OPINION
Haniyeh’s death and its implication to the Middle East
Published
on
By
Yang Chen![](https://harici.com.tr/en/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Yang-Chen.jpeg)
On July 31, Haniyeh, the supreme leader of the Palestinian Hamas, was killed in Tehran after attending the inauguration ceremony of the new Iranian president. Unfortunately, as of now, the details of Haniyeh’s death has many versions, highlighting the complexity of this attack. However, Hamas, Iran and other countries have firmly believed that Israel is the power behind the throne. Based on this judgement, Iran and the “axis of resistance” it supports will inevitably retaliate against Israel.
For Israel, it will also take advantage of the “window period” of the Biden administration of the United States to increase its provocations in the Middle East. On the one hand, Israel will continue to take actions aiming to completely eliminate Hamas and thereby weaken the unity among all Palestinian parties. On the other hand, it will continue to provoke Iran in order to win greater support from the United States and help Israel and Netanyahu get out of this round of Gaza crisis. As a result, the situation in the Middle East will further fall into turmoil in the next few months.
The reasons why Hamas’ top leader was killed
It’s commonly admitted that the Decapitation Strike is a method often used by Israel to attack its opponents. There are more examples about this assumption this year. In April, Israel launched an air strike, resulting in the loss of three sons and many grandchildren of Haniyeh. It is reported that more than 60 members of his entire family have been killed by Israel. On July 30, an Israeli drone attack reportedly killed Fuad Shukr, a senior Hezbollah commander, who was considered as Hezbollah’s “second-in-command”. On August 1, the Israeli military issued a statement confirming the killing of Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif in the Gaza Strip on July 13. But the frequent use of this tool also highlights Israel’s decline and hysteria in the Gaza conflict. It can be seen that when the winner cannot be determined on the battlefield, more murders or “decapitation strike” will occur in the Middle East, resulting in a dangerous situation and more uncertainties in the Middle East.
However, no matter who is behind this attack, this is beneficial to the Israel for several reasons. Haniyeh’s death can be used by Israel to ease the Netanyahu government’s internal and external pressure. There are a lot of criticisms inside Israel, accusing Netanyahu of being too weak and making no progress in 10 months’ military actions. The US Biden administration and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris have both made clear statements that Israel should cease fire as soon as possible and sign a peace agreement. Under such huge pressure, Israel resorts to purge of Hamas leaders. On the one hand, it can appease the extreme right-wing forces and hardliners in Israel, and on the other hand, it can seriously weaken the power of Hamas.
It can be used to disrupt or even to stop the peace talks between Israel and Hamas. At present, the peace talks between the two sides are not going smoothly. Compared with the Hamas hardliners, Haniyeh was one of the people who would like to negotiate with Israel. The death of the relatively moderate Haniyeh will inevitably lead to greater obstacles in the negotiations between the two sides.
Israel can exert great pressure on Iran not showing goodwill to the West. Ismail Haniyeh’s death happened in Iran instead of other countries, which is a huge humiliation to the new Iranian government. It was a continued provocation and pressure on Iran, and also a warning to the new Iranian president not to try to improve relations with the West. Israel would like to see an Iran that returns to confrontation with the West.
The death of Haniyeh will bring bad impacts towards process of reconciliation within Palestine. Israel is very wary of the 14 Palestinian factions reaching a reconciliation and signing the Beijing Declaration on Ending Division and Strengthening Palestinian National Unity. It is urgent for Israel to divide them as much as possible and prevent the Palestinian factions from uniting together.
Besides, Israel intends to show the major powers in the Middle East and the world that it has the ability to eliminate any one of the leaders of all resistance organizations at anytime, anywhere. If someone choose to continue to confront Israel, it will inevitably suffer a heavy blow from Israel. This is actually a further deterrent to the “axis of resistance”.
Last but not least, Israel intends to bring Iran down and even drag Iran into a war with Israel. Israel has not achieved its set goals in the Gaza conflict and is helpless against Hamas, the Houthis, Hezbollah and other organizations. It can only hope to continue to provoke Iran in an attempt to drag Iran into a protracted war and then attract the United States to join in, thus helping Israel get out of the predicament.
The possible responses of Iran and the “axis of resistance”
It is for sure that Iran and the “axis of resistance” it leads will retaliate against Israel, further weakening the power of Israel and the United States in the Middle East.
