April, 28 2017, 12:15pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Lindsay Meiman,Senior U.S. Communications Specialist,lindsay@350.org,us-comms@350.org,+1 347 460 9082,New York, USA
Trump Signs Executive Order Expanding Offshore Drilling, Puts Communities at Risk
Order could direct agencies to re-do the 5-year-plan that prevented Arctic, Pacific, and Atlantic drilling
WASHINGTON
Ahead of the Peoples Climate March and nearly 7 years to the day since the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Trump administration issued an executive order today directing federal agencies to revise the 5-year-plan for offshore drilling previously approved by the Obama administration. The order could expose the Atlantic, the Pacific, and Arctic coasts, which are excluded from the current plan, to future drilling.
On the Arctic, Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts, communities have been working for years to stop offshore drilling, citing the impact of fossil fuels on health, safety, and the climate. Accidents like the massive BP Deepwater Horizon disaster have devastated coastal communities and led to lasting struggles for local economies. At a time when our climate can't afford any new fossil fuel infrastructure, opening more waters to offshore drilling would exacerbate the climate crisis and drive up the risk of disaster.
###
Quote Sheet:
Trip Van Noppen, Earthjustice President, said: "When President Obama withdrew irreplaceable and sensitive waters of the Arctic Ocean and important parts of the Atlantic Ocean from offshore drilling, it was a bold step in protecting these seas for our future and girding the global community against the worst effects of climate change. Any attempt to reopen these areas or expand offshore drilling elsewhere would be a step backward on climate progress, and would once again put coastal communities, irreplaceable wildlife, and our shared future at risk."
Rhea Suh, President of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said: "This dangerous move is nothing more than a sellout to big oil and gas we've seen so much of in Trump's first 100 days. The American people don't want to abandon our oceans, coastal communities and all they support to industrial pollution and the peril of another BP oil spill catastrophe. They want these waters safeguarded. Attempting to open them to drilling chains us to dirty fossil fuels of our past and all the hazard, harm and climate damage they bring. Equally important, the president cannot, just by a stroke of his pen, with the stroke of his pen reverse the permanent, and legal, protection currently extended to these areas of the Atlantic and Arctic oceans. We--and thousands that will march on Saturday for climate action--will fight this move, for our children's future and a livable world."
Patrick Carolan, Executive Director of the Franciscan Action Network, said: "Each time President Trump signs an executive order like this one, which could potentially lead to significant increases in offshore drilling and oil and gas exploration, he is sending a clear message that the welfare of people and the planet is not important to him. With the climate in an increasingly fragile state, and millions of the world's inhabitants already vulnerable to extreme weather and the food insecurity, homelessness, and disease that comes along with it, continued fossil fuel extraction is the most dangerous move we can possibly make. And yet, President Trump continues to roll out executive orders that support his dangerous agenda. As Franciscans, our call is to be stewards of this earth, to care for the least among us, and so our faith impels us to push back against regulations that threaten the health of people and our planet, as this latest executive order so clearly does."
Nancy Pyne, Climate and Energy Campaign Director at Oceana, said: "This latest executive order is yet another indication that the Trump administration is committed to doubling down on dirty and dangerous oil and gas development, instead of moving America towards clean energy alternatives like offshore wind. Coastal communities have made it clear--they are not willing to trade their thriving tourism and fishing-based economies for the false promises of the oil industry. As of today, more than 120 municipalities, over 1,200 elected officials, and an alliance representing over 35,000 businesses and 500,000 fishing families have publicly opposed offshore drilling and/or exploration along the East Coast. On the eve of the People's Climate March, as the specter of the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster looms large, it is more important than ever to make sure that these voices are heard in Washington."
Mike Tidwell, Executive Director of Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said: "The American people have made it loud and clear that they oppose offshore drilling. It is simply not worth the risk to our precious coastal environments and economies. At a time when our coasts are being battered by sea level rise, we need to be expanding our clean energy economy -- not increasing our reliance on dangerous new sources of fossil fuels."
May Boeve, 350.org Executive Director, said: "It takes a true climate denier to say that what our disappearing coastlines need are more oil rigs. Trump is trying to lock in decades more of dirty fossil fuel extraction, while science tells us we need to keep it in the ground. Arctic, Atlantic, and Gulf coast communities have fought hard to protect their water, their health, and the climate from Big Oil, refusing to be sacrifice zones. Now it's even more important for everyone to join the Peoples Climate March, push back on polluting projects like Keystone XL, and build the renewable energy future we need from the ground up."
Leah Donahey, Senior Campaign Director, Alaska Wilderness League, said: "President Trump's executive order to expand offshore drilling and potentially reverse protections in America's Arctic and Atlantic oceans, just gives us one more reason to take to the streets. As we have seen from the Deepwater Horizon disaster, when we drill, we spill and this means disaster for our coastal waters and communities."
Gene Karpinski, League of Conservation Voters President, said: "Donald Trump is once again showing that his presidency serves the interests of giant oil companies over the health, safety, and future of people across the United States. Allowing Big Oil to expand offshore drilling to the Atlantic, Arctic, and Pacific Oceans would put coastal economies and ways of life at risk of a devastating oil spill, while worsening the consequences of climate change. We must make smarter energy choices by further investing in clean energy to leave our kids a planet not damaged beyond repair instead of staking our future in places whose oil wouldn't reach consumers for decades. We will fight any attempt to expand risky offshore drilling."
Rev. Fletcher Harper, Executive Director of GreenFaith, said: "Morally decent leadership means restricting further fossil fuel development - not actively promoting it. This executive order makes it clear that this administration has the environment, and our shared future, in their crosshairs."
Elizabeth Yeampierre, Executive Director of UPROSE, said: "This administration has proven time and time again that they have no regard for the wellbeing of people or the earth we inhabit. Increasing off-shore drilling is reckless and has already proven detrimental to the environment and communities on the frontlines of climate change, i.e. low-income communities of color already over burdened by environmental hazards. It's only been 7 years since the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Have we learned nothing from that catastrophe? We wholeheartedly reject this administration's executive order on offshore drilling and oil and gas exploration. We are committed to fighting this administration's war on climate every step of the way."
Aura Vasquez, Director of Climate Justice at the Center for Popular Democracy, said: "Trump's administration will once again be endangering communities, this time on the Arctic, Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts, all to advance the fossil fuel industry's agenda. Expanding offshore drilling would only bring more pollution and destruction, especially to those communities already feeling the impacts of the climate crisis. We can't let this administration dictate the faith of our planet. We must stand and let the world know that offshore drilling is dangerous and unnecessary. We should be supporting renewable energy infrastructure that can bring about equitable jobs and a healthy environment."
Annie Leonard, Executive Director of Greenpeace USA, said: "Opening new areas to offshore oil and gas drilling anywhere risks locking us into decades of harmful pollution, devastating spills, and a fossil fuel economy with no future. Scientific consensus is that the fossil fuel reserves off US coasts must remain undeveloped if we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change. This executive order from Trump is just the latest in a series of rollbacks that most people in this country do not want, and they only come at the behest of Trump's inner circle of desperate fossil fuel executives. Holing up at Mar-a-lago may protect Trump from an oil spill, but it will not protect his disastrous policies from the resistance and rejection of millions of Americans who demand better for themselves and their families."
Adrienne L. Hollis PhD, JD, Director of Federal Policy, WE ACT for Environmental Justice, said: "Increasing offshore drilling and oil and gas exploration is a recipe for disaster. It will dramatically increase the possibility of damaging health effects in frontline communities from water, soil, and air contamination. This Executive Order is just another in a line of legislative actions designed to strip away any protections communities may have and give more power to fossil fuel companies to control our environment. In the words of acclaimed American poet, storyteller, activist, and autobiographer Dr. Maya Angelou "when people show you who they are, believe them (the first time)." The Trump Administration has shown us that they do not care about the welfare of the people."
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
LATEST NEWS
By Limiting Nationwide Injunctions, Supreme Court Declares 'Open Season on All Our Rights'
In a ruling that stems from the president's birthright citizenship order, the "conservative supermajority just took away lower courts' single most powerful tool for reining in the Trump administration's lawless excesses."
Jun 27, 2025
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a flurry of decisions Friday morning, including a ruling related to U.S. President Donald Trump's attack on birthright citizenship that led legal experts, elected Democrats, immigrants, and rights advocates to warn—as MoveOn Civic Action spokesperson Britt Jacovich put it—that the justices "just made it easier for Trump to take away your rights."
Three different federal judges had granted nationwide injunctions blocking Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship with an executive order that Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, described as "blatantly illegal and cruel." Rather than considering the constitutionality of the president's order, the justices examined the relief provided by lower courts.
"The Supreme Court has green-lighted Trump to run roughshod over a critical constitutional right. This is not a slide into authoritarianism—this is a one-way plummet."
In Friday's 6-3 ruling for Trump v. CASA, the right-wing justices held that "universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts," with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, delivering the majority opinion.
"The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority just took away lower courts' single most powerful tool for reining in the Trump administration's lawless excesses," wroteSlate's Mark Joseph Stern. "I understand there is some debate about the scope of this ruling, but my view remains that the Supreme Court has just effectively abolished universal injunctions, at least as we know them. The question now is really whether lower courts can craft something to replace them that still sweeps widely."
"Trump's Justice Department is about to file a motion in every lower court where it faces a universal injunction citing this case and arguing that the injunction must be narrowed," the journalist explained. "This will have huge downstream consequences for a ton of other extraordinarily important and controversial cases."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a dissent, joined by the other two liberals, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also wrote her own. Many other critics of the high court's majority decision echoed their warnings about the expected consequences of the ruling.
"The Supreme Court has green-lighted Trump to run roughshod over a critical constitutional right. This is not a slide into authoritarianism—this is a one-way plummet," said Analilia Mejia and DaMareo Cooper, co-executive directors of the grassroots coalition Popular Democracy, in a Friday statement.
"This ruling takes away the power of lower courts to block unconstitutional moves from the government on a federal level— allowing the government to act with impunity and apply law inconsistently across the country," they stressed. "As Justice Sotomayor wrote, 'No right is safe in the new legal regime this court creates.'"
Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), the daughter of Guatemalan immigrants and a citizen by birthright, said Friday that "I agree, Judge Sotomayor, no right is safe under the new regime, not even the ones clearly guaranteed under our Constitution."
"For more than 100 years, the 14th Amendment has reaffirmed that all people born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens, with equal rights under the law. It has been and is the law of the land, consistently upheld by courts and scholars across the political spectrum," she noted. "But in limiting nationwide injunctions, Trump's loyalists have decided to—once again—put him above the rule of law, our Constitution, and the principles of our nation."
Caroline Ciccone, president of the watchdog Accountable.US, highlighted that same line from Sotomayor and also explained that "results like this are the result of a yearslong takeover by Trump and special interest allies to capture the courts and install conservative majorities that help him advance an extreme ideological agenda."
"Let's be clear: The Trump administration appealed this case to undermine the power of federal judges, rather than address his blatantly unconstitutional executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship," Ciccone said.
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, said that "as Justice Jackson notes, 'The court's decision to permit the executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.'"
"Today, six justices on the Supreme Court eliminated one of the most effective checks on Donald Trump, clearing a path for him to impose his extreme, anti-democratic agenda on any American who can't afford a lawyer or doesn't join the game of litigation Whac-A-Mole now required to protect their basic rights. This ruling should send a chill down every American's spine."
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) also described the decision as chilling and argued on social media that "the Supreme Court is declaring open season on all our rights."
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, called out the high court for failing "every American," and said that "we must heed Justice Jackson's warning," citing that same line from her dissent.
Maggie Jo Buchanan, interim executive director of the group Demand Justice, pointed to another line, agreeing that "as Justice Jackson wrote in her dissent, the court has created an 'existential threat' to the rule of law and the system of checks and balances upon which our nation was founded."
"The same six justices who gave Trump king-like immunity for criminal acts have now limited the ability of the judicial branch to protect everyday Americans from unconstitutional or illegal executive overreach," she said, referring to a decision issued a year ago. "Just as Republican leaders in Congress duck their heads and carry out Trump's bidding, the Republican appointees on the court do so as well."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also took aim at both his GOP colleagues and the justices, saying that "the Supreme Court's decision to limit courts of their long-held authority to block illegal executive actions is an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court."
"Congressional Republicans have to choose between being bystanders or co-conspirators," Schumer added, urging them to challenge Trump. "Congress must check this unimpeded power, but for that to happen, Republican members must stand up for core American democratic values and not for unchecked presidential power of the kind that our Founders most deeply feared."
In addition to sounding the alarm about what the high court's decision means for all future legal battles, critics noted that although the justices didn't weigh in on Trump's birthright citizenship order, it could soon start to impact families nationwide.
"The administration's attempt to deny citizenship to many children born in the United States is unquestionably unconstitutional, and nothing in today's Supreme Court opinion suggests otherwise. Yet, the court has nonetheless created a real risk that the administration's unconstitutional order will go into effect in many parts of the country in 30 days," said Sam Spital, associate director-counsel at the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), vowing to continue the fight against the order.
FWD.us president Todd Schulte pointed out that with its new ruling, "the Supreme Court has opened the door to a fractured system in which a child born in one state is recognized as a citizen, but a child born in another is not."
"If the president's order is allowed to go into effect by the lower courts, there will be immediate chaos for parents, hospitals, and local officials, and long-term harm for families and communities across the country," he warned.
Juana, a pregnant mother, CASA member, and named plaintiff in a lawsuit over the order, said Friday that "I'm heartbroken that the Supreme Court chose to limit protections instead of standing firmly for all families like mine."
"Every child born here deserves the same rights, no matter who their parents are," Juana declared. "I joined this lawsuit not just for my baby, but for every child who deserves to be recognized as fully American from their first breath. We won't stop fighting until that promise is real for everyone."
Shortly after the ruling, organizations including the ACLU, Democracy Defenders Fund, and LDF filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a proposed class of babies subject to Trump's executive order and their parents.
"The Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship, and no procedural ruling will stop us from fighting to uphold that promise," said Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund. "Our plaintiffs, and millions of families across this country, deserve clarity, stability, and justice. We look forward to making our case in court again."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Porn ID Ruling 'A Blow to Freedom of Speech and Privacy,' Says ACLU
"The legislature claims to be protecting children from sexually explicit materials, but the law will do little to block their access, and instead deters adults from viewing vast amounts of First Amendment-protected content," said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU.
Jun 27, 2025
Free speech advocates are sounding the alarm after the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Texas law requiring users to share personal identification to view adult material online.
The law, which mandates websites that host sexual content to require users to provide photo IDs or biometric scans to verify that they are over 18, was challenged by several adult websites and free speech organizations. They argued that it violated adult users' First Amendment rights.In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines siding with Texas, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion that the law "only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults," and therefore did not require "strict scrutiny" from the Court.
But advocates for free speech and online security have warned that such laws—which have passed in 24 states—have the potential to be much more invasive, both to personal expression and privacy.
Following the ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) decried the Court's decision as "a blow to freedom of speech and privacy."
"The Supreme Court has departed from decades of settled precedents that ensured that sweeping laws purportedly for the benefit of minors do not limit adults' access to First Amendment-protected materials," said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU. "The legislature claims to be protecting children from sexually explicit materials, but the law will do little to block their access, and instead deters adults from viewing vast amounts of First Amendment-protected content."
The ACLU's concerns echoed those expressed in Justice Elena Kagan's dissenting opinion, in which she said the court should have applied "strict scrutiny," which would have required the bill to use the least restrictive means possible to meet its goal. Applying strict scrutiny is standard in cases involving content related restrictions on expression, and has been used in past cases related to obscenity.
"No one doubts that the distribution of sexually explicit speech to children, of the sort involved here, can cause great harm," she added. "But the First Amendment protects those sexually explicit materials, for every adult. So a state cannot target that expression, as Texas has here, any more than is necessary to prevent it from reaching children."
During oral arguments in January, Kagan warned of the potential "spillover danger" if the court were to weaken strict scrutiny for free expression cases.
"You relax strict scrutiny in one place," she said, "and all of a sudden, strict scrutiny gets relaxed in other places."
Friday's ruling comes as red states have introduced laws increasingly cracking down on public discussion of sex and gender.
These have included laws banning sexual education or the discussion of LGBTQ+ identities in schools, bans on books containing "divisive" topics including sex and gender, and bans on drag shows in public spaces. Many states have also introduced laws allowing parents to challenge books containing "divisive" concepts, including discussions of sexuality and LGBTQ+ identity.
On Friday, the Supreme Court also ruled on religious liberty grounds in favor of parents' rights to opt their children out from classes with storybooks involving LGBTQ+ characters.
"As it has been throughout history, pornography is once again the canary in the coal mine of free expression," said Alison Boden, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, which was one of the plaintiffs in the Texas case.
Beyond burdening adults' free expression, critics warned that requiring photo identification poses a privacy risk to porn viewers.
The conservative justices defended the law as tantamount to others that require identification to access alcohol or to enter adults-only spaces. In his majority opinion, Thomas wrote that the law is "appropriately tailored because it permits users to verify their ages through the established methods of providing government-issued identification and sharing transactional data."
However, Kagan argued in her dissent that requiring photo ID for online activity is fundamentally different because the user has no idea if their identifying information is being tracked or logged.
"It is turning over information about yourself and your viewing habits—respecting speech many find repulsive—to a website operator, and then to… who knows?" she said.
Evan Greer, founder of the online privacy advocacy group Fight for the Future, wrote on BlueSky that the ruling bodes ill for internet privacy more generally.
"This is bad in a variety of ways that have nothing to do with porn and everything to do with expanding invasive surveillance of every single internet user, including all adults," Greer said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just Killed, for Nothing': Israeli Troops Say They Were Ordered to Shoot Aid-Seeking Gaza Civilians
"Killing innocent people—it's been normalized," said one senior reserve officer. "We were constantly told there are no noncombatants in Gaza, and apparently that message sank in among the troops."
Jun 27, 2025
Israel Defense Forces commanders ordered troops to shoot and shell aid-seeking Palestinian civilians in Gaza, even when they posed no threat, according to IDF officers and soldiers interviewed by Israel's oldest daily newspaper.
Haaretz on Friday published testimonies of IDF members including senior officers who said that commanders including Brig. Gen. Yehuda Vach ordered troops to open fire on aid-seeking Palestinians in order to disperse them, even when there was no danger to Israeli troops.
"It's a killing field," one soldier said. "Where I was stationed, between one and five people were killed every day. They're treated like a hostile force—no crowd-control measures, no tear gas—just live fire with everything imaginable: heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, mortars. Then, once the center opens, the shooting stops, and they know they can approach. Our form of communication is gunfire."
The soldier said troops informally call this activity "Operation Salted Fish." Salted fish, or dag maluach in Hebrew, is an Israeli children's game similar to red light, green light. One IDF reservist who just finished a round of duty in Gaza this week said that "the loss of human life means nothing. It's not even an 'unfortunate incident,' like they used to say."
Last month, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification report revealed that 244,000 people in Gaza were suffering such "an extreme deprivation of food" that "starvation, death, destitution, and extremely critical levels of acute malnutrition are or will likely be evident." Gaza officials say at least hundreds of people have already died of malnutrition and lack of medical care since Israel tightened the siege in March. Many of the victims are children and elders. Hundreds of premature infants face imminent death.
Amid such desperation—driven by 629 days of U.S.-backed Israeli bombardment, invasion, and ethnic cleansing that have killed, wounded, or disappeared more than 200,000 Palestinians and forcibly displaced over 2 million—Gazans are willing to risk their lives for their next meal.
According to Gaza's Government Media Office, at least 549 Palestinians have been killed and more than 4,000 others have been wounded by IDF troops since May 27 while trying to obtain humanitarian aid amid Israel's "complete siege" of the Gaza Strip that has fueled mass starvation and illness. Dozens or more civilians have been killed in the worst of these aid massacres.
A reserve officer in Vach's Division 252—veterans of which have accused the general of telling them "there are no innocents in Gaza"—told Haaretz that he was ordered to fire artillery shells toward a crowd gathered near an aid distribution site.
"Technically, it's supposed to be warning fire—either to push people back or stop them from advancing," he said. "But lately, firing shells has just become standard practice. Every time we fire, there are casualties and deaths, and when someone asks why a shell is necessary, there's never a good answer. Sometimes, merely asking the question annoys the commanders."
"You know it's not right. You feel it's not right—that the commanders here are taking the law into their own hands," the soldier added. "But Gaza is a parallel universe. You move on quickly. The truth is, most people don't even stop to think about it."
A senior reserve officer who was present when more than 10 aid-seekers were killed said:
When we asked why they opened fire, we were told it was an order from above and that the civilians had posed a threat to the troops. I can say with certainty that the people were not close to the forces and did not endanger them. It was pointless—they were just killed, for nothing. This thing called killing innocent people—it's been normalized. We were constantly told there are no noncombatants in Gaza, and apparently that message sank in among the troops.
That message has come all the way from the top. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, including murder and weaponized starvation—has invoked the biblical command for genocide against Israel's ancient enemy Amalek. Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said that the killing of every man, woman, and child in Gaza would be "justified and moral." Deputy Knesset Speaker Nissim Vaturi asserted that "there are no uninvolved people" in Gaza, and "we must go in there and kill, kill, kill." Many other prominent Israelis have made similar statements.
Israel's Military Advocate General has instructed the IDF General Staff's Fact-Finding Assessment Mechanism to investigate the killing of aid-seeking civilians as possible war crimes. However, the historical record suggests impunity—or at worst, wrist-slap punishment—will prevail for most if not all of those who ordered and carried out the shooting and shelling of civilians.
One military source who attended a high-level IDF meeting during which the use of artillery on aid-seekers was discussed told Haaretz that "they talk about using artillery on a junction full of civilians as if it's normal."
"An entire conversation about whether it's right or wrong to use artillery, without even asking why that weapon was needed in the first place," the source said. "What concerns everyone is whether it'll hurt our legitimacy to keep operating in Gaza. The moral aspect is practically nonexistent. No one stops to ask why dozens of civilians looking for food are being killed every day."
"This isn't about a few people being killed—we're talking about dozens of casualties every day."
A legal official who attended the meeting told Haaretz that representatives of the Military Advocate General's Office rejected the IDF's argument that aid killings were one-off incidents.
"The claim that these are isolated cases doesn't align with incidents in which grenades were dropped from the air and mortars and artillery were fired at civilians," the official said. "This isn't about a few people being killed—we're talking about dozens of casualties every day."
The near-daily massacres of aid-seeking Palestinian civilians by Israeli forces and Israel's use of the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation—whose operations have been called a "death trap"—have drawn international condemnation.
Earlier this week, a spokesperson for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said that "the weaponization of food for civilians... constitutes a war crime and, under certain circumstances, may constitute elements of other crimes under international law," remarks that came amid the ongoing genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz rejected the claims in the Haaretz report as "blood libels," while the IDF responded to the exposé in a statement claiming that "any allegation of a deviation from the law or IDF directives will be thoroughly examined, and further action will be taken as necessary."
"The allegations of deliberate fire toward civilians presented in the article are not recognized in the field," the IDF added.
IDF troops have previously admitted to witnessing alleged war crimes including indiscriminate murder of people including women and children in Gaza and torture, sometimes fatal, in Israeli detention centers including the notorious Sde Teiman prison.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular