Donald Trump, in recent days, seems to have declared not only that the United States intends to take control of the Gaza Strip, but also that the Palestinians, as a consequence, will have to move to neighboring countries. And if Donald Trump himself seems to have received the applause of Israel in the person of its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu , on whom, moreover, there is an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court, the same does not seem to have happened within the United Nations and in the rest of the world, especially the Arab world.
It would seem, in fact, according to what can be learned from the media, that neither Jordan, nor Egypt, nor the so-called Gulf monarchies, have ever expressed their assent to such a solution and to the possible post-transfer reception of the Palestinian population of Gaza, who apparently were not consulted. Indeed, it would seem that both President Abu Mazen and the leader of Hamas himself, Sami Abu Zuhri , have sent the occupation project and the transfer of the Gazans "from their homeland" back to the sender. A contrary opinion would also seem to have come from Turkey, Russia and China. For France, the United Kingdom and Germany "Gaza belongs to the Palestinians".
Italy, for its part, continues to support the “two peoples, two states” solution. But then, if this seems to be the majority intention of the world players and of the interested parties themselves, to what extent can what appears to be a self-determined project by Donald Trump really be considered feasible? And what could be the more or less declared aim of Donald Trump? The direct control of the Middle East which, with good likelihood, far from bringing stability would be a condition that would herald further divisions? What would happen to the “two peoples, two states” solution that would guarantee security, stability and peace? Is a solution of this consistency even abstractly conceivable? Can it be considered acceptable? Can it realistically be defined as a common sense solution? Probably the answer can only be directly consequent. First of all, because the peoples, all the peoples, must be left free to choose in full autonomy their own system of government above and beyond any form of external domination, and in particular above and beyond any and all forms of external interference. : Therefore, because peace and security in the many international relations could not, nor should they, lose their character of priority and indispensable values for coexistence between states in full respect of mutual rights . And finally, because with good likelihood it would be a mistake to take initiatives, from whatever side they come, that in any measure neglect the rights of peoples and individuals such as those of the Palestinians in Gaza. Saying it differently, and probably in a simpler way, to date it would seem that the idea of defining a good global government, effective and effectively respectful and cooperative towards every interlocutor, that places dialogue and exchange at the center of relations between Peoples and Governments, is still missing. Even more so when both dialogue and cooperation must be the shared and universally accepted result of international actors, Peoples or Governments that they are, called to discuss together appreciable solutions beyond and beyond the so-called law of the strongest which, far from bringing positions closer, would be capable of contributing to the creation of divisions. The contingent reality would seem to impose solutions of balance, the protection of human rights and respect for Peoples.
Josephine Of Salvatore