In The Clash of Civilisations, Samuel Huntington argues that the fundamental sources of conflict in the post-Cold War world will no longer be ideological or primarily economic, but cultural. He posits that the world is divided into several major civilisations—such as Western, Islamic, Confucian and Hindu —each with its distinct values, religions and traditions.

As Western influence declines and globalisation spreads, cultural identities will become more pronounced, leading to potential clashes between these civilisations, particularly where different cultural groups share territorial borders or have competing political and social values.

Huntington suggests that the most significant conflicts will occur along the “fault lines” between these civilisations, especially where Western ideals come into conflict with those of non-Western cultures. He highlights the tension between the West and Islam, as well as the rising power of China and the potential challenges to the global order from an assertive Islamic world and Confucian East Asia.

While Huntington acknowledges the potential for cooperation between civilisations, he argues that the dominant patterns of conflict in the future will be cultural and civilisational rather than ideological or economic. His theory emphasises that understanding and managing these cultural differences will be crucial for global peace and stability.

Very few individuals with a scholarly inclination considered Samuel Huntington’s theory of the “clash of civilisations” worthy of serious consideration when it was first proposed. Many critics dismissed it as oversimplified and reductive, arguing that global conflict was driven more by ideological and economic forces than by cultural and civilisational divides.

However, in the wake of the emergence of the Trump-Netanyahu axis on the world stage, particularly with their controversial and Faustian agenda concerning Gaza and the broader Middle East, Huntington’s theory has gained a renewed relevance.

Under this axis, the West, with Israel as its steadfast ally, has made its intentions unmistakably clear, particularly in its approach to the Palestinian issue. The actions and policies pursued by President Donald Trump, alongside his son-in-law Jared Kushner, an outspoken Zionist, point towards a form of socio-cultural and demographic re-engineering in the Middle East.

It is pertinent to underline the fact that Israel, an epitome of modernist incarnation of Jewish creed, emerged in Eastern Europe during the concluding years of the 19th Century. Thus, it is an extension of Western imperialism. It does not represent the interests of the organic Jewish ethos, embedded in centuries old Semitic tradition typical to the Middle East.

This re-engineering of the geopolitical landscape includes the Trump administration’s so-called “deal of the century,” a peace proposal for the Middle East that has been widely criticised as blatantly biased in favour of Israeli interests, and strategically designed to reshape the region in a manner that systematically sidelines Palestinian aspirations for statehood.

If there is further procrastination, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia will meet the same fate as Palestine. Time is of the essence.

As many had predicted, with Donald Trump’s inauguration as president of the United States, the once subdued and disillusioned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu found a renewed sense of vigour and purpose. No longer the crestfallen figure he once was, Netanyahu exhibited a newfound boldness, going so far as to suggest that Palestinians be relocated to Saudi Arabia, citing the kingdom’s ample land as a justification for their resettlement.

One could similarly argue that, for the sake of peace, all Israelis should be resettled in Brazil, which possesses far greater an area than Saudi Arabia. Doing so would address 80 percent of the world’s collective pain and suffering. Besides, Israel will find the warmth of being close to its eternal source of benefaction, USA.

From this vantage point, the Middle East and Gulf states are confronted with an unprecedented geopolitical challenge: in order to effectively counter such a design—one that threatens the core of Palestinian identity and sovereignty—Muslim-majority nations must come together in an unprecedented display of unity.

Leaders like Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdo an have the potential to take up this challenge. They should stand firm against the unilateral moves of the Trump administration. It is in this bold confrontation that the Muslim world’s potential for resistance is likely to reveal.

When met with direct opposition, Trump has been known to recoil, often retreating into a semblance of rationality or reconsideration. This dynamic underscores the critical need for a cohesive and resolute response from the Muslim world in the face of a rapidly changing Middle Eastern order. If there is further procrastination, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia will meet the same fate as Palestine. Time is of the essence.

The unilateral action proposed by Trump, Kushner and Netanyahu on the Palestinian issue, particularly the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the efforts to marginalise Palestinian rights, and most recently rescinding from two state solution to the Palestinian problem necessitates a unified response from the Muslim world.

As if it were not enough, Trump has sprung another strange surprise by suggesting that Gaza be evacuated and Palestinians re-settled in Jordan or Egypt. Gaza will, according to him be developed then as a water front.

This stance calls for the Muslim-majority nations to rally behind the Sino-Russian alliance, a bloc that presents an alternative to Western hegemony. While the notion of forging such unequivocal unity across the diverse Muslim world may seem overly ambitious—given the deep fault lines that divide Sunni and Shia sects, as well as political, ideological, and regional differences—it remains the most viable course of action to counter the geopolitical agenda unfolding before them.

The unilateral approach adopted by Trump, Kushner and Netanyahu has culminated in a dangerously regressive shift, notably with the recent abandonment of the two-state solution.

The writer is a professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National University, Lahore