Tuesday, March 25, 2008
The difference between Tibetans and Palestinian Arabs
Why is the world outraged over the treatment of the Palestinian Arabs, but does not seem to care about the Tibetans?
Answers.
18 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Mar 25, 09:50:00 PM:
By , at
Wed Mar 26, 06:26:00 AM:
I found the article fascinating, but mainly because it seems to be describing a parallel universe. It's a waste of time to address every single point in Prager's article - perhaps just to note that the Free Tibet movement (which I used to campaign for) has been sustained by "the Left", while Prager's concern for Tibet seems a remarkably recent development, largely connected to his confused views on "world opinion". While some of his points do begin to explain the situation of Tibet, do you really feel that he provides any substantial analysis - or indeed, that he cares about Tibet any more than is necessary to score points against the Palestinians?
By 
TigerHawk, at
Wed Mar 26, 06:42:00 AM:
do you really feel that he provides any substantial analysis - or indeed, that he cares about Tibet any more than is necessary to score points against the Palestinians?
No, but the depth of Prager's personal concern about Tibet does not make his argument any less valid. There would certainly be a lot more attention paid to Tibet if the Tibetans had slaughtered Israeli Olympic athletes, hijacked planes, etc. The Tibetans would also be in a different position if they had co-religionists all over the world. And, of course, it certainly helps the Palestinians that they can tap into millenia of anti-Semitism for international support, as they do.
By davod, at
Wed Mar 26, 07:07:00 AM:
"perhaps just to note that the Free Tibet movement (which I used to campaign for) has been sustained by "the Left"."
Which branch of the Left are you talking about.
By , at
Wed Mar 26, 05:49:00 PM:
tigerhawk: No, I agree that a number of the factors that Prager mentions are relevant, terrorism not least amongst them, although I think he doesn't really understand them very well.
However I disagree that his depth (or rather shallowness) of his personal concern has no bearing on the validity of his argument. That argument is that "In a more moral world... public opinion would be far more preoccupied with Tibetans than with Palestinians, would be as harsh on China as it is on Israel, and would be as fawning on Israel as it now is on China."
Surely his idea of a "moral world" only has validity if he truly has concerns about Tibet qua Tibet? If it's just a convenient topical issue to bash the Palestinians then - while those factors have some explanatory power - the idea that his moral position is somehow superior to "public opinion" looks much weaker. You don't think it looks like a convenient stick to beat his favourite hobbyhorses with?
davod: Well, that's the question, isn't it? Which "Left" do you think Prager is talking about? All I can say is that nobody I ever met through Free Tibet came from a right wing position, and my right wing friends thought it was a ridiculous pursuit.
By , at
Wed Mar 26, 10:02:00 PM:
The obvious answer to this question is that we have higher expectations for the USA and our allies than we do for Red China. What next? Asking why we complain about criminals having guns but we don't complain about police having them?
By , at
Thu Mar 27, 01:03:00 AM:
So is it worse when the criminal commits a murder with the gun? Or is it worse when the police officer commits a murder with a gun?
Answer: Neither. They're both acts of murder.
The Russians oppressing the Chechnyans, the Chinese oppressing the Tibetans, the Indians oppressing the Sri Lankans, all just fine and dandy... because our expectations of them are low.
But Israelis oppressing the Palestinians (to a lesser degree, no less) and that's unacceptable. Why? Because you're disappointed in them? Because they let you down in some touchy-feely way?
One crime is excused away because you expect no better, but the other is a crisis because *who* did it offends you. Not the act itself, but the actor.
That's incredibly self-centered. Not to mention irrational.
By , at
Thu Mar 27, 02:15:00 AM:
dawnfire: I find that argument a bit strange - if a police officer commits murder, then they're a criminal, so your distinction is weak. Of course it's more disturbing when a police officer committing murder, because as well as the commission of the act there's a clear betrayal of a trust relationship in which we've invested a lot of social capital - so it requires a different response.
The point about Israel is that they do hold themselves to a higher standard, so it's entirely legitimate to ask questions when they don't reach that standard. That's what makes Israel such a good democracy - the willingness to ask those hard questions, particularly given its history - they could easily have become a far less admirable example. The price of liberty, eternal vigilance, etc, etc.
Incidentally, Indians oppressing Sri Lankans?
By , at
Thu Mar 27, 10:05:00 AM:
@ merkurThe point about Israel is that they do hold themselves to a higher standard, so it's entirely legitimate to ask questions when they don't reach that standard. That's what makes Israel such a good democracy - the willingness to ask those hard questions, particularly given its history - they could easily have become a far less admirable example
So it is justified that Israel gets a grossly disproportionate proportion of UN Human Rights Commission and UN Assembly resolutions directed against it? That many of the countries voting against Israel have committed much worse human rights abuses than Israel, that's OK?
By , at
Thu Mar 27, 12:08:00 PM:
No. Luckily I didn't make that argument. Perhaps you could explain how that has anything to do with this discussion?
By , at
Thu Mar 27, 01:06:00 PM:
I wasn't responding to you at all. I was responding to the anonymous poster beneath you who initially made the criminal/police example.
"if a police officer commits murder, then they're a criminal"
That's exactly my point. Thanks.
"The point about Israel is that they do hold themselves to a higher standard, so it's entirely legitimate to ask questions when they don't reach that standard."
This statement is entirely flawed. Not in that it isn't legitimate to question Israelis because 'they hold themselves to a higher standard,' but because there's a qualifier at all. This implies that nations or groups who DON'T hold themselves to a 'higher standard' are unworthy of the same kind of scrutiny. That it's not 'entirely legitimate' to ask questions when they don't even pretend to try to reach such a level of decency.
Israel seems to be the police officer, who gets the third degree when they even seem like they might do something improper. Recall the 'Jenin Massacre' incident of 2002? China (or Syria, or Iran, or Sudan, etc.) is the habitual criminal whom nobody gives a second thought when they actually DO something improper. Acts of genocide, for example (Sudan, China) or leveling an entire city with artillery and slaughtering thousands, (Syria) or clearing minefields with human waves of children. (Iran)
It's a clear double-standard.
"Incidentally, Indians oppressing Sri Lankans?"
Ack. That ought to be Sri Lankans oppressing Tamils. That's who I was thinking of at the time...
By , at
Thu Mar 27, 01:40:00 PM:
merkur said...
No. Luckily I didn't make that argument. Perhaps you could explain how that has anything to do with this discussion?
The article and the ensuing thread deal with how more international outrage is raised about treatment of the Palestinians than about treatment of the Tibetans. This outrage over treatment of the Palestinians is rather biased, selective, and long-standing. Consider the alleged “genocide” in Jenin, where nearly all of the 50-odd Palestinians that the IDF killed were combatants. Part of this selective outrage in favor of the Palestinians includes the grossly disproportionate number of UN resolutions directed against Israel.
As far as I am concerned, one who expects Israel to hold to certain standards without simultaneously stating that their opponents should also be held to the same or similar standards -- WHICH YOU DID NOT -- deserves the comment that I made.
Some might claim that expecting Israel to maintain certain standards of behavior, without also expecting the same or similar conduct of their opponents, is racist. Oh those Arabs, what can you expect of them? The soft bigotry of low expectations, and all that.
As for myself, perhaps because I have had experience with people of Arabic origin as classmates, housemates, teachers, fellow employees and as employers, I hold the Arab world to the level of performance that I have seen of people of Arabic origin when they are outside the Middle East.
By , at
Thu Mar 27, 03:43:00 PM:
@dawnfire: Yes, I realised that you were replying to somebody else after I pressed submit.
"This implies that nations or groups who DON'T hold themselves to a 'higher standard' are unworthy of the same kind of scrutiny."
I'm not sure it does imply that, to be honest - that's certainly not what I meant to imply. There needs to be scrutiny of all actors in any conflict if human rights are to mean anything. Yet if you acknowledge that Israel does claim to abide by the laws of war, and that their opponents make no such claim, then it seems to me that you're judging both sides by standards that neither claims to hold. I agree that Israel gets the short end of the stick, and I don't like it. However I still don't think that it's legitimate to basically use the Tibetans to bash the Palestinians, and I'm having a hard time envisioning the "moral world" that Prager seems to want.
"China (or Syria, or Iran, or Sudan, etc.) is the habitual criminal whom nobody gives a second thought when they actually DO something improper."
When you say "nobody", who exactly are you talking about? There's a campaign on to boycott the Olympics. There's the Save Darfur coalition. There's a number of trade union support movements working with Iranian trade unions. Do these not count?
"That ought to be Sri Lankans oppressing Tamils."
Ummm... Tamils are Sri Lankans - at least the ones in Sri Lanka are.
By , at
Thu Mar 27, 03:50:00 PM:
@boludo: I'm not disputing that the Tibetans have not had the attention that the Palestinians have had. However your question didn't seem to have anything to do with the point that I was making about the standards that Israel - not the UN, not "the Left", not "public opinion" - holds itself to. Those standards are why I admire Israel, and I see no reason to be ashamed of that.
"As far as I am concerned, one who expects Israel to hold to certain standards without simultaneously stating that their opponents should also be held to the same or similar standards -- WHICH YOU DID NOT -- deserves the comment that I made."
Aha, so I was not forceful enough in my denunciation of human rights abuses on both sides. Since it's so damned important to you, let me be clear: breaches of the laws of war are unacceptable to me both personally and professionally, and accountability for such breaches needs to be pressed for by the international community - both individuals and governments. There - happy now?
"As for myself, perhaps because I have had experience with people of Arabic origin as classmates, housemates, teachers, fellow employees and as employers, I hold the Arab world to the level of performance that I have seen of people of Arabic origin when they are outside the Middle East."
So it's never occurred to you that context might be important in these conflicts? I might suggest that you spend some time in the Middle East, because it's bloody confusing; of course, from outside it looks much simpler.
That's not meant to be snark, by the way; it's a genuine suggestion.
By , at
Thu Mar 27, 08:37:00 PM:
merkur: Fair enough. We have a meeting of the minds, more or less.
Re visiting the Middle East: My language skills are tapped out at Spanish,which I utilized when working in Latin America. I am only going to travel where I can speak the language. I do not feel comfortable otherwise. The Middle East will have to wait for another lifetime.
By , at
Fri Mar 28, 11:35:00 AM:
Okay, now for the snark. My problem with Prager's article is that I don't think he really gives two hoots about the Tibetans, and that his real concern is doing down the Palestinians; and frankly, I don't think that's particularly "moral".
Anyway, my point is this: on this thread, not a single person has expressed any concern for the people of Tibet, or suggested how we might act to support their struggle. Which makes me think that this was just another excuse for all of you to bash the Palestinians, and anybody that you suspect of being too supportive of them.
But maybe I'm wrong.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Mar 28, 12:22:00 PM:
Merkur, you are not wrong -- we are as guilty as the rest of the world of basically annoying the plight of the Tibetans. In fairness, though, the point of the article was not so much to cry for the Tibetans or anybody else, as to argue that the global "concern" over the Palestinians is largely a function of three things: they invented transnational terrorism to call attention to their cause, their cause is useful to Muslim dictatorships that control the world's supply of oil at the margin, and their enemy is the Jews.
By , at
Fri Mar 28, 02:39:00 PM:
And that's really my point. If you support Prager's argument that the "The world is unfair, unjust and morally twisted. And rarely more so than in its support for the Palestinians... and its neglect of the cruelly treated, humane Tibetans" then if you want the world to be more fair, more just and less twisted, then the place to start is in the mirror, rather than in the Middle East.
