Why can't Gaza be "The Riviera of the Middle East" with Palestinians still there?

Sometimes racism is so extreme it blinds us to its genocidal nature.

Is there such a thing as being too outraged to be outraged?

I started wondering about that as I monitored the worldwide reactions to President Donald Trump’s press conference yesterday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As most readers will know, Trump proposed that the U.S. take over Gaza, that all the Palestinians living there be moved to Egypt and Jordan, and that he—presumably using his real estate development experience—would turn it into “the Riviera of the Middle East.”

Netanyahu sat by with a slightly silly smile as Trump said all this, the smile of a man who knew that the president was serious even if it might never happen. The reactions from all sides and sympathies were predictable: Supporters of Palestinian rights, already horrified at the genocide still being committed in Gaza (and spreading to the West Bank) condemned the idea; human rights experts branded it a violation of international law; pundits wondered aloud if the plan was “practical” or “workable;” and Israeli right-wing politicians declared that this was the “only solution” and, of course, a dream come true for Israel.

My mind began to wander back to the Wannsee Conference of January 20, 1942, named after the suburb of Berlin where Nazi leaders met to plan the Final Solution of deporting and murdering all the Jews of Europe. If it were today, would Reinhard Heydrich, the key Hitler official who called everyone together, hold a press conference outside the villa at Am Großen Wannsee 56–58, to describe the plan to a gathering of reporters?

The Nazis had opted for secrecy back in 1942, but was it really necessary? Today, the architect of the genocide in Gaza—who is the subject of an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court—can sit in the White House next to the president of the United States, and, having already killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, openly discuss deportation plans with him.

One can imagine how the international media might cover the press conference. Of course, there would be some routine statements of outrage from human rights experts and perhaps a historian or two, even though most of the international laws Israel is accused of violating were not adopted until after World War II; but one can also imagine journalists talking with experts about how practical and workable the Final Solution really was. Killing millions of Jews would be a serious technical and logistical challenge, could even Hitler and his henchmen really pull it off?

To come back to the present day, it’s interesting to look at how the “paper of record,” the New York Times, handled the story. The initial report, by veteran foreign correspondents Michael Shear, Peter Baker, and Isabel Kershner, covered the story in a manner similar to what I described above. After stating the basic news—that is, Trump’s statements about Gaza—the reporters commented that the idea “reopened a geopolitical Pandora’s box with far-reaching implications for the Middle East.”

They also pointed out that “Mr. Trump did not cite any legal authority giving him the right to take over the territory,” and then went on to briefly quote international reaction to the idea—Hamas is against it, of course—before returning to Trump’s remarks and continuing to report them in great detail, along with Netanyahu’s happy endorsement of the idea.

To his credit, Peter Baker, in a followup “News Analysis” the next day, started out quite sharp in tone for a reporter and commenter who rarely strays outside establishment thought lines.

“President Trump basked as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel praised his ‘willingness to think outside the box,’” Baker wrote. “But when it came to Gaza, Mr. Trump’s thinking on Tuesday was so far outside the box that it was not clear he even knew there was a box.”

Baker even characterized Trump’s designs not only on Gaza but Canada, Greenland, and other territories as harking back to 19th century imperialism. He then quoted several experts in international affairs who poo-pooed the proposal. But Baker’s piece soon calmed down and took on the sober and responsible New York Times style of unflappability in the face of even the most horrific events.

Most of these sources asked whether or not Trump was serious, and questioned how realistic the proposal was. Only one source in Baker’s piece, Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, made passing reference to “ethnic cleansing,” although clearly this is the whole idea, and why Netanyahu loved it so much.

One source who did not question Trump’s seriousness was David M. Friedman, who was Trump’s ambassador to Israel during his first term.

“‘Trump’s proposed USA takeover of the Gaza Strip may sound out of the box,’ …he wrote on social media, ‘but it is brilliant, historic and the only idea I have heard in 50 years that has a chance of bringing security, peace and prosperity to this troubled region.’”

Another was Mort Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America, who had issued a statement declaring that Trump’s plan “is an extraordinary declaration that could assure the end of the Islamic-Arab terrorist group Hamas, and secure southern Israel after decades of terrorist attacks and missile launches from Hamas in Gaza. It will also be a major step towards a real peace in the region.”

I will hardly be the first to comment that the Palestinians rarely make an appearance in discussions of their own fate. The mainstream media coverage of Trump’s remarks—which, after all, reflect the attitudes of a man who has the luxury of coming along and planning the deportation after the genocide has taken place rather than before—hardly questioned the notion that Gaza could not be the “Riviera of the Middle East” until the Palestinians were forcibly removed from it. In the anti-Palestinian racist mindset, where Palestinians were dehumanized decades ago and just barely exist in our minds today, this assumption would not even surface as something to be questioned.

Is it so difficult to imagine Gaza as a nice place to live even with the Palestinians still there? Perhaps not an enclave for the rich and famous, but a normal place where people went on with their lives peacefully and with a certain level of satisfaction and enjoyment?

One could argue that were it not for the Nakba and the expulsion of thousands of Palestinians from their homes during the 1948 war, which turned Gaza first into a giant refugee camp and later—encouraged and supported by Netanyahu, as everyone should know by now—an open air prison ruled by Hamas, that is what Gaza would be today.

Certainly there would have been no October 7, and the 1200 Israeli lives taken that day, nor the long murderous orgy of Israel’s collective punishment of the people of Gaza, which is now estimated to have taken at least 60,000 lives including many thousands of children.

Can one find fault with the Palestinians and their leadership, and argue that there are certain things they should not have done over the years? Sure. Can one argue that the people of Gaza as a whole deserve the death and destruction they have received? No, not in a million years.

If the Trump Administration wants to contribute funds to the reconstruction of Gaza and the reconstruction of the shattered lives of those who still live there, that would seem like a welcome plan. They might even get Saudi Arabia and other rich oil states to contribute some of their billions to the project.

If, on the other hand, Trump and the Israelis see Gaza’s future as beaches lined with Mar-a-Lago style resorts and fancy restaurants, and no Palestinians around except perhaps for the maids and the waiters and the busboys, then we are only talking about continuing the genocide by other means. At least we can be sure that there will be plenty of press conferences for the media to cover.

Note: The image used at the top of this post has appeared in many places now, especially on social media, and I can find no reference to its author. I am hoping, as obviously have others who have republished it, that this person is not looking for credit but rather to express outrage at the genocide that has taken place.

***********************************************************************************************************

To share this post, or to share “Words for the Wise,” please click on these links.

Comments policy: No hate speech, please be polite and respectful.