US official: Over 25 countries have joined Board of Peace, which will first focus on Gaza

US official: Over 25 countries have joined Board of Peace, which will first focus on Gaza

Jacob Magid

The US official says that more than 25 countries have agreed to join the Board of Peace. Earlier Monday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed “20 additional countries” had agreed to join Trump’s board, seemingly suggesting that this new group was on top of the roughly 20 that had already agreed to join last week.

A Times of Israel tally of official announcements from countries confirming decisions to join the Board of Peace stands at 26, including the United States itself. The other countries that have agreed to join are Argentina, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Egypt, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Morocco, Mongolia, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.

Nearly a dozen countries have indicated or explicitly rejected invites to join the Board of Peace, including, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom and Ukraine

Others have yet to respond to the invitation, including China, Croatia, Cyprus, India, the European Union, Russia and Singapore. The US has said some countries need to receive parliamentary approval before joining.

Asked about the scope of the Board of Peace, the US official briefing reporters says the first focus of the panel will be Gaza.

While the UN Security Council gave the Board of Peace a two-year mandate to oversee the postwar management of Gaza, the Trump-led body’s charter makes no mention of the Strip and indicates a desire to usurp the UN in global conflict resolution.

“If more opportunities arise for [the Board of Peace] to add value and try and achieve outcomes that are different than [what has been] achieved before… then that’s something that President Trump will consider,” the US official says.

Minneapolis Has a New Autonomous Zone with Armed Guards

Minneapolis Has a New Autonomous Zone with Armed Guards

John Sexton

An “AUTONOMOUS ZONE” has been declared by leftists in Minneapolis, and is being referred to as a “NO-GO ZONE” for police

This zone spans for SEVERAL BLOCKS, and residents are BARRED from driving to their homes.

Makeshift barricades using trash and stolen materials are at ALL intersections, and “guards” are present at each.

This looks almost IDENTICAL to CHAZ, or the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” in Seattle in 2020, where the city SURRENDERED a neighborhood to anarchists who made their own “laws.”

CHAZ was famous for failed communism, death, theft, and vandalism, and as you’d imagine, they were commonplace in the zone.

@KevinPosobiec and I went in undercover to take a look. If we had been discovered, we’d have been violently run out. It’s not as “friendly” as it seems.

We've seen this sort of thing before and it always ends very badly. The autonomous zone in Seattle, known first as the CHAZ or Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, was initially welcomed by the mayor. Even after police abandoned a small precinct in the zone and graffiti spread everywhere, the city took a hands-off approach. It sounds like the police in Minneapolis are taking a similar approach.

Before it was shut down, CHAZ briefly had a "warlord" of sorts, i.e. an armed mob policing the area since real police weren't allowed. Needless to say it didn't work out very well. Two people were killed in the zone and at least one more was seriously injured. That's what finally made the mayor come to her senses and reestablish control of the areas.

More....

The Revolution Is On in Minnesota

Things To Come: UK government is designing and installing a Digital Identity Panopticon

UK government is designing and installing a Digital Identity Panopticon

Rhoda Wilson

By her own admission, the UK Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, aims to create a digital identity Panopticon using AI and technology to constantly monitor citizens.

The UK government’s digital identity system will use biometric data, such as facial recognition, to create unique identity tokens, enabling real-time monitoring and predictive analysis of individual behaviour.

To establish the official UK digital identity Panopticon, the government and its partners do not require us to adopt any new forms of digital identity.  Though it is trying to manipulate us into submitting our biometric authentication token to its GOV.UK digital identity wallet.  And once we are manipulated into adopting our digital identities, they will be made interoperable across the whole of the UK economy.

Chatting with former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair in December 2025, UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said:

[M]y ultimate vision for that part of the criminal justice system was to achieve, by means of AI and technology, what Jeremy Bentham tried to do with his Panopticon. That is that the eyes of the state can be on you at all times. [. . .] we’ve already been rolling out live facial recognition technology, but I think there’s big space here for being able to harness the power of AI and tech to get ahead of the criminals, frankly, which is what we’re trying to do.

The UK Home Secretary has ministerial responsibility for the Home Office portfolio. The Home Office’s purported intention is to “to keep citizens safe and the country secure.” In truth, as revealed by Mahmood, the Home Office is currently part of a public-private state that is attacking us to protect itself.

Though the official UK digital identity Panopticon will supposedly only target criminals, in order to identify them, from among millions of British citizens, the state will spy on everybody all of the time.

To be clear: The UK government’s official position is to use AI as the “eyes of the state” and to set its gaze firmly “on you at all times.” This is the openly stated purpose of the official UK digital identity Panopticon.

Jeremy Bentham’s proposed Panopticon was a circular prison with a central observation post, or watchtower, that could potentially see into every cell. Unsure if they were being watched, the theoretical prisoner was compelled to behave as ordered at all times. The envisaged Panopticon oppression stemmed largely from self-regulation.

The official UK digital identity Panopticon goes much further than Bentham could have possibly imagined. As its prisoners, there will be no reason for us to harbour any doubts. We can be certain that we will be under constant surveillance. Unlike the 18th century model, the modern AI-based digital Panopticon will not rely on self-regulation, though that socially engineered condition will still persist.

Mahmood claims the state’s Panopticon objective is to identify criminal behaviour. Of course, what the state determines to be criminal behaviour is liable to change.

For example, the newly expanded state definition of extremism determines that intolerance – meaning to reject the idea – of the UK’s “system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights” is extremist.

Despite there being no evidence to support its view, the UK state further asserts: “Extremism can lead to the radicalisation of individuals [. . .] and can lead to acts of terrorism. [. . .] [T]he government committed ‘to challenge extremist ideology that leads to violence, but also that which leads to wider problems in society’.”

Peaceful, law-abiding citizens who question if Parliament is actually the “supreme legislative authority with the ability to make or unmake any law” are among the many who represent “wider problems in society.” As we’ve just highlighted, if, as it says, it has the authority to make or unmake any law, the state reserves the right to define any behaviour as criminal at any time.

Those of us who question the state are far from alone in having reasons for concern. Even the most loyal subjects are targeted.

When Mahmood announced that the government was trying to “harness the power of AI and tech to get ahead of the criminals,” she was alluding to law enforcement initiatives like Project Nectar. The police have piloted the use of commercial analytics software – Palantir Foundry – to supposedly predict when we might be “about to commit a crime.” This averred predictive capability is based on some AI assessment of our digital identity-generated risk signal.

With legislation like the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act and the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act already on the statute books, the government’s glare is staring us in the face. Say the wrong thing online, express the wrong opinion or pose the wrong question and, using our digital identities, any one of us could find ourselves subject to AI-dictated reprisals, including incarceration without trial.

More....

Davos 2026 Unpacked: What Was It Really About?

Davos 2026 Unpacked: What Was It Really About?

g.calder

Davos presents itself as a forum for shared solutions to global problems. But this year was not about cooperation – it was about leverage. The public agenda focused on technology, climate, and “global risks”. Beneath that language, the real conversations revolved around territory, recognition, market access, and population control. Davos 2026 was less about consensus and more about who gets to set the terms as geopolitical competition intensifies.  

Here’s our attempt to summarise what actually happened, and why it matters to us all

Greenland and the Return of Negotiable Borders

Unsurprisingly, Greenland was centre stage. President Trump’s comments about the island were treated by many as theatrical provocation, but that misses the point. Raising Greenland at Davos was not about a single land purchase. Instead, it normalised the idea that territory – especially strategically critical territory – is once again negotiable. 

As we outlined in our previous article, “Why Everyone Suddenly Cares About Greenland“, the island sits at the intersection of Arctic shipping routes, space surveillance, critical minerals, and missile defence.

 Treating Greenland as an asset to be discussed openly among elites signals a vital shift away from the post-Cold War assumption that borders are fixed and untouchable. That previous assumption depended on a world where security was stable and resources abundant – neither condition holds today. 

What this really means is that sovereignty has been re-priced. Control of land isn’t just symbolic or historic anymore, but it’s become transactional again particularly where security and supply chains overlap. Importantly, Davos did not recoil from this idea. Instead, it was treated as a practical question of leverage. That alone tells us how much the rules have already changed. 

The Board of Peace: A Rival to the UN?

One of the more consequential announcements at Davos was the launch of the Board of Peace. This body was presented as a new international mechanism designed to act where existing institutions – particularly the United Nations – are seen as slow, gridlocked, ineffective, and bureaucratic.  

Its initial focus appears to be conflict zones where major powers want outcomes rather than prolonged negotiation. The proposal centres on a smaller organisation with the ability to offer security arrangements and political stabilisation without the procedural delays that define the UN Security Council. 

A streamlined body such as the Board of Peace could move faster and impose clearer conditions, whereas the UN often produces statements, resolutions, and processes that rarely translate into action. But the risks here are clear: a structure built outside traditional treaty frameworks concentrates decision-making among those who fund and control it. Peace, reconstruction, and sovereignty risk becoming conditional on alignment with the few in control. 

Again, the reception of this idea was mostly pragmatic, and the concept was treated as a realistic workaround to multilateral stagnation. That response signals how much confidence in existing global institutions has waned. 

Zelenskyy Lectures Europe on Vulnerability

Volodomyr Zelenskyy’s speech in Davos was openly critical of Europe. He did not appeal to unity or shared values. He lectured European leaders on vulnerability. 

By pointing to symbolic troop deployments, fragmented defence commitments, and hesitation over security spending, Zelenskyy highlighted what many already understand. Europe totally lacks strategic coherence and relies heavily on American protection – all while resisting the implications of that dependence. 

His message appeared transactional rather than emotional. A continent that cannot act decisively becomes a liability rather than a partner, and in a world defined by leverage, that weakness invites pressure. 

The implication is that Europe’s inability to project power independently reduces its influence in broader global negotiations that hinge on security, resources, and enforcement – just like we’re seeing with Greenland. 

The Climate Becomes a Mechanism for Market Control

Climate language dominated Davos, but the real focus was on enforcement via markets, not emissions or environmental outcomes. 

Carbon border taxes, compliance frameworks, reporting standards, and disclosure requirements are all tools that translate “climate” policy into economic leverage. These mechanisms determine which goods can enter markets, who can buy them, which companies are penalised, and which countries must align or pay. 

This is a crucial point. Climate policy increasingly functions as an instrument for regulating trade and industrial behaviour rather than protecting the environment. 

Davos discussions reflected this reality. The “climate” crisis was treated as a means of shaping supply chains and controlling access rather than a scientific debate. 

This explains why climate rules are now inseparable from financial regulation and trade policy. They provide a moral justification for enforcement that would otherwise be politically difficult to impose. 

AI and the Struggle for Control

AI discussions followed a similar pattern. The emphasis wasn’t innovation or technological development, but governance and control. Who manages the models, who owns the data, and who decides what systems are allowed to do? 

Safety and sovereignty were the preferred terms. In practice, the conversation was about permissions and control. AI governance is becoming a way to regulate transactions, behaviour, and speech at scale.  

Davos treated this as inevitable. Once rules are embedded, they will become difficult to challenge. The debate was not about whether the control should exist, but rather who should wield the power. 

Conflict, not Cooperation, is on the Horizon

One of the most revealing short-term signals came from risk framing. The dominant concern for the next two years is not climate, pandemics, or inequality. Instead, it’s geopolitical conflict. 

Trade wars, sanctions, bloc competition, and regional wars now define the short-term outlook. Davos is planning for a world of managed confrontation rather than global harmony. That reality seemed to shape every discussion, even when not mentioned explicitly. 

Final Thought

Davos 2026 made one thing clear: the global system is being reorganised around leverage. 

Territory is being discussed as an asset. 

Sovereignty is negotiated through port access. 

Climate policy is being used to enforce market control. 

AI governance opens the door to behavioural control. And they’re not even hiding it anymore. 

The Board of Peace with fiasco written all over it

The Board of Peace with fiasco written all over it

Cookie Schwaeber-Issan

What do you get when you construct a Board of Peace, composed of world nations, many of whom are anti-Israel? The short answer is – a fiasco!

Does anyone think that patterning a governing body, after the failed and biased U.N., will bring about a different outcome? Why would it succeed in forging peace and good will, when the heads of so many of these countries are already convinced that Israel has perpetrated a genocide in Gaza?

For such a Board to be helpful, it must first contain objective leaders whose lack of political agenda will serve them in their efforts to arrive at fair and just solutions for everyone.  Sadly, that does not characterize the individuals who have been invited to sit on such a board.

At the behest of U.S. President Donald Trump, multiple countries have been beckoned to join a Board of Peace with the purpose of “promoting stability, restoring dependable and lawful governance as well as securing enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.”

As of this writing, countries which have already agreed to join are Argentina, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Bahrain, Egypt, Hungary, Indonesia, Jordan Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.  Counties which declined include France, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden and the U.K. Countries yet to respond are Cambodia, China, Croatia, Germany, India, Italy, Paraguay, Russia, Singapore, Thailand and Ukraine. 

After looking over the list of countries who would, ostensibly, determine Israel’s fate, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that Israel would vociferously object to the inclusion of Turkey and Qatar, in particular.

Given Turkey’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s hostility towards the Jewish state, even to the point of calling for Israel’s destruction as he said, “May Allah make Zionist Israel destroyed and devastated,” what good could come from such a hateful man?

Participation from Qatar is no less offensive when considering that they provided refuge and sanctuary to Hamas terrorists whose sole aim is also the destruction of Israel. 

Why would anyone count on these two countries to offer reasonable and fair resolutions, given the fact that they are committed to the demise of one of the nations they are supposed to help? That is why this proposition has fiasco written all over it. Because the choice of players, who have been asked to be part of a process to foster unity, bring about repair and hope, to an otherwise unsolvable morass, is a collection of very flawed and self-interested actors.

So, the question is, “Why expend efforts to establish a body which is no different from world agencies that always seek to accuse Israel and them for being the problem?”

Here are some speculative possibilities. One is that Trump might feel that if all world nations were chosen to solve the Middle East conundrum, then it wouldn’t just fall upon the U.S. Consequently, by making it a collective global problem, it would require a global collective solution.

Another possibility is that if such a solution could be achieved but fail, in the end, to produce the desired results, the collapse would be on them. No one would be able to cast blame on one leader if, together, they were unable to produce a good outcome. 

A third reason could be that Trump sees this as an opportunity to establish himself as the world’s most powerful leader, who has summoned all others to work under his authority, since he has final veto power, in the hope of effecting lasting peace, cementing his indomitable role in the annals of history. In other words, he would become legendary, on par with the greatest world leaders who have ever lived.

But at what price would this come to Israel? One can only imagine the ill-advised and dangerous resolutions which would be expected of the only democracy in the Middle East. 

Would Israel be asked to wipe the slate clean, expected to dole out blind trust and implicit faith towards the same population which danced in the streets upon receiving the welcomed news of an Israeli massacre of innocents?  

And how would countries, who have traditionally looked upon Palestinians as victims of Israeli oppression respond? Would they demand that Israel provide for their every need, including the issuance of work permits so that they could, once again, be employed in the same country that they so bitterly betrayed? 

Would they require us to open our borders, assuring us that no attack will occur?

These are just some of the absurd demands which might be suggested by countries whose leaders believe that Israel is desperate enough to attain piece, to the point where it would allow itself to be hoodwinked into what is tantamount to a bad deal with, undoubtedly, tragic results.

The truth is that Israel is definitely sick and tired of war and conflict. We are a people who have longed for peace, tranquillity and mutual respect for as long as we’ve been an independent nation and even before that. The fact that it eludes us, is not due to our own stubbornness or inflexibility, though. 

The countless offers of peace, which have been made year after year, with costly concessions to Israel, were rejected each time. Not only were they not accepted, but they were followed by threats and renewed attempts to hasten our end. So why would anyone think that a Board of Peace, made up of countries, whose biased views have already stacked the deck against us, should be taken seriously?

Even before it’s gotten off the ground, there is great skepticism, on the part of many, who see the pitfalls surrounding a “global assembly,” which has an entrance fee price tag of $1 billion to join this exclusive club. But Trump’s enticement is that this will be the most prestigious group which has ever existed, so who wouldn’t want to be part of it? Another tempting motivation is that this Board of Peace will end up replacing the feckless U.N. which has done nothing of any relevance.

While Trump’s massive altruistic Board of Peace may sound great on paper, the likelihood of its success is pretty low - if for no other reason, because it will be made up of biased leaders’ whose positions have already been pre-decided against Israel.