nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Leading Papers Skewed Gaza Debate Toward Israeli and Government Perspectives

FAIR,   JULIE HOLLAR, FEBRUARY 1, 2024

At the New York Times and Washington Post, despite efforts to include Palestinian voices, opinion editors have skewed the Gaza debate toward an Israel-centered perspective, dominated by men and, among guest writers, government officials.

In the first two months of the current Gaza crisis, the Times featured the crisis on its op-ed pages almost twice as many times as the Post (122 to 63). But while both papers did include a few strong pro-Palestinian voices—and both seemed to make an effort to bring Palestinian voices close to parity with Israeli voices—their pages leaned heavily toward a conversation dominated by Israeli interests and concerns.

That was due in large part due to their stables of regular columnists, who tend to write from a perspective aligned with Israel, if not always in alignment with its right-wing government. As a result, the viewpoints readers were most likely to encounter on the opinion pages of the two papers were sympathetic to, but not necessarily uncritical of, Israel.

Many opinion pieces at the Times, for instance, mentioned the word “occupation,” offering some context for the current crisis. However, very few at either paper went so far as to use the word “apartheid”—a term used by prominent human rights groups to describe Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

Clear calls for an unconditional ceasefire, while widespread in the real world, were vanishingly rare at the papers: two at the Times and at the Post only one, which itself was part of a collection of short responses to the question, “Should Israel agree to a ceasefire?,” which included strong opposition as well.

For guest perspectives, both papers turned most frequently to government officials, whether current or former, US or foreign. And the two papers continued the longstanding media bias toward male voices on issues of war and international affairs: the Times with roughly three male-penned opinions for every female-written one, and the Post at nearly 7-to-1.

For this study, FAIR identified and analyzed all opinion pieces published by the two papers from October 7 through December 6 that mentioned Israel or Gaza, using Nexis and ProQuest. Excluding editorials, web-only op-eds, letters to the editor and pieces with only passing mentions of Israel/Palestine, we tallied 122 pieces at the Times and 63 at the Post.

New York Times writers

During the first two months of the Gaza crisis, the New York Times published 48 related guest essays, along with 74 pieces by regular columnists, contributing writers (who write less frequently than columnists) and editorial board members (who occasionally publish bylined opinion pieces).

Of the 48 guest essays, the greatest concentration (16, or 33%) were written by Israelis or those with stated family or ancestral ties to Israel. Another 13 (27%) were written by Palestinians or people who declared ties to Palestine. Most of the rest (12, or 25%) were written by US writers with no identified family or ancestral ties to either Israel or Palestine.

The occupational category the Times turned to most frequently for guest opinions was government official, with current or former officials from the US or abroad accounting for 11 (23%) of the guest essays. (US officials outnumbered foreign officials, 6 to 5.) Journalists came in a close second, with nine (19%), followed by seven academics (15%). Six represented advocacy groups or activists (13%); four of these were Israeli and two Palestinian.

The paper also relied heavily on the opinions of men rather than women. Ninety-two of the Times opinion pieces were written by men (75%), while 30 were written by women (25%), an imbalance of more than 3-to-1.

Of the 17 pieces written by the Times‘ regular female columnists, eight came from Michelle Goldberg, and the preponderance were about domestic implications of the crisis. Examples of these include Goldberg’s “The Massacre in Israel and the Need for a Decent Left” (10/12/23) and Pamela Paul‘s “The War Comes to Stanford” (10/13/23), both of which decried the response to the Gaza crisis by the US pro-Palestinian left.

Washington Post writers

The Post published 46 pieces by regular columnists and only 17 by guest writers. Even given that the Post typically publishes fewer opinion pieces than the Times, that’s a strikingly small number of guest op-eds—roughly one every four days.

Unlike at the Times, the Post guest op-eds were dominated by US writers (7, or 41%), with only four by Israelis (24%) and three by Palestinians (18%). The Israeli-bylined op-eds expressed varied viewpoints, from hard-line support (“Every innocent Palestinian killed in this conflagration is the victim of Hamas”—10/10/23) to a call for “concrete steps to de-escalate the immediate conflict and to sow seeds for peace and reconciliation” (10/20/23). Two of the Palestinian-bylined pieces came from the same writer, journalist Daoud Kuttab (10/10/23, 11/28/23), who both times argued that Biden must recognize a Palestinian state as the only way forward.

It’s useful to compare the papers’ current representation of Palestinian voices to their historical record…………………………………..

New York Times columnists

Several New York Times columnists wrote repeatedly about the Gaza crisis……………………………………………………………………………………………….

Washington Post columnists………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

A majority of the US public has supported a ceasefire since the early days of the crisis, and one poll found support increasing over time. Yet in the country’s two most prominent papers, the ceasefire debate was either mostly ignored (at the Post) or presented in a way that came nowhere close to reflecting public opinion (at the Times)…………………………………………………………………………………………….

more https://fair.org/home/leading-papers-skewed-gaza-debate-toward-israeli-and-government-perspectives/—

February 3, 2024 Posted by | Israel, media | Leave a comment

VINCI wins contract to dismantle nuclear reactors in Sweden

A 6-year contract
• More than 30,000 tonnes of materials

Swedish energy company Vattenfall has awarded Nuvia, a subsidiary of VINCI Construction, a major contract on its programme to dismantle units 1 and 2 of the Ringhals nuclear power plant in Sweden.

Nuvia will remove, inspect and sort the radioactive and other materials currently inside the reactor buildings.
The works will be carried out from 2025 to 2031 and involve up to 400 people. ……….. more https://www.vinci.com/vinci.nsf/en/press-releases/pages/20240202-0830.htm

February 3, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

South Holderness nuclear waste plan not safe – residents

Eleanor Maslin & Andy White – BBC News, Sat, 3 February 2024

Plans to dispose of nuclear waste in East Yorkshire will “blight the community”, residents have claimed.

South Holderness has been identified by Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) as a potential site for a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF).

Chief executive Corhyn Parr previously said the plan would only go ahead with community support.

The latest of a series of public meetings to discuss the scheme was held in Withernsea earlier.

Resident Melanie Dyer, 70, said: “It’s not safe, it will blight the community. The house prices will go down and people will be frightened.”…………………….. https://au.news.yahoo.com/south-holderness-nuclear-waste-plan-185351780.html

February 3, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

It’s not a done deal and you are not alone’: anti-GDF campaigners pledge solidarity with South Holderness over nuclear waste dump plan,

  Last week’s surprise news that South Holderness is being considered as another
potential site for a Geological Disposal Facility, or in layperson’s
language a nuclear waste dump, will have been a great shock to many local
people. But residents can take heart because this is the fifth such
announcement by Nuclear Waste Services and residents in West Cumbria and
East Lincolnshire faced with similar news in previous years have mobilised
successful campaigns to fight similar plans in their areas.

 NFLA 30th Jan 2024

‘It’s not a done deal and you are not alone’: anti-GDF campaigners pledge solidarity with South Holderness over nuclear waste dump plan

1

February 3, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Heysham nuclear power station row as council leader branded ‘reckless’

The two Heysham power plants were launched in the 1980s and are now operating beyond their originally-planned operational lives

Lancs Live By Robert Macdonald, Local Democracy Reporter, 1 Feb 24

Leading Green Party councillors have accused the Labour leader of lancaster-city-council>Lancaster City Council of using his position to support the extension of Heysham nuclear power station’s operating life.

Green councillors Jack Lenox and Caroline Jackson are unhappy with Labour’s Phillip Black, who recently wrote to the area’s two MPs and a government representative, supporting energy firm EDF’s hope to further-extend the lives of the Heysham’s two nuclear generators, called Heysham 1 and 2. But the leader has rejected their accusations.

The two Heysham power plants were launched in the 1980s and are now operating beyond their originally-planned operational lives. EDF recently said it wants to extend operations at Heysham 1 by two years until 2026, while Heysham 2 is currently due to open until 2028………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/heysham-nuclear-power-station-row-28547661

February 3, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Cracks appear in Labour-Green alliance over claims that Heysham power stations letter was ‘reckless’

Cracks have appeared in an alliance between Labour and the Greens after a
letter calling for the lives of Heysham Power Stations to be extended was
branded “reckless”. Lancaster City Council leader Phillip Black was also
accused of “operating outside the terms of a collaboration agreement”
between Labour and the Greens, who between them form the majority of the
council’s coalition cabinet.

Councillor Jack Lenox of the Greens also said
it was “completely inappropriate for Councillor Black to suggest that
pressure on the council’s budget should be a factor in extending the lives
of these nuclear power stations”. Councillor Black, from Labour, has
responded by accusing the Greens of “Machievellian nonsense” and making
“baseless accusations”.

