    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      WORDS HAVE CONSEQUENCES: PALESTINIAN
                      AUTHORITY INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE AND
                        MARKUP OF H. RES 293, EXPRESSING
                          CONCERN OVER ANTI	ISRAEL AND
                       ANTI	SEMITIC INCITEMENT WITHIN THE
                             PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY

    =======================================================================

                               HEARING AND MARKUP

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 22, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-111

                                   __________

            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

    97-265PDF                      WASHINGTON : 2015
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      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

    Mr. Elliott Abrams, senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies,
      Council on Foreign Relations...................................     6
    Jonathan Schanzer, Ph.D., vice president for research, Foundation
      for the Defense of Democracies.................................    12
    Mr. David Makovsky, Ziegler Distinguished Fellow, director,
      Project on the Middle East Peace Process, Irwin Levy Family
      Program on the U.S.-Israel Strategic Relationship, The
      Washington Institute for Near East Policy......................    26

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Mr. Elliott Abrams: Prepared statement...........................     8
    Jonathan Schanzer, Ph.D.: Prepared statement.....................    14
    Mr. David Makovsky: Prepared statement...........................    29

                                   MARKUP OF

    H. Res. 293, Expressing concern over anti-Israel and anti-Semitic
      incitement within the Palestinian Authority....................    54
      Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H. Res. 293 offered
        by the Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in
        Congress from the State of California, and chairman,
        Committee on Foreign Affairs.................................    59
          Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute to
            H. Res. 293 offered by the Honorable Matt Salmon, a
            Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona.....    66

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing and markup notice........................................    70
    Hearing minutes..................................................    71
    Markup minutes...................................................    72
    Markup summary...................................................    74
    The Honorable David Cicilline, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Rhode Island: Jewish Members of Congress Condemn
      ``Offensive and Incendiary'' UNESCO Resolution Blaming Israel
      for Recent Surge in Violence...................................    75

                      WORDS HAVE CONSEQUENCES: PALESTINIAN
                        AUTHORITY INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE
                      AND MARKUP OF H. RES 293, EXPRESSING
                          CONCERN OVER ANTI-ISRAEL AND
                       ANTI-SEMITIC INCITEMENT WITHIN THE
                             PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2015

                           House of Representatives,

                         Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                Washington, DC.

        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 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. This
    morning we consider the recent wave of terror that has gripped
    Israel.
        In a span of weeks, Palestinian militants have attacked
    more than 100 Jewish men, women, and children. Ten of those who
    have been knifed have died. A 2-year-old toddler, a 13-year-old
    on a bike, a 70-year-old woman on a bus are among those who
    were wounded. This is terrorism at its core when anyone who
    steps outside could be next.
        These attacks, mainly stabbings, have been driven by a
    deliberately misleading message. Palestinian Authority
    officials and extremist clerics have falsely claimed that
    Israelis are trying to change the status quo by limiting Muslim
    access to the Temple Mount/al-Aqsa Mosque compound that is holy
    to both faiths.
        The calls for killing have been amplified on social media
    as Arabic hashtags like ``the knife intifada,'' ``poison the
    knife before you stab,'' and ``slaughtering the Jews,'' rapidly
    spread a message to attack those who are Jewish. Palestinian
    President Abbas regrettably has joined the hate speech.
        Israel is contending with a deep-seated hatred, nurtured by
    Palestinian leaders over many years in mosques, in schools, in
    newspapers, and on television channels. Consider growing up in
    an environment in which television shows regularly glorify
    terrorists who have killed Israeli civilians; where you are
    taught that Jews are subhuman. Or watching a small boy
    interviewed on television who speaks of wanting to be an
    engineer, in his words, ``so that I can build bombs to blow up
    all the Jews.'' Or seeing the family next door receive a
    generous stipend for their son igniting his suicide vest.
        Perhaps most concerning, this culture of hate is being
    cultivated by Palestinian leaders. After being exposed day in
    and day out to these types of messages for most of their young
    lives, many of these young people will react and once the
    Palestinian President declares, in his words, ``We welcome
    every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem'' there are
    consequences to that.
        And it doesn't help when those in the media--or the
    Secretary of State for that matter--give this incitement a
    pass. Yes, there are many complexities in the Middle East, but
    there can be no moral equivalency when children as young as two
    are being stabbed. None. The U.S. should be speaking loudly and
    clearly--Palestinian officials must work to restore calm and
    renounce the incendiary statements. And its leadership must be
    confronted with the questions: How does this incitement serve
    the interests of Palestinian men, women, or children? How does
    this lay the groundwork for peace?
        The international community also has a responsibility.
    There is the international outcry for the generations of
    children which are growing up on blind hatred. There is an
    outcry. But that outcry is pretty muted compared to what I have
    seen in the international press. We need to amplify that voice.
    We need to build on some of the things that we have done here
    in the hearings in order to try to convince the Palestinian
    Authority to toss these textbooks and go with a lesson plan
    that teaches coexistence. Given that about one-third of the
    Palestinian Authority's budget is financed through foreign aid,
    international donors have leverage on this. They should be
    using that leverage. They could follow the lead of the U.S.
    Congress and make direct funding of the PA off limits until the
    incitement stops.
        This is a very tough time for Israel. It is my hope that
    President Abbas and others will seek to restore calm in the
    coming days and incitement is challenged so reconciliation has
    a chance.
        And I now turn to the ranking member for any opening
    comments that Mr. Eliot Engel of New York might have.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for calling this hearing. Obviously, the
    Palestinian violence in Israel and the West Bank is reaching a
    crisis point. Our immediate goal must be to demand that those
    responsible end this senseless and lawless bloodshed. But it is
    also important that we seek to understand why this violence has
    reared up now, while continuing to demonstrate unwavering
    support for our ally, Israel.
        I am glad that our witnesses are here to be part of this
    conversation. Let me say to all of you: Welcome to the Foreign
    Affairs Committee.
        It is heartbreaking, I have to say, to wake up seemingly
    every morning to a new report of a stabbing or shooting of an
    innocent civilian in Israel. I can only imagine what it is like
    for the victims and their loved ones, and no person anywhere
    should have to live with that kind of fear.
        And let me just say for people who have grievances and who
    feel that the Government of Israel hasn't done what it should
    do: Terrorism is not the answer. And I support a two-state
    solution. But the Palestinians will never get their state on
    the backs of terrorism. If they think that they can use
    terrorism to get their state, they are sadly mistaken and that
    has to be understood by everyone.
        These are innocent civilians who have had no role
    whatsoever in anything. And it is terrorism pure and simple
    when you go and just stab somebody or make them afraid that you
    are going to harm them when they are just innocent civilians in
    the street.
        That is not anything that should in any way, shape, or form
    be condoned and there is no moral equivalency. No government
    anywhere should hesitate to defend its citizens from that sort
    of violence and why there would be any question about that
    baffles me.
        Israel has the right to defend itself and its people, plain
    and simple, and we know what the Israelis are up against.
        This wave of violence isn't some random flare up. It is the
    product of years and years of anti-Israel propaganda and
    indoctrination, some of which has been actively promoted by
    Palestinian Authority officials and institutions.
        These ugly ideas have been woven into Palestinian society
    and media for decades. Books that teach children that Israelis
    are their enemies, political cartoons depicting Jews as apes
    and pigs, the glorification of terrorists as martyrs and heroes
    in a holy war--every slur, every slogan, every lie told about
    Israel and Jews is like adding another piece of kindling to the
    stack. One small spark and it starts burning and that is what
    we are seeing today.
        The best option for stopping these attacks would be for
    Palestinian leaders to demand an end to the violence and bring
    those responsible to justice.
        Unfortunately, that is not what we are hearing from the
    Palestinian Authority. Instead, we are hearing a false
    equivalence between terrorists and Israeli law enforcement. We
    are hearing blame put on the Israelis for defending their
    people.
        False claims about changing the status quo on the Temple
    Mount, lies about the Israelis executing an attacker when that
    attacker is actually being treated in an Israeli hospital--
    statements like these just throw gasoline on the fire.
        Chairman Royce and I are circulating a letter to President
    Abbas imploring him to repudiate this wave of violence and to
    stop the PA's incitement of this brutality.
        So much depends on bringing a quick end to these attacks
    because in addition to the horrible cost of life and limb
    crises like this one play into a much bigger picture.
        With each drop of blood shed, the goal of a two-state
    solution becomes harder and harder to reach. Violence and
    terrorism will never be the foundation of a peaceful future.
        Palestinians need to put down their knives and guns and
    their leaders need to come back to the negotiating table with
    no preconditions.
        I sincerely hope for the sake of Israelis and Palestinians
    alike that President Abbas shows real leadership in the days
    ahead.
        For now, I think it is important that we continue to speak
    out against the mayhem that this Palestinian violence has
    brought to Israel.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about what is
    behind this recent violence, how it will be halted and what, if
    anything, we can do to help reach that goal more quickly.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Engel.
        We are going to go to 2 minutes for our chairwoman and
    ranking member of the Middle East Subcommittee, Ileana Ros-
    Lehtinen, and then to Ted Deutch.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Chairman Royce and
    Ranking Member Engel, for convening this important and timely
    hearing and for calling forward the resolution I introduced
    alongside my friend and south Florida colleague, Congressman
    Ted Deutch, House Resolution 293, for markup immediately
    following today's hearing.
        As you said, Mr. Chairman, words do have consequences and
    so also do actions and what we have seen for far too long from
    the Palestinian Authority and Abu Mazen words and actions that
    are designed to incite violence, stoke tensions between
    Israelis and Palestinians, and shut down the path to a peaceful
    settlement between the two.
        Why do we see this? Because Abu Mazen is weak and self-
    serving. This is the only course of action he can take as a
    charade to attempt to look strong to the Palestinian people.
        But the Palestinian people have grown tired of his failed
    leadership and they don't trust him nor his corrupt allies. So
    what does he do when the people start to turn on him? He turns
    them against Israel.
        When in doubt, the PA blames Israel in order to deflect the
    tension away from its own shortcomings. We will never see peace
    achieved between the two until we see real leadership from the
    Palestinians, leaders who are willing to work for the
    Palestinian people instead of against Israel.
        The Palestinians need a leader who is willing to reach
    peace instead of inciting violence and that man has never been
    nor will ever be Abu Mazen.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Ileana.
        Mr. Ted Deutch.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
    ranking member for moving specifically to hold this hearing to
    examine the official Palestinian incitement as this wave of
    violent attacks continues in Israel.
        I want to welcome back the witnesses today. I look forward
    to a productive discussion, one that I trust and know will be
    rooted in fact.
        Let me first add, I believe the last 2 weeks of violence in
    Israel is a direct result of incitement. These attacks aren't
    about protecting religious rights. They are acts of terrorism.
        Let me be clear. All violent attacks on innocent civilians
    must be condemned, regardless of whether the perpetrators are
    Palestinians or Israelis, and I welcome statements by Prime
    Minister Netanyahu condemning violent attacks of revenge and
    warning against vigilantism.
        But these recent attacks flow directly from Palestinian
    figures attempting to turn a political conflict into a
    religions conflict by making false and inflammatory accusations
    about Israeli actions with respect to the Temple Mount.
        These kinds of messages have nothing to do with the current
    political situation between the Israeli Government and the
    Palestinian Authority.
        When President Abbas himself says, ``We welcome every drop
    of blood spilled in Jerusalem,'' that sends a dangerous message
    that violence is the only way to preserve Muslim sites.
        Unfortunately, incitement within official channels of the
    PA is nothing new. There are countless examples in official
    textbooks, social media pages, and television speeches that
    call for armed conflict or depict Jews as dirty pigs.
        President Abbas came to power on a platform of nonviolence.
    He pledged to seek a stable Palestinian state through direct
    negotiations with Israel. If this is still his platform he must
    speak out to his people. He has yet to condemn one stabbing or
    armed attack in the past few weeks, instead, choosing to go on
    television and claim that Israel was engaged in the summary
    execution of children.
        And as Secretary Kerry said this week, President Abbas had
    been committed to nonviolence. He needs to be condemning this
    loudly and clearly and he needs to not engage in the incitement
    that his voice has sometimes been heard to encourage.
        That has to stop. Mr. Chairman, if officials within the
    Palestinian Authority never publicly acknowledge the benefits
    of the cooperation that is taking place between the Palestinian
    security forces and Israeli forces to calm the situation, if
    they never prepare their people for what peace looks like, a
    Palestinian state living side by side next to the Jewish state
    of Israel, and if their children never see Israel existing on a
    map in their textbooks, they continue to refuse to condemn the
    recent acts of terror, incitement will unfortunately continue
    and peace will, unfortunately, be dramatically harder to
    obtain.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Deutch.
        This morning we are pleased to be joined by a distinguished
    panel. We have with us Mr. Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow for
    Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
    Prior to this, Mr. Abrams served as the deputy national
    security advisor in the previous administration.
        Dr. Jonathan Schanzer is vice president for research at the
    Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Dr. Schanzer has written
    two books on the region and served as a counter terrorism
    analyst at the Department of Treasury.
        And Mr. David Makovsky is a director and distinguished
    fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East policy. Mr.
    Makovsky recently served as a senior advisor to Secretary of
    State Kerry on the Middle East.
        And without objection, the witnesses' full prepared
    statements are going to be made part of the record here and
    members will have 5 calendar days to submit any statements,
    questions, or extraneous material for the record.
        So we will start with Mr. Abrams. Please summarize your
    remarks and let us get the microphone right about there.

       STATEMENT OF MR. ELLIOTT ABRAMS, SENIOR FELLOW FOR MIDDLE
             EASTERN STUDIES, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

        Mr. Abrams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
    this hearing.
        What leads a teenager to stab or attempt to stab to death
    someone he or she had never met? Stabbing is the most intimate
    of attacks. It is not setting a bomb for people you will never
    see. It is not shooting from a distance. It is reaching out to
    someone inches away from you and taking that person's blood.
        The answer is, I think, the teaching of hate, as the
    statements you have made indicate. We use the term incitement
    but that is a polite way of saying the teaching of hatred--the
    demonizing and dehumanizing of Jews.
        Teaching hate by honoring terrorists, teaching hate by
    telling lies about what is happening on the Temple Mount. You
    can read in the press sometimes that these killings are the
    product of poverty and hopelessness or disappointment about the
    peace process.
        But, you know, there is not more poverty or hopelessness in
    October than there was in June. That is not the explanation. It
    doesn't explain the timing.
        So why now? I think the most logical explanation is these
    lies about changes at the Temple Mount, that Israel is
    undermining it or defiling it, and those lies are being
    repeated not only in the Palestinian media but by the top
    Palestinian leadership.
        Several of you have quoted President Abbas on this
    question. Once the violence began, the Palestinian leadership,
    unfortunately, starting with President Abbas, have been feeding
    it. And, again, you have used some of the terrible terminology
    that he has used.
        ``Each drop of blood that was spilled in Jerusalem is pure
    blood''--President Abbas. He accused Israelis of ``the summary
    execution of our children in cold blood.'' This was a reference
    to a Palestinian teenager who is alive.
        Once could go through lots of examples of the glorification
    of individual terrorists. Probably the worst is Dalal Mughrabi,
    a woman who was involved in the killing of 37 civilians, 12 of
    them children, in a 1978 bus hijacking.
        She has been turned into an absolute hero. There are
    schools and summer camps and sports tournaments named after
    her. The PA celebrated the 31st anniversary of that terrorist
    attack with an hour-long TV special. The Palestinian Bar
    Association decided about a week ago to award a great honor to
    Mohammed Halabi, a 19-year-old who killed two Israelis on
    October 3rd, stabbing them to death in the old city of
    Jerusalem. They call him a heroic martyr and gave him an
    honorary law degree.
        Well, the U.S. Government reaction to all this has been to
    condemn incitement. The problem is that we have been condemning
    incitement for decades but we never do anything about it and it
    is a bipartisan error. We don't do anything about it under
    administrations of both parties.
        Usually, there is something else we want more that day or
    week or month. We want the Palestinians to do something with
    the U.N. or not do something with the U.N. or we have a
    negotiation coming.
        So what do we do? It is not an easy question, because if
    you think about ``Let us cut off every cent for the PA'' the
    first people to tell you ``Oh, don't do that,'' will be the
    Government of Israel because if the PA collapses it collapses
    into their laps.
        So I have just three suggestions. First, close the PLO
    office in Washington and do not let the PA open an office here
    until there has been real progress in stopping in the
    incitement by PA institutions and officials.
        Second, if we cannot usefully stop all PA funding, let us
    try to stop the illegal personal funding, the corruption that
    is rife there. It is widely known that corruption has increased
    significantly since Salam Fayyad resigned as Prime Minister
    2\1/2\ years ago. We should be doing more in investigating and
    preventing corruption.
        And third, we should keep track of who is doing the
    incitement that you have referred to. Who are the individuals
    doing that incitement, and they should be barred from getting
    visas for the United States, at least for a time.
        There ought to be a personal price to pay. These are not
    panaceas, these three steps, but they are better than what we
    usually do, which is, frankly, nothing.
        What we have seen in the last few weeks, the teaching
    hatred and glorifying terror, eventually results in acts of
    terror that reflect that hatred. So we need to act ourselves.
        Thank you for inviting me here today. I look forward to any
    questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Abrams follows:]

                                  ----------

       STATEMENT OF JONATHAN SCHANZER, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT FOR
          RESEARCH, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES

        Mr. Schanzer. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, members
    of the committee, on behalf of FDD, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify.
        The current violence can be traced to Palestinian
    allegations that Israel seeks to change the status quo on the
    Temple Mount.
        Israel controls access to the site but it does not
    interfere in matters of religious prayer and over the last year
    there have been approximately 4 million Muslims on the site
    compared to just 12,000 Jews.
        Yet, the Palestinian media is filled with wild reports that
    Israel seeks to undermine Muslim rights there, and at the
    forefront of this campaign is WAFA, the news agency of the PLO.
        To calm tensions, Israel has barred ministers and
    parliamentarians from entering the Temple Mount, and when Jews
    visit, they are forbidden from praying. Israeli security
    enforces this rather strictly.
        Unfortunately, Mahmoud Abbas, who is both PLO chairman and
    Palestinian Authority President, has taken no steps to reduce
    tensions. In a speech last week, Abbas accused Israel of
    working to change the status quo and he accused Israel of
    terrorism and shooting Palestinian children in cold blood.
        Abbas now faces some tough choices. He can back a third
    intifada and ride the support of his people. But the chaos
    could upend his rule in the West Bank. He also risks invoking
    the ire of the Israelis, who could easily topple him.
        If he stands down, he can maintain security cooperation
    with Israel to fight the domestic forces that threaten his grip
    on the West Bank. But in so doing, he fails to galvanize his
    people.
        This is why Abbas has tacitly embraced the unrest but has
    not unleashed PLO or PA forces against Israel.
        Interestingly, Hamas also has one foot in the uprising and
    one foot out. Hamas has kept a lid on the violence in Gaza for
    fear of another war that could devastate their territory.
        But Hamas is a key driver of the stabbings and other
    violence in the West Bank and Jerusalem. For Hamas, the
    benefits of fomenting unrest in the West Bank are two-pronged.
    They get to challenge Israel and also undermine their political
    rival, the Palestinian Authority, which they have tried to
    unseat for more than a decade. None of this poses a risk to
    Hamas' grip on Gaza.
        With neither Abbas nor Hamas fully committed to war, social
    media has taken an outsized role.
        One particularly disturbing hub is the Palestine Dialogue
    Forum, or PLDF, which depicts Jews as monkeys and pigs,
    Palestinian toddlers wearing Hamas headbands and wielding
    knives, and worse, they promote hashtags calling for the
    Jerusalem intifada and the knife intifada.
        Hamas and Fatah also maintain dangerous social media
    channels calling for Palestinians to embrace violence. I
    identify these and many other outlets in my written testimony.
        Mr. Chairman, amidst all of this, the Obama administration
    has issued talking points that have arguably led the
    Palestinians to believe that their violence is justified. To
    put it mildly, this is unhelpful.
        I am often asked whether this is a third intifada. In
    short, I don't know, but I can offer the following six
    suggestions.
        Number one is halt Iranian cash to Hamas. Iran's financial
    ties with Hamas are well documented. After Iran begins to
    receive sanctions relief, pursuant to the nuclear deal signed
    this summer, Hamas stands to benefit even more. Congress must
    stop these funds from flowing.
        Number two, pressure Qatar and Turkey to stop supporting
    Hamas. Both countries, because of their status as U.S. allies,
    think they can support Hamas without being viewed as state
    sponsors of terrorism. Congress should not let this stand.
        Number three, target the PLO. The PLO is technically the
    peace-negotiating body for the Palestinians. In reality, it is
    a bloated and opaque organization that has consistently stymied
    diplomacy. Congress should consider punitive measures until the
    PLO halts its incitement. More broadly, it should rethink its
    recognition of the PLO.
        Number four, investigate the Palestine National Fund. The
    PNF is the official financial organ of the PLO. The PNF
    receives funding from the PA budget, to which America
    contributes 20 percent. The PNF uses its funds to help the
    families of ``martyrs, '' and it funds Palestinian media
    organs. Congress should determine whether the U.S. funds the
    PNF and take action accordingly.
        Number five, stop the Palestine 194 campaign. When Israel
    responds to terrorist attacks, the Palestinian Authority
    alleges war crimes. This is part of a campaign designed to both
    delegitimize Israel and pave the way for unilateral declaration
    of statehood. Congress should clarify U.S. policy on this
    dangerous campaign.
        And finally, prepare for Palestinian succession. Washington
    must hasten the orderly exit of Mahmoud Abbas. After a decade
    of corruption and poor governance, he lacks the ability to
    lead. This has been made clear by his half-hearted stance on
    Palestinian violence. Now is the time to make plans for a new
    leader.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you again for inviting me here today. I
    look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Schanzer follows:]

                                  ----------

        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Dr. Schanzer.
        Mr. Makovsky.

    STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID MAKOVSKY, ZIEGLER DISTINGUISHED FELLOW,
    DIRECTOR, PROJECT ON THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS, IRWIN LEVY
     FAMILY PROGRAM ON THE U.S.-ISRAEL STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIP, THE
               WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY

        Mr. Makovsky. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel and
    distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to discuss the situation in Jerusalem.
        In discussing it, we should be clear what I think we would
    all agree on--there is no justification for any incitement to
    violence.
        When you say that Israel wants to change the status quo on
    the Temple Mount Haram al-Sharif, it is equivalent to yelling
    fire in a crowded theater.
        Given the role that such allegations have played before in
    provoking violence in the past, I had added up just since 1991
    when we have had these spurts, 269 people have been killed as a
    result of these allegations before the current round, which
    Chairman Royce mentioned.
        Secretary of State Kerry said in an interview on NPR last
    Friday there is no excuse for the violence--Palestinians need
    to understand and President Abbas has been committed to
    nonviolence but he needs to be condemning this loudly and
    clearly and he needs to not engage in some of the incitement
    that his voice has sometimes been heard to encourage. So this
    has to stop.
        This incitement includes public remarks. As we have heard,
    every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem is pure, every martyr
    will reach paradise and every injured person will be rewarded
    by God and Jews ``have no right to desecrate the mosque with
    their dirty feet.'' Yes, he has called for a nonviolent
    struggle in recent days but the damage here is pretty strong.
        Sadly, this is not a new charge that Israel is out to
    destroy the mosque. Since the 1929 Hebron Massacre, there have
    been, like I mentioned, several incidents.
        But a few things needs to occur to ensure that this pattern
    is not repeated, and I would just like to associate myself with
    some of the comments like the idea of blacklisting people
    engaged in such incitement.
        I think even a congressional delegation to deal with your
    European counterparts who are also generous supporters of the
    Palestinians--there needs to be some sensitizing there.
        But when it comes to the mount itself, there needs to be
    acknowledgement that the Temple Mount is holy to both Muslims
    and Jews. While Israeli leaders of all stripes have asserted
    the sanctity of the area to Muslims--the Haram al-Sharif--the
    reverse has not been the case.
        The Palestinian leadership does not acknowledge the site's
    historical significance for the Jewish people. At the Camp
    David summit in 2000, Yasser Arafat famously angered President
    Clinton by denying the temples even existed, saying they were
    located in Nablus or even in Yemen. Clinton reportedly
    responded that every Sunday school student in Arkansas knew
    that this was not the case.
        The vast majority of Jews and Israelis around the world do
    not attempt to pray on the Temple Mount. From 1967 and on its
    chief rabbinate has forbidden Jews from visiting the area,
    believing this should not occur until the messianic age.
        Yes, a few radical Israeli activists and even some
    politicians, including Agriculture Minister Uri Ariel, have
    recently visited the mount.
        Yuval Diskin, the former head of the Shin Bet, echoed the
    view of many who urged not to allow this, saying that this is
    ``the most fuel-saturated flammable area in the Middle East.''
    To the credit of the Netanyahu government, it has refused to
    change the status quo.
        Ironically, the lack of acknowledgement on the Palestinian
    side was not always the case. A pamphlet for tourists published
    by the Supreme Muslim Council in 1924 says the fact that the
    al-Aqsa is built on the site of the Solomon's Temple is
    ``beyond dispute.''
        However, the intertwining of religion and nationalism
    ensured that the historical acknowledgement was erased. Of
    course, neither side has to accept the narrative of the other
    as sacrosanct.
        But they can acknowledge that the other side reveres the
    site as they do. Violence is bound to continue, as we have
    seen, and it is very important that--you know, we want to be
    clear that there are other factors here. But there is, like I
    said, no excuse for violence.
        What can be done in terms of the site? I think one thing is
    to help define the status quo with an explicit set of
    understandings. It would add a measure of predictability. This
    means also that the Jordanians would a take side to this along
    with Israel and the Palestinians.
        Jordan, being the custodian of the Temple Mount for the
    Arab side, would have to affirm that the status quo is indeed
    being maintained.
        Another idea--Israel is able to use social media when it
    comes to reaching Palestinians in Gaza, urging them to get out
    of harm's way.
        There has to be a way for the start-up nation with all its
    high tech prowess to find ways to communicate directly to the
    smart phones and cell phone and text messaging on the Arab
    side.
        My final point is this, that that is the situation. It
    could get worse. It is important to remember that Israel and
    the Palestinian security officials are engaged in daily
    security cooperation that is vital to both sides. We are
    approaching the 20th anniversary of the killing of Yitzhak
    Rabin.
        Nobody could call Rabin a dreamy peacenik. Yet, he
    understood, I would like to say in conclusion, that the traumas
    endured by the Israelis and Palestinians require them to
    separate.
        This insight underscores the need to continue to work for
    separate political entities to give dignity to both sides.
        But the bloodshed in Jerusalem reminds us that the
    Palestinians need to come to terms with the fact that both
    sides have both political rights but each side has a religious
    connection to the land.
        If that recognition is not reached, I worry that the
    violence will continue to periodically erupt and even
    intensify.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Makovsky follows:]

