Money to Burn?

[question everything]

Money to Burn?
Clifford D. May, Scripps Howard News Service, Spanish translation here.
03/12/2009

This month, there was an "International Conference in Support of the People and Economy of Darfur," and billions of dollars were raised not just from America and Europe but also from Arab and Muslim states concerned over the war crimes - including mass murders and mass rapes - being perpetrated against the people of Darfur, most of whom are black and Muslim.

You realize, of course, that I made that up? Not the part about the terrible things happening in Darfur, that's precisely true, but the part about international donors meeting on behalf of Darfurians. Scores of donors gathered instead at an "International Conference in Support of the Palestinian Economy for the Reconstruction of Gaza," in Sharm El-Sheikh, a resort in Egypt where a total of $4.5 billion in pledges was collected. The people of Gaza have long been receiving more aid per capita than just about any other group in the world - a high multiple of what Darfurians receive - but Gaza is in an especially sorry state these days. The reason: Gazans elected Hamas to rule them, and Hamas' has vowed to exterminate Israel and, in pursuit of that goal, Hamas routinely fires missiles at Israeli towns.

(snip)

What's more, Richard Kemp, former commander of British Troops in Afghanistan, carefully examined the Israeli military action and came to this conclusion: "I don't think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare where any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of civilians" than did the Israeli Defense Forces in Gaza," he told the BBC. But the worsening crisis in Darfur has not gone entirely unnoticed. Hamas, as well as Hezbollah and their mutual sponsor, Iran, spoke out strongly - in defense of Sudan's militant Islamist president, Omar al-Bashir, the individual most responsible for the death and destruction in Dafur.

(snip)

It's worth noting: There is one nation in the Middle East that has opened its borders to refugees from Darfur. That nation is Israel. Perhaps Israelis see a parallel between Darfur - which has been undergoing genocide - and their nation, which was created after the genocide known as the Holocaust, and which is under genocidal threaten from Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. I don't mean to seem callous about the hardships being endured by Gazans. But I do mean to emphasize their responsibility - and the fact that unlike the Darfurians they could alleviate their suffering by tolerating Israel's existence, and pursuing peace.

(snip)

Why should it be so difficult for international donors to say to Gazans: "Look, you can have reconstruction, or you can have perpetual war, but you cannot have both. If you launch missiles at Israelis, kidnap Israelis and hold them captive (Gilad Shalit was kidnapped and has been held since 2006 without access even to the Red Cross), plot terrorist attacks and vow to ethnically cleanse every inch of land between the Mediterranean and the River Jordan, you have to expect that Israelis may lash out from time to time - and that means any buildings we construct now are likely to be rubble next year."

(snip)


http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11784885

[LeftishBrit]

1. More attention certainly needs to focus on Darfur.

FTR, the author spoils his pro-Israel case by exaggeration. Comparing the rocket threat to Israel with the real genocide in Darfur is crass - just like accusing Israel of 'genocide'. I find it difficult to take people seriously when they make such analogies on either side.

Please consider supporting the following organization:

www.savedarfur.org

[Jefferson23]

2. I am curious, on what do you agree with these individuals and or group?

FDD was founded shortly after 9/11 by a group of visionary philanthropists and policymakers to support the defense
of democratic societies under assault by terrorism and militant Islamism.

Our Leadership Council of Distinguished Advisors includes former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former National Security Advisor Robert “Bud” McFarlane, former Ambassador Max Kampelman, Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-CT), and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey.

The members of FDD's Board of Advisors are Gary Bauer, Rep. Eric Cantor, Gene Gately, General P.X. Kelley, Charles Krauthammer, Kathleen Troia "KT" McFarland, Richard Perle, Steven Pomerantz, Oliver "Buck" Revell, and Francis J. "Bing" West.


http://www.defenddemocracy.org/about_FDD/about_FDD_show.htm?doc_id=169256&attrib_id=7615

[Howardx]

3. good question

a real progressive bunch there.

[question everything]

4. I evaluate opinion pieces on their merits, not on the colors of their flag

Just the other day, when I read that many aid organization are pulling out of Darfur, I wondered where are we, the "civilized world." Why can't we take out the Sudanese President and save the Darfurians. And then I remember: the "civilized world" did not care about Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot, Idi Amin and others. Darfur no longer makes the news, at least, not the TV one. MSNBC can spend hours on AIG and Obama and Geithner and not a word about the rest of the world. TIME and Newsweek, where one could find more news about the world, are nothing more than expanded USA TODAY with charts and graphics.

So his POV is valuable, even if he were a Cheney loyalist.

[bemildred]

5. I assume you are not advocating that we "take out Israel" and save the Gazans?

I mean you are making the comparison of Gaza and Darfur, and you do say "Why can't we take out the Sudanese President and save the Darfurians?" Or what the f**k do you mean? Are you comparing the government of Israel to that asshole in Khartoum? Is this really where you want to go?

[question everything]

7. No, of course not

This was the point of the original post. That instead of having a conference to help Darfur; instead of, yes, sending the troops to save the helpless Darfurians, the nations of the world are busy helping Gazans who are not helpless, who brought these events on themselves. They continue to attack Israel, even after a "ceasefire." They never stopped firing missiles on Israel ever since it withdrew from Gaza. They elected Hamas whose goal is to annihilate Israel. The Gazans' fate is in their hands. And Gazans certainly are not being raped and killed by Israelis.

The Darfurians are helpless and no one is willing to take a, yes, military stand.

[Idealism]

8. You do know why that is right?

Chinese and Russian interests in the resources of the country keep the world at bay- even if they cared enough to militarily intervene, which is not likely. Recall that the Rwandan genocide went on unabated and with nary an international blip for years.

[question everything]

9. Yes, I do

And this is a tragedy and perplexity. There are so much misery in the rest of the world, a lot worse than Gaza, yet all the attention is set on Gaza because it has the right PR on it.

After the Oslo agreement, many Palestinians went back to the territories, starting businesses, hotels, restaurants, waiting for the peace which was going to arrive any day, and then militants destroyed any chances of peace. Arafat and his corrupt entourage came from Tunisia, ignoring the local activists who fought and brought about the agreement and were left behind.

Same with Gaza. Israel withdrew, the Gazans chose to start shelling Israel indiscriminately, elected a militant group that started persecuting the more moderate faction, the PLO and is now wailing for the world for help.

Meanwhile, millions of people in Darfur, in Zimbabwe, in Thailand and Burma, perhaps in other parts of the world that our media does not find it important enough to cover - are dying by the hands of their own country men. And any aid sent is being taken by the ruling juntas.

[Idealism]

6. The aid agencies were banned by the government.

They didn't depart on their own.

That aside, it is a pity that no one cares about Darfur outside of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and some compartments in the UN. If the world wasn't in the next great depression, maybe they would get more coverage, but we Americans are too often xenophobic and rather focus on "number 1" than the whole common good. Why else would "socialist" be a slur?

[Shaktimaan]

10. I think that's totally untrue.

we Americans are too often xenophobic and rather focus on "number 1" than the whole common good. Why else would "socialist" be a slur?

I think americans are extremely concerned about the common good and generally speaking, are very interested in aiding people around the world who are oppressed. Americans do tend to be somewhat isolationist but I feel that's a quirk of geography and size more than anything else. Americans tend to just not be very aware or educated about the rest of the world as compared to countries in Europe or Asia. But after WWII it was America that played the role of counterbalancing the Soviet threat, often at great expense and personal risk. There are countless examples of America taking the lead and helping the world in beneficial ways. Like the Marshall Plan for example. Or even regarding Palestine. You do realize that America has been the state giving the Palestinians the majority of their aid for the past few decades, right? Who do you think pays for the UNRWA... Arab nations? No, it's mostly US money.

Yes, our own interests were represented by doing so and no, America has not always acted in the best interests of the nations it involved itself in. But this is not because of xenophobia. I think America is perhaps one of the least xenophobic nations on the entire planet. I honestly don't know how you could think otherwise. We just elected a black president with a muslim name for chrissake! Can you EVER imagine that happening in Switzerland?

As far as the American negativity regarding socialism, that has little to do with your point and a lot to do with our national frontier philosophy, the success of capitalism and our historical role in the cold war opposing communism.

[Idealism]

11. In my estimate, your thinking on the Cold War is skewed

Communism is not Socialism. We were in a struggle with Communist USSR not Socialist USSR. But both are slurs in American vernacular. Capitalism is not an inherently "common good" type of system- it looks out for "number 1." The idea behind democratic capitalism is that by pursuing our own individual self-interests, we collectively will pursue what is in the best interest of all of us. The problem is, the latter does not manifest itself to the degree that is needed.

Most Americans do not realize who funds the UN and all departments of aid in it, many doesn't realize what USAID even is. Much of the UN funding has been tied to American interests because we control more than anyone else in the UN and that we were so instrumental in founding the organization. No one ever runs on the campaign platform in American politics on "Boosting USAID and UN funding." It is never an issue.

This isn't a right or left wing issue either, xenophobia and isolationism is on both sides unfortunately but I believe more leftists are for the common good, for UN and USAID funding in most cases, etc.