Sorry If This Is Antisemitic But I Think It’s Wrong To Burn Children Alive
Israel has done more to promote hatred toward Jews in the last year and a half than Stormfront has in its entire existence. No white supremacist propaganda will ever be as effective at spreading hatred against Jews as openly mass murdering children under a Star of David flag.
Caitlin Johnstone, May 28, 2025, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/sorry-if-this-is-antisemitic-but?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=164612152&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Israel is burning children alive in Gaza. And call me an antisemitic Jew-hating Nazi terrorist lover if you must, but I happen to believe that’s wrong.
❖
Now that it’s been made clear that Israel’s goal in Gaza is the complete ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians, Israel apologists have been shifting from bleating about hostages and Hamas to arguing that ethnic cleansing is actually fine and good. Which makes sense; that’s really the only argument they can make at this point.
❖
Never forget that the US Congress gave Netanyahu dozens of standing ovations during a single speech while he was in the middle of perpetrating history’s first live-streamed genocide. This is who they are. It will always be who they are.
Israel has done more to promote hatred toward Jews in the last year and a half than Stormfront has in its entire existence. No white supremacist propaganda will ever be as effective at spreading hatred against Jews as openly mass murdering children under a Star of David flag.
❖
Support for Israel used to be the overwhelmingly dominant opinion in the western world. Luckily that’s changing, but the fact that this was the case until Israel exposed itself shows you really can’t just go along with majority opinion on any issue. You need to think for yourself.
Ignore what the crowd says. Ignore people who scream at you for disagreeing with their position. Look at the raw facts as free from your own cognitive biases as you are able, and have the courage to stand on your own if necessary.
❖
Gaza is such an easy moral issue to get right that there’s no way anyone who gets it wrong isn’t a shitty person in other areas of their life as well. I feel sorry for anyone who has interpersonal relationships with Israel supporters, because they’d suck to be around.
❖
World Food Programme director Cindy McCain is saying that she’s seen no evidence of Hamas stealing aid entering Gaza. Israel’s one and only argument for continuing to block aid to Gaza is being publicly debunked by a member of one of the most pro-Israel families in US politics.
The US has reportedly delivered some 90,000 tons of weapons to Israel since October 2023.
I mostly focus on the Gaza genocide these days, but sometimes figures like this make me zoom out a few clicks and think about how bat shit insane our civilization is as a whole. Just think how much good we could do in the world if we weren’t pouring resources into evil shit like this.
❖
Murdoch-owned publication The Australian came after me the other day for tweeting “Two Israeli embassy staff getting shot in Washington DC is less newsworthy than tens of thousands of Palestinians being killed in Israel’s genocidal land grab. It is less important. It deserves less attention. It is not the main story. Israel’s genocide in Gaza is the main story.”
They called me a “journalist” in scare quotes, which I guess is supposed to be an insult, but coming from the Murdoch press it can only be seen as a compliment.
❖
According to the official western narrative, Americans becoming violently radicalized by a US-backed genocide is a bigger issue than the US-backed genocide.
According to the official narrative, university protests against a transparent ethnic cleansing operation are a greater concern than the transparent ethnic cleansing operation.
According to the official narrative, western Zionist Jews feeling emotionally upset about opposition to a modern-day holocaust is a more urgent problem than a modern-day holocaust.
All of our institutions are backwards and evil. Our media. Our politics. Our education system. Our manufacturers of mainstream culture. This should be clear to everyone by now.
Every historical evil we were taught never to repeat is being repeated by our own rulers.
Everything we were taught to fear about the countries that the western empire hates is true of the western empire.
Every dark future we were warned about in dystopian fiction is true of the dystopia we are living in presently.
We live in a nightmare of a civilization, under an empire that is fueled by human blood. The closer you examine it, the uglier it gets.
This cannot be allowed to continue. It must not be allowed to continue.
The empire must fall.
Enough Is Enough. Israel Is Committing War Crimes- Former Israeli PM

SCHEERPOST, Ehud Olmert, Haaretz, May 27, 2025 .Ehud Olmert is the former Israeli prime minister from 2006 to 2009 and mayor of Jerusalem from 1993 to 2003. Olmert was a member of the Likud party from 1973 to 2006.
The government of Israel is currently waging a war without purpose, without goals or clear planning and with no chances of success. Never since its establishment has the State of Israel waged such a war. The criminal gang headed by Benjamin Netanyahu has set a precedent without equal in Israel’s history in this area, too.
The obvious result of Operation Gideon’s Chariots is, first and foremost, the confused activity of Israeli military units deployed around Gaza. This is true particularly in neighborhoods where our soldiers have already fought, were hurt and fell while killing many Hamas combatants, who deserve to die, and many more innocent civilians. These have joined the statistics of pointless victims among the Palestinian population, reaching monstrous proportions.
Recent operations in Gaza have nothing to do with legitimate war goals. The government sends our soldiers – and the military obeys – to wander around Gaza City, Jabalya and Khan Yunis neighborhoods in an illegitimate military operation. This is now a private political war. Its immediate result is the transformation of Gaza into a humanitarian disaster area.
Over the past year, harsh accusations were voiced worldwide against the Israeli government and its military’s conduct in Gaza, including accusations of genocide and war crimes. In public debates in Israel and on the international arena, I’ve rejected such accusations firmly, though I didn’t shrink from criticizing the government. The international media listens to all voices in the public debate in Israel. It can discern between those who serve as mouthpieces for Netanyahu and his lackeys and his opponents, who view him, as the media is currently fond of saying, as the head of a crime family. I didn’t hesitate to give interviews in Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, the U.K. and elsewhere in the international arena. Quite often, I disappointed interviewers when I vehemently asserted that Israel wasn’t committing war crimes in Gaza. Excessive killing happened, but, I claimed firmly and with conviction, in no case did a government official give orders to hit Gazan civilians indiscriminately.
The great number of innocent civilians killed in Gaza was hard to fathom, unjustified, unacceptable. But all, as I have said on every media outlet in the world, resulted from a vicious war.
This war should have ended by early 2024. It continued without justification, without any clear goal and with no political vision for the future of Gaza and the Middle East in general. The military, charged with and duty-bound to execute government orders, acted in many cases rashly, incautiously, over-aggressively. However, it did so without any order or instruction or directive from military top brass to hit civilians indiscriminately. Therefore, as I understood it at the time, no war crimes had been committed.
Genocide and war crimes are legal terms that very much refer to the intent and responsibility of the people authorized to formulate the war’s objectives, its conduct and its purpose, the boundaries of fighting and the limitations on the use of force. I took every available opportunity to distinguish between the crimes we have been accused of, which I refused to admit, and the carelessness and indifference regarding Gazan victims and the unbearable human cost we’ve been levying there. The first accusation I rejected, the second I admitted to.
In recent weeks I’ve been no longer able to do so. What we are doing in Gaza now is a war of devastation: indiscriminate, limitless, cruel and criminal killing of civilians. We’re not doing this due to loss of control in any specific sector, not due to some disproportionate outburst by some soldiers in some unit. Rather, it’s the result of government policy – knowingly, evilly, maliciously, irresponsibly dictated. Yes, Israel is committing war crimes.
First, starving out Gaza. On this issue, the position of senior government figures is public and clear. Yes, we’ve been denying Gazans food, medicine and basic living needs as part of an explicit policy. Netanyahu, typically, is trying to blur the type of orders he’s been giving, in order to evade legal and criminal responsibility in due course. But some of his lackeys are saying so outright, in public, even with pride: Yes, we will starve out Gaza. Because all Gazans are Hamas, there’s no moral or operational limitation on exterminating them all, over two million people.
Israeli media outlets, each for its own reasons (some understandable) are trying to present a moderate version of events in Gaza. But the picture displayed around the world is much broader, much more devastating. It’s impossible to view it with equanimity and a nod, as if the world’s reaction is merely a widespread outburst of antisemitism, because everybody hates us and they’re all antisemites.
Well, no. French president Emmanuel Macron is no antisemite. I know him well. I’ve been talking to him over the last few months. When the hour was at hand, the French military stood on the front line to defend Israel and cooperated in intercepting Iran’s missile attacks. “We’re fighting with you against your enemies under my direction, and you’ve been accusing me of supporting terrorism,” Macron recently said. He is a friend of Israel, as are British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and many others who’ve joined them from within the ranks of Europe’s most outstanding and important cabinet ministers and leaders.
They’ve been hearing the voices from Gaza. They see the suffering of hundreds of thousands of civilians. They’ve been hearing the voices from Israeli cabinet meetings and realize the obvious: Israeli cabinet ministers, headed by crime boss Netanyahu, are actively, unhesitatingly and with malice aforethought are pursuing a policy of starvation and humanitarian pressure, with potentially catastrophic results.
Voices are already rising from Israel-friendly governments such as Canada, the U.K. and France, calling for concrete measures against the government, though these could cause grievous harm to Israel. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://scheerpost.com/2025/05/27/former-israeli-pm-enough-is-enough-israel-is-committing-war-crimes/
Legacy of US nuclear weapons tests in the Marshall Islands created global radiation exposure: new study

Hamburg, Germany – Nearly seven decades since the US government ended nuclear weapons testing in the Marshall Islands, a new study has revealed the impacts were far greater than what the US government has so far publicly acknowledged. According to a new study, all atolls, including the southern atolls, received radioactive fallout, but only three of the 24 atolls, all northern and inhabited at the time of fallout, received medical cancer screening.[1]
“The Legacy of U.S. Nuclear Testing in the Marshall Islands” by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) and commissioned by Greenpeace Germany, has comprehensively analyzed official documents from US government military and energy archives, scientific analyses, and medical sources from 1945 to the present day.
“Among the many troubling aspects of the Marshall Islands’ nuclear legacy is that the United States had concluded, in 1948, after just three tests that the Marshall Islands was not ‘a suitable site for atomic experiments’ because it did not meet the required meteorological criteria. Yet testing went on,” said Arjun Makhijani, report author and President of IEER.
Among the key findings of the study:
- U.S. government radioactivity measurements and dose estimates show that the entire country was impacted by fallout.
In the immediate aftermath of Castle Bravo – the US government’s largest ever nuclear weapons test – its capital, Majuro, was officially considered a “very low exposure” atoll. However, radiation levels were tens of times, and up to 300 times more, relative to background gamma radiation levels - Nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands created radiation exposures globally, with “hotspots” detected as far west of the Marshall Islands as Colombo, Sri Lanka and as far east as Mexico City.
The total explosive force detonated on the Marshall Islands was 108 megatons – the equivalent of dropping a Hiroshima bomb every single day for twenty years. On a proportional basis, the nuclear fall out is estimated to result in roughly 100,000 excess cancer deaths worldwide (rounded).[2] - Remediation of contaminated areas is complex and costly. The Marshall Islands lacks technical capacity in a number of fields crucial to health, environmental protection, and possible resettlement. The history of damage by, and distrust of the United States is compounded by Marshallese dependence on the United States for funds and for scientific and medical expertise. As an example, the Runit Dome, which houses decades of nuclear waste, has been deemed “safe” by the US Department of Energy despite cracks and the impact of climate change and sea level rise.
“The tests on the Marshall Islands are exemplary of an inhumane, imperial policy that deliberately sacrificed human lives and ignored Pacific cultures. As a result of this nuclear legacy, the Marshallese have been robbed of their land, traditions, and culture, with the people of Bikini and Rongelap forever displaced,” said Shiva Gounden, Head of Pacific at Greenpeace Australia Pacific. “The US still fails to acknowledge the full extent of the deep impact. However, these atomic bomb tests are not a closed chapter and they are still having an impact today. Reparations that fit the extent of the harms caused by testing are long overdue.”
In March and April, Greenpeace and its flagship vessel, the Rainbow Warrior, completed a six-week mission with radiation specialists and independent scientists to conduct research across the atolls to support the Marshall Island’s government in its ongoing fight for nuclear justice and compensation.[3] It also marked 40 years (May 1985) when Greenpeace helped answer a call and evacuated the people of Rongelap Island to Mejatto due to nuclear fallout from Castle Bravo, which rendered their home uninhabitable.
In July, Greenpeace and the Rainbow Warrior will mark another 40 year anniversary – the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior I by the French secret service, who were attempting to halt Greenpeace’s campaign against nuclear testing in French Polynesia (Maohi Nui).
Protest against Chalk River nuclear waste disposal project
It’s a choice between defending life and water or protecting the nuclear industry.
Pierre Chapdelaine de Montvalon, Radio-Canada, Espaces Autochtones, May 26, 2025-https://ici.radio-canada.ca/espaces-autochtones/2167618/chalk-river-kebaowek-dechet-nucleaire
Opposition to the proposed Chalk River nuclear waste disposal site continues unabated. A coalition of Aboriginal leaders and elected officials met Monday morning in Montreal to denounce the proposed Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) on the Ontario side of the Ottawa River.
For nearly 10 years, the community of Kebaowek, in Témiscamingue, has been fiercely opposed to the construction of such a site, and is leading a court battle against the organization responsible for the project, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL).
At a press conference, First Nation Chief Lance Haymond reiterated his community’s fears about the risks of water contamination and the effects on biodiversity of such a project, which he said would not respect First Nations’ rights.
Several speakers added their voices to call on the governments of Quebec and Canada to reject the project.
For the new Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, Francis Verreault-Paul, such a project is a threat to our waters, our rights, our cultures and our traditional ways of life.
“Where is the free, prior and informed consent of First Nations, which is at the heart of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?” he asked at a press conference.
It’s a choice between defending life and water or protecting the nuclear industry.
The Quebec government challenged
Manon Massé, Aboriginal Affairs spokesperson for the Québec solidaire party, took advantage of the press conference to directly challenge Quebec Premier François Legault, Environment Minister Benoit Charette and Ian Lafrenière, Minister responsible for relations with First Nations and Inuit.
“What do you mean, these people should not react against such a project? It’s immoral and inhuman to allow Quebecers to be put at risk like this.”
At the time of publication, the office of the Minister of the Environment had not responded to our questions.
“It makes no sense for such a project to be so close to such an important water resource,” added Rébecca Pétrin, Director of Eau secours. “Why aren’t our governments opposed to this?”
A Long Term Project
The proposed near-surface waste management facility is a project launched in 2016 by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, a private-sector consortium [of multinational corporations] responsible for managing federal nuclear sites.
The corporation’s proposed site would house low-level radioactive waste from the Chalk River Laboratories site, Canada’s largest nuclear science research complex, and other Canadian sites.
This waste includes contaminated soil and discarded items such as mops, protective clothing and rags that have been slightly contaminated.
LNC claims in its documentation that the project poses no contamination risk to the river.
“The NSDF is designed to protect the Ottawa River, not harm it. Drinking water downstream is not at risk,” states the LNC reference document.
The organization also assures us that radioactivity at the site will return to naturally occurring levels in a hundred years, and that the site will be monitored for hundreds of years.
Preventing long-term contamination
The president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Gordon Edwards, insisted at the press conference that such waste should not be stored near any watercourse, and feared long-term contamination.
[14 of the 31 radioactive waste materials to be stored in the NSDF have half-lives of more than 100,000 years, and 22 of them have half-lives of more than 5,000 years.]
The octogenarian activist cited the example of a disused salt mine in Germany, which had been used as a dump for low-level nuclear waste.
After 20 years, radioactive pollutants began to seep into the environment and contaminate the ground water, despite all the precautions taken.
“Instead of pretending that this is not a problem, or that it’s a problem that has been solved, we need to consider that we have an intergenerational responsibility. We shouldn’t be thinking of simply abandoning this waste permanently. I don’t think we have sufficient scientific knowledge to do that,” he explains in an interview.
In early 2024, the Chalk River site was found to be discharging toxic wastewater.
A project challenged in court
In 2024, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) announced that it was giving the green light to construction of the NSDF.
This decision was successfully challenged in court by the Kebaowek Algonquin community.The Federal Court first ruled in favor of the Kebaowek on the government’s failure to obtain free, prior and informed consent in the case, which runs counter to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted and codified by Ottawa in 2021.
“We never gave our consent to the project, and we were never consulted,” said Chief Lance Haymond.
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories has appealed the court’s decision, but has also initiated a consultation process with the First Nation.
“It’s difficult to talk to CNL representatives about the parameters of a consultation process, when on the other hand, their lawyers are fighting us in court,” lamented Lance Haymond in an interview.
“The government can’t talk about reconciliation while appealing court decisions.”
– Lance Haymond, Chief of Kebaowek First Nation
In writing, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) states that it is committed to working with Kebaowek First Nation and CNL to implement the court’s directive in a transparent and judicious manner. “We are working with the Kebaowek First Nation and the CNL to develop a collaborative consultation process consistent with the court’s directive.”
The Federal Court also recognized that the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories had not sufficiently examined other options for the location of the nuclear waste dump. [This is required by law because of several species at risk that have been identified by Kebaowek.] CNL has also appealed the decision.
A third lawsuit by citizens’ groups and scientists opposed to the project was dismissed by the Federal Court.
Nine other Anishnabeg Algonquin communities support Kebaowek’s fight against the development of the NSDF, as do dozens of Quebec municipalities.
Pikwakanagan, an Anishnabe community on the other side of the Ottawa River in Ontario, supports the project.
Does Tehran want the bomb?

by beyondnuclearinternational, Linda Pentz Gunter
https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/05/25/does-tehran-want-the-bomb/
Is Iran’s nuclear power program a tactical threat or purely commercial, asks Linda Pentz Gunter
“As a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Islamic Republic of Iran, based on its religious and ethical principles, has never sought nuclear weapons and remains committed to the principle of non-production and non-use of weapons of mass destruction.”
That was the reassurance given by Iran’s foreign minister, Seyyed Abbas Araghchi, during the Tehran Dialogue Forum hosted earlier this month by the Center for Political and International Studies of Iran’s Foreign Ministry.
It’s a familiar refrain. Iran has consistently argued that it is exercising its “inalienable right” as a signatory to the NPT “to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes” as allowed under Article IV of the treaty.
But is it?
Iran has freely admitted that it has enriched uranium-235 up to 60% — considered at least “weapons usable” (higher than 90% is considered weapons-grade.) Why would it choose to — or need to — do this if it has no intention of seeking nuclear weapons production, as Araghchi and others before him have claimed?
The answer to that question seems obvious and one we have repeated ad infinitum when exposing the flaw in the NPT which, in granting the development of civilian nuclear programs to signatories, ensures the pathway to the bomb is left permanently clear.
Even should Iran never actually develop nuclear weapons, it can use its civil program as a threat to do so. It is no idle threat. The possession of a civilian nuclear program affords Iran the materials, equipment, personnel and know-how to transition to nuclear weapons should it so choose.
What might push Iran to make that choice depends a lot on how the current talks go. Keeping Israel at bay — which wanted to start bombing Iran’s nuclear installations immediately — was one of the few sensible decisions the Trump administration has made.
However, in the view of Mohsen Milani, Executive Director of the Center for Strategic & Diplomatic Studies and Professor of Politics at the University of South Florida, developing nuclear weapons has always been on Iran’s agenda. Milani was speaking during a May 20 webinar on the Iran nuclear talks hosted by the Quincy Institute. You can watch the full webinar below.
“I have always believed and I continue to believe that Iran’s nuclear program was based on turning Iran into a potential nuclear power,” Milani said. “That is a power that has the infrastructure, the expertise, to develop a bomb should they decide to develop a bomb.”
How close Iran might be to that achievement is also much debated. In July 2024, then Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, suggested Iran “is now probably one or two weeks” away from producing enough weapons grade material to make a nuclear weapon. Milani thinks Iran “is much closer than it has ever been,” but doubts the timeline is one or two weeks.
But the key is that “Iran’s nuclear program has never been the central part of Iran’s defense posture, nor has the axis of resistance,” Milani said, referring to the informal coalition of Iranian-supported organizations across the region united to counter the influence of Israel and the US. What Iran is doing is ensuring it can keep the nuclear option, “should there be a need for it,” Milani said. The Trump administration’s approach in these negotiations, in Milani’s view, “is they want to make sure that Iran is incapable of doing what it has tried to do for the past twenty years.”
The whole issue of Iran’s nuclear aspirations is squarely in the news again as the Trump administration continues talks with Tehran about its nuclear program. Confusion and uncertainty has been created by the US side, principally Trump’s Special Envoy to the Middle East, real estate developer Steve Witkoff, who has told Iran it can enrich uranium to commercial grade (below 5%), then changed his tune and insisted Iran can have no nuclear program at all.
After four rounds of largely fruitless talks, the Iranians began to lose patience, laying down their red line. “To say that ‘we will not allow Iran to enrich uranium’ is a huge mistake,” warned Ayatollah Khamenei of the American threat. “No one is waiting for permission from anyone. The Islamic Republic has its own policies, its own methods, and it pursues its own agenda,” he added.
Pushing Iran around on this might lead to another negative outcome. Iran could leave the NPT. “As a founding advocate for a nuclear-weapons-free zone in West Asia and a long-time NPT member, Iran has shown good faith by engaging in indirect talks with the United States,” Araghchi said at the conference. “But the Iranian nation cannot forfeit its legitimate right to peaceful nuclear technology, including enrichment, which is enshrined in the NPT.”
The speakers on the Quincy webinar agreed that this public back-and-forth by both sides was a mistake and that Iran should deal directly with the United States instead of through an intermediary, and behind closed doors.
By last Wednesday, the Iranian parliament had also made its views known, declaring it would not be held to any uranium enrichments level caps.
By Friday, a fifth round of talks had taken place, again with the Omanis as intermediaries at least some of the time. It was unclear what, if any, progress had been made, with both sides sounding cautiously optimistic. However, a red line for Iran remains the prospect of shipping its entire stockpile of enriched uranium to Russia, as the Americans have suggested. Iran still insists it is happy to renounce any future nuclear weapons production, but not uranium enrichment. Further talks are planned.
But at the end of the day a larger question looms, which is whether nuclear nations like the US, which claims might and influence due to the possession of its nuclear weapons, has a right to tell another country it cannot have them?
Rather than perpetually wrestling with the nuclear hydra, the US could lead by a very different example and show the world that all of these extreme threats would be eliminated by disarming from nuclear weapons altogether. And given the template of flaws that Iran has laid out for us regarding our current disarmament treaties, that means abolishing nuclear power as well.
Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and edits Beyond Nuclear International. Opinions are her own.
The health impact of nuclear tests in French Polynesia – archive, 1981
there is mounting, though not yet definitive evidence of cancer and brain tumours in the area, especially among the young.
France spent €90,000 countering research into the effects of its Pacific nuclear tests in the 1960s and 70s. Learn how the Guardian reported early accounts of sickness and contamination
Guardian, Compiled by Richard Nelsson, 28 May 25
The health impact of nuclear tests in French Polynesia – archive, 1981
France spent €90,000 countering research into the effects of its Pacific nuclear tests in the 1960s and 70s. Learn how the Guardian reported early accounts of sickness and contamination
Compiled by Richard NelssonWed 28 May 2025
Pacific islanders agitate in the shadow of the bomb
By Christopher Price
17 September 1981
A recent Canard cartoon shows Adam and Eve looking at an H-bomb. “Look, H for Hernu,” (the new Socialist defence minister), says Adam. “Yes and for Horror, Holocaust, Hecatomb and Hiroshima,” adds Eve.
French Socialists have never hitherto allowed the nuclear issue to dominate their politics. If it is beginning to do so now it is partly because keeping their independent nuclear deterrent, which they continue to test underground in Muroroa atoll in French Polynesia, implies continuing colonial domination of the islands of the South Pacific – an issue which is very much alive, both among the Indigenous people of the Pacific and in the rank and file of the Socialist party in France.
The official position – “auto-determination” – as stated by Mr Henri Emmanuelli, the French Colonial minister when he visited France’s Pacific colonies was that he would discuss anything if a democratic majority wanted to. But he also said that recent election results made a referendum on the subject unnecessary.
That none of these three groups of islands (Polynesia, New Caledonia, and Wallis and Futuna) can immediately prove a majority for independence is partly due to strenuous French efforts over the years to stamp on emerging independence movements. More powerful than anything else [influencing the calls for independence] are the pollutant effects of nuclear tests on the human and natural environment. They are now beginning to make themselves felt. Hitherto everything that happens on Mururoa has been officially secret. But Mr Hernu has now a new “frankness” about the tests in an effort to allay anxiety; and immediately after he left the Centre d’Expérimentation du Pacifique issued its first-ever admission of an accident; it was not safe to swim off Mururoa.
In fact, authoritative reports state that there is now a crack 15 to 19 inches wide and over half a mile long in the atoll below sea level; that radioactive leaks into the Pacific have been taking place for many years; that a neighbouring atoll, Fangataufa, has been literally blasted out of the sea.
It is not yet possible to gauge the effect of such leaks, but coupled with the profound disquiet about Japanese plans to use the Pacific as a nuclear waste dumping ground, fears about pollution of fish and other marine life and consequently poisoning of the whole ocean, island populations will undoubtedly put further pressure on the Mitterrand government to reconsider its nuclear testing policy.
“Why don’t they do it in Nice?” was the one constant question put to me by the Polynesians. It echoed “Mururoa and Auvergne”, the most telling of the posters in the campaign which forced the French, eight years ago, to put the tests underground. Now there is a new twist to the story. It’s not just H-bombs the French are exploding inside Mururoa.
It was confirmed by Mr Giscard in June 1980 that France had been undertaking feasibility studies of neutron bombs since 1976, and this week Mr Mauroy, the Socialist prime minister, committed his government to strengthening France’s strategic nuclear arsenal and to the development of the neutron bomb. The knowledge that France is as keen as the US on upping the nuclear option can only add to the disquiet.
On top of this there is mounting, though not yet definitive evidence of cancer and brain tumours in the area, especially among the young. The French authorities counter that there is still less radioactivity in Polynesia than in the Massif Central. Maybe, but the fact that they go to quite extraordinary lengths of security in the treatment of such cases in French hospitals, suggesting a pathological desire to suppress such evidence as exists. One Actuel reporter, Mr Luis González-Mata, who tried to investigate the issue in Polynesia and in France, met continuous hostility.
So far the French government’s response to the political pressure has been to offer that decentralisation of local government to its overseas territories which the towns and cities of France are soon to enjoy. But it will be pressed to go further. The Pacific Forum comprising all independent Pacific countries, decided in Vanuatu in August to send a delegation to Mr Mitterrand demanding to know his intentions.
This is an edited extract. Read the article in full.
Testimonies from the atoll
Mururoa has been the centre of French nuclear tests for decades, largely in secret and often with scant regard for the people who live nearby. For the first time the native workers and their families tell their side of the story.
7 September 1990
Manutahi started work as a welder on Mururoa in 1965 at the age of 32. That was before the tests had started. He worked on the construction of the blockhouses Dindon and Denise.
In 1965 and at the beginning of 1966, we were allowed to eat all the fish in the lagoon but when we returned in 1967, we were forbidden to eat any. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2025/may/28/the-health-impact-of-nuclear-tests-in-french-polynesia-1981
Earth is heading for 2.7°C warming this century. We may avoid the worst climate scenarios – but the outlook is still dire.

Is climate action a lost cause? The United States is withdrawing from the
Paris Agreement for the second time, while heat records over land and sea
have toppled and extreme weather events have multiplied.
In late 2015,
nations agreed through the Paris Agreement to try to hold warming well
under 2°C and ideally to 1.5°C. Almost ten years later, cutting emissions
to the point of meeting the 1.5°C goal looks very difficult. But humanity
has shifted track enough to avert the worst climate future.
Renewables,
energy efficiency and other measures have shifted the dial. The worst case
scenario of expanded coal use, soaring emissions and a much hotter world is
vanishingly unlikely. Instead, Earth is tracking towards around 2.7°C
average warming by 2100. That level of warming would represent
“unprecedented peril” for life on this planet. But it shows progress is
being made.
The Conversation 27th May 2025, https://theconversation.com/earth-is-heading-for-2-7-c-warming-this-century-we-may-avoid-the-worst-climate-scenarios-but-the-outlook-is-still-dire-254284
Lincolnshire County Council leader Sean Matthews defends stance on nuclear waste site amid criticism from Tories
By James Turner, Local Democracy Reporter, 27 May 2025, https://www.lincsonline.co.uk/louth/reform-leader-hits-back-at-accusation-that-he-s-gone-back-on-9418880/
The new Reform UK leader of Lincolnshire County Council has hit back at accusations of failing to deliver on his election promises regarding a nuclear waste site.
The Lincolnshire Conservative group has highlighted that Coun Sean Matthews, recently elected as council leader, has yet to pull out of talks with government agency Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) about a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF)—despite saying he would cancel Lincolnshire’s involvement in the project on day one if elected.
NWS, formerly known as Radioactive Waste Management Limited, outlined three potential sites for its Geological Disposal Facility in January, including East Lindsey, and communities in Mid Copeland and South Copeland in Cumbria.
East Lindsey District Council withdrew from talks with NWS after the proposed location changed from the former gas terminal in Theddlethorpe to open countryside on land between the villages of Gayton le Marsh and Great Carlton.
The former Conservative administration of Lincolnshire County Council announced its intention to withdraw from talks in March, effectively cancelling the company’s consideration of the Lincolnshire coast for the facility. However, this had yet to be formalised before the local elections in May, when the administration switched to Reform UK.
During a demonstration outside East Lindsey District Council offices in early March, dozens of protesters called on Lincolnshire County Council to withdraw from the talks. Councillor Matthews attended with four of his Reform UK colleagues.
He told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: “On day one if elected as the leader of the Reform council, we will withdraw from the agreement.”
Coun Richard Davies, leader of the Conservative opposition group on the county council, said: “This is a clear U-turn from Sean Matthews and Reform UK.
“Local people were told the project would be scrapped on day one. Instead, the new Reform administration is delaying, consulting, and refusing to give communities the certainty they deserve.”
He added: “We call on Sean Matthews to explain why he has not kept his word to Lincolnshire residents. Reform UK cannot have it both ways—either they stand by their promises or admit they misled the public to win votes.”
Responding to the comments from his Tory counterpart, Coun Matthews said: “As Richard is well aware, there is a democratic process that needs to be followed to officially review the council’s membership of the Community Partnership. And he knows that if we don’t follow that process, we could open ourselves up to challenge, causing further uncertainty for local residents.
“We were clear in the campaign about our intentions, and on my first day as leader of the Reform group, I started that process—even enacting the council’s urgency protocol to allow us to have these important discussions as quickly as possible.
“It took me less than a day to start a process that the previous Conservative administration couldn’t complete in the several years they were in power. In fact, the mere fact they entertained the plans to bury nuclear waste under Lincolnshire in the first place is why this community has had to live with uncertainty for so many years.
“As far as I am concerned, in just one week a decision will have been made and then residents can judge for themselves whether their Reform councillors stick to their word.”
Councillors on Lincolnshire County Council’s Overview & Scrutiny Management Board will review the council’s participation in the Community Partnership at a meeting on Thursday, May 29. A final decision on the council’s future involvement is expected to be taken by the Executive on Tuesday, June 3.
SpaceX loses contact with its Starship on 9th test flight after last 2 went down in flames
CBS News, By William Harwood, May 28, 2025
After spectacular back-to-back upper stage failures in January and March, SpaceX launched another Super Heavy-Starship rocket Tuesday on the program’s ninth test flight, but ran into fresh problems that resulted in the loss of both stages before they could carry out controlled descents to splashdown.
The Super Heavy first stage, following a deliberately steeper, more stressful descent trajectory toward splashdown near the Texas Gulf Coast, suffered a catastrophic failure at the moment its engines reignited for what would have been a relatively gentle splashdown.
But a few minutes later, a door on the side of the rocket failed to open, preventing the planned release of simulated Starlink satellites in a test of the rocket’s Pez-like deployment system.
SpaceX confirmed the stage had been lost, but given the extreme nature of the testing, the loss was not an out-of-the-blue surprise. The Starship upper stage, meanwhile, managed to make it into its planned suborbital trajectory after an apparently flawless performance from its six engines.
With that test deferred to a future flight, SpaceX engineers hoped to reignite a single Raptor engine to test its start-up capability in space. But an apparent propellant leak put the spacecraft into a slow spin that ruled out the restart and a controlled reentry and splashdown.
The Starship has to enter at the right angle and in a precise orientation to survive reentry heating and aerodynamic “loads.” Entering in a spin doomed the Starship to a catastrophic breakup…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..As a result of the high-stress tests, SpaceX targeted a splashdown in the Gulf instead of attempting a launch pad capture where critical infrastructure could be damaged in a landing mishap.
As it turned out, that was a good decision.
Launch attempt follows two Starship breakups
Tuesday’s launch came on the heels of back-to-back Starship upper stage breakups during the two previous test flights that generated spectacular showers of flaming debris along the flight paths……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
SpaceX made changes after two catastrophic explosions
The last two Starships, launched Jan. 16 and March 6, both ended with unrelated catastrophic explosions as they neared their planned sub-orbital trajectories.
During the January flight, a propellant leak in an unpressurized “attic” above the Raptor engines led to sustained fires that eventually triggered shutdown of all but one of the spacecraft’s engines. Telemetry was lost eight minutes and 20 seconds after launch and moments later, the vehicle broke apart………………………………………………………………………………………………..https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spacex-super-heavy-starship-launch-ninth-test-flight/
France spent €90,000 countering research into impact of Pacific nuclear tests

Radiation-related thyroid, breast and lung cancers, as well as leukaemia and lymphoma, are prevalent across the islands.
Documents suggest campaign to discredit revelation that tests contaminated many more people than acknowledged
Jon Henley Guardian, 27 May 25
France’s Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) has spent tens of thousands of euros in an effort to counter research revealing that Paris has consistently underestimated the devastating impact of its nuclear tests in French Polynesia in the 1960s and 1970s.
Days before a parliamentary inquiry presents its report on the tests, documents obtained by the investigative outlet Disclose, and seen by Le Monde and the Guardian, suggest the CEA ran a concerted campaign to discredit the revelations.
A 2021 book, Toxique, which focused on just six of the 193 nuclear tests that France carried out from 1966 to 1996 at Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls, drawing on 2,000 pages of declassified material and dozens of interviews, concluded that they contaminated many more people than France has ever acknowledged.
