Good life [as an immigrant] for me, but not for thee: prosperous US Arabs would rather have Gaza’s Arabs live in misery

by Lev Tsitrin

I hesitate to say which is more ridiculous, NPR’s asking US Arabs’ (who after all are, by definition, emigrants whose priority, evidenced in the very fact of their immigration, is a better life, even if abroad) about Trump’s plan to allow Gazans to leave the ruins of Gaza for countries where they can live happily thereafter — or those Arab immigrants’ denunciations of Trump’s plan. The resulting 3-min segment of necessity overflows with the hypocrisy of the “Gazans should not be allowed to do what I did” kind.

NPR conducted its interviews on the occasion of Trump’s posting on his social media account of an AI-generated video of the rebuilt Gaza — the one with “no more tunnels, no more fear,” as the lyrics put it. So what was the interviewed Arabs’ reaction?

One, an ex-Lebanese resident of Dearborn, Michigan who is obviously an Islamist, bristled at the un-Islamic look of the new Gaza that permits alcohol and gambling — though he did not explain why, if Islam is so near and dear to his heart and, as he put it, “the land is sacred,” did he leave his native sacred Lebanon where he could get all the Islam he wanted, for the distant shores of the non-Islamic (or, as he perhaps prefers to think of it, “not-yet Islamic”) US where alcohol is permitted, and which has casinos. If he could leave the Islamic land for the un-Islamic one, why can’t the Gazans — especially if their new home can indeed be located in an Islamic country? NPR does not ask, so we are left guessing. The second interviewee, a chairwoman of MENA- [i.e. Middle East and North Africa] American chamber of commerce in Dearborn responded with boilerplate generalities, but also voiced strong disapproval of Trump’s plan, even demanding Trump’s apology.

Somehow, the Arab love for the land implied (or stated directly) in the answers does not apply to the interviewed Arabs themselves — an irony that is clearly lost on NPR. They want Gazans to selflessly live amid ruins — while they themselves left such hardships behind, preferring immigration. Dearborn Arabs seem to be the very embodiment of the somewhat rough Yiddish saying, “with another’s buttocks, it is fun to take the flogging.”

In fact, the majority-Arab Dearborn is the very manifestation of a Trump-described “nice place” where Gazans could have Dearborn-style lives that are enjoyed by the Dearborn critics of Trump’s Gaza plan. And where should this New Dearborn be constructed? Trump suggested Jordan and Egypt — neither of which is enthusiastic, strongly pushing back — nor are Arab countries generally, fearing on the one hand Gazans’ radical fanaticism, and on the other hand, wanting them to continue to be a pain on Israel’s neck. So I would suggest the non-Arab countries that dearly love Gazans — or at least, say so — as evidenced by their demand that the International Court of Justice condemns Israel’s war on Hamas as “genocide” and orders Israel to stop. South Africa — the country that spearheaded this — effort is, naturally, the leading candidate. Let it show that it indeed cares for Gazans by building a New Dearborn for them right next to Johannesburg, and taking their beloved Gazans there, so they can live in safety and comfort.

And surely, the European countries that share South Africa’s attitude towards Israel — countries like Ireland, Norway, Spain — would fight South Africa for the pleasure and the honor of providing a safe, comfortable place for Gazans — so let their leaders get together and decide, via an argument, or though a lottery, on who will get to walk their pro-Gazan talk.

It would be a treachery to think that those high-minded, humane countries would turn out to be as hypocritical in their pity for the plight of Gazans as are Dearborn Arabs — and, for that matter, the Arabs of the MENA region. But time — and perhaps, not very long time — will tell whether hypocrisy is a universal value.