Appeasement? The shoe fits pretty well.

So it's George Bush's fault that Barak Obama has taken personally the President's comments to the Israeli Knesset about appeasement of Iran. On May 15, President Bush addressed the Knesset during a celebration of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel. In the course of what was an extraordinary speech expressing deep support for the Jewish state, the president spoke with specificity about Iran, its proxies and Al Qaeda and their expressed intentions with respect to Israel. He then proceeded to talk a bit about how we in the West react.

"There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

"Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you."

So, the President describes what might be referred to as three levels of naivete among otherwise well-meaning Americans. The first group, well meaning and peaceful, sees the world through a self-reflecting lens that virtually filters out words of hatred and violence toward them and theirs. The second group hears the words, and in a mix of naivete and arrogance, believes it can persuade those who utter them to turn over a new leaf. And the third group more thoroughly accepts the statements of evil intention toward Israel and the US, but chooses to accept at face value that all America need do to be left alone is to throw Israel to the wolves. Not only naive but cowardly, they would do so, only to find the wolves' appetite only whetted.

Somehow, Senator Obama and his supporters found a spot for him in there among the second category. Never mind that the more obvious personification of the type would have been Jimmy Carter, who had so recently returned from an ill-fated trip to the region to negotiate peace for his dear friends in the "Apartheid state" of Israel. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel jumped in promptly to cry "foul."

As the saying goes, if the shoe fits, wear it. I would add, if Senator Obama does not fit into the category of people who think that they can sit down and "reason" with President Ahmadinejad, then why choose to see oneself as the fairly well veiled reference point for Mr. Bush's appeasement comment?

Going beyond the words, and the accusations, and the politics of the moment, we have this question: Is the comparison to 1930's Europe an appropriate one, and does the ghost of Neville Chamberlain really lurk about our political house in 2008? Indeed, the word and the name have been used excessively and at times inappropriately. But there is an essential similarity between Islamist Iran and Nazi Germany that goes well beyond their shared hatred of the Jews.

In 1938, not only was appeasement a politically popular approach, it was virtually the only approach open to England and France, because they had allowed Germany to boldly rearm and openly breach the Treaty of Versailles with complete impunity. By the time they met with Hitler in Munich, the Chamberlain of England and Daladier of France had no choice but to acquiesce and cede the Sudetenland to Germany, hoping that this would sate Hitler's appetite. Really, all he was after was a restoration of some of the national pride so unfairly taken away from the country in 1919. Appeasement is what necessarily follows from acquiescence and complaisance.

So what of Iran? Yes, Israel is fearful of a nuclear-armed Iran, as a mouse placed in the tank of a hungry viper might be fearful of the viper -- the latter presents what we call an "existential threat" to the mouse. (Yes, this mouse has the best air force in the region and its own nuclear weapons, but I'm still going with the analogy). But surely that's not why Egypt, Iraq, the gulf states and everyone else in the region fears a nuclear Iran. Indeed, once it adds nuclear arms to its already formidable armed forces and medium and long-range missile systems, Iran, like Nazi Germany 70 years earlier, only needs to declare its wishes, rattle its sabre, and appeasement will surely follow. Once you know one player holds the trump card, the game is already over.

It so happens that we have a very recent illustration of what modern-day appeasement looks like. The world is congratulating itself on the "peaceful settlement" of the conflict in Lebanon. Ostensibly a resolution to an internal conflict that might otherwise have inflated to another civil war, the mutual acceptance of General Michel Suleiman as president, on the heals of a settlement between the Cabinet and Hezbollah, surrenders to Hezbollah on each issue that had precipitated the military conflict of a few weeks ago. Hezbollah keeps its telecommunications network, continues to control Beirut airport, and now has the longed-for veto in the Cabinet. The key meeting took place not in Munich, but in Qatar, and at least, unlike the Czechs in 1938, the Lebanese were invited to this party. But this agreement marks a milestone in the world's acceptance of Iran's and Syria's domination of Lebanon, and as in 1938, we call it a victory for peace.

Will Hillary Jump the Shark?

I have been among those voicing support for Hillary Clinton's persistent pursuit of the Democratic nomination, and strongly condemning those in the press and the Democratic party who were urging her to concede defeat in the name of unity. And on the whole, I've regarded a President H. Clinton as the lesser of the two evils compared to a President Obama, with the latter being far too unpredictable, or worse, in the foreign policy arena, and too predictable in the domestic arena.

For a while there was something comforting about the knowledge that Senator Clinton didn't feel very deeply about much of what she was saying on the stump. When, in the Pennsylvania ABC debate, she shuffled her way through her Iraq withdrawal position, while Obama sailed swiftly and smoothly through his, to me that only confirmed that she was merely talking the talk of Democratic primary politics, but in the White House or back in the Senate next year she would once again walk a more sensible walk.


Barak Obama would describe this as "politics as usual." And he'd be right. I recognize that both he and Hillary intend to raise my taxes, and I admire the fact that he's a bit more forthcoming in telling me that. And while he's been pilloried (what a waste of a good rhyme) for suggesting an increase in the wage cap for the Social Security tax, this illustrates a willingness to do what mainstream politicians have been systemically unable to do - speak frankly about the choices available to remedy problems in the Social Security and Medicare programs. He might even be crazy enough to suggest curtailing or means-testing benefits.

Hillary will probably win in Indiana, and may even fare adequately in North Carolina. But as her rhetoric becomes ever more populistic, the desperation that drives her becomes more apparent. Not only has she embraced the temporary gas tax repeal (not one of McCain's proudest moments, either), she's now lashing out at "these Wall Street money grubbers [sic?]," suggesting that they be "held responsible for their role in this recession." Yes, the bankers know she doesn't mean it, and will be there to welcome her with open wallets when this nonsense is over. But words, even those uttered in a primary campaign, are not entirely meaningless, and New Yorkers may not be quite as inured to cynicism as Washingtonians.

They say that a sure sign that a long-running TV series is in its death throes - the creative barrel nearing empty - when it turns to bizarre plot gimmicks. This is called "jumping the shark," named for the Happy Days episode when Fonzi, water skiing with his emblematic leather jacket, jumped over a shark, seen as a turning point signalling the downward spiral of the show. As Hillary waxes about her fondness for her daddy's shotgun, speaks to factory workers about the evil money lenders while she downs another Crown Royal boilermaker, one wonders whether we are seeing a campaign in its death throes, even as the other network continues with a somewhat tarnished but still popular American Idol.