Connect with us

OPINION

Why Taiwan’s elections won’t be a ‘breakthrough moment’?

Published

on

With more than 50 countries and territories around the world going to the polls, the 2024 election campaign kicked off with Taiwan’s elections over the weekend. With no seats in the United Nations and not recognised as a sovereign state by the overwhelming majority of the international community, it is no surprise that Taiwan’s elections are being closely watched. The elections are less about how the island of 25 million people will be governed internally, and more about how China and the US define the island and where they would like to see it in the future.

For the People’s Republic of China, the island of Taiwan is the mainstay of an unfinished national integration, while for the US it is a military ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’ and a political-economic alternative to the communist mainland.

PRIMARY REASON: THE MULTIFACETED RESULT OF THE VOTE

The establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the US in 1979 was the result of a compromise over Taiwan that was subsequently (and unsurprisingly) violated by Washington. The historical background to this situation is the subject of another article, but today Beijing has repeatedly stated that it will build bridges with any country and would not hesitate to go to war for the sake of reunification with Taiwan. On the other hand, the outcome of the Taiwanese elections on 13 January suggests that, for the time being, the disaster scenarios will not come true, that the current positions of the parties across the Taiwan Strait will be maintained, and even that the island will not be talked about much in the short to medium term.

Such an assumption is made for two main reasons:

First, the election results were not to China’s satisfaction, nor were they significant enough to encourage the US and its allies. According to the official results, the pro-US Democratic Progressive Party, which won over 8 million votes (57 per cent) in the 2020 election, only managed to win just over 5 million votes (40 per cent) in the last election. The candidate of the opposition Kuomintang, Hou Yu-ih, received 4 million 671 votes, while the candidate of the Taiwan People’s Party, Ko Wenje, was preferred by 3 million 690 thousand voters. In short, the victory of the Democratic Progressive Party was self-inflicted by the divided opposition. Moreover, it is no secret that in order to consolidate the anti-Beijing vote, the DPP misrepresented the satellites launched by China as missiles and raised ‘false’ alarms across the country.

Although the Democratic Progressive Party declared victory, taking advantage of the opposition’s divisions and a series of controversial events, it lost its majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Kuomintang has 52 seats, the Democratic Progressive Party 51 and the People’s Party 8.

Such a situation will undoubtedly make Lai Cheng-te ‘think twice’. Indeed, Lai Cheng-te, a member of the New Wave, the hardline independence wing of the Democratic Progressive Party, said in a statement immediately after the elections that he was in favour of maintaining the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. However, the same Lai Cheng-te had referred to the island as an ‘independent state’ in his pre-election statements.

The illusion that the Democratic Progressive Party represents the overwhelming majority of the country’s will was finally shattered in Taiwan’s local elections. In the 26 November local elections, the Kuomintang won 13 out of 22 cities, including the capital Taipei, while the DPP won only 5.

REASON TWO: THE CURRENT COURSE OF CHINA-US RELATIONS

The second phenomenon that strengthens the argument that, contrary to expectations, the Taiwan elections will not lead to a rupture is the current dynamic in Sino-US relations.

The tensions, which culminated in the visit to Taiwan by the former speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, led to China closing its doors to the US after the ‘balloon crisis’, which went down in the history of international relations. To break the spiral of miscommunication with China, the White House sent US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to Beijing in June, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and climate envoy John Kerry in July, and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo in August.

As a result of these efforts, the US hosted first Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and then Chinese President Xi Jinping on 15 November. At the San Francisco summit, US President Joe Biden declared that they were not pursuing a Cold War or military hot contact, while the parties decided to set up working groups on trade and economics and liaison mechanisms at the level of defence ministries and field commands.

With the year 2024, diplomatic traffic continued to increase. This time, planes leaving China carried Liu Jiancho, head of the Central Liaison Department of the Chinese Communist Party, to the US. While Liu reminded his contacts that the Taiwan issue was the basis of Sino-US relations, the defence and trade delegations met in January in accordance with the decision taken in San Francisco.

It is doubtful that the US, which is more interested in de-risking than decoupling from China, will be willing to bear the cost of Taiwan. Given the multidimensional picture emerging in Taiwan, it is understandable that the US sent a relatively low-profile delegation to the island earlier this week, or that Biden’s statement that the US does not support Taiwanese independence. Nevertheless, it would not be surprising to see the US continue to sell arms to Taiwan and change course to consolidate voters as the November presidential elections approach.

CHINA WILL TRY TO WIN HEARTS AND ‘WALLETS’

After the Taiwan elections, China sent the message that historical reality, not the ballot box, will determine the island’s future, condemned US arms sales and sent an ‘election gift’ to the island by taking Nauru, one of the ‘handful of countries’ that recognises Taiwan.

Although China maintains its firm stance on Taiwan, it will focus on the strategy of ‘winning hearts’ rather than ‘flexing muscles’ as long as its red lines are not crossed in the coming period.

In his New Year’s speech on the eve of the elections, Chinese leader Xi Jinping spoke of meeting with ‘patriots’ in Taiwan, without hinting at the use of military force if necessary. The Chinese Communist Party’s theoretical magazine Qiushi also published an article this week on Xi’s speech, which emphasised winning the hearts of people in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau.

With 60 per cent of voters not voting for Lai Cheng-te and the Democratic Progressive Party losing 10 seats in parliament, Beijing will no doubt want to use the economy as a lever for peaceful reunification. In this context, a number of measures may be implemented in the coming days, such as making the Integrated Development Zone in Fujian Province across the island more attractive.

OPINION

Has Ukraine become Trump’s ‘Valentine’s Day’ gift to Putin?

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

OPINION

Goodbye Russia, goodbye Lenin: What has ‘energy independence’ brought to the Baltic states?

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

OPINION

The real background and deep motives behind Trump’s Gaza proposal

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey