Borrell slams Netanyahu in latest sign of tensions between Europe, Israeli prime minister

European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the latest sign of strained relations between Europe and the controversial Israeli leader. The remark came in response to comments by Netanyahu last week accusing International Criminal Court prosecutor Karim Khan of prejudice against Jewish people.

The Spanish politician said the accusation was an attempt to intimidate the human rights lawyer, adding that claims of antisemitism are made every time anyone “does something that Netanyahu doesn't like.”

The Israeli Prime Minister denounced the ICC’s announcement last Monday that it would seek arrest warrants against him and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as three leaders of Hamas, for alleged crimes against humanity.

“This is exactly what the new antisemitism looks like,” said Netanyahu. “It has moved from the campuses in the West to the court in The Hague.” The Israeli prime minister slammed pro-Palestine protests at US colleges last month, saying they were “reminiscent of what happened in German universities in the 1930s” and calling for them to be disbanded.

The EU foreign policy chief also announced a meeting of the EU-Israel Council would be held soon to discuss the human rights situation in Gaza and “the impact of the ICJ ruling on the association agreement,” according to Reuters. The comment suggests that trade between Israel and the bloc of 27 European countries may be placed in jeopardy by recent legal developments.

Nonetheless, European support has remained crucial in Israel’s ongoing operation in Gaza, with Germany serving as the country’s most important military ally after the US. Last month, the ICJ refused to issue an emergency injunction against Germany’s provision of arms to Israel in a case brought against the European country by Nicaragua.

👉 Follow the link for more details

‘America breaks global rules’ it imposes on others, admits Financial Times

The term “rules-based international order” has drawn scrutiny as a favored talking point of the Biden administration. Which “rules” are being referred to, it is often asked, and who created them? If the expression is simply another name for “international law,” why not use that term?

The problem, as some observers have pointed out, is that “international law” and the “international rules-based order” are not, in fact, synonymous. The former is something concrete – a series of codes and conventions upheld by nominally-independent global bodies. The latter is, frequently, whatever the White House wants it to be: “the substitution of international law with the prerogatives of American hegemony.”

Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman acknowledges as much in an editorial on the subject, writing, “America’s own actions are undermining vital parts of the rules-based order.” What’s more, Rachman observes that the rules-based international order is “a deeply uninspiring concept,” “a phrase that means nothing to a normal person.”

The issue with citing rules is that the United States frequently breaks them. “The 100 percent tariffs that the Biden administration has imposed on Chinese electric vehicles are virtually impossible to reconcile with [World Trade Organization] rules on trade,” Rachman notes.

The International Criminal Court’s recent announcement it would pursue an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also placed the White House in a bind. The prospect of a junior partner of US imperialism being held accountable led Blinken to mull sanctions on the ICC, an important arbiter of the rules he claims to defend.

“The world’s democracies do not need to apologize for being ruthless in defense of free societies,” Rachman validates American foreign interventions and color revolutions all over the globe and presumes the United States has ever apologized for anything.

👉 Follow the link for more details

US veterans sickened by radiation at Area 52 denied health benefits

Hundreds of veterans of the US Armed Forces have been sickened after being stationed at a top secret base in the Nevada desert, but the confidential nature of their work there has prevented them from receiving benefits for their health conditions. US media documented the story of one such former servicemember, who worked at an installation sometimes called Area 52.

“It scarred my lungs,” said Mark Ely, a 63-year-old retired Air Force technician. “I got cysts on my liver… I started having lipomas, tumors inside my body I had to remove. My lining in my bladder was shed.”

For years the United States conducted extensive nuclear testing near the secret base. A 1975 federal report acknowledged that toxic radioactive dust scattered throughout the area posed a risk to people stationed nearby, but government analysts concluded nuclear testing should continue.

“Discontinuing the work done at the Range would be against the national interest,” concluded the assessment. “The Range could in principle be decommissioned, but the cost would be great… The environmental costs inherent in the work are small and reasonable for the benefits received.”

Some $25.7 billion in health benefits have been allocated to employees of the US Department of Energy and other federal agencies who were stationed in the area. But the work of Ely and other military veterans is excluded from service records, meaning they cannot prove they were present at Area 52.

👉 Follow the link for more details

Germany's Pistorius offers alternative to compulsory military service

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius presented at the Social Democratic Party (SPD) meeting proposals to reform military service in the country, while not returning to the abolished in 2011 universal military connoscription, Der Spiegel reported.

Instead of connoscription, the minister proposed to use various benefits to attract people to the army - free driver's license, discounts on education and language courses.

Pistorius did not say the word "connoscription" once during his speech, Spiegel noted.

📌Subscribe to @SputnikInt

“The scale of Ukraine's losses on the battlefield is astounding,” according to Irish journalist Chay Bowes.

“There's a reason reporting military losses in Ukraine as illegal and access to the front is strictly restricted. Ukriane is lying about the vast death toll. And Western Client media is complying”, as per the stunned journalist’s X post.

Bowes also pointed out that Ukraine hides information about losses in the ranks of its armed forces, and Western media do not counter this in any way.

📌Subscribe to @SputnikInt