|
Jim Banks on Foreign Policy
|
|
Defend US national interests; disappointed in Iran nuke deal
Under President Obama our foreign policy has done little to recognize the important role of traditional allies, going so far as to having his campaign operatives work (unsuccessfully) to defeat leaders who oppose their views in countries like Israel.
Our allies in Western Europe are threatened by an unstable and resurgent Russian military; our allies in the Far East are under economic and military threat by an increasingly unstable Chinese economy and unpredictable dictator in North Korea.
Jim was quick to share his disappointment with President Obama over the nuclear arms deal with Iran and hopes that we'll put American interests first when negotiating future agreements.While we must always be prepared to
defend our national interests, a strong foreign policy that establishes American strength abroad without seeking involvement in unnecessary conflicts is vital to ensure that brave Americans are not unnecessarily placed at risk.
Source: 2016 Indiana House campaign website JimBanks.us
, Nov 8, 2016
Two-state solution despite Israeli settlements on West Bank.
Banks signed two-state solution despite Israeli settlements on West Bank
Congressional Summary: S.Res.6/H.Res.11 objects to U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, which characterizes Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as illegal and demands cessation of settlement activities.
- Calls for such resolution to be repealed or fundamentally altered and allows all final status issues toward a two-state solution to be resolved through direct bilateral negotiations between the parties.
- Notes that granting membership and statehood standing to the Palestinians at the UN, its specialized agencies, and other international institutions outside of the context of a bilateral peace agreement with Israel would cause severe harm to the peace process.
- Urges upholding the U.S. practice of vetoing all Security Council resolutions that recognize unilateral Palestinian actions or dictate terms and a time line for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
-
Reaffirms that it is U.S. policy to seek a sustainable, just, and secure two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Opposing argument: (Cato Institute, Dec. 19, 2003): In principle, separation seems the best answer to stop the killing. For this reason, a security fence makes sense--if it actually separates Jew from Arab. Unfortunately, to protect a number of disparate Israeli settlements erected in the midst of Palestinian communities, Israel currently is mixing Jew and Arab and separating Arab from Arab. Thus are sown the seeds for conflict. After 36 years of occupation, the land remains almost exclusively Arab. The limited Jewish presence is the result of conscious colonization. The settlements require a pervasive Israeli military occupation, imposing a de facto system of apartheid. Separation offers the only hope, but separation requires dismantling Israeli settlements.
Source: Opposing UN Resolution 2334 17-HRes11 on Jan 3, 2017
Page last updated: Jun 27, 2017