                                  ----------

        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Makovsky.
        So in testimony here, one of the discussion points was the
    case of Mohammad Halabi, a 19-year-old who attacked an Israeli
    family with a knife, killing the father, injuring the mother,
    and the 2-year-old son.
        So we have somebody going after a 2-year-old with a knife
    and I guess at this point we are not surprised that he would be
    honored. We are sort of used to that being a reaction.
        The question to me--what jumped out at me was he was
    honored by the Palestinian Bar Association. So that is what I
    was going to ask the panel here.
        So he is given an honorary law degree. One would think that
    a society's lawyers might be in a place to find some, you know,
    moderation or tolerance in this debate, that they wouldn't jump
    to the conclusion that this individual who perpetrated the
    attack would be given a law degree.
        So if not among the bar, where can we find those forces
    among Palestinian society today? Mr. Makovsky.
        Mr. Makovsky. I would refer you to a colleague of mine,
    Mohammed Dajani, who is at the Washington Institute. He is a
    teacher at al-Quds University. He took 29 Palestinian students
    of his to Auschwitz because there has been a lot of denial of
    the Holocaust.
        Now, sadly, when he returned his car was torched. He lost
    his job. But he remains steadfast. He is now at the institute.
    We hope he will be returning and there is--his movement to
    focus on moderation.
        But we need religious leaders. We need academics. We need
    all kinds of opinion shapers to be part of the solution and not
    part of the problem.
        Chairman Royce. Well, one of the questions I would ask here
    is with all of the donations made by the international
    community, why not textbooks that focus on history, focus on
    facts, focus maybe on coexistence, focus on something other
    than hate. I don't think it is a prerequisite that we have a
    lesson plan in there.
        But I have gone through these textbooks and I know from an
    audit that we have had done here that there is some reversal
    from where we were, you know, maybe 6 years ago with respect to
    UNRWA.
        But how would we substitute instead of this message and
    instead of the lesson plans, and I have seen footage of that
    and broadcasts and I have talked to President Abbas about this
    issue as has other members--Mr. Engel and other members of this
    committee--how could we sort of change the calculus here?
        Because it seems the central issue is--I think it was Mr.
    Abrams that said this--the central issue is that both political
    parties have never--they have talked about incitement in terms
    of the White House but we haven't had really a plan to make it
    a central issue that we substitute that kind of teaching.
        To me, it is like the 600 madrassas or Deobandi schools, as
    they call them in Pakistan, that we know are teaching jihad and
    they never are closed.
        We never substitute some lesson plan or the government
    never does. Why not give lesson plans that prepare a pathway
    toward an understanding of the world done in an objective
    framework?
        Mr. Makovsky. I would just add what we said in our remarks
    about we need to socialize the Europeans. This message has to
    be heard in stereo and they have tended to be more reflexive in
    their support of the Palestinian cause and I think there needs
    to be a congressional plan to get this message out so the
    Palestinians are hearing it from all directions, not just from
    the United States.
        Chairman Royce. Well, we will work with you and put
    together a delegation and start a dialogue because I think in
    real time we ought to figure out a way to substitute the
    textbooks with lesson plans that will at least assist children
    in learning something other than the bombastic message that
    their goal in life should be to kill Jews.
        Mr. Abrams. I was just going to add, Mr. Chairman, I think
    rather than giving unearmarked cash budget support for the PA,
    earmark some of the funds for things like this--a new set of
    textbooks.
        Chairman Royce. Mm-hmm. All right.
        I think my time has expired or is about to. I will go to
    Mr. Engel of New York.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You know, this breaks my heart. It really does. As someone
    who believes in a two-state solution--best for both peoples, I
    believe--this thing is spiraling out of control and, again,
    there can be no condoning acts of violence, acts of terrorism
    against innocent civilians.
        So we all agree the Palestinians must end their incitement
    to violence, case closed. But the problem really goes much
    deeper.
        For there ever to be a two-state solution, the Palestinians
    have to prepare their people for peace and that means much more
    than simply stopping calls to jihad and armed struggle. It
    means accepting Israel's right to exist.
        It means openly acknowledging the almost 4,000 years of
    Jewish presence in the lands which are now Israel and the deep
    connection of the Jewish people to this land and it means
    joining in the effort to build a modern society on this ancient
    land rather than stoking ancient hatred to tear down the
    advances which modernity has brought.
        So let me just ask an open ended question. What can be done
    to encourage the Palestinians to prepare their people for
    peace? And many of us had such high hopes with the Oslo
    Accords. Has so much time passed since the Oslo agreements and
    since there has been so many failures in the meantime is this
    still even possible? Whoever would care.
        Mr. Abrams. I would just say briefly, Mr. Engel, I think
    there is a desire still for separation, at least on the part of
    the Israelis.
        The form of the separation is more under debate than the
    goal of separation. But here I would agree with David Makovsky.
    Part of the problem is there are a lot of messages coming in to
    Palestinians.
        They come from the Arab world, they come from the Europeans
    and, of course, they come from the United States and we can't
    control the other messaging. But we can perhaps try to
    influence it.
        Mr. Schanzer. Congressman Engel, I would just add to what
    Elliott has just said that I think so much of this just comes
    straight from the leadership and, again, I would point to not
    just--I mean, I know there has been a lot of focus on the PA,
    but I think so much of the messaging about Israel comes from
    the PLO and comes from Mahmoud Abbas himself, and I think one
    of the things that FDD has looked at is the question of
    succession. Can we begin to prepare for the exit of Mahmoud
    Abbas in an orderly way but, more importantly, can we begin to
    identify next generation leaders?
        One of the things that has happened in Mahmoud Abbas'
    term--he is now 10 years into a 4-year term with no signs of
    leaving--is that he has run out every possible challenger
    within that political system.
        And so it is all people who think the way he does and view
    the conflict the way he does. We need a next generation of
    leadership, and I think from there, change can begin to flow.
        Mr. Engel. Well, let us--go ahead.
        Mr. Makovsky. I tried to say by my remarks about the
    security cooperation--and I am glad you mentioned the support
    for two states--is whether it is Yuval Diskin who was the head
    of the Shin Bet, whether it was Benny Gantz, the former chief
    of staff of the IDF who just spoke at my institute, you know,
    that security cooperation is vital for Israelis and
    Palestinians.
        I think Elliott mentioned, you know, the idea that Israel
    doesn't want a collapse because it would collapse in Israel's
    lap. So this is always why it is such a delicate dance.
        But maybe if we could do some of these, you know, more
    targeted intervention and then the idea of earmarking for
    tolerance in the schoolbooks, I think, is probably a good idea.
    That could be part of it. And I agree with Dr. Schanzer that we
    need--that succession is a big issue.
        The question is anything that the United States is seen to
    drive will be a kiss of death in that system. And so this is
    why it is complex.
        But, clearly, he is someone who is turning 81 in March and
    I think this issue of succession is vital. How it is done and
    who does it is where it gets complicated and I just worry that
    if it is an American-led succession he will be called a puppet.
        I also--we have to be careful of unintended consequences. A
    few years ago, I think all of us warned that to cut off the
    money altogether, you know, that Fayyad was the goose that lays
    the golden eggs and without Fayyad, you know, the goose goes if
    there is no more golden eggs.
        And sure enough, he was scapegoated for the stopping of
    money even though he was against--he even broke his wrist on a
    coffee table urging Abbas not to go the route he did at the
    U.N., saying it would lead to cut off in funds.
        But it was he who was targeted. And so that is part of it--
    you know, we can have the best of intentions and we get the
    opposite results. That doesn't mean we should be paralyzed but
    we should think about how we are going to get the results we
    want. That is all.
        Mr. Engel. I would like to ask quickly, because I know my
    time is up, but I just want to talk about Abbas for just a
    quick moment because sometimes I think there is a split
    personality running the Palestinian Authority.
        On the one hand, President Abbas makes vile comments. He
    denies the historic Jewish connection to Israel and calls
    perpetrators of terrorists acts as heroes and martyrs, as you
    have all pointed out.
        On the other hand, he has also backed cooperation between
    Israeli and Palestinian security services in an effort to limit
    violence.
        So how should we interpret those mixed messages coming out
    of the PA? Can you help us understand more about President
    Abbas? Is there a method to his madness or is he schizophrenic?
    I mean, what is--you know, what is happening with him?
        Mr. Makovsky. I don't want to speak for my colleagues. I
    just feel, look, there is another element of bitterness here
    that doesn't justify any violence. I keep repeating no
    justification for violence.
        He did have death threats during the intifada--the second
    intifada--where he said that this was--that the second intifada
    was wrong and certainly was counterproductive. There were times
    he said terrorism was morally wrong, I think during Elliott's
    time, and the polling numbers crashed.
        But he has been consistently against violence in the macro,
    saying you need security cooperation. But then look at the
    statement about every ounce of blood.
        So yeah, this is--I don't know how to attribute it. I can't
    read his mind. He is vilified in the Palestinians for not being
    supportive enough of violence but, you know, as a leader you
    have responsibility and you can't escape that.
