Concessions Quotes
There is a corollary to this proverb, that frequently reflects itself in Arab culture. It is that one who is not strong must never concede. To concede out of strength is manly and noble. To concede out of weakness is cowardly and base. Middle Eastern International politics is totally irrational to Westerners when a badly defeated country of group will often not even meet with the victors to discuss peace or terms of surrender. It is the victors only who can make concessions without losing dignity and respect.
Richardson was one of a few Westerners who, at the time, had experience negotiating with the North Koreans, and one of the very few who ever got anything from the negotiations.
The issue being debated was slavery and Calhoun was one of the major defenders of it. His admonition against compromise represents one of two general major approaches to negotiations. The first is to compromise and finally reach a consensus and this is the means by which almost every piece of major legislation in American history has been created. The second is that stated in this quotation, and it was followed by most advocates of slavery. Since compromise was not possible, civil war eventually settled the issue.
While Wilson is often thought of a humanist and a man committed to World peace and national rights of independence, he was also a committed economic imperialist. See {585454} for another example.
This quotation was retweeted 600,000 times in the immediate aftermath of the speech. In 2016 it was retweeted more than any other political quotation.
This argument is is usually made by the right wing. However, this quotation is notworthy because it was made by a left wing liberal.
This position is a classical example of what some call a “hard line” negotiation stance. It argues that the enemy will never agree to anything that would be reasonable or acceptable to you UNTIL he has given up all hope of getting everything he wants. So this approach says there is no point in even discussing or negotiating anything until the military and economic and diplomatic situation is such that the other side has no hope of winning all it wants. In the case of the Arab Israeli dispute, for 50 years the Arabs believed that they would defeat the Israelis and push them out of the Middle East. For almost 50 years they would not even sit at the same table and negotiate anything. After starting and losing several wars, and falling further and further behind, the moderates began to be reasonable and hinted that they would accept Israel’s right to exist. However, there are some Israelis who argue as Jabotinsky did that there should be no discussions at this time until Hamas and all the terrorist groups have either given up or have been disarmed. This sort of hard line has rarely led to peace—especially if there are hard liners on both sides. They say never negotiate when you are weak. However if you are strong, there is no imperative to negotiate.
He argues that even if the concession to terrorists is seemingly small, there is much greater damage in that the minimal concession will also stimulate more attempts to gain other victories. See {629723} for his complementary statement on dealing with terrorists.
