Israel: Proof that appeasement doesn't work
By Sher Zieve
On 13 September 1993, Israel and the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) agreed to and signed the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements -- what has come to be commonly known as the "Oslo Accords". Former PLO chairman Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin endorsed the deal that was partially brokered by then President of the United Stated Bill Clinton. Even during the signing ceremony in Washington D.C., the signatories to the agreement were said to have expressed an alliance of discomfort.
The primary propose of the agreement was to establish peace between Israel and an emerging Palestinian state and to create a 2-state (Israel and Palestine) solution to the ongoing armed conflicts between the two parties. At the heart of the contract were three major points:
1. Transfer of Powers to the Palestinians: The DOP features an agreement in principle regarding a transfer of power and responsibilities to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, so they may have control over their own affairs.
2. The DOP does not prejudge the Permanent Status: The DOP specifically states that permanent status issues, such as Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements and borders are to be excluded from the interim arrangements and that the outcome of the permanent status talks should not be prejudged or preempted by the interim arrangements. During this period, the Israeli government retains sole responsibility for foreign affairs, defense and borders. Israel's position on Jerusalem
3. Security remains an Israeli responsibility: In the DOP, Israel and the PLO agree that during the interim period, Israel will remain responsible for security along the international borders and the crossing points to Egypt and Jordan. Israel will also retain responsibility for and the overall security of Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza, the Israeli settlements in those areas, and freedom of movement on roads.
There were multiple other agreements negotiated and authorized between Israel and the PLO, leading up to the ceding of the Israeli Gaza to the Palestinians in 2005. During this period, then Israeli PM Ariel Sharon dismantled all of the Katif Jewish communities in Gaza, four Jewish communities in Samaria and moved and relocated Jewish citizens from their homes and businesses. These actions were supposed to bring peace and harmony to the side-by-side states of Israel and a newly-formed
Then, after 22 years of fighting in southern Lebanon in order to protect its residents in the northern regions, the Israeli Army pulled out of that country in 2000. This was largely a reaction by Israel to world pressure for Israel to leave Lebanon. However, the pull-out left no buffer zone between the terrorist Hezbollah-controlled southern regions of Lebanon and the residents of northern Israel. In 2005, Lebanon ostensibly kicked occupying Syria out of power and conducted its first general
Note: Hezbollah members are now part of the Lebanese government. Haaretz.com reports: "When asked by a reporter why Lebanon does not disarm Hezbollah, Mawad said the organization was brought into the government to grant its members the feeling they are Lebanese."
Now, the "world" is again, as it has done multiple times before, in essence telling Israel that it has no right to protect itself. Using such terminology as Israel's "overreaction" (to the continuing kidnappings and killings of Israeli citizens as well as rockets continuing to be fired into its country) and saying that Israel's response needs to be "more balanced", the "world" is telling Israel to "back off" from its self-protection! Of course, the world's reaction to Israel's attempt to protect its citizens -- even its very existence -- is specious at best; insane and terrorist-supporting at its worst.
So, there you have it. Israel has bowed to world opinion on two fronts -- controlled by terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah -- and it is now forced to fight on those same fronts. This is one of the clearest and most outstanding examples of what appeasement of one's enemy produces. Accession to the demands of those who have already said they will destroy you, quite obviously doesn't work. Instead, it only leads to the new requirement of even more conciliations. Eventually, these lead to the
Still think appeasement works?
Sher Zieve is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.
Get weekly updates about new issues of ESR!