What if the Work We’re Busy Automating is Needless?

Posted on by
Reply
What If the Work We’re Busy Automating Is Needless?
Charles Hughes Smith

The problem with durable, low-maintenance, low-operating cost technologies is self-evident: they’re not as profitable as planned obsolescence or extracting monthly fees from owners.

Many of the topics I address are met with silence because they question the quasi-religious beliefs that underpin our entire way of life: the belief that Progress is inevitable because technology inevitably drives Progress–a belief structure I call The Mythology of Progress–and the belief structure that the desire to get rich inevitably drives innovation which then drives Progress.

 

Neither belief is actually grounded in science, but each is cloaked in the finery of science to mask their true nature, i.e. quasi-religious belief structures: the gods of technology and finance are real and powerful.

Questioning the existence of these gods is met with silence because if these gods are imaginary constructs of belief, then the entirety of Modernity collapses. And so we continue worshiping these gods with charts and spreadsheets and euphoric headlines announcing thousands of modular nuclear reactors are on the way to power super-abundance when there is not a single one that is functioning 24/7 reliably, safely and cheaply, and vast quantities of dollars are needed to dig up and process the fuel, construct the reactors and operate them. But never mind that, the gods have promised that technological Progress is unstoppable and inevitable.

The possibility that Anti-Progress might not just negate Progress but reverse it is strictly verboten, as is even recognizing Anti-Progress as a reality.

As a thought experiment, let’s consider two things:

1. Let’s define the highest value technology as devices that operate reliably with little maintenance for many decades, without extracting any money from their owners beyond operational expenses such as electricity or fuel.

For example, the coffee maker, rice cooker and microwave on our counter are 25+ years old and still functioning reliably with zero maintenance costs. Our 1998 car is 28 years old and has required only modest maintenance to date, and given its condition, it can easily function reliably for another 12 years, a 40-year period of service.

Why this is the highest value technology is self-evident: the devices make the highest and best use of the resources consumed in their manufacture because they are durable, long-lasting and require minimal maintenance. In financial terms, since the technologies don’t require the owners to pay any more than the purchase price and operational costs, the owners’ costs are predictable and modest, leaving all the income they earn beyond the purchase price and operational expenses available for other uses.

All technologies that fail to meet these standards are inferior or defective. That is also self-evident.

2. Let’s imagine a new law requires everyone to wear a Silly Hat in public. This requirement generates a vast and highly profitable surge in economic activity, pushing Gross Domestic Product (GDP), business profits, employment and taxes up.

The legal-regulatory sector is suddenly busy defining what qualifies as a Silly Hat, launching lawsuits challenging the laws requiring Silly Hats, codifying regulations regarding the safety and quality of Silly Hats, litigating claims of defective Silly Hats, hiring vast numbers of compliance, oversight and enforcement personnel, and so on.

The fashion industry leaps into action to design haute couture Silly Hats, designer Silly Hats, Silly Hats promoted by celebrities, Hello Kitty branded Silly Hats, and so on.

Retailers rush to market Silly Hats, offering discounts on cheap Silly Hats manufactured overseas, and promoted the “latest fashions” in Silly Hats.

Not to be outdone, the finance sector quickly generates a bubble in stocks relating to the manufacture and marketing of Silly Hats. The Silly Hat Index soars, minting thousands of mega-millionaires.

I think you see where this is going: the entire economic boom generated by completely needless Silly Hats is real, but the hats have no real value. Okay, now please take a deep breath.

I consider it self-evident that much of our economy is nothing more than Silly Hats that we call something else that sounds less silly. The percentage of our economy that actually produces life’s essentials is a fraction of the share devoted to marketing, PR, unproductive “engagement,” legal and regulatory busy-work, meetings, junkets, conferences, billions of needless communications, shadow-work required to deal with all the needless complexity generated by all this needless activity, and so on.

By the standard of high-value technology defined above, our economy is a wasteland of throw-away products and planned obsolescence run amok. Those who claim today’s coffee makers, rice cookers, microwaves and autos will all last 30 or 40 years are delusional, as new appliances fail in a few years and the electronics in vehicles will fail long before 28 years of service, never mind 40 years of service, and the repair or replacement of these components are outrageously costly.

The problem with durable, low-maintenance, low-operating cost technologies is self-evident: they’re not as profitable as planned obsolescence, Silly Hats or extracting monthly fees from owners, for example, the new model of charging owners of vehicles and machinery a monthly subscription to use the machine they bought. Um, innovation. Yeah, sure, we never had it so good.

Simply put, virtually all the technology produced today is inferior or defective: ergo, Anti-Progress, the opposite of Progress. Sorry, but the gods of technology have failed, and the reason why they’ve failed is simple:

Our economy isn’t driven by innovation, it’s driven by greed. Since making durable products that last for decades–a technology we mastered decades ago–is nowhere near as profitable as selling products designed to fail or be obsoleted and services that require a monthly extraction of income from customers, we’ve ditched durable technologies for highly profitable technologies and Silly Hats.

It’s verboten to call things what they are because that angers the gods of technology and finance. But the “innovations” of profitably inferior technologies and needless Silly Hats isn’t real innovation, it’s greed. So by all means, let’s circle the campfire dancing the humba-humba, worshiping Progress and technology, but this doesn’t change the fact that this entire economic structure is a Cargo Cult of happy-story delusional beliefs: the gods will soon deliver super-abundance to true believers.

In proper Silly Hats fashion, we’re now rushing to automate profitably inferior technologies, extractive monopolies and the expansion of Silly Hats. And because this automation is expected to increase profits, it’s stamped “innovative” and “Progress,” though it is the opposite of both.

[…]

Via https://www.activistpost.com/what-if-the-work-were-busy-automating-is-needless/

The great FLU ILLUSION: Bombshell study proves transmission is a myth and PCR tests are junk science

Posted on by
2
Lance D Johnsn

What causes symptoms of respiratory illness? Why do some people get sick when they are around others who are sick, but someone else may not get sick at all? In the study, “Minimal transmission in an influenza A (H3N2) human challenge-transmission model within a controlled exposure environment,” researchers found serious challenges in the human transmission model of disease.In the study, a group of researchers directly inoculated 52 healthy volunteers with influenza A H3N2 virus. They locked them in rooms with 75 susceptible people for 15 hours a day over four days. They designed the rooms to have low humidity and minimal ventilation, the conditions most favorable for viral spread. The researchers let the volunteers play games, eat meals, and breathe on each other. What happened next should have made headlines around the world. Nothing happened. Only one person out of 75 became infected. To make matters more peculiar, the group that did not use face shields and hand sanitizer statistically fared the same as those who did.

This is not a minor footnote in the history of infectious disease research. It is a bombshell finding that shatters the foundation of everything you have been told about how viruses spread between people, and why containment measures are just theater.

    • Intentionally infected donors failed to transmit the flu to recipients in 97% of cases.
    • Only one confirmed transmission occurred out of 75 exposed recipients.
    • The secondary attack rate was a mere 1.3%, far below the expected 16%.Infected donors who shed virus into the air still did not make others sick.
    • Masks and hand sanitizer made no statistical difference in transmission rates.
    • The study undermines the core assumptions behind pandemic lockdown policies.

Virology misunderstood

If the flu virus is as contagious as we have been told, transmission should have been rampant. It was not. Only one recipient out of 75 became infected. That is a 1.3% secondary attack rate. The researchers expected at least 16%. They missed their target by more than tenfold.

To shed further doubt on virus transmission and the common measures used to protect against viral shedding, the study divided recipients into two groups. The intervention group wore face shields and sanitized their hands every 15 minutes. The control group did neither. The result? Zero infections in the intervention group and one infection in the control group. Statistically, there was no difference between the groups. This finding renders the entire mask debate moot. If face shields and constant hand sanitizer cannot stop transmission when both groups fail to get infected anyway, what exactly are we protecting ourselves from?

Virus transmission appears to be an imaginary concept, driven by fear and hysteria.

The uncomfortable truth about viral shedding

Now, forty-two of the 52 donors who were deliberately infected actually became infected after inoculation. That is an 81% infection rate through direct inoculation. And they shed virus from their noses in substantial quantities. Their viral loads were high enough to register on PCR tests with cycle threshold values in the mid-20s. Yet, remarkably, they did not pass the virus to the people sitting next to them. The researchers also measured the exhaled breath of donors using a device called the Gesundheit-II. They found that only 11 out of 42 infected donors had detectable virus in their breath aerosols. Even then, the quantities were two to four logs lower than what has been observed in naturally infected people who were selected for having fever and high viral loads.

This raises an obvious question. If the virus is so hard to transmit in a controlled setting where infected people are breathing directly onto susceptible people for days, how does it ever spread in the real world? The researchers tried to explain their failure by pointing to the building ventilation system. The proof-of-concept study was conducted in a hotel room with recirculating air, and it did have a higher transmission rate. The follow-on study used mechanical ventilation that diluted the air. They concluded that aerosols might be important after all. But this explanation is circular. If transmission depends on airtight rooms with no fresh air, then the virus is not a robust airborne pathogen. It is a fragile entity that requires extreme conditions to move from one person to another.

The fallacy of the contagious patient

The study also revealed something that should make every public health official reconsider their assumptions. Many of the directly infected donors did not get sick. Ten out of 42 infected donors were classified as asymptomatic. They had the virus in their bodies; it was confirmed through PCR; they shed it from their noses, but they felt fine. No fever, no cough, no runny nose. Yet they were placed in rooms with susceptible people and still did not transmit. The researchers admitted that their model produced donors who were “minimally contagious.” But if a person with a laboratory-confirmed infection who is breathing on you for 15 hours a day cannot make you sick, what does that say about the millions of asymptomatic cases that were used to justify lockdowns, school closures, and mask mandates?

The collective pandemic protection measures were not based on science; they were y used to control people, weaponizing their virtue and their fear.

The one infected person didn’t even test positive on PCR

And ironically, the one recipient who did become infected through alleged transmission never tested positive on PCR. The infection was detected only through serology, meaning their immune system responded to the virus but the virus itself was never found in their nose. This single case was symptomatic. But the researchers could not prove it came from the donors at all. They assumed it did because of the timing. That is not science. That is faith. This means people who test positive for a virus on the PCR test are most likely not spreading the disease, and people who test negative have the potential to spread it anyway. So why use PCR testing in the first place?

After spending years and millions of dollars on the most controlled transmission experiment ever attempted, the researchers concluded that they cannot prove how the flu spreads. And if we cannot prove how influenza spreads, how confident can we be about any respiratory virus or any PCR test?

The implications are staggering. The entire framework of pandemic response rests on the assumption that respiratory viruses spread easily from person-to-person through the air. This study suggests otherwise. It suggests that transmission is rare, difficult to achieve, and dependent on variables we do not understand. It also suggests that the masks, the lockdowns, the social distancing, and the fear were built on a foundation of sand, and that virology is completely misunderstood from the start. It’s easy to blame someone else for our sickness. It’s crazy to think as a human species, we still do not understand the reasons why are bodies get sick.

[…]

Via https://www.naturalnews.com/2026-06-25-bombshell-study-proves-transmission-is-a-myth-and-pcr-tests-are-junk-science.html

Iran: US ‘very nature’ is to break promises

Posted on by
1
US ‘very nature’ is to break promises – Iran
FILE PHOTO. © Getty Images / Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto

 

RT

28 January 2026

The “very nature” of the US is to break its promises and treaties, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Sunday, following renewed attacks on the Islamic Republic’s coastal infrastructure.

Iran and the US exchanged strikes on Friday for the first time since signing an interim peace deal on June 17, with both sides accusing the other of violating the agreement’s terms.

“The aggressor enemy’s… very nature is to violate treaties and break promises,” the IRGC said in a statement cited by Iran’s Fars news agency. The US attacked Iranian facilities on Sunday morning using the “pretext of the IRGC Navy’s confrontation with a rogue vessel,” it added.

In response, Iranian forces launched ballistic missiles and drones at regional US bases on Sunday morning, it said. The attack destroyed eight military installations at the Ali Al-Salem base in Kuwait and the Fifth Fleet naval headquarters in Bahrain, the IRGC claimed, warning of “a crushing response” to any new attacks.

According to the US-Iranian Memorandum of Understanding, Iran should make “the arrangements for controlling passage in the Strait of Hormuz,” the IRGC said, warning of stronger penalties for “violating ships.”

The US and Iran have offered differing interpretations of the interim deal. Tehran has insisted that any vessels passing the key waterway get permission from the Iranian authorities and solely use routes designated by them, while Washington has demanded that Iran provide unimpeded access and charge no fees.

The renewed strikes have threatened to derail already tense negotiations, which have been further complicated by Israeli strikes on Lebanon.

Iranian officials also said that previous negotiations have eroded trust in US diplomacy.

The US and Israel launched their February 28 war on Iran during indirect talks on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.

[…]

Via https://www.rt.com/news/642317-us-nature-break-promises-iran/

Israel grabbed more land from Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon since 2023 than it has in decades

Posted on by
1
Israel

FILE- An Israeli soldier occupies a military position overlooking the so-called Yellow Line in the central Gaza Strip. AP

AP , Thursday 18 Jun 2026

Over the past two and a half years, Israel has occupied more swaths of Gaza, Lebanon and Syria that amount to its biggest expansion of militarily occupied lands in decades.

It is an area larger than many major cities — roughly 1,000 square kilometres (386 square miles) — and Israel has said it plans to occupy it indefinitely.

The Israeli land grab began in the aftermath of October 2023 as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli officials openly declared intentions to build “Greater Israel,” flashing maps of the state that include ever-larger parts of territory in neighbouring countries.

The Israeli military took over large portions of Gaza as part of a broad invasion, and later seized control of chunks of Lebanon and Syria.

In Gaza and Lebanon, Israeli land seizures and “evacuation warnings” have displaced more than 3 million people, and troops have demolished towns and neighborhoods, creating large depopulated zones.

The “buffer zones” — equivalent to roughly 5% of Israel’s area soon after its establishment — are not new borders, which require an agreement between two countries. But many fear these changes could become long-lasting. Iran has made Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon a condition for ending its war with the U.S.

Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has never declared clear borders. Its boundaries have shifted through wars, annexations, ceasefires and peace agreements.

LEBANON

 

Israel’s latest escaltion in Lebanon began on March 2, amid the backdrop of the US-Israeli war against Iran, which started on Feb. 28.

Israel launched a ground invasion into Lebanon in late March. Israeli bombardment amid so-called “evacuation warnings”, some stretching beyond the areas under its control, has forced about 1.2 million Lebanese to flee. Israel has also demolished multiple villages along the border.

Israel now occupies 608 square kilometers (234 square miles) in Lebanon, according to experts with the Carnegie Middle East Center.

GAZA

 

Since the start of the Israeli war in Gaza in October 2023, almost the entire population of the strip, more than 2 million people, has been squeezed into vast, squalid tent cities dependent on international aid.

The Israeli occupation army has bulldozed or demolished wide swaths of the zone, and the area, where most of Gaza’s agricultural land lies, is inaccessible to Palestinians.

Israeli occupation forces have refused to complete a fuller withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as stipulated under the U.S.-brokered ceasefire.

The exact location of Israel’s so-called “yellow line” is ambiguous. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he wants Israel to take control of 70% of Gaza.

Israel now occupies 194 square kilometers (75 square miles) in Gaza, according to Israeli rights group Gisha.

SYRIA

 

Following the downfall of Assad in late 2024, Israel expanded its military occupation in Syria beyond the Golan Heights.

The Israeli seizure of so-called “buffer zones” in Syria violates a 1974 ceasefire agreement. Civilians in the area now under Israeli control have not been instructed to evacuate but have faced checkpoints and tension, with occasional clashes between Israeli soldiers and villagers.

Syria’s interim president, Ahmad al-Sharaa, has called on Israel to withdraw from the area that the U.N. says is 235 square kilometers (91 square miles).

WEST BANK

 

 

Tens of thousands of Palestinians have also been displaced from their homes in the West Bank due to expanded Israeli occupation army operations and forced displacement policies of the population since the start of the war in Gaza.

Israel has expanded settlement construction in the occupied Palestinian territories since October 2023.

The expanded Israeli settlements have put enormous restrictions on the daily lives of Palestinians, who view them as the main barrier to a lasting peace agreement because they are built on lands they seek for a future state.

[…]

Via https://english.ahram.org.eg/UI/Front/Inner.aspx?NewsContentID=571115

 

New Israeli incursion into southern Syria as occupation forces claim killing militants

Posted on by
Reply
Syria
FILE- Israeli soldiers stand on the fence with the buffer zone that separates the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights from Syria. AFP

Ahram Online , Sunday 28 Jun 2026

Israeli occupation forces carried out a new ground incursion into Syria’s southern Daraa countryside on Sunday, while the Israeli military claimed its troops had killed several “armed militants”.

According to Syria’s Al-Ikhbariya TV, an Israeli military force consisting of six vehicles advanced into the Wadi al-Raqad area, reaching the village of Jamla in the Yarmouk Basin of western Daraa.

The broadcaster said the operation coincided with the deployment of another Israeli force to Tal al-Maghar, where troops established positions on the hilltop, operated laser illumination equipment, and deployed snipers across the area.

It added that Israeli forces stationed on Tal al-Maghar fired heavy machine guns toward nearby agricultural land.

The Israeli occupation army, meanwhile, claimed in a statement that its forces had killed several armed men in southern Syria a day earlier.

The latest incursion comes two days after Israeli occupation forces conducted six separate ground raids across Syria’s southern provinces of Daraa and Quneitra on Friday.

The raids were the latest episode in what Syrian authorities describe as an almost daily pattern of Israeli air strikes, ground incursions, arrests, and military operations across the country’s south.

Even as a US-Iran memorandum of understanding (MoU) aimed at ending hostilities across multiple fronts has raised hopes of broader regional de-escalation, Israeli leaders have increasingly signaled that their military presence in Syria is not temporary and could expand further.

Following the fall of former President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024, Israel declared the 1974 Disengagement Agreement effectively void, moved troops into the United Nations (UN)-monitored buffer zone, and expanded its military presence in Syria beyond the occupied Golan Heights.

Damascus, however, said it remained committed to the agreement and called for a full Israeli withdrawal.

The Syrian government has repeatedly demanded that Israel withdraw from the Syrian territory it occupies, which the United Nations says covers about 235 square kilometres (91 square miles). It maintains that all Israeli actions in southern Syria are null and void under international law and has urged the international community to press Israel to fully withdraw from the area.

[…]

Via https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/571765/World/Region/New-Israeli-incursion-into-southern-Syria-as-occup.aspx

Parliament speaker Berri cautions Lebanese nation against being dragged into sedition

Posted on by
Reply

Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri

Press TV

Lebanon’s Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri has cautioned the Lebanese nation against being drawn into “sedition” following the US-sponsored framework agreement between the Beirut government and the Tel Aviv regime.

“O my people in Lebanon, all of Lebanon, this is sedition,” Berri stated on Saturday, alluding to the agreement and the Hezbollah resistance movement’s disapproval of the deal.

“Be in strife like a young camel: neither a back to be ridden nor an udder to be milked,” Berri continued, quoting Imam Ali ibn Abi Taleb. This quote serves as a warning to the faithful to avoid being entangled in sedition.

Separately, a lawmaker from Hezbollah’s political wing stated that Lebanese officials who entered into a framework agreement with Israel on Friday in Washington would be unable to enforce the deal without inciting a civil war.

Lebanese “authorities will not be able to implement the agreement signed in Washington unless they resort to civil war with American backing,” Hassan Fadlallah — a member of the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc — stated, as his party has consistently opposed direct talks between Israel and Lebanon.

He further asserted that “what transpired in Washington is an effort to undermine the Islamabad path, and without the resistance (Hezbollah), nothing will succeed,” referring to the memorandum of understanding between Tehran and Washington aimed at halting the US-Israeli war of aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which includes Lebanon.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that a framework agreement has been established between Lebanon and “Israel,” characterizing the deal as an initial step in what he referred to as a “challenging journey.”

Rubio indicated that the agreement would create a legal basis for negotiations between the two parties, while underscoring that “this is merely the beginning of the beginning,” and added that “there remains a lengthy path ahead for Lebanon and Israel.”

Yechiel Leiter, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, asserted that the framework signifies that “the pathway to peace between Israel and Lebanon is open.”

In the meantime, the Israeli regime’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the agreement as a significant accomplishment for the occupying regime.

Furthermore, Netanyahu stated that “Israel” would prevent Lebanese citizens or Hezbollah from returning to the security belt area under Israeli control, emphasizing that “Israel” would continue to occupy regions of southern Lebanon until “Hezbollah is disarmed.”

Israeli Channel 12 reported that a senior Israeli official referred to the agreement with the Lebanese government as a “remarkable achievement for Israel.”

The Lebanese Embassy in the United States announced on Friday that the execution of the framework agreement with Israel will commence with the withdrawal of Israeli troops from two designated pilot areas in southern Lebanon, followed by the deployment of the Lebanese army in those regions.

In a statement released after the signing ceremony held in Washington, which marked the conclusion of the fifth round of discussions between Beirut and Tel Aviv, the embassy clarified that the agreement “stipulates the implementation of arrangements in two pilot areas, which include an Israeli withdrawal, the deployment of the Lebanese army, and the disarmament of non-state armed groups.”

Furthermore, it noted that these preliminary actions represent “the initial step towards a gradual and comprehensive withdrawal from all Lebanese territory, ensuring complete respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty.”

The embassy emphasized that the agreement was reached “under the leadership of President Joseph Aoun, in collaboration with Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and through the coordinated efforts of Lebanon’s constitutional institutions.”

Thus, Lebanon has embarked on “a sovereign path founded on dialogue rather than conflict,” the statement concluded.

[…]

Via https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/06/27/771185/Parliament-speaker-Berri-cautions-Lebanese-nation-against-being-dragged-into-sedition-

IRGC Navy strikes US military targets in retaliation for attack on Iranian coastal areas

Posted on by
Reply

File photo of Iranian missiles

Press TV

The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy has struck American military targets in the region in retaliation for earlier aggression against Iranian coastal areas.

The force made the remarks in a statement issued on Friday, saying its reprisal “targeted the deployment sites of the US terrorist military in the region.”

It noted that the retaliation came after American forces launched airstrikes against areas lying along the Iranian coastline as part of the United States’ changeless “pattern of breaching its commitments.”

Waging the aggression, Washington used “various pretexts, including the passage of a non-compliant vessel through an unauthorized route in the Strait of Hormuz,” the statement added.

Earlier, the United States Central Command had reported carrying out attacks against some targets in Iran

CENTCOM that overseas the American forces deployed to the West Asia region, alleged it had staged the aggression in return for, what it described as, a Thursday drone strike against a vessel, which it named as Singapore-flagged cargo vessel MV Ever Lovely. The strike, it claimed, took place as the vessel was departing the Strait of Hormuz along the Omani coast.

The Islamic Republic has, on all occasions, categorically rejected any allegations of targeting non-military objects, while warning about attempts at trying to implicate the country in such attacks by staging “false flag” operations.

The IRGC Navy also noted that the United States sought to violate its commitments under a memorandum of understanding recently signed between the two sides “through various provocations.”

Warning against further provocations

“And it has now received the necessary response,” the statement went on, referring to the force’s retaliation. “The same will apply to any future violations,” it added.

“Should this aggression be repeated, our response will be broader than this.”

The signing of the MoU was preceded by a ceasefire announced on April 7 by US President Donald Trump in the latest bout of unprovoked American-Israeli aggression against the Islamic Republic.

Following the announcement, the United States repeatedly violated the ceasefire only to face determined Iranian reprisal on each occasion.

[…]

Trump’s Board of Peace claims right to confiscate Palestinian land in Gaza, immunity from prosecution

Posted on by
1
(Photo credit: White House)

The Cradle

JUN 27, 2026

The US president has proposed that Washington ‘take over’ Gaza, expel its Palestinian inhabitants, and rebuild it as the ‘Riviera of the Middle East’

 The Board of Peace for Gaza is planning to grant itself sweeping legal immunity for its actions in the devastated Palestinian enclave, The Guardian reported on 27 June.

According to a draft resolution obtained by the British daily, the organization would also be allowed to obtain public property in Gaza “free of charge.”

The “sensitive but unclassified” draft of the resolution includes language extending immunity from “arrest, detention or legal proceedings in the courts or other entities in Gaza.”

The UN Security Council has authorized the Board of Peace to oversee the administration of Gaza until 31 December 2027.

The protection would extend to every member of the Board of Peace and its administrative affiliate, the Office of the High Representative (OHR), led by Bulgarian diplomat Nickolay Mladenov.

Legal protections would also apply to Palestinian technocrats slated to administer Gaza, to foreign troops from the International Stabilization Force (ISF) deployed to the strip, and to nonresident contractors.

“It is unclear if the document is attempting to relieve the Board of Peace and its affiliates from prosecution in international courts, in addition to potential claims in Gaza,” The Guardian wrote.

The activities of the Board of Peace could be illegal under international law, as they bolster Israel’s illegal occupation of Gaza following its genocide of Palestinians in the strip.

The seven-member Board of Peace “executive board” includes Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner; special envoy Steve Witkoff; White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles; and national security adviser, Marco Rubio.

Witkoff and Kushner are notable real estate investors in New York. They, along with Israeli businessmen, could benefit financially from managing the reconstruction of Gaza.

In February 2025, Trump proposed that the US “take over” Gaza, expel its nearly 2 million residents, and rebuild it as the “Riviera of the Middle East,” presumably for Israeli Jewish settlers to inhabit.

Though multiple countries have pledged billions of dollars to join the Board of Peace, most have not yet transferred any funds to the organization.

No reconstruction contracts have been issued yet, and the international stabilization force has not been established.

Six lawyers specializing in US contracting law and international armed conflict who reviewed the draft resolution for The Guardian raised concerns about its contents.

“[It is] unclear how Board of Peace officials, soldiers, and contractors would be held accountable if there are shootings or accidents that affect Gaza residents, or even how the group might resolve routine disputes over business or land use there,” the lawyers said.

“They are basically saying there’s no external oversight, including applicable international law regarding occupation,” said Noura Erakat, an international law professor at Rutgers University.

“It’s creating a legal system unto itself.”

The final section of the draft resolution gives the Board of Peace the ability to confiscate Palestinian land, similar to the way Israel confiscates Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank.

The board “shall be provided, free of charge, with public premises and facilities needed for the accomplishment of the missions in Gaza.”

Trump’s Board of Peace plans to build a base for the ISF, as well as logistics hubs to facilitate its operations there.

[…]

Via https://thecradle.co/articles/trumps-board-of-peace-claims-right-to-confiscate-palestinian-land-in-gaza-immunity-from-prosecution-report

Hezbollah chief declares Lebanon-Israel agreement ‘null and void’

Posted on by
Reply
(Photo credit: Reuters / Zohra Bensemra)

The Cradle

JUN 27, 2026

The resistance leader accused the Lebanese government of effectively granting Israel what they failed to achieve militarily

Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem called the US-sponsored Lebanon-Israel agreement “null and void” on 27 June, saying it legitimizes Israeli occupation of Lebanon and vowed to continue defending Lebanese territory.

“This agreement is null and void,” Qassem said, adding that Hezbollah “will continue as a resistance in the field to defeat the occupation. We did not leave the field in the most difficult circumstances, and we will not leave it.”

Qassem emphasized that the Beirut ignored the Iran-US Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) agreement, which “placed a halt to the war on Lebanon as its first item,”  and chose to “abandon the cards of strength” while granting Israel “what it wants for free.”

The Secretary-General asserted that linking the enemy’s withdrawal to the removal of weapons across the country is a “dangerous violation” of Lebanon’s constitutional law and a betrayal of the thousands who have been killed by Israeli attacks across the country.

He added that the current proposal effectively “legitimizes the occupation for years” and allows Israel to dictate internal security matters under the guise of an ”experimental peace.”

“The experimental period might extend over months in the two regions,” referring to the so-called “pilot zones” where authority would gradually transfer from Israeli forces to the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) as part of the first phase of the agreement.

He added that “and there will be no transition to another phase except with a certificate of ‘good conduct’ from Israel, implementing what Israel failed to achieve on the battlefield.”

On Saturday morning, the Israeli military claimed it had taken “full control” of Ali al-Taher Hill, the strategically vital heights overlooking the southern Lebanese city of Nabatieh.

Hezbollah dismissed the claims as fabricated propaganda, while a Lebanese military source told Al Jazeera, “We have not detected any advance by Israeli occupation forces toward the Ali al-Taher Heights in the Nabatieh district.”

Since the signing of the framework agreement, Israel continues to commit various military violations across the south of Lebanon, including artillery shelling, drone strikes, and ground incursions with heavy machine-gun fire.

The signing of the framework was met with mass protests in Beirut and other areas, as demonstrators blocked roads and burned tires.

In response, Lebanese judicial authorities ordered security forces to use all necessary measures to disperse gatherings and restore public order.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the deal, describing it as a major achievement for Israel and stating that Israeli troops would remain in the “security zones” in southern Lebanon.

[…]

Via https://thecradle.co/articles/hezbollah-chief-declares-lebanon-israeli-agreement-null-and-void

War is all that remains

Posted on by
Reply

Russia's War in Ukraine, in Photos - The New York Times

Dmitry Orlov

Since diplomacy, in the western understanding of the term, has degenerated into an exchange of insults and the laborious process of negotiating agreements which nobody ever intends to keep, all that remains is war. Or, perhaps, the plural form — wars — is more appropriate, since there are several ones going on at once. In each case, there is a battlefield, there are military actions taking place (or preparations for them) and there is, inevitably, an eventual outcome. Motivations for these conflicts range from outright delusion to political expediency all the way to ideological imperatives and the demands of national survival.

A lot has already been said and written about the death of diplomacy in the West, but a recent exchange is just too perfect to pass by. When the Russians pointed out that the Americans reneged on the agreements reached during the Putin-Trump summit in Anchorage, Alaska on August 15, 2025, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio pointed out that these were not agreements, just proposals. As it turns out, it was the Americans who proposed and the Russians who accepted the proposals. Thus, the Americans made proposals which they themselves did not agree to. What could possibly be the point of trying to reach a peace agreement with such people? There is no point, and that just leaves war.

Although it is commonly thought that the goal of war is victory — and this is most often the stated goal of any war, to preserve the morale of the troops and to maintain the support of the populace which pays for it — just as often the goal is the perpetual continuation of the conflict. A prime example of such a perpetual conflict was the Cold War. It is possible to argue that it was not truly a war because it was never fought; it is also possible to argue that it was fought more or less continuously. The Cold War was fought in dozens of regional wars, large and small. In case you need a refresher, here is a quick summary of them:

Korea (1950–1953): A major direct clash in which US and UN forces fought Chinese and North Korean troops supported and resupplied by the USSR. The US managed to fight this war to a permanent stalemate which left the Korean peninsula permanently divided at the 38th parallel, with the North allied with Russia and China and the south under permanent occupation by American troops.

Vietnam (1955–1975): The US intervened in French Indochina, taking over for failing colonialist France to stop Vietnamese quest for independence while the Soviets backed the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese military in a prolonged and devastating conflict which ended when the US-supported regime in the south collapsed, the Americans were routed and the north triumphed.

Afghanistan (1979–1989): The USSR intervened to prop up a socialist government, prompting the US (and allies) to arm, train, and fund the Mujahideen insurgents. The last Soviet troops left Afghanistan on February 15, 1989. The withdrawal was carried out in accordance with the Geneva Accords, and the commander of the 40th Army, Lieutenant General Boris Gromov, became the last serviceman to cross the border bridge over the Amu Darya River, flags flying, as seen in the photo above. The socialist government of Mohammad Najibullah stayed in power for approximately three years and two months following the final withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. Its collapse was precipitated by the withdrawal of Soviet support under General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev. A civil war then raged until September 27, 1996, when Kabul was taken over by the Taliban. The Americans then occupied Afghanistan from October 7, 2001 until August 30, 2021 in a failed effort to dislodge the Taliban, having falsely accused the Taliban for complicity in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Cuba: The US and USSR almost found themselves in a nuclear war during the badly misnamed Cuban Missile Crisis (1962). It was, in fact, the Turkish Missile Crisis: the US positioned nuclear missiles in Turkey which threatened the USSR; the USSR responded by positioning nuclear missiles in Cuba which threatened the US; in the end, each side withdrew their missiles.

Africa: The USSR actively supported decolonization movements throughout the continent, helping a score of countries achieve independence, including Algeria, Angola, Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa (where the war was against apartheid) and Zimbabwe. After the collapse of the USSR these relationships were put on pause for a time but have since been renewed and revitalized. The 2nd Russia–Africa Summit was held in St. Petersburg, Russia, on July 27–28, 2023. The summit drew delegates from 49 of the 54 African Union member states, including 17 heads of state. The 3rd summit will be held in Moscow in late October of 2026.

The African national liberation movements included quite a lot of armed conflict. Official records indicate a combined total of 1,100,000 to 1,800,000 casualties for the major anti-colonial conflicts in Algeria, Angola, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe alone. These were, to avoid the use of euphemisms such as “conflict”, wars of national liberation.

[…]

Let us enumerate the stakeholders of the war in the former Ukraine: Russia, the US, European members of the EU and of NATO, various other nations not hostile toward Russia and, of course, the former Ukraine itself (the Kiev regime and the population of the former Ukraine). Each of these stakeholders is disinterested in a quick end to the war in the former Ukraine, each for its own set of reasons.

Russia’s ultimate goal for the former Ukraine is to render it harmless without burdening itself unduly or suffering too many casualties. What precipitated the conflict can be reduced to two main factors. There was the threat of NATO troops stationed on Ukrainian soil, right on the invasion path toward Moscow followed by both Napoleon and Hitler.

There was also Kiev’s incipient genocide of the Russian population in the Ukraine’s former eastern provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk which served as the trigger for the launching of Russia’s Special Military Operation in February of 2022 as an R2P (Responsibility to Protect) mission. The dramatically increased shelling of Donetsk by the Ukrainians in February of 2022 provided ample justification for it.

The imperative to save Russian lives in Donetsk and Lugansk overlapped with Russia’s secondary goal, which was to save numerous Russians still living in the territories held by the Kiev regime. Thus, carpet-bombing Ukrainian cities, as the Americans or the British or other NATO forces would have done (and, indeed, have done in similar circumstances) is not something that the Russian government would ever consider doing.

Quite the opposite: those Russians who are still living in Kiev-held territories are offered visa-free entry into the Russian Federation and a path to Russian citizenship and integration into Russian society. Since all Ukrainians speak Russian, the vast majority of them as their first language, they reintegrate easily.

If the war were to end, it could do so in at least three different ways. The first way, entirely unacceptable to Russia on every level, would be to agree to a cease fire, freeze the conflict at the current line of separation (which runs through what under Russian law comprises sovereign Russian territory, though it will not do so for much longer given the pace of Russian advance) and allow the stationing of NATO troops on territory still controlled by the Kiev regime. This end to the war would be equivalent to a defeat.

Another way the war could end is through a sudden, outright Russian victory. The Ukrainian forces are routed and the Ukrainian military dissolves. The US, NATO, the EU all wash their hands of the Ukrainian conflict, abandoning their Ukrainian dependents to their fate. Russia then has a chaotic, ungovernable humanitarian disaster area on their border which they somehow have to rescue from its horrible fate.

The Russians are working assiduously to liberate the remaining small patches of what is, constitutionally, Russian Federation territory in the Donetsk, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions (Lugansk has been completely liberated as of July of 2022). They just liberated Konstantinovka. There are now just two major towns left to liberate: Kramatorsk and Slavyansk. Likewise, major advances are taking place in the south, in Zaporozhye in particular. They are also making strides in building up buffer zones in Sumy and Kharkov regions to safeguard neighboring Russian regions from attack. These are some of the stated goals of the Special Military Operation and they are being achieved, albeit rather more gradually than many people would like.

Meanwhile, the Kiev regime, assisted by NATO, has been launching a great many terrorist attacks against Russian regions. Crimea has been particularly badly hit and today was forced to impose a state of emergency to deal with the damage from Ukrainan drone strikes. Other Russian regions have been affected as well, although the overall effect of these strikes is generally overestimated. These terrorist attacks are being used in a propaganda campaign in the West which aims to convince the populace that the Ukraine is winning and that therefore continued support for the Kiev regime is justified. Apparently, war, like beauty, is in the eye on the beholder. How else could we ever hope to explain the following: last Monday, in Gdańsk, Poland, US Deputy Secretary of State Jeremy Levin pompously declared that “Ukraine is winning the war.” Nothing could be further from the truth!

The Kiev regime is losing, but not for lack of trying. Its attack on Russian territory during the night of June 26 was the most massive so far in 2026. After analyzing data published by the Russian Ministry of Defense, RIA News service reported that Russian air defense systems shot down 660 Ukrainian drones. A handful of drones probably got through (no air defense system can be 100% effective). The news in Russia is quite full of stories of the damage caused by drones and drone fragments: a few people get hurt and a few houses and apartment buildings are damaged almost every day. This is, of course deplorable. But war is like that; people get hurt.

But from the point of view of the Russian government and the Russian military, this is by no means altogether bad. Russia has developed the world’s best air defense system and the Russian defense establishment will be busy selling these systems to eager customers around the world for many years to come. The conflict is allowing Russia to keep up with drone development and related technology including the battlefield use of AI systems and satellite communications. And Russia has plenty of cards left to play if the terrorist attacks ever grow too painful. In particular, Russia has the weapons in place to disable Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite system which Alex Karp’s Palantir AI uses to generate targeting information (it takes a perverse interest in girls’ schools) and which the drones then use to navigate to these targets. But doing so now would deprive Russia of the great sport of shooting down hundreds of drones every night.

[…]

Moving on to the United States, a quick end to the Ukrainian war is unlikely to be on terms acceptable to it. This makes it preferable to push off the moment when the policy of fashioning the former Ukraine into an anti-Russia and squandering countless billions in pursuit of the lofty goal of weakening Russia finally crashes and burns. Also, a premature end to this war would deprive American arms manufacturers of sales. Since weapons for the Kiev regime are now being paid for by the Europeans, it would also deprive the US of a valuable way of bleeding dry the European economy — a reasonable goal for it, since the EU is the only major economic competitor against which the US still has the ability to compete, being increasingly left behind by China, Russia and India. Lastly, many in the US still cherish the forlorn hope that the Ukrainian conflict will weaken Russia and prevent it from developing its economy. (If you believe, I have a few thousand economic sanctions to sell you at bargain basement prices.)

[…]

Via https://boosty.to/cluborlov/posts/37e694d0-880f-4404-9a9f-c798e938ccf7