nuclear-news

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

Federal Judge Strikes Down New York’s “Save the Hudson” Nuclear Discharge Ban

A federal judge has sided with Holtec International in a dispute over a New
York law that barred the discharge of radioactive materials into the Hudson
River during the decommissioning of the Indian Point nuclear facility. The
ruling underscores the primacy of federal oversight in nuclear safety
decisions.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas held that a 2023
New York statute (commonly known as the “Save the Hudson” law) was
preempted by federal law. The judge found that the state statute, which
prohibits radioactive discharges in connection with decommissioning,
“categorically precludes Holtec from utilizing a federally accepted
method of disposal.”

Oil Price 24th Sept 2025, https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Federal-Judge-Strikes-Down-New-Yorks-Save-the-Hudson-Nuclear-Discharge-Ban.html

September 28, 2025 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

David versus Goliath: the battle of a small indigenous community against a federal radioactive waste dump. 

There are fewer than 500 of them, but they have managed to put a stop to a federal nuclear waste dump project worth several hundred million dollars…

Anne Caroline Desplanques, Journal de Montréal, September 19, 2025, https://tinyurl.com/mwuymkjp

Federal authorities plan to store the remains of the Bécancour nuclear power plant, Gentilly-1, in a dump in Chalk River, on the edge of the drinking water source for millions of Quebecers. 

At a time when the Carney government is promoting nuclear power as one of the ways to make Canada an energy superpower, our investigative team has obtained rare access to this ultra-secure complex, which Ottawa wants to hand over to the Americans. We spoke with citizens and experts who are concerned about the environment and the country’s sovereignty.

There are only 365 Anishinabeg living in the tiny Kebaowek First Nation reserve in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. But through their lawyers, they have succeeded in putting a hold on a multi-million-dollar federal radioactive waste dump project on their traditional territory.

In February, the Federal Court ruled that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission had not obtained the free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous peoples before authorizing the construction of the dump, in violation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In March, the court determined that the project endangers several species, including the spotted turtle, a threatened species less than 30 centimeters long that lives for about 50 years and reproduces infrequently, as it does not reach sexual maturity until around 20 years of age.

Federal lawyers have appealed both decisions. If they fail to convince the courts, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) will have to go back to the drawing board and resume consultations. In the meantime, the project, called the “near-surface waste management facility,” is on hold.

A geotextile membrane to contain radioactivity

It is intended to be a permanent storage and disposal site for up to one million cubic meters of radioactive waste. The waste will be placed on a layer of clay, sand, and geotextile approximately 1.5 meters thick, and covered with another layer of sand, rock, and a membrane.

This is not enough to protect the environment from PCBs, asbestos, heavy metals, and dozens of radioactive elements that CNSC plans to bury there, fears physicist Ginette Charbonneau of the Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive (Coalition Against Radioactive Pollution).

” Radioactive waste cannot be disposed of, it can only be isolated. For that, you need more than a membrane,” she insists.

CNSC assures that this buried waste will have “low-level” contamination and will therefore no longer pose a danger to the environment and health in 500 years, at the end of the containment cells’ useful life.

A pile of waste

But nuclear chemist Kerry Burns has his doubts. Retired from Atomic Energy of Canada since 2010, he was tasked with analyzing waste from the Chalk River laboratories to determine its radioactive content.

He explains that, in the past, CNL buried tons of waste in the sand, which they now plan to exhume and place in their new landfill. However, there are no records indicating the precise level of contamination, he says, describing a gigantic pile of mixed waste.

The project site has too much risk to leave anything to chance, insists the scientist: the landfill will be only one kilometer from the Ottawa River in sandy, porous soil.

“If the contamination escapes from the cells, it will very quickly find its way into the water, and it will be extremely difficult to measure and stop,” he warns.

Like Ms. Chabonneau, Mr. Burns argues that the materials should be isolated in a deep geological repository far from water sources.

This is the method used by one of the American companies chosen to manage CNL, Amentum: it isolates low-level waste in New Mexico in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), which has isolation chambers 660 meters underground.

September 23, 2025 Posted by | Canada, indigenous issues, Legal, wastes | Leave a comment

A killing at sea marks America’s descent into lawless power

The people on board were not given the chance to surrender. No evidence was presented. No rules of engagement were cited. The administration claimed authority to kill on suspicion alone. A vessel in international waters is not a lawful target simply because officials say so.

International law does not permit such action.

The peremptory strike on a speedboat is a warning to all who serve. Remember your oath.

Jon Duffy, September 8, 2025, https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2025/09/killing-sea-americas-descent-lawless-power/407949/?oref=defense_one_breaking_nl&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Defense%20One%20Breaking%20News:%209/9%20killing&utm_content=C&utm_term=newsletter_d1_alert

The United States has crossed a dangerous line.

Last week, an American military platform destroyed a small vessel in the Caribbean, killing 11 people the Trump administration claims were drug traffickers. It was not an interception. It was not a boarding with Coast Guard legal authority. It was a strike—ordered from Washington, executed in international waters, and justified with little more than “trust us.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Fox that officials “knew exactly who was in that boat” and “exactly what they were doing.” He offered no evidence.

This was not a counterdrug operation. It was not law enforcement. It was killing without process. And it was, to all appearances, against the letter and the spirit of the law.
For decades, the U.S. military and Coast Guard have intercepted drug shipments in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific under a careful legal framework: Coast Guard officers would tactically control Navy ships, invoke law enforcement authority, stop vessels, and detain crews for prosecution. The goal is not execution; it is interdiction within international law.

This week’s strike ripped up that framework. The people on board were not given the chance to surrender. No evidence was presented. No rules of engagement were cited. The administration claimed authority to kill on suspicion alone.

International law does not permit such action. A vessel in international waters is not a lawful target simply because officials say so. Contending that narcotics pose a long-term danger to Americans is at best a weak policy argument, not a legal justification for force. Unless this boat posed an imminent threat of attack—which no one has claimed—blowing it out of the water is not self-defense. It is killing at sea. A government that ignores these distinctions is not fighting cartels. It is discarding the rule of law.

