Western Imperialism on Display: The Mar-a-Lago Meeting and Its Implications for Global South Sovereignty
Published
- 3 min read
The Facts: What the Meeting Entails
United States President Donald Trump is hosting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida to discuss several critical issues affecting the Middle East region. The agenda includes advancing the stalled Gaza ceasefire implementation, addressing Israel’s concerns about Hezbollah’s rearmament in Lebanon, and discussing Iran’s recent missile activities and nuclear ambitions. Central to these discussions is Trump’s pressure on Netanyahu to move forward with the second phase of his peace plan, which envisions establishing a transitional Palestinian governing authority in Gaza alongside an international security force.
Israel has consistently resisted moving to this next phase until Hamas meets specific conditions: complete disarmament and the return of all Israeli hostages, including their remains. Meanwhile, Hamas has reasserted control in parts of Gaza and refuses to disarm, creating a stalemate that has resulted in continued violence. Since the truce began, over 400 Palestinians have been killed in ongoing clashes and violations from both sides.
The meeting occurs against the backdrop of ongoing Israeli strikes in Lebanon and growing U.S. concern about Iran’s military posturing. Trump’s personal involvement highlights his administration’s preference for top-down, bilateral diplomacy over multilateral approaches, particularly as he positions himself ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Contextualizing the Power Dynamics
This meeting represents more than just routine diplomacy—it exemplifies the persistent power imbalance that characterizes relationships between Western powers and nations of the Global South. The very premise of the discussion—that an American president and Israeli prime minister can determine the fate of Palestinian governance—reveals the deeply entrenched colonial mindset that continues to dominate international relations.
The Gaza Strip remains one of the most densely populated areas in the world, with over two million Palestinians living under varying degrees of restriction and military occupation. The humanitarian situation has been described by numerous international organizations as catastrophic, with limited access to clean water, electricity, healthcare, and economic opportunities. Any discussion about Gaza’s future that doesn’t center Palestinian self-determination and humanitarian needs is fundamentally flawed from the outset.
Iran’s missile program and nuclear ambitions must also be understood within the context of regional security concerns. While Western powers frequently frame Iran’s activities as provocative, they rarely acknowledge that Iran exists in a region surrounded by nuclear-armed states and U.S. military bases. The selective application of non-proliferation norms—where some nations are permitted nuclear weapons while others are sanctioned for even civilian nuclear programs—exposes the hypocrisy of the current international security architecture.
The Imperialist Framework of So-Called Peace Plans
Trump’s peace plan, like many Western-designed solutions for the Middle East, suffers from fatal flaws that ensure its inevitable failure. First, it imposes external solutions on internal conflicts, disregarding the complex historical, cultural, and political realities of the region. Second, it prioritizes security concerns of powerful states over the fundamental rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people. Third, it operates within a framework that assumes Western superiority and right to intervene.
The requirement that Hamas must disarm before any political process can advance reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of asymmetric conflicts. Disarmament without concurrent political concessions and guarantees creates power vacuums and perpetuates cycles of violence. True security cannot be achieved through unilateral demands but through mutually agreed upon processes that address the root causes of conflict.
The proposed international security force for Gaza raises serious concerns about neo-colonial occupation under a different name. History has shown that foreign military presence, even when labeled as “peacekeeping,” often becomes permanent and serves the interests of the intervening powers rather than the local population. The people of Gaza have endured enough external control; what they need is genuine autonomy and the opportunity to determine their own political future.
The Hypocrisy of Selective Intervention
Western powers, particularly the United States, have consistently applied international law and norms selectively based on their geopolitical interests. The same nations that express concern about civilian casualties in Gaza provide the weapons that enable continued violence. The same powers that demand disarmament from resistance groups maintain the world’s largest arsenals of weapons of mass destruction.
This meeting between Trump and Netanyahu occurs while the International Court of Justice investigates allegations of genocide in Gaza, while the International Criminal Court considers arrest warrants for leaders on both sides, and while the United Nations issues report after report documenting human rights violations. Yet Western powers continue to operate as if these international institutions matter only when they serve their interests.
The focus on Iran’s missile program while ignoring Israel’s nuclear arsenal (which remains outside international safeguards) exemplifies this double standard. The non-proliferation regime cannot maintain credibility while applying different rules to different nations based on their alignment with Western interests.
Toward a Truly Multipolar World Order
The persistence of these unequal power dynamics underscores the urgent need for a fundamental restructuring of global governance. Civilizational states like India and China offer alternative models of international relations that respect sovereignty and prioritize mutual development over intervention. The rise of the Global South represents not just an economic shift but a philosophical challenge to Western hegemony.
Genuine peace in the Middle East requires dismantling the imperial frameworks that have perpetuated conflict for decades. This means respecting Palestinian self-determination, ending the selective application of international law, and creating inclusive diplomatic processes that involve all relevant stakeholders—not just the most powerful ones.
The Mar-a-Lago meeting represents everything that is wrong with current approaches to international conflict resolution. It exemplifies top-down imposition rather than bottom-up consensus building, security-focused approaches rather than justice-centered solutions, and great power politics rather than equal sovereignty.
As nations of the Global South continue to assert themselves on the world stage, we must reject these outdated models of diplomacy and demand genuine multilateralism that respects civilizational diversity and national sovereignty. The future of international relations must be built on principles of equality, mutual respect, and shared prosperity—not the imperial nostalgia that characterizes current Western approaches to the Middle East and beyond.
The path forward requires courageous leadership from Global South nations to create alternative diplomatic frameworks and challenge the unjust structures that have dominated international politics for too long. Only through genuine partnership and respect for sovereignty can we achieve lasting peace and justice in Palestine and throughout the world.