Since the ceasefire, Israel has constructed at least 13 new military outposts inside Gaza, consolidated existing military infrastructure, built roads, and destroyed more Palestinian property.
Since the so-called ceasefire came into effect in Gaza on October 10, Israel has been consolidating its control of over 50% of Gaza and—according to new research by Forensic Architecture—physically altering the geography of the land. Through a combination of the construction of military infrastructure alongside the destruction of existing buildings, Israel appears to be laying the groundwork to establish a permanent presence in the majority of the Gaza Strip.
Israel has constructed at least 13 new military outposts inside Gaza since the ceasefire—primarily located along the yellow line, in eastern Khan Younis, and near the border with Israel, according to analysis of satellite imagery by Forensic Architecture.
“Israel is doing what it always does, and what it historically has done best: establish ‘facts on the ground,’ incrementally rather than spectacularly, and make them permanent once those with influence to force it to reverse course either lose interest, decide that the cost of confronting Israel is not worth the price, or come out in open support of Israeli violations. Israel is in no rush and prepared to play the long game,” Mouin Rabbani, co-editor of Jadaliyya and a former UN official who worked as a senior analyst on Israel-Palestine for the International Crisis Group, told Drop Site after reviewing a summary of the Forensic Architecture findings.
The analysis also shows that, between October 10 and December 2, 2025, Israel has:
Accelerated the growth and infrastructure development of 48 existing military outposts inside Gaza.
Expanded a network of roads connecting military outposts inside Gaza to the Israeli road network, bases and settlements outside of Gaza.
Continued construction that began in September 2025 of a new road in Khan Younis, re-routing the Magen Oz corridor to run within Israel’s area of control.
Engaged in the systematic demolition and destruction of Palestinian property, particularly in eastern Khan Younis, targeting areas which haven’t already been destroyed. New military outposts and roads have emerged across this area.
Ivanka Trump’s husband is trying to get Middle Eastern leaders to invest in his vision of a high-tech paradise on the ruins of Gaza with a PowerPoint presentation.
Jared Kusher, 44, and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, 68, have concocted a 32-slide, “sensitive but unclassified” PowerPoint titled “Project Sunrise: Building a New and Unified Gaza,” which paints a vision of a sparkling metropolis built on the war-torn ruins of the Gaza Strip, The Wall Street Journal first reported on Friday.
The proposal says the U.S. would commit 20% of the development costs to turn the Gaza Strip into a ritzy tourist destination, replete with high-speed rails, AI-driven power grids, and beachside luxury resorts. The plan would cost $112.1 billion over ten years, with the U.S. promising to support nearly $60 billion in grants and guarantees on debt for “all the contemplated work streams” in that time period.
Kushner’s pitch deck does not provide a specific plan for exactly where 2 million displaced Palestinians would go during the reconstruction period. It does say they would be placed in “temporary shelter, field hospitals, and mobile clinics.”
The White House did not immediately respond to the Daily Beast’s request for comment. Spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told the Journal, “The Trump administration will continue to work diligently with our partners to sustain a lasting peace and lay the groundwork for a peaceful and prosperous Gaza.”
Trump’s son-in-law and Witkoff reportedly pressed their business connections in the Middle East while hammering out a peace deal in the Israel-Hamas conflict. Kushner and Witkoff are reportedly trying a similar tactic to secure a profitable peace in the Russia-Ukraine war.
So far, the two men have shopped the PowerPoint to Turkey, Egypt, and wealthy Gulf Kingdoms, according to the Journal.
However, Middle East experts have serious doubts that Jared and Witkoff’s vision will ever come to fruition.
“Nothing happens until Hamas disarms. Hamas will not disarm, so nothing will happen,” said Steven Cook, a senior fellow for the Middle East at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The tenuous peace deal in the Israel-Hamas conflict struck on Oct. 10 hinges on Hamas agreeing to disarm, which it so far has refused to do. Hamas disarmament is phase 2 of Trump’s 20-phase peace plan. Without Hamas disarmament, the rest of the peace agreement can’t move ahead. Slide 2 of the “Project Sunrise” PowerPoint concedes that it can’t move forward unless Hamas disarms.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Friday that Hamas remains the biggest roadblock to any reconstruction effort.
“You are not going to convince anyone to invest money in Gaza if they believe another war is going to happen in two, three years,” he said.
“We have a lot of confidence that we are going to have the donors for the reconstruction effort and for all the humanitarian support in the long term,” he added.
Even if Kushner and Witkoff’s “Project Sunrise” somehow moves forward, building a tech metropolis in Gaza isn’t a simple endeavor. Construction would require the removal of unexploded land mines, 68 million tons of rubble, and the bodies of 10,000 killed Palestinians.
How to make ‘Iran like Gaza’ and describing the genocide in Palestine as a weapons testing laboratory. Michael West and Stephanie Tran with the inside story of a weapons expo.
Inside a conference hall at Tel Aviv University, executives, generals and venture capitalists took turns boasting about “combat-proven” Israeli weapons and surveillance systems.
At Defense Tech Week 2025, senior figures from Israel’s defence establishment openly described how the genocide in Gaza has accelerated weapons development, unlocked new export markets and reshaped Israel’s global identity as a defence powerhouse.
Less than 70 kilometres from where the conference was held, Gaza has been reduced to rubble. More than two years of genocide, indiscriminate bombardment and mass displacement have left at least 70,000 Palestinians dead and 90% of the Strip destroyed.
Gaza weapons lab
Defense Tech Week advertises itself as a forum connecting startups, investors, defence primes and policymakers. According to its organisers, the event showcases “practical lessons from Israel’s cutting-edge solutions that are addressing global security challenges”.
MWM has obtained the footage with Drop Site News in the US.
The speakers resembled a roll call of Israel’s military-industrial complex with senior Israeli military leadership, officials from the Ministry of Defense, and executives from Israel’s largest arms manufacturers, including Israel Aerospace Industries, Elbit Systems and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems.
Speaker after speaker framed the war as a lucrative opportunity for weapons development and sales.
“These are not lab projects or PowerPoint concepts,” said Amir Baram, Director General of Israel’s Ministry of Defense.
“They are combat-proven systems.”
Gili Drob-Heistein, Executive Director at the Blavatnik ICRC and Yuval Ne’eman Workshop for Science, Technology and Security, described defence technology as Israel’s “next big economic engine”.
Israel is known for being the startup nation,” she said. “We all believe that defence tech has the potential to become the next big economic engine for Israel.”
She credited what she called Israel’s “technological leadership” and “out of the box thinking” for results “we’ve seen recently on the battlefield.”
For Boaz Levy, President and CEO of Israel Aerospace Industries, the war has presented an opportunity to showcase the company’s wares with IAI’s weapons being deployed in Gaza, Iran and Yemen.
“The war that we faced in the last two years enabled most of our products to become valid for the rest of the world,” he said.
“Starting with Gaza and moving on to Iran and to Yemen, I would say that many, many products of IAI were there.”
Real-time combat data
Elbit Systems CTO Yehoshua (Shuki) Yehuda spoke about deploying autonomous systems and mass data collection in real-time combat. He showed a video demonstrating how an AI-powered system developed by Elbit is used to select and track targets “less than a pixel.”
“All of it is done by collecting the data,” he said, describing the ability to track “small targets in a very tough background… less than a pixel.”
He explained that these systems were developed in collaboration with the IDF and refined through continuous data collection during military operations.
Profiting from genocide
The speakers were candid about the scale of the financial opportunity presented by genocide.
According to Amir Baram, more than 300 startups are now working with Israel’s military research directorate, MAFAT, with 130 joining during the current war alone. In 2024, he said, the ministry invested 1.2 billion shekels in defence startups.
Baram oriented Israel’s surge within the global boom in defence spending.
“Global defence spending reached $2.7 trillion in 2024,” he said, pointing to the increase in expenditure from NATO countries and US defence spending exceeding $1 trillion.
“By partnering with Israel, you gain access to our advanced technologies as well as the valuable insights and experience that make our system truly effective. The world has chosen to partner with Israel because trust in defence must be built on credibility, performance, and shared strategic purposes.”
In 2024 alone, Baram said, Israel signed 21 government-to-government defence agreements worth billions, positioning Tel Aviv as the world’s third largest defence tech hub.
At Israel Aerospace Industries, Levy said 80% of the company’s activity is export-oriented.
“IAI as of now has $27 billion of new orders,” he said, with annual sales of around $7 billion.
Elbit Systems reported $8 billion in annual revenue and a $25 billion backlog, with more than 20,000 employees worldwide.
‘Make Iran like Gaza’
The speakers were explicit about how techniques developed and used in Gaza could be deployed in future conflicts.
Dr Daniel Gold, head of Israel’s Directorate of Defense Research and Development, described scenarios in which Israel would replicate Gaza style control in Iran.
“Once we have operational freedom in the air,” he said, “we inject inside… our UAV fleet controlling Tehran and controlling Iran – which means we make Iran like Gaza.”
Gold highlighted the practicality of “dual use” technology which have both civilian and military applications.
“A swarm of drones that control the traffic in Tel Aviv can be the same swarm of drones that control in Gaza,” he said.
During his presentation, video footage was shown of a semi-autonomous drone targeting an individual inside an apartment building, imagery that bears striking resemblance to documented Israeli strikes that have killed civilians in residential homes, including the attack that killed Dr Marwan al-Sultan and his family.
“It is very simple to operate,” Gold explained. “Semi-autonomous.”
Mounting pressure
In her report on the “Economy of Genocide”, UN Special Rapporteur for Palestine, Francesca Albanese stated that “for Israeli companies such as Elbit Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries, the ongoing genocide has been a profitable venture.”
the report found.
Two years into Israel’s livestreamed genocide in Gaza, execs appear to be acutely aware of the mounting international pressure.
Shlomo Toaff, an executive at RAFAEL Advanced Defense Systems, lamented that “Israel is experiencing a boycott.”
“I think Israel is experiencing a boycott,” he said, citing the company’s exclusion from the Paris Air Show last year. “This is something that we have to take into account when we’re talking about what we’re doing here in the industry.”
The final stage of the playbook is the deliberate conflation of three distinct entities: the Jewish faith, the Jewish people (especially in the diaspora), and the political State of Israel. Political Zionism’s success depends on merging these concepts, thereby framing any criticism of Israeli state policy as an attack on Jewish people globally, which is then branded as antisemitism.
Introduction: A Sovereign Nation on a Foreign Hook
The premise is stark and troubling: Australia is being played. This manipulation operates on two interconnected levels: the geopolitical, where Australian sovereignty and policy are leveraged to serve a foreign nation’s interests, and the communal, where the rich, complex history of Australian Jewry is reduced to a political pawn. The cynical exploitation of the Bondi Beach tragedy – used to justify cross-border political pressure and a rapid legislative response absent in domestic crises – is not an anomaly. It is the latest move in a long game, one that deliberately conflates Jewish identity, faith, and safety with the agenda of the modern Israeli state. This article traces the historical roots of this conflation and examines its contemporary manifestation, arguing that both the Australian body politic and its Jewish citizens are victims of a sophisticated foreign policy playbook.
Part I: The Australian Jewish Tapestry – From First Fleet to National Pillars
The history of Jews in Australia begins with the First Fleet in 1788, with at least eight Jewish convicts among the initial colonists. This community grew steadily through the 19th century, comprised initially of British Jews and later supplemented by those fleeing persecution in Eastern Europe. By Federation in 1901, they numbered over 15,000 and were recognised as equal citizens in a society where the antisemitism endemic to Europe was notably rare.
Their integration and contribution to Australian nation-building are undeniable. In commerce, Jewish entrepreneurs were central to sectors like clothing manufacturing, particularly in Melbourne’s Flinders Lane, creating employment and industry. In service to the nation, no figure looms larger than General Sir John Monash. The son of Jewish parents from East Prussia, Monash commanded the Australian Corps in 1918 with such brilliance that he is considered one of the war’s most celebrated commanders. His leadership, however, was attacked by rivals, including official war historian C.E.W. Bean, who expressed antisemitic views about Jews’ “ability… to push themselves”. Monash’s triumph over this bigotry to become a national hero symbolised a powerful truth: loyalty and identity for Australian Jews were directed at their home country, Australia.
This history creates a clear benchmark: for over a century, Australian Jewish identity was synonymous with Australian civic identity. The community’s battles were against stereotypes and prejudice, not for the political objectives of a foreign state. The notion of a “Jewish society” in Australia is a historical falsehood; Australia is and has always been a pluralist, secular democracy.
Part II: The Fracturing Instrument – Zionism’s Rise and the Haavara Precedent
The rise of political Zionism in the 20th century created a new and potent ideology that sought to redefine Jewish identity in national-political terms. This movement often found itself at odds with established Jewish communities in the diaspora, including in Australia, where early Zionist overtures were reportedly dismissed by a government wary of disruptive foreign influence.
A critical and darkly revealing historical nexus is the 1933 Haavara Agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist organisations. This pact allowed approximately 60,000 German Jews to transfer some assets to Palestine in exchange for boosting German exports. For the Nazis, it was a tool to forcibly emigrate Jews while breaking an international boycott. For some Zionist leaders, it was a pragmatic, if horrifying, means to build the Jewish population in Palestine.
The agreement was deeply controversial. Mainstream Jewish leaders like American Rabbi Stephen Wise opposed it, and right-wing Revisionist Zionist leader Ze’ev Jabotinsky denounced it vehemently. The pact illustrates a chilling precedent: the willingness of a nationalist political movement to engage in realpolitik with even the most abhorrent regimes when it served its demographic and state-building goals, treating individual Jewish lives as political currency. This instrumental approach foreshadowed later accusations of Zionist leaders showing contempt for Holocaust survivors, viewing them less as victims to be comforted than as demographic assets to be utilised.
Part III: The Geopolitical Playbook – From USS Liberty to Bondi Beach
The modern playbook for manipulating Western democracies was refined over decades. A foundational event was the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, a U.S. Navy spy ship in international waters, which killed 34 American servicemen. Declassified documents and senior U.S. officials, from Secretary of State Dean Rusk to CIA Director Richard Helms, concluded the hour-long assault on a clearly marked ship in broad daylight was deliberate.
The subsequent cover-up was a masterclass in political coercion. Records show Israeli diplomats threatened to accuse President Lyndon Johnson of “blood libel” if he pressed the issue, while U.S. officials, fearing domestic political fallout, ordered the Navy to “hush this up”. The lesson was clear: a foreign nation could attack a sovereign ally with impunity by leveraging perceived political control over a minority voting bloc and the weaponised charge of antisemitism.
This template is now visible in Australia. Following the Bondi attack, the U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism (a role with an explicitly American mandate) publicly blamed the Australian government for “inaction,” inserting himself as an authority on Australian internal security. The Australian government’s response was tellingly swift, pledging to adopt recommendations from its own Antisemitism Envoy, Jillian Segal. Critics note the government is simultaneously ignoring the report’s “unlawful” aspects while fast-tracking measures that curtail free speech—a reaction that stands in stark contrast to the glacial pace of action on homelessness or healthcare. The tragedy was leveraged to advance a pre-existing, contentious policy agenda, demonstrating how external pressure can create “political will” for a foreign-aligned objective where none exists for domestic suffering.
Part IV: The Conflation and the Crisis – Playing Both Sides Against the Middle
The final stage of the playbook is the deliberate conflation of three distinct entities: the Jewish faith, the Jewish people (especially in the diaspora), and the political State of Israel. Political Zionism’s success depends on merging these concepts, thereby framing any criticism of Israeli state policy as an attack on Jewish people globally, which is then branded as antisemitism.
This conflation is a betrayal of both the Australian Jewish community and the Australian public. It ignores the long tradition of Jewish voices in Australia and globally who are strident critics of Israeli policy and the ongoing violence in Gaza. It resurrects the very ideas of racial-national identity the world sought to bury after WWII. It forces a false choice upon Australian Jews: either express unwavering support for a foreign government’s actions or be accused of betraying your people.
The ultimate goal is to create a political monolith. By fostering suspicion and manufacturing crises – whether through the amplification of extremist attacks or the promotion of divisive legislation – the architects of this playbook aim to polarise societies, dismantle bipartisan foreign policy, and align democracies unquestioningly behind a single geopolitical vision. As recent statements from U.S. figures about creating a singular empire suggest, Australia’s sovereignty is not a principle to be respected but a variable to be managed.
Conclusion: Reclaiming Sovereignty and Sanity
Australia is indeed being played. Its Jewish community, with its deep and patriotic history, is being used as a wedge and a shield. Its political class is being manipulated into prioritising a foreign nation’s narrative over its own citizens’ welfare. The rapid, forceful response to the Segal report’s agenda, contrasted with the neglect of foundational domestic issues, is proof of a hijacked policy compass.
Breaking this hook requires intellectual and moral courage. It requires disentangling faith from nationalism, rejecting the conflation that is the playbook’s central weapon, and reaffirming that in a pluralist democracy like Australia, loyalty is to the nation and its people – not to a foreign flag. It requires remembering the legacy of Sir John Monash, who served Australia, not a foreign ideology. The task is to reclaim sovereignty from foreign manipulation and sanity from manufactured crisis, for the benefit of all Australians.
ranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi spoke by phone with UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper on Friday, saying Tehran is open to diplomacy based on respect.
“Iran has never rejected negotiations and dialogue based on respect for the Iranian nation’s legal rights and legitimate interests, but considers talks based on one-sided imposition unacceptable,” official media cited Araghchi as saying.
Araghchi criticized the “irresponsible” stance of the three European powers on Iran’s nuclear program, saying that Tehran is open to talks respecting its legal rights and legitimate interests but rejects unilateral imposition.
Cooper underlined Britain’s commitment to diplomacy on the nuclear dossier. No UK readout of the call has been issued.
The three European countries—France, Germany, and the United Kingdom—triggered the Iran nuclear deal snapback mechanism in August, leading to the reimposition of UN sanctions in September.
Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reached a technical understanding in Cairo in September, mediated by Egypt, aimed at gradually restoring inspectors’ access to nuclear sites.
Following the return of UN sanctions on Iran, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that the United States and three European powers had “killed” the Cairo nuclear agreement through what he called a sequence of hostile actions.
Araghchi said last month that Washington’s approach amounted to “dictation, not negotiation,” accusing the US of trying to achieve through diplomacy what it failed to gain by force.
“They want us to accept zero enrichment and limits on our defense capabilities,” he said. “This is not negotiation.”
Trump said Iran could avoid past and by reaching a nuclear deal, adding that any attempt to revive its program without an agreement would prompt further US action. He has repeatedly said Iran missed an earlier chance to avert the strikes by accepting a deal.
The report said that Netanyahu will stress Israel’s concern over Iran’s production of ballistic missiles and will present Trump with options for the US to join or assist Israel with an attack on Iran. Israeli officials are also warning that Iran is reconstituting its nuclear sites that were bombed by the US during the war in June, but that was not their immediate concern.
According to a report from Israel Hayom, Israeli officials are preparing an “intelligence dossier” on Iran to present to Trump. Netanyahu’s office has said the meeting will take place at Mar-a-Lago on December 29, though President Trump suggested last week that it wasn’t finalized, saying, “We haven’t set it up formally, but he’d like to see me.”
Trita Parsi, Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, has been warning that another war with Iran was likely since Israel didn’t achieve all of its goals during its previous attack on the country, pointing to the fact that Iran’s missile strikes forced Israel to agree to a ceasefire quickly.
“The June war resulted in mutual deterrence, a situation Iran can accept, but one that is intolerable for Netanyahu and his legacy. Ultimately, the conflict was neither a victory for Israel nor for Iran,” Parsi wrote in Responsible Statecraft on Sunday, responding to the NBC report.
“It is precisely this balance of terror that prompts Israel to seek a new round – Israel’s military doctrine does not allow for any of its regional foes to deter it or challenge its military dominance. Iran’s missile program currently does exactly that,” Parsi added. “And this is precisely why Trump must say no to Netanyahu. Because Israel’s objective is not security in the conventional sense, but rather absolute dominance.”
Earlier this month, Trump suggested the US could destroy Iran’s ballistic missiles when a reporter said Iran was “reconstituting” its missile program. “Well, they can try, but it’s going to take them a long time to come back,” Trump said.
“But if they do want to come back and they want to come back without a deal, then we’re going to obliterate that one too. We can knock out their missiles very quickly. We have great power. And we helped Israel a lot. We were shooting down the drones. We were doing a lot of things for Israel. We did a good job for Israel. But Israel did a good job, they fought, they all fought bravely,” the president added.
The fragile global legal framework for nuclear weapons control faces further setbacks in 2026, eroding guardrails to avoid a nuclear crisis. The first half of the year will see two key events: the US-Russia bilateral treaty, New START, expires on February 5, and in April, New York hosts the Review Conference (RevCon) of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) — the cornerstone of global nuclear security frameworks.
The RevCon, held every four to five years, is meant to keep the NPT alive. But during the last two sessions, the 191 signatory states failed to agree on a final document, and experts expect the same outcome in April.
EU leaders have agreed to provide Ukraine with a €90 billion ($98 billion) loan backed by the bloc’s common budget, while shelving plans to use frozen Russian state assets amid legal and financial concerns and repeated warnings from Moscow.
The agreement was reached early on Friday after overnight talks at a summit in Brussels, as the EU sought to secure funding to continue the war in Ukraine over the next two years.
Under the deal, the EU will raise funds through loans guaranteed by its shared budget, abandoning proposals backed by some member states to leverage around €200 billion in Russian central bank assets frozen in the bloc.
The plan failed to win consensus, largely due to objections from Belgium, where most of the assets are held. Belgian officials warned of legal risks and the potential for retaliatory measures that would disproportionately affect the country.
Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever welcomed the outcome, saying it avoided significant legal and financial exposure.
“This was extremely risky and raised many unanswered questions,” De Wever told reporters. “Rationality has prevailed.”
Russia has repeatedly warned the EU against using its frozen assets, calling any such move illegal.
On Thursday, Russia’s central bank said it would seek compensation through a Russian arbitration court over the freezing and potential use of its assets held in EU financial institutions, including claims for lost profits.
“In connection with ongoing attempts by EU authorities to seize and illegally use the assets of the Bank of Russia, we declare that compensation will be sought,” the central bank said in a statement, adding that damages of up to $230 billion would be claimed from Euroclear, where most of the assets are held.
EU member states have agreed to maintain an indefinite freeze on Russian central bank assets imposed after the outbreak of the Ukraine war in 2022.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday that any expropriation of Russian assets would not go unanswered.
“All possible legal mechanisms will be used,” he was quoted by state news agency Tass as saying.
Separately, Russia warned against any deployment of European troops to Ukraine, saying such forces would be considered “legitimate targets.”
In a statement, Russia’s foreign ministry accused the EU of planning to “occupy” Ukraine rather than seeking a settlement.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously said foreign troops sent to Ukraine would be treated as legitimate military targets.
The developments come amid divisions within the EU over the war and its role in possible peace talks. French President Emmanuel Macron said Europe should engage directly with Moscow.
“It is in our interest as Europeans and Ukrainians to re-engage discussions,” Macron said, adding talks should begin “in the coming weeks.”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukrainian and US delegations were due to hold further talks in Washington on Friday and Saturday, while US President Donald Trump urged Kiev to move quickly towards a deal.
The Kremlin said it was preparing contacts with Washington on a revised peace proposal.
Earlier talks in Berlin involving US, Ukrainian and European officials ended without a breakthrough, with Russia opposing NATO membership for Ukraine and Kiev rejecting territorial concessions.
By Alice Slater, World BEYOND War, October 8, 2025
It’s ironic that the arms control community is protesting the idea of resuming nuclear test detonations. The nuclear test detonations have never stopped.
Although Bill Clinton signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996, he swiftly funded the “Stockpile Stewardship” program at the US nuclear weapons complex, allowing the Dr. Strangeloves in their labs to continue to perform laboratory tests as well as blowup plutonium with chemical explosives,1,000 feet below the desert floor at the Nevada Test Site on Western Shoshone holy land.
Since there was no chain reaction causing criticality, Clinton claimed these “sub-critical” tests were not nuclear tests and didn’t violate the new treaty. Of course, Russia and China swiftly followed the US lead; the Russians continued to test at Novaya Zemlya, and China at Lop Nor.
Indeed, it was the US’s refusal to promise that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty would be truly “comprehensive” that caused India and Pakistan to test their nuclear arsenals after the US rejected their pleas to include prohibitions against “sub-critical” and laboratory tests in the CTBT. Although Clinton signed the CTBT, the US, unlike Russia and China, never ratified it. Sadly, Russia announced during the Ukraine war that it was leaving the CTBT.
People of goodwill who are alarmed at new reports of proliferating nuclear weapons and would like to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle, stop the endless wars and huge budgets for useless atomic weapons, would do well to take some advice from Russia and China. On May 8, they issued a “Joint Statement by the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on Global Strategic Stability” in the context of the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II.
They note “the serious challenges facing the international community” and lay out several recommendations that would strengthen “global strategic security”, acknowledging that “the destinies of all countries are interrelated” and urging that states not “seek to ensure their own security at the expense and to the detriment of the security of other states.”
U.S. “Golden Dome”
They proceed to explain a whole series of provocative actions that threaten the peace, including states deploying nuclear weapons and missiles outside their territories. They are particularly critical of the US “Golden Dome” program, which is expected to create a new battleground in space. Reiterating their pleas over many years to keep space for peace, they state the following:
The two sides oppose the attempts of individual countries to use outer space for armed confrontation. They will counter security policies and activities aimed at achieving military superiority, as well as at officially defining and using outer space as a ” warfighting domain”. The two Sides confirm the need to start negotiations on a legally binding instrument based on the Russian-Chinese draft of the treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force Against Outer Space Objects as soon as possible, that would provide fundamental and reliable guarantees for preventing an arms race in outer space, weaponization of outer space and the threat or use of force against outer space objects or with their help. To safeguard world peace, ensure equal and indivisible security for all, and improve the predictability and sustainability of the exploration and peaceful use of outer space by all States, the two Sides agree to promote on a global scale the international initiative/political commitment not to be the first to deploy weapons in outer space.
The US and its allies, sheltering under the US nuclear umbrella, would do well to take Russia and China up on their offers for making a more peaceful world! With Mother Earth sending cascading warnings about the need for nations to cooperate, we can ill afford business as usual. Time to change course!
*Alice Slater serves on the Boards of World BEYOND War and the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. She is an NGO representative at the UN for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
Donald Trump imposed a naval blockade on Venezuela and admitted he wants to take its oil and give it to US corporations: “We had a lot of oil there. They threw our companies out, and we want it back”.
Donald Trump has openly admitted that he wants to take Venezuela’s oil. Top US officials have made it clear that this is a key reason for their war on the South American nation.
Trump declared an illegal naval blockade of Venezuela on December 16. The US government aims to prevent Venezuela from selling oil to China, to starve Caracas of export revenue.
The Trump administration is also illegally blocking Venezuela from importing crucial goods, including the light crude and chemicals needed to process and refine its own heavy crude.
The US goal is to bring about an extreme crisis in Venezuela — to “make the economy scream” — hoping it leads to regime change.
Trump says US corporations should control Venezuela’s oil
It’s just a blockade. We’re not going to let anybody going through that shouldn’t be going through.
You remember, they took all of our energy rights. They took all of our oil, from not that long ago. And we want it back.
Another reporter then asked Trump, “On Venezuela, sir, you mentioned getting land back from Venezuela. What land is that?”
The US president stated:
Getting land, oil rights, whatever we had. They took it away, because we had a president that maybe wasn’t watching. But they’re not going to do that. We want it back.
They took our oil rights. We had a lot of oil there. As you know, they threw our companies out, and we want it back.
Trump imposes a naval blockade on Venezuela
In these questions, the journalists were referencing a December 16 post on Trump’s website Truth Social, in which the US president announced “A TOTAL AND COMPLETE BLOCKADE OF ALL SANCTIONED OIL TANKERS going into, and out of, Venezuela”.
These US sanctions on Venezuela’s oil industry are unilateral coercive measures and do not have the approval of the UN Security Council, and are therefore illegal under international law………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
US naval blockade cuts off Venezuelan exports and imports
The Trump administration launched a war against Venezuela in September. As of December 19, the US military had killed more than 100 people in strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean.
Throughout this war, the Trump administration gradually escalated its aggressive tactics, seeking to destabilize and overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
In December, the US government started to seize oil tankers off the coast of Venezuela, in blatant violation of international law.
When Trump was asked what the US government would do with the Venezuelan oil in these tankers, his response was, “We keep it”. This is piracy…………………………………………………………………………………….
The US government’s imperial strategy: “make the economy scream”
In other words, Trump is bringing back the infamous US imperial strategy known as “make the economy scream”. This phrase originated with Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger………………………………………………………………………………………………..
US coup attempts, illegal sanctions, and economic war on Venezuela
This is precisely the imperial strategy that the US empire has used to try to topple Venezuela’s left-wing government, over more than two decades……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The coup attempt that Trump initiated in 2019 failed. So in his second term, under Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump launched another putsch.
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 19 2025 (IPS) – A long-standing proposal going back to 1996—to establish a single non-renewable seven-year term for the Secretary-General of the United Nations—has been resurrected by former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
The original proposal was part of a study sponsored by the Dag Hammarskjold and Ford Foundations. According to the proposal, the seven-year term “ would give the SG the opportunity to undertake far-reaching plans free from undesirable pressures.”
Ban has said a single, nonrenewable seven-year term will strengthen the independence of the office. The current practice of two five-year terms, he said, leaves Secretaries-General “overly dependent on this Council’s Permanent Members for an extension.”
A former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt was deprived of a second five-year term when the US was the only permanent member state to veto his second term despite the fact that he received 14 of the 15 votes in the Security Council.
As the highest policy-making organ of the United Nations, and as the ultimate appointing body, the General Assembly should adopt a comprehensive resolution establishing a single seven-year term and all key features of an improved process of appointing the Secretary-General,” the study said.
The same seven-year term, according to the 1996 study authored by Sir Brian Urquhart and Erskine Childers, should also apply to heads of UN agencies and UN programmes.
The study was titled “A World in Need of Leadership: Tomorrow’s United Nations. A Fresh Appraisal.” Sir Brian was a former UN Under-Secretary-General (USG) for Special Political Affairs and Childers was a former Senior Advisor to the UN Director-General for Development and International Economic Affairs.
Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the United Nations and Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the UN, told IPS that, in keeping with the best interest of the operational credibility of the world’s most universal multilateral body with a global mandate, and as a conscientious UN insider, “I believe very strongly and quite comfortably that there is substantive merit in the long-standing, but surprisingly undervalued, proposal to establish a single non-renewable seven-year term of office for the Secretary-General of the United Nations.”
………………………………………………………………………………………….. Recounting his IPS op-ed, Ambassador Chowdhury said he had underscored that “Another important idea to ensure independence of the Secretary-General would be to make the office restricted to one term for each incumbent.”
The seven-year term is adequate for any leader worth the name to deliver positive results and show what can be achieved for any global institution. Any change in the tenure of office and in the re-election process will require the amendment of the UN Charter and therefore the concurrence of the P5, said Ambassador Chowdhury, initiator of the UNSCR 1325 as President of the UN Security Council in March 2000, Chairman of the UN General Assembly’s Main Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Matters and Founder of the Global Movement for The Cultural of Peace (GMCoP).
On 30 October 2023, in another op-ed in IPS, Ambassador Chowdhury recommended that “… in the future the Secretary-General would have only one term of seven years, as opposed to the current practice of automatically renewing the Secretary-General’s tenure for a second five-year term, without even evaluating his performance.”
Benjamin Netanyahu is blaming the attack at Bondi Beach on Australia’s support for Palestinian statehood. He conflates Jewish safety with Zionism to garner support for Israel, but in doing so, he enlists all Jews as agents of Palestinian oppression.
On September 21, Australia officially recognized the State of Palestine. This recognition coincided with that of several other Western countries, including France, Canada, and the United Kingdom. This is, of course, a problem for an Israeli government that “flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan River.”
So what better than a massacre of Jews on Hanukkah to undermine this effort?
At an Israeli government meeting following the Bondi Beach massacre, Netanyahu admonished the Australian government and its Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, for its supposed role. This rhetorical attack aimed not only to delegitimize support for Palestinian statehood but also to garner support for the continuing genocide in Gaza. It does not seem to matter that the shooters, a father and a son of Pakistani Muslim background, are reported to have been inspired by ISIS and not a Palestinian cause as such. Israel never misses an opportunity to incite against Palestinians.
“On August 17th, about four months ago, I sent Prime Minister Albanese of Australia a letter, in which I gave him warning, that the Australian government’s policy was promoting and encouraging antisemitism in Australia. I wrote: ‘Your call for a Palestinian state pours fuel on the antisemitic fire. It rewards Hamas terrorists. It emboldens those who menace Australian Jews, and encourages the Jew hatred now stalking your streets. Antisemitism is a cancer. It spreads when leaders stay silent. It retreats when leaders act. I call upon you to replace weakness with action, appeasement with resolve’.
Instead, Prime Minister, you replaced weakness with weakness, and appeasement with more appeasement. Your government did nothing to stop the spread of antisemitism in Australia, you did nothing to curb the cancer cells that were growing inside your country, you took no action, you let the disease spread, and the result is the horrific attacks on Jews we saw today.”
So, following the Bondi Beach attack, Netanyahu is basically saying, “I told you so.”
The “appeasement” narrative is one that Netanyahu likes a lot, because it alludes to the appeasement policy of Britain towards Nazi Germany under PM Neville Chamberlain, who sought at the time to play soft with Hitler. The analogy turns Palestinians into Nazis, and those who seek to ‘appease’ them, weaklings and antisemites. For Netanyahu, antisemitism is a cancer, and who embodies it? Palestinians.
Netanyahu continued to apply pressure on Albanese, and in turn, any other leaders in the West who are considering supporting the Palestinians:
“We saw an action of a brave man, turns out a Muslim brave man [Netanyahu first claimed he was Jewish], that stopped one of these terrorists from killing innocent Jews. But it requires the action of your government, which you’re not taking, and you have to, because history will not forgive hesitation and weakness – it will honor action and strength. That’s what Israel expects of each of your governments in the West, and elsewhere. Because the disease spreads, and it will consume you as well. But we are worrying right now about our people, our safety, and we do not remain silent”.
And he then expanded his analogy to lump the Bondi Beach attack in with recent news from Syria, Gaza, and Lebanon:
“We fight those who try to annihilate us. They’re not only trying to annihilate us, they attack us because they attack the West. In Syria, we saw yesterday two American soldiers killed, and one American interpreter killed as well, killed because they represent our common culture. Now as a result of this, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said the following. He said ‘let it be known, that if you target Americans anywhere in the world, you will spend the rest of your brief, anxious life, knowing the United States will hunt you, find you, and ruthlessly kill you’. We send our condolences to the people of America, and I want to say that our policy is exactly that policy. That’s why those who target Israelis, target our soldiers, try to kill them, or try to hurt them and wound them, as happened in Gaza yesterday – we take action. They will spend the rest of their brief, anxious lives knowing that Israel will hunt them, find them, and ruthlessly dispose of them. That is American policy, this is Israel’s policy. It’s our policy in Gaza, Lebanon, anywhere around us. We do not sit by and let these killers kill us.”
This is thus also a message to the U.S., we are one in our imperialist alliance. Netanyahu is signaling to Albanese, Australia, and anyone else who is thinking about aligning with the Palestinians in any form or shape, that they will be aligning with those who seek to annihilate Jews.
Netanyahu is playing an all-or-nothing game, and it’s forcing governments that seek to be liberal to choose a side – with Israel, or with the Palestinians, since Israel is so clearly bent on their destruction. Albanese was asked about Netanyahu’s accusations on ABC. Sarah Ferguson asked:
“Let me just talk to you about antisemitism. I want to bring up what Prime Minister Netanyahu said today. He singled you out personally, he said, for ‘pouring fuel on the antisemitism fire by recognising a Palestinian State’. Do you accept any link between that recognition and the massacre in Bondi?”
Albanese: “No, I don’t. And overwhelmingly, most of the world recognises a two-state solution as being the way forward in the Middle East.”
Albanese is clearly trying not to respond with fury to Netanyahu’s demeaning provocations, but Netanyahu is seeking to divide the world, are you with us or against us – and with us is against the Palestinians.
And it is exactly this rhetoric from Israel that arguably fuels antisemitism, or at least anti-Jewish animus.
This is because it seems impossible to protect Palestinians or even offer symbolic support for their national aspirations without being labeled a coward, an appeaser, or an antisemite seeking the destruction of the Jewish people. When these accusations set the terms, many feel that proving their worth against Israel’s claims is pointless. This dynamic also sustains hostility toward the Jewish community.
In 2015, after an attack in France on a Jewish supermarket, Netanyahu said to French Jews: “Israel is your home”. It caused considerable discontent among the Jewish community at the time, which is probably why he didn’t repeat it now. But he’s still posing as the strong leader of all Jews, whom the “weak” leaders should take example from, as it were. When such self-appointed ‘Jewish leaders’ conflate Judaism with Zionism and insist on unquestioning support for Palestinian destruction as proof of solidarity, people will often side with humanity—supporting those facing genocide, not those perpetrating it—and grow resentful of anyone demanding support for such actions.
We are already seeing the Zionist exploitation of the massacre to target Palestine solidarity in Australia, as well as internationally. We will likely also see a further crackdown on Palestinians from the river to the sea.
Following the massacre, mourners descended upon Bondi Beach to remember the victims. Jews waving Israeli flags were permitted, while anti-Zionist Jews wearing a kuffiyeh were distanced by the police. It was a message to all that the lessons drawn from this will likely be the Zionist ones.
Many are now once again listening to Netanyahu’s violent incitement, as if he weren’t wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity. He has been granted moral authority once again, even if for a fleeting moment, as head of the self-proclaimed Jewish state. He is using it to berate the world about how to be on the right side of history, while actively commanding a genocide.
Gaza is being carved up. Palestinians are being written out.
As governments and billionaires design a “new Gaza,” most corporate media treat it as a technical project, not a colonial mandate that denies Palestinians the right to govern themselves. The basic fact of Palestinian self-determination is pushed to the margins or erased
Trying to accelerate Ukraine’s entry into the European Union makes sense as part of the U.S.-sponsored efforts to end the war with Russia. But there are two big obstacles to this happening by 2027: Ukraine isn’t ready, and Europe can’t afford it.
As part of ongoing talks to end the war in Ukraine, the Trump administration had advanced the idea that Ukraine be admitted into the European Union by 2027. On the surface, this appears a practical compromise, given Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s concession that Ukraine will drop its aspiration to join NATO.
However, the idea of accelerated entry for Ukraine has not been met with widespread enthusiasm in Europe itself. Diplomats in Brussels dismissed the notion as “nonsense: There needs to be an appetite for enlargement that isn’t there.”
There are two big problems with Ukraine’s rapid accession, the first being readiness and the second cost.
Firstly, Ukraine is nowhere near ready to meet the EU’s exacting requirements for membership. The process of joining the bloc is long and complex. At the start of November, in presenting its enlargement report, the EU said that it could admit new members as early as 2030, with Montenegro the most advanced in negotiations.
After it was formally granted candidate status in June 2022, Ukraine this year passed screening of its progress against the various chapters of the acquis (regulations) that it needs to pass before accession is granted. However, the EU enlargement report on Ukraine downgraded the country’s status from A+ to B, largely in light of the corruption scandal that first erupted in the summer and that rumbles on today.
The report indicated that Ukraine had made good progress on just 11 of the 33 chapters required for accession. It has made limited progress on 7 of the chapters, including on corruption, public procurement, company law and competition policy. It has yet to finalize negotiations on any of the chapters. And, of course, with war still raging, it is incredibly difficult to both agree and put in place the reforms needed to align itself with EU rules and standards. So, even if the war ended by Christmas, which despite the progress still appears optimistic, it would be unlikely to do all of the necessary work in the space of a year to be ready for accession.
The second, possibly more insurmountable challenge is cost.
In July, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz commented that Ukraine was unlikely to join before 2034. The EU has already formalized its next seven year budget through to that time, coming in at $2.35 trillion.
As I pointed out for Responsible Statecraft last year, Ukrainian membership of the EU would come with an enormous price tag……………………………………………. So the economic cost of delivering Ukrainian membership may not be politically viable any time soon, and certainly not before 2034, as the German premier has indicated.
……………………………………With practically all Russia-Ukraine economic ties severed over the past decade, Russian President Vladimir Putin has dropped his opposition to EU membership for Ukraine. An end to the war would allow Ukraine, finally, to start to reform and rebuild its bankrupt economy, and EU membership could accelerate that process.
That’s why Zelensky’s decision to drop the aspiration to NATO membership is such an important stepping stone. It has been abundantly clear since the start of the war that Russia’s NATO red line will never change. Russia has verbalized its opposition at least since Putin’s Munich Security Conference speech in 2007, when he said that NATO expansion “represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust.”
The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or the New START Agreement, is set to expire on Thursday, February 5th, 2026 – in less than 50 days. The New START Agreement is the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation.
It was signed in 2010. It limits the number of strategic long-term nuclear warheads and launchers that the United States and Russia can deploy.
And, without any New START Agreement, there would be no limits on United States and Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles.
The earth has moved under our feet, and our massive security gamble is crumbling, but the government pretends nothing has happened, writes Michael Pascoe.
Tits on a bull, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, all same same. The former committee is a random mix of odds and sods – even Ralph Babet – as could be assembled, the latter stacked with fans of last century’s security stories, devotees of Pax Americana, fed and watered by the local and American security establishment
“to think no further than their outdated Anglosphere prejudices.“
This was the year the earth moved for Australia’s security, while our timid government kept its head under the pillows, desperately hoping it would not have to face up to the changes and challenges, praying its political strategy of copying coalition policy would help keep it safe at the polls. What’s Labor’s main security concern? How it looks in khaki on election day.
Can the opposition come up with a more pro-American defence spokesman than Richard Marles? No. Labor remains safe on the security right flank that was traditionally Liberal high ground.
With the Albanese/Marles/Wong government devoted to exerting discipline, quashing dissent and going all the way with Donald J, Australia’s national security future goes unexamined while its current blueprint burns.
Strategic failure
We have proven ourselves to be rich in the greatest strategic failure: lacking imagination. Our defence establishment – politicians, spooks, bureaucrats, military, salespeople, foreign agents – could not imagine the change that has been foisted on them, could not conceive any future for Australia other than one embedded in the American military armpit,
can’t grasp that the game has irreversibly changed.
Now, as America changes faster than anyone dared guess, we pursue the path of failure that comes from not believing what is happening. Having explicitly bet our strategic future on America always protecting us, that that is our only hope for survival, it is too painful for the establishment to face up to America withdrawing, to being proven wrong.
Australia Deputy Sheriff
There have been rare and largely ignored voices forecasting what is happening under Trump. A decade ago, Geoff Raby warned of the US eventually withdrawing from Western Pacific domination, leaving Deputy Dawg Australia an orphaned shag on a rock. Hugh White, more recently, has made the case that America is in retreat to its core interests.
That has now been spelt out in the Trump administration’s National Security Statement and by its “Secretary for War” Pete Hegseth. America is to be about the Americas, with Europe left to itself, or Russia, and China’s military rise acknowledged and accepted in Asia.
A new reality
Crikey’s Bernard Keane summarised the new reality ($) while highlighting local mainstream media’s failure to examine it, citing a speech last weekend in which Hegseth said the quiet bits out loud:
“Our interests in the Indo-Pacific are significant, but also scoped and reasonable … this includes the ability for us, along with allies, to be postured strongly enough in the Indo-Pacific to balance China’s growing power.
“President Trump and this administration seek a stable peace, fair trade and respectful relations with China…this involves respecting the historic military buildup they are undertaking.”
Keane concluded Hegseth had said the unthinkable: the US aims merely to be present in the Pacific, not to dominate it. It merely seeks to balance China’s power, not defeat it. And it “respects” China’s military build-up.
“Imagine the absolute uproar from the media — and not just from News Corp — if Anthony Albanese had talked about ‘respecting’ China’s military build-up,” Keane posited.
Like the US blatantly committing war crimes and now piracy off the Venezuelan coast, America’s declared security strategy is an embarrassment Australia doesn’t want to see. This is the America which preferences Russia over Europe.
Not “just a phase”
The optimistic view within the defence establishment clinging to American coattails is that Trump, too, will pass and everything will get back to just the way it was.
It won’t. That’s not the way it happens when the world changes. Much of MAGA will prove sticky even if the Democrats reclaim the White House and Congress.
“Having given ground, it’s very difficult to reclaim it.
Not much of Trump 1.0 was overturned by Biden. The tax cuts and Chinese tariffs remained. The domestic chaos created by Trump will be more than enough for a Democrat administration to wrestle with, if there is a Democrat administration next.
America is set for so many problems by 2028, China’s role in Asia won’t register.
In little ol’ Australia, we’ll watch the cricket and slumber through summer. Prime Minister Albanese’s interview on the final Insiders program for 2025 was typical, being purely domestic. A minister’s expensive airfares was a major issue, American war crimes and the national strategic statement Russia applauded didn’t rate a mention.
And with an iron grip on Labor Party members and an irrelevant opposition, Albanese/Marles/Wong will continue to treat the somnambulant Australian public with contempt, refusing to be open about our AUKUS fantasy,
“refusing to risk a public inquiry,
refusing to tell us what more the US is demanding of its South Pacific vassal.
Oh well, we can concentrate on the cricket, ignore our complicity in piracy and war crimes and just keep handing over the billion-dollar cheque
Michael Pascoe is an independent journalist and commentator with five decades of experience here and abroad in print, broadcast and online journalism. His book, The Summertime of Our Dreams, is published by Ultimo Press.
nuclear-news 