Beyond the gross violations of the law and the Constitution lies an enormous strategic danger. By redefining traffickers as legitimate military targets, the administration has plunged the United States into another war without limits.

Who is the enemy? “Cartels,” we are told. But cartels are not armies. They are networks that span countries and blend with civilians. Declaring war on them is like declaring war on poverty or terrorism—a plunge into an endless campaign that cannot be “won.”

Where is the battlefield? The Caribbean? Venezuela? Central America? Overnight, officials shifted their story about the destroyed vessel’s destination: first, it was “probably headed to Trinidad or some other country in the Caribbean,” then it was among “imminent threats to the United States.” If geography is that malleable, there is no limit to where the next strike may fall.

And what is the objective? To “blow up and get rid of them,” in the words of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. That is not strategy; it is bravado. We have tried it before, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen. Killing “high-value targets” didn’t end the war on terror.

The U.S. is drifting into an undeclared war of assassination across half a hemisphere, led by unaccountable officials who equate explosions with effectiveness.

Even more dangerous is the backdrop: the Supreme Court’s ruling that presidents are immune from prosecution for “official acts.” Experts warned this would give the commander-in-chief license to commit murder. The majority waved those fears away. Now the president has ordered killings in international waters.

Eleven people are dead, not through due process but by fiat. The defense secretary boasts about it on television. And the president will face no consequences.

This is no longer abstract. The law has been rewritten in real time: a president can kill, and there is no recourse. That is not strength. That is authoritarianism.

What does this mean for the principle of civilian control, when those who wield it face no consequence for abuse? What does it mean for our military, when they are ordered to carry out missions that violate the standards they have sworn to uphold?

What happens abroad does not stay abroad. A government that stretches legal authority overseas will not hesitate to do the same at home. The same commander-in-chief who ordered a strike on a boat in international waters has already ordered National Guard troops into American cities over the objections of local leaders. The logic is identical: redefine the threat, erase legal distinctions, and justify force as the first tool. Today it is “traffickers” in the Caribbean. Tomorrow it will be “criminals” in Chicago or “radicals” in Atlanta.

This strike is not only about 11 lives lost at sea. It is about the precedent set when the military is unmoored from law, and when silence from senior leaders normalizes the abuse. 

The cost will not be measured in a destroyed boat. It will be measured in the corrosion of law, strategy, and trust. Legally, the U.S. has abandoned the framework that distinguished interdiction from assassination. Constitutionally, presidential immunity has been laid bare: the commander-in-chief of the most destructive military power in history has been placed beyond the reach of law. Strategically, we have entered another endless war against a concept, not an enemy. Internally, the erosion of boundaries abroad feeds the erosion of boundaries at home.

The laws of war, the principles of proportionality, the training drilled into every officer—all run counter to what happened in the Caribbean. Yet silence has prevailed. And silence is acquiescence. Each concession ratifies the misuse of force until it becomes routine. That is how institutions corrode. That is how democracies die.

The strike in the Caribbean is not the action of a strong nation. It is a warning. This is about whether the U.S. military remains an institution of law and principle, or whether it becomes an obedient weapon in the hands of a lawless president.


A republic that allows its leaders to kill without law, to wage war without strategy, and to deploy troops without limit is a republic in deep peril. Congress will not stop it. The courts will not stop it. That leaves those sworn not to a man, but to the Constitution.

The oath is clear: unlawful orders—foreign or domestic—must be disobeyed. To stand silent as the military is misused is not restraint. It is betrayal. 

Jon Duffy is a retired Navy captain. His active duty career included command at sea and national security roles. He writes about leadership and democracy.

September 11, 2025 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Campaigners continue to need their day in court, says NFLA Secretary

 In a personal appeal, NFLA Secretary Richard Outram has called on members
of the Government-appointed Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce not to recommend
to Ministers that the rights of campaign groups to seek Judicial Review be
curtailed.

The NRT established to look at the operation of Britain’s
current regulatory and permitting regime within the nuclear sector, both
civil and military, has recently published its Interim Report. The
taskforce has declared that it is intent upon introducing
‘once-in-a-generation change’, but the NFLAs and other campaign bodies
are convinced that this simply represents industry speak for wholesale
deregulation with fears that standards in public safety and environmental
protection will be sacrificed on the altar of business expediency and
profit.

NGOs which are members of the Office for Nuclear Regulation NGO
Forum – including the NFLAs – have submitted a joint response to a
consultation which closed yesterday on the findings outlined in the NRT’s
Interim Report. Richard also submitted his own comments on one element of
the Interim Report that most concerned him – a suggestion that the rights
of campaign groups to seek Judicial Review be curtailed on the grounds that
their applications were ‘vexatious’, increasing costs and causing
delays to nuclear developers. This was a clear reference to recent actions
concerning Sizewell C.

 NFLA 9th Sept 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/campaigners-continue-to-need-their-day-in-court-says-nfla-secretary/

September 11, 2025 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Albion Stupidities: Palestine Action and Anti-Terrorism Laws

24 August 2025, Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/albion-stupidities-palestine-action-and-anti-terrorism-laws/

Protest in Britain has become dangerous of late. Shaky lawmakers minding their elected positions, displaying decorative ignorance, have been criminalising protests against the war in Gaza, branding certain groups “terrorist” in inclination. While the laws dealing with criminal damage to property and such are already more than adequate, the government of Sir Keir Starmer thought it wise to enlarge them. There are people dying in large numbers in Gaza, and those protesting that situation have become a nuisance.

The keen obsession of this government – and a majority of the cerebrally softened legislators in the House of Commons – is that a group called Palestine Action is somehow worthy of being bracketed as a terrorist group under the Terrorist Act 2000. On June 20, members of the outfit broke into a Royal Airforce base at Brize Norton, Oxfordshire and spray painted two military aircraft alleged to be aiding US and Israel in refuelling tasks. This seemingly minor display of indignation by the organisation was enough to warrant its proscription by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper three days later under section 3 of the Terrorism Act.

