather than those for other causes, such as Israel or Ukraine.

GoFundMe has refused to disclose figures that show how many Israel or Ukraine fundraisers have been closed compared with those for Gaza.

Intrusive reviews

Social media has been flooded with Palestinian advocates speaking out about their pages being shut down. Fundraisers for Israel and Ukraine appear to face little of the same scrutiny. And when they do, media campaigns can quickly force GoFundMe to act. One Ukraine fundraiser that was shut down in March 2022 was reinstated the next month after media coverage of the case.

The company’s long and intrusive review process often results in Gaza fundraisers being shut down and money refunded to donors or pages being “paused”, preventing funds from being accessed by account holders until the review is concluded.

One United States-based fundraiser for the Sulala animal shelter in Gaza says it had about $50,000 dollars refunded to donors when its first page was closed. The team behind the fundraiser then created another page without specifically mentioning Gaza or Palestine, which was not flagged by GoFundMe, placed under review or paused, and ran for months uninterrupted.

In the case of The Sameer Project, GoFundMe’s compliance team said it was concerned about how funds were being distributed, and said that the documentation Sabbah had provided was not “accurate, complete or clear”. An email to Sabbah added that there were “material discrepancies” between the information shared and how funds were distributed to beneficiaries.

Before shutting the page down, the compliance team asked for personal information about who was receiving funds, evidence of bank transfer statements and details about partner organisations, which Sabbah says The Sameer Project provided.

“We spent weeks fighting back, and they completely ignored us – even denying us access to our donor lists,” Sabbah told Al Jazeera.

“People can raise funds to help the Israeli military…  and their pages don’t get closed. But we try to raise money for diapers and lifesaving medication, and we get scrutinised and shut down.”

“We have children in our camp on the verge of death. The company has blood on its hands.”

The mutual aid group – named after Sabbah’s Gaza-based uncle who died in January – says it has provided more than 800,000 litres (211,330 gallons) of water, $100,000 in cash aid, 850 tents and medical treatment for 749 children across the enclave.

It transfers money to intermediaries via makeshift exchange sites and by sending money directly to doctors or pharmacies.

Crowdfunding websites have for months been one of the only feasible ways to help those trapped in Gaza.

Famine is creeping further into the enclave, humanitarian aid is being blocked for long periods, civilian infrastructure lies in ruin and banks and ATMs have either been destroyed or have halted operations.

Sabbah slammed GoFundMe for not justifying shutting her page down despite the huge amount of money the company made from the group’s pages in”payment processing fees”. It charges 30 cents per donation and a 2.9 percent cut of the total raised.

There are no banking services left in Gaza, but there are exchange offices – often people using POS (point of service) cash machines charging exorbitant interest rates – and the option to swap cryptocurrency for physical currency, amid critical shortages of the latter.

Without regular aid flowing into the enclave, most charities rely on sending money via these limited routes to intermediaries who will distribute essentials and medical supplies.

Some tinned food, tents and health products are on sale in Gaza markets. But cash is scarce, stocks are extremely limited, and most people cannot afford to pay. Since breaking the ceasefire agreement with Hamas brokered in January, Israel resumed bombing and re-established a blockade on humanitarian aid lasting months.

Now, aid is only reaching the enclave through the heavily criticised US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). Hundreds of desperate Palestinians have been shot and killed by Israeli forces at GHF aid collection sites.

‘Treated like animals’

Both still trapped in Gaza, Mostafa Abuthaher and his brother Yahya Fraij, aged 30, have twice created GoFundMe pages, and on both occasions, the company closed them down.

Yahya lost his home and three of his cousins to Israel’s onslaught, and now his family survives with only a makeshift tent near the beach in al-Mawasi in southern Gaza.

His wife gave birth to their six-month-old daughter during the war. Yahya told Al Jazeera that she has experienced nothing but suffering during her short life – and he has had to protect her from extreme cold and the trauma of Israeli bombardment.

“My daughter and I face death almost every day,” he said. “And now we have nothing – not even a tent. The war has taken everything from us.

“We’ve been treated like animals and insulted by the world for the last 20 months.”

The brothers had raised more than $12,000 to support their families until their first page was suddenly shut down. The company blocked them from withdrawing nearly $5,000.

In an email exchange with GoFundMe, a compliance officer said Mostafa’s page breached the company’s terms of service for “prohibited conduct”, which covers fundraisers that are “fraudulent, misleading, inaccurate, dishonest or impossible”.

He was asked to send a photo ID, provide his location and explain why his page description had changed so often and how the funds would be used. Then his page was closed, after which he expressed astonishment and accused the platform of bias.

