Posted by
Catmman on Thursday, January 03, 2008 1:10:47 PM
A lesson Ron Paul and others of his ilk (including most Democrats, libertarians, hippies, and other related non-bathers everywhere) have yet to learn.
Here is an interesting article posted in
The Jerusalem Post:
Israels image in the international media has deteriorated since the 2005 disengagement from the Gaza Strip, despite expectations to the contrary, according to a study conducted at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
According to a statement released by the Department of Media Relations at the university, instead of helping mend Israel's "image as an occupier and an oppressor," and decreasing international demands for major territorial concessions on Israel's part, the disengagement only served to aggravate Israel's already poor showings in the international media arena.
Researchers Dr. Tamir Sheafer and Itai Gabai tracked representations of Israel in the American and British media and found that, despite temporarily finding favor in the media's eyes directly following disengagement, Israel was generally represented "in a more negative light after the disengagement in comparison to the period that preceded it."
"We found that one of the main reasons for this phenomenon is that Israel continues to be viewed by the world as a occupying state," Sheafer explained. "We also found that the demands from Israel to territorial concessions in the Territories not only were not lessened following the disengagement, but actually became stronger."
Former prime minister Ariel Sharon, speaking before the plan was carried out, had said that "In the wider view, the Disengagement Plan improves our international standing and promotes the chance of peace in our region."
Shaefer and Gabai gleaned their data from thousands of on-line articles, and statements made by US and British leaders, ministers and politicians on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
The article exceprt above just illustrates the larger point - appeasement doesn't work.
The argument most on the anti-war left as well as most liberals/libertarians use for the reason the US is so frowned upon in the world is we are in certain places we aren't wanted. Ron Paul uses this argument almost exclusively to justify his statements about being against the war. To put it more simply, if we leave these places, those who are angry at us will no longer have reason to be angry at us and will therefore like us or at least leave us alone.
Of course this is an absurd argument and shows a fundamental lack of human understanding. Naturally, a lack of understanding and common sense from those who use this argument is expected - plainly put, those who use it are morons.
The above excerpt from the article shows that doing what the "world wants" just to make others happy doesn't work. It has never worked, and on such scales throughout history has never worked. The most glaring and recent example is Neville Chamberlain and his dealings with Hitler. Of course being able to point out such examples from history (and the associated bloodbaths which follow from doing nothing) does nothing to sway those who can't seem to grasp this one simple and incontrovertible fact:
Sometimes it is necessary to fight and destroy an enemy to protect yourself.
Our nations standing in the world is built on much more than doing what another party may want. It is based on follow up action towards those who would cause us harm. An adversary must know that there is a line which must not be crossed or violence will ensue. Using the Israel/Palestinian template again illustrates this so well. Israel, for decades, bowed to the wishes of the international community by ceding land, making political and economic concession, etc. towards the Palestinians. Each and every time this was done the response was renewed violence from the Palestinians towards the Israelis. When Israel responded to these attacks, they were condemned. When the arabs committed the attacks, they were excused.
If your neighbor comes over to borrow a cup of sugar and you give it to them, and they respond by punching you in the face, you should be, at the very least, on the defensive if that neighbor ever asks for anything again.
Of course in the world of liberals this doesn't matter. If you get punched in the face, it MUST have been because of something YOU did, NOT because your neighbor is just a violent maniac. Pretty soon the sugar gives way to milk, food, tools, your car, and before you know it, they've driven you from your home and taken over your land.
Responding to violence by taking the high road is commendable and warranted if dealing with a reasoned adversary. But if continued appeasement and concessions lead to nothing from the other party but violence, continued hand wringing is not going to solve the problem. A potential adversary must know that there is a line and that line must be defended - never crossed. If crossed that adversary must understand violence will ensue. The current war and American military presence the Middle East is a result of crossing that line. And for those who still don't get it, 9/11 was that line.
At that point it's time to punch the neighbor back in the face.