Obama Demands Israel Downsize: This is the New Humbler Foreign Policy?

Is it an illusion, or does Obama specialize in constant, shape-changing contradictions? He's thrilled over his own "epic achievements," daily shattering campaign promises. For example, Obama's idea of "helping" our ally Israel is demanding they unilaterally surrender massive areas of territory to quiet their enemies, despite being bordered on every side by mortal foes. Have we mentioned these countries already invaded Israel multiple times without cause? But such appeasement will lead to "peace"--of course! Imagine an analogy--an undersized boy is ordered by his stepfather to "stop lifting weights" to get stronger to fight back against a bully, since once he gives up training the bully will logically lose interest! Make sense?

---

How can any still believe in Barack's "genius"? He's so disgustingly predicable when he intercedes in the Israeli-Palestinian fray to blithely carve the Jewish state to ribbons. That Obama would subjectively and unilaterally demand the Jews shrink their borders without any qualms astounds the educated thinker. It illustrates the dangers of hiring an inexperienced, doctrinaire professor to run a democracy. The willful stupidity of Barack's actions is jaw-dropping. First, Israel is a sovereign country. All the US aid in the world doesn't change that fact. Hello? Second, how exactly does tiny Israel hemorrhaging huge sections of land in a region already dominated by armed and hostile Muslims help make them, and the region--more secure? Third, if this move is not pro-Muslim at Jewish expense, how else can it be described? Stopping Barack's nonsensical Israeli policy to stabilize the region and stave off potential world war is the topic of this essay.

I. History of Israel

The oldest habitation in the world, Jericho (9,000 BC) is found in the region of Israel, as well as many other like ancient cities. After a storied history, the end of the original Old Testament the Jewish state occurred after the bloody Bar Kokba rebellion. In 135 AD they were ejected from Jerusalem by the Roman army. Herod's Temple (the Second Temple), was destroyed. The Bible records some of this contemporaneously. After two thousand years being chased from country to country; robbed, beaten and slaughtered indiscriminately, the Jews finally found relief in the 1917 British Balfour agreement, returning their ancestral homeland. Yet, one day after the Jews declared independence in 1947 after the Holocaust and WWII, they were attacked by the Arabs. On Nov. 29, 1947, Jamal Husseini of the Arab Higher Committee informed the UN after they voted to partition, Arabs would drench "the soil of our beloved country with the last drop of blood . . . ." Consider the history of modern Israel, with many wars unjustly launched by Muslim states:

A day after declaring Israeli independence, armies of five Arab countries, Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq, invaded Israel, beginning the War of Independence. Arab states have jointly waged four full scale wars against Israel:

• 1948 War of Independence
• 1956 Sinai War
• 1967 Six Day War
• 1973 Yom Kippur War

Despite the numerical superiority of the Arab armies, Israel defended itself each time and won. After each war, the Israeli army withdrew from most of the areas it captured (see maps). This unprecedented move shows Israel's willingness to reach peace even at the risk of fighting for its very existence each time anew.

In short, Israel faces every day the fact it might receive another surprise attack from neighbors who want to go beyond "getting land back." Instead, the Arabs won't stop until all Jews are killed or ejected from the region.

II. Laws of War

A. Just War

The idea of the "Just War" was first developed by Western writers like Cicero, Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. It claims there are both good and bad wars. The theory is summed up by Aquinas:

St. Thomas Aquinas: The Summa Theologica--Part II, Question 40 In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war... Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil.

B. Rights of Those Unjustly Attacked

Those attacked unfairly also have rights. Consider the 20^th century Hague Convention: IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land:

Art. 3. A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.

So, we in the modern world accept the fact those who start unjust wars must be held responsible, including forced repayment of damages. This idea is illustrated by Grotius' epic On The Law of War & Peace, one of the most influential treatises ever penned on international relations:

Chapter 6: On the Acquisition of Territory and Property by Right of Conquest. I. The law of nature authorises our making such acquisitions in a just war, as deemed an equivalent for a debt, which cannot otherwise be obtained, or as may inflict a loss upon the aggressor, provided it be within the bounds of reasonable punishment... II. But according to the law of nations, any one engaged in regular and formal war, becomes absolute proprietor of every thing which he takes from the enemy: so that all nations respect his title, and the title of all, who derive through him their claim to such possessions. IV. Now land will be considered as completely conquered, when it is inclosed or secured by permanent fortifications, so that no other state or sovereign can have free access to it, without first making themselves masters of those fortifications... XI. Things immoveable are generally taken by some public act, such as marching an army into the country, or placing garrisons there. So that, as Pomponius has said, "lands taken from the enemy become the property of the state...

III. Obama Claims Right to Define Israel's Borders

Obama came to change arrogant leadership into enlightened government, no? Recall Barack decried George W. Bush's foreign policy, in 2007claiming:

We've had enough arrogance in this White House. We need something new!...it's not enough just to change parties, we've got to change our politics.

Barack also stated during the Bush years, America had "shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" towards its allies. Obama claimed the US had "failed to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world." But in May, 2011, Obama said:

We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.

Let's get real for a moment. Barack slammed Bush for making unilateral, warmongering decisions unpopular with the rest of the world. He claimed we abused our allies by treating them contemptuously, right? And according to Obama, Bush's "arrogance" was typified in his decision to attack Iraq for no good reason, lie about it, and then remove a sitting ruler, correct? But how does Barack's driving ally Egyptian President Mubarak from office square with that? Also, our Libyan attack was done on false pretenses, as no "human rights crisis" occurred. Instead, Obama followed the French and German lead on "liberating" Europe's biggest oil importer. Further, now he claims he does not need Congress' permission for such actions! And is it even legal to try and kill Libya's president Ghadafi, as Obama claims he's trying to do? Recall, Part 2.11 of Executive Order 12333 states:

No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

Barack's demand Israel shrink its borders must rate as one of the most arrogant, ill-advised and disloyal acts by an American politician since Aaron Burr tried to create his own country West of the Mississippi.

IV. Leftist Nonsense in Land Without Mercy

Has Obama ever noticed there is precious little room for error for Israel's public policy? How exactly is making Israel smaller supposed to help our one true ally in the region, the only democracy and capitalist system? Israel has every right to keep land it won from it's attackers, according to Natural Law and the Laws of War. They were simply defending against unjust war. Further, it would be suicidal to surrender territory fairly gained since it aids Jewish peace and safety. After all, if the Jewish state goes back to the old 1967 borders, their width is only 8 miles from the sea to their territorial border. This would simplify attacking Israel to bisect the country by land and sea, and bring the territory to its knees. Moreover, the proposition that if Palestinians can just recover the land they lost in war, they will then become peaceful, is likewise pathological. If this were true, the Arabs would not have attacked Israel in 1967 in the first place, when they then had all their original land. Instead, Israel is repeatedly invaded simply because Islamic governments cannot bear the thought of Jews living near them, much like Hitler and his Nazis.

Conclusion

The Jews engaged in a defensive Just War, attacked by another country simply for existing. They repossessed their unoccupied ancestral lands to begin with, like liberals demand for Native American tribes to have their property restored. Since Israel was invaded the day after it was born, how can anyone claim Muslims fought a just war? Lands confiscated by the Jews are rightly theirs because they were illegally attacked and gained enemy territory upon counter-assault. This is an acceptable taking according to St. Augustine, St. Thomas, Grotius, and the Hague Convention. Further, it would be irrational to abandon these lands when they act as a buffer against murderous neighbors which have already unjustly invaded 4 times in the last 60 years. So how does Obama claim friendship with Jerusalem? Let's refute the idea Palestinians want any peace with Israel. Instead, we must see Barack's latest hare-brained scheme menacing every Israeli. For the smaller Israel becomes, the likelier their opponents will believe they can attack and win. Further, the notion appeasement creates lasting peace is the hope of cowards and fools. Or, consider Prophet Jeremiah discounting deluded false claims of peace (Jeremiah 8) by apostates: 8 "'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? 9 The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have? 10 Therefore I will give their wives to other men and their fields to new owners. From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit. 11 They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. "Peace, peace," they say, when there is no peace."