Appeasement and Its Discontents

National Review ^ | May 19, 2008 | Victor Davis Hanson

[moderatewolverine]

Bush was assuring the Israelis that the United States would not, in contrast to liberal democracies of the past, appease states and organizations intent on killing Jews by the millions.

Second, Bush’s warning came in a climate of fear and weariness in the West, in which calls to meet without preconditions with both Iran and Hamas — the former state whose president has forecast the impending destruction of Israel, the latter terrorist organization whose charter hinges on the end of the Jewish state — have been voiced by several public figures, most prominently in recent days by former President Carter.

Third, the warning about appeasement comes not just after, and in implied defense, of military action in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but in the case of the United States, also after the September 11 catastrophe, which itself followed a decade of bipartisan inability to confront and respond to a number of al-Qaeda serial provocations.

The speech caused outrage among Democrats who insisted that it was “appalling” and a “smear” on Barack Obama, who has advocated talks, without preconditions, with Iran, and who had been informally endorsed by a Hamas official, and who had recently fired a Middle Eastern adviser, Robert Malley, for meeting with Hamas leaders. Obama fired off the following reply...

[moderatewolverine]

Spot on as usual.

[SampleMan]

Question for Obama:

“Senator Obama, President Ahmadinejad of Iran has stated unequivically that he believes Israelis must be completely exterminated, and that their existance is the critical hurdle to peace. You have stated that we must be willing to negotiate with him and Iran. What percentage of Israelis exterminated would you feel it possible to negotiate?”

[jackv]

I’ve never seen the msm so hostile towards Bush. He’s obviously a threat to their chosen one.
For him to point out Israeli history on their 60 yr anniversary and turn that into an attack is stunning to me.
Why Bush gives any of them the time of day is beyond me.

[happyathome]

Bush should ask his press secretary to make a statement to the effect of:

“The President’s speech did not identify Sen. Obama by name. It is interesting that the Senator chose to identify himself with the speech so closely.”

[popdonnelly]

History obviously doesn’t matter to these people. Bringing up appeasement in its historical context now produces outrage.

[cvq3842]

Seems like the Democrat reaction somehow assumes that everyon KNOWS that Iran is not a threat, and therefore Bush doesn’t believe what he’s saying - he’s just “electioneering.”

But Bush is serious - as serious as a heart attack. He’s doing exactly what anyone would do who sees a looming threat to his country and far too many leaders and prospective leaders not addressing it.

Bush is 100% sincere. It’s the Democrats who are either putting a campaign ahead of the nation’s best interests, or foolishly naive, or both.

If Obama had said “I agree with Bush,” and then added his own spin to it, he would have looked much better - except, of course, to the leftists who form much of his base.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I blame Israel for a lot of this nonsense. That is, trying to live side by side in peace with killers is just madness. It has been proven time and time again that the Palestinians will not stop with the violence and murder until they have found a way to exterminate the Jews, or at least drive them out of Israel.

Time for pattern recognition.

Israel has only one option. They must choose it, or they will eventually be pushed out of Israel or exterminated. They have no other choices, as much as they want to do something, anything, other than the obvious.

They must either force the Palestinians to behave peacefully, or they must drive them so far away from Israel that their actions do not matter. These actions require no cooperation at all from the Palestinians. And the only choice the Palestinians have is to stop attacking Israel or to be pushed far away from Israel.

Critically important, Israel must force this choice in a methodical manner. It does not have to be particularly harsh or brutal, but it *must* upset the balance in a permanent way.

Either peace or push. Gradually, for every attack the Palestinians commit against Israel, they must be pushed back. And once pushed, they can never again be allowed back in to the area from which they have been expelled.

It is similar to the concept of putting criminals in prison.

If they break the law, they go to prison, no matter how much they complain or try and bargain their way into staying free. And when they break the law, it is not oppressive to put them in prison again.

But the Palestinians are not being put in prison. When they offend, they are just pushed a little bit further away, making it harder for them to offend again.

There is no injustice here. In fact, it shows great justice. It gives the Palestinians the choice of the criminal: do not offend, or you will be punished.

Even if a criminal has a powerful and erudite advocate, it does not mean that they should walk free from their crimes. And the same rule applies to the Palestinians. Even if the rest of the world begs and pleads for their “right” to be free to attack and murder, justice demands that they be punished.

Israelis have a real right, the right to be free from violence and murder. And their leaders must judge this right against the freedom of those who would violate it.

Otherwise they are not a good judge.

[BuffaloJack]

Today’s liberals are like all appeasement weasels. You would have though that they’d learned the lesson with Hitler. Oh, wait, Hitler was a socialist too.

[jackv]

I wonder if these fools even listened to the speech or if they just heard the soundbites that were so effectively used. Either way these people are stupid.

[Grampa Dave]

President Bush Blasts Appeasers; Messiah Campaign Goes Ballistic

Hysterical Whiner, Hussein ObamaHamas cries/moans and screams that Bush falsely accuses him of appeasement and shouts, “I’m not an appeaser!”

Obama: "I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems, ....I will not weaponize space... I will slow development of future combat systems... I will institute a 'Defense Priorities Board' to ensure the quadrennial defense review is not used ..."

Then, there will be peace in our time without the evil republicans causing war!

My change is good for Muslims, Islamofascists, Black Racists, and Chrislims. $crew the Christians and real Jews!

[goldstategop]

At point America would have to use force to deter its enemies. The question for Obama is when that use of force can be summoned. Does he believe in talking to America's enemies at all costs? Or is there a line drawn in the sand beyond which they can go no further? We deserve to have the answers to those questions from our prospective President-In-Waiting.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Tolik]

... Most define appeasement not by the mere willingness on occasion to negotiate with enemies (i.e., the heads of nation states rather than criminal terrorist cliques). Rather, appeasement is an overriding desire to avoid war or confrontation to such a degree so as to engage in a serial pattern of behavior that results in an accommodation of an enemy’s demands — and ultimately the inadvertent enhancement of its agendas. Key here is the caveat that there must [be] muscular alternatives to appeasement, as was true with a rather weak 1936 Nazi Germany or a non-nuclear theocratic Iran.

Talking with an Iranian theocrat like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad per se might not necessarily constitute appeasement. But continuing such talks without preconditions that made no progress in curbing Iranian nuclear agendas, or support for Hezbollah terrorists and Shiite militias in Iraq would not only be futile, but encourage further Iranian adventurism — by the assurance that negotiations were infinite and there would be few lines in the sand and little chance of military opposition to follow.

... If a President Obama were to enter into multiple negotiations with Iran, and if Iran were to continue to subvert the Lebanese government and threaten Israel through its surrogate Hezbollah, and continue to develop a nuclear arsenal while promising the destruction of Israel, at what point would he be willing not merely to cease talking, but to accept that his negotiations had done more harm than good and thus required a radical change of course — and would it be in time?

... In short, nothing in the president’s speech was inaccurate, inflammatory, or hypocritical. Whether Barack Obama believes he was a target of the president’s rhetoric, or whether he would engage in appeasement, hinges on whether his overeagerness to talk without preconditions to the world’s thugs and rogues would persist in the face of unpleasant facts — and so make the likelihood of eventual military action more, rather than less, likely.

    Victor Davis Hanson Ping ! 

       Let me know if you want in or out.

Links:    FR Index of his articles:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
                His website: http://victorhanson.com/
                NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
                Pajamasmedia:   http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/

[MNJohnnie]

You know the more you listen to Obama speak, the more you realize he is Jimmy Carter 2.0. His idea of “change” is to retry all the failed polices on the Economy, National Security, Energy Policy, Taxes etc etc etc, that Carter tried.

[Tenacious 1]

You know the more you listen to Obama speak, the more you realize he is Jimmy Carter 2.0. His idea of “change” is to retry all the failed polices on the Economy, National Security, Energy Policy, Taxes etc etc etc, that Carter tried.

Ironically, Jimmy Carter gave us Ronald Reagan. I don't know how bad I want to repeat the suffering for the chance, however.

[DuncanWaring]

Who have we got waiting in the wings corresponding to “Ronald Reagan 1976”?

Nobody that I can think of.

[maica]

At point America would have to use force to deter its enemies. The question for Obama is when that use of force can be summoned.

^^^^

Obama’s stance on foreign relations reveals one thought/belief that I have not seen mentioned by conservative commentators. Obama believes that the mighty force of US military power is so frightening that our enemies will ‘give in’ if they are faced with the threat of American force.

To me this belief of Obama’s reveals that he is afraid of America’s military might; that he has no concept of the diplomacy that has been used by our government during Republican administrations, and no respect for the people who members of our military force. Our entire defense structure is not meaningful to him in any way. His whole life experience has reinforced the propaganda of America as a bully, and he somehow thinks that if he threatens to use this power, our enemies will capitulate.

He is an idiot!

[Tenacious 1]

Nobody that I can think of.

Me neither.