The rulers of Kuwait must have run out of ground to build palaces. They are expected to have $10 billion to play with this year. That is, namely, their estimated budget surplus. And yet, they were so generous with their oil fortune that they gave away $10 million to aid the survivors of the tsunami that killed an estimated 140,000 people.



The same amount was pledged by Qatar and Saudi Arabia each. And wow, the ruler of the United Arab Emirates raised his nation's cash contribution to $20 million.



These figures were related in Tuesday's New York Times, in a story that described conflicting feelings among Arabs in oil-rich Persian Gulf countries about the amount of money they should contribute in the wake of the Southeast Asian tragedy.



More money could flow from these countries in the future, but these are among the wealthiest nations of the world; nations that could never have developed a real economy on their own. All they had to do was sell their oil to the Western world. Yet, most of those countries have done little with the money except pamper their rulers.



Saudi Arabia and company probably could have solved the entire refugee problem in Gaza and the West Bank long ago, if they were willing to spend their billions on their so-called brethren.



By contrast, as has been reported, Western nations are spending far more and some are clearly stretching their budgets. The United States has no $10 billion surplus, and in fact faces a massive deficit. America is spending $350 million at this stage, and even the initial $15 million announced by President George Bush begged this question: Where do we find the money?



Japan is contributing a whopping $500 million, followed by France at $103 million and Britain at $94 million.



Of course, Israel is supplying extensive provisions and manpower and was even rebuffed by the Sri Lankan government; yet, the Israelis are willing to help largely Muslim lands, where many of the people want Israel destroyed.



Bush was asking for trouble when he metaphorically fiddled while the people of Southeast Asia and eastern Africa suffered. Yet, where was the outrage over the behavior of the Arab countries?



Even a front-page editorial in the newspaper Al-Qabas said Gulf Arabs were obligated to contribute more money because of longstanding ties between the Gulf and Southeast Asia.



Al-Qabas editor Waleed Al-Nusif told the Times, "We have to give them more; we are rich. The price of oil doubled, so we have no excuse."



His newspaper also needed to publish a religious ruling making it permissible to donate to non-Muslims. The question of helping non-Muslims - a.k.a. "infidels" - is a bone of contention between progressive and conservative Muslims.



What if Westerners of all faiths debated if it is kosher, metaphorically speaking, to contribute money to help Muslims?