It seems perfectly natural, and not racist at all, to refuse humanitarian assistance from a country that deliberately and systematically creates and maintains - no exacerbates - one of the greatest and longest-lasting man-made humanitarian disasters in the world, particularly when the majority of the victims are one's coreligionists.
I, too, would be reluctant to allow such a state to use my tragedy to promote itself as a humane and caring country. This has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with not allowing oneself to be used.
One could also point out that $35 million, the amount of aid so far promised by the Bush administration (of which I understand $20 million is actually a line of credit), is equal to a mere three days of U.S. aid to Israel, a country with a truly dismal human rights record.
Posted by: Shirin at December 29, 2004 11:43 PMAh, yes, Shirin -- better the Muslims of Sri Lanka should suffer than receive some relief at the hands of the infidel Jewish state.
Posted by: wm. tyroler at December 30, 2004 12:09 AMShirin, can you really understand Israeli humanitarian aid only in terms of cynical self-promotion, and do you really think it's acceptable to sacrifice the lives of disaster victims for political considerations? If so, that says a great deal more about you than it does about Israel.
BTW, for what it's worth, Sri Lanka isn't a Muslim country; Muslims are
about 6 percent of the population.
Okay, since you didn't get it the first time, I will try again.
This has nothing to do with "the infidel". It has to do with the fact that Israel has deliberatelty and systematically created one of the largest and longest-lasting humanitarian disasters in the world, and in addition that the majority of its victims are fellow Muslims, making it just that much more personal.
It has nothing to do with "the infidel". It has to do with the hypocrisy of a state offering aid to Muslims that has for decades devoted most of its resources to stealing land from, killing, destroying the homes, businesses, and lives of and oppressing their fellow Muslims.
It has nothing to do with "the infidel". It has to do with an unwillingness to assist a state with such a terrible human rights record to use one's tragedy to make itself look like a great humanitarian.
Israel's offer of assistance is rejected not because of its Jewishness but because of its actions.
Posted by: Shirin at December 30, 2004 12:42 AMFor what else it's worth, this is all a tempest in a teapot; Sri Lanka
accepted other Israeli assistance, but turned down a military rescue team
due to coordination problems.
Jonathan,
I do find it incredibly hypocritical that Israel turns itself into the great humanitarian state while committing humanitarian crimes of enormous magnitude and duration, and depriving its own citizens too in order to pay for them. If they care so bloody much about humanity, let them start acting like it in their own neighborhood first.
And yes, you are right that Sri Lanka is not a predominantly Muslim state. So, it looks like this really has nothing to do that silly charge about "the infidel". Perhaps it is that the Sri Lankans feel some solidarity for the victims of Israel's inhumanity. Or perhaps Israel is finally starting to become the pariah state it deserves to be.
As for the appropriateness of refusing aid for what you incorrectly call "political" reasons, that decision is for the victim countries and not me to make. I will defend them if they accepted it, and I will defend them for refusing it.
Posted by: Shirin at December 30, 2004 12:51 AMAh, well, there you are. There are so many real, major tempests these days, it's good to have a tiny, non-real one now and then.
Posted by: Shirin at December 30, 2004 12:58 AMAs for the appropriateness of refusing aid for what you incorrectly call "political" reasons
"Incorrectly?" If a government refuses humanitarian aid because of its disagreement with the policies of another government, how can that be anything other than political? Unless the disaster victims are given a choice as to whether they want to be saved, then it's purely a matter of politics.
I find it telling, also, that you can't seem to envision Israeli aid as
anything other than an attempt to "use" the disaster victims and "make itself
look like a great humanitarian." Believe it or not, it's possible for even
Israelis to be motivated by human compassion. That you discount this possibility
means that you are dehumanizing Israelis in the same way that the Israeli
far right dehumanizes Palestinians. Is that really what you want to do?
Initial reports I read about Sri Lanka's rejection of Israeli turn out to be wrong in at least some measure -- Sri Lanka did reject an offer of 150 doctors, et al., in preference to 82 tons of supplies . Possibly this was due to the "military composition" of the original offer . Then again, that seems pretty spurious; medecine is practiced the same, in or out of the military.
The motive for this rejection of generous aid in favor of still-significant but much lower profile assistance will have to remain inscrutable. No matter. Fact is, Shirin and others of the same bent, find it perfectly acceptable to deprive victims of humanitarian aid on ideological grounds. (As Shirin happily illustrates, and as Iran has very amply demonstrated during times of its distress.) And thus someone, perhaps Shirin, should sound the alarm that the infidel, pardon me, pariah, state may also provide humanitarian assistance to Thailand and India .
Posted by: wm. tyroler at December 30, 2004 01:57 AMJonathan,
1. It is very common to confuse human rights concerns with politics as you have done.
2. Maybe it is a limitation of mine, but it is impossible for me to imagine anyone who is motivated by human compassion also being capable of the kind of complete and unrepentant cruelty Israel is capable of, particularly when that cruelty is often so utterly wanton (for some reason when I think of wanton cruelty just now I am reminded of the destruction and slaughter of the animals in the little children's zoo in Ghasa earlier this year. Or the destruction of children's recreation and cultural centers in the West Bank. Most likely that is because it is because it is completely impossible to justify such actions under any pretext and the only possible purpose for them is simply cruelty.). the killing of children, infants, and elderly can, after all, be passed off as "accidents" or "collateral damage", or "well, that five year old could have been a suicide bomber" or other such nonsense, but the willfull destruction of a children's zoo? The killing of captive animals? Trashing a children's recreation center? Destroying cultural centers? No way.
3. Perhaps another of my limitations is an inability to believe that the same humans who are so bereft of humanity that they can do what Israelis do to Palestinians every minute of every day are able to act with genuine compassion toward any human being. I cannot imagine that a person who unrepentantly kills Palestinian children one day suddenly cares deeply about children elsewhere the next day. That someone who orders the demolition of ten family homes, rendering with one stroke of the pen tens of children, women and elderly without shelter (and then confiscates the tents given to them by relief agencies) can genuinely care about the welfare of any human being.
I see a very real and very deep sickness in a society that can daily commit and shrug off acts of such complete cruelty and then suddenly, with a flip of a switch be filled with compassion and humanitarian concern.
Sorry, Jonathan, it just doesn't compute for me. And it has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do simply with humanity.
Posted by: Shirin at December 30, 2004 02:11 AMAs I have said, wm tyroler, I support the decision of the victims of the disaster one way or the other. It is not my choice or my right to decide for them.
It is utterly reprehensible, however, that Israel will calmly deprive its own victims of access to the most basic human needs, even to the point of letting them starve, or die for want of medical care that may be only a few metres away, yet they suddenly become a major humanitarian force when a disaster NOT of their making occurs hundreds or thousands of miles away.
If you cannot see the hypocrisy in that, and understand why it outrages at least some people, then I feel truly sorry for you.
Posted by: Shirin at December 30, 2004 02:22 AM1. Human rights, politics and ethics are all intertwined. Hint: what you regard as an ethical absolute is someone else's political position.
2. Let's consider a hypothetical. Suppose an Israeli scientist discovers a medical process that can extend the human lifespan by ten years, and the Israeli government offers it free to the world. If you, Shirin, the ruler of Shirinland, refuse this treatment for yourself, then you have made an ethical decision. On the other hand, if you refuse on behalf of all your citizens without giving them an individual choice, then you've made a political decision, and a profoundly immoral one. Some of them might agree with Israel, others might disagree but not think their disagreement is worth ten years of potential life, and you have taken away their autonomy to make this choice for themselves. A government that refuses Israeli life-saving aid on behalf of its citizens is doing exactly the same thing.
3. What I'm reading from you above about Israelis is a mirror image of what Kachniks say about Palestinians: "they have no human feelings, their society is a death cult built on nihilism and corruption, they only want to kill Jews, they have nothing but what they took from us, the only reason they do or say anything humane is to fool gullible Westerners." Only the names and atrocity stories are changed - and believe me, they have one for every one of yours.
You are a Kachnik. The late Meir Kahane embraces you as a kindred spirit.
What Sri Lanka is able to absorb and co-ordinate is up to them. When I hear stories like this I see stressed-out public officials up to their eyeballs in an overwhelming crisis. They probably haven't slept in days.
I had an Israeli boss for a while (tough-nut ex-fighter pilot) and known a few others (professors, hippy-types, students), all of whom have shed enough light into the world of Israeli politics/society for me to let me see how fractured and messy it is. I hesitate to tar them with one brush, more than almost any other nation.
The provision of aid to these regions is a good and urgently required thing. I'd say after about 4 months we can start thinking about the meta-issues. I'm think we need to cut everyone some slack and do what we can to help.
Posted by: SimonC at December 30, 2004 09:03 AM
Early comments in response to JWN post of December 29, 2004, "Relief, not parties".
Sri Lanka, in a fit of racist pique, declined significant assistance from Israel. Any comments or criticisms about those countries' respective set of priorities?
Posted by: wm. tyroler at December 29, 2004 11:24 PM