United Nations experts linked to the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, among them Francesca Albanese, Ben Saul and Irene Khan, issued a press release on July 1 calling the labelling of a protest movement as “terrorist” an unjustified measure. “According to international standards, acts of protest that damage property, but are not intended to kill or injure people, should not be treated as terrorism.” Despite there being no binding definition of terrorism in international law, the experts were of the view that it would be limited to such acts as would cause death, serious personal injury, or involve the taking of hostages “in order to intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act.”

Were a national law to criminalise property damage in democracies, it would have to exclude acts of advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action not causing death or serious injury, an approach approved by the UN Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate. In the case of banning Palestine Action, individuals would be needlessly “prosecuted for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and opinion, assembly, association and participation in political life.”

A leaked report by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC), obtained by human rights activist and former diplomat Craig Murray, further showed the decision to proscribe Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act as one marked by mendacity and panic on the part of the Starmer government. While JTAC is not sympathetic to Palestine Action, it did note that “The majority of the group’s activity would not be classified as terrorism under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000.” While it assesses the group as having “promoted terrorism”, the primary focus of the direct action, according to the sanitised version of the report, is on inflicting property damage. Serious damage to property could bring the group within the legislation, but even then, as the UN experts have noted, that would not meet necessary international standards to warrant the label of terrorism.

According to Murray, had Palestine Action, as claimed or implied by the government, deliberately attacked individuals, received foreign funding from Iran or any hostile power, attacked Jewish-owned businesses based on racism, or planned a “future unspecified appalling terrorist acts”, then JTAC’s report would have made mention of it. “Palestine Action,” insists Murray, “is what it says it is: a non-violent direct action group which targets the Israeli weapons industry and its support and supply line.”  

The High Court has granted Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori judicial review regarding the proscription of the organisation on two grounds: that it arguably amounts to a disproportionate interference with Article 10 and 11 rights of the claimants, which guarantee free speech and peaceful assembly under the European Convention on Human Rights; and that the proscription was made in breach or natural justice and/or contrary to article 6 the ECHR, which entitles all to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The Home Secretary, it was noted, had failed to even consult PA in making the decision.

The decision by the Starmer government was astonishing and, as with all bad laws, the foundry of astonishingly stupid results. It has made the police imbecilic enforcers; it has turned prosecutions into a dismal circus. Protesters otherwise regarded as very English and very middle class have found themselves facing arrests and charges. Over the course of one weekend this month, section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 was used to arrest over 500 people, most of them carrying a placard supporting PA. That provision criminalises the wearing of clothing items or the wearing, carrying or displaying of any article, and the publishing of an image of an item of clothing or any other article “in such way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.” Sentences range from six-month imprisonment to a fine.

One particularly absurd arrest was that of retired head teacher John Farley, who was carrying a placard making reference to Palestine Action. Farley was eventually released on bail pending charges, which were never pressed. The incident last month did not even involve the proscribed organisation but was connected with another organised protest group.  

The protest held in Leeds began as a solemn, silent march. Two police caught sight of Farley holding the placard. They proceeded to drag Harley away, and, typical of those types of recruits, refused to listen to any explanation: that the cartoon on the placard was a replica from the satirical magazine Private Eye, commenting on the banning of Palestine Action. The Private Eye piece, brutal, grim, and apposite, sought to explain what “Palestine Action”entailed: “Unacceptable Palestine Action” involved “spraying military planes with paint”;“Acceptable Palestine Action” entailed “shooting Palestinians queuing for food.”

Private Eye’s editor, Ian Hislop, roundly condemned the arrest as “mind-boggling” and “ludicrous”. The cartoon had been “a very neat and funny little encapsulation about what is and isn’t acceptable, and it’s a joke about – I mean, it’s quite a black joke – but about the hypocrisies of government approach to any sort of action in Gaza.”

A spokesman for West Yorkshire Police expressed some contrition for Farley’s consternation, and went on to express a view in tortured middle management speak. “As this is a new proscribed organisation, West Yorkshire Police is considering any individual or organisational learning from this incident.” That ship would seem to have sailed into the waters of sheer lunacy, leaving the judges to decide in November whether the proscription order for Palestine Action struck a proportionate balance. Till then, this egregious application of the law will continue to make pro-Palestinian protests in Britain a perilous affair.

August 25, 2025 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Judicial review sought at High Court into flood barriers.

16th August, By Dominic Bareham, Geographic Specialist Reporter, https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/25391172.judicial-review-sought-high-court-flood-barriers/

Campaigners fighting the new Sizewell C nuclear power station have been granted a hearing in the High Court.

Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) is seeking a judicial review into plans for additional sea defences as part of the project.

The action group is calling for Sizewell C’s development consent order, granted in 2022, to be revoked or varied.

A judge at the High Court will hear TASC’s representatives claim project developer, power firm EDF, kept plans for the flood barriers secret in order to avoid scrutiny.

A decision would then be made on whether to grant a judicial review hearing, which would take place at a later date.

A TASC spokesperson said: “Sizewell C’s attempt to avoid scrutiny of these additional sea defences now means the project is proceeding without its full environmental impact having been assessed, this being in contravention of the UK Habitat Regulations.

“Sizewell C clearly believe they can do as they see fit with our heritage coast, national landscape and designated wildlife sites irrespective of the damage they will cause – this government, the largest shareholder in Sizewell C, must be challenged on this.”

TASC believe that the barriers were omitted from the original planning application that was granted development consent and fear that their construction could disrupt nearby wildlife habitats.

The campaigners would like less invasive flood barrier options to be pursued.

TASC has lost previous judicial reviews into the new station, which is set to cost £38 billion, including in June 2023 when the High Court rejected a legal challenge over the disposal of nuclear waste and the provision of a water supply.

In 2022, a similar legal challenge claiming the development was unlawful because of concerns about the maintenance of a water supply, was also rejected.

August 18, 2025 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Quebec engineering body finds former SNC-Lavalin CEO guilty on multiple counts of misconduct.

Aajah Sauter, August 12, 2025

Former SNC-Lavalin Group chief executive Jacques Lamarre has been found guilty of seven of 14 allegations of misconduct made against him by Quebec’s professional order for engineers.

