Americans: we hold all of you responsible. Get out in the streets and protest.

RT @MacaesBruno: FAFO nytimes.com/2026/06/15/opini…

Usportslig. Dårlig taper av verste sort.

Yeah we don't need a declaration of war to bomb Iran but suddenly we need senate ratification of a treaty to make peace with Iran. Ok

The world’s attention is elsewhere, but the far-right ministers in the 🇮🇱 cabinet are very deliberately moving forward with their measures against Palestinians in the West Bank. The world should react. @crisisgroup

Perhaps the war’s most consequential subplot played out not on the battlefield but in diplomatic backchannels, where the Gulf states – working through Pakistan and Qatar – managed to string together a ceasefire that the belligerents could not. It was, Krieg argued, the opening duel of a new Middle Eastern cold war that could be chalked up as “a win for the Gulf lobby and a defeat for the Israel lobby”. scmp.com/week-asia/politics/…

Israel poses a systematic threat to international peace and security: The U.N was founded to do one thing above all: to maintain international peace and security and to suppress "acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace" (Article 1). When a single state repeatedly endangers that peace, the Charter does not leave the rest of the world as spectators. Begin with the uncontested facts. Since the November 2024 cessation of hostilities, Lebanese authorities and ceasefire monitors have documented thousands of Israeli violations, including air strikes, incursions, and killings on sovereign Lebanese soil. The truce of April 2026 did not end them. As recently as this month, Israeli aircraft struck Beirut's southern suburbs while a fragile diplomatic process hung in the balance. Each such strike on the territory of a UN member state is, prima facie, a use of force against that state's "territorial integrity", which is the precise conduct prohibited by Article 2(4) of the Charter. That prohibition is the cornerstone of the entire post-1945 legal order, and the International Court of Justice has affirmed it as customary law binding on all states. Israel answers with Article 51. But Article 51 is a narrow exception, not a standing license. It requires an actual armed attack, necessity, immediacy, and proportionality. A campaign of recurring, pre-emptive, and punitive strikes across an entire country's territory, sustained over many months and many hundreds of incidents, cannot be squeezed into the doctrine of self-defence without dissolving the doctrine itself. Now add the pattern that should concern every serious observer of regional diplomacy. Time and again, escalation has arrived precisely at the moment dialogue between Tehran and Washington was bearing fruit. In June 2025, the sixth round of US–Iran talks in Muscat — talks both sides described as making progress — was cancelled within hours of a sweeping Israeli air offensive against Iran. The sequence has repeated. As the United States and Iran moved this June toward an agreement to de-escalate and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, Israeli strikes on Lebanon intensified. Even the US President has publicly registered his frustration with the Israeli premier as talks neared conclusion. One need not allege a single hidden hand to recognize a pattern with legal significance. International law does not only police discrete attacks; under Article 39 it empowers the determination of a "threat to the peace", which is a forward-looking, situational standard. A consistent practice of escalation that imperils diplomacy is exactly the kind of situation Article 39 was written to capture. To this we must add the political dimension: a sustained, well-resourced effort to steer the world's most powerful state away from negotiation and toward confrontation with Iran. Lobbying is a normal feature of statecraft and is not unlawful in itself. But when its object and effect is to obstruct the peaceful settlement of an international dispute, it cuts directly against Articles 2(3) and 33, which oblige states to seek settlement of their disputes by peaceful means. Aggregate these three strands — recurrent force against Lebanon, escalation timed to diplomatic openings, and a campaign to redirect a great power toward war — and the cumulative picture points to a conduct that endangers regional and global security. That is the definition of a "threat to the peace." Here is the point that must not be lost. The danger lies not only in the conduct, but in how the world chooses to describe it. The prevailing reflex is to file these episodes under politics — "Israel is simply trying to derail the talks" — as though that were a shrewd but lawful manoeuvre. That framing is a category error, and a consequential one. The Charter contains no exception permitting a state to use force, or to drive a region toward war, merely because it dislikes a diplomatic outcome. There is no lawful category called "derailing diplomacy by force." To treat it as ordinary statecraft is to launder an unlawful use of force into acceptable politics. Characterization is not a semantic nicety. In international law it is the gateway. The words "threat to international peace and security" are the precise trigger to which Article 39 attaches the entire collective-security framework. How we name the conduct determines which rules apply and whether any apply at all. Misname it, and the law never engages. Recognition carries hard legal consequences that mere disapproval does not. The prohibition on the use of force is a peremptory norm. A serious breach of it engages the law of state responsibility: the responsible state owes cessation and reparation, and, critically, every other state comes under a duty not to recognize the resulting situation as lawful and not to aid or assist in maintaining it. That duty of non-recognition is the line between law and acquiescence. There is, further, the question of accountability. Bombardment of the territory of another state sits among the enumerated acts in the General Assembly's Definition of Aggression (Resolution 3314, 1974). Conduct of that gravity is not captured by the vocabulary of "tactics" or "spoiling." Naming it correctly is the precondition for any accountability whatsoever. So the imperative is, first and above all, one of recognition. Before any institution lifts a finger, the international community must refuse the comfortable misdescription. It must say plainly that a sustained pattern of force against Lebanon — timed to moments of diplomatic progress, and accompanied by efforts to push a great power toward war — is not a political inconvenience to be absorbed. It is a threat to international peace and security within the meaning of the Charter, with all the legal consequences that phrase carries. @antonioguterres @FranceskAlbs @TuckerCarlson @MaxBlumenthal @missionofiran @araghchi @mehdirhasan @FareedZakaria @patrickwintour @mb_ghalibaf

This is literally the same concession Iran had reached in negotiations mediated by Oman a day before the war began. Nearly 3,500 Iranians were killed in pursuit of the exact same position on nuclear enrichment as before.

Rarely has a geopolitical roll of the dice gone so rapidly wrong. Netanyahu played on Trump’s vanity to help convince him to start this war. That same vanity will now be deaf to any future bridges Netanyahu might try to sell.” My column ft.com/content/e14a6abe-f6fa…

RT @vali_nasr: Must read piece on how a month-long diplomatic effort involving the United States, Iran, Qatar and Pakistan led to US Iran M…

I don't mean to sound hysterical, but it's exceedingly obvious that the social media ban, the PA proscription, and the assisted dying bill are all unified moves by a government with no intention of bettering people's lives, only snuffing out dissent.

Jeremy Corbyn: “Look at what’s happening in Palestine. We’re actually witnessing in real time genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza. Those of us that raise it are told somehow you are antisemitic. The community most likely to be represented on a Palestine march are actually Jewish people”

The illegality of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank is one of the most well-established positions in international law, resting on four distinct pillars: 📜 GENEVA CONVENTIONS Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) explicitly prohibits an occupying power from transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. Israel ratified the Convention in 1951. The International Committee of the Red Cross, the authoritative interpreter of humanitarian law, has consistently held that this provision applies directly to the settlements. 🌐 UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS The Security Council has repeatedly affirmed settlement illegality — including in binding resolutions the US did not veto: • Res. 446 (1979): settlements have "no legal validity" • Res. 465 (1980): calls on Israel to dismantle existing settlements • Res. 2334 (2016): passed 14-0 (US abstained), explicitly states settlements constitute "a flagrant violation of international law" and have "no legal validity" ⚖️ ICJ RULINGS • Advisory Opinion on the Wall (2004): the Court found settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, had been established in breach of international law, and that the wall built to protect them compounded that illegality • Advisory Opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territory (2024): the Court went further, ruling that Israel's continued presence in the OPT — including the settlement enterprise — is itself unlawful, and called on all states not to recognise or assist it 🏛️ UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY Countless UNGA resolutions have reaffirmed settlement illegality, including Res. 77/247 (2023), which requested the landmark 2024 ICJ opinion. No serious legal scholar disputes this consensus. The settlements are illegal. The only remaining question is whether the international community will act on it.

JUST IN: IRANIAN FM ARAGHCHI: “The end of the war will not be complete without the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territories they occupied in Lebanon. Any military attack by Israel on Lebanon and the continued occupation of Lebanese territories from now on, in our opinion, is a violation of the MoU.”

Of course not. It’s all lies, all the time.

This bears no relation to reality. Even 🇺🇸 intelligence publicly stated that there were no signs of 🇮🇷 developing nuclear weapons. I’m sure 🇮🇱 intelligence behind closed doors said the same.

La actriz española Ester Expósito y un grupo de actores y actrices leyeron durante más de 10 horas una lista con los nombres de los niños asesinados por el sionismo de Israel. Solo nombres de niños durante más de 10 horas...y no pudieron terminar. Palestina merece justicia.

RT @milanimohsen: “How Tehran Won the World”: Iran now has a story to tell and the ability to tell it.” A beautifully written, insightful &…

Anne Read: "of course I do not class myself as a terrorist. I accept that I am classed as one by a govt that supports terrorist regimes" Trudi Warner: "One of the tricks that authoritarian govts play is to label opponents.. as terrorists" Both women were arrested yesterday.

Denne stadige brutaliseringen av palestinerne, og hvor numment det israleske samfunnet blir overfor undertrykkelsen, bør bekymre flere. Vi har sett denne utviklingen mange steder tidligere.

Israel has attacked 17 hospitals in Lebanon since March, because nothings says "defending yourself" like blowing up a bunch of doctors and patients getting chemo.