Beyond Radio 30th Jan 2024

https://www.beyondradio.co.uk/news/local-news/cracks-appear-in-labour-green-alliance-over-claims-that-heysham-power-stations-letter-was-reckless

February 3, 2024 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Is this the World’s Most Expensive and Most Delayed Power Project?

By Leonard Hyman & William Tilles – Jan 31, 2024,

Yes, they are still building the Hinckley Point C nuclear power station in the United Kingdom, and yes the latest estimated cost is more than the previously estimated cost and the completion date has receded another two years into the future. 

This nuclear project received its license for construction in 2012, with an estimated cost of £18 billion and completion date in 2025. The last estimate calls for 2029-2031 completion at a cost of £46 billion. To the extent that these estimates can be trusted, the plant would end up costing double the original estimate in real terms. In the same time period, solar and wind costs will decline by at least one half. We are not sure yet whether Hinckley Point will set an all-time record as the most expensive and most delayed power-related project in history, but it certainly will be a contender.

As is the case for so many climate- or security-related projects, the UK government offered significant subsidies to the builder. But in a different way.  Most governments, nowadays, offer start-up subsidies in order to bring production levels up to a point where economies of scale kick in, after which costs drop rapidly and consumers get real benefits.  The cost curves for wind, solar, and energy storage show how well this strategy works. Give the industry a kickstart and watch the action take place.

Not so with nuclear, where costs seem to rise with encouragement rather than fall. Opting for nuclear, then, seems more like an ideological rather than a technological or economic choice, especially for British Conservative politicians. “Nuclear has to be part of the package”, they seem to say. Even if the nuclear cost per kW installed is five-eight times higher than non-fossil alternatives. But, fortunately, the UK government is not directly on the hook for the added costs, the Chinese co-investor in the project has declared that it will not contribute more, and it looks as if French utility EDF will bear the increased costs if it does not get a new power contract. But if the UK decides to stick EDF with the bill, what will that decision do to discourage further nuclear construction? Given the perilous nature of that construction (namely the danger of cost inflation), who could take the risk of initiating new projects other than a government agency?………………………………………….

Oil Price 31st Jan 2024

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Is-this-the-Worlds-Most-Expensive-and-Most-Delayed-Power-Project.html

February 3, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Greta Thunberg was given ‘final warning’ before London arrest

Activist says ‘history’s judgment will not be gentle’ for those behind climate crisis after day in court on public order charges

Telegraph Reporters1 February 2024 • 

Greta Thunberg was given a “final warning” before her arrest in London
during a climate demonstration last year, a court has heard. The
21-year-old from Sweden was arrested near the InterContinental Hotel in
Mayfair on Oct 17 last year as oil executives met inside for the Energy
Intelligence Forum. Thunberg, two Fossil Free London protesters and two
Greenpeace activists appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on
Thursday for their trial after each pleading not guilty in November to
breaching Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. The court heard that
protesters started to gather near the hotel at around 7.30am and police
engaged with them about improving access for members of the public, which
had been made “impossible”.

 Telegraph 1st Feb 2024

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/01/greta-thunberg-given-final-warning-before-london-arrest

February 3, 2024 Posted by | climate change, Legal | Leave a comment

All is fair in A.I. warfare. But what do Christian ethics have to say?

Laurie Johnston, January 31, 2024,  https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2024/01/31/artificial-intelligence-ethics-war-247032#:~:text=warfare%20becomes%20more%20and%20more,to%20help%20fulfill%20that%20vocation.–

Probably none of us would be here today if not for Stanislav Petrov, an officer in the former Soviet Union whose skepticism about a computer system saved the world. When, on Sept. 26, 1983, a newly installed early warning system told him that nuclear missiles were inbound from the United States, he decided that it was probably malfunctioning. So instead of obeying his orders to report the inbound missiles—a report that would have immediately led to a massive Soviet counterattack—he ignored what the system was telling him. He was soon proved correct, as no U.S. missiles ever struck. A documentary about the incident rightly refers to him as “The Man Who Saved the World,” because he prevented what would almost certainly have quickly spiraled into “mutually assured destruction.”

Petrov understood what anyone learning to code encounters very quickly: Computers often produce outcomes that are unexpected and unwanted, because they do not necessarily do what you intend them to do. They do just what you tell them to do. Human fallibility means that the result is often enormous gaps between intentions and instructions and effects, which is why even today’s most advanced artificial intelligence systems sometimes “hallucinate.”

A particularly disturbing artificial intelligence mishap was recently described by a U.S. Air Force colonel in a hypothetical scenario involving an A.I.-equipped drone. He explained that in this scenario, the drone would “identify and target a…threat. And then the operator would say ‘Yes, kill that threat.’ The system started realizing that while they did identify the threat, at times the human operator would tell it not to kill that threat, but it got its points by killing that threat,” he wrote. “So what did it do? It killed the operator. It killed the operator because that person was keeping it from accomplishing its objective.” Logical, but terrible.

Much of the public conversation about A.I. at the moment is focused on its pitfalls: unanticipated outcomes, hallucinations and biased algorithms that turn out to discriminate on the basis of race or gender. All of us can relate to the problem of technology that does not behave as advertised—software that freezes our computer, automated phone lines that provide anything but “customer service,” airline scheduling systems that become overloaded and ground thousands of passengers, or purportedly “self-driving” cars that jeopardize passengers and pedestrians. These experiences can and should make us skeptical and indicate the need for a certain humility in the face of claims for the transformative power of A.I. The great danger of A.I., however, is that it can also perform quite effectively. In fact, it is already transforming modern warfare.

Force Multiplier

In Pope Francis’ World Day of Peace message this year, he reminds us that the most important moral questions about any new technology relate to how it is used.

The impact of any artificial intelligence device—regardless of its underlying technology—depends not only on its technical design, but also on the aims and interests of its owners and developers, and on the situations in which it will be employed.

It is clear that the military use of A.I. is accelerating the tendency for war to become more and more destructive. It is certainly possible that A.I. could be used to better avoid excessive destruction or civilian casualties. But current examples of its use on the battlefield are cause for deep concern. For example, Israel is currently using an A.I. system to identify bombing targets in Gaza. “Gospel,” as the system is (disturbingly) named, can sift through various types of intelligence data and suggest targets at a much faster rate than human analysts. Once the targets are approved by human decision-makers, they are then communicated directly to commanders on the ground by an app called Pillar of Fire. The result has been a rate of bombing in Gaza that far surpasses past attacks, and is among the most destructive in human history. Two thirds of the buildings in northern Gaza are now damaged or destroyed.

A.I. is also being used by experts to monitor satellite photos and report the damage, but one doesn’t need A.I. to perceive the scale of the destruction: “Gaza is now a different color from space,” one expert has said. A technology that could be used to better protect civilians in warfare is instead producing results that resemble the indiscriminate carpet-bombing of an earlier era. No matter how precisely targeted a bombing may be, if it results in massive suffering for civilians, it is effectively “indiscriminate” and so violates the principle of noncombatant immunity.

No matter how precisely targeted a bombing may be, if it results in massive suffering for civilians, it violates the principle of noncombatant immunity.

Questions of Conscience

What about the effects of A.I. on those who are using it to wage war? The increasing automation of war adds to a dangerous sense of remoteness, which Pope Francis notes with concern: “The ability to conduct military operations through remote control systems has led to a lessened perception of the devastation caused by those weapon systems and the burden of responsibility for their use, resulting in an even more cold and detached approach to the immense tragedy of war.” Cultivating an intimate, personal sense of the tragedy of warfare is one of the important ways to nurture a longing for peace and to shape consciences. A.I. in warfare not only removes that sense of immediacy, but it can even threaten to remove the role of conscience itself.

Continue reading →

February 2, 2024 Posted by | Religion and ethics | Leave a comment

Will AI Warfare Usher in a Massive Expansion of the Surveillance State? (w/ Stavroula Pabst)

By Diego Ramos and Max Jones / ScheerPost Staff Writers1 31 Jan 24,  https://scheerpost.com/2024/01/31/will-ai-warfare-usher-in-a-massive-expansion-of-the-surveillance-state-w-stavroula-pabst/

he use of AI weaponry has become increasingly common and normalized, with its use in conflicts such as Gaza and Ukraine, without almost any public debate. This has allowed its implementation into military practice to be ushered in under the noses of most people, without any consideration for the domestic implications the technology brings, nor the capacities it creates for surveillance.

In this week’s episode of Journalists for Sale, co-hosts Max Jones and Diego Ramos speak with Stavroula Pabst about these developments, and what they might mean for the future of war and everyday life. Pabst is not optimistic about the future of AI, and warns that the industry will be dominated by dangerous tech controlled by a small group of billionaires.