        Chairman Royce. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you to the witnesses.
        Sadly, when the PA incites violence and we see a terror
    attack or continued increase in violent activity, as we have
    seen over the last month and a half, we find this wrong
    reflexive response from the international community to make a
    false moral equivalence between the PA and Israel.
        And what we see all too often is the unwillingness to call
    out Abu Mazen and the PA, all of their officials for their
    reprehensible words and their actions without finding the need
    to also reprimand Israel, and that is that false moral
    equivalence.
        When it comes to the Palestinians, some do verbal
    gymnastics so as not to upset the fragile nature of Abu Mazen
    and the PA. But there is no such concern when it comes to
    blasting the Israelis.
        Some, very lamely, blame settlement activity by Israel as
    the justification for increased violence instead of putting the
    blame where it should be--with the Palestinian Authority, with
    Abu Mazen, with their longstanding practice of inciting
    violence and hatred against Israel.
        Why is there this double standard that is applied to
    Israel? Why does the international community feel the need the
    handle Abu Mazen with kid gloves and doesn't this send the
    wrong signal and essentially legitimizes Abu Mazen, emboldens
    his action to continue the acts of terror and this incitement
    isn't just intended for the limited consumption of the
    Palestinian people.
        In recent years, as we have seen, Abu Mazen has taken his
    harmful rhetoric to the international stage using the U.N.
    General Assembly and other U.N. bodies as the preferred
    platform to gather like-minded nations together in an attempt
    to delegitimize the Jewish state.
        We saw this several weeks ago when Abu Mazen addressed the
    U.N. General Assembly and announced that the PA is no longer
    bound by the Oslo Accords nor its international obligations.
        This is outrageous. He accused Israel of trying to change
    the status quo on the Temple Mount and threatened a religious
    conflict that would spread across Jerusalem and the Palestinian
    Authorities.
        And what happened when he said that we are no longer bound
    by the Oslo Accords? A standing ovation each time he said that.
    And now Abu Mazen has requested, and it is my understanding
    that it was granted, he has requested to address an emergency
    meeting of the Human Rights Council next week.
        While I think it is safe to say that he will make no
    attempt to defuse the situation but only to inflame the
    tensions. We have a great deal of leverage at the U.N. with
    many of the nations that encourage Abu Mazen's actions in that
    body.
        What steps can we take to get other nations at the U.N. to
    put pressure on Abu Mazen to desist with the incitement, with
    his harmful rhetoric and instead begin working for the
    betterment of the Palestinian people and toward true peace with
    Israel.
        Mr. Abrams, and anyone else.
        Mr. Abrams. These are very difficult questions.
        I think he pays no price. That is the problem. He keeps
    doing it because he never pays a price for doing it. So what is
    the price?
        I mean, we have been reading these terrible quotes from
    him. So what happens this week? Gets a meeting with the
    Secretary of State. Now, will the Secretary of State come out
    and denounce him and condemn him?
        I don't think so. So the lesson he learns is it is okay. It
    is acceptable, and I think what he is doing, this is in answer
    to Mr. Engel's question, actually. What is he doing? He is
    trying to keep calm in the West Bank.
        That is why there is security cooperation. Just like Hamas
    tries to keep calm in Gaza. But Hamas wants violence in Israel
    and the West Bank, and Abbas wants violence in Israel. He just
    doesn't want it back home in the West Bank. It is a very
    cynical game.
        And as long as he pays no price, he will keep it up.
        Mr. Schanzer. I would fully agree with Elliott.
        The only thing that I would add here, and I may sound like
    a broken record today, is that so much of this had to do with
    the question of succession that Abbas has made it--I mean, it
    is a binary proposition: He has made it either it is Hamas or
    it is me, right?
        So no one wants to touch him. You talk about why everyone
    handles him with kid gloves, all right. He had made it such
    that he says, I am the only thing standing in the way of Hamas
    taking over both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, so you are
    going to play by my rules.
        And it is for that reason that we see, I think, the United
    States bending over backwards, refusing to condemn a lot of
    what he has done because we don't see new opportunities around
    the bend for new leaders.
        Again, I will stress that I think we need to begin to pave
    the way for succession. Abbas won't like it, that is for sure.
    But I can tell you this, that the guy is a pack-a-day smoker.
    He is not healthy.
        When he drops dead----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Schanzer [continuing]. We are going to have problems.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you.
        Mr. Brad Sherman of California.
        Mr. Sherman. I want to identify myself with the statements
    of the chair, the ranking member.
        We mourn for the victims of terror. We condemn the
    terrorists and those whose lies incite and glorify terrorism.
    We condemn those who reward terrorism with payments to the
    families of terrorists and with glorification of their deeds.
    Arab leaders have much to answer for.
        As to Israel, in the days of the Roman Empire those zealots
    who claimed to be the most pro-Israel did enormous harm. So now
    we see a few fringe Israeli leaders who want to disturb the
    status quo on the Temple Mount.
        They too are harmful. They provide a pretext for those who
    incite terrorism in Israel and those who seek delegitimization
    abroad.
        As to a two-state solution, I don't blame those who are
    pessimistic. I would doubt the sanity of anyone who bubbled
    with optimism about a two-state solution.
        But those who don't voice pessimism about a two-state
    solution but those few Israeli leaders who oppose a two-state
    solution also do immeasurable harm.
        The definition of insanity, of course, is to keep doing the
    same thing and expecting a different result. I have been here
    19 years. I feel like it was just yesterday.
        We condemn what the PA does, we threaten and then we
    continue to subsidize. So I want to focus my questions on
    whether we should change the nature of or eliminate or reduce
    our aid to the PA.
        Now, you gentleman all have incredible background. I have
    constituents who are considerably simpler. They simply say why
    are we giving the PA money and it might be helpful to our
    efforts in the Middle East if we stopped.
        It might be helpful if we continued. Hard to tell except
    for one thing--we reduced the deficit by $500 million if we
    stopped giving money to the PA. That is the only thing that is
    certain.
        So the biggest reason that is given to give money to the PA
    is that if we don't give them money there will be more acts of
    terrorism.
        I will point to the policies of Thomas Jefferson, our first
    President to involve us in the Middle East, who refused to pay
    tribute to terrorists in the state of Tripoli, and the short
    term result was additional terrorism focused on American ships
    in the Mediterranean.
        I am not sure that it is a good thing to give money to
    people who say we are going to kill innocent folks if you don't
    give us money. Those are not good people.
        One approach would be--and I will also point out only in
    the world--only in world affairs is it considered insulting or
    cruel to give somebody $400 million.
        But since we gave them $500 last year, it is cruel. Anyone
    who wants to be cruel to me by delivering $400 million I will
    provide my address at the end of these hearings and I will deal
    with the Ethics Committee later.
        I want to explore with you what about the idea of at least
    cutting the aid and delivering not cash but delivering food and
    delivering textbooks already printed and guess what they are
    going to say about the history of the Middle East.
        Mr. Abrams.
        Mr. Abrams. I think you are absolutely right about the cash
    question, the budget support question. Budget support suggests
    trust in how they are going to spend the money.
        I don't think anybody has that trust anymore. So we should
    move to services rather than cash. The cash started with Salam
    Fayyad, actually.
        He is gone so maybe the----
        Mr. Sherman. I had a little bit more trust back then.
        Mr. Abrams. Right.
        Mr. Sherman. Mr. Makovsky, what if cut the aid to $250
    million? Would the world come to the end?
        Mr. Makovsky. No, the world won't come to an end.
        Look, I agreed with what Elliott said about earmarking
    funds for education and tolerance. But just say that we have
    cut off the funds before and that was my comment that when we
    did that--did that I think two or three times about the U.N. we
    lost Fayyad. That doesn't mean we should be paralyzed.
        But I could tell you that talking to a lot of the Israeli
    security professionals who deal with this they come to me and
    say, I pray America does not cut off the PA because we work
    with them on a daily basis to fight terrorism in the West Bank,
    of course.
        But I--you know, it is hard for me to say I know better
    than you do when they are closer to the situation than I am,
    whether it is the Chief of Staff Gantz, whether it is Diskin,
    head of the Shin Bet.
        So I think we have to think in different ways. And can I
    just say to Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's point about the U.N.
    Human Rights Council and the U.N. system, we know there are
    double standards.
        How many times has the U.N. Human Rights Council condemned
    the carnage in Syria where over \1/4\ million people have been
    killed versus how many times do they condemn Israel? And so----
        Chairman Royce. Gentleman's----
        Mr. Makovsky [continuing]. The problem goes way beyond
    Abbas.
        Chairman Royce. The gentleman is out of time. We need to go
    to Mr. Chris Smith of New Jersey.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        It is great to see the three of our distinguished
    witnesses. Thank you for your insights and testimony.
        Secretary Abrams, you pointed out that incitement means
    teaching generations of Palestinians to hate Jews by demonizing
    and dehumanizing them and teaching hate and terror by honoring
    terrorists.
        I have been very concerned about many of the statements
    coming from Prince Zeid of Jordan, the U.N. High Commissioner
    for Human Rights, which always tilt heavily against Israel.
        They are one-sided, and to have a human rights point person
    in the United Nations taking such a one-sided position does
    grave damage to the truth and I have been working on this
    issue, perhaps not as much as Elliott Abrams, but for the 35
    years that I have been here.
        And for 20 years have been raising the issue of UNRWA, had
    several hearings on it, joined by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Henry
    Hyde when he was chairman. Of course, our distinguished
    chairman today offered amendments on it, always getting back
    from UNRWA officials and State Department officials that they
    are working on it, they are trying to excise the textbooks from
    the virulent anti-Semitic hate that is contained within it.
        I remember at one of our hearings we talked about pep
    rallies, like American football game pep rallies, where
    terrorists were extolled and lifted up as heroes to young
    children who are, obviously, impressionable.
        So it has been many years. We have provided over $4
    billion--we are the largest donor--$408 million in 2014.
    Closest contributor would be the European Commission at $139
    million and the U.K. at $95 million.
        So we are disproportionately the biggest contributor to
    UNRWA. So as you pointed out in your testimony but you might
    want to elaborate on it, Mr. Secretary, U.N. Watch pointed out
    and was able to expose 12 UNRWA-linked Facebook accounts that
    incite violence.
        I have looked at each and every one of them. They are
    horrific. They have called on Ban Ki-Moon as well as the UNRWA
    chief to fire these people.
        Have they fired them? Has a commission of inquiry been
    established as was asked for by U.N. Watch? I mean, this is
    absolutely disgusting. Remember ``South Pacific'' that famous
    song, you have got to be taught--``You Have Got to be Taught''
    hate, and these children are being taught hate every single day
    and our money is complicit in it.
        Secretary Abrams?
        Mr. Abrams. Thank you.
        Yes, as you know, many Palestinian children don't go to PA
    schools. They go to UNRWA schools and U.N. Watch has found
    these employees who are teaching hate.
        I think you are asking the right questions. So far as I am
    aware, no one has been disciplined. No one has been fired.
    There is not a commission of inquiry. The usual UNRWA response
    is to cover up in the hope that, you know, you will forget
    about this in a month.
        So I think it is really important that you don't let the
    State Department, the U.S. Government forget about this
    because, again, the lesson that is going to be learned by UNRWA
    is it doesn't really matter.
        You know, they get angry for a week and then it passes and
    then it happens again and again and again. We know that there
    are lots of UNRWA employees in Gaza who are actually part of
    Hamas.
        Mr. Smith. Let me ask you, Mr. Schanzer, you pointed out
    that Hamas stands to benefit from Iranian's $150 billion in
    sanctions relief. You might want to expound upon that. What do
    you think qualitatively and quantitatively that will give Hamas
    the ability to do?
        Mr. Schanzer. Absolutely. A terrific question.
        Look, first of all, we are about to provide Iran with $150
    billion. How that is disbursed over the next 10 or 12 years, I
    think, still remains to be seen, and we continue to hear from
    the administration that very little of that will go to
    terrorism. I think the thing that is probably important to
    point out here is that even, let us just say 5 percent of that
    goes to terrorism, you are still looking at a huge sum.
        What that means practically for Hamas, I mean, you are
    going to be looking at cash transfers, which is hugely
    important for Hamas just to be able to maintain control over
    its territory.
        The tunnels have been cut off largely by Egypt, and so they
    are going to need cash to be able to pay salaries and to keep
    their security people on the streets. On top of that, there is
    the home grown rocket-making ability that we have seen that
    Iran has been able to help Hamas develop over time.
        Tunnel drilling also, we believe, also comes from Iran on
    some level and then, of course, the rockets that are imported
    in, the Fajr-5's and some of the other longer range missiles
    that we saw fired into Israel last year during that 50-day war.
        So there is quite a bit of damage that can be done through
    these cash transfers, which we fully expect to take place,
    largely to the Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you for calling this important hearing.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
        Mr. Albio Sires of New Jersey.
        Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being
    here today. I would like to associate myself with the comments
    my colleague from New Jersey made.
        You know, when I look at this money, $500 million, this
    just brings back, like, almost a bribe to organized crime to
    keep peace in a certain section.
        I mean, I just don't know what stipulations are added to
    this money. I don't know if we require any strings attached to
    this money that would bring the violence down.
        I mean, we are losing generations of young Palestinians and
    we are paying to have these young Palestinians become so
    radical. So it is almost like the history of organized crime.
        I don't know if I really do agree with the fact that we
    shouldn't cut out some of this money. You know, we are paying
    to keep peace in a certain section.
        I just have a--when do you think this surge of violence is
    going to end? You know, the stability and the influence of the
    Palestinian Authority--do you think it ends if this doesn't end
    well?
        Mr. Abrams. Prime Minister Netanyahu made the comment about
    a week ago that these acts--these stabbings--are actually a
    form of suicide because you are almost certain to get killed by
    a police officer or military person, and there is hopefully a
    finite number of Palestinians who want to commit suicide that
    way. We just don't know what the number is.
        I am surprised, candidly, that we are into Thursday now and
    it is still going on and I really thought it would begin to
    burn out, and that is still my hope that it will begin to calm
    down in the next few days.
        Mr. Schanzer. There was an interesting article that
    appeared today by a former national security advisor to
    Netanyahu. He is now back in the private sector. His name is
    Yaakov Amidror, and he noted that more than 90 percent of the
    attacks have been taking place by residents of east Jerusalem.
        And so what we have is something very specific to these
    neighborhoods, these several hundred thousand individuals, and
    to me it is still unclear that it is entirely the PA or the PLO
    that is driving it, that it is entirely Hamas. Some of this
    really is grass roots or perhaps forces that we have not yet
    discovered.
        And so, you know, a lot of people are wondering whether
    this is a third intifada. Again, it is hard to tell exactly
    what that means but it is quite likely that we will look back
    on this several months from now and it could still be going and
    this could be one of those events that doesn't have an official
    end.
        Mr. Makovsky. Look, compared to the second intifada, within
    a month of the first--in the second intifada we had 1,500
    people injured. I mean, the order of magnitude we are facing
    now compared to 2,000 to 2,004 is very small and this--if one
    life is taken it is one life too much. So I want to be very
    clear about that.
        But this has not been a mass intifada that we saw. We know
    what that looks like. This is not it now. Could there be, like,
    a Muhammed al-Dura incident, this boy was--whether it was
    fabricated on TV, that is, if Israel killed him when that
    wasn't the case and that brought a lot of people to the
    streets. That, I think, you know, could change the order of
    magnitude.
        I am concerned, though, that--I hope this does not become
    the new normal, that a de factor binational reality sets in. I
    will just say, you know, what John Schanzer said about the east
    Jerusalem neighborhoods, this has been an area where they are
    now moving the concrete dividers that have been outside these
    neighborhoods, now there is a move with checkpoints to change
    that.
        So I tend to think that we could see changes in Jerusalem
    as well as a result of this violence with the barriers being--
    --
        Mr. Sires. I just have one last, you know--do you believe
    that the status quo surrounding the Temple Mount can be
    maintained after this?
        Mr. Makovsky. I just would like to repeat I hope Secretary
    Kerry over there could help reach a set of understandings and
    maybe that can be formalized by a set of delineated
    understandings of what is this status quo. So we will know if
    there is a change to it.
        But that requires the Jordanians as the custodians. Last
    year, Kerry, Abdullah, and Netanyahu totally ended the violence
    in Amman last November.
        It was a great success story for the United States. But I
    think there needs to be some sort of a delineation. I think
    that would be very important in my view but it requires the
    Jordanians to do something they don't want to do, which is
    publically step up when Israel maintains the status quo.
        They might want to whisper that but whispers don't help us
    unless they say it publically and we don't see that right now.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Sires. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Sires, and now we turn to Mr. Salmon of
    Arizona.
        Mr. Salmon.
        Mr. Salmon. Madam Chairman, I am going to yield back my
    time.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
        Mr. Duncan.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        You know, I have met with Benjamin Netanyahu, as many of us
    have, and one thing that really stuck out with me in our
    meetings was a commitment to Israel to even having a
    conversation about a two-state solution but they had one
    request--that the Palestinians recognize their right to exist.
        You know, there is a simple solution to get everybody to
    the table to talk about a solution and that is just acknowledge
    each other's right to exist.
        One side of the equation is not willing to do that. My
    appeal to the Palestinians is acknowledge Israel's right to
    exist. But what we see going on is this talk about removing
    their access to the Western Wall.
        If you look at history of the Western Wall, it was a place
    the Jews were able to go and worship. It was an area that was
    given to them. It was a trash dump.
        The Muslims controlled the Temple Mount--threw their
    rubbage over, oftentimes feces and garbage. It is not the case
    now but that is the history, and now we are hearing that we are
    going to even take the Western Wall away from the Israelis.
        A simple solution is recognition of a right to exist. So I
    will move on.
        What can we do? What can the administration do? What can
    Congress do to stop this violence?
        I want to say that in a prepared testimony last February
    Dr. Schanzer stated,

            ``I don't believe that peace between the current
            leaders is likely nor do I believe that this
            administration has earned to trust of either side.
            However, the next set of leaders may well make
            progress. But even if deadlock persists, Washington
            cannot abdicate its role as the honest broker. Once we
            return to that role, we may have an opportunity to call
            for a halt to all unilateral activity and guide this
            conflict toward a more constructive dynamic.''

    I thought pretty wise clairvoyant words there.
        What advice to you have for Congress to play a role in
    this? Future leaders--we got a Presidential election. We may
    have someone that looks at this situation a little differently,
    that looks at the role of America differently in negotiating
    peace.
        And so I am asking you what advice do you have to the
    United States Congress here in October 2015 to play a role in
    minimizing if not eliminating the senseless violence?
        I asked Dr. Schanzer there but I will be glad to move--let
    us let him answer first and we will come to you.
        Mr. Schanzer. Well, thank you, Congressman Duncan.
        What I would want to stress right now is that America does
    not intend to abdicate its leadership role in the region.
        I think a lot of actors in the Middle East right now have
    given up on the United States, that we have rolled over on
    Iran, that we have declined to battle ISIL and that in general,
    we have had a more hands-off approach to the region, a so-
    called rebalancing of our foreign policy or pivot to Asia or
    whatever you would like to call it.
        But we need to make it very clear to the region that we
    intend to reengage, and I would argue that America has been the
    most effective in its peace making opportunities when it has
    demonstrated its strength.
        So if you look after the first Gulf War, that was the
    moment where the United States demonstrated that it was not
    going to take no for an answer. That is when the Israelis and
    the Palestinians fell in line and began to work with the
    administration toward peace.
        I look forward to a day where we can, again, look to
    American strength as leading the way in the region.
        Mr. Duncan. I appreciate that and I agree with what you
    have said.
        I think our allies don't trust us and our enemies don't
    fear us, and a strong America is--and our presence in certain
    regions is a very unifying force. Mr. Makovsky.
        Mr. Makovsky. Look, I tend to use sports analogies a lot so
    I hope you will indulge me. The last three times that we have
    been involved 2000 with Camp David--2007 and 2008, Condoleezza
    Rice, the Annapolis process, the process I was involved in was
    Secretary Kerry as well.
        There was an effort made from the top levels to try to hit
    the home run ball, so to speak, and solve the whole conflict.
    It was very admirable. Secretary Kerry was relentless and
    putting in a lot of effort.
        But I think what these three efforts have shown us is that
    these leaders are not able to do the end game. I would rather
    us see some singles, some doubles and to try to do what we can
    do because whenever we try to hit that home run ball we could
    strike out.
        Mr. Duncan. Reclaiming my time real quick and with 3
    seconds, Israelis pulled out of the settlements. They made a
    good faith effort.
        From that point forward, rockets continued to fly into
    Israel until last summer. I think Israel has made a good faith
    effort. It is time for the Palestinians to make a good faith
    effort, and I yield back.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
        Mr. Deutch, my south Florida colleague.
        Mr. Deutch. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Makovsky, can we start with a focus on the security
    cooperation that exists currently between the Palestinian
    security and the Israelis.
        I would like to probe that a little because, given the
    extent of that cooperation, everything that we have been
    discussing this morning makes no sense in terms of the actions
    and statements that President Abbas makes.
        But can you just confirm the extent of that cooperation?
        Mr. Makovsky. So, Congressman Deutch, you have a situation
    that, you know, you have the central command, the West Bank
    command of the IDF. You have the Shin Bet.
        They are working with their Palestinian colleagues to keep
    Hamas out of the West Bank and to keep things quiet, and I
    would say that it has been successful not judging by my
    standard, by what--you know, I quoted Gantz and Diskin as
    saying that that is why there has been quiet.
        And if you got rid of that, then what you would have is
    Hamas more in the West Bank, the PA probably more overrun. So I
    think that security cooperation is indispensable going forward
    and I think we have to be very careful to say well, we don't
    need it because it is somehow a graft payment, I don't see it
    that way.
        I see it as Israelis and Palestinians really interpreting
    what peace should mean, which is working together for security.
    So I would just be very cautious before I would take that piece
    out, given that it has shown tangible results and this was not
    always the case.
        You know, in the '90s things were very politicized. These
    were politicians--Jibril Rajoub, Mohammad Dahlan. These are now
    professionals on the Palestinian side and Israelis think very
    highly of them.
        Mr. Deutch. So here is what is so puzzling, I think, to so
    many of us.
        We spent all this money providing assistance that
    contributes to security for Israelis and Palestinians that
    keeps Hamas out. And then President Abbas--you brought up the
    prior example--President Abbas then goes on TV and says that
    Israel is summarily executing 13-year-old kids despite that
    fact that, one, he was still alive being treated by Israel, and
    two, had perpetrated a terrorist act.
        And when he does that and when he engages in this
    incitement, all of the dollars that we spend on security to
    help secure the Israelis and the Palestinians from Hamas
    attacks becomes less effective because his statements only make
    the situation worse and embolden those who would ultimately be
    supportive of Hamas.
        Isn't that the case? Dr. Schanzer, isn't that the case?
        Mr. Schanzer. Look, it is the case and part of the problem
    here is that Abbas is, I think, trying to struggle with some
    competing interests.
        On the one hand, he does need to maintain that absolute
    iron grip over the West Bank and he needs Israel 100 percent in
    order to do that. He cannot do it himself.
        I have heard estimates that if the Israelis were to stop
    cooperating with the PA, that in less than a month, the West
    Bank would be overrun.
        At the same time, he has his political constituents who
    don't like the fact that he is working with the Israelis, and
    so there is a popularity issue and, of course, his popularity
    has been sagging for quite some time because of corruption,
    because of poor governance, because he has not been able to
    unify the territories, et cetera.
        And so you see him sort of, you know, neither here nor
    there. And then, more broadly, there is this question of
    ultimately his goal of establishing a Palestinian state, and
    the longer that he does not achieve that, the more frustration
    we see from him. And some of these bombastic statements, I
    think, are absolutely a result of that.
        Ironically, I think a lot of that comes from his own
    diplomatic positions. I think he has had opportunities to
    negotiate peace and he has stepped away from that several
    times.
        Mr. Deutch. And how does--just the last question I would
    ask is how is it that, and I am being sincere--I mean, how does
    he--how does he get away--how is it somehow acceptable to make
    an assertion about the religious sites that is patently false
    and then have that assertion become a talking point that many
    around the world start to adopt? How does that happen?
        Mr. Abrams, do you have thoughts on that?
        Mr. Abrams. Well, there are lots--you know, there is a
    discourse out there that is filled with lies about Israel and
    this just becomes another small piece of that discourse.
        People will believe almost anything, and I think,
    unfortunately, in the Arab world it is very common that people
    assume that their leaders are lying to them half the time.
        So the fact that he is lying to people, not such a big
    deal, unfortunately.
        Mr. Deutch. So Madam Chairman, I would conclude by saying
    that while I acknowledge the importance of our security
    assistance, I think it is very important this has to be--these
    statements and these actions have to be relevant to our debates
    and for those in the region who have said they don't care
    what--how Congress use this there is a lot at stake in terms of
    their own security in the way we address this and we are paying
    close attention.
        It does matter, and I thank the witnesses for their
    testimony today.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Deutch.
        Mr. Meadows is recognized.
        Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Thank each of you for your testimony today. I guess this
    comes a little bit personal to me in that I just returned from
    Israel.
        In fact, still on jet lag, having arrived on Monday,
    spending a week up close and personal with a number of these
    terrorist attacks, changing our plans as we were there on the
    ground with a number of our security detail concerned about
    where we were going, where we were not going and, indeed, 10
    minutes after we left a particular area it was reported that
    the very place that we left there was an attack by a
    Palestinian dressed as a reporter on either IDF or police
    security forces right where we were.
        And I find that interesting because all of this incitement
    that continues to go on, and I agree with some of the other
    statements that have been made because I have tried to work on
    eliminating the money for the Palestinian Authority if it is
    going to be used to pay terrorists a stipend and I say not only
    a stipend, it is actually a very good salary where they can be
    incentivized to complete and conduct terrorist activities. I
    find it just mind boggling that we would continue to do that.
        That being said, I do agree that the Palestinian Authority,
    from a standpoint of security, provides a meaningful tool to
    work with the Israeli Government. And so it is more complex
    than perhaps this guy from North Carolina could figure out.
        That being said, it is important that the truth be told and
    the truth is that with regards to the Temple Mount where there
    may have been a few comments that have been made by Israelis on
    one extreme that the government in itself is not trying to
    change it.
        The only person who couldn't go to the Temple Mount was not
    the Muslim worshipers. It was this Member of Congress that
    couldn't go because it was not safe for me to do that.
        Now, I say that because somehow in this whole narrative
    what we are finding, and I normally ask questions but today is
    my chance to make a statement, we are missing the fundamental
    question of incitement and how we are either ignoring or not
    addressing the issue as a nation who can address it.
        I was in a courtroom where there were six defendants there
    who had been accused of terrorist activities, five of those
    Hamas related, one of those ISIS related, and with the pride in
    their face as they talked back and forth to members of their
    families and friends, almost cheering the fact that they were
    there sitting trial and being applauded as heroes.
        Enough is enough. And what we must do is put pressure on
    our European allies to address this particular issue. That is
    where it is.
        We may stand firm but let this day be the start of where
    our European allies understand that they must join us in this
    fight to make sure that the incitement is eliminated.
        And with that, I would be--in the time remaining I would
    ask how do we start to provide services for the Palestinian
    Authority versus cash payments where we can perhaps still
    provide the security-related issues that are out there.
        Is there a creative way for us to address this and finally
    have a resolve where we can do that. Anybody that wants to--
    Secretary?
        Mr. Abrams. Just a quick idea. Just earmark everything. No
    unearmarked budget support.
        I mean, if you want to dock one particular thing, do it. If
    you want more for education, do it. Just don't give any
    unearmarked cash.
        Mr. Meadows. Mr. Abrams, let me go with that because at a
    table very much like yours I talked to the Under Secretary of
    State almost a year ago and said that this money that was going
    for paying of terrorists was--that program was going to go away
    and indeed it went away from there but only shifted to another
    area which says, well, it is not here in this pot, it is in a
