Legal « nuclear-news

International Court of Justice Delivers Opinion on Israel’s Obligations

Voltaire Network | 25 October 2025, https://www.voltairenet.org/article223043.html

At the request of the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the internal court of the United Nations, issued an advisory opinion on 22 October on the “Obligations of Israel with regard to the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations and third States in and in connection with the Occupied Palestinian Territory”

he Court is of the opinion that the State of Israel, as the occupying power, must fulfil its obligations under international humanitarian law. These obligations include:

ensuring that the population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory has access to the essentials of daily life, including water, food, clothing, sleeping materials, shelter and fuel, as well as medical items and services;

accepting and facilitating to the fullest extent possible relief actions for the population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory as long as they are inadequately supplied, as has been observed in the Gaza Strip, including relief actions by the United Nations and its entities, in particular the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and by international organizations and third States, and not to prevent such actions;

respecting and protecting all emergency and medical personnel, as well as their premises;

respecting the prohibition of forcible transfer and deportation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

respecting the right of protected persons in the Occupied Palestinian Territory who are detained by the State of Israel to receive visits

respecting the prohibition of the use of starvation as a method of warfare against civilians. Furthermore, the Court is of the opinion that, as the occupying power, the State of Israel has an obligation under international human rights law to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of the population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including through the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations and third States in and in connection with the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

It is of the view that the State of Israel has an obligation to cooperate in good faith with the United Nations by giving it full assistance in any action undertaken by it in accordance with United Nations’ Charter, including through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, in and in connection with the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

It is of the view that the State of Israel has an obligation under Article 105 of the United Nations Charter to ensure full respect for the privileges and immunities accorded to the United Nations, including its structures and organs, and its officials, in and in connection with the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

It is of the view that the State of Israel has an obligation under article II of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations to ensure full respect for the inviolability of the premises of the United Nations, including those of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and the exemption of the property and assets of the United Nations from all forms of coercion.

Finally, it is of the view that the State of Israel has an obligation, under articles V, VI and VII of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, to ensure full respect for the privileges and immunities accorded to United Nations officials and experts on mission for the United Nations, in and in connection with the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

October 30, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, Legal | Leave a comment

Israel and US Scorn ICJ Ruling Against Starving Civilians as Method of Warfare

The World Court says Israel has a duty as the occupying power to cooperate with UN relief efforts, not impede them.

By Marjorie Cohn , Truthout. October 24, 2025

World Court) told Israel what seems obvious to any reasonable person — that it cannot starve civilians as a method of warfare. But Israel does not act in accordance with international law, as evidenced by its two-year campaign of genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza, during which it has killed over 68,000 Gazans (more likely 680,000, UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese said on September 15).

In its 71-page advisory opinion, issued on October 22, the ICJ reiterated that Israel is illegally occupying the Gaza Strip. The court unanimously held that as the occupying power, Israel has obligations under international humanitarian law to ensure that the population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Gaza, has essential supplies of everyday life, including water, food, shelter, clothing, bedding, and fuel, as well as medical equipment and services. The court also held that Israel must respect and protect all medical and relief personnel and facilities.

The ICJ ruled 10-1 in its advisory opinion that Israel has an obligation to facilitate humanitarian relief by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and other international organizations and third states, and must refrain from impeding that relief.

And the court unanimously held that Israel must respect the prohibition on deportation and forcible transfer in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and the right of the Palestinian prisoners held in Israel to be visited by the International Committee of the Red Cross. The court noted that transfer is forcible not just when it is achieved by physical force, but also when people have no choice but to leave because the occupying power has inflicted conditions of life that are intolerable.

The ICJ rejected Israel’s bogus defense that its national security trumped its obligations under international humanitarian law, saying that the protection of security interests is not a “free-standing exception” allowing a state to violate its international humanitarian law obligations………………………………………………………………………….

Impacts of ICJ Advisory Opinions

Although advisory opinions of the ICJ are nonbinding, they carry great moral, political, and diplomatic weight with third states. On July 19, 2024, the ICJ held that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal and all states have an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation. As a result of that ruling (and domestic pressure), several states have now recognized Palestine as an independent state…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The Israeli Foreign Ministry said that it “categorically rejects” the ICJ’s October 22 advisory opinion, stating that the court ignored the “extensive evidence” Israel provided of what it claimed was UNRWA’s “infiltration” by Hamas and UNRWA’s complicity in terrorist activities. “This is yet another political attempt to impose political measures against Israel under the guise of ‘International Law,’” the ministry alleged.

Likewise, the U.S. State Department called the advisory opinion “corrupt,” claiming that it “unfairly bashes Israel and gives UNRWA a free pass for its deep entanglement with and material support for Hamas terrorism.”………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The Current Situation

Before the October 10 ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas took effect, UN-supported global experts warned that over 640,000 Palestinians were facing catastrophic levels of food insecurity and that there was an “entirely man-made” famine in Gaza City.

Since the ceasefire began, Israel has started allowing some aid into Gaza, but nowhere near enough to meet its legal obligations and assist the starving Gazans. The UN World Food Program is getting about 750 tons of food aid into Gaza daily, still far below its target of 2,000 tons per day. Although the ceasefire agreement requires 600 trucks per day of food and other humanitarian supplies, only 263 trucks entered Gaza on October 20, and 281 trucks entered Gaza on October 22, less than half of the agreed-upon number.

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has suspended operations, as it runs out of money and faces leadership problems and logistical obstacles to a resumption of its work.

Meanwhile, the ICJ is considering the merits of South Africa’s case against Israel that alleges Israel breached the Genocide Convention. Arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity — for intentionally and knowingly depriving the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival and intentionally directing an attack against a civilian population — are pending in the International Criminal Court.

During the past two years, millions of people globally have demonstrated in solidarity with the Palestinian people, and the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement has achieved widespread popular support.

The new advisory opinion issued by the ICJ will continue to shame Israel in the eyes of the world. https://truthout.org/articles/israel-and-us-scorn-icj-ruling-against-starving-civilians-as-method-of-warfare/

October 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Atrocities, Israel, Legal, USA | Leave a comment

International Court of Justice Finds Israelis Broke Law by Starving Palestinians of Gaza

Juan Cole10/23/2025. https://www.juancole.com/2025/10/israelis-starving-palestinians.html

Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – The International Court of Justice, established by the UN to adjudicate issues among nations, issued an advisory opinion on Wednesday branding the Israeli blockade on food and medical aid into the occupied Gaza Strip illegal.

I mean, surely this conclusion is simple common sense. You can’t starve people. That’s not only illegal, that is the height of immorality and cruelty. The war criminals who head up the Israeli government hold that they can do whatever they want to people on the grounds that they are Palestinians, or that millions are terrorists, or that there are no innocents among certain populations. No one with a heart and a mind agrees with them. Unfortunately, there are lots of heartless mindless people in the world, some of them extremely powerful.

In a world where International Humanitarian Law is increasingly brazenly flouted, as a way of undermining it and ensuring that its violators retain impunity, the Court upheld the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 on occupied populations, as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights of 16 December 1966 (hereinafter the “ICESCR”), a UN instrument that Israel signed.

The Court reminds us, “As an occupying Power, Israel is obliged to ensure the basic needs of the local population, including the supplies essential for their survival. Obligations to this effect are set out in Articles 55 and 56 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.” The obligation is also implied by the UN Charter, to which Israel is a signatory.

The Court adds, “Israel is not only required to perform the positive obligation to ensure essential supplies to the local population “to the fullest extent of the means available to it”, but it is also under a negative obligation not to impede the provision of these supplies or the performance of services related to public health.”

Instead of fulfilling these obligations, the Israeli government created a famine in Gaza by blocking the entry of UN food trucks: “According to the IPC, by 12 May 2025, half of the population of the Gaza Strip faced emergency levels of food insecurity . . . and nearly half a million people faced catastrophic levels of food insecurity.”

Israel also has an obligation to avoid killing aid workers. Even where an aid worker might engage in resistance activities, Israel can only kill this person while they are actively engaged in warfare, not while they are in scrubs operating on a patient. The ICJ notes, “that, according to the United Nations, between 7 October 2023 and 20 August 2025, at least 531 humanitarian workers, including 366 United Nations personnel, were killed in the Gaza Strip . . .”

That is, Israeli has a positive obligation to ensure that the population it occupies is well-fed and gets health care. But it also has a negative obligation, where it fails in the positive one, to avoid interfering with the provision of such aid by the UN, UNRWA and other aid agencies, to ensure Palestinians are not malnourished or deprived of medical care.

The Court notes that the Geneva Convention prohibits the forcible expulsion of civilian populations from occupied territories, as does the UN Charter.

But, “According to some participants, including the United Nations, the Israeli military has issued numerous displacement orders, ‘forcing hundreds of thousands of people into overcrowded areas and restricting the United Nations’ ability to deliver urgently needed essential supplies.”

The Court upheld the UN-mandated role of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in providing aid to Palestinian refugees. It quotes a UN document that

Israeli officials alleged that UNRWA was extensively penetrated by Hamas. The Court did not find these allegations credible, writing, “the Court finds that Israel has not substantiated its allegations that a significant part of UNRWA employees ‘are members of Hamas . . . or other terrorist factions.’” UNRWA had 17,000 employees in Gaza and the Court could not rule out that a handful were dirty, but it finds that the UN and UNRWA investigated all credible charges and that the organization’s neutrality is not in doubt.

The Likud-led government of Israel throws the accusation of “terrorist” around without any evidence at all almost as indiscriminately as it does the accusation of “antisemitism.” In fact, virtually anyone who gets in the way of Likud schemes is smeared with both adjectives. The problem for this extremist Israeli propaganda is that it cannot stand up in the eyes of seasoned jurists, who make their judgments not out of fear or tribalism or emotion but out of a gimlet-eyed review of the evidence.

From my own point of view — the ICJ did not come out and say this, though it perhaps implies it — the Likud officials wanted to starve the Palestinians of Gaza. UNRWA got in the way of this genocidal project. They therefore slandered and banned UNRWA.

The Court pointed out that no other organization has UNRWA’s capacity to deliver aid to the Palestinians in Gaza. It admits that it would be permissible for Israel, as the occupying power, to ensure the health and well-being of the Palestinians it occupies using other organizations. The ICJ points out, however, that Israel has not in actuality provided any such mechanism, and that the now-disbanded “Gaza Humanitarian Foundation” was fairly useless and certainly did not replace UNRWA. The Israelis cared so little about actual food aid that this past summer the UN concluded that they had fostered a famine in Gaza.

In the end the Court concurred with UN Secretary-General António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres that ” “there is currently no realistic alternative to UNRWA that could adequately provide the services and assistance required by Palestine refugees.”
“The Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, the seat of the International Court of Justice.” Public Domain. Via Wikimedia Commons.

Israel may also not keep out other aid organizations (as it has done): “Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention refers to aid provided by ‘States or by impartial humanitarian organizations’. Thus, as long as the population remains inadequately supplied and Israel is not itself operating a system of humanitarian support that is in accordance with its obligations under international humanitarian law, Israel is obliged under Article 59 to agree to and facilitate relief schemes provided by third States or impartial humanitarian organizations such as the ICRC.”

In the end, the Court found that it has jurisdiction over Gaza; that it has the prerogative of issuing this advisory opinion; and that it is doing so.

It unanimously finds that Israel has the duty:

“to ensure that the population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory has the essential supplies of daily life, including food, water, clothing, bedding, shelter, fuel, medical supplies and services;”

It also finds that Israel has an obligation to let UNRWA do its job in Gaza.

Of 11 justices, only the Ugandan Christian Zionist Julia Sebutinde dissented on this one.

Also, Israel has to stop destroying hospitals and killing or abducting doctors (this one was also unanimous.)

The Israelis have to stop mass expulsions of Palestinians (unanimous).

Basically, the ICJ found that the entire conduct of the war on Gaza by Israel has been carried out in an illegal manner.

Shamefully, the US State Department under Marco Rubio denounced the ICJ advisory opinion. The US after WW II showed itself a leader in erecting the structure of International Humanitarian Law, in hopes of forestalling another global conflict. Some 64 million people were killed in WW II, almost the entire population of today’s UK or France. Now America is tearing down the edifice of law that it helped build. And that will come back to bite us on the posterior.

About the Author

Juan Cole is the founder and chief editor of Informed Comment. He is Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History at the University of Michigan He is author of, among many other books, Muhammad: Prophet of Peace amid the Clash of Empires and The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam. Follow him on Twitter at @jricole or the Informed Comment Facebook Page

October 25, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, Legal | Leave a comment

After Bombing Boats, Trump Tells Congress US Is in ‘Armed Conflict’ With Drug Cartels.

“This is not stretching the envelope,” said a retired judge advocate general lawyer. “This is shredding it. This is tearing it apart.”

October 3, 2025, Jessica Corbett, https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-venezuela

President Donald Trump’s administration claimed that the United States is in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels in a confidential notice to Congress this week intended to justify his deadly bombings of alleged smuggling boats in the Caribbean.

Democrats in Congress and legal officials have been challenging the legality of the three military strikes Trump announced last month. A woman who identified herself as the wife of one of the at least 17 people extrajudicially killed in the US bombings said her husband was a fisher.

“Congress was notified about the designation by Pentagon officials on Wednesday,” according to The Associated Press, one of several outlets that obtained the notice. The New York Times reported that it “was sent to several congressional committees.”

NewsNation‘s Kellie Meyer posted the full memo on social media: https://x.com/KellieMeyerNews/status/1973817299053269376?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1973817299053269376%7Ctwgr%5Eed7e0a4e5fa28e5d3a356b95835b5dd3057f6b22%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Ftrump-venezuela

After citing a relevant section from the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2024, the notice describes decades of law enforcement efforts to stem the flow of illicit narcotics into the United States as “unsuccessful,” and says that cartels “illegally and directly cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American citizens each year.”

“The president determined these cartels are nonstate armed groups, designated them as terrorist organizations, and determined that their actions constitute an armed attack against the United States,” the document continues. Trump also “determined that the United States is in a non-international armed conflict with these designated terrorist organizations” and directed the US Department of Defense, which he has dubbed the Department of War, “to conduct operations against them.

“The United States has now reached a critical point where we must use force in self-defense and defense of others against the ongoing attacks by these designated terrorist organizations,” adds the memo, which notes the second strike on September 15.

Lawmakers and legal experts again challenged the administration’s claim that, as the notice put it, Trump directed the bombings under “his constitutional authority as commander in chief and chief executive to conduct foreign relations.”

As the Times reported:

Geoffrey S. Corn, a retired judge advocate general lawyer who was formerly the Army’s senior adviser for law-of-war issues, said drug cartels were not engaged in “hostilities”—the standard for when there is an armed conflict for legal purposes—against the United States because selling a dangerous product is different from an armed attack.

Noting that it is illegal for the military to deliberately target civilians who are not directly participating in hostilities—even suspected criminals—Mr. Corn called the president’s move an “abuse” that crossed a major legal line.

“This is not stretching the envelope,” he said. “This is shredding it. This is tearing it apart.”

New York University School of Law professor Ryan Goodman, who served as special counsel to the general counsel of the Defense Department during the Obama administration, said on social media that Corn was “completely right.”

“Drug cartels not = ‘armed conflict,‘” Goodman added, stressing that the “people killed” in such strikes “are civilians.”

Rutgers University law professor Adil Haque similarly pushed back on social media, saying: “The United States is not in a ‘non-international armed conflict’ with drug cartels. Cartels are not organized as armed groups, nor are they engaged in intense hostilities. These are dangerous criminal organizations and should be confronted using law enforcement tools.”

Members of Congress also publicly weighed in, including Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Jack Reed (D-RI), who said that “every American should be alarmed that President Trump has decided he can wage secret wars against anyone he labels an enemy. Drug cartels must be stopped, but declaring war and ordering lethal military force without Congress or public knowledge—nor legal justification—is unacceptable.”

At least two of the strikes have occurred off the coast of Venezuela, elevating fears of an armed conflict with the country.

“Trump’s actions are illegal, unconstitutional, and dangerous,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in response to the new memo. ”He is leading us willy-nilly into war with Venezuela. I have ‘determined’ that this is a terrible idea.”

October 5, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

US Military Doctrine – Goodbye to Geneva

1 October 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Andrew Klein, https://theaimn.net/us-military-doctrine-goodbye-to-geneva/

Recent developments in the United States of America and the performances of President Trump and his Secretary of War Pete Hegseth should be concerning to us all.

There are indeed reports and analyses indicating that Secretary Hegseth is pursuing a significant overhaul of the U.S. military’s legal framework, with the stated goal of empowering commanders and adopting a more aggressive approach to warfare.

Policy Shifts and International Law

The planned changes have raised concerns among observers about their potential impact on the international rules-based order.

Overhauling Military Lawyers

Reports note that Hegseth has made it a priority to “retrain” military lawyers (the Judge Advocate General’s corps, or JAGs) so they provide advice that allows commanders to “pursue more aggressive tactics” and take a “more lenient approach in charging soldiers with battlefield crimes.” Critics of the JAG corps have argued that their interpretation of rules of engagement, such as the requirement to positively identify an enemy combatant, has been too restrictive.

Historical Context and Criticism

This effort is not happening in a vacuum. During the George W. Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks, JAG lawyers resisted the administration’s view that it could lawfully direct the military to ignore the Geneva Conventions regarding detainees.

A Stated Vision for Warfare

In his writings, Hegseth has been explicit about his philosophy, questioning the value of the Geneva Conventions and suggesting that the U.S. military should fight wars on its own terms, with less regard for the opinions of other countries or international courts. He has publicly argued that modern fighters “face lawyers as much as enemies” and that adversaries should receive “bullets, not lawyers.”

When evaluating these developments, it is helpful to consider the following perspectives:

A Deliberate Agenda

The evidence suggests that the actions of Secretary Hegseth are not ad hoc but part of a coherent, long-held belief system aimed at reducing legal constraints on the battlefield, which he views as detrimental to a “warrior ethos.”

A Contentious Debate

This shift represents one side of a long-standing and profound debate within military and international circles. It pits a view prioritising maximum operational freedom against one that holds that adhering to laws of war is a strategic and moral necessity, a stance historically defended by military lawyers themselves.

The potential consequences of altering the U.S. military’s relationship with international humanitarian law are a significant subject of global concern and analysis.

October 3, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Starmer’s new nukes break Non-Proliferation Treaty, legal experts say

Keir Starmer’s plans to splash out on new nukes are in breach of
international law, according to new legal opinion obtained by the Campaign
for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).

The Prime Minister announced his intention
earlier this year to expand Britain’s nuclear capabilities, pledging to buy
nuclear-capable F-35A fighter jets from the US as well as ploughing on with
Trident renewal.

It would mean that, for the first time in decades, Britain
could launch weapons of mass destruction from both air and sea, despite
being a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). By signing
the NPT, Britain committed to “pursue negotiations in good faith on
effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an
early date and to nuclear disarmament and on a treaty on general and
complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

Arguing Sir Keir’s plans breach this obligation, the legal opinion from
international law experts Professor Christine Chinkin and Dr Louise
Arimatsu commissioned by the CND argues: “The decision of the UK to
purchase F-35a fighter jets rather than any other model is precisely
because the aircraft can ‘deliver both conventional and nuclear weapons’
and thereby enable the RAF to reacquire ‘a nuclear role for the first
time since 1998.’

Morning Star 26th Sept 2025, https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/starmers-new-nukes-break-non-proliferation-treaty-legal-experts-say

September 30, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

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 Christina Macpherson | 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 Christina Macpherson | 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 Christina Macpherson | 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 Christina Macpherson | 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 Christina Macpherson | 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 Christina Macpherson | 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 Christina Macpherson | 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 Christina Macpherson | 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.