The ‘Theory and Practice’ of Appeasement in the Middle East

 The following quote is only introductory:
 “Was Bush’s Knesset speech a swipe at Obama?” is the headline of  ‘Rosner’s Blog’ in the ‘Haarets’.I quote from the newspaper,..”Barack Obama’s aides were quick to respond. His people called it “extraordinary politicization of foreign policy.” While U.S. President George W. Bush was speaking in Israel and comparing those who would talk with Iran to those who would have talked to Adolf Hitler, a storm broke out in the American political arena. Did Bush mean Obama?”.. see here.
.
 
Well, I wouldn’t dare to put my head between the Bush policy and the perhaps future policies of Barak Obama or senator McCain.  But if we talk about appeasement, we know the consequences of such policies.The reminiscences of Chamberlain, Daladier and Marshal Petain in France (ww2)., The Molotov-von Ribbentrop  nonaggression pact between Stalin and Hitlers Barbarossa invasion of the Nazi armies and the Pearl harbour attack by Japan, did not fade away.
 
  Now, if i am looking in my own ‘neighbourhood’..the Middle East.
What can be said here?  Well let Tariq Alhomayed speake for himself, I quote, ..”An astounding article … was published recently by the editor in chief of Arabic-language newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat (English edition), Tariq Alhomayed, under the headline “Iran and the fearful Arabs.” ….”The fearful Arab states…are the ones affirming, without conviction, that the Lebanese crisis is an internal matter and they are calling against confrontation with Iran. The fearful Arab states are unaware of the fact that the conflict with Iran will prevail and that it will not just end in Beirut.”…
 
 Or in other words, appeasing Hezbollah and his Iranian sponsor will not evaporate Iran’s urge for an Islamic hegemony.  
 
A further quote…”. “Hassan Nasrallah and his party were defeated the day the divinely-guided leader lost his credibility on the Lebanese street and before the Arab and Islamic worlds. It makes no difference how much he pledges today or tomorrow; the Arabs, Muslims and Lebanese will never forget how Hezbollah turned its weapons against its own people after numerous vows that it would only use them against Israel.”… see here.
 
 Or in other words, Hezbollah’s vow of a non-aggression against his own people was a pure joke.
 
And Syria..  North Korea signed the February 13, 2007 agreement in the Six Party Talks – among the United States, the two Koreas, Japan, China, and Russia with the US on nuclear weapons, see here,  meanwhile every one knows today that ..”A Syrian nuclear reactor built with help from North Korea was weeks away from functioning, a top U.S. official said Thursday after lawmakers were briefed on the site destroyed last year by Israeli jets.”… see here.
 
 Or in others words, the north Korean 2007 agreement, appeasing the nuclear peace believers, morphed into a nuclear reactor in Syria.
.
 
.
And about Nuclear Iran
 Look at the US intelligence assessment …”The National Intelligence Estimate plays down any early threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. It assesses “with high confidence” that Iran did have a nuclear weapons programme until 2003, but this was discovered and Iran stopped it.    The NIE adds: “We do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.” The assessment admits that Iran appears “less determined” to develop nuclear weapons than US intelligence had previously thought.   It says that the earliest date by which Iran could make a nuclear weapon would be late 2009 but that this is “very unlikely”.
 
Or in other words, is that not a sort of appeasement policy?
 
 But considering what others say,  I quote…”on 5 March, a senior British diplomat said: ‘Many of us were surprised by how emphatic the writers [of the NIE] were… I haven’t seen any intelligence that gives me even medium confidence that these programmes haven’t resumed’.     Even the Director of US National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, appeared to backtrack on 28 February 2008, in evidence to the Senate Armed Forces Committee. In this evidence, he said that Iran had probably halted warhead design and weaponisation, but pointed out that Iran’s continued enrichment of uranium meant that it was continuing with “the most difficult challenge in nuclear production. He said: ‘We remain concerned about Iran’s intentions… Tehran at a minimum is keeping the option open to develop nuclear weapons.’ ” see here,
 
Is it not fun making of an otherwise serious situation?
 
 And finally, adding the Hamas to the list. Two days ago, a poll on Israeli channel 10, shows that a majority of the Israeli’s don’t believe in a truce with the Hamas. And why? Because, despite the fact that most Israeli’s truly want peace, they see such a truce as an appeasement policy  not quite fitting with the Hamas 1988 charter.  See Carter’s visit: ‘The Wasington Post’ remind us that ..”Hamas’s 1988 charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and its officials have repeated that stand in the years since. The charter also encourages the killing of Jews. But Carter said that in his negotiations, Hamas leaders referred to the charter dismissively as “an ancient document”, see here. Very appeasing indeed… 
 
Putting all this together, in acute life and dead situations, appeasement strategy is only a bet. Paraphrasing on a family living in a dangerous neighbourhood, it is better to buy a good insurance against murders, robberies, vandalism, rape, Mafiosos, beating and who knows what other calamities, and then to decide, if  after all, you want to make a bet on anything in such a neighbourhood.
 
Advertisements

One thought on “The ‘Theory and Practice’ of Appeasement in the Middle East

Comments are closed.