Legal « nuclear-news

Going Native in the Trump Jungle: How it became Legal to Attack Iran

3 March 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark , https://theaimn.net/going-native-in-the-trump-jungle-how-it-became-legal-to-attack-iran/

The allies of the United States have gone native, feral even, in the jungle of international relations planted by President Donald J. Trump. While we keep hearing about how awful Russia’s war against Ukraine is, with its shattering of international law and its dismissiveness of the provisions of the United Nations Charter, the Israeli-US attack on Iran has been given the seal of approval by America’s client states and supporters. Countries such as the UK, France, Germany, Australia and Canada, for instance, were clear in endorsing a UN General Assembly resolution on February 24 supporting Ukraine in the face of Russia’s violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The provision explicitly “prohibits the threat or use of force,” calling on Member states “to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States.” Nothing of the sort has been seen regarding the illegal assault on Iran that began on February 28

Most pitiful in the repudiation of the Charter by US allies are the stances of the supposed “middle powers”, a term as flattering as middle management. These middling types – Australia and Canada stand out here – have been keen to wish themselves into abject irrelevance on the issue of international law. This is despite calls from the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney that like-minded powers should club together to rectify the collapse of the rules-based international order so cherished under the Pax Americana. At his speech delivered at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos, Carney extolled the ideas of being principled and pragmatic which would include valuing “sovereignty, territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force, except when consistent with the UN Charter.” Nothing of this was evident in the joint February 28 statement from Carney and his Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand: “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.”

All craven positions taken by states have slight differences, and the Australian one can be measured by the position that not taking part in the strikes does not mean having to consider their legal nature. “Obviously,” said Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong on March 1, “Australia did not participate in these strikes.” But it supported “action to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security.”

The United Kingdom has gone one better by becoming entirely revisionist. In a March 1 statement, the government of Sir Keir Starmer revealed why the UK would be committing to the conflict against Tehran. This was not about Iran being pre-emptively and unlawfully attacked in the first place but Iran daring to defend itself by attacking regional powers hosting US military bases and personnel. Britain would therefore be mounting, at the insistence of Washington, a “defensive action” by targeting “missile facilities in Iran which were involved in launching strikes on regional allies.” It would also act “in the collective self-defence of regional allies who have requested support.” Any propaganda minister in the annals of history would have been proud of that fatuous formulation.

The propaganda of justification focuses on positions that, were they to become a template, could be applied to any number of regimes in the world. Do they crush and violate the human rights of their subjects, restrict lawful assembly, and fire on protestors? Are they theocracies, or governed by martial law, or traditional police states? Do they destabilise their region with needless meddling, posing “imminent” threats? Along the way, forget the limits on the use of force as stated in the UN Charter: that the territorial integrity of all states should be respected, and that any permission for the use of force should take place via the UN Security Council or be undertaken in cases of self-defence.

With sheer abandon, then, we can justify bumping off the leaders, the commanders, and the top officials – but be selective which theocracies, autocratic thugs and shifty types we want to keep company with. And the one to be selective here is Trump, who has personalised international relations with such dramatic effect as to terrify his allies into complicity and obedience. To condemn the actions against Iran as illegal could lead to frosty dismissal, the imposition of crushing sanctions or tariffs, exclusion from intelligence sharing, the shutting off from cooperative ventures. Be good to Donald, or he will bite. Best be bad to everybody he dislikes.

Important in the apologias for attacking Iran has been the anecdotal gauging of attitudes from the Iranian diaspora to be found in Canada, the US, Australia and Europe. Celebratory gestures of flag waving and ghoulish revelling in the death of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, albeit understandable, have also been used to rationalise the war. The Iranian security apparatus had been brutal in putting down protests by brave citizens. We can forget what follows: greater instability and fractiousness within the borders of that state. The creation of more regional problems. The potential for even greater fanaticism and resolve.

In terms of immediate international consequences, protests against the killing of Khamanei in other Islamic states have taken place, in some cases with brutal results. In Pakistan, security forces have used lethal force, leaving 10 dead in Karachi, eight in Skardu and two in Islamabad. Yet little mention in the corridors of Western power is made about these fallen, presumably because they were not the right or relevant sort.

Both the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the NATO-led attacks on Libya in 2011 offer disturbing lessons, none of which interest the ahistorical outlaws of the Trump Jungle. The crime of international aggression against Iraq demonstrated the importance of lies and inflated threats – in that case deployable Weapons of Mass Destruction that were never found – along with the dismal failure of occupation and nation building. The Libyan example is seminal given the current aerial nature of the Israeli-US campaign against Iran.

In Libya, a NATO-led coalition intervened in the civil war ostensibly to protect civilians against the security forces of the dictator Muammar Gaddafi. “When crisis erupted in Libya,” remarked Sir John Sawers, former Chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service, in February 2015, “we didn’t feel it right to sit by as Gaddafi crushed decent Libyans demanding an end to dictatorship.” But Britain and its partners “didn’t want to get embroiled in Libya’s problems by sending in ground forces.”

Initially framed as an operation to protect civilians, the air campaign became one of support for anti-government militias, leading to Gaddafi’s overthrow and lynch-mob murder. The country duly fractured between rival fundamentalist groups and remains divided to this day. It also became a safe-haven for al-Qaeda and Islamic State forces to conduct operations against the country’s neighbours. “Libya,” recalled Sawers, “had no institutions. Who or what would take over? The answer? Those with the weapons. Result? Growing chaos, exploited by fanatics.” The lessons for the Israeli-US campaign are all too startlingly relevant.

The grotesque cowardice of various representatives, including the clueless fawning by Secretary General of NATO Mark Rutte, the unpardonable conduct of the European Commission’s top diplomats Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas, and most of the EU governments, has also revealed their feral conversion to a doctrine of force that does away with softening diplomacy and the tenets of international law. It’s almost an embarrassment to read the EU statement on avoiding escalation when the powers escalating the matter were Israel and the US while still insisting that diplomacy would have a role. The Iranians were engaged in diplomacy and were reassured that more talks would follow. This was a charade, a confidence trick that will impair the credibility of the West, or Global North, in terms of its conduct of relations when it comes to addressing threats, actual or perceived. All is permissible in the Trump Jungle.

March 6, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal | 1 Comment

France arrests activists blocking ship over alleged Russia uranium links

Police arrested four Greenpeace activists on Monday for blocking a cargo ship in France that they alleged was transporting uranium from Russia for the country’s nuclear power plants.

By:RFI, 02/03/2026 ,
https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20260302-france-arrests-activists-blocking-ship-over-alleged-russia-uranium-links-ukraine-war

Around 20 protestors carrying signs reading “Stop toxic contracts” and “Solidarity with Ukrainians”, blockaded the Mikhail Dudin at the northern port of Dunkirk early on Monday morning, to prevent it from unloading its cargo, a journalist from French news agency AFP observed.

French authorities then arrested four individuals, Dunkirk police told AFP, adding that the blockade was lifted around 9am local time.

Greenpeace has repeatedly accused France of maintaining ties with Russia’s state-owned energy company, Rosatom, despite President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine.

Activists, some on kayaks, had impeded the ship while a large banner stretched across the lock read, “Uranium: EDF loves Putin” – a jab at the French state-owned energy giant.

In 2018, France’s EDF signed a 600-million-euro deal with a Rosatom subsidiary, Tenex, for reprocessed uranium from French nuclear power plants to be sent to Russia to be converted and then re-enriched before being reused in power production.

Rosatom has the only facility in the world – in Seversk in Siberia – capable of carrying out key parts of the conversion of reprocessed uranium to enriched reprocessed uranium.

“This trade, which indirectly fuels Putin’s war, must stop,” said Pauline Boyer, an energy campaigner for Greenpeace France on Monday.

The environment group alleges it has “on numerous occasions” observed the Mikhail Dudin unloading Russian natural and enriched uranium in France.

An AFP analysis of Global Fishing Watch tracking data shows the Mikhail Dudin has made more than 20 round trips between Dunkirk and the Russian ports of Vistino, Ust-Luga and Saint Petersburg since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began on 24 February, 2022.

The Baltiyskiy-202 – another vessel that Greenpeace alleges has transported uranium between France and Russia – has completed more than 15 round trips during the same period.

Both sail under the Panamanian flag and are owned by companies registered in Hong Kong, according to the International Maritime Organisation’s register.

EDF did not immediately respond to AFP’s request for comment.

In 2022, France ordered EDF to halt its uranium trade with Rosatom when Greenpeace first revealed the contracts in the wake of Russia’s invasion.

But in March 2024, Jean-Michel Quilichini, head of the nuclear fuel division at EDF, said the company planned to continue to “honour” its 2018 contract.

France in March 2024 said it was “seriously” looking at the possibility of building its own conversion facility to produce enriched reprocessed uranium.

AFP analysis of French customs data shows that in 2025, France imported at least 112 tonnes of enriched uranium and its compounds from Russia, accounting for a quarter of total purchases by volume – a level stable compared to 2024.

These imports however fell significantly between 2022 and 2024.

March 5, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | France, legal | Leave a comment

Ohio corruption trial traces tactics to prop up nuclear and coal plants

Former FirstEnergy execs Chuck Jones and Mike Dowling face state criminal charges connected to HB 6 bailout maneuvers, for which Ohioans are still paying the price.

By Kathiann M. Kowalski, 27 February 2026, https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/utilities/ohio-corruption-trial-traces-tactics-to-prop-up-nuclear-and-coal-plants

Ohio jurors will soon decide whether two former FirstEnergy executives are guilty of state criminal charges related to the House Bill 6 utility bribery scheme.

It’s a landmark moment for what is the largest corruption scandal in state history, in which utility execs allegedly bribed state officials to pass and protect a law to bail out uneconomic coal and nuclear plants and to gut the state’s clean energy standards. Its effects still reverberate today, nearly seven years after HB 6 became law, in the form of higher energy bills, dirtier air, and less solar and wind power across Ohio.

The trial in Akron of FirstEnergy’s former CEO Chuck Jones and former senior vice president for external affairs Mike Dowling is expected to take several more weeks. The state alleges that they engaged in a pattern of corrupt activities including bribing a former public utilities chair, telecommunications fraud, money laundering, and records tampering.

Jones and Dowling also face separate federal charges relating to their alleged roles in a yearslong conspiracy to pass HB 6 in 2019 and to thwart a statewide referendum effort that could have blocked the law.

FirstEnergy admitted in 2021 that it and its subsidiaries had paid approximately $60 million to dark money groups that funneled the funds to an organization controlled by former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder, a Republican who presided over the chamber when HB 6 passed.

It also admitted paying $4.3 million to a company owned by Sam Randazzo, a lawyer and former chair of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, shortly before Republican Gov. Mike DeWine picked him for that position in 2019.

When a federal judge demanded to know who paid the bribes, FirstEnergy fingered two former top execs: Jones and Dowling. Both deny any criminal wrongdoing.

Householder and lobbyist Matt Borges, who once chaired the Ohio Republican Party, were convicted in 2023 on charges under the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act. Requests for review of their cases are pending at the U.S. Supreme Court. Householder also faces state criminal charges, and that trial is scheduled for June 8.

Ohio customers have paid more than $400 million in coal plant subsidies under HB 6. The law has been mostly repealed now, but the renewable-energy and energy-efficiency standards remain decimated

The charges against Jones and Dowling matter not just in Ohio but more broadly, because corruption undermines democracy through government officials serving private people or companies instead of the public.

Cover-ups while blaming the dead guy

The state case, filed in February 2024, focuses heavily on actions by Jones and Dowling related to Randazzo, whose Sustainability Funding Alliance of Ohio received the $4.3 million payment from FirstEnergy in 2019.

Much of Jones’ and Dowling’s defense in the state case has sought to blame Randazzo for any illegal actions. Randazzo faced federal charges and was a co-defendant with Jones and Dowling in the state case when he died of an apparent suicide in 2024.

Cross-examination by defense lawyers has generally tried to cast Jones’ and Dowling’s actions as normal business for an Ohio utility, suggesting they had no reason to suspect that money paid to Randazzo’s company over the course of roughly a decade would end up in his pocket and not be put toward lawful business uses. They likewise claim they never bribed Randazzo to act on FirstEnergy’s behalf either before or after he became Public Utilities Commission chair.

One of Randazzo’s former legal clients was Industrial Energy Users–Ohio, an association of large industrial energy users in Ohio, now known as the Ohio Energy Leadership Council.

IEU–Ohio was initially opposed to an early bailout plan for FirstEnergy’s nuclear and coal plants. But in 2015, Randazzo agreed to drop IEU–Ohio’s opposition. The company denied at the time that it had struck any side deals to get parties in the case to stop fighting against the bailout plan, which cost Ohio customers more than $450 million.

FirstEnergy paid money to Randazzo’s company until early 2019, just before he became Public Utilities Commission chair and the legislature passed HB 6, cementing the coal and nuclear subsidies that FirstEnergy sought.

Throughout this time, FirstEnergy made payments for “consulting” work — culminating in that $4.3 million payment to the Sustainability Funding Alliance of Ohio in 2019. FirstEnergy did not disclose that agreement or the 2019 payment before Randazzo took office.

March 3, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Appeal court refuses TASC’s appeal against the High Court’s Sizewell C JR application decision

23rd February 2026. https://tasizewellc.org.uk/appeal-court-refuses-tascs-appeal-against-the-high-courts-sizewell-c-jr-application-decision-23-02-26/

Together Against Sizewell C Ltd (TASC) is extremely disappointed to learn that our appeal against the Secretary of State, Ed Miliband’s, decision not to subject Sizewell C’s secret sea defences to public scrutiny and assessment has been refused. We are, however, thankful that our legal challenge has helped to expose the Sizewell C project’s lack of resilience to extreme climate change.

TASC spokesperson, Chris Wilson, said, “TASC fear for the safety of our descendants and the precious Suffolk coastline because this judgement leaves future generations to rely on the developer’s ‘hypothetical’ i.e. ’imaginary or suggested’ (note 1), unassessed sea defences to protect Sizewell C and its 3,900 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel from flooding in an extreme sea level rise scenario over the next 150 years.

This decision rules out consideration of alternatives, such as raising the platform height, an option that will be lost once the plant has been built – a raised platform height will likely be less impactful on the environment and would negate the need for future generations to build the two additional huge sea defences.

“The Appeal Court’s decision sanctions the Government and developer’s choice to push ahead with £40 billion Sizewell C in the full knowledge that the project currently under construction is not resilient to a ‘credible maximum climate change scenario’ – contrary to Habitat Regulations, government policies and Labour’s claims that infrastructure projects are resilient to climate change impacts (note 2). Yet here, the project approved in the Development Consent Order (DCO) makes no provision for the two additional sea defences.

“Sizewell C is sited on one of Europe’s fastest eroding coastlines. Recent rapid erosion at nearby Thorpeness has resulted in many homes having to be demolished and in front of the development site the beach may need to be replenished before the nuclear plant has even been built (note 3) – demonstrating the threat of erosion is real and immediate and should be a wake-up call for government that Sizewell is not a suitable site for new nuclear “This government wants to ‘rip up the rules to fire-up nuclear power’ (also refer to note 5). TASC, however, believe there should be an inquiry into how the developer, EDF, was allowed to exclude the additional sea defences from their 2020 DCO application, even though national policy statements require developers to include plans for adaptive sea defences to deal with a credible maximum climate change scenario – EDF knew as far back as 2015 that the site requires additional flood defences in an extreme sea level rise scenario but chose to keep them secret, thereby avoiding public scrutiny and environmental impact assessment. One would have hoped that any sensible government would want to guarantee that there is a viable, fully assessed plan to ensure the plant and its spent fuel can be kept safe for its full lifetime to avoid a catastrophic event.

“It is imperative we all speak up for future generations, who have no voice in the decision-making of today, to ensure it is demonstrated that there is a fully assessed, viable option to keep the Sizewell C site and its 3,900 tonnes of spent fuel safe from flooding throughout its full lifetime. By not doing so, this government is placing an immoral burden on our descendants who will be forced to clear up the mess resulting from ill thought-out choices made today.”

March 1, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Further charges on health and safety offences at a nuclear construction site

Following a pre-trial review hearing held today at Bristol Crown Court, a
trial date has been set in the prosecution of two companies charged with
health and safety offences at a nuclear construction site. Two further
charges were added to the indictment at today’s court hearing, bringing the
total of charges to four.

The organisations face a charge of failing to
plan, manage and monitor construction work without risks to health and
safety contravening Regulation 15(2) of the Construction (Design and
Management) Regulations 2015, and previously entered not guilty pleas at a
hearing held in December 2025. An additional charge that Laing O’Rourke
Delivery Limited and Bouygues Travaux Publics SAS both failed to conduct a
suitable and sufficient risk assessment of the risks to the health and
safety of their employees, under Regulation 3 (1) (a) of the Management of
Health and Safety At Work Regulations 1999, contravening Section 33(1)(c)
of the Act has now also been added. Both organisations have pleaded not
guilty to these charges.

ONR 17th Feb 2026, https://www.onr.org.uk/news/all-news/2026/02/new-charges-added-in-rebar-mesh-wall-incident-at-hinkley-point-c

February 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Submissions to the Federal Court of Appeal about UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)

Raven Trust, By Levin Chamberlain, February 10, 2026

Gitxaała Nation’s recent decision in the British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA) in Gitxaala v. British Columbia (Chief Gold Commissioner), 2025 BCCA 430 that incorporates the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into positive law is getting attention. While media outlets are focused on David Eby’s commitment to amending the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) — undermining the rule of law and potentially reversing decades of reconciliation — behind the scenes, there’s a company trying to further undermine Indigenous rights – Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL).

CNL recently filed a submission in Kebaowek First Nation’s case over the proposed nuclear waste facility on their territory, a legal case that RAVEN has supported for almost two years. If built in its current location, the facility would hold over one million cubic metres of nuclear waste just one kilometre from the Kichi Sibi (Ottawa river), which provides millions of people with clean drinking water.

Kebaowek recently went to the Federal Court of Appeal with CNL, who is seeking to overturn the need for the First Nation’s free, prior, and informed consent over the consultation process to build the nuclear waste facility. You can read more about the decision and why Kebaowek cross-appealed here.

With the BCCA decision in Gitxaała’s case being such a powerful precedent that incorporates UNDRIP, the Federal Court judges gave CNL and Kebaowek the opportunity to make new submissions specifically about this decision. Not only does this show how interconnected Indigenous-led litigation is (which RAVEN is integral to in supporting both cases), but it also allows for both sides to share new perspectives.

The Submissions

CNL’s response with a new submission to the courts argues that Gitxaała’s case is “wholly distinguishable” from their case, and that it doesn’t alter the one sole point that CNL is relying on: consultation with Kebaowek was fulfilled. They comb through the specific differences between DRIPA and Canada’s own United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDA) in attempts to show how UNDA shouldn’t be taken the same way as DRIPA. CNL also criticizes two aspects of the BCCA’s decision in Gitxaala v. British Columbia as “unsupported statements of law.”

Is that fear we are picking up on in CNL’s submission? Or is it just pure hypocrisy……………………………………..

The Reality

Unfortunately, instead of navigating toward reconciliation between the Crown, industry, and Indigenous Peoples, we are witnessing more conflict and tension than before. UNDRIP and its incorporation into positive law in Canada should be something to celebrate with clear pathways toward long-term economic development and environmental protections while honouring Indigenous rights and their territories. Working in a good way with First Nations, like Kebaowek, is crucial for getting decisions right, especially in a world with a rapidly accelerating climate, sincere threats to democratic processes, and a troubling shift of public support away from reconciliation.

In 2007, Canada and three other nation-states initially opposed the ratification of UNDRIP. They opposed enshrining the human rights of Indigenous Peoples on an international stage. That – and much, much worse – will always be a part of our dark history in Canada. Unless we see a real shift in accountability and action, future generations will view this time period and the responses by industry and the Crown as another era of oppression.

But, even if the decision is overturned and Kebaowek doesn’t have their day at the Supreme Court of Canada; even if David Eby is successful in reducing the legal teeth of UNDRIP for Indigenous Peoples to use in B.C.’s courtrooms; even if something similar happens to UNDA; there will be no end to pursuits for justice. UNDRIP rights are fundamental human rights of Indigenous Peoples that are just now being recognized through colonial doctrines. These rights have existed since time immemorial in their own beautiful and unique ways, and although injustice is present, the people will continue to resist, and justice shall persist. https://raventrust.com/articles/the-law-is-connected-new-submissions-to-the-federal-court-of-appeal-about-undrip/

February 15, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, Legal | Leave a comment

Sizewell C opponents to appeal High Court decision.

Mariam Issimdar, BBC. Suffolk, 8 Feb 26

Opponents of Sizewell C nuclear power station have submitted an appeal against the High Court’s decision to refuse an application for a judicial review of the plant’s flood defences.

Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) launched an action in June on the basis the power station could add extra coastal defences which were not outlined in the original planning application, and they would “disrupt nearby protected areas of wildlife”.

The group appealed for the judicial review, but it was refused by a High Court judge in December.

At the time, Sizewell C said it was pleased the legal claims had been dismissed.

In a statement on Monday, the pressure group said: “TASC is determined to use every avenue open to us to ensure public scrutiny and environmental assessment of the two additional huge sea defences that Sizewell C have committed to install in an extreme sea level rise scenario.”

Development consent for the new plant near Leiston was granted in July 2022 before the government committed £14.2bn towards it last June.

In the approved plans, Sizewell C said the power station would be built on a platform 7m above the current sea level and protected by a “sea defence structure which will be more than 14m above mean sea level”.

Chris Wilson, of TASC, said: “It is a scandal if it is deemed legal that a developer, in this case Sizewell C, is allowed to pick and choose which parts of a project it wants to include in its development consent order application.”

He added that the developer, EDF Energy, knew “as far back as 2015 that two additional huge sea defences would be needed to keep the site and its 3,900 tonnes of spent fuel safe from flooding in an extreme sea level rise scenario, yet chose not to include them in their 2020 planning application – a classic example of ‘salami-slicing’.”

Sizewell C said its “sea defence will be adaptable and could be raised in future if sea level rise turns out to be greater than current predictions”.

TASC claimed the power station wanted to build two more flood barriers, 9m and 10m high, further inland.

Sizewell C previously declined to comment on the extra details of how the flood defences could be changed.

TASC argued there should be a consultation on the defences, and it approached Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, asking him to revoke or change the development consent order.

That was not accepted, so the group opted for a judicial review and argued that Miliband had breached his obligations and duties…………………. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98q5z1jez5o

February 14, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Palestine Action protesters found not guilty of Elbit burglary

“It shows how out of step this government is with public opinion, which is revulsed by the Government and Elbit’s complicity in genocide.”

Campaigners claim ‘huge blow’ to government after landmark prosecution of direct action group fails.

PHIL MILLER and DANIA AKKAD, 4 February 2026, https://www.declassifieduk.org/palestine-action-protesters-found-not-guilty-of-elbit-burglary/

Update: Five out of the six defendants were granted bail late on Wednesday; a sixth defendant, Sam Corner, was not granted bail
Defendants had to apply for bail because the prosecution will seek a retrial on charges where jury were unable to reach a verdict

Six Palestine Action protesters have been found not guilty of aggravated burglary at an Elbit weapons site near Bristol.

Zoe Rogers, Fatema Zainab Rajwani, Charlotte Head, Samuel Corner, Leona Kamio and Jordan Devlin were also not convicted of any other charges by a jury at Woolwich Crown Court on Wednesday.

The group were on trial for a break-in at an Israeli-owned arms factory on 6 August 2024 at the height of the genocide in Gaza.

Keir Starmer’s Labour government only placed partial restrictions on arms exports to Israel the following month.

The activists spent 18 months on remand before their trial began in November 2025.

Jurors did not convict them of any charges despite the judge trying to limit defences available to the activists.

The jury could not reach verdicts on some charges, opening the door for the prosecution to seek a possible retrial and forcing the defence to apply for bail.

A spokesperson for Defend Our Juries said the not guilty verdicts for the aggravated burglary charges were “a huge blow to government ministers who have tried to portray Palestine Action as a violent group to justify banning it under badly drafted terrorism legislation.

“Despite government efforts to prejudice this trial, citing the allegations of violence to justify treating Palestine Action as ‘terrorists’, as if they were already proved, the jury which heard the evidence has refused to find the defendants guilty of anything, not even criminal damage.

“It shows how out of step this government is with public opinion, which is revulsed by the Government and Elbit’s complicity in genocide.”

Woolwich Crown Court, hugging and crying.

Inside bail hearings were ongoing for the six with rulings expected before 3pm. Friends said they hoped they would be coming out today.

Moved to a patch of grass outside the court, several in the crowd shared a meal on paper plates and greeted an increasing number supporters who arrived by public transport.

“I’m so happy,” one supporter shouted.

A truck carrying prisoners passed by with an audible banging sound from inside. The crowd welped and started to cheer. One drummed.

A supporter acknowledged the truck probably didn’t hold the defendants. “We’re just excited,” they said.

February 12, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal | Leave a comment

ISIS vs IDF. Selective justice and the fall of Australian law

by Andrew Brown | Feb 4, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/isis-vs-idf-selective-justice-and-the-collapse-of-australian-law/

Australians who went to fight for ISIS were prosecuted, their families vilified, while former IDF soldiers fighting for Israel walk freely among us. Andrew Brown reports on the double standards.

Australians like to believe our justice system is governed by principle, and crimes judged by what was done, not by who did them. We like a comforting story about ourselves. That justice is served, and accountability painful but even-handed. We tell it often. We believe it when it suits us.

That story collapses the moment it is tested.

After the Brereton Report, Australia demonstrated what accountability looks like when it chooses to take law seriously. Entire Australian Defence Force platoons were investigated. Whole units placed under suspicion. Soldiers interrogated repeatedly. Careers frozen. Medals questioned. Command structures dismantled. Hundreds of millions of public dollars spent. One soldier charged. Many others left suspended indefinitely, their lives stalled in legal limbo.

This pursuit of accountability was not timid or symbolic. It did not flinch at rank, reputation, or heroism. Australia went after its returning heroes, including Victoria Cross recipients, and some of the most decorated units in its military history. It did so publicly and without fear or favour.

“No medal or mythology placed anyone beyond scrutiny.”

Australia wanted the world to see that it would investigate its own forces, not just individuals but units and chains of command, even when it was humiliating and politically costly.

Soldiers going overseas

When Australians travelled to join ISIS, the response was faster and harsher. Passports cancelled. Homes raided. Surveillance expanded. Citizenship stripping powers deployed. Wives treated as accomplices. Children framed as future threats. Suspicion alone was often enough to trigger punishment. Due process became optional.

If Australians fought for Russia against Ukraine, arrests would follow. Prosecutions under foreign incursion and war crimes laws. Media outrage before the luggage carousel stopped turning. The word traitor would appear instantly.

That is the standard Australia claims to uphold.

Gaza

Now consider Gaza. What is occurring is not chaotic warfare. It is a civilian catastrophe with a measurable pattern. Credible casualty analyses based on hospital records, death registries, and independent verification show that approximately 84% of those killed are civilians and around 33% are children. Not combatants miscounted. Not teenagers caught in crossfire. Children.

By comparison, in Ukraine, children account for around 0.3% of casualties. That is a difference of more than one hundredfold.This is not incidental harm. It is demographic concentration.

The destruction follows the same logic. Entire residential districts have been levelled. Homes, schools, universities, bakeries, water infrastructure, and sewage systems have been systematically destroyed. This is not damage caused by fighting around civilians.

“It is the removal of the conditions required for civilian life to continue.”

Hospitals have been a central target. Gaza’s major medical complexes were besieged, raided, and rendered inoperable. Electricity was cut. Fuel was denied. Oxygen supplies ran out. Patients died untreated on floors. Premature infants were left in incubators without power. Medical staff were detained directly from wards and operating theatres, taken without charge, many remaining in detention months later.

This is not collateral damage. It is the dismantling of a healthcare system in real time.

Human rights atrocity

Mass detention has accompanied the physical destruction. Thousands of Palestinians have been taken without charge or access to legal counsel. Human rights organisations have documented beatings, starvation, stress positions, and sexual abuse in detention. Medical professionals and journalists were not spared. They were targeted.

Journalists have been killed at a rate unmatched in any modern conflict. Aid workers have been killed despite operating in clearly marked vehicles and facilities. Among them was Australian humanitarian Zomi Frankcom, killed during a coordinated strike on an aid convoy.

And then there is Hind Rajab.

A six-year-old girl was trapped in a car after her family was shot dead. She called emergency services. Her voice was recorded. An ambulance was dispatched to rescue her. The ambulance was destroyed. Hind was later found dead alongside the paramedics sent to save her.

There was no firefight. No exchange of fire. No ambiguity.

Doctors from Australia, the United States, and Canada who worked in Gaza later testified publicly to treating repeated waves of children with gunshot wounds consistent with sniper fire. Identical entry wounds to heads and chests. These were not anecdotes.

They were clinical observations recorded by trained professionals.

The crime scene

This is why the language of genocide is no longer rhetorical. It is legal. The International Court of Justice has found a plausible risk of genocide and ordered provisional measures. The International Criminal Court is pursuing accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity arising from Israeli actions.

What is unfolding in Gaza is not a tragedy without authorship.

It is a crime scene.

Australia has chosen silence.

That silence is no longer ignorance. At the National Press Club, senior human rights lawyer Chris Sidoti warned that Australians who served in Gaza may face criminal liability if genocide or war crimes are established. He was explicit. Genocide does not require pulling a trigger. Assistance, facilitation, or knowing contribution can be enough.

“The government did not contest the law. It did nothing.”

The government did not contest the law. It did nothing.

No Australian Federal Police task force. No examination of units or command chains. No transparency. No framework for investigating potential complicity in genocide or war crimes under Australian law.

Instead, indulgence.

An estimated 1,000 former or current Israeli Defence Force soldiers now live freely in Australia. They stroll through Caulfield, Bondi, Dover Heights, and Double Bay. They drink lattes in Sydney cafes. They enjoy suburban normality without scrutiny, while Gaza remains a ledger of rubble, amputations, mass graves, and dead children.And the indulgence does not stop at inaction. It now edges toward empowerment.

NSW Premier Chris Minns has publicly canvassed expanding armed community protection roles, including the involvement of current or former Israeli soldiers in guarding Jewish institutions in Australia. The stated aim is protection against antisemitism. That aim is legitimate. The implications are not.

Policing and the authorised use of force are public functions. They exist because weapons in civilian life require training, oversight, accountability, and law. When governments contemplate arming individuals with recent service in a foreign military now under investigation for genocide, the issue becomes immediate and domestic.

Run the test honestly.

ISIS vs IDF

If ISIS returnees sought to bear arms in public under the guise of community protection, the state would answer with handcuffs and prison, not consent. The request itself would be treated as evidence of danger.

That this proposal can be entertained for one category of foreign fighter while unthinkable for another exposes the fiction at the heart of Australia’s claim to equal justice. The law has not changed. Only who it is prepared to protect has.

“This is not neutrality. It’s policy.”

Australia destroyed careers investigating its own soldiers. It went after its most decorated units without fear or favour. It acted ruthlessly against ISIS recruits. It would move instantly if Australians fought for Russia.

When Australians fight in Gaza under the Israeli flag, amid credible allegations of genocide now before international courts, the state looks away.

“That is not restraint, but complicity.”

History will remember this as the moment Australia blinded its own law, allowing returning IDF soldiers to pass unexamined and exposing fairness before the law as a deliberate lie.

February 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, Legal | Leave a comment

Rubio Dodges Accountability at Senate Hearing as Deadly Boat Strikes Continue.

As the top official at the State Department, Rubio also appeared to distance himself from the boat strikes and repeatedly deferred questions from members of both parties about the legal justification to the Department of Defense, where Hegseth reportedly ordered the strikes under Trump’s authority

The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not the president, but this standard has eroded over decades of U.S. imperialism and the “war on drugs.”

The families of two men killed on a small boat targeted by the US military filed a wrongful death lawsuit this week.

By Mike Ludwig , Truthout, January 29, 2026

As former colleagues fumed about the administration’s failure to consult Congress, Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended President Donald Trump’s rapid escalation of the “war on drugs” in the Caribbean and Latin America before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 28. Rubio testified for almost three hours in his first congressional hearing since U.S. forces invaded Venezuela and abducted President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in a deadly raid on January 3.

“This is the first public hearing we’ve had. Two hundred folks who were on secret designated combatant lists have been killed, U.S. troops have been injured, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent, an armada amassed, and the announcement of a new Monroe doctrine which does not land well in the Americas,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Virginia), noting operations began nearly five months ago. “Democrats have asked over and over again, can we have a public hearing?”

After months of U.S. military belligerence in international waters without congressional oversight, Rubio claimed the U.S. is not at war with Venezuela but is at war with drug smugglers, which he called “enemy combatants” with advanced weapons. However, Rubio distanced himself from dozens of airstrikes on small boats that have killed at least 126 people since September, deferring questions to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, despite Rubio’s double role as Trump’s national security advisor. Rubio’s prepared remarks did not mention the boat strikes…………………………………………………………………………….

Rubio’s testimony came one day after the families of two Trinidadian men killed in a U.S. boat strike on October 14 filed a landmark wrongful death lawsuit against the Trump administration in federal court………………………………………..

Echoing many experts, the lawsuit argues there is no legal justification for the boat strikes, videos of which quickly became content for the Trump administration’s social media propaganda. “These are lawless killings in cold blood; killings for sport and killings for theater, which is why we need a court of law to proclaim what is true and constrain what is lawless,” said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a group representing the Trinidadian families, in a statement on January 27.

“It is absurd and dangerous for any state to just unilaterally proclaim that a ‘war’ exists in order to deploy lethal military force,” Azmy said.

At the Senate hearing, Kaine said the committee was unable to properly discuss the fatal boat strikes because the administration is keeping the intelligence behind them classified and out of public view — including any evidence that the people on the boats were smuggling drugs rather than fishing or traveling from one place to another as the families of Joseph and Samaroo have said.

“I would like to talk about the complete weakness of the legal rationale about striking boats in international waters, but I can’t, because the administration has only shared it with members in a classified setting,” Kaine said. “I can’t tell you the domestic rationale is hollow and the international rationale is hollow.”…………………………………………………………………………………….

The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not the president, but this standard has eroded over decades of U.S. imperialism and the “war on drugs.”…………………..

On January 14, the Senate’s GOP majority narrowly blocked a war powers resolution that would have required the president receive permission from Congress before taking further military action. Republicans also blocked an resolution to prohibit the deadly boat strikes and reign in Trump’s war on drug cartels shortly before breaking for the holidays in December. https://truthout.org/articles/rubio-dodges-accountability-at-senate-hearing-as-deadly-boat-strikes-continue/

February 1, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal | Leave a comment

Trump’s war on international justice

By Hassan Elbiali | 29 January 2026

When the U.S. sanctions international judges to shield Israel, power decides who is accountable, not law. Hassan Elbiali reports.

SINCE RETURNING to office in January 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump has launched an aggressive campaign to dismantle international legal accountability.

His Administration imposed sweeping sanctions on International Criminal Court (ICC) personnel investigating Israeli conduct in Gaza — not just a policy disagreement, but an assault on the institution itself.

The Trump Administration sanctioned judges, prosecutors and Palestinian human rights organisations that cooperated with ICC investigations. By December 2025, nine ICC staff members faced economic penalties. These sanctions cut them off from banks, credit card companies and platforms like Amazon, treating international judges the same way the U.S. treats Russian oligarchs.

The executive order Trump signed in February 2025 declared the ICC had engaged in actions targeting America and its ally Israel, calling the arrest warrants baseless. The Administration expanded sanctions in June, August and December, each time targeting those involved in the Gaza investigation.

ICC judges reported losing access to credit cards, having purchased e-books vanish from devices and Amazon’s Alexa stopping responses. One sanctioned judge told reporters she now appears on lists with terrorists and organised crime figures — punishment for doing her job.

The Gaza reality

The stakes couldn’t be higher because the underlying facts demand accountability. By January 2025, Gaza’s Health Ministry reported at least 46,645 Palestinians killed, with the vast majority being civilians. Independent research suggests far worse. A Lancet study estimated that total violent deaths by October 2024 exceeded 70,000, with 59% being women, children and the elderly.

A November 2025 Max Planck Institute study estimated total violent deaths between 100,000 and 126,000, of which 27% were children under 15. UNICEF reported that 74 children were killed in just the first week of 2025 alone.

The pattern of destruction meets definitions that scholars and institutions can no longer ignore. Multiple human rights groups and numerous international law scholars have recognised what’s happening as genocide. UN satellite analysis found that nearly 78% of all structures across Gaza had been destroyed.

The starvation component particularly demonstrates intent. For extended periods, humanitarian aid was blocked, with Israeli officials declaring that restricting aid was official policy. When food becomes a weapon against a population of over two million, including one million children, legal frameworks either mean something or they don’t.

Western complicity

Trump’s sanctions represent the most brazen effort to shield Israel from accountability, but complicity runs deeper.

The U.S. has supported Israel’s military campaign by continuing to supply billions in military aid throughout the genocide. The Trump Administration sanctioned three Palestinian human rights organisations – Al-Haq, Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights – for documenting violations and asking the ICC to investigate, effectively criminalising the documentation of war crimes.

Britain applied similar pressure. Then-Foreign Secretary David Cameron privately warned ICC prosecutor Karim A A Khan in April 2024 that the UK would defund and withdraw from the ICC if it issued arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant. Cameron told Khan that pursuing warrants would be like “dropping a hydrogen bomb.”

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham threatened Khan with sanctions if he applied for the warrants, warning that “if they do this to Israel, we’re next”.

When powerful states actively work to prevent accountability for mass atrocities, they expose the conditional nature of their commitment to international law.

Power always shaped law

International law never existed independently of power. Law and power are constituted together and are therefore interdependent. When the balance of power shifts, the legal order shifts with it.

The post-1945 system reflected American dominance and Western liberal values. As that power wanes and new centres emerge –China, India, the Global South – the legal architecture must change. This isn’t collapse; it’s reconfiguration.

History proves the point. During the 1930s, the League of Nations failed when Nazi Germany rose to power, Italy invaded Ethiopia and the USSR fought Finland. Yet international law survived, adapted and emerged stronger after World War II.

What this means

The Hague Group, founded by Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Malaysia, Namibia, Senegal and South Africa in January 2025, responds to growing cracks in international legal enforcement and its politicised, selective application. These states seek to reshape international law around different principles than those that dominated the past 70 years.

If you’re analysing global politics, understand that we’re not witnessing the end of international law — we’re watching its transformation through the crucible of Gaza. But the Gaza genocide and Western efforts to prevent accountability reveal something more troubling.

When powerful states systematically dismantle legal institutions investigating their allies’ war crimes, they demonstrate that international law applies selectively based on political alignment rather than universal principles.

Trump’s sanctions, combined with continued weapons shipments to Israel, expose the hypocrisy at the heart of the current system. UN experts called the sanctions an attack on the global rule of law that undermines international justice. When the world’s most powerful state treats international judges like criminals for investigating genocide, the pretence that law governs power becomes untenable.

What you’re witnessing isn’t the end of international law — it’s the painful birth of a multipolar legal order. Whether this transition happens through negotiation or conflict will determine if the coming decades bring greater justice or greater chaos.

The difference now is that Gaza has exposed this reality so starkly that denial becomes impossible. When thousands of children die while powerful states actively block accountability, the question becomes whether any international legal system can emerge that commands genuine respect rather than cynical compliance.

The answer will shape not just Palestinian lives but the prospects for justice everywhere.

January 30, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | legal, USA | Leave a comment

Tribunal says Swahili ban at nuclear firm was discrimination

An employment tribunal has ordered the taxpayer owned company tasked with
safely decommissioning the UK’s first-generation nuclear power sites pay
more than £10,800 in compensation to a worker who was banned from speaking
Swahili. The Glasgow tribunal found that Nuclear Restoration Services
Limited (NRS) discriminated against Mr K Ruiza after his line manager
instructed him to only speak English while on site. The judge said the
order left him humiliated, distressed and fearful he would lose his job.
The tribunal ruled the company must pay £9,000 for injury to feelings,
plus £1,875.94 in interest, bringing the total award to £10,875.94.

Herald 26th Jan 2026, https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25794684.tribunal-says-swahili-ban-nuclear-firm-discrimination/

January 28, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

The end of sovereign immunity: America’s new doctrine of capture.

the United States will act as judge, jury and gaoler.

We are entering a “Legal Wild West”.

By Imran Khalid | 19 January 2026, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-end-of-sovereign-immunity-americas-new-doctrine-of-capture,20584

By seizing a sitting head of state, Washington has replaced international law with a doctrine of unilateral reach, writes Imran Khalid.

FOR NEARLY FOUR centuries, the global order has rested on the foundation of Westphalian sovereignty: the idea that a state has exclusive authority over its territory and that a head of state is shielded from the jurisdiction of foreign courts.

Recently, that principle was not merely challenged; it was dismantled. The capture of Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, by U.S. special forces in Caracas and their transfer to U.S. custody – initially aboard the USS Iwo Jima before being flown to New York – marks the birth of what we might call the “Decapitation Doctrine”. It is a shift that moves the world away from universal law and toward a system where geography determines your level of immunity.

The Trump Administration’s rationale for “Operation Absolute Resolve” is framed as a law enforcement action rather than an act of war. By relying on a narco-terrorism indictment filed in the Southern District of New York, Washington has bypassed the United Nations and the traditional mechanisms of international conflict.

The message is as clear as it is jarring: the United States no longer views the recognition of a foreign leader as a barrier to domestic prosecution. If a leader is deemed a criminal by the Department of Justice, they are subject to the same reach as any common cartel boss.

This development is a logical, if extreme, conclusion to a decade of eroding global norms. We have seen the steady decline of multilateral institutions and the rise of transactional diplomacy. But by “running” Venezuela – as President Trump promised on 3 January – the United States is doing more than pursuing a fugitive. It is declaring a new Monroe Doctrine for the 21st Century.

This updated version suggests that within its own hemisphere, the United States will act as judge, jury and gaoler. It is a return to a “sphere of influence” model where the rules of the road are written by the regional hegemon.

To understand the gravity of this moment, one must look at the history of sovereign immunity. Since the mid-17th Century, the international system has functioned on the “fiction” of equal sovereignty. Whether a nation was a global empire or a tiny principality, its leader was considered the personification of the state and thus beyond the reach of foreign domestic law.

This was not a moral judgment, but a practical one designed to prevent a cycle of endless retributive litigation between nations. By breaking this seal, the United States has effectively signalled that sovereignty is no longer an absolute right, but a privilege granted by the powerful to the compliant.

The legal community is understandably alarmed. If the U.S. can arrest Maduro based on a domestic indictment, what stops other powers from doing the same? We are entering a “Legal Wild West”.

Imagine a future where a court in Tehran issues an arrest warrant for a European defense minister, or a tribunal in Moscow indicts a Baltic leader for “crimes against the Russian state”. By removing the shield of sovereign immunity, the United States has introduced a level of personal vulnerability for world leaders that will inevitably lead to a more paranoid and defensive international climate.

This concern is already manifesting in UN Security Council debates over the operation’s legality, with Russia expelling U.S. diplomats in retaliation and China halting debt talks with Venezuela.

This “judicialisation” of foreign policy also creates a dangerous precedent for domestic politics. When foreign policy is conducted through the lens of criminal law, it becomes harder to engage in the necessary compromises of diplomacy. You cannot negotiate a peace treaty with someone you have labelled a common felon.

In the past, the United States often used “golden bridges” to allow dictators to leave power gracefully — think of Ferdinand Marcos or Jean-Claude Duvalier. By opting for a New York courtroom instead of a quiet exile, the U.S. may find that future dictators will choose to fight to the bitter end rather than risk a life sentence in a Brooklyn cell.

Indeed, on 5 January, Maduro and Flores pleaded not guilty in Manhattan’s federal court, with Maduro declaring himself “kidnapped” and a “prisoner of war” while his wife appeared with visible injuries from the raid — a gash over her eye and a forehead welt.

Furthermore, the transitional oversight of Venezuela by American officials – backed by the initial presence of the USS Iwo Jima – creates a political vacuum that may be impossible to fill legitimately.

While Vice President Delcy Rodríguez has been named acting president by the Venezuelan Supreme Court and has received “unconditional support” from Maduro’s son even as she extends an olive branch to Trump, the reality on the ground is one of American leverage. Any successor to Maduro will now face the “proxy problem”.

In an era of intense nationalism, a leader who is seen as being installed or protected by Washington will struggle to gain the internal legitimacy required to govern. This is compounded by Cuba’s report of 32 officers killed in the raid, Venezuela’s nationwide manhunt for Maduro supporters and Switzerland’s freeze on Maduro-linked assets.

We are witnessing the transition from a world of rules to a world of reach. The United States has demonstrated that its reach is unrivalled, but the long-term stability of the international system depends on more than just the ability to snatch a dictator from his bedroom. It depends on a shared understanding of where one state’s power ends and another’s begins.

By blurring that line in Caracas, Washington may have achieved a tactical masterstroke, but it has left the global order in a state of profound and dangerous uncertainty, with oil markets surging and protests rippling across U.S. cities in response.

January 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | legal | Leave a comment

Trump’s foreign policy: “I don’t need international law because I’m not looking to hurt people”

Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL , 16 Jan 26,

Trump’s foreign policy: “I don’t need international law because I’m not looking to hurt people”

In dismissing international law, Trump went further and proclaimed regarding any limit on his authority to engage in military action, “the only limit is my own mind, my own morality…the only thing that can stop me.”

During the past year how has Trump’s own mind, own morality influenced his looking to not hurt people?

Trump supplied Israel with billions in bombs to slaughter tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza.

He’s bombed imagine bad guys in Somalia 124 times, doubling his previous record of 63 bombings in 2019.

He fired 12 Tomahawk missiles at imagined bad guys in Nigeria killing unknown Nigerians.

He bombed Syria after 3 US soldiers defiling Syrian sovereignty were killed by unknown attackers. Didn’t matter who Trump killed as long as he retaliated.

He bombed Iran to take out an imaginary nuclear bomb program. He may be on the cusp of bombing Iran again to achieve decades’ long US goal of Iranian regime change.

He obliterated 35 small, unarmed boats off Venezuela, killing over 100 unknown persons. Then he attacked Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro’s compound, killing over 100 guards in the process of kidnapping him back to the US.

He’s threatening to invade and take control of Greenland from Denmark.

He’s threatening to change out Cuba’s communist government that has been America’s goal for 66 years.

Back home, he’s sent thousands of masked, armed, poorly trained ICE thugs onto American streets to arrest, harass, beat up, occasionally shoot innocent persons trying to live the American Dream.

Gee, wonder what Trump’s foreign and domestic policy would be like if his stated goal was to hurt people?

January 19, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Militant Zionist Group Ceasing Operations In New York Following Settlement with Attorney General.

Betar U.S. has deemed it cannot continue to operate if it is unable to engage in terroristic tactics.

blueapples, Jan 15, 2026, https://ddgeopolitics.substack.com/p/militant-zionist-group-ceasing-operations?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1769298&post_id=184510757&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

By virtue of its standing as the global center of the Jewish diaspora, New York City emerged as the main battleground in the United States for the fight between American Zionists and their opponents amid the deterioration of public support for Israel accelerated by its war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. While critics of the State of Israel participating in widespread protests across the city have been branded as Jihadists by their opponents for protesting against the slaughter of innocent Palestinians at the blood-stained hands of the Israel Defense Forces (”IDF”), it is a pro-Israel group that has been exposed for engaging in a campaign of terrorism in the latest fallout from that ideological conflict. Betar U.S., the American chapter of an international militant organization created by the founder of the Zionist paramilitary the Irgun, has chosen to cease its operations in New York following a settlement with the office of the state’s attorney general after an investigation uncovered systemic campaigns of harassment, intimidation, and political violence led by the group.

In the wake of political unrest across the U.S. beginning in 2024 centered around protests against Israel on the campus of Columbia University, Betar U.S. engaged in organized harassment campaigns of pro-Palestinian protesters and activists, culminating in an investigation against them. The investigation into the organization began in March 2025, following a series of formal complaints made against the group. According to a statement from the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James announcing its settlement with Betar, “The Office of the Attorney General investigation determined that Betar U.S. engaged in a pattern of violence and harassment driven by explicit hostility toward protected groups.” The investigation also uncovered that despite registering with the Internal Revenue Service as a nonprofit in 2024, Betar U.S. never registered itself with the New York State Charities Bureau, despite soliciting donations while operating in the state.

The far-right Zionist organization has agreed to a $50,000 suspended fine that it will only be forced to pay if it violates the terms of the agreement, which require it to stop engaging in organized harassment campaigns encouraging violence and making direct threats against its political opponents. Betar U.S. will be required to file annual compliance reports for the next three years proving it has not violated the terms of the settlement to avoid paying the suspended fine. As a result of the settlement, Betar U.S. will dissolve its nonprofit status in New York and has told the attorney general’s office that it intends to cease its operations within the state. Despite agreeing to the settlement, a spokesperson from Betar U.S. has denied any wrongdoing.

Although branded as a fringe group on the outskirts of the American Zionist establishment, evidence of the political influence of Betar U.S. became increasingly evident following the return of President Donald J. Trump to the White House. In late January 2025, shortly after Trump was inaugurated, the far-right Zionist group provided his administration with a list of students participating in anti-Israel protests whose identities it uncovered in order to have them deported from the country. Shortly after being sent that list, President Trump signed an executive order creating a task force against antisemitism. In response to continued protests against Israel, Trump signed another executive order to deport college students and other non-permanent U.S. residents in the country on green cards and visas by equating their participation in the demonstrations with support for terrorism. That decision emboldened Betar U.S. to launch what it named Operation Wrath of Zion as a coordinated doxing campaign to leak the personal details of protesters.

Evidence of the harassment campaigns the New York Attorney General’s office found Betar U.S. to have engaged in has been replete across social media since the group was revived in June 2023, just months before the conflict between Israel and Hamas led to full-scale war in the Gaza Strip following the attacks of October 7th, 2023. The group regularly posted threats on X, going as far as to publish videos of its members committing acts of violence against pro-Palestine protesters. Following a Mossad-led operation dubbed Operation Grim Beeper, in which Israeli intelligence targeted Hezbollah officials by detonating thousands of handheld pagers across Lebanon and Syria, leading to thousands of civilian casualties, Betar U.S. posted videos of its members taking to the streets of New York City to hand-deliver beepers to anti-Israel activists as an intimidation tactic. Jewish anti-Zionist activist Norman Finkelstein was one such critic of Israel whom Betar U.S. targeted in this coordinated harassment campaign, calling him a “fucking Holocaust denying piece of shit” when placing a beeper into the front pocket of his jacket.

Although Betar U.S. targeted pro-Palestinian activists with its militant tactics, the extremist ideology of the group also put it at odds with other Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League. The group accused the ADL of being too lenient on opponents of Israel, creating an irreconcilable schism between the two. The animosity it fostered led to the ADL putting Betar U.S. on its database of extremist groups, making it the only Jewish organization to earn that distinction.

In response to the announcement of its settlement with the New York Attorney General, Betar attempted to distance itself from the renewed attention placed on its militant ideology. “Betar is mainstream Zionism, an organization without which the State of Israel would not exist,” a spokesperson told The Times of Israel. Despite this protestation, Betar is impossible to separate from militant Zionist extremism. The organization was originally established by Ze’ev Jabotinsky in Riga, Latvia in 1923 as a fascist youth movement created to advance his ideology of Revisionist Zionism.

The sect of Revisionist Zionism created by Jabotinsky advocated for the reform of the Zionist ideology in opposition to the left-wing Labor Zionism movement led by the eventual first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion. In contrast to Labor Zionism, the ideology of Revisionist Zionism centered around the idea that the Jewish people had the right to sovereignty over the whole of what it saw as the Land of Israel, including the entirety of British Mandatory Palestine and Transjordan. Revisionist Zionism has served as the foundation for the right wing of modern Israeli politics, influencing the creation of the Likud party, now led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as the Jewish supremacist Kahanism movement, which the Jewish Power party, led by Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir, arose out of.

Jabotinsky was also behind the founding of the Irgun, a Zionist paramilitary organization that operated in Mandatory Palestine from 1931 until years after his death in 1940, when it was eventually absorbed into the IDF following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. In its years operating as a Zionist paramilitary, the Irgun was responsible for acts of terrorism against Palestinian Arabs and other groups it labeled as opponents of its Zionist worldview, such as the Deir Yassin Massacre and the King David Hotel Bombing committed against the administrative headquarters of the British authorities of Mandatory Palestine in 1946. Betar served as a recruiting pipeline for the Irgun, in a manner like that in which the Hitler Youth was constructed.

It wasn’t until six years after the Zionist paramilitary was founded by Jabotinsky that the U.S. branch of Betar was established in 1929. Throughout its existence, opposition to its radical ideology and militant tactics had fragmented its operations in America. However, following its latest iteration being established in 2023, support from high-ranking Israeli political leaders has allowed it to flourish. During a visit to the U.S. in September to speak before the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with leaders of Betar U.S. in New York City. Yet, even that tacit support from the Israeli government was not enough to overcome the scrutiny the group has faced due to its militant tactics.

In the wake of the announcement of its settlement with the Office of the New York State Attorney General, Betar U.S. returned to its X account to continue to push propaganda framing itself as a victim of antisemitism. Betar U.S. accused New York Attorney General Letitia James of barring it from operating in the state. In reality, all the attorney general’s office has required of Betar U.S. is to stop targeting its opponents with campaigns of harassment, intimidation, and violence, or face paying a paltry $50,000 fine. That requirement alone was enough for Betar U.S. to voluntarily cease its operations. Given that it postures itself as a mainstream pro-Israel organization, the fact that Betar U.S. has deemed that it cannot continue to operate without engaging in those terroristic tactics is a damning distillation of what Zionism truly stands for.

January 19, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | legal, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries