Passion in many forms and from many places has poured into Haiti since the devastating earthquake in early January, 2010. Indeed, the greatest problem after the initial responses, is how to accommodate and organize the overwhelming humanitarian efforts. Records are being broken daily in the length of time a human being can stay alive under rubble, more orphaned children are found each day. The earthquake showed no partiality between rich and poor; but stronger structures survived unless they were at the epicenter.

Israel was among the first to respond with airborne relief—36 hours! Predictably, some commentators asked how Israel could respond so quickly ten thousand miles away while they maintain an embargo (with Egypt’s help) on Gaza; blocking almost everything but food and medicine. Predictably, some ask why there is more US response to Haiti than there was to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. People ask difficult questions.

Natural disasters are very different from those caused by human warfare. The December 2008 to January 2009, Gaza bombings are still being sorted out by the UN’s report headed by Judge Goldstone, and Israel’s/Gaza’s responses to that UN report. From Tel Aviv to Tokyo; from Beijing to Boston; from London to Lusaka, food, medicine and reconstruction are pouring in to Haiti The closest parallel I can find between Haiti and Gaza is comparing Gaza’s recent history with Haiti’s past.

Israel and the USA were startled if not angry that Hamas won the internationally sponsored elections for the West Bank and Gaza in January 2006. The thought of having to open peace talks with Hamas shattered all previous Israeli statements about “not having a democratically elected partner” for peace talks. Both the USA and Israel poured support to Hamas’ rival, the Palestinian Authority—not long ago called a “terrorist organization”, or a collection thereof. Failing with ballots, Hamas used bullets to take over a part of post-1967 Palestine—Gaza. The Israeli bombings followed by the present embargo is to send the message that the USA has sent in the past to Mossadegh’s Iran, Lumumba’s Congo, Allende’s Chile, and so forth: the message is that the “Free World” supports democratic elections when the winner is on our side.

So where does the parallel with Haiti come in here? France was furious when the slaves in Haiti successfully overthrew them in 1804. Unable to regain their chief stronghold in this hemisphere, they embargoed Haiti demanding that she repay France for their economic losses. That economic message was coupled with a message to all other parts of empire that slave rebellions must not succeed—the economics of empire demanded, in part, cheap labor. The USA was also upset by Haiti’s revolt, fearing that it might give ideas the millions of slaves in the then infant USA. Indeed, Haitian slaves had fought under Lafayette’s command on the side of the not yet USA at the Battle of Savannah. We thanked the French during our war for independence, but broke all relations with Haiti after the 1804 revolt; resuming diplomatic ties again after our civil war.

One thing that history teaches us is that the stronger nations are always sending the messages, but seldom learning the lessons by at least beginning to listen.