[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FINANCIALLY REWARDING TERRORISM IN THE WEST BANK
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 6, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-201
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-651PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
MATT SALMON, Arizona KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
PAUL COOK, California ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas GRACE MENG, New York
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TED S. YOHO, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
CURT CLAWSON, Florida BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin
DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
DANIEL DONOVAN, New York
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
David Pollock, Ph.D., Kaufman fellow, Washington Institute for
Near East Policy............................................... 5
Mr. Yigal Carmon, president and founder, Middle East Media
Research Institute............................................. 14
The Honorable Robert Wexler, president, S. Daniel Abraham Center
for Middle East Peace.......................................... 25
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
David Pollock, Ph.D.: Prepared statement......................... 8
Mr. Yigal Carmon: Prepared statement............................. 16
The Honorable Robert Wexler: Prepared statement.................. 27
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 60
Hearing minutes.................................................. 61
The Honorable Daniel Donovan, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York: Material submitted for the record....... 63
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York: Material submitted for the record....... 65
The Honorable Lois Frankel, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida: Material submitted for the record............ 67
The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Florida: Prepared statement.................. 69
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement.......... 70
FINANCIALLY REWARDING TERRORISM IN THE WEST BANK
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 2016
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Royce. This hearing will come to order.
The title of this hearing is ``Financially Rewarding
Terrorism in the West Bank.''
And as everyone here knows, last week, a 13-year-old
Israeli-American girl was stabbed to death by a Palestinian
terrorist while she slept in her bed. Sadly, Hallel Ariel's
murder is only the latest attack in Israel, because since
October there have been 250 instances of Israelis being chased
down, shot, or stabbed. Forty have died, including former U.S.
Army Officer Taylor Force, who was stabbed in March along an
oceanfront boardwalk.
While this spree of attacks continues, international
diplomats continue to meet for a probable push at the United
Nations this fall to impose the ``parameters'' of peace on
Israel and the Palestinian Authority. But what on earth
suggests that Israel has a willing partner in peace at this
time?
Last fall, this committee held a hearing to expose the
Palestinian Authority's complicity in inciting violence. Israel
is contending with a deep-seated hatred, nurtured by
Palestinian leaders over many years in mosques, in schools, in
newspapers, nurtured on television, on radio. As one witness
told the committee, `` `Incitement' is the term we usually use,
but 'hatred' is what we mean . . . teaching generations of
Palestinian children to hate Jews by demonizing and
dehumanizing them.''
Take the funeral for the killer of American Taylor Force, a
former West Point graduate, U.S. Army officer, and Vanderbilt
student. Official PA TV glorified the terrorist, calling him
``a Martyr'' 11 times in the broadcast I watched. A reporter
explained that his funeral was a ``large national wedding
befitting of Martyrs.''
But Palestinians are lured to terrorism with more than just
words. Since 2003, it has been Palestinian law to reward
Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails with a monthly
paycheck--legislation which creates jihad. Under this act, the
Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation
Organization use a so-called ``martyrs' fund'' to pay the
families of Palestinian prisoners and suicide bombers. One
prominent Palestinian says that these inducements have become
``sacred in Palestinian politics.''
You know, as a member of one concerned family here today
reminded me, these terrorists are not, in fact, lone rangers,
they are not lone wolves acting from their independent hatred.
Instead, these terrorists are the product of the programming
done by the PA's perverted culture that glorifies the
willingness to die or to spend time in prison in pursuit of
killing or maiming Israelis. The PA programmed this hate. These
financial rewards are the main way they accomplish this.
And, perversely, the PA uses a sliding scale: The more the
mayhem, the longer the jail sentence, then the greater the
financial reward. The highest payments go to those serving life
sentences--to those who prove most brutal. And, as we will hear
today, the PA allots $140 million of its budget for this
purpose. The monthly salary ranges from $364 a month for 3
years' imprisonment to over $3,000 a month for 30 years or
more.
And whoever hits the bar, whoever was imprisoned for 5
years or more--and we know what kind of attack would create
that--that individual is entitled to permanent employment in
what? In the PA institution itself. Again, for those who wage
the most brutal attacks. If a Palestinian state was
established, it is hard to see how this ``pay to slay'' policy
wouldn't put them on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list
today.
With about one-third of the Palestinian Authority's budget
financed through foreign aid, the U.S. and our European allies
can--and must--help stop the bloodshed. So far, the
international community has failed to effectively use its
leverage. European donors admit they provide funding in a way
that is impossible to track. They have nothing in their laws
like the U.S. requirement--which the Israeli Government is now
starting to embrace--that funding of the PA be cut by the
amount the PA pays out for acts of terrorism. This must change.
And if the PA's irresponsible behavior continues, the whole
premise for funding the PA needs to be reconsidered.
The U.S. needs to do better at bringing the parties
together while holding the parties responsible for their
actions. This has traditionally been our role. Unfortunately,
in recent years, the Obama administration has been hesitant to
hold the PA accountable--yet has consistently pressured Israel.
It is no wonder the Palestinian Authority believes they can
go straight to the United Nations this fall, bypassing Israel
and bypassing bilateral negotiations. Indeed, the Obama
administration has pointedly not ruled out allowing the U.N.
Security Council to dictate the terms of peace negotiations.
The United States should make it abundantly clear that we
oppose such actions which are not based on direct negotiations
between the parties and will use our veto and keep divisive,
counterproductive resolutions from passing.
We have to face reality if we are going to move peace
forward, and we have to be honest about each actor's readiness
to make peace. The sad truth is the Palestinian Authority has
not prepared its citizens for peace with Israel. Quite the
opposite. And, tragically, there will be no peace until that
changes.
And I now turn to the ranking member for any opening
comments Mr. Eliot Engel of New York may have.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
morning's hearing. The threats facing Israel and the challenges
to reaching a two-state solution are growing every day, and I
am glad the committee is focusing on this.
I want to thank all our witnesses, as well. Welcome to the
Foreign Affairs Committee. We are grateful for your time and
your expertise.
I especially want to welcome back former Congressman Robert
Wexler, who spent many hours on this side of the dais on the
Foreign Affairs Committee sitting next to me. It is good to
have you back, Robert.
And thanks to our other witnesses, as well. Thank you for
joining us.
Before I start with my statement, I want to offer my
condolences to the family of Hallel Yaffa Ariel. She was the
young Israel girl, 13 years old, who was stabbed to death in
her own bedroom by a 17-year-old Palestinian boy. It is just
hard to fathom, but that is what we end up with after years and
years of incitement to violence.
The chairman and I have talked about this ad nauseam with
the Palestinian leadership. Everyone will hear us. You cannot
have incitement and expect to have peace. Young people in
classrooms taught to hate a group of people regarded as less
than human, this doesn't solve any problems. It is creates new
ones, like this disgrace of this poor girl.
Of course, when the Palestinian leadership, whether it be
the PLO or the Palestinian Authority, sends money to convicted
terrorists and their families, it is no wonder that individuals
are incentivized to commit acts of violence. This culture of
incitement must end. It is absolutely outrageous to pay cold-
blooded killers and call them martyrs. It is just disgraceful.
At a time when U.S. money is going to the Palestinian
Authority, for them to do this just makes you scratch your
head. It is not acceptable, and it is not tolerable, and it
won't be tolerated.
Of course, the culture of incitement needs to end because
the loss of innocent life is unacceptable, and it must end
because violence and terrorism will never lead to a two-state
solution. I have repeatedly said to the Palestinians they will
never achieve their state on the backs of terrorism--just plain
and simple. I believe they are entitled to their state in a
two-state solution, but they will never get it if they think
terrorism is the way to go.
In my view, a two-state solution is the only way for Israel
to remain both a Jewish state and a democracy, but right now a
number of roadblocks are keeping that solution out of reach.
First, Israel faces threats on every border. Some of
Israel's enemies possess incredibly sophisticated missile
systems. Others are lone-wolf terrorists carrying forward the
recent wave of violence we have seen. With this feeling of
being under siege, the Israeli public's confidence in a
peaceful solution continues to erode. What else would you
expect? The idea of living side-by-side with their Arab
neighbors seems like a remote possibility, and this is
precisely what the violent extremists want.
At the same time, Israel faces mounting threats to its
physical security. There is a growing effort to undermine
Israel's legitimacy. The so-called BDS, Boycott Divestment and
Sanctions, movement--shameful and disgraceful, in my opinion--
pushes Israel to make unilateral concessions outside direct
negotiations with the Palestinians. The BDS movement is totally
at odds with a negotiated two-state solution, which, in my
opinion, should remain our focus.
So how do we resume progress toward that goal? Frankly, I
think gatherings like the Paris peace talks last month are an
unhelpful distraction because neither the Israelis nor the
Palestinians were involved. How can powers come together and
think they will come up with a solution without the two parties
at the table? It just doesn't make sense.
The only way to have peace and settle the Palestinian
situation is face-to-face talks between Israelis and
Palestinians. There can be no imposition of a peace plan from
the outside. The U.N. is a farce. Israel cannot get a fair
hearing at the U.N. Why should Israel submit itself to such
things? Direct negotiations between the parties. And the
Palestinians have to understand they have to make concessions.
I point out to people that, in the past couple of decades,
there were two times that a two-state solution seemed like a
possibility in terms of an agreement: Once in 2001 with Yasser
Arafat and then in 2008 with Mahmoud Abbas. Ehud Barak was
Prime Minister of Israel, and then Ehud Olmert was Prime
Minister of Israel. The Israelis said, yes, they were willing
to make painful concessions. And, at the end, ultimately, the
Palestinians said no and backed out, because they talked about
right of return and all kinds of other roadblocks.
If there were two states and there is a two-state solution,
Palestinians get the right of return to the Palestinian state,
not to the Israel state, not to the Jewish state. And if the
Palestinians want peace, they certainly haven't demonstrated
it, in my opinion, at all.
We know what the unresolved issues are: Borders, security,
refugees, Jerusalem, and a mutual recognition of the end of the
conflict. That would require the Palestinians to recognize
Israel as a state for the Jewish people with equal rights for
all its citizens, and I believe the Palestinians' refusal to do
this is one of the main reasons there is no Palestinian state
today.
We also know what the pitfalls are of resuming talks. Every
time there is a new initiative, expectations soar, and each
time the talks fall apart, things seem to crash a little
harder. That outcome leads to violence. Extremists find a
louder voice, and people on both sides suffer. And it is
interesting, every time it seems like there might be some kind
of an agreement, you have violent terrorism to try to destroy
it, because the terrorists don't want peace. They want to keep
the pot stirring.
Just look in Gaza, where Hamas has tightened its grip over
the last decade. And let's remember that Hamas is a terrorist
organization. Reconstruction is slowly progressing. Israel has
expanded the fishing perimeter in the Mediterranean, granted
thousands of work permits, and improved access to telecom
technology. What has Hamas done? Rebuilt its terror tunnel
network--and the chairman and I were there in those tunnels,
and so we saw firsthand what Hamas builds--and periodically
fire rockets and missiles into Israel, terrorizing innocent
people, forcing them to run for their lives to the nearest
shelter.
In this context, I want to voice my support for a new long-
term memorandum of understanding, an MOU, between the U.S. and
Israel. We want to stop this horrific violence, but as long as
Israel faces these threats, we need to stand with them and help
ensure their defense and security. I urge the administration to
bend over backwards to negotiate an MOU with Israel that will
let Israel keep its qualitative military edge and strengthen
Israel against all these threats that it faces from terrorists.
So I will wrap up by saying there aren't any easy answers.
And, to our witnesses, we are glad to have your voices in the
mix. I look forward to your testimony. And, again, as the
chairman said, I agree with what he said; it is just outrageous
to pay cold-blooded killers who murder innocent civilians and
call them martyrs. I cannot think of anything more disgusting.
So I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses, and I
yield back.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
This morning, we are pleased to be joined by a
distinguished panel.
We have Dr. David Pollock, Kaufman Fellow at the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy. And, previously, Dr. Pollock
served as a senior adviser for the broader Middle East at the
State Department.
Mr. Yigal Carmon is president and founder of the Middle
East Media Research Institute. Prior to founding this
organization, he was a counterterrorism adviser to two Israeli
Prime Ministers.
