Israeli Defense Minister says half a million Palestinians in Gaza City will be considered ‘terrorists’ if they don’t evacuate.
One of the most devastating aspects of the ongoing Israeli campaign has been the phenomenon of what locals call the use of remote-controlled “robots” rigged with explosives and sent into dense built-up areas to be detonated, causing widespread destruction………….. each of these explosions equals the explosive force of two heavy air missiles.
With at least half a million people still left in Gaza City, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz issued a “final warning” for residents to evacuate, saying those who remain will soon be regarded as “terrorists or terrorist supporters.”
By Qassam Muaddi October 1, 2025, https://mondoweiss.net/2025/10/israeli-defense-minister-says-half-a-million-palestinians-in-gaza-city-will-be-considered-terrorists-if-they-dont-evacuate/
The Israeli army just announced that it won’t allow Palestinians in central and southern Gaza to travel north to Gaza City. Movement will only be allowed to leave the city for the south, the Israeli army said in a statement. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz also said that this was the Palestinians’ “last warning” to leave Gaza City, adding that anyone who remains will be considered “terrorists or terrorist supporters.”
An estimated 500,000 Palestinians remain in Gaza City, who are now officially cut off from any provisions coming from the south, including food, water, fuel, and medicine. To the north, Gaza City is completely sealed off from northern Gaza, including the cities of Jabalia, Beit Lahia, and Beit Hanoun, where the Israeli army is operating and has emptied of most of its inhabitants.
The announcement comes two days after the Trump administration announced its new plan for the end of the war on Gaza, amid an intensification of Israel’s campaign in Gaza City ahead of its planned occupation in the coming days or hours. According to the Israeli army, some 700,000 Palestinians have left, leaving at least 500,000 Palestinians still within the city. As of last Monday, September 29, half a million Palestinians remain trapped there, occupying a space of less than 8 square kilometers, UNRWA spokesperson Adnan Abu Hasna said.
The slow pace of evacuations from the city for the central and southern parts of the Strip had forced the Israeli army to delay sending in the third of its three military divisions (the 36th division), finally pushing it into Gaza last week.
Israel’s Channel 12 quoted military sources saying that the occupation would take up to three months, according to a report airing on September 16. The Israeli channel had reported earlier in August of disagreements between the Israeli army and the Israeli cabinet on the timing of the scheduled invasion. The cabinet insists on a faster operation, while the army prefers to conduct operations at a slower pace.
According to the Israeli daily Maariv, the Israeli army is avoiding combat with Palestinian resistance fighters, concentrating on air and artillery strikes to increase pressure on residents before sending in ground troops. Yet armored Israeli vehicles have still reached several areas, including the vital Jalaa street and the vicinity of the al-Shifa Hospital.
Despite the slow advance of ground forces, aerial and artillery bombardment has been relentless, sowing overwhelming destruction. Already, the iconic Shuja’iyya district in eastern Gaza City has been completely flattened, 90% of the Tuffah district has been destroyed, and 300 buildings have been demolished in Gaza’s largest neighborhood, Zeitoun.
In addition to entire residential blocks, Israeli strikes have targeted universities, where thousands of displaced Palestinians have taken shelter.
Remote-controlled ‘robots’ rigged to explode
One of the most devastating aspects of the ongoing Israeli campaign has been the phenomenon of what locals call the use of remote-controlled “robots” rigged with explosives and sent into dense built-up areas to be detonated, causing widespread destruction.
The deadly weapon is essentially an outdated Israeli armored personnel carrier (APC), which is retrofitted with large amounts of explosives and sent into neighborhoods. According to a report by Israeli army radio reporter Doron Kadosh, aired on September 21, each of these explosions equals the explosive force of two heavy air missiles.
The report pointed out that each APC explosion sends fragments across 500 square meters, turning the sky red for several seconds and pulverizing anything — including bodies — in its perimeter. The report confirmed that the Israeli army has been using these weapons “at an industrial scale,” detonating dozens of APCs in Gaza City every day, especially at night.
Meanwhile, Nibal Farsakh, spokesperson for the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS), told Al-Araby TV on Wednesday that the only two hospitals still operating in Gaza City are the al-Ahli Arab Hospital and the al-Quds Hospital, which is also owned by PRCS. Both hospitals are running without essential medical supplies, and access to al-Quds Hospital has been cut off by Israeli forces for the past nine days, Farsakh said, adding that the hospital can only treat the patients already inside it.
Farsakh said that the hospital is using its last stock of oxygen canisters, which are about to run out at any moment, warning that today’s blockade on the only way into the city puts thousands of patients at risk. Farsakh noted that as large numbers of wounded individuals have continued to require treatment, most essential medicines and medical supplies have run out.
If Gaza City falls
Amid the offensive, Palestinians are practically trapped in the city. Moving south is only possible through vehicles that charge up to 8,000 shekels per trip (about $2,420), with long delays due to the high volume of requests. For thousands of families, the only alternative is to flee on foot, which is impossible for the elderly, the sick, and the wounded. Many of them have already fled Israeli strikes numerous times.
Although most Palestinians from north Gaza have already fled the cities of Jabalia and Beit Lahia, which have been completely destroyed, most of them moved a short distance south to Gaza City.
The majority of them had fled during the Israeli operation between October and December of 2024, dubbed “the Generals’ Plan.” The majority of these displaced Palestinians returned to the destroyed north during the ceasefire between January and March of this year. After Israel broke the ceasefire, most Palestinians remained in the north, exhausted by the displacement they had already experienced since October 2023, especially after Israel bombed places to which they had fled in the south that the army designated as “safe zones.”
The Palestinians who have already fled Gaza City have concentrated in the central Gaza Strip, in and around the cities of Deir Al-Balah, Khan Younis, and the coastal Mawasi area. These areas have been crowded with tent encampments for almost two years.
A Palestinian displaced from Gaza City in Mawasi, who asked not to be named, told Mondoweiss that “there is no place left in Mawasi, not even for a needle.” He noted that “people are expanding the tent encampments into the areas in Khan Younis controlled by the Israeli army, which is putting their lives at risk.”
“They’ve been removing the rubble of other people’s homes with their bare hands for days, just to make some room for another tent,” he said.
Another Palestinian who remains in Gaza City told Mondoweiss that “we had a difficult and long discussion inside my family over moving out or not, and decided to split.”
“My mother and two sisters left to the south, and my father and I remained,” they said. “The moment we said goodbye was the most difficult of my entire life. I hugged my mother for several minutes, and we both wept, as neither of us knew if we were going to see each other again.”
Gaza City is the largest urban center in the Strip, and is 5,000 years old. It has been an economic and cultural hub for a millennia.
Now Palestinians fear that Israel plans on wiping it out entirely, the same way it did with Rafah, which has now been completely leveled. If Gaza City meets the same fate, it would be the end of the Gaza Strip as we know it.
Are We Waking Up Fast Enough to the Dangers of AI Militarism?
As we continue to be force-fed AI, the voting public needs to find a way to push back against this onslaught against both personal autonomy and the democratic process.
Tom Valovic, Common Dreams, 1 Oct 25
AI is everywhere these days. There’s no escape. And as geopolitical events appear to spiral out of control in the Ukraine and Gaza, it seems clear that AI, while theoretically a force for positive change, has become has become a worrisome accelerant to the volatility and destabilization that may lead us to once again thinking the unthinkable—in this case World War III.
The reckless and irresponsible pace of AI development badly needs a measure of moderation and wisdom that seems sorely lacking in both the technology and political spheres. Those who we have relied on to provide this in the past—leading academics, forward-thinking political figures, and various luminaries and thought leaders in popular culture—often seem to be missing in action in terms of loudly sounding the necessary alarms. Lately, however, and offering at least a shred of hope, we’re seeing more coverage in the mainstream press of the dangers of AI’s destructive potential.
To get a feel for perspectives on AI in a military context, it’s useful to start with an article that appeared in Wired magazine a few years ago, “The AI-Powered, Totally Autonomous Future of War Is Here.” This treatment practically gushed with excitement about the prospect of autonomous warfare using AI. It went on to discuss how Big Tech, the military, and the political establishment were increasingly aligning to promote the use of weaponized AI in a mad new AI-nuclear arms race. The article also provided a clear glimpse of the foolish transparency of the all-too-common Big Tech mantra that “it’s really dangerous but let’s do it anyway.”
More recently, we see supposed thought leaders like former Google CEO Eric Schmidt sounding the alarm about AI in warfare after, of course, being heavily instrumental in promoting it……………………
The acceleration of frenzied AI development has now been green-lit by the Trump administration with US Vice President JD Vance’s deep ties to Big Tech becoming more and more apparent. This position is easily parsed—full speed ahead. One of Trump’s first official acts was to announce the Stargate Project, a $500 billion investment in AI infrastructure. Both President Donald Trump and Vance have made their position crystal clear about not attempting in any way to slow down progress by developing AI guardrails and regulation even to the point of attempting to preclude states from enacting their own regulation as part of the so called “Big Beautiful Bill.”
Widening The Public Debate
……………………………………………………………………………………… The role of the military in developing most of the advanced technologies that have worked their way into modern society still remains beneath the threshold of public awareness. But in the current environment characterized by the unholy alliance between corporate and government power, there no longer seems to be an ethical counterweight to unleashing a Pandora’s box of seemingly out-of-control AI technologies for less than noble purposes.
That the AI conundrum has appeared in the midst of a burgeoning world polycrisis seems to point toward a larger-than-life existential crisis for humanity that’s been ominously predicted and portrayed in science fiction movies, literature, and popular culture for decades. Arguably, these were not just films for speculative entertainment but in current circumstances can be viewed as warnings from our collective unconscious that have largely gone unheeded. As we continue to be force-fed AI, the voting public needs to find a way to push back against this onslaught against both personal autonomy and the democratic process.
No one had the opportunity to vote on whether we want to live in a quasi-dystopian technocratic world where human control and agency is constantly being eroded. And now, of course, AI itself is upon us in full force, increasingly weaponized not only against nation-states but also against ordinary citizens. As Albert Einstein warned, “It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.” In a troubling ironic twist, we know that Einstein played a strong role in developing the technology for nuclear weapons. And yet somehow, like J. Robert Oppenheimer, he eventually seemed to understand the deeper implications of what he helped to unleash.
Can we say the same about today’s AI CEOs and other self-appointed experts as they gleefully unleash this powerful force while at the same time casually proclaiming that they don’t really know if AI and AGI might actually spell the end of humanity and Planet Earth itself? https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/ai-militarism-dangers
Leah McGrath Goodman, Tony Blair and issues on torture (with added radiation)
Published by arclight2011- date 15 Sep 2012 -nuclear-news.net
[…]
Accusations: Despite the mockery of the film Borat, leaked U.S. cables suggest the country was undemocratic and used torture in detention
Other dignitaries at the meeting included former Italian Prime Minister and ex-EU Commission President
Romano Prodi. Mr Mittal’s employees in Kazakhstan have accused him of ‘slave labour’ conditions after a series of coal mining accidents between 2004 and 2007 which led to 91 deaths.
[…]
Last week a senior adviser to the Kazakh president said that Mr Blair had opened an office in the capital.Presidential adviser Yermukhamet Yertysbayev said: ‘A large working group is here and, to my knowledge, it has already opened Tony Blair’s permanent office in Astana.’
It was reported last week that Mr Blair had secured an £8 million deal to clean up the image of Kazakhstan.
[…]
Mr Blair also visited Kazakhstan in 2008, and in 2003 Lord Levy went there to help UK firms win contracts.
[…]
Max Keiser talks to investigative journalist and author, Leah McGrath Goodman about her being banned from the UK for reporting on the Jersey sex and murder scandal. They discuss the $5 billion per square mile in laundered money that means Jersey rises, while Switzerland sinks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA_aVZrR5NI&feature=player_detailpage#t=749s
And as well as protecting the guilty child sex/torturers/murderers of the island of Jersey I believe that they are also protecting the tax dodgers from any association.. its just good PR!
FORMER Prime Minister Tony Blair was reportedly involved in helping to keep alive the world’s biggest takeover by Jersey-incorporated commodities trader Glencore of mining company Xstrata.
11/September/2012
[…]
Mr Blair was said to have attended a meeting at Claridge’s Hotel in London towards the end of last week which led to the Qatari Sovereign wealth fund supporting a final revised bid from Glencore for its shareholding. Continue reading
The War Department’s War on Media
The Pentagon’s new restrictions will bar correspondents covering the American military from covering the American military, as the Trump regime attempts to exert full-spectrum control over media.
By Patrick Lawrence, Consortium News, September 30, 2025
It should be evident by now to anyone paying even casual attention that exerting full-spectrum control over American media is among the Trump regime’s most perniciously obsessive projects.
Of all the extra-constitutional messes this vulgar ignoramus is making, I count his assaults on media his gravest attempt to destroy what remains of American democracy and what little chance there may be to restore it.
There are all sorts of cases in point. President Trump has a citizen’s right to file lawsuits against various media — ABC News, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Paramount Global (the parent of CBS News) — but to call these anything other than an antidemocratic assertion of executive power is out of the question.
Lately there are the threats of Brendan Carr, the mad-dog chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, to take licenses away from broadcasters whose reportage and commentary are not to Trump’s liking.
“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” saith Carr when he forced ABC to take Jimmy Kimmel off the air (temporarily, it turned out) for a few utterly harmless remarks the late-night host made after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the influential conservative.
What a ridiculous comment from a ridiculous man, what a capricious display of authoritarian power. This is a war on media the Trump regime intends to wage on many fronts, to finish this pencil-sketch of the landscape.
What is to my mind the most portentous attack yet on media of all sorts and what little independence remains among the mainstream variety came a couple of weeks ago, when the Defense Department announced severe new restrictions on journalists covering the Pentagon.
To put the case simply, these rules will bar correspondents covering the American military from covering the American military.
My mind goes first to Jefferson’s famous remark in 1787, while serving as the young United States’ minister in Paris.
“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government,” he wrote to Edward Carrington, a prominent Virginian and a friend, “I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
Taking the Pentagon’s new restrictions on their own terms and also as a harbinger, Trump and Pete Hegseth, his buffoonish defense secretary, appear intent on delivering Americans to that condition Jefferson warned against 238 years ago.
Turning his question another way, I remind readers of W.E.B. DuBois, Mark Twain, Samuel Gompers, the James brothers (William and Henry), and other critics of the American imperium as it emerged at the end of the 19th century. There will be empire abroad or democracy at home, they asserted with a sort of desperate alarm, but Americans will not have both.
Considered in this context, Hegseth, with Trump’s evident approval, has just nodded in favor of this argument. Operating the late-phase imperium, Hegseth effectively advises Americans, requires the sequestration of power from public scrutiny.
The document announcing the Defense Department’s new restrictions on correspondents covering the American military runs to 17 pages; a covering letter signed by Sean Parnell, the Pentagon spokesman, describes it as “implementing the Secretary of War [sic] memorandum, ‘Updated Physical Control Measures for Press/Media Access Within the Pentagon,’ dated May 23, 2025.”
Note the date. By mid–May Pentagon correspondents had reported that Hegseth was using unsecured internet lines to conduct classified business and had brought his wife, brother, and personal attorney into a chat room where a top-secret aerial attack on Yemen was under discussion. A few days after that it was reported that he had invited Elon Musk to a briefing on potential war plans against China.
This guy had a lot of stupidity and incompetence to cover up. And the restrictions Hegseth authorized in May, detailed in the memorandum dated Sept. 18 and due to come into effect over the next few days, reek of the sort of revenge — against Democrats, against the universities, against the courts, against the media — that seems to rule within the Trump regime.
How damaging to our tattered republic, you have to conclude, are the petty vendettas of these thankfully passing people.
These new restrictions are beyond Draconian. Journalists covering the Pentagon are to be required to pledge not to report anything, anything at all, that has not been explicitly authorized by a department official. They will not be allowed even to gather information without such authorization. Access even to unclassified information will be limited to occasions “when there is a lawful government purpose for doing so.”
Reporters assigned to cover the Defense Department will now have to take pledges to get in the Pentagon’s front door? Just how far are these people going to go? This reminds me of the loyalty oaths required of federal employees during the McCarthyist 1950s.
Roughly 90 journalists cover the Pentagon at any given time. They will henceforth be restricted even from walking most of the building’s halls without an escort. “Failure to abide by these rules,” the memorandum warns, “may result in suspension or revocation of your building pass and loss of access.”
This is pretty close to Soviet, in my estimation.
“Journalists covering the Pentagon are to be required to pledge not to report anything, anything at all, that has not been explicitly authorized by a department official…. Access even to unclassified information will be limited…
Hegseth took to social media the day these restrictions were issued to journalists and, so, reported in their media. “The ‘press’ does not run the Pentagon,” he declared to all, “the people do.”
Tell me if this is not altogether Soviet.
It would be difficult to overstate the gravity of these measures. Taken to their extreme, and to go by the hyper-officious phrasing of the Sept. 18 memorandum the extreme is what Hegseth’s Pentagon has in mind, once these regulations go live the conduct of the imperium will no longer be visible to the public.
The imposition of total control of information — and so of all “narratives” — and the concealment of all conduct: These are the all-but-stated objectives. We are looking at unlimited prerogative and the strictest enforcement of secrecy, to describe this new regime another way. At this early moment I find it hard to imagine the extent of the lawlessness this may turn out to license.
I start to think the Trump II regime’s relations with media exceed the corruptions of the Cold War decades, and this is going some. But no president then was as brutishly ignorant and as indifferent to the Constitution as Trump. The imperium was on the ascendant during those first post–1945 decades; now it is bankrupt (in lots of ways) and obviously on the wane. The game is bound to get rougher as strength gives way to weakness…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Pete Hegseth has decreed a radical departure in professional practice for journalists covering the national security state. True and highly condemnable.
Pete Hegseth has codified long-established practices and a longstanding relationship between the press and power. True and highly condemnable. https://consortiumnews.com/2025/09/30/patrick-lawrence-the-war-depts-war-on-media/
Trump says Israel can ‘finish the job’ in Gaza if Hamas rejects latest ceasefire plan
If Hamas rejects the deal, Trump said Israel “would have my full backing to finish the job” of destroying the group. Netanyahu said Hamas could choose the “easy way or hard way” going forward.
Donald Trump says Benjamin Netanyahu accepted the latest U.S.-backed “peace plan” in Gaza and threatened Hamas that if it rejects the proposal, Israel would have his “full backing to finish the job” of destroying the group.
By Michael Arria September 29, 2025, https://mondoweiss.net/2025/09/trump-says-israel-can-finish-the-job-in-gaza-if-hamas-rejects-latest-ceasefire-plan/
President Donald Trump says Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accepted the latest U.S.-backed “peace plan,” which is ostensibly aimed at securing a ceasefire in Gaza.
Trump made the announcement during a joint press conference with Netanyahu, which followed a White House meeting between the two leaders. It’s Netanyahu’s fourth trip to Washington since Trump began his term in January.
During the meeting, Trump facilitated an Oval Office phone call between Netanyahu and Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim al-Thani, in which the Israeli leader apologized for the September 9 attack on Doha.
Netanyahu expressed regret about the strikes and, specifically, “that, in targeting Hamas leadership during hostage negotiations, Israel violated Qatari sovereignty,” according to a White House readout of the phone call.
Despite being touted as a diplomatic breakthrough, the 20-point plan recycles a number of previous White House declarations.
The plan would include a prisoner swap, complete Hamas disarmament, and the formulation of a transitional government led by an international body. Additionaly, it requires Gaza to become “deradicalized terror-free zone.”
Trump would chair a “board of peace” to reconstruct the Gaza Strip as part of the program, while Jordan and Egypt would train new Palestinian security forces.
Trump told reporters that it was an “extremely fair” proposal and claimed that Hamas “wants to get this done too,” despite reports that Hamas has yet to receive the plan.
“I also want to thank Prime Minister Netanyahu for agreeing to the plan and for trusting that if we work together, we can bring an end to the death and destruction that we’ve seen for so many years, decades, even centuries and begin a new chapter of security, peace and prosperity for the entire region,” said Trump.
If Hamas rejects the deal, Trump said Israel “would have my full backing to finish the job” of destroying the group. Netanyahu said Hamas could choose the “easy way or hard way” going forward.
“Everyone understands that the ultimate result must be the elimination of any danger posed in the region, and that danger is caused by Hamas,” explained Trump.
Neither leader took questions after the press conference.
Shortly before the meeting, Axios published a report by Marc Caputo and Barak Ravid, which claimed Trump is “willing to break with him over Gaza for the first time since returning to office.” It quoted an anonymous Trump official who insisted that “everyone — and I mean everyone — is exasperated with Bibi.”
Despite such assertions, the Trump administration has continued to support the assault on Gaza without conditions of any kind.
Earlier this month, in a 72-page report, the UN Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and called for an arms embargo on the country.
“What does this mean for the international community?,” wrote UN human rights chief and commission member Navi Pillay after the report was released. “It means its obligations are not optional. Every state has an obligation to prevent genocide wherever it occurs,” she continued. “That obligation requires action: halting the transfer of weapons and military support used in genocidal acts, ensuring unimpeded humanitarian assistance, stopping the mass displacement and destruction, and using all available diplomatic and legal means to stop the killing. To do nothing is not neutrality. It is complicity.”
As UN Turns 80, Trump Continues US Violation of Charter’s Limits on Use of Force.
Donald Trump has ignored UN rules about attacking other nations, but he is not the first US president to do so
By Marjorie Cohn , Truthout, September 29, 2025
n his inflammatory September 23 speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Donald Trump expressed contempt for the UN, falsely claiming he had ended seven wars and stating, “I realized that the United Nations wasn’t there for us. I thought of it really after the fact … that being the case, what is the purpose of the United Nations?”
If Trump studied history, he would know the answer to that question.
Eighty years ago, after two world wars claimed millions of lives, nations around the world — including the United States — came together and established the UN system “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.”
The UN Charter requires that all states settle their disputes peacefully and refrain from the use of armed force except in self-defense under Article 51, after an armed attack against a UN state by another state, or when the Security Council authorizes it.
But, motivated by American exceptionalism — the notion that the U.S. is unique and morally superior and thus not bound by the rules — successive elected U.S. governments have violated the commands of the UN Charter and illegally attacked other countries with impunity.
Violation of UN Charter by Last Five U.S. Presidents
Trump has ignored the straightforward rules about the lawful use of force, but he is not the first U.S. president to do so. We need look no further than the last five presidents, who have launched armed attacks without Security Council approval against countries that had not carried out armed attacks on the United States or other UN member countries.
Bill Clinton could have helped prevent the genocide in Rwanda. But instead, he precluded the UN from acting to stop the killing of 800,000 people. In 1993, Clinton bombed Iraq to retaliate for an assassination attempt against George H. W. Bush. In 1998, on the eve of his impeachment, Clinton once again bombed Iraq, ostensibly to enforce Security Council resolutions, even though only the Council has the power to enforce its resolutions. Both bombings violated the UN Charter. The 1999 U.S.-led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia also violated the Charter, killing roughly 500 civilians. Madeline Albright, Clinton’s secretary of state, labeled the UN “a tool of American foreign policy.”
In 2001, George W. Bush’s administration illegally invaded Afghanistan, even though Afghanistan had not attacked the United States. On September 11, 2001, 19 men (15 of whom hailed from Saudi Arabia) committed crimes against humanity in the United States. But that was not an armed attack by another state sufficient to trigger the Charter’s Article 51 self-defense provision. Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan was not lawful self-defense, and the Security Council had not approved it.
