Well, this must be a happy day at the Boston Globe. They’ve found someone new to surrender to: The Muslim Brotherhood.
These are the fine, upstanding, decent, moderate Muslims we need to bolster in our fight against militant Islam. They’ve repeatedly shown us where they stand on some issues:
- The rights of Muslim taxi drivers to refuse rides to passengers carrying alcohol, or in violating some other tenet of Islam.
- The right of Muslims to kill cartoonists who violate the tenets of Islam draw pictures of Mohammed.
- The right of Muslim men to maintain their “natural,” Allah-given superiority over women.
- The right of Muslim men to abuse, even rape, women who do not follow Islamic tenets about clothing, appearance, and venturing out of their home without their male
ownerskeepersguardians.
And that’s not even touching on their plan to bring Shariah law to the whole world. They’ve already made great strides in Europe and Canada.
Yes, the government of Egypt is pretty wretched. And yes, there are times when you have to choose the “lesser of two evils.” During World War II, Hitler was the more immediate threat than Stalin. During the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam was marginally more palatable than Khomeini.
But for every example like that, there’s a counterexample when the wrong bad guy was chosen. Jimmy Carter tossed aside the Shah of Iran — a dictator, but one who kept the crazies in check and was a fair US ally — for the above-mentioned Ayatollah Khomeini, and we’ve been paying the price on that particular bad move for decades — and most likely will continue for years to come.
But never mistake temporary allies of convenience, or even useful villains, for friends. There is a time for realpolitik, and a time for principle. This is one of the times when realpolitik is giving us a choice between continuing with a bad policy, or replacing it with one that’s worse.
