Hating History
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush told the Israeli lawmakers. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history." George Bush to the Isreali Parliment (from the Washington Post)
Some folks are very upset by the above remark made yesterday during Israel's 60th Anniversary celebration. Evidently, pointing out historically correct analogies to today's world bothers the current group of appeasers, known mostly as Democrats here in the US.
If you read it, you'll see no names, no political parties, no groups are named, other than the Nazi's, yet the Democratic party, from the top down, called it a shot at them collectively, and Barack Obama, specifically.
Hillary Clinton denounced the remark, but is probably thankful that he didn't use more recent examples to make his point. The sell out to North Korea in the 1990's, providing tons of food, heating oil, and reactor technology for power generation didn't stop them from developing a nuclear weapon. Instead, it gave the North Korean army tons of food and fuel, while millions starved and froze to death in their country.
The problem with the appeaser position, that we can negotiate an end to terrrorism, be it in general, or against Israel is that you need both sides to be willing to concede on a major point. In the case of Israel and a Palestinian state, that both have a right to exist.
The US, and world in general, through the Oslo Accords, the "Road Map" strategy, and countless other negotiations have agreed that a Palestinian State should be an end goal. Iran, Hamas, Syria and general Palestinian population however, still hold that Israel should be wiped out. So what is the beginning position for negotiating with them? Do the Democrats believe if only they were listened to, this could all be over? If that's the case, then why, from 1993-2001 didn't all these problems go away when they were in power?
The Camp David Accords don't provide any help in this, situation. Egypt went into those negotiations with a grudging willingness to accept that Israel was there to stay. There is no such willingness on the part of Iran or Syria (Hama's bankers) to accept that point, so there is little room for negotiation with them.
Barack Obama wonders why he has such a low standing in the Jewish community, not seeing that appeasing leaders like Ahmadinejad of Iran fuels their anger towards him.
John McCain, to his credit, stood by Bush's comments, and even fired a few shots at Obama and the appeasement crowd. He gets that fact that until the Iran's of the world submit to a few major points; like the existence of Israel, and the ending of state sponsoring of terrorism; there is no place for negotiation with them.
Some folks are very upset by the above remark made yesterday during Israel's 60th Anniversary celebration. Evidently, pointing out historically correct analogies to today's world bothers the current group of appeasers, known mostly as Democrats here in the US.
If you read it, you'll see no names, no political parties, no groups are named, other than the Nazi's, yet the Democratic party, from the top down, called it a shot at them collectively, and Barack Obama, specifically.
Hillary Clinton denounced the remark, but is probably thankful that he didn't use more recent examples to make his point. The sell out to North Korea in the 1990's, providing tons of food, heating oil, and reactor technology for power generation didn't stop them from developing a nuclear weapon. Instead, it gave the North Korean army tons of food and fuel, while millions starved and froze to death in their country.
The problem with the appeaser position, that we can negotiate an end to terrrorism, be it in general, or against Israel is that you need both sides to be willing to concede on a major point. In the case of Israel and a Palestinian state, that both have a right to exist.
The US, and world in general, through the Oslo Accords, the "Road Map" strategy, and countless other negotiations have agreed that a Palestinian State should be an end goal. Iran, Hamas, Syria and general Palestinian population however, still hold that Israel should be wiped out. So what is the beginning position for negotiating with them? Do the Democrats believe if only they were listened to, this could all be over? If that's the case, then why, from 1993-2001 didn't all these problems go away when they were in power?
The Camp David Accords don't provide any help in this, situation. Egypt went into those negotiations with a grudging willingness to accept that Israel was there to stay. There is no such willingness on the part of Iran or Syria (Hama's bankers) to accept that point, so there is little room for negotiation with them.
Barack Obama wonders why he has such a low standing in the Jewish community, not seeing that appeasing leaders like Ahmadinejad of Iran fuels their anger towards him.
John McCain, to his credit, stood by Bush's comments, and even fired a few shots at Obama and the appeasement crowd. He gets that fact that until the Iran's of the world submit to a few major points; like the existence of Israel, and the ending of state sponsoring of terrorism; there is no place for negotiation with them.
Labels: Appeasement, Barack Obama, George Bush, Hamas, Iran, Israel, John McCain, Syria, Terrorism
posted by Crazy Politico at 7:00 AM
0Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home