Dr. Omar Rahhal: Trump’s statements regarding the occupation of Gaza and the displacement of its population are a serious threat that brings to mind Hitler’s approach before World War II

Raed Al-Dabai: International condemnations of Trump’s statements reflect real concern about extremist populist trends that threaten world stability

Dr. Jamal Harfoush: International condemnations must turn into real pressure tools to hold Trump and his allies accountable, while preventing the implementation of these plans.

Dr. Walaa Qadeem: Trump’s aides did not deny his statements regarding the occupation of Gaza and displacement, but rather tried to tone them down to contain international anger

Dr. Mahmoud Al-Froukh: What is required is not to be satisfied with condemnations, but to build on them through intensive political and diplomatic moves to obstruct Trump’s plan

Only a few hours have passed since US President Donald Trump’s statements regarding the occupation of the Gaza Strip and the displacement of its residents, until they sparked a wave of widespread international condemnation, amid warnings that these statements constitute a serious violation of international law and a threat to regional and global stability.

In separate interviews with “I,” writers, political analysts, university professors, and specialists believe that Trump’s statements are reminiscent of Hitler’s policies, which sparked the outbreak of World War II at the time, prompting the world to attack Trump’s statements, while his aides sought to mitigate the impact of those statements.

They point out that these condemnations come in the context of a global rejection of Trump's populist tendencies that contradict international legitimacy resolutions, especially with regard to the Palestinian issue, while international positions indicate growing concern that the continuation of such statements may enhance the state of instability in the region, and open the door to an unprecedented escalation that threatens international peace and security, especially since Trump's statements were not limited to the Palestinian issue, but extended to threatening other sovereign states, which sparked criticism even among traditional US allies.

Writers, analysts, specialists and university professors stress that condemnations alone are not enough, but must be transformed into practical steps to prevent any attempts to impose new facts that conflict with international law.

Clear bias towards international law and legitimacy decisions

The writer and political analyst, Dr. Omar Rahhal, confirms that the widespread international condemnations of the statements of US President Donald Trump regarding the displacement and occupation of the Gaza Strip reflect a clear bias towards international law and international legitimacy resolutions, especially the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly, as well as specialized international organizations, which confirm that the Palestinian territories are occupied territories, and their legal status may not be violated, and they also confirm the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people to their land.

Rahhal explains that these condemnations also come against the backdrop of Trump’s violation of the United Nations Charter, especially its purposes and principles contained in Articles (1) and (2) of the Charter, as the Charter affirms the development of friendly relations between nations, prohibits the use or threat of force, and prevents threatening the independence and sovereignty of states.

Rahhal points out that these statements were not limited to Gaza, but extended to other fully sovereign countries and members of the United Nations, NATO, and the European Union, which threatens international relations and fuels global tensions.

Rahhal stresses that Trump's positions bring to mind the approach taken by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler before World War II, when he spoke of "living space" and occupying countries.

Rahhal explains that the world does not want this scenario to be repeated, as it realizes the danger of Trump's statements, which could lead to a crisis in international relations and increase the possibility of large-scale conflicts, and even a new world war.

Rahhal believes that Trump is acting with the logic of an “emperor,” displaying power in an irresponsible manner, which has prompted many countries to condemn his statements as illegal, unwise, and irresponsible.

He points out that Trump has a history of making provocative statements, such as his talk about annexing Greenland from Denmark, reclaiming the Panama Canal, and annexing Canada, which are unprecedented in international relations and reflect his "reckless" and sometimes ignorant approach to geopolitical issues.

Rahhal confirms that there is global concern about the possibility of a third world war breaking out, due to the political behavior of the American president and the president's narcissistic personality, especially since the United States has the military and economic capabilities to wage such wars, in light of Trump's policies that are governed primarily by economic interests.

He explains that Trump does not seem to listen to his advisors before making his statements, as he improvises and acts according to the logic of a merchant and businessman, and not as the president of a superpower. However, his statements must be taken seriously and not underestimated.

Rahhal points out that Trump's recent statements prompted his aides to try to provide explanations and justifications to mitigate their severity, as they tried to suggest that he had no intention of sending American forces to Gaza, which reflects his lack of full awareness of the consequences of his words, and even his sometimes incomprehensible (mumblings).

"These positions indicate that Trump is speaking irresponsibly, as if he is running a private company and not a country leading the global system," Rahhal says.

Rahhal points out that it seems that Trump's advisors realize that managing countries is radically different from managing companies, and therefore Trump's aides are quick to justify his statements that inflame relations between the United States and its allies, especially Arab countries that have strategic relations with Washington.

Rahhal points out that these statements caused "disappointment" among America's Arab allies in the Middle East, which prompted his aides to try to send reassuring messages to clarify his position.

Rahhal points out that Trump's statements about Gaza will not be translated into reality through a direct American occupation, but rather come within his approach of using statements and positions as negotiating cards to pressure various parties in the Middle East, which puts them in a defensive position, as if the situation is saying "he is presenting alternatives to the Palestinians and Arabs, in exchange for stopping the aggression."

Rahhal warns that the continuation of this extremist discourse may further complicate the international scene and worsen international relations, and place the world before serious challenges that go beyond the Palestinian issue to threaten international peace and security.

Global rejection of Trump's populist approach

The head of the Department of Political Science at An-Najah National University, Dr. Raed Al-Dabai, explains that the widespread international condemnations of the positions of US President Donald Trump reflect a global rejection of the populist approach he follows, whether with regard to international policies in general or the Palestinian issue in particular.

Al-Dabai points out that many of Trump's policies were controversial, especially with regard to his expansionist tendencies, which were not limited to the Middle East, but extended to major international issues, and included decisions that affected the international system in general.

As for the Middle East, Al-Dabai explains that Trump’s policies towards the Palestinian issue were part of his approach that contradicts international legitimacy resolutions, and reflects clear attempts to impose a new reality that contradicts international resolutions and international consensus on the two-state solution.

Al-Dabai stresses that the world is looking with great concern at the consequences of these policies and their impact on international security and stability, especially in light of previous historical experiences with populist leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini, who led the world into a devastating war that claimed the lives of hundreds of millions.

Al-Dabai points out that international concern is increasing in light of technological development and the artificial intelligence revolution, which has directly entered the military field.

Al-Dabai stresses that the international community, including the United States' traditional allies, reject the unilateral approach that Trump seeks to impose, especially in light of the rise of other powers such as China and Russia.

Al-Dabai points out that the recent Hague initiative, launched against the Israeli occupation and its expansionist policies, reflects a growing global rejection of the American policies led by Trump, which are based on the principle of dictates rather than dialogue and diplomatic negotiation.

Regarding the Palestinian issue, Al-Dabai explains that international condemnations of Trump’s statements regarding Gaza come in the context of defending the two-state solution and rejecting any policies or plans that undermine it.

Al-Dabai stresses that these condemnations reflect not only support for the Palestinian cause, but also international concerns that Trump’s policies will destabilize the region, including Israel itself as a liberal and pluralistic state.

Al-Dabai stresses that international condemnations of Trump’s statements about Gaza are not merely diplomatic reactions, but rather reflect real concern about extremist populist trends that threaten world stability and exacerbate conflicts instead of resolving them through dialogue and negotiation.

Al-Dabai explains that Trump is adopting a provocative policy that is not limited to the Middle East, but extends to the United States’ traditional allies, which reflects an unprecedented escalation in international relations, and increases tensions that may extend within the borders of those countries, threatening global security and stability.

Al-Dabai points out that the major countries' fears of Trump's approach also go back to the "domino theory", as it is impossible to predict how far his expansionist ambitions may go, which raises concerns among other countries that fear that they will later be targeted by his unexpected policies.

As for Trump's aides' attempts to soften his statements, especially regarding the possibility of sending American forces to Gaza, Al-Dabai explains that these clarifications come within the framework of absorbing domestic and international anger.

He points out that these "additions" reflect the extent of internal and external opposition to these statements, especially from American politicians and Washington's allies, as everyone realizes that an American military intervention in Gaza would be unprecedented, and would bring the United States into a complex and dangerous conflict.

Al-Dabai asserts that Trump's aides are trying to avoid escalation with allied countries, whether in Europe or the Middle East, and therefore they are seeking to downplay his statements and consider them a "slip of the tongue" to reassure allies in the region, as the US administration realizes that it has strategic interests and partnerships that cannot be sacrificed for the sake of ill-considered policies.

Al-Dabai points out that the Trump administration finds itself in an internal and international predicament, as it faces increasing opposition from within the United States itself, in addition to international rejection of its policies. This opposition comes from several quarters. There are lobbies within Washington calling for military escalation in the Middle East, while there are other quarters that see these policies as ill-considered and may drag the United States into confrontations with unforeseen consequences.

The dangers of demographic engineering sought by political Zionism

Professor Dr. Jamal Harfoush, Professor of Scientific Research Methods and Political Studies at the University of the Academic Research Center in Brazil, confirms that the widespread international condemnations of Trump’s plans to displace Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and occupy it reflect a clear legal and moral position against these proposals, which constitute a flagrant violation of international law and international agreements, most notably the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which prohibits forced displacement, and the Rome Statute, which criminalizes displacement as a crime against humanity.

Harfoush points out that international condemnations are not just passing diplomatic statements, but rather documented legal testimonies confirming that the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza constitutes a dangerous precedent that goes beyond the Palestinian dimension and threatens the entire international system.

Harfoush explains that these condemnations reflect a growing awareness in the international community of the dangers of demographic engineering sought by political Zionism, through unconditional American support. Arab and Islamic countries, along with many European powers, realize that allowing such statements to pass without serious confrontation will lead to the entrenchment of the approach of forced displacement as a political tool, which poses a threat to regional and international stability.

Harfoush asks: “How can the world accept the deportation of millions of Palestinians, while it previously rejected the deportation of Ukrainian or Rohingya refugees?” He stresses that the double standards in dealing with issues of forced displacement threaten the credibility of the international system and weaken the ability of international institutions to enforce respect for international law.

Harfoush asserts that international condemnations of these statements could form a legal basis for diplomatic and judicial moves against Trump and his administration, and against Israel, which is the primary beneficiary of this criminal vision.

Harfoush explains that these convictions open the door to the possibility of prosecuting Trump legally, similar to what happened with Russian President Vladimir Putin, against whom an international arrest warrant was issued by the International Criminal Court due to forced displacement, stressing that there are legal precedents that can be built upon to file similar cases against Trump.

Harfoush believes that these condemnations also strengthen the Palestinian legal position before international courts, whether by filing complaints before the International Court of Justice against the US administration, or filing lawsuits against Trump and his officials in the national courts of countries that have signed the Rome Statute.

Harfoush stresses that these condemnations must be transformed into practical tools to activate international accountability, and not be satisfied with political and media positions.

Regarding Trump's aides' attempts to soften his statements regarding the displacement of Palestinians, Harfoush asserts that these adjustments are nothing more than a political maneuver aimed at reducing the severity of international reactions, without retreating from the essence of the plan.

He explains that Trump has long relied on the “media shock” method, where he issues shocking statements and then leaves it to his aides to tone them down, without denying their basic content, with the aim of achieving three main goals: testing international reactions, introducing the idea into international political discourse, and distracting public opinion and diverting focus from Israeli crimes.

Harfoush points out that Trump raises the idea of displacement and monitors what the international response will be, then leaves the task of “clarification” to his aides, which allows them to gauge the strength of international objections and explore the weak points in the official positions of major countries.

According to Harfoush, even if Trump's statements seem unworkable now, simply bringing them up makes them part of the political debate, transforming them from a rejected idea into a possible option in the future.

He points out that this is what happened with the decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, which was rejected for decades and then became a reality due to the US insistence on imposing it.

Harfoush points out that instead of focusing the discussion on Israeli war crimes in Gaza, it is being transformed into a discussion on “how” to implement the displacement, as if the displacement itself has become a given, and the only disagreement is over the mechanisms of implementation.

Harfoush warns that Trump's tactical retreat from the idea of sending American forces to Gaza may be a prelude to an attempt to pass a displacement plan using other tools, such as encouraging Arab countries to receive large numbers of Palestinians under the cover of "humanitarian aid," or imposing enormous economic pressure on the residents of Gaza to force them to voluntarily emigrate.

He believes that this scenario requires Palestinian, Arab and international mobilization to protect Gaza demographically and legally, and to prevent any attempt to turn Palestinians into new refugees in exile, pointing out that the Israeli occupation has sought on more than one occasion to export the internal crisis in Gaza by opening secret immigration channels, which must be confronted firmly.

Harfoush stresses that the Palestinian, Arab and international response should not be limited to rejecting these statements, but should rather move towards diplomatic and legal escalation against any party promoting these ideas, even before they turn into projects on the ground.

Harfoush stresses the need to file legal complaints against Trump and his allies, and to file lawsuits before international courts, just as was done with regimes that practiced forced displacement in other parts of the world.

Harfoush asserts that what Trump is doing is not just passing statements, but rather part of a media and political strategy aimed at reproducing a new Nakba in a modern form, while attempting to strip the Palestinians of their legal and moral immunity.

Harfoush believes that international condemnations of Trump's statements must be transformed into real pressure tools to hold Trump and his allies accountable, and prevent the implementation of these plans under any name or pretext.

An indication of Washington's desire to fuel chaos in the region

Writer and political researcher Dr. Walaa Qadeemat asserts that the widespread international condemnation of US President Donald Trump’s plans regarding Gaza, including his control over the Strip and the displacement of its residents, whether permanently or temporarily, reflects a global awareness of the United States’ departure from international legitimacy and its flagrant violation of international law.

Qadeemat explains that these policies can be read as an indication of Washington’s desire to fuel chaos in the region, especially in light of its declining ability to consolidate its influence amid the rise of competing global powers such as China and Russia.

Qadimat points out that Trump’s withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council, in addition to his controversial proposals such as annexing Canada and controlling the Panama Canal, confirm the United States’ tendency to work outside the international legal framework, which threatens global stability.

Qadeemat explains that these policies do not serve American interests in the long term, but rather increase international turmoil, which could lead to counterproductive results that threaten American national security itself.

Qadeemat asserts that Washington’s continued violation of international humanitarian law and disregard for diplomatic ethics promotes chaos and harms its international reputation. While it seeks to impose its hegemony, these policies push competing powers to exploit America’s moral and ethical decline to enhance their influence on the international scene.

Regarding Trump's proposals regarding Gaza, Qadeem believes that his main goal is to obstruct the two-state solution and end the Palestinian issue, considering that his proposal to rebuild Gaza after its occupation reflects the absence of a realistic and responsible vision at the international and Arab levels to resolve this issue.

Qadeemat asks, “Where are the supporters of the Palestinian cause? What are their alternative proposals to confront Trump’s plans?” She points out that the absence of serious international initiatives to find a solution to the Palestinian cause opens the door to American projects that go beyond international legitimacy and make the Palestinian cause hostage to foreign agendas.

Qadeemat stresses that the two most important questions are: Who will bear the responsibility for rebuilding Gaza? And what are the repercussions of implementing this American plan on the future of the Palestinians? She asserts that the Trump administration does not care about the fate of the population, but rather seeks to impose its political agenda under the cover of reconstruction.

Qadeemat explains that Trump's aides did not deny his statements regarding the occupation of Gaza and the displacement of its residents, but rather tried to mitigate their severity, in an attempt to contain international anger, while realizing the extent of the damage that could be inflicted on the United States if they were implemented.

Qadeemat stresses that Washington, despite its power, cannot operate outside the framework of the international community and international legitimacy, especially in light of the rise of competing powers that benefit from American mistakes to enhance their influence on the global stage.

Qadeemat points to the need for urgent Arab and international action to confront this American proposal, stressing the importance of uniting the Palestinians around their national goals to confront the dangers that threaten their future.

Qadeemat stresses that dealing with Gaza must be done by presenting serious ideas and solutions that are in line with international legitimacy and constitute a strong barrier to projects that aim to liquidate the Palestinian cause or undermine the rights of the Palestinian people.

International consensus to reject brutal US policies

Journalist Dr. Mahmoud Al-Froukh asserts that the angry international, Arab and Islamic reactions rejecting US President Donald Trump’s statements about displacing and occupying the Gaza Strip are a step that reflects an international consensus to reject the brutal US policies that see in the world only its interests and the interests of its protégé, Israel.

Al-Faroukh explains that these condemnations came to confirm the world's stand against the American-Israeli project aimed at forcibly displacing the Palestinians from their land, a plan adopted by the American far right allied with its Israeli counterpart.

Al-Froukh points out that Trump's statements about "Gaza without its people" are an extension of an old Zionist settlement project that seeks to empty the land of its people, which Trump explicitly described as the idea of "Gaza Riviera", meaning that the Gaza Strip would be empty of Palestinians and ready for Israeli and Western investments.

Al-Faroukh stresses that these condemnations are a strong slap in the face to Trump, and a clear message that the world no longer accepts these racist policies that are trying to impose a new colonial reality in the region.

Al-Froukh stresses that Trump will not be able to impose his will on the Palestinians or on the world as he wishes, as the absolute American support for Israel will not pass without rejection, and the forced displacement that is being planned will be confronted with Palestinian, Arab and international steadfastness.

According to Al-Froukh, this huge wave of global rejection prompted Trump’s aides to try to backtrack on his statements, by offering mitigating explanations claiming that he was not seeking to occupy Gaza or send American forces there. However, these attempts cannot deceive anyone, as Trump’s statements were clear and direct, and indicate his actual intentions towards Gaza and its people.

Al-Froukh points out that the Trump administration has previously tried to implement similar plans, such as the Deal of the Century, which sought to liquidate the Palestinian cause through projects aimed at settling Palestinian refugees in other countries. Now, Trump is repeating the same scenario, trying to impose a new reality by forcing some Arab and Western countries to receive Palestinian refugees, in an attempt to end their presence in Gaza.

Al-Froukh believes that the American attempts to mitigate the severity of Trump’s statements aim to absorb the growing global resentment against these policies. The American administration realizes that there is growing international anger, and that global public opinion has begun to view the United States as a partner in Israeli crimes against the Palestinians.

He points out that Trump's statements are not just a political opinion, but rather part of an American-Israeli strategy aimed at testing Palestinian, Arab and international reactions, in order to pave the way for implementing racist plans aimed at annihilating the Palestinian presence, and then taking complete control of the land, which Al-Faroukh described as not the "deal of the century", but rather the "slap of the century."

Al-Froukh stresses that what is required now is not to be satisfied with condemnations, but to build on them through intensive political and diplomatic movements to obstruct Trump’s plan. It is necessary for there to be a unified Palestinian position, accompanied by strong Arab, Islamic and international movements, to confront any attempt to impose forced displacement on the residents of the Gaza Strip.

Al-Faroukh warns that the American-Israeli plans will not stop at Trump's statements, but will continue in different forms, which requires rapid action to confront these dangers before they become an imposed reality.

Al-Froukh stresses that the Palestinians are not alone in this battle, as there is widespread global rejection of these plans, and it must be invested effectively in order to protect the rights of the Palestinians and prevent the implementation of any plans aimed at displacing them from their land.