Specifically speaking, Iran is bound to strike back, but the intensity of the strike will be within controllable range. Iran does not want to have a direct conflict with Israel, nor does it wishes to trigger a military conflict with the United States. After the killing of General Qasem Soleimani of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the bombing of the Iranian Embassy in Syria, Iran adopted a “turn-based strategy” retaliation method to control the confrontation between Iran and Israel. It is expected that Iran will still retaliate in this way this time. But there is a hard question for Iran that how it can have a balancing act, which is that it can strike Israel substantially without escalating the conflict between the two countries.
Although Iran’s counterattack is controllable, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi militias supported by Iran will further coordinate and intensify their attacks on Israel. During the past 8 months, it can been seen that this is the most effective way to confront Israel now and for a long time to come. That’s why it is unwise to be brave for a moment. In another word, there is still no need for Iran to have a direct confrontation with Israel and United States, but the anger of the people needs to be appeased.
Another point worth mentioning is that although Haniyeh’s death will not affect the normal operation of Hamas’ institutions, Hamas’s force has been severely hit since October 7 last year, and its ability to launch a larger-scale attack on Israel has significantly declined. There are still two months to go before the first anniversary of the Gaza conflict, and Hamas may face a more severe attack from Israel. If it can hold out for these two months, it will inevitably deal a heavy blow to Israel’s status as a military power.
The implication of Haniyeh’s death to the Middle East
After the Saudi-Iranian reconciliation and the internal reconciliation of Palestine, the contradiction between Israel and Iran has gradually become the main contradiction in the Middle East, and the “anti-Israel” united front in the Middle East is in the process of formation.
The resistance faction, mainly under the leadership of Iran, has become the main force against Israel and the United States. Although the moderate faction, mainly Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar and other countries, still has hope for Israel and the United States, Saudi Arabia has recently significantly improved its cooperation with China in economic and security affairs, and expressed appreciation and support for China’s mediation of internal reconciliation in Palestine. The hardliners, mainly led by Turkey, have not only stopped reconciliation with Israel recently, but have once again taken up the banner of anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. On July 28, 2024, Turkish President Erdogan threatened that Turkey could intervene militarily in Israel as it did in Nagorno-Karabakh and Libya in the past.
The contradictions between the United States and Israel on the Middle East issue will become more prominent, and the Gaza conflict will further spill over to more areas. With Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential election, the Biden administration has entered a “window period”. It is expected that Israel will become fearless during this period, aiming to increase provocations against Iran and intensify the Gaza conflict to a new level.
From Israel’s perspective, not only can there be no ceasefire in the Middle East, but the war must be bigger and more tragic, pushing the Middle East into greater chaos. First, it is beneficial to Netanyahu, and only by continuing the war can he preserve his political career. Second, it is beneficial to Israel, hoping to achieve the goal of completely eliminating Hamas, interrupting the internal reconciliation process in Palestine, and taking advantage of the “window period” of the Biden administration of the United States to do whatever it wants in the Middle East and weaken the resistance forces led by Iran. Third, it is beneficial to Donald Trump. Israel’s rampage in the Middle East will bring tremendous pressure to the Biden administration and presidential candidate Harris, which will indirectly benefit Trump’s presidential campaign.
Although the situation in the Middle East will become more tense, there is still some room before the critical point of a major war. The United States, Iran and Israel are the three most important forces that will determine the next steps in the Middle East.
For the United States, it has neither the will nor the ability to deal with the three crises of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea at the same time. The biggest political issue in the United States at present is the US presidential election.
For Iran, it can deal a major blow to the United States and Israel with only the Houthi armed forces, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and militias in Iraq and Syria. Therefore, it has no reason to engage directly with Israel until now.
The only uncertainty is Israel’s next move, especially whether it will launch a large-scale war against Hezbollah in Lebanon or launch more provocative actions against Iran. This assassination is just the beginning of a new round of conflict. For Israel, the death of Haniyeh is a test of Iran’s anti-Israel attitude. It will continue to increase its provocations and constantly test the anti-Israel attitudes of Turkey, Syria and other countries, so that it will be in preparation for whether to expand the scope and scale of the war in the next step.
You may like
-
The real background and deep motives behind Trump’s Gaza proposal
-
Israeli delegation in Qatar for ceasefire talks
-
France unveils €109 billion artificial intelligence plan
-
Chinese Premier urges turning trade war pressure into economic motivation
-
China files WTO complaint against Trump’s tariffs on imports
-
Latakia port to remain under French management
OPINION
The real background and deep motives behind Trump’s Gaza proposal
Published
2 hours 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/2025/02/1.jpeg)
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.
![](https://harici.com.tr/en/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/WhatsApp-Image-2025-02-03-at-14.59.22.jpeg)
The concept of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China), initially proposed by a Western economist in 2001, became a reality in 2009 when the founding countries convened in Russia. Throughout the 2010s, as economic cooperation among BRIC nations intensified, the idea of expanding the platform to include other developing countries emerged. At the 2010 BRIC summit in Brazil, the notion that the group was open to future expansion was prominently discussed. This desire for expansion was met with enthusiasm from all four founding members. The accession of South Africa in 2011 transformed BRIC into BRICS, marking the group’s first expansion phase. Subsequently, in 2024, BRICS underwent a second expansion, welcoming the United Arab Emirates, Iran, Egypt, and Ethiopia as new members. A third wave followed in 2025, with Indonesia’s full membership. Currently, BRICS comprises ten member states.
The BRICS’ popularity reached new heights during the Russia Summit. Indeed, interest in the bloc grew so significantly that it necessitated the creation of a new tier: “Associate Countries,” a stepping stone to full membership. Presently, there are nine countries within the “Associate Country” category: Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Malaysia, Nigeria, Uzbekistan, Thailand, and Uganda. Moreover, Turkey, Vietnam, and Algeria have been invited by BRICS to join this associate status program, while Saudi Arabia received an invitation for full membership. These nations are actively evaluating their prospects for either full or associate membership. BRICS is implementing a gradual expansion strategy, accommodating new members through full membership and the associate program. The “Associate Country” designation defines nations that maintain cooperative and partnership relations with the BRICS group without being full members. While participating in BRICS projects and activities, associate countries have partial involvement in decision-making processes. Additionally, while benefiting from BRICS’ advantages, associate members do not possess all the rights and obligations of full members. These countries can participate in specialized sessions at BRICS summits and foreign minister-level meetings, and have input in BRICS final declarations. Serving as a transitional stage, “Associate Country” status acts as a precursor to full membership. It enables potential candidates to understand the BRICS structure, familiarize themselves with its operation, foster dialogue, and define their potential roles within the bloc. Naturally, BRICS ‘Partner Country’ criteria include membership within the United Nations, abstaining from unilateral sanctions against BRICS members, and upholding good neighborly relations.
The bloc has clearly transformed into a substantial grouping, comprised of ten full members and nine associate countries for a total of nineteen states. BRICS has now surpassed the G7 economically and the G20 numerically. Over the last sixteen years, BRICS has established a political, economic, cultural and diplomatic network of considerable scale. With expansion to ten full members, plus partnerships with nine other countries, it is evident that the BRICS is far more than simply a dialogue or discussion platform. Furthermore, BRICS displayed solidarity during the summit in Russia, supporting President Putin and displaying their united front. This demonstrated BRICS’ ability to withstand pressures and maintain solidarity. In particular, no country’s leader has declined attending the summits since its inception.
The expansion of the BRICS group amplifies its global influence. The bloc’s enlargement will produce substantial shifts economically, politically, culturally and strategically. Uniting developing countries and amplifying their significance in the world economy may very well forge new power balances on the international stage. This is especially true given how countries within the BRICS group are beginning to establish their position against the perceived influence of US-centric global order. This movement marks BRICS as an effective global diplomacy center for non-Western nations. The last BRICS summit not only brought together China and India after five years of non-meeting, it also succeeded in seating Azerbaijan and Armenia at the same table and added Iran and the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Ethiopia as full members, underscoring its ability to alleviate and manage global conflicts. BRICS stands today as an exemplary model for cooperation by various non-Western nations. This transparent, open and consensus driven mechanism seeks to operate under collaborative spirit. Indeed, BRICS employs a consensus driven process in all of its affairs. Thus, participation in the bloc does not only signify economic advantage, becoming a full or associate member of the BRICS family is viewed as a position of considerable status and prestige. BRICS facilitates collaboration and stability among full and partner nations, establishing vital channels for dialogue and cooperation. Ultimately, BRICS represents the united vision of developing countries working to amplify intra-group trade and investment. It reflects the shared desire of states working towards achieving more effective governance on a global scale. Therefore, this expanding bloc is poised to emerge as an organization of significant global sway.
Brazil has begun its 2025 BRICS presidency energetically. The 2025 BRICS Summit will take place in Rio de Janeiro, under the banner of ‘Strengthening Global South Cooperation for More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance.’ The presidency is organising over 100 events in Brasilia between February and July. Brazil’s presidency focuses on two main priorities, the promotion of Global South cooperation and to continue global governance reform. Also central will be: alternative payment system development, expansion of intra-BRICS trade in local currencies, increased investment, cooperative agreements on artificial intelligence, a joint front in combatting climate change and public health threats, striving to reform the United Nations and broader global governance, plus bolstering the BRICS’s internal infrastructure. Where the 2024 Russia summit has seen BRICS expand, the Brazil Summit is set to solidify the blocs standing. Hosted by Brazil’s President Lula da Silva, the event is predicted to be an expansive meeting of the 10 full members, the 9 partner countries, plus a range of additional nations. This may become the largest and most influential BRICS summit ever seen. As BRICS is also defined by its rotating leadership format, this might provide further innovations with the new and expanding members involved in its structure. The BRICS now acts at the intersection of both symbolic and direct action on the part of the non-Western world. Currently, BRICS stands as the strongest and most legitimate representative of the non-Western and developing countries. This unique structure will not only represent the voice, but also will act as the brain and heart of the developing south in the coming period.
The BRICS countries represent the history of humanity in their own right and an alternative ‘Union of Civilisations’ in contrast to the idea of ‘Clash of Civilisations’ propagated by Western analysts. BRICS is an open platform fostering dialog between cultures in order to form stronger political and economic structures. The BRICS family therefore can be identified as the best option in ensuring future cooperation and countering a descent into inter-cultural conflicts. Of note is that cultural particularities as well as diverse economic and political ideologies feature prominently among the member states. This is an organisation that celebrates traditions and heritage. Furthermore, the group doesn’t impose any standard norms, regulations, or doctrines on its member nations. In this respect the BRICS family emerges as one of the most diverse organisations to follow the UN system. “Our Diversity is Our Wealth” and “Unity in Diversity” would function as effective slogans for BRICS. In these respects BRICS is certainly more engaging and comprehensive than the G7. It does not operate on ideological or geopolitical considerations of the past and is not aimed against any one power, in particular Western nations. The bloc’s trajectory through the past 16 years is an indication that this is not an antagonistic, exclusionary body looking to counter the west, in this case being both Western countries and/ or US-centric structures, in contrast to this BRICS seeks not conflict, but non-Western based cooperation between nations. Notably while a number of states, such as Brazil being an key US partner outside of NATO, India with ties to QUAD security and trading partnerships, there are clear indications of non alignment within BRICS member states. Thus, accusations suggesting an anti-western dimension are clearly lacking in both legitimacy and truth. As such, BRICS is best characterized as a force building an alternative to the US-dominated world and represents one of the strongest players challenging these dynamics in practice.
BRICS represents development, progress, reconciliation, cooperation and progress and it does this by actively engaging in setting and progressing agendas, at both the domestic level of member states and in the wider international context. It functions both as an aspiration for reformation of global affairs, and also represents that transformation in its own existence. Through this unique path BRICS moves away from older frameworks centered on the traditional Western governance system. As a dynamic force for positive change, it operates to realise a shared vision for an alternate, and collaborative form of world order, setting it well along a non-Western route into the future.
Umur Tugay Yücel – Political Scientist | author of ‘The Decline of American Power and Rising Powers (China-Russia-India-Brazil)’ @umur_tugay
![](https://harici.com.tr/en/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Prof-Ma-Xiaolin-1-80x80.jpeg)
The real background and deep motives behind Trump’s Gaza proposal
![](https://harici.com.tr/en/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TSMC-80x80.jpg)
Earthquake in Taiwan causes $162 million loss for TSMC
![](https://harici.com.tr/en/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/GettyImages-2195790381-80x80.jpg)
Baltic states disconnect from Russian power grid, join EU system
![](https://harici.com.tr/en/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/sdsdsd-80x80.jpeg)
The silent growing of extremism
![](https://harici.com.tr/en/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/President_Donald_Trump_and_Nigel-80x80.jpg)
Trump-backed Reform could shake up Britain’s two-party system
MOST READ
-
OPINION1 week ago
Expansion of the BRICS family and the Brazil summit
-
EUROPE2 weeks ago
Germany, France back Denmark over Greenland against the US
-
AMERICA2 weeks ago
Has the AI bubble burst?
-
MIDDLE EAST5 days ago
Israeli report: Trump eyes Morocco, Puntland, Somaliland for Gaza resettlement
-
MIDDLE EAST2 weeks ago
Former US special forces to man Gaza checkpoint
-
EUROPE1 week ago
Another obstacle to Meloni’s migration agreement with Albania
-
EUROPE2 weeks ago
Volkswagen considers Chinese partners for excess European production lines
-
DIPLOMACY2 weeks ago
EU-Türkiye diplomacy prioritizes energy cooperation amid regional tensions