New York Times Reported Iran Deal From Pro-Israel, Pro-War Perspective
Uncritically parroting Israeli government talking points that frame Israel as the victim is journalistic obfuscation at best
Drew Favakeh, July 1, 2026, https://worldbeyondwar.org/the-pentagons-budget-redirected-would-exceed-our-wildest-dreams/
The New York Times, the US’s most powerful establishment news outlet, has reported on President Donald Trump’s “memorandum of understanding” with Iran from a pro-war and/or pro-Israel perspective. Why did Trump end the war without limiting Iran’s “nuclear program” and its support for “proxy forces,” or without conducting “regime” change? These are the questions that have preoccupied the paper of record’s news reporting.
As I’ve noted before (FAIR.org, 3/30/26), multiple Times employees are reporting from and currently living in Israel, despite Israel’s blanket censorship policies, not to mention its killing hundreds of journalists. Meanwhile, the paper has no reporters in Iran, a situation it blames on Iran’s press restrictions.
This editorial decision has no doubt contributed to the paper covering the memorandum from an Israeli perspective, which is not aligned with the 59% of the US adult population who say the US using military force in Iran was the wrong decision.
‘Frightening new reality’
Over its first article (6/14/26) published about the memorandum, the New York Times headline read, “In Israel, Broad Discontent Even Before Deal’s Details Are Known.” The subhead noted that “Israelis across the political spectrum have said the agreement appears to leave fundamental security threats posed by Iran unaddressed.”
The piece, by Times Jerusalem correspondent Isabel Kershner, uncritically granted anonymity to an “Israeli who had been briefed on the deal with Iran” to “discuss diplomacy.” They listed their “main problems” with the proposal: “no clear answers regarding the treatment of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, and not enough curbs on Iran’s nuclear program,” no “conditions for the collapse of the Iranian government” and “no clear mechanism for forcing Iran to halt its support for its proxy forces.”
One day later, the Times (6/15/26) published an article headlined “Israel Counts the Ways That Netanyahu’s Iran Strategy Failed.” Times Jerusalem bureau chief David M. Halbfinger and Tel Aviv staff writer Ronen Bergman noted that the agreement “omits some of the most important things Israel wanted.”
These “important things” included “to curb Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal” and “its funding of regional proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, who have attacked Israel with their own arsenals.” The deal “could help Iran bolster those proxies by easing sanctions, which would allow billions of dollars to flow into its bank accounts,” Halbfinger and Bergman added.
‘Catastrophic capitulation’
Three days later, Halbfinger published an article (6/18/26) headlined “Israel, Stunned by Trump’s Iran Deal, Sees It as a ‘Catastrophic Capitulation.’”
This time, Halbfinger wrote that:
Israel awoke to a frightening new reality on Thursday as it absorbed, with disbelief and largely in silence, the terms of President Trump’s preliminary agreement to end the war with Iran.
Halbfinger noted that “it accomplishes none of Israel’s war aims, analysts and officials said, and arguably leaves the country in worse shape on each of them.” Among those aims? “Regime change,” “ballistic missiles and proxy militias” and “Iran’s nuclear program,” listed Halbfinger.
Uncritically parroting Israeli government talking points that frame Israel as the victim is journalistic obfuscation at best: Israel privately lobbied to assassinate Iran’s lead negotiator and to “restart the war with a new round of strikes targeting the country’s oil infrastructure” (Capital and Empire, 5/28/26), and it insists it has the right to continue ethnically cleansing Lebanon.
One of the biggest challenges of his career’
One week after her first article about the memorandum was published, the Times’ Kershner wrote another article (6/21/26) headlined “Netanyahu Faces One of the Biggest Challenges of His Career.”
Her thesis was that Netanyahu “is fighting for his political survival” due to “the emergence of a peace deal that Israel is not a party to.” Kershner wrote that Netanyahu “has staked his career on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, which Israel views as an existential threat.”
Kershner, like Halbfinger and Bergman, ignored the fact that Iran has upheld its promise not to build a nuclear weapon (Arms Control Association, 2/25). By contrast, Israel—not Iran—is the only country in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons, and the US remains the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon in war.
Kershner wrote:
The agreement seeks to curtail Israel’s freedom of action in Lebanon, where the Israeli military has been fighting Hezbollah, the Iran-backed proxy militia on its doorstep. The deal makes no mention of curbing Iran’s ballistic missiles, which Iran has used to attack Israel and US Gulf allies during the wars. And it leaves the nuclear issue to be addressed in further negotiations.
Framing Israel’s killing of more than 4,100 people in Lebanon and displacement of 1.2 million since March (Drop Site News, 6/22/26), as “Israel’s freedom of action” insinuates that Israel is entitled to occupation and ethnic cleansing. And by noting that Iran has used its ballistic missiles “to attack Israel and US Gulf allies during the wars,” Kershner ignored which two countries attacked the other first, and which country used its ballistic missile arsenal to defend itself against further attacks (PBS, 6/18/26; Middle East Eye, 6/23/26).
‘A let down and reality check’
As for the Iranian perspective, the Times published an article (6/15/26) headlined “Many Iranians Express Relief Over Agreement to End the War.” The subhead read, “After enduring months of conflict, ordinary people in Iran were relieved to hear about the deal. Opposition groups were disappointed.”
The Times’ Farnaz Fassihi noted that:
Iranians expressed a range of emotions over the agreement to end a war that killed thousands across the region and brought enormous loss with no gain for millions of others.
Fassihi quoted just two sources based in Tehran, one of whom she interviewed by telephone, the other by text message. One asked, “What was the point of this war? What did it bring us exactly?” The other asked: “Is this REAL? Are they serious?”
Fassihi added that
for Iranian opposition groups and some members of the diaspora who had hoped the war would topple the Islamic Republic, the agreement was both a let down and a reality check.
Fassihi cited a social media post by Behnam Amini, a “monarchist political activist in Washington who has supported the war against Iran.”
Fassihi also noted:
In Iran, a minority within the hard-line political faction—those who ideologically favor destruction of Israel and war with the US by any means—unleashed fury at Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Gen. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the lead negotiator and speaker of parliament.
The piece was unable to quote a source that expressed explicit opposition to the US/Israel’s attacks on Iran—which suggests the limitations of the Times’ long-distance approach to covering Iranian opinion.
The plot to subvert the midterms is getting stranger and more dangerous
Right-wing media figures including Steve Bannon, John Solomon, and Cleta Mitchell appear to be weaving together a narrative about interference by China in US elections to justify a national emergency to curtail voting rights
MEDIAMATTERS, John Knefel, 07/02/26
Over the last several weeks, the outlines of a plot have begun to emerge that could signal how President Donald Trump, along with MAGA media figures and activists, could attempt to severely curtail voting rights under the pretext of declaring a national emergency posed by China.
The details of the scheme remain publicly vague, and may not yet come to pass, but the short version looks something like this: First, the White House would declassify and release documents purporting to show foreign interference in U.S. elections, especially by the Chinese Communist Party.
Next, Trump would use that supposed “proof” of a stolen election to declare a national emergency, thereby — according to those pushing this idea — giving him extraordinary powers over the upcoming midterms. That move would serve as a way to advance the anti-voting rights measures in the SAVE America Act, like forcing voters to prove their citizenship, without having to actually pass the law — which Congress, so far at least, appears reluctant to do.
The main players here come not only from the fever swamp backwaters of MAGA media, but also from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the White House. Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon is a central node, attempting to advance the operation on his War Room podcast, aired on right-wing network Real America’s Voice, long a major source of misinformation about the 2020 election.
Bannon’s RAV colleague John Solomon, whose role in the plot appears to be running the declassification effort, was recently appointed to a White House “task force” into supposed election integrity. Solomon was Media Matters’ Misinformer of the Year in 2019 for his role in laundering misinformation about the Bidens and Ukraine through his opinion columns.
Also in the mix is Peter Schweizer, who founded the Government Accountability Institute with Bannon and has moved from spreading misinformation about the Clintons to claiming that China is taking over the United States by exploiting birthright citizenship.
Then there’s Cleta Mitchell, a right-wing lawyer who was on the January 2021 call when Trump urged Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” enough ballots to tip the state his way. She referenced Schweizer in a June 20 appearance on War Room, positively paraphrasing an argument he made on his podcast acknowledging that much of the voting activity he wants to suppress is actually legal.
“Peter Schweizer put it pretty well last week in a podcast that he does with Eric Eggers, and the question they posed is: If fraud is made — if election fraud is made legal, is it still fraud?” Mitchell asked. “Because what’s happened in California over the last decade is that the far-left Democrat, socialist, Marxists, communists have completely upended every vestige of election integrity.” (Bannon had teed her up by referencing the Los Angeles mayoral primary, claiming without evidence: “They stole it right in front of our face and laughed at us the entire time.”)
Mitchell is supported by a loose array of election deniers who have called on Trump to issue an executive order to seize “king-like powers” over voting systems, supported by the national emergency decree…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Bannon stated plainly on June 29 that Solomon’s “task force” and “also Pulte” would be central to creating a “predicate” for the declaration of a national emergency and subsequent executive order achieving the anti-voting rights goals of the SAVE America Act.
On June 30, Bannon interviewed another of his RAV colleagues, Wayne Allyn Root, who further elaborated what a national emergency declaration could look like.
“Stop talking about the SAVE Act and do a national security emergency for elections, which is the SAVE Act, which contains everything that’s in the SAVE Act, Steve, and more and more,” Root said.
Just days earlier, on June 24, Trump canceled a signing ceremony for a bipartisan housing bill to pressure Congress to pass the stalled out SAVE America Act, which he referred to as a “National Emergency.”
The “predicate” Bannon is hoping to manufacture could also be for other election initiatives the administration is working on — such as trying to force courts to give the administration access to various state voter rolls — an issue the administration is facing significant resistance to.
Whether this harebrained plot congeals into an active conspiracy to subvert the midterms remains to be seen, but given that Trump has already tried to overturn one election it would be a mistake not to take these rumblings seriously. There may indeed be an emergency — it’s just not the one that Bannon and company are talking about. https://www.mediamatters.org/voter-fraud-and-suppression/plot-subvert-midterms-getting-stranger-and-more-dangerous
When the right denies the true danger of heatwaves, ask yourself this: whose children’s lives is it willing to risk?
The Guardian, George Monbiot, 1 July 26
The class politics of extreme heat are very real and very dangerous – but that doesn’t stop the billionaire press from peddling its agenda
Every time you think the idiocy has hit rock bottom, it discovers a new level. It turns out there’s an even deeper hole you can dig for yourself than climate-science denial: heat-stress denial. Across the billionaire press last week, columnists and leader writers minimised the health impacts of the heatwave, particularly in schools. Expect more of this next week, when temperatures are forecast to soar again.
An editorial in the Telegraph (which represents the newspaper’s view) titled “Hot weather alarmism treats the public like children” maintained that “unlike in the seventies, when people were largely trusted to look after themselves, officialdom now feels the need to lecture the public about the risks of hot weather at every opportunity”. Extreme heat warnings are issued and weather maps are “painted in an alarming red”. Outrageous! Instead of issuing warnings, the government should just trust people to “take the appropriate precautions”. We should all “learn to live” with it. Quite right too: whatever happened to the bulldog spirit of ignorance and needless death? Cricket, warm beer, excess mortality: these are the markers of national character.
Also in the Telegraph, under the headline “Heatwave hysterics wouldn’t have lasted a day in 1976”, the columnist Ysenda Maxtone Graham insisted that during the heatwave that year – which she remembers as “two months of blissful messing about” – “common sense was applied by most without the need for nannying intervention”. Now, however, “health messages range from the patronising – tube announcements imploring travellers to carry a bottle of water – to the preposterous, as if a healthy adult is liable to drop dead from a little bit of sun exposure”. Never mind the unhealthy adults. Or disabled people, or elderly people, or children, all of whom are likely to be more vulnerable. She claimed that in 1976, “schools didn’t close because of the heat”, and that children and teachers heroically “sweltered in 30-degree classrooms”.
Maxtone Graham’s column was remarkably similar to Jane Moore’s in the Sun, titled: “Why on earth do schools need to CLOSE in hot weather? Forget today’s nannying, alarmist state – let’s go back to ’76.” Moore remembers 1976 as “the best summer of my life”. Apparently there was a “gung-ho spirit” that “should be used as a standard benchmark for common sense”………………………
There is a powerful body of evidence showing that warnings and advice save lives. The Red Cross discovered in 2023 that there’s a strikingly poor understanding of the health risks of heatwaves in the UK, where they used to be rare. A survey reported in the journal Energy Research & Social Science last year found that 49% of participants had “little to no knowledge on how to cope with extreme heat”. Nevertheless, government warnings, doubtless to the delight of the Telegraph, remain vague, hard to interpret and unsupported by effective action. Let the bodies pile high.
……………..There’s nothing new about feather-bedded columnists in nice homes in leafy streets or air-conditioned offices instructing other people to tough it out. But the class disparity in heat shielding is especially acute in Britain, where homes and public buildings are woefully unsuited to extremes.
The paper I mentioned above also found that 82% of households reported difficulty in keeping at least one room cool during the summer. The rate of overheating for the poorest half “was twice that of householders in the top half of higher-income earners”. Many other studies have produced similar findings. Steady temperatures are the preserve of the rich.
Extreme heat hits children – who have higher metabolisms and lower sweating rates – harder than most adults. Their thermal comfort levels are, on average, 1.9-2.8C lower. There are many reports of children vomiting and losing consciousness in class during heatwaves. Temperatures above 25C limit their cognitive performance. The government’s Climate Change Committee finds that “taking an exam on a 32C day leads to around a 10% lower likelihood of passing compared to a 22C day”. Yet another advantage for private schools, which can generally afford better buildings and air-conditioned exam rooms.
But, as the government confirms to me, it sets no maximum temperature limit for schools. Otherwise it might have to do something. Instead, it advises schools to open and close doors and windows and minimise heat from equipment: advice that leaves teachers with sealed windows and impossible heat loads in despair. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jul/01/right-danger-heatwaves-children-class-politics-extreme-heat-billionaire-press
SNP blocks new nuclear power
SNP blocks new nuclear power despite ‘high-potential’ sites. A
Westminster-backed study identified places capable of hosting future
reactors, but the Scottish government’s longstanding opposition remains
unchanged. The SNP has shut down any hope for new nuclear power in Scotland
after a Westminster-backed report that highlighted the “high potential”
for projects. “The Scottish government is focused on supporting the
development of Scotland’s renewable energy potential, which provides
jobs, are safer and doesn’t leave a legacy of nuclear waste.
Times 30th June 2026, https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/snp-blocks-new-nuclear-power-high-potential-sites-vfrcjx5ns
Russia Closes Border Crossings With Several NATO States After Finland Lifts Nuclear Ban
by Tyler Durden, Thursday, Jul 02, 2026, https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-closes-border-crossings-several-nato-states-after-finland-lifts-ban-nuclear
Finland’s parliament has finally followed through with a previously threatened move to reverse its decades-long ban on nuclear weapons. The June 17 vote to lift the ban in effect legally authorizes the Nordic country to receive, transport, and facilitate the movement of nuclear weapons on its territory as part of allied operations, with the representatives’ final tally at 125 to 61.
Finland officially became the 31st member of NATO in April 2023 – having abandoned its historic neutrality in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, in what was among the fastest accession processes in the Western military alliance’s history. Now it is already willing to host allied nukes on its territory, making it a target of Russian retaliation.
Moscow has long warned against such an ultra-provocative move. The Kremlin said Monday that this requires a response – given also the fact that Russia and Finland share an over 800-mile long border, which is made up largely of Arctic frontier.
“The results of the vote represent both bright and unflattering victory of the blind Russophobia of the past few years over what we have always viewed as pragmatic sanity in Finland,” said Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova.
“And let nobody doubt that [response] measures will be taken timely and effectively. In this light, the Finnish people need to think whether this decision made by their elites will actually enhance security in Finland itself,” she added.
As a start, Russia has moved to shutter more rail crossings to NATO states, including Finland – which is to further severely impact trade:
Russia has closed seven railway border checkpoints with Finland, Estonia and Latvia, according to a government decree published Tuesday.
The suspension, which takes effect July 1, halts the movement of individuals, vehicles and cargo through the designated rail crossings. Five of the shuttered checkpoints are located on the Finnish border, while Estonia and Latvia each have one crossing affected.
Officials have not disclosed the reasons for the closures or when the checkpoints might reopen.
In Estonia, the Ivangorod freight and passenger crossing will remain open, and in Latvia, the Sebezh crossing will also stay open. However, the closures leave Finland with no open railway crossings with Russia, which normally exports fertilizer to Finland by rail.
Finland shut its eastern vehicle and pedestrian border crossings with Russia indefinitely in December 2023 following an influx of asylum seekers.
Since the Ukraine war began, and in context of ratcheting tensions with NATO over its military support to Kiev, Moscow has steadily militarized its border with Finland.
The most significant source of NATO’s nuclear-sharing program is the United States. But lately France has expressed a desire to station some of its atomic arsenal in partner countries, and this could include in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and others.
Polish tycoon backs Britain’s £35bn mini nuclear reactors plan.
Michal Solowow’s Synthos Green Energy is seeking approval for 14 small modular
reactors at three sites including Oldbury in Gloucestershire.
SGE would not
disclose the location of the sites, two of which are privately owned, but
one of those that it has submitted an application to use is understood to
be the state-owned Oldbury nuclear site in Gloucestershire. Oldbury is one
of eight sites that has been designated for new nuclear power stations in
the UK.
The SMRs will deploy designs developed by GE Vernova Hitachi, a
joint venture between GE Vernova, the American energy equipment
manufacturer, and Hitachi, the Japanese conglomerate. It was one of four
technology providers that had been in the running to build the UK’s first
SMRs under a selection process led by Great British Nuclear, an
arm’s-length, state-backed body set up by the previous government, now
renamed Great British Energy — Nuclear.
It is hoped that the first unit
will start generating power by 2034, about the same time as the first
Rolls-Royce SMR, and will be funded by SGE through a mixture of debt and
equity. It is understood to be in discussions with the taxpayer-backed
National Wealth Fund over an investment and is aiming to apply for support
under the contracts-for-difference framework, which guarantees developers a
minimum that they will be paid for the power they generate. If future
wholesale prices are lower than this guaranteed price, developers will
receive a top-up payment, but if they are higher, they will repay the
excess as a saving to consumers.
Times 2nd July 2026, https://www.thetimes.com/business/companies-markets/article/polish-tycoon-britains-35bn-mini-nuclear-reactor-dsj5kc7s9
National interest in nuclear site gets mixed reaction
Organizations opposing the waste site say they’re worried, should the repository be deemed a project of national interest, that oversight would weaken.
“Our major concern would be the approval process being fast-tracked,”
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization says such a designation would not weaken oversight, opponents of the deep geological repository don’t agree
Matt Prokopchuk, Jun 24, 2026
IGNACE — The potential for changing how a proposed nuclear waste facility is studied has set off a flurry of reactions across the region.
On Wednesday, the federal government announced three initiatives were being referred to its Major Projects Office, which will consider whether to name them projects of national interest under the Building Canada Act. That designation is designed to alter the processes that determine whether projects get approved, with the goal of speeding up that decision.
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s proposed deep geological repository for high-level used fuel near Revell Lake was one of the initiatives Ottawa announced was up for consideration.
“The deep geological repository for used nuclear fuel is nationally significant infrastructure that supports clean growth, advances reconciliation, delivers long term economic benefits and strengthens Canada’s energy security and resilience,” the Nuclear Waste Management Organization said in an emailed statement.
The NWMO is a government-mandated not-for-profit funded by the nuclear industry tasked with the long-term management of the country’s nuclear waste. It selected the Revell Lake-area site in 2024.
The project is currently undergoing a multi-phase environmental impact assessment and regulatory review by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. They have been tasked with deciding whether to green-light the proposed facility through a scheduled years-long study.
Organizations opposing the waste site say they’re worried, should the repository be deemed a project of national interest, that oversight would weaken.
“Our major concern would be the approval process being fast-tracked,” said Wendy O’Connor, a volunteer with We the Nuclear Free North, a coalition of organizations and residents opposing the transportation and storing of nuclear waste in northern Ontario. “What we’ve been relying on so far is the impact assessment office and an impact assessment. And we’ve been assured that it was going to be a full impact assessment, which was a win for us.”
“Now, that is all potentially taken apart if this referral to the major projects office actually does go through.”
According to a federal government media release, consultations about whether to list the project will “begin over the coming weeks,” with a decision expected in the fall.
Newswatch has requested comment from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada about what listing the deep geological repository under the Building Canada Act would mean to the ongoing review the agency is doing.
Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation Chief Clayton Wetelainen told Newswatch, should the project receive the “national interest” designation from the Major Projects Office, the First Nation’s independent parallel approvals process won’t be affected. Wabigoon Lake is one of two host communities for the repository, along with Ignace.
“That’s why we, in our agreement to host it, to look at it, is that we have our own independent sovereign regulatory approval process that will mitigate if there’s anything that Wabigoon Lake sees that is going to be problematic,” he said.
The NWMO, in its statement, argued making the project one of national significance “would not reduce the scope, rigour or independence of the regulatory decision-making process.”
Opponents say they’re not convinced, adding that the public consultation phases of the ongoing impact assessment have garnered hundreds of comments, with many expressing concern or outright opposition.
“The risks are monumental and Canadians deserve a thorough examination of the risks in a full impact assessment,” O’Connor said.
“That is what we continue to press for and we were sure that was going to happen and now this (announcement) puts it in question again.”
The Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, which represents 37 municipalities across the region, including Ignace, said in a media release that it and its sister organization in the northeast “welcome” the referral, but “stress that the project must continue through a rigorous regulatory, environmental, scientific, and Indigenous consultation process before any final decisions are made.”
The organizations added that similar consideration should also be given to the Trans-Canada Highway through the north — particularly with the prospect of hundreds of trucks of nuclear waste travelling each year on Highways 11 and 17.
“Should the deep geological repository ultimately proceed, transportation associated with the project could occur on northern Ontario highways within the coming decades,” NOMA’s media release said.
“Preparing for that future requires a highway system that is safe, reliable, resilient and capable of supporting nationally significant projects.”
In Wabigoon Lake, Wetelainen said the time to make a decision on a nuclear waste site is now.
“It’s a problem today and it’s been a problem yesterday,” he said. “The critical voices and the people who are supportive of it, are going through some times.”
Nuclear Power is NOT the Solution – It’s the Problem! NO CANDU!
F. R. Greening Ph.D. 3 July 26
Carney’s Liberal Government has recently become fixated on promoting nuclear power as the best way for Canada to generate so-called “clean”, carbon-emission-free, electrical energy. In support of this policy the government likes to boast about Canada’s past accomplishments in developing and exploiting nuclear engineering technology through our very own, home-grown expertise.
Now this view may have had a basis in truth back in the 1970’s when Chalk River Laboratories truly was a center of nuclear research excellence that led to the development of the CANDU reactor. It’s also true that the first generation of CANDU reactors, located at Pickering and Bruce, were quite successful, with operating capacity factors well over 80% during their first 10-years of operation.
But this was back in the 1970s; fast forward to 2026 and, with all of these first generation CANDU reactors either refurbished or permanently shut down, we are left with a somewhat uncertain future for nuclear energy in Canada. Indeed, I believe we are now in an electrical energy crisis here in Ontario because our home-grown nuclear power stalwart – the CANDU reactor – has been in failure mode for at least the past 10 years.
This decline is due to the aging of Ontario’s fleet of 18 CANDU reactors: 6 at Pickering, 8 at Bruce and 4 at Darlington. All Pickering and Bruce Units are now over 40 years old, and it is important to note that these nuclear reactors were designed and built using 1960’s technology, with 1960’s computers. Thus, it is impressive that Pickering B and Bruce B units lasted 40 years before requiring major refurbishments.
However, the performance of Darlington is another story because all four Darlington units required refurbishments after only about 30 years of operation, thereby creating a short-fall in Ontario’s nuclear energy production. This is clearly illustrated in Figure 1, below, which shows Ontario’s nuclear power output has declined from about 92 TWh in 2014, to a current value of about 75 TWh – a loss of about 20 % in Ontario’s electric power output in just 12 years. But to make matters worse, it is predicted that this decline will continue to about 60 TWh by 2030, before all existing CANDUs have been refurbished, and/or new reactors have been built and commissioned.
[Greening supplies graphs on this issue
the percentage of Ontario’s electricity derived from natural gas has increased substantially from about 10% in 2015 to 30% in 2026. Furthermore, extrapolation of these data points predicts that natural gas as a source of electricity for Ontario will exceed nuclear generated electricity production by 2028.
It is indeed ironic that “Climate-Change Carney” recently, (Canada Day!), declared:]
“We can’t afford to restrain the growth of an important part of our energy mix – natural gas – to meet a short-term goal. I want to be clear on this point. The changes we have made will mean that our GHG emissions will be higher in the next few years than were projected under the previous (Liberal!) government’s plan”.
What Carney fails to acknowledge, however, is that when it comes to Ontario’s electrical energy short-fall, nuclear power is not the solution; it’s the problem! If Ontario’s CANDU reactors were performing up to expectations, there would be no need for OPG to rely on natural gas combustion,
, with the associated annual release of tens of Megatonnes of CO2, as a viable alternative. And Carney et al’s blind faith in Canada’s alleged nuclear prowess, as exemplified by the CANDU reactor, is in reality a myth that is not supported by fact!
By way of proof of Canada’s less than excellence in its CANDU reactor’s performance, consider lifetime capacity factor data, (derived from the IAEA PRIS website), for seventeen countries with extensive nuclear power programs. Sad to say, Canada has the lowest lifetime capacity factor, a miserable 68.2%, compared to any other country on the list.
Revealed: Illegal West Bank settlements advertised at Israeli event in London
Despite denials from organisers, evidence gathered inside the event shows occupied Palestinian land was being marketed
DANIA AKKAD, 15 June 2026, https://www.declassifieduk.org/revealed-illegal-west-bank-settlements-advertised-at-israeli-event-in-london/
Properties from seven illegal settlements were advertised at the Great Israeli Real Estate Event on Sunday in London, days after more than 100 MPs and groups urged the UK government to ban it.
Organisers had told journalists last week that all exhibitors at the event “without exception” would only provide information about properties for sale within the Green Line – the internationally recognised border between Israel and Palestine.
But brochures circulated at the event which Jewish Anti-Zionist Action (JAZA) shared with Declassified and others posted online show companies touting properties for sale in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
In one pamphlet, Harry Zahev Developers advertises apartments and private homes in Kfar Eldad and Teneh Omarim, illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank near Palestinian towns and communities.
“Bringing gardens and spaces where nature is your closest neighbour,” the pamphlet reads.
In another brochure, the Jerusalem Real Estate company offers the city’s “most sought-after Anglo neighborhoods” including French Hill and Ramat Eshkol, two settlement neighbourhoods in occupied east Jerusalem.
Neither company responded immediately to requests for comment on Monday. Declassified attempted to reach the event organisers, but could not find any contact details.
Other illegal Israel settlements featured in the promotional materials which JAZA collected include the West Bank settlements of Ma’ale Adumim and Givat Ze’ev, and Givat Hamatos, a settlement currently under construction in East Jerusalem.
“Through these pamphlets and information we collected on the inside, we can prove that this event was selling properties in the occupied West Bank,” said Guy Zilberman, a JAZA activist who gained entry to the exhibition.
‘Crazy times’
Zilberman described his experience at the real estate show. “After passing through security, I was given a free tote bag and a booklet advertising the different real estate companies present at the fair that day,” he said.
At the stall for one developer, he said he was told the company had “properties they were selling in ‘Judea and Samaria’ that he thought would be perfect for me”.
The company representative “had all the booklets and papers for it but couldn’t get them out because the police had said in order for the event to go ahead they couldn’t advertise properties illegal under international law,” Zilberman said.
The man then told him these were “crazy times we live in” and asked for Zilberman’s contact details so he could follow up after the event.
He visited another stall and said he was given a leaflet advertising properties in Ma’ale Adumim, which is an illegal West Bank settlement.
After about an hour inside, Zilberman disrupted the event, calling for “sanctions now” and saying “don’t steal” in Hebrew.
“After disrupting the event, I was pulled out by my neck by security,” Zilberman said.
He noted that the Board of Deputies had said that the event was “an excuse to harass and intimidate members of the Jewish community”.
“I would invite the Board of Deputies to look at the documents here that clearly depict in writing that these properties in illegally occupied territories…have been advertised at this event,” he said.
The Board of Deputies did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday.
What’s in Keir Starmer’s defence investment plan? Key points.
The ten-year military blueprint outlines billions in spending on special forces and hypersonic weaponry but leaves some major equipment programmes uncosted
More than £63 billion will be spent on the nuclear deterrent over four
years, including new warheads for the future Dreadnought-class submarines,
as well as 12 new F-35A aircraft that will be able to carry tactical
nuclear weapons, American B61-12 gravity bombs. The nuclear investment will
also include £26 billion over the next decade in Project Royal Oak, the
largest naval base upgrade for over 45 years. This will see
multi-billion-pound upgrades at Faslane, Portsmouth and Devonport.
Times 30th June 2026 https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/defence-investment-plan-keir-starmer-key-points-cgxtn69qf
War Crimes, War Powers and American Sovereignty: The USA + Israel = The Department of Forever War
While carrying a national debt approaching $40 Trillion, the Administration is increasing spending for its newly dedicated Department of War by 67% to upwards of $1.5 TRILLION per year. Simultaneously, with more than 42 million Americans unable to feed themselves, the administration is cutting federal food program
From war crimes and genocide abroad to moral, constitutional, and debt crises at home: Why Congress must reject the NDAA’s U.S.-Israel military and intelligence merger
June 30, 2026 Dennis Kucinich, https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/30/war-crimes-war-powers-and-american-sovereignty-the-usa-israel-the-department-of-forever-war/
Against the horrific high- and low-tech butchery of Palestinians and Lebanese by Israeli ethno-nationalist psychopathic killers, this week there will be an effort in Congress to formally merge or integrate the military of Israel and the United States at the most advanced levels.
Section 219 (formerly Section 224) of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act of 2027, provides for an unprecedented unification. The nearly $4 billion in the NDAA for Israel’s offensive efforts pales next to Israel having direct access to determining use of $1.5 trillion in annual military resources of the United States.
Money can be appropriated one year and withdrawn the next. Institutional integration is permanent.
Section 219 creates permanent mechanisms through which military planning, intelligence sharing, weapons development, procurement, research, artificial intelligence, and strategic coordination become increasingly intertwined between the United States and Israel.
It is a proposal to embed another nation’s military establishment within the long-term planning and strategic architecture of the United States government.
Our own government – House, Senate and Administration – is in moral collapse, placing overwhelming emphasis on militarism instead of adequately funding America – housing, education, food, health, safety, and retirement security. Americans are standing at freeway exits, begging for food, while our tax dollars flow to weapons manufacturers.
While carrying a national debt approaching $40 Trillion, the Administration is increasing spending for its newly dedicated Department of War by 67% to upwards of $1.5 TRILLION per year. Simultaneously, with more than 42 million Americans unable to feed themselves, the administration is cutting federal food programs.
The practical implications extend far beyond dollars. With NDAA Section 219, Congress the legislation would create enduring institutional relationships affecting how those extraordinary military resources are developed, coordinated, and potentially employed.
No Congress has ever before considered legislation of this nature with any foreign nation.
If the Administration’s “America First” claim were to mean anything, it must first mean that America’s Constitution comes first. It must mean that American families, farmers, workers, veterans, and children come first. Section 219 turns that claim into a farce.
Section 219 of the NDAA would cause the United States to become dependent upon Israel making decisions about war, peace, military strategy, intelligence, and U. S. national security. This is the consequence of permanent institutional integration.
One week ago, a UN Commission of Inquiry determined that Israeli security forces deliberately targeted and killed Palestinian children, sometimes as a game, torturing them, subjecting children to sexual violence resulting in “unprecedented death, injury and trauma.”
Since Oct. 7, 2023, the IDF has been instrumental in the deaths of as many as 800,000 Palestinians, including children, emergency health care workers, doctors, nurses, journalists, and educators.
UN investigators and human rights observers have documented the killing of Palestinian children and have accused Israeli forces of deliberately targeting the children of Gaza.
These findings are reinforced by dehumanizing statements from Israeli political figures who have portrayed Palestinian children as future terrorists, so children are targets.
Essential civilian infrastructure has been devastated. Water systems, hospitals, schools, electrical networks, and sanitation facilities have been damaged or destroyed, eacerbating a man-made, humanitarian catastrophe.
In the occupied West Bank, armed “settlers” have been widely reported to have attacked Palestinian communities, burned homes, uprooted olive groves and other crops, destroyed property, and killed livestock, further displacing civilian populations.
Israel has used starvation as a weapon, setting food as a trap and, gunning down Gazans as they rush desperately to feed themselves and their children. Water supplies have been poisoned, wells filled with cement.
Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon are testing ground sfor increasingly sophisticated military technologies, destroying entire villages with increasingly powerful munitions, and using precision, artificial intelligence-assisted targeting systems. Human rights organizations have raised serious concerns about the speed of targeting decisions, civilian casualty rates, and the implications of delegating life-and-death decisions to algorithmic systems.
White phosphorous and other weapons banned by international treaty are in use.
The conduct of the IDF has earned world-wide condemnation. Twenty-nine UN member states do not have diplomatic relations with Israel. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
The Israel newspaper Haaretz recently reported that the ICC prosecutor is also seeking arrest warrants for Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich: “Gaza must be destroyed entirely.” and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Givr, who has said: “All of Lebanon must burn.” Will these be our new partners? If so, the fundamental question becomes: Who are WE?
What is to be lost further in an Israel-U.S. military merger?
If the U.S. combines our military capabilities with the twisted occupation and expansionist ethic of Israel’s use of military technology against civilian populations, will it be long before our own government militarizes the high -tech surveillance infrastructure already in place to use state violence against our own citizens who protest abuse of basic rights?
The First Amendment has already been taken down on college campuses, and in cities and states where Israel critics are sanctioned.
U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) officials have trained in Israel. The lessons learned there have come to America in terms of deportation, detention, and in some cases, physical abuse, injury and death at the hands of ICE government agents.
Israel kills Arab children so they will not commit crimes in the future. Will Americans, as in the movie Minority Report be pitched into a dystopian world where predictive algorithms enable Israel-U.S. collaborators to hunt down, prosecute and even punish Americans for crimes not committed
As a Member of Congress, I questioned Benjamin Netanyahu during a hearing which took place prior to the 2003 Congressional vote on going to war against Iraq. He admitted he wanted not only Iraq to be attacked by the United States, but also Libya and Iran. It is widely known that the Israeli Prime Minister pushed President Trump into the disastrous war against Iran.
It is inevitable that as Israel’s aggression is maximally empowered, once placed inside the U.S. war-making establishment, the U.S. will be dragged into the Zionists’ expansionist designs on Iran, Turkey, Egypt and elsewhere. A greater Israel means a lesser United States. Congress, heavily influenced by the Israel lobby, is unable to reclaim its constitutionally based war power.
Since the merger is to be voted on, this week, before America celebrates the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence, let us be reminded by Thomas Jefferson’s July 4, 1776 characterization of George III, King of Great Britain: “He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws….”
Our forefathers did not fight for freedom and for independence at Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill, Trenton, Saratoga, and Yorktown, nor sacrifice American blood and treasure in battles in World War I and World War II to arrive at July 4, 2026, having willingly forfeited our sovereignty to a foreign nation, losing control of our future and putting in doubt “our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor.”
Call your congressperson today and tell them to stand for America’s independence and vote for the Massie-Khanna Amendment to remove Section 219 from the NDAA
Canada’s Nuclear Energy Strategy a “Cash Cow” for the Nuclear Industry.
Gordon Edwards, 30 June 2026
| Ottawa – Critics from civil society organizations and academia are calling out the Nuclear Energy Strategy for Canada released by the Federal Government as a cash cow for the nuclear industry and a hubris-driven attempt to grab world “energy superpower” status based on past-Century technology. The Strategy, released on June 22, is an ambitious agenda to spend public funds on new nuclear reactors to the detriment of readily available clean renewable sources, and to short-circuit independent oversight of nuclear projects. The document reads like a wish list of nuclear developments, including the goal of 10 new large reactor projects in Canada by 2040. It parallels a US announcement made the next day, also promising 10 new large reactor projects and standing to benefit some of the same corporations. Critics are calling the Canadian strategy a gross economic mistake, dangerous for human health and security, and a diversion from urgently needed action on safer, faster and cheaper energy alternatives. The federal initiative would seriously delay or derail an urgently needed energy transition, buying time for the fossil fuel sector and funneling billions of tax dollars to well-connected nuclear industry players. “While the world moves urgently to clean renewables and storage to meet electricity needs, Canada is diverting major resources to dirty, dangerous and absurdly expensive Cold War era technology which will burden future generations,” commented J. P. Unger, director with the Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital. “The strategy reads like a public relations fantasy rather than the cost data and financial risks analysis that would attract private investment” said Dr. Susan O’Donnell, Sustainability and Environmental Studies Program, St. Thomas University. “Lost is the memory of massive cost overruns and extensive delays that plagued the construction of the current fleet of reactors in the 1970s and ‘80s. Those decisions led to the demise of “Ontario Hydro” – death by drowning (in debt),” said Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. “Gone is the “sticker shock” that caused Ontario to cancel the last push for a nuclear “renaissance” in the early 2000s. Forgotten are the financial realities of previous international sales, where Canada swallowed huge losses (Argentina) or accepted goods like strawberries rather than actual money (Romania) in exchange for the CANDU reactors they were peddling overseas”. The document also promises to “streamline” the regulation of nuclear projects by removing independent oversight and speeding up approvals. This presents a huge public risk when dealing with inherently dangerous technology like nuclear power. The government is also promoting the export of home-grown CANDU reactors, something that will facilitate the proliferation of nuclear weapons, as happened when Canada gifted reactor technology to India, sparking an arms race in South Asia. “Putting all our eggs in the nuclear exports basket completely ignores the risk of a major nuclear accident anywhere in the world, which history has shown will immediately tank enthusiasm for this technology,” said Anne Lindsey, an organizer with the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition’s No-Nukes campaign The pressing issue of nuclear waste is sandwich “This strategy is not fooling anyone who is serious about the energy transition. Private money is pouring into wind, solar and energy storage developments, not nuclear energy – by far the most expensive way to generate electricity.” “Lost is the memory of massive cost overruns and extensive delays that plagued the construction of the current fleet of reactors in the 1970s and ‘80s. Those decisions led to the demise of “Ontario Hydro” – death by drowning (in debt),” said Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. “Gone is the “sticker shock” that caused Ontario to cancel the last push for a nuclear “renaissance” in the early 2000s. Forgotten are the financial realities of previous international sales, where Canada swallowed huge losses (Argentina) or accepted goods like strawberries rather than actual money (Romania) in exchange for the CANDU reactors they were peddling overseas”. The document also promises to “streamline” the regulation of nuclear projects by removing independent oversight and speeding up approvals. This presents a huge public risk when dealing with inherently dangerous technology like nuclear power. The government is also promoting the export of home-grown CANDU reactors, something that will facilitate the proliferation of nuclear weapons, as happened when Canada gifted reactor technology to India, sparking an arms race in South Asia. “Putting all our eggs in the nuclear exports basket completely ignores the risk of a major nuclear accident anywhere in the world, which history has shown will immediately tank enthusiasm for this technology,” said Anne Lindsey, an organizer with the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition’s No-Nukes campaign The pressing issue of nuclear waste is sandwiched into the section of the strategy on massive expansion of uranium production, with false claims and reassurances that the problem has been solved by handing the long-term management of nuclear waste over to the nuclear industry. A deep geological repository for high-level waste proposed for northwestern Ontario is taken as if already established despite major questions and opposition, including legal challenges. Two days after the Nuclear Strategy was released the federal government announced that the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s proposed Deep Geological Repository was being considered for listing as a “Project of National Interest” under the Build Canada Act, meaning that its approval would be guaranteed. “Designating NWMO’s DGR project as a Project of National Interest would be a betrayal of public trust”, commented Brennain Lloyd with the northern Ontario based environmental coalition Northwatch. “The project is unprecedented, it’s still at a conceptual stage of development, the transportation will impact millions along the route, and the waste is lethal virtually forever. That project approval could be a foregone conclusion – despite the lack of evidence that the project can be done safety – is absolutely beyond reason”. The nuclear strategy followed the discussion paper Getting Major Projects Built in Canada and the National Strategy for an Electrified Canadian Economy, both released in early May. The discussion paper announces plans to gut the impact assessment process for nuclear projects, while the electricity strategy promotes nuclear power ahead of lower cost options such as renewable energy and energy efficiency which could be brought online much more quickly. Unlike the discussion paper and the electricity strategy, there is no public comment period on the Nuclear Energy Strategy for Canada. |
We’re Expected To Remember October 7 But Never Ask Questions About It
The Israeli press are reporting that police documents on the security for the October 7 2023 Nova music festival were mysteriously deleted at some point in early January 2024. The Jerusalem Post reports that “it is unknown who removed them and whether copies still exist.”
A new article from the Israeli outlet YNet reports that the IDF had planned to kill an Israeli soldier who was captured by Hamas in 2006, with one document stating “Hannibal in effect.” The Hannibal Directive is an Israeli military protocol ensuring that extreme measures be taken to prevent Israelis from capture by Palestinian resistance groups, even if it means killing the Israelis.
Israel’s Channel 12 has shown footage of Israeli officers demanding that the Hannibal Directive be implemented on October 7 to prevent hostages from being taken by Hamas, with a senior officer saying “(Strike) Gaza. Break it all apart. Along with the soldiers who got abducted.”
Many Israeli soldiers and civilians are on record saying that Israeli forces fired upon their own people on October 7.
How many of the 1,195 people killed in Operation Al-Aqsa Flood were actually killed by Israeli forces? We don’t know, and we’re not allowed to know. Electronic Intifada’s Asa Winstanley has argued that the number was in the hundreds.
Did Israel deliberately leave its people undefended from an impending Hamas attack in order to advance pre-existing agendas? We don’t know, and we’re not allowed to know, but there are mountains of evidence indicating that they did.
Ask why there’s been so much violence in the middle east these last three years and you’ll be told it’s because of October 7.
Ask why October 7 happened and you’ll be called an antisemite.
Ask what specifically transpired on that day and you’ll be called a conspiracy theorist.
It’s just so crazy how often apologists for Israel and the western empire will cite October 7 as the spark that set off all these wars of far-reaching consequence, but it’s taboo to talk about exactly what happened on that day, and it’s taboo to talk about how Israel’s abuses provoked the attack.
The official mainstream position on October 7 is that Hamas killed 1,195 Israelis for no reason other than because they are evil and wanted to kill Jews, and that anyone who suggests it may have happened for actual material reasons is an antisemitic monster. Whenever anyone spouts the official mainstream position on October 7 at me I just want to make “goo goo ga ga” baby noises at them until they shut up and go away, because such people are not thinking like adults.
Everyone who’s been watching Israel’s behavior since October 7 now understands why Palestinian resistance fighters carried out October 7 in the first place. We’re expected to avert our eyes from the glaring plot holes in the official narrative and never suggest that Israel’s horrific abuses of the Palestinians may have played some role in giving rise to the attack, but after watching a live-streamed genocide month after month after horrifying month, we all know October 7 was just Israel reaping what it sowed.
And we know there is no evil these freaks are not capable of.
Iran trumps US on Hormuz
| US President Donald Trump’s innate inability to empathise with others and lack of intelligence to foresee consequences are likely to hand Iran a long-term financial advantage and incidentally, but more importantly, threaten the treaty that has been the most productive of peace and prosperity in recent history – the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. |
Crispin Hull,June 30, 2026, https://www.crispinhull.com.au/2026/06/30/iran-trumps-us-on-hormuz/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_source_platform=mailpoet&utm_campaign=crispin-hull-column
The tit-for-tat breaches of the US-Iran 60-day ceasefire in the past few days certainly point that way. Let me explain.
Of 193 members of the UN, 44 are landlocked. The other 149 have coastlines linking each of their coastlines to the other 148 countries’ coastlines such that they can as a practical matter drive to those other nations by boat or ship with no natural barrier or no requirement to use easily blocked roads or railways.
The UN convention took eight years to negotiate in the 1970s. It was a triumph of diplomacy and law over the assertion of power and force. It resulted in one of the greatest trade-offs in history between powerful nations, on one hand, and less powerful nations, on the other.
In short, before the convention, powerful trading nations saw their economic interests in both the unfettered exploitation of the resources of the oceans and in having freedom of navigation across the oceans to help free trade, but ultimately they were willing to forgo the former in order to secure the latter.
The trade-off was enormous. Rich, powerful nations thought that freedom of navigation across the world’s oceans was so important for trade and hence prosperity that they were willing to grant poor and less powerful nations significant exclusive rights to their adjacent oceans in return for that freedom.
The question posed by the negotiators was how to achieve peace and greater prosperity. The answer was negotiation and compromise.
Each nation, even the militarily and economically weak, got the exclusive rights to all the ocean’s resources, particularly fishing and mining, up to 200 nautical miles from their shore and the total sovereign rights of territorial waters up to 12 nautical miles from their shore.
n return vessels from any nation, especially militarily strong and rich trading nations could sail anywhere on the oceans, but if they came within 12 nautical miles of another nation’s shores they had to inform that nation of their passage, and make their passage expeditious – no more lingering with menace close to other nations’ shores (gunboat diplomacy).
The arrangement facilitated trade and made the passage of warships less threatening. Good all round.
Before that, the three-nautical-mile limit was the general unwritten rule. Within that limit, nation states could do whatever they liked with their ocean and beyond that foreign vessels could do whatever they liked – from fishing to playing wargames.
Three nautical miles was of practical importance. In the nineteenth century that was the limit of a cannon shot. It meant that a ship outside that limit could not hit land and that land-based artillery could not hit a ship.
But It also meant that the nations either side of major choke points in world navigational routes – especially Gibraltar, Malacca and Hormuz – which did not have at least a little strip of international waters in the middle had to permit free passage of all vessels.
The latest US-Iran talks and spats over Hormuz, now puts this arrangement in jeopardy. At its narrowest Hormuz is less that 24 nautical miles wide. It means that the territorial waters of Iran to the north and Oman to the south overlap in the middle. It means any ship travelling through has to identify itself to either Iran or Oman and travel expeditiously, or it could be prevented from passage.
Under the ceasefire agreement Iran agreed to allow free passage, but the agreement was vaguely worded. Vessels seeking passage opted to travel as close to the Omani side as possible. Iran read that as a breach of the ceasefire and fired on those vessels. The US retaliated by hitting Iranian targets on the coastline.
It is clear that Iran wants to come to some arrangement with Oman to charge vessels fees in the future in return for passage rather than allowing Oman to let its side of the Strait be used for free safe passage. Whether those fees are characterised as fees for services or a toll, they will still be contrary to the convention. And once one nation starts, others will surely follow.
With drones and rockets we now have the reverse of the 19th century position. Instead of a nation worrying about ship-based weapons firing on its land, ships now have to worry about land-based weapons firing upon ships.
It puts Iran in the box seat. With that threat in place Iran can insist on payment of a fee before guaranteeing safe passage. Iran can just use the insurance system to enforce payment. Without insurance no ship-owner will transit, and without guarantee of safe passage no insurer will grant insurance to a vessel.
All very foreseeable. But it would require thinking in a way that strategists usually think – asking the question: what would I do if I were in the enemy’s position? How would I react if I were the enemy? But Trump is incapable of viewing anything from any perspective but his own.
Arguably, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea has done more in the past 40 years to prevent hostilities and to create the certainty for shipping that generates trade and prosperity than all the force and threat of force that any single nation can muster.
But Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have always preferred force to negotiation.
From the start, they asked the wrong question and got the wrong answer. Netanyahu, facing an election this October, asked how could he stay in power after the Hamas-inspired attack on Israel in October 2023 so he does not have to face questions about how he allowed such a lapse of security? Trump asked, having torn up the well-negotiated Obama deal with Iran to prevent its acquisition of nuclear weapons, how can he ensure Iran does not get those weapons.
The wrong answer they got was: war. In Netanyahu’s case it was genocidal war. If only they chose negotiation and the rule of law rather than force, the world would not be facing an even stronger Iran and an indefinite economic threat to the world that its stranglehold over Hormuz now gives it.
If the world had insisted that Israel follow the 1947 UN resolution that called for the termination of the British Mandate and the partition of historic Palestine into independent, democratic Arab and Jewish states with guaranteed rights for all citizens, there would now be peace in the Middle East.
Trump has always preferred force and the threat of force over the rule of law – domestically and internationally. What he does at home is for the Americans to worry about. After all, they voted him into office. But there is little or no redress for those affected by what he does in the world – usually foolishly and impetuously.
That is why Australia should use whatever tools it has to steer international affairs towards the rule of law and negotiation and away from the use of force.
UK: Inside Labour Together’s secret war against Jeremy Corbyn
Documents disclosed to Corbyn expose covert efforts by Starmer’s former chief of staff to combat the British left
DECLASSIFIED UK, PAUL HOLDEN, Jessica Murray and JOHN McEVOY, 24 June 2026
- Labour Together monitored views on antisemitism in Labour while stoking that crisis
- Media outlet The Canary was targeted amid concerns it was trusted among Labour members
- John McDonnell says new information about Labour Together “makes a call for a public inquiry overwhelming”
Newly released documents reveal the inner workings of Labour Together and its role in covertly undermining Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour party.
The documents were disclosed to Corbyn in response to a subject access request. They contain emails from Labour Together’s two key figures Morgan McSweeney and Josh Simons.
McSweeney went on to be Keir Starmer’s chief of staff while Simons became a cabinet minister until he resigned following revelations that he had hired a reputation management firm to “proactively undermine” journalistic investigations into Labour Together, McSweeney and Sir Keir Starmer.
Simons subsequently vacated his Makerfield constituency seat for Andy Burnham.
Internal documents detail how Labour Together under McSweeney’s watch (2017-20) conducted polling of the Labour membership to monitor its views on the incidence of antisemitism in the party.
This polling allowed McSweeney and his allies to track responses to the antisemitism narrative that they were simultaneously helping to sustain by placing arguably alarmist stories in the media.
The documents further detail how The Canary media outlet was highly trusted among Labour members and identified as a political challenge because it defended Corbyn amid antisemitism accusations.
The Canary was subsequently targeted by the McSweeney-linked Stop Funding Fake News campaign with an advertiser boycott, which helped to diminish its revenue.
Weaponising antisemitism
McSweeney quietly inflamed the “antisemitism crisis” that would dog Corbyn’s leadership from at least 2018.
He did so by seeding and placing stories into the press that helped to build the narrative that Corbyn’s Labour had become riddled with antisemitism and that this flowed inexorably from a resurgent left-wing anti-imperialism.
At the same time, the new documents show, Labour Together was paying YouGov to repeatedly poll Labour members on whether they agreed with the framing of the party as a hotbed of antisemitism.
The goal was apparently to gain a detailed guide to the opinions of the party’s membership as McSweeney sought to detach it from Corbyn’s leadership.
Although the precise cost is unknown, polling of this kind was likely to be expensive.
It was also at this time that Labour Together unlawfully failed to declare most of its donations, amounting to over £700,000, with key funders of the organisation including hedge fund manager Martin Taylor and pro-Israel lobbyist Trevor Chinn.
‘Deliberately exaggerated’…………………………………………………..
‘Dreadful performance’…………………………………………………..
The Canary……………………………….
Stop Funding Fake News
When read against other emails and Labour Together’s polling, the briefing note points to concerns about how The Canary was undermining the antisemitism narrative that McSweeney and his allies were covertly helping to inflame in this period.
In March 2019, McSweeney and his ally Imran Ahmed would launch the Stop Funding Fake News (SFFN) campaign, which sought to demonetise The Canary by pressuring companies to withdraw advertising from its website.
While being led by factional Labour insiders, the SFFN campaign presented itself as a project run by committed grassroots activists who were concerned with the proliferation of “fake news”.
Interestingly, the internal briefing note, which appears to have been a precursor to the SFFN campaign, made no mention of the accuracy of The Canary’s reporting.
The emphasis was on its political influence, strongly suggesting the subsequent campaign was initiated in response to The Canary’s challenge to the political ambitions of Labour Together, onto which claims of “disinformation” were grafted.
Indeed, McSweeney reportedly told Labour Together colleagues: “Destroy the Canary or the Canary destroys us”.
That campaign, alongside changes to social media algorithms, played a powerful role in circumscribing the impact and reach of The Canary by late 2019.
By then, Labour Together’s plan to install Sir Keir Starmer as the leader of the Labour Party was well-advanced.
McSweeney and Labour Together’s fixation on polling would carry over the organisation while led by Josh Simons (2022 – 2024).
These intense polling efforts apparently also helped the organisation to create caricatures of target voters for the Labour party which were at once crude, bizarre, and insulting.
A version of the “Workington Man” curated by Labour Together was 62 years old, white, “absolutely despised Jeremy Corbyn”, “hates Europe and European culture”, drives an “Audi A4”, and “thinks South Asians who live nearby are terrible drivers”…………………………………………..
Labour Together is now called ThinkLabour. Think Labour, Josh Simons, Imran Ahmed and Morgan McSweeney were asked to comment.
Paul Holden is a journalist for Shadow World Investigations and author of the book The Fraud: Keir Starmer, Morgan McSweeney and the Crisis of British Democracy. Between 2020 and 2021, Holden worked directly with the Zondo Commission to assist its investigations into complex money laundering schemes used to hide and dissipate state capture loot in South Africa. https://www.declassifieduk.org/inside-labour-togethers-secret-battle-against-jeremy-corbyn/
1 This Month
26 September – International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
PLEASE OPPOSE HR 8255 AND S.3639 – bills would accelerate satellite deployment, with no environmental review or safeguards – https://ncstd5li.quorum.us/campaign/169331/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (194)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 