Hassan Nasrallah, a Shiite cleric and leader of Lebanon’s Hezbollah, was one of the most well-known and influential political-military figures in the Middle East region.

Hassan Nasrallah had not been seen in public for years due to the fear of being assassinated by Israel. On Saturday, the Israeli army announced that they had killed Nasrallah in an attack on Beirut, the capital of Lebanon.

The Hezbollah group did not comment on this for several hours; But after the morning of Saturday, they confirmed that he was killed. Nasrallah had close personal relations with Iran and had played a key role in transforming Hezbollah into a political and military force today.

He still had special respect among the supporters of the group. Under Nasrallah’s leadership, the Hezbollah group cooperated in training Hamas fighters as well as militias in Iraq and Yemen.

This group also facilitated the transfer of missiles and rockets from Iran to be used against Israel to the Hamas group.

Nasrallah transformed the Hezbollah group from a militia group to a military force

Nasrallah transformed the Hezbollah group from a militia group established to fight the Israeli forces in Lebanon, to a military force that is stronger than the Lebanese army and more powerful in the country’s politics.

Born in 1960, Hassan Nasrallah grew up in the Hammoud East Tower area in Beirut. His father Abdul Karim owned a small vegetable shop in this area. He was the eldest of nine children in this family. After the start of the Lebanese civil war in 1975, he joined the Amal movement, which was a Shiite militia group at the time.

After a short period in the Iraqi city of Najaf to study at a Shia seminary, he rejoined Amal in Lebanon; But he left this group in 1982, sometime after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

The Amal group, which was created by Moussa al-Sadr, had significant military support from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

In 1985, Hezbollah officially announced its presence by publishing an “open letter”. In this letter, Hezbollah identified America and the Soviet Union as the main enemies of Islam and demanded the “destruction” of Israel.

With the expansion of the Hezbollah group in various positions, Hassan Nasrallah finally became the leader of Hezbollah in 1992 

With the expansion of the Hezbollah group in various positions, Hassan Nasrallah finally became the leader of Hezbollah in 1992 at the age of 32 after the assassination of Abbas al-Mousavi in an Israeli airstrike.

One of his first actions was to avenge Mousavi’s murder. Nasrallah ordered the launch of rocket attacks on northern Israel, which resulted in the death of a girl. An Israeli security officer at the Israeli embassy in Turkey was also killed by a car bomb explosion. As a result of another suicide attack on the Israeli embassy in Argentina, at least 29 people were killed.

Hassan Nasrallah also managed a battle with Israeli forces that ended with their withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000.

Hassan Nasrallah said that Hezbollah will not be disarmed and stressed: “All Lebanese lands must be recaptured.” In 2006, Hezbollah forces carried out a border attack in which eight Israeli soldiers were killed. Two other soldiers were taken hostage by Hezbollah forces. In response to this action by Hezbollah, Israeli warplanes bombarded Hezbollah positions in the south and southern suburbs of Beirut.

Hezbollah also fired about 4,000 rockets at Israel. In this conflict, more than 1,115 Lebanese citizens, most of whom were civilians, had lost their lives. Also, 119 Israeli soldiers and 45 civilians were killed.

Nasrallah’s house and offices were targeted by Israeli airstrikes several times. But he survived. In 2009, Hassan Nasrallah initiated a new political process that sought to highlight Hezbollah’s “political vision”.

Four years later, he announced that Hezbollah had entered a “whole new phase” by sending fighters to Syria to help its ally Iran.

However, Sunni Lebanese leaders have accused Hezbollah of dragging the country into the Syrian war, and sectarian tensions have worsened. On October 8, 2023, a day after Hamas attacked Israel, which led to the war in Gaza, previously sporadic clashes between Hezbollah and Israel escalated.

Amal movement described Hezbollah leader as “a unique and courageous figure”

In his last speech, Hassan Nasrallah accused Israel of blowing up thousands of pagers and radio devices used by members of the group under his command. These explosions killed 39 people and injured thousands more. The leader of Hezbollah warned that he will take revenge on Israel for these attacks.

However, sometime later, Israel greatly increased its attacks on Hezbollah and nearly 800 people were killed in Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon.

Finally, today, the Israeli army announced that it had killed Hassan Nasrallah in its new air attacks on Beirut — the attack against the Lebanese Hezbollah in the last few years of this country is considered unprecedented.

Lebanon’s Amal Movement, Hezbollah’s political ally in a statement described the Hezbollah leader as “a unique and courageous figure”. His death would not weaken the resolve of the resistance fighters, the statement said, referring to the death of Nasrullah.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s emphasis on ‘Uyghur Turks’ while talking about the Organisation of Turkic States in his speech at the 79th General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) in New York has drawn reactions from the Chinese public.

In his speech to the UN General Assembly, President Erdoğan said that the Organisation of Turkic States is gradually becoming a centre of attraction and that with the contributions of observer members Hungary and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, the Organisation has become an exemplary model of cooperation.

Stating that they will further strengthen unity and solidarity as the Turkic world, Erdoğan said, “We are in close dialogue with China to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of Uighur Turks, with whom we have strong historical, cultural and human ties, within the framework of respecting China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We are committed to taking the friendly relations we have established with all countries in Latin America and the Caribbean to a higher level.

The Chinese Academy responded to Erdoğan’s speech on relations with China in the context of the Uyghurs and the Organisation of Turkic States.

‘Violating the basic principles of international relations’

Prof. Dr Guo Changgang, director of the Institute of History at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences and director of the Centre for Turkish Studies at Shanghai University, said Erdoğan’s remarks were a violation of China’s sovereignty and the basic principles of international relations.

Prof Guo Changgang said:

‘I believe that when Erdogan talks about ‘working to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of Uyghur Turks, with whom we have strong historical, cultural and humanitarian ties, through close dialogue with China and respecting China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity’, first of all, he is violating the basic principles of international relations. Secondly, it is an interference in the sovereignty of other Turkic-speaking countries, because he is acting as a representative of these countries as if he were their master. Thirdly, it is not only a lack of respect for China’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity, but also a gross form of interference. The Uyghurs are part of the larger Chinese family; if Erdogan believes that there is a historical cultural link between Turkish Turks and Chinese Uyghur Turks, this link should serve as a bridge for Turkish-Chinese friendship and a facilitator for Turkish-Chinese relations, not as a ‘weapon’ or a tool to increase bilateral tensions. I don’t understand how Erdogan, as a politician, can make such statements that lack international relations and political wisdom.’

‘One of the main reasons for this is probably Erdogan’s aforementioned logical stance,’ said Prof Guo, noting that since the establishment of a ‘strategic cooperation relationship’ between China and Türkiye in 2010, the relationship has not progressed further and has not reached the level of a ‘strategic partnership’.

‘I fully understand Türkiye’s sense of national pride, and as a historian, I also understand the ‘construction’ and ‘interpretation’ of Turkish history in the nation-building process of the Turkish Republic. Türkiye can claim in its history textbooks that the Sumerian civilisation, the Egyptian civilisation and later the Minoan-Mycenaean civilisation were based on the Turkic civilisation, and that the Turkic world once stretched from the Adriatic Sea to the western shores of the Pacific Ocean,’ Prof Guo said, adding that this should not be used as an excuse for Türkiye to interfere in the internal affairs of the countries concerned.

‘Against Türkiye’s national interests’

Commenting on Erdoğan’s speech, Prof. Hasan Ünal also criticised the ‘reduction of relations with China to the Uyghur agenda’.

‘The fact that President Erdoğan mentioned relations with China only in the context of the Uyghur issue in his speech to the UN General Assembly is one of the most important shortcomings of the speech,” said Prof Dr Hasan Ünal, ‘relations with China, the undisputed superpower of the multipolar world, constitute/should constitute the most important pillar of the multilateral foreign policy that Türkiye pursues or, more precisely, should pursue, and this issue can’t be reduced to the Uyghur issue’.

Ünal said, ‘In fact, relations with any state that hosts minorities/societies of Turkish origin cannot/should not be reduced to the situation of relations between the Turkish minorities and/or communities there and the states in question’ and gave the following example: ‘In Bulgaria, our neighbouring country, a large Turkish community lives in very good conditions and is an element of relations between Türkiye and Bulgaria. Their loyalty to the Bulgarian state is unquestionable. Türkiye should not interfere in the internal affairs of Bulgaria through the Turkish community or in the internal issues/discussions of the Turkish community. It contributes to the credibility of the Turkish community in Bulgaria by not interfering, except for some mistakes made in this direction in recent years’.

Noting that similar principles apply to the Uyghur issue, which is often raised in our relations with China, Ünal said: ‘The Uyghur issue is not and should not be a foreign policy issue for Türkiye. Relations between Ankara and Beijing should be decided directly between the two states on the basis of sovereignty and national interests. It cannot be reasonable and logical for Ankara to include an issue like the Uyghurs in this policy-making process. The Uyghurs will become part of the bridge formed by the good relations between Türkiye and China, and this is the right thing to do’.

‘Otherwise, problems and misunderstandings are inevitable,’ warned Ünal, adding that President Erdoğan’s remarks were ‘very open to misunderstanding’ and that ‘it is really difficult to understand why this sentence was inserted in the part of the speech that talks about the close cooperation between the countries of the Organisation of Turkic States. Because here, by presenting itself as the representative of the Uyghur Turks and even the Turkic world, Türkiye appears as a state trying to take away their rights, which they cannot get from China and which no sovereign state can accept’.

On the other hand, Ünal stressed that none of the member states of the Organisation of Turkic States has kept this issue on the agenda in its relations with China, and said that Türkiye’s raising of an issue that these states have not in any way made a foreign policy issue within the framework of cooperation among the members of the Organisation of Turkic States could raise suspicions among other states that ‘Ankara is trying to create a Uyghur agenda by using them’. Prof. Dr Hasan Ünal stated that Türkiye would not benefit from such an outcome in terms of its national interests and said: ‘It goes without saying that the ‘genocide of the Uyghurs’ allegations in Türkiye and around the world are purely American propaganda’.

The Greek government is to press ahead with plans to build a new fence on its border with Turkey to prevent ‘illegal migration’, with or without EU funding, despite the European Commission’s insistence that ‘smarter solutions’ must be implemented.

Athens fears that an escalation in the Middle East conflict could lead to new waves of migration and is making diplomatic overtures to Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority.

Construction of a fence on the northeastern land border with Turkey began in 2012 and has since been extended using national funds.

Following Germany’s decision to take a tougher stance on migration, the issue has resurfaced, with politicians in Berlin calling on border countries such as Greece to step up protection of Europe’s external borders.

In light of the new developments, Athens has reiterated its demand for EU funding for the extension of the fence.

“The new fence will be built with or without Europe,” Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said recently.

Brussels warns Athens to ‘integrate’

But while the European Commission insists it is against funding the construction of fences, it also recognises that national governments know better how to protect their borders.

Member states must protect the EU’s external borders,” a Commission spokesperson told Euractiv. They are best placed to determine how to do this in practice in a way that is fully compatible with the acquis, including respect for fundamental rights,” a Commission spokesperson told Euractiv.

The EU official added that the Commission maintains that effective management of external borders is a priority for the Union and that an integrated approach should be adopted.

“The focus should be on smart solutions that support the implementation of European integrated border management, such as integrated, interoperable and adaptable surveillance systems,” the EU spokesperson said.

Erdogan’s statement on two states in Cyprus does not affect migration talks with Athens

Greek authorities report an increase in migration flows from Turkey in 2024 compared to last year, but point out that they come mainly from the sea and not from the land border with Turkey.

Many believe that political stability between Turkey and Greece will be key to controlling migration flows, and Athens is working towards this goal.

Earlier this week, Mitsotakis held a 30-minute meeting with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York, during which the two leaders agreed to ‘continue working to dismantle smuggling networks’.

Greek media reported that the meeting remained focused on the positive agenda of cooperation on migration, despite Erdogan’s open call for the partition of Cyprus into two states just hours before the meeting.

Messages from Athens to Beirut, Ramallah and Tel Aviv

Meanwhile, the escalation of tensions in the Middle East, with reports that Israel is preparing for a possible ground invasion of Lebanon, is causing concern in Athens.

Greek Foreign Minister Giorgos Gerapetritis met his Lebanese counterpart, Abdullah Abu Habib, and promised to mobilise at EU level to provide medical assistance to Lebanese citizens injured and in need of treatment.

Mitsotakis also met with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Diplomatic sources in New York told Euractiv that the issue of migration was raised in all contacts as a potential side-effect of the wider Middle East crisis.

Mitsotakis also sent a message to Tel Aviv on a political level. In an interview with CNN, the Greek leader said there were opportunities for a ceasefire that “Israeli friends” were not using enough.