Last fall, the disciplinary council of L’Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec began several days of hearings to decide whether Mr. Lamarre infringed the organization’s code of ethics and professional duties in the early 2000s when he was CEO of SNC-Lavalin, now known as AtkinsRéalis Group Inc. 

These hearings followed an investigation by the Ordre’s Office of the Syndic, which then launched a formal complaint against the former engineering executive.

The Syndic made 14 separate allegations against Mr. Lamarre as part of its disciplinary complaint, which are related to previous legal cases involving the company. The allegations link broadly to SNC-Lavalin’s past business conduct as it sought contracts in Libya, as well as past political financing activities in Montreal.

Among the findings of guilt, L’Ordre concluded that SNC-Lavalin under Mr. Lamarre’s leadership directly or indirectly made payments amounting to about $2-million to the family of former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, notably for expenses incurred by his son Saadi while he stayed in Canada.

Mr. Lamarre was found not guilty on allegations that he sanctioned the purchase of a luxury yacht for Saadi.

The former CEO last year denied the Syndic’s allegations. In a statement released Wednesday, Mr. Lamarre announced his resignation as a retired member of the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec. He said he’s “disappointed” with the way the disciplinary investigation was conducted and called the ruling “deeply unfair” and “unreasonable.”

“The Syndic of the Order granted complete immunity to certain witnesses with conflicts of interest, while seeking to hold me responsible for actions for which those same witnesses were found guilty in other proceedings. ”

In early 2012, Swiss and Canadian police discovered questionable payments from SNC-Lavalin that ran through bank accounts in Switzerland and other countries. These payments were later found to be bribes to procure contracts for projects in Libya during Moammar Gadhafi’s rule, as SNC-Lavalin sought a share of contracts offered by his government.

In 2015, SNC-Lavalin and two affiliates were charged with fraud and violating Canada’s Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act tied to its dealings in Libya. The company requested a settlement to the case, commonly known as a deferred prosecution agreement, but was denied.

SNC-Lavalin solidified an agreement with prosecutors in 2019 for the company’s construction division to plead guilty to a single charge of fraud while the corruption charge was dropped. The company agreed to pay a $280-million fine and received a three-year probation order.

In 2016, the company acknowledged that it engaged in a scheme that involved SNC-Lavalin employees being encouraged to donate to federal political parties and then be reimbursed through fake personal-expense claims, bonuses or benefits. Canadian law states that businesses cannot make financial contributions to political parties irrespective of candidates.

The company later entered into a compliance agreement with the Commissioner of Canada Elections. SNC-Lavalin also admitted that it used a similar strategy for donations to Quebec political parties.

No penalties for Mr. Lamarre were announced by L’Ordre, though it said it will set a date for sanctions. He could be revoked of his status as a professional engineer, or face fines.

“I am proud of my career and the role I played as an executive at SNC-Lavalin,” Mr. Lamarre said in his statement. “But given the ongoing conflict with the Order and the way I have been treated, I have no choice but to resign.”

August 17, 2025 Posted by | Canada, Legal | Leave a comment

Legal challenge against nuclear site’s water plans

Federica Bedendo, BBC News, North East and Cumbria, 13 Aug 25,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c987e11393ko

An environmental activist is lodging a legal challenge against plans from the UK’s largest nuclear plant to remove water from its site.

Marianne Birkby, campaigner for Lakes Against Nuclear Dump (LAND), is contesting a decision by the Environment Agency (EA) to give Sellafield permission to extract water from its Cumbrian plant – a process needed to build a new storage facility for radioactive waste.

Ms Birkby fears the process would produce contaminated water, which would be discharged into the nearby Calder and Ehen rivers.

The EA said it had considered all the potential impacts on the environment before giving permission. Sellafield said the water would not be discharged in the rivers.

Ms Birkby is working with environmental lawyers Leigh Day, who have warned the EA of their intention to pursue a judicial review.

The licence to abstract water was granted to Sellafield in May.

It is part of a wider project to build the second of four new units to store waste to support the site’s decommissioning operations.

Sellafield said the water would have to be extracted when the ground was dug up to build the new facility, and the water removed would mostly be from rainfall.

“Removing water from a construction site is standard practice when preparing land for a building project,” a spokesman said.

They added: “The water is pumped to on-site storage tanks where it is tested prior to being discharged direct to sea.”

Fears for rivers

Ms Birkby said she feared the environment would “bear the brunt” of the operations, which she said could impact the endangered freshwater pearl mussel population present in the Ehen.

“No-one begrudges Sellafield repackaging leaking nuclear wastes from the Magnox silos, but this should not be at the further expense of Cumbria’s rivers and groundwaters,” she said.

She added she believed the EA should have required Sellafield to provide a hydrological impact assessment, but the EA said it did not believe that was needed.

“In this case, we did not require a hydrological risk assessment because we consider that the application will not affect any site of nature conservation, significant landscape or heritage, protected species or habitat,” a EA spokesman said.

The licence granted to Sellafield would allow the company to extract up to 350,400 cubic metres (77,077,224 gallons) of water a year until 2031.

Nuclear Free Local Authorities, which represents about 25 councils who are against civil nuclear power, has also written to the EA to raise concerns about the permit.

“We are concerned that the proposal will involve nearly one million litres of contaminated water being discharged into the River Calder and out into the sea every day for an unknown length of time,” they said.

A EA spokesman said: “When we receive water abstraction license applications we take into consideration all the potential impacts on the environment before determining whether to issue a licence.”

August 17, 2025 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Netanyahu’s Plan To Occupy Gaza Violates World Court Ruling That Israeli Occupation is Illegal.

 August 12, 2025 By Marjorie Cohn ScheerPost, https://scheerpost.com/2025/08/12/netanyahus-plan-to-occupy-gaza-violates-world-court-ruling-that-israeli-occupation-is-illegal/

As the death toll of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip surpasses 61,000 and Israel continues to starve Gazans to death, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made clear that Israel plans to occupy all of Gaza. When asked in an August 7 appearance on Fox News whether Israel would “take control of all of Gaza,” Netanyahu replied, “We intend to.”

