Connect with us

RSS

Greenland: The Strategic Center of the High North

Icebergs float in a fjord near the south Greenland town of Narsaq July 28, 2009. REUTERS/Bob Strong

President Donald Trump has reignited interest in the strategic status of the island of Greenland following his proposal to purchase it from Denmark, which controls it. The previous Trump administration had already proposed to purchase the island.

Greenland is a central part of the Arctic region, an area that is of substantial geopolitical significance. The increased focus on the island’s strategic value has been accompanied by calls from its Inuit residents to make the local government in Nuuk (Greenland’s capital) fully independent of Denmark. While recent statements by Trump about his intentions have stoked tensions, Denmark is conducting secret talks with the US to expand American military bases.

The region is important because the melting of the glaciers is creating potential economic and strategic opportunities. The US, Russia, and China are all taking steps to strengthen their military presence in the area. In 2014, Denmark and Greenland claimed an area of ​​895,000 square kilometers beyond the Arctic Circle and up to the border of the Russian exclusive economic zone. Denmark also has claims to the Lomonosov Ridge, which it sees as a geological extension of Greenland. For its part, Russia has territorial claims against Norway, which has expanded its continental shelf to include the Barents Sea, the Arctic Ocean and the Norwegian Sea.

Denmark, which officially maintains its sovereignty in the region, has struggled to preserve the Arctic island’s Danish identity and set its agenda. The two share a long history of power struggles. In late 1826, a trade treaty was signed between Denmark, Sweden, and Norway that included recognition of Danish sovereignty over Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands. William H. Seward, the US Secretary of State from 1861 to 1869 who spearheaded the purchase of Alaska from Russia, also proposed — without success — that the US purchase Greenland and Iceland from Denmark.

During World War I, Denmark sold the West Indies to the US in return for American recognition of its claim to extend its sovereignty to all of Greenland. In 1919, the Norwegian Foreign Minister expressed his government’s explicit recognition of Denmark’s ownership of Greenland, following negotiations that resulted in the transfer of the Arctic island of Spitsbergen to Norway. In 1933, a decisive judgment was issued recognizing Danish sovereignty over all of Greenland as part of a legal battle between Denmark and Norway. A tribunal of judges rejected the Norwegian argument that parts of Greenland were no-man’s land. Following the judgment, the Norwegian government declared that it was rescinding its ownership of East Greenland. In return, Denmark announced that it would not harm Norway’s economic interests in the island.

Fast forward to today. In recent years, Denmark has adopted a renewed defense strategy in the Arctic region, which includes Greenland and the Faroe Islands. As a result, it has accelerated its armament while striving for close security cooperation with the Nordic countries in the protection of critical infrastructure especially in the Arctic region and the Baltic Sea. The Norwegian General Staff increased Nordic cooperation by establishing a Nordic Air Force Command as part of the NATO command structure. Norway notes that it is necessary to recognize the military challenges along the Finnish-Russian border, the strategic location of the Swedish island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea, and the importance of the Danish Straits that connect the Baltic and North Seas.

At the same time, Denmark has pledged to be a significant player in the Arctic. In December 2019, at the NATO summit in London, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen revealed plans to spend two hundred million euros on promoting a renewed strategy for the Arctic region, and in June 2022, Denmark and the Faroe Islands agreed to install an early warning radar system around the islands. In view of the war in Ukraine, the Faroe Islands extended the ban on Russian vessels entering their ports, a move that aligns with the Danish government’s commitment to expand its defense infrastructure investment to an average of 143 billion Danish kroner over the coming decade.

The latest moves were also made under pressure from the Pentagon, which called for increased Danish involvement amid concerns that the government in Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, would find it difficult to refuse generous offers from China to increase its exposure and economic activity on the island. These actions correspond with Denmark’s policy on Greenland, which prohibits Chinese companies from building an airport on the island. The Americans are also conducting broader exercises in the region, and airborne divisions are training to increase their mobility to be more effective on a future battlefield. When these units operate in Greenland, they operate on missions on behalf of the Joint Arctic Command.

While Trump’s belligerent rhetoric is not conducive to negotiation, the Danes are nevertheless trying to form direct secret understandings with Trump’s people in order to increase the American presence in the region. The Danish public may be taken aback by Trump’s style of speech, but the government in Copenhagen gained experience dealing with a Trump administration during his previous term in office. It can be assumed that the government in Copenhagen is formulating a plan of action. It will allow Trump’s public statements to gain political capital, but will at the same time build discreet confidential or unofficial understandings with him to expand American activities.

Furthermore, NATO sees the Nordic countries as a vital factor in strengthening regional security and is developing an Arctic military strategy that involves large-scale exercises throughout the Nordic region. In 2018, a NATO exercise held in Norway showcased a significant demonstration of military strength. This large-scale maneuver involved NATO forces practicing a comprehensive offensive, including an assault on the Arctic coastline. NATO has also begun a renewed series of exercises and operations designed to respond to the Russian submarine threat in the region. These exercises, called Dynamic Mongoose, took place in the Norwegian Sea and adjacent areas and included most of the fleets of NATO’s northern flank.

The US has also been refining its Arctic policy through strategic military deployments. These include stationing a B1-Lancer squadron in Norway, establishing a naval operations center in Iceland, and conducting submarine-based exercises to ensure high operational readiness in the high north. Notably, in 2022, the US conducted the largest military exercise within the Arctic Circle in Norway since the 1980s, further underscoring the growing strategic importance of the region.

These developments reflect a concerted effort by NATO and its allies to enhance their preparedness and maintain stability in the evolving Arctic security landscape. The accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO slightly alters the military balance in the Arctic region while also supporting non-military initiatives that both countries have actively promoted in recent years.

Therefore, one should avoid drawing conclusions about a political clash between the Americans and the Danes. The latest challenges point to cooperation in the Arctic region. The government in Copenhagen has approved the resumption of Cold War-era radar activity on the Faroe Islands. In 2023 and 2024, two pairs of satellites were launched to monitor more than two million square kilometers of the Arctic Circle. This is to improve the intelligence capabilities of the US, and there is a high probability that this agreement also applies to Greenland.

Alongside these moves, there is the Arctic Security Forces Roundtable (ASFR), which serves as a platform for military leaders from Arctic and observer states to strengthen multilateral security cooperation. Denmark also encourages cooperation with the European Commission and Naalakkersuisut (the government of Greenland), which have initiated the EU Arctic Forum on Inuit Dialogue. In this context, Denmark acts as a liaison between the interests of the EU and the people of Greenland, with the participation of the current Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs and former Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen.

Nordic leaders have consistently demonstrated their ability to settle regional disputes without compromising broader Arctic cooperation. For instance, ecological concerns arising from a decade-long dispute among Iceland, the European Union, the Faroe Islands, and Norway were successfully addressed, leading to collaborative efforts to preserve the region. Similarly, disputes around Svalbard—related to the application of the Svalbard Treaty to the continental shelf surrounding the archipelago—were resolved. These disagreements, sparked by developments in the Norwegian Arctic as a potential resource hub, were effectively compartmentalized, ensuring they did not negatively impact overall Arctic cooperation.

The resolution of such disputes has maintained stability in the region, reinforcing the preference of Nordic states for peaceful and collaborative Arctic relations. However, recent suspicions and events highlight the need for strengthened security arrangements, including military exercises and enhanced surveillance capabilities by Nordic air forces to deter unexpected actions in the Arctic.

Meanwhile, Nuuk’s push for greater autonomy has raised concerns in the US, prompting warnings about potentially taking control of Greenland to prevent foreign interference. These developments are likely to foster dialogue between the US and Denmark on Greenland’s future, with the aim of avoiding political escalation and preserving regional stability.

Dr. Nir Levitan is a researcher at the BESA Center at Bar-Ilan University and at the Center for Cold War Studies at the University of Southern Denmark. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.

The post Greenland: The Strategic Center of the High North first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Iran and Terrorism: Empty Gestures or Genuine Change?

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi speaks during a meeting with foreign ambassadors in Tehran, Iran, July 12, 2025. Photo: Hamid Forootan/Iranian Foreign Ministry/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS

In a world grappling with persistent threats of terrorism and financial crimes, the international community must not be swayed by superficial gestures.

While Tehran’s recent ratification of the Palermo Convention against transnational organized crime may seem like a step in the right direction on the surface, it is likely a calculated move designed to distract from the regime’s continued and unwavering support for global terrorism.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) reportedly plans to meet with Tehran’s bureaucrats to review whether the Islamic Republic of Iran has complied with its action plan to be removed from its blacklist.

However, the global financial watchdog must resist the temptation to remove Tehran from the list, because the Islamic Republic fundamentally remains committed to funding terrorism and engaging in illicit financing. To remove Tehran would be to ignore a mountain of evidence that supports this unequivocal fact.

In fact, removing Iran would endanger the integrity of the international financial system.

For years, the Islamic Republic has been a leading state sponsor of terrorism. No single treaty that Iran may ratify can disguise this fact.

The regime’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has a long and bloody history of plotting assassinations on American soil and overseas, targeting high-profile figures like President Donald Trump, journalists, dissidents, and ordinary citizens. This is not the conduct of a state genuinely committed to combating organized crime. It is the action of a rogue regime that uses terror as a primary tool of its foreign policy.

The recent move by Iran’s Expediency Discernment Council to ratify the United Nations’ Palermo Convention — after years of refusing to do so — is a classic example of Tehran’s diplomatic gamesmanship.

Tehran understands its presence on the FATF blacklist has crippled its economy, It is desperate for a reprieve. However, the regime has refused to ratify the most crucial of the FATF-required treaties: the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (CFT).

By refusing to do so, Tehran is signaling its intention to continue funding terrorist proxies including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Nor has Iran abandoned the facilitation network it has provided to Al-Qaeda. While Tehran may one day feel compelled to ratify the CFT for economic reasons, removing it from the blacklist should take place only if commensurate conduct changes on the terrorism front — and that change is sustained.

The international community has already witnessed the devastating consequences of Iran’s terror financing. The Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, was inspired, funded, and enabled by Tehran. The regime’s support for the Houthis in Yemen has destabilized the region and disrupted global trade, costing the United States and its allies billions of dollars. Tehran’s backing of Hezbollah in Lebanon threatens the security of Israel and the stability of the entire Middle East. Iran should not be welcomed back into the global financial fold until it changes its conduct, not merely purports to agree to an item on a technical checklist.

The FATF has a clear mandate: to protect the global financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing. To fulfill this mandate, it must hold Iran to the same standard as every other nation. This means insisting on full and unconditional compliance with all FATF requirements, including the ratification of the CFT and demonstrable adherence to its principles. There can be no exceptions, carve-outs, or special treatment for a regime that has blatantly and repeatedly violated international law and circumvented sanctions.

Tehran’s diplomatic overtures are nothing but a smokescreen. As long as the regime continues to fund terrorism, plot assassinations, and destabilize the Middle East, it must remain on the FATF blacklist. The security of the United States and its allies, and the integrity of the global financial system, depend on it. The message to Tehran must be clear: words are not enough. Its actions and malign conduct must change.

Saeed Ghasseminejad is a senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). Toby Dershowitz is managing director at FDD Action, FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focused on national security and foreign policy. FDD Action is a non-partisan 501(c)(4) organization established to advocate for effective policies to promote US national security and defend free nations. Follow the authors on X @SGhasseminejad and @tobydersh.

Continue Reading

RSS

From Sacred to Strategic: Hamas Turns Civilian Infrastructure Into Targets

Palestinian Hamas terrorists stand guard on the day of the handover of hostages held in Gaza since the deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack, as part of a ceasefire and a hostages-prisoners swap deal between Hamas and Israel, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, Feb. 22, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hatem Khaled

Two weeks ago, the IDF revealed a chilling incident: Hamas operatives posed as World Central Kitchen aid workers, wearing yellow vests and using WCK-branded vehicles. WCK swiftly confirmed that the imposters had no affiliation — that this was terrorism hiding in humanitarian garb.

Then, earlier this week, Israel struck Nasser Hospital in Southern Gaza — not randomly, cruelly or without reason, but because Hamas was using the hospital to operate surveillance cameras to track IDF movements.

A tragic battlefield misstep occurred when tank fire was used to disable those cameras instead of drones, killing 6 Hamas terrorists who were either operating or near the targeted cameras, but also resulting in unintended civilian casualties. This outcome was tragic — but sadly predictable. 

This is the logic of Hamas’ strategy: weaponize Gaza’s hospitals, schools, mosques, and aid centers, force civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, and then broadcast them as evidence of Israeli atrocity.

Hospitals: Protected — Until Abused

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) stands firm: during a war, hospitals may not be targetedunless they are being used for military purposes. Hamas’ use of these sites as command or surveillance posts nullifies their protection.

Mosques and Schools: Sacred — Until Militarized

Houses of worship and schools are also granted special status under IHL. But that protection dissolves once they are used for military advantage — a tactic Hamas consistently employs, turning places of worship into weapons depots and schools into hideouts.

Humanitarian Aid: Safe — Until Exploited

Under IHL, even aid workers can become legitimate targets when Hamas impersonates them. The WCK incident not only endangered genuine aid efforts, but it also weaponized the trust people place in humanitarian organizations, and eroding that trust endangers aid workers everywhere in Gaza.

This Is Calculated — Not Casual

These are not random errors — they are deliberate Hamas strategies: embed fighters and military and tactical equipment in civilian infrastructure, provoke strikes, and unleash graphic narratives. The recent hospital strike and the WCK impersonation reflect this grim choreography.

A Double Standard with Deadly Consequences

When US or UK forces faced civilian casualties in Mosul or Aleppo, the world understood the moral complexity caused by ISIS embedding itself among civilians and fighting in civilian clothes.

But when Israel confronts Hamas — whose tunnel networks under hospitals and all other civilian infrastructure in Gaza rival entire urban subway systems — the narrative is nearly monolithic: Israel is the villain.

This is the double standard defined in the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.

No Safe Haven for Gaza Civilians

Hamas’ cynical human shield strategy and its use of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure as cover is enhanced as a tactical tool by the actions of Gaza’s Arab neighbors.

In Syria and Ukraine, civilians fled across borders to safety in Jordan, Poland, Turkey.

In fact, in every war in modern history, civilians have left combat zones to go to neighboring non-hostile countries.

But after October 7, Egypt and Jordan closed their borders, citing political fears. That leaves Gaza civilians trapped — forced to rely on limited “humanitarian zones” Israel sets up — zones Hamas routinely targets and even tries to stop Gazans from entering.

The result: Israel is held to an impossible standard: avoid civilian casualties even when terrorists hide themselves and their military and tactical infrastructure next to, among, and beneath them, while Gaza’s Arab neighbors are held to no standard of refuge for their fellow Arabs whatsoever.

Casualty Figures — Propaganda Masquerading as Data

To make matters worse, most media outlets parrot casualty numbers from Hamas’ so-called “Health Ministry.”

The Gaza Health Ministry’s numbers lump together civilians, combatants, natural deaths, and even those killed by Hamas’ own misfired rockets. For years before October 7th, between 5,000 and 7,000 people in Gaza died from natural causes. Meanwhile, at least 15% to 25% of Hamas and Islamic Jihad’s rockets fall short, killing Gazans.

And Hamas routinely kills Gazans it decides are “collaborators” with Israel. All these deaths — along with the death of Hamas fighters — are aggregated in Hamas’s “death tolls” for the October 7th war it started.

Yet the narrative advanced by major media outlets and on social media paint every death as of a civilian killed by Israel. This is propaganda masquerading as data.

Conclusion: Accountability, Not Convenient Narratives

Hamas will continue to weaponize its own civilians — and civilian spaces — if excuses remain for its behavior. Only when the global dialogue refuses to blame Israel for the foreseeable results of Hamas’ human-shield warfare can moral clarity return.

The responsibility lies — with Hamas, not Israel — to stop turning Gaza’s hospitals, schools, and civilian infrastructure generally into strategic targets. Let’s call this what it is: terrorism hiding behind civilian facades. Until the world stops tolerating and even rewarding Hamas’ cynical human shield tactics, they will continue.

Micha Danzig is a current attorney, former IDF soldier & NYPD police officer. He currently writes for numerous publications on matters related to Israel, antisemitism & Jewish identity & is the immediate past President of StandWithUs in San Diego and a national board member of Herut.

Continue Reading

RSS

What Is the Future for Russian-Speaking Jews in America?

Morris Abram (left), chairman of National Conference on Soviet Jewry, with Ed Koch, former Mayor of New York City, and Natan Sharansky, former Prisoner of Conscience. Photo: Center for Jewish History via Flickr.

The Russian-speaking Jewish community (RSJ) has traveled a long road to America.

From pogroms and World Wars to Soviet repression, our families fled in search of freedom and opportunity. New immigration to the US has slowed, and today, the future of the community rests with the children of those who arrived decades ago. What will their identity look like?

To find out, the American Russian-Speaking Jews Alliance (ARSJA) surveyed RSJ parents and received over 250 responses summarized in a new report.

The findings show a community deeply committed to raising Jewish children — even if traditional religious observance is not at the center.

Although 54 percent of the respondents do not keep kosher and only 3 percent attend synagogue daily, 89 percent of parents expect their children will have a “Very strong” or “Somewhat strong” Jewish identity.

Community life seems to be more popular than ritual. More than half of those surveyed attend RSJ gatherings or Israel-related events, and 67 percent go to synagogue on the High Holidays.

Shaul Kelner, professor of Jewish Studies and Sociology at Vanderbilt University, reminded us that, “American Jews are a diverse population, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach. It’s important that organizations like ARSJA are working to identify and respond to the specific needs of the Russian-speaking Jewish community.”

The “Russian-speaking” part of the identity is more complicated.

Most parents (58 percent) want their children to speak Russian mainly to communicate with grandparents.

Grandparents (75 percent) and parents (70 percent) are the people children use Russian with most often.

Yet only 60 percent of parents believe their children will maintain a strong RSJ identity. For some, the label recalls a painful past. One respondent said that they “see [their] Russian-speaking identity as really more of being raised in the former USSR, a totalitarian regime, the type of which we hope our children will never experience.”

Still, the community is finding new expressions of identity. Judi Garrett, COO at Jewish Relief Network Ukraine, points out that RSJs have played an active role in fundraising efforts. She noted that American-born RSJs organized campaigns that raised significant support for humanitarian aid in Ukraine. Philanthropy may become one of the ways that the next generation expresses who they are.

Parents also voiced deeper concerns. When asked what they worried about most regarding their children’s Jewish identity, the most common answers were antisemitism and assimilation. These anxieties echo across the wider American Jewish community and underscore how forces outside the family shape identity.

The survey does not provide simple answers. It does, however, spark an important conversation. For RSJs in America, the challenge is not only how to preserve their heritage, but how to pass down a Jewish identity rooted in belonging, pride, and purpose.

Mariella Favel leads data analysis at ARSJA, as well as research into how various communal and national organizations are influencing civic discourse.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News