Who Should Be Appeasing Who?

David Warren has a great article about the hardening of public opinion in the US over the last two years in response to Islamic extremism. He concludes with:

Appeasement is a two-way street. Until now, it has generally been assumed that the U.S. must do the appeasing, and that Arabs and their allies are supposed to be appeased. It is this basic formula that not only the Bush administration, but the U.S. at large has grown sick of. They get nothing for their appeasements but more grief; just as Israel received no benefits -- only more blown-up buses -- when she wasn't killing Yassin or Rantisi.

Everything else being equal, you might as well smite your mortal enemies. The trick, after all, is to make them appease you.

Naturally I think he makes a very good point. The debate about how to deal with the problems of the Middle East are always framed in the context of what must we do to address their concerns or beliefs. This of course defaults the moral high ground to the individuals who, at least in my opinion, are the cause of most of the Middle East's problems to begin with.

As David suggests the policies of Israel and the US should be transformed so that the regimes and peoples of the Middle East are forced to answer the question: What are you going to do for us?