The Israeli Occupation Forces say they already control about 75 percent of Gaza. The remaining 25 percent includes Gaza City, Khan Younis, and many neighborhoods and refugee camps in central Gaza. 

Israel’s occupation of Gaza flies in the face of the July 19 ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ, or World Court). In its landmark 83-page advisory opinion, the ICJ held, “The sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying Power, through annexation and an assertion of permanent control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful.” 

During the proceedings at the ICJ, Israel had argued that because it withdrew its military forces from Gaza in 2005, it no longer occupied the Gaza Strip. But the World Court concluded that Israel continues to occupy Gaza because it exercises “effective control” of “the land, sea and air borders” and maintains “restrictions on movement of people and goods, collection of import and export taxes, and military control over the buffer zone.” The court noted that “This is even more so since 7 October 2023.”

Israel’s Security Cabinet Approves the Takeover of Gaza City

Netanyahu’s stated intention leaves no doubt that he aims to make Israel’s occupation of Gaza official. On August 8, in the first step toward executing that plan, the Israeli security cabinet authorized the takeover of Gaza City, the forcible displacement of the 1 million Palestinians taking refuge there, and their confinement in “camps.”

To eliminate media witnesses to its impending slaughter, Israeli Occupation Forces killed five Al Jazeera journalists near Gaza City’s al-Shifa Hospital on the evening of August 10. They included the beloved Al Jazeera Arabic correspondent Anas al-Sharif, who had reported widely from northern Gaza. 

“The Israeli Government’s plan for a complete military takeover of the occupied Gaza strip must be immediately halted. It runs contrary to the ruling of the International Court of Justice that Israel must bring its occupation to an end as soon as possible, to the realisation of the agreed two-State solution and to the right of Palestinians to self-determination,” UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk stated on August 8. “On all evidence to date, this further escalation will result in more massive forced displacement, more killing, more unbearable suffering, senseless destruction and atrocity crimes.”

In a Joint Statement issued on August 9, more than 20 countries, joined by the League of Arab States and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, expressed “their strong condemnation and categorical rejection of Israel’s announcement of its intention to impose full military control over the Gaza Strip.” They wrote, “We consider this announcement a dangerous and unacceptable escalation, a flagrant violation of international law, and an attempt to entrench the illegal occupation and impose a fait accompli/facts on the ground by force, in contravention of international legitimacy.”

On August 10, the United Nations Security Council convened an emergency meeting at the request of the United Kingdom, Denmark, France, Greece, and Slovenia, who issued the following statement:

We condemn the Government of Israel’s decision to further expand its military operations in Gaza. This plan risks violating international humanitarian law. We call on Israel to urgently reverse this decision and not to implement it. And we reiterate that any attempts at annexation or of settlement extension violate international law … We call on both parties to secure an immediate and permanent ceasefire, the release of all the hostages, and to urgently advance efforts to achieve a two-state solution.

All UN member countries except Israel and the U.S. denounced Netanyahu’s occupation plan for Gaza at the Council meeting. For example, the representative from Somalia said the ICJ “was unequivocal” that Israel’s occupation, blockade, denial of humanitarian access, and actions constituting collective punishment in Gaza violate international law. Algeria’s representative strongly condemned the Israeli security cabinet’s decision to displace the entire population of Gaza City and northern Gaza and impose full military control of Gaza, stating that “these are war crimes, and those who draw their maps in blood must not walk in the shadow of impunity.” The delegate from Denmark invoked the ICJ’s ruling that any unilateral attempts to alter the demography or status of Gaza amounts to a clear violation of international law. China’s ambassador said the Council “must firmly oppose any attempt to occupy Gaza.”

The same day the Council met, Saudi Arabia issued a statement saying it “condemns in the strongest possible terms the decision of the Israeli occupation authorities to occupy the Gaza Strip and categorically condemns their persistence in committing crimes of starvation, brutal practices, and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people.”

Trump Gives Israel the Green Light to Occupy Gaza

“They’re talking about occupying areas that are packed with so many people,” said Mukhlis al-Masri, who was forced to leave his home in northern Gaza and is now in Khan Younis. He told The New York Times that “If they do that, there will be incalculable killing. The situation will be more dangerous than anyone can imagine.”

The United States tried to prevent the meeting of the Security Council, the body empowered by the UN Charter to maintain international peace and security. Although unable to thwart the meeting from taking place, the threat of a U.S. veto prevented the Council from considering a resolution. 

Dorothy Shea, U.S. interim ambassador to the UN, charged that the Security Council meeting was “emblematic of the counterproductive role that far too many governments on this council and throughout the UN system have played on the issue.” Her comments demonstrate the U.S.’s consistent defiance of international law.

Donald Trump gave Israel the tacit green light to take over Gaza. “That’s going to be pretty much up to Israel,” he said when asked about Netanyahu’s plan. 

The United States routinely provides Israel with diplomatic cover for its international crimes – not only in the Security Council, but also at the ICJ and the International Criminal Court. The ICC has charged Netanyahu with the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

And the U.S. also flouts its legal obligations by enabling – indeed, aiding and abetting – Israel’s genocide by providing millions of dollars in weapons used to massacre Palestinians. 

The U.S. has the power to stop Netanyahu’s illegal and dangerous plan. “Unless the United States changes its stance, I think ultimately, Israel will continue with this plan,” warned Will Todman, chief of staff of the geopolitics and foreign policy department and a senior fellow in the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

That would be a disaster – for the people of Gaza and the region, the rule of law, and the integrity of the global community.

August 16, 2025 Posted by | Israel, Legal | Leave a comment

TASC’s new legal challenge against Sizewell C’s secret flood defences

by Together Against Sizewell C (TASC)

 TASC’s new Judicial Review claim calling for Sizewell C’s Development
Consent Order (DCO) to be revoked or varied has been granted a permission
hearing in the High Court.

At a date to be confirmed, a judge will hear why
TASC consider it is unlawful to delay, for decades, assessment and public
scrutiny of two huge additional flood barriers kept secret by EDF since
2015. If the court grants permission, then there would be a full JR hearing
in due course.

