What a tragedy. I recommend a book titled "God Is Not Great - How Religion Poisons Everything" by Christopher Hitchins.

What an excellent article.

The UN's inaction on Darfur is disgusting, as is the media's 'hush hush' approach to the situation.

Interestingly enough one of the main distractions is the Iraq war. The US wanted to act unilaterally against Iraq. We were told human rights issues was a big part of the justification and the UN was failing to act. Why won't the US act unilaterally in Darfur?? Or any number of other areas across the globe where blatant genocide is occurring?

That aside, this issue needs to be taken up by the media and trumpeted loudly. They alone have the power to mobilise nations.

Darfur is indeed an enormous tragedy. The international community's inaction is also disgraceful. However, if we use this as an excuse to whitewash each and every atrocity committed against Palestinians, we will effectively be behaving like double hypocrites.

It's a bit like the WWII Japanese government lecturing the Brits about human rights atrocities in colonial India whilst committing their own atrocities in SE Asia.

Alleged advocates of human rights need to be careful that they are only seen to be selective about which violations they condemn. They need to be even more careful that they not be seen to be justifying and defending violations on their "own" side. Palestinian blood is just as precious as Sudanese blood.

"The international community's inaction is also disgraceful. "

Nowhere near as disgraceful as that of Arab governments who have washed their hands of the situation, despite the genocide being perpetrated by Arab Muslims, backed by a Muslim Sudanese government.

Face facts: Arab nations (their governments and individuals) are blinding hypocrites. Ready to take loud offence at the tiniest slight to them but completely disinterested when it's their own doing the killing.

The author is partly right. If our criticism of human rights abuses should be:

- proportional: the worst human rights abusers attract the strongest condemnation; and
- impartial: all regimes with similarly bad human rights records attract similar levels of condemnation

Then the international community’s indifference to Darfur, Congo, Sri Lanka etc is shocking and wrong. Relatively speaking, Israel does attract more than a “fair” share of criticism, by these criteria.

This in no way means that criticism of Israel is unfair, however, but rather that other regimes deserve even stronger condemnation. Nor does it justify or diminish Israel’s human rights abuses

Very true grn,

Arab governments could have solved much of the problems faced by the Palestinian people years ago if they had allowed them to settle as refugees in their countries. Instead they confined them to the squalor of the camps, which in turn bred more hatred against Israel. Maybe they meant it...

StabInTheDark,

The short answer to your question, "why doesn't the US act unilaterally in Sudan?" is that it has its army tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Interestingly, it has tried a number of times to get the issue addressed in the UN Security Council. However, Sudan is becoming an increasingly important source of oil, and China, with UNSC veto power, is its biggest customer. Thus, China has vetoed or threatened to veto UN action in Sudan to protect its oil interests.

It is a situation which closely resembles that of the Iraq issue in 2003- France wanted to protect huge oil contracts held by French companies with the Baath Party, and thus was not only vetoing action in Iraq to protect its own oil interests, but was also actively trying to get the sanctions lifted.

The irony would be hilarious if it weren't so devastating- countless people I have met, and whose arguments I have seen on onlineopinion, oppose the invasion of one oil-rich Arab-run country in the Middle East, an invasion carried out against the wishes of the UNSC, while supporting the invasion of another oil-rich Arab-run country in the Middle East, which, if it goes ahead, will almost certainly have to be done without the express support of the UNSC.

LOL Manny Waks you need to get with the program.

If you can't blame it on the "Great Satan" or the "Little Satan" it doesn't count.

This article is garbage. A quick look at the websites of the main human rights groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty show they are a campaigning on human rights violations all around the world. The same goes for the International Gay and Lesbian Association (ILGA).

As far as I'm concerned, Israel may not be the worst human rights violator in the world but it is in a long list of countries which commit atrocities. In other words, it ain't that special. Moreover, successive Israel governments have a history of supplying arms to murderous regimes like El Salvador in the 1980s, Somoza's Nicaragua in the 1970s, South Africa under apartheid and Argentina when it was ruled by a military junta - inspite of that regime's open anti-semitism.

Everytime Israel comes under the spotlight for its human rights record there are whinges of "anti-semitism". Does that mean that criticism of Zimbabwe is "racism" as Mugabe says?

As for Israel being "the only democracy in the Middle-East", well, I had no idea Turkey and Lebanon have been relocated.

The Left hates Israel and criticise it out of all proportion for 3 main reasons.

1. It is backed by the US - the Great Satan, therefore it must be bad.
2. It is capitalist and highly entrepreneurial and hence successful (that's the main reason why the Arab's hate it).
3. Jews live there. The anti-semitism of the left also relates to their antipathy towards capitalism as Jews are still caricatured by the left, arabs and others, as wily and money hungry.

Dozer:

I think the difference is obviously in the circumstance. There is active genocide occurring in Darfur at the moment. It would be hard to argue that something on a similar scale was occurring in Iraq at the time of the proposed invasion. Many people also believe they were intentionally mislead on the reasons for the invasion. They didn’t feel that a straightforward and clearly defined case for invading Iraq existed. They may feel differently with regard to Darfur. I don’t know that it’s as ironic as it first looks.

So this obviously calls into question motives and intention. The hypocrisy that GRN referred to seems to be played out on both sides of the fence. The US seems largely indifferent to human rights abuses in places like Saudi Arabia, but trumpets them loudly as a reason to invade Iraq. The US may be tied down in Iraq now, but Darfur – like numerous other regions – has been engaged in brutal internal conflict and violation of human rights for a long time. It begs the question why Iraq was chosen.

At any rate, the finger pointing and the protectionism needs to stop.

The media has failed in its responsibility here. As has the UN. But the UN, by its very nature, will be open to power plays and protectionism. It is a flawed institution, but I would argue - a necessary one.

At any rate the tone of this article is not helpful at all, other than the way it highlights the problems in Darfur. The 'but what about them!' approach does nothing. Criticism of Israel is warranted and should continue. Criticism of the Arab world is warranted and should also continue. There is a case to be made for highlighting points of criticism, but I don't think the 'Israel is being treated unfairly' approach does anything to further this. Are you suggesting if the international community stopped criticising Israel as much, there would no longer be a problem? You can encourage a balanced approach to the issues by delivering one yourself.

The issues I have were pretty well summarised by Rhian.

Yes - the Darfur tragedy is worse than the crimes committed by Israel, though I'm wary of using this argument to reduce criticisms of Israel.
Just because one is worse, doesn't mean another should be let off the hook.

That being said, the inaction and relative silence on Darfur is sickening and China has much to answer for in sabotaging UN intervention.

As an aside - the source of this article leads me to believe the author is less concerned about Darfur than he is about alleviating criticisms directed at Israel.

It just feels too much like pointing the finger and saying "but they're doing it worse" which to me, is no justification for causing trouble yourself.

grn, Israel certainly is entrepreneurial. I've already mentioned its willingness to sell arms to any buyer regardless of their human rights abuses or anti-semitism. But it is also the biggest sponger off the US taxpayer:

http://www.hotpolitics.com/tax4israel.htm

It would probably fall apart at the seams without outside financial assistance. In effect, it's a defacto military base for the US. Which is hardly a surprise given its strategic value. And Israeli governments know this which is why they are in a position to blackmail Democratic and Republican administrations alike for more handouts.

As for the comment about "Jews" living there, most Jewish people live outside Israel and in places like Australia, Canada and so on, have greater freedom and human rights than they do in Israel.

So DavidJS, based on your own criteria, you must be far, far more critical of France, which has sold countless more arms to despotic regimes than Israel has.

Thanks for proving my point about the Left and Jews.

GRN.. the Left hates Israel for all those reasons you gave plus some more.

The Left is up to its elbows in collusion with Islamists, thus, what Islamists say is all good to the Trade Unionists who are in bed with them. I think in particular of the ETU and Dean Mighall.

They ran an 'anti racism' rally in Coburb last year, which was based on the brother of one of the accused in the terrorism trial being an ETU shop steward.

The Left would have us believe that they do such things out of the goodness of their hearts, rather than using the Muslim community to further their own socialist ends, but fortunately for us, we are not that stupid.

What I find strange in all this, is that given the track record of humanity, how can anyone point to the idea of a 'good bloke' in all these conflicts. We just tend to support the kelpie on the bottom, getting its leg ripped off by the Mastiff on top.

Problem is, given the same pressures and circumstances, we might just BE the Mastiff.. err.. lets say Aboriginals become radicalized, and start to blow up icons of Melbourne and Sydney in the name of "give us back our land"... why of course TRTL and various others would simply do it, "Good grief.. you mean we STOLE it...shock shock.. we must give it back immediately." But then, TRTL goes home and tells his 3 small children.. "sorry kids, as of today we have nowhere to live because I gave our place to some angry young men".

Yes, I know.. colorful language, and I for one have considered finding some way for Indigenous Aussies to use my own land in some kind of shared access way, but the point is, I need somewhere to live.
Should I expect sympathy from those who have been fed a propoganda diet of "The evil white christian devils"?

We are all 'sinners' directly or indirectly or both. To think otherwise is to kid ourselves.

Sorry to disagree with some of you but I think this article is rubbish. I know plenty of Human Rights Activists who are constantly going on about Darfur. Amnesty International Australia is often asking for people to help their campaign against the violence in Darfur. In any case why on earth should criticism of Israel or any other country stop people from complaining about Darfur. Anyway as someone else pointed out you just have to look at who wrote the article and it's obvious it's a biased account.

grn asks if I am critical of France because of its arming of murderous despots. Damn straight I am. French governments have an appalling track record of arming authoritarian regimes in the former French colonies of Africa (Chad, for example) for strategic gain. And interestingly, according to Seymour Hersh, France played a role in assisting Israel develop its nuclear program. As I said, an appalling track record.

In terms of supporting despots, the US (not surprisingly) also has a shameful record. Reagan, for instance, sent US warships into the Persian Gulf as part of the strategy to support Saddam Hussein when it looked like Iraq would lose to Iran in the First Gulf War. Iraq was in the unusual position of having the Soviet Union AND the US on its side. But then Iran was the main enemy for both the Russians and the Americans.

The point is, self-styled democracies such as Israel try to take the moral high ground and get defensive when their own human rights record is questioned. It leaves them particularly vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy.

Btw grn's comment about what "the left" (who's "the left"?) and "Jews" (I prefer "Jewish people") was a non-sequitur. He/she may need to explain further.

Boaz: "why of course TRTL and various others would simply do it, "Good grief.. you mean we STOLE it...shock shock.. we must give it back immediately." But then, TRTL goes home and tells his 3 small children.. "sorry kids, as of today we have nowhere to live because I gave our place to some angry young men".

Y'know Boaz, attributing arguments to people you simply disagree with is a very poor platform for debate.

For starters - on the indigenous, whilst I support measures to assist indigenous communities, I am not in favour of redistributing land in the manner you suggest. I've seen problems with this kind of approach emerge in countries such as New Zealand, and I believe we need to focus on the present and the future - which isn't to say you should deny, or ever attempt to gloss over what has happened in the past. You can be proud of a nation at present while still acknowledging the nasty deeds of the past. You don't even have to like or agree with the government's decisions to be proud of the people.

So of course, feel free to dissect and debate statements I've made - but don't go constructing a point of view for me, especially when it's wrong.

The genocide of the Darfurians goes on unabated because

(i) Darfur has no oil fields and so the West is not interested.

(ii) No one gives a damn about the Darfurians because they are black African Muslims being killed by the Arab Islamists Janjaweeds. The Arab Islamists really don’t care about Muslims of other race or nationalities otherwise the Arab League would act to stop the killing of fellow Muslims in their backyard.
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4722
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/region/0525depends.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

What is happening in Darfur is symptomatic of what has identified by ex-Islamist Anwar Sheikh. Islam is nothing more than Arab Imperialism. Mr. Sheikh has written a book about it. He is a Pakistani.
Islam:Arab Imperialism http://www.islam-watch.org/AnwarSheikh/index.html

Actually, the point about the west not being interested because there's no oil fields... I think that's an oversimplification.

There are resources in Sudan and the Chinese currently have a monopoly on them. The UN security council has voted on intervention in Darfur, though China, backed by Russia, keeps putting the kybosh on it using their vetoes.

I think blaming the west for disinterest isn't particularly valid in this instance, though the West certainly isn't kicking up as much of a stink as it should be.

Although the concept of Islam as Arab imperialism should be seriously considered, I must say that if Philip Tang had bothered to read my post, he should never have argued that nobody cares about Darfur because it has no oil. Thanks to TRTL for reminding him.

In response to StabInTheDark,

Regarding the argument that many feel they were intentionally misled over the reasons for the Iraq invasion:

I would argue that the “we were misled” argument is wrong. I would argue that the US and its allies firmly believed, however mistaken, that Iraq had WMD, but that this belief was as much the fault of the Iraqi government as it was of Western ones.

Here’s some comments from another post I’ve made:

“The Iraq Survey Group Final Report, headed by David Kay, illustrates how the Iraqi government consistently sent mixed signals about whether or not it had WMD- denying that it had WMD while behaving as though it had something to hide. It shows how Saddam believed he needed to continue to give the impression that he had WMD, to secure his rule from both internal and external enemies. The US administration failed to fully appreciate this motive, and after its sensitivity to threats was dramatically increased after 9/11, it seemed ludicrous, when intel proved inconclusive as to whether Saddam had WMD or not, that they should give him the benefit of the doubt.”

(While there was no genocide occurring, fear of how many people could be killed (ironically) if Saddam used WMD was an important factor.)

“In turn, Saddam failed to recognise that the US was serious about ensuring Iraq's disarmament, and continued his old patterns of behaviour, thus bringing about his own downfall. Importantly, the Report also indicates that Saddam was careful to maintain a latent WMD capability, and would most likely have started to rebuild Iraq's WMD arsenal once the sanctions were lifted and the UN's back was turned.”

cont...

The point I am making by comparing Iraq to Darfur is that the US will be damned if it does, damned if it doesn’t. Many on the left have tried to argue that the humanitarian intervention in Somalia, of all things, was an attempt at imperial conquest. What do you think the left will say if the US forces its way into Sudan, even with the Sudanese government’s approval? The US has found out the hard way what happens when it intervenes in the Middle East- look at Somalia and Iraq. If western UN peacekeepers go to Sudan, Al Qaeda will follow them. I am not arguing that western UN peacekeepers shouldn’t go to Sudan, but I am very worried that if they do go, and they start taking casualties (let alone what new terrors are unleashed on the civilian population,) the bleeding hearts here in the West will want to pull them out, and console themselves with the argument that it was just an imperial expedition anyway.

Yes, Saudi Arabia does get off lightly, but there is no genocide occurring in Saudi Arabia. It also has a lot of oil. More oil even than Iraq. We should invade, shouldn’t we?

Yes, Sudan/Darfur has been “engaged in brutal internal conflict and violation of human rights for a long time.” I assume that when you say it begs the question why Iraq was chosen, you are pointing to oil. But again, Sudan has oil as well. Sudan is also a softer target. We should invade, shouldn’t we?

Regarding Israel,

I think the author is suggesting that although Israel’s HR abuses do deserve attention, a little more progress in Darfur may be possible if the Arab and African world pays a little more attention to its own backyard, rather than distracting the UN with its pathological hatred of Israel.

Islam as Arab Imperialism? But the biggest Islamic countries in the world are Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan and India (in no particular order) which are not Arabic at all. Moreover, Iran which is becoming increasingly bellicose, is not Arabic either. Imperialism suggests the conquering of other countries or forcing other countries into a client state arrangement. As bad as the Sudanese regime is, I don't see this happening there. Sudan is behaving in a similar way to the Russians in Chechnya. That is, "ethnic cleansing" (horrible term) within what it regards as its own borders. The most clear-cut example of imperialism in the Arab world is Morocco's conquest of Western Sahara - an event that has been relatively unnoticed.

Militant Islam is a reaction against Imperialism. For example, the Mujihadeen in Afghanistan when the Russians invaded in 1979. It emerged when secular nationalists proved unable to combat Western or Soviet interference in the Middle-East. The only way to get rid of it will be the emergence of local secular forces strong enough to combat it.

DavidJS: It is precisely that the majority of Islamic countries are not Arabic that makes Islam an Arab spiritual imperialism. It is a spiritual hegemony over the mindset of non-Arab Muslims.

This is best explained by Anwar Sheikh himself in chapter 7 of his book. (Islam, the Self-Perpetuating Tool of Arab Imperialism)
http://www.islam-watch.org/AnwarSheikh/Islam-Arab-Imperialism7.htm

As early as 2004, Colin Powell described the situation in Darfur as a genocide.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8364-2004Sep9.html

Till today the world community is still dragging its feet to stop the killing. On paper, the UN is sending in peace keeping troops to Darfur, but declared the killing as not a genocide http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/01/31/sudan.report/

The US and UK did not seek approval from the UN to invade Iraq, so why wait for the toothless UN now? Being the champions of human rights and democracy, the West should take the lead. Send in NATO forces as they did in the Balkan war. The only difference is that the aggressor Janjaweeds are riding camels mounted with AK47 and chanting Koranic verses.

Somehow I don't think the US and its allies invasion of Iraq is a particularly good model for liberation. The destruction of the Ba'athist regime there has given free rein to Islamic extremists who hate each other and the occupying forces. And by removing Saddam Hussein, the occupiers of Iraq also removed one of fundamentalist Iran's greatest enemies. Way to go.

I think non-Arab Muslims would find the idea of their religion being described as "spiritual hegemony" quite offensive. Are non-Italian Catholics suffering from "spiritual hegemony"? Are Pacific Islanders subject to "Christian hegemony"? The reason Islam took off in places like the sub-continent was because the new adherents found it more attractive than their old religion.

As for Darfur, it might be more productive to take on China as it has economic connections with the Sudanese regime.

Interesting discussion on Islam. My impression of the Islamic history I have read is that many converts became Moslems after being invaded. Maybe they found it more attractive because when they were non-Muslims they lost. Not saying Islam is the only religion to progress in this way- but it is a very effective way of building a religion- Many an army has gone out with a cross on its standard.

Philip,

The US and UK did seek approval from the UN to invade Iraq. They had been negotiating for months to get a resolution through the UNSC, but realised that they wouldn’t have the numbers to get it through, let alone get past the veto of France and Russia, which had financial interests in keeping the Baathists in power.

Interestingly, the US administration has tried to argue that previous UN resolutions did give them the right to invade Iraq, but I find this argument 50/50, and the support among legal experts is about the same. And again, the US doesn’t have much in reserve to spare. Maybe the rest of the world should get off its collective backside for once. The US is one of the only countries in the UN actually making a fuss about Darfur.

If the US doesn’t go in, it doesn’t care. If the US does go in, it’s being heavy handed. It just goes on and on.

DavidJS

Good point on China- we should be having very serious discussions with them.

Manny Waks is up to his usual tricks finishing his article by claiming Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. Yes Israel has elections but many former residents (Palestinians) and property owners who have had there homes stolen can't vote in Israel but Jews who live overseas can vote in Israeli election - This is hardly kosher (democratic) Mr Waks.

There are also a number of democratic countries in the Middle East like Turkey, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Egypt (close to the Middle East) who have proper elections while even Iran has some democratic voting which is no better or worst than what happens in Israel.

Manny Waks claims to fight against defamation but from what I have observed his primary role is to promote Israel and the right wing political movement called "Zionism" in Australia.