NEGOTIATE WITH WHOM
CAN WE TALK? : THE JOAN RIVERS
APPROACH TO DIPLOMACY -
NEGOTIATE WITH WHOM? ABOUT WHAT?
by
Ken Eliasberg
At the outset let me make it clear that I wholeheartedly believe in diplomacy—words before war always. That said, what’s the track record of dealing with terrorist governments or terrorists, i.e. how well have peaceful overtures fared when dealing with demonic forces like, say the Nazis (and make no mistake about it, these Islamofascist whackos make Hitler look reasonable; after all Hitler never argued that he was merely carrying out God’s will). In answer to the questison, history bears clear and convincing evidence that, on occasion, words don’t do the job. Indeed, history provides abundant evidence that words are frequently used to obscure and subvert any sincere effort to peacefully resolve the dispute in question. And when you run out of words, and there are still deep and unresolvable difficulties, war has been the outcome for as long as one can remember. And, as a general proposition, I think it’s safe to say that you cannot negotiate with terrorists. And I’m afraid that that’s exactly where we are today with Hezbollah and all these other Islamofacist whacko groups who don’t want to talk to us (unless, of course, the battle goes badly, and/or, as in this case, their diversionary effort has achieved its objective, i.e. taking some of the immediate heat off Iran’s nuclear efforts)—THESE NUT CASES DON’T WANT TO TALK TO US; THEY WANT TO KILL US! For God’s sake, America, wake up—we have a problem; a very serious, life endangering problem.
What Do We Talk About.- I love the left—they just never run out of words; it’s deeds where they always fall short (or overshoot the mark entirely). Let’s deal with the “about what” part of the “let’s-negotiate” discussion first . How do you frame the discussion with a “negotiating” partner (for lack of a better term) whose sole goal is your extermination? What’s our opening gambit—can we accept death later, or must we accept it right now? How about only killing half of us now, and the rest of us in say 5 years? Or, if you’re in a more generous frame of mind, how about just maiming most of us, imprisoning a few, and just killing a small number?
Whadda ya think?
Now you may think I’m kidding, but I could not be more serious. From the day on which Israel declared its independence, and its decision to do so was ratified by the main players in global realpolitik - particularly the U.S.—the Arab nations have been committed to drive Israel into the sea. And they have stated this position frequently, clearly, and recently. Have you paid attention to the statements of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? He may sound like an escapee from your local nut house, but he is deadly serious. And Nasrallah, the Hezbollah screwball-in-chief, has said the same things. And, more to the point, Hezbollah is Iran’s (and Syria’s) surrogate; the organization - made up of nothing but some more of those peace-loving followers of Islam—have made it clear that they want Israel gone—dead, caput, finis, out. In addition, these are the very same types of statements being made in the Madrassahs of Pakistan, the grade schools in the Palestinian sector, more than occasionally over Arab T.V. and radio, and prevalent on the Arab street. They want the Jews out of the Mideast, preferably dead. Now, I repeat, what do you say to a negotiating partner whose only goal—not just the first goal on his list, but his only goal—is your death? And what I love about these guys is that they lay it right out there for you—we want to kill you. Nothing vague, subtle, nuanced about it; they let you know where they’re coming from, and I admire that (and they have put their blood and money where their mouth is on numerous occasions).
And by the way, we seem to be reacting like they’re just a few nut cases hiding in the caves of Tora Bora. Wrong! First of all, Ahminedejad is the President of Iran, a country of some 70 million people, and you could go around all of the Middle East, and find just as many nut cases in charge. But that’s not the whole story. These guys are not just hanging out 10,000 miles away, they’re hanging out in the Mosque down the street from you. If you doubt that, I commend 2 resources to your attention, the first is American Jihad—The Terrorists Living Among Us, by Steven Emerson, The Free Press (2002); the second is the recent report (2005) put out by Freedom House, entitled Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques. Both clearly and compellingly indicate that the problem is right here—in our back yard. And that there are not just a few thousand of these creeps; there are tens of millions of them!!!
Do you think that these crazies are just kidding? We have been down this road before, and we paid a terrible price for failing to take a crazy seriously. Hitler, in Mein Kampf, laid out his whole game plan. And the world paid little or no attention. The cost for that bit of inattentiveness was well over 50,000,000 million lives. The cost for inattentiveness today would be a good deal higher. Why? Because these Islamic whackos are a bunch of crazed religious fanatics who find value in death—particularly yours—so that they can get about the business of their 72 virgins (query—what does a female terrorist get on her death, 72 12-year old boys?). On a more serious note these people—these peace loving Muslim nut cases—make Hitler look almost rational. So what do you talk about with them, i.e. what’s to negotiate?
History of Negotiations With Rogue States.- What does history tell us about negotiations with rogue states? Easy, they don’t work! Now here I’m talking about nations, i.e. states with a governing body, whether it be autocratic or theocratic; rogue states, by definition, do not have democratically elected governments. How have we done in the past; what’s the track record of peace-loving nations who have sought to stave off life- threatening problems with dictatorships? TERRIBLE! Whether the negotiating body is a concert of organizations—such as the League of Nations, or its inequally ineffectual successor, the U.N.—or just one or two of the more powerful democracies like the U.S., Great Britain, France, etc.
How did they fare with Italy when it invaded Ethiopia, or Japan when it invaded Manchuria, or Germany when it took back Alsace Lorraine, annexed Austria, and took back the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia.
Not very well!! Indeed, Great Britain, in the person of Neville Chamberlain, went further; it completely sold out Czechoslovakia, observing, that, in doing so, we had won peace in our time. Some peace. These are the more glaring examples of the utter and complete futility of negotiating with thugs.
More recently, you may recall Madeleine Albright’s efforts with North Korea (aided by that shipwreck of a statesman, Jimmy Carter); they were in the act of violating the agreement reached with the U.S. while they were signing it. Or how about those 17 resolutions with Iraq over a12-year period about WMD? How did things go in our discussions over Bosnia, Darfur, Rwanda, etc., etc.? If, as I have oft observed, you cannot negotiate with thug nations, how then do you negotiate with just plain thugs, and that’s all Hezbollah is—a bunch of thugs? Granted that they are under the aegis of Iran and Syria, but that’s of little solace, given our negotiating track record with those countries.
The left is always arguing that not only do we need to “negotiate” with facists, thugs, and Islamic whackos, - i.e. to use “diplomacy” —but we cannot go it alone; we need consensus. Does the world approve of our effort? No unilateral action—none of this “cowboy diplomacy.” In other words, the imperialistic, hegemonic U.S. cannot be entrusted with decision-making matters when it comes to its own national security. This is more than pure baloney; it is suicidal.
Who Do We Negotiate With.- Back to negotiating with terrorist thugs—whether in the form of nations or smaller units—again, it doesn’t work. It is always seen by these people as a sign of weakness—an effort at appeasement. In this regard, I strongly recommend a column by Thomas Sowell, another very bright Hoover Institute scholar. Entitled