<국정은 국가와 국민을 위해 하는 것이지, 정권과 집권자의 이익이나 인기를 위해 해서는 안됩니다. 북한포로 국내송환 문제는 외교, 안보, 한반도 정세에 크게 영향을 미치는 매우 예민한 의제입니다. 남북관계가 어떻게 되든 누군가 죽어나가든 국익이 손상되든 게의치 않고, 성과를 생색내느라 포로 송환사실을 징치고 춤추며 온세상에 광고했을 그들 입장에서는 우리 정부의 비공개노력이 이해가 안될 뿐 아니라 심지어 뭔가 문제될 게 있나 싶을 것입니다. 누군가의 생명, 국가안보 등 국익을 생각하면 이처럼 잔인하고 무책임할 수는 없는 노릇입니다. 국정지지율 만회에 명백히 도움될 북한포로 국내송환 사실을 공개하자는 내부주장이 왜 없었겠습니까? 그러나 공개로 생길 여러 문제를 생각할 때 비공개하는 것이 모든 면에서 타당했고 그렇게 합의했습니다. 소소한 자신의 이익을 위해 누군가의 생명과 국익 안보를 해치는 사람을 살인자나 매국노라 부릅니다. 타당하고 정당한 비공개 조치를 비난하는 것은 옳지 않습니다. 비공개 합의를 어기고 공개한 우크라이나측에 무슨 사정이 있는지는 모르나 많이 아쉽습니다. 무수한 사람들이 죽거나 다치고 모든 것이 파괴되는 반인륜적 전쟁들이 조기에 종식되기를 간절하게 기원합니다.> 野 “젤렌스키가 北 포로 입국 발표… 李 왜 숨겼나, 실상 밝혀야” v.daum.net/v/202609241522491…

Netanyahu crosses Canadian airspace with arrest warrant in effect ctvnews.ca/world/israel-hama…

Despite early signs pointing to this being a right-wing extremist attack, the Globe & other outlets published deceptive stories linking it to anti-Zionism. The Israel lobby leaped at the opportunity to pin the violence on the Palestine movement to justify its crackdown efforts.

Ok, we now have the actual text of the Greenland deal (whitehouse.gov/briefings-sta…), 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-releas…). 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" 🤷

CJPME filed a formal complaint concerning public posts made on X by @CBC National Radio News Reader @NEWSneil Neil Herland. Herland posted a thread where he falsely claimed that he was blocked from a synagogue service by Palestine solidarity protesters. However, Herland was on his way to the Meridian Arts Centre, not a synogogue, to see Mark Regev. Regev is a former Israeli ambassador who has served in multiple high-ranking positions in the Israeli government, including as the Prime Minister's Senior Advisor for Foreign Affairs and International Communications and the International Spokesperson for the Prime Minister's Office. This narrative was fundamentally misleading to an extent that it appears to be deliberate, resulting in disinformation that defames pro-Palestinian activists. These are clear breaches of the Journalistic Standards and Practices. CJPME demands that the CBC Ombud initiate a formal review into Mr. Herland’s conduct, that he be directed to delete the thread, issue a formal retraction regarding his false characterization of the event, and abide strictly by the CBC’s social media guidelines in all future public communications.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announces Canada will provide $100 million in aid for Palestine — $80 million of that going towards humanitarian aid and $20 million for security capacity.

Mark Carney: "Canada and our partners recognize the direct threat to peace posed by the Israeli government's endorsement of the E1 settlement scheme. And with reluctance, we have announced our intention to bring forward trade restrictions targeting goods produced in those illegal Israeli settlements."

New Red Scare piece just dropped: According to Newsweek’s latest cover story, if you don’t want the US to start WWIII, you could secretly be a Chinese asset. The sources for this? Two former IDF intelligence “experts” and a fellow at the Atlantic Council – a think tank bankrolled by NATO, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin. BT’s @radiofreeamanda explains Newsweek’s new hit piece against the anti-war movement.

Has Bernie ever considered working with grassroots activists in his own country to stop the disastrous war in Ukraine? No. In fact, when Congressional progressives released a letter politely asking Biden to negotiate with Russia to end the war, Bernie dissed them. And continued to rally with bipartisan war-mongers to vote for billions in war funding. On this issue, Bernie's aides have given him terrible advice:

Reporter: But do you think that Mr. Trump goes too far when he says he is considering destroying Iran? Mark Carney: Well, there is a war underway, and he's speaking the language of war.