Cliff May has some thoughts, concluding:
Statesmen understand that sometimes grievances can be addressed and sometimes grievances are manipulated to camouflage other ambitions and ulterior motives. Churchill clearly understood that Hitler’s appetite would be whet, not satisfied, once he had consumed the Sudetenland. As he put it:This is a point emphasized by the fact that just today, one day before the 70th anniversary of that agreement, Olmert gives an interview claiming that Israel must withdraw from East Jerusalem and the Golan.“We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat...you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi régime. We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude...”By the same token, it should be clear—but is not to many in the Foreign Policy Establishment — that it will be impossible to appease the Islamist regime in Tehran and the Islamist leadership in Gaza and the West Bank. Iranians and Palestinians may have “legitimate grievances” (let’s debate that another day). But the more salient fact is that they will see appeasement as weakness, and they will find weakness provocative. If there are any well-established laws in international relations, this is among them – despite attempts by revisionists to repeal it. [emphasis added]
Crossposted on Soccer Dad
Technorati Tag: Israel and Olmert and Chamberlain and Munich Agreement.
Post a Comment