The latest documents show that a year after the book’s publication, the CEA published 5,000 copies of its own booklet – titled “Nuclear tests in French Polynesia: why, how and with what consequences?” – and distributed them across the islands.
As part of an operation costing more than €90,000, the commission also flew a four-man team by business class to French Polynesia, where they stayed at the Hilton hotel, to meet local dignitaries and give interviews to the media.
The CEA’s booklet, printed on glossy paper, claimed to provide “scientific responses” to the “allegations” contained in Toxique, whose authors it said did not have “the same level of expertise”. It claimed contamination had been limited and that France always behaved transparently and with respect for local inhabitants’ health.
The publication of Toxique – based on the investigation by Disclose, Princeton University’s science and global security programme and Interprt, an environmental justice research collective – caused a furore in France, prompting visits to French Polynesia by a minister and the president, Emmanuel Macron, who acknowledged France’s “debt” to the region.
In one 1974 test alone, the scientific research found, 110,000 people – the population of Tahiti and its nearby islands – could have received a radiation dose high enough to qualify them for compensation if they later developed one of 23 different cancers.
Toxique alleged the CEA has long underestimated the radiation levels involved, significantly limiting the numbers eligible for compensation: by 2023, fewer than half the 2,846 compensation claims submitted had even been judged admissible.
The parliamentary inquiry, which has so far called more than 40 politicians, military personnel, scientists and victims, is due to report before the end of May on the social, economic and environmental impact of the tests – and whether France knowingly concealed the extent of contamination.
The CEA’s military division, CEA/DAM, the inventor of France’s atomic bomb, has repeatedly called this a “false assertion”. But France’s nuclear safety body, the ASNR, has since acknowledged “uncertainties associated with [the CEA’s] calculations” and confirmed to the parliamentary inquiry that it was impossible to prove people received radiation doses lower than the compensation threshold.
The CEA said in a statement that the aim of its booklet “was to provide Polynesians in particular with the elements to understand” the tests and their impact. It said the booklet applied “the necessary scientific rigour” to explain “the health and environmental consequences of the tests” in a “factual and transparent manner”……………………..
The inquiry has heard that the CEA/DAM has so far declassified only 380 documents in the four years since Macron demanded “greater transparency” around the tests and their consequences – compared with 173,000 declassified by the army.
Jérôme Demoment, the director of CEA/DAM, told the parliamentary inquiry earlier this year that it was “highly likely, if we were to have to manage [nuclear tests] today, that the system put in place would respond to a different logic”.
Forty-six of France’s nuclear tests were atmospheric, exposing the local population, site workers and French soldiers who were stationed in Polynesia at the time to high levels of radiation before the testing programme was moved underground in 1974.
Radiation-related thyroid, breast and lung cancers, as well as leukaemia and lymphoma, are prevalent across the islands. For its part, the French army has said up to 2,000 military personnel could have been exposed to enough radiation to cause cancer.
“The notion of a ‘clean bomb’ has generated controversy, which I fully understand,” Demoment told the parliamentary inquiry. “No nuclear test generating radioactive fallout can be considered clean.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/27/france-spent-90000-countering-research-into-impact-of-pacific-nuclear-tests
Trump warns Netanyahu off Iran strike as nuclear talks continue
28 May,2025 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/28/trump-warns-netanyahu-off-iran-strike-as-nuclear-talks-continue
US president says an Israeli strike ‘would be inappropriate to do right now because we’re very close to a solution.’
United States President Donald Trump has said that he told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to hold off on any strike against Iran to give his administration more time to push for a new nuclear deal with Tehran, as several rounds of talks have been held in Oman and Italy.
Trump told reporters on Wednesday at the White House that he relayed to Netanyahu a strike “would be inappropriate to do right now because we’re very close to a solution”
The Israeli leader has been threatening a bombardment of Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran has said it would respond with severity if any such attack were launched.
In the meantime, Iran may pause uranium enrichment if the US releases frozen Iranian funds and recognises its right to refine uranium for civilian use under a “political deal” that could lead to a broader nuclear accord, two Iranian official sources told the Reuters news agency.
The sources, close to the negotiating team, said on Wednesday that a “political understanding with the United States could be reached soon” if Washington accepted Tehran’s conditions. The sources told Reuters that under this arrangement, Tehran would halt uranium enrichment for a year.
The latest developments came as the head of the UN’s atomic watchdog group said that “the jury is still out” on negotiations between Iran and the US over Tehran’s rapidly advancing nuclear programme. But Rafael Mariano Grossi described the ongoing negotiations as a good sign.
“I think that is an indication of a willingness to come to an agreement. And I think that… is something possible.”
The 2015 nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), placed limits on Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.
It collapsed after Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the agreement in 2018, leading to a sharp escalation in tensions and a breakdown in diplomatic relations.
The key sticking point
US officials have repeatedly said that any new deal must include a firm commitment from Iran to halt uranium enrichment, which they view as a potential pathway to building nuclear weapons.
However, Iran has consistently denied seeking nuclear arms, insisting its programme is solely for civilian purposes. It has rejected Washington’s demand to eliminate enrichment capabilities, calling it an infringement on national sovereignty.
It remains the critical sticking point after negotiators for Tehran and Washington met for a fifth round of Oman-mediated talks in Rome.
Instead, Iran has reportedly proposed that the US publicly recognise Tehran’s right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and approve the release of Iranian oil revenues frozen under US sanctions.
Roads to War: The EU’s Security Action for Europe Fund
May 29, 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/roads-to-war-the-eus-security-action-for-europe-fund/
As the world was readying for the Second World War, the insightful humane Austrian author Stefan Zweig made the following glum observation: “Openly and flagrantly, certain countries express their will to expand and make preparations for war. The politics of rearmament is pursued in broad daylight and at breakneck speed; every day you read in the papers arguments in favour of armaments expansion, the idea that it reduces unemployment and provides a boost to the stock exchange.”
This is not so different from the approval by European Union countries on May 27 of a €150 billion loan program known as the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) borrowing scheme. A press release from the European Council stated that the scheme “will finance urgent and large-scale investments in the European defence technological and industrial base (EDTIB)” with the intention of boosting “production capacity, making sure defence equipment is available when needed, and to address existing capability gaps – ultimately strengthening the EU’s overall defence readiness.”
The statement also makes a central rationale clear: that SAFE will enable continued European support for Ukraine, linking its defence industry to the program. Despite not being an EU member, Kyiv will be able to participate in the scheme. Interestingly enough, the United Kingdom, despite leaving the EU, will also be able to participate via a separate agreement.
Disbursements to interested member states upon demand, considered along national plans “will take the form of competitively priced long-maturity loans, to be repaid by the beneficiary member states.”
The scheme further anticipates the types of weaponry, euphemistically titled “defence products”, that will feature. As outlined by the European Council on March 6, these will comprise two categories: the first covering, amongst others, such products as ammunition and missiles, artillery systems, ground combat capabilities with support systems; the second, air and missile defence systems, maritime surface and underwater capabilities, drones and anti-drone systems and “strategic enablers” including air-to-air refuelling, artificial intelligence and electronic warfare.
