(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.
“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.
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.“
(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.
In a lengthy statement, Liberman brands Eisenkot “Gantz 2,” after Blue and White party head Benny Gantz, who was the main Netanyahu rival in successive elections before deciding twice to join Netanyahu-led governments.
Eisenkot had been Gantz’s No. 2 before quitting last year to form his own party, Yashar, which has become the biggest party in most opinion polls, making Eisenkot the main challenger to Netanyahu.
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.”
(October 2, 2026)
An AI-generated Likud campaign video, which Netanyahu himself has shared, shows Eisenkot running toward a young man wearing an “Israeli unity” shirt who resembles his son Gal, who was killed in the Gaza war. At the last moment, the young man turns away from Eisenkot to embrace Mansour Abbas, the leader of the United Arab List (Ra’am). Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana has similarly said that “Eisenkot has no coalition without Abbas.” Such messages target so-called soft-right voters who might otherwise drift toward Eisenkot.
„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“
Aka Hansen, a filmmaker and opposition political party member in Nuuk, said she had been told earlier this year to prepare for the worst. She stored five days’ worth of water in case of an American invasion.
“Now, suddenly, everything is fine,“ Hansen said, according to The New York Times. “What happened in between?“
“My immediate reaction is that it makes me nervous and skeptical,” Ellen Frederiksen, a retired teacher in Narsaq, a town in southern Greenland, said by telephone.
“The way Trump presents it, it sounds as if he is being given a monopoly over Greenland,” she said. “I sincerely hope that isn’t the case.”
Neuere Medienberichte, insbesondere von Haaretz, stärken den Verdacht, dass der Angriff des 7. Oktobers 2023 von der israelischen Regierung bewusst zugelassen worden war, und möglicherweise durch die Hannibal-Doktrin mit vollem Wissen um die Vielzahl der dadurch entstehenden zivilen israelischen Opfer sogar verstärkt worden war, um daraus eine Rechtfertigung für Völkermord, ethnische Säuberung und sogar Krieg gegen den Iran zu ziehen.
Panetta declared in an interview that the war with Iran – launched by Trump over six months ago – risks becoming another “forever war in the Middle East”, with no clear end in sight.
“It’s no mystery that the United States and Iran are caught in a terrible stalemate, in which there really are very few options available to bring this war to an end,” said Panetta, who also served as CIA director under Barack Obama, suggesting the conflict is on course to become “another failed war” in the Middle East “like Iraq and Afghanistan”.
He said research by the European External Action Service (EEAS), the European Union‘s diplomatic service, indicated links with Israeli and Russian networks, but he gave no further details.
„It is evident that if Russia gets involved in spreading disinformation on this issue, or Israel also spreads disinformation on this issue, criticizing the Spanish government, it will not be because they are concerned about migration in Spain or Europe, but precisely because of the political positions we are taking — courageous ones, I believe — regarding the genocide in Gaza or Putin‘s invasion of Ukraine,“ Sánchez said.
The EEAS did not immediately respond to a CBS News request for comment on the research cited by Sánchez.
(August 26, 2026)
During a UN Security Council meeting on Tuesday, Cuban Representative to the UN Ernesto Soberón Guzmán spoke about the link between peace and global food stability.
(August 6, 2026)
In recent weeks, Iran has gone on the offensive, striking commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz and launching a surprise attack on U.S. forces in Jordan. From a distance, these moves look like self-defeating escalation. Why should a badly damaged state, under severe economic pressure, lash out at the U.S. instead of pushing for a ceasefire?
The answer, simply put, is that Iran is digging in for a long war. Whatever Washington‘s intentions, Tehran increasingly interprets sanctions, negotiations, temporary ceasefires and military strikes as different instruments aimed at a single objective: regime change.
As long as this primary objective remains, Iran expects no sanctions relief or meaningful de-escalation. My conversations with Iranian foreign policy analysts suggest that Tehran now believes the war will continue in different forms until the end of Donald Trump‘s presidency.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed Saudi Arabia‘s strongest condemnation of the targeting of a UAE tanker transiting the Strait of Hormuz. “These unacceptable attacks constitute an assault on the security and safety of maritime navigation and global energy supplies,” the ministry said in a statement carried by the Saudi Press Agency.
Saudi Arabia affirmed that Iran‘s continued perpetration of these attacks is a grave violation of international laws and norms, including Security Council Resolution 2817, which guarantees freedom of navigation and safe passage in international waterways.
In a statement, Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the attack as a “flagrant violation” of international law and freedom of maritime navigation.
The ministry also rejected what it described as Iran’s use of the Strait of Hormuz as a “bargaining chip” and called for the waterway to be reopened without conditions.
It warned that the continued closure of the waterway threatens the “vital interests” of countries in the region and the global economy.
Einzelkämpfer wie Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson oder Megyn Kelly – um nur die Bekanntesten in den USA zu nennen. Einzelkämpfer bieten dem Publikum vor allem Authentizität. Aber natürlich auch kaum Neutralität, das liegt in der Natur dieser Art des Medienmachens.
Andererseits gibt es wiederum permanent neue Personen, die sich in dieser Hinsicht ins Blickfeld drängen und diesen Nachteil durch Vielfalt ausgleichen.
Das Urteil bleibt dann dem Leser überlassen.
Und genau so sollte es ja auch sein!
The announcement that Hamas has agreed to a roadmap for its disarmament can now shift that dynamic, yet it is unlikely things will change on the ground anytime soon.
“The last thing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants going into October’s elections is US pressure to withdraw from Gaza, and it’s likely he will foot-drag any further negotiations as much as possible,” Norman said.
2026-07-29 12:28
Leaders of Iraq‘s Coordination Framework, on Wednesday, condemned the US-Saudi strikes on Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) sites in Iraq that killed 20 members and injured 32 others in seven provinces.
Former PM Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, head of the Reconstruction and Development Coalition, considered the strikes “a breach of the principle of Islamic fraternity, and a violation of international law and the United Nations Charter.” He questioned the timing of the strikes, saying they came after the Iraqi government had formed investigative committees to examine claims that drones had been launched from Iraqi territory toward Saudi oil facilities. That step, he said, showed Iraq was addressing the matter through legal and institutional channels rather than military escalation.
Al-Sudani said Iraq retained its legitimate rights under international law, including the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani releases a video statement calling for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to face trial for war crimes, citing the ICC’s arrest warrant. But, after days of speculation, Mamdani says New York does not have the power to arrest Netanyahu.
43.061 Aufrufe Premiere vor 18 Stunden. #ماجرامدیا #ماجرا
ماجرای جنگ 2
مهمان این قسمت: سید عباس عراقچی – وزیر امور خارجه
به روایت: جواد موگرایی
Javan, a newspaper affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, wrote on Tuesday that confirming details surrounding the attacks, discussing the day the former leader was killed or revealing that the foreign minister had no contact with new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei were not matters that should have been disclosed publicly.