In the latest episode of humanity’s favorite long-running sitcom, ‘The Collapse of Reason,’ we find ourselves presented with the ‘Board of Peace.’ The name alone should be enough to induce a collective ocular workout from anyone with a functioning frontal lobe. It is a title that carries all the weight and sincerity of a ‘Certified Pre-Owned’ sticker on a submerged sedan. Donald Trump, a man who views the concept of peace primarily as something that should be brokered between a general contractor and a litigious subcontractor, has managed to assemble a roster for this new committee that reads like a curated list of those least likely to understand the word ‘altruism.’ Among the eight countries joining this illustrious board are Qatar and Saudi Arabia, two nations whose historical contributions to regional stability are roughly equivalent to a pyromaniac’s contribution to a fire safety seminar.

The stated goal of this board is to support reconstruction in the Gaza Strip and advance a ‘just and lasting peace.’ One has to admire the linguistic gymnastics required to use the word ‘just’ in a context involving the current geopolitical landscape. It is the ultimate rebranding exercise. To the developer-in-chief, Gaza is likely not a site of profound human suffering or complex historical grievance, but rather a fixer-upper with significant oceanfront potential. When Trump talks about reconstruction, he isn't thinking of souls; he’s thinking of square footage. This isn't diplomacy; it’s a property development meeting where the blueprints are stained with the hubris of men who believe that every tragedy can be solved with enough high-yield debt and a gold-leafed lobby. The inclusion of the Gulf States is a masterstroke of cynicism, bringing in the checkbooks that have spent decades funding various sides of various horrors, now ready to pivot to the lucrative business of rebuilding what they previously helped facilitate. It is a closed loop of avarice, a revolving door of rubble and revenue.

Naturally, the political classes on both sides of the aisle are already performing their choreographed dances of idiocy. On the Right, we see the inevitable sycophants hailing this as a ‘transformational deal,’ the kind of world-saving maneuver only a ‘stable genius’ could manifest. They ignore the fact that peace boards are historically where good intentions go to die in a flurry of catered lunches and meaningless communiqués. They mistake the appearance of action for the existence of a solution. On the Left, the reaction is a predictable cacophony of performative pearl-clutching. They will decry the ethics of the participants—as if their own preferred diplomatic frameworks weren't just more expensive, more polite versions of the same failure. The Left’s obsession with ‘norms’ and ‘processes’ has always been a way to mask the fact that they have no real answers either. They are simply annoyed that the mask of humanitarianism is being worn by someone they find aesthetically displeasing. Both sides are equally useless, trapped in a dialectic of stupidity that ensures nothing ever actually changes for the people on the ground.

To speak of a ‘just and lasting peace’ in this context is to engage in a form of mass delusion. Peace, in the vernacular of this board, is simply the absence of noise that might interfere with the next transaction. It is the silence required for the concrete to set. The ‘Board of Peace’ is essentially an HOA for the apocalypse, designed to ensure that the reconstruction of Gaza adheres to the aesthetic and financial requirements of its primary investors. It is the ultimate manifestation of the neoliberal rot that views every human catastrophe as a market opening. We are witnessing the institutionalization of the ‘deal’ as the only valid form of human interaction. The historical parallels are as numerous as they are depressing; every century has its version of this board, its collection of well-dressed men promising that *this* time, the peace will be different, while the machinery of war continues to grind in the background, lubricated by the very funds they are currently allocating for ‘reconstruction.’

The tragedy of the situation is not the board itself—which is merely a symptom—but the fact that we are expected to take it seriously. We are asked to believe that the same forces that have treated the Middle East as a chessboard for a century are suddenly interested in the welfare of the pawns. It is a nauseating spectacle of hypocrisy, staged for an audience that is either too partisan to see the truth or too exhausted to care. The ‘Board of Peace’ will meet, the statements will be ‘unwavering,’ the handshakes will be firm, and the reality of the situation will remain untouched. In the end, this is not about peace at all. It is about the management of perception. It is a way to ensure that when the next inevitable crisis occurs, everyone on the board can point to their ‘contributions’ and claim they did their best, while the checks continue to clear and the world continues its slow, predictable slide into the abyss. If you’re still looking for hope in a headline involving a ‘Board of Peace,’ you haven’t been paying attention to the last several millennia of human history. The only thing ‘lasting’ about this peace will be the boredom of the press releases it generates.