The broader militarisation agenda is confirmed by linking SAFE with broader transatlantic engagement and “complementarity with NATO.” It will “strive to enhance interoperability, continue industrial cooperation, and ensure reciprocal access to state-of-the-art technologies with trusted partners.”Significantly, the emphasis is on collaboration: a minimum of three countries must combine when requesting funding for SAFE defence projects.
There seems to be something for everyone: the militarist, the war monger and the merchants of death. Global Finance, a publication dedicated to informing “corporate financial professionals”, was already praising the SAFE proposal in April. “The initiative has the potential to transform the business models of many top European defense groups – like Saab, which has traditionally relied on contracts from the Swedish state to grow its sales.” What a delight it will be for such defence companies to move beyond the constraints on sales imposed by their limiting governments. A veritable European market of death machinery is in the offing.
The fund is intended for one, unambiguous purpose: war. The weasel word “defence” is merely the code, the cipher. Break it, and it spells out aggression and conflict, a hankering for the next great military confrontation. The reason is traditional, historic and irrational: the Oriental despotic eminence arising from the Asian steppes, people supposedly untutored in the niceties of European good manners and democracy. Not that European manners and democracy is in splendid health. A mere glance at some of the candidates suggests decline in institutional credibility and scepticism. But we can always blame the Russians for that, deviously sowing doubt with their disinformation schemes.
The initiative, and its tightening of ties with arming Ukraine, has made such critics as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán sound modestly sensible. “We need to invest in our own armies, but they expect us to fund Ukraine’s – with billions, for years to come,” he declared in a post on X. “We’ve made it clear: Hungary will not pay. Our duty is to protect our own people.”
The approval of the fund by the European Commission has also angered some members of the European Parliament, an institution which has been treated with near contempt by the European Commission. European Parliament Presidente Roberta Metsola warned Commission President Ursula von der Leyen earlier in May to reconsider the use of Article 122 of the EU Treaty, which should be used sparingly in emergencies in speeding up approvals with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. Bypassing Europe’s invigilating lawmakers risked “undermining democratic legitimacy by weakening Parliament’s legislative and scrutiny functions.” The Council’s resort to Article 122 potentially enlivened a process that could see a legal case taken to the European Court of Justice.
The European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) has also supported a legal opinion repudiating the Commission’s cavalier approach in approving the fund. According to that tartly reasoned view, Article 122 was an inappropriate justification, as the threshold for evoking emergency powers had simply not been met.
Ironically, the rearmament surge is taking place on both sides of the Atlantic, at both the behest of the Trump administration, ever aggrieved by Europe not pulling its military weight,and Moscow, characterised and caricatured as a potential invader, the catalyst for decorating a continent with bristling weaponry. The former continues to play hide and seek with Brussels while still being very much in Europe, be it in terms of permanent garrisons and military assets; the latter remains a convenient excuse to cross the palms of the military industrial establishment with silver. How Zweig would have hated it.
US protects Israel as Netanyahu vows to ‘take over’ Gaza, using hunger as as weapon
Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu vowed to colonize Gaza, saying, “We will take control of all the territory of the Strip”. He is using starvation as a weapon, as Donald Trump tries to expel Palestinians to Libya or other countries. The US imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to protect Israeli war criminals.
GeoPoliticalEconomy, By Ben Norton, 22 May 25
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has admitted that Israel’s goal is to colonize Gaza.
“We will take control of all the territory of the [Gaza] Strip”, Netanyahu pledged on 19 May.
Israel had agreed to a ceasefire in January, but unilaterally violated the agreement in March and restarted its brutal war on Gaza.
Donald Trump personally gave Israel the green light to break the truce, according to Israeli officials.
Israeli minister boasts: “We’re destroying everything… We are conquering, cleansing, and remaining in Gaza”
Israel’s extreme-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a member of the Israeli security cabinet and Netanyahu ally, boasted that the IDF is “destroying everything left in the Gaza Strip”, and that “the army is leaving no stone unturned”, reported the top Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
Smotrich admitted that Israel is intentionally killing civilian members of the government of Gaza, including those who are not part of Hamas. “We’re eliminating ministers, bureaucrats, money handlers”, he said with pride.
“We are conquering, cleansing, and remaining in Gaza until Hamas is destroyed”, bragged Smotrich.
In January 2023, before the latest Gaza war, Smotrich described himself as a “fascist homophobe”, telling Israel’s LGBT community, “I won’t stone gays, [as long as] you won’t feed me shrimp”.
In November 2023, just a few weeks after the war started, Smotrich publicly called for the mass expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza, through so-called “voluntary migration”.
Then, in April 2024, Smotrich demanded the “total annihilation” of Gaza. He invoked a Biblical passage in which God ordered the complete destruction of the nation of Amalek, including the killing of all women and children: “You will blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven”. This was an explicit call for genocide.
After Donald Trump won the US presidential election in November 2024, Smotrich tweeted that 2025 would be the year when Israel fully colonized and officially annexed “Judea and Samaria”, the term Israeli settlers use for the West Bank — which according to international law is Palestinian territory that has been illegally occupied by Israel since 1967.
In Gaza, Israel uses starvation as a “bargaining chip”, UN humanitarian chief says
As Israel unilaterally restarted its brutal war in March, it also imposed a suffocating blockade on Gaza, preventing food and medicine from entering the densely populated strip.
The UN humanitarian chief, Tom Fletcher, stated on 13 May that all 2.1 million Palestinians trapped in Gaza faced famine conditions.
Fletcher called on the UN Security Council (UNSC) “to stop the 21st-century atrocity to which we bear daily witness in Gaza”.
The UNSC has been unable to take action, however, because it has been paralyzed by the United States, which has repeatedly used its veto power to protect Israel. This was true under the Joe Biden administration, and it has continued since Trump returned to the White House in January.
Fletcher serves as the United Nations under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator.
“I can tell you from having visited what’s left of Gaza’s medical system that death on this scale has a sound and a smell that does not leave you”, Fletcher recalled. “As one hospital worker described it, ‘children scream as we peel burnt fabric from their skin’”.
The UN humanitarian chief stated that “Israel denies us access, placing the objective of depopulating Gaza before the lives of civilians”.
Instead of allowing in UN aid, the US and Israel created an alternative mechanism that Fletcher described as a “cynical sideshow” and “deliberate distraction”, which is merely a “fig leaf for further violence and displacement”.
The US-Israeli plan for Gaza “makes starvation a bargaining chip”, the UN humanitarian chief said.
A week later, on 19 May, Fletcher warned, “There are 14,000 [Palestinian] babies that will die in the next 48 hours unless we can reach them”.
“We run all sorts of risks trying to get that baby food through to those mothers who cannot feed their children right now because they’re malnourished”, the UN humanitarian chief explained.
Israel’s mass starvation strategy
Israel is using mass starvation as a tactic to try to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Gaza, or kill those who refuse to leave.
The independent website Drop Site News reported on speeches given by Prime Minister Netanyahu and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, which frankly outline their sadistic strategy.
Netanyahu revealed that he only allowed a few aid trucks to enter Gaza in order to minimize international condemnation and ensure continued US support………………………………………………………….
Trump plans to expel Palestinians and ethnically cleanse Gaza
Trump has floated various plans to try to ethnically cleanse Gaza and expel Palestinians to another country………………………………………………………………………
Trump’s ICC sanctions paralyze the Hague, protecting Israel from legal consequences
The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant in November 2024 for Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of committing crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
In February 2025, just two weeks after he returned to the White House, Trump imposed sanctions on the ICC, accusing it of “engag[ing] in illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel”.
“The ICC’s recent actions against Israel and the United States set a dangerous precedent, directly endangering current and former United States personnel, including active service members of the Armed Forces, by exposing them to harassment, abuse, and possible arrest”, the White House warned.
The Trump administration invoked the 2002 American Servicemembers’ Protection Act. This law, which was passed under the George W. Bush administration, is commonly known as the “Hague Invasion Act”, and threatens military intervention in the Netherlands to stop the prosecution of US officials and their allies.
The US-based Center for Constitutional Rights denounced Trump’s sanctions on the ICC as a “direct attack on the rule of law” that is “intended to embolden perpetrators across the world and to inhibit the pursuit of international justice against the most powerful”.
The Associated Press reported in May that Trump’s sanctions on the ICC have paralyzed the Hague and prevented it from investigating the crimes committed by top Israeli officials.
The ICC’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, who is a British citizen, had his bank accounts in the UK frozen.
Microsoft even cancelled Khan’s email account.
Microsoft has provided the Israeli military with advanced artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing services during its genocidal war on Gaza, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported.
A non-governmental organization that helps the ICC compile evidence had to move its money out of US bank accounts, due to Trump’s sanctions, according to the AP.
“The Hague-based court’s American staffers have been told that if they travel to the U.S. they risk arrest”, the AP added. https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/05/23/us-israel-netanyahu-take-over-gaza-hunger/
US Has 500 Troops in Taiwan in Major Challenge to China
The number of US troops in Taiwan was disclosed by a retired US Navy rear admiral in a recent congressional hearing
by Dave DeCamp May 26, 2025, https://news.antiwar.com/2025/05/26/us-has-500-troops-in-taiwan-in-major-challenge-to-china/
A retired US Navy admiral recently revealed that the US has 500 troops in Taiwan, a major challenge to Beijing’s red lines related to the island.
Ret. Adm. Mark Montgomery made the disclosure at a House hearing on May 15, where he was arguing that the US should send more military personnel to Taiwan.
“We absolutely have to grow the joint training team in Taiwan. That’s a US team there that’s about 500 people now, it needs to be 1,000,” said Montgomery, who now works for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), an extremely hawkish think tank.
“If we’re going to give them billions of dollars in assistance, sell them tens of billions of dollars worth of US gear, it makes sense that we’d be over there training and working,” he added.
So far, the Pentagon has not confirmed the number, but due to the sensitivity of the matter, the US military typically offers few details about its operations in Taiwan.
After Washington severed diplomatic relations with Taipei in 1979, the US would still deploy a handful of military trainers to Taiwan. The small US presence was always an open secret but wasn’t officially confirmed until 2021, when then-President Tsai Ing-wen became the first Taiwanese leader to acknowledge US troops were on the island since 1979.
At the time of Tsai’s acknowledgment, only a few dozen US troops were believed to be on the island for training purposes. In 2023, media reports said the US was increasing its military presence to about 200 soldiers.
Last year, Taiwan confirmed that some of the US military trainers were deployed to Kinmen, a group of islands that are controlled by Taiwan but located just off the coast of mainland China.
The US has significantly increased military support for Taiwan in recent years despite constant warnings from China that the island is the “first red line” in US-China relations that must not be crossed.
Experts warn Trump’s nuclear blitz could trigger ‘Next Three Mile Island’
Brett Wilkins, Common Dreams, May 24, 2025 https://www.rawstory.com/trump-nuclear-2672196220/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKjnDZleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETEzMGNjOWI3bFRMSEJiaUlwAR4t6X-H7T5I-o-kJ91nrJSopEuECY5lTfTvuemKX7ecn0rbBfTP2vKInLv2Wg_aem_YNxd4-jClVC7LuYhQWfF_A
U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday signed a series of executive orders that will overhaul the independent federal agency that regulates the nation’s nuclear power plants in order to speed the construction of new fissile reactors—a move that experts warned will increase safety risks.
According to a White House statement, Trump’s directives “will usher in a nuclear energy renaissance,” in part by allowing Department of Energy laboratories to conduct nuclear reactor design testing, green-lighting reactor construction on federal lands, and lifting regulatory barriers “by requiring the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to issue timely licensing decisions.”
The Trump administration is seeking to shorten the yearslong NRC process of approving new licenses for nuclear power plants and reactors to within 18 months.
White House Office of Science and Technology Director Michael Kratsios said Friday that “over the last 30 years, we stopped building nuclear reactors in America—that ends now.”
“We are restoring a strong American nuclear industrial base, rebuilding a secure and sovereign domestic nuclear fuel supply chain, and leading the world towards a future fueled by American nuclear energy,” he added.
However, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) warned that the executive orders will result in “all but nullifying” the NRC’s regulatory process, “undermining the independent federal agency’s ability to develop and enforce safety and security requirements for commercial nuclear facilities.”
“This push by the Trump administration to usurp much of the agency’s autonomy as they seek to fast-track the construction of nuclear plants will weaken critical, independent oversight of the U.S. nuclear industry and poses significant safety and security risks to the public,” UCS added.
Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the UCS, said, “Simply put, the U.S. nuclear industry will fail if safety is not made a priority.”
“By fatally compromising the independence and integrity of the NRC, and by encouraging pathways for nuclear deployment that bypass the regulator entirely, the Trump administration is virtually guaranteeing that this country will see a serious accident or other radiological release that will affect the health, safety, and livelihoods of millions,” Lyman added. “Such a disaster will destroy public trust in nuclear power and cause other nations to reject U.S. nuclear technology for decades to come.”
Friday’s executive orders follow reporting earlier this month by NPR that revealed the Trump administration has tightened control over the NRC, in part by compelling the agency to send proposed reactor safety rules to the White House for review and possible editing.
Allison Macfarlane, who was nominated to head the NRC during the Obama administration, called the move “the end of independence of the agency.”
“If you aren’t independent of political and industry influence, then you are at risk of an accident,” Macfarlane warned.
On the first day of his second term, Trump also signed executive orders declaring a dubious “national energy emergency” and directing federal agencies to find ways to reduce regulatory roadblocks to “unleashing American energy,” including by boosting fossil fuels and nuclear power.
-
Archives
- January 2026 (227)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS




