OPINION
And Trump came… What will happen now?
Published
on
By
Hasan Ünal![](https://harici.com.tr/en/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/WhatsApp-Image-2025-01-27-at-14.21.56.jpeg)
We have reached the conclusion of the sentences beginning with “If he wins the elections, if the Deep State doesn’t kill him.” First, he won the elections held on November 5 by a landslide. Even with the Republicans securing victories in Congress, all speculations ceased. Then, the attempts by the Biden-Kamala Harris administration, which lost the elections, to escalate the war in Ukraine—particularly—raised questions about what other tactics and methods the American Deep State might employ until January 20, when Trump would take office. However, such possibilities were also dismissed—at least for the time being—and finally, Trump was sworn in and assumed office.
Well prepared
It is immediately apparent that Trump has come extraordinarily prepared for his first term. As soon as he took office, he signed decrees fulfilling many of his campaign promises. The most significant issue in terms of U.S. domestic political and social debates was the matter of migrants, or rather, fugitives. Trump and Elon Musk, his staunchest supporters, initiated a crucial debate for America. According to them, the Biden administration’s allowance of these fugitives to enter through the Mexican border was not only negligent but also served a strategic purpose.
They argued that these migrants were being directed especially to the “swing states,” which can vote for different parties in every election and thus have a substantial influence on the outcome. In these states, the margin between Democrats and Republicans is sometimes three or five thousand votes, occasionally ten or twenty thousand, allowing one party to take the lead. With a certain number of immigrants settled in these states gaining the right to vote in a short period, it would be possible for the Democrats to win most elections. Consequently, democratic elections in America could lose their significance, as Democrats would secure victories unless faced with major setbacks.
Trump’s first order of business was to immediately sign a decree halting Biden’s policies that allowed the mass entry of individuals America did not need and to deport all illegal immigrants who had entered the country unlawfully. The appointments made for migrants who applied to legalize their status were canceled, paving the way for their repatriation. According to Trump, an unprecedented repatriation operation is about to commence.
On the other hand, Trump appears to have come well-prepared for his battle against the Deep State this time. While pardoning almost all convicts from the January 6, 2021, Congressional Raid, he has also sent a clear message to thousands of senior bureaucrats: “We will not work with you.” Senior officials from the CIA, FBI, intelligence agencies, and other critical state institutions played a major role in attempts to undermine Trump during his first term.
What he said in foreign policy, what he wanted to do, and possible scenarios
Trump’s statements and omissions during his inauguration, along with his frequently expressed views on foreign policy, should all be analyzed separately. Some are symbolic, with meanings not yet fully understood, such as the American reclamation of the Panama Canal and the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico as the American Gulf. Others include threats, such as the Trump administration’s designation of Mexican drug cartels as international terrorist organizations. If the Trump administration intends to dismantle these cartels through direct military interventions in Mexico, we can anticipate that U.S.-Mexico relations will face very serious challenges.
The transfer of ownership of the Panama Canal to the United States, thereby delivering a significant blow to China’s logistics capabilities, is among the issues that need emphasis. The fact that Trump did not mention the Ukraine war, relations with Europe, and NATO during the handover ceremony could be interpreted as a sign that he does not prioritize these issues or that his previous statements on these matters align with American interests. Similarly, the omission of Greenland and Canada from the ceremony…
Greenland and Canada: Breaking point for the collective West
Trump’s announcement days before taking office to annex Greenland and Canada to the United States could create serious fractures within the Collective West. The Danish island of Greenland could bring the United States closer to the Arctic and, as the world warms in the medium term, significantly enhance its power in the Arctic Ocean and surrounding maritime jurisdictions. Canada, with the second-largest land area in the world after Russia, would make many indirect, if not direct, contributions to American ambitions in the Arctic. Moreover, the territory of this second-largest state, with a relatively small population (around 41 million), is likely to possess substantial underground resources, similar to Greenland.
But how can Greenland and Canada be annexed? No state can easily recognize the sovereignty of another without objection. Slogans emphasizing that these territories are not for sale are already prevalent in Canadian and Danish politics. Additionally, how will the new situation, arising from the intimidation and subordination of these countries to the United States, affect relations within the Collective West and the ties between Europe and America?
Greenland (2,196,000 km²) is about four times the size of Türkiye and approximately fifty times the size of Denmark, to which it belongs, yet it has a population of only fifty-six thousand (56,000). Since America’s encouragement of the island’s administration to secede from Denmark through a referendum and become part of the United States would involve coercion, to whom will Denmark— a member of both NATO and the EU—turn for help in such a situation?
What will the leading EU countries say when the U.S. takes Denmark’s island? When it comes to Cyprus and the Aegean, what will EU spokespersons, who immediately issue anti-Türkiye statements in response to Greek complaints, say when Denmark’s sovereign territory is seized? Moreover, in such a case, how will they respond to Crimea’s decision to join Russia through a referendum?
The Canadian issue is equally complicated, if not equally simple. Through intimidation, coercion, or force, the U.S. could turn Canada into America’s fifty-first province, as Trump suggested. How will NATO members, especially European ones, react when Canada—a NATO member—is forced into such a process? They may not have the power and capability to stop this coercion, but their official acceptance would have intriguing consequences. Can there be any concept of a Western Bloc when the United States is collapsing into its allies or some of their territories?
It is clear that all this will quickly lead us to a multipolar world order, which American officials are reluctant to acknowledge. Diplomats, devoid of lessons from world political history and who view Washington as their eternal pole, may claim that the international order will become anarchic. However, world political history and the history of balance-of-power politics will guide us in understanding these issues.
World history has always been multipolar. The bipolar world order after the Second World War, which caused enormous losses, was exceptional due to its ideological nature. The unipolar world order established under American leadership after the collapse of the Soviet Union was entirely exceptional and temporary. It was very difficult to sustain. Moreover, nearly five hundred years of colonialism teach that colonial states have never acted in unison, even when pursuing the same goals; they have been in fierce competition with each other and have often even risked war for this cause.
While bipolar and especially unipolar world orders have been exceptions, the states that suffered from the policies pursued by colonialism and/or Western Bloc countries have always felt trapped. The competition among Western countries seems to have created space for non-Western powers (China, Russia, Brazil, India) to rise rapidly, making the international system less Western-centered on one hand, and opening up more room for maneuver both for themselves and for medium-sized countries like Türkiye on the other. Therefore, there may be no need to be overly concerned in advance about such a new world order, the course of which we cannot determine. In fact, Türkiye can benefit significantly from this situation by effectively utilizing the opportunities created by unfolding events through policies based on national interest.
You may like
-
Has Ukraine become Trump’s ‘Valentine’s Day’ gift to Putin?
-
First official Russia-US talks since Ukraine war begin in Riyadh
-
AfD, CDU, SPD, and Greens face off in pre-election German TV debate
-
Arab Coordination Group, IMF, and World Bank to focus on Syria’s economic recovery
-
UK military leaders urge Starmer to invest in ‘futuristic’ weapons
-
NATO criticizes Ukrainian army’s ‘wasteful’ use of Western weapons
OPINION
Has Ukraine become Trump’s ‘Valentine’s Day’ gift to Putin?
Published
11 mins agoon
18/02/2025By
Ma Xiaolin![](https://harici.com.tr/en/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Ma-Xiaolin.jpeg)
February 14 is “Valentine’s Day,” an important day in the Western world, and it also coincided with the opening of the three-day Munich Security Conference (MSC). A day earlier, U.S. President Trump announced that high-ranking diplomats from the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine would attend the conference. He emphasized that the Russia-Ukraine conflict “must come to an end” and criticized former U.S. President Biden’s statements that suggesting “Ukraine could join NATO.” According to Trump, these remarks contributed to the escalation of the Ukraine crisis in 2022. Additionally, Trump expressed his desire for Russia to rejoin the G8, arguing that if the G8 had still existed, the Ukraine issue might never have arisen. Trump has always admired and respected Russian President Putin and has never concealed his pro-Russian stance. Less than a month into office, Trump made the Russia-Ukraine conflict one of the top priorities of his foreign policy agenda, presenting policies and proposals that largely disappointed Ukraine and European countries. Because of this, observers jokingly said that Trump was preparing to give Ukraine to Putin and Russia as a “Valentine’s Day” gift.
It was evident that Trump attached great importance to this year’s Munich Security Conference. He sent a high-level delegation led by Vice President Vance, which included Secretary of State Rubio and the special envoy for the Russia-Ukraine crisis, Kellogg. Ukraine, on the other hand, was represented personally by President Zelensky. Russia, however, continued its tradition of not attending the conference, which it had maintained since 2022. This year’s Munich Security Conference was significantly different from the previous three meetings. While the Russia-Ukraine conflict remained the main agenda item, the focus was no longer solely on condemning Russia or discussing how to support Ukraine. Instead, the discussions centered on how to end the war and how the U.S. and Europe could bring this “European version of the Afghanistan War” to a conclusion. The reason for this shift is simple: the U.S. government has changed. The Biden administration, which had once orchestrated the Ukraine crisis and “trapped” Russia and Europe, is now in the past. Trump, who has promised to end the Russia-Ukraine war “overnight,” is back in power and is now the key decision-maker regarding whether the war will end and how the crisis will unfold.
February 24 marks the third anniversary of the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war. Before this significant date arrives, Trump has already clearly laid out his blueprint for reshaping the geopolitical landscape of Russia, Ukraine, and Europe. This blueprint is far more realistic and tangible than Trump’s previous ideas of annexing Greenland, Canada, and Mexico, controlling the Panama Canal, or even “clearing out Gaza.” It is also a conclusion that leaves Ukraine and Europe deeply frustrated yet powerless to change. This naturally aligns with the author’s prediction from three years ago—that “Russia will achieve a tragic victory, while Ukraine will suffer a tragic defeat.”
On the 12th, Trump and Putin held their first phone consultation in several years. According to Kremlin spokesperson Peskov, the call lasted an hour and a half, during which both parties agreed on achieving a long-term resolution to the Ukraine crisis through negotiations, arranging a U.S.-Russia summit, Putin’s invitation for Trump to visit Moscow, as well as discussions on U.S.-Russia relations and the Middle East situation. It is also reported that their conversation extended beyond geopolitical issues, covering topics such as artificial intelligence, energy, and the U.S. dollar, giving the call a broader significance beyond the constraints of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The messages conveyed were also highly intriguing.
Moreover, both sides agreed to immediately establish and dispatch a negotiation team to begin talks. Today, representatives of Russia and the United States began their first official high-level talks since the start of the Ukraine war in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia. The Russian side is represented by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Russian Deputy Presidential Advisor Yuriy Ushakov, and the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), Kirill Dmitriev. The U.S. delegation includes Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and White House Special Representative for the Middle East, Steve Witkoff.
These developments indicate that the U.S. and Russia have begun to emerge from a three-year-long geopolitical standoff, restoring direct communication between their heads of state and effectively bringing bilateral relations back to the state they were in before the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war. Prior to the call, both sides not only made a series of positive statements to set the stage but also facilitated the release of detained personnel from each other’s countries, further warming the atmosphere. However, this call undoubtedly demonstrated an example of “over-the-top diplomacy” for Ukraine and America’s European partners. That is, as the leader of the Western bloc and NATO’s de facto commander, the U.S. engaged in direct discussions with its long-time adversary, Russia, over Ukraine’s and Europe’s future without thoroughly consulting its partners and allies in advance.
This approach reflects Trump’s signature “simple, direct, and effective” style, as well as a significant return to realism in great power relations. It also serves as a concrete illustration of the principle that “power determines status” and embodies the jungle law that U.S. Secretary of State Blinken once cited: “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.”
After reminiscing and discussing major decisions with Putin, Trump then had an hour-long phone call with Zelensky, briefing him on “all the details” of his talks with Putin. Zelensky stated, “We are working on coordinating with the U.S. to stop Russian aggression and ensure a reliable and lasting peace. President Trump said, ‘Let’s do it.'” These statements indicate that Ukraine has decided to follow Trump’s proposed roadmap and timeline to bring an end to the Russia-Ukraine war, eliminate the crisis at its root, and plan for Ukraine’s future.
Trump has actually already outlined the framework of his plan for how to quickly end the Russia-Ukraine war, fundamentally resolve the crisis, and ensure Ukraine’s long-term security. His first priority is to achieve a ceasefire as soon as possible, aiming to reach this goal within the first six months of his presidency. Trump has previously warned that if either Russia or Ukraine opposes this objective, he will support the other side to ensure that the goal is met.
Secondly, the borders between Russia and Ukraine will not return to their pre-conflict positions. On February 12, at the 26th Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting in Brussels, the newly appointed U.S. Secretary of Defense, Hegses, stated bluntly: “Restoring Ukraine’s borders to their pre-2014 state is unrealistic. Pursuing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering.”
Thirdly, Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO, neither in the near future nor in the long term. On the 12th, Trump once again emphasized this point via CNN, directly citing Hegses’ statement that Ukraine’s NATO membership is “unrealistic.” Hegses even told European partners in Brussels that after the crisis ends, European forces should be the primary force responsible for Ukraine’s security, and the U.S. military would not participate.
Russia, which has taken clear initiative on the battlefield, remains composed and patient, waiting for the day when the U.S. finally abandons Ukraine. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian authorities have evidently lost confidence—not only do they see no hope of reclaiming lost territories through military means, but they also fear losing further American military aid. They have even abandoned the fantasy of NATO membership under U.S. leadership and are now scrambling to preserve what remains, mitigate losses, and secure U.S. security guarantees by any means necessary.
On the same day that Trump held separate phone calls with Putin and Zelensky, Kyiv was busy receiving the newly appointed U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Besent. As the first high-ranking official from Trump’s new administration to visit Ukraine, Besent was invited by Zelensky to discuss an economic cooperation deal. The proposal involves opening up Ukraine’s mineral resources to American companies, allowing Ukraine to monetize its reserves as “compensation” for U.S. aid. Observers have described this deal as “trading minerals for assistance,” aiming to secure $300 billion in support from the Trump administration.
Over the past three years, the United States has provided Ukraine with a total of $32.4 billion, accounting for 27.2% of global aid to Ukraine. As part of Zelensky’s so-called “Victory Plan,” this resource transaction aims to bind the U.S. to Ukraine in an effort to prevent Washington from cutting off aid. However, this type of resource-based arrangement will undoubtedly provoke Russia to accelerate the extraction of minerals in its controlled territories and may even spark a global rush to exploit Ukraine’s mineral wealth. For Ukraine, after losing vast amounts of land, continuing to sell off its resources raises the question: is this a diplomatic victory or a failure? Readers can judge for themselves.
In conclusion, Trump’s solution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict is now fully laid out—it is no longer subject to speculation or multiple interpretations. It firmly establishes Ukraine as the ultimate loser in this conflict. Meanwhile, Europe, having lost U.S. support and NATO’s protective umbrella, now finds its hopes of collectively defending Ukraine or even reclaiming lost territories to be nothing more than a geopolitical fairy tale.
The framework of a “Russia’s tragic victory and Ukraine’s tragic defeat” is now set, and as the Russia-Ukraine war approaches its third anniversary, its end may finally be in sight. Moving forward, we will witness how, under U.S. mediation, Russia and Ukraine negotiate de-escalation, gradual cooling of hostilities, and a step-by-step ceasefire, ultimately leading to a long-term armistice agreement akin to the Korean War settlement or another form of peace deal.
We will also see how, under Trump’s coercion and diplomatic maneuvering, the U.S. will gradually ease and lift sanctions on Russia, push for Russia’s return to the G8, and work to normalize Russia-Europe relations by sidelining the Ukraine crisis.
The like-minded Trump and Putin have finally found their long-awaited opportunity for direct dialogue and collaboration, and they truly understand and resonate with each other. If you don’t believe it, consider this piece of news: on February 10, Trump’s social media account shared Putin’s flattering remark, stating that Trump will “soon restore order in Europe” and that Europe will “stand at its master’s feet, gently wagging its tail.”
Prof. Ma is the Dean of the Institute of Mediterranean Studies (ISMR) at Zhejiang International Studies University in Hangzhou. He specializes in international politics, particularly Islam and Middle Eastern affairs. He previously worked as a senior Xinhua correspondent in Kuwait, Palestine, and Iraq.
OPINION
Goodbye Russia, goodbye Lenin: What has ‘energy independence’ brought to the Baltic states?
Published
6 days agoon
12/02/2025![](https://harici.com.tr/en/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Baltik-ulkeleri-enerji-bagimsizl.jpg)
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.
OPINION
The real background and deep motives behind Trump’s Gaza proposal
Published
1 week agoon
11/02/2025By
Ma Xiaolin![](https://harici.com.tr/en/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Prof-Ma-Xiaolin-1.jpeg)
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.
Prof. Ma is the Dean of the Institute of Mediterranean Studies (ISMR) at Zhejiang International Studies University in Hangzhou. He specializes in international politics, particularly Islam and Middle Eastern affairs. He previously worked as a senior Xinhua correspondent in Kuwait, Palestine, and Iraq.
![](https://harici.com.tr/en/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Ma-Xiaolin-80x80.jpeg)
Has Ukraine become Trump’s ‘Valentine’s Day’ gift to Putin?
![](https://harici.com.tr/en/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Avustralya-Merkez-Bankasi-80x80.jpg)
Interest rates in Australia reduced for the first time since 2020
![](https://harici.com.tr/en/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/AA-20250217-37079451-37079442-AT-80x80.jpg)
Israel demands all six hostages this week in exchange for aid
![](https://harici.com.tr/en/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/GkDfZ9cXIAAH0cq-80x80.jpg)
First official Russia-US talks since Ukraine war begin in Riyadh
![](https://harici.com.tr/en/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/akhundzada-80x80.jpg)
Disagreement with supreme leader: Sirajuddin Haqqani yet to return Afghanistan
MOST READ
-
OPINION2 weeks ago
Expansion of the BRICS family and the Brazil summit
-
MIDDLE EAST2 weeks ago
Israeli report: Trump eyes Morocco, Puntland, Somaliland for Gaza resettlement
-
DIPLOMACY7 days ago
US-China tensions rise at AI summit as JD Vance leaves dinner
-
AMERICA2 weeks ago
Pentagon drafts plan for US troop withdrawal from Syria
-
EUROPE2 weeks ago
Coalition talks hit deadlock as Austria struggles to form government
-
DIPLOMACY2 weeks ago
Trump administration seeks congressional approval for $1 billion arms sale to Israel
-
EUROPE2 weeks ago
Greenland calls early elections amid rising independence debate
-
AMERICA23 hours ago
Real story of TikTok ban: US senator reveals Israel connection