White House Resource Center Proves Obama’s Unfailing Israel Record

NJDC — June 3, 2011 – 5:26 pm | Iran | Israel | Obama Comments (0) Add a comment

The White House has posted a new online resource center that documents President Barack Obama’s consistent support for Israel and his commitment to a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

This new resource center allows citizens to view the facts of the President’s stellar record on Israel. The new website makes the President’s support for a lasting, peaceful, secure, and mutually recognized two-state plan abundantly clear. Some highlights are:

• President Obama believes that the core issues can only be negotiated and resolved in direct talks between the parties. This means that Israel will have to agree for a deal to be reached. The President has emphasized that no vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state.
• President Obama said that “a peace agreement must be based on borders and security arrangements that do not leave Israel vulnerable.”
• President Obama has said that the basis of the negotiations is clear —“1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” This territorial formula,  which has been used in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations for decades,  means that the parties themselves will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967 to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years. This includes new demographic realities and the needs of both sides. This formula of “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” is fully consistent with the positions of earlier U.S. Administrations, including the 2004 Bush-Sharon letters.
• The President believes that every state has the right to self-defense, and that Israel must be able to defend itself - by itself -  against any threat. He said that the security provisions of an agreement must be robust enough “to prevent a resurgence of terrorism,  to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security.” He also said that the duration of the transition period must be agreed and of sufficient time for the security provisions to demonstrate their effectiveness.

The White House makes references to Obama’s speeches - particularly those in Cairo and to the United Nations - in which he asserted Israel’s legitimacy in front of a global audience. It shows, in the President’s own words, that he condemns Hamas as a terrorist group and demands that they “accept Israel’s right to exist, reject violence, and adhere to all existing agreements before it can play a role in achieving Middle East peace.” It also says that he has called upon all sides to act upon their responsibilities to foster Middle East peace.

The White House states that the President’s actions have shown his strong opposition to any effort to de-legitimize Israel. They show that Obama has also “strengthened Israel’s security” in these ways and more:

• Despite tough fiscal times, President Obama fought for and secured full funding for Israel in the FY 2011 appropriation bill, which includes $3 billion in Foreign Military Financing - the largest amount of funding for Israel in U.S. history.
• President Obama then secured an additional $205 million to help produce an Israeli-developed short-range rocket defense system called Iron Dome, which has recently helped defend Israeli communities against rocket attacks.
• Prime Minister Netanyahu told the AIPAC conference on May 23 that “Yesterday President Obama spoke about his ironclad commitment to Israel’s security. He rightly said that our security cooperation is unprecedented… And he has backed those words with deeds.”

Finally, the resource center shows how the President has generated an extraordinary amount of international pressure on Iran due to its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Some of the points include:

• President Obama has said that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He has backed up this commitment with tangible steps to increase pressure substantially on the Iranian regime and raise the costs of its defiance of the international community.
• International companies are increasingly recognizing the risks of doing business with Iran and are abandoning existing business opportunities, declining to take advantage of new ones, and scaling back any existing relationships. This trend has been replicated across a broad range of industries.  Examples of companies withdrawing from business with Iran include: Shell, Total, ENI, Statoil, Repsol, Lukoil,  Kia, Toyota, Siemens, and foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms such as GE,  Honeywell, and Caterpillar.

Click here to read the White House’s complete fact sheet.

Comments

There are no comments for this entry