nuclear-news

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

A Closer Look at Two Operational Small Modular Reactor Designs

There are literally dozens of small modular reactor (SMR) and microreactor designs being developed by different companies around the world, and some of the work has been going on for decades. Yet, only two designs have actually been built and put into commercial operation. POWER takes a closer look at both of them.

Power, by Aaron Larson 1 May 24

Many nuclear power supporters have long thought small modular reactors (SMRs) would revolutionize the industry. Advocates expect SMRs to shorten construction schedules and bring costs down through modularization and factory construction. They often cite numerous other benefits that make SMRs seem like no-brainers, and yet, only two SMR designs have ever been built and placed in commercial operation.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) publishes booklets biennially on the status of SMR technology. In the IAEA’s most recent booklet, it notes 25 land-based water-cooled SMRs and another eight marine-based water-cooled designs are under development globally. It also lists 17 high-temperature gas-cooled SMRs, eight liquid-metal-cooled fast-neutron-spectrum SMRs, 13 molten-salt SMRs, and 12 microreactors. If you do the math, that’s 83 SMR designs under development, but only the KLT-40S and HTR-PM are actually operational.

KLT-40S

The KLT-40S is a pressurized water reactor (PWR) that was developed in Russia. It is an advanced version of the KLT-40 reactor, which has been used in nuclear-powered icebreakers. The first KLT-40S units, and, to date, the only two of these units to enter commercial operation, were deployed in the Akademik Lomonosov—the world’s first purpose-built floating nuclear power plant (FNPP, Figure 1 on original).

Main Design Features.………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Deployment Details.…………………………….

Construction and testing of the FPU was completed in 2017 at the Baltic shipyard. In May 2018, the vessel was towed 4,000 kilometers (km), around Finland and Sweden, to Murmansk, completing the first leg of its journey to Pevek. Fuel loading was completed in Murmansk in October 2018. First criticality was achieved in November 2018, then in August 2019, the vessel embarked on the second leg of its journey—a distance of 4,700 km—towed by two tugboats to the Arctic port town of Pevek, where it was connected to the grid on Dec. 19, 2019. Akademik Lomonosov was fully commissioned on May 22, 2020, and it currently provides heat to the town of Pevek and supplies electricity to the regional Chaun-Bilibino power system.

HTR-PM

On Dec. 6, 2023, China National Nuclear Corp. announced it had commenced commercial operation of the high-temperature gas-cooled modular pebble bed (HTR-PM) reactor demonstrator. The HTR-PM project was constructed at a site in Rongcheng, Shandong Province, roughly midway between Beijing and Shanghai in eastern China…………………………………

Main Design Features.…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Deployment Details.……………………………………………………………………. The civil work for the nuclear island buildings was completed in 2016 with the first of two reactor pressure vessels installed in March that year. The fuel plant reached its expected production capacity in 2017. Startup commissioning and testing of the primary circuit were finished by the end of 2020. The HTR-PM achieved first criticality in September 2021, and was ultimately grid connected on Dec. 20, 2021.

Spotty Results at Best

While it is laudable that these SMRs—the KLT-40S and HTR-PM—have been placed in commercial operation, their performance since entering service has come under fire. In The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2023 (WNISR), a Mycle Schneider Consulting Project, co-funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety, and Consumer Protection, it says both designs have operated at low capacity factors recently.

Concerning the Chinese HTR-PM, the WNISR says, “Between January and December 2022, the reactors operated for only 27 hours out of a possible maximum of 8,760 hours. In the subsequent three months, they seem to have operated at a load factor of around 10 percent.” The Russian units’ performance has been nearly as dismal. “The operating records of the two KLT-40S reactors have been quite poor. According to the IAEA’s PRIS [Power Reactor Information System] database, the two reactors had load factors of just 26.4 and 30.5 percent respectively in 2022, and lifetime load factors of just 34 and 22.4 percent. The reasons for the mediocre power-generation performance remain unclear,” the report says.

Meanwhile, the promises of shortened timelines and lower costs were not borne out by these projects. “The experience so far in constructing these two SMRs as well as estimates for reactor designs like NuScale’s SMR show that these designs are also subject to the historical pattern of cost escalations and time overruns. Those cost escalations do make it even less likely that SMRs will become commercialized, as the collapse of the Carbon Free Power Project involving NuScale reactors in the United States illustrated,” the WNISR says………….. https://www.powermag.com/a-closer-look-at-two-operational-small-modular-reactor-designs/

May 4, 2024 Posted by | China, Russia, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Jewish Groups Decry House Passage of Bill Defining Criticism of Israel as ‘Antisemitism’

“Antisemitism is a serious problem, but codifying a legal definition could have dangerous implications for free speech,” said one campaigner.

BRETT WILKINS, May 01, 2024, Common Dreams,

House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to approve legislation directing the U.S. Department of Education to consider a dubious definition of antisemitism, despite warnings from Jewish-led groups that the measure speciously conflates legitimate criticism of the Israeli government with bigotry against Jewish people.

House members approved the Antisemitism Awareness Act—bipartisan legislation introduced last year by Reps. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Max Miller (R-Ohio), and Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) in the lower chamber and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) in the Senate—by a vote of 320-91.

Both progressive Democrats and far-right Republicans opposed language in the bill. The former objected to conflating criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews, while the latter bristled at labeling Christian scripture—which posits that Jews killed Jesus—as antisemitic.

“Antisemitism is the hatred of Jews. Unfortunately, one doesn’t need to look far to find it these days. But the supporters of this bill are looking in the wrong places,” Hadar Susskind, president and CEO of the Jewish-led group Americans for Peace Now, said following Wednesday’s vote.

“They aren’t interested in protecting Jews,” he added. “They are interested in supporting right-wing views and narratives on Israel and shutting down legitimate questions and criticisms by crying ‘antisemite’ at everyone, including Jews” who oppose Israel’s far-right government………………………………………………………………………………………………………… more https://www.commondreams.org/news/antisemitism-awareness-act

May 4, 2024 Posted by | Religion and ethics, USA | Leave a comment

ARC might need to redesign its SMR technology: former president + US bans import of enriched uranium + more to the story


Susan O’Donnell, 2 May 24
To clarify, there’s currently no enrichment plant in the US that produces HALEU (fuel enriched between 5 and 20 percent), as far as I’m aware. Any nuclear fuel enrichment happening in the U.S. would be for the existing light-water reactors that use fuel enriched to less than 5 percent.
My take: the idea that the ARC reactor design could change from using HALEU fuel to low enriched uranium is frankly ridiculous. It would not be the same reactor at all, it would be a completely different design. 

Quote: “It’s not something that can’t be fixed,” Sawyer said.

Fixed? WTF? This whole project is a scam.

U.S. Senate passes Russian uranium import ban

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-economy/3858689-us-senate-passes-russian-uranium-import-ban.html

The article above is about the shortage of HALEU, the fuel currently only available in Russia that is needed by the designs of advanced reactors cooled by liquids other than water. The design for the ARC reactor slated for Point Lepreau in New Brunswick requires HALEU.

New Brunswick’s Telegraph Journal:

ARC might need to redesign its SMR technology: former president

Norm Sawyer points to other companies around the world that pivoted quickly to address the lack of enriched uranium available

Adam Huras
Published May 01, 2024

The former president and CEO of ARC Clean Technology says the company might need to redesign its small modular nuclear reactor technology.

Norm Sawyer points to other companies around the world that pivoted quickly to address the lack of enriched uranium available.

Brunswick News reported earlier this week that ARC is still in search of a new enriched uranium supplier, after it originally planned to buy from Russia.

Meanwhile, Energy Minister Mike Holland says he has been assured that “there’s a queue for North American enriched uranium and we’re in it,” maintaining the company that the Higgs government spent $20 million on won’t be shut out.

Firms around the world developing a new generation of small nuclear reactors to help cut carbon emissions have been forced to face a big problem: The only company that sells the enriched fuel they need is Russian.

“It’s not only ARC, the industry in general is really dealing with the fallout of the war,” Sawyer said, who is now a nuclear consultant through his own firm. “Russia is the main supplier of HALEU around the world.”

High-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) is an integral component of the company’s ARC-100 sodium-cooled fast reactor, as well as a number of other advanced reactors currently in development attempting to achieve smaller designs.

But it’s not as simple as finding that enriched uranium closer to home.

While Canada mines uranium – there are currently five uranium mines and mills operating in Canada, all located in northern Saskatchewan – it does not have uranium enrichment plants.

The U.S. opened its first and only enrichment plant last year, operated by Centrus Energy in Ohio, amid a federal push to find a solution to the Russia problem.

It remains the only facility in the U.S. licensed to enrich uranium.

It currently has contracts with two American companies pursuing SMR technology, although it says it could rapidly expand production with federal investment.

One of those, TerraPower, a nuclear reactor developer founded by Bill Gates, has said Russia’s invasion would mean a delay to the deployment of its Natrium reactor by at least two years.

Other companies have pivoted.

Sawyer pointed to Denmark’s Seaborg Technologies that announced last year it would be changing its proposed SMR fuel from HALEU to low-enriched uranium “due to the risks associated with developing a sufficient supply.”

That resulted in design changes.

It was a move the company said was necessary to meet its planned timeline to see a first group of SMRs ready by 2028……………………………………………………..

What I’ve been told that there are a number of things taking place to ensure that there’s a queue for North American enriched uranium and we’re in it,” Holland said.

“That’s what I’ve been told and told definitively.”

Holland said the U.S. has a “vested interest” in aiding Canada and its SMR technology because Canada has the uranium they’re going to need as well.

“There are people saying ‘hey, if Canada is going to be your large supplier we’re going to have to work out, quid pro quo, that we don’t get excluded,’” he said.

Holland maintained that “our toe is stuck in the door so we have an opportunity to be part of that supply chain………………………………..

Sawyer said making a change to a different fuel means components will need to be redesigned.

“Obviously, you design a reactor for the type of fuel you’re going to use so there’s obviously some work to be done to realign the reactor core to the new type of fuel,” he said. “Is it easy? I’m not sure if it’s easy. There is some work to be done, there’s no doubt.”

Sawyer added that there’s two components to SMRs: the reactor design, construction and deployment, and then the fuel.

“Any delay on either one of those sides of the equation could cause a delay later on,” he said.

 https://tj.news/new-brunswick/arc-might-need-to-redesign-its-smr-technology-former-president#:~:text=The%20former%20president%20and%20CEO,small%20modular%20nuclear%20reactor%20technology.&text=Article%20content-,Norm%20Sawyer%20points%20to%20other%20companies%20around%20the%20world%20that,lack%20of%20enriched%20uranium%20available.

May 4, 2024 Posted by | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

The Fight Over THAAD in Korea

An anti-ballistic missile system can easily be overwhelmed by a full-scale enemy attack. The system’s primary purpose is to support a first-strike capability, in which the United States takes out as many of the enemy’s missiles as possible, leaving the anti-ballistic missile system to counter the few surviving missiles.

In essence, that makes the radar in the THAAD system a first-strike weapon

The effect is to enlist South Korea, willingly or not, in U.S. war plans against China. When residents in Seongju argue that THAAD makes them a target, they are not mistaken.

CounterPunch, BY GREGORY ELICH, 1 May 24

Since the U.S. military brought its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to South Korea in 2017, it has met with sustained local resistance. THAAD is the centerpiece of the numerous actions the United States has undertaken to enmesh South Korea in its hostile anti-China campaign, a course that Korean peace activists are fighting to reverse.

In a unanimous decision at the end of March, South Korea’s Constitutional Court dismissed two challenges lodged by residents of Seongju County against the deployment of THAAD. [1] Since its arrival, the THAAD system has met with recurring demonstrations in the nearby village of Soseong-ri. The hope in the Yoon and Biden administrations is that the court’s decision will dishearten opponents of THAAD. In this expectation, they are already disappointed, as anti-THAAD activists responded to the court’s decision by vowing to “fight to the end.” [2]

Although protestors have regularly held rallies on the road leading to the THAAD site, swarms of Korean police cleared them away to allow free passage for U.S. military supply trucks. Opposition to THAAD has angered U.S. officials, leading the Biden administration to dispatch Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to Seoul to deliver the message that it deemed the situation “unacceptable” and progress on establishing the base needed to accelerate. Austin also raised objections to protests by residents in Pohang over noise from U.S. Apache attack helicopters conducting live-fire exercises. [3] Predictably, the Yoon administration responded by prioritizing U.S. demands over the welfare of the Korean people and promised “close cooperation for normalizing routine and unfettered access to the THAAD site” and “improvement of the combined training conditions.” [4]

THAAD is billed as an anti-missile defense system consisting of an interceptor missile battery, a fire control and communications unit, and an AN/TPY-2 X-band radar. The ostensible purpose of THAAD in Seongju is to counter incoming North Korean missiles, but serious doubts exist about its efficacy in that role. In terms of coverage, THAAD’s position in Seongju puts it in range to cover the main U.S. military base in South Korea, Camp Humphreys in Pyeongtaek, but out of range to protect Seoul, which at any rate is indefensible due to its proximity to the border. Even so, it is questionable how much utility the system offers even for Pyeongtaek.

THAAD’s missiles are designed to intercept incoming ballistic missiles at an altitude of 40 to 150 kilometers. The THAAD battery would have less than three and a half minutes to detect and counter-launch against a high-altitude ballistic missile fired from the farthestpoint in North Korea. By then, the incoming missile would have fallen below the lower-end altitude range of 40 kilometers, leaving it invulnerable to interception. [5] That would be the best-case scenario, as in the event of a war, the North Koreans are not likely to be so accommodating as to launch ballistic missiles from as far away as possible.

Furthermore, the THAAD battery in Seongju is equipped with six launchers and 48 interceptor missiles. With a thirty-minute THAAD battery launcher reload time, incoming missiles would not take long to deplete THAAD’s ability to respond, even under the most accommodating circumstances.

An upgrade was recently made to integrate THAAD with Patriot PAC-3 defense to intercept ballistic missiles at a lower altitude. This enhancement is of doubtful utility, as the radar’s response would still be constrained by the short flight time of an incoming missile. For all the hype about the successful interception of Iranian missiles fired at Israel, the Patriot’s showing in a more suitable scenario was less than stellar. It had an advantage there, as Iranian and Yemeni launch sites were situated much farther away from their target than in the Korean case. Yet, out of 120 Iranian ballistic missiles, the Patriot system shot down only one. The others were intercepted primarily by U.S. warplanes. [6]

North Korea’s development of a solid-fuel hypersonic intermediate-range missile has added another unmeetable challenge for THAAD. Because of its proximity, it is doubtful that North Korea would target US forces with high-altitude ballistic missiles in case of war. Instead, it would likely rely on its long-range artillery, cruise missiles, and short-range ballistic missiles, flying well below the lower limit of THAAD’s altitude coverage.

Despite its doubtful defensive effectiveness on the Korean Peninsula, the United States attaches enormous importance to THAAD’s deployment in South Korea, which suggests an unstated motivation. A clue is provided by the stationing in Japan of two stand-alone AN/TPY-2 radars without an accompanying THAAD system. [7] In other words, it is the radar that matters to the U.S. military, and the linkage to THAAD interceptors is primarily a pretense made necessary by popular feeling in Korea.  

What makes the AN/TPY-2 special is its ability to operate in two modes. In terminal mode, it feeds tracking data to the THAAD missile battery, allowing it to target an incoming ballistic missile as it descends toward its target. In forward-based mode, the THAAD missile battery is not involved, and the role of the radar is to detect a ballistic missile as it ascends from its launching pad, even from deep into China. In this mode, the radar is integrated into the U.S. missile defense system and sends tracking data to interceptor missiles stationed on U.S. territory and Pacific bases. [8] As a U.S. Army publication points out, when in forward-based mode, a field commander may use the radar system “to concurrently support both regional and strategic missile defense operations.” [9]

There are hints that preparations may already be underway to establish the conditions necessary for THAAD to operate in forward-based mode. Last year, South Korea and Japan agreed to link their radars to the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command in Hawaii. [10] The ostensible purpose is to enhance the tracking accuracy of missiles fired from North Korea, but the concept applies equally well to Chinese missiles. It is not a stretch to imagine that if South Korean and Japanese radars have been linked to the United States, the same may be true with the THAAD’s AN/TPY-2. Certainly, if the U.S. Army switches the mode, it will not be informing South Korean authorities, so sure are the Americans that they can freely treat Korean sovereignty with contempt. Switching an AN/TPY-2 radar from one mode to the other takes only eight hours, a quick process that is opaque to outsiders. [11]

An anti-ballistic missile system can easily be overwhelmed by a full-scale enemy attack. The system’s primary purpose is to support a first-strike capability, in which the United States takes out as many of the enemy’s missiles as possible, leaving the anti-ballistic missile system to counter the few surviving missiles. In essence, that makes the radar in the THAAD system a first-strike weapon.

The closer the radar is stationed to an adversary’s ballistic missile launch, the more precise the tracking provided to the U.S.-based anti-missile system. South Korea is ideally located for the AN/TPY-2, where its radar can cover much of eastern China. [12] The effect is to enlist South Korea, willingly or not, in U.S. war plans against China. When residents in Seongju argue that THAAD makes them a target, they are not mistaken.

The Yoon administration is taking integration with the U.S. missile defense system one step further in planning to spend an estimated $584 million to procure American SM-3 interceptor missiles, suitable for protecting the United States and its bases in the Pacific.[13] The SM-3 interceptors are to be deployed on South Korean Aegis destroyers, which will need to be upgraded at additional cost to handle them. [14]

Residents in Seongju are also concerned about potential health risks associated with living adjacent to the THAAD installation.

Continue reading →

May 4, 2024 Posted by | South Korea, weapons and war | Leave a comment

A new nuclear energy law will likely mean higher utility bills

RADIO IQ | By Michael Pope, May 2, 2024,  https://www.wvtf.org/news/2024-05-02/a-new-nuclear-energy-law-will-likely-mean-higher-utility-bills

Customers of Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power might soon start seeing higher electric bills. That’s because of a new law signed by Governor Glenn Youngkin that allows for utilities to make customers pay for the costs of developing nuclear power facilities – things like permitting, for example. The bill was introduced by Senator Dave Marsden of Fairfax County.

“Ratepayers could be responsible for $1.40 a month for up to five years in creating the funds necessary to get through the nuclear regulatory commission process, which is hugely expensive,” Marsden says. “It takes four to five years.”

Utility customers don’t usually pay for things like development, and Josephus Allmond at the Southern Environmental Law Center says this poses a risk for ratepayers.

“The risk is that customers are footing the bill for this development several years, and if it doesn’t come to fruition, then they’ve just spent $500 million or $125 million, depending on the utility you’re talking about, going towards development of something that will never benefit them,” Allmond explains.

The new law goes into effect July 1st, but utilities would need to have any plans approved by the State Corporation Commission. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on the goal for Virginia to be emissions free by 2050, a benchmark laid out in the Virginia Clean Economy Act.

This report, provided by Virginia Public Radio, was made possible with support from the Virginia Education Association.

May 4, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

US House votes to officially label Israel critics ‘antisemites’

“it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism.”

Rights groups have warned that the definition could be used to target pro-Palestine protesters on university campuses

News Desk, MAY 2, 2024  https://thecradle.co/articles-id/24681

The US House of Representatives passed a bill on 1 May to expand the federal definition of antisemitism, coming in the wake of widespread pro-Palestine protests on university campuses across the country. 

The bill passed in a 320 to 91 vote, and will now go to the Senate for consideration. 

If successful, the bill would codify a definition of antisemitism established by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). IHRA defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The IHRA definition of antisemitism also includes the “targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” 


The definition says any comparison between “contemporary Israeli policy” and “that of the nazis” is antisemitic, as well as referring to Israel as “racist.” 

This bill could potentially be used to bar funding of any institution perceived as advocating antisemitism, as many university campuses have been recently due to widespread support for the Palestinian cause. 

Some have warned that it could specifically be used to confront pro-Palestine protests at US university campuses, which many have accused of being anti-Jewish. 

Certain rights groups have criticized the bill for this reason. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called on members of the House to vote against it, clarifying that US federal legislation against antisemitism already exists. 

The bill is “not needed to protect against antisemitic discrimination,” ACLU said, adding that, “Instead, it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism.”

Campus protests have continued to rage in universities across the US, with violent police crackdowns taking place over the past few days. Dozens of protesters at New York’s Columbia University were aggressively detained by police on Tuesday night when the NYPD raided a building in which the students had barricaded themselves in. 

Similar violent arrests involving the use of pepper spray took place at other universities. 

Pro-Israel counter-protesters attacked the Gaza Solidarity Encampment at UCLA on 30 April, facing little to no backlash from campus authorities and police. The incident has spurred major outrage and criticism. 

On Wednesday evening, riot police surrounded the pro-Palestine encampment at UCLA and are planning to move on the protesters and clear them out.

May 4, 2024 Posted by | civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

NATO state rejects €100 billion Ukraine war chest ‘madness’

 https://www.rt.com/news/596896-hungary-nato-ukraine-madness/ 02 May 2024

Budapest is opposing a potential €100-billion ($107 billion), five-year NATO plan to fund Ukraine in its conflict with Russia,Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said. The draft plan on the military aid fund was presented to member states of the US-led bloc by Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg earlier this week, Szijjarto revealed.

The minister made the remarks on Thursday to Hungarian broadcaster M1 before heading for a ministerial meeting of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries in Paris. Szijjarto said:

“On Tuesday, the NATO member states received the secretary-general’s proposal to raise 100 billion that NATO plans to spend on the war. Since the money is to be collected over five years, this means NATO expects the hostilities to continue for this period.”

Budapest will oppose the initiative and is not planning to participate in arming Kiev or training its soldiers, Szijjarto stressed. The draft plan was presented to the bloc’s member states in its “first reading” and is still a subject to negotiations, the senior diplomat noted.

“In the coming weeks during negotiations we will fight for Hungary’s right to stay away from this madness, from collecting these 100 billion and siphoning them out of Europe.”

Budapest prioritizes the security of its own people before anything else and will do its best to “stay out of war,” Szijjarto explained, adding Hungary’s opinion remains that the conflict can only be resolved through negotiations. Nonetheless, Budapest acknowledges mounting global security issues and wants to be ready to face them, he said.

Szijjarto urged:

“We cannot ignore the threat of a new world war and the preparations for a nuclear war. This madness here in Europe must be stopped.”

Hungary has consistently expressed its opposition to the ever-growing involvement of the US-led NATO bloc – and of the EU – in the Ukrainian conflict, refusing to send arms to prop up Kiev or to train its troops, and forbidding use of its territory to funnel such shipments from third countries.

Budapest has also publicly spoken out against the potential accession of Ukraine into NATO, which has long been one of the key goals of Ukrainian leadership.

May 4, 2024 Posted by | EUROPE, weapons and war | Leave a comment

New York Times Not Much Concerned About Israel’s Mass Murder of Journalists

HARRY ZEHNER, 1 May 24  https://fair.org/home/nyt-not-much-concerned-about-israels-mass-murder-of-journalists/

A devoted New York Times reader might get the impression that the paper cares deeply about protecting journalists from those who seek to suppress the press.

After all, the Times runs sympathetic features on journalists like Evan Gershkovich, a Wall Street Journal reporter who was detained by Russia over a year ago. The paper (6/3/22) has written stingingly of Russia’s “clamp down on war criticism,” including in a recent editorial (3/22/24) headlined “Jailed in Putin’s Russia for Speaking the Truth.”

It has castigated China for its “draconian” attacks on the press in Hong Kong (6/23/21). The Times has similarly criticized Venezuela for an “expanding crackdown on press freedom” (3/6/19) and Iran for a “campaign of intimidation” against journalists (4/26/16).

Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger, in his keynote address at the 2023 World Press Freedom Day, spoke forcefully:

All over the world, independent journalists and press freedoms are under attack. Without journalists to provide news and information that people can depend on, I fear we will continue to see the unraveling of civic bonds, the erosion of democratic norms and the weakening of the trust—in institutions and in each other—that is so essential to the global order.

‘Targeting of journalists’

Yet since October 7—as Israel has killed more journalists, in a shorter period of time, than any country in modern history—the Times has minimized when not ignoring this mass murder. Conservative estimates from the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) estimate that 95 journalists have been killed in the Israel/Gaza conflict since October 7, all but two being Palestinian and Lebanese journalists killed by Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Other estimates, like those from the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate (4/4/24), place the number closer to 130. All told, Israel has killed about one out every 10 journalists in Gaza, a staggering toll.

(Two Israeli journalists were killed by Hamas on October 7, according to CPJ, and none have been killed since. Other tallies include two other Israeli journalists who were killed as part of the audience at the Supernova music festival on October 7.)

CPJ (12/31/23) wrote in December that it was “particularly concerned about an apparent pattern of targeting of journalists and their families by the Israeli military.” It noted that, in at least two instances, “journalists reported receiving threats from Israeli officials and IDF officers before their family members were killed.” This accusation has been echoed by groups like Doctors Without Borders. Israel has demonstrably targeted reporters, like Issam Abdallah, the Reuters journalist who was murdered on October 13 (Human Rights Watch, 3/29/24).

In a May 2023 report, CPJ (5/9/23) found that the IDF had killed 20 journalists since 2000. None of the killers faced accountability from the Israeli government, despite the incidents being generally well-documented. Despite its demonstration that Israel’s military has targeted—and murdered—journalists in the past, important context like this report is generally absent from the Times. (The CPJ report was mentioned at the very end of one Times article—12/7/23.)

We used the New York Times API and archive to create a database of every Times news article that included the keyword “Gaza” written between October 7, 2023, and April 7, 2024 (the first six months of the war). We then checked that database for headlines, subheads and leads which included the words (singular or plural) “journalist,” “media worker,” “news worker,” “reporter” or “photojournalist.” Opinion articles, briefings and video content were excluded from the search.

Failing to name the killer

We found that the Times wrote just nine articles focused on Israel’s killing of specific journalists, and just two which examined the phenomenon as a whole.

Of the nine headlines which directly noted that journalists have been killed, only two headlines—in six months!—named Israel as responsible for the deaths. Both of these headlines (11/21/23, 12/7/23) presented Israel’s responsibility as an accusation, not a fact.

Some headlines (e.g., 11/3/23) simply said that a journalist had been killed, without naming the perpetrator. Others blamed “the war” (e.g., 10/13/23).

During this same six-month period, the Times wrote the same number of articles (nine) on Evan Gershkovitch and Alsu Kurmasheva, two US journalists being held on trumped-up espionage charges by Russia.

From October 7 until April 7, the Times wrote 43 stories that mentioned either the overall journalist death toll or the deaths of specific journalists. As noted, 11 of these articles (26%) either focused on the death of a specific journalist or on the whole phenomenon. But in the vast majority of these articles, 32 out of 43 (74%), the killing of journalists was mentioned in passing, or only to add context, often towards the end of a report.

Many of these articles (e.g., 10/25/23, 11/3/23, 11/21/23, 12/15/23) contained a boilerplate paragraph like this one from November 4:

The war continues to take a heavy toll on those gathering the news. The Committee to Protect Journalists said that more news media workers have been killed in the Israel/Hamas war than in any other conflict in the area since it started tracking the data in 1992. As of Friday, 36 news workers—31 Palestinians, four Israelis and one Lebanese—have been killed since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, the group said.

Saying that “the war” was taking a heavy toll, and listing the number of journalists “killed in the Israel/Hamas war,” the Times‘ standard language on the death toll for reporters omits that the vast majority have been killed by Israel. It does note, however, that these deaths occurred “since Hamas attacked Israel,” suggesting that Hamas was directly or indirectly to blame.

It took a month for the Times to write a single article (11/10/23) focused on what had become “the deadliest month for journalists in at least three decades.” This November article, published on page 8 of the print edition, and apparently not even deserving of its own web page—named “the war” as the killer, managing for its entire ten paragraphs to avoid saying that Israel had killed anyone.

Again, the writing subtly implied that Hamas was to blame for Israel’s war crimes (emphasis added):

At least 40 journalists and other media workers have been killed in the Israel/Hamas war since October 7, when Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel, making the past month the deadliest for journalists in at least three decades, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

There was no mention of Israel’s long pattern of targeting journalists.

Obscuring responsibility

It took until January 30, nearly four months and at least 85 dead journalists into the war, for the New York Times to address this mass murder in any kind of comprehensive manner. This article—“The War the World Can’t See”—aligned with the Times practice of obscuring and qualifying Israeli responsibility for its destruction of Gaza. Neither the headline, the subhead nor the lead named Israel as responsible for reporters’ killings. Israel’s responsibility for the deaths of scores of reporters appeared almost incidental.

The lead positioned the mass death of journalists and the accompanying communications blackout as tragic consequences of “the war”:

o many people outside Gaza, the war flashes by as a doomscroll of headlines and casualty tolls and photos of screaming children, the bloody shreds of somebody else’s anguish.

But the true scale of death and destruction is impossible to grasp, the details hazy and shrouded by internet and cellphone blackouts that obstruct communication, restrictions barring international journalists and the extreme, often life-threatening challenges of reporting as a local journalist from Gaza.

Remarkably, we have to wait until the 11th paragraph for the Times to acknowledge that Israel is responsible for all of the journalists’ deaths in Gaza. Palestinian accusations that Israel is intentionally targeting journalists were juxtaposed, in classic Times fashion, with a quote from the Israeli military: Israel “has never and will never deliberately target journalists,” spokesperson Nir Dinar said, and the suggestion that Israel was deliberately preventing the world from seeing what it was doing in Gaza was a “blood libel.”

This rebuttal was presented without the context that, as discussed earlier, Israel has for decades been accused by human rights groups and other media organizations of intentionally targeting journalists. The article leaves the reader with the general impression that a terrible tragedy—not a campaign of mass murder—is unfolding.

This review of six months of the New York Times’ coverage exposes a remarkable selective interest in threats to journalism. Despite Sulzberger’s lofty rhetoric, the Times seems to only care about the “worldwide assault on journalists and journalism” when those journalists are fighting repression in enemy states.

May 4, 2024 Posted by | Israel, media, USA | Leave a comment

Barrels Of Radioactive Waste Turn Up Off The Coast Of California

by Trisha Leigh, 27 Apr 24,  https://twistedsifter.com/2024/04/barrels-of-radioactive-waste-turn-up-off-the-coast-of-california/

Mysterious radioactive waste showing up anywhere would be cause for concern, but today it’s barrels full of it off the coast of Los Angeles.

There is a notorious “graveyard” of discarded barrels off the coast of Los Angeles. They’re half-sucked into the seafloor and now scientists believe they contain not only toxic chemicals, but low-level radioactive waste as well.

For a long time, people assumed the barrels contained a dangerous pesticide called DDT, but this new study, published in Environmental Science & Technology, suggests they contain radioactive isotopes tritium and carbon-14.

These chemicals were once used in hospitals, labs, and industrial operations in the area.

David Valentine, lead researcher at UC Santa Barbara, says this might not be the worst thing they could have learned.

“This is a classic situation of bad versus worse. It’s bad we have potential low-level radioactive waste just sitting there on the seafloor. It’s worse that we have DDT compounds spread across a wide area of the seafloor at concerning concentrations.”

To be clear, they’re both bad, even if one compound might be a little bit worse.

The barrels were first discovered in 2020, and scientists have been working since to analyze the surrounding sediment and water to understand what could be inside of them.

They also went through hundreds of pages of old records to find evidence for who might have been dumping waste in the area.

One of them, California Salvage, could have been dumping radioactive waste.

They had received a permit for disposing of the stuff, but the US Atomic Energy Commission claims this permit was never activated.

There’s pretty much no accountability and no way to retroactively apply any now, either. Researchers say it’s more than possible that the radioactive material was dumped within 150 miles of shore.

The Atomic Energy Commission has a map that shows that, between 1946 and 1970, more than 56,000 barrels of radioactive waste was dumped on the US end of the Pacific Ocean.

Marine radiochemist Ken Buesseler, who was not involved in the study, says these are grim findings.

“The problem with the oceans as a dumping solution is once it’s there, you can’t go back and get it. These 56,000 barrels, for example, we’re never going to get them back.”

As always, it seems today’s scientists are hamstrung by the actions of the past.

And all of the ways we have to correct them aren’t working fast enough to keep up

May 3, 2024 Posted by | oceans, USA, wastes | 1 Comment

Fears raised over Wales accident risk involving aircraft carrying nuclear materials

 https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/fears-raised-over-wales-accident-risk-involving-aircraft-carrying-nuclear-materials/ 30 Apr 24,

An air crash involving an RAF aircraft carrying US nuclear materials over South Wales may be the stuff of nightmares, but the Chair of the Welsh Nuclear Free Local Authorities has just written to the First Minister of Wales asking him to contemplate just that possibility.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and Nukewatch have just published a disturbing briefing titled ‘Special nuclear flights between the UK and US: the dangers involved’. The briefing references the transport of nuclear materials made by RAF C-17 Globemaster flying between RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire and airbases in the United States. Around ten such round-trips are made every year to transport nuclear materials utilised for the maintenance of Britain’s nuclear arsenal.

The report says of the route taken by these flights: ‘Aircraft fly from Brize Norton out into the Atlantic, overflying the Cotswolds and then the northern edges of Bristol and Cardiff to reach the Bristol Channel, flying south of Ireland to cross the Atlantic. A variation of this route takes the plane further to the north where it overflies Gloucestershire and the South Wales valleys, heading out to sea over Swansea and the Gower, and, again, South of Ireland.’

Although the C-17 Globemasters involved in these flights are four-engine aircraft, and are subject to an enhanced maintenance regime, so catastrophic mechanical failure is less likely, Welsh Forum Chair Councillor Sue Lent wants Welsh emergency planning authorities to properly consider the likely impact of any accident involving nuclear materials. Cllr Lent serves on Cardiff City Council, one of the municipalities flown over, and one of several South Wales local authorities who are members of the NFLAs.

The First Minister acts as Chair of the Wales Resilience Forum. The Forum ‘supports good communication and improves emergency planning across agencies and services’ acting as a coordinating body for local resilience forums across Wales. These ‘bring together all responder organisations that have a duty to co-operate under the Civil Contingencies Act. The groups also include other organisations who would respond to an emergency. Together, they ensure they prepare for emergencies by working in a coordinated and effective way.’[i]

The Minister of Defence hosts annual Astral Bend exercises ‘to practice and test the emergency response to an accident involving an RAF aircraft transporting special nuclear materials’, but investigative reporter Rob Edwards uncovered evidence that such an exercise held in February 2011 at the Caerwent military base in South Wales identified several failures in the actions of first responders which would have led to ‘“avoidable deaths” in a real-life situation’. The MoD has refused to release details of recent exercises held after 2012 in response to Freedom of Information requests; nonetheless the NFLA Secretary has just submitted one.

Councillor Lent asks First Minister Gething to ‘seek a reassurance from the MoD / RAF that such flights will be diverted out to sea, well away from our South Wales municipalities, and revisit emergency planning arrangements should an accident involving these special nuclear materials occur’ and suggests that as the last exercise conducted at Caerwent appears to be that held in 2011 a follow-up exercise to test the preparedness of Welsh emergency service agencies is ‘long overdue.’

May 3, 2024 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

IAEA’s top nuclear salesman-cum-watchdog to visit Iran

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed that its Director-General, Rafael Grossi, will travel to Iran on May 6 to engage with high-ranking officials.

He will attend the International Conference on Nuclear Science and Technology during the visit, taking place in Isfahan, just months after officials in Iran claimed to be within reach of nuclear weapons. Grossi just days ago also claimed Iran was “weeks not months” from a nuclear weapon.

Im February Grossi admitted a “drifting apart” in relations between the agency and an increasingly defiant Iran.

Grossi noted in the same month that although the rate of uranium enrichment in Iran had decreased slightly since the previous year’s end, Iran continued to enrich uranium at a significant rate of approximately 7 kg per month to 60 percent purity, near weapons grade.

Under the terms of a 2015 agreement with world powers, Iran was only permitted to enrich uranium up to 3.67 percent.

However, after former President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement in 2018 and reinstated sanctions, Iran exceeded the limits. As a result, the IAEA has stated that the 2015 nuclear deal has “all but disintegrated”.

May 3, 2024 Posted by | Iran, safety | Leave a comment

Industrial action by nuclear submarine workforce hits Rolls Royce

GMB members working on the company’s nuclear submarine programme have
begun industrial action. The action comes after 90 per cent of GMB members
at the company supported action if company bosses failed to present a pay
rise acceptable to union members. Known as ‘work to rule’, the
industrial action will see GMB members applying strict limits to working
outside of pre-agreed processes. Rolls-Royce is a world leader in the field
of submarine technology, as well as being the supplier to Britain’s
domestic nuclear submarine fleet.

 UK Defence Journal 30th April 2024

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/industrial-action-by-nuclear-sub-workforce-hits-rolls-royce

May 3, 2024 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities to join new “Rock Solid2” art exhibition 

The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities Secretary will be joining Cumbrian artists and activists at the launch of a new art exhibition at Kendal Museum next month.

Rock Solid 2 has been organised by co-ordinator and artist Marianne Birkby. Marianne supports local campaign groups Radiation Free Lakeland / Lakes against the Nuclear Dump in opposing plans to impose a Geological Disposal Facility upon Cumbria. This could be located by the coast in Mid- or South-Copeland to receive Britain’s legacy and future most toxic radioactive waste, which would be transferred from the Sellafield nuclear complex and buried in tunnels beneath the Irish Sea.

Marianne described the exhibition as “a must see for all those who love Cumbria.” She explained that it was “a unique celebration of Lakeland’s jewel-like geology, landscape, flora, and fauna seen through the lens of a ‘quixotic’ plan to bury atomic wastes deep under the Cumbrian coast and the sea. Altogether 20 artists have produced artworks including comic books, installations, sculpture, and multi-media in a vibrant and thought-provoking exhibition.”.

Winner of the John Moore’s Painting Prize, guest artist Martin Greenland will be joined by internationally renowned mountain painter Julian Cooper, record producer Russell Mills, Lake Artist Society award winners Kate Bentley and Andrea Pentecost, Steve Wallis, and Irene Rogan amongst others. Artists have spent time looking at the Museum’s natural history collection for inspiration.

The exhibition will open in the People’s Gallery on 9th May, but a special official launch will be held on Friday 10th May from 6pm to 8pm.

A follow-up talk, titled ‘Atomic Wastes Under Cumbria’, will be held on the following day on Saturday 11th May in The Venue, which is accessed through the Museum.

Kendal Museum can be found on Station Road, Kendal, LA9 6BT. It is a short distance from the railway station.

Everyone is welcome to both events, which are FREE, but attendees are asked to contact the Museum to book a place at the official launch and/or the meeting by email to info@kendalmuseum.org.uk or by telephone on 01539 815597.

NFLA Secretary Richard Outram has been asked to join radiation expert Dr Ian Fairlie in speaking at the official launch and at the meeting.

Following the events, the exhibition will be open to the public on Thursdays, Fridays, or Saturdays from 9.30am to 4.30pm until 29 June. There is also a related art trail to explore around the galleries and shops of Kendal.

Ends//… For more information please contact the NFLA Secretary Richard Outram by email at richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk

May 3, 2024 Posted by | culture and arts, UK | Leave a comment

The Israel-US game plan for Gaza is staring us in the face

The western media is pretending the West’s efforts to secure a ceasefire are serious. But a different script has clearly been written in advance

JONATHAN COOK, APR 30, 2024, https://jonathancook.substack.com/p/the-israel-us-game-plan-for-gaza

One does not need to be a fortune-teller to understand that the Israel-US game plan for Gaza runs something like this:

1. In public, Biden appears “tough” on Netanyahu, urging him not to “invade” Rafah and pressuring him to allow more “humanitarian aid” into Gaza.

2. But already the White House is preparing the ground to subvert its own messaging. It insists that Israel has offered an “extraordinarily generous” deal to Hamas – one that, Washington suggests, amounts to a ceasefire. It doesn’t. According to reports, the best Israel has offered is an undefined “period of sustained calm”. Even that promise can’t be trusted.

3. If Hamas accepts the “deal” and agrees to return some of the hostages, the bombing eases for a short while but the famine intensifies, justified by Israel’s determination for “total victory” against Hamas – something that is impossible to achieve. This will simply delay, for a matter of days or weeks, Israel’s move to step 5 below.

4. If, as seems more likely, Hamas rejects the “deal”, it will be painted as the intransigent party and blamed for seeking to continue the “war”. (Note: This was never a war. Only the West pretends either that you can be at war with a territory you’ve been occupying for decades, or that Hamas “started the war” with its October 7 attack when Israel has been blockading the enclave, creating despair and incremental malnutrition there, for 17 years.)

Last night US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken moved this script on by stating Hamas was “the only thing standing between the people of Gaza and a ceasefire… They have to decide and they have to decide quickly”.

5. The US will announce that Israel has devised a humanitarian plan that satisfies the conditions Biden laid down for an attack on Rafah to begin.

6. This will give the US, Europe and the region the pretext to stand back as Israel launches the long-awaited assault – an attack Biden has previously asserted would be a “red line”, leading to mass civilian casualties. All that will be forgotten.

7. As Middle East Eye reports, Israel is building a ring of checkpoints around Rafah. Netanyahu will suggest, falsely, that these guarantee its attack meets the conditions laid down in international humanitarian law. Women and children will be allowed out – if they can reach a checkpoint before Israel’s carpet bombing kills them along the way.

8. All men in Rafah, and any women and children who remain, will be treated as armed combatants. If they are not killed by the bombing or falling rubble, they will be either summarily executed or dragged off to Israel’s torture chambers. No one will mention that any Hamas fighters who were in Rafah were able to leave through the tunnels.

9. Rafah will be destroyed, leaving the entire strip in ruins, and the Israeli-induced famine will worsen. The West will throw up its hands, say Hamas brought this on Gaza, agonise over what to do, and press third countries – especially Arab countries – for a “humanitarian plan” that relocates the survivors out of Gaza.

10. The western media will continue describing Israel’s genocide in Gaza in purely humanitarian terms, as though this “disaster” was an act of God.

11. Under US pressure, the International Court of Justice, or World Court, will be in no hurry to issue a definitive ruling on whether South Africa’s case that Israel is committing a genocide – which it has already found “plausible” – is proved.

12. Whatever the World Court eventually decides, and it is almost impossible to imagine it won’t determine that Israel carried out a genocide, it will be too late. The western political and media class will have moved on, leaving it to the historians to decide what it all meant.

13. Meanwhile, Israel is already using the precedents it has created in Gaza, and its erosion of the long-established principles of international law, as the blueprint for the West Bank. Saying Hamas has not been completely routed in Gaza but is using this other Palestinian enclave as its base, Israel will gradually intensify the pressures on the West Bank with another blockade. Rinse and repeat.

That’s the likely plan. Our job is to do everything in our power to stop them making it a reality.

May 2, 2024 Posted by | Gaza, Israel, politics international, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

How Israel violates International Law in Gaza: expert report

 https://mondoweiss.net/2024/04/how-israel-violates-international-law-in-gaza-expert-report/

The findings are illustrated by 17 specific, horrific “incidents” and 18 pages of additional incidents. This review of incidents is said to be “supported by both credible media and civil society reporting and statements by Government of Israel officials and IDF uniformed officers.” But the incidents identified are “just the most easily identifiable among a clear pattern of violations of international law, failures to apply civilian harm mitigation best practices, and restrictions on humanitarian assistance,” by Israel and the IDF, often using U.S.-provided arms.

An independent expert report lays out how Israel systematically violated U.S. and International Law in Gaza, concluding that Israel launched indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on civilian areas due to “extremely relaxed rules of engagement.”

BY STEVE FRANCE   

 Just days after the Biden administration showered the Israeli military with billions of dollars more in lethal aid, still with no apparent effort to restrict its use on non-military populations and structures, Palestinian solidarity activists were gifted with powerful ammunition to challenge Israel’s genocidal disregard for the International and U.S. laws and norms that protect civilians in war situations.

In a sober but scathing 76-page report, publicly released on April 24, the Independent Task Force on the Application of National Security Memorandum-20 (NSM-20), details “multiple credible incidents constituting violations of international humanitarian law, military best practices, and [improper] restrictions on humanitarian assistance.” 

The volunteer and unaffiliated task force of prominent experts — including two recently departed senior State Department officials, legal scholar Noura Erekat, and a former senior “joint terminal attack controller,” Wes Bryant — was rapidly formed after President Biden signed NSM-20 on February 8, 2024. The memorandum tasked the Departments of State and Defense to report to Congress by May 8 on the compliance of Israel (and, nominally, other U.S. allies) with International Humanitarian Law and military best practices, as well as on whether it has impeded humanitarian assistance to Gaza.

Co-chair Noura Erekat said at a briefing that the task force report has two main goals: first, to “inform” State and Defense officials’ review with a selection of well-documented and assessed incidents of misuse of aid, and second, to put pressure on the agencies and the White House to act vigorously to curb the abuses. The pressure will depend on the report’s ability to focus the understanding of the media, the relevant experts, and activists on specific illustrative cases and to clearly explain the legal framework and standards that are supposed to apply.

The panel reported that its 

“aggregate analysis of credible reports involving U.S-provided weapons by Israeli forces indicates a context of systematic disregard for fundamental principles of international law, including recurrent attacks launched despite foreseeably disproportionate harm to civilians and civilian objects, wide area attacks without prior warnings in some of the most densely populated residential neighborhoods in the world, direct attacks on civilians…and attacks against civilian objects, including those indispensable for the survival of the civilian population.”

The experts further reported:

“Israeli intelligence sources cited by credible media reports indicate that these patterns of unlawful attacks reflect reliance on an unyielding and unconditioned supply of U.S. weapons, relaxed rules of engagement, application of collective punishment, and the use of artificial intelligence technology to generate thousands of targets (including civilian police and civil defense personnel), at maximum speed and with minimal human oversight.” 

The findings are illustrated by 17 specific, horrific “incidents” and 18 pages of additional incidents. This review of incidents is said to be “supported by both credible media and civil society reporting and statements by Government of Israel officials and IDF uniformed officers.” But the incidents identified are “just the most easily identifiable among a clear pattern of violations of international law, failures to apply civilian harm mitigation best practices, and restrictions on humanitarian assistance,” by Israel and the IDF, often using U.S.-provided arms.

Just as important for non-experts is the report’s outline of exactly how the U.S. and international legal systems are supposed to protect civilians from harm — and how they are flouted. Thus, the experts point to three “fundamental rules [that] govern targeting decisions in armed conflict”: 

1 Distinguish between civilians and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives, with a presumption that persons or objects are protected from attack unless the information available at the time indicates that they are military objectives.

2. Take all feasible “precautions” in planning and conducting attacks to avoid or at least minimize incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects. 


3. Respect “proportionality,” i.e., conduct no attacks that are excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. The greater the foreseeable harm to civilians and civilian objects, the greater the foreseeable military advantage necessary to justify a particular attack. International humanitarian law (IHL) gives special protection to hospitals, clinics, and ambulances, as well as to humanitarian relief operations, and UN premises.

The report outlines the basics of “civilian harm mitigation practices,” including U.S. Defense Department practices. A key concept is “no-strike entities” (NSEs), which DOD says “may include, but are not limited to, medical, educational, diplomatic, cultural, religious, and historical sites, or other objects that do not, by their nature, location, purpose, or use, effectively contribute to the enemy’s war-fighting or war-sustaining capability.” The task force charges that Israel has “routinely and repeatedly” targeted six fundamental categories of NSEs, plus a broad array of slightly less protected entities.

Proportionality ‘rendered meaningless’

A common excuse the Israelis advance for the death and wounding of civilians is that they are being used by Hamas as “human shields.” The report notes that “taking advantage of the presence of civilians or other protected persons with intent to shield a military objective from attack constitutes a war crime.” However, U.S. military rules “affirm that an attacker shares responsibility for civilian harm with its enemies if it fails to take feasible precautions” to avoid killing shields.

NSM-20 itself spells out that its allies must “facilitate and not arbitrarily deny, restrict, or otherwise impede . . . the transport or delivery of [U.S.] humanitarian assistance and U.S. Government-supported international…humanitarian assistance.”

Outlining the “context” of Israel’s “systematic disregard for IHL,” the report cites “recurrent attacks launched despite foreseeably disproportionate harm to civilians and civilian objects, wide-area attacks without prior warnings in some of the most densely populated residential neighborhoods in the world, direct attacks on civilians or otherwise protected persons…and attacks against civilians objects, including those indispensable for the survival of the civilian population.” A high-ranking former IDF officer is quoted as condemning Israel’s “reckless conduct,” which he says “reflects an absolute assumption that the U.S. will continue to arm and finance it.”  

“Extremely relaxed rules of engagement” inconsistent with IHL also explain much of the harm done to civilians. Thus, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Air Force, Omar Tishler, has stated that neighborhoods have been attacked “on a large scale and not in a surgical manner.” 

Such attacks are facilitated by an expansion of the concept of “military advantage” in its proportionality assessments to weigh civilian harms against the advantages of “an operation as a whole,” rather than against each individual attack. That move “renders the proportionality rule meaningless,” the report says, as it’s impossible to compare the harms of a single specific attack with all the military advantages allegedly achieved or sought by the whole Gaza operation, which has lasted more than six months. 

Similarly, former U.S. Air Force drone controller Bryant noted how Israel blurs the requirement of taking precautions to protect civilians “by employing precautions it knows are ineffective,” such as texting populations whose phones are not functional.

Also “relaxed” is Israel’s use of the term terrorist. Thus, a reserve officer told Ha’aretz, “In practice, a terrorist is anyone the IDF has killed in the areas in which its forces operate.” The extensive, open-ended imposition of “kill zones” is another way to disguise genocide, an Israeli intelligence officer has explained. With a “kill zone” lasting a month or two, “you could stick with an order that anyone approaching should be shot…But we’ve been there for six months, and people have to start coming out; they are trying to survive, and that leads to very serious incidents.” 

 Lastly, Israel asserts it can block humanitarian aid, if it has “serious reasons for fearing” that relief consignments “will be diverted from their civilian destination or otherwise provide a definite advantage to the enemy’s military efforts” — a position the task force says relies on a “defective rule” from 1949 that was modified in 1977 and superseded by a rule of customary international law. Recent UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions confirm that Israel “must allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief and may not deny such relief based on fears that a small portion of aid may be seized by armed groups.”

In conclusion, the report warns that “the Task Force’s findings raise grave concerns regarding the Administration’s compliance with both U.S. and international law, particularly with respect to security assistance and arms transfers.” It then identifies the laws in question, as well as citing “obligations under customary international law to ensure respect for international humanitarian law and to cooperate to bring serious violations of peremptory norms of general international law to an end through lawful means.”

May 2, 2024 Posted by | Gaza, Israel, Legal | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »