Friday, 31 May 2024

Science and expert advice does not favour the creation of a nuclear power industry in Australia

 

Since 2018 the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in collaboration with the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has produced an annual report updating the costs of electricity generation, energy storage and hydrogen production, titled GenCost.


The report encompasses updated current capital cost estimates commissioned by AEMO and delivered by Aurecon, a design, engineering and advisory company, with the aim of providing projections of future changes in costs consistent with updated global electricity scenarios which incorporate different levels of achievement of global climate policy ambition.


This year the 131 page 2023-24 final report was released on 22 May 2024 and its Executive Summary opened with these words:


Technological change in electricity generation is a global effort that is strongly linked to global climate change policy ambitions. While the rate of change remains uncertain, in broad terms, world leaders continue to provide their support for collective action limiting global average temperatures. At a domestic level, the Commonwealth government, together with all Australian states and territories aspire to or have legislated net zero emissions (NZE) by 2050 targets.


Globally, renewables (led by wind and solar PV) are the fastest growing energy source, and the role of electricity is expected to increase materially over the next 30 years with electricity technologies presenting some of the lowest cost abatement opportunities.


Under Outcomes of 2023‐24 consultation was this interesting observation:


GenCost received the highest volume of feedback to the consultation draft in its history with 45 written submissions and many participating for the first time. This input has led to several changes, the most significant of which being the inclusion of large‐scale nuclear in the report for the first time. GenCost has also increased wind generation costs and developed a revised approach for including solar thermal generation costs on a common basis with other bulk supply technologies.


Consultation continues to be a valuable way of improving the quality of the report given that no single organisation can cover the breadth of technologies explored. Feedback can take the form of suggestions and questions. Given the volume of feedback it has not been possible to individually address every question raised in the body of this report. However, we have now added Appendix D which addresses the major common questions and answers.


The report noted: A majority of submissions to the 2023‐24 consultation process requested the inclusion of large‐scale nuclear in addition to nuclear small modular reactors (SMR) that had been included in GenCost since its inception in 2018.


It would appear that the Leader of the Opposition & Liberal MP for Dickson Peter Dutton and Coalition's Shadow Minister for Agriculture & Nationals MP for Maranoa David Littleproud, may have rallied the troops in the hope of fashioning the final report into a useful tool to deploy during the next federal general election campaign due to kick-off sometime between January - April 2025 for a May election date.


Based of the report's Appendix D Frequently asked questions the likely aim of some submissions received appears to have been to create a more feasible future for nuclear energy electricity production and supply than was contained in the earlier draft report. Along with refurbishing the reputation of coal-fired electricity generation.


With admirable restraint, considered and detailed answers were given to all of the following queries:


1. Why does GenCost not immediately change its report when provided with new advice from experts?


2. Why are disruptive events and bifurcations excluded from the scenarios?


3. Why is no sensitivity analysis conducted and presented?


4. Why did you use the capital cost of a single failed project in the United States for your representative nuclear SMR cost (the UAMPS Carbon Free Power

Project)?


5. Do you assume Australia continues to rely on overseas technology suppliers or are you assuming Australia develops its own original equipment manufacturing capability?


6. Why does GenCost persist with the view that technology costs will fall over time when there are many factors that will keep technology costs high?


7. Why is the uncertainty in the data not emphasised more?


8. Why include an advanced ultra‐supercritical pulverised coal instead of cheaper, less efficient plant designs?


9. Why is the economic life used in LCOE calculations instead of the full operational life?


10. Coal and nuclear plants are capable of very high capacity factors, why do LCOE calculations not always reflect this?


11. Why do LCOE calculations not use the lowest historical capacity factors for the low range assumptions?


12. Why were all potential cost factors not included in the LCOE calculations?


13. What is the boundary of development costs? Is it only costs from the point of contracting a developer before commencing construction?


14. How is interest lost during construction included in GenCost?


15. Why do other studies find higher costs than GenCost for integrating variable renewables in the electricity system?


16. Why are integration costs not increasing with VRE share in 2023 but increase in the 2030 results?


17. Why do other studies show the cost of storage increasing more rapidly with higher VRE share?


18. Why are the cost of government renewable subsidies not included in the LCOE calculations for variable renewables with integration costs?


19. Why is a value of 100% applied to the fuel efficiency of renewables in the LCOE formula?


20. Why do you apply only one discount rate or weighted average cost of capital to all technologies?


21. Why did you take the maximum and average of existing generator prices to create the high and low range greenfield coal prices?


22. Why do you not include high and low ranges for economic life?


23. Why are your low range capacity factors for coal and renewables closer to the historical average capacity factor?


24. Why use historical 2023 coal and gas prices that are impacted by the Ukraine War for 2023 LCOE estimates instead of a longer time series?


25. Why does GenCost only conduct LCOE analysis instead of system cost to society analysis?


26. If GenCost shows renewables are cheaper, why are electricity prices higher in Australia and in countries transitioning to renewables?


The completed final report would not have been to Messrs. Dutton and Littlerpoud's liking as, although there are no known technical constraints to deploying large-scale nuclear generation units, it would require that Australia commits to a continuous building program and only after an initial higher cost unit is constructed would capital cost of a large‐scale nuclear plant come in at $8,655/kW, based on 2023 pricing.

While an estimated electricity cost range for large‐scale nuclear generation under current capital costs and a continuous building program is $155/MWh to $252/MWh

None of which could begin to be put in place in the estimated timeline before 2040.


The Financial Review's political editor observed on 22 May 2024:


Peter Dutton’s nuclear energy plans have suffered a setback with the CSIRO estimating the nation’s first large-scale nuclear power plant could cost as much as $17 billion in today’s dollars, and would not be operational until at least 2040.


This is the current reality of Australia's electricity generation mix. Click on the images below to enlarge the graphs.


Comparative Capital Costs of Current Generation Technology









Key Changes In Capital Costs In The Past Year








The GenCost 2023-24 final report can be downloaded at

https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost/GenCost2023-24Final_20240522.pdf


Thursday, 30 May 2024

The Making Of A Client State: did Israel capture Australia between September 2016 and May 2022?


Australia is well-known as a committed supporter of the United Nations since its inception and, as a very early supporter of the partitioning of Palestine in order to create the State of Israel.


However, was the general public aware of just how vested the former MP for Wentworth and the former MP from Cook were in the Commonwealth of Australia's relationship with the State of Israel?


To the point that by May 2022 the inequity built into the Israel- Australia bilateral economic relationship in trade and investment was running at a crude ratio of billions:millions in Israel's favour and the number of Israeli companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) made it the tied third largest source of foreign company listings. 


The Turnbull - Morrison Federal Government Years Sept 2015 to May 2022


In 2016 Austrade established an innovation Landing Pad in Tel Aviv, as part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda.


Since 2017, Australia and Israel have expanded cooperation on national security, defence and cyber security


Defence officials began annual strategic talks in 2018 and in early 2019, Australia appointed a resident Defence Attaché to the Embassy in Tel Aviv. Leveraging Australia and Israel's respective areas of expertise, cooperation on national security continued to develop, including on aviation security with Home Affairs as the lead Australian agency.


Australian Trade and Defence Office established in Jerusalem in 2019 facilitating trade, investment and defence industry partnerships.


In 2020, Australian investment in Israel totalled nearly $1.6 billion and Israeli investment in Australia was $585 million, mostly centred in the innovation sector.


In 2021, two-way goods and services trade amounted to approximately $1.34 billion, of which Australian exports were worth $325 million and imports from Israel $1.02 billion.


AUSTRALIA & ISRAEL HAVE SIGNED:


  • Working Holiday Agreement (2016)

  • Technological Innovation Cooperation Agreement (2017) which includes a bilateral funding program to enable cooperation between Australian and Israeli companies

  • Air Services Agreement (2017)

  • Memorandum of Understanding on defence industry cooperation (2017)

  • Memorandum of Understanding on cyber security cooperation (2019)

  • Double Taxation Agreement (2019)

[DFAT Israel Country Brief, retrieved 29.05.24]


When it came to the pointy end of defence materiel required it appears that the then Coalition federal government was negotiating on assumptions concerning Australia's national defence requirements not having bothered to conduct an Australian Defence Force Posture Review - apparently relying instead on an outdated 2012 document.


Perhaps the ease with which Israel appears to have inserted itself into Australia's national security architecture may be explained not just by these two former prime ministers but also by the ministers appointed to Defence or Defence Industry portfolios during those years.


Those Australia-Israel MOUs and agreements mean that Australia purchases or leases a range of defence materiel, technology and services from the Israeli defence industry and is in some form of arrangement concerning the sale of arms and armament parts to Israel. 


As a nation Australia is reaping bitter fruit now that Israel is conducting a punitive war on the entire Palestinian population of Gaza.


ABC News, 9 April 2024: Details of an agreement struck between Australia and Israel on defence industry cooperation will not be released publicly over concerns the information could damage Australia's "international relations"....Following a three-month process, the defence department formally rejected the application, arguing that the document, which contains sensitive diplomatic information, is exempt under FOI legislation....

The document within the scope of this request contains information which, if released, could reasonably be expected to damage the international relations of the Commonwealth," the Defence Department said in a letter explaining its decision....

"The document contains information communicated to Australia by a foreign government and its officials under the expectation that it would not be disclosed," a Defence official wrote.


BRIEF BACKGROUND


MALCOM BLIGH TURNBULL

Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said without the support of many in the Jewish community, “I may never have got into parliament, let alone become prime minister.” Recalling Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Australia in 2017 – the first by an Israeli prime minister – Turnbull said, “I’d always enjoyed Bibi’s company. He’s a tough, Machiavellian politician – he couldn’t have survived as long as he has without being so.”...“He has a very clear-eyed view of the Middle East. His only goal is for Israel to survive and to prosper. And he’ll do whatever deals, take whatever twists and turns that he needs, to achieve that.”


SCOTT JOHN MORRISON

Then Liberal MP for Cook & Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison flagged moving Australia's embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, copying Donald Trump's controversial proposal, in a shift that appears timed to coincide with the Wentworth byelection - October 2018.

Said he went to Israel because 'Jewish Australians need to know that their cause is a right one'

Then Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison labelled ceasefire call a ‘play from Hamas’ while visiting Israel alongside former UK prime minister Boris Johnson - December 2023.

Then Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison accused UN of antisemitism and applying double standards against Israel - Sydney rally, February 2024


Wednesday, 29 May 2024

The chance of a La Niña event this year remains a flip of the coin as behaviour of major climate drivers becomes harder to predict

 

Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM)


Sea Surface


Click on images to enlarge







Overview - Climate Influences


Global sea surface temperatures (SSTs) have been warmest on record for each month between April 2023 and April 2024, with May 2024 SSTs on track to be warmer than May 2023.....The global pattern of warmth is affecting the typical historical global patterns of sea surface temperatures associated with ENSO and IOD, meaning inferences of how ENSO or IOD may develop in 2024 based on past events may not be reliable.


Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Climate Driver Update, 28 May 2024, excerpts:


The ENSO Outlook is currently at 'La Niña Watch', meaning there are some signs that a La Niña might form in the Pacific Ocean later in 2024. A La Niña Watch does not guarantee that a La Niña will develop. Climate models suggest that SSTs in the central tropical Pacific are likely to continue to cool over the coming months. Four of seven models suggest SSTs are likely to remain at neutral ENSO levels, with the remaining three models showing SSTs cooling to La Niña levels from August.


La Niña Watch

La Niña spectrum is the grades of blue











The chance of a La Niña developing in the coming season has increased.


NOTE:

Australia's climate has warmed by 1.50 ± 0.23°C between 1910 and 2023, leading to an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events. In recent decades, there has been a shift to drier conditions across the south-west and south-east in the cool season (April to October) due to natural variability on decadal timescales and changes in large-scale atmospheric circulation caused by an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.


Tuesday, 28 May 2024

Yamba CAN announces NSW Upper House Portfolio Committee No.7 visiting West Yamba floodplain urban development site 8:30am Friday 31 May 2024

 


Now is the time to help make a difference!


Portfolio Committee 7 are coming to Yamba

24 May 2024


Members of NSW Parliament’s Portfolio Committee 7 (Planning and Environment) are visiting Yamba to undertake site visits in relation to the Parliamentary Inquiry into the “Planning system and the impacts of climate change on the environment and communities.”


When is the Committee coming to Yamba: Friday 31 May 2024

Time: 8.30am


The Committee will be travelling down Carrs Drive. There are strict protocols in relation to observers remaining at a distance from the Committee visiting sites.


Yamba CAN Inc would like as many people as possible to stand on either side of Carrs Drive, near the access to Harold Tory Drive and O’Grady’s Lane.


We will have our banners and signs that observers can hold up when the Committee will be driving past in a bus.


Please ensure personal safety in relation to traffic movement.


Please be on site at about 8.20am ready to hold a sign.


The Portfolio Committee 7 Inquiry details and submissions can be seen at:

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=2987


Please see attached the NR Times and CV Independent articles this week.


Please spread the word to others to attend and please outline that there are strict protocols.


Secretary

Yamba Community Action Network Inc (Yamba CAN Inc)


Follow us on Facebook


*********


Note:

Portfolio Committee No. 7 – Planning and Environment was established on 10 May 2023 in the 58th Parliament to inquire into and report on any matters relevant to the public administration of:

Climate Change, Energy, the Environment, Heritage, Planning and Public Spaces 

[https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/listofcommittees/Pages/committees.aspx]



Click on articles below to enlarge

Clarence Valley Independent 22 May 2024
 

Northern Rivers Times 23 May 2024



Monday, 27 May 2024

A look deep into the night sky at Lake Mungo, New South Wales


By Day


A section of Lake Mungo
IMAGE: Wagga Air Centre
Click on image to enlarge





A section of Lake Mungo in south-west New South Wales, a large, ancient dry lake bed around 65-88 metres above sea level. The lake hasn't contained water for the last 18,000 years but was once an important water and food source for Aboriginal people. 

The oldest ritual burials on the shores of Lake Mungo have been dated to circa 42,000 years.

Their descendants, the Barkandji/Paakantyi, Mutthi Mutthi and Ngiyampaa people remain traditional owners of the land.


By Night


Click on image to enlarge

Photographer John Rutter: ‘This Mars-like landscape is the shores of the ancient Lake Mungo, where some of the oldest human remains outside Africa have been discovered, making it a significant site for all humankind. Its remote location grants it a Bortle 1 sky (the darkest and clearest), allowing you to stand where the first Australians once did and gaze at the same sky they beheld. The beauty of the arid, wind-carved landscape and the untouched sky is only eclipsed by the rich history of this area’

Photograph: John Rutter/2024 Milky Way photographer of the year

The Guardian, 21 May 2024


Sunday, 26 May 2024

Suicide is a distressing subject and one that is linked in many kitchen table conversations with Centrelink income support programs. It appears that such a link may exist


The Guardian, 22 May 2024:


More than 30% of people who took their lives in 2019 were on welfare, AIHW says


The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has just released some data that shows more than 30% of suicides in 2019 were people on the disability support pension (DSP) and newstart – despite being just 5.7% of the population.


During 2019, the most recent pre-Covid pandemic year, the age-standardised suicide rate among males who received unemployment payments was 2.8 times that of the male Australian population comparison. For females, it was 3.3.


During the same year, unemployment recipients accounted for approximately 20% of all suicide deaths among Australian males and females (across the same age range 15-66 years). Those on DSP were 14.5%.


The DSP recipient and Antipoverty Centre spokesperson, Kristin O’Connell, said:


The new figures on welfare recipient deaths by suicide are chilling, but reflect my all-too-frequent experiences supporting people who are planning to or have made an attempt as a result of dealing with “mutual” obligations or poverty.


Every government decision to leave us in poverty and subject people to abuse through “mutual” obligations is a decision that kills.


In 2020, Australia’s Mental Health Think Tank said the fastest and most effective thing the government could do to ease the mental health crisis was to keep the jobseeker payment at the poverty line.


The Morrison government plunged people back into deep poverty, and despite their claims to offer “cost of living relief” the Albanese government has continued the brutal welfare policies that led to these alarming suicide rates and widespread harm in our communities.


The wider picture also supports the assertion that welfare recipients of workforce age as a cohort are experiencing higher levels of suicide than the Australian population and, within that cohort those receiving disability or unemployment income support show the highest suicide rates. With a higher suicide rate than the general population continuing into old age for those receiving disability income support.


Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing, Suicide & self-harm monitoring, Supporting people who experience socioeconomic disadvantage: Deaths by suicide among Centrelink income support recipients, retrieved 22 May 2024:



Age-specific rates of suicide among those who received income support payments between 2011 and 2021









Click on images to enlarge



AIHW, 15 August 2023:


Deaths by suicide, by socioeconomic areas


 From 2001 to 2022, age-standardised suicide rates were highest for those who lived in the lowest socioeconomic areas (most disadvantaged areas), and generally decreased as the level of disadvantage lessened.


In 2022, the suicide rate for people living in the lowest socioeconomic (most disadvantaged) areas (18.4 deaths per 100,000 population; Quintile 1) was more than twice that of those living in the highest socioeconomic (least disadvantaged) areas (8.2 deaths per 100,000 population; Quintile 5). Similarly, the number of deaths by suicide generally declined as socioeconomic disadvantage decreased.


Overall, age-standardised suicide rates increased for those living in the lowest socioeconomic areas (Quintile 1); from 14.0 deaths per 100,000 population in 2001 to 18.4 deaths per 100,000 population in 2022. In contrast, smaller change was observed for those living in the higher socioeconomic areas (Quintiles 4 and 5). [my yellow highlighting]


The Coronavirus Supplement was introduced in April 2020 and abolished in April 2021. Then COVID-19 Disaster Payments were announced in June 2021 and withdrawn in November 2021 placing increased financial stress on up to 2 million people. The Reserve Bank Cash Rate Target began to rise on 4 May 2022 and kept on rising - swiftly exacerbating a cost-of-living squeeze into an escalating crisis.


Although the causes of individual suicides can be complex, it is hard to resist seeing an economic policy correlation with the rising suicide rate between 2021 and 2022. It is also hard to avoid viewing entrenched poverty as being heavily influenced by federal income support policy decisions.


Saturday, 25 May 2024

UK General Election 2024: Rain as a Metaphor?

 

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/observations/gcpvj0v07
Click on image to enlarge






Before facing the world's press to confirm a 2024 general election date, it seems neither the British Prime Minister, members of his Cabinet nor his staff thought to consult the UK Bureau of Meteorology which clearly shows it was expected to rain all afternoon in London and did - particularly at 17:00 BST.


The media had a field day - creating front pages & headlines just begging to become election campaign memes.





And then there were these.....




Cartoons of the Week

 

David Pope


John Shakespeare
Matt Golding

Cathy Wilcox




Friday, 24 May 2024

On Monday 20 May 2024 the International Criminal Court began considering the prosecutor's request to issue arrest warrants for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his Minister for Defence and HAMAS leader Yahya Sinwar and two of his deputies



International Criminal Court

Statement: 20 May 2024


Statement of ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan KC:

Applications for arrest warrants in the situation in the State of Palestine


Today I am filing applications for warrants of arrest before Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court in the Situation in the State of Palestine.


On the basis of evidence collected and examined by my Office, I have reasonable grounds to believe that Yahya SINWAR (Head of the Islamic Resistance Movement (“Hamas”) in the Gaza Strip), Mohammed Diab Ibrahim AL-MASRI, more commonly known as DEIF (Commander-in-Chief of the military wing of Hamas, known as the Al-Qassam Brigades), and Ismail HANIYEH (Head of Hamas Political Bureau) bear criminal responsibility for the following war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of Israel and the State of Palestine (in the Gaza strip) from at least 7 October 2023:


  • Extermination as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(b) of the Rome Statute;

  • Murder as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(a), and as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);

  • Taking hostages as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(iii);

  • Rape and other acts of sexual violence as crimes against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(g), and also as war crimes pursuant to article 8(2)(e)(vi) in the context of captivity;

  • Torture as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(1)(f), and also as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity;

  • Other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity, contrary to article 7(l)(k), in the context of captivity;

  • Cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i), in the context of captivity; and

  • Outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, contrary to article 8(2)(c)(ii), in the context of captivity.


My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas running in parallel. We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Israel by Hamas and other armed groups pursuant to organisational policies. Some of these crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day.


My Office submits there are reasonable grounds to believe that SINWAR, DEIF and HANIYEH are criminally responsible for the killing of hundreds of Israeli civilians in attacks perpetrated by Hamas (in particular its military wing, the al-Qassam Brigades) and other armed groups on 7 October 2023 and the taking of at least 245 hostages. As part of our investigations, my Office has interviewed victims and survivors, including former hostages and eyewitnesses from six major attack locations: Kfar Aza; Holit; the location of the Supernova Music Festival; Be’eri; Nir Oz; and Nahal Oz. The investigation also relies on evidence such as CCTV footage, authenticated audio, photo and video material, statements by Hamas members including the alleged perpetrators named above, and expert evidence.


It is the view of my Office that these individuals planned and instigated the commission of crimes on 7 October 2023, and have through their own actions, including personal visits to hostages shortly after their kidnapping, acknowledged their responsibility for those crimes. We submit that these crimes could not have been committed without their actions. They are charged both as co-perpetrators and as superiors pursuant to Articles 25 and 28 of the Rome Statute.


During my own visit to Kibbutz Be’eri and Kibbutz Kfar Aza, as well as to the site of Supernova Music Festival in Re’im, I saw the devastating scenes of these attacks and the profound impact of the unconscionable crimes charged in the applications filed today. Speaking with survivors, I heard how the love within a family, the deepest bonds between a parent and a child, were contorted to inflict unfathomable pain through calculated cruelty and extreme callousness. These acts demand accountability.


My Office also submits there are reasonable grounds to believe that hostages taken from Israel have been kept in inhumane conditions, and that some have been subject to sexual violence, including rape, while being held in captivity. We have reached that conclusion based on medical records, contemporaneous video and documentary evidence, and interviews with victims and survivors. My Office also continues to investigate reports of sexual violence committed on 7 October.


I wish to express my gratitude to the survivors, and the families of victims of the 7 October attacks, for their courage in coming forward to provide their accounts to my Office. We remain focused on further deepening our investigations of all crimes committed as part of these attacks and will continue to work with all partners to ensure that justice is delivered.


I again reiterate my call for the immediate release of all hostages taken from Israel and for their safe return to their families. This is a fundamental requirement of international humanitarian law.


Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant


On the basis of evidence collected and examined by my Office, I have reasonable grounds to believe that Benjamin NETANYAHU, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav GALLANT, the Minister of Defence of Israel, bear criminal responsibility for the following war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of the State of Palestine (in the Gaza strip) from at least 8 October 2023:


  • Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute;

  • Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);

  • Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i);

  • Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i);

  • Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity;

  • Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h);

  • Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).


My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas (together with other Palestinian Armed Groups) running in parallel. We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Palestinian civilian population pursuant to State policy. These crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day.


My Office submits that the evidence we have collected, including interviews with survivors and eyewitnesses, authenticated video, photo and audio material, satellite imagery and statements from the alleged perpetrator group, shows that Israel has intentionally and systematically deprived the civilian population in all parts of Gaza of objects indispensable to human survival.


This occurred through the imposition of a total siege over Gaza that involved completely closing the three border crossing points, Rafah, Kerem Shalom and Erez, from 8 October 2023 for extended periods and then by arbitrarily restricting the transfer of essential supplies – including food and medicine – through the border crossings after they were reopened. The siege also included cutting off cross-border water pipelines from Israel to Gaza – Gazans’ principal source of clean water – for a prolonged period beginning 9 October 2023, and cutting off and hindering electricity supplies from at least 8 October 2023 until today. This took place alongside other attacks on civilians, including those queuing for food; obstruction of aid delivery by humanitarian agencies; and attacks on and killing of aid workers, which forced many agencies to cease or limit their operations in Gaza.


My Office submits that these acts were committed as part of a common plan to use starvation as a method of war and other acts of violence against the Gazan civilian population as a means to (i) eliminate Hamas; (ii) secure the return of the hostages which Hamas has abducted, and (iii) collectively punish the civilian population of Gaza, whom they perceived as a threat to Israel.


The effects of the use of starvation as a method of warfare, together with other attacks and collective punishment against the civilian population of Gaza are acute, visible and widely known, and have been confirmed by multiple witnesses interviewed by my Office, including local and international medical doctors. They include malnutrition, dehydration, profound suffering and an increasing number of deaths among the Palestinian population, including babies, other children, and women.


Famine is present in some areas of Gaza and is imminent in other areas. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned more than two months ago, “1.1 million people in Gaza are facing catastrophic hunger – the highest number of people ever recorded – anywhere, anytime” as a result of an “entirely manmade disaster”. Today, my Office seeks to charge two of those most responsible, NETANYAHU and GALLANT, both as co-perpetrators and as superiors pursuant to Articles 25 and 28 of the Rome Statute.


Israel, like all States, has a right to take action to defend its population. That right, however, does not absolve Israel or any State of its obligation to comply with international humanitarian law. Notwithstanding any military goals they may have, the means Israel chose to achieve them in Gaza – namely, intentionally causing death, starvation, great suffering, and serious injury to body or health of the civilian population – are criminal.


Since last year, in Ramallah, in Cairo, in Israel and in Rafah, I have consistently emphasised that international humanitarian law demands that Israel take urgent action to immediately allow access to humanitarian aid in Gaza at scale. I specifically underlined that starvation as a method of war and the denial of humanitarian relief constitute Rome Statute offences. I could not have been clearer.


As I also repeatedly underlined in my public statements, those who do not comply with the law should not complain later when my Office takes action. That day has come.


In presenting these applications for arrest warrants, my Office is acting pursuant to its mandate under the Rome Statute. On 5 February 2021, Pre-Trial Chamber I decided that the Court can exercise its criminal jurisdiction in the Situation in the State of Palestine and that the territorial scope of this jurisdiction extends to Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. This mandate is ongoing and includes the escalation of hostilities and violence since 7 October 2023. My Office also has jurisdiction over crimes committed by nationals of States Parties and by the nationals of non-States Parties on the territory of a State Party.


Today’s applications are the outcome of an independent and impartial investigation by my Office. Guided by our obligation to investigate incriminating and exonerating evidence equally, my Office has worked painstakingly to separate claims from facts and to soberly present conclusions based on evidence to the Pre-Trial Chamber.


As an additional safeguard, I have also been grateful for the advice of a panel of experts in international law, an impartial group I convened to support the evidence review and legal analysis in relation to these arrest warrant applications. The Panel is composed of experts of immense standing in international humanitarian law and international criminal law, including Sir Adrian Fulford PC, former Lord Justice of Appeal and former International Criminal Court Judge; Baroness Helena Kennedy KC, President of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute; Elizabeth Wilmshurst CMG KC, former Deputy Legal Adviser at the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Danny Friedman KC; and two of my Special Advisers – Amal Clooney and His Excellency Judge Theodor Meron CMG. This independent expert analysis has supported and strengthened the applications filed today by my Office. I have also been grateful for the contributions of a number of my other Special Advisers to this review, particularly Adama Dieng and Professor Kevin Jon Heller.


Today we once again underline that international law and the laws of armed conflict apply to all. No foot soldier, no commander, no civilian leader – no one – can act with impunity. Nothing can justify wilfully depriving human beings, including so many women and children, the basic necessities required for life. Nothing can justify the taking of hostages or the targeting of civilians.


The independent judges of the International Criminal Court are the sole arbiters as to whether the necessary standard for the issuance of warrants of arrest has been met. Should they grant my applications and issue the requested warrants, I will then work closely with the Registrar in all efforts to apprehend the named individuals. I count on all States Parties to the Rome Statute to take these applications and the subsequent judicial decision with the same seriousness they have shown in other Situations, meeting their obligations under the Statute. I also stand ready to work with non-States Parties in our common pursuit of accountability.


It is critical in this moment that my Office and all parts of the Court, including its independent judges, are permitted to conduct their work with full independence and impartiality. I insist that all attempts to impede, intimidate or improperly influence the officials of this Court must cease immediately. My Office will not hesitate to act pursuant to article 70 of the Rome Statute if such conduct continues.


I remain deeply concerned about ongoing allegations and emerging evidence of international crimes occurring in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. Our investigation continues. My Office is advancing multiple and interconnected additional lines of inquiry, including concerning reports of sexual violence during the 7 October attacks, and in relation to the large-scale bombing that has caused and continues to cause so many civilian deaths, injuries, and suffering in Gaza. I encourage those with relevant information to contact my Office and to submit information via OTP Link.


My Office will not hesitate to submit further applications for warrants of arrest if and when we consider that the threshold of a realistic prospect of conviction has been met. I renew my call for all parties in the current conflict to comply with the law now.


I also wish to emphasise that the principle of complementarity, which is at the heart of the Rome Statute, will continue to be assessed by my Office as we take action in relation to the above-listed alleged crimes and alleged perpetrators and move forward with other lines of inquiry. Complementarity, however, requires a deferral to national authorities only when they engage in independent and impartial judicial processes that do not shield suspects and are not a sham. It requires thorough investigations at all levels addressing the policies and actions underlying these applications.


Let us today be clear on one core issue: if we do not demonstrate our willingness to apply the law equally, if it is seen as being applied selectively, we will be creating the conditions for its collapse. In doing so, we will be loosening the remaining bonds that hold us together, the stabilising connections between all communities and individuals, the safety net to which all victims look in times of suffering. This is the true risk we face in this moment.


Now, more than ever, we must collectively demonstrate that international humanitarian law, the foundational baseline for human conduct during conflict, applies to all individuals and applies equally across the situations addressed by my Office and the Court. This is how we will prove, tangibly, that the lives of all human beings have equal value.


For further details on "preliminary examinations" and "situations and cases" before the Court, click here, and here.


Source: Office of the Prosecutor

~~~~~~~~


The State of Palestine is one of the 135 signatories to and 124 parties acceding to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998).


On 1 January 2015, the Government of The State of Palestine lodged a declaration under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute accepting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court ("ICC") over alleged crimes committed "in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, since June 13, 2014". On 2 January 2015, The State of Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute by depositing its instrument of accession with the UN Secretary-General. The Rome Statute entered into force for The State of Palestine on 1 April 2015. [International Criminal Court, State of Palestine, ICC-01/18]


The State of Israel is also a signatory to the same Rome Statute (1998) signing on 31 December 2000. However, on 28 August 2002 Israel stated its intention not to become a party to the treaty. A move which appeared to closely mirror the actions of the United States of America, which on 31 Dec 2000 signed the Rome Statute then on 6 May 2002 stated its intention not to become a party to the treaty.


The International Criminal Court has recognised jurisdiction in matters concerning (a) the crime of genocide; (b) crimes against humanity; (c) war crimes; (d) the crime of aggression.


On 5 February 2021 the Court ruled that it had criminal jurisdiction to hear matters concerning the Situation in the State of Palestine and by extension may consider the actions State of Israel given that these actions occurred on the territories of a state party to the Rome Statute, that is the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem. Likewise having jurisdiction over the actions of the Islamic Resistance Movement as the de facto government of the Gaza Strip.


At this point in time the application for the five arrest warrants is before ICC Pre-Trial Chamber 1 (Judge Iulia Motoc as Presiding Judge, with Judge Reine Alapini-Gansou & Judge Nicolas Guillou). It appears that Chamber decisions are usually handed down within two months. However a decision can be delayed by up to twelve months.


Israel has stated it will establish a special committee to fight the ICC prosecutor’s efforts to secure a warrant, and also embark on a diplomatic push against it [Nationwide News Pty Ltd, 21.05.24] and, although aware itself of "scores of specific incidents" alleged to be war crimes [Report of the Independent Task Force on the Application of National Security Memorandum-20 to Israel, 18 April 2024], the United States is outraged at the warrant application against the two "Israeli leaders" [Statement from President Joe Biden on the Warrant Applications by the International Criminal Court, 20 May 2024]


As a State Party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) the Commonwealth of Australia is under a legal obligation to Article 86 General obligation to cooperate....cooperate fully with the Court in its investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, and refrain from Article 70 1. (d) Impeding, intimidating or corruptly influencing an official of the Court for the purpose of forcing or persuading the official not to perform, or to perform improperly, his or her duties and, 4. (a) Each State Party shall extend its criminal laws penalizing offences against the integrity of its own investigative or judicial process to offences against the administration of justice referred to in this article, committed on its territory, or by one of its nationals;

(b) Upon request by the Court, whenever it deems it proper, the State Party shall submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.

Those authorities shall treat such cases with diligence and devote sufficient resources to enable them to be conducted effectively;

(e) Retaliating against an official of the Court on account of duties performed by that or another official. 

[Excerpts from Articles 86 & 70, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)]



OPINION


MiddleEast Eye, 21 May 2024:


War on Gaza: The ICC has suspended Israel's licence to kill

David Hearst


For 76 years, Israel had a narrative more robust as a protective shield than any Iron Dome.


For the victims of the worst case of industrial killing in modern history, self-determination for post-Holocaust Jewry was not merely a necessity, this narrative went, it was a moral imperative. Any state that emerged was immune from judgement, the story went. Israel was beyond international law.


It was allowed to have indeterminate borders. It was allowed to occupy. It was allowed to settle the areas it occupied. It was allowed to regularly attack its neighbours pre-emptively. It was allowed nuclear weapons, outside the control of any regulatory authority.


It could violently discriminate against its non-Jewish minority and still be accepted into the family of democratic nations. It was not just allowed to lay siege to Gaza and starve the territory’s population for 16 years, it was assisted in this by the international community.


Anyone who rejected the credo that this violent state had a right to exist faced political banishment.


Israel was a “lifeboat” for Jews facing antisemitism throughout the world. It was not the primary cause of waves of antisemitism. It safeguarded Jews. It did not endanger them.


For 76 years, Israel literally had a licence to kill. Until Monday.


The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Karim Khan, did much more than apply for arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. The ICC prosecutor punctured the myth that any Israeli leader, official or soldier was beyond the reach of international law....


...the pretrial chamber of three judges must only convince themselves on two points - that there are reasonable grounds to believe that at least one crime within the court’s jurisdiction has been committed, and that the arrest of those named “appears necessary” to ensure they appear at trial, do not endanger an investigation, and cannot continue to perpetrate the same crime.


Considering the bullying that the court itself has come under, with the US threatening its members with sanctions, a third unwritten imperative will loom large in their minds: the need to uphold the independence of the ICC.


If they bow to this pressure, the ICC’s legitimacy will be finished - and besides, the evidence for the seven charges is overwhelming.......


Read the full article at

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/war-gaza-icc-has-suspended-israels-licence-kill