My Photo

Upcoming Events

  • Esther Kustanowitz - Consulting & Freelancing
    Whether you need a content plan, communications strategies, or a social media orientation, I can help you. Reasonable rates available - contact me at esther.kustanowitz at

@EstherK on Twitter

Become a Fan

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« Apprentice Blogging: Loving the Leemeister | Main | The Urban Kvetch Pop Culture Roundup »


Uh, pardon my lack of compassion or sentimentalism and with all due respect to Oprah, aren't both sides in the Darfur conflict Muslim? A Muslim by any other name still stinks as far as I'm concerned. I'd prefer to see Jews rally to have the President send more money to aid victims of terror (muslim terror?) in Israel or rally to stop poverty in the inner cities in the U.S. Frankly a bunch of Muslims killing each other in a 3rd world country should be pretty low on the priority list these days. We've got to rebuild New Orleans too...


Actually, anonymous, the people being oppressed are not Moslem. They are generally Christian or animist. This si a case of a Moslem government oppressing people.

I just don't understand what people want or expect from the U.S. Federal Govt. with regard to the Durfur situation. If we send money, then people complain about the deficit and increased taxes. If we send troops, we risk the lives of our own people and are accused of being warmongers. It is a no-win situation for the U.S. unless we just go in, overtake the goverment and claim the oil for our own use. These people have been going at each other for over 20 years, and it is only because liberal Hollywood took an interest in the situation that it became fashionable to worry about it now.


Yeah, and we went into Bosnia to claim the chrome!

"Liberal Hollywood" is a Johnny come lately to this cause. The main mover behind the Save Darfur campaign is my Congressman, Frank Wolf (R-VA).

Hollywood doesn't always care about human rights causes. Look at Iraq, where they didn't (and still don't) care about Saddam's genocide, environmental destruction, etc.

How much oil does Sudan have, anyway?

Any oil they have is more than we have. I still don't understand why the U.S. didn't seize all the oil fields in Iraq in 1991 as spoils of the Gulf War and declare them American property. What good is war if the winner doesn't get to keep the spoils?

What would Congressman Wolf like to do, give over money that could be used to build schools and fight poverty in VA to help fund one lunatic arab /muslim/ religious/ pagen fringe over the other?

Really, if anyone has a viable solution to stop the bloodshed I'd like to hear it, especially if it doesn't involve U.S. dollars or manpower.

People that have been killing each other for 20 years deserve to have Star Trek's Prime Directive of non-interference applied to them until they wipe each other out.


Wow! What a great juxtaposition with Yom Hashoah!

The two situations don't seem to be analogous. In one situation you had a systematic program of murder in the name of ethnic cleansing against law abiding citizens, who did not seek to overthrow that government. In the other, it seems that you have different factions of people trying to take control of a non-established government that has been unstable. Wars to overtake governments have been standard throughout history without being considered genocide. Didn't the Americans and British kill each other in the War for Independence and no one claimed it was "genocide"? That is a very strong word, especially to apply to people could potentially raise their own sons and daughters to become human bombs against us once they stop fighting each other.


Obviously, I am dealing with someone who has a poor grasp of history, or he/she would not keep trying to change his/her story.

We are more likely to get human bombs if we ignore the situation.

As far as analogies are concerned, in both cases you have (had) oppressive governments that have enslaved and murdered the ethnically distinct minority populations. Yes, obviously, not all wars are based on genocide. But what has been happening in Sudan/Darfur has been clearly egregious.

Here's a reference to the region:

ok. Read Wiki.

So the Arab government that was in power when the country gained independence from Britian in '56 together with the Arab Janjaweed militia are fighting the rebels (JEM) and (SLA). It's vicious, horrible and ugly and there are atrocious gross human rights violations. So what is the U.S. supposed to do, go in and fund rebel groups against the Sudanese? Doesn't sound like a winning situation for us. Sorry the rebels are having such a tough time, that usually happens in a rebellion.

Just explain to me again why it is the U.S. Federal Government's job to try to help? The Federal Government is here to support and protect the civil liberties of the citizens of our States, and heaven knows they are having a tough enough time of that. I don't recall a "Good Neighbor" clause in the Constitution that says "and we should be nice and solve all the world's problems".

Moreover, Jews are not obligated under Jewish law to sacrifice our own well-being to help out the horrible plights of our non-Jewish neighbors, even though we were slaves and murdered in many strange lands.

Great if individuals care and want to help out with grass-roots efforts, they should if they can. But please don't start pinning this mess on any U.S. Presidential Adminstration, past, present or future. And don't expect Jews to give of their limited philanthropy dollars when we have orphans of our own to feed.


Oo, so many things to comment on, so little time.

What should the US government do?
Taking money and going to war out of the equation, the US Gov't [according to Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times] can ask the UN to send a peacekeeping force that does not include US troops. We can enforce a no fly zone over Sudan. We can make it clearer to the Muslims of the world that a lot of the people being killed are Muslim.

"The White House can invite survivors for a photo-op so they themselves can recount, in Arabic, how their children were beheaded and their mosques destroyed. We can release atrocity photos, like one I have from an African Union archive of the body of a 2-year-old boy whose face was beaten into mush. President Bush can make a major speech about Darfur, while sending Condi Rice and a planeload of television journalists to a refugee camp in Chad to meet orphans."

Would that be so expensive? Would that take so much time? Would that be sacrificing our well-being.

President Bush has already frozen the assets of anyone deemed to have posed a threat to the peace process or stability in Sudan's Darfur region.

Bush said he was taking the action because ``an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States is posed by the persistence of violence in Sudan's Darfur region, particularly against civilians.'' This is one way of answering your question. My answer would be the comic book answer: "With great power comes great responsibility." Just because it come out of the mouth of a fictional character doesn't make it any less profound.

Jews *are* obligated. We have been charged with being a light to the nations. How is this a sacrifice to our well being?

As for pinning it on administrations, President Bush will not be judged as a politician one way or the other on how he does in this situation; he'll be judged as a person. The administration has enough to answer for. There is no question that George is clear in his mind that what is happening is wrong.

At any rate, I have to assume that you are not one of those people who asked how everyone ignored the gas chambers and the killing. Clearly, you already know.

I thought your answers were very good PepGiraffe and I agree that those would be important steps to take. Just keep in mind that 1) UN is a highly ineffective organization and 2)if a lot of the people being killed are muslim and the rest of the muslim world doesn't know about it by now, it's because they don't care. They seem to have highly effective intelligence when it comes to knowing what's going on in the world. 3) The White House is not obligated to release atrocity photos and that's why they didn't actively publize pictures of Rwanda during the Clinton Administration, that is the job of the media.

America is no longer really a SuperPower that has "responsibility" towards anybody in light of 9/11. Obviously our "great power" can easily be knocked down out by a few lunatics with box-cutters and our borders are easily penetrable.

Let me ask you this, hypothetically, if the U.S. were to go in with it's great power and take planeloads of refugees from these camps and then resettle them in your kid's school district, would you like it? Didn't think so. That's why boatloads of refugees were turned away during the Holocaust. People talk a big talk about compassion but are not as willing to walk the walk.

Again, Jews are obligated to be a light unto the nations, be our first obligation is to protect and care for our own.


these people are not just at war. they are getting raped and murderd where ever they go. how is it war against them? the people arent fighting. the government and what youd call the "rebels" may be. but the reason it's being called geniocide, is simply because of the fact that these people are being slaughtered in an attempt for an ethnic cleansing. men are getting slaughtered while the women are getting raped in an attempt to change the entire race. this is why it is geniocide. not because of the 21 years of war, but because of what they have been doing in war for the past 3 years.

The comments to this entry are closed.