|
|
| up a level post search archive articles admin main |
 Posted by Aron on May 21 2008 (Wednesday) : 09:20 PMRehavam Ze'evi was the last person to get up in front of the Israeli Knesset and compare those who negotiate with "terrorists," as being equivalent to Neville Chamberlain's appeasing Hitler. Ze'evi was part of Israel's radical right and led a party that advocated the "transfer" of Arabs out of Israel, as the solution for ending the Israel/Palestine conflict. He also was famous for saying on the floor of the Knesset "every Jew is worth a thousand Arabs." Of course, in his reference to appeasement, Ze'evi was referring to Rabin and his negotiations with Arafat and the PLO. In Ze'evi's eyes, the fact that Bush advocates a two state solution and see's Arafat successor Abbas, as a "partner" in peace, would make Bush another Nazi-lover. In fact, another Israeli politician did make exactly that accusation against Bush. In October of 2001, President Bush made a statement that he recognised the right to a Palestinian state, while simultaneously plans (attributed to then Secretary of State Powell) were leaked to the US media for a resumed Middle East peace initiative, including a renewed proposal of joint Israeli-Palestinian sovereignty over Jerusalem. Based on that Prime Minister Arik Sharon accused the Bush and the US of “appeasement” and warned that Western democracies should not now “commit again the terrible mistake made in 1938 when European democracies sacrificed Czechoslovakia for a temporary solution”. The appeasement accusation has long been a favorite of the Israeli right, used against anyone who engages in or even calls for a diplomatic solution of the Israel/Palestine conflict. The whole accusation is based on a false dichotomy. The choice is almost never between between appeasement and war. There are almost always ways to engage your enemy or opponent that do not involve appeasement. Only when all those ways have broken down is war justified. Unfortunately, past history shows that the breakdown usually happens not because there are no other options, but because of ineptitude and/or because of pressure from elite interests profiting from war. There are also several ironies in Bush's (and others') analogy between negotiating with the Palestinians and appeasing Hitler. Firstly, the idea that diplomacy is always a sign of weakness, and that war and violence are the first and best options for resolving conflicts, pretty much sums up the Nazi approach to international relations. The fact that those who oppose negotiations with the Palestinians espouse a similar political approach does not make them Nazis. But it does underline the affinity of their political philosophy to fascistic thinking. Secondly, as I have noted before, Chamberlain appeased Hitler not because he was some liberal pacifist "do-gooder," but because he saw Hitler as a fellow right-wing bulwark against Communism. For the same reason Bush's grandfather Prescott Bush and many other US industrial tycoons supported Hitler. As an aside this same Prescott Bush may also have been involved in an attempt to foment a military coup against FDR (why is all this information only found on well-established UK media outlets and nowhere in the mainstream US media?). Thirdly, had the victors in post-WWI Europe engaged Germany diplomatically, instead of applying a policy of iron-fist vengeance, Hitler would probably never have risen to power and WWII might have been avoided altogether. The proof being, that such behavior after WWII led to a prosperous, peaceful, postwar Europe and ultimately led to the downfall of communism in Eastern Europe. Expanding on this last point, the reason Hitler's Germany lost the war in the end was because the Russian people fought valiantly against German troops. The German army suffered 88% of its casualties on the Eastern Front. In order to guarantee this happening, the Western allies worked closely with Stalin, a leader not much superior to Hitler. During the Cold War, many on the extreme right in the US called this alliance and its consequences "appeasement." Indeed after the war, many in and out of the US military wanted to continue Eastward and fight the Russians. The history of postwar Europe vindicates the wisdom of both the alliance with Stalin and the decision not to go to war against him after the defeat of Hitler. The people of Western Europe got the breather necessary to rebuild their lives and their countries. It is true the people of Eastern Europe lived and suffered under a totalitarian regime, but imagine the alternative had Stalin remained allied to Hitler. In the end, the Soviet Union collapsed, not because the West went to war, not even during the period of the Cold War's isolation and containment, but precisely during the period when the West was finally deeply engaged diplomatically and otherwise with the Soviet Union. The final irony is this: if anyone is an appeaser, it is George W. Bush. In Haaretz the other day, I read the following: "Bush offers Saudis nuclear power in exchange for more oil" By Reuters "U.S. President George W. Bush, visiting the Saudi capital on Friday, hoped to formalize new agreements that would give the relationship between the two countries a boost." "Among them was an agreement for the U.S. to assist the kingdom in developing civilian nuclear power. Another agreement involves U.S. promises to help protect any Saudi nuclear infrastructure with training, the exchange of experts and other support services as needed. Hadley said it would not involve U.S. troops." Now according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of "appeasement" in the political context is: "to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles." If there is any regime on this planet who has attacked US economic and political interests, its Saudia Arabia. It was the Saudis who led the way in 1973 to have OPEC use oil as a political weapon against the West. It is the Saudis who export their most fanatical form of Islam around the world, financing groups that ultimately are involved in anti-Western agitation and even military operations. It is no coincidence that nearly all those who planned, financed and were actively involved in the 9/11 attack against the US were from Saudi Arabia: "The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks stated in its July report that al Qaeda had relied heavily on international charities to raise money, 'particularly those with lax external oversight and ineffective internal controls such as the Saudi-based al Haramain Islamic Foundation.' The report added that al Qaeda found 'fertile fund-raising groups' in Saudi Arabia, 'where extreme religious views are common and charitable giving was both essential to the culture and subject to very limited oversight.'" It is therefore no exaggeration to call the Saudi Arabians aggressors against US and Western interests. Certainly they are one of the most anti-democratic and totalitarian regimes on the planet. And yet, in order to buy them off in the hopes that they might, possibly, out of the goodness of their hearts, lower the price of oil a teenswy weensy bit, the President of the United States is offering them nuclear know how! Didn't Bush lead this country to war against Iraq so that an enemy of the US won't get its hands on nuclear technology? Doesn't he justify staying in that country in order to ensure the growth of "democracy" in the Middle East? Yet George W. Bush throws out all these supposed principles he spouts to the winds, when it comes to Saudi Arabia. This is appeasement of the very worst sort, a new low in the low, low history of the Bush administration. By the way, I dare you to find one reference to these nuclear agreements in any major US media outlet. < McCain - Jewish Tool? | Barack Obama, Pilpulist >
|
|
  Cost of the War in Iraq
|
"Entre los individuos, como entre las naciones, el respeto al derecho ajeno es la paz -- Among individuals, as among nations, respect for the rights of others is peace" -Benito Jurez
"It isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it." -Eleanor Roosevelt "Let them call me a rebel and welcome. I feel no concern from it. But should I suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul" -Thomas Paine | |
| Copyrights for all postings on this page are owned by Aron Trauring, except where otherwise noted ©2002-2008 Aron Trauring. |
||
George Bush, Appeaser