The brothers say that many people in Gaza have set up GoFundMe pages because of the platform’s size and reputation, and then found themselves “trapped” once their pages began the often ill-fated verification process. Critics of GoFundMe say campaigns fundraising for Israel appear to be able to avoid similar interventions from its compliance team.

Other fundraisers on the website state they aim to raise funding for “equipment” that supports the Israeli military, or “training” and travel for new recruits.

A page raising money for gun sights and other equipment to “safeguard”  the Kishorit kibbutz in the north of Israel appeared to breach the website’s terms of service, but was active for nearly a year before no longer becoming accessible.

The terms of service prohibit fundraising for “weapons meant for use in conflict or by an armed group”.

Sabbah added that there is no guarantee that money from similar pages to fundraise for “equipment” or “security” won’t be used to buy weapons, at a time when the Israeli government is actively arming its citizens.

Double standards?

Al Jazeera sent several questions to GoFundMe, asking how many Gaza-related fundraisers there are, how much they had raised, the number listed as “transfers paused and the total removed or taken down. We also asked the company to provide like-for-like figures for Israel and Ukraine.

At the time of writing, GoFundMe refused to provide the specific information and data we requested. A spokesperson said: “GoFundMe has helped raise and deliver over $300m from donors in more than 215 countries and jurisdictions to support individuals and organisations helping those in both Gaza and Israel.

“Any suggestion of double standards is wholly without merit, baseless, and contrary to the values that guide our platform.

“Any decision to remove a fundraiser from the platform is never taken lightly and is informed explicitly by our Terms of Service. Taking action like this is difficult, but it protects our ability to support people who are fundraising to help others.”

Amr Shabaik, the legal director at the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), told Al Jazeera that the fundamental issue with platforms like GoFundMe was the “imbalanced application of rules” – behaviour consistent with other forms of digital censorship since October 7.

“Algorithmic discrimination and targeting, looking for certain descriptors and categories – like Gaza or Palestine specifically in the last 18 months – means some pages are subjected to an unfair and high level of scrutiny that other fundraisers are not,” he said.

“All platforms have their rules and regulations, but they’re applying them disproportionately and unfairly towards Palestinians.”

“There is a clear indication of a double standard. If you are actively preventing lifesaving aid – intentionally or unintentionally -– from reaching Gaza, it’s tough to say you’re not supporting a genocide.”

Shabaik points to studies undertaken by Human Rights Watch (HRW), The Arab Centre for the Advancement of Social Media and Palestine Legal that detail platforms’ inordinate targeting of pro-Palestine pages or accounts.

HRW says that between October and November 2023, 1,049 pro-Palestinian posts on Facebook and Instagram were taken down by the platform’s owner, Meta. Palestine Legal says that between October 7 and December 31, 2023, the organisation received 1,037 requests for legal support from people “targeted for their Palestine advocacy”. The Arab Centre for the Advancement of Social Media documented more than 1,639 “censorship violations” in its 2023 annual report, including content removal and suspensions.

Last December, the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) Freelance Journalists’ Union said that GoFundMe prevented $6,000 of funding from reaching the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate after its fundraiser was shut down. This is despite the organisation being based in Ramallah in the occupied West Bank, not in Gaza.

One union delegate, using the name “Arv” as he wanted to remain anonymous, told Al Jazeera the money would have provided protective helmets, press vests and other safety apparatus for journalists reporting in the territory. He added that GoFundMe said the fundraiser was shut down due to a lack of compliance with unspecified “laws and regulations”.

In December, a union spokesperson said on its Twitter page: “Over the course of the fundraiser, we received a dozen requests for further information from GoFundMe, all of which were answered as thoroughly and in as timely a manner as possible, given the ongoing war.”

Arv added that the union had been pushed to explore the use of other fundraising platforms because of the difficulty of working with GoFundMe.

“Current GoFundMe users should do the same before they too are caught in such Kafkaesque circumstances,” he said.

The GoFundMe compliance team asked for business information, such as bank accounts, and even after informing the union the information had been accepted, the page was still closed down.

GoFundMe boasts that it is the world’s number one crowdfunding platform, but it only allows fundraisers to be created in 20 nations (not including Israel, Ukraine or Palestine) – meaning people in Gaza are reliant on intermediaries thousands of miles away if they want to receive donations.

All those interviewed for this story and other campaigners have endorsed a boycott of the platform. Sabbah says she has since begun using the Australian crowdfunding website Chuffed, which reviewed her documentation and swiftly permitted her to withdraw, allowing her to continue her group’s work in Gaza.

The platform says it advocates on behalf of campaigners to sort out verification issues with its payment providers to prevent pages from being frozen or refunded.

Chuffed general manager Jennie Smith said: “We’ve been helping campaigners migrate from GoFundMe to Chuffed by the thousands over the last year and have seen firsthand the devastation the shutting down of their GoFundMe campaigns causes.”

Yahya described life for his family in his makeshift tent. He walks miles every day to get water and wraps up his baby daughter for the cold winter nights, fearing they may not wake up in the morning.

He says his family may have escaped the enclave if GoFundMe had allowed him to withdraw the money he raised.

“I try not to think about losing our money,” Yahya said. “If I kept thinking about how terrible everything is, I wouldn’t be alive now!

“But it makes you feel like everyone is conspiring against us. They are leaving us to die slowly.”

BALTIMORE — The Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against federal judges in Maryland over an order that blocks the immediate removal of any detained immigrant who requests a court hearing.

The unusual suit filed Tuesday in Baltimore against the chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Maryland and the court’s other judges underscores the administration’s focus on immigration enforcement and ratchets up its fight with the judiciary.

At issue is an order signed by Chief Judge George L. Russell III and filed in May blocking the administration from immediately removing from the U.S. any immigrants who file paperwork with the Maryland federal district court seeking a review of their detention. The order blocks the removal until 4 p.m. on the second business day after the habeas corpus petition is filed.

In its suit, the Trump administration says such an automatic pause on removals violates a Supreme Court ruling and impedes the president’s authority to enforce immigration laws.

“Defendants’ automatic injunction issues whether or not the alien needs or seeks emergency relief, whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the alien’s claims, and no matter how frivolous the alien’s claims may be,” the suit says. “And it does so in the immigration context, thus intruding on core Executive Branch powers.”

The suit names the U.S. and U.S. Department of Homeland Security as plaintiffs.

The Maryland district court had no comment, Chief Deputy Clerk David Ciambruschini said in an email.

The Trump administration has repeatedly clashed with federal judges over its deportation efforts.

One of the Maryland judges named as a defendant in Tuesday’s lawsuit, Paula Xinis, has called the administration’s deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador illegal. Attorneys for Abrego Garcia have asked Xinis to impose fines against the administration for contempt, arguing that it ignored court orders for weeks to return him to the U.S. from El Salvador.

And on the same day the Maryland court issued its order pausing removals, a federal judge in Boston said the White House had violated a court order on deportations to third countries with a flight linked to South Sudan.

A fired Justice Department lawyer said in a whistleblower complaint made public Tuesday that a top official at the agency had suggested the Trump administration might have to ignore court orders as it prepared to deport Venezuelan migrants it accused of being gang members.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said court injunctions “designed to halt” the president’s agenda have undermined his authority since the first hours of his administration.

“The American people elected President Trump to carry out his policy agenda: this pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand,” she said in a statement announcing the lawsuit against Maryland’s district court.

The order signed by Russell says it aims to maintain existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of the court, ensure immigrant petitioners are able to participate in court proceedings and access attorneys and give the government “fulsome opportunity to brief and present arguments in its defense.”

In an amended order, Russell said the court had received an influx of habeas petitions after hours that “resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive.”

The Trump administration has asked the Maryland judges to recuse themselves from the case. It wants a clerk to have a federal judge from another state hear it.

Thanawala writes for the Associated Press.

President Trump’s tariff strategy has been thrown into turmoil after a U.S. court issued a rare rebuke blocking many of the import taxes he has threatened and imposed on other countries.

In a ruling issued late Wednesday, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of International Trade declared that the Trump administration had wrongly invoked a 1977 law in imposing his “Liberation Day” tariffs on dozens of countries and they were therefore illegal. It also extended that ruling to previous tariffs levied on Canada, Mexico and China over the security of the U.S. border and trafficking in fentanyl.

The Trump administration immediately said it would appeal, putting the fate of the tariffs in the hands of an appellate court and potentially the Supreme Court. The ruling doesn’t affect Trump’s first-term levies on many imports from China or sectoral duties planned or already imposed on goods including steel, which are based on a different legal foundation that the Trump administration may now be forced to make more use of to pursue its tariff campaign.

It’s unclear just how fast Wednesday’s ruling will go into effect, with the court giving the government up to 10 days to carry out the necessary administrative moves to remove the tariffs. But if the decision holds, it would in a matter of days eliminate new 30% U.S. tariffs on imports from China, 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico and 10% duties on most other goods entering the U.S.

Those tariffs and the prospect of retaliatory ones have been seen as a significant drag on U.S. and global growth and eliminating them — even temporarily — would improve prospects for the world’s major economies.

There is uncertainty over whether the ruling represents a permanent setback to Trump’s push to reshape global trade or a mere impediment. Trump and his supporters have attacked judges as biased and his administration has been accused of failing to fully comply with other court orders, raising questions over whether it will do so this time.

A White House spokesperson dismissed the ruling as one made by “unelected judges” who should not have the power “to decide how to properly address a national emergency.” Trump has invoked national emergencies ranging from the U.S. trade deficit to overdose deaths to justify many of his tariffs.

“Foreign countries’ nonreciprocal treatment of the Unites States has fueled America’s historic and persistent trade deficits,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. “These deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base — facts that the court did not dispute.”

If the ruling isn’t reversed or ignored, one of the consequences could be greater fiscal concerns at a time when bond markets are questioning the trajectory of the U.S.’s mounting debt load. The Trump administration has been citing increased tariff revenues as a way to offset tax cuts in his “one big, beautiful bill” now before Congress, which is estimated to cost $3.8 trillion over the next decade.

U.S. importers paid a record $16.5 billion in tariffs in April and Trump’s aides have said they expected that to rise in the coming months.

Major trading partners including China, the European Union, India, and Japan that are in negotiations with the Trump’s administration must now decide whether to press ahead in efforts to secure deals or slow walk talks on the bet they now have a stronger hand.

Deal doubts

Also thrown into doubt would be the outlines for a trade deal that Trump reached with the UK earlier in May. That potential pact calls for the imposition of a 10% U.S. tariff on all imports from the UK that would be null and void if Wednesday’s decision endures.

“I don’t know why any country would want to engage in negotiations to get out of tariffs that have now been declared illegal,” said Jennifer Hillman, a Georgetown Law School professor and former WTO judge and general counsel for the U.S. Trade Representative. “It’s a very definitive decision that the reciprocal worldwide tariffs are simply illegal.”

Hillman and other legal experts pointed out that Trump has other legal authorities he can draw on. But none would give him as broad powers as those he invoked under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

A provision of the 1974 trade act gives presidents the power to impose tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days, though only in the event a balance of payments crisis, which Trump may not want to declare given the current nervous state of bond markets, Hillman said.

Trump could also invoke other authorities to impose tariffs on individual sectors or countries, as he did in his first term. In recent months, he has already used national security powers to impose duties on imported steel, aluminum and cars and launched seven other investigations pertaining to things like pharmaceuticals, lumber and critical minerals.

“The Trump administration’s toolbox won’t be completely empty,” Dmitry Grozoubinski, director of ExplainTrade and author of the book “Why Politicians Lie About Trade” said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. But as for IEEPA, “if they comply with this ruling that takes that toy out of the toy box.”

More uncertainty

Wednesday’s ruling came in two parallel cases brought by a conservative group on behalf of a small business and U.S. states controlled by Democrats.

“This ruling reaffirms that the President must act within the bounds of the law, and it protects American businesses and consumers from the destabilizing effects of volatile, unilaterally imposed tariffs,” said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the conservative Liberty Justice Center, which brought one of the cases.

For many other businesses, it brought the prospect of yet another sharp turn in U.S. tariff policies and more short-term questions and headaches.

Southern California-based Freight Right Global Logistics has several shipments on the water now for clients all over the U.S., carrying goods largely from China. Those containers are filled with everything from toys to robots, and it’s very uncertain what the tariff burden will be for those shipments when they land, said Freight Right Chief Executive Robert Khachatryan.

Khachatryan fielded questions Wednesday evening from his clients on potential refunds, which tariffs will be removed, and what would be the effective dates.

“We are working hard to answer customers questions but the reality is that there is not enough information out there yet,” he said. “Tomorrow we’re going to be all over the place figuring out what this means in practice.”

Donnan, Larson and Curtis write for Bloomberg News.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court dealt an unexpected blow Thursday to the conservative drive for religious charter schools.

The justices announced they were split 4-4 in a test case heard last month from Oklahoma, which blocks the new Catholic charter school in the state.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett had announced in advance she would not participate in the decision. A former Notre Dame law professor, she was a close friend of law professor Nicole Garnett, who led the drive for faith-based charter schools.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts sounded uncertain during the oral argument in late April. In the past, he had said states may not discriminate against religious groups, but Oklahoma’s law applied only to public schools, not private ones that were religious.

Defenders of church-state separation had argued that charter schools by law were public, not “sectarian” or religious. They urged the court to uphold the laws as written.

Four other conservative justices had signaled they would vote to allow the religious charter school.

While Thursday’s split decision is a major setback for religious rights advocates, it does not finally settle the issue of religious charter schools. It’s possible, for example, that Justice Barrett may participate in a future case.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.