Demands for Diplomacy

 Posted by on 26 July 2006 at 8:19 pm  Uncategorized
Jul 262006

Wow, ARI is producing so much great material on the Middle East that I can barely keep up. Here’s another press release:

Death to Diplomacy
July 26, 2006

Irvine, CA–Even those who blame Hezbollah and Hamas for initiating war on Israel claim that Israel’s retaliation must be halted, because ultimately only diplomacy can yield a long-term resolution. They say the same about how America should handle the nuclear-bomb-chasing North Korean and Iranian regimes. “But the advocates of diplomacy with our enemies are dead wrong–such ‘diplomacy’ necessarily encourages aggression and paves the road to catastrophes,” said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

“Diplomacy is only proper between nations with interests in common. It is not possible with committed enemies such as Iran. One cannot reach a mutually beneficial settlement by compromising between an aggressor’s lust to kill you and your right to live. ‘Diplomacy’ today is a euphemism for appeasement. It is the coward’s attempt to mask total surrender to an aggressor as a practical and moral policy.

“Sixty years ago Europe’s ‘diplomacy’ with Hitler encouraged him to start World War II. The U.S.-Israeli embrace of ‘diplomacy’ encouraged Hezbollah and Hamas to start the current war–just as America’s ‘diplomacy’ with North Korea abetted that regime’s nuclear program–just as America’s ‘diplomacy’ with Iran emboldens it to continue its nuclear quest and its ardent financing of Islamists like Hezbollah and Hamas.”

Also, I enjoyed this recent off-the-cuff remark from PhilosopherEagle:

I don’t have time actually to develop my thoughts in writing on what’s going on in the Mideast. But I would like to point out that all this talk of avoiding a “humanitarian crisis” is ridiculous. Israel is at war with Hezbollah; the purpose of a war is precisely to create a “humanitarian crisis” until the enemy no longer has the will or the capacity to fight. And the “civilians” of southern Lebanon are the enemy: they have allowed Hezbollah to operate as a de facto state and they have given shelter to the organization. These civilians are responsible for accepting Hezbollah’s governance. They are not, for the most part, innocent.

Imagine if, during World War II, America allowed relief organizations to rush into Nazi Germany with money. If that is outrageous, why is there no outrage at the demand for Israel to allow the UN into Lebanon now?

Although I’m hardly an expert on 20th century American history, I strongly suspect that the persistent and vigorous cries of moral protest against a civilized and free nation timidly defending itself against brazenly bloodthirsty totalitarian terrorists is perhaps the worst sign of the altruistic degeneration of Western culture. As PhilosopherEagle notes, those demands are unthinkable in the context of just a few decades ago.

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha