The Wreck of Darfur

Communist website Common Dreams recently broke new ground with an article by David Morse, The Myth of “Darfur”, from February 21, 2007. In a stunning show of real taboo-breaking, Morse writes:

This single-minded view of Darfur arises partly from media myopia. But it also stems from the trouble Darfuri rebels had trying to join their cause to that of other marginalized black African regions struggling against the Arab-dominated central government in Khartoum.

And more:

Harvard scholar and activist Alex de Waal describes it as “counter-insurgency on the cheap.” But the genocidal intent was clear. In his book, Darfur: a short history of a long war, de Waal cites a directive from Janjaweed militia commander Musa Hilal’s headquarters: “Change the demography of Darfur and empty it of African tribes.”

And still more:

Darfur is in large measure a manifestation of the same racism that characterized the 21-year long North-South civil war, in which Arab supremacists sought to Arabize and Islamicize Sudan and take over the country’s oilfields at the expense of the Dinka and other black tribes.

I find those quotes amazing, simply amazing. A Leftist writer acknowledges non-white, non-Western racism. What with the word, “Islamicize” appearing in the second quote, I’d say Mr. Morse is in great danger of being sent to re-education camp sensitivity training.

But my sarcasm, born of this too abundant kind of experience (think of Robert Mugabe—he gets a free pass for oppressing his people because he’s black), is not to deny the writer his correctness. The genocide, the ethnic cleansing, the apartheid in Sudan is real. It is not backed up by regular reporting from the area, probably due to the fact that reporters run the risk of literally losing their heads there. But I think it’s because of that fact that this calamity is so manifestly real. No reporters also means no staging, no selective coverage, therefore a great chance that any black Sudanese fleeing from that hell-hole will be telling the truth when on the lands of life. In contrast to certain people who are only too keen to pose their tears and retell their [self-inflicted] plight in front of the reporters, who are overwhelmingly of well-known political leaning and stance on Israel.

A real genocide. A clear case of ethnic cleansing. True apartheid. If the Left expended on Sudan a quarter of the efforts it does on the Pretendestinians, thousands upon thousands of lives could be saved. If Daily Kos featured half as vigorous a stream of Darfur diaries as it does Israel/“Palestine” diaries, David Morse would not be writing now, “Over the past three years Sudan’s troubled Darfur region has achieved increased visibility, thanks to the tireless efforts of activists”, but many years ago.

Cowardice rules the Left. President Bush would never detain all the treasonous moonbats speaking against him, not even the secret-leaking New York Times, despite all the implications to that effect; Israel continues to permit anti-Zionist Jonathan Cook to write from Nazareth; and Dan Brown and James Cameron can rest easy that their “Christianity-sinking” books and films will garner nothing but a strongly-worded letter of protest. But when push comes to shove… ah, that’s when their true colors, or should that be their true color, is displayed for all to see: yellow. Come to Havana to protest Fidel’s imprisonment of dissidents; get out a film with the tagline, “This time, the ship he’s sinking is Islam”; or take that flight to Sudan to earn your fame as the one who got the truth out regarding the genocide against the native blacks there. Naw, that’s going too far, ’cause it requires a coating of titanium on the two relevant parts, not just a gift of gab.

While you were busy preying on a modern, Western, democratic state defending itself against those who deny it the right to a single inch of land, Lefties, and cheapening words like “oppression” and “ethnic cleansing” in the process—while you were doing all those brave and doughty deeds, Cuban dissidents passed away a few more years in Fidel’s prisons; the people of Venezuela lost, one by one, their freedoms to Chávez’s “rule by decree”; the Tibetan nation stayed under Chinese colonial occupation; more and more people in North Korea starved to death under Kim’s rule; the Iranian people continued suffering the yoke of Arab cultural imperialism; and a genocide was taking place, and still is, in Sudan. All causes which the Left ought to champion, if we go by their constant rhetoric; but they wield that rhetoric against those who permit it, and hold their sinful silence as soon as true tyrants and aggressors, real suppressors of all criticism, are concerned.

The Left is like Gandhi. They wear it with pride. But there is nothing to be proud of a man who stood up to the civilized, war-worn British, but turned a blind eye to the Islamic aggression that led to the formation of Pakistan, and would have done the same had he lived in Aurangzeb’s time. He was not of the stature of Sikh guru Tegh Bahadur, who resisted the Muslims knowing he would meet his death that way; or our own great sage Rabbi Akiva, who did likewise toward the Romans. Not all who call themselves “fighters against tyranny” are truly such, but only those who do so to dire potential consequences. The Robert Spencers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s and Danish cartoonists of our day.

Let me close this concourse of hypocrisy (apologies to zombie) with the final quote from David Morse:

Having brokered the CPA [Comprehensive Peace Agreement —ZY], the Bush administration has an obligation to monitor its implementation. Having played a role in excluding Darfur, and seeing the consequences, the administration needs to recognize that no lasting peace can be achieved in Darfur or the South at the cost of the other. Sudan must be addressed as a whole.

Interventionism? US intervention in another part of the world in order to maintain the peace and bring the natives an opportunity for a brighter future? The same thing that the Bush Administration set out to do in Iraq (maybe not as the initial plan, but definitely for the last three years or so) and the Left now bashes, decrying it as “Western colonialism”?

Heaven help us if those hypocritical chickendoves and latter-day Gandhis ever get hold of the reins of power. It will then be Vietnam squared.

Merry Purim, and don’t forget forget to bring an extra noisemaker for the Haman of our time!

Bring two. Hat tip: Solomonia.

---

UPDATE (Tuesday, March 13, 2007, 09:08): Professor Edward Bernard Glick has the article The Darfurians and the Sudanese on The American Thinker today, going in-depth on the issue of American interventionism and Leftist hypocrisy regarding Darfur. Note that “Darfurians” refers to the Leftists who talk the talk without walking the walk on Darfur, not the inhabitants of Darfur—perhaps an obvious point, but it had me confused at first, so I wish to spare other readers that initial confusion.