Israel Appeases Terrorists
Well, that’s what I’m guessing president Bush and his crew will be telling Israel. After all, negotiating with terrorists is appeasement, and Israel is doing just that. Not only are they in indirect discussions with Hezbollah, they are in fact negotiating concessions, in the form of released prisoners, with an group the United States considers is a terrorist group.
I expect President Bush to go to the Knesset and tell the Israeli government that they are appeasers, no better than those who sought to appease the Nazis that murdered so many of their families.
Unless the term appeaser is only one to be cynically used on domestic political opponents, and not subject to any form of accuracy, consistency, or integrity?
Nah, couldn’t be.
I think this ‘appeaser’ comment put the last nail in the coffin of Bush’s legacy as a President out of touch with reality. His own administration doesn’t meet his standard for non-negotiation.
Actually, Isreal has long engaged in these wildly assymetrically negotiations to trade prisoners for hostages, and I think a good argument could be made that that is indeed appeasement and it could be that Isreal’s willingness to negotiate with the terrorist groups may have prolonged the conflict.
For those who feel that Bush’s use of diplomatic isolation is completely wrong, and use the lack of progress as evidence of that, shouldn’t you also apply the same metric to judge whether or not "talking" works? And of course anyone who really examines situations objectively sees that there are some circumstances where diplomatic negotiations can be fruitful and others where they cannot.
As always, it’s helpful to look at the transcript. Habitual critics of President Bush, as always, interpret his remarks in the worst possible light, hearing him to say all negotiation of any sort equals appeasement. He did not say that. Here’s precisely what he said, in context:
Notice the bolded sentence. As others have noted, he’s speaking to an audience which has quite regularly negotiated with terrorists, which has frequently sat and talked with their enemies. Their applause shows that THEY understood perfectly well what he was saying.
He is saying that negotiation alone will never succeed; neither will negotiation from a position and posture of weakness. Negotiation will only work when there’s something we can afford to give up that the other side wants badly enough to give up what it wants. No amount of "negotiation" is simply going to cause Hamas to say: "ok, that’s fine with us for Israel to continue existing." Nor will any amount of "negotiation" persuade Iran to say to itself: "Man, you know, we really shouldn’t be so provocative; let’s shut down those reactors." Negotiation, by its very nature, is about trading and bargaining; swapping. Without obtaining something in return, it’s just giving away the farm.
And that’s what Sen. Obama (and his predecessor, Sen. Kerry, and much of the left generally) refuse to discuss. They won’t say what they think we could consider giving up that would be sufficiently valuable to make it worth Iran’s while to give up its nuclear program; they won’t say what we and Israel could give Hamas that would make them tolerate Israel’s existence.
Moreover, where the demands of the other side themselves are wrong or unjust, it is wrong to capitulate to them. If the other side’s demand demonstrates indefatigable hostility and is itself unjust, then "swapping" something in return for an agreement to not do some more unjust things is simply giving in to extortion. This is worse when you give away something that doesn’t belong to you. When Chamberlain and the others met with Hitler in Munich, they gave away Czechoslovakia; it was not theirs to give. Worse, it demonstrated (like Obama’s rhetoric demonstrates daily) that the opposition to Hitler did not have the stomach for war; they would accept peace at any price. That is an invitation for bullies and tyrants to walk all over you.
But to return to my main premise. President Bush was NOT saying that all negotations with our enemies is bad. It is negotiation with our enemies based on the premise that if we just talk to them enough they will see the error of their ways which is naive and appeasing.
I would point out, too, that President Bush has indeed engaged in a great deal of diplomacy while in office. His critics prefer to attack him when he does that, too. For all of the Democrats’ talk of "respecting the international community," and following the wishes of our allies, they’ve been very critical of President Bush for allowing France and Germany to take the lead in trying to solve the problems posed by Iran’s nuclear program. They’ve also criticized President Bush for insisting on <i>multi-</i>lateral negotiations with North Korea; those critics never explain why the U.S. and North Korea should privately decide issues which impact other nations besides themselves.
Of course, the beauty of Bush’s statement to the Knesset is that he named no-one in particular as the object of those comments he made, thus allowing him to attack multiple appeasing birds with a single verbal stone.
So worry not, Claudia - I’m sure the Knesset got the point, even if you didn’t. And if not, take heart - Bush has Netanyahu to make this point on a regular basis (and he most assuredly does).