Is the US administration's rhetoric really contradictory?!

Since Donald Trump entered the White House, he has been delighting us with his statements, sometimes hostile, sometimes less hostile, and sometimes understanding. From complete displacement and the construction of a Riviera, to abandoning the idea, then returning to it, then improving it, marketing it, imposing it, or selling it to the Israeli occupation, which seized on it and quickly formed an expulsion committee called "voluntary displacement," as if there were a difference between voluntary and forced displacement. However, those laughable humanitarian gestures that occupiers usually resort to are necessary. Anyone who hears Trump talk about Gaza, its destruction, the suffering of its residents, and the need to relocate them to beautiful and safe places feels like the man resembles the Pope of the Vatican. However, this "Pope" cannot, and does not, dare to say who caused these catastrophic scenes.

This contradiction in Trump's statements, or what might be interpreted as confusion or contradiction, also extended to the statements of Secretary of State Rubio, who appeared in a television interview drawing a cross on his forehead, in an explicit declaration of his puritanical and extremist tendencies. This was also a blatant and clear declaration of the transition of American secularism to a brutal religious liberalism that seeks to confiscate the world, "reform it," or mortgage it to a specific vision. The contradiction also appeared in the statements of Adam Boehler, who forcefully removed the hidden and overt lobbies after his provocative, new, and shocking statements. The contradiction also appeared in the statements of the beautiful White House press secretary in her continuous attempts to explain or justify anything except supporting Israel in its second war on the devastated Gaza Strip. The contradiction also appeared in the statements of Steve Witkoff, Donald Trump's trusted envoy. Is there really a contradiction in the statements and declarations of the American administration?!

In my opinion, what appears to be a contradiction at first glance is a reflection of the debate between the Zionist and Jewish lobbies, on the one hand, and Trump's ambitions and desires, on the other. In other words, these lobbies do not agree among themselves on the choices of Netanyahu and the rabbinic right in general. Major factions within these lobbies do not support rabbinic Israel and believe it will lead it to destruction, as happened in the distant past. Other factions want a secular, democratic Israel acceptable to the colonial West. In other words, Netanyahu is not the address that all components of these lobbies agree upon. That is why you find complete agreement on supporting Israel, its security, stability, and control over the region. However, this support does not mean giving Netanyahu everything he wants or everything he requests. This is on the one hand. On the other hand, Trump’s ambitions and desires also represent a partial or complete resolution of this conflict as quickly as possible by building on his first “achievement,” which is the Abrahamic peace. This peace cannot continue or continue if Netanyahu remains so aggressive and destructive. This peace cannot be marketed without a solution to the Palestinian issue, or at least drawing the actual and real features of this solution. The Arab countries that have normalized and non-normalized relations cannot accept a final Israeli victory in the region and accept the abolition of the Palestinian state and people. Or at least these countries are prepared to accept, market, and perhaps impose a settlement on the Palestinians with American and European support that does not include displacement or the violation of Palestinian rights. It seems that Trump is well aware of this. He wants a strong Israel, but he knows that America’s interests are not only protected by Israel, and that America's crises are not solved solely by Israel. On the contrary, Israel drains American money, effort, and even values, and this is what the American street has begun to speak out about.

This is why the US dialogue with Hamas took place, and the US administration's position on the Arab plan changed somewhat, demanding that the Palestinian Authority develop and reform its new tasks. This is also why Steve Witkoff's recent statements, statements that open all doors, lay out all options, and say one thing and its opposite, because the US administration realizes that the Netanyahu government, with this extremism and this aggression, could destroy the US administration's ultimate vision.

The White House certainly wants Israel to win, but it also wants Trump to win. The White House wants to lower the ceiling of the Palestinian people's demands to a mere search for a loaf of bread. It wants to promote a flawed peace with the Arab world based on normalization in exchange for military protection. But it also wants to achieve its own economic and security interests. The White House wants to make our region an area of complete influence in the face of major enemies. It wants to guarantee its regimes, its people, its waterways, its wealth, and its tranquility. Furthermore, to ensure all of this, the White House must reach a swift solution to the conflict in Palestine. Trump may serve Israel for a thousand reasons, but ultimately, he is the president of the United States. We Arabs and Muslims may not understand why the president of a great empire would behave this way toward Israel. But Trump certainly has the strategic and ideological justifications and pretexts that make him elected and supported by more than half of the US population to do what he does. Finally, the apparent contradiction in American discourse is a disagreement over perspectives, not over the scene; a disagreement over approaches, not goals; a disagreement over people, not topics.

.............

What appears to be a contradiction at first glance is a reflection of the debate between the Zionist and Jewish lobbies on the one hand, and Trump's ambitions and desires on the other. In other words, these lobbies do not agree among themselves on the choices of Netanyahu and the rabbinic right in general.