Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (14104)	10/27/2003 6:10:18 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793729

Worth reading as always: From Prague to London By BARRY RUBIN It's strange to fly from Prague to London, a 90-minute trip which a decade earlier would have crossed the front lines of the Cold War. Exactly two thirds of a century ago the British and French governments forced Czechoslovakia to give up territory that Germany considered to be "occupied." A few months later, Germany wiped Czechoslovakia entirely off the map. British and French leaders thought appeasement would protect them from Germany's wrath, saving them from having to fight a terrorist state. Once he got this Czech territory, German leader Adolf Hitler explained, he would have no more demands and would get along just fine with the British and French. They believed him. They were wrong. But they also justified their behavior in terms of human rights and charity to the weaker side. After all, the land Czechoslovakia was forced to yield was inhabited by ethnic Germans. Berlin's demand to rule those citizens could be portrayed as reasonable. Also, Germany had been humiliated a few years before, in World War I, so it was only trying to regain national pride and reacting against its mistreatment by the victors. Obviously, the analogy with the current situation can be easily overdone and I certainly don't believe the outcome will be the same. Still, it might be useful if people thought through this comparison. Certainly, the Czechs have done so. That is why the Czech Republic can be considered Europe's most pro-Israel state. After a half-century experience of Nazi and communist rule, Czechs don't evince romanticism toward radical ideologies, respect dictators, tolerate propaganda, or suffer from illusions about rationalizing terrorism. They can tell the difference between a fence to stop terrorists and the Iron Curtain wall that not long ago crossed their own country where those trying to flee were shot down. They also know the consequences of inciting against Jews, no matter how such accusations are falsely glorified as progressive or dishonestly rationalized as deserved. Their own capital, Prague, is more crowded than any in Europe with Jewish ghosts in its old, little-changed Jewish Quarter. They know, too, their country's best-known writer, Franz Kafka, was a remarkable voice for that people's unique situation. If you talk to a Czech about ignorant, craven leaders trading off the rights of a far-off land of which they know little, he recognizes this as a paraphrase of British prime minister Neville Chamberlain's remark about their country when he was selling it out. IN SHORT, there is not much patience with nonsense. London is a more complicated place in this regard. The government is not so hostile to Israel, at least less so than in the past. The media is split, though the main television news is in practice antagonistically partisan. Many campuses are hysterical on this issue. The most outrageous statements can be made with little fear of contradiction. It is open season on Israel. England was, after all, the country where George Orwell explained that certain ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them. Yet how much practical effect does this widespread misrepresentation actually have? And are things getting better or worse? These questions are hard to answer. Of course, much of the problem stems from a far Left desperately seeking a post-Marxist revolutionary cause. There are many professors and journalists who are passionate about their political engagements and far less so regarding their professional ethics. Yet there are also many people with open minds who are genuinely baffled as to why the region remains so turbulent, its problems seemingly so unsolvable. How can one comprehend the damage done to the region by dictators deceptions and extremist ideologies if they are merely excused by Western observers? Recently, an Israeli colleague explained to a European audience that it overstated the ease of solving Middle East problems. A French military official sneeringly attacked him, making clear his detestation for anyone so foolish as to believe in the brutal notion that force determines the course of events in the world. What is needed, he explained, is peaceful diplomacy and the willingness to make concessions. Consider the proposed deal worked out by French and other European negotiators with Iran which was hailed in Paris as a great victory for diplomatic methods in stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The Europeans will tightly control uranium, but let Iran build a reactor that will produce plutonium. No doubt, Iran will use this reactor to build more deadly plutonium bombs. An American participant asked how, in light of this philosophy, he explained that France had intervened 47 times with military force in Africa without ever seeking a UN resolution. The official looked so angry that I believe he would have punched the American in the face if he had not just made a speech extolling pacifism. The Czechs have had ample experience on how easy it is for the arrogant, ignorant, and malevolent to pass judgment on someone else's survival. Blessed are those who do not have to obey them. jpost.com