DEC Gaza Appeal

[andygates]

With the BBC refusing to show the DEC Gaza appeal ad (spineless feckers), here's the gen: it's a rubble pile and the civilians aren't exactly having a great time.  DEC don't fire off appeals willy-nilly, only when it's really grim for lots of people, and DEC are not political.  They can get the aid to the people on the ground, because they already are.  Here's the donation form.

Comments

[ravenbait.livejournal.com]

Why are they refusing to show it?

I want to know why Gaza gets a TV ad and the Congo warrants nothing. Everyone knows about Darfur because Angelina went there, but it's much worse in the Congo. Everyone knows about Gaza because it has been all over the news but the institutionalised rape and murder in the Congo are being largely ignored.

It's not that I have any great desire to save everyone in the Congo, nor any issue with people choosing to donate to the Gaza appeal, I just find it difficult to understand why some things become a cause celebre when far worse situations are somehow unremarkable (in that no one remarks upon them). Why do we, as a people, choose to put our efforts into one disaster rather than another? From where is the consideration of value coming?

[andygates.livejournal.com]

They say it would run counter to BBC neutrality, which is odd considering that the Beeb is partisan compared to the fanatically-maintained neutrality of the Red Cross.

Why one and not the other? Memes, man, nothing but memes. Stick some dying babies on the telly and the Congo will get more support.

[andygates.livejournal.com]

The main difference, of course, is that this is Israel versus Arabs and is politically radioactive.

[simoneck.livejournal.com]

Too many people in need, too few funds (and I know that is all relative), so you have to put in some level of prioritisation into your charitable giving, at least at a personal level.

Long term suffering v short term disaster recovery
Cute animals v starving children
Local v Global

So many causes, how to choose?

[simoneck.livejournal.com]

Can they get aid to the people?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/25/gaza-hamas

While I feel for the people caught up in this conflict, I don't want to do anything that helps or aids Hamas in anyway. And Hamas control this territory, so it's quite hard to see what will happen to my cash and how it will be used.
If charities build houses, does this mean that Hamas will have more to spend on rockets and/or will it help keep them in power?
I don't know and so will rank other charities higher on my 'causes to give money to' list.


(note that this view point doesn't mean that I support or condone the recent Israeli actions).

[andygates.livejournal.com]

Hang on, what you're saying is that Palestinian civilians - non-coms who are not involved, just happen to live there - should suffer.

There's a sick sort of irony here, when you consider the charities involved: Red Cross, Save the Children, those sorts of chaps. The irony is that it would seem a long more fair to support the civilians if the military action hadn't been so one-sided.

If Southern Israel and Gaza were both rubble, this wouldn't raise an eyebrow. Both sides need aid, both sides get it, poor little kiddywinks, boo-hoo. But because Israeli damage was so minor compared to the damage in Gaza, it looks like some sort of support for the Palestinian combatants.

The world is truly a fucked up place.