I was born in Poonch (Kashmir) and now I live in Norway. I oppose war and violence and am a firm believer in the peaceful co-existence of all nations and peoples. In my academic work I have tried to espouse the cause of the weak and the oppressed in a world dominated by power politics, misleading propaganda and violations of basic human rights. I also believe that all conscious members of society have a moral duty to stand for and further the cause of peace and human rights throughout the world.
On February 13th, 2025, President Trump
said something few expected to hear. He said, “There’s no reason for us
to be building brand-new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. . .
You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we
are building new nuclear weapons . . . We’re all spending a lot of money
that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully,
much more productive.”
I could not agree more with that
statement. But with today’s expiration of the New START Treaty, we face
the very real possibility of a new nuclear arms race — something that,
to my knowledge, neither the President, Vice President, nor any other
senior U.S. official has meaningfully discussed.
The decision to start a nuclear war can be
made by a single individual—the President of the United States—with no
requirement that he first consult with anyone. A nuclear war could also
be started at any moment by Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, or any other
leader of a nuclear weapon state. Or, it could be triggered by mistake.
A single use of a tactical nuclear weapon,
either by accident or design, could trigger a flurry of escalating
responses with far more powerful strategic weapons that would cause
incalculable loss of life, widespread radiation poisoning, and
destruction on a scale unlike anything seen in human history. We all —
regardless of political affiliation — must reaffirm what Presidents
Reagan and Gorbachev said 40 years ago: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
For the past eighty years, the probability
of mutually assured destruction has deterred the use of nuclear
weapons. But in today’s increasingly dangerous and unpredictable world,
with mercurial leaders like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, we cannot
rely on deterrence alone. Existing nuclear arms control treaties are
either no longer adhered to by Russia or the United States, or, as in the case of New START, have expired.
That represents a colossal failure of
leadership by both the United States and Russia. There is no greater
threat to humanity than a nuclear war, yet there are no negotiations
underway to replace the treaty, nor are there discussions to consider a
new generation of limits on nuclear weapons.
My colleague from Massachusetts, Senator
Ed Markey, and several others in Congress, as well as the arms control
community, have sought to counter this complacency. But the danger of a
new nuclear arms race has received far too little attention from
Congress and the Administration, and with today’s expiration of the New
START Treaty, it is staring us in the face.
The United States, and our allies, must
urgently seek to reinvigorate negotiations on a verifiable replacement
for New START, with more effective mechanisms to prevent the
development, proliferation, and use of nuclear weapons. Until then, we
and the Russians should agree to continue abiding by the limits under
New START. Despite our stark differences with the Russians, they have as
much interest in preventing an unwinnable nuclear war as we do.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and
don’t miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as
well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive,
non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.
Invalid emailEnter your email
We must also invigorate discussions with China, which has some 600 nuclear weapons. That number is expected to more than double in fewer than ten years.
If the U.S. and Russia fail to replace New
START despite it being in both countries’ national security interest,
there are other steps that we, Russia, and China should take—short of
negotiating a new treaty—to help reduce the risk of a nuclear war,
whether due to a false alarm, error, or other misperception.
For example:
Creating joint early warning centers to monitor missile launches;
De-targeting, so any accidental launch of a nuclear armed missile lands in the ocean;
Removing all nuclear weapons from high-alert status;
Reducing incentives to respond quickly to an unconfirmed nuclear attack;
Reducing the number of deployed nuclear weapons; and
Renouncing first use of nuclear weapons and eliminating the
President’s authority to launch nuclear weapons without congressional
approval.
Since the 1980s, thanks to negotiators in
both countries, the United States and Russia curtailed an unrestrained
nuclear arms race that had led to the deployment of staggering numbers
of increasingly destructive weapons that could not rationally be
justified for deterrence or any other purpose. The START Treaty and New
START were historic achievements.
Twelve months ago, President Trump spoke
of the need for the U.S., Russia, and China to stop building more
nuclear weapons. Yet while his National Security Strategy calls for “the
world’s most robust, credible, and modern nuclear deterrent,” it says
nothing about preventing another nuclear arms race. With respect to New
START, he reportedly said, “If it expires, it expires.”
As the New START Treaty fades into
history, one commentator has suggested that “one likely successor to
nuclear weapons’ sole dominance on the strategic value ladder could be
AI technology. . . Either AI technology itself will become the primary
strategic weapon—or it will enable the rapid creation of alternatives
that render nuclear arsenals increasingly irrelevant to real-world
outcomes.”
It is only a matter of time—and probably
far less time than we think—before the application of AI technology to
warfare creates a whole new impetus for global instability. But even as
AI becomes more versatile as a disruptive and destructive force, nuclear
weapons and the threat of nuclear war are not going to disappear.
So, I urge President Trump to elevate
nuclear arms control to the top of his national security agenda. Even
the modest steps I’ve outlined to reduce the chance of a catastrophic
mistake or miscalculation resulting in the use of nuclear weapons should
be among our highest national security priorities.
The PM says Mandelson 'betrayed our
values' – but ministers and advisers flock to line their pockets with
corporate cash, says SOLOMON HUGHES
Prime Minister Keir Starmer (right) and then British ambassador to
the United States Lord Peter Mandelson during a welcome reception at the
ambassador's residence in Washington, DC, February 27, 2025
WES STREETING says Peter Mandelson “fundamentally
betrayed our values.” But Mandelson helped write the values of New
Labour, which Streeting and Starmer and their whole team are following.
Peter
Mandelson denies wrongdoing, but the emails between him and Jeffrey
Epstein look like sleazy corruption. It’s no surprise Streeting and
Starmer want to put distance between him and them.
But Mandelson’s
career follows the “New Labour” method he helped design: taking the
side of the rich and big corporations, especially around low tax,
deregulation and privatisation.
Taking favours from the rich while
in office. Taking lucrative jobs working from the corporations they
favoured in government when they leave office.
Squashing the
Labour left who might try and stop the party being used as a launchpad
for these post-ministerial corporate careers.
Mandelson’s emails
expose some very dirty details in his version of this operation.
Mandelson accepting osteopathy courses for his husband from a convicted
sex offender might look especially weird, but it is on a continuum with
Starmer and his ministers grabbing all those stupid Taylor Swift
tickets, free glasses and free suits from rich men and big corporations.
Mandelson
said Epstein “provided guidance to help me navigate out of the world of
politics and into the world of commerce and finance.” This involved
setting up a “consultancy” called Global Counsel which made him a
multimillionaire by working for the corporations who benefited from the
pro-business policies he made Labour take in government.
This
became a basic “New Labour” pattern: when ministers stood down, many
joined the private corporations they helped while in power, with
ex-ministers taking jobs with privatised water companies, private
security firms like G4S, arms firms and so on.
These
post-ministerial careers often pay much more than actually being a
minister, so Labour MPs have an incentive to push pro-business policies,
even if they are wildly unpopular: Labour might haemorrhage enough
working-class support to lose elections, but the ministers end up
earning more in the long term.
Starmer’s government brought
Mandelson back and bought into all his “New Labour” values. Even though
the government is still quite new, we can already see signs that
Starmer’s team will also leave government for corporate jobs, just
like Mandelson.
Labour rehired one of the key Labour ministers who did this back in the day. Wes Streeting employs Alan Milburn as an adviser.
Milburn
was Blair’s health secretary. When he stood down in 2004, Milburn took a
job with Bridgepoint Capital, an investment firm that owned health
companies: Labour started privatising the NHS under Milburn.
One
Bridgepoint firm got a huge contract for private MRI scanning. They
drained money from the NHS for their much-criticised MRI work. Milburn
still works for Bridgepoint even while helping Streeting run the NHS.
Bridgepoint
currently owns Practice Plus Group, which both runs private hospitals
and other health services and does outsourced NHS work.
So far,
most ministers ejected from Starmer’s government are from the “soft
left” — sacked, it turns out, on the advice of Peter Mandelson. They are
less prone to taking corporate jobs. However, “the project” has lost
some other big figures along the way, and they are taking the Mandelson
route into corporate consultancy.
As deputy leader of the Labour
Party, Tom Watson did all he could to undermine Labour’s left, paving
the way for the return of the right under Starmer.
Watson is now a
paid adviser to Palantir, the sinister US tech company run by pro-Trump
billionaires which is chasing British government contracts.
Palantir
were also a client of Peter Mandelson’s consultancy Global Counsel.
Watson is also an adviser to betting giant Flutter PLC and another
lobbying company, Lodestone.
Claire Ainsley was Starmer’s “head of
policy” until 2022. She was considered one of the slightly more leftish
Starmer advisers — and hence didn’t make it to government.
However,
even Ainsley is now a “senior adviser” to lobbying firm WPI Strategy.
She runs their “Building Back Britain” commission were firms like Pennon
Group (owners of privatised South West Water) — Microsoft and
Mastercard try persuade the government that “growth” will come through
deregulation or letting them influence NHS policy and so forth.
Jonathan
Ashworth was the biggest member of “Team Starmer” to leave Parliament:
he would have been a Cabinet minister, but lost his seat to a
pro-Palestine independent in the 2024 election.
Last August Ashworth became the “UK chairman of public affairs” of lobbyists Weber Shandwick.
Their
recent clients include Facebook owner Meta. Weber Shandwick said
Ashworth would be “providing strategic counsel on government relations”
and “helping clients navigate the ever-changing political and regulatory
landscape” using his experience “as a long-standing senior member of
Keir Starmer’s shadow cabinet” and “years of political experience at the
highest levels of the Labour Party and government having worked in 10
Downing Street and HM Treasury. He previously served as a senior
political adviser to Gordon Brown.” To me this seems like a polite
version of Mandelson’s manoeuvres.
At the lower level, a number of
advisers have left Team Starmer. They too have gone into corporate
lobbying, giving a strong hint their ministerial bosses will do the same
when they leave government.
Richard Howarth was one of Culture
Secretary Lisa Nandy’s Special Advisers (Spads), having worked for the
Labour Party for seven years.
Last September he left to join Tory-run lobbying company Fleetwood Strategies as a “senior director.”
Fleetwood
were founded in 2020 by their boss, Tory “election guru” Isaac Levido.
The Conservative election defeat meant Fleetwood badly needed Labour
“insiders” like Howarth.
Fleetwood’s current clients include
Airbnb, who will want to resist any Labour moves towards a “tourism tax”
or limitations on the spread of their “short lets” and construction
giant Balfour Beatty, who like Wes Streeting’s proposed revival of
PFI-style contracts for public works.
Alex Zatman was Liz Kendall’s spad while she ran the Department for Work and Pensions.
He
left last July to join “strategy and communications” consultancy Teneo,
a registered lobbying firm whose clients include private water firms
United Utilities (owners of North West Water) and Yorkshire Water,
British Gas owner Centrica and McDonald’s burgers.
Mandelson
started a process where Labour politicians treat government like an
internship that opens up their careers to lucrative corporate gigs,
rather than a way of delivering social reform for working people. His
emails expose the ugliest details of this scheme, but Starmer’s team
seem set to at least follow the broad patterns of his career path.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio listens to a
presentation by Trump administration officials about post-war Gaza
following a signing ceremony for the “Board of Peace” at the World
Economic Forum on January 22, 2026 in Davos, Switzerland.
(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
The board’s vision for Gaza is a
greed-soaked plan dependent on mass murder and land theft, driven by men
so wealthy and entitled that they believe they can escape
accountability while reaping billions in profit in the process.
While the sheer pomposity, Trumpian
megalomania, and painfully paradoxical context surrounding the so-called
“Board of Peace” might tempt some to dismiss it as mere spectacle or
farce, its criminal, inhumane, and hegemonic nature makes it far too
dangerous to ignore.
Last month, President Donald Trump and his new, thuggish boys’ club of heads of state publicly celebrated the launch of the Board of Peace (BoP) at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Its hypocrisy was inadvertently underscored by Elon Musk—Trump’s
on-again, off-again ally—when he quipped onstage that one might call it
the Board of “p-i-e-c-e,” a venture devoted to claiming “a little piece of Greenland, a little piece of Venezuela,” to which his interviewer, Larry Fink, billionaire CEO of BlackRock, responded with cheer, “We got one.” Only a room filled with the world’s tech and business elite could find this funny.
In the weeks since, people of conscience
around the world have been left to reckon with what may come of this
brazen proclamation of a Trumpified world order. In particular, the
board’s presentation of plans for “New Gaza” offered stark clarity about
the greed-driven intentions Trump, his inner circle, and their Israeli
billionaire partners seek to pursue, while raising a fundamental
question as to how such a project of colonization and land theft could
claim any legal basis at all, let alone a moral one.
As it stands, the BoP charter
elevates Trump to a position akin to a global dictator for life,
unchecked—on paper— by any external mechanisms of accountability or
transparency. Acting as permanent chairman, chief executive, and
controlling shareholder of the organization, Trump has declared that he
holds absolute veto power, while retaining complete discretion over the
potential multibillion-dollar slush fund generated through permanent
member fees. In keeping with his long record of felonies and fraud, all
budgets, financial accounts, or disbursements the BoP deems “necessary”
to carry out its sweeping mission are subject only to the so-called
“institutions of controls or oversight mechanisms” designed by the very
same Executive Board.
Thus far, Greenland remains the only red line EU states have managed to articulate.
A few invited world leaders, mostly from the European Union,
have done little more than politely decline their invitations. While
they have not yet bent the knee to Trump in this mobster’s reality-show
version of US imperial power in action, this has not stopped those same
governments from endorsing the other “peaceful actions” Trump is poised
to pursue under the guise of BoP authority. These include the kidnapping
of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and the seizure of Venezuelan oil;
the execution of dozens of extrajudicial boat strikes that have killed
more than 100 people in the Caribbean; threats of war and the promotion
of dangerous regime-change fantasies in Iran and Cuba; and support for his complete takeover of occupied Palestine through United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803. That resolution effectively granted Trump authority in Gaza by endorsing his 20-point Gaza
peace plan and welcoming the BoP as a transitional governing body. Thus
far, Greenland remains the only red line EU states have managed to
articulate.
Despite some rejections, other governments
have gone ahead and accepted their invitations for a free three-year
membership. The participation of Israel’s wanted genocidaire-in-chief,
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
should serve as the clearest red flag that this organization has no
interest in even pretending to care about the lives of the Palestinian
people or any standard of international law. Netanyahu could not even fly to Davos to attend the BoP’s self-appointed pomp and circumstance for fear of being arrested as a wanted war criminal.
Other beacons of democracy and world peace, eager to lend legitimacy to the BoP, include Trump’s own “favorite dictator,” Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi; Argentina’s scandal-prone, right-wing President Javier Milei; “Europe’s last dictator,” Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko; Netanyahu’s idea of a “moral conscience,” Albanian President Edi Rama; and Hungary’s model in authoritarianism, Viktor Orbán. Leaders from Arab states—including Saudi Arabia,
the UAE, Jordan, and Qatar—have also joined, and will presumably stand
alongside Trump and the Executive Board to help oversee, and quietly
endorse, “New Gaza.”
Their participation set the stage for Davos, where none other than Jared Kushner delivered the first public presentation of an investment plan contingent upon the ethnic cleansing
and erasure of a national Palestinian identity. Kushner, Trump’s
son-in-law and a member of the BoP “Executive Board,” has long served as
the self-styled “master planner”
of transforming Gaza into a prime real estate opportunity. He has a
track record of articulating his absolute disregard for Palestinian
life, describing the besieged Gaza Strip in February 2024 as “very valuable… waterfront property.”
Kushner began his chilling slideshow by
urging skeptical investors to “just calm down for 30 days,” declaring,
“The war is over. Let’s work together.” Eager to move on to their real
business of “peace,” Kushner appeared wholly willing to ignore the
ongoing forced starvation, imprisonment, systemic torture, murder, and displacement of Palestinians across the occupied territories. Since the supposed “ceasefire” in October 2025, the Israeli military has killed at least 477 Palestinians in Gaza.
Trump has also failed to address Israel’s continued ban
on dozens of international humanitarian and non-governmental
organizations, a policy that has deliberately denied lifesaving aid and
medical care to the region while newborn babies continue to die of hypothermia. Instead, Kushner outright lied
about the current scale of Israel’s designed humanitarian catastrophe,
claiming that “100% of the food needs are met” and that “the cost of
needs has gone down,” before unironically describing the
administration’s role as “the largest humanitarian effort into a war
zone that anyone’s been able to tell us about.” Meanwhile, as the
conference unfolded, Israeli forces bulldozed the UN Refugee headquarters in East Jerusalem, and the Israeli Knesset voted by an overwhelming majority to annex the entirety of the West Bank.
Amid the distortions and denials of
reality, Kushner did allow the logic of the project to surface when he
identified the architect behind the purported $25 billion master plan
for Gaza: Yakir Gabay, whom he described as “one of the most successful
real estate developers and brilliant people I know.” Gabay
is an Israeli billionaire and international real estate tycoon with
close familial ties to the Israeli government. Reports also indicate
that he has participated in efforts to pressure Columbia University administrators to suppress student protests.
Much like Kushner, a recent article by the editor-in-chief of Jerusalem Post
described Gabay as having been eager to craft a plan for “New Gaza”
from the very first weeks of Israel’s prolonged assault on the densely
populated region:
October 7, [Gabay] tends to say, woke him
to action. [Gabay] thought: This time, my capabilities can change the
face of reality…Other businesspeople heard about his work a year and a
half ago. The White House had asked him to develop something even during Joe Biden’s term. He has good relationships with Tony Blair and Kushner, and when Trump won the elections, it became easier to push the issue.
On the whole, Kushner’s “New Gaza”
presentation made no attempt to acknowledge a Palestinian state,
recognize Palestinian self-determination, nor address Israeli occupation
or the implications of Gaza’s “reconstruction” for the other occupied
Palestinian territories. Instead, the eerily bizarre AI-generated slideshow
of skyscrapers, oil rigs, and industrial complexes offered only a
glimpse into the twisted billionaire fantasy that Kushner’s inner
circle—including figures like Gabay—has sought to merge with Zionist
imaginaries.
The only part of Kushner’s presentation
that even acknowledged Palestinians was a single slide on
“Palestinian-led demilitarization.” Beyond this ominous token reference,
the narrative repeatedly circled back to framing Gaza as “an amazing
investment opportunity” to the room full of multimillionaires and
billionaires.
Recent reporting from Drop Site News
has confirmed and expanded upon this language, revealing “Resolution
No. 2026/1,” an unsigned State Department document from December 2025
that declares the Board of Peace aims to transform Gaza into a
“deradicalized and demilitarized terror-free zone.”
Here, “deradicalization” functions as a
catch-all term to delegitimize resistance and criminalize opposition to
Israeli occupation—a legal right
under international law. Palestinians who maintain their political
consciousness, national identity, or will for self-determination, and
who refuse to normalize occupation, are almost certain to be labeled
“terrorists” or deemed insufficiently “deradicalized.” Those who take up
arms to defend their people against some of the world’s most heavily
armed and nuclear powers risk being denied existence in their own
lands—murdered or turned away by the very architects of genocide
who now claim to bring “peace.” Access to basic rights is made
contingent on surrendering political and economic agency, including
abandoning a historically rooted cultural identity of resistance under
occupation, forsaking traditional livelihoods, and subordinating the
desire to shape the future of the land to whatever “economic
opportunities” BoP members deem investible.
The document further states that only
those who “support and act consistently” to establish a “deradicalized,
terror-free Gaza that poses no threat to its neighbors” may participate
in governance, reconstruction, economic development, or humanitarian
assistance. It also bars any individuals or organizations the board
deems to have “supported or demonstrated a history of collaboration,
infiltration, or influence with or by Hamas or other terror groups”—a sweeping allegation Israel has long weaponized without evidence.
In practice, such standards mean that anyone who stands in firm solidarity
with Palestinians, including international NGOs that seek to hold
Israel to even minimal standards of accountability, will likely be
barred from operating in Gaza. This has already become an entrenched and
worsening reality since October 2023. What the BoP presents as a
security framework is, in essence, a blueprint for controlling
Palestinian movement, erasing any viable possibility of a Palestinian
state, and ultimately, advancing ethnic cleansing, while preventing
humanitarian organizations from participating in any meaningful process
of reconstruction or the delivery of aid. A framework that insists “no
one will be forced to leave Gaza”—as if forced removal were ever
legitimate—while simultaneously conditioning access to aid, resources,
and even limited political participation on compliance with what Trump
and his confidants dictate, is not a framework in which any meaningful
shred of freedom or dignity can exist.
In essence, Trump now supposedly wields
full legislative, executive, and judicial control over the future of
Gaza. He alone, along with his board of resort profiteers—who would
hastily clear away the rubble burying the bodies of erased bloodlines
and the remnants of mosques, churches, hospitals, and schools—will have
complete authority over how surviving Palestinians live, how they are
governed, and who may participate in decision-making. Only at the very
bottom of the BoP’s tyrannical hierarchy sits a so-called “technocratic committee,”
nominally including members of the Palestinian Authority. Its role
appears purely advisory, permitted to exist only insofar as it appeases
Trump and aligns with his agenda. There is little indication that it
will serve, or even slightly represent, the people it claims to speak
for.
The development is ultimately so jarring,
so rooted in supremacist ideologies, and so flagrantly opposed to basic
principles of sovereignty and human rights that it has few historical parallels. The closest comparison seems to be the gruesome reign of Belgian King Leopold II.
The very consideration of such an inhumane, corrupt, and cruel project is a threat to humanity.
Those who participate in this process, including figures such as World Bank
President Ajay Banga, lend legitimacy to a project that advances a
perverse vision and a chapter of history that is not inevitable.
Collaboration in the name of “reconstruction and development of Gaza”
for a project so morally and legally corrupt is not a pragmatic
compromise—it is active participation in a plan that has no place in the
world. The human cost of this complicity is impossible to ignore.
The BoP plan also offers no conception of
justice, reparations, or accountability for Israeli terror. Its version
of “peace” is imposed through state violence to silence, control, and
force Palestinians into submission. It is a project that raises
skyscrapers for Western elites atop mass graves, without including, or
even acknowledging, the Palestinians its architects have killed and
displaced. It relies too on the pathetic inaction of the overwhelming
majority of UN member states.
Much remains unknown about what is
immediately required to take a single step toward “peace” in the region:
if and when Palestinians may finally find reprieve from Israeli
bombardment; whether the Rafah
crossing will actually open; what will become of finding and returning
the bodies of loved ones buried under the rubble; whether human rights
organizations or journalists will even be permitted to document the
reality–and work safely–on the ground; if displaced Palestinians will
ever be allowed to return to Gaza; and crucially, whether other states
will intervene. What is clear, however, is the sheer evil of this
project.
Following Kushner’s presentation, many
have rightfully said that if this BoP monstrosity were fictional, it
would be so dark it would border on being unbelievable. And yet it is
profoundly real: a greed-soaked plan dependent on mass murder and land
theft, driven by men so wealthy and entitled that they believe they can
escape accountability while reaping billions in profit in the process.
World leaders have long entrenched impunity and rewarded the most atrocious US-Israeli war crimes
and crimes against humanity, especially over the past two and a half
years. Yet the board’s ambitions—laid out in a charter that mirrors the
UN and spans what Trump calls “the whole region of the world”—reveal
a danger that stretches far beyond Palestine. The very consideration of
such an inhumane, corrupt, and cruel project is a threat to humanity.
And still—precisely because of the chaos, confusion, and sheer audacity
of their plans—this dystopian vision for “New Gaza” is not inevitable.
Those with political and economic power must firmly reject and actively
work to rein in this Orwellian BoP. If any entity requires immediate
disarmament and deradicalization, it is Trump and his so-called
Executive Board.
The
U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I’ve ever
seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to
Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up
to stuff cash in his pockets.
That’s why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we’ve ever done.
Our
small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering
the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has
always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the
common good.
Now here’s the key piece that I want all our
readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your
financial support.
That’s not just some fundraising
cliche. It’s the absolute and literal truth. We don’t accept corporate
advertising and never will. We don’t have a paywall because we don’t
think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability
to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like
you.
Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams?
Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most.
– Craig Brown, Co-founder
about:blank
about:blank
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
[Prefatory Note: Initially
framed as questions responding to Middle East journalist, Mohamed Abd
Elaziz, raising question about Stage II of the Trump Plan for Gaza,
inaugurating the Board of Peace at the Davos World Economic Forum this
January. The questions raise some key issues. My assessment is that the
Board of Peace deserves to fail. It insults the Palestinian people, is
blind to flagrant violations of the Genocide Convention, and indirectly
further undermines international law and UN authority regarding global security.]
1- How do you view the
legitimacy of establishing an independent peace council to intervene in
international conflicts, compared to the traditional mechanisms of the
United Nations?
The mechanism may work in certain situation, but not if as in the Trump Plan it is slanted in favor of the wrongdoers and is
prejudicial to the legal rights of the aggrieved and victimized party.
The idea of an independent peace council could only achieve legitimacy
if it is mindful of the imperative of equality with respect to the
parties when addressing conflicts and its activities are professionally
shaped by their joint participation, with an eye toward determining
whether part of the peace council’s writ covers potential
accountability of one or both parties in the form of reparation or
recommendations of investigation and possible prosecution for
individuals seemingly involved in wrongdoing in relation to law,
morality, and human rights. Given the present structure of international
relations, it seems highly unlikely that leading states would
participate and fund such an independent peace council with a mission of
conflict resolution as it would encroach upon the traditional sovereign
prerogatives with respect to strategic national interests.
2– Do you believe that such initiatives could serve as leverage for UN reform?
It could in principle, but not in the
setting of Israel/Palestine, where the partisan nature of the
interactive process is one that by its composition, framework, and
agenda rewards the perpetrators of genocide and further victimizes those
who continue to suffer from severe and cruel wrongdoing by Israel, the
U.S, and complicit enabling states. To the extent that UN affirms such
an unjust initiative it brings shame to the Organization as it did by
the unanimous endorsement of the Trump Plan in UNCR RES 2803 on January
17, 2026, and further stigmatized of the Organization by the show of
support for the resolution expressed by the Secretary General, which
included encouragement for the establishment of the misnamed Board of
Peace that can be more accurately identified as the Settler Colonial
Peace Council.
At this time, it is hard to say whether
the Trump Plan, especially the Board of Peace by its apparent intention
of marginalizing the UN, dramatized by situated its inauguration at the
Davos World Economic Forum rather than within the UN System might
generate a strong effort to engage in UN reform. This would require a
considerable mobilization of pressure and is risky in that might lead to
the US exit, which would actually play into Trump’s
anti-internationalism approach that seeks to heighten US
transactionalism as well as geopolitical outreach.
3- What are the potential risks if a peace council were to assume a larger role than the United Nations in managing global crises?
I have no confidence that such an
independent peace council could work unless free from geopolitical
manipulation by the US, Russia, China, and above all the US. It would
need to be funded independently, and its executive members determined by
some process that assured selection would take account of geographical,
civilizational, ideological, gender diversities and maybe even strived
to obtain an inter-generational balance. If, and this is a big if. such a
peace council could become truly independent of the narcissistic
geopolitics of Trump it might pose a constructive challenge to transform
the UN as now constituted. The UN has performed disappointingly over
the decades when it comes to conflict resolution, the enforcement of
international law, the accountability of wrongdoers. This is not an
accident. It should be remembered that the UN was set up in a manner
that protected the strategic interests of the winners of World War II,
as exemplified by conferring the right of veto and permanent membership
in the SC as a way to ensure that the UN would act in a manner hostile
to their perceived priorities. If a IPC could be based, staffed, and
funded on the primacy of justice rather than currently as a reflection of the primacy of geopolitics it might displace the UN in the vital policy sphere of the management of global security. It
is with respect to global security that the UN has most consistently
failed the peoples of the world. This was illustrated dramatically,
grotesquely, and fundamentally, by the recent pathetic efforts of the UN
to oppose the Israel/US genocidal partnership that has produced the
ongoing acute Palestinian ordeal.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.Donate
Richard Anderson Falk (born November 13,
1930) is an American professor emeritus of international law at
Princeton University, and Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor’s
Chairman of the Board of Trustees. He is the author or coauthor of over
20 books and the editor or coeditor of another 20 volumes. In 2008, the
United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointed Falk to a six-year
term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human
rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. Since 2005 he
chairs the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
ISRAELI air attacks on Lebanon have
reached their highest levels since the 2024 ceasefire agreement, a new
report by an international aid group said today.
The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC)
accused the Israelis of carrying out a “clear and dangerous” surge in
air attacks on Lebanon.
The NRC said that Israeli warplanes had
carried out at least 50 air raids on Lebanon over the last month, about
double the number of the previous month.
The group said the Israeli attacks make a
mockery of the ceasefire agreed between Israel and Lebanon in November
2024, after more than a year of cross-border attacks and a two month
long campaign of Israeli attacks that killed thousands.
Maureen Philippon, the NRC’s country
director in Lebanon, said: “These attacks, as well as the many ground
incursions that continue to happen away from the cameras, have deemed
the ceasefire agreement little more than ink on paper.”
This week Israeli warplanes targeted
buildings in two villages in southern Lebanon, Kfar Tebnit and Ain Qana.
The Israelis claimed the buildings were “military infrastructure” that
Hezbollah was attempting to rebuild in order to reset their activities
in the region.
Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun accused
Israel of committing an environmental crime after Israeli aircraft
sprayed an unknown substance over a number of southern Lebanese towns.
The NRC said the continued attacks have
created a climate of fear among the population and were hampering
reconstruction efforts caused by previous Israeli attacks.
Ms Philippon said: “Aid agencies,
including the NRC, are still dealing with the aftermath and consequences
of months of destructive conflict which left much of Lebanon in ruins.”
She called on Israel to stop its attacks on southern Lebanon saying “this vicious cycle has to end.”
This comes a day after Israel’s justice
ministry charged a dozen people, including Israeli soldiers with
systematically smuggling hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of
goods into Gaza, according to a statement by Israel’s prosecutor.
The indictment charged the accused, some
of whom included army reservists, with smuggling cigarettes, iPhones and
batteries into Gaza and “assisting the enemy during wartime.”
It said the accused committed their
actions while aware of the possibility that the goods would reach
resistance group Hamas and its operatives.
The statement also linked Bezalel Zini, the brother of Israel’s chief of domestic security, David Zini to the smuggling ring.
Earlier this week Mr Zini’s lawyer said that his client denies all “suspicions” attributed to him.
Published date: 6 February 2026 08:53 GMT | Last update:51 mins 11 secs ago
Clear away the fog of conspiracy
theories, and both are the product of an imperialist framework built on a
consistent process of dehumanisation
The US Capitol building is pictured in March 2022 (Samuel Corum/Getty Images/AFP)
The release of the latest Epstein files
has upended social media, amid a scramble to verify the morality of the
names that are on and off the list.
This obsession with “who is in the files” effectively exonerates US
institutions, imposing a veil of individual deviance. By framing the
Epstein network as a secret cabal of bad actors who are politically
compromised by blackmail, this discourse fails to recognise that we are
not witnessing an anomaly of power, but rather a manifestation of its
most basic structural reality.
As a result, the dominant narrative across the political divide suggests that Washington’s unwavering support for Israel, and its direct complicity in the Gaza genocide, are the result of politicians being coerced by external intelligence assets.
This framework is analytically deficient,
operating on the flawed assumption that the American political class is
somehow guided by a liberal moral compass; that its support for mass
slaughter is a departure from its otherwise benevolent values.
In reality, western colonial and
capitalist elites don’t need to be extorted to justify their
participation in the destruction of Palestinian
life. The American-Zionist alliance is rooted in material and
ideological imperatives, with Israel functioning as a key outpost for
American hegemony and a strategic military-industrial laboratory in the
region.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
From its inception in 1492, American
empire has been defined by the systematic displacement, enslavement and
extermination of indigenous populations in favour of the expansion of
European capital.
The genocide
in Gaza is the contemporary expression of this historical heritage.
Suggesting that US support for the colonisation of Palestine is a
product of political blackmail, ignores centuries of American atrocities
around the world. The US commitment to the Zionist settler-colonial
project remains constant regardless of who holds office, because the
strategic interests of empire demand it.
‘Human animals’
This imperialist framework relies on a
consistent process of dehumanisation – one that facilitates both
state-sponsored genocide and sex trafficking. In both cases, the human
being is systematically stripped of political and moral agency, and
reduced to a mere object or commodity.
In Gaza, the dehumanisation of Palestinians is a prerequisite for genocide. When an entire population is characterised as a “demographic threat” or “human animals”,
their elimination is no longer framed as a crime, but as a logistical
necessity for the “security” of the settler-colonial state.
In the case of the Epstein trafficking
ring, victims were reduced to expendable objects who could be traded and
exploited for the interests and pleasures of an elite class.
It isn’t accidental that members of the
same political and economic class facilitating the ethnic cleansing of
two million people in Gaza appear on a list of potential sexual
predators. This isn’t about a secret society that hijacked the state;
it’s about a class of people whose ideological and materialist worldview
is predicated on the absolute exploitation of others.
American empire is not being blackmailed into supporting genocide. It is performing its historical function
For imperialist powers, the body – whether
of a Palestinian child in a besieged enclave, or of someone being
trafficked on a private island – is simply an object for the
sustainability of political hegemony and the pursuit of sexual
predation.
The moral degeneracy shown in the Epstein files
is the domestic extension of the depravity exported by these same
elites to the Global South. Their private sexual predatory crimes
reflect the same tenets of empire as their public violent political
crimes.
Indeed, their sexual criminality is
entirely consistent with their supremacist worldview. If the elite class
is comfortable with signing off on the slaughter of children for
geopolitical gains, their involvement in sexual trafficking shouldn’t be
a surprise.
We must also reject the intellectual
laziness that seeks to frame this imperialist and capitalist depravity
through the lens of conspiracy theories. Such theories often rely on
western antisemitic tropes to explain corruption and evil, effectively protecting western power structures by conflating Judaism with Zionism.
This conflation serves western
decision-makers by creating a buffer class, which is blamed for the
consequences of imperialist projects around the world. Within the
structures of empire, public servants are agents of imperialism
regardless of their religious or ethnic identities. Their primary
allegiance and objective is preserving the global capitalist order.
False narrative
By reducing the Zionist project or the
Epstein ring to the work of a “Jewish cabal”, the dominant discourse
serves to exonerate broader western colonial structures and elites,
essentially letting imperialist powers off the hook for a project they
have historically championed.
This narrative wrongly suggests that the
US-Israel relationship is a hijacking of the American agenda, rather
than a calculated and strategic partnership between two settler-colonial
powers. To frame the liberation struggle as a fight against a religious
conspiracy is to naively ignore the material conditions of ethnic
cleansing, land theft and resource control.
This distraction is furthered by the
algorithmic economy of social media, which rewards engagement farming by
prioritising sensationalist fabrications over structural analysis and
accurate information.
Attempts to “collect” likes by sharing
ridiculous theories undermines the political legitimacy of the
Palestinian cause, amid a surge in viral tweets that shamelessly claim
to uncover evidence of ancient religious rituals, based on nothing more
than obvious digital errors.
From Epstein to Gaza: The depravity of the western elite is now fully exposed
As the conversation shifts towards such
fabricated narratives, the architects of the Gaza genocide are portrayed
as being driven by ancient myths, rather than by the modern materialist
and high-tech military logic of resource exploitation and geopolitical
hegemony. Even when ritualistic language is used by the perpetrators,
the bombs dropped on Gaza remain tools of a clear settler-colonial
project.
The conspiracy framework obstructs a
proper understanding of the international order; namely, how elites and
powerful institutions make decisions in service of western imperialism.
Conspiracy theories suggest that colonial
powers are so clandestine and all-powerful that we must decode their
secrets from leaked documents. Yet the actual plots of imperialist
powers are rarely secret: they are published in the white papers of
think-tanks, discussed by world leaders, and codified in American and
international institutions.
The millions of victims over centuries of
European and American colonialism highlight the true nature of these
imperialist and capitalist projects. The truth is operating in broad
daylight: American empire is not being blackmailed into supporting
genocide. It is performing its historical function.
The moral degeneracy in the Epstein files
isn’t an aberration. It is a true reflection of a colonial and
capitalist class that feels invincible in its capacity to exploit the
whole world. The Gaza genocide and the Epstein trafficking ring aren’t
mysteries to be decoded; they are the logical outcome of a materialist
order that has viewed human beings as a disposable commodity since 1492.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Raja Abdulhaq is a Palestinian political
organiser and researcher. Raja is a co-founder of Quds News Network and a
former Executive Director of Islamic Leadership Council of New York.
Raja has a masters degree in Political Science from Brooklyn College.
Since the Cuban Revolution overthrew a US-backed dictatorship and asserted national independence, Cuba has remained in the United States’
crosshairs. The country has endured nearly 600 assassination attempts
against its leadership, along with countless covert and overt operations
aimed at destabilizing its government. For more than six decades, the
US has also imposed an economic embargo explicitly designed to bring
about regime change.
By any honest measure, this policy has
failed. What it has succeeded in doing is fostering deep resentment
toward the United States, not only in Cuba, but across much of the
world, while inflicting immense suffering on ordinary Cubans.
Basic necessities such as food, paint, printing paper, baby formula, syringes, and other lifesaving supplies, including vaccines
and cancer treatment drugs, are either restricted by the embargo or
priced far beyond most people’s reach. A simple walk through Havana
tells the story: crumbling infrastructure, uncollected trash, and growing numbers of people gathering near tourist areas, hands outstretched in desperation.
Fuel shortages are widespread, inflation
is at historic highs, and a sharp decline in tourism, Cuba’s primary
economic lifeline, has made daily life nearly unbearable for many.
It is time for the United States to respect Cuba’s sovereignty and lift the embargo and accompanying sanctions.
In response, the Cuban government has
expanded the private sector, legalized small- and medium-sized
enterprises, decentralized food production, and opened its markets to
limited foreign investment, all while attempting to maintain the core
socialist principles of the revolution. It has also reduced reliance on fossil fuels, slowly shifting to solar energy. In 2025, renewable energy accounted for more than 10% of Cuba’s energy consumption, an increase from 3% the year before.
Yet these measures alone cannot offset the
outsize impact of US policy and the blockade, which has been
dramatically tightened in recent months. The latest effort to cut off of
nearly all oil shipments to the island has led to daily blackouts and deepened human suffering.
It is time for the United States to
respect Cuba’s sovereignty and lift the embargo and accompanying
sanctions. They are a cruel and inhumane form of collective punishment
that disproportionately harms the most vulnerable. These sanctions,
without legitimate justification, have restricted travel for Americans,
made remittances far more difficult, and unjustly placed Cuba on the
State Sponsor of Terrorism list. That designation effectively cuts the
country off from the global banking system, making even basic
international transactions nearly impossible. The absurdity is stark:
Cuban biotechnology produced five globally used Covid-19 vaccines, while the US embargo restricted Cuba’s ability to purchase syringes to administer them.
Cuba should not be treated as a political
chess piece to demonstrate US economic and military might. It is a proud
nation of nearly 11 million people who want nothing more than to be
good neighbors. It is time for the United States to end its asphyxiation
of Cuba and allow the Cuban people to determine their own future, a
future free from US interference, coercion, and perpetual threat.
The
U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I’ve ever
seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to
Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up
to stuff cash in his pockets.
That’s why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we’ve ever done.
Our
small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering
the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has
always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the
common good.
Now here’s the key piece that I want all our
readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your
financial support.
That’s not just some fundraising
cliche. It’s the absolute and literal truth. We don’t accept corporate
advertising and never will. We don’t have a paywall because we don’t
think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability
to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like
you.
Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams?
Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most.
– Craig Brown, Co-founder
about:blank
about:blank
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer (right) and then British ambassador to
the United States Lord Peter Mandelson during a welcome reception at the
ambassador's residence in Washington, DC, February 27, 2025
By 
