After the umteenth Israeli victory and olive branch spurned by the Arabs, dovish Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban observed in 1973 that the "Arabs never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity" http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000491.html

(he also said about the United Nations "If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions."http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/feb/03/comment

Abba Eban also served as ambassador to the United Nations, and the above quote was one of many attesting to his acute awareness of the degree to which the deck was stacked - even in 1973 - against Israel. Yet he was one of the earliest of a long line of israeli leaders who adopted the ubiquitous "land for peace" formulation, in which israel gives up the very land from which every existential war against her was waged - in exchange for, well, the promise to not wage any more existential wars against her.

Never mind that no such victor in the history of human warfare ever made - or was expected to make - such an offer. Never mind that while Israel has no territorial designs on any of its Arab neighbors, each of the 24 Arab nations have consistently, constantly, vociferously (and pathologically) committed themselves to the eradication of israel. Never mind that all but one of the hostile dictatorships surrounding Israel is at least several times the size of Israel and abundantly rich in oil, most of the revenues from which are used to incite their captive populations against Israel and Jews (rather than to feed and house them), spread anti-semitic propaganda in the West, build military arsenals and, of course finance terrorist infrastructure. Finally, never mind that the word of none of these serial human rights violator regimes could ever be trusted, even if their oppressive prisons and torture chambers kept them in power.

So why would the brilliant and worldly Abba Eban, fresh off the second existential attack by several of Israel's "neighbors" - in which her survival depended on brave but desperate gambles by an outnumbered and outgunned Israel Defense Force - be willing to hand over the buffer zones acquired at the cost of the lives of so many of Israel's youth? I submit that by far the more important question is: why would any Israeli leader do so now?

I am using "land for peace" not just literally, as in when Israel simply - at a cost of billions - expelled every Jew from Gaza and handed over the productive infrastructure of thriving communities to the "Palestinians." "Land for peace" also involves the multitude of other concessions and sacrifices made by Israel as "confidence builders" to "show good faith." The un-PC word for all of this is "appeasement."

By any objective measurement the "land for peace" formulation has been either a grotesque failure or a spectacular success. Like so many things, it depends upon point of view. From Israel's point of view - and the long term view of the West - "land for peace" has been an unmitigated disaster. On the other hand, from the Arabs' point of view, the long term strategy of extracting concessions from israel in exchange for the rabbit-in-the-hat promise of "peace" has achieved what none of their combined military exercises in aggression could ever hope to achieve, at least until now.

What standard is fair to employ here? "Land for peace" advocate Abba Eban recognized that "Israel was and is breathing only with a single lung;" i.e., in sports parlance, Israel needs to be the 1972 Miami Dolphins every single year of its existence. But what if we pretended Israel was surrounded by peace loving enlightened stable democracies with the typical trade or even territorial issues democracies share. Perhaps a fairer standard might be, to stretch the sports metaphor, a top baseball player who can lead the majors connecting with the ball fewer than 4 out of 10 times at bat.

But suppose another player on the same squad was in a slump - batting .190 - and was convinced to try out a new strategy. And further suppose he knew the strategy was very likely to impair his ability to play baseball over the long run, or even to function physically at all. Few of us would counsel him to adopt that strategy, but perhaps might understand him doing so if it lifted his average, even temporarily. But what would we think if his average not only deteriorated, but he never, not even once, ever connected with the ball?

And, in fact, every single concession Israel has made, every transfer of territory, every checkpoint opening, every terrorist freed from jail, every shipment of humanitarian aid, every treatment of terrorists in Israeli hospitals and show of "restraint" in response to a rocket launch, genocide bombing, etc. has not only accomplished nothing to "advance peace," win the "hearts and minds" or "bolster the [so-called] moderates," but has instead resulted in thousands of dead Israelis and countless more maimed for life. More importantly over the long run, Israel's policy of appeasement has resulted in the systematic erosion of Israel's lifeline - its military deterrence.

Its almost as if the people in charge of Israel's foreign policy and security were undercover HAMAS agents.

Since it's impossible to credibly argue that Israeli appeasement has in any way advanced Israel's security or even mollified the "Muslim street, " can it at least be said that oft-cited "world opinion" has shifted? That all of those dead and maimed Israelis provided irrefutable proof of both Israel's desperate desire for peace and willingness to make "painful concessions" and confirmation of the pathological death culture holding the Arab world in its grip?

Not a chance! Just look at the worldwide "Palestinian" demonstrations. Ignoring the doubly ironic ubiquitous "Free Palestine" signs (ironic because there's no such country as "Palestine and never was; doubly so because there is not a single - not one - "free" Arab or Muslim country), the overwhelming sentiment is the middle east should be as Judenrein as Hitler tried to make Europe. A particularly endearing chant in Fort Lauderdale was "Jews get back in the ovens!"

Especially in the face of the media bias against Israel and the oil - financed campaign to discredit her right to survive, the campaign to make every conceivable concession to show Israel isn't the "bad guy" was perhaps understandable decades ago in an effort to change the paradigm of implacable Arab hatred. It was the reason Israel returned the strategic Sinai peninsula a few short years after Egyptian mobs (and indeed all over the Arab world) chanted "throw the Jews into the sea" as Arab troops massed around Israel's borders. It was the reason Israel turned over sovereignty of huge swaths of Judea and Samaria to a supposedly reformed terrorist. It also motivated Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, expulsion of Jews from Gaza and the consistent fight-with-your-hands-tied-behind-your-back method of combating terrorism.

But decades later, this tactic (it's oxymoronic to label it a "strategy") of appeasement is no longer understandable when you consider that it has never - not even once - worked. It's legacy is Israel's most precarious strategic position in its back-to-the-wall history: surrounded not only by heavily armed Arab countries and bordered on both the north and south by Iranian backed terrorist enclaves, but threatened by on-the-verge-of-nuclear-power Iran. And the seething Arab mobs of 40 years ago have been replaced by far more radicalized generations of raised-from-infancy terrorists. How exactly does this advance the cause of peace?