Award-winning columnist Richard Larsen, of Pocatello, is president of the brokerage firm Larsen Financial. He graduated from Idaho State University with degrees in history and political science.
As improbable as it may be, there is actually policy emanating from the White House that is even more inscrutable and illogical than the presidentâ€™s domestic economic policy. Those who understand real-world economics may be wondering what could possibly be more illogical than Obamanomics. Itâ€™s the presidentâ€™s foreign policy!
Itâ€™s only logical that in the world of foreign policy, you reward your friends and make things more difficult for your enemies, in hopes that you may make friends of them someday. Yet the very week that the leader of the most free nation in the Middle East, and our closest ally in the region was scheduled to visit the United States, President Obama chose to scold Israel and roll back history to reward their and our adversaries in the region.
In an historically imprudent and unprecedented speech, the president sided with our self-avowed enemies in the region, Iranian and Syrian-backed Hamas and Hezbollah, ites, mostly for defensive purposes. Yielding up that ground would not only leave Israel virtually defenseless against their and our avowed enemies, it would reduce Israelâ€™s land when he lectured Israel that it should return to its pre-1967 borders, which would trim the tiny country by about a third of its present land mass. Currently, Israel is slightly smaller than our fifth smallest state, New Jersey, mass to about 14,000 square kilometers, or about the size of our fourth smallest state, Connecticut.
Although President Obama made his speech weeks ago, it marks a historic and landmark shift in U.S. foreign policy. Not only did Obama castigate Israel, but he sent warning flares to all our allies at the same time. After all, if Obama is willing to throw Israel under the bus for illogically ideological purposes, what might he do to the diplomatic relationships with other friends around the globe? Iâ€™m sure the Brits were thinking to themselves, â€śSorry Israel, we know how it feels.â€ť with about 20,000 square kilometers, or 7,700 square miles. Idaho has counties larger than the current state of Israel!
Before the 6-Day War of 1967, Israel comprised less than 1/10 of 1 percent of the land mass in the Middle East. In June of that year, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon launched a unified attack against Israel to, as they stated, â€śDrive the Jews into the sea.â€ť Israel heroically repelled the attack, and gained the West Bank, the Golan Heights (its primary defense in the north), and the Gaza Strip. Israel retained those lands, now called â€śthe Occupied Territoriesâ€ť by anti-Sem-The president was also simultaneously rewarding the Muslim extremistsâ€™ tactics of terror in the region. These extremists seek not only the reduction of Israel in size, but the elimination of Israel as a state and the eradication of Jews in the region. For some inexplicable reason, most Palestinian sympathizers choose to ignore the fact that the Palestine Liberation Organization, now known as the Palestinian Authority, still retains the 1964 wording in its charter, that its primary goal is â€śthe destruction of Israel.â€ť
Obama telling Israel that it should return to pre-1967 borders would be akin to Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu telling the U.S. that we should return to pre-1959 borders. That would, after all, remove all doubt as to Obamaâ€™s citizenship as qualification to serve as president.
It would also be as presumptuous as Israel lecturing Obama that the U.S. should return to pre-1847 borders, which would satisfy La Raza objectives of returning California and most of the U.S. Southwest to Mexico.
Further, there really are no â€śPalestinians,â€ť for there is no Palestine, nor was there one in 1967. When Israel won the war they kept Gaza from Egypt and the West Bank from Jordan. So the inhabitants that remained there were Egyptians and Jordanians, not Palestinians, and they enjoy much more freedom today than they would in either Egypt or Jordan. This was affirmed by former PLO executive Zahir Muhsein who said in 1977, â€śThe Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle (jihad) against the state of Israel for our Arab unity.â€ť
After the presidentâ€™s provocation, Netanyahu firmly reminded us, â€śIsrael has no better friend than America, and America has no better friend than Israel.â€ť Netanyahu further put the Palestinian issue into perspective with the statement, â€śIf the Arabs lay down their arms there will be no more war, but if Israel lays down its weapons there would be no more Israel.â€ť
Aside from the biblical reasons to be allied with Israel, from a purely secular foreign policy perspective, you do not insult your friends and reward your declared adversaries. Yet as illogical and ill-advised as it is, thatâ€™s precisely what our ideologically motivated president has done. I guess we shouldnâ€™t be surprised. Why should our foreign policy be any more logical than our domestic and economic policy?