In recent months, Greenland has found itself under a treacherous bullying attack by The United States which decided to break the rules and resort to threats, pressure, and blackmail. President Trump adopted the geopolitical logic of his Russian counterpart and threatened to annex the island regardless of the will of its inhabitants. Will this actually happen and what does it mean for Israel?
Published in "Haaretz": https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2025-04-01/ty-article-opinion/.premium/what-happened-to-greenland-can-happen-to-israel/00000195-f2b8-d1f1-a7d5-f2fc93630000
STOCKHOLM – It's hard to think of two countries more different from each other than Greenland and Israel. Greenland actually isn't even a country; it's an autonomous area on its way to independence from Denmark. It's also a giant island almost empty of inhabitants, with no intercity roads and no traffic jams. Israel, as we all know, is crowded, hot, small and tense.
These differences could create the illusion that what is happening now to Greenland couldn't happen to Israel. But that isn't so. In recent months, Greenland has come under a thuggish, traitorous attack. The United States, which for decades was its partner and friend, decided to break the rules and threaten, pressure and extort the island.
U.S. President Donald Trump adopted the geopolitical logic of his Russian counterpart and threatened to annex Greenland regardless of its inhabitants' wishes. To prove that it was serious, the administration sent Vice President JD Vance to visit the island in defiance of its government's wishes and at a sensitive political time.
Two weeks ago, Greenland held a general election that ended with the incumbent's ouster. Vance's visit was thus slated to take place while the coalition negotiations to form a new government were being held, and also just days before the local elections. Political sources described this as foreign intervention in the elections. The outgoing prime minister termed the visit "highly aggressive."
The visit took place last Friday. Washington tried to market it as a defense-oriented visit to the U.S. space force base there. Before that, it had been marketed as a cultural tour by Vance's wife, without her husband (she joined her husband on the visit in its new incarnation).
Having the Vances visit the base was a sophisticated move. Ostensibly, it was a de-escalation, because the Americans wouldn't interact with angry residents and would focus on the base. Yet in another sense, it was an escalation, because the visitor was the vice president of the United States – the highest-level American official to ever visit Greenland. But either way, Greenlanders rightly view the visit as an act of extortion.
Contrary to the Trump administration's claims, there is no demand in Greenland for American intervention. "We – all party leaders – cannot accept the repeated statements about annexation and control of Greenland," the leaders of all five of the island's parties said in a joint statement. "We as party leaders find this behavior unacceptable towards friends and allies in a defense alliance."
Denmark's prime minister termed the American move "unacceptable pressure." And throughout the island, demonstrations were held against Trump's threats, with slogans like "Make America Go Away." Two months ago, a poll found that 85 percent of the island's residents oppose becoming part of the United States (and only 6 percent support it). But the Americans haven't been deterred.
The example of Greenland, like the United States' abandonment of Ukraine, shows a worrying side of the Trump administration. The U.S. could always have continued protecting its national security by stationing systems there to defend and control sea lanes. It could also have cooperated with Greenland's government and its residents in finding, mining, and producing valuable minerals.
Instead, Washington chose to signal to the world that there's a new sheriff in town who's willing to ride roughshod over anyone who stands in his way.
Should other countries also be worried by this new America, which abandons its partners, changes its loyalties and fires in every direction? Israelis don't appear to be particularly worried. Their enthusiasm for Trump has only grown, and his intervention to get the hostages released and his lifting of restraints on Israeli military action are obviously reasons for that. But people are also making deeper arguments for this blind faith in the Trump administration.
One argument is that in contrast to Greenland, President Trump feels an emotional connection to Israel. His confidants and his Jewish relatives nurtured a deep connection to the Jewish people in him, so he won't betray Israel like he has betrayed America's partners in Europe, Mexico and Canada.
Another argument is realpolitik. In the new global order, the American global cop is giving way to a multipolar world in which Russia and China also have spheres of influence. Israel can, therefore, count on the Americans even if they are opportunistic thugs because it's part of an American-Saudi-Egyptian-Emirati axis against the Iranian enemy. Consequently, Washington will protect it in any case – if not because of Trump's warm feelings for the Jews, then out of political and economic interests.
But vast blindness and indifference are needed to depend on these arguments. The first one relies on the existence of a stable, normative emotional base of empathy, responsibility and altruistic feelings of belonging in someone who has none of those traits. The second one relies on America having permanent, unchanging interests in a world characterized by changing alliances, dissolving coalitions, and unforeseen dramatic developments.
Even if America gives up on Greenland and moves on to its next adventure, we have to remember that political processes always have more than one side. Even people who have lost their moral spine and become enthusiastic over the idea of population transfer for the Palestinians must remember that if transfer is part of the diplomatic toolbox, it could be applied in any direction. If the U.S. administration can "clear out Gaza," why shouldn't it decide to clear out the Negev?
Similarly, even people who celebrated Washington's green light to flatten the Gaza Strip should remember that a lack of international rules and laws can be used against them in the future as well. And even if American nihilism and opportunism are working to the benefit of a local, temporary Israeli interest, we must keep in mind that we won't be immune forever.
דיויד סטברו 