The Honorable Robert Wexler is President of the S. Daniel
Abraham Center for Middle East Peace. Previously, Congressman
Wexler served as a member of this committee and served in the
House of Representatives from 1997 to 2010. He represented
Florida's 19th District. We welcome him back to the committee.
And so, without objection, the witnesses' full prepared
statements will be made part of the record.
Members here will have 5 calendar days to submit any
statements or any questions of our witnesses or any extraneous
material for the record.
And we will start with Dr. David Pollock.
STATEMENT OF DAVID POLLOCK, PH.D., KAUFMAN FELLOW, WASHINGTON
INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY
Mr. Pollock. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member, honorable colleagues, and distinguished fellow
speakers, for this opportunity to meet with you today. I am
truly honored by it, and I greatly appreciate both this very
prestigious forum and the significance of the issue at hand.
But I believe if there is one thing that most Americans,
Israelis, and Arabs would agree on today, it is that the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict right now is not the most
important or the most urgent conflict in the Middle East or for
U.S. foreign policy.
And, for that reason, I would argue that now is precisely
the wrong time to put the Israeli-Palestinian issue near the
top of our foreign policy priorities. And, also, I would argue
that certain current ideas about doing that, about putting this
issue at the top of our priorities, carry a very real, albeit
unwitting, risk of doing more harm than good.
I agree with the statement of the chairman and of the
ranking member that multilateral diplomatic maneuvers, whether
in Paris or at the United Nations, have one central and
inescapable flaw. By definition, they encourage one or both
parties to imagine that they can somehow avoid making
compromises and, ultimately, peace with each other.
This is not merely a matter of avoiding direct Israeli-
Palestinian bilateral negotiations. It is also a matter of
avoiding responsibility for the indispensable compromises that
would make real peace possible. And that is why, simply put,
the Palestinian Authority has become so enamored of this
shortcut, or escape hatch, over the past several years.
Doing multilateral initiatives in the absence of direct
negotiations is not, as is sometimes said, better than nothing.
It is, in fact, worse than nothing, because it actually helps
prevent rather than promote peace.
Now, what I would like to do in the few minutes that I have
left is to focus on what I believe would be some more
constructive steps, to look forward rather than backward.
First and most urgently, I believe the United States should
enhance its support for Israeli-Palestinian security
cooperation. Despite all of the incitement coming from the
Palestinian Authority, security cooperation with Israel
continues, and this is the bedrock of any work to stabilize the
situation and ultimately reconcile the parties. The United
States supports this effort, and that support, I believe,
should not only continue but intensify.
Second, as my colleague Dennis Ross has written recently
and as I wrote at the Washington Institute as far back as 2008,
I think the United States should revive a deal with Israel
about limiting settlement activity, roughly along the lines of
the Bush-Sharon letter and related understandings of 2005.
Israel could announce that it will cease new construction
beyond the security barrier, or just act in that fashion
without a declaration, in return for a U.S. commitment to cease
criticizing that settlement construction--that limited
settlement construction.
Third, the U.S. should quietly encourage Israel and the
Palestinians to agree on new practical forms of economic
cooperation and of people-to-people interaction, including
interfaith Jewish-Muslim dialogue. The more these people-to-
people projects can be scaled up, the more they are likely to
make a positive difference.
There is currently a bipartisan bill, H.R. 1489, to create
an international fund for precisely that purpose. I
respectfully urge you to give this bill your full support, in
the firm conviction that it will pay multiple dividends in the
coming years.
Fourth, the United States should actively explore new ideas
for enlisting Arab backing for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Fifth, and finally, the United States should publicly
support and very vocally encourage others to endorse what we
used to call mutual and balanced but, if necessary, unilateral
steps toward peaceful coexistence.
Israel, for example, could stop the demolition of
Palestinian buildings. The Palestinian Authority could stop
referring to murderers as ``martyrs.'' The Palestinian
Authority and Israel could endorse new programs of interfaith
dialogue to advance tolerance, nonviolence, and peaceful
coexistence, and so on. I would be happy during the question-
and-answer period to expand on these and other specific, I hope
constructive ideas.
With that, I offer my sincere thanks once again to the
committee and to you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to
share my thoughts on this important topic. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pollock follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Mr. Carmon.
STATEMENT OF MR. YIGAL CARMON, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER, MIDDLE
EAST MEDIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Mr. Carmon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
members of the committee.
My testimony is dedicated to the financial support given by
the Palestinian Authority to prisoners and to families of
martyrs who continued their terrorist activities after the Oslo
Accord of 1993, in which Arafat committed on behalf of the
Palestinian people to end all forms of terrorism and, by that
commitment, won recognition among nations.
By providing this support at the amount of $300 million per
year, the PLO violates Oslo, encourages terrorism. And by
using, or misusing, actually, the money of donor countries,
including the United States, it makes them unwittingly
complicit to this act of supporting terrorism.
Let me deal with the details of this support. The PA
distributes the money through two bodies of the PLO. One is the
Palestinian National Fund, which deals with the prisoners and
distributes the money through another Commission for Detainees,
and the other is the Institute for the Caring of Families of
Martyrs.
This support for prisoners is anchored in a series of laws
but chiefly Law No. 14 and Law No. 19 of 2004 and Law No. 1 of
2013. The law describes the prisoners as a fighting sector
whose rights and the rights of their families must be assured
without discrimination.
What do these words mean? They mean that Hamas terrorists
and Islamic jihad, PFLP, others, like a squad that bombed the
cafeteria of the Hebrew U. 9 years after Oslo, in which four
Americans were killed, will get support, like the killers of
Taylor Force and their families. I hold in my hand documents
which I hope to include in the testimony--we got them this
morning--which demonstrate from PA official documents that they
get this support.
What are they entitled to? They get salaries, jobs,
exemptions in education, health care, and more. Years in jails
are calculated as years of seniority in government service, and
priority in jobs are given to those who are personally involved
in acts of terrorism.
The annual amount reaches $140 million. And the
implementation of the laws is through a series of decisions by
the PA Government, particularly Decision 23 of 2010, which set
the levels of salaries. As you had mentioned, Mr. Chairman, it
is $364 per month to those who were sentenced to 3 years, up to
$3,120 to those who were sentenced to 30 years for more brutal
acts. There is a special supplement for Jerusalemites of $78
per month and for Israeli Arabs at the level of $130 per month
above the regular salary.
They also get the money for the canteen in jail at the
level of no less than $780,000 per year.
At times when there is tension between the PA and the other
organizations, President Abbas doesn't hesitate to cut them
down, cut the salaries down. More on that you will find in my
written testimony.
Let me move to the issue of the families of martyrs. The
general amount is $173 million per year. And these are
distributed not by any specific law but by the laws that
dominate social affairs, the conditions of the family and so
on.
But here again, it is--these two magic words--without
discrimination. Namely, President Abbas and the PA claim to
follow a peaceful political path, different than that of the
other Palestinian organizations who followed the path of armed
struggle and jihad. But, at the same time, they fund all those
who follow the terrorists' violent path. It is not just about
the incitement to violence; it is about funding it. It is about
guaranteeing an environment supportive of terror.
In conclusion, one can understand the PLO's commitment to
support families of martyrs in the era before Oslo in the
context of an overall peaceful reconciliation. But the fact
that the PA supports those who continue terrorist activity
after Oslo for many years now using donor countries' money is a
basic violation of the Oslo Accords and a deliberate
encouragement of terrorism. This is a situation the donor
countries never meant or wanted, and it is in their hands to
put an end to it.
Mr. Chairman, much more details are in my written
testimony. I wish to thank you again for this opportunity to
present the facts of this report.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carmon follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Carmon.
Mr. Robert Wexler.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT WEXLER, PRESIDENT, S. DANIEL
ABRAHAM CENTER FOR MIDDLE EAST PEACE
Mr. Wexler. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, members
of the committee, thank you very much for your warm welcome.
Israel is often coined the ``Start-Up Nation,''
highlighting the Jewish State's economic miracle and
technological and scientific achievements. Just as remarkable
is another defining characteristic: Against all odds, Israeli
military forces have successfully defended against an onslaught
of hostile forces since 1948.
For those of us who are Zionists, the unprecedented
security collaboration between the United States and Israel is
a source of tremendous pride. The joint development of missile
defense technologies, all-time-high intelligence-sharing,
historic military training exercises, and the recent delivery
of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter all demonstrate the
unbreakable bond between us and Israel.
American administrations and Congress after Congress have
ensured Israel's qualitative military advantage. Israel's
defense and intelligence coordination with Egypt and Jordan is
unprecedented.
Despite these positive developments, the Middle East
Quartet report that was released last week asserted that the
policies of both Israelis and Palestinians have distanced a
two-state outcome, creating a dynamic in which a one-state
reality has taken root.
The Quartet calls on the Palestinian Authority to stop
incitement of violence, bolster efforts to prevent terrorism,
and, importantly, condemn attacks against Israelis. Likewise,
the Quartet calls on Israel to cease settlement expansion,
transfer civilian authority to the PA in Area C of the West
Bank, and bluntly questions Israel's long-term intentions.
With this backdrop of despair and lack of trust on both
sides, a stunning development has occurred. The most compelling
group now advocating for a two-state solution is the Israel
security establishment.
Two weeks ago, a group of over 200 retired generals or
equivalent rank from the Israeli Defense Forces, Mossad, Shin
Bet, and Israel Police redirected the political discourse.
Boldly, Israel's most patriotic soldiers cast aside the
question of whether Israel does or does not have a genuine
partner for peace. Rather, these security giants demand that
Israel once again determine her own destiny.
The Israeli plan, labeled ``Security First,'' assumes a
two-state final status arrangement is not currently feasible.
It is impossible to eradicate terrorism through force alone.
Continuation of the diplomatic impasse will lead to further
violence. And Israel is strong enough to offer an independent
initiative that combines security, civil, economic, and
political measures.
In the security realm, the IDF will remain deployed in the
West Bank until a final status arrangement is reached, and the
security fence will be completed, enhancing security within the
Green Line and for 80 percent of Israelis living in the West
Bank.
In the civil-economic realm, the welfare of Palestinians
will be improved by establishing an international fund to
rehabilitate Palestinian communities and increasing work
permits.
Importantly, the Knesset should pass an evacuation
compensation law, encouraging settlers now living east of the
security fence, outside the security fence, to relocate west of
the fence. What an impactful message that would send about
Israel intentions.
In the political realm, Israel should accept the Arab Peace
Initiative with adjustments to accommodate Israel's security
and demographic needs as a basis for negotiations; acknowledge
that Palestinian neighborhoods of east Jerusalem will be part
of the future Palestinian state; and implement a freeze on
settlement expansion east of the security fence, like Dr.
Pollock mentioned.
In Gaza, reconciliation with Turkey is an important
opportunity to hold the ceasefire, address humanitarian needs,
and promote economic development, including a seaport subject
to Israeli security and PA control.
Mr. Chairman, why have Israel's most decorated security
officials grown frustrated with their own government's lack of
initiative? Israel's top military minds have come to understand
the inescapable truth that the creation of a demilitarized
Palestinian state is not a gift to the Palestinians; rather, it
is the only way Israel will remain a Jewish and democratic
state.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, demographic trends clarify the
need for separation. The Jewish population from the
Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River is now 52 percent. In
2020, it will be 49 percent; in 2030, only 44 percent Jewish.
Separation into two states, following the Security First plan,
is essential for Israel to remain a democratic, Jewish-majority
state.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wexler follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
We are going to go with a question I have to Mr. Carmon.
The PA has, as you know, long faced a lot of criticism from
Western governments for its policy of paying Palestinian
prisoners or the families of prisoners in Israeli jails. And we
here in Congress have, you know, consistently passed
legislation over the last few years that requires restrictions
on financial aid to the Palestinian Authority based on the
amounts spent on these salaries.
The problem that I want to raise is one, as you note in
your testimony, where you say, bowing to international
pressure, the PA stopped paying from one PA ministry, only to
restart the payment through an arm of the PLO. And this
duplicity was not explained to us by our Government at the time
that we did some cross-examination on this. Now it is
surfacing.
Can you help walk us through that change? When was it made?
How hard is it to track? Give us the details on what happened
there.
Mr. Carmon. Yes, sir.
In May 2014, under the pressure of donor countries, the PA
made a deliberate move of misleading those countries by
transferring the distribution of the money that comes from the
PA to a body of the PLO.
It created a virtual body, I should say, called the
Commission for Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs, which
belongs to the PLO, but it was virtual in the sense that the
offices remained the same offices; the man in charge was the
same man, Issa Qaraqe, with a different job title; the
supervision or oversight of the distribution of the money
remained the same.
And it was all in answer to this pressure which was
specified by the minister at the time of the affairs of the
prisoners, Mr. Ziad Abu Ein, who said we had to do it because
of the pressure of donor countries which began different
investigations about how we spend this money.
So this was the idea, we pass it to the PLO. And this is
the end of the story. They will not----
Chairman Royce. And, as I recall, in terms of the dollar
amount, it was precisely the same amount----
Mr. Carmon. Absolutely.
Chairman Royce [continuing]. To the dollar that was
transferred.
Mr. Carmon. Yep.
Chairman Royce. How much of the annual PA budget is taken
up by these salaries to terrorists? What percentage?
Mr. Carmon. This is hard to determine because no one knows
really what is the PA general budget. Much of it is hidden.
There are different bodies that are dealing with it. But I
would say that by the----
Chairman Royce. Of the known budget.
Mr. Carmon [continuing]. Online and--right. Maybe it would
be about 10 percent.
Chairman Royce. About 10 percent----
Mr. Carmon. Yes.
Chairman Royce [continuing]. Goes to reward people----
Mr. Carmon. Right.
Chairman Royce [continuing]. To carry out attacks,
stabbings, and shootings of the Israel population.
Mr. Carmon. Mr. Chairman, the President of the Palestinian
Authority said openly that this is the main concern of the
Palestinians, that the prisoners are a fighting sector of our
society and they----
Chairman Royce. But most of these prisoners are young
people. You know, the targeting goes to children, the targeting
goes to youth. They are recruiting young people. I saw one of
the recordings the other day of a girl who looked no more than
5. Maybe she was 4. ``What message would you send to other
children?'' And she has a knife in her hand, and she says,
``Stab, stab, stab,'' is the message she sends. That is the
kind of programming.
In Congress here, over and over again, we repeat this
theme: If you want to make peace, you have to teach peace. This
is what we keep conveying to the Palestinian Authority. But
what we are watching on their television is exactly the
opposite.
Maybe you can comment on this messaging and what it
constitutes.
Mr. Carmon. Mr. Chairman, MEMRI has been monitoring the
Arab and Palestinian media mindset for almost 20 years, and
what we see in the Palestinian media--and now it is virtual, it
is online, and it goes all over the world--is a constant
legitimatization of the armed action, of the killing of
Israelis and Jews. And much of the terminology refers to Jews,
kill the Jews.
We have so much material online on our Web site, MEMRI.org,
which shows it in a quite graphic way, pictures of the actual
killing, reacting and acting in a kindergarten of the terrorist
acts, to tell people, this is the model, this is the--tell
kids, this is your model.
But there is more than that. There is actual training
through the Internet of how to do it.
Chairman Royce. On how to do it.
Mr. Carmon. Not just stab as it comes to you, but where to
hit. And there are instructions, and there are instructions to
use poison, with which knives to deal, and, of course, to use
any weapon possible, not necessarily weapons but cars and
trucks and other ways, whatever is in your capability--kill,
kill, kill.
Chairman Royce. And these are official Palestinian
Authority media?
Mr. Carmon. Much of it is on the Palestinian official
media, absolutely.
Chairman Royce. Yeah.
Well, my time has expired. I will go to Mr. Eliot Engel of
New York.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We all know that the Palestinian Authority has not lived up
to its promises, and we are talking about their incitement
against Israelis and Jews. And we know that the disgusting
spectacle of paying terrorists for crimes, for murders, calling
them martyrs is something that really, really irks all of us.
But, on the other hand, you know, you look at President
Abbas; he has just completed 11 years of his 4-year term. He
threatens to quit all the time. I would like to hear anybody's
response about if should we worry about a PA collapse. They are
no prize package, but breathing down their neck is Hamas.
Is that something that we should be worried about, if the
PA just totally collapsed? Could Hamas take over? Would the
Israelis have something on their hands, that they really would
not want to go in and retake the area? Any thoughts on the
matter?
I have no regard for Abbas and what he has done, but what
about the potential of the collapse of the PA? Anybody who
would care to answer.
Mr. Wexler.
Mr. Wexler. Mr. Engel raises an important point. President
Abbas presents a mixed bag at best. And he is responsible,
ultimately, for all of the atrocities that have been outlined
this morning. But there is also another aspect, which is that
the collaboration between the PA and Israel is, in fact, quite
substantial.
Now, Abbas isn't collaborating with the Israel security
forces because he has become a Zionist. Just the opposite. He
is collaborating because it is in his best interest to do so.
Why? Because if he didn't, the more extreme guys, Hamas--and
now there are even more extreme guys than Hamas--would threaten
the relative stability in the West Bank.
So, to your point, Congressman Engel, if the PA were to
collapse, what we are likely to see is not a more democratic
regime, unfortunately. The gap is likely to be filled by an
even more extreme bunch.
But let's also be fair, if we may. Condemnations of
President Abbas are fair, they are legitimate, again, outlined
this morning. But everyone here needs to understand what it
takes in order to have an election in the Palestinian
Authority. You need three approvals. The PA has to approve.
Israel has to approve, because you can't hold an election in
Jerusalem without Israeli approval. And you have to have Hamas
to approve because you can't have votes in Gaza, unfortunately,
without them.
So I am not casting judgment, but we need to be realistic
about the enormous process that would need to be undertaken in
order to actually have an election under the current
circumstances in the Palestinian territories. You need those
three actors to agree to some type of election administration.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
One of the things that is interesting in terms of the
geopolitical movement of the Middle East is that, if you talk
to heads of state, the Sunni Arab states sound very similar in
their perspective of the Middle East to the Israeli leadership,
to Netanyahu. And you will talk about Iran and other things,
and you talk to the Sunni Arab states; it is the same thing.
When you speak with Israeli leadership, they will say there
is no conflict with the Arab world. There is a conflict with
the Palestinians. But the Arab world, the Sunni world, sees the
situation today much like the Israeli Government. There is
unprecedented cooperation going on behind the scenes between
Israel and some of the countries that were long regarded as
Israel's enemies.
So it is interesting, when you look at the Arab League
putting forth a comprehensive proposal and a peace plan. There
have been media reports recently that Prime Minister Netanyahu
is open to discussing the Arab Peace Initiative as the basis
for an accord. Israel rightly takes issue with several parts of
the proposal, but that could potentially be worked out.
To what extent should the U.S. encourage this? Anybody
else?
Mr. Pollock?
Mr. Pollock. Thank you very much for the question and the
opportunity to reflect on it.
I believe that the Arab Peace Initiative is a significant
step forward, although, as you and others have pointed out, it
doesn't implement itself, and it needs to be negotiated, and it
needs to be revised.
But I would point out that U.S. support for discussions
about the Arab Peace Initiative could be an important new
ingredient in this picture going forward.
Secretary Kerry achieved an important modification of the
Arab Peace Initiative a few years ago when the Arab foreign
ministers formally agreed that Israel's withdrawal from
occupied territories could be, on the basis of new boundaries,
negotiated between the parties that would allow for territorial
exchanges--land swaps, as they are often called--rather than
literally on the pre-1967 lines.
But that achievement, unfortunately, in the last couple of
years, has been taken back, walked back by Arab governments and
by the Arab League. It would be useful, I think, for the United
States to go to them, to the Arab governments, and say: You
agreed to this a few years ago. Can we assume that you still
agree to it today? Can we proceed on that basis?
That would allow for negotiations that would advance this
emerging consensus between Israel and key Arab governments that
peace is in their common interest.
One last point about this. In late 2013, Arab foreign
ministers were prepared to go even further, at the urging of
Secretary Kerry, but they were stopped by objections from the
Palestinian Authority. This is not in the public record, but it
is a fact.
The Palestinian Authority objected, successfully and very
sadly, in my view, to a willingness on the part of other Arab
leaders to accept the formulation of recognition of Israel as a
Jewish state or as a state for the Jewish people. And it would
be useful today for the United States to encourage those Arab
governments to reconsider and to encourage the Palestinian
Authority, hard as it would be--and it would be very hard--to
reconsider its objections to that formulation. That could be a
new and, I think, very hopeful basis for renewed peace
negotiations.
Thank you.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
And, first of all, I would like to thank the chairman, Mr.
Royce, for conducting this hearing.
And I would sign on personally to your concept that, if
money is going to people who have committed acts of terrorism
by the Palestinian Authority, that that should be extracted
from our commitment to aid the Palestinian Authority. So I
think that is a very good step, symbolic as well, but needs to
be done.
I would also like to especially identify myself with the
remarks of Ranking Member Engel. His commitment--and as we have
heard from the witnesses, as well--for a two-state solution has
not been dimmed by some of the horrendous downsides and
setbacks that we have seen in the last 20 years.
And this two-state solution was a solution that was worked
out. There was a great deal of optimism that it could work. Let
me just suggest--I just got back from the Middle East, and I
was in Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey. And the average people in
those countries still believe in the two-state solution--the
average people. They are not pro-Israeli, but they understand
that, to have peace, they need this two-state solution. That
was heartening to me.
What is disheartening to me is that we have the United
States still acting so foolishly that we end up providing
hundreds of millions of dollars to people who then spend tens
of millions, if not more, building the very tunnels that
Ranking Member Engel mentioned.
And I remember walking with you down into those tunnels.
And, by the way, these tunnels are not just little holes in the
ground. These are engineering efforts that are very expensive,
engineering projects that I am sure cost tens of millions of
dollars. And yet we continue, to make this consistent with what
the chairman is saying, we continue to finance them at the same
level.
I would suggest we make a list and that, when the
Palestinians are obviously using their resources to conduct war
on Israel, we should extract that from what we are giving to
the Palestinian Authority and et cetera.
So, with that said--and, also, it is always great to hear
former Congressman Wexler. He is almost as passionate as I am
about things, and that is saying a lot.
Just one question for Mr. Pollock.
You said that perhaps it would be good for Israel to cease
its tactic of tearing down buildings. It is my understanding
that the Israelis destroy buildings when someone in the family
who lived in that building has conducted a terrorist attack and
murdered some kind of an Israeli citizen.
Don't you think that unilaterally ceasing that policy would
not be something that would give them encouragement to stop the
type of terrorism that this hearing is all about?
Mr. Pollock. Thank you, sir. That is a fair question.
The reality, as I understand it, actually is that, yes,
that is current policy of the Israeli Government. Although they
had stopped doing that for many years, they resumed it in the
last couple of years in response to the new wave of stabbings
and other killings.
But the truth is that the Israeli Government demolishes
many, many other Palestinian buildings for various other
reasons--just, for example, not having proper building permits,
not allowing Palestinian construction in certain areas of the
West Bank or of East Jerusalem and so on.
And I believe, applied that way, this is a
counterproductive tactic.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, as long as that caveat was put on,
in terms of we will continue our destruction of those buildings
that have a direct association with people who have committed
acts of terrorism, well, then I might agree with that.
Mr. Pollock. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And one note. The Palestinians lost their
land in 1948, all right? We understand that. And the Israelis
that started their new country in 1948, they are a nation now.
And I agree with Mr. Wexler's analysis that, for it to be the
Israel that is a separate country and will have some hope, that
it has to be recognized as a Jewish state and the right of
return.
As long as that is a demand and that has not--people keep
ignoring that issue. As long as that has not been accepted,
that Palestinian refugees from 1948 are not going to be able to
go back into what is now the state of Israel, there will be no
peace, because there is no--Israel would never accept that
because it would be the end of their country.
So I would hope that the Palestinian people decide that
they do want to live at peace and accept that there is no right
of return and that there is a two-state solution. So let us be
optimistic that that someday can be achieved, while
understanding that today this terrorism that motivated the
chairman to call this hearing, that that is dealt with.
So thank you very much to the witnesses.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
We go to Mr. Albio Sires of New Jersey.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here today.
Congressman Wexler, nice to see you. I see the passion is
still there, which is great.
You know, I keep thinking about this money that is paid
out. I cannot imagine that the donor countries who are trying
to help make these payments cannot help, cannot be--what is the
word I want here? What I am trying to say is, will the will be
in those countries to stop payment? Is there a will to do that?
Or will they just keep running along with the program? Can
anybody answer that?
I mean, I would think it would be very easy, if the will
was there, to say, well, we are not going to give you any money
if you are going to pay for these people who--the families of
people who commit atrocities. Why isn't the will there to stop
that? It seems to me, anyway. Maybe I am wrong.
Mr. Carmon. Well, it is hard to know what are the motives
of the donor countries. They begin pressuring, and they hope
that this pressure will help, but, instead of a real change,
they got a virtual change.
And, really, the point to raise, as I mentioned, is that
Abbas himself is doing it for the wrong reasons, so why
wouldn't they? It is not something that is undone. It is
something possible, and Abbas himself is doing it.
Mr. Sires. But I am talking about European countries giving
money, and people are committing atrocities. They get the
money, Abbas gets the money and doles it out. But I think it
should come from the people who give the money to Abbas who
have the will and say, hey, we are not going to give you a dime
if you keep using the money for this.
I mean, there is no will there. And then yet, you know,
they are the first ones who criticize Israel all the time.
Mr. Carmon. Sir, it is also U.S. money.
Mr. Sires. Well, that----
Mr. Wexler. If I may, directly to the point, but also to
the broader, I think, aim of this committee and to each and
every member of the committee, which is ultimately assist the
parties to create a dynamic in which a two-state outcome is
feasible--a homeland for the Palestinian state and a
demilitarized Palestinian state, and a Jewish homeland in a
democratic Israel.
Now, rightfully, the chairman and this committee is focused
on terrorism and payments and the like. But I can tell you,
this document that was prepared by 200-plus Israeli generals,
these guys are not doves. And what they will say first is, yes,
go after incitement, yes, go after terrorism, yes, do all the
things that you are talking about today, but you are still not
going to resolve or even begin to resolve the problem.
And to resolve this problem, it is going to have to be
multifaceted, and it is going to have to address the
incitements on all side. And I am not creating a relativity
between terrorism and building houses. I am not doing that.
There is no relativity about terrorism. But we also need to
understand that, from a Palestinian perspective, Israel
occupies the West Bank. And I don't say the term ``occupation''
in the politically loaded way. They control it. But when that
control is exerted, oftentimes for very legitimate reasons,
there are counter-reactions.
And we need to understand that if we want to help the
parties we need to address all aspects of that conflict--
economic, political, and also people to people, much of what
has been discussed. Should security be first? Yes, of course it
should. Should terrorism and payments to terrorists be
completely not tolerated? Of course. But just to address that,
we shouldn't be so unrealistic or naive to think that terrorism
is going to be somehow mitigated.
Mr. Sires. We have to start somewhere.
Dr. Pollock?
Mr. Pollock. Yes, thanks.
I think that this should not be viewed as an all-or-nothing
proposition in the sense that we either have to cut off the PA
completely or do nothing. I think that there----
Mr. Sires. I am more concerned about the European
countries.
Mr. Pollock. Okay.
Mr. Sires. Because we put stipulations in the money that we
give.
Mr. Pollock. Well, yes, but the U.S. stipulations, as my
fellow witness here, Mr. Carmon, has observed, have been evaded
by the PA through this deceitful technique of funneling money
to terrorists and their families under a different name, right?
So I think that the United States could and other countries
should--although we can't control what they do in Europe or
other places--should reduce the amount or condition the amount
of assistance that they provide to the PA without threatening
to or without actually cutting it off completely. Because there
is a real danger, as someone else pointed out, of the PA
collapsing, which would be bad for everyone--Palestinians,
Israelis, Americans, and the region as a whole.
But I do think that a certain calibrated, limited amount of
financial pressure applied, again, by the United States without
any loopholes or escape hatches and, if possible, by European
and other donors to the PA would be helpful in addressing this
immediate issue. And I agree strongly with Mr. Wexler that this
not the only issue on the table, but we do have to start
somewhere.
I want to say one other last point in this regard. I think
it is quite possible in the real world, unfortunately, that if
we and/or European donors reduce--not cut off, but reduce--the
amount of assistance to the PA by the amount, say, with which
they subsidize terrorists and their families, if we do that, it
is quite possible that other unfriendly governments or not-so-
friendly governments would jump in to fill the gap--Arab
governments, perhaps others.
And that may be--I hate to say it, to be so cynical about
it, but that may be the only way in which any of those
governments will fulfill their aid pledges to the Palestinians.
Mr. Sires. Yeah. I do not think that one issue is going to
solve everything. It is much more complex than that.
Chairman Royce. Joe Wilson of South Carolina.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman.
And I appreciate so much Chairman Ed Royce, Ranking Member
Eliot Engel. This is an extraordinary example of bipartisan
concern and capable people. And I am grateful to be here with
my colleague Albio Sires, too, and ask questions which really
are quite in line.
It is just absolutely appalling to me that we have a
situation with the Palestinian Authority which is providing
rewards to murderers' families. It is pay to slay. And every
effort, I think, should be made to stop it. Sadly, this follows
the dangerous Iranian nuclear deal, where funding is being
provided by the Iranians to Hamas.
And we need to remember that just last week there was
another rocket attack at Sderot. And I personally identify with
that. I have been to Sderot. I have met a dear lady who was at
a park with her children when a rocket attack occurred. She
grabbed the closest child, went to a shelter. But the child
that she didn't pick up was permanently traumatized. I never
want to see American families have to face this.
But the thought that we would be allowing any type of
financing for pay to slay or for Hamas and its--by releasing
funds to Iran, putting American and Israeli families at risk.
Along with this, the Palestinian Authority is providing
financial support for pay to slay, for terrorism in the region.
And, Dr. Pollock, the--and it has been reviewed, but the
American people need to know again, so restate. How does the
Palestinian Authority provide support of the families of known
terrorists? Is it in the form of cash, electronic wire
transfers, other sources of payment? And what is the total
amount that the Palestinian Authority provides in compensation
to these families each year? Is there any evidence that U.S.
dollars are ultimately ending up in the pockets of the
relatives of terrorists?
And you have stated it, but state it one more time.
Mr. Carmon. Sir, the documents are there. The information
is there. We also possess much of it online. I have in my hand
documents from the Arab Bank and from the Ministry of
Detainees, which sets up all the details, everything that--how
and where.
And they are respectable banks. It is an official
government operation. It is not some rogue side payment under
the table. This is what the PA stands for, ideologically and in
money.
So the information is there. It is, again, the will to act
upon it. And I think that it would be a great educational
process if that amount of $300 million per year is cut so
people understand through their lives that this path is not the
way to get rid neither of the occupation nor of their life
conditions.
Mr. Wilson. And thank you again for restating and holding
up the records. And if that wasn't clear, of course, the
propaganda that you have cited, too, and the boasting about the
murder of the young lady last week, the teenager, stabbing to
death, is just incredible.
Congressman Wexler, welcome back. In your opinion, what is
the impact of the Palestinian Authority's financial support to
the families of terrorists on future acts of terrorism? Do you
believe these payments encourage and perpetuate further acts of
violence?
Mr. Wexler. Of course they do. How could they not?
And not only are they destructive, as everyone has
described, in terms of the implications for individuals, but
they are also destructive in terms of its implication for the
two societies. Why should the Israelis ever believe that they
have a genuine partner for peace when the other side is
encouraging the type of behavior that is being discussed? And,
likewise, if you are a 12-, 13-, 14-year-old young Palestinian
boy and you see the type of behavior that is encouraged on your
side, what disincentive is there to go and repeat those kinds
of atrocities?
But, if I may, and not, again, to create any relative type
of comparison, but that is why those of us who care so deeply
about the security and the well-being of Israel need to make
certain that Israel takes independent initiatives on its own
behalf to control its own destiny, quite frankly, not wait for
the partner to emerge that we all hope would emerge.
And that is the kind of behavior that, ultimately, as it
stands, will actually create a dynamic that might possibly, if
the Palestinian leadership wants to become more reasonable,
will be able to do so.
Mr. Wilson. Well, thank you very much. And, again, I look
forward to working with my colleagues to ending pay for slay.
Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
We go to Karen Bass from California.
Ms. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
First of all, you know, my heart goes out to the family of
the 13-year-old child. I can't imagine what they must be going
through right now. But, yeah, I am so concerned about the cycle
of violence, and I hope that this atrocity doesn't lead to
revenge killings like we have seen.
And I think both Mr. Wexler and Dr. Pollock have talked
about the generals and the desire of the generals to see a
different policy. And I wanted to know if you could expand on
that a little bit.
A couple of my colleagues have mentioned--and I believe you
did too, Dr. Pollock--about the policy of destroying homes--and
I would imagine the home of the 17-year-old might get
destroyed--and then the policy of the PA of giving money to
families that have committed these acts.
So when a house is blown up, then where does that family
go? And is that an example of the money that the PA uses? I
mean, what happens to--you never hear about that. And you also
mentioned other examples of houses being, you know, dismantled
because of building codes or whatever. What happens to those
families?
Mr. Pollock. Okay. Thank you for the question.
In my own view, blowing up the houses of families of
terrorists, if that actually deters terrorism----
Ms. Bass. Is there any evidence of this?
Mr. Pollock [continuing]. I don't know the answer to that,
honestly. But if--if--it does deter terrorism, then I think,
tragically, it would be acceptable, even though, honestly, it
is collective punishment. It leaves families who may not
actually be responsible for the actions of their children or
other relatives, it leaves them homeless.
It is something that is very debatable. And, as I said, the
Israeli Government itself had long stopped using that practice
and only resumed it in recent years, I would say, almost as a
matter of desperation, because they were subject to this very
deadly wave of stabbings and other forms of assault.
Ms. Bass. Is this a practice that the 200 generals are
against?
Mr. Pollock. I don't know for sure, but----
Mr. Wexler. No, I--oh, I am sorry.
Mr. Pollock [continuing]. I want to just say in connection
with that--and allow me to be very frank. With all due respect
to any group of generals or others who are well-intentioned and
smart and patriotic, here or anywhere, it is the Government of
Israel that has to make these decisions. And that government
is, like it or not, a democratically elected government. And
only a democratic election will change that government or its
policies.
Ms. Bass. I believe both of you have made reference to
settlements and saying that more settlements shouldn't be
approved. But weren't more settlements just approved in the
last couple days?
Mr. Wexler. If I may?
Obviously, I don't speak for Dr. Pollock, but, actually, I
think we have been talking on the same tune. What we have
talked about is the security fence that Israel, in my humble
opinion, rightfully built after the last round of intifada.
And, unfortunately, for political reasons, they haven't
completed the fence, but that is a whole other story.
What Dr. Pollock and I have said is, beyond that security
fence, meaning east of the security fence--and the route of the
security fence was created by the Israeli Government--that the
Israelis should stop building beyond that fence. Because, for
all practical purposes, based on an Israeli action, the
likelihood that that land would ever become a part of an
Israeli state in a negotiated outcome is probably zero percent.
So why exacerbate--why create even additional problems?
Dr. Pollock, I think, talked about a tradeoff. What he said
was, in return for the Israeli Government saying they would not
and, in fact, not building beyond the fence--he talked about a
tradeoff--then America shouldn't criticize settlement building
within the fence. And I think that is a legitimate point.
But settlements don't occur in a vacuum, or building
doesn't occur in a vacuum. You have to put all the issues
before the people. But if you did that kind of action, if the
Israelis did that kind of action, their international
legitimacy for those that are at least objective would go sky-
high. Because you wouldn't be able to just criticize the
Israeli Government in a wholehearted way without recognizing
the fact that they have taken an important initial step.
Ms. Bass. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. We go to Jeff Duncan of South Carolina.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for this
hearing.
When I think about the issues of today, I think about the
solution. And I think the solution is easy, but the political
implementation of that solution seems very, very difficult.
When I say ``solution,'' I mean the beginning of a solution.
And that is the recognition by the PA, the Palestinians, of the
Jewish state of Israel's right to exist--recognition of that
state.
When I was in Israel in 2011, I talked with Benjamin
Netanyahu and Shimon Peres and others, who said, you know, if
the Palestinians would just recognize our right to exist, it
would go a long way to getting us all to table to start
negotiating the things that the gentlemen on the panel are
talking about.
The solution is easy, but the political implementation by
the Palestinians is very difficult, and I get that. I get that.
But sometimes leadership takes making difficult decisions to
move the ball forward. So my appeal to the Palestinians today
is recognize Israel.
I am proud to stand as a Member of Congress as someone that
stands with the state of Israel and support them in any way
that I can as a Congressman and we as the Foreign Affairs
Committee and the United States Congress can--financially,
security-wise, and just verbally of standing firm in our
commitment to the state of Israel.
Mr. Chairman, this hearing is important, but it is
difficult for me today to focus on Israel and the West Bank and
the U.N. and recognition and funding after I witnessed
yesterday in my own country the FBI Director erode the very
fabric of the fabric of the foundations of the institutions of
government.
July 5, 2016, will be a day that we remember, when we saw
that the blindfold on the arbiter of the scales of justice was
ripped away. Because the scales of justice are no longer
blindfolded. Before yesterday, you were to be judged and
weighted based on the evidence. But as of yesterday, political
influence, party affiliation, race, gender, family ties, you
name it, all will factor into justice.
American needs to realize that the scales of justice wear a
blindfold for a reason. It is what sets us apart from other
countries around the world. I travel extensively through Latin
America as chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.
What sets America apart from countries in Latin America is our
impartial justice system, where the facts are weighed.
It shouldn't matter what family you were born into, your
wealth, your race, your sex. It shouldn't. And we have had an
ongoing conversation in the last few years about race and
impartiality with regard to race in the justice system. Now we
are going to have an ongoing conversation about political
aristocracy, political connections, wealth, future aspirations,
you name it--will all factor into the American judicial system
to its detriment, America.
Regardless of how you feel about individuals and individual
candidates, surely you believe in the institutions of
government.
It is a sad day for me. I can't focus on Israel and the
topics that the gentlemen on the panel were brought to
Washington to discuss. My love for Israel is clouded by my love
for the United States of America. Because without America,
without the things that we believe in, we will not have the
ability to support our allies in the region. And I hope
everyone will think about that.
And, with that, I yield back.
Chairman Royce. We go to Mr. Gerry Connolly of Virginia.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Pollock, I am picking up on your last comment about a
democratic government in Israel, and until and unless that
democratic government is changed, they make the decisions.
Surely, however, you did not mean to suggest that this
democratic elected government, as the largest supporter of
Israel, doesn't have a right to be critical when it thinks its
interests or even Israel's are at risk.
Mr. Pollock. Absolutely not. You are quite right, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Okay.
Mr. Pollock. But----
Mr. Connolly. I just wanted to clarify that. I don't mean
to cut you off, but I--because leaving it that way--I mean, we
get to be, as friends, critical.
Mr. Pollock. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. And U.S. policy is longstanding with respect
to settlement expansion and other aspects of the relationship
that have critical aspects to them as well as, of course,
longstanding support. I count myself, certainly, as an
unswerving supporter of Israel, but that doesn't mean I can't
be critical as a friend.
Mr. Pollock. Of course.
Mr. Connolly. Okay.
And you can answer this, too, if you wish, but I will put
it to, first, Congressman Wexler.
Congressman Wexler, okay, so there are problems with the
Palestinians--leadership, funneling of money, as Dr. Pollock
indicated, that, clearly, we find abhorrent.
What happens--let's defund the PA, let's close their
offices here, let's stop working with them. Would that be
welcomed by the Israeli Government, in your opinion? And would
it help the cause, the peace cause?
Mr. Wexler. It is not my opinion; it is the policy of the
Israel Government at successive stages where they were
diametrically opposed to certain steps that might have led to a
destructive position for the PA.
No one has a greater stake in the success of the
Palestinian Authority and, more importantly, a greater stake in
the bolstering of moderate forces or, at least, of the group,
the most moderate forces, than Israel. If the Palestinian
Authority crashes, one of two things is most likely to happen:
Hamas or even more extreme elements take control, or the
Israelis have to step in even with greater strength. Either
result is a disaster for Israel.
Mr. Connolly. And that is the position of the Israeli
Government.
Mr. Wexler. Sure. It has been that way through Labor
governments, Likud governments, Kadima governments, because it
is, quite frankly, so obvious. They need the Palestinian
moderate forces to be successful.
Now, some could argue, when they had that opportunity under
Prime Minister Fayyad, who was, you know, in most respects,
from an American and Israeli perspective, the best thing that
came along----
Mr. Connolly. A vary able administrator.
Mr. Wexler. That is right.
Mr. Connolly. And, as far as we know, incorruptible.
Mr. Wexler. Yes. And we didn't do enough, none of us, to
push his agenda----
Mr. Connolly. Yeah.
Mr. Wexler [continuing]. Quite frankly.
Mr. Connolly. Terrible loss, actually, when we lost him.
Dr. Pollock, do you concur?
Mr. Pollock. Yes, I do. But, as I said, I don't believe
that this is an all-or-nothing----
Mr. Connolly. Right.
Mr. Pollock [continuing]. Proposition.
Mr. Connolly. Got it. I agree. I think our choices aren't
great, and I think that is always hard for Americans. There
ought to be a very clear white-hatted choice and a----
Mr. Pollock. Right.
Mr. Connolly [continuing]. Bad, black-hatted choice. We are
between a rock and a hard place, but, absent the PA, probably
either the Israelis have to step in and actually run everything
in the West Bank administratively, in terms of local government
services, or Hamas gains control of the West Bank, which is not
a desirable outcome.
Mr. Pollock. What I mean specifically is that a reduction--
not a cutoff, a reduction----
Mr. Connolly. Yeah.
Mr. Pollock [continuing]. In U.S. and other funding for the
PA----
Mr. Connolly. Right. I didn't mean to even suggest you were
saying that. But they have been calls here, even on this
committee, for a total cutoff and close the----
Mr. Pollock. No. I think that would be a mistake.
Mr. Connolly. Okay.
A final thing, real quickly. Mr. Wexler, you made reference
to 200 generals, Mossad leaders, Shin Bet leaders, who have
expressed deep concern about the current government in Israel,
Netanyahu, and Israel's security. Do you want to elaborate a
little bit on that? What is going on?
Mr. Wexler. Yeah. I don't want to politicize this
needlessly. Their concern is not addressed about the
government. Their concern is about the policy. Their concern--
these are generals. For the most part, almost all of them are
not politicians. And what they have put forth is a multifaceted
set of policies that will help address the security quagmire
that Israel finds itself in.
The first assumption they make, quite frankly, is that the
question of whether or not there is a genuine partner for peace
for Israel, they don't care about it. Not because they don't
want there to be a genuine partner. What they are saying is, if
we wait forever for Abbas or his successors to do the right
thing, in the meantime we are going to be compromised; our
interests, Israeli interests, are going to be compromised.
So what they are saying to their own government, to their
own people is: These are the 12, 18 steps we could take on our
own, because, thank goodness, we are strong enough, and will
enhance our position rather than detract from it. That is what
they are saying.
It is not a condemnation or an applause for the government.
What they are saying is the status quo, the way it remains, if
we do nothing, we will actually compromise Israel's Jewishness,
its Jewish majority; its democratic nature is in question, and
its international standing is constantly badgered.
Now, for a lot of reasons, that badgering and that
criticism is totally illegitimate. But what these security
commanders are saying is, if we are going to be strategic,
let's at least put forth an international position that allows
us to enhance our international relationships, as opposed to
constantly being on the defensive.
Chairman Royce. We are going to go to Randy Weber of Texas.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Pollock, I have to say, this is the first hearing I
have been at where the first witness said, as I see it, our
primary task here is not to debate the underlying issues of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict or U.S. policy in that regard. I
thought the hearing was over, at that point. That is an
interesting thought.
And then you go on and you say--and that is exactly what we
have been doing, by the way, in my opinion. We are debating
those underlying issues and how we got here and how those need
to change.
Then you go on and you lay out five proposals. And your
fifth and final proposal is that the U.S. should publicly
support and very vocally encourage others to endorse what we
call mutual imbalance--I thought that was a news station, i
didn't know; or that is ``fair and balanced,'' isn't it?--but,
if necessary, unilateral steps toward peaceful coexistence.
And then you talk about the Israelis stopping the
destruction of--destroying buildings of those who perpetrate
such violence on innocent men, women, and children.
And you don't say in your comments--and I followed you
fairly closely--you don't say in your comments anything about
there being unilateral action, perhaps, on the Palestinian
side.
And so is it totally out of--I mean, is it just totally out
in left field and unrealistic to say, how about some unilateral
action on their side? They stop indoctrinating their children--
I will give you four examples. Then I will give you a chance to
respond.
Stop indoctrinating their children with the message of
hate. Quit calling the Jewish people dogs and apes and animals
and then trying to kill them as such. Kick out Hamas. Recognize
Israel's right to exist, number three. And, fourth and finally,
stop funding the terrorism and those that are in jail.
Is there no call for the Palestinians to have any
unilateral responsibility, Dr. Pollock?
Mr. Pollock. Thank you for the question.
I actually think that I made that call, both in my written
statement and in my remarks. I said specifically in my
remarks--perhaps you weren't here in the room--that the PA
should stop referring to murderers----
Mr. Weber. Well, I am reading your fifth----
Mr. Pollock [continuing]. As martyrs.
Mr. Weber [continuing]. Point basically says that about
Israel. It doesn't say it in this context. So if I missed it, I
apologize.
Mr. Pollock. I think you did miss it, sir, yes. And I
accept your apology.
But what I would like to say in response is that, if you
look at my written statement, you will see a long list of
unilateral moves that Israel could take and that the
Palestinians could and should take, including not referring to
murderers as martyrs and recognizing Israel as a Jewish state.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Fair enough.
Do you agree with that, Mr. Wexler, that the Palestinians
should be called upon initially to stop the violence from their
end?
Mr. Wexler. Yeah, 100 percent. You had me totally,
Congressman Weber, until you said kick out Hamas. I agreed with
every word you said. That may trouble you, but I agreed with
every word you said.
Mr. Weber. Your agreeing with me or the not agreeing with
kick out Hamas?
Mr. Wexler. No, I am all----
Mr. Weber. That is the part that troubles me.
Mr. Wexler. I am all for kicking out Hamas, but we need to
understand the reality. The reality is the PA doesn't have an
army. The reality is the strongest army in the region, thank
goodness, is the Israeli Army. They haven't been able to kick
out Hamas, unfortunately.
So when we say kick out Hamas and you say the PA should
doing that, with what weapons? They don't have them. Now, I
don't want to give them the kind of weapons that would be
required to kick out Hamas.
But what we also respectfully need to understand, as much
as you disdain Hamas, hate Hamas, as much as I disdain them and
hate them, as much as the Israelis disdain them and hate them,
Abbas hates them even more than you and me.
Mr. Weber. So this is the lesser of two evils? Is that like
the bumper sticker that says, ``Have you hugged your terrorist
today?''
Mr. Wexler. No.
Mr. Weber. I mean----
Mr. Wexler. No. No. I wouldn't go that far. Hamas is a
despicable terrorist organization that is designed to destroy
the state of Israel. If I could stamp them out tomorrow, if I
had the power to do it, I would do it.
Mr. Weber. So if it is not destroying the buildings whereby
the perpetrators live in and people get to understand--if you
want the force and you don't have the military weapons, you
have to have the public understand, number one, you don't teach
hatred; number two, those who perpetrate such acts of violence
will be dealt with immediately and in a very decisive fashion.
Is that wrong?
Mr. Wexler. No. You are right. But here is the problem.
Every 2 years--I used to do it too--we would run commercials
and send out leaflets. I imagine in November you will send
out--in October, you will send out a whole bunch of stuff, what
Congressman Weber has achieved these last 2 years.
So if you are a Palestinian and you are taking a look as
to, well, which brand of leadership am I in favor of--Abbas'
leadership? He talks about negotiating or--even though he
doesn't do it--he talks about a peaceful resistance. And the
Palestinian people look at it, even if they are inclined to
believe, and they say, what has that bought me for the last 30
years? They don't like it. Whether they are right or wrong, I
don't know, but they don't like it.
They look at Hamas and their absolutely atrocious
behavior--guess who causes the Israeli Government to make a
prisoner swap where they give up thousands for two? Hamas, not
the Palestinian Authority. So, unfortunately, what the
Palestinian Authority see is they see that this terrorist
group, in certain ways, from their completely distorted,
horrific logic, is more effective in representing their
interests than the more moderate Palestinian leadership.
What we have to do, respectfully, is encourage our
friends--Israelis, Arabs, everybody, and Palestinians--to
support and bolster the moderate strain so that they have a
commercial to run.
Chairman Royce. We will go to----
Mr. Weber. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back.
Chairman Royce. We will go to Lois Frankel of Florida.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for this
hearing.
And one of the things I have always been grateful, in terms
of this Congress, which is often at each other's throats on
both sides, is the bipartisan spirit and support of Israel and
peace for both Israel and the Palestinians, which is what we
are here to talk about today.
You know, I wasn't going to raise this, but one of my
colleagues made such a dramatic statement about his
disappointment about something that happened yesterday. I
agree, in this regard. There was something that happened
yesterday that really appalled me, but it is not the same thing
that appalled him. One of our Presidential candidates--you can
just fill in the blank--praised the late Iraq dictator, Saddam
Hussein. He said, ``You know what he did well? He killed
terrorists. They didn't read them their rights. They didn't
talk. If they were a terrorist, it was over.''
Now, as I recall--and, Mr. Chair, I would ask unanimous
consent to have this article put into the record.
I want to just read from an article dated April 3, 2002,
CBS News. It says,
``Iraq President Saddam Hussein has raised the amount
offered to the relatives of suicide bombers from
$10,000 per family to $25,000, U.S. Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld said Wednesday. Since Iraq upped its
payments last month, 12 suicide bombers have
successfully struck inside Israel, including one man
who killed 25 Israelis, many of them elderly, as they
sat down to a meal at a hotel to celebrate the Jewish
holiday of Passover. The families of three suicide
bombers said they recently received payments of
$25,000.''
So, just for the record, yes, something that I think was
disgraceful to American values was any Presidential candidate
who would praise Saddam Hussein.
Now, with that said, I am going to ask a question, not on
that subject.
Mr. Wexler, I have been very long interested in your
analysis of the demographics in the region. And I am told that
you did talk about that earlier in your testimony. So my
question to you is--and maybe you can just repeat some of that
for me--is, what is the incentive for the Palestinians really
to not just wait?
Mr. Wexler. Thank you, Congresswoman Frankel.
This is part of the problem. Time is arguably on the
Palestinian side, not on the Israeli side.
If you boil this conflict down--and I don't mean to be
simplistic, but--there are three major components, essentially,
at least from an Israeli perspective: Land, democracy, and
Jewish majority.
The unfortunate reality is Israel gets to pick two of those
three. They don't get to pick three. If they take all the land
from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, if they take a
great bulk of the West Bank, they are going to either lose
their Jewish majority or their democratic nature, which for
most of us would be tragic.
So Israel has to choose between two of those three
categories. And what the commanders are choosing, what I hope
our allies would help create a dynamic in which Israel feels
secure enough, strong enough to choose, is a resolution in
which their Jewish nature is assured, their democratic nature
is assured, and that they get international borders finally.
Israel does not have internationally recognized borders.
They need internationally recognized borders that are, in fact,
defensible. And that is what the Israeli security establishment
is so concerned about. They want to get about the job of
protecting Israel. But today that job is so much more difficult
because Israel doesn't have internationally recognized borders.
And the key component is to create them so that Israel can
maintain its Jewish majority and its democratic nature.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you.
Chairman Royce. We go now to Scott Perry of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to drag this hearing back to what I thought it
was about, which is financially rewarding terrorism in the West
Bank and with an eye toward that.
The U.S. policy toward the Palestinians consists of three
end goals: To establish a stable--I am just reading them--
lasting and peaceful end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
through direct bilateral negotiations, that is one; two, to
counter Palestinian terrorist groups; and, three, to establish
norms of democracy, accountability, and good governance.
Now, the U.S. funding of the United Nations Relief and
Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East, or
UNRWA, as we usually call it, runs counter to every single one
of these three policy goals. UNRWA's ties to what I
characterize and what many of us characterize as a terrorist
organization, Hamas, both threaten bilateral negotiations and
undermine U.S. efforts to counter Palestinian terrorist groups.
Since 2006, Hamas-affiliated candidates have held all 11
seats on the UNRWA teachers' union executive board. UNRWA
schools use textbooks and materials that delegitimize Israel,
denigrate Jews, and venerate martyrdom. These materials work to
indoctrinate the Palestinian youth, making them susceptible to
radical militant groups such as Hamas.
The unfortunate yet foreseeable result of this curriculum
can be seen in an April 2016 poll that found that 78.6 percent
of the youth in Gaza and 46.4 percent of the youth in the West
Bank support the Knife Intifada. Furthermore, 76 percent of the
terrorists taking part in the Knife Intifada were under the age
of 30. Now, UNRWA's education system seems to have created a
large pool of indoctrinated youth hellbent on attacking
Israelis.
UNRWA's employees are screened for ties to terrorism, but
the vetting system, believe it or not, focuses on things like
al-Qaeda or the Taliban but does not focus on Hamas or
Hezbollah. It is crazy. Ninety-five-point-five percent of
Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza believe the Palestinian
Authority is corrupt, and 82 percent of Gazans believe Hamas is
corrupt. Yet UNRWA effectively works as a support service for
both of these organizations, taking care of basic government
services. This, in effect, subsidizes with American dollars
these groups' corrupt and oftentimes terroristic activities.
The total annual budget for the United Nations Relief and
Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East, or
UNRWA, for Fiscal Year 2015 was $1,246,802,614. And since its
inception in 1950, the United States has contributed more than
$5.6 billion to the agency, more than any other single nation.
And in Fiscal Year 2015, the United States contributed $390.5
million, making up 31 percent of the agency's budget.
Do any of you fine gentlemen on the panel object to my
legislation, which would prevent U.S. taxpayers from continuing
to fund this agency?
Mr. Wexler. I don't know if I object or I support it. I
certainly support the intention. But, if I may, let's say you
pass your legislation, let's say it is implemented and UNRWA
and Gaza closes up----
Mr. Perry. It doesn't close up; we just don't fund it
anymore.
Mr. Wexler. Well----
Mr. Perry. My tax dollars, your tax dollars, their tax
dollars don't fund it anymore.
Mr. Wexler. I get it. And we pay a disproportionate amount
of UNRWA dollars based on the U.N. formula. So when your
legislation is successful and UNRWA no longer can implement the
programs it implements in Gaza, the ones you are objecting to,
rightfully so, who is going to run the sewer plant, the one
that is already pushing sewage into the sea that not only
destroys the Palestinian coast but the Israeli coast? What are
those children going to do----
Mr. Perry. I guess somebody is going to have to make a
decision on what their priorities are.
Mr. Wexler. Okay. All right. All right.
Mr. Perry. I say that a dirty sea and sewage is bad, but it
is better than people being stabbed, blown up, rocketed, et
cetera.
Mr. Wexler. Totally agree with you.
Mr. Perry. Okay.
Mr. Wexler. But let's also be realistic. The people with
the knives, thank goodness, are not coming from Gaza. Gaza is
essentially walled off to Israel. The people with the knives
are coming from the West Bank. So what you do in Gaza is not
going to prevent the people with the knives.
If you want to prevent the people with the knives, I would
respectfully suggest the Israeli Government should complete the
security fence and create borders that----
Mr. Perry. That is what they can do. But what we can do is
stop funding the training camps that would be described as our
elementary schools, our daycares, our middle schools, right?
Mr. Wexler. Yes.
Mr. Perry. We are funding that.
Mr. Wexler. And I am deeply troubled by it.
Mr. Perry. Troubled?
Mr. Wexler. Yeah.
Mr. Perry. You got to be more than--with all due respect,
sir----
Mr. Wexler. Yes.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. We are all troubled, right? We are
talking about action here. This hearing is about the funding of
terrorism----
Mr. Wexler. Yes.
Mr. Perry [continuing]. Taxpayer funding, and that is why I
asked the question.
Mr. Wexler. That is right. Yes.
Mr. Perry. So while we talk about platitudes here and we
are all troubled--and we all are, rightfully so, yourself
included--we have an opportunity here to do something.
Mr. Wexler. And all I would suggest is, if you are going to
do that--which, obviously, your bill stands for that--then at
least have round two figured out on how you are going to
achieve your purpose, which is minimize terrorism, not enhance
it.
So, yes, if you are taking that first step, which may be
very legitimate, figure out step two, which is, as the
followup, how are you actually reducing terrorism as opposed to
creating an even greater incentive.
Mr. Perry. With all due respect, sir, I hear what you are
saying, but the policy that comes to--and I thank your
indulgence, Mr. Chairman--what I see as appeasement at some
point, that it is my duty, that it is my duty to figure out how
to solve that problem or I must pay some blood money,
extortion, seems counterintuitive to every moral code that I
have ever followed in my life.
Mr. Wexler. And, if I may, I couldn't agree with you more.
And I would just respectfully suggest that, before you reach
your ultimate conclusion, you sit down with our Egyptian allies
and our Israeli allies and our Jordanian allies and ask them
what their suggestions would be for round two to make sure you
don't make the----
Mr. Perry. Maybe round one can be a forcing function.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Royce. Okay.
Mark Meadows from North Carolina.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
holding this hearing. As you know, this is a passionate area
for me, having cosponsored legislation that suggests that we
should close the PLO office here in Washington, DC, as long as
they continue to fund terrorists who commit these kinds of
acts.
So, Mr. Wexler, you know, you have come up with a lot of
suggestions on what the Israelis should do. Do you not think it
would be a prudent call to close the PLO office here in
Washington, DC, as long as we are paying terrorists to commit
terrorist acts?
Mr. Wexler. Principally----
Mr. Meadows. Just yes or no.
Mr. Wexler. No, it is not that simple.
Mr. Meadows. It is that simple. Let me tell you----
Mr. Wexler. No, it isn't.
Mr. Meadows. Let me tell you why the problem is.
Mr. Wexler. Yeah.
Mr. Meadows. I have five Jewish young girls over here who
don't understand. I don't understand why we can't close a PLO
office when I was told by the Ambassador that they were not
going to fund terrorist activities anymore. And all they did
was moved it from the PLA to the PLO.
And so what we are doing is we are continuing to do it. We
need to close that office. We need to make sure that what
happens is at least we send a message. If we can't close an
office, then we certainly cannot be serious about addressing
this issue.
Mr. Wexler. Then close it. And----
Mr. Meadows. Why would you not support that?
Mr. Wexler. Because my fear--my fear is that when we take
actions like the one you are describing, which are totally
justifiable based on the facts of what is occurring, that, in
effect, we are rewarding the terrorist inclinations amongst
their society as opposed to the more pragmatic ones.
Mr. Meadows. But based on----
Mr. Wexler. Remember--hold on.
Mr. Meadows. But based on that, based on that, your whole
philosophy is a philosophy of appeasement.
Mr. Wexler. No.
Mr. Meadows. Historically, that has never worked.
Mr. Wexler. Not fair, sir. My philosophy----
Mr. Meadows. Well, it is fair, because what you are saying
is we can't even close an office.
Mr. Wexler. My philosophy is the philosophy of the Mossad.
My philosophy is the philosophy of the Shin Bet----
Mr. Meadows. All right. But----
Mr. Wexler [continuing]. The roughest Israeli fighters.
Mr. Meadows. Mr. Wexler, let me come back.
Mr. Wexler. Who is----
Mr. Meadows. Hold on. It is my time.
Mr. Wexler. You are correct.
Mr. Meadows. So let me come back. Because I was on the
ground in Israel when the latest round of stabbings occurred.
And for you to sit here and suggest that somehow this is a
goodwill tour, that the Israelis are going to be viewed in a
positive light if they just give a little bit more--I was there
when Western papers were talking about how it was the Jewish
boy's fault that he was stabbed and not the Palestinian. I was
there when he was doing the ISIS sign from his hospital bed,
when they said that the Israelis had killed him, which was not
the fact. I was there on the ground.
And so to suggest that somehow building a wall will fix
this problem? I can tell you, if the Israeli Government felt
like building a wall will bring peace, it would be built
quicker than any wall you could ever see. But that will not do
it because you and I both know that the Palestinians go back
and forth between those walls.
I was in a courtroom----
Mr. Wexler. Sir----
Mr. Meadows. I was in a courtroom where I had a Hamas
attorney with Palestinian youth that were prideful of the fact
that they had committed these atrocities, as if they had won a
spelling bee. How do we change that?
Mr. Wexler. With all due respect, Israel was suffering from
suicide bombs every week, blowing themselves up left and right,
under Prime Minister Sharon. What was his primary response? He
built the wall that was highly controversial internationally--
the Palestinians opposed to it, most of the international
operators opposed to it. But Sharon went and built the wall.
And guess what? Israel, to the degree--again, it is relative--
defeated the intifada, in great part because of that wall.
So, with all due respect----
Mr. Meadows. Well, with all due respect----
Mr. Wexler [continuing]. You can't say a wall won't help.
It does help----
Mr. Meadows. No, no.
Mr. Wexler [continuing]. Greatly. In fact----
Mr. Meadows. I didn't say it wouldn't help. What I said, it
would not solve the problem.
Mr. Wexler. You are correct. It won't.
Mr. Meadows. Those were my exact words.
Mr. Wexler. It won't solve the problem.
Mr. Meadows. And what I am here today to say is, if we
can't take minor steps like closing a PLO office, then what are
we supposed to tell the generations to come? That we would not
even take small, diplomatic--I mean, we are not talking about
cutting off their funds. All we are saying is they can't have
an office here in Washington, DC. Does that not seem like a
reasonable compromise?
Mr. Wexler. It is. It is reasonable.
Mr. Meadows. Then why don't you support it?
Mr. Wexler. Because I would just simply ask the question,
the day after you close it, have you benefited Hamas and the
more extreme elements, or have you changed the behavior and
sent a message?
Mr. Meadows. Well, we know that what we have been doing
didn't work. We know that they continue to pay terrorists. At
what point do we change our philosophy to figure out if some
new strategy would work?
I will yield back.
Chairman Royce. Okay. We go to Mr. Brad Sherman of
California.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
Rob, welcome back. You may be having more fun in that seat
than you had in the seats on this side.
It has been suggested that maybe we should have a change in
American policy and we should have an American President who
declares that we are neutral between Israel and its enemies and
that the upside of that would be that somehow that neutral
President would be able to create peace just by convening a
meeting.
What are the dangers of the United States declaring that we
are neutral but available to have discussions between Israel
and its enemies?
And if the United States was not a stalwart friend of
Israel, would Panama be the most powerful nation that Israel
could count on as a stalwart friend, or would there be some
other nation that would rise to the top as being on Israel's
side?
Mr. Wexler. I think you raise a very valid point.
Neutrality by the United States with respect to Israel and its
neighbors would be catastrophic. It would be catastrophic for
Israel, it would be catastrophic for America.
Quite frankly, I have never understood the term ``honest
broker.'' I don't understand why we Americans would ever even
suggest that Americais an honest broker. We are a strong ally
of Israel because of shared values, because of democratic
values, because of a whole host of moral, ethical, common ties.
And the fact that Israel is our closest ally in the Middle
East, it would be catastrophic if the world perceived that we
moved even slightly away from that very strong position.
And what is even stronger is events like what occurred 2
weeks ago, where the Israeli military establishment--I think
they were in Texas, or I forget where--where the F-35 Strike
Fighter plane was delivered effectively to Israel, rightfully
so. And they are the only country in the region that has that
next-generation American technology.
That sends the right message both to Israel's opponents and
also to our other allies in the region, our Arab allies and
elsewise, to encourage them to engage more substantially with
Israel.
Mr. Sherman. I would point out that Israel does not lack
for honest brokers. Every former Prime Minister of Britain has
offered himself as an honest broker, not to mention everyone
who imagines themselves winning an Nobel Peace Prize. There is
no shortage of honest brokers. Israel does have a shortage of
stalwart friends, which is why if we were not among them I
hesitate to think who would be at the top of the list.
The Israeli Ministry of Education and the municipality of
Jerusalem now allow new versions of the Palestinian textbooks
to be used in East Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority has
claimed that they are taking out of those textbooks incitements
to violence.
Have they achieved this with regard to these new textbooks,
both for those being used in Jerusalem and those being used in
the West Bank and Gaza?
Mr. Wexler?
Mr. Wexler. My understanding is that, unfortunately, they
have not achieved any dramatic reduction in the incitement
contained in the textbooks. My understanding is there have been
certain changes made that are moving in the right direction,
but I don't think anyone here would categorize those as even
nearly sufficient enough.
Mr. Sherman. And I would point out that we could reduce the
amount of money we give the Palestinian Authority and give them
textbooks, in which case we would make sure that there would be
no incitement in those textbooks.
I will ask the other two witnesses, are you familiar with
these textbooks, the new version, and how would you apprise
them?
Mr. Carmon?
Mr. Carmon. We are working on this, and we will publish a
report about the new textbook.
Mr. Sherman. Can you give us a preview? It will help sales.
Go on.
Mr. Carmon. The previous one was simply the textbooks of
the Palestinian Authority and Jordan, a mixture of both.
Unfortunately, the Israeli Government turned a blind eye to all
that, and now it is changing its position.
But, you know, when Abbas declares the prisoners are our
top priority, this is a message. The money is not coming as
some social welfare. It is ideological money. It conveys a
message that the fight is the top priority, even though we are
not doing it for now. But it is in violation of Oslo, and from
Oslo they got the recognition from all the other nations. So I
don't expect----
Mr. Sherman. I will just point out, if you give the PA
cash, you don't know how they will spend it. If you give them
textbooks, we at least know that they can't be misused. Whether
they will be actually used, I don't know.
And, Mr. Chairman, I believe my time has expired.
Chairman Royce. Your time has expired, but I must confess
that is a good idea, to supplant the textbooks with the funding
and other forms of education.
Let me go then to Mr. Ted Yoho of Florida. Thank you.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I appreciate the panel being here.
And I think that is good idea, to follow up on textbooks.
Let's see. The meeting today was ``Financially Rewarding
Terrorism in the West Bank.'' And that is exactly what we see
with the Palestinian Authority. I have been here for 3\1/2\
years, and it amazes me--because we talk about this--that we
are rewarding terrorist activities.
We put in a resolution a year and a half ago, Resolution
542, that would cease and stop all payments to the Palestinian
Authority until they stopped doing what they are doing.
And, you know, I have heard the arguments on both sides of
this. ``If we stop this, it will open up a vacuum; that vacuum
will get filled by worse players.'' For 3\1/2\ years, I have
sat here and watched this discussion, and since 2008 we have
given approximately $500 million a year to the Palestinian
Authority in the name of peace. The American people are being
sold that we are giving this foreign aid to the Palestinian
Authority in the name of peace--$4 billion, $4 billion of my
money, of everybody sitting here's money.
Every person in America has paid $4 billion in the name of
peace, yet the Palestinian Authority, through their own laws,
which I find--they have a National Palestinian Fund. And it
goes on to say, ``Financial support for prisoners is anchored
in a series of laws and government decrees. The prisoners are
described as a fighting sector. The financial rights''--the
financial rights--``of the prisoner and his family must be
assured.'' ``The financial rights of the prisoner and his
family must be assured.''
It also stated that the PA will provide allowance to every
prisoner without discrimination. Well, I am glad to see they
don't discriminate. According to the law, the PA must--must--
provide prisoners with a monthly allowance during their
incarceration and salaries or jobs upon release. They are also
entitled to exemptions from payments for education, health
care, and professional training.
Years of imprisonment are calculated as years of seniority
of service in PA institutions. Whoever is in prison for 5 years
or more is entitled to a job in the PA institution. The PA
gives priority in job placement to people who were involved in
terrorist activities.
Does this sound like a policy to bring peace? Does anybody
want to just make a quick comment? Because I want to go on.
Mr. Wexler.
Mr. Wexler. The payments to the terrorists and their
families are indefensible. A policy for peace, though, is also
what we have done relatively successfully in terms of training
Palestinian security forces, which today are the forces that
work with the Israeli Government to maintain a greater degree
of security in the West Bank.
Mr. Yoho. Okay. I hear that. And when we put in this
resolution, we got some blow-back from the Jewish community
saying this would be terrible, it would increase more violence.
And it reminds me of that essay that was written--I am sure
you guys have heard of it--``The Sheep, the Wolves, and the
Sheepdogs.'' It was written by a retired Army lieutenant
colonel, David Grossman. And they said there is a certain
amount of risk that people are willing to live with. And when
the sheep knows his enemy is the wolf, they will huddle to one
side of the pasture because they understand there is a certain
amount of risk. They are not going to get everybody. But they
will live with that. But when you introduce an unknown, the
sheepdog, the sheep don't understand that it is there to
protect them, so they run over to the wolf, their known enemy.
And I think that we have a situation here that we know that
we are giving money in the name of peace. We have a history of
doing that. And it is not working. And the unknown is what
happens if we remove that.
And I want to build on what my colleague Mr. Perry said,
that I think it would change people's focus and they would have
to pivot and say, you know what, the Americans are playing
hardball--I don't want to say ``hardball,'' but very discrete,
or very direct, and say, if these policies continue, we are
done.
You know, the textbooks, as Mr. Sherman brought up, I have
heard that for 3 years. We are funding hatred. We are funding
terrorism. And I think if we, as Americans, as the government,
come out strongly and say our new policy is this, you need to
make adjustments in the Palestinian Authority and in Israel,
because we are not going to tolerate this anymore.
You know, I don't need to remind anybody in here, our
Government is struggling financially. To spend $6 billion in
the name of peace, when we can't pay our own veterans and we
can't do things here, I think is unconscionable. And I will not
support any money going to the Palestinian Authority.
Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
We go now to Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Boyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as I have said
previously, the way that you and Mr. Engel lead this committee
on issues as they relate to Israel's security is admirable and
reflects the best spirit of bipartisanship when it comes to
foreign affairs for the United States.
Just in reflecting on what has been going on recently, the
300 or so wounded, the 30 Israelis that have been killed in
these knifing attacks, what has been going on now is
essentially the slow-motion intifada that, unfortunately, has
not gotten as much attention around the world as it should.
And I think that a real turning point was clearly the--
everyone talks about Camp David that succeeded in the late
seventies. But, really, you could say the one that had the more
effect was the failed Camp David attempt in 2000, which was
building up to be the culmination of the Oslo process and a
two-state solution, recognition on both sides, and resolving
most of the outstanding issues.
And when Yasser Arafat walked away from that and went back
to Ramallah and launched the intifada, it has led exactly to
where we are today in 2016, 16 years later. And so many people
have lost their lives and been wounded.
And so now here we are, in the West and especially the
United States, trying to get the parties back to an agreement
that, if you read, say, Dennis Ross' account of it or even Bill
Clinton's autobiography, it is pretty clear that, whether it be
next year or 20 years from now, we are probably going to get a
final resolution that looks a lot more like the 2000 Camp David
attempt than not.
So, in terms of getting back to that and how we get back on
track and recognizing the current configuration of the Israeli
Government and an 85-year-old Mahmoud Abbas who is seemingly
not interested in peace at all, I want to return to something
that was discussed earlier, and that is the Arab Peace
Initiative. Because one advantage of the whole--wherever anyone
stood on the Iranian deal, one unexpected, positive, unintended
consequence was greater cooperation between Israel and its Arab
neighbors.
Could that be the genesis of a renewed Arab-led peace
initiative that would put pressure on the Palestinian
leadership to finally come to the table? For any of you.
Dr. Pollock? And then we can go down the table.
Mr. Pollock. All right, thank you. Thank you for the
question.
I would start by saying I hope so but I am skeptical. I
think it would be in the interest of Arab governments to do
exactly what you suggest, but I think that they don't see it
that way. They see it, unfortunately, as risky, at least in the
short term, and----
Mr. Boyle. Internally risky----
Mr. Pollock. Yes.
Mr. Boyle [continuing]. With their own domestic political
situation?
Mr. Pollock. Yes, internally risky. And probably they also
see it as risky internationally, in the sense of they are not
sure what they would get for pushing the Palestinians back to
the table, either from Israel, from the United States, from the
international community, and so on.
And so I think that, without getting our hopes up too high,
it would be worth trying--as I suggested in my written
statement and briefly in my testimony today, it would be worth
it for the United States to try to explore with some of our
Arab allies under what conditions and with what expectations
and for what returns they would be willing to do exactly what
you suggested, put pressure on the Palestinians to go back to
the table.
There was some sense that I had that President Sisi of
Egypt, for example, about a month or so ago was preparing to do
that, and then he seemed to stop because his sense of possible
changes in the Israeli Government did not materialize.
Today, as I said in my comments earlier, unfortunately,
some Arab governments that were more flexible about this 2 or 3
years ago have walked that back. And you now have, for example,
the Saudi Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir, stating in Paris,
where he shouldn't have been in the first place, for that ill-
advised so-called peace conference, stating that the Arab Peace
Initiative was unchangeable, that they would not negotiate any
amendments to it or show any flexibility about it.
That, as I said, is walking back a previous position. But
if you walk it back in the wrong direction, maybe, just maybe,
the United States can encourage the Saudis or other Arab
governments to walk back the walk-back in the right direction,
which would mean offering Israel a peace initiative to
negotiate, not to impose.
Mr. Boyle. Mr. Carmon?
Mr. Carmon. So thank you for this question because it is a
crucial one. What holds back the peace process or the chances
to move ahead? The Arab peace plan, in its original form when
the Saudis suggested it, did not include the right of return,
which is a non-starter. Later, in a meeting of the Arab League,
it was included and, thus, became the Arab peace plan.
With the right of return, of course, nothing can happen.
And if it is unchangeable, then there is no change in the Arab
position. Only with a change on this point can there be
anything moving ahead.
And this is also the position of Abbas. Why everything
stopped? Because he insists on the right of return. When Prime
Minister Olmert suggested 100 percent of the territory through
swap of land, what remained there to be holding it back? Only
the demand for the right of return.
So, unfortunately, the Arab peace plan is a non-starter as
long as it is unchangeable. And the tragedy of it is that the
Saudi Foreign Minister said it, while the Saudis, who initiated
it--and, in their initial suggestion, it did not include the
right of return.
Mr. Wexler. If I may, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Royce. Mr. Wexler.
Mr. Wexler. I think the proper construct is this. And your
point is excellent. From 1948 until the Israeli-Egyptian Peace
Treaty, the entire focus of the region was regional war against
Israel. When Israel made peace with Egypt, the prospect of
regional war diminished substantially. When Jordan and Israel
made peace in 1993-1994, the likelihood of regional war
essentially was extinguished.
With the Arab Peace Initiative, I think both Dr. Pollock
and Mr. Carmon are correct, but I don't think that should be
the ultimate message. Yes, skepticism; yes, look at the fine
print, and it is not where it needs to be. But with the advent
of the Arab Peace Initiative, we went from the reality of
regional war against Israel to the prospect--in its infancy,
admittedly--the prospect of regional peace.
Now, where I would beg to differ with Mr. Carmon is, in
looking at the language of the right of return in the Arab
Peace Initiative, is it where Israel would need it to be to
ultimately agree? Of course not. But the actual language is
``just and agreed.'' And the Arab position--and I am not
suggesting we accept it, but the Arab position is that, by
adding the word ``agreed,'' they were recognizing that there
would be no right of return unless Israel agreed. And, of
course, Israel would never agree to hundreds of thousands of
Palestinians coming into Israel, so, therefore, they were
making a concession.
Whether it is true or not is not the point. The point is it
is an opening. It is an opening that should be explored.
And, with all due respect, saying that we know that the
Arab Peace Initiative is not amendable or not changeable--well,
we know it is, because they came a year and a half ago or 2
years ago and made a change, in terms of they went from ``1967
lines'' to ``1967 lines with limited territorial swaps.''
Again, not where the Israelis need to be, but movement in the
correct direction.
Chairman Royce. Okay. Mr. Ron DeSantis of Florida is next.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses.
This is really a frustrating issue because we have been
raising it time and time again, and I really appreciate, Mr.
Carmon, your testimony laying it out. These are huge payments
that are going to Palestinian terrorists. When you start
talking about people who have committed really heinous acts and
they are raking in $3,100 a month, for a Palestinian Arab, that
has to be better than 99 percent of the people who don't have
access, who don't own an oil field in the whole Middle East. So
that is major, major money.
And what that evidences is an unambiguous policy to promote
terrorism. It is really no different than what this committee
rightfully will criticize the Government of Iran for doing,
sponsoring terrorism. And this Congress has responded to that
with sanctions in a variety of contexts to counteract Iran's
policy of support for terrorism. And we really have something
similar here, and I think we need to act to try to change the
policy.
Mr. Carmon, you made the point, in 2014 there was the
policy change, that these payments no longer came from the
Palestinian Authority and they are done from the PLO. Why did
they make that change?
Mr. Carmon. It was under the pressure of donor countries.
Mr. DeSantis. Because the donor countries don't want to be
accused of funding the payments to terrorism.
Mr. Carmon. Absolutely.
Mr. DeSantis. However, money is fungible. There is a
certain amount of things they have to do. So if you then say
the terror payments will come out of the PLO, that just means
that some of the money that the PA is getting will go to other
things. If that money was removed, because you are still
funding terrorists and you are still paying them, then they
would have to make decisions.
And so I don't think that any of these countries can have a
clear conscience simply because they have kind of shuffled the
deck chairs around a little bit and are saying, well, no, it is
actually not from the PA. This is all being worked together.
And I think that this is one example, but correct me if I'm
wrong--I think your organization has reported on this. Doesn't
the Palestinian Authority lionize terrorists by doing things
like naming parks and sports stadiums after them?
Mr. Carmon. Definitely. The message is respect--
legitimatization, respect, and even hero-ization of those who
are involved in these acts.
Mr. DeSantis. And I also note, I know there are varying
views of Mr. Abbas on this panel for sure, on the Foreign
Affairs Committee, but this is a guy whose dissertation was in
Holocaust denial. And you can say that he is not as bad as some
of the other guys, like Hamas or whatever, but this is not
necessarily somebody who is a full-fledged supporter of a
lasting peace.
And I think incitement has really become endemic to this
culture. You look at not only the textbook, some of the
programming, and the viciousness with which they attack Jews,
particularly Israeli Jews, but people that are different from
them, I think is just absolutely horrifying.
And I was very, very disgusted to see, after this Tel Aviv
attack in June, brutal attack at this cafe, you had people in
the Gaza Strip, Palestinian Arabs, and in the West Bank, they
were cheering that. Isn't that correct, Mr. Carmon? That was
cause for celebration?
Mr. Carmon. There was, yes.
Mr. DeSantis. So I appreciate a lot of the comments that we
have heard. I know there is this complicated issue, there are a
lot of things. But, to me, the overriding problem is the
behavior of not just the Palestinian Authority or Hamas per se,
but really the majority impulse in the culture is one that
simply does not recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish
state and really doesn't seek a two-state solution, to the
extent they want that as something for a lasting peace, but
really as one step in the direction to ultimately seek Israel's
destruction.
And until those underlying dynamics change, I don't think
you are going to see a lot of possibility to--because here is
the thing. There is difference of opinion in Israel, but the
Israeli population has showed time and time again they are
willing to make very significant concessions to achieve a
lasting peace. And I have no doubt about that. And I know
people can criticize this policy or that policy coming out of
the government. But that is just, to me, unquestioned. It is
not even close that the Palestinian Arabs have demonstrated
that in any type of broad sense.
So here we are with the funding issue. I don't think we can
allow tax dollars to be going to this entity knowing that they
are working in cahoots with the PLO and that these payments are
being made. Not only is it when you subsidize something, you
are going to get more of terrorism, but it is also just the
moral blot of any entity that wants to reward this type of
activity, I think, is something that we absolutely cannot have
anything to do with.
So I really appreciate the chairman calling the hearing. I
have enjoyed listening to all the witnesses and their
testimony. And I yield back.
Mr. Pollock. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Royce. Yes, Dr. Pollock.
Mr. Pollock. Yes, if I may, I know that we have used up a
lot of time. I want to just end with this comment on my own
behalf.
I would suggest trying to be constructive. If we can
perhaps reach a consensus that the money that the PA uses to
fund terrorists and terrorism should be deducted from the
taxpayer support that the United States provides to them,
perhaps at the same time it could be transferred to the kinds
of activities that I suggested that would be constructive for
both Israel and the PA, for Israelis and Palestinians to
support--for example, an international fund that would enable
people-to-people and interfaith dialogue and cooperative
activities between Israelis and Palestinians on the ground. I
think that kind of approach might have the virtue of not being
purely punitive but also constructive.
Thank you.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Carmon?
Mr. Carmon. I believe that this money is ideological money.
It reflects an ideology which we see in the insistence on the
right of return.
I would also like to be positive and suggest that the main
focus of U.S. foreign policy would be in this respect on
demanding of the PLO to stop with this nonstarter. Mr. Abbas
sent his special envoy to the Herzliya conference just a few
weeks ago, Mr. Ahmad Majdalani, who said there all refugees
must go back to their ``homes.'' So this is the position, and
the money is just a reflection of it. This is what has to be
changed, and of course the money too.
Chairman Royce. And Mr. Wexler.
Mr. Wexler. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you
for what I think has been a terrific discussion, and thank you
for doing it.
On the funding question itself, I think we must reiterate,
though, that the State Department did, if I understand it
correctly, cut $80 million in Fiscal Year 2015 to the
Palestinian Authority. So maybe--not ``maybe''--if this
committee wants to achieve its purpose, then it needs to
broaden the universe in which our funding is not allowed to go
ultimately, one way or another, and maybe there is language
that can accomplish that purpose.
There is no representative of the Palestinian Government
here, and I am surely the furthest thing from it. However--and
we rightfully condemn their heinous actions. This is a good
example, in terms of the funding.
But on the right of return, this record would be incomplete
if it did not include the fact that Mr. Abbas, President Abbas,
when asked--his hometown is Safed, if I understand it
correctly. And when he was asked on a public show whether his
intention was to return to his hometown, he said, ``Yes, as a
visitor. And I understand I won't live there forever.'' And
then I understand, afterward, he dialed it back and made it in
language that might be more agreeable to many in his own
population.
I am not trying to color it one way or the other. The point
I am only trying to make is these are questions of degree. As
unsatisfactory as they are, they need to be negotiated at the
negotiation table.
And I would close with this. Our ultimate goal should be to
create a dynamic in which the Israelis and the Palestinians can
agree to a two-state outcome. In the interim, we should
encourage those independent steps that preserve the likelihood
or the ability to achieve a two-state outcome when the politics
of the region allow those two groups to get there.
Chairman Royce. Well, we appreciate the time of our
witnesses today.
As we have heard, if we are to have a real chance at peace,
the practice--and this is my focus--this practice of
financially rewarding terror in the West Bank must stop. And
that includes conversations with Europeans and others. But,
internationally, it is a nonstarter to have a circumstance in
which this slaughter continues and it is aided and abetted by a
system that is paying people and teaching people how to carry
out murder, how to slay others.
And I again thank our witnesses.
And, at this point, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]