    different pot. When are we going to address that? That one
    area?
        Mr. Makovsky. Look, this is why--what you said about the
    Europeans I just want to say amen, amen because this is what is
    required. We can't do this by ourselves, and if we have a
    quartet with the Europeans dealing with the Palestinian issue,
    administration to administration, I think there needs to be
    more consultation with the funding arms in Europe.
        I am not saying we will succeed immediately. But we need to
    start with awareness. I also want to say, because we have been
    talking about security, and I also think that some of the
    people to people programming that does go on, I don't like to
    say any of this is a panacea--I know there is some effort now,
    I'll map a coalition of people to people trying to see what
    could be done on conflict resolution. I think that is a good
    idea.
        I think that is one piece. There is going to be 20
    different pieces to this puzzle. Earmarking could be a piece
    but consultation with Europe, I think, is critical. People to
    people is a piece of this. There is going to be a lot of
    different pieces if we are serious about taking this issue on.
        Mr. Schanzer. Just a quick note that the funding that you
    are talking about, the PA funding for prisoners, ultimately is,
    as I understand it, was moved over to the PLO and, again, I
    think we have to just note that the PLO has outlived its
    usefulness.
        It is no longer actually a partner in peace. It is supposed
    to be the negotiating partner for the PLO. It is not doing
    that. Instead, what we are seeing is the funding of prisoners.
        On top of that, we are seeing the funding of these media
    organs that have been spreading lies about the Temple Mount.
    And so I really think that we need to see a significant
    overhaul of the PLO.
        Perhaps Congress could begin to weigh whether we want to
    continue to recognize the PLO in light of its recent activity.
        I thank you.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr.
    Meadows.
        Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Madame Chair.
        Thank you to our witnesses for being here. I, like my
    colleagues, am incredibly disturbed by the recent events and
    really want to join in all the strong condemnation of this
    recent round of violence. I particularly associate myself with
    the chairman and ranking member's earlier comments.
        And I am particularly concerned about the incendiary and
    irresponsible words and texts that played a leading role in
    this volatile situation.
        The bottom line is that terrorist acts of violence are
    being perpetrated against Israelis and this must be strongly
    condemned by all parties, particularly by the Palestinian
    Authority.
        I want to note that yesterday I joined every single member
    of the Jewish caucus in Congress in issuing a statement
    rejecting the irresponsible and factually inaccurate resolution
    passed by UNESCO executive board which falsely blames Israel
    for the recent surge in violence. One sided inflammatory
    statements like this are part of the problem.
        They fan the flames of hatred and prevent us from moving
    forward in cooperation in the peace process that could lead to
    a two-state solution.
        And Mr. Chairman, with your consent I wish to enter this
    statement into the record.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
        And I thank you for your testimony. In particular, I thank
    you, Mr. Abrams, because in your testimony you spoke about one
    case in particular, the case of Dalal Mughrabi, one of the most
    deadly terror attacks in Israeli history where 37 civilians, 12
    of them children, were killed in the hijacking of a bus, and
    this was glorified by naming schools and summer camps and
    sports tournaments after this terrorist, and it is just one
    example of the kind of glorification of terror and violence
    that continues to persist in the Palestinian Authority.
        And so my first question is, are there any alternative
    Palestinian voices coming from the PA or society, more broadly,
    that are calling for Palestinians to cease these recent acts of
    terror?
        Mr. Abrams. There are, and, you know, we can point to, for
    example, former Prime Minister Fayyad as an example of this.
    And there are clearly many others.
        The problem has been the leadership has been the same
    group. First it was Arafat, now it is Arafat's survivors and
    acolytes, starting with President Abbas, who are in charge.
        They are in charge of the PA. They are in charge of the
    PLO. They are in charge of Fatah and you are not getting that
    kind of cooperation from them.
        Mr. Cicilline. Also, I know for many years the educational
    system in the West Bank and Gaza and other ports of region have
    really put forth dangerous, inaccurate perceptions about Jews
    and Israelis and sort of fostered a lot of the hatred.
        And I know there has been a lot of conversation. I spoke to
    President Abbas about his myself several years ago and there
    were assurances they were working on this.
        A, is there any evidence that there have been sort of any
    progress in terms of the curriculum and the textbooks? And to
    your earlier point, has the time come that we simply do not
    provide educational aid in terms of financial resources but
    provide the actual textbooks that reflect the kind of
    curriculum that will foster understanding and kind of more--
    sort of a context in which a relationship can actually between
    two communities?
        Mr. Abrams. I think it goes forward and backward. There is
    sometimes a new textbook that is better. Then a few years later
    a worse textbook comes out.
        I think part of the answer is to insist more. It may be to
    see if we can provide textbooks including textbooks that have
    been done in Arabic in other places in the world including the
    U.S.
        There is an UNRWA problem because about so many--tens of
    thousands of Palestinian children aren't going to PA schools.
    They are going to UNRWA schools, which have their own
    textbooks.
        And finally, there is this PLO problem that Jonathan
    Schanzer was referring to and which led me to say it is time to
    close the PLO office in Washington.
        Mr. Cicilline. And I just want to say I think that this
    question of how do we stop the next generation of engaging in
    the same kind of behavior really does start with education. And
    I would love to hear more, Mr. Abrams, right after Mr. Schanzer
    about closing about the PLO offices here.
        Mr. Schanzer. Actually, I wanted to just mention something
    about the textbooks. I think, without question, the textbooks
    are a problem, and we continue to focus on that here in
    Washington. But so much of this has to do with the teachers
    themselves, right? What is taught in the classrooms comes down
    to the people who are teaching it. And so you have an
    administrative education problem.
        You could change the textbooks all you want and the
    teachers could still teach their children that Israel is the
    enemy or that Israel doesn't exist on a map, and so it is a
    much more systemic problem than just textbooks.
        Mr. Cicilline. Very important point.
        And Mr. Abrams, with my last few seconds would you speak a
    little bit about why you think closing the PLO offices is a
    good strategy?
        Mr. Abrams. First, because of the way in which the PLO has
    been conducting itself but secondly because nobody elected the
    PLO. Once upon a time, there were PA elections. The PLO is a
    nondemocratic body. The PLO does not in fact represent the
    Palestinian people even though the U.N. thinks it does.
        So in my own view, they are not doing anything helpful.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I thank you, Madam Chairman. I
    yield back.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Cicilline.
        Dr. Yoho.
        Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Gentlemen, I appreciate you being here and, you know, you
    wonder about the increase--escalation of violence in that
    region and I look at, you know, this administration--I remember
    Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, if I remember correctly, saying that
    Hamas was a humanitarian organization and giving them
    credibility and I hear the President saying the acts of
    terrorism that Israel is conducting or what Israel is going
    through are acts of terrorism yet they are just trying to
    defend their people.
        You know, and you wonder why things are escalating. I see
    that happening and, Mr. Abrams, you were talking about getting
    new books into the schools.
        You know, as Dr. Schanzer pointed out, it is much deeper
    than it systemically because the books aren't going to change
    anything. The children are a product of their environment.
    Their environment are the parents, it is the society, it is
    government.
        And until you change that it is not going to happen and to
    go in and say we need to have a--you didn't say regime change
    but that is what I am hearing from you guys and I think we have
    meddled too much in too much of that.
        That has to come from within and we can't give it outside.
    And as Mr. Makovsky said, you know, it will be a puppet of the
    U.S. and we have done that over and over again. We can't do
    that.
        So this is a much deeper problem and we had introduced here
    over a year ago a resolution to pull all funding from the
    Palestinian Authority because our hard working American
    taxpayers are paying taxes that go in the name of peace to the
    Middle East and we have just seen an escalation that is not
    working.
        So my goal is to remove all funding from the Palestinian
    Authority. I think your idea, which I do agree with, of closing
    the PLO office, I think that is another step that we should go
    into.
        But just to go on and doing what we are doing. I have only
    been here 3 years but I have seen an escalation in violence. We
    had the war last year that went on for, what was it, 6 weeks?
        You know, and we are giving all this money, $500 million,
    roughly, a year. And I agree with my colleague, Mr. Sherman,
    that that money should go to deficit reduction in America where
    it will make a difference here.
        And, you know, what can we do different than what you have
    said? I mean, the textbooks to me, yeah, that is a nice thing
    that will make us feel good because they won't have all this
    inflammatory language.
        But it is a lot deeper than that. I just know doing what we
    are doing is not going to work. You well know what the
    definition of insanity is.
        I should like to see a whole different paradigm shift in
    our foreign policy that we support people that are on the same
    page as we are. I don't want them to live like us. I don't want
    to tell them what kind of government.
        But they should believe--the people that we assist, I would
    think, are the same--the countries that believe in the same
    ideals we do--life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, religious
    freedom.
        I am not going to dictate that to anybody but if you want
    our help you need to come to this side of the table.
        What are your thoughts on changing that whole narrative and
    paradigm?
        Mr. Schanzer. I will just very briefly say this, that I
    think one of the biggest problems with our relationship with
    the Palestinians is that it is transactional, not
    transformational--that we simply fork over funds and we have a
    sort of expectation that they just keep the peace.
        And by the way, that is the same paradigm that we had with
    Egypt and many of the authoritarian governments that have
    collapsed over the last 5 or 6 years, and we see how that has
    worked for us.
        And so ultimately, I think, we have to come to the
    conclusion that this is a failed paradigm. This is not to say
    that in our attempts to transform Palestinian society that we
    need to be the people who are dictating exactly who comes in
    and how they operate.
        But I think we can begin to set standards, right, for
    elections, making sure that, you know, people, as in the case
    of Mahmoud Abbas, that he is not--you know, now he is 10 years
    into his term. He has no sign of going anywhere.
        We need to make sure that there are at least some
    semblances of democracy, of participation in that society, and
    I think it is at that point that we begin to see some of the
    changes that may be worth funding in the PA.
        But the one word of warning here is that if you just remove
    the entire infrastructure by defunding it, you have got the
    potential for chaos, and that is what we have got to try to
    avoid.
        Mr. Makovsky. If I could, look, I agree with this last
    point of John. We have got to be careful. If we think we just
    rid of the old infrastructure that things will be better when
    we know we are going to get worse.
        We know it. And we have withheld funding before. It is not
    like we haven't tried it.
        We have tried a different paradigm and we didn't get the
    result