Over at Wizbang Blue, Mr. Paul Hooson recently wrote a piece called “John McCain’s High Risk Foreign Policy.” In it, he takes issue with some tenets of Senator McCain’s proposed stance in regarding to certain international issues.
Mr. Hooson’s opinions can be summoned up, in brief, as “the wimp principle.” “If we don’t offend anyone and let the bullies have their way, maybe they’ll like us” seems to be the underlying principle.
For example, Hooson opposes McCain’s pledge to move the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Israel’s capital. Apparently Mr. Hooson is unaware that several presidents have made such a pledge, and it has yet to happen.
He also gives a very one-sided accounting of the history and significance of Jerusalem. He goes to great lengths to elaborate on the importance Muslims place on the city, but gives very short shrift to the its role in Jewish history and theology. He also gives far too much credence to the Muslim claim to Jerusalem.
The Muslims proclaim that Jerusalem — more specifically, the Temple Mount and the Dome Of The Rock — as the third most holy place in Islam. It is where they say that Mohammed last set foot on earth before ascending to Heaven.
Oddly enough, the name “Jerusalem” never appears once in the Koran. The idenfitication of the Temple Mount as Mohammed’s point of departure is based on very creative interpretations of the Koran.
And, oddly enough, he just happened to hop on that flying horse on the Temple Mount, the number one most holy site in Judaism.
The Temple Mount got its name because long before Mohammed existed, the Jews built the First Temple. And after it was destroyed, they built the Second Temple on the same spot.
Remember those photos of Barack Obama at the Western Wall (or, if you prefer, the Wailing Wall)? That’s often referred to as ‘the holiest site in Judaism.” It won that by default — tt’s the last surviving part of the Second Temple. The rest of the grounds of the Temples are now covered by mosques and under the strict control of Muslims.
Islam has a lengthy history of plagiarizing other religions and adopting their tenets of their own. Mohammed took the basics of Judaism and Christianity and said that they were the predecessors of Islam, and it was the “perfection” of those faiths. And wasn’t it just an astonishing coincidence that the third holiest place in Islam just happens to be atop the first holiest site of Judaism?
Well, not really. It isn’t a coincidence. Islamic “archaeologists” on the Temple Mount are busily trying to document that the Temple Mount was always Islamic, and never Jewish. In the process, they are digging up and destroying every trace of Jewish occupation on that site. We know this because, luckily, they’re incompetent — we keep finding the stuff they dig up in dumps.
So, Mr. Hooson wants the Jews to just give up on Jerusalem and turn it over to the Palestinians because they say they want it and threaten force to get it. Hey, why not? They’ve done such a bang-up job running the territories they’ve been given so far (visited Bethlehem lately?), why not give them the city that’s holy to three religions?
Mr. Hooson also takes issue with Senator McCain’s daring to meet with the Dalai Lama. This man is the living embodiment of Tibetan Buddhism,a nd a living reminder that China invaded and conquered that country, and continues to keep them in brutal oppression. Also, the Dalai Lama (quite possibly the most peaceful man on earth) cannot return to his homeland without the risk of being arrested, killed, or just quietly “disappeared.” But because China buys a lot of our high-tech stuff and sells us a lot of cheap stuff, and occasionally reins in North Korea, we should endorse their subsuming of Tibet and pretend that the Dalai Lama doesn’t exist.
Finally, Mr. Hooson is deeply, deeply troubled by Senator McCain’s willingness to confront Iran. He fears that if we elect McCain, we might end up at war with Iran. And why does he think that this is a bad idea? Let’s look at his own words:
“Iran has already proven that it would sponsor terrorism to kill American civilians right here at home in response to any such war with their nation.”
I’m not familiar with whatever incident or incidents Mr. Hooson is referring to here, but it sounds like he knows that Iran has already committed at least one act of war against the US, here in the US.
So, what is Mr. Hooson’s advice here? The same as in the prior two examples.
Don’t confront the bullies. Don’t stand up to threats. Don’t stand up for principle. Don’t stand up for our allies.
Give in to the thugs. Offer concessions to the tyrants. Don’t confront the bad guys. Appease the dictators.
And maybe, just maybe, they might like us.
He might be right. It could work that way.
If it does, though, it’d be the first time. Usually, it leads to contempt for the appeasing nations, and demands for more and more conessions. And it ends when you either surrender to the enemy or you finally find some stones and fight them — and that struggle ends up costing a hell of a lot more than if you’d stood up to them in the first place.
Mr. Hooson’s idea of proper diplomatic posturing seems to involve bending over, grabbing his ankles, and saying “please, sir, may I have another?”
Thanks, but no thanks. I learned a long time ago that trying to be liked at any expense is incredibly self-destructive. Simply be yourself, strive to be respected (and respectable), and you will most likely be liked by those whose affections are worth having.
And if you end up pissing off some people, that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Being disliked by bad people is sometimes a sign you’re doing something right.
And if we are pissing off the tyrants of Iran, the dictators of Beijing, and the psycho terrorists of Palestine and the rest of the Islamic world, then we just might be on the right track.