The meeting brought together Lapid, the leader of Yesh Atid; Gadi Eisenkot, the head of Yashar; Naftali Bennett, the leader of Beyachad; Avigdor Lieberman, the head of Yisrael Beiteinu; and Democrats leader Yair Golan. The meeting focused on coordinating the parties’ election efforts, attracting additional voters to the opposition bloc, and improving its chances of securing a parliamentary majority and forming the next government in place of Netanyahu’s, according to the broadcaster.
Archiv: Verträge / Abkommen / Einigungen / contracts / treaties / agreements / deals / settlements
Turkish forces to withdraw from strategic military base in northern Iraq
The decision was announced in a joint statement issued after a meeting in New York between Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi on the margins of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly.
According to the statement, Turkey will hand over the camp in stages, in line with an agreed timetable.
However, no specific date has yet been set for the withdrawal of Turkish troops.
Was wirklich im Grönland-Deal steht
„Die Dänen haben am meisten gelogen“, sagen Beobachter, die den mittlerweile veröffentlichten Grönland-Deal gelesen haben. Was sich hinter dem Schlagzeilen tatsächlich verbirgt.
Ok, we now have the actual text of the Greenland deal (…), so we can say how it compares to the existing 1951 arrangement and who, between Trump and Denmark, lied the most in their framing of it.
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“
‘Is Trump Getting A Monopoly’: Greenlanders Remain ‘Nervous And Skeptical’, Question New Deal With US
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?“
‘Nervous and Skeptical,’ Greenlanders Question the New Deal With Trump
“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.”
Dänemark jubelt heimlich über Grönland-Abkommen mit Trump
Das neue Abkommen zementiere den amerikanischen Zugang aus der alten Verteidigungsvereinbarung von 1951 und stelle klar, dass kein anderer Staat militärischen Zugang zu Grönland habe, erklärt Dahl – wobei der Grundkonflikt, ob Grönland zum Königreich Dänemark gehöre und allein das grönländische Volk über seine Zukunft entscheide, bestehen bleibe.
Sollte Trump das Abkommen später als Niederlage empfinden, könne er jederzeit neue Forderungen stellen, warnt der Kommentator.
Trump strikes Greenland deal with Denmark after threatening annexation
(Updated 1 hr 49 min ago)
“The United States of America has entered into an Agreement with The Kingdom of Denmark, and Greenland, that gives the United States permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland, completely addressing ALL of our many U.S. concerns. There will be NO COST to the United States!” Trump wrote on Truth Social, going on to call the arrangement “an ‘Infinite Life’ Agreement.”
Trump’s announcement Friday means Greenland remains under Danish control and came ahead of the official text being released. It is unclear how far this agreement differs from an existing 1951 pact between the US and Denmark that allowed broad US military presence in Greenland.
US Democrats look to stop Trump’s Saudi nuclear deal
Trump sent the proposed agreement to Congress in August, opening a 90-day window for lawmakers’ review and giving them an opportunity to try to pass a resolution of disapproval.
Democrats and nonproliferation advocates have criticized the nuclear pact for not barring Saudi Arabia from enriching uranium or reprocessing nuclear waste, two potential pathways to a nuclear weapon. The United Arab Emirates agreed to such measures, known as the gold standard, in its 2009 civil nuclear deal with Washington.
Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon Call for Curbs on Artificial Intelligence
Streamed live 56 minutes ago #BernieSanders #SteveBannon #ArtificialIntelligence
Watch live coverage from Washington, D.C., as U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and conservative commentator Steve Bannon address the Pro-Human Assembly. In a rare political alignment, Sanders and Bannon gather to discuss artificial intelligence regulations, tech oversight, and guardrails for rapid AI development.
Joint Foreign Ministers‘ Statement on the Two-State Solution
(September 8, 2026)
Statement of the Foreign Ministers of Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK on the Two-State Solution
1. The Government of Israel’s actions in the West Bank are undermining the possibility of a two-State solution. The situation is rapidly deteriorating amid unprecedented levels of settler violence and settlement expansion, including the unacceptable decision to publish tenders for the E1 settlement project. UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham, the President of France Emmanuel Macron and Prime Minister of Canada Mark Carney have agreed on the need to take action to prevent further damage.
Today, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK confirm their intention to introduce national and/or support European restrictions on trade in goods with settlements which are illegal under international law, or that they are actively considering these and other measures, in accordance with their national procedures. In this regard, the UK, France and Canada welcome the important action already taken by Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands, Norway and Belgium and will bring forward national measures to ban trade in settlement goods.
As U.K., 11 other nations say they‘ll sanction Israeli settlements, U.S. envoy warns of repercussions
(September 8, 2026)
U.K. Foreign Minister Ed Miliband said the British sanctions would target specific companies and individuals who provide services including construction, infrastructure, financing or real estate for settlement expansion, as well as sanctions against individual settlers accused of violence against Palestinians.
„The set of measures I have announced represents a clear message to the government of Israel, to the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, and to the world that we will not acquiesce in the destruction of the two-state solution,“ Miliband said.
Merkley’s Response to Trump’s Submission of U.S.-Saudi Nuclear Deal to Congress
(August 28, 2026)
Washington, D.C. – Following the Trump Administration’s submission to Congress on a proposed U.S.-Saudi civil nuclear cooperation agreement, referred to as a “123 agreement,” Oregon’s U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley—co-chair of the bicameral Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group and a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—issued the following statement:
“With this deal, President Trump is not only triggering a nuclear arms race in the Middle East but also weakening America’s security and standing on the world stage.
“The President’s decision to provide Saudi Arabia with a nuclear deal that does not meet the bipartisan Gold Standard nor mandate the Additional Protocol, both necessary to ensure sensitive U.S. technology is not used to help build a nuclear bomb, is dangerous and a strategic mistake for our national security.
Are Those Texts Even Real? | Candace Owens x Ana Kasparian
(Auvust 24, 2026)
Barely talked about politics. Never mentioned Charlie Kirk. Never discussed LGBTQ issues. That‘s the sworn testimony of the person closest to Tyler Robinson — and then came a text message confession detailing everything. Candace Owens and Ana Kasparian go through the motive nobody ever heard him discuss, the discovery requests the defense never received, and the confession that still hasn‘t been authenticated.
Alleged Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson‘s roommate and lover received limited immunity: prosecutors
(June 17, 2026)
Lance Twiggs, the transgender roommate and romantic partner of Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin Tyler Robinson, was given limited immunity for a recorded statement he gave to authorities in April, according to a new court filing.
Prosecutors said in a filing on Tuesday that Twiggs was given „use-immunity“ for a statement that he offered to authorities on April 20. Prosecutors want to use Twiggs‘ recorded statement and his communications with Robinson around the time of Kirk‘s killing at the July preliminary hearing.
Carney says trade deal became untenable when U.S. ‚asked too much and offered too little‘
In a departure from his usual diplomatic language, Carney suggested the U.S. sometimes signs trade deals in „pencil,“ and while Canada‘s government is united and working together, the same is not true of the Trump administration.
„We cannot accept what they‘ve offered, and we will not give what they‘ve asked,“ Carney said on Saturday in Ottawa, adding that the United States ‚asked too much and offered too little.‘
Kanada widersteht, Europa kapitulierte: Zwei Antworten auf denselben Druck
Im Juli 2025 stand die EU vor derselben Drohung: US-Zölle von bis zu 50 Prozent auf praktisch alle Warengruppen. Kommissionspräsidentin von der Leyen reiste dafür auf den schottischen Golfplatz Trumps in Turnberry – ein Umstand, den selbst wohlwollende Kommentatoren als Affront werteten. Das Ergebnis: ein Pauschalzoll von 15 Prozent auf die meisten EU-Exporte in die USA, während die EU im Gegenzug ihre Zölle auf US-Industriegüter auf null senkte – zusätzlich zu Investitionszusagen in Höhe von 600 Milliarden Dollar und Energiekäufen von 750 Milliarden Dollar.
Der Rechtswissenschaftler-Fachdienst LTO brachte die Debatte auf den Punkt: Während Trump vom größten Handelsdeal aller Zeiten sprach, werteten Kritiker die Einigung als Unterwerfung und Kapitulation der EU gegenüber einer irrationalen US-Handelspolitik.
Minister calls for new Gulf security policy
(July 14, 2026)
“One issue demands immediate attention. As widely reported, complex discussions are currently being held with the aim of devising a long-term arrangement for freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. As one of the two states with territorial waters in the Strait, Oman has a special responsibility to work with both Iran – which is the other state whose territorial waters include part of the Strait – and the wider international community of Strait users to find a practical, durable and legal arrangement for free navigation. The international community needs a successful outcome from these consultations; free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz is vital for the global economy
Araghchi says talks with Oman and reopening of Hormuz are ‘two separate issues’
“Our negotiations with Oman are ongoing. That is a completely separate matter. It is a technical issue concerning the designation of maritime routes in the Strait of Hormuz for the passage of ships.”
“The routes that existed previously are no longer functional, so a new route needs to be defined. For now, we are designing a temporary route, which can then, at a later stage, be turned into a final route.”
“We may reach an outcome soon, but I want to emphasise that these negotiations and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz are two separate issues. This is a technical negotiation concerning the designation of a maritime route.”
Oman proposes Hormuz management system with voluntary fees, source says
(July 28, 2026)
Under the Omani proposal, which has regional backing and was presented to Iranian officials over the weekend in Tehran, Iran would not exercise sole control over the strait, the source added.
The proposal is based on the Strait of Malacca, which connects the Indian and Pacific Oceans and is jointly managed by the states bordering it: Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore.
‘Attack on one is attack on all’: Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan sign landmark Mecca defence pact
“The agreement is intended to strengthen collective deterrence against any act of aggression” and stipulates that an armed attack against any of the three countries “would be regarded as an attack on all”, according to a joint statement cited by Reuters.
The pact brings together NATO member Turkiye, which has the alliance’s second-largest military, nuclear-armed Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, one of the Gulf’s most powerful states and the world’s leading oil exporters.
Cenk Reveals Who Is Behind The Migrant CRISIS In Spain
612,635 views Aug 1, 2026
Is Israel behind the sudden migrant crisis in Spain? Cenk Uygur and John Iadarola discuss on The Young Turks.
Agreement Between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MOROCCO and ISRAEL
Signed at Rabat December 22, 2020
Entered into force December 22, 2020
Referring to the telephone conversation held between His Majesty King Mohammed VI and His Excellency President Donald Trump, on 10 December 2020, and to the historic statements issued on the same day by them, and by His Excellency Prime Minister of the State of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, announcing the opening of a new era in the relations between the Kingdom of Morocco and the State of Israel;
Netanyahu says Saudi Arabia joining Abraham Accords would be „historic leap forward for peace“
„The joint American and Israeli military action against the genocidal regime in Teheran and Israel‘s crushing of Iran‘s terror axis have created the possibility to expand the circle of peace,“ Netanyahu said in the statement from his office on Thursday.
Trump says Saudi nuclear deal is subject to the kingdom joining the Abraham Accords
„There will be no enrichment of material!,“ Mr. Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform, adding that the deal „will be approved, but is totally subject to Saudi Arabia joining the very respected and successful Abraham Accords.“
The accords, first signed in 2020, have so far normalized economic and diplomatic relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco. Kazakhstan agreed to join in November.
Report: Saudis want US alliance, nuclear program in exchange for deal with Israel
(May 23, 2023)
Amid reports that the US is mediating a normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia, Channel 12 reports on apparent Saudi and US demands for the deal to go ahead.
The report says that Saudi Arabia is demanding the Biden administration unfreeze several major arms deals, a military alliance with the US and a full nuclear program.
United States and Saudi Arabia Reach Historic Nuclear Cooperation Agreement
The two agreements also advance U.S. and regional security by upholding high standards of nuclear safety, security, and nonproliferation and strengthening the United States‘ competitive edge in civil nuclear technology.
(…)
Under President Trump‘s leadership, America is restoring its competitive edge in the global civil nuclear marketplace. This agreement builds on President Trump‘s Executive Order, Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security, and specifically Section 8 on Promoting American Nuclear Exports, which supports an expansion of international partners for U.S. civil nuclear cooperation under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Israel, Lebanon sign framework peace deal after US-mediated talks
„Today we‘ve taken the first step in what will be a difficult journey, without a doubt, but an important and an essential and a necessary one,“ US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said before the agreement was inked.
The officials did not provide details of the framework deal and did not say how its terms would differ from those included in a 16 April ceasefire deal that preceded several rounds of US-brokered Israel-Lebanon talks.
US-Iran Negotiators back 60-Day Roadmap after ‘Encouraging Progress’ at Switzerland Talks
A communication line has also been established between the parties for the period specified in the Memorandum of Understanding to help prevent incidents and misunderstandings. The mechanism is intended to facilitate the safe passage of commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Washington and Tehran agreed to establish de-confliction cell involving Lebanon and facilitated by the mediators. The mechanism is intended to support implementation of the cessation of military operations in Lebanon and help prevent future confrontations.
Persian Gulf Strait Authority says vessels allowed to cross Hormuz without fees
Iran’s Persian Gulf Strait Authority has announced that vessels seeking to cross the Strait of Hormuz will be granted access under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding for 60 days.
In a statement on X, the authority explained that vessels will need to submit their requests to cross at least 48 hours before wanting to depart.
The authority said that during the 60 days, no fees will be charged to vessels.