内容摘要：“Do not allow ill-mannered individuals from other countries to cross the line here,” Hassan instructed security services.

“Do not allow ill-mannered individuals from other countries to cross the line here,” Hassan instructed security services.

since October 7, 2023 and more than 122,382 others wounded – most of them women and children.have entered Gaza since Monday through the Karem Abu Salem crossing, known as Kerem Shalom to Israelis, but the UN says only a third of those deliveries have reached warehouses inside the enclave due to security constraints and chaos on the ground.

The figure is far short of the more than 500 trucks that entered Gaza daily before the start of Israel’s war on Gaza in October 2023.A new United States-backed delivery mechanism – run by the newly established Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) – is expected to take over aid distribution by the end of the month. Under the plan, private contractors would escort supplies to secure hubs, where civilian teams would handle distribution.But the UN has refused to participate, saying the scheme does not meet basic humanitarian standards.

“The United Nations has been clear: we will not take part in any scheme that fails to respect international law and the humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, independence and neutrality,” Guterres said.He stressed that the UN already has the infrastructure to respond. “The supplies – 160,000 pallets, enough to fill nearly 9,000 trucks – are waiting,” he said.

“This is my appeal for life-saving aid for the long-suffering people of Gaza: let’s do it right. And let’s do it right away.”

Iranian dissident Jafar Panahi wins top prize at Cannes Film FestivalIndian media leaned on the global “war on terror” frame. By targeting Pakistan-based militants, India positioned itself as a partner in global security. Sound familiar? It should. It’s the same playbook used by the United States in Iraq and Israel in Gaza. Language like “surgical”, “precision”, and “pre-emptive” doesn’t just describe, it absolves.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s media leaned on the moral weight of sovereignty. India’s strikes were framed as an assault not just on land, but on izzat, honour. By invoking sacred spaces, by publicising civilian casualties, Pakistan constructed India not as a counterterrorist actor but as a bully and a blasphemer.This discursive tug-of-war extended even to facts. When India claimed to have killed 80 militants, Pakistan called it fiction. When Pakistan claimed to have shot down Indian jets, India called it propaganda. Each accused the other of misinformation. Each media ecosystem became a hall of mirrors, reflecting only what it wanted to see.

Ceasefire, silence and a call to listen differentlyThe guns fell silent on May 13, thanks to a US-brokered ceasefire. Both governments claimed victory. Media outlets moved on. Cricket resumed. Hashtags faded.