Fresh Trident safety fears as submarines’ ‘life expectancy’ extended repeatedly
NEW concerns have been raised about the safety of Britain’s nuclear
fleet – with two submarines still in action previously predicted to have
been out of commission by this year. Former top government adviser Dominic
Cummings (below) sparked interest in the state of Britain’s nuclear fleet
at the beginning of this month when he revealed he had attempted to secure
assurances the Government would address the “horror show” of the
arsenal in return for his help in Rishi Sunak’s election campaign.
The National 14th Jan 2024
Dissension in the nuclear lobby – it had to happen – Small Nuclear versus Big Nuclear.
Comment. As the UK fumbles its way through its “Civil Nuclear Roadmap” folly, the Rolls Royce lobby paints Hinkley and Sizewell projects as obsolete trash, and touts Rolls Royce’s non existent small reactors as Britain’s energy salvation .
Jeremy Warner: Outsourcing Britain’s nuclear renewal is insanity.
Rolls-Royce’s modular reactors are an obvious way to break free of EDF’s
grip.
Here we go again. Einstein’s definition of insanity is to keep doing
the same thing and expecting different outcomes. You would think that the
Government had learned its lesson on nuclear renewal after the debacle of
Hinkley Point C. Clearly not.
Having already made the same mistake once, by
pledging a replica of the ruinously costly Hinkley at Sizewell on the
Suffolk coast, ministers are doubling down and promising a third such
monstrosity somewhere else.
According to the Government’s “Nuclear
Roadmap”, published last week, another of these leviathans in an as yet
unspecified location is to be given the go-ahead later this year. On the
most recent estimates, Hinkley Point C is expected to cost at least 80pc
more than its original budget and is years behind schedule. Some fear that
it won’t be until the early 2030s before the reactors are fully
operational, such have been the technical and safety complications
encountered in the construction phase.
Ministers have also had to agree to
punishingly expensive output prices to persuade the main developer,
France’s state-controlled EDF, to build in the first place, committing
consumers to high electricity costs for decades to come. So much for the
promise once made by the ever courteous Vincent de Rivaz, the one-time boss
of EDF in Britain, that Hinkley Point would be cooking our Christmas
lunches by 2017.
Even allowing for the learning process – theoretically,
later projects to the same design should cost less, with past mistakes
taken on board – it beggars belief that the Government should attempt to
repeat such a tried and demonstrably poor value for money technology.
Given the experience of Hinkley Point C, why are we still pursuing the hugely
costly, largely obsolete technology of EDF’s gigawatt stations when there
are perfectly viable, but smaller, homegrown alternatives just waiting for
the opportunity to fill the gap? If we are to spend £28bn a year of
taxpayers’ money on going green, as promised by Labour, we should at
least be confident that a large part of the wider economic benefit is
reserved for UK supply chains, and is not instead squandered on supporting
jobs abroad in France, China, Denmark and the US.
Telegraph 13th Jan 2024
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/01/13/uk-go-full-nuclear-ensure-solutions-british/
“The defense of nuclear power as a low-carbon energy weakens the European Union’s action against climate change”.
“The defense of nuclear power as a low-carbon energy weakens the
European Union’s action against climate change”.
The Renewable Energies for All association denounces, in a column in “Le Monde”, the
deleterious effects of the inclusion of nuclear power in the French and
European objectives for the deployment of renewable solutions.
Seeking to relaunch nuclear power whatever the cost, France is not only missing a
historic opportunity for a rapid and less costly transition to renewable
energies and decarbonization.
It weakens the climate ambition of theEuropean Union (EU). The reintegration of current nuclear production in Europe – 6% of its final energy – into the objective of 42.5% renewable
energies set by the RED III directive [Renewable Energy Directive III]
would create an accounting artifice and lead to vagueness strategic in a
field which nevertheless needs a long-term vision.
Le Monde 13th Jan 2024
This week’s nuclear news
TOP STORIES.
Israel Is Terrified the World Court Will Decide It’s Committing Genocide.
The ‘Ghost Budget’: How America Pays for Endless War. US prepares for nuclear war at foreign bases – with “Steadfast Noon”.
‘PR Fairy Dust’ Has Canada Tripling Nuclear Capacity by 2050. Cancelled
NuScale contract weighs heavy on new nuclear.
Nuclear Continues To Lag Far Behind Renewables In China Deployments.
****************************Covid. Yes, it’s still there – it’s NOT over yet.
Climate. Analysis: Record opposition to climate action by UK’s right-leaning newspapers in 2023. 2023 confirmed as world’s hottest year on record. Human ‘behavioural crisis’ at root of climate breakdown, say scientists.
Nuclear. It’s all over the UK media – enthusiasm for Civil Nuclear Roadmap – methinks the ladies and gentlemen do protest too much. Meanwhile – back at the Israel-Palestine-Lebanon-USA-Iran ranch – it’s all getting perilous – while I try to keep that stuff out of this newsletter
Noel’s notes. Aw gee! Did ya know that Australia is partnering USA in making multiple strikes on Yemen?. Who can be believed? New heights of folly as UK government releases its Civil Nuclear Roadmap.
*************************************
AUSTRALIA.
- ‘Do or die’: MPs launch urgent bid to spare Assange from US extradition.
- Defence Minister Marles announces Australia has joined in U.S. attacks on Yemen.
- The Coalition is hoodwinking Australia about nuclear energy. Coalition, pro-nuclear lobbyists, argue Australia needs nuclear energy; oppose renewables.
- Peace Pod: an aural adventure in anti-militarist activism. With teacher resources.
*********************************
CLIMATE. “The defense of nuclear power as a low-carbon energy weakens the European Union’s action against climate change”.
ECONOMICS. Nuclear power and net zero: Too little, too late, too expensive. Sizewell C: UK and France-owned EDF look to raise £20bn for Suffolk nuclear site. Housing unaffordability – implications for Somerset with huge increase in nuclear workers for Hinkley Point C.
EMPLOYMENT. Nuclear defence workers to strike over pay. Hotel near Bridgwater could be repurposed to house Hinkley Point C workers.
ENERGY. Reducing energy demand- technologies are available, scalable and affordable today. ’The potential is extraordinary’: Business action on energy efficiency could save $2tr a year, new research claims. Unplanned nuclear power outages are reducing UK’s electricity output.
ENVIRONMENT.
- Coldwater Creek to finally have warning signs after decades of nuclear contamination.
- Ayrshire radiation highlighted as Labour’s nuclear support attacked.
- Nuclear Power: The Thousand Year-Plus Albatross Around Humanity’s Neck.
- Nuclear: Plan to relax UK planning rules for small reactors draws mixed response. Inside Bradwell’s Dark Secrets.
- Utility scale solar farms contribute to bird diversity.
ETHICS and RELIGION. ‘The Evidence of Genocide Is Not Only Chilling, It Is Also Overwhelming and Incontrovertible’: Quotes from International Court of Justice.
HEALTH. The mystery of a Truchas woman who died with extraordinary amounts of plutonium in her body.
HISTORY. The Spectacular Failure of the Zionist Project
INDIGENOUS ISSUES. Commission decision a ‘gut-punch’, so years-long battle over radioactive waste mound will continue.
LEGAL. An international law expert explains why South Africa’s case at the ICJ is so important. Craig Murray: Observations on Israel’s defense in the International Court of Justice.
MEDIA. Nuclear technology: the shady beginnings and the uncertain future. Book (fiction): The Secret of the Three Bullets- How New Nuclear Weapons Are Back on Battlefields
OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . No to nuclear power: stop the expansion. Will Sizewell nuclear project go ahead? Campaigners question the timetable and the funding.
POLITICS. Energy Transition Minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher enthuses over “the rebirth of France’s nuclear industry”. Mr President, saying that nuclear power will save the climate is a lie. France Moves Away from Renewable Targets in Favor of Nuclear Power.
UK Government unveils biggest nuclear expansion in 70 years. Mini nuclear plants to be built almost anywhere in UK. On the road to nowhere… UK Ministers launch nuclear ‘Roadmap’ in election year. UK’s Nuclear Roadmap is Pure Fantasy. UK Government’s nuclear power expansion plans branded hot air. Bradwell Nuclear – Falling Off the (Road)Map. Allan Dorans: Scottish Labour’s support for nuclear fuel poses a risk. Government remains committed to Sizewell C timetable before a general election. Ministers told to say how Sizewell C will be funded as new nuclear plan launched.
Setback for Japan’s Nuclear Revival as Reactor Restart Delayed. NZ’s anti-nuclear stance is at risk of compromise but must be upheld.
POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. What Does ‘Rules-Based International Order’ Mean When US Can Bomb Yemen at Will? Peace from River to Sea.– (pages 21-25). Net-Zero and Nonproliferation: Assessing Nuclear Power and Its Alternatives.
SAFETY. UK’s dwindling nuclear fleet – four ageing reactors to be kept going beyond their planned closure date. Sellafield nuclear safety and security director to leave. Nuclear convoys: Blacked-out lorries carry ‘deadly cargo’ through the village. Fresh Trident safety fears as submarines’ ‘life expectancy’ extended repeatedly.
Japan’s Hokuriku Elec reports second oil leak from Shika nuclear plant. Japan’s NRA orders probe on quake damage at Shika nuclear power plant. Japan quake stressed nuclear plant beyond design limit: panel. Japanese nuclear plant admits 20,000 litres of oil leaked when it was hit by 10ft tsunami sparked by New Year’s Day earthquake – as officials call for drones to monitor radiation levels.
SECRETS and LIES. Dutch engineer spread Stuxnet in Iran nuclear plant in 2008: report. New Revelations Shed More Light On Sabotage Of Iran Nuclear Program.
Outrage as Government admits it kept medical results on nuke test veterans a ‘state secret’ in a move Tory grandee Sir John Hayes said ‘beggars belief’. Nuclear Free Local Authorities question the Chief Constable on alleged misconduct among Civil Nuclear Constabulary.
SPINBUSTER. In the name of ‘fake news,’ NewsGuard extorts sites to follow the government narrative.
TECHNOLOGY. Killer Robots: UN Vote Should Spur Action on Treaty. Dissension in the nuclear lobby – it had to happen – Small Nuclear versus Big Nuclear. Touting a ‘new age of nuclear fusion‘. Nuclear, CCS & LNG Are Distractions As Shipping Goes Low Carbon.
WASTES. Carlsbad depositary- 79% of waste came from nuclear wastes from Idaho National Laboratory. Kebaowek First Nation strongly opposes nuclear waste storage facility in Chalk River. Behind the (somewhat dirty) scenes of nuclear waste processing.
WAR and CONFLICT. Could Israel’s War in Gaza Spiral Into a Regional War?
WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. Israel’s nuclear arsenal: what we know. Nuclear Arms Buildup Isn’t Just about War. It Also Harms People and Communities. IG report finds Pentagon failed to account for more than $1B in weapons sent to Ukraine. Biden’s $582 Million Arms Sale to Saudi Arabia. Can It Be Blocked?.
The Coalition is hoodwinking Australia about nuclear energy
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is expected to make rescinding the nuclear power prohibition a 2025 election policy. One expert wonders whether he can do basic sums.
EMMA ELSWORTHY, JAN 12, 2024 https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/01/12/nuclear-energy-coalition-policy-dutton-2025-election/
It’s now more expensive than renewables, Australia has a decades-long ban on it, and its key international example touted by the Coalition was scrapped, but that hasn’t stopped growing cries from conservatives about nuclear power entering the energy mix on the nation’s path to net zero by 2050.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is reportedly preparing to make nuclear a key part of his energy policy for the next federal election, telling the Institute of Public Affairs: “The only feasible and proven technology, which can firm up renewables and help us achieve the goals of clean, cost effective and consistent power is next generation nuclear technologies.”
Dutton has tasked the opposition’s climate change and energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien with an internal investigation into a domestic nuclear energy industry in Australia. An enthused O’Brien has since returned from a tour of the US and Canada’s nuclear reactors last year, including the site of the BWRX-300 build in Ontario and Pittsburgh’s Generation IV nuclear battery, called the eVinci.
O’Brien is interested in small nuclear reactors, or SMRs — structures that would be manufactured in a factory, shipped out and assembled on-site in a dreamlike bid to drive down the cost and time delays of larger reactors.
“Environmental advocates, industry, private equity, centre-left and centre-right think-tanks, members of Congress — all told us that near 100% renewables was neither practical nor affordable, and that we needed nuclear in our energy mix,” O’Brien wrote in The Australian last year.
Several conservative figures have called for nuclear power to enter the energy conversation, including former Liberal treasurer Peter Costello, Nationals senator Matt Canavan, Nationals leader David Littleproud, and Liberal Democratic MP David Limbrick. Meanwhile, Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen has flat-out called the idea “dumb”.
In November, however, conservative SMR dreams were dashed here and abroad when a US developer binned a project widely touted as kicking off the new nuclear era. NuScale Power said it had failed to attract enough utility customers for the controversial power source to proceed — but it had also nearly doubled in cost (from US$8 billion to US$14 billion), suffered a five-year time delay, and revealed its power generation capacity had been slashed by a third.
Even so, Australian National University Honorary Associate Professor Tony Irwin told Crikey there was “still time” for nuclear to contribute to Australia’s pursuit of net zero, requiring “politicians with a long-term vision” to recognise what some COP28 nations called “the key role of nuclear energy in limiting temperature rise”.
Griffith University Emeritus Professor of Science, Technology and Society Ian Lowe called this bullshit.
“Nobody who can read joined-up writing and do take-away sums thinks nuclear power has any role in slowing Australia’s release of greenhouse gases,” the environmental scientist told Crikey.
A CSIRO report released last month found likewise, concluding nuclear power did not offer an “economically competitive solution”, and that SMRs would be “too late to make a significant contribution to achieving net zero emissions” because of both legal and commercial viability hurdles.
Lowe also noted the 2006 Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review (UMPNER) report had found nuclear energy would need very generous public subsidies to compete with renewables, which have backslid in price enormously in the 18 years since the review’s release.
The UMPNER was chaired by then head of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANTSO) Dr Ziggy Switkowski — a spokesperson for the government organisation told Crikey it’s following the nuclear debate though officially “agnostic” on nuclear energy.
Lowe also noted that the Coalition’s bleating about the nation rescinding the nuclear ban and embracing the controversial power source from the opposition has interesting timing considering the nine years it spent in government.
“Of course, they did nothing to promote that technology in their decade in office and are now predictably evasive about where a nuclear power station would be located and how it would be funded,” Lowe said.
Labor MP Josh Wilson went harder, telling Crikey that Dutton’s growing support for nuclear energy in the face of cheaper and cleaner renewables showed the opposition leader is unfit to lead the country.
“By giving in to the climate deniers and nuclear cheerleaders in his own show, Dutton shows his preparedness to consign the Australian community to an expensive, disaster-prone, and dangerous future for the sake of protecting his own position,” Wilson said.
Futile and Dangerous: Bombing Yemen in the Name of Shipping
There was even less of a debate about the legality or wisdom of the Yemen strikes in Australia. Scandalously, and with a good deal of cowardice, the government preferred a deafening silence for hours in the aftermath of the operation. The only source confirming that personnel of the Australian Defence Forces were involved came from Biden, the commander-in-chief of another country. There had been no airing of the possibility of such involvement. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had, in not sending a warship from the Royal Australian Navy to join Operation Prosperity Guardian, previously insisted that diplomacy might be a better course of action. Evidently, that man is up for turning at a moment’s notice.
Another feature of the strikes is the absence of a Security Council resolution from the United Nations, technically the sole body in the international system able to authorise the use of force under the UN Charter. A White House statement on January 11 attributes authority to the strikes much the same way the administration of George W. Bush did in justifying the warrantless, and illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003. (Ditto those on his same, limited bandwidth, Tony Blair of the UK and John Howard of Australia.)
January 13, 2024, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/futile-and-dangerous-bombing-yemen-in-the-name-of-shipping/#
What a show. As US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was promoting a message of calm restraint and firm control in limiting the toxic fallout of Israel’s horrific campaign in Gaza, a decision was made by his government, the United Kingdom and a few other reticent collaborators to strike targets in Yemen, including the capital Sana’a. These were done, purportedly, as retribution for attacks on international commercial shipping in the Red Sea by the Iran-backed Houthi rebels.
The wording in a White House media release mentions the operation’s purpose and the relevant participants. “In response to continued illegal, dangerous, and destabilizing Houthi attacks against vessels, including commercial shipping, transiting the Red Sea, the armed forces of the United States and the United Kingdom, with support from the Netherlands, Canada, Bahrain, and Australia, conducted joint strikes in accordance with the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense.”
US Air Forces Central Command further revealed that the “multinational action targeted radar systems, defense systems, and storage and launch sites for one way attack unmanned aerial systems, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles.”
The rationale by the Houthis is that they are targeting shipping with a direct or ancillary Israeli connection, hoping to niggle them over the barbarities taking place in Gaza. As the Israeli Defence Forces are getting away with, quite literally, bloody murder, the task has fallen to other forces to draw attention to that fact. Houthi spokesperson Mohammed Abdusalam’s post was adamant that “there was no threat to international navigation in the Red and Arabian Seas, and the targeting was and will continue to affect Israeli ships or those heading to the ports of occupied Palestine.”
But that narrative has been less attractive to the supposedly law-minded types in Washington and London, always mindful that commerce trumps all. Preference has been given to such shibboleths as freedom of navigation, the interests of international shipping, all code for the protection of large shipping interests. No mention is made of the justification advanced by the Houthi rebels and the Palestinian plight, a topic currently featuring before the International Court of Justice in the Hague.
Another feature of the strikes is the absence of a Security Council resolution from the United Nations, technically the sole body in the international system able to authorise the use of force under the UN Charter. A White House statement on January 11 attributes authority to the strikes much the same way the administration of George W. Bush did in justifying the warrantless, and illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003. (Ditto those on his same, limited bandwidth, Tony Blair of the UK and John Howard of Australia.) On that occasion, the disappointment and frustrations of weapons inspectors and rebukes from the UN about the conduct of Saddam Hussein, became vulnerable to hideous manipulation by the warring parties.
On this occasion, a “broad consensus as expressed by 44 countries around the world on December 19, 2023” and “the statement by the UN Security Council on December 1, 2023, condemning Houthi attacks against merchant and commercial vessels transiting the Red Sea” is meant to add ballast. Lip service is paid to the self-defence provisions of the UN Charter.
In a separate statement, Biden justified the attack on Houthi positions as necessary punishment for “unprecedented Houthi attacks against international maritime vessels in the Red Sea – including the use of anti-ship ballistic missiles for the first time in history.” He also made much of the US-led Operation Prosperity Guardian, “a coalition of more than 20 nations committed to defending international shipping and deterring Houthi attacks in the Red Sea.” No mention of the Israeli dimension here, at all.
In addition to the pregnant questions on the legality of such strikes in international law, the attacks, at least as far as US execution was concerned, was far from satisfactory to some members of Congress. Michigan Democratic Rep. Rashita Tlaib was irked that US lawmakers had not been consulted. “The American people are tired of endless war.” Californian Rep. Barbara Lee warned that, “Violence only begets more violence. We need a ceasefire now to prevent deadly, costly, catastrophic escalation of violence in the region.”
A number of Republicans also registered their approval of the stance taken by another Californian Democrat, Rep. Ro Khanna, who expressed with certitude the view that Biden had “to come to Congress before launching a strike against the Houthis in Yemen and involving us in another middle eastern conflict.” Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah was in full agreement, as was West Virginia Republican Rep. Thomas Massie. “Only Congress has the power to declare war,” Massie affirmed.
Unfortunately for these devotees of Article I of the US Constitution, which vests Congress approval powers for making war, the War Powers Act, passed by Congress in November 1973, merely requires the president to inform Congress within 48 hours of military action, and the termination of such action within 60 days of commencement in the absence of a formal declaration of war by Congress or authorisation of military conflict. These days, clipping the wings of the executive when it comes to engaging in conflict is nigh impossible.
There was even less of a debate about the legality or wisdom of the Yemen strikes in Australia. Scandalously, and with a good deal of cowardice, the government preferred a deafening silence for hours in the aftermath of the operation. The only source confirming that personnel of the Australian Defence Forces were involved came from Biden, the commander-in-chief of another country. There had been no airing of the possibility of such involvement. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had, in not sending a warship from the Royal Australian Navy to join Operation Prosperity Guardian, previously insisted that diplomacy might be a better course of action. Evidently, that man is up for turning at a moment’s notice.
In a brief statement made at 4.38 pm on of January 12 (there was no press conference in sight, no opportunity to inquire), Albanese declared with poor conviction that, “Australia alongside other countries has supported the United States and the United Kingdom to conduct strikes to deal with this threat to global rules and commercial shipping.” He had waited for the best part of a day to confirm it to the citizenry of his country. He had done so without consulting Parliament.
Striking the Houthis would seem, on virtually all counts, to be a signal failure. Benjamin H. Friedman of Defense Priorities sees error piled upon error: “The strikes on the Houthis will not work. They are very unlikely to stop Houthi attacks on shipping. The strikes’ probable failure will invite escalation to more violent means that may also fail.” The result: policymakers will be left “looking feckless and thus tempted to up the ante to more pointless war to solve a problem better left to diplomatic means.” Best forget any assuring notions of taking the sting out of the expanding hostilities. All roads to a widening war continue to lead to Israel.
An international law expert explains why South Africa’s case at the ICJ is so important
A ruling by the International Court of Justice in favor of South Africa, which has accused Israel of genocide, could mean saving thousands of lives in Gaza. The alternative, however, could be devastating and further embolden Israeli violence.
BY YUMNA PATEL https://mondoweiss.net/2024/01/an-international-law-expert-explains-why-south-africas-case-at-the-icj-is-so-important/?fbclid=IwAR0_La2MT5GTGkKo2X56cAEa15B-SPBIOwKnMKznqzCczU0XVSIz_BlNrBE
South Africa and Israel will be appearing before the International Court of Justice, on Thursday, January 11, where the court will begin hearing arguments on whether Israel is committing the crime of Genocide.
The highly anticipated public hearings, which will last for two days, are based on an 84-page appeal submitted by South Africa in December to the ICJ, the top judicial body of the United Nations. In the appeal, South Africa argues that Israel’s military campaign in Gaza is “genocidal in character” and that through both action and intent to commit genocide, Israel has violated the 1948 Genocide Convention.
Both Israel and South Africa are parties to the convention, which came into being on the heels of World War II and the Holocaust. All signatories of the treaty are obligated not to commit genocide, to ensure that it is prevented, and to seek that the crime be prosecuted.
South Africa’s appeal to the ICJ, however, is not just about charging Israel with the crime of genocide – a lengthy process that could take the court months or years. It’s also seeking a more immediate solution by requesting the court institute provisional measures to immediately halt Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.
Essentially, South Africa wants two things: to stop the mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza now and for Israel to be charged with the crime of genocide in the long term. A condensed breakdown and explanation of the 84-page brief can be found here.
Expectedly, Israel has outright denied any accusations of genocide, lambasting the South African appeal as antisemtic “blood libel”. The U.S. has also rebuked South Africa’s appeal, called it “meritless” and “completely without any basis in fact.”
Nevertheless, Israel is pressing forward, sending a carefully crafted legal team to The Hague in the Netherlands to defend Israel’s position that it is not committing genocide in Gaza.
The much-talked about public proceedings, which will take place over the course of two days on Thursday and Friday, January 11th and 12th, are being welcomed by both Palestinians, as well as a number of countries around the world, who have thus far failed to bring about a ceasefire, primarily due to the U.S. veto of UN resolutions calling for a halt to the violence.
Despite the international buzz and anticipation, many in Palestine and around the world remain skeptical as to how much weight an ICJ ruling against Israel could hold due to a long history of Israeli impunity on the global stage and Israel’s well-documented disregard for international law and human rights norms.
Still, many Palestinian international law experts and human rights groups say the ICJ proceedings are significant and could hold serious consequences not only for Israel and Palestine but for the world.
Among them is Dr. Munir Nuseibah, a Palestinian professor of International law at Al-Quds University and the Director of the Al-Quds Human Rights Clinic. Mondoweiss spoke to Dr. Nuseibah about the significance of this case, why people should pay attention to it, and what implications it holds.
Why does this case matter?
The case filed by South Africa is important for a number of reasons. First, Dr. Nuseibah notes, the fact that it was filed at the ICJ in and of itself is significant, being that the court is the highest judicial body that settles disputes between states.
“This is quite significant because it’s… based on an agreement, or treaty that is binding to both South Africa and Israel,” he said, referring to the 1948 Genocide Convention.
“This is important in the history of the Palestinian cause, since we haven’t had an opportunity to get a binding international decision on any of the important questions that we have been dealing with, including for example, the issue of the Palestinian refugees, the [Israeli] occupation, etc,” Dr. Nuseibah continued.
The last time the ICJ made a decision in relation to Palestine was a 2004 advisory opinion that found Israel’s separation wall, which at that stage was still early on in its construction, violated international law and should be torn down.
However, because that decision was a non-binding advisory opinion, Israel was not obligated to stop construction or take down the wall. Instead, Israel continued constructing the wall, which today spans across hundreds of kilometers, cutting off Palestinians from their land and swallowing up swaths of Palestinian territory.
This case, Dr. Nuseibah says, would be different, as the resulting decision from this week’s proceedings would be binding, and if the court rules in favor of South Africa, it would mean that under international law, Israel would be obligated to end its military campaign in Gaza in the short term, and in the long term, potentially provide material reparations to the victims of its genocide.
The case is also significant as a symbolic measure as well. That, in the face of an ongoing genocide, which has been well documented by Palestinians and international human rights organizations alike, the world must intervene to stop it.
“If there is no serious intervention, and if the United Nations, the world, and what we call the international community is going to continue to be silenced and made inactive, and in a certain way deactivated and demobilized, this horror will continue,” Dr. Nusaibah said, not just in Palestine but around the world.
“To not only be accused of genocide, but to be charged by the court, and to be seen as a country guilty of genocide is very important,” he said. “In my opinion, everything that happens in the International Court of Justice now, is likely to influence thousands of lives in the future.
So whatever these judges will decide will actually be a question of life and death for many, many Palestinians.”
What will South Africa be arguing on Thursday?
The crux of South Africa’s argument is that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and that it is violating its obligations under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, which defines the crime as “acts intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part of the Palestinian national, racial and ethnic group.”
South Africa’s argument hinges on proving that Israel is not only committing acts of genocide in Gaza but that there is a clear intent on Israel’s part to commit genocide – the latter being a significant focus of the 84-page brief, which listed off an array of quotes from Israeli politicians, officials, and public figures using genocidal language when speaking about Israel’s campaign in Gaza.
“[South Africa’s] first argument will involve the speeches and quotes basically from Israeli officials who have been using genocidal language from the very first day actually, from October 7th,” Dr. Nuseibah said.
“In criminal law it’s not enough to do something, but you have to intend to do something. And one of the signs of intent, are the things you say. So these quotes from Israeli officials will be used to show that Israel has been calling for genocide,” he continued.
And, of course, South Africa will be providing evidence of what it says are clear genocidal acts carried out by Israel in Gaza, such as “bombing civilians, heavily targeting homes, targeting hospitals, targeting cultural centers, targeting universities, schools, etc,” Dr. Nuseibah detailed.
“So all of these targets that the Israeli army has destroyed over the past months, and of course the civilian casualties, the human beings who have been murdered or injured or made disabled, [Israel] using hunger as a weapon, etc. – all of that will be a very important part of the facts South Africa will present,” he said, adding that the denial of fuel and electricity, the siege on 2 million civilians, and the forcible displacement of Palestinians in Gaza is also “an important element of genocide and especially in this case.”
What will Israel’s legal defense look like?
While there are 84 pages to give us an insight into South Africa’s case, it’s not as apparent what exactly Israel’s defense will consist of.
If the past few months have been any indication, however, during which Israel has denied any wrongdoing in Gaza, justified it as self-defense, and has actually accused Hamas of genocide for its October 7th attack – some assumptions can be made as to how Israel will approach it’s defense.
First, Israel’s primary strategy, Dr. Nuseibah says, will be to “deny, deny, deny.”
“Israel will deny everything that South Africa claims,” Dr. Nuseibah said. “It will deny that it has starved people, or that it is trying to starve people. It will deny that it is not allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza, by showing examples where it actually did allow some trucks to enter,” he continued, noting that what little humanitarian aid has been allowed into Gaza has been critically insufficient to address the needs of the more than 2 million people trapped in the strip.
“It [Israel] will talk about any attempts they made in any of their operations to ‘reduce civilian casualties’, whether by warning civilians in certain places,” Dr. Nuseibah said, referring to Israel’s practice of dropping leaflets to notify civilians that their area is going to be attacked, or by providing QR codes and maps of “safe zones” and “combat zones” in Gaza – all practices that have been widely criticized both as insufficient to save civilian lives, and as a PR move by Israel to save face in front of the international community.
At the time of publication, 96 days after Israel began its bombardment on Gaza, more than 23,000 Palestinians have been killed, the vast majority of them civilians.
“So, Israel’s strategy will be to deny everything, because there is nothing else they can do or say,” Dr. Nuseibah said. “It is a longtime strategy and practice of Israel that we are used to. Israel always denies its crimes. Even until today, Israel denies the Nakba, that is the official position of Israel, to deny it.”
While Israel has focused much of its propaganda campaign on accusing Hamas, and supporters of the Palestinian cause in general, of carrying out or advocating for the genocide of Israelis and Jewish people, Dr. Nuseibah said he doubts that will be a feature of Israel’s arguments at the ICJ.
“I doubt that they will do this or bring this up, because if they do, then they would have to present evidence. They would have to allow an open investigation into what happened on October 7th,” Dr. Nuseibah said, noting that Israel has historically prevented access to independent investigators seeking to probe potential crimes committed in the occupied Palestinian territory.
How will this impact Palestinian lives right now?
While the deliberations on whether Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza or not could take years, South Africa’s case is expected to yield a much more immediate and time-sensitive result.
As part of its appeal to the court, South Africa is seeking an emergency interim decision by the court, or “provisional measures,” to order the Israeli military to cease its campaign in Gaza immediately, stop the displacement of Palestinians, and allow for the entry of adequate humanitarian aid into Gaza. The court could make that decision in as little as a few days or weeks.
These provisional measures, Dr. Nuseibah says, are some of the most critical elements to the case and have the biggest potential to change the course of the unfolding genocide in Gaza.
“This is very time sensitive. Every day that we lose, we are losing more lives. We are losing more casualties. There are more homes that are demolished. There are more days that children are not going to school,” he continued.”There is a lot of loss every single day of civilian life, and there is no human being in Gaza who is not heavily influenced by what is happening.”
“All of the provisional requests that South Africa has made are there to save lives immediately. And I do expect that the court will take these measures. History has shown that the ICJ has given these provisional measures in similar situations, even with less casualties and less risk,” Dr. Nuseibah said.
“So I do expect that the court will decide provisional measures, which would mean a ceasefire, which is the most important thing right now, as well as stopping the displacement, allowing for the entry of aid, and stopping the continuous demolition of Gaza.”
Israel has ignored international law before, what will be different this time?
Continue readingNuclear Continues To Lag Far Behind Renewables In China Deployments
China can’t scale its nuclear program at all. It peaked in 2018 with 7 reactors with a capacity of 8.2 GW. For the five years since then then it’s been averaging 2.3 GW of new nuclear capacity, and last year only added 1.2 GW between a new GW scale reactor and a 200 MW small modular nuclear reactor.
Michael Barnard 13 Jan 24, https://cleantechnica.com/2024/01/12/nuclear-continues-to-lag-far-behind-renewables-in-china-deployments/
Since 2014 I’ve been tracking the natural experiment in China regarding the ability to scale nuclear generation vs renewables. My hypothesis was that the modularity and manufacturability of wind and solar especially meant that it would be much easier for them to scale up to massive sizes.
That hypothesis was strongly confirmed when I first published the results in 2019, and again in 2021 and 2022 when I updated them. In what is becoming a dog bites man annual article, here are the 2023 results. Once again, China’s nuclear program barely added any capacity, only 1.2 GW, while wind and solar between them added about 278 GW. Even with the capacity factor difference, the nuclear additions only mean about 7 TWh of new low carbon generation per year, while wind and solar between them will contributed about 427 TWh annually, over 60 times as much low carbon electricity.
As a note, there were no new hydroelectric dams commissioned in China, so that continued acceleration of deployment is solely due to wind and solar. That’s going to change when the absurdly massive Tibetan Yarlung Tsangpo river dam is commissioned, likely in the mid 2030s. That dam will generate three times the energy annually as the Three Gorges Dam, making it by far the biggest dam in the world by every measure.
A few points. First, what’s a natural experiment? It’s something which is occurring outside of a laboratory or research setting in the real world that coincidentally controls for a bunch of variables so that you can make a useful comparison. An often referenced example was of a specific region where half was without electricity for a few months. Researchers posited that the blackout region would have seen more pregnancies starting in that period, and sure enough, that’s what they found.
So why is China a natural experiment for scalability of wind and solar? Well, it controls for a bunch of variables. Both programs were national strategic energy programs run top down. I started the comparison in 2010 because the nuclear program had been running for about 15 years by then and the renewables program for five years, so both were mature enough to have worked out the growing pains.
One of the things that western nuclear proponents claim is that governments have over-regulated nuclear compared to wind and solar, and China’s regulatory regime for nuclear is clearly not the USA’s or the UK’s. They claim that fears of radiation have created massive and unfair headwinds, and China has a very different balancing act on public health and public health perceptions than the west. They claim that environmentalists have stopped nuclear development in the west, and while there are vastly more protests in China than most westerners realize, governmental strategic programs are much less susceptible to public hostility. And finally, western nuclear proponents complain that NIMBYs block nuclear expansion, and public sentiment and NIMBYism is much less powerful in China with its Confucian, much more top down governance system.
China’s central government has a 30 year track record of building massive infrastructure programs, so it’s not like it is missing any skills there. China has a nuclear weapons program, so the alignment of commercial nuclear generation with military strategic aims is in hand too. China has a strong willingness to finance strategic infrastructure with long-running state debt, so there are no headwinds there either.
Yet China can’t scale its nuclear program at all. It peaked in 2018 with 7 reactors with a capacity of 8.2 GW. For the five years since then then it’s been averaging 2.3 GW of new nuclear capacity, and last year only added 1.2 GW between a new GW scale reactor and a 200 MW small modular nuclear reactor.
So what’s going on? As I noted late in 2023, nuclear energy and free market capitalism aren’t compatible, but China isn’t capitalist, according to a lot of westerners. But it very definitely is a market and export capitalist economy, albeit with more state intervention and ownership, and the nuclear program is suffering as a result. That lone small modular reactor is a clear signal of that.
‘The Evidence of Genocide Is Not Only Chilling, It Is Also Overwhelming and Incontrovertible’. Quotes from International Court of Justice
by SCHEERPOST staff, https://scheerpost.com/2024/01/12/the-evidence-of-genocide-is-not-only-chilling-it-is-also-overwhelming-and-incontrovertible/
The World Court will hear the case on Jan. 11 and 12 at The Hague.
Notable quotes from Jan. 11 hearing
From South African attorney Tembeka Ngcukaitobi:
“There is an extraordinary feature in this case: that Israel’s political leaders, military commanders, and persons holding official positions have systematically and in explicit terms declared their genocidal intent… And these statements are then repeated by soldiers on the ground in Gaza as they engage in the destruction of Palestinians and the physical infrastructure of Gaza.”
“What state would admit to a genocidal intent? Yet the distinctive feature of this case has not been the silence as such but the reiteration and repetition of genocidal speech throughout every sphere of state in Israel.”
“We remind the court of the identity and authority of the genocidal inciters: the prime minister, the president the minister of defense, the minister of national security, the minister of energy and infrastructure, members of the Knesset, senior army officials, and foot soldiers… The evidence of genocidal intent is not only chilling, it is also overwhelming and incontrovertible.”
“Israel has subjected Gaza to what has been described as one of the heaviest conventional bombing campaigns in the history of modern warfare. Palestinians in Gaza are being killed by Israeli weaponry and bombs from air, land and sea. They are also at immediate risk of death by starvation, dehydration and disease as a result of the ongoing siege by Israel, the destruction of Palestinian towns, the insufficient aid being allowed through to the Palestinian population, and the impossibility of distributing this limited aid while bombs fall. This conduct renders essentials to life unobtainable.“
“…the level of Israel’s killing is so extensive that nowhere is safe in Gaza. … Palestinians in Gaza are subjected to relentless bombing wherever they go. They are killed in their homes, in places where they seek shelter, in hospitals, in schools, in mosques, in churches, and as they try to find food and water for their families. They have been killed if they failed to evacuate. In the places to which they have fled, and even while they attempted to flee along, Israeli declared safe routes.”
“Israel has killed an unparalleled and unprecedented number of civilians with the full knowledge of how many civilian lives each bomb will take.“
TODAY. New heights of folly as UK government releases its Civil Nuclear Roadmap.
When Rishi Sunak rose to the political throne in Britain, I thought: ”Well, of the stupid Tories, at least he’s probably less stupid than the rest of them”
Well, now I wonder. With an election due by early 2025, surely Sunak and co. are not planning upon political suicide?
So I can only conclude that Sunak is as thick as a brick.
He’s launched the Civil Nuclear Roadmap for UK to increase nuclear generation by up to four times to 24GW by 2050. The Prime Minister said: “Nuclear is the perfect antidote to the energy challenges facing Britain – it’s green, cheaper in the long term and will ensure the UK’s energy security for the long-term.” “This is the right long-term decision and is the next step in our commitment to nuclear power”
The UK intends to build up to eight new reactors, and will invest up to £300 million into producing the HALEU fuel required for new high-tech reactors, and which currently is only commercially produced in Russia.
And there’ll be a fleet of “small modular reactors” to be .built across Britain.
Sounds great, don’t it?
BUT:
Large nuclear reactors. The cost of Hinkley Point C has spiralled to £33bn, a 30 per cent increase from 2015 when it forecast the cost at £25-£26bn. Sizewell C has not yet received a final investment decision.
Six reactors on three sites have been shut down since 2021 and will be need expensive dismantlement
Most of the UK’s 9 functioning nuclear reactors are nearing the end of their operating lives, although 2 of them Heysham 1 and Hartlepool are to be extended.
Small Nuclear Reactors. Regulation and planning rules will be loosened . A developer-led approach will replace previous rules. Rather than ministers specifying sites, developers will be asked to identify locations for small nuclear reactors .
Nuclear plants will be ruled out in line with “population density” and “proximity to military activities” . But apart from those considerations, “All other criteria willbe discretionary, including size, flood risk, proximity to civil airports, the natural beauty, ecological importance or cultural heritage of the site. ”
Divorced from reality? Does Rishi Sunak not know what happened to the USA’s one and only small nuclear reactor project – the rapid decline and fall of the NuScale enterprise?
The mainstream media faithfully touts Rishi Sunak’s nuclear plans. But investors and the general public are not that gullible.
I think it more likely that the Nuclear Roadmap will prove the antidote to a Tory government for 2025
Defence Minister Marles announces Australia has joined in U.S. attacks on Yemen
Comment. As Marles yet again spouts the “global rules-based order”, we wonder where is Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, and why was Parliament not consulted?
Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles confirms Australian personnel contributed to strikes in Yemen.
ABC News, 12 Jan 24
Defence Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles says Australian personnel had been present in “operational headquarters” but said he could not elaborate further on the precise nature of their participation.
Key points:
- A US official said strikes against the Iran-backed group were carried out by aircraft, ships and a submarine
- It comes as the United Nations Security Council demands an immediate halt to the shipping disruptions
- The US Central Command said Houthi rebels have launched their 27th attack since November 19
Mr Marles said Australia’s participation was “completely consistent” with the national interest. “Australia must stand up for freedom of navigation,” Mr Marles said, accusing the Houthis of “disruption of the rules-based order.”
The US and Britain have started launching strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen.
Houthi official Abdul Qader al-Mortada said raids were conducted in several Yemeni cities, including the capital Sana’a, in the early hours of Friday.
Two Hodieda residents told Associated Press they heard five strong explosions.
Hodieda lies on the Red Sea and is the largest port city controlled by the Houthis.
Yemen’s Houthi rebels said they will continue targeting Israel-linked ships in the Red Sea despite overnight air strikes by the US and Britain, their spokesman said on Friday.
“We affirm that there is absolutely no justification for this aggression against Yemen, as there was no threat to international navigation in the Red and Arabian Seas, and the targeting was and will continue to affect Israeli ships or those heading to the ports of occupied Palestine,” Yemen’s Houthis spokesperson Mohammed Abdulsalam posted on X, formerly known as Twitter.
On Friday, Iran said it condemns the US-Britain attack on Houthis in Yemen warning that it will fuel “insecurity and instability” in the region, Iranian state media reported.
“We strongly condemn the military attacks carried out this morning by the United States and the United Kingdom on several cities in Yemen,” said Nasser Kannani, spokesperson at Iran’s foreign ministry.
“These attacks are a clear violation of Yemen’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and a breach of international laws,” he added…………………………………………
US President Joe Biden said Australia, Canada, Bahrain and the Netherlands provided support for the operation………………………………………..
The strikes would mark the first counterattack launched against the Iran-backed group, since it began Red Sea attacks in November last year.
It comes as the United Nations Security Council demanded an immediate halt to the disruption in global commerce on Thursday.
A joint statement by Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom and the US said the UN resolution, in addition to Houthi ignoring calls to end the shipping attacks, had led to these “precision strikes”……………………………..
Scotland’s first minister Humza Yousaf, whose parents-in-law escaped Gaza in early November, warned the UK “does not have a good record of military intervention in the Middle East”, demanding MPs have a briefing. ………………………………………………………………………………….
The Iran-backed group says it is conducting attacks in support of Palestinian militant group Hamas in its fight against Israel………………………………………………………….
Before the resolution on Thursday, United States deputy ambassador Robert Wood said “freedom of commercial activity on the seas is critically important to commerce and to national security of a number of states”.
Wider fallout on the horizon
Nearly 10 per cent of global oil trade and an estimated $US1 trillion ($1.5 trillion) in goods pass through the Red Sea route annually.
Houthi attacks have forced many shipping companies to use the much longer and more-expensive route around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope………………………………………………………………. more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-12/britain-joins-strikes-against-houthi-rebels/103312432?fbclid=IwAR0IWBxVsFVdHyF534j_12Il1ojMC-TMJ2zflrOI_J5Xnt9KWqBRBmUCAy8
Nuclear technology: the shady beginnings and the uncertain future
ABC RN, Broadcast Mon 8 Jan 2024, https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/bigideas/nuclear-technology-history-and-future/102960302?fbclid=IwAR2QQafugR_2Vy3Est_CdP4MVvA6gu7g-nypcNFKhe5ixGEX8VCdTgrJpEM
The history and development of the nuclear industry is shrouded in secrecy and contradictions. And its future is throwing up more questions than answers.
A scientist, a historian and a poet consider the economic, scientific and social realities of nuclear technology.
They discuss how the lessons from the past might shape an uncertain future, and the possible consequences of playing God.
Nuclear Fallout was presented at the Brisbane Writers Festival. May 10, 2023
Original broadcast on July 6, 2023.
Speakers
Associate Professor Elizabeth Tynan
Coordinator of the professional development program at the James Cook University Graduate Research School
Author of The Secret of Emu Field: Britain’s Forgotten Atomic Tests in Australia, NewSouth Publishing, May 2022
Poet and writer; Author of The Exclusion Zone, UQP 2023
Ian Lowe
Environmental scientist, Emeritus professor at Griffith University,
Ashley Hay (host)
Novelist and essayist, former editor of Griffith Review, editorial consultant for the Climate Justice Observatory
The Case for Genocide
A ruling by the court could be years away. But South Africa is asking for provisional measures that would demand Israel cease its military assault – in essence a permanent ceasefire. This decision could come within two or three weeks.
The International Court of Justice may be all that stands between the Palestinians in Gaza and genocide.
By Chris Hedges /ScheerPost, https://scheerpost.com/2024/01/12/chris-hedges-the-case-for-genocide/
The exhaustive 84-page brief submitted by South Africa to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) charging Israel with genocide is hard to refute. Israel’s campaign of indiscriminate killing, wholesale destruction of infrastructure, including housing, hospitals and water treatment plants, along with its use of starvation as a weapon, accompanied by genocidal rhetoric from its political and military leaders who speak of destroying Gaza and ethnically cleansing the 2.3 million Palestinians, makes a strong case against Israel for genocide.
Israel’s smearing of South Africa as “the legal arm” of Hamas exemplifies the bankruptcy of its defense, a smear replicated by those who claim that demonstrations held to call for a ceasefire and protect Palestinian human rights are “anti-Semitic.” Israel, its genocide live streamed to the world, has no substantial counter argument.
But that does not mean the judges on the court will rule in South Africa’s favor. The pressure the U.S. will bring – Secretary of State Antony Blinken has called the South African charges “meritless” – on the judges, drawn from the member states of the U.N., will be intense.
A ruling of genocide is a stain that Israel – which weaponizes the Holocaust to justify its brutalization of the Palestinians – would find hard to remove. It would undercut Israel’s insistence that Jews are eternal victims. It would shatter the justification for Israel’s indiscriminate killing of unarmed Palestinians and construction of the world’s largest open air prison in Gaza, along with the occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It would sweep away the immunity to criticism enjoyed by the Israel lobby and its Zionist supporters in the U.S., who have successfully equated criticisms of the “Jewish State” and support for Palestinian rights with anti-Semitism.
Over 23,700 Palestinians, including over 10,000 children, have been killed in Gaza since Oct. 7, when Hamas and other resistance fighters breached the security barriers around Gaza. Some 1,200 people were killed – there is strong evidence that some of the victims were killed by Israeli tank crews and helicopter pilots that intentionally targeted the some 200 hostages along with their captors. Thousands more Palestinians are missing, presumed buried under the rubble. Israeli attacks have left over 60,000 Palestinians wounded and maimed, the majority of them women and children. Thousands more Palestinian civilians, including children, have been arrested, blindfolded, numbered, beaten, forced to strip to their underwear, loaded onto trucks and transported to unknown locations.
A ruling by the court could be years away. But South Africa is asking for provisional measures that would demand Israel cease its military assault – in essence a permanent ceasefire. This decision could come within two or three weeks. It is a decision that is not based on the final ruling by the court, but on the merits of the case brought by South Africa. The court would not, by demanding Israel end its hostilities in Gaza, define the Israeli campaign in Gaza as genocide. It would confirm that there is the possibility of genocide, what the South African lawyers call acts that are “genocidal in character.”
The case will not be determined by the documentation of specific crimes, even those defined as war crimes. It will be determined by genocidal intent – the intent to eradicate in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group – as defined in the Genocide Convention.
These acts collectively include the targeting of refugee camps and other densely packed civilian areas with 2,000-pound bombs, the blocking of humanitarian aid, the destruction of the health care system and its effects on children and pregnant women – the U.N. estimates there are around 50,000 pregnant women in Gaza, and that more than 160 babies are delivered every day – as well as repeated genocidal statements by leading Israeli politicians and generals.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu equated Gaza with Amalek, a nation hostile to the Israelites in the Bible, and cited the Biblical injunction to kill every Amalek man, woman, child or animal. Defence Minister Yoav Gallant called Palestinians “human animals.” Israeli President Isaac Herzog stated, as the South African lawyers told the court, that everybody in Gaza is responsible for what happened on Oct. 7 because they voted for Hamas, although half the population in Gaza are children who are too young to vote. But even if the entire population of Gaza did vote for Hamas this does not make them a legitimate military target. They are still, under the rules of war, civilians, and entitled to protection. They are also entitled under international law to resist their occupation via armed struggle.
The South African lawyers, who compared Israel’s crimes with those carried out by the apartheid regime in South Africa, showed the court a video of Israeli soldiers celebrating and calling for the death of Palestinians – they sang as they danced “There are no uninvolved civilians” – as evidence that genocidal intent descends from the top to the bottom of the Israeli war machine and political system. They provided the court with photos of mass graves where bodies were buried “often unidentified.” No one – including newborns – was spared, the South African lawyer Adila Hassim, Senior Counsel, explained to the court.
The South African lawyers told the court the “first genocidal act is mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza.” The second genocidal act, they stated, is the serious bodily or mental harm inflicted on Palestinians in Gaza in violation of Article 2B of the Genocide Convention. Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, another lawyer and legal scholar representing South Africa, argued that “Israel’s political leaders, military commanders and persons holding official positions have systematically and in explicit terms declared their genocidal intent.”
Lior Haiat, spokesperson for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, called Thursday’s three hour hearing one of the “greatest shows of hypocrisy in history, compounded by a series of false and baseless claims.” He accused South Africa of seeking to allow Hamas to return to Israel to “commit war crimes.”
Israeli jurists, in their response on Friday, called the South African charges “unfounded, “absurd” and amounting to “libel.” Israel’s legal team said it had – despite U.N. reports of widespread starvation and infectious diseases from a breakdown in sanitation and shortage of clean water – not impeded humanitarian assistance. Israel defended attacks on hospitals, calling them “Hamas command centers.” It told the court it was acting in self-defense. “The inevitable fatalities and human suffering of any conflict is not of itself a pattern of conduct that plausibly shows genocidal intent,” said Christopher Staker, a barrister for Israel.
Israeli leaders accuse Hamas with carrying out genocide, although legally if you are the victims of genocide you are not permitted to commit genocide. Hamas is also not a state. It is not, therefore, a party to the Genocide Convention. The Hague, for this reason, has no jurisdiction over the organization. Israel also claims the Palestinians are warned to evacuate areas that will come under attack and provided with “safe areas,” although as the South African lawyers documented, “safe areas” are routinely bombed by Israel with numerous civilian casualties.
Israel and the Biden administration intend to prevent any temporary injunction by the court, not because the court can force Israel to halt its military assaults, but because of the optics, which are already disastrous. The ICJ’s ruling depends on the Security Council for enforcement – which given the veto power by the U.S., renders any ruling against Israel moot. The second objective of the Biden administration is to make sure Israel is not found guilty of committing genocide. It will be unrelenting in this campaign, heavily pressuring the governments that have jurists on the court not to find Israel guilty. Russia and China, who have jurists in The Hague, are battling their own charges of genocide and may decide it is not in their interests to find Israel guilty.
The Biden administration is playing a very cynical game. It insists it is trying to halt what, by its own admission, is Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of Palestinians, while bypassing Congress to speed up the supply of weapons to Israel, including “dumb” bombs. It insists it wants the fighting in Gaza to end while it vetoes ceasefire resolutions at the U.N. It insists it upholds the rule of law while it subverts the legal mechanism that can halt the genocide.
Cynicism pervades every word Biden and Blinken utter. This cynicism extends to us. Our revulsion for Donald Trump, the Biden White House believes, will impel us to keep Biden in office. On any other issue this might be the case. But it cannot be the case with genocide.
Genocide is not a political problem. It is a moral one. We cannot, no matter what the cost, support those who commit or are accomplices to genocide. Genocide is the crime of all crimes. It is the purest expression of evil. We must stand unequivocally with Palestinians and the jurists from South Africa. We must demand justice. We must hold Biden accountable for the genocide in Gaza.
Could Israel’s War in Gaza Spiral Into a Regional War?
Since the early days of this war, the conflict has not been contained to Gaza. Is a regional conflict with Iran, Hezbollah, and other actors on the horizon?
SCHEERPOST, By Maximillian Alvarez and Chris Hedges / The Real News Network 12 Jan 24
Over three months into Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza, there is little hope the carnage will stop anytime soon—and with each passing day, the danger of Israel’s war on Gaza spiraling into a larger regional conflict increases. The devastation in Gaza is unlike anything seen in the 21st century, but Israel’s military strikes—like last week’s assassination of Saleh al-Arouri, a top leader of Hamas, in Lebanon—have not been limited to Palestine alone.
At the same time, armed resistance groups in Iraq and Syria have launched hundreds of attacks on US bases, confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah has created a simmering northern front along the Lebanese border, and Yemen’s blockade of the Red Sea has created an international crisis for shipping and trade.
Should any of these fronts open into a new facet of this war, it could lead to the unraveling of the entire region, with a very real possibility of a showdown between Israel and the US against Iran. TRNN Editor-in-Chief Maximillian Alvarez speaks with former war correspondent Chris Hedges on the slippery slope to a regional war.
TRANSCRIPT……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Chris Hedges: At this particular moment, I don’t think we’re that close. And that’s because Iran, in particular, but also Hezbollah, do not want a conflict with Israel…………………………… the longer the conflict goes on in Gaza, the more things can spiral out of control.
………………………………. But it could happen, and if it does, it will be absolutely catastrophic. Because a war with Iran, throughout the region, will not be interpreted as simply a war with Iran, it’ll be interpreted as a war against Shiism and 60% of Iraq is Shia, Bahrain, 3 million Shias in Saudi Arabia. So it will be interpreted by Shia, the Shiites, as a religious war and will immediately extend beyond the borders of Iran itself.
The big question in Gaza, we know what the Israeli goal is, whether they can achieve it or not, is an unknown. They want to push the 2.2, 2.3 million Palestinians out. They want them ethnically cleansed……………………………………………… really, the goal of Israel is to offer the Palestinians a choice between death by bombs, bullets, infectious diseases or exposure, or leaving Gaza.
Now, the problem that Israel has run into, although Anthony Blinken tried to run interference, is that none of the countries, especially Egypt which borders Gaza to the south, is willing to accept the Palestinians. …………………………………………………… And now we know, and this has been public, by the Netanyahu government, they are reaching out to countries in Africa and South America to take the Palestinians and offering them, reportedly, financial inducements to do so.
…………………. Netanyahu and his government is counting on that restraint to prevent a wider conflict. I read The New York Times this morning, it was kind of a remarkable front page story about all of the provocations that were being carried out by Iran. In fact, it’s the complete opposite, the provocations are carried out by Israel. And the nation that has exercised, up until this point, considerable restraint is Iran.
………………………………………………. Well, in the case of Iran and Hezbollah, it’s the fact that they don’t want to go into an open conflict with Israel because that will also probably, in the case of Iran, include a direct conflict with the United States. Netanyahu has long wanted to attack Iran, in particular the nuclear sites in Iran, and he has periodically made pushes to get the United States involved.
…………………. the push by Netanyahu is to get the United States to take out the aerial defense systems and then allow Israeli jets to bomb in particular nuclear sites. But if they bomb those sites, we’re talking about thousands and thousands of deaths, Iranian deaths.
…………………………………………………….. the longer Israel carries out these kinds of strikes, the more those provocations take place, the closer we come… despite a reluctance on the part of Iran and Hezbollah, the closer we come to a regional conflict.
……………………………………………………………… I think in the end, it’s really totally dependent on how far Israel goes. And if they do not show restraint, then I could see it beginning with Hezbollah. And once Hezbollah is actively engaged, especially if Israel does make a ground incursion into Lebanon, then you bring Iran a few steps closer to being involved in a conflict. And at that point, it becomes a regional conflict and very, very dangerous.
…………………………………………………… , the Congress is bought and paid for by the Israel lobby. Biden is one of the largest recipients of Israel lobby aid. Both parties are completely wedded to Israel. Our intelligence services are integrated with the Israeli. Israel is the 10th largest arms exporter in the world. So it’s totally, it’s training our police forces. So I think, especially because it’s Israel, it doesn’t really matter what the public and all these demonstrations, which have been very heartening to people like myself, it doesn’t matter. Especially, it’s worse because it’s Israel. So if somehow there began to be a conflict between Iran and Israel, I have little doubt that we would intervene. And at that point, we’re at war with Iran………. https://scheerpost.com/2024/01/12/could-israels-war-in-gaza-spiral-into-a-regional-war/
Aw gee! Did ya know that Australia is partnering USA in making multiple strikes on Yemen?
Yeah. It’s happened already. And many thanks to the American media (CNN) for letting me know. Not that it was discussed in the Australian Parliament or anything like that. But don’t worry. Our Defence Minister Richard Marles has it all in hand. I believe that he’s going to make an announcement to the Australian public soon. So no need to worry. The Labor government has everything in had, just as the Liberal government under John Howard did, in 2003, when we joined USA to bomb Iraq, without consulting Parliament.
Not a peep out of our Prime Minister yet. I wonder if the Australian media will bother to cover it?
1 This month
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
