New York Quake Overdue (The Sixth Seal) (Rev 6:12)

http://www.gothamgazette.com/graphics/2008/09/skyesfig3_cropped.gif

Won-Young Kim, who runs the seismographic network for the Northeast at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said the city is well overdue for a big earthquake.

The last big quake to hit New York City was a 5.3-magnitude tremor in 1884 that happened at sea in between Brooklyn and Sandy Hook. While no one was killed, buildings were damaged.

Kim said the city is likely to experience a big earthquake every 100 years or so.

“It can happen anytime soon,” Kim said. “We can expect it any minute, we just don’t know when and where.”

New York has never experienced a magnitude 6 or 7 earthquake, which are the most dangerous. But magnitude 5 quakes could topple brick buildings and chimneys.

Seismologist John Armbruster said a magnitude 5 quake that happened now would be more devastating than the one that happened in 1884.

Iran Tramples Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

Iran-Hamas relations growing: Kharrazi

TEHRAN – Kamal Kharrazi, chairman of Iran’s Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, said on Sunday that liberation of Palestine, especially the noble Quds, is among the greatest causes of Iran.

During a meeting with Saleh al-Arouri, the deputy leader of Hamas, Kharrazi said that Iran has supported Palestine since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

For his part, Arouri, who was accompanied by a delegation to Tehran, praised Iran’s position in supporting the Palestinian issue.

Talking to reporters after the meeting, Kharrazi said relations between Iran and Hamas are growing.

“Policies of the enemies of Islam and Palestine in supporting occupant Israel are obvious. The Palestinians are aware of these policies and have come to the conclusion that they should stand against the foreigners’ plots,” stated Kharrazi, who was Iran’s foreign minister from 1997-2005.

Pointing to the U.S. proposed “deal of the century”, he said that the Palestinian people countered the plot and all the Muslims condemned it.

Under the deal of the century, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed to limit Palestine’s land to around half of the West Bank.

The International Quds Day, which falls on the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan, was marked on May 31. This year’s demonstrations revolved around the slogan of “The International Quds Day, failure of deal of the century and stabilization of the Palestine cause”.

A Hamas delegation headed by Musa Abu Marzouq also met with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Michael Bogdanov in Moscow, the Middle East Monitor reported on July 17.

Abu Marzouq briefed the Russian official on the political developments of the Palestinian issue including the U.S. “deal of the century”, stressing that all Palestinian people reject it.

The senior Russian official confirmed that Moscow is interested in following up on the political developments in Palestine and the region.

He stressed that Russia supports the Palestinian rights and rejects the deal of the century, highlighting that Moscow’s absence during the Bahrain workshop was evidence of this.

The Hamas delegation reiterated that the movement is eager to achieve reconciliation with other Palestinian factions by holding general elections, forming a unity government and agreeing on a comprehensive national program.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov told the visiting delegation that national unity should be a priority for all Palestinian factions, expressing his rejection of the “punitive policy” adopted by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Hamas highlighted the difficult conditions under which Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and al-Quds (Jerusalem) live, as well as the situation for those in the diaspora.

Abu Marzouk said he believes Russia could be a “strong player” in achieving internal Palestinian reconciliation.

NA/PA

The Bowls of Wrath (Revelation 16)

The World Of Nuclear Weapons Interest

By Abdul-Razak Lukman

The invention of nuclear weapons has generated a different picture in the world of diplomacy and international relations. No doubt that nuclear weapons can be seen as one of the most important discoveries in the world of power-politics. This discovery has led to a different wavelength in terms of a country’s foreign policy arrangement and security. In this write-up, efforts would be made to dilute the reason behind a country’s quests to harvest nuclear weapons against international institutional outcry, the actions or inactions of states after the acquisition of nuclear weapons and their foreign policy directions and other matters of importance.

The dynamics in world politics have been changing with regards to the world’s technological development coupled with security apparatuses. Nuclear weapon is a legacy of the post-WWII reality. But it is a fact that there has never been a use of nuclear weapons since 1945 (except a brink of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and the Yom Kippur War in 1973) and this achievement is something that must not be taken for granted. The number of countries on the ladder of interests to possessing nukes has slowly increased over the past seven decades, despite the fact that no country has ever used same against the other. Even though there are instances where emotions of states went so high and very close to firing a nuclear bomb at another country, restraint ends up carrying the day. Countries lacing their boots to be forcibly part of the nuclear club have reasons best cherished by them. And such reasons could be reasonable or factually wrong incomprehension.

As indicated earlier, the dynamics in world politics and power have sharply shifted in line with a country’s technological advancement. For this reason, most countries have a firm belief that they can execute their foreign policy and portray same in the best limelight with assured security provided they have full backing weapons in their inventory. This belief is in line with their assertion that attacking another with nuclear-armed power is obviously a misplaced priority because it risks one’s own Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD); no political or economical gains could be worth the costs of being hit by even a spoonful of nuclear bombs in retaliation. It is not always the case that you attack a country using nuclear weapons. However, you can attack nuclear-armed countries with conventional forces as Egypt and Syria did in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. But the consequences thereafter is more than the eye can see.

Interestingly, nuclear weapons are the ultimate big stick or yardstick with which certain countries treat others with respect. Some countries felt threatened whenever they have a major foreign policy to execute. They felt that their sovereignty as a country, wherewithal or power to execute foreign policies or internal policy arrangement to the best of their abilities and capabilities and for the country’s interest have been threatened by a superpower who sits in another country to determine how things should be done in someone’s own. This threat, to them, is simply the lack of military power in a form if deterrents. For this reason, some countries do all that they could to amass huge quantity of uranium to hit the tedious journey of nuclear production. Countries in this line of thoughts believe that possessing nukes is SIMPLY POSSESSING OR BUYING ONE’S OWN FREEDOM. This belief which is at the heart of countries like North Korea and Iran who are on the journey to the nuclear acquisition warehouse could be hard to reposition their beliefs. An Iranian citizen not long ago posits that nuclear-armed States treat one another with the needed respect even when sometimes, is difficult to broker peace. However, the case is actually different with respect to non-nuclear-armed States. He said.

In the world of commerce, countries with the zeal to joining the nuclear community believe that only the peaceful and advanced nations are taken seriously regarding various matters related to trade, military etc. Nuclear capabilities make a nation seen as both powerful and technologically advanced. This notion of interested countries to wage into the business of nuclear production hinted that the resultant impact of being recognized globally boosts investor confidence. So the need to venture into such a military-lucrative-economic but dangerous path.

However, countries do turn to act weird after the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Their foreign policy direction changes swiftly against countries of non-nuclear stockpile, they revisit most foreign policies or agreements initiated with other countries which were not in their favour. They threaten other states for the simple reason that they have a strong military history to write home about. On that, they step on the toes of other countries and expect them to keep mute. This is a clear case of complacency exhibited by freshers or ambitious countries into the nuclear community. Could this be the thoughts/thinking of both North Korea and Iran?

It is pathetic that some countries see nuclear weapons as a means of assured peace over their backyard. Could this be the failure of UN/NPT? I believe that India would disarm if Pakistan and China did, and Iran’s interest in nuclear weapons production is because Israel has it. Get Russia, USA, and China to disarm and the world would have a zero deployed weapons. The failure to enforce proliferation on Pakistan was a fatal strategic error and that of North Korea compounded the issue – to say that Iran is taking a cue from the supposed ‘successes’ of North Korea to possessing nuclear weapons is an understatement.

The Facts About the Russian Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

FACT: Russia’s New Stealth Submarine Carries 72 Deadly Nuclear Missiles

Each of the submarine’s sixteen R-30 Bulava (“Mace”) missiles typically carries six 150-kiloton nuclear warheads designed to split apart to hit separate targets. This means one Borei can rain seventy-two nuclear warheads ten times more destructive than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima on cities and military bases over 5,800 miles away.

On May 22, 2018, the Russian submarine Yuri Dolgoruky slipped beneath the waves of the Arctic White Sea. Hatches along the submerged boat’s spine opened, flooding the capacious tubes beneath. Moments later, an undersea volcano seemingly erupted from the depths. 

Amidst roiling smoke, four stubby-looking missiles measuring twelve-meters in length emerged one by one. Momentarily, they seemed on the verge of faltering backward into the sea before their solid-fuel rockets ignited, propelling them high into the stratosphere. The four missiles soared across Russia to land in a missile test range on the Kamchatka peninsula, roughly 3,500 miles away.

Like the nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) operated by United States, China, France, the United Kingdom, and India, the primary purpose of Borei-class submarines is almost unimaginably grim: to bring ruin to an adversary’s cities, even should other nuclear forces be wiped out in a first strike. 

Each of the submarine’s sixteen R-30 Bulava (“Mace”) missiles typically carries six 150-kiloton nuclear warheads designed to split apart to hit separate targets. This means one Borei can rain seventy-two nuclear warheads ten times more destructive than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima on cities and military bases over 5,800 miles away.

The Borei is the most advanced SSBN in the Russian Navy, and is designed to replace its seven Soviet-era Delta-class SSBNs. Throughout most of the Cold War, Soviets submarines were noisier than their Western counterparts, and thus vulnerable to detection and attack by Western attack submarines. 

This problem was finally appreciated by the 1980s, when the Soviets managed to import technologies from Japan and Norway to create the Akula-class attack submarine, which finally matched the U.S. Navy’s workhorse Los Angeles-class attack submarines in acoustic stealth.

Concept work on the Project 955 Borei began during the 1980s. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, in 1996 cash-strapped Russia decided to lower costs by taking three incomplete Akula hulls and convert them into a revised Borei design.

Construction proceeded at Severodvinsk, and lead ship Yury Dolgoruky (named after the Russian prince who founded the city of Moscow) launched in 2008 and was commissioned five years later in January 2013.

An SSBN’s primary purpose is to remain undetected long enough to unleash its terrifying firepower—a strategy made easier thanks to their nuclear reactors allowing them remain submerged for months at a time. Towards that end, the Borei is designed to higher standards of acoustic stealth than Soviet-era designs, and is more capable of evading enemies that do get an inkling of its position.

The Borei’s sleek 170-meter-long hull is considered more typical of Western-style submarine engineering, than the boxier Delta-class. Both the hull and the machinery inside the gargantuan 24,000-ton (submerged) submarine are coated in sound-dampening rubber.

The Borei’s OKF-650B 190-megawatt reactor powers a pump-jet propulsion system that allows it to remain unusually quiet while cruising near its maximum underwater speed of thirty knots. This probably makes the Borei quieter, and able to remain discrete at higher speeds, than the propeller-driven Ohio-class submarine. Russian media claims its acoustic signature is one-fifth that of the Typhoon and Delta-IV class SSBN and that the Borei was also uniquely suited to perform nuclear deterrence patrols in the southern hemisphere, though Russian SSBNs have historically remained close to friendly waters for protection.

For defense against enemy ships and submarines, the Borei also has eight 533-millimeter torpedo tubes and six countermeasure launchers atop its bow. Should things go terribly wrong for the relatively small crew of 107, the Russian SSBN has a pop-out escape pod on its back.

Troubled Missiles

The Borei was originally intended to carry twelve larger and more advanced R-39 “Bark” submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM). But the R-39 was canceled in 1998 after failing in three test launches. 

Thus, the Borei had to be redesigned to carry sixteen smaller Bulava missiles derived from the land-based Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile. The Bulava also proved very troubled, however, failing in ten out of twenty-seven test launches due to manufacturing defects. Two failures occurred after the Bulava was operationally deployed on the Borei in 2013.

The Bulava has an unusually shallow flight trajectory, making it harder to intercept, and can be fired while the Borei is moving. The 40-ton missiles can deploy up to forty decoys to try to divert defensive missiles fire by anti-ballistic missiles systems like the Alaska-based Ground-based Midcourse Defense system.

However, publicized specifications imply the R-30 may be nearly four times less accurate than the Trident D5 SLBMs on U.S. and British submarines, with only half of shots landing within 350 meters of a target. This implies the R-30 is a purely strategic weapon lacking the precision to reliably take out hardened military targets like nuclear silos in a first-strike scenario.

The New Generation Borei-A

Of the three active Boreis, the Yuri Dologoruky is based at Ghadzhievo (near Murmansk) assigned to the Northern Fleet, while the Alexander Nevsky and the Vladimir Monomakh are part of the Pacific Fleet, based at Vilyuchinsk on the Kamchatka Peninsula.

Between 2012 and 2016, the Severomash shipyard laid down five new generation Project 955A Borei-II/Borei-A submarines. Lead boat Knyaz Vladimir (Prince Vladimir) launched in 2017 and is due to be commissioned in 2019.

While retaining the same basic tear-drop profile, Knyaz Vladimir appears to be six meters longer based on satellite photos. The 955’s distinctive forward-slanted sail (conning tower) has been replaced with a more conventional tapered design in the 955A. As you can see in this diagram, 955A’s tail has a larger pump jet, an all-moving rudder and new end plates to its horizontal fins for improved maneuverability. A new long blister on the lower hull may house an improved flank-array sonar, or serve as a stowage hangar. You can see detailed imagery, deck plans and analysis of the Borei-A at the website Covert Shores.

Other upgrades include modernized combat, sensor and communications systems, improved acoustic stealth and crew habitability. One Russian source claims the new model is optimized “to decrease launch time to the minimum.”

All five Boreis-A are due to be commissioned by 2021, though Russian shipbuilding frequently falls behind schedule. Nonetheless, given the Russian Navy has had to cancel, downsize or downgrade numerous projects in the last few years, the money invested in completing the subs testifies to the importance Moscow places on submarine nuclear deterrence. The boats cost slightly less than half the cost of their American Ohio-class counterparts at $890 million, but Moscow’s defense budget is only one-twelfth that of the United States.

The eight Boreis would maintain, but not expand, on a standing force of eight Russian SSBNs evenly split between the Pacific and Northern fleets—enough for multiple submarines to perform deterrence patrols at the same time.

Russian media has variously indicated two or six more Boreis could be built in the mid to late 2020s, for a total of ten to fourteen Boreis of both types. Two of these could potentially be a cruise-missile-carrying Borei-K variant that would parallel the U.S. Navy’s Ohio-class SSGN cruise missile submarines.

However, the Borei represents only half of the Russian Navy’s future sea-based nuclear deterrence force. The other half will come from a unique fleet of four Khaborovsk-class submarines each carrying six nuclear-powered Poseidon drone-torpedoes designed to swim across oceanic distances to blast coastal cities and naval bases with megaton-yield warheads. Moscow, it seems, would like a little more redundancy in its ability to end civilization as we know it in the event of a nuclear conflict.

Sébastien Roblin holds a master’s degree in conflict resolution from Georgetown University and served as a university instructor for the Peace Corps in China. He has also worked in education, editing, and refugee resettlement in France and the United States. He currently writes on security and military history for War Is Boring.

Image: Reuters.

Time to Build Up the Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7-8)

Clock’s ticking on one of world’s most important nuclear treaties. A dangerous arms race may be next

By Eliza Mackintosh, CNN

Updated at 1:33 AM ET, Sat July 20, 2019

(CNN) — This week, senior American officials traveled to Switzerland to deliver President Donald Trump’s “vision for a new direction in nuclear arms control.”

That vision is to strike a wide-ranging deal that would limit the arsenals of not only the US and Russia, but also China for the first time.

At a meeting with their Russian counterparts in Geneva on Wednesday, the US delegation relayed their concerns over Moscow’s development of “non-strategic nuclear weapons,” the State Department said. Another concern is the fact that China, which did not participate in the talks, has rejected negotiations out of hand.

But the President’s ambition for an all-encompassing deal is clouded by his track record, and observers are increasingly worried that the unraveling of existing accords under the Trump administration could lead to a more unstable future for nuclear proliferation globally.

In May 2018, Trump quit the Iran nuclear deal, sparking an ever-widening rift with Tehran and heightened tensions in the Middle East. In February, the US suspended the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), a key pact with Russia that has been a centerpiece of European security since the Cold War, saying Moscow had violated its terms.

And as the talks were taking place in Geneva, the clock continued to run down on the last remaining major nuclear deal between the US and Russia, which control 90% of the world’s nuclear warheads.

The New Start treaty, signed by Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev in 2010, restricts the US and Russia to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads across 700 delivery systems. While Russia has signaled an interest in renewing the pact, Trump has previously described it as a “bad deal,” and there is no sign that it will be extended beyond 2021, when it expires.

If the New Start deal is scrapped, experts fear a return to a world without limits on nuclear stockpiles. The US and Russia could quickly ramp up the number of warheads deployed on sea and on land. With their nuclear ambitions unchecked, it would be almost impossible to convince other nations, like China, to exercise restraint.

In the absence of transparency, experts said, worst-case scenario thinking could contribute to an even more hostile geopolitical landscape. With global powers on tenterhooks, the risk of a miscalculation — and a knee-jerk deployment of a nuclear weapon — would increase.

“This would be the first time since 1972 that the US and Russia, previously the Soviet Union, would not have limits on their arsenals. It would make an already difficult and dangerous relationship all the more difficult to manage, and could cause one or the other side to accelerate their nuclear stockpiles,” Daryl Kimball, director of the Arms Control Association, told CNN.

“It would be a world that we have not seen in a long time.”

‘A poison pill’

In January, Trump announced his intention to seek a new nuclear treaty and offered a vision of what would come next if he couldn’t strike a deal.

“Perhaps we can negotiate a different agreement, adding China and others, or perhaps we can’t,” Trump said during an address to the nation. “In which case, we will outspend and out-innovate all others by far.”

But by all accounts, 19 months is not enough time to negotiate a brand-new agreement — even if China was on board, which it is not.

“We oppose any country’s attempt to make an issue out of China on arms control and will not participate in any negotiation for a trilateral nuclear disarmament agreement,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said during a press briefing in May.

This proposal for a trilateral agreement is, in reality, a poison pill designed to provide a pretext to allow for the [New Start] treaty to expire,” Kimball told CNN.

The presence in the administration of National Security Advisor John Bolton — a longstanding hawk and critic of arms control agreements — also has some observers concerned that the White House’s true goal may be to find an exit strategy for a nuclear pact it sees as constraining and outdated.

President Vladimir Putin, who has suggested Russia would be open to renewing the New Start treaty, has warned that letting the pact lapse could risk an arms race.

“The Cold War was a bad thing … but there were at least some rules that all participants in international communication more or less adhered to or tried to follow. Now, it seems that there are no rules at all,” he told the Financial Times last month.

The ditching of nuclear treaties by the Trump administration has already contributed to the weakening of norms, and casts other multilateral agreements, like the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) into doubt, experts said.

Under the NPT, one of the world’s most important foundational nuclear treaties, nuclear-weapon states — the US, Russia, China, France and the UK — commit to ending the arms race and achieving nuclear disarmament, while non-nuclear-weapons states agree to forgo developing or seeking nuclear weapons.

But if the US and Russia abandon an agreement designed to reduce their nuclear stockpiles, it will become far more difficult to make non-nuclear states stick to their commitments, according to Tytti Erästö, a researcher for the SIPRI Nuclear Disarmament, Arms Control and Nonproliferation Programme.

Without these treaties you can’t even speak about violations or limits — basically anything is allowed,” Erästö told CNN.

“For new potential proliferators, the weakening of international norms and the legitimacy crisis within the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty may remove some of the normative restraints to developing nuclear weapons. I don’t think any country would go develop a nuclear weapon just because of this, but it may impact decisions in the future about whether or not to acquire them.”

One eye on China

China is steadily building and modernizing its arsenal, according to Zhao Tong, a fellow at the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy in Beijing.

“It’s a trend that makes the US increasingly worried,” Zhao told CNN.

Still, at an estimated 290 warheads, according to the Arms Control Association, China’s nuclear arsenal is only a fraction of the US and Russia. It is that lack of parity which makes the idea of a trilateral arms control treaty a non-starter for China.

Zhao warned that a collapse of the New Start treaty would pose significant implications for Chinese nuclear thinking.

“The Chinese embrace deep distrust against the US, and against Russia to some extent, even under current conditions,” Zhao said. “So you imagine if there is no formal agreement, no verification letters, how Chinese experts would trust the unilaterally declared amounts. It is very easy for the Chinese expert community to develop exaggerated threat perceptions.”

And that fear would ultimately drive further growth of the Chinese nuclear arsenal.

Arms control agreements supply parties with a basic sense of certainty about each other’s capabilities. They help mitigate misunderstandings among big powers, build transparency measures through mutual verification and contribute to confidence building — cultivating a habit of cooperation through open channels.

Without them, the effect is a much more uncertain world with fewer rules regulating the world’s most dangerous weapon.

The possibility of the New Start treaty’s demise offers a window into the atmosphere that could exist without any nuclear limits at all.

“If there is no arms control, opportunities of substantive exchange would be lost and the nuclear communities would stop talking,” Zhao said.

“In that environment I’m afraid the appreciation and spirit of cooperative security would be lost.

The Merchant Warns Iran Over Its Uranium Enrichment Beyond Agreed Threshold

Trump Warns Iran Over Its Uranium Enrichment Beyond Agreed Threshold

(MENAFN – Wadsam) Iran has increased its uranium enrichment beyond its purity threshold, breaking the deal that was made by Iran, USA, and three other countries. Iran warned to increase uranium enrichment if European signatories do not ease sanction on its banking and oil sectors. ‘Iran better be careful, because you enrich for one reason and I won’t tell you what the reason is. But it’s no good; they better be careful,” Trump stated.

Iran has stated that they are enriching its uranium not to develop nuclear weapons, and are focusing on non-military uses. Iran has enriched its uranium past 3.67% (the previous limit) and has now exceeded the 4.5% mark. France has announced they will send diplomat Emmanuel Bonne to Tehran to try to decrease tension over Iran’s nuclear program. Trump spoke with Macron over the phone and they discussed efforts to ensure Iran does not get a hold of a nuclear weapon.

British forces seized an Iranian tanker, believing to have carrying oil to Syria which violates EU sanctions.

The Secretary of the Expediency Discernment Council of Iran, Mohsen Rezaee, stated that Iran is compelled to seize a British oil tanker if the UK does not release the Iranian oil tanker.

126 More Wounded Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

64th Friday of Demonstrations in Gaza: 126 Wounded, including 39 Children, Two Women, Five Paramedics, and Two Journalists

On 28 June 2019, the sixty-fourth Friday of the Great March of Return (GMR), Israeli forces continued to use live fire, amounting to excessive force, in policing unarmed protests. 126 people were injured, including 39 children, two women, four paramedics, and two journalists. Of the injured, 41 sustained wounds from live fire, while 46 were hit directly by tear gas canisters. According to medical sources, eight of the injured are in critical condition.

The documentation by Al Mezan Center for Human Rights shows that on Friday:

• Ikhlas Al-Qirnawi, 23, and Ahmed Matar, 29, both paramedics volunteering with the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS), were injured with shrapnel in the right leg and with a tear gas canister in the left leg, respectively, while evacuating and providing aid to casualties at the demonstration in the Middle Gaza district.

• Mohammed Al-Shrafi, 25, a paramedic volunteering with PRCS, was injured in the stomach with a plastic-coated steel bullet at the demonstration in North Gaza district.

• Mohammed Abu Daqqa, 24, a volunteering paramedic with Rowwad Al-Salam Medical Team, was injured in the head with a tear gas canister.

• Ali Al-Aloul, 22, a volunteering paramedic with Nabd Al-Hayah Medical Team, was injured in the pelvis with a plastic-coated steel bullet at the demonstration in Rafah district.

• A PRCS ambulance was targeted with live fire and was partially damaged in east Rafah.

• Ra’ed Abu Mathkour, 29, a freelance photojournalist, was injured in the left leg with a live bullet while covering the demonstration in Rafah.

• Mohammed Kassab, 27, a freelance photojournalist, was injured in the neck with shrapnel of live fire while covering the demonstration in the Middle Gaza district.

Al Mezan’s documentation shows that from 30 March 2018, Israeli forces have killed 310 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Of the total fatalities, 207 were killed at the protests, including 44 children, two women, four paramedics, two journalists, and nine persons with disability. Another 17,106 persons have been wounded, including 4,015 children, 764 women, 203 paramedics, and 171 journalists. Of the wounded, 8,598 were wounded from live fire, including 1,717 children and 168 women. The Israeli forces continue to keep the bodies of 12 fatalities, including four minors.

Al Mezan condemns the continued use of excessive and other unlawful force by the Israeli forces, including sharpshooters, to police demonstrations. Al Mezan also expresses concern at the continued deliberate attacks on unarmed protesters, including children, persons with disability, paramedics and journalists—the last two categories being visible as such to Israeli forces. Al Mezan stresses that the rights to peaceful assembly and to free expression are fundamental rights and must be respected. Unarmed protesters not posing any serious or imminent threat to the Israeli forces must not be shot.

Al Mezan calls on the international community to condemn all violations of international law and to promptly intervene to ensure the protection of civilians from unlawful attack in the context of the protests. The international community must end its silence on the aggravating human rights situation and condemn all violations of international law. Al Mezan also calls on the international community to take firm action to ensure accountability and justice for serious violations of international law.