Two years later, before he illegally invaded Iraq and changed its regime, Bush tried to obtain the consent of the Security Council, but the Council refused to authorize the invasion. Then Bush cobbled together prior Security Council resolutions from the first Gulf War, none of which authorized him to attack Iraq in 2003, in a vain attempt to legitimize his illegitimate war.
John Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the UN during George W. Bush’s second term, and national security adviser during Trump’s first term, was a strong advocate for Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. In 1994, Bolton displayed his hatred for the UN when he stated that “there is no such thing as the United Nations,” cynically adding, “If the UN Secretariat building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”
Barack Obama launched illegal drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq. None of those seven states had mounted an armed attack against the U.S. or any other UN member country, and the Security Council did not authorize the strikes. Moreover, the Obama administration provided no evidence that any of those states were about to launch an imminent attack on the United States. Even if the U.S. Congress had authorized Obama’s wars, they still would not have been in compliance with the Charter.
During Trump’s first regime, he ordered the illegal bombing of Syria. In 2017, he sent 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles to attack Syria in response to its alleged use of chemical weapons in a Damascus suburb. Syria had not attacked the United States or any other UN state before Trump’s missile strike. The use of chemical weapons by Syria did not constitute an armed attack to trigger the right of self-defense. And the Security Council had not approved Trump’s use of force. It therefore violated the Charter.
In 2020, Trump ordered the illegal drone assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani who was present in Iraq. Neither Iran nor Iraq had attacked the United States and the Council had not authorized Trump’s drone attack. It was therefore illegal under the Charter.
One month after Joe Biden was inaugurated, he authorized airstrikes in Syria on buildings that purportedly belonged to Iran-backed militias who were allegedly responsible for attacks against U.S. and allied personnel in Iraq. Syria, however, had not undertaken an armed attack on the U.S. or another country, and the Security Council had not approved the attack. Biden also authorized illegal drone strikes in Afghanistan in 2021 and 2022, and in Yemen in 2024.
Trump Renames “Department of Defense” the “Department of War”
Trump signed an executive order attempting to rename the “Department of Defense” as the “Department of War.” Permanently renaming the department would require congressional approval, but the move is indicative of his explicit rejection of the Charter’s fundamental precept of self-defense. And his actions since assuming office for his second term are consistent with that rejection.
After Israel illegally attacked Iran in June, Trump conducted a series of military strikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities. Although he claimed his objective was to put “a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror,” Iran did not constitute an imminent threat. Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, affirmed at the time that Iran did not even have nuclear weapons capability. The U.S. strikes were not mounted in self-defense, and the Council had not given its imprimatur for the attacks.
Earlier this month, Trump illegally ordered armed attacks on at least three Venezuelan fishing vessels under the guise of fighting the drug war, killing at least 11 people, in direct violation of the Charter. He was apparently testing the waters. Now NBC News is reporting that Trump is considering mounting drone strikes within Venezuela in the next few weeks.
Since October 7, 2023, when Israel began its genocidal campaign against the Palestinian people in Gaza, the United States — under both Biden and Trump — has six times vetoed Security Council resolutions to end the fighting, despite the UN Charter’s command that international disputes be settled peacefully. The Trump administration filed the most recent U.S. veto on September 18.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has issued an unprecedented order summoning high-ranking military officials to attend a meeting in Quantico, Virginia, on September 30, reportedly to deliver a message about upholding a “warrior ethos.” Whether this signals a new aggressive approach or remains a mere photo op, the Trump administration is likely to continue the foreign policy tradition of disregarding the UN Charter, thanks to decades of impunity enjoyed by previous administrations.
Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, dean of the People’s Academy of International Law and past president of the National Lawyers Guild. She sits on the national advisory boards of Veterans For Peace and Assange Defense, and is a member of the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the U.S. representative to the continental advisory council of the Association of American Jurists. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues.
Exposing JFK Airport’s hidden arms pipeline to Israel
Shipping records obtained by Mondoweiss show New York’s JFK Airport is a key transit hub for U.S. weapons parts headed to Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
By Shaniyat Turani-Chowdhury September 30, 2025, https://mondoweiss.net/2025/09/exposing-jfk-airports-hidden-arms-pipeline-to-israel/
On July 16, 2025, a Boeing 747 operated by Challenge Airlines lifted off from JFK Airport in New York. The cargo manifest listed a 347-kilogram shipment from Lockheed Martin. Inside was a BRU-68 bomb release unit, a mechanism that allows an F-35 fighter jet to drop 2,000-pound bombs.
The flight’s final stop was Nevatim Air Base in southern Israel, home to the F-35I fleet bombing Gaza.
This was not an isolated transfer. Internal shipping records shared by the Palestinian Youth Movement, and cross-referenced with public flight-tracking data, reveal a steady flow of U.S.-made weapons components moving from New York to Israel. Parts for fighter jets, missile launchers, and ammunition have routinely left JFK on commercial cargo flights while Israel’s air campaign destroys homes, schools, and hospitals.
These shipments started before the current genocide, but have increased greatly since October 7, 2023. They continue now despite mounting evidence of war crimes and calls for an arms embargo. What they reveal is that New York City is a crucial logistical hub in the supply chain arming Israel’s assault.
Between July 2 and July 23, at least six arms shipments from JFK to Israel were verified through waybills, flight data, and internal records provided to Mondoweiss.
These findings add new depth to earlier reporting in The Intercept and The Ditch, showing how JFK Airport has become a critical link in Israel’s military supply chain.
“What these records show is that the genocide in Gaza isn’t only manufactured in Washington—it’s facilitated right here in New York,” said Kaleem Hawa of the Palestinian Youth Movement. “JFK has become a gateway for the weapons that are killing our people.”
These flights and their deadly cargo reveal the logistics networks arming Israel’s genocide in Gaza that, for many in the U.S., is hiding in plain sight.
A civilian airport moving weapons to genocide
Challenge Airlines flight ICL982 departs JFK for Tel Aviv on a near-routine schedule, often before sunrise. Cargo bays handle electronics, produce, and mail. Mixed in are crates labeled “aircraft components” or “hazardous materials,” terms that hide their military use.
Among the shipments traced in July were:
- Aircraft structural parts and missile launcher struts from Lockheed Martin
- Fuel selector valves used in Elbit Systems aircraft
- Ammunition link containers for Israel Military Industries
- A BRU-68 ejector unit for the F-35
- Wingtip protective lenses for fighter jets
Each part is essential to the maintenance and repair of larger weapons systems, and they are moved under the cover of civilian logistics.
“Most of us just scan the cargo tags—we’re not told what’s inside,” a JFK cargo worker who asked to remain anonymous told Mondoweiss. “When pallets show up wrapped and labeled ‘confidential’ or ‘secret,’ we know not to ask questions. They bypass normal screening. We just load them.”
A second cargo handler recalled the difference on days when major military shipments arrive. “The pallets are heavier, wrapped tight, and marked with tags you don’t see on normal freight. Security is always hovering nearby. We’re told nothing and only given the signal to load.”
Why JFK? Geography, logistics, and loopholes
JFK’s east coast location shortens routes to Europe and the Middle East. Explosives depots along the coast allow rapid transport from factory to plane.
Jack Cinamon of Shadow World Investigations, an international research group that tracks the global arms trade and corruption, who studies U.S.-Israel weapons transfers, points to two reasons JFK is such a strategic node in the supply chain. The first is proximity to suppliers. “Along the East Coast are multiple explosives and ammunition depots,” he explained to Mondoweiss. “Being close to those locations makes JFK much more advantageous.”
Cinamon also says the abundance of established cargo carriers, like Challenge and FedEx, which operate full logistics hubs inside JFK, provides cover for defense contractors.
The airport also stores hazardous and explosive materials, a capability not available everywhere. This combination lets military cargo move in the same space as ordinary freight, hidden by commercial operations.
JFK is not the only American airport feeding the supply lines into Israel’s war machine. Dallas-Fort Worth, Memphis International, and Oakland also serve as key transit points in this network.
The endpoint: Nevatim Air Base
The end of the line is Nevatim Air Base, carved into the Negev desert southeast of Be’er Sheva. It’s here that Israel stations its fleet of F-35I “Adir” jets, the U.S.-built fighters engineered for precision bombing runs.
Among the cargo routed from New York City are BRU-68 ejector units, the hardware that allows these jets to release heavy munitions. The Pentagon itself places the BRU-68 under “Category VIII – Aircraft and Related Articles” on the U.S. Munitions List, noting its use in deploying precision weapons like the 2,000-pound GBU-31. These ejectors wear down quickly and must be replaced often, making the shipments routine. Alongside them are fuel valves, targeting consoles, and protective lenses—the pieces that keep the F-35Is in the sky and combat-ready.
The path is seamless. Parts are made from a Lockheed Martin assembly line, to a cargo bay at JFK, to the blast craters in Rafah. It is this steady pipeline between New York and Nevatim that enables Israel to sustain its air campaign over Gaza.
Law, policy, and complicity
Under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), Israel receives exemptions that speed licensing for some weapons components. The Arms Export Control Act and the Leahy Law bar U.S. assistance to military units committing human rights abuses, yet exports have continued throughout the bombing of Gaza.
Patrick Wilcken, Amnesty International’s head of military, security, and policing work, told Mondoweiss any state transferring arms to Israel “risks complicity in genocide and war crimes” and violates its obligation under the Genocide Convention to prevent genocide. States that knowingly continue transfers, he added, risk “aiding and assisting” in crimes under international law, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
Wilcken noted that Israel’s preferential treatment under U.S. export rules does not override international obligations. “International humanitarian law prohibits all states—including the U.S.—from transferring weapons to a party to an armed conflict where there is a clear risk that doing so would contribute to the commission of war crimes,” he said. Amnesty has long called for a total arms embargo, citing extensive evidence of repeated violations in Gaza.
The risk extends to private industry. “Companies, their executives, and employees risk being accomplices in crimes under international law if the products and services they provide contribute substantively in the commission of those crimes,” Wilcken explained. If they know their cargo will likely be used unlawfully, “they could be found legally liable.”
Amnesty says the threshold for halting arms transfers has already been met. Court challenges in Belgium and the Netherlands have successfully blocked shipments to Israel, even as similar efforts in France and the UK have failed.
In Belgium, regional governments suspended licenses for military goods bound for Israel following legal pressure and public outcry, while in Ireland, parliamentarians have raised questions over flights carrying Israeli explosives through Shannon Airport. Reporting from The Ditch revealed that shipments tied to Israel’s Ministry of Defense were routed through Europe, sparking scrutiny of how states may be complicit in the transfer of arms used in Gaza.
Congressional oversight
JFK Airport sits within the district of Congress member Gregory Meeks, who, as a ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, holds one of the key positions in Congress responsible for reviewing and overseeing arms sales. Under the Arms Export Control Act, his committee can delay, question, or block transfers, and Meeks has made use of that authority in the past. In 2021, he sought a temporary pause on a $735 million sale of precision-guided munitions to Israel to allow more time to review, and in 2024, he pressed the State Department for further assurances on a multibillion-dollar package of F-15s. These episodes highlight that he is not only aware of the stakes but is willing, at least in certain cases, to assert the committee’s oversight powers.
At the same time, Meeks has long been supported by pro-Israel advocacy networks, including AIPAC, whose lobbying efforts consistently push for expedited transfers and minimal restrictions on U.S. defense exports to Israel. Meeks has received more than $400,000 from AIPAC as of the most recent federal elections filings. Those ties place him at the center of competing pressures: on one side, his formal role as a gatekeeper tasked with scrutinizing foreign military sales, and on the other, the political influence of a lobby that has made the uninterrupted flow of weapons a top priority.
Mondoweiss contacted Representative Meeks for a comment on the fact that these shipments leave directly from his district through JFK. His office did not respond.
Protest and suppression
On July 9, protesters gathered outside JFK to stop a shipment of Elbit Systems parts. Authorities responded with a coordinated lock down. The Port Authority, MTA, and NYPD restricted access to all terminals, barring the press from the grounds. Protesters were pushed out of sight.
“We were blocked from every angle,” said a protester who asked to remain anonymous. “Police set up barricades so far back you couldn’t see the cargo area—not the planes, not the loading trucks, nothing. Anyone without a boarding pass was turned away. From where we were pushed, it was impossible to tell if anything was being moved. It felt deliberate.”
“They shut down the public’s right to witness it,” added another organizer.
The flight left on schedule.
Israel Launches Major Airstrikes on Yemeni Capital, Killing at Least Nine.
The attack came after a Yemeni drone hit the Israeli city of Eilat
by Dave DeCamp | September 25, 2025, https://news.antiwar.com/2025/09/25/israel-launches-major-airstrikes-on-yemeni-capital-killing-at-least-two-and-wounding-dozens/
The Israeli military launched major airstrikes on the Yemeni capital of Sanaa on Thursday, an assault that came after a Yemeni drone struck the Israeli city of Eilat, as the Houthis have vowed their attacks on Israel won’t stop until there’s an end to Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.
Yemeni Health Ministry spokesman Anis al-Asbahi said the Israeli attacks targeted “civilian, service, and residential facilities, causing damage to a number of homes.” He said that at least nine people were killed and 174 were wounded, but it’s a preliminary death toll that’s expected to rise. Among those killed were four children and two women.
Footage and photos from Yemen’s Al Masirah TV show significant damage to a residential area of Sanaa and Yemenis, including children, being treated at a hospital.
Netanyahu’s General Assembly Tirade Telegraphs A Resumption of Israel’s War On Iran.
Dimitri Lascaris, Sep 28, 2025, https://reason2resist.substack.com/p/netanyahus-general-assembly-tirade?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2811845&post_id=174714909&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
On September 26, indicted war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a bombastic speech in the UN General Assembly in which he set Israel’s sights squarely upon the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Netanyahu also castigated many of Israel’s few remaining allies for taking the purely cosmetic step of recognizing a Palestinian state.
Shortly before Netanyahu’s speech at the UN, U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth summoned hundreds of senior U.S. military officers from around the world to a highly unusual, emergency meeting in Virginia. The Trump regime is being tight-lipped about the purposes of this meeting.
n this episode of Reason2Resist, I examine these recent developments and argue that we may be mere days away from a resumption of Israel’s criminal war of aggression on Iran.
I also discuss a new poll by Quinnipiac University which confirms that support for Israel continues to plummet in the United States.
When Palestinians Die in Israeli Captivity, US Media Almost Never Take Note
Drew Favakeh, FAIR, September 27, 2025
The different treatment accorded to the plights of Palestinian and Israeli prisoners by US corporate media illustrates a persistent double standard that treats some people as more human than others.
Take 20-year-old Palestinian prisoner Ahmed Saeed Tazaz’a, who died in Israel’s Megiddo Prison after nearly three months of illegal detention, according to the Commission of Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs (CDA), an agency of the Palestinian Authority (8/3/25).
Tazaz’a, who was from Jenin in the northern occupied West Bank, was imprisoned on May 6 of this year without a charge or a trial. He was held under Israel’s policy of “administrative detention,” which locks up Palestinians indefinitely “on the grounds that he or she plans to break the law in the future,” according to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem. Tazaz’a did not suffer from prior health problems before his arrest, according to his family (WAFA, 8/7/25).
There are currently some 3,613 Palestinians under administrative detention in Israeli prisons, according to the July 2025 CDA report, and more than 10,000 Palestinians in Israeli custody (not including those held in military camps) in total. Even Israel’s own military intelligence only identifies a quarter of its detainees from Gaza as “fighters,” while human rights groups and Israeli soldiers have reported even fewer—roughly 15%—as Hamas members (Guardian, 9/4/25).
The CDA reports that Tazaz’a was the 76th identified Palestinian to die in Israeli custody since October 7, 2023.
And yet, while the fates of Israelis held captive by Hamas regularly make front-page news, US corporate media have not reported on Tazaz’a’s death—much less investigated it. Among the few news outlets to report his death were the Palestine News & Information Agency (WAFA, 8/7/25), Yemen News Agency (8/3/25), Haaretz (8/6/25), DropSite (8/3/25), Middle East Monitor (8/4/25) and Middle East Eye (8/19/25).
“There is no value for life”
Since January 1, 2025, the CDA and foreign media have recorded at least 13 deaths of Palestinians held captive by Israel:
- Musab Al-Ayadeh, age 20, at Ofer Prison (died on 8/25/25);
- Ahmed Saeed Tazaz’a, 20, at Megiddo Prison (reported 8/3/25);
- Sameer Mohammad Yousif al-Rifai, 53 (7/17/25);
- Mohyee al-Din Fahmi Najem, 60, at Naqab Prison (5/4/25);
- Walid Ahmad, 17, at Megiddo Prison (3/22/25);
- Rafaat Abu Fanouneh, 34, at Ramla Prison (2/26/25);
- Khaled Mahmoud Qassem Abdullah, 40, at Megiddo Prison (2/23/25);
- Ali Ashour Ali al-Batsh, 62, at Naqab Prison (2/21/25);
- Sayel Rajab Abu Nasr, 60 (1/21/25, revealed on 6/30/25);
- Mutaz Abu Znaid, at Gadot Prison (1/13/25);
- Musab Haniya, 35 (1/5/25, revealed on 2/24/25);
- Ibrahim Adnan Ashour, 25 (6/23/24, revealed on 1/29/25);
- Mohammad Sharif al-Asali, 35 (5/17/24, revealed on 1/29/25).
Of these 13 deaths, only one—that of 17-year-old Brazilian-Palestinian Walid Ahmad—prompted any coverage in US corporate news outlets, according to a FAIR search of the US Newsstream Collection on ProQuest and supplemental Nexis and Google searches.
Ahmad died in Megiddo Prison on March 22, reportedly the youngest Palestinian to die in an Israeli prison since October 7. The Associated Press ran two original reports about Ahmad’s death (4/1/25, 4/6/25, plus a brief followup at the end of another piece—4/11/25) that a few other outlets republished, and CNN (4/6/25) ran one original report .
On April 1, the AP published a detailed report by Julia Frankel headlined “A Palestinian From the West Bank Is First Detainee Under 18 to Die in Israeli Prison, Officials Say.” The article reported that Ahmad “was held in an Israeli prison for six months without being charged [and] died after collapsing in unclear circumstances.” …………………………………………………………………………
Palestinian prisoners: not newsworthy?
By all measures, the AP’s stories were well-sourced, humanizing and put into appropriate context—yet few other US outlets picked them up. …………………………………………………………………………………………..
International and independent accounts
It’s not particularly difficult for US journalists to find details about these deaths—including the unlawful conditions and/or abuse causing or coinciding with them—as the details are extensively documented by their overseas counterparts (mainly in the Middle East)……………………………………………………………………………………
Prison abuses continue, coverage doesn’t
In 2024, at least a few deaths of Palestinian prisoners were covered by US corporate media outlets, including those of Dr. Adnan Ahmad Albursh, chief of orthopedics at Al-Shifa hospital (New York Times, 5/3/24) and Iyad al-Rantisi, director of the Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia (Washington Post, 7/1/24). The Journal notably published an article (more than 2,500 words) about how the deaths of Albursh and other imprisoned Palestinians “fuel allegations of abuse” (8/8/24).
In 2024, at least a few deaths of Palestinian prisoners were covered by US corporate media outlets, including those of Dr. Adnan Ahmad Albursh, chief of orthopedics at Al-Shifa hospital (New York Times, 5/3/24) and Iyad al-Rantisi, director of the Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia (Washington Post, 7/1/24). The Journal notably published an article (more than 2,500 words) about how the deaths of Albursh and other imprisoned Palestinians “fuel allegations of abuse” (8/8/24).
The lack of US media attention in 2025 cannot be attributed to a lack of either abuses or available leads. In July, an exposé by Israeli newspaper Haaretz (7/6/25) showed Megiddo Prison to be one of the more brutal of Israeli prisons. The report revealed “medical neglect,” including the “rampant spread” of scabies and a “high probability of an outbreak of a contagious intestinal disease” leading to diarrhea and weight loss, which was also caused in part by reduced food rations. Routine violence at Megiddo Prison is also prevalent, including gas spray in the prisoners’ faces, baton beatings, kicking and the assault of inmates with fists or clubs.
Haaretz described the deaths of two Palestinian prisoners, one of whom suffered “broken ribs and a broken sternum” and was “severely beaten in the head before his death” and another of whom suffered from “broken ribs, a damaged spleen and severe inflammation in both of his lungs.” Such conditions had previously been documented repeatedly by the CDA (4/13/25, 4/13/25, 5/28/25) and Addameer (3/14/25, 5/12/25).
The Haaretz article expanded on the death of Ahmad, including that he “collapsed in the prison yard and died.” Haaretz included the doctor’s finding that Ahmad “had almost no fatty tissue left in his body, suffered from colon inflammation and was infected with scabies.”
Haaretz also reported that, when asked whether the autopsy “led to any action,” the Health Ministry “refused to provide details.” The article included input from a 16-year-old inmate, identified by Haaretz under the pseudonym “Ibrahim,” who said that after Ahmad’s death, “the violence decreased but didn’t stop.”
No corporate US news outlet has covered or followed up on Haaretz‘s report.
Front-page news: ‘Israeli hostages’
By comparison, the US corporate press has put far greater focus on Israeli prisoners held by Hamas—highlighting a long-documented double-standard.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. To be clear, media should be reporting on Israeli captives—not just on their deaths, but when they are released as well, detailing their experiences.
It only serves the interests of the Israeli government, however, for US corporate media to foreground the plight of Israelis held by Hamas while failing to do so for Palestinians in Israeli captivity—especially when the latter are a part of what many nations, politicians, scholars, experts and others deem a “genocide.” https://fair.org/home/when-palestinians-die-in-israeli-captivity-us-media-almost-never-take-note/
Living with the legacy of France’s nuclear weapons testing
Nina Werkhäuser 26 Sept 25, https://www.dw.com/en/living-with-the-legacy-of-frances-nuclear-weapons-testing/a-74131800
France tested nuclear weapons for 30 years in the Pacific. The people of French Polynesia bore the brunt of the testing.
“For 30 years, we were France’s guinea pigs,” says Hinamoeura Morgant-Cross, a young member of parliament from French Polynesia.
This South Pacific archipelago, a French overseas territory that includes Tahiti and is famed for its white beaches, swaying palms, and turquoise waters, is often romanticized as a paradise.
But beneath the idyllic image lies a painful legacy: decades of nuclear testing and its enduring consequences.
Between 1966 and 1996, the French military detonated 193 nuclear bombs on the remote atolls of Mururoa and Fangataufa. These tests were carried out in Ma’ohi Nui, as the territory is known to its indigenous inhabitants. The first explosion, codenamed Aldebaran, took place on July 2, 1966. It marked the beginning of a long chapter that would leave deep scars on the land and its people.
In 2025, Morgant-Cross journeyed over 15,000 kilometers (more than 9,320 miles) to Berlin to speak at an event in May, hosted by the international medical NGO International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, or IPPNW. There, she delivered a searing testimony about the long-term consequences of France’s nuclear testing program: disproportionately high cancer rates, children born with deformities and ongoing contamination of the region’s water and soil.
“So they really poisoned the ocean where we found all our food,” says Morgant-Cross who has also addressed the United Nations in New York. “We have been poisoned for the greatness of France, for France to be a state with a nuclear weapon.”
The ‘clean bomb’ myth
The French government at the time knowingly gave false assurances to the islanders about the dangers of the nuclear testing.
Then-President Charles de Gaulle described the French atomic bomb as “green and very clean,” suggesting it was safer or more environmentally friendly than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki .
Morgant-Cross calls it nothing more than “French propaganda.”
In reality, radioactive clouds drifted across vast parts of the South Pacific and even reached the main island of Tahiti, more than 1,000 kilometers from the test site. Often, residents of nearby islands weren’t informed or evacuated.
No Apology from France
France didn’t cease its nuclear testing program until 1996, following intense domestic and international outcry. Despite the halt, the French government has never formally apologized for the harm caused to its overseas territories.
During a 2021 visit to French Polynesia, President Emmanuel Macron acknowledged France’s role, stating, “The guilt lies in the fact that we conducted these tests.”
“We would not have carried out these experiments in Creuse or Brittany [in mainland France],” he said.
United Nations and various NGOs have observed September 26th as the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons since 2014. The days is a solemn reminder of the ongoing responsibility borne by nuclear-armed states.
Yet the suffering endured by victims of nuclear testing is in danger of being forgotten. In response, a rising generation from former test sites is refusing to accept the silence of those in power. They are mobilizing across borders, channeling their concern into coordinated action.
Parliamentarian Hinamoeura Morgant-Cross is among those speaking out. While visiting Berlin, she shared her family’s painful legacy: her grandmother was 30 when the nuclear tests began and later developed thyroid cancer as did her mother and aunt.
Morgant-Cross, born in 1988, revealed that both she and her sister also developed cancer, underscoring the generational toll of radioactive exposure.
Cancer can develop generations later
Experts warn that nuclear testing has led to clusters of cancer cases within affected families. Exposure to ionizing radiation can cause genetic mutations, which may be inherited by subsequent generations.
“The insidious nature of ionizing radiation lies in its ability to affect people across generations,” says nuclear weapons expert Jana Baldus of the European Leadership Network (ELN). “It significantly increases the risk of various cancers, particularly lymphoma and leukemia.”
Another consequence of nuclear testing is reproductive harm.
“Women exposed to radiation during the tests have given birth to children with congenital defects and have suffered miscarriages,” Baldus tells DW. “These effects can be passed down through generations, potentially leading to infertility in women.”
For Hinamoeura Morgant-Cross, the multiple cancer diagnoses in her family were a driving force behind her decision to enter politics.
She is now calling on France — the state responsible for the nuclear tests — to provide greater support for her fellow citizens.
“We don’t have the medical care that we should have, that we deserve, because we are 30 years late, in terms of medicines. We don’t have technology like medical scans.” she says. “It really pushed me to go into politics, and to demand that we deserve a better hospital, we deserve better treatment.”
Only a small fraction of those affected have the means to travel to Paris for medical treatment, leaving many without access to adequate care.
Victims face an uphill battle for compensation
In 2010, the French government enacted legislation to provide compensation to victims of nuclear testing. However, each case is assessed individually, and claimants must demonstrate a direct link between their illness and the nuclear tests. That burden of proof is not always easily achieved.
Expert Jana Baldus points out a major hurdle.
“Victims must prove they were physically present at the exact location when the tests occurred — a nearly impossible task decades later.” In addition, compensation is limited to a narrow list of officially recognized illnesses. According to the global coalition ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons), only 417 residents of French Polynesia received compensation between 2010 and July 2024.
For Hinamoeura Morgant-Cross, the fight isn’t only about securing practical support, it’s also about education.
In her homeland, a persistent narrative still portrays the nuclear tests as a so-called clean endeavor that brought prosperity.
“For decades, we had pictures of the nuclear mushroom in all the living rooms of the Tahitian people because we were proud the French decided to choose us,” she recalls. Her mission now is to dismantle what she calls that “colonial mindset” and shed light on the true consequences of the tests.
The future of nuclear testing: risk or rhetoric?
France wasn’t alone in conducting extensive nuclear tests. The Soviet Union, the United States, the United Kingdom and China also carried out large-scale detonations.
In total, more than 2,000 nuclear explosions have taken place. The resulting radioactive fallout not only contaminated the immediate test sites but also contributed to elevated radiation levels across the globe.
Nuclear testing was halted primarily through moratoriums and international negotiations surrounding the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).
In recent years, North Korea has been the only country to conduct such tests. Yet amid rising geopolitical tensions, experts warn that a resurgence of nuclear testing remains a real possibility.
Why President Trump should put off the new nuclear arms race for one more year
Bulletin, By Jon B. Wolfsthal | September 26, 2025
On September 22, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that Russia would be willing to abide by the limits in the New START nuclear arms control treaty for an additional year if the United States did the same. Both the United States and Russia are parties to the treaty. That agreement commits both countries to deploy no more than 1,550 strategic offensive nuclear weapons.
The agreement was negotiated in 2010 and is set to expire in February of next year.[1] After it expires, there will be no restrictions on the number and types of nuclear weapons that those two countries can build and deploy. The treaty was extended for one five-year term in 2021, but it cannot be legally extended as a formal treaty a second time.
While both sides stopped fully implementing the verification provisions under the treaty during the COVID-19 epidemic, Russia refused to restart them in 2022 after it launched its war against Ukraine. Yet even so, both Washington and Moscow are complying with the treaty’s central numerical limits. Without a new agreement, however, the world’s two largest nuclear weapons states would coexist without any caps on their arsenals for the first time in two generations.
Extending the deal by a year, even informally, would be a security and diplomatic win for the United States. However, as with many things these days, nothing is simple.
Words need action. US President Donald Trump announced at the United Nations on September 23 that he’d like to cease the development of all nuclear weapons (and biological weapons) “once and for all.” Trump has previously said that he would like to negotiate new nuclear agreements with Russia and to find a way to include China in those efforts. But to date, neither his first nor current administration has delivered any results on those fronts.
There are also voices both inside and outside of the Trump administration who maintain that Washington should not agree to any new limits with Moscow, and that the United States needs more nuclear weapons to address the threats posed by Russia and China combined. These voices are rightly concerned about Russia’s aggressive behavior and the rapid growth of China’s nuclear arsenal. They are also increasingly worried about coordination and cooperation between Russia and China, as well as with North Korea and Iran—known increasingly as the “Axis of Upheaval.”
While these concerns are legitimate, the need to respond to them with immediate increases in US nuclear deployments is questionable. Today, China has an estimated total nuclear arsenal of roughly 600 weapons, and is adding about 100 per year. The United States has just over 3,700 nuclear weapons, and Russia is thought to have just over 4,300. At the current rate of increase, it will take China almost 30 years to reach parity with the United States.
There is simply not enough time to realistically address the longer-term concerns about Chinese and Russian nuclear capabilities before New START expires in February. The question, therefore, is whether the United States and its allies would be more secure with having a one-year extension of the New START limits or living in a world in which all countries can build as many nuclear weapons as they want, and the United States has turned down an offer to maintain at least some caps in place.
The US administration should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good here and should agree to a one-year extension of New START as long as it is confident that it can monitor Russia’s compliance with the central limits. As of today, there is every reason to believe that it can, although the increasing politicization of US intelligence agencies is a growing concern.
Better restraint than arms racing. The one-year deal on offer should be pursued for at least two reasons.
First, there is no compelling military rationale for the US to increase the number of warheads above the limit set in New START. No such statement has been made by the president, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the Commander of US Strategic Command. Ultimately, a decision to build and deploy military capabilities should be driven by military necessity. In the absence of such a statement or compelling case, the money, time, and effort needed to deploy more weapons over the near term would be better used to enhance US conventional and other military capabilities. This does not mean the United States should stop preparing to possibly increase the number of deployed weapons if needed, but available information suggests that may not be needed any time soon.
The United States advances three reasons to maintain its nuclear weapons: to deter its adversaries and those of US allies, to reassure allies that the United States can and will come to their defense, and to limit the damage that an adversary can do to the United States or its allies should deterrence fail. In the US system, it is the president who determines how many nuclear weapons are needed to achieve these goals.
Deterrence theory makes clear that deterrence can work if one country can hold at risk the things that matter most to its adversary. (Whether the threat of using those forces is credible is another issue.) The United States is very capable of holding key Russian and Chinese leadership and valued targets at risk even within the New START limits. That has been and remains true today.
Another critical role for US nuclear weapons is to reassure US allies. This need is greater than ever, and some support for increasing US nuclear weapons comes from this motive. However, if the US goal is to reassure allies of Washington’s commitment to their security, then there are much greater problems the United States must address—including the egregious use of tariffs against key partners and allies, the abusive detention and deportation of South Korean workers in the United States, and the seemingly random and unpredictable nature of President Trump’s statements and behavior toward US allies overall. Yes, allies are eager for the United States to convincingly recommit to their defense and alliance relationships, but very few of these are built around a wish list that starts with increasing the number of deployed US strategic weapons. Any new deployments of US nuclear weapons are years away, and damage to US alliances is happening now. New weapons will not fix or prevent those rifts from manifesting in real and dangerous ways. And the United States must recognize that it cannot fix a credibility problem with capability alone.
Limiting the damage an enemy can inflict on the United States and its allies, should deterrence fail and a war take place, also remains a long-standing and key US objective. However, the leaders of the United States, Russia, and China have stated that a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought. This echoes the historic statement of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev that helped end the Cold War……………………………………………………………. https://thebulletin.org/2025/09/why-president-trump-should-put-off-the-new-nuclear-arms-race-for-one-more-year/
Fighter jets purchase would put UK in breach of nuclear treaty, says CND
Legal opinion for campaign group says deal amounts to reversal of UK’s commitment to nuclear disarmament
Dan Sabbagh, 26 Sept 25, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/26/uk-fighter-jets-purchase-nuclear-treaty-cnd
Britain will violate its nuclear disarmament obligations if Labour presses ahead with the £1bn purchase of 12 F-35A fighter jets, according to a specialist legal opinion prepared on behalf of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).
Two international lawyers argue that the government’s plan to reintroduce air-launched nuclear weapons for the RAF will break a key provision of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) signed by the UK and 190 other countries.
Prof Christine Chinkin and Dr Louise Arimatsu from the London School of Economics argued that the UK would be in breach of article six of the treaty, and they accused ministers of hypocritical behaviour in broadening the country’s nuclear capabilities.
In a piece published before the start of Labour’s annual conference, the authors wrote: “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’.
“Reinstating a nuclear role for the RAF represents a reversal of the UK’s long-term commitment to nuclear disarmament, including under the NPT.”
Article six of the non-proliferation treaty commits the signatories “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” as well as to a future treaty “on general and complete disarmament”.
Though the lawyers’ conclusions are not necessarily surprising given they were working on behalf of CND, they highlight a growing contradiction between international treaty commitments and a creeping global nuclear rearmament.
Keir Starmer announced at a Nato summit in June that the UK would buy 12 F-35As with the intention of joining the alliance’s “nuclear mission”. US B61-12 nuclear bombs now stored at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk would be made available for use by the British jets in the event of a major war.
Four years ago the UK said it would lift the cap on the number of warheads it could stockpile by 40% to 260 for its existing nuclear deterrent, the submarine-launched Trident system. It was the first time the UK had said it would increase its nuclear capability since the end of the cold war.
Sophie Bolt, the CND general secretary, accused the government of “yet another breach of international law” and of “escalating nuclear dangers in the world”. She called on MPs to discuss the UK’s nuclear intentions, arguing that the F-35A purchase plan had been announced “without parliamentary debate or scrutiny”.
The Ministry of Defence said the investment in 12 new F-35A aircraft would improve the UK’s national security. “The UK remains committed to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons and upholds all our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty,” a spokesperson said.
Other countries are also rearming and redeploying nuclear weapons as tensions rise. The US moved B61-12 bombs to Lakenheath in July, while Russia has said it has moved nuclear missiles to Belarus. China is increasing its arsenal by 100 warheads a year and plans to reach 1,500 by 2035, according to the Stockholm Peace Research Institute.
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty came into force in 1970 with article six a core component and has been signed by the world’s largest nuclear powers – the US, Russia, China and France. A handful of countries with nuclear programmes – Israel, India, Pakistan – never signed up, and North Korea pulled out in 2003.
Spain and Italy, not US, protecting 22 Americans on Global Sumud Flotilla targeted for destruction by Israel.
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL 25 Sept 25
The Global Sumud Flotilla consists of 52 boats seeking to bring food and medicine to over 2,000,000 beleaguered Palestinians starving in Gaza from the Israeli genocide there. It contains over 500 incredibly courageous unarmed volunteers facing endless attack by Israel. Twenty-two Americans including 6 ex-service members are aboard.
The Flotilla is under constant Israeli attack using unmanned drones, deployment of incendiary devices, and dispersal of chemical substances to stop the Flotilla from reaching starving Palestinians.
Yesterday Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez announced Spain will join Italy in sending a military warship to help the Flotilla. While attending the UN Summit in New York Sanchez did not hold back from condemning Israel’s grotesque attacks on the innocent humanitarians:
“The government of Spain insists that international law be respected and that the right of our citizens should be respected to sail through the Mediterranean in safe conditions. Tomorrow we will dispatch a naval vessel from Cartagena with all necessary resources in case it was necessary to assist the flotilla and carry out a rescue operation.”
The US response to endless Israeli attacks on humanitarian boats, some containing Americans risking their lives to bring aid to starving Palestinians? Nada, nothing, zilch. Why would the US do anything that might interfere with their enabling of Israel’s genocide in Gaza? Despicable US refusal to end the genocide in Gaza, even if it means Americans might die, is further evidence American foreign policy is dictated by the practitioners of genocide in Israel.
There are 296 battle force ships in the US Navy, the world’s largest. But when it comes to endangered Americans seeking to aid the starving Palestinians their government is complicit in starving, the US is essentially saying, ‘Sorry boys, we don’t have a ship to spare’.
Putin just gave Trump the opportunity to maintain nuclear restraint. Will he seize it?
Bulletin, By Matthew Bunn | September 25, 2025
President Donald Trump has an opportunity to avoid the dangers of an unrestrained nuclear arms competition—something he has repeatedly warned about. New START, the last treaty limiting US and Russian nuclear arms, expires this coming February. This happens as China is engaged in a rapid nuclear buildup, Russia is building exotic new nuclear delivery systems and rattling its nuclear saber over the war in Ukraine, and North Korea continues its smaller but still frightening nuclear expansion with weapons now able to reach the continental United States.
To deter all these threats at once, many people in Washington are arguing that the United States should leap past the New START limits when the treaty expires, adding hundreds or even thousands of additional nuclear warheads. That, however, would mean a world with no limits at all on strategic nuclear forces for the first time in half a century. A US nuclear buildup, coupled with growing US missile defenses, would likely provoke still further buildups in Russia and China, leading to all the unpredictability and risk of a nuclear competition with no agreed limits.’But Russian President Vladimir Putin has just opened an opportunity to avoid that, at least for now.
Speaking at a meeting of his advisory Security Council on Monday—only hours ahead of the UN General Assembly in New York—Putin announced that “Russia is prepared to continue adhering to the central quantitative limitations of the New START treaty for one year.” He added that the offer stands as long as the United States does the same and does not take other steps “that undermine or disrupt the existing balance of deterrence potentials.” This is an important reversal. Putin has repeatedly rejected arms control talks throughout the war in Ukraine.
President Trump should quickly take Putin’s offer, while pushing Russia to also accept a return to on-site inspections and data exchanges. The president should then use that “pause” with limits still in place to explore what new accords might look like, in discussions with Russia, China, and potentially other nuclear powers…………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://thebulletin.org/2025/09/putin-just-gave-trump-the-opportunity-to-maintain-nuclear-restraint-will-he-seize-it/
1 This Month
of the week – Shut Down Drone Warfare!
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
Petition to revoke the licensing of the Near Surface Nuclear Disposal Facility (NSDF) at Chalk River. https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7247
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- March 2026 (237)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
-
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
nuclear-news 