Tag Archives: appeasement

Michael Chertoff-It’s Liberals Who Allow Terrorism

Homeland Security chief, Michael Chertoff told a conference in Jerusalem the United States was making progress in the fight to win the hearts of Muslims but the effort was being underminded by “sources of cynicism in our society that cannot distinguish between our actions and the actions of terrorists, that treat everything as equivalent, that view appeasement as the best course of dealing with the enemy.” He believes Muslim communities “have seen their religion highjacked by a group of ideologues,” but hopefully Muslims are finally understanding the Bush policies are on the right track and that Israel does not make mistakes. Israel Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni complained the international community must stop making moral equivalences between civilians killed by suicide bombers and civilians killed during operations against terrorists.

There have been few suicide bombers killing Israelis during the past several months but there has been the killing of dozens of Gaza civilians by Israel armed forces during their operations against militants. A Gaza mother or father whose child has been killed obtains scant comfort from knowledge the “good guys” had to kill them to avoid being killed by the “bad guys.” There have been numerous opportunities offered by Hamas and Egyptian mediators to implement a cease fire in Gaza but the Olmert government has refused to take the first step. Of course, a first step offers risks, but doing nothing can be equally as dangerous.

The new book by Scott McClellan offers ample evidence the Bush administration has lied to the American people and to the world. The Bush administration currently is negotiating with terrorist North Korea, has backed Israel negotiation with terrorist Syria, is negotiating with the terrorist regime of President Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and certainly has relations with Communist China, but Chertoff insists anyone who seeks to negotiate with terrorism is guilt of appeasement. Does this include the Bush administration?

McCain-Is Talking Appeasement Or Isn’t It?

Senator John McCain has sharply criticized Barack Obama for suggesting the need to engage in discussions with leaders of nations with whom we have conflict. Both McCain and President Bush have termed as “appeasement” any effort to engage in negotiations with regimes that support terrorism. Yesterday, after Senator McCain and President Bush had a closed-door-to-the press meeting to raise money, the senator blasted Obama with the following comment: ‘You believe all we need to do to end the nuclear programs of hostile governments is to ahve our president talk with leaders of Pyongyant and Tehran, as if we haven’t tried talking with these governments repeatedly over the past two decades.”

Senator McCain’s comment is rather intriguing because he admits that President Bush has engaged in discussions and negotiations with hostile nations. But, aren’t both McCain and Bush attacking Barack Obama for supporting exactly what the Bush administration has been doing– engaging in discussions with North Korea and Iran? Why doesn’t McCain term as “appeasement” these Bush discussions? Or is it only “appeasement” when a Democratic candidate urges the nation to do what Bush has been doing? It becomes rather confusing attempting to decipher the meaning of “appeasement.”

Syrian-Israel Talks Continue

Three days of indirect peace talks betwen Syria and Israel which are being conducted under auspices of Turkey have apparently led to a sense of satisfaction on the part of both sides. Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan noted: “Both sides were satisfied that the talks-which went on for three days on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in Istanbul –resulted in findng a common ground.” Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem claimed his nation had received firm commitments on the part of Israel for a fulll withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights. Israel Pime Minister Ehud Olmert said his nation was “ready to make substantial concessions to Syria that will be quite painful.” Babacan refused to comment on the specific areas of agreement except to say”the basic philosophy is peace for land and land for peace.”

President Bush insists talking with nations that have engaged in or supported terrorism is an example of appeasement. Syria certainly fits the category of being a terrorist nation but appearently when Israel talks with terrorist nations it is not appeasement, according to the Bush version of the world, but simply an exercise in common sense. If the same sense of practicality could now be applied to initating discussions with Hamas and Hizbullah the Middle East might move onto the roadway of peace and reality.

Israel and Syria Agree On Golan Withdrawal

President George Bush, in his speech to the Knesset, warned of dangers posed by engaging in discussions with nations or groups which are in the forefront of terrorism and derided Democratic rivals who wanted such discusisons as believers in appeasement. A week after his pep talk to Israel, the government of Ehud Olmert acknowledged it has been involved in discussions with Syria, a state long identified as one supporting terrorism, and the two have agreed on an Israel withdrawal from the Golan Heights. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moliem, told the press: “We have received commitments for a withdrawal from the Golan to the June 4, 1967 line.” The Olmert government said ‘Israel and Syria have begun indirect talks with the Syrians, under the auspices of Turkey. The two sides have declared their intention to conduct the negotiations in good faith and with openess.”

President Bush, who opposes negotiations with terrorist regimes like Syria and Iran, is now claiming he doesn’t oppose Israel negotiating with Syria, but he will not allow his administration to negotiate with Syria. The Omert government will use these discussions in order to persuade Syria to end military support for Hamas and Hizbullah. This issue, undoubtedly, will be the central one in any compromise agreement. Of course, one might suggest the possibility of involving Hamas and Hizbullah in discussions with Syria in order to create a regional peace agreement. But, that would be appeasement and we know how George Bush doesn’t believe in appeasing agressors. He only believes in discussions with terorrist nations if they fit into his definition as to what constitutes appeasement.

Hopefully, future historians will be able to make sense of the Bush program of discussions with terrorist nations.