Iran calls for emergency UNSC meeting over Trump’s ‘brazen’ bomb talk, Israeli threats
Press TV – October 20, 2026
Iran’s Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN has urged the world body’s Security Council to hold an emergency meeting and condemn threats by the United States and the Israeli regime against the Islamic Republic’s territory and critical infrastructure.
Gholamhossein Darzi made the remarks in a letter dated Monday and addressed to UN Secretary-General António Guterres and the president of the Security Council.
The letter cited recent US media reports that the White House and the US Department of War had prepared fresh military options, including the possible use of the GBU-43/B, known as the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) or so-called “Mother of All Bombs,” against Iran.
Darzi noted that US President Donald Trump had discussed the weapon in a televised interview and threatened further attacks.
The diplomat also cited remarks by Israeli minister for military affairs Israel Katz that the regime was prepared to attack the Islamic Republic and would target “all energy targets” in any renewed aggression.
The letter also pointed out how Katz had threatened to return Iran to the “Stone Age”, besides claiming that the United States and the regime had dropped a total of 35,000 bombs on Iran and that their military campaign was not over.
Darzi further denounced Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for openly declaring an intention to launch another unprovoked war against the Islamic Republic, adding that the silence and explicit support of certain Security Council members had emboldened him.
He called for immediate action against “brazen existential threats” issued by Trump and renewed Israeli threats of military aggression.
“These unabated threats, in the context of the U.S.-Israeli wars of aggression launched on 13 June 2025 and 28 February 2026 against Iran, and the deliberate attacks against Iranian civilians and critical infrastructure, pose a grave risk of further violation of international law with catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences, and serious threats to regional and international peace and security,” he wrote.
The diplomat argued that threats to destroy Iran’s civilian and energy infrastructure could cause severe and potentially long-term humanitarian and environmental damage.
He also condemned Washington and Tel Aviv for disregarding obligations under the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and customary international humanitarian law.
Darzi requested an emergency Security Council meeting, unequivocal condemnation of threats against Iran’s civilian infrastructure, and accountability and full reparation for damage resulting from Washington’s and Tel Aviv’s internationally wrongful acts.
“The Security Council cannot remain silent in the face of explicit threats of renewed aggression and the destruction of essential civilian infrastructure,” he stated.
The letter, meanwhile, reaffirmed Iran’s right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
He warned that the United States and the Israeli regime would bear responsibility for the consequences of further aggression, including “the risk of unpredictable and uncontrollable escalation.”
Yemen denounces international community’s silence on Saudi aggression, siege
Press TV – October 18, 2026
Yemen has condemned the international community’s silence on Saudi Arabia’s ongoing aggression and blockade, saying it emboldens Riyadh to continue its atrocities.
The Yemeni Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates, in a statement released on Saturday, said the Saudi military continues to target ordinary people and civilian infrastructure, as it has done over the past years.
The ministry denounced Saudi strikes on civilians and non-military installations as a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and Additional Protocol I of 1977.
In the latest attack, a series of Saudi airstrikes targeted a residential neighborhood in the Maqbanah district of Yemen’s southwestern Ta’izz province, killing nine civilians, including a woman and a girl, and injuring 16 others.
The statement also censured the deafening silence of the international community, which claims to uphold human rights while lecturing others about them.
It noted that such an approach would offer Saudi officials the carte blanche to keep on their brutalities, and would make the international community complicit in Riyadh’s crimes and aggression.
The Yemeni foreign ministry then called on the international community, particularly the UN Security Council, the Human Rights Council, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as human rights organizations, to abandon double standards, condemn the heinous crimes committed against Yemeni people, and pressure Saudi Arabia to honor its obligations under international humanitarian law.
The ministry finally emphasized that Saudi atrocities would not go unpunished, and that the House of Saud, “whose hands are stained with blood and whose fingers with guilt,” would be held accountable.
On July 20, the Sana’a government announced a maritime blockade against Saudi Arabia in response to “an unjust and oppressive siege” on Yemen for almost 12 years.
Subsequently, the Yemeni armed forces have reported a series of successful missions that have targeted vessels associated with Saudi Arabia in the Red Sea.
In March 2015, Saudi Arabia and its allies imposed a blockade on Yemen, initiating a comprehensive military offensive that received support in terms of military, political, and logistical assistance from the United States and several Western countries.
Tens of thousands of Yemenis have lost their lives; however, Saudi Arabia has failed to achieve its primary goal of reestablishing a puppet government that served its interests.
Moscow blasts UN for ignoring torture of Russian POWs
RT | October 17, 2026
The UN should resist pressure from Kiev’s Western backers and finally address the issue of widespread abuse of captured Russian servicemen in Ukrainian secret prisons, Russian Ambassador-at-Large Rodion Miroshnik has said.
During a conversation with the chairman of the UN Committee Against Torture Claude Heller on Thursday, Miroshnik said that Moscow is aware of a whole network of such detention facilities, operating in Ukraine’s Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, and Sumy Regions as well as in the country’s capital, Kiev.
The Russian servicemen are “going through hell” in so-called “transit prisons,” which are set up at deployment points of Ukrainian military units and nationalist battalions, he said.
“The thugs, who hide their faces behind masks… and address each other only by their call signs, subject the captured Russian troops to inhuman abuse. Waterboarding, electrocuting, baiting with dogs and amputations performed without anesthesia are just a few examples of the techniques systematically employed by the Ukrainian tormentors,” the envoy, who is charged with documenting Kiev’s war crimes, stressed.
According to Miroshnik, captured troops are usually sent to those facilities in the early stages of their imprisonment, where they are held in cages, pits, and stone dungeons.
The Kiev government does not allow ombudsmen and human rights activists into those “torture chambers,” but the Russian authorities have gathered hundreds of accounts of survivors detailing what has been happening there, he said.
“This information had been passed on to the UN Secretariat on more than one occasion,” but no action followed, Miroshnik added.
By ignoring the existence of the secret prisons and systematic torture of Russian troops, the global body “encourages the spread of such criminal practices and disregard for the relevant UN Convention,” he added.
“Many experts are aware of this disgraceful phenomenon, yet there is a lack of political will to overcome the pressure from the foreign accomplices to the conflict, who shield the Kiev regime from accountability and prevent a thorough investigation of its conduct,” the envoy said.
While turning a blind eye to the torture of Russian troops, the UN published several reports accusing Russia of mistreating Ukrainian prisoners, based on accounts by POWs returned by Moscow to Kiev. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has labeled those accusations of abuse “disinformation.”
Last month, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the UN Secretariat was unable to properly perform its duties as most key positions are occupied by representatives of NATO countries.
The current team, led by [UN General-Secretary] Antonio Guterres, who is a Portuguese national, “promotes biased approaches and double standards, effectively serving the interests of a group of Western nations,” Lavrov insisted during a press conference on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.
Guterres in Islamabad: Genocide, cowardice, and the cage of Imran Khan
By Junaid S. Ahmad | MEMO | October 7, 2026
There are careers that end in triumph, careers that end in scandal, and careers that achieve the rarer distinction of staging their own final indictment. António Guterres has found his in Islamabad.
After nearly a decade as Secretary-General of the United Nations, he arrives in Pakistan in the twilight of his tenure and performs the ritual that has come to define him: smile warmly, praise generously, deplore abstractly, and avoid saying anything that might seriously inconvenience the powerful men standing beside him. His record is littered with eloquent concern, grave warnings and solemn appeals. What it has lacked, again and again, is the one quality that gives moral language meaning: courage when courage carries a cost.
In Islamabad, the performance is almost indecent. Guterres praises Pakistan as a source of “solidarity and solutions,” commends the “resilience” of its people, and assures them that the United Nations stands with them. Meanwhile, former prime minister Imran Khan remains imprisoned after the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention declared his detention arbitrary.
UN experts have raised concerns about his treatment, prolonged isolation and conditions of confinement; the UN Committee Against Torture has separately highlighted broader allegations of politically motivated detention, torture, intimidation and repression.
Guterres does not need opposition politicians or troublesome journalists to brief him. He could simply read his own institution’s reports. But that would ruin the choreography.
So the Secretary-General moves through meetings with Pakistan’s political and security establishment while one of the country’s most popular and persecuted political leaders sits behind bars. Outside the diplomatic bubble, Khan’s supporters confront barricades, arrests and the familiar machinery of coercion. The Pakistani state, chronically incompetent at governing, once again discovers astonishing administrative efficiency when citizens decide to protest.
And Guterres praises their resilience. The euphemism is almost grotesque. A population is subjected to repression, institutional decay and coercive politics, and the world’s senior international diplomat congratulates it for enduring the experience. It is the diplomatic equivalent of praising a prisoner’s fortitude while refusing to ask who locked the cell.
But Islamabad is not a lapse in the Guterres record. It is the culmination of it.
The same moral evasion has defined his response to Gaza. For years, Guterres has described the catastrophe in increasingly apocalyptic terms: mass death, starvation, displacement, destroyed hospitals, shattered families, collective punishment and violations of international law. He has rarely lacked adjectives for horror.
What he lacked was willingness to name its most consequential possibility. Genocide.
When confronted directly, Guterres retreated into procedure, insisting that such a determination belonged to the courts. It was bureaucratic cowardice dressed as juridical sobriety. Apparently, a Secretary-General may describe the destruction of a people in exhaustive detail, denounce their starvation, mourn their children and warn of their dehumanization — but the moment the facts threaten to crystallize into the politically dangerous word, he develops an almost priestly devotion to institutional restraint.
The absurdity became complete when UN experts explicitly warned of genocide and a UN Commission of Inquiry later concluded that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza. The institution Guterres leads could say what Guterres himself repeatedly would not. This was not neutrality. It was evasion refined into method.
That is the essence of the Guterres tenure: moral vocabulary without moral escalation. He has perfected the art of sounding anguished while remaining politically non-threatening. His speeches travel bravely to the edge of the necessary conclusion, stare into the abyss, invoke international law, then retreat into another carefully worded appeal to governments that have already demonstrated their contempt for it.
Gaza became a theatre of catastrophic adjectives without commensurate political naming. Pakistan now becomes a festival of diplomatic compliments beside a prison cell.
The parallel is devastating. In Gaza, the UN system could document devastation while its Secretary-General recoiled from the word that carried the greatest political charge. In Pakistan, UN mechanisms can document arbitrary detention, abuse and repression while their chief shakes hands with the authorities presiding over the system they have condemned.
That is not merely institutional contradiction. It is leadership failure.
No serious person expects a UN Secretary-General to command armies, free prisoners by decree or compel governments into decency. But the office possesses one form of power that cannot be dismissed so easily: moral authority. Guterres has spent much of his tenure conserving it so carefully that, when history demanded its expenditure, there was often nothing to show for it.
He has confused caution with wisdom and diplomatic acceptability with statesmanship. But statesmanship is not the art of saying only what power can comfortably tolerate. Its purpose, at decisive moments, is precisely the opposite.
And so Islamabad is a fitting final tableau: Guterres praising resilience while surrounded by evidence of why resilience is necessary; representing institutions whose own findings he seems unwilling to embody; smiling through repression in Pakistan after years of speaking around genocide in Gaza.
History will not care how many statements he issued, how solemnly he frowned, or how often he invoked international law.
It will ask what he said when speaking plainly became dangerous. Too often, António Guterres chose not to. He saw almost everything. He described almost everything. And when history demanded courage rather than description, he chose cowardice.
‘Grave, alarming’: Iran mission on Trump’s UNGA ‘annihilation’ threats
Al Mayadeen | September 28, 2026
Iran has warned the United Nations that US President Donald Trump’s threats to “annihilate” the Islamic Republic constitute a grave development, particularly because the remarks were made from the podium of the UN General Assembly.
Gholamhossein Darzi, Iran’s ambassador and chargé d’affaires to the UN in New York, raised the issue in a September 27 letter addressed to UN Secretary-General António Guterres and the President of the Security Council, Jérôme Bonnafont.
Darzi’s letter came in response to Trump’s September 22 address to the 81st session of the UN General Assembly, during which the US president said he could “annihilate the Islamic Republic” if no agreement was reached with Tehran. The wording appears in the official UN transcript of Trump’s speech.
Iran says threats made at UN carry wider implications
Darzi said Trump’s remarks were neither isolated nor ambiguous, arguing that they form part of a continuing pattern of public threats against Iran by the president of a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
“These repulsive statements are not ambiguous remarks or isolated utterances. They are rather part of a sustained pattern of public threats against Iran by the head of a permanent member state of the Security Council,” Darzi wrote.
“This latest development is particularly grave and alarming because the United Nations General Assembly is not a venue for threats of annihilation,” he added.
The Iranian envoy stressed that the General Assembly serves as the UN’s principal universal forum and was established to promote international peace, cooperation, and relations among states.
In the letter, Darzi referred to several previous statements by Trump that he said demonstrated a broader pattern of threats against Iran.
He cited remarks on March 22 in which Trump threatened to “hit and obliterate” Iranian power plants, followed by statements on March 30 threatening destruction of Iran’s energy facilities and other vital infrastructure, including desalination facilities.
Iran calls for UN response to threats
Darzi argued that the issue extends beyond political rhetoric, saying an explicit threat against a sovereign UN member state raises questions concerning the UN Charter, international peace and security, and the prohibition on the threat or use of force.
He further linked the latest remarks to ongoing US-Israeli aggression against its sovereignty and territorial integrity since February 28, as well as attacks that targeted civilians and civilian infrastructure.
“The issue before the Organization is therefore not merely one of political rhetoric,” Darzi wrote, arguing that failure by the international community to respond could normalize threats against entire nations and undermine the authority of the UN Charter.
The UN has itself emphasized the need for restraint and adherence to international law during the current high-level week. In his September 22 opening address, Secretary-General António Guterres said the principle that force cannot determine whose lives and rights matter was under “profound strain” and called on world leaders to use the week for de-escalation and dialogue.
Iran reiterates right to self-defense
Darzi said Iran would continue to defend itself against any further aggression and reserved its “full and unimpeachable right to self-defense.”
He also said Tehran reserves the right to pursue legal avenues to seek accountability from states and individuals it holds responsible for losses and damage inflicted on the Iranian people.
“Regardless of whether these threats are merely delusional fantasies, they will, as in the past, never materialize or be put into action in the face of the resolute resistance and determined defense of the Iranian people and armed forces,” Darzi wrote.
The Iranian envoy requested that his letter be circulated as an official document of the UN Security Council.
Iran has good reason to bar IAEA inspectors from returning amid US aggression: Author
Press TV | September 12, 2026
Iran’s refusal to allow International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors back into the country amid ongoing US aggression is understandable, says a US-based author and activist, urging the UN nuclear watchdog to inspect Israeli nuclear facilities as well.
Speaking to the Press TV website, Anthony Donovan, a war veteran and political campaigner, said he supports Iran’s decision not to allow IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi and his team into the country while Iran remains under attack by the United States, Western countries and their allies.
“IAEA will be welcome when the threats cease. Perfect good sense. You have good reason to not trust Grossi and the US pushing for this absurd resolution in the UNSC,” Donovan said.
He added that the nuclear watchdog should instead be demanding an end to the attacks and warning about the dangers posed by military action against nuclear facilities.
“The IAEA needs to immediately and strongly demand an end to these bombings and aggressions, express the outrage at the danger this can pose,” Donovan said.
His comments came after the IAEA Board of Governors adopted a politically motivated resolution drafted by the United States, Britain, France and Germany calling on Grossi to report Iran to the UN Security Council and General Assembly.
The resolution was adopted with 23 votes in favor on Wednesday, while Russia, China and Niger voted against it and eight countries abstained. The move marked the first time in 20 years that Iran had been referred to the Security Council over its nuclear obligations.
Iran’s ambassador to international organizations in Vienna, Reza Najafi, dismissed the resolution as a “political tool” and said Tehran would cooperate with inspectors only “to the extent that circumstances and safety permit.”
It comes as the IAEA has been unable to access some Iranian nuclear facilities since a US-Israeli military aggression in June 2025 that included strikes on safeguarded nuclear sites. Access remained blocked after a broader aggression was unleashed against Iran on Feb. 28.
For Donovan, the circumstances surrounding the latest pressure on Iran made renewed inspections particularly problematic.
He said the West has remained heavily “obsessed” with Iran’s nuclear program even though “it has been inspected more than any other country.” He also warned against repeating the use of the unfounded nuclear weapons programs as a pretext for military action, citing the experience of Iraq.
“The echo of using the nuclear program as we did in Iraq is before us again, an excuse to bomb and kill, to violate all known international law, humanitarian law, and our own laws,” he said.
Donovan said inspections could resume once hostilities end and trust between Iran and the international community is restored, while noting that any future inspection regime should also address Israel’s clandestine nuclear facilities.
“When there is a true lasting peace, which seems very far away, and when there is mutual trust renewed, which is very far away, Iran remains naturally open to allow inspections, along with a requirement of full inspection of Israel’s nuclear weapons facility,” he said.
Israel’s nuclear program
Donovan pointed to a double standard in international nuclear oversight, noting that Israel should face the same scrutiny demanded of Iran.
He said President John F. Kennedy had “tried to prevent” the Israeli regime’s ability to gain access to nuclear weapons.
“Israel lied to him, built a mock facility hoping to fool him. He intuited that and gave several strong ultimatums to [then-prime minister David] Ben Gurion and his government to allow full inspection by his team and warned of serious repercussions if this was not allowed,” said Donovan.
Kennedy, he added, “was adamant they not get the bomb and was killed within months of these demands.”
He also linked the issue to Kennedy’s broader efforts to reduce the dangers of nuclear weapons during the Cold War, including his back-channel communications with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and the 1963 Atmospheric Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
“The Test Ban Treaty was a phenomenal success,” Donovan said, adding that Kennedy viewed it as an initial step toward ending the nuclear arms race.
Donovan noted that after Kennedy’s assassination, the US approach toward Israel’s nuclear program changed.
He also criticized the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), saying it had been weakened over time by nuclear-armed states and that Israel had not joined it.
Israel has never signed the NPT and has not submitted its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspections. The regime maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity and has never officially acknowledged possessing nuclear weapons.
Estimates of the size of Israel’s nuclear arsenal vary widely, but it is widely believed to possess hundreds of nuclear warheads and maintains delivery capabilities involving missiles, aircraft and submarines.
Donovan noted that focusing on Iran while nuclear-armed entities continue to expand their arsenals represents a dangerous double standard.
“The fact that we keep pointing at Iran maybe getting a weapon, while we are all wildly building these omnicidal devices claiming they ‘Ensure our Future,’ our security, etc. is blind, dangerous and extremely egocentric,” he said.
He said Iran’s historical experience had also shaped his understanding of Tehran’s security concerns, citing past wars and Western involvement in regional wars.
“I understand better now why it was important for Iran to be prepared for such murderous colonists,” Donovan said, referring to the US-Israeli front that has “violated life” in Iran, Palestine and Lebanon.
The author added that he would continue to call his representatives to “listen to any but Israel.”
“Fortunately, things are changing; people are rising. Most here know what we are doing in Iran is criminal, wrong,” he added.
Russia, China clash with West at UNSC over legality of Iran ‘snapback’ sanctions
Press TV – September 10, 2026
Russia and China have opposed the activation of the so-called snapback mechanism against Iran at a UN Security Council meeting, warning that Western attempts to reactivate the relevant UN sanctions regime would only further heighten divisions and undermine multilateral diplomacy.
The five permanent members of the Security Council engaged in a fierce procedural battle on Thursday over the legal validity of international sanctions against Tehran.
At the heart of the dispute is the “snapback” provision embedded in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was originally designed to automatically restore UN Chapter VII sanctions in the event of significant Iranian non-compliance, deliberately bypassing the veto power of permanent council members.
Despite fierce objections from Moscow and Beijing, the council voted 11-2 in favor of adopting the provisional agenda, with two abstentions.
Under UN rules, procedural votes require a minimum of nine affirmative votes and cannot be blocked by a permanent member’s veto.
‘Legal mandate expired’
Both Russia and China stressed that the legal framework for the snapback mechanism no longer exists.
They emphasized that UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the JCPOA, officially expired on October 18, 2025.
Consequently, the nonproliferation agenda item regarding Iran was struck from the council’s list of active issues on that same day.
The Russian representative stated that because the resolution has expired, there are no legal or procedural grounds to reactivate the 1737 sanctions committee, which ceased to exist in 2015.
Moscow dismissed Western claims and UN Secretariat conclusions supporting the snapback as “biased and erroneous.”
China echoed the sentiments, expressing “grave concern” and “strong opposition” to the West’s maneuvers.
Beijing warned that forcing the reimposition of sanctions and convening meetings under a defunct agenda item would seriously impede any chances of a political settlement to the Iranian nuclear issue.
China called on all council members to respect the termination date outlined in Resolution 2231 to preserve the authority of the Security Council and the credibility of multilateral diplomacy.
Western powers defend sanctions regime
Western delegations, however, firmly rejected the Russian and Chinese legal challenges, insisting that the sanctions have been legitimately revived following Iran’s alleged breaches of the nuclear deal.
“The United Kingdom, with France and Germany, initiated the snapback mechanism in full accordance with Security Council Resolution 2231,” the British representative stated, arguing that the European troika (E3) acted in response to Iran’s “significant non-performance” under the 2015 pact.
London maintained that the snapback process officially concluded on September 28, 2025, keeping six Chapter VII resolutions in effect.
The US representative took a harder line, accusing Moscow and Beijing of attempting to undermine council decisions merely to shield Tehran.
“Regardless of such politically driven matters, the facts are the facts. The 1737 Committee exists,” the American diplomat asserted, pointing to recent IAEA reports claiming Iran remains non-compliant with its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement.
Tehran has consistently condemned the European troika’s actions, viewing the snapback maneuver as a politically motivated stunt orchestrated by Washington rather than a legitimate diplomatic tool.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei previously lashed out at the E3, describing their move as an act of “stubbornness” carried out to fulfill US orders without rational calculation.
He said that Britain, France, and Germany damaged their own credibility as parties to the JCPOA by misusing the snapback mechanism.
Baghaei emphasized that the E3’s illegal maneuver caused confusion within the UN system and creates no legal obligations for member states.
“In line with the preservation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, we expect countries to refrain from complying with the three European countries’ move, which is considered a form of imposition on the structure of the Security Council,” he said.
Israel’s plan for forced transfer with international complicity remains on the table
By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | September 3, 2026
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated that the military would not withdraw from the territory it occupied in Gaza, Defence Minister Israel Katz asserted that the plan for forced displacement was merely frozen.
Speaking at a conference hosted by Ynet and Yedioth Ahronot themed “Decision Time: Democracy and Society”, Katz spoke of forced transfer under the euphemism of emigration as the only solution for Gaza. However, he said, the plan required US support which is currently not forthcoming. According to Katz, Arab countries pressured the US to halt the forced transfer plan in return for agreeing with disarming Hamas. Egypt, Katz said, is refusing to cooperate in the plan.
According to Katz, although no sources were reported, 80 per cent of Palestinians in Gaza want to emigrate but Hamas and the international community are placing obstacles in their way. “There are no countries in the world willing to take them in,” he said. “What is delaying this is that the countries willing to take them in want US support.”
Palestinians have been unable to leave Gaza freely for decades before the genocide. Leaving under threat of forced displacement does not constitute freedom of movement. Israel wants Gaza emptied of Palestinians by any means necessary – forced transfer dressed up as travel is the option that lends itself to less scrutiny, despite it being classified as a war crime.
But when the international community approved of Israel’s genocide by refusing to acknowledge it, it also approved the forced transfer that happened as a result of the destructive and relentless bombing. If countries eventually cooperate with Israel’s plan and Palestinians are forcibly transferred out of Gaza, the complicity would render even the usual string of condemnations void of any meaning.
“I think there is no other solution in the end that is in everyone’s interest,” Katz stated. Everyone being anyone except the Palestinian people. Katz’s message is that if enough countries agree to commit war crimes, Palestinians have no say in their forced transfer.
If, as Katz said, forced displacement is still being discussed, the Board of Peace is merely buying time for Israel. Whether or not Hamas agrees to disarmament, forced transfer remains the ultimate goal for Israel. In the interim, the usual back and forth rhetoric on what happens if Hamas disarms continues as background noise for diplomacy to grasp at. For at the periphery of all the futile diplomatic overtures, there is genocide, Netanyahu and a plan to empty Gaza of Palestinians by all means possible. As Katz said, Israel needs US help, which he said would happen at the right moment. “Then we will get the green light to advance militarily, territorially and in other areas as well,” Katz declared.
In that scenario, Israel would colonise Gaza, and the UN would have one less item on its agenda to write statements about. No more talk about genocide except perhaps a commemoration in graphic imagery at the UN and a hypocritical statement about human rights and hope.
Hope, elusive and ambiguous, was all the UN offered in return for its complicity in allowing Zionism to colonise Palestine. What hope brought in the end, was genocide.
‘Israel’ forcibly evicts UNRWA center in occupied al-Quds
Al Mayadeen| August 26, 2026
Israeli forces began forcibly evicting the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, from its vocational training center in occupied al-Quds on Tuesday, escalating “Israel’s” campaign against the agency and its services for Palestinian refugees.
The Qalandia Training Centre, located between the Kafr Aqab neighborhood in occupied al-Quds and the Qalandia refugee camp, was established in 1952 and provides vocational training to around 340 Palestinians from the occupied West Bank each year, according to UNRWA.
The operation followed repeated warnings from the agency that Israeli authorities were preparing to target the facility.
Israeli forces enter UNRWA center in occupied al-Quds
UNRWA said Israeli forces “forcibly entered” the training center at around 10 am local time, with at least four armored vehicles and more than 50 Israeli occupation personnel entering the compound.
Around 20 UNRWA staff members were present at the facility at the time.
An AFP journalist at the scene reported that Israeli occupation forces closed the main road near the center’s entrance while forces inside moved between its buildings.
A convoy of three civilian vehicles was later seen leaving the facility under Israeli military escort.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said the evacuation had begun under his directive and following legislation targeting UNRWA.
UNRWA condemns forced entry
UNRWA condemned the Israeli operation, stressing that armed forces had entered a United Nations facility without authorization.
“UNRWA unequivocally condemns this unauthorised and deeply concerning incursion,” the agency said.
It added that the “entry of armed occupation forces into a United Nations facility, without the authorisation or consent of the United Nations, is unacceptable.”
The operation directly affects a facility that has provided vocational training to Palestinians for more than seven decades.
Israeli far-right Police Minister Itamar Ben Gvir celebrated the operation, saying Israeli forces were implementing legislation to remove UNRWA from the site.
He later published an image of an Israeli flag above the entrance to the training center alongside the caption, “UNRWA in our hands.”
‘Israel’ escalates campaign against UNRWA
“Israel” has repeatedly accused UNRWA of providing cover for Hamas and alleged that its personnel carried out resistance operations alongside Hamas fighters.
Legislation severing Israeli ties with UNRWA and banning the agency from operating in Israeli territory took effect in January 2025.
However, investigations into the allegations have not substantiated “Israel’s” broader claims as presented by its officials.
A review led by former French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna identified “neutrality-related issues” at UNRWA but said “Israel” had not provided conclusive evidence for its central allegations.
The impunity granted to Israel is as shocking as its violence
By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | August 18, 2026
More incitement to violence from Israeli Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir exposes how colonial violence is aimed at the entire colonised population. Speaking on a podcast with former Israeli hostage Rom Braslavski, Ben Gvir said that Israeli forced should kill 30-40 Palestinians each night in Gaza.
Braslavski requested to act as executioner should Ben Gvir’s plan come to pass, to which the security minister replied, “I will turn the world upside down to make that happen. I promise you that I will do everything I can and turn the world upside down until it happens.”
As shocking as the comments are, both are the product of an enterprise that knows it can only sustain itself through ethnic cleansing.
In 2025, a poll by the Hebrew University Centre showed that 87 per cent of the Israeli government’s supporters perceived “no innocents’ in Gaza, while 64 per cent of Israelis held the same view.
Israel’s Channel 14 branded all Palestinians killed during the genocide as terrorists. Among settlers that normalise the killings of Palestinians, and which even glorifies those murdering them, Ben Gvir’s comments are unlikely to elicit any lingering shock. On the contrary, Ben Gvir’s wish for extrajudicial killings may well find willing participants. And while Gaza remains within reach of the Israeli military in terms of extrajudicial assassinations, the occupied West Bank faces both Israeli institutions and settlers.
Ben Gvir’s comments were aimed at Gaza, but Israel’s colonisation plans do not only include Gaza. The occupied West Bank, which faces daily violence from settlers, is much at risk from extrajudicial killings. In Ras al-Ain, south of Nablus, Israeli settlers besieged Palestinian families and cut off their electricity, water and food supplies. While attracting international attention, the UN as usual preferred to rely on its usual condemnations while Erika Guevara Ross, Amnesty International Senior Director for Research, Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns, described the siege as “an accelerating and well-documented pattern of coordinated and strategic settler terror, enabled, backed and funded by the State of Israel.” True, but what is being done with the information that is already mainstream knowledge to the rest of the world?
Likewise, Ben Gvir’s comments have not prompted a reckoning with world leaders or international institutions. Israel has already internalised such thinking – it thrives upon creating victims to sustain itself. The international community, supposedly a reference for human rights under the UN, does not seem to consider Ben Gvir’s threats dangerous enough. Even though Israel has a proven history of torturing and killing Palestinians.
Killing 30-40 Palestinians per night is not merely a fantasy. It has already been carried out by the Israeli military during the genocide; also exceeding that quota. Ben Gvir has also found someone willing to carry out the assassinations, even on a much larger scale. For Israel, as Ben Gvir again elucidated, Palestinians “are not worthy of life. They shouldn’t live. They’re not even people.”
If, according to Ben Gvir, killing Palestinians is killing non-people, then Israel is already completely absolved of culpability. This is the type of impunity the UN is harvesting for Israel.
Iceland’s forthcoming referendum on EU membership
By Alfred de ZAYAS | CounterPunch | July 29, 2026
In August 2026 Icelanders will vote in a referendum whether Iceland should open accession talks with a view to joining the European Union[1].
Icelanders would be well advised to keep away from the EU, which has morphed from a peace-loving European integration movement into a war-mongering globalist machine run by a bloated bureaucracy in Brussels that operates without transparency or accountability and endorses militarization and virulent Russophobia.
In the light of Iceland’s venerable democratic traditions going back to the Thingvellir Parliament of the tenth century[2], it would be madness for the Icelanders to abandon their hard-won sovereignty and independence.
In 1992 and 93 Iceland did negotiate the EEA (European Economic Area) agreement that gave it access to the EU market but without membership and many of the obligations. The EEA agreement came into effect in 1994, and was negotiated during the period after the adoption of the Treaty of Maastricht (see below). It is important to know that the EU in the time of Maastricht was fundamentally different to EU following the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon of 2007. The EU is now speeding into a more centralised, authoritarian and even totalitarian future.
There is another important consideration. The Treaty of Lisbon is in many aspects incompatible with the UN Charter. Icelanders must actually choose between their obligations under the UN Charter and the commitments and actions that flow from the Treaty of Lisbon and the arbitrary decisions of the European Commission, currently under Ursula von der Leyen.
UN membership
Let us review a bit of history. Iceland joined the United Nations in 1946.
The purposes and principles of the UN are laid out in Articles 1-2 of the Chater, notably a joint commitment of all members to advance peace through cooperation, multilateralism, conflict-prevention, respect of the sovereign equality of states, the self-determination of peoples, the promotion of human rights and the right to development.
Article 103 of the Charter, the supremacy clause, stipulates: “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.”
Because of this overarching legal commitment, every UN member State must consider, before entering into any treaty or joining any other organization, whether such action would be compatible with UN membership.
Article 52 of the UN Charter stipulates that UN members can join other organizations “provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.” (emphasis added)
This short paper argues that Iceland should not become a member of the European Union, which admittedly had very good beginnings, but which gradually moved away from its original peace-oriented vocation and emerged as a competing supra-national geopolitical entity with aims and activities frequently in conflict with the United Nations Charter, General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions.
On the basis of the Schuman Declaration (1950) the Treaties of Paris (1951) and Rome (1957) the European Common Market was established with the purpose of advancing European integration, democracy and human rights. For decades the European States worked in tandem with the United Nations and contributed to stability and prosperity in the region.
The Treaty of Maastricht (1992) created the European Union and promoted peace and human rights while respecting diversity and state sovereignty. Article 6 of the Maastricht Treaty stipulated:
“The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States. 2. The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law. 3. The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States…”
This arrangement was compatible with the UN Charter and guaranteed the respect of national identities and approaches in a manner consistent with the UNESCO Constitution, which also values the richness of diverse cultures and perspectives and discourages top-down homologation.
Unfortunately, the globalist movement in Europe largely homologized foreign policy, culture and even morals, in disregard of local approaches and traditions. When in 2004 the idea of a European constitution was aired, it was quickly defeated in public opinion polls and in the referenda held in France and the Netherlands in 2006. The European populations felt that the proposed constitution threatened their national identities guaranteed in the Treaty of Maastricht, that it opened the way to authoritarianism or even totalitarianism driven by a Brussels bureaucracy disconnected from the peoples of the member States of the European Union.
In the light of the impossibility to adopt the European Constitution by direct democratic vote, the bureaucrats decided in 2007 to drop the project of a European Constitution, and instead to take a short-cut relying on the parliaments of the member States, which were more easily manipulated than the populations they represented.
The Treaty of Lisbon or 13 December 2007 emerged as an Ersatz or surrogate European constitution, adopted in a questionable manner, and in any case unrepresentative of the wishes of the populations concerned.
Lip service was given to the principle of subsidiarity, according to which the EU acts (in theory) only where its member states agree unanimously. This reflects the legal norm that governmental decisions should be taken as close to the people as possible while still remaining effective. Smoke and mirrors.
In practice, however, the sovereignty of European States has been significantly reduced since 2007, and the Brussels bureaucracy has imposed rules and regulations – as well as unilateral coercive measures, wrongly referred to as “sanctions” – in an increasingly authoritarian manner, in disregard of the “margin of discretion” of supposedly sovereign European countries.
Particularly dangerous is the fact the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg sides with the European Council in most cases, notwithstanding well-based challenges from individual States. In effect, EU law has primacy over the laws of member states, even in matters of access to information, freedom of opinion and expression, morals and national security.
In its Orwellian judgment of 2 July 2026, the EU Court in Luxembourg approved the legality of EU censorship of the internet and the criminalization of social media messages including electronic links to sanctioned senders[3]. In this genuinely totalitarian judgment, not only the rights of news services to broadcast information and perspectives are being violated by EU law, but also the right of every EU citizen to access and publicly discuss politically relevant information.
Access to information and freedom of opinion and expression are at the very core of every democracy. These rights are stipulated in the European Convention on Human Rights, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union, in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in General Comment 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee.[4]
This and other recent decisions by the European Court of Justice illustrate that there is no longer an effective recourse or remedy, because the European Court of Justice is clearly beholden to the EU Council.
Even the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has failed to protect European citizens from confiscation of private property e.g. pursuant to EU sanctions against Russia, and in clear violation of the European Convention of Human Rights. Here too, the right to private property has been done away with by the supra-national decision of EU bureaucrats to issues “sanctions” on targeted countries or persons.
Because of the severity of the consequences of these measures, numerous human rights organizations, including the Geneva International Peace Research Institute[5], have presented legal briefs to the Council of the European Union enumerating the violations of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Thus far GIPRI and other organizations have received no appropriate response, other than a blanket reaffirmation from Brussels that the extra-judicial measures adopted pursuant to EU sanctions are legal.
A particularly egregious case of the new EU totalitarianism are the sanctions imposed on six European citizens for allegedly expressing views close to those of the Russian argumentation concerning the causes of the Ukrainian war since the Maidan coup d’état in February 2014. Among those impacted are the retired Swiss Colonel and intelligence officer Jacques Baud,[6] and the German journalist Husseyn Dogru.
Moreover, as I explained before the UN Security Council on 25 March 2024[7], the EU “sanctions” are not compatible with the UN Charter. For years now the European Union systematically violates resolutions of the General Assembly[8] and of the UN Human Rights Council[9], which condemn US and EU “sanctions” as incompatible with the UN Charter, international law, human rights norms and the right to development. Moreover, EU “unilateral coercive measures” make the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals nearly impossible, and, together with the illegal US sanctions regime, cause deaths in the hundreds of thousands worldwide, as determined by the British medical journal The Lancet. The imposition of such unilateral coercive measures undoubtedly constitutes the “use of force” in contravention of article 2(4) of the UN Charter and have no justification in international law in the absence of UN Security Council approval. EU “sanctions” violate the right to life, the right to development, and the self-determination of peoples.
Another worrisome development in Europe is the systematic war-propaganda and fear-mongering, the refusal to settle disputes by peaceful means, in contravention of article 2(3) of the UN Charter and the virulent Russophobia displayed by the Brussels bureaucracy, in gross violation of article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which stipulates:
“1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”[10]
In 2024 and again in 2025 the Geneva International Peace Research Institute submitted legal briefs to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court pursuant to article 15 of the Statute of Rome, alleging violations of articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the ICC Statute by the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas. EU policies are contrary to international criminal law in that they have provided and continue to provide military, political, economic, diplomatic and propagandistic support to a genocidal State, thus enabling Israel to continue the genocide against the Palestinians and to engage in acts of aggression against Lebanon, Syria, Iran etc.
Collectives of jurists in France, Italy and Germany have also submitted legal briefs challenging the actions by EU member states as contrary to the UN Charter, the Statute of Rome, the ICCPR (articles 6, 7, 14, 19, 21, 22, 25), the European Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union.
All of the above activities by the European Union document the fact that the initially peace-loving institution has morphed into a totalitarian organization that no longer conforms with article 52 of the UN Charter, because it does not promote the purposes and principles of the UN but actually works against them.
Iceland must be very careful in considering any kind of association with the EU. A coherent foreign policy by Iceland would reaffirm its commitment to the UN Charter and avoid any treaties or association that would restrict its sovereignty and margin of discretion and violate its obligations pursuant to the UN Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The perception of the EU as a bastion of the “rule of law” and human rights can no longer be empirically sustained. Vestiges of a positive perception of the EU are only a product of public relations, indoctrination and relentless propaganda.
Yet, in our world of Orwellian newspeak and cognitive dissonance, some – even in Iceland – pretend that it is perfectly normal to be committed to the UN Charter while working against its purposes and principles through aggressive policies adopted by the Brussels bureaucracy.
A well-advised Icelandic voter should reject any association with the European Union, because the EU is no longer the peace-loving Common Market but has morphed into a totalitarian organization that does not respect the democratic rights of European peoples but pretends to impose a one-size-fits all, one-narrative for all, on all European citizens.
All freedom-loving Icelanders are called upon to defend Iceland’s sovereignty and independence.
Notes.
[2] https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2016/05/thingvellir-northern-europes-first-parliament/
https://www.thingvellir.is/en/education/history/assembly-site/
https://www.rferl.org/a/ecj-eu-russia-sanctions-oligarchs/33434950.html
[5] Gipri.ch
[8] Resolution 80/209 of 17 December 2025
[9] Resolution 61/9 of 27 March 2026
UN experts call for accountability five months after US-Israeli attack on Minab school
Press TV – July 24, 2026
UN experts have called for an independent investigation into the bombing of a primary school in the southern Iranian city of Minab that killed 168 children and teachers, saying the attack highlights serious violations of international law during war of aggression by the United States and Israel.
In a statement released on Friday, the experts said the school was struck twice during school hours on Feb. 28, 2026, and that there was no indication it was being used for military purposes.
“The school was clearly identifiable as a civilian educational facility and that they had received no information indicating it was being used for military purposes,” the statement read.
Five months later, they said, neither the United States nor Israel had made public the findings of any investigation into the deadly attack, raising questions about the transparency of any inquiry.
“Five months following the school bombing in Minab, the US and Israel have not made any findings public, raising valid questions regarding the impartiality, effectiveness and transparency of any investigation that may be underway,” the experts said. “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
The experts further stated that the Minab school attack illustrated as a broader failure by the United States and Israel to protect civilians during armed conflict, particularly women and children.
“Characterizing civilian deaths as a mistake does not diminish States’ obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law, nor does it preclude individual criminal responsibility where violations have occurred,” they said.
“Victims and their families are entitled to truth, justice and effective reparations.”
They voiced grave concern over serious violations of international law arising from US and Israeli war of aggression in Iran since Feb. 28, 2026.
The independent experts called for prompt, independent, impartial and transparent investigations into civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, including attacks on schools, hospitals and other protected sites.
“International law prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State,” the experts said. “The prohibition of the threat or use of force is a cornerstone of the international legal order.”
The US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran between Feb. 28 and early April killed at least 3,375 civilians, including nearly 500 women, and wounded more than 33,000 others, noted the experts.
The experts also said they had received credible reports that Iranian civilians may have been exposed to internationally prohibited and banned hazardous substances, with potentially serious health consequences, particularly for women, girls and pregnant women.
The experts also expressed concern over the latest round of US aggression against Iran despite a memorandum of understanding (MoU) intended to end the war.
The experts urged United States to adhere to the principles of distinction and precaution under international humanitarian law and to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure on land and at sea. They also warned against attacks on civilian population centers, desalination plants and electricity networks.
The US-Israeli acts of aggression in June 2025 and again since February 2026 have deliberately targeted civilians, civilian infrastructure and critical facilities in violation of international law and international humanitarian law.
After weeks of sporadic incidents, the US military launched a fresh wave of large-scale attacks on Iranian soil two weeks ago, targeting military and civilian sites mainly in southern provinces. The attacks have so far destroyed several infrastructure sites, such as bridges and water desalination plants, and killed over 50 Iranians.
Senior Iranian officials have warned that ongoing US attacks threaten regional stability, freedom of navigation, and the security of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.
Featured Video
Iran’s Next Strike May Not Explode. It Could Shut You Down
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archive
Zionism’s Violent Legacy
By Donald Neff | Washington Report On Middle East Affairs | January 1996
On January 4, 1948, Jewish terrorists drove a truck loaded with explosives into the center of the all Arab city of Jaffa and detonated it, killing 26 and wounding around 100 Palestinian men, women and children.[1] The attack was the work of the Irgun Zvai Leumi – the “National Military Organization,” also known by the Hebrew letters Etzel – the largest Jewish terrorist group in Palestine. The Irgun was headed by Revisionist Zionist Menachem Begin and had been killing and maiming Arabs, Britons and even Jews for the previous ten years in its efforts to establish a Jewish state.
This terror campaign meant that at the core of Revisionist Zionism there existed a philosophical embrace of violence. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Trump’s Iran war is on an Israeli leash
- Saudi oil boss issues global supply warning
- Riyadh Says Its Oil System Is Intact. The Numbers Say Otherwise.
- Trump and Netanyahu Want to “Finish the Job” on Iran
- US ‘one-sided dictation’ not Iran’s beliefs makes rational talks impossible: Baghaei
- Iran’s Next Strike May Not Explode. It Could Shut You Down /Col Doug Macgregor
- Iran: US political targets legitimate if assassinations return
- Iraq shuts key border crossing with Iran under US pressure: Report
- Undersea Internet cables could be targeted in retaliation for attacks on Iran: IRGC deputy chief
- EU sending ‘biased’ observers to interfere in Serbian election – president
- If Americans Knew
- The Israel Lobby’s Changing Fortunes
- AIPAC has become such a political liability that it’s shifting to a more “nimble” approach to buying politicians
- At least 160 Israeli settler attacks in 2 weeks
- Will Gaza’s Ancient Christian Community Disappear Forever?
- Israel’s vision of regional security rests on keeping Arab states weak
- Heidi Levine recounts how Palestinian youths helped save her in settler attack
- DAILY UPDATE: Latest essential news on Palestine, Israel, & region
- Trump’s Intensifying Sabotage of the ICC, for Israel’s Sake
- Israeli military detain US and UK volunteers in West Bank including Democratic NY politician Brad Lander
- Americans at National Conservatism Conference held in Israel this year criticize Israel
- No Tricks Zone
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