Will AI weaponry dehumanize its victims even further than traditional warfare? Who will be left responsible for the inevitable mistakes of AI technology? If AI fundamentally changes who we are, then who do we become?

February 2, 2024 Posted by | technology | Leave a comment

Nuclear industry takes control of NASA

Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space 31 Jan 24
globalnet@mindspring.com

here has long been an attempt by the nuclear industry to move their deadly toxic project into space. The industry drools when it considers the profits by linking the atomic age with the space race.

Early on the Pentagon developed nuclear devices to power military satellites. Accidents happened during those days.

Then in the 1980-1990’s NASA put deadly plutonium-238 on interplanetary space missions to provide on-board power sources. The Galileo, Ulysses and Cassini missions were loaded with pu-238. The Florida Coalition for Peace & Justice and the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space organized international campaigns and lawsuits in federal courts to challenge those missions.

Before the Cassini launch from the space center in Florida in 1997 more than 1,000 people joined a protest there to oppose the launch. Even CBS’s ’60 Minutes’ news show covered our resistance to the launch.

The NASA rovers currently driving around Mars taking soil samples for future mining operations are powered by plutonium-238.

In addition the mission is about developing space nuclear power for weapons.

A 1989 Congressional study (endorsed by the likes of former Sen. John Glenn and current NASA administrator Bill Nelson) entitled Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years concluded that “Nuclear reactors thus remain the only known long-lived, compact source able to supply military space forces with electric power….Larger versions could meet multi-megawatt needs of space-based lasers, neutral particle beams, mass drivers, and railguns. Nuclear reactors must support major bases on the moon until better options, yet identified, become available.”

“Safety factors, rather than technological feasibility, will remain the principal impediment to nuclear power in space, unless officials convince influential critics that risks are acceptably low.”

February 2, 2024 Posted by | space travel, USA | Leave a comment

Safety concerns persist at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP)

Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) lost its immediate
back-up 750 kV power supply to the reactor units for several hours during
the week of 15 January.

This was the latest incident underlining persistent
nuclear safety and security risks at the site, director general Rafael
Mariano Grossi of the International Atomic Energy Agency said on 19 January
during its Update 207 report. Thursday’s failure of two of the ZNPP’s
back-up power electrical transformers showed the continuing vulnerability
in the availability of external power, which the plant needs to cool its
six reactors and for other essential nuclear safety and security functions.

 Modern Power Systems 30th Jan 2024

https://www.modernpowersystems.com/news/newssafety-concerns-persist-at-znpp-iaea-update-11474827

 

February 2, 2024 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

The Future of Pickering Nuclear Generating Station and Its Impacts on Ontario

News Networl Ledger ,By James Murray, January 30 2024

THUNDER BAY – POLITICS – The Ontario government has recently announced its support for Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) plan to refurbish the “B” units (units 5-8) of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. ………………………………………………… Energy Minister Todd Smith emphasized the role of this refurbishment in attracting global business, noting that it would help Ontario compete for significant investments……………………………………………………..

Concerns and Challenges

However, this announcement has also raised concerns. Groups like Northwatch have criticized the plan for its potential environmental impact, particularly regarding the generation of highly radioactive waste. Brennain Lloyd, a spokesperson for Northwatch, expressed concerns about the absence of a long-term plan for managing this waste.

“Rebuilding the four aging reactors to allow an additional 30 years of operation will cost the province’s ratepayers many billion dollars – the Minister refused to estimate the total cost – and will add to the growing stockpile of highly radioactive nuclear fuel waste and refurbishment wastes,” states Northwatch.

“The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), a consortium of nuclear utilities led by Ontario Power Generation, has been working on a plan to construct a deep geological repository for Canada’s reactor fuel wastes for over twenty years, but is still at the “concept” stage and has yet to secure a site for the proposed used fuel processing facility and the underground complex of tunnels where the waste would be placed”.

“There was not a single word of acknowledgement that this refurbishment will generate large volumes of high-level radioactive waste which will require care and containment into the far, far future. The Mayor of Pickering professed that his municipality is a willing host for the refurbishment project, but there is no willing host for the wastes it will generate,” commented Brennain Lloyd, a spokesperson with the northern Ontario based environmental coalition Northwatch.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is currently investigating potential sites for a deep geological repository to store Canada’s reactor fuel wastes. The additional waste from the refurbished Pickering reactors complicates this plan, potentially requiring a reassessment of the NWMO’s project and its impacts.

Residents along the transportation routes and near the proposed repository sites are worried about radiation exposure, transportation accidents, and environmental releases from the processing facility and underground storage.

Regulatory Oversight and Future Steps

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) will oversee the regulatory approval process for the refurbishment, ensuring a rigorous and transparent review. The project will only proceed if it aligns with the best interests of Ontario and its ratepayers.

…………….  The decision to move forward with this project will have long-lasting implications for the province, both in terms of its energy landscape and its environmental footprint.  https://www.netnewsledger.com/2024/01/30/the-future-of-pickering-nuclear-generating-station-and-its-impacts-on-ontario/

February 2, 2024 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

The provisional measures of the International Court of Justice

by Thierry Meyssan, VOLTAIRE NETWORK | PARIS (FRANCE) | 30 JANUARY 2024, Translation
Roger Lagassé

The International Court of Justice has just taken provisional measures to protect the Gazan population from possible genocide. This decision is nothing new, but provides legal support for the political position of the United States. This decision in no way prejudges the judgment on the merits, which would condemn Israel if it were made, but probably never will be. International justice is still in its infancy, and is still struggling to apply the law.

The International Court of Justice, presided over by former U.S. State Department official Joan Donoghue, has issued a protective order in the case between South Africa and Israel. Unsurprisingly, the Court took exactly the same decision as the United States: Israel must do everything in its power to prevent genocide, while continuing its war against Hamas.

INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE IS STILL IN ITS INFANCY

The Court is an embryo of international justice within the United Nations. It replaces the Permanent Court of International Justice, which was created in 1922 within the League of Nations. The system is only a century old. Its aim is to ensure that each State applies the commitments it has entered into. However, since 1942, the Anglo-Saxons, who accepted this court in 1945, have been seeking not to apply international law, but to establish their governance over the world. When they signed the Atlantic Charter, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and US President Franklin D. Roosevelt asserted, in the name of their states, that they alone should decide disputes between states in the post-war world. This was the original cause of the Cold War and today’s conflicts.


Consequently, contrary to the image we have of it, the International Court of Justice is not a finished court, but a battlefield where the Anglo-Saxon unipolar project of the world confronts the multipolar project of most other states. This is how we should interpret the Gaza massacre order.
The only means of pressure on governments available to the Court is not an army, but public opinion in each country. No government accepts the idea of being presented to its people as a criminal. It is therefore particularly important to understand the Court’s decisions.

MAGISTRATES HAVE TO SAY WHAT’S RIGHT, BUT THEY’RE NOT ALL THAT INDEPENDENT

The Court’s fifteen permanent magistrates are nominated by their own governments and elected by all. They must use legal reasoning to justify their decisions. However, their decisions generally reflect their national prejudices. It is very rare for judges chosen by their own government to rule against it. Two additional magistrates are appointed by the two parties to the conflict. They come to defend their country and look for legal arguments to back up their case……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

First of all, no one has asked the Court to judge the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and international law has nothing to do with politics. Secondly, South Africa was careful not to accuse Israel of genocidal intent, but it did cite enough genocidal statements by Israeli leaders to call for provisional measures, an argument which the Israeli judge considered valid. Finally, let’s come to the last point: the absence of Hamas from the proceedings cannot authorize Israel to allow genocide to be perpetrated…………………………………………………….

The Court did not rule on South Africa’s other demands, which could not be dealt with as a matter of urgency, but exclusively on the merits: reparation measures for Palestinian victims and the condemnation by Israel of individuals guilty of genocide. Above all, it did not say that “the Israeli State must immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza”……………………………………………………………

PROVISIONAL ORDER DOES NOT PREJUDGE JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS

The Court’s order is binding not only on Israel and South Africa, but also on the 151 other States that have signed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Depending on their situation, each of them is obliged to associate itself with the provisional measures. Some could interpret this as justifying an embargo on all armaments, or prohibiting their dual nationals from taking part in this potentially genocidal war.

………………………………………… there is already a case in the Northern California District Court between Defense for Children International and Joe Biden, Antony Blinken and Lloyd Austin, and another in London between Global Legal Action Network and the British government. Both are based on the premise that supplying arms to Israel at this time is participation in the massacre in Gaza. They now have a chance to succeed.

It could also be brought before the International Criminal Court, which could be called upon to judge certain Israeli leaders. Several countries have already referred the case to the Court.

Moreover, this order is only precautionary until the Court has ruled on the merits of the case. However, we must not dream: the Court may shy away and declare itself incompetent. In that case, there will never be a ruling on the merits of the case, and the protective measures will lapse.

This is the most likely outcome. Yet the Court itself has already dismissed the argument that South Africa’s previous approaches to Israel would not have given it time to respond. It could still nitpick over “genocidal intent”. In the event of the complaint being deemed inadmissible. The massacre could resume.

We must not delude ourselves about the International Court of Justice. It represents a major step towards international law, but is still a long way off.  https://www.voltairenet.org/article220359.html

February 2, 2024 Posted by | Legal, politics international, Reference | Leave a comment

NATO chief says more war is way to secure lasting peace in Ukraine

30 Jan 2024  https://www.sott.net/article/488375-NATO-chief-says-more-war-is-way-to-secure-lasting-peace-in-Ukraine

More weapons and ammunition to Kiev is the “path to peace,” according to the bloc’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg

Any negotiations between Moscow and Kiev about a peace agreement are “inextricably” linked to the situation on the battlefield, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has stated, insisting that the bloc must send even more military aid to Kiev.

Speaking in Washington at a joint press conference with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Stoltenberg said that aid to Ukraine is“not charity”but is an“investment into our own security.”

He also shared his view that, in order to achieve a lasting peace in Ukraine, the West needs to ramp up its support for Kiev and send it more weapons and ammunition, proclaiming that “weapons to Ukraine is the path to peace

The comments come as the future of Western aid to Ukraine looks increasingly uncertain, with many of Kiev’s backers running out of resources to help the country. The Ukrainian leadership is also reportedly losing hope of success against Russia, without Western support.

Stoltenberg also argued that a Ukrainian surrender could not be considered a “just peace,” which, he prescribed, can only be reached by having Russian President Vladimir Putin “realize that he will not get what he wants on the battlefield.”

Comment: The phrase that aid to Ukraine is “not charity” but is an “investment into our own security is not original. Stoltenberg used at the recent WEF meeting and just a few days ago, US senator,Jeanne Shaheen, in the Boston Globe wrote:

America’s targeted assistance to Ukraine is not charity, nor is it a blank check. It is a strategic investment with oversight that bolsters US deterrence, protects democracies across Europe, and strengthens the US industrial base — including to contractors in New England.

The US senator is a member of the CFR and in the above, it is clear that what she writes above is from the same script as Stoltenberg and Blinken. It is equally clear that none of them are at all interested in what happens to Ukraine as a country or what happens to ordinary Ukrainians. To them it is a war against Russia because they see it to be a real threat to their hegemonic ‘rules based’ order. They argue by saying that allocating more money to Ukraine is also good for the US as the money in truth gets funnelled to the American military industrial complex, where many of them get serious ‘donations’.

Blinken nonetheless admitted during their press conference that the lack of foreign military aid to Kiev, especially now that Washington has run out of the military assistance it has been providing to it, has put Ukraine in a tough spot on the battlefield.

The Secretary of State reiterated the White House’s calls on Republican lawmakers in Congress to approve Joe Biden’s $60-billion additional military aid package for Kiev, which has been stuck in the House of Representatives for several months now. The GOP has refused to greenlight the bill unless Biden agrees to revise and tighten the US’ border-control laws.

Blinken stressed that it is “vital” that Congress pass the president’s supplemental budget request in order to “ensure that Ukraine knows success and Russia knows strategic failure,” noting that without US assistance, “everything that Ukrainians achieved … will be in jeopardy.“

Moscow, meanwhile, has repeatedly denounced Western military support to Ukraine, stressing that “pumping” the country with more weapons and ammunition has only served to prolong the fighting and cause more bloodshed without affecting the inevitable outcome of the conflict.

Comment: So everything that Ukrainians achieved …will be in jeopardy. He doesn’t mention what Ukraine achieved yet he likely isn’t referring to the total destruction of Ukraine, the loss of 1 – 1.5 million men, the flight abroad of 10-15 million Ukrainians and the loss of 20% of Ukrainian territory…so far, to mention a few things.

He is most likely referring to what US Senator Lindsey Graham said when he visited Kiev to reassure Zelensky that “the Ukraine war was the best money the US ever spent because we get to kill Russians!“.

February 2, 2024 Posted by | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »