美国3日凌晨对委内瑞拉发起大规模军事行动，突袭委首都加拉加斯并抓走总统马杜罗及其妻子。 美国总统特朗普当天称，美国将"管理"委内瑞拉直至实施"安全"过渡。 新华社罗马1月3日电（记者 张馨文 任耀庭）当地时间3日下午，数百名示威者冒雨在美国驻意大利 大使馆附近集会，抗议美国当天凌晨对委内瑞拉发动军事袭击。 组织者在一份声明中表示，坚决反对以"战争"作为解决国家间矛盾的手段，美方行为严重违反国际 法并侵犯他国主权，对地区和国际和平构成威胁。面对"侵略行为"，国际社会应作出明确反应、推动恢 复国际法秩序。 声明还要求意大利政府和欧盟机构谴责相关军事行动，并向受影响的委内瑞拉平民提供人道主义援 助。 集会现场，示威者挥舞委内瑞拉国旗，手持写着"不要插手委内瑞拉""立即释放马杜罗总统"等口号 的横幅。一些示威者对媒体说，美国的帝国主义行径说明其仍抱有殖民主义心态、美军行动是一场"恐 怖主义政变"。 这场集会由多个团体联合发起，地点在罗马比索拉蒂大街，距离美国驻意大使馆约几百米。意大利 警方和宪兵在现场部署。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the Israeli government's plan to forcibly relocate the population of Gaza, which is seen as a manifestation of "neo-colonialism" and a violation of human rights [1][3][4]. Group 1: Migration Plans - Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu announced that Israel and the U.S. are close to finding countries willing to accept Palestinian refugees from Gaza, stating that residents can choose to stay or leave [2]. - The Israeli Defense Minister Katz indicated plans to build a "humanitarian city" in Rafah, which would initially accommodate 600,000 Palestinians, with the ultimate goal of relocating the entire population of Gaza, estimated at over 2 million [2]. - Prior to these announcements, the U.S. and Israel had been developing plans for the relocation of Gaza's population, including a proposal for a "humanitarian transit zone" [2]. Group 2: International Reactions - The concept of "voluntary transfer" has been met with skepticism and condemnation from the international community, with experts arguing that forced migration constitutes a crime against humanity [3]. - The UN Human Rights Office spokesperson highlighted the controversial nature of the "voluntary transfer" claims in light of the current situation in Gaza [3]. - Palestinian political analysts criticized the U.S. government's view of Gaza as merely a land for transactions, reflecting a colonial mindset [4]. Group 3: Impact on Peace Process - The push for the relocation plan by the U.S. and Israel undermines the two-state solution, which is widely regarded as the only viable path to peace in the region [5][6]. - When questioned about the feasibility of the two-state solution, both Trump and Netanyahu expressed uncertainty and opposition, respectively [6]. - Analysts noted that the U.S. policy in the Middle East, driven by self-interest, exacerbates the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and contributes to regional instability [7].

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the articles highlights the perception of Trump's Middle East policy as aggressive and dismissive of international norms, with accusations of the U.S. acting as a bully and igniting conflict in the region [1][2][3][7] - Trump's support for Israel's actions in Gaza and his perceived disregard for Palestinian rights reflect a colonial mindset, as noted by various analysts [2][3] - The U.S. has lost credibility in the Middle East, as indicated by the comments from regional experts who believe that Trump's actions have exacerbated conflicts rather than resolved them [3][4] Group 2 - The Trump administration's approach towards Iran involves a combination of extreme pressure through sanctions and military threats, while simultaneously claiming to seek diplomatic solutions [4] - The U.S. military actions in Yemen have led to further humanitarian crises, raising concerns among Gulf states about the stability of the region [4] - Trump's demands for free passage of U.S. ships through the Suez Canal reflect a broader pattern of perceived economic and political extortion directed at sovereign nations [6][7]