TASC writes: “Sizewell C’s attempt to avoid scrutiny of
these additional sea defences now means the project is proceeding without
its full environmental impact having been assessed, this being in
contravention of the UK Habitat Regulations. Sizewell C clearly believe
they can do as they see fit with our Heritage Coast, National Landscape and
designated wildlife sites irrespective of the damage they will cause –
this government, the largest shareholder in Sizewell C, must be challenged
on this.” If you would like to help with TASC’s fundraising, visit their
Crowd Justice page –
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/sizewell-c-legal-challenge/

 TASC 11th Aug 2025.
https://tasizewellc.org.uk/#

August 13, 2025 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Tepco ordered to pay ¥100 million in damages over 2011 disaster

 Japan Times 30th July 2025

The Tokyo District Court ordered Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings on Wednesday to pay about ¥100 million ($675,000) in damages over the 2011 accident at its Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

Presiding Judge Masahiko Abe ordered the payment mainly as compensation for damage to property and consolation money for life during evacuation while dismissing the claim against the state.

In the lawsuit, Katsutaka Idogawa, 79, former mayor of Futaba, a town in Fukushima Prefecture, blamed the central government and Tepco for their inadequate handling of the accident, arguing that it led to his exposure to radiation…………………………. (Subscribers only) https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/07/30/japan/crime-legal/tepco-ordered-to-pay-damages-nuclear-disaster/

August 4, 2025 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, Legal | Leave a comment

Israel is changing the legal system governing the West Bank to accelerate annexation: report

Netanyahu’s government is building on a long-standing legal matrix to accelerate Israel’s de facto annexation in the West Bank 

Mondoweiss, By Jeff Wright  July 24, 2025 

Israel is accelerating its efforts to cement its permanent control over the West Bank through a number of sweeping legal and institutional changes, according to a new report from Adalah, The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel.

The 87-page report, Legal Structures of Distinction, Separation, and Territorial Domination, describes the ways in which the Netanyahu government is rapidly building on a long-standing legal matrix that further threatens Palestinians’ right to self-determination. 

“These developments are not something new to us,” Dr. Suhad Bishara, Legal Director of Adalah and lead author of the report, told Mondoweiss. “All eyes are on Gaza, justifiably so,” she said. “However… it is important to highlight the intensity of the structural changes that have taken place since the current government took over in December 2022.”

“What is happening in the West Bank is dangerously fast-forwarding annexation policies in a blatant violation of international law,” Bishara said. “Israel is intensifying measures to change the status of the West Bank, the status of many Palestinians living in Area C who are subject to intensified displacement induced by settler violence and Israeli policies.” She said, “This is in addition to settler expansion and further restrictions on Palestinian development in the area.”

Thoroughly researched and footnoted, the report documents how the current extremist government has built on what Adalah describes as “foundational mechanisms through which Israel has entrenched a land regime that facilitates territorial domination and racial segregation.” 

Area C comprises over 60 percent of the West Bank, and is under full Israeli military control. 

Here are the mechanisms of territorial domination Adalah examines in these areas.

Civilian governance for Israeli settlers; military rule over Palestinians………………………………………

1. Administration by local authorities

……………………………………Israel can argue that the settlements operate now under Israeli sovereignty. But applying Israeli law in occupied territory, Adalah maintains, is a violation of international human rights law and constitutes “a measure of de facto annexation.” 

2. Financial incentives for settlements ………………………………

3. Declaring State land …………………………………….

The planning system in Area C……………………………………………

………………………..Paralleling the judgments of the ICJ, UN experts, and international, Palestinian, and Israeli human rights groups, the report ends by listing the five international crimes that Adalah finds Israel guilt of: violations of International Humanitarian Law; the deepening of the illegal mechanism of de facto annexation; the denial of Palestinian people’s right to self-determination; the deepening of the apartheid system in the occupied Palestinian territory; and the commission of war crimes and crimes of aggression on the part of Israel……………………………………………………………………………………

Free speech is under attack—especially when it comes to Palestine. https://mondoweiss.net/2025/07/israel-is-changing-the-legal-system-governing-the-west-bank-to-accelerate-annexation-report/

July 28, 2025 Posted by | Israel, Legal | Leave a comment

Belgian court bans military shipments to Israel in activist victory

Anti-armament activists in Belgium celebrated a major victory as a judge ordered the Flemish government to halt military shipments to Israel.

July 23, 2025 by Ana Vračar, https://peoplesdispatch.org/2025/07/23/belgian-court-bans-military-shipments-to-israel-in-activist-victory/

In what could become a landmark ruling, a Belgian judge recently ordered the Flemish government to halt the transit of goods that could be used to continue or expand the genocide in Gaza. The decision follows a joint campaign by four organizations – Intal, Vredesactie (Peace Action), 11.11.11, and the Human Rights League – which was triggered by the discovery of containers in the port of Antwerp addressed to Israeli company Ashot Ashkelon Industries. The containers included materials used for the assembly of Merkava tanks, the same model implicated in the attack that killed six-year-old Hind Rajab.

The presence of these containers was brought to the attention of the organizations through links with investigative media outlets, Isabelle Vanbrabant, national coordinator of Intal, told Peoples Dispatch. Based on these alerts, Vredesactie initiated a formal inspection request and succeeded in detaining one container, though another was allowed to proceed. “We were doubtful about the effectiveness of a single inspection,” Vanbrabant says, noting activists feared the shipment might go unnoticed or that the inspection would impact only one case – despite knowing that Antwerp had previously been used to transport ammunition, and that similar cargo was en route aboard new vessels.

“We formed a coalition and contacted a lawyer. We had a solid case, so we decided to push further,” Vanbrabant explains. What followed was a swift but well-prepared legal campaign, which moved beyond a single shipment to challenge the broader conduct of Flemish authorities regarding military and dual-use exports to Israel. “We chose to argue that this wasn’t about one container, but about a wider pattern of the government allowing such cargo to pass through,” she said.

In a separate statement, Intal emphasized that facilitating the transit of military equipment to a country committing war crimes makes a government complicit. In this case, legal accountability involves both local and international law. Pledges made in 2009 explicitly state the region would not “issue arms export licenses that would strengthen the military capabilities of the warring parties” in occupied Palestine. Yet, as Vanbrabant describes, Flemish authorities have been, put mildly, pretty lax about implementing this line of policy towards Israel. “One of the key things this case proves is that having good-sounding legislation on paper isn’t enough,” she says. “You need to ensure it’s applied in practice, with proper oversight of the agencies involved.”

Implications for ongoing and future campaigns

While the judge criticized the government’s failure to follow domestic law, the ruling also leaned heavily on international legal standards. “That’s something new – and a very good development,” Vanbrabant stresses. “The government made no reference to international law. We did. This could set a real precedent for future arms transfer cases.”

Activists praised the court’s ruling as both thorough and principled. In addition to requiring the Flemish government to comply with its own regulations, the judge imposed financial penalties for possible violations: if similar cargo bound for Israel is discovered, the government will be fined €50,000 per container. Vanbrabant points out that, in the context of Europe’s push for rearmament and renewed austerity, the ruling might force the government to allocate additional resources to inspection agencies, currently underfunded and thus undercapacitated.

The ruling is also expected to influence ongoing and future campaigns in Belgium. There are already efforts underway challenging the country’s stance on arms shipments via its maritime and airspace. The organizations behind the Flemish case are also mobilizing against domestic and EU-level plans to weaken export controls under the ReArm Europe agenda. “What we achieved locally can be expanded,” Vanbrabant says. “This isn’t only about Palestine, it’s also about the broader arms export system.”

A tool that extends beyond the courts

The implications of the case are wide-ranging. “Legal action is becoming a growing tool [in the Palestine solidarity and anti-armament movements],” Vanbrabant notes. “But it goes beyond that.”

This is particularly relevant in the context of intensifying anti-militarization efforts across Europe and Intal’s wider work. “As a strong BDS partner and an organization that works on militarization more broadly, the issue of arms embargoes is central to us,” Vanbrabant adds. “In a way, it’s part of our DNA as an anti-imperialist group, the BDS campaign and the knowledge that genocide is only possible because of our governments’ complicity.”

The case is also expected to give a boost to the Palestine solidarity movement, which has faced constant repression in much of Europe. While the role of Antwerp port workers wasn’t as visible as that of logistics workers in Greece or France, who have repeatedly refused to load military cargo, this campaign provided an important opportunity for labor collectives to raise awareness and consult their members. Ultimately, as Vanbrabant emphasizes, the ruling proves that even without major resources, it’s possible to take on authorities – and win. The entire case was funded through small donations, showing widespread public support for the cause.

“There’s this belief that you have to be big and powerful to win,” she says. “But this proves it doesn’t have to be that way.”

July 26, 2025 Posted by | EUROPE, Legal | Leave a comment

Trump sanctions on UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese are illegal and represent further U.S. complicity in genocide.

The Trump administration’s sanctions against UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese show how far the U.S. is willing to go to ensure impunity for Israel as it commits genocide.

By Craig Mokhiber  July 10, 2025, https://mondoweiss.net/2025/07/trump-sanctions-on-un-special-rapporteur-francesca-albanese-are-illegal-and-represent-further-u-s-complicity-in-genocide/

Craig Mokhiber

Craig Mokhiber is an international human rights lawyer and former senior United Nations Official. He left the UN in October of 2023, penning a widely read letter that warned of genocide in Gaza, criticized the international response and called for a new approach to Palestine and Israel based on equality, human rights and international law. 

Fresh from face-to-face meetings in Washington with fugitive from justice Benjamin Netanyahu, indicted by the ICC for crimes against humanity, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio took the extraordinary step of declaring sanctions against the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory, Francesca Albanese. 

The announcement was accompanied by a flurry of false and defamatory statements by Rubio attacking Albanese, further demonstrating the lengths to which the Trump administration (and the Israel proxies empowered within it) are willing to go to buttress the impunity of the Israeli regime. 

Rubio’s lawless action has been condemned and rejected by international organizations, experts, and human rights defenders across the globe as a moral outrage. 

Indeed, outside of Washington (and the Israel lobby groups that hold dangerous sway there), Rubio’s smears and his lawless imposition of sanctions will bring only condemnation of Rubio and the Trump administration. Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese is a highly respected expert and human rights defender, well known globally as an advocate who has dedicated her life to opposing all forms of bigotry and oppression and to promoting the cause of universal human rights. 

She has been widely praised for carrying out her United Nations mandate with honor and with the highest degree of competence and integrity, particularly during the Israeli regime’s twenty months of genocide in Palestine. 

But this action by the U.S. government is not only a moral outrage. It is also entirely unlawful. 

The sanctions order and its accompanying statements are a direct breach of the United Nations Charter, the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, and the Agreement Regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations (Host Country Agreement). 

They represent a deliberate obstruction of the human rights mission of the United Nations. And given that this action is taken to insulate Israel and other perpetrators (including the corporations named in the Specials Rapporteur’s latest report) from accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, it is also a breach of U.S. obligations under the UN Genocide Convention (under which Israel is currently on trial in the International Court of Justice), and under Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (obliging the U.S. to ensure that Israel and other parties respect the Conventions). 

Furthermore, as this act by the Government of the United States was explicitly connected by the Secretary of State to its (also unlawful) sanctions against the International Criminal Court, it is also an offense against the administration of justice as codified by Article 70 (1) (c ) of the Rome Statute, for which territorial jurisdiction may be secured through the locus of the Court (the Netherlands, a state party to the Rome Statute), and through which Special Rapporteur Albanese may be entitled to reparations as a victim of the unlawful conduct. 

Additionally, Special Rapporteur Albanese may be entitled to compensation for civil wrongs (torts) for economic and reputational damage, given the defamatory nature of Secretary Rubio’s statements,  and their manifest basis in “actual malice” and a “reckless disregard for the truth,” recognized by US courts as exceptions to sovereign immunity. 

Of course, as recent years have demonstrated, the U.S. cares little about international (or even domestic) legality. But external pressure and action are inevitable. 

Outside the U.S., moves are underway to demand that the United States withdraw the sanctions and compensate Special Rapporteur Albanese for any and all economic, reputational, or emotional harms caused to her or her family, and compensate the United Nations for any damages done to her vital mandate. 

The United Nations and all UN member states and regional organizations (like the EU) can and must publicly reject the sanctions, use all mechanisms at their control (of which there are many- legal, financial, political, and diplomatic) to insulate the Special Rapporteur from their effects, speak out clearly in her defense, and use diplomatic channels to press the United States to lift the sanctions and compensate the Special Rapporteur. 

If the many statements already issued by influential members of the international community are any indication, the lawless U.S. government may soon learn that, in attacking Francesca Albanese in this way, it has crossed a bridge too far in its campaign for Israeli impunity. 

And regardless of the short-term harms of this shameful act by the Trump administration, we can be certain that the U.S. will not succeed in its ultimate objectives of silencing Albanese and the broader UN, intimidating other human rights defenders, and guaranteeing the Israeli regime’s impunity for war crimes, crimes against humanity, apartheid, and genocide. To the contrary, such brazen acts of lawlessness and complicity in genocide will only stoke the flames of resistance to these historic crimes,  and to their co-perpetrators in Washington and Tel Aviv. 

The global movement for solidarity with Palestine is growing. And, as has been evident since Rubio’s latest shameless act, that movement stands unapologetically with Francesca Albanese. And so do I. 

July 14, 2025 Posted by | legal | Leave a comment

Three Blows Against Zionism in a Single Day

A court ruling in Australia, an election result in New York and a military setback for Israel, all coming on Tuesday this week, signaled a serious turn of events for Zionism and its supporters, writes Joe Lauria.

By Joe Lauria, Consortium News, https://consortiumnews.com/2025/06/26/three-blows-against-zionism-in-a-single-day/

The impunity with which Zionism invades and bombs its neighbors and shuts up its critics in Western nations was thrown into question perhaps as never before on Tuesday as Zionism suffered a legal, a political and a military defeat all in one day.

A Military Defeat in the Morning

On Tuesday morning Washington time, President Donald Trump announced that Israel and Iran had agreed to a cessation of hostilities after an 11-day war that saw Israel seriously deplete its air defenses, undermine its economy and suffer the worst damage from enemy fire in memory.  

A war that Israel — and especially its prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu — had lusted after for three decades had finally been launched. Netanyahu at last found an American president willing to join him in unprovoked aggression against Iran to extend Israel’s regional dominance well beyond the Jordan River.

That would require the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program and the overthrow of the Iranian government to be replaced by a puppet regime led by Israel and the United States.  

Instead, Israel had to cut short the operation despite U.S. involvement because it was not going to plan.  U.S. intelligence says the so-far merely civilian nuclear program was only set back a few months and the Iranian government has never been made more secure.

As it touts itself as the most invincible (and “moral”) army, the failure to achieve its goals in Iran and the physical damage it took from Iranian missile and drone attacks makes what just transpired a humiliating military defeat for Zionism. 

And though U.S. presidents have privately groused about Israeli leaders before, never has Israel been cursed out before in public by a president, as Trump did on Tuesday morning.

A Legal Defeat in the Evening

Then at 8:15 pm Tuesday, U.S. East Coast time (10:15 am Wednesday in Australia), a federal judge in Sydney found the courage to stand up to the organized thuggery of Zionist lobbies by ruling that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) had succumbed to intense pressure from Israel lobbyists to sack a radio presenter because she shared an instagram post from Human Rights Watch which accurately reported that Israel was using starvation as a weapon of war.

That is the exact charge formally leveled in Netanyahu’s arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Australian judge ruled that the presenter, Antoinette Lattouf, was wrongly dismissed and that the ABC must pay her restitution.

Judge Daryl Rangiah said the ABC had “appease[d] … pro-Israel lobbyists” because Lattouf “held political opinions opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza.” Rangiah said that “the complaints [to the ABC] were an orchestrated campaign by pro-Israel lobbyists to have Ms Lattouf taken off air.”

ABC managing director Hugh Marks apologized to the public on air, saying, “Any undue influence or pressure on ABC management or any of its employees must always be guarded against.”

It was a major setback for a powerful Israel Lobby in a Western nation. These lobbies have been untouchable until now no matter what underhanded tactics they employ to create cover for genocide and wars of aggression by smearing and silencing legitimate critics of Israel. 

A Political Defeat in the Night

Still on Tuesday, at around 11 pm in New York City, a Muslim politician who has vowed to arrest Netanyahu based on the ICC warrant if he steps foot in the city while he is mayor, defeated a Democratic Party machine politician in the party’s primary election for mayor.

Despite being repeatedly smeared as an anti-semite, Zohran Mamdani has refused to renounce his strong support for Palestinians, including refusing to retract his labelling of Israel’s war on Gaza “genocide.”

Mamdani’s electoral victory has incensed Zionists everywhere, setting off gnashing of teeth. “NY Democrats have fully embraced Marxism, antisemitism, anti-capitalism, and sheer insanity,” said fanatical Zionist Congresswoman Elise Stefanik. U.S. Rep. Mike Lawler called Mamdani “a radical, antisemitic socialist.”

The election result shows that a sizeable number of voters in the city with the largest population of Jews after Tel Aviv don’t care anymore about the taboos constructed and enforced against criticizing Israel.  Israel has their live-streamed genocide to thank for that. 

A Beginning, Not an End

Anyone of these events alone would signify a momentous turning of the tide against decades of built-up injustice committed by Israel and its lobby. The baseless smears of anti-semitism are losing their effect. The image of an all-powerful Israeli military is tarnished. 

June 24, 2025 may be seen as the day in which fear of Israel was overcome on a scale not seen before. There is a long road ahead filled with enormous obstacles, but this day could usher in an era in which Israel and its enablers are at last held accountable for their many crimes. 

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette, the London Daily Mail and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times. He is the author of two books, A Political Odyssey, with Sen. Mike Gravel, foreword by Daniel Ellsberg; and How I Lost By Hillary Clinton, foreword by Julian Assange. 

June 28, 2025 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, Legal, politics, Religion and ethics | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »