Therefore, we all – proud Jewish Zionist Israelis included – must encourage this part of the population – full citizens of the Jewish State of Israel – to exercise not only their lawful right to vote but their lawful right to sit in the Knesset, be in the governing coalition, and serve as government ministers. And we must accept them with open arms when they “flock” to do so.
This is the only viable, sustainable, and livable future for this country.
(Oktober 13, 2026)
Die Frage ist, wer hier die Rolle von La France insoumise übernehmen sollte, solche Bewegungen politisch voranzutreiben. Daran, dass die Linkspartei diese Rolle erfüllen könnte und wollte, ja, dass linke Bürgermeister sich wie in Saint-Denis der Polizei in den Weg stellen, um Demonstrierende zu schützen, daran darf leider sehr gezweifelt werden.
Paradoxically, it is the Joint List and the Islamist party Ra’am that hold the key to the opposition’s chances of dethroning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The polls could not be clearer: Without these Arab parties, the anti-Netanyahu bloc will not reach the 61 mandates required for a Knesset majority. With their support, it could topple Netanyahu — whose own bloc of loyalists looks set to fall significantly short of a majority — virtually overnight.
Israel’s October 27 election could reshape the country’s political landscape, but neither Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s allies nor the opposition has a clear path to a governing majority. The outcome of the vote could determine not only who leads Israel, but how the country contends with various domestic and foreign policy concerns.
“Israel’s election is not a single game, but a tournament — and election day is only the opening round,” Dr Nimrod Nir of Agam Labs told The Independent.
“Our polling suggests that neither bloc is likely to secure a governing majority, leaving three possible outcomes: a unity government bringing Netanyahu together with more liberal parties, an alternative coalition backed by Arab parties, or yet another election.
(October 19, 2026)
Republicans haven’t lost a Kansas Senate race in almost 100 years, but the state has become central to the fight for the Senate majority.
Yair Golan, the leader of the Democrats in Israel, has condemned Prime Minister Netanyahu following allegations that the premier planned fresh strikes against Iran just weeks before the upcoming Knesset elections.
His remarks came after The Financial Times reported that US President Donald Trump had rejected Netanyahu‘s plan to strike infrastructure and nuclear facilities in Iran, a military campaign that was reportedly set to begin on Oct. 10.
Trump opposes any military escalation ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm congressional elections in the US, fearing negative repercussions for the Republican Party‘s electoral prospects, according to the report.
Golan, also a former deputy chief of staff of the Israeli army, said in a post on US social media platform X: „Netanyahu is a sick and weak leader clinging to power by force, willing to put Israel‘s security at risk to save himself.“
The two issues the opposition has highlighted are understandably important to Israelis. For so many citizens, the disaster of 7 October and subsequent two-year hostage crisis became a crisis of faith in the state itself. Without accountability through an independent inquiry, society cannot move on. And even staunch supporters of peace cannot tolerate the rank injustice of some citizens serving and dying in wars while others are systematically let off the hook.
But what then? Israel’s war in response to 7 October has continued to devastate Palestinian society. But the past few years have damaged Israel internally as well.
(August 25, 2026)
It is a strategy that the party is likely to repeat in the next Congress to secure Israeli interests while appearing to acknowledge voters’ demands.
Furthermore, the Democratic establishment has shown little interest in breaking its dependence on AIPAC. In April, the Democratic National Committee rejected even a symbolic resolution condemning the lobby’s interference in Democratic primaries.
The so-called “Bibileaks” scandal has caused a firestorm in Israel in recent months. After it emerged that classified material was leaked from the Israeli military to a spokesperson for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then manipulated and passed to foreign media outlets — in an apparent attempt to influence the Israeli public’s perception of the ceasefire negotiations, while bypassing the military censor — the spokesperson and a military reservist were arrested in November and face charges that could carry significant prison sentences.
In the UK, meanwhile, there has been a major public outcry against the Jewish Chronicle after it was revealed — in part through reporting by +972 Magazine — that the newspaper had published entirely false material via this pipeline, causing several of its leading writers to quit in protest. Yet in Germany, where the country’s biggest newspaper, Bild, similarly published misinformation fed to it by the Netanyahu aide, there has been very little inquest at all.
(October 1, 2026)
Alles nur, weil Trump seine Umfragewerte mit einem kurzen Militär-Quickie im Iran pushen wollte. Das jedoch löste eine destruktive Kettenreaktion sondergleichen aus, wie ein Elefant, nein, eine Atombombe im Porzellanladen. Diese Ära wird in ein paar Jahren zumindest gute Serien auf Netflix oder HBO erzeugen, und man wird sich fragen, wie zum Teufel ein Mensch wie Trump je an die Macht kommen konnte.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) slammed the federal raid on Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-Minn.) home as “insanely corrupt” in a post on social media Monday.
“As [President] Trump’s popularity craters amid rising prices and his deeply unpopular war, everything he does is an attempt to distract his remaining followers,” Beyer wrote in a post on the social platform X.
“But raiding the home of a member of the opposing party right before the election – and tipping off FoxNews in advance so they are on hand to publicize it – is insanely corrupt even for Donald Trump,” he added.
Nach den Landtagswahlen 2026 zeichnet sich das Ende der politischen Mitte ab. Aus ihrem Zerfall könnte ein neues Parteiensystem hervorgehen – mit mehr Parteien, breiteren Bündnissen und experimentelleren Regierungen.
Macron versuchte seinen Punkt auch mit einem Straßenszenario zu verdeutlichen: „Das weiß ich, wenn ich die Straße entlanggehe: Meine Freiheit kann nicht darin bestehen, dich zu schlagen, dich zu beleidigen oder den Raum zu zerstören, den wir alle teilen. Genau das ist die Vorstellung, die manche von Meinungsfreiheit haben.“
Das ist eine falsche Analogie. Jemanden zu beleidigen ist nicht dasselbe wie ihn zu schlagen – Ersteres ist Rede, Letzteres körperliche Gewalt.
Genau darin liegt der Punkt: Zensur rechtfertigt sich immer damit, dass sie Rede mit Gewalt gleichsetzt und Worte so behandelt, als wären sie körperliche Angriffe.
Macron ist außerdem der Ansicht, dass Menschen für den „Unsinn“, den sie online posten, zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden sollten. Das bedeutet, dass eine offizielle, staatlich anerkannte Instanz entscheiden muss, was als „Unsinn“ gilt.
Nicht nur das: Macron will sicherstellen, dass es in den sozialen Medien keine Konten ohne eine echte Person dahinter gibt – und er will Altersprüfungen durchsetzen, damit Kinder von diesen Plattformen ferngehalten werden.
Beide Ideen bedeuten, dass online nur noch diejenigen sprechen dürfen, die zuvor identifiziert wurden.
(October 2, 2026)
“The president says anything and Marco Rubio finds himself in a very difficult position to react to what he says,” says Andy Gómez, the former director of the Cuban and Cuban American Studies Institute at the University of Miami, who helped shape a policy proposal for U.S.-Cuba relations in the Obama era. “The scene is like a soap opera, a soap opera lived every day in Miami and in Cuba. There is a major global problem with the war with Iran, for which no solution is in sight; so Cuba has had to wait.”
(August 18, 2026)
And in truth, whatever happens as far as Iran is concerned (or for that matter Greenland) by the time this piece appears, who among us won’t have long known that, with such a president, we simply couldn’t be in a stranger, more happenstantial, less predictable universe? For all I (we) know, by the time it comes out or anytime thereafter, “our” president could be doing more or less anything, including, say, kidnapping the first secretary of the communist party and leader of Cuba, Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez. After all, if he could do so for Venezuela’s leader, why not Cuba’s?
The truth is that Donald Trump’s brain, returned to the White House by 49.8% of American voters in 2024, should make us all anxious (even them). At any moment, any thought might enter it and the next thing you know… well, unfortunately, you already do know that, whatever it might be, we’re not likely to know until it smacks us all in the face!
(March 21, 2025)
Was für eine Heuchelei: Im Bundestag den Widerstand zu simulieren und dann im Bundesrat klein beizugeben.
(February 28, 2025)
Die abgewählte und nur geschäftsführend tätige Bundesregierung aus SPD und Grünen plant, in Absprache mit der CDU, ein Sondervermögen für die weitere Aufrüstung der Bundeswehr, die Rede ist von 200 Milliarden Euro, noch durch den alten und ebenfalls abgewählten Bundestag zu peitschen. Hintergrund: Im sich bald neu konstituierenden Bundestag bringen CDU, SPD und Grüne nicht mehr die für die Abstimmung notwendige Zweidrittelmehrheit auf. AfD und Linke verfügen dann über eine Sperrminorität.
Es zeigt sich: Immer wieder haben sich gerade jene Parteien, die behaupten, die Nation an die erste Stelle setzen zu wollen, als die eifrigsten Verräter der Interessen ihres eigenen Volkes erwiesen. Sich mit Trump und Netanjahu gut zu stellen, scheint schlichtweg wichtiger.
In diesem Sinne kuschelt sich die radikale Rechte auch eng an das liberal-konservative Establishment in den europäischen Institutionen. Tatsächlich hat sich die einstige Kluft zwischen diesen beiden Fraktionen seit Jahren stetig verringert. Die jüngsten Kriegshandlungen in Nahost machen diese Annäherung noch deutlicher sichtbar. Beide Seiten sind nur allzu gerne bereit, ihre Rolle als Untergebene in der globalen Hierarchie zu spielen.
(June 22, 2021)
Nochmals – aus meiner Sicht ist folgende grundlegende Erkenntnis nötig:
„Weder wollen die Deutschen denken, noch können sie es. Auch wollen sie weder eine Demokratie, noch können oder begreifen sie diese.
Genau das ist der allerbeste Grund sie ihnen unbedingt zu erhalten.“
Gerade wenn und weil sich die Deutschen – das seid auch Ihr – sich alle paar Jahre wieder und wieder und wieder den letzten Dreck zusammenwählen und zu dumm sind die einfachsten Selbstverständlichkeiten einer Demokratie organisiert zu bekommen – z.B. neue Parteien zu gründen weil die bestehenden Verräter oder Müll sind – ist das der allerbeste Grund Euch dieses Recht unbedingt zu erhalten.
Nichts wird besser, wenn man den Menschen die Demokratie wegnimmt – gerade den Deutschen. Nichts. Weimar, aber auch die letzten 16 Jahre Einheitsregierung und Demokratie-Simulation, dürften dazu ausrechend Beleg sein.
„Die Dänen haben am meisten gelogen“, sagen Beobachter, die den mittlerweile veröffentlichten Grönland-Deal gelesen haben. Was sich hinter dem Schlagzeilen tatsächlich verbirgt.
Long story short – which may surprise some – the Danes lied the most: Trump is pretty much correct in saying that this new deal grants the US control of Greenland.
Let‘s look into what changed compared to the 1951 deal.
1) This is now a permanent arrangement: whereas the existing 1951 deal only lasted as long as NATO existed, this one „does not have an end date and may only be amended by mutual consent.“
It even survives a hypothetical future independence of Greenland: in that event, Denmark and Greenland must ensure that the independent Greenlandic state „affirmatively assume[s] all of the rights and obligations of the Kingdom of Denmark specified in this Agreement.“
2) In the 1951 agreement, the US could set up bases only where both governments agreed, and only on the basis of NATO planning. The new deal locks in three bases: the US can „modernize and expand its activities“ at Pituffik, its only base in Greenland until now, and „shall be allowed to establish an additional Defense Area at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig.“ Further bases beyond these 3 can be justified by the defense of „the American continent,“ a US interest rather than a NATO one.
Also, quite subtle but this is interesting: Article IV(iii) says that „the United States may establish additional defense areas in Greenland“ and that consultations are then held „to decide implementation details based on mutual agreement.“ What this means is that the principle of a new base is automatically granted and only the implementation details require agreement.
Article VII also gives the US „the right to raise concerns regarding construction, or change of use“ of any building near a US base, after which the parties decide together what to do. Which means that the US has a say over civilian planning around its bases.
3) On US military movement across Greenland, the wording change between the 1951 agreement and this new one is quite funny.
The 1951 text said (Art. V(3)): the US „may enjoy… the right of free access to and movement between the defense areas through Greenland, including territorial waters, by land, air and sea,“ but only „in accordance with general rules mutually agreed upon and issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland.“
The new one says: „the United States of America shall enjoy… the right of free access to and movement between the Defense Areas through Greenland, including the Territorial Waters, by land, air and sea.“
That‘s it: „May“ becomes „shall,“ and the US military movement no longer has to follow rules „issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland.“ The US also gets something new on top: „undersea access to and movement within the Territorial Waters,“ i.e. submarines.
4) Non-NATO exclusion: non-NATO states are barred from military installations or a persistent presence in Greenland unless all three parties approve, giving the US an effective permanent veto. The 1951 deal had no equivalent clause.
5) Investment screening: this is entirely new. „States or investors from a state that is not a member of NATO, a NATO partner, or an EU member state“ (i.e. Russia, China, India, the Gulf States, etc.), „shall not be allowed to have (i) control, (ii) significant influence, or (iii) access to non-public information…within Particularly Sensitive Sectors or Activities in the territory of Greenland (including the Territorial Waters), unless agreed between the Parties.“
Again, it basically means that the US has a permanent veto over who can invest in strategic sectors in Greenland, as far as non-NATO or EU states are concerned.
6) Lastly, in stark contrast with the 1951 deal, the framing of the deal changes significantly: this new deal is largely framed around the US.
The 1951 agreement existed only „for the benefit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.“ The new one lists the defense of „the American continent“ as an objective, celebrates „the irreplaceable role“ of the United States military as well as „the United States‘ indispensable historical and ongoing contributions to the security and defense of Greenland,“ and names the establishment of Trump‘s „Golden Dome“ missile defense system as a key goal.
So, to sum up:
– The US secured a permanent military foothold that even an independent Greenland would inherit whether it likes it or not
– The US now has veto power over any non-NATO military presence in Greenland, and over who can invest in its strategic infrastructure and resources (beyond NATO and the EU)
– Denmark signed away its say over the principle of new US bases, with only the right to discuss the „implementation details“
– Danish authorities no longer set the rules for US military movement across the island
– And all of it is now justified by the defense of „the American continent“
I don‘t know in which universe this even remotely „recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom and the Greenlandic people‘s right to self-determination,“ as Danish PM Mette Frederiksen put it (stm.dk/en/press/press…).
Yes, the preamble of the text cynically „reaffirms“ Danish sovereignty but, in my book, when you let a foreign country put bases on your soil, move its troops without following your rules and veto who else can come in, in perpetuity, after it spent two years threatening to take you by force, the word for that is anything but „recognized sovereignty“
In der internationalen Berichterstattung wird das Ergebnis überwiegend als militärischer Erfolg AnsarAllahs dargestellt. Ein genauerer Blick auf die von CNN rekonstruierten Abläufe zeigt jedoch ein anderes Bild: weniger einen Sieg der einen Seite als einen aussergewöhnlichen Zusammenbruch der anderen – mit direkter saudischer und US-amerikanischer Beteiligung an diesem Zusammenbruch.
(September 11, 2016)
Teil I: Die Militärmanöver
Teil II: Nachspiel
Teil III: Langer Marsch eines Molochs
Teil IV: Die Kommandokette
Teil V: Duplikat, Drone, Plan
Teil VI: Die Attentate – Ablauf, Hergang und Widersprüche
15 JAHRE TERRORKRIEG UND 11. SEPTEMBER: Wie alles begann
Soweit nicht anders gekennzeichnet, basiert dieser Artikel auf der fünfstündigen Film-Dokumentation von Massimo Mazzucco, die untenstehend zu sehen ist, sowie auf den oben verlinkten Artikeln „Langer Marsch eines Molochs“ und „Die Attentate – Ablauf, Hergang und Widersprüche“, wo entsprechend die Quellen angegeben sind.
Quincy Institute: War on Terror
The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft aims to lead this reconceptualization, and to do so in a way that serves both vital American interests and the broader shared interest in creating a more just and peaceful world.
RAND Corporation: National Security & Terrorism
RAND conducts a broad array of national security research for the U.S. Department of Defense and allied ministries of defense. Our federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) explore threat assessment, military acquisition, technology, recruitment and personnel management, counterinsurgency, intelligence, and readiness. RAND is a world leader in terrorism research.
…….
(26.4.2018)
As Barbara Lee presciently warned her colleagues before she cast her lone dissenting vote in 2001, we have “become the evil we deplore.” But these wars have not been accompanied by fearsome military parades (not yet) or speeches about conquering the world. Instead they have been politically justified by “information warfare” to demonize enemies and fabricate crises, and then waged in a “disguised, quiet, media free” way, to hide their cost in human blood from the American public and the world.
After 16 years of war, about 6 million violent deaths, 6 countries utterly destroyed and many more destabilized, it is urgent that the American public come to terms with the true human cost of our country’s wars and how we have been manipulated and misled into turning a blind eye to them – before they go on even longer, destroy more countries, further undermine the rule of international law and kill millions more of our fellow human beings.
Less than a month after 9/11, the US invaded Afghanistan, launching what President George W Bush called the “War on Terror” – a series of seemingly endless wars and military campaigns spanning Afghanistan, Iraq and countries across the Middle East, South Asia and Africa.
According to the Cost of War project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs estimates that US-led wars since 2001 have directly or indirectly killed an estimated 4.5 to 4.7 million people – including approximately 940,000 direct deaths and 3.6 to 3.8 million indirect deaths from disease, malnutrition and health complications.
On that ill-fated day, 25 years ago, the world stood united. The attack on the US was seen as a brutal assault on the very idea of a modern, open society. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1368, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) invoking Article 5 for the first and only time, and the global outpouring of support: Washington enjoyed empathy and credibility in spades.
The Global War on Terror (GWOT) was not seen as a US-led war but as one against a medieval ideology that used jihadi terror as an instrument…
The whole world, literally, was watching. Never before had more people seen the same news event at the same moment. An estimated two billion people or more—a third of the species—saw the attacks in real time or watched coverage in that day’s news reports. “If you think about the rise of terrorism since 9/11,” explained David Hazinski, the former head of the University of Georgia’s broadcast news initiative, five years after the attacks, “it’s almost proof that terrorist[s] recognize this is a global village. Now you have the potential to reach a two and a half billion audience for your act.”