RT
Global events increasingly reflect the growing confrontation between the Western bloc, led by the United States and its allies, and the countries of the so-called “World Majority,” coalescing around BRICS.
This geopolitical tension is particularly evident against the backdrop of escalating conflicts in the Middle East, where the actions of the US and Israel are seen as manifestations of Western hegemony, while BRICS nations and their partners are increasingly positioning themselves as defenders of multipolarity, sovereignty, and a just international order.
On July 7, US President Donald Trump hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. The two leaders discussed two major issues: the upcoming negotiations with Iran and the controversial initiative to relocate Palestinians from Gaza. These topics underscored Washington and West Jerusalem’s efforts to reshape the Middle East’s security architecture – framed under the banner of offering a “better future,” yet unfolding amid growing accusations of violations of international law.
During a working dinner, Netanyahu stated that Israel and the US had been consulting with several countries allegedly willing to accept Palestinians wishing to leave Gaza. He emphasized that the proposed relocation would be “voluntary,”offering a better future to those who seek it. According to him, agreements with a number of countries were already nearing completion.
Initially, Trump refrained from making a clear statement on the matter, but later remarked that “neighboring countries have been extremely cooperative,”expressing confidence that “something good will happen.” This ambiguity may reflect either an attempt to soften the political sensitivity of the issue or a reluctance to prematurely reveal the details of a plan that has drawn considerable criticism.
Previously, Trump had proposed transforming Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East” and relocating its population – an idea harshly rejected both by the residents of the enclave and by international human rights organizations, which characterized it as a form of ethnic cleansing. Behind the scenes of the dinner, indirect negotiations between Israel and Hamas were ongoing, focused on securing a ceasefire and a hostage exchange.
The meeting marked the third in-person encounter between Trump and Netanyahu since the Republican leader’s return to the White House in January. Just two weeks earlier, the US had carried out strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in support of Israeli military action. Days later, Trump helped broker a short-term ceasefire in the 12-day war between Israel and Iran – an achievement likely intended to bolster his own diplomatic credentials
During the meeting, Trump announced that his administration had scheduled formal talks with Iran. He said that Tehran had shown a willingness to negotiate following substantial military and economic pressure. US Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff confirmed that the meeting was expected to take place “within the next week.”
Trump also indicated he was open to lifting sanctions on Iran under the right circumstances. Meanwhile, Iran’s newly elected president, Masoud Pezeshkian, expressed hope that tensions with the United States could be resolved through diplomacy. These statements suggested a potential, albeit limited, window for resetting US-Iranian relations, though both sides appeared driven primarily by tactical considerations.
The Israeli side expressed hope that the outcome of the conflict with Iran could help advance the normalization of relations with several Arab states, including Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. In this sense, the actions of Israel and the US in the region appear to be aimed not only at immediate security concerns but also at a long-term strategic reshaping of the Middle Eastern landscape.
However, the situation is far from straightforward. It seems that Netanyahu is trying to create the appearance of active engagement in peace processes, while in reality showing little interest in achieving meaningful change. Israeli media have reported that Netanyahu is under “intense pressure” from Trump, who is pushing for a Gaza ceasefire deal. Nevertheless, no substantial progress has yet been made.
Media sources indicate that Witkoff’s planned trip to Doha has been postponed. Earlier that evening, Witkoff had expressed optimism, claiming that only one issue remained unresolved: where the Israeli army would redeploy. This question is crucial, as Israel insists on retaining control over the city of Rafah in southern Gaza and securing the release of hostages. Current estimates suggest that around 50 hostages remain in Gaza, with approximately 20 believed to be alive.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has announced plans to establish a tent city in Rafah to relocate up to 600,000 Palestinians. Israel would control entry into the camp, prevent residents from leaving, and subsequently begin the process of transferring them out of Gaza altogether. This is all part of what has been referred to as the “Trump Plan” for the “depopulation” of the enclave and the establishment of full Israeli control.
...one clear conclusion emerges: conflicts in the Middle East are set to intensify. Gaza will likely remain a flashpoint of violence and humanitarian crisis, as the root political and geopolitical causes of the conflict go unaddressed. The confrontation between Israel and Iran – already escalating through direct military engagements and cyber operations – may evolve into a wider and more dangerous conflict. Moreover, the arc of tension is likely to draw in additional regional players, including Türkiye and various Arab states. Despite longstanding economic and military ties with the West, many of these countries are increasingly gravitating toward the non-Western camp, which champions reforms to global institutions, challenges hegemonic structures, and upholds sovereignty and equality in international relations. This trend lays the groundwork for a profound transformation – not only of the Middle East, but of the global system itself – where the battle over new rules of engagement becomes a driving force behind enduring instability and conflict.
No comments:
Post a Comment