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.

As a doctor who spent a lifetime of work in epidemiology and environmental medicine, I have extensive experience thinking about how external factors drive public health outcomes — preventable disease and premature death.

I have studied the negative public health impacts of asbestos, pesticides, unsafe driving, cigarettes, and more — and made recommendations aimed at reducing these dangers.

Much of this work occurred in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. That experience has much to say about the catastrophe we have witnessed in Israel and Gaza, and which we risk reoccurring, if we do not address the intergenerational indoctrination and incitement in the Palestinian world.

As an environmental epidemiologist with significant work studying genocide and incitement, I see indoctrination in genocidal ideology as a form of hazardous exposure with toxic effects on all age groups — but with specifically dangerous impacts on the young. Exposure to such indoctrination and incitement can be likened to frequent or prolonged exposures to toxins such as lead, asbestos, and tobacco smoke. The impacts are both immediate and long-lasting. We should act accordingly.

October 7th

It’s critical that we see the Hamas massacres on October 7th and the resulting war in Gaza not just as a geostrategic milestone, but also as an incident in environmental medicine with impacts on both Israeli and Palestinian lives.

The barbaric attacks on Israel were systematic. For one day, Hamas waged total war — raping, murdering, and kidnapping — and setting out to make Israel’s Gaza envelope communities uninhabitable, which many still are, more than a year later.

Israel has responded by defending itself and seeking to defeat Hamas militarily. Because Hamas has placed itself within and often underneath the civilian population, this has required a brutal and grinding kind of warfare, combined with internal displacement of Gaza’s population, especially in its north.

For Gaza, this has been an epidemiological catastrophe. Whatever Gaza once was, it no longer is.

While some in the public health and humanitarian community blame Israel for this destruction, that would be a mistake.

The predicate for all of the public health losses was the ideology that made Israel’s military action inevitable.

Poisoned Minds, Not Poisoned Wells

In a disease model, we must look for the risks and causes of the disease, not merely the symptoms, if we are to heal the patient. The same is true in epidemiology: We must identify the content and effect of toxic exposure in a community. The legendary epidemiologic discovery came in 1854, when John Snow deduced that a cholera epidemic in London could be linked to a single water pump on Broad Street.

In this case, we are not looking for a contaminated well. We are looking for contaminated minds — the contaminant is the ideology of Hamas.

Hamas and its enablers have indoctrinated all Gazans in this ideology, from cradle to grave. Many of the thousands who came across the border to murder, rape, and loot on October 7 were not only uniformed and trained Hamas terrorists, but ordinary Gazans who joined in on the genocidal massacre.

They were motivated to commit murder and rape by what they were taught at home, at school, at mosques, in the streets, and on social media. If they had no formal training to kill, they didn’t need any.

It is rare that a society becomes so sick to the core that mass murder becomes a socially acceptable norm. Hamas terrorists bragged to their parents. They were greeted as conquering heroes and were eligible for large cash awards and free apartments. This is a culture in which genocidal massacre is celebrated.

Critics of Israel’s offensive into Gaza say it will only create more supporters for Hamas. That is absurd. Gaza already is dominated by intergenerational indoctrination of an extreme version of jihadist Islam.

It is critical that we recall Gregory Stanton’s seminal “Ten Stages of Genocide,” which speaks to this issue specifically. Genocide follows a distinct pattern, from classification of the enemy to symbolization of the enemy, to discrimination, dehumanization, organization, polarization, preparation, persecution, extermination, and finally, denial.

Just as Palestinian society has been shaped by genocidal motifs of demonization, delegitimization, and glorification of terror, it is also not destined to serve the cause of genocide. This was not inevitable. There are many traditional and religious societies in the Arab world similar to Palestinian Arabs which do not engage in any of the kind of genocidal or pre-genocidal steps of Hamas.

More than Hamas

If the problem is man-made, then the solution will be man-made. First, let us dispense with the fiction that destroying Hamas’ hardware, its fortifications above ground, and its tunnels underground is sufficient.

If Israel exits Gaza only having killed Hamas operatives and destroying Hamas infrastructure, it will have achieved very little of lasting value. It must take on the hard work of removing genocide indoctrination and incitement.

Like any epidemiological matter of any consequence, this will take many years.

Many public health epidemics and mass exposures in the past such as typhoid, cholera, exposure to asbestos, and lead took many years to prevent or control, and required a generational commitment of the entire medical and policymaker community.

De-Nazification as a model

There is, however, a model for this process, and it comes from America and its allies as they sought to de-Nazify Germany and pacify Japan after World War II. These efforts were comprehensive and driven by military dominance.

In Germany, the process included the Nuremberg trials, which did much to expose the world — and Germany — to the horrors of the Nazi genocide program. But it wasn’t enough.

The process was not perfect. Many former Nazis avoided punishment; some innocent Germans were unfairly accused. The Allied forces confiscated all media — including school textbooks — that would contribute to Nazism or militarism. Art extolling Nazism was similarly banned and shunted aside. This was not a libertarian exercise.

But it succeeded. Germany had, at that point, emerged from roughly a century of bellicose militarism and deep antisemitism. It had started two world wars and carried out an industrial-scale program of genocide. Few believed it could ever be anything but a source of human misery in the heart of Europe.

The Germany of today — peaceful, global, and prosperous — would have seemed to be a mirage. In fact, General Dwight Eisenhower, Allied commander in Europe, predicted the de-Nazification of Germany would take 50 years.

In Japan, too, the efforts were monumental. Japan had been a militant and bellicose society, with deep racial animus towards its neighbors and the West, for several centuries. Not only were its military and military industries disbanded, but outward signs of patriotism were banned in public life, including schools.

Massive other changes, including the introduction of a parliamentary democracy, the political rights of women, and basic free speech rights, were enshrined in its new constitution. Again, as in Germany, textbooks were censored and control over schools was strictly regulated.

Elihu D. Richter is a retired head of the Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the Hebrew University School of Public Health and is the founder of the Jerusalem Center for Genocide Prevention.

The post The World Needs to Adopt a Real Humanitarian Goal: Removing Hamas From Gaza (PART ONE) first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

The release of three hostages — Romi Gonen, Doron Steinbrecher, and Emily Damari — by Hamas in exchange for 90 Palestinian prisoners dominated international headlines on Sunday.

Despite other significant events, including the pending inauguration of President Donald Trump for his second term and the (brief and anticlimactic) shutdown of TikTok in the United States, the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas unsurprisingly remained at the forefront of global media coverage.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by HonestReporting (@honestreporting)

While much of the reporting rightly focused on the emotional reunions between the hostages and their families after 15 months of captivity, several high-profile outlets glossed over what the Palestinian prisoner release actually entails: the release of hundreds of criminals, many convicted of violent crimes — including murder — and members of proscribed terrorist organizations.

Rather than confronting this inconvenient truth, their coverage instead leaned into framing the event as a cause for celebration.

Sky News, for example, quoted Islamic Jihad terrorist Firas Hassan lamenting the difficulties of life in prison after he was, according to them, repeatedly jailed for mere “opposition to the occupation.”

Sky further reassured readers that Hassan was only a member of the group’s “political wing.”

Is @SkyNews clueless or complicit? Do they seriously want readers to believe this Islamic Jihad terrorist was jailed for simply ‘opposing the occupation’? What are the chances his opposition took the form of planning terror attacks on Israeli civilians? pic.twitter.com/ARxETC3twD

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) January 19, 2025

No country in the world, however, makes a distinction between Islamic Jihad’s so-called “political wing” and its military arm.

Notably, a previous BBC article identified Hassan as “‘active’” in the terrorist organization — responsible for some of the deadliest attacks on Israeli civilian.

Meanwhile, Reuters chose to publish an “explainer” profiling the “prominent” Palestinian prisoners set to be released — a stark reminder that in journalism, words matter.

Referring to convicted, unrepentant murderers as “prominent” is not just a choice but one with consequences. Adjectives like “notorious,” “deadliest,” or “unrepentant” would certainly be more fitting for those who slaughtered innocent men, women, and children.

Instead, Reuters bestowed a veneer of celebrity on these individuals, turning what should have been an informative piece into an exercise in whitewashing terror.

‘Prominent’? Seriously, @Reuters?! How about ‘notorious,’ ‘dangerous,’ or just plain ‘evil’? These aren’t celebrities—they’re terrorists. Some of the most unrepentant, brutal murderers, and this is the word you chose? pic.twitter.com/VE8whv9L3R

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) January 19, 2025

Similarly, The New York Times’ so-called explainer fell short of providing any meaningful context when it vaguely informed readers that some Palestinians listed in the deal were “serving life sentences,” without elaborating on the crimes behind those sentences.

For example, Mahmud Abu Varda is serving 48 life sentences for masterminding multiple terror attacks, including a 1996 bus bombing in Jerusalem that killed 45 people.

Another prisoner set for release is Zakaria Zubeidi, a notorious Fatah terrorist and former Jenin commander of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades. Zubeidi, arrested in 2019 for his involvement in shootings near Beit El in the West Bank. He played a role in numerous attacks, including a bombing that killed six people at a Likud party branch in Beit Shean during the Second Intifada.

Yet, these critical details were conspicuously absent.

Trust @nytimes to omit WHY these Palestinian prisoners are serving life sentences. Among them are terrorists behind some of the deadliest attacks in Israeli history. A so-called ‘explainer’ that whitewashes Palestinian terrorism. Again. pic.twitter.com/7vJelEhYtN

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) January 19, 2025

Perhaps the most brazenly tone-deaf coverage came from Sky News, which decided to paint a chilling scene as a “heartwarming” moment.

Posting a video of what it described as “celebrations” in Gaza following news of the ceasefire, Sky shared a clip of a large crowd chanting “Khaybar Khaybar ya Yahud” — a well-known and explicit threat invoking the slaughter of Jews.

Heartwarming indeed, Sky.

They were chanting ‘Khaybar Khaybar ya Yahud’—an explicit threat to slaughter Jews. But for @SkyNews, it was just Palestinians ‘celebrating’ the ceasefire. With reporting like this, how can anyone trust the media? pic.twitter.com/9jjTDwsT1Y

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) January 19, 2025

Fox News misreported the prisoner numbers, while the UK’s Times of London inexplicably questioned whether Avera Mengistu and Hisham al-Sayed –held hostage by Hamas since long before the October 7, 2023, attacks — were truly “hostages,” placing the term in inverted commas.

What else does The Times imagine two men, held against their will for more than a decade, could possibly be?

What fresh hell is this, @thetimes? They are not ‘hostages’ in quotation marks—they ARE hostages. Kidnapped, held captive, and dehumanized by Hamas. Stop sanitizing terrorism. pic.twitter.com/cW51DFbwns

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) January 19, 2025

The reunions between the hostages and their families should have been moments of pure celebration. Instead, sections of the media chose to compare these two events, presenting both as causes for celebration.

This kind of reporting does not serve the Palestinian cause. Lionizing Palestinian terrorists or excusing their actions only entrenches violence.

For any chance at lasting peace, Palestinian society must reject violence and terrorism — not celebrate those who commit it. Yet, time and again, an infantilizing press gives this death-cult behavior a pass, portraying it as just another side of the story.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

The post Delusional Media Paints Heartwarming Picture of Violent Palestinian Terrorists’ Release in Confused Hostage Coverage first appeared on Algemeiner.com.