Erkin Öncan, Journalist

The electricity systems of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were historically connected to the BRELL (Belarus, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) electricity grid, established in the 1950s under the Soviet Union. This system comprised 16 transmission lines, linking the Baltic countries with Russia via direct land connections, lines through Belarus, and underwater cables in the Baltic Sea.

Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union and their independence in the 1990s, these countries remained unable to fully control their energy infrastructure, relying on Moscow for frequency stabilization. Specifically, the IPS/UPS network, managed by Russia, also connected the Baltic states to Russian exclaves like Kaliningrad. European politicians have long characterized these connections as a form of “dependence on Russia.”

Since the start of the Russian-Ukrainian war, all forms of this “dependence” on Russia, including electricity, have been systematically terminated. The final step in this process was marked by a ceremony in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania.

As of February 9, 2025, these countries completely severed their Soviet-era electricity connections and officially integrated into the continental European electricity grid.

This move, enabling their participation in the EU internal market, was supported by a €1.23 billion EU grant, covering 75 percent of the investment. Ukraine and Moldova had previously taken a similar step, integrating their electricity systems into the EU grid in 2022.

In the initial phase, the countries first maintained the Polish frequency independently. After achieving frequency matching, they merged into a common energy system with Poland. This involved the Baltic states first independently controlling the same electricity frequency as Poland, and then transitioning to a shared energy system once the frequencies were fully harmonized.

Following successful voltage regulation and synchronization tests, the Baltic states celebrated their “victory” at a ceremony in Vilnius, attended by their heads of state and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Latvian President Edgars Rinkēvičs said, “We have done it.” Lithuanian leader Gitanas Nausėda celebrated the transition, stating, “Goodbye Russia, goodbye Lenin.” The leaders of Estonia and Poland highlighted the geopolitical significance of defense spending and energy infrastructure.

However, the celebrations were tempered by a sharp increase in electricity bills. Latvian journalist Arnis Kluinis, reporting for Neatkarīgā Rīta Avīze (NRA), noted that a household’s electricity bill increased from €17.68 to €22.06, a 24.8 percent rise from the very first day.

Authorities had initially stated that the impact of synchronization would not exceed 5 percent. However, the actual increase was five times higher than projected. Estonian Climate Minister Yoko Alender asserted that connecting the Baltic countries to the EU network, breaking away from Russia, would add a cost of 1 euro per month to the average consumer, and said, “This is a price worth paying for independence and security.”

The Baltic states are currently grappling with the highest electricity prices in Europe. As of February 10, the average price in the region was 146.83 EUR/MWh. This contrasts sharply with the average of 8.83 EUR/MWh on the Scandinavian peninsula, for example. Factors such as the closure of the Ignalina nuclear power plant and the unsuccessful Finland-Estonia submarine cable project have contributed to chronically high energy costs.

While the Baltic states’ “energy independence” is celebrated as a geopolitical triumph, it may become a burden, increasing economic costs. The initial indicators suggest this is indeed the case.

Europe’s success in this endeavor will depend on its ability to balance the measures driven by the “security” narrative with the public’s need for economic stability. For now, it’s evident that there is a direct correlation between the ideological value of breaking away from Russia and the escalating energy bills faced by Europeans.

On February 7, U.S. President Trump made his latest remarks on Gaza reconstruction, stating that the U.S. would become an investor in Gaza but was not in a hurry to act, prioritizing his meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky. This statement could be seen as a supplement to his earlier stance on “emptying Gaza” and “taking over Gaza.” Trump’s vision for Gaza’s future does not seem to be off-the-cuff or without systematic planning. While his original intention might have been to address the humanitarian disaster in Gaza comprehensively, it essentially reflects the consistent stance of Israel’s far-right forces and highlights his extraordinary favoritism toward Israeli interests and the U.S.-Israel special relationship, echoing the policies of his first term

Starting January 25, less than a week after returning to the White House, Trump disseminated a series of “new ideas” about Gaza’s future at various times and occasions. That day, while aboard Air Force One en route from Las Vegas to Miami, Trump told accompanying reporters that he would officially propose a plan to “empty Gaza,” describing it as a “demolition site.” On January 30, Trump stated again that Egypt and Jordan would accept displaced Gaza residents.

On February 4, after meeting with visiting Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Trump told the media that the U.S. would “take over” Gaza and work on the region. “We will own [the Gaza Strip] and be responsible for removing all dangerous unexploded ordnance and other weapons, leveling damaged houses, and creating an economic development project that provides unlimited jobs and housing for the people in the region.”

Trump said that for decades, the Gaza Strip had been a “symbol of death and destruction” and should no longer be rebuilt or occupied by the Palestinians who experienced death and suffering there. He proposed relocating Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to “other countries willing to accept them with humanitarian considerations.” When asked if he was willing to send U.S. troops to Gaza, Trump did not rule out the possibility, saying the U.S. might “own” Gaza long-term.

Netanyahu enthusiastically praised Trump’s proposal, describing it as “willing to break conventional thinking and offer fresh ideas.” He called it the “first good idea” he had heard and deemed it “worth exploring, researching, implementing, and completing to create a different future for everyone.” Netanyahu also stated that “emptying Gaza” did not require U.S. troops. On February 6, Israel’s Channel 14 further reported Netanyahu’s candid proposal during his U.S. visit, saying, “The Saudis can establish a Palestinian state in Saudi Arabia; they have plenty of land there.”

On the same day, Israel’s far-right figures, including Defense Minister Katz, claimed to have instructed the IDF to draft a plan allowing any Gaza residents willing to leave to migrate to any country ready to receive them. The plan reportedly includes sea, land, and air exit points. Katz argued that Gaza residents should have the right to free migration, a universal practice worldwide.

Observers noted that Trump had proposed the “empty Gaza” initiative during his campaign, sympathizing with Palestinians by saying, “The Gaza Strip is practically a demolition site; nearly everything has been destroyed, and people are dying.” Therefore, he hoped to collaborate with some Arab countries to build housing in different locations to resettle these people and allow them to live peaceful lives.

According to U.S. media, the person behind this initiative is Joseph Pelzman, a professor of economics and international relations at George Washington University. At Trump’s request, Pelzman drafted a Gaza reconstruction plan submitted to Trump’s team in July 2024. The plan’s core suggested a comprehensive population relocation, clearance, and reconstruction of Gaza from scratch. However, while this economic plan appears to focus solely on Gaza’s economic and social recovery, in the context of international politics and geopolitical conflict, it is far from an angelic proposal. Instead, it is part of a complex game concerning Gaza’s future and the resolution of the Palestinian issue. It aligns with the historical calculations and current proposals of Israel’s far-right forces, rejecting the two-state solution and favoring a zero-sum, unilateral resolution to the Palestinian issue.

After returning to the White House, Trump eagerly proposed the “Empty Gaza” or “Take Over Gaza” plans, which were enthusiastically endorsed by Israeli officials. This suggests that while Trump appeared to sympathize with the tragic plight of Gaza’s over 2 million Palestinians, he was in fact promoting the “Greater Israel” plan advocated by Israel’s far-right forces. Consequently, this has been met with overwhelming condemnation from global public opinion.

Trump’s proposal not only violates the United Nations Charter, international law, and the principles of international humanitarian law, but also severely deprives Palestinian natives of their permanent residency rights, survival rights, and development rights. Furthermore, it blatantly infringes on the sovereignty of UN member states such as Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. This is a classic case of “taking wool from a cow and making the camel pay,” reflecting a robber’s logic of sacrificing innocent parties to satisfy selfish interests.

On the surface, after more than a year of brutal war, the Gaza Strip indeed seems uninhabitable for humans: nearly 50,000 Palestinians have died, over 100,000 have been injured or disabled, 90% of residents have been displaced, 92% of homes have been affected by war, 36 hospitals cannot function normally, most areas have become ruins, and basic infrastructure has been largely destroyed. Relevant UN agencies estimate that there are as many as 50 million tons of war debris, which would take 25 years to completely clear. Rebuilding Gaza would require $40 to $50 billion, and possibly up to 80 years.

However, how the “hell on earth” that is Gaza should be rebuilt should not be decided by the U.S. or Israel. Instead, it should be determined by Palestinians within the framework of the United Nations, and through collective consultation by the international community. Gaza’s reconstruction must not be premised on the “Empty Gaza” concept or control of Gaza by non-Palestinians, nor should it come at the expense of Arab neighbors’ sovereignty and territorial integrity. It cannot become a substitute solution that buries the “two-state solution” and aims to permanently resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Trump’s so-called new proposals are merely old products of Zionism, intended to endorse and support the “Greater Israel” advocates, while indulging and encouraging Israel’s far-right forces. Zionists have long used the argument that “Israelis are a people without a land, and Palestine is a land without a people,” while attempting to expel Palestinian natives from their ancestral lands. Proposals such as the “Jordan-Palestinian Federation” and the “Three-State Solution,” which divides Palestinian regions between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, treat the Palestinian issue purely as a “refugee problem.” The ultimate goal is to force Arab countries to absorb Palestinians, sacrificing their natural rights and interests, and ensuring the peace and stability of Israeli society as compensation for Europe’s historical crimes of oppression, segregation, and massacres of Jews.

For the Palestinian natives who welcomed early Jewish refugees, this situation means not only suffering the consequences of ungratefulness but also bearing the burden of historical injustices they did not cause.

For a long time, Israel’s far-right forces have been illegally expropriating Palestinian lands, especially in the West Bank, and constructing settlements under various pretexts. Nearly 6,000 square kilometers of land have been fragmented into “leopard spots,” severely deteriorating the living space of Palestinians. This has created an “Asian Bantustan,” with the ultimate goal of forcing Palestinians to “voluntarily” abandon their homeland and scatter across the world, thereby achieving the monopoly of the entire Palestinian territory.

In mid-October 2023, former Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Ayalon told Al Jazeera that Gaza residents could be relocated to Egypt’s Sinai Desert, “where there is endless space,” and that “Israel and the international community could prepare 10 cities with food and fresh water.” The Associated Press reported that Israel’s intelligence agencies had drafted related plans under the guise of a “wartime proposal.” The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office neither confirmed nor denied this but described it as “a hypothetical conceptual document based on assumptions.”

In August 2024, Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Smotrich declared that starving more than 2 million people in Gaza might be “reasonable and moral.” In November, he expressed the hope that Israel could expand its sovereignty to the West Bank by 2025. On another occasion, he claimed that the Palestinian population in Gaza should be reduced by more than half within two and a half years, transforming the area into “another world” under Israeli control.

Palestinians, who have been living under prolonged occupation by Israel and in refugee camps behind separation walls, have endured the long agony of losing their homeland. Now, they face a grim future where even their basic right to survival is being designed and manipulated by others. Decent people are reluctant to compare the rhetoric of Israel’s far-right politicians to Nazi slogans about exterminating Jews, but how strikingly similar these statements sound to the Nazis’ “Final Solution” for the Jewish people!

Evangelicals represented by Trump have always stubbornly believed that God created the “City on a Hill,” the United States, to save the world. Otherwise, it is hard to understand why so many American missionaries went to spread the Gospel worldwide after the country’s founding. American Evangelicals also firmly believe that Israel’s establishment and revival in the Middle East is a “miraculous reappearance” orchestrated by God to restore His “chosen people” to the Holy City of Jerusalem. Defending Israel is seen as not only crucial to America’s secular interests but also essential to its spiritual renewal. Otherwise, how could one explain the naming of over 1,000 U.S. towns after biblical locations or America’s willingness to be “hijacked” by Israel and stand against the entire world?

During Trump’s first term, he demonstrated an extraordinary pro-Israel and pro-Jewish stance: granting the honor of his first foreign visit to Israel, breaking decades of bipartisan taboos by unilaterally recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, suppressing Palestinians in various ways and cutting off economic and humanitarian aid to them, recognizing Israel’s so-called permanent sovereignty over Syria’s Golan Heights, introducing the “Deal of the Century” that harmed Palestinian national interests, coercing and enticing some Arab countries to abandon the “land for peace” principle and normalize relations with Israel, and exerting “maximum pressure” on Iran, which does not recognize Israel as a sovereign state.

Now, with Trump’s “triumphant return,” after surviving two assassination attempts, he has further embraced the aura of being a “Chosen One.” This will undoubtedly lead him to adopt even more one-sided pro-Israel policies. Under the guise of “rebuilding Gaza,” Trump openly supports Israel’s racist policies of expelling Palestinians. He has held high-profile meetings with Netanyahu, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC), accepted a gold-plated pager symbolizing the military-industrial supply chain of war, sanctioned the ICC for issuing arrest warrants against Israeli military and political leaders for “war crimes,” and provided Israel with more than $7 billion in military aid.

All of this indicates that although Trump 2.0’s Middle East policy has not yet been fully unveiled, its cornerstone and starting point remain unwavering, unconditional, and limitless support for Israel, regardless of consequences. The “Empty Gaza” or “Control Gaza” proposals may be exaggerated rhetoric or pressure tactics against Palestine and the Arab world, but they are fundamentally unrealistic. Hoping for Trump to push for the “two-state solution” proposed by previous U.S. administrations is simply wishful thinking.

It is likely that during Trump 2.0’s term, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may temporarily de-escalate, but a systemic resolution remains a distant hope. Trump will intensify his efforts to pressure and entice Arab states to expand the list of countries signing the Abraham Accords with Israel. He will further empower Israel’s far-right forces, reward appeasement within the Arab world, and may even encourage Israel to launch large-scale strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities to paralyze the “Axis of Resistance” and the “Shiite Crescent” led by Tehran. Ultimately, this will further marginalize the Palestinian issue.

In light of Trump’s escalating statements, which fit into a carefully calculated context, they cannot be viewed as random but rather as part of a well-planned strategy. His aim is to put all parties, whether Palestinians or regional states, in a difficult position, where any concession becomes an additional gain for Israel. Within this context, Washington partially relinquishes its role in managing the situation in favor of Tel Aviv, enabling the latter to achieve regional gains and complete the objectives of its aggressive war on Palestinians through other means. Amid these developments, Palestinians face a critical crossroads, which became evident after the ceasefire, placing the Palestinian cause before two main paths.

One possibility is preserving Palestinian existence, ensuring unity, national identity, and political sovereignty through a Palestinian-led initiative that asserts the establishment of a Palestinian state. This path would reinforce national cohesion, institutional integrity, and unified decision-making while integrating into the regional framework to counter final liquidation efforts targeting the Palestinian cause.

The other trajectory leads to sliding into fragmentation and collapse, as elimination projects are not confined to a specific limit but may push Palestinian aspirations for liberation into directions that contradict the essence of the national project. This would lead to deeper divisions, political nihilism, and the erosion of the Palestinian cause’s historical and civilizational depth, ultimately turning it into a burden on regional security and global peace rather than a legitimate national liberation movement grounded in historical rights and international agreements.

These decisive choices take shape as the true nature of Israeli policies becomes increasingly evident, bolstered by full American support. This reality positions them as a direct threat to international peace and security while also violating the fundamental principles of the international order established since World War II.

The Zionist right has capitalized on the events of October 7 to construct a new narrative claiming that resolving the conflict with the Palestinians is impossible. This approach is rooted in the “decisive victory” theory, officially adopted by certain Israeli institutions since 2018 with the backing of extreme right-wing factions and full complicity from Netanyahu’s government. It denies the existence of the Palestinian people as a national entity with political rights and presents two options: extermination or forced displacement, all under the guise of maintaining the “purity of the Jewish state” within historic Palestine.

On the other side, regional and international actors, including those not aligned with Palestinian resistance, have insisted on an alternative narrative. They argue that these events did not emerge in isolation but underscore the urgent necessity of resolving the conflict through the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. The Israeli project of mass displacement and genocide recognizes that Palestinian resilience—despite war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and systematic starvation—threatens the very foundation of the Zionist project.

Historically, Palestinian political elites have lagged behind in adapting to shifting realities, missing significant opportunities. Today, however, circumstances are different. If Palestinians can withstand the ongoing crisis, whose dimensions are becoming clearer post-ceasefire, and if a solid regional bloc remains steadfast in its positions and fully aware of the dangers facing the region, a fundamental shift in the fate of the Palestinian cause and the region’s political landscape may take place.

This transformation is already visible in the increasing pace of regional coordination and efforts to bridge internal divides. The decline of rigid alignments based on positions toward Iran and the reassessment of regional stances on the Arab Spring mark the beginning of a new phase of political and strategic engagement.

Emerging geopolitical shifts may lead to solutions that recognize the historical rights of the Palestinian people, most notably the establishment of a Palestinian state. Such a development may not necessarily require direct negotiations with Israel at this stage, particularly given the dominance of the Zionist right in Israeli decision-making. However, Israeli security concerns will ultimately remain linked to the Palestinians, who will assert their conditions in any final settlement, ensuring that their fundamental rights remain non-negotiable.

This phase is marked by a growing recognition of the Palestinians’ legal and political status, making engagement with an already established Palestinian state unavoidable. If regional actors successfully support this trajectory, broader international backing could follow. Strong indicators of this shift include the emergence of a global coalition of nearly 100 countries, including the European Union, which has explicitly affirmed that its objective is resolving the conflict based on a two-state solution, as outlined in international law. In practice, this means enforcing the establishment of a Palestinian state, even if full recognition remains incomplete at this stage.

Although Palestinians do not yet fully control the territories administered by the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza due to Israeli occupation, settlement expansion, and the Judaization of Jerusalem, their demographic resilience, international recognition, and commitment to resistance continue to strengthen their position in the struggle for complete liberation.

The greatest challenge to the Palestinian position remains the political division and continued efforts to separate Gaza from the West Bank. This fragmentation disrupts the coherence of Palestinian political institutions and governance, despite numerous agreements emphasizing the unity of Palestinian decision-making. However, these agreements have yet to be fully implemented, threatening Palestinian resilience and undermining the significant sacrifices made by the people. Additionally, division weakens regional support and forfeits the opportunity to leverage the current international momentum that could enhance Palestinian diplomatic and political standing.

Beyond internal divisions, regional transformations play a crucial role in shaping this landscape. Arab states are no longer in the same position as they were during the Nakba. Regardless of varying perspectives on their positions, they are now politically stable, with significant economic and military influence on the global stage.

Moreover, many states now view themselves as directly impacted by Israel’s war on Palestinians and by U.S. policies that enable Israeli aggression. Washington’s approach, aimed at imposing an outdated global dominance, has led several states—including those once classified as part of the “moderate Arab camp”—to seek greater strategic autonomy. No longer willing to comply unconditionally with American dictates that compromise their security and stability, they are exploring alternative pathways, emphasizing regional cooperation to counterbalance U.S.-Israeli ambitions.

These countries recognize their central role in the global power struggle, with the Arab region holding the world’s primary energy resources and serving as a key hub for international trade routes. Their geopolitical significance makes them essential players in shaping future global alignments.

The world is undergoing profound transformations, whose final outcomes remain uncertain. However, these shifts present significant opportunities for Palestinians while also posing substantial risks to marginalized populations, particularly those subjected to systemic oppression, with Palestinians at the forefront of this struggle. They have endured some of the most horrific massacres in modern history, yet they refuse to be seen merely as victims. Instead, they remain a nation that has resisted with resilience and upheld its rights despite the brutality of the occupation.

What remains is for the Palestinian elite to rise to the level of its people’s resilience by overcoming internal divisions and disputes, restructuring the Palestinian political landscape, unifying representative institutions and decision-making bodies, and adapting to regional and international transformations. This requires shifting from a reactive stance to proactive engagement—managing multiple strategic pathways and forging alliances that ensure the Palestinian presence is a decisive factor in any regional or international arrangements. Whether in relation to the Palestinian cause specifically or the broader geopolitical landscape, such an approach is essential for realizing national aspirations and translating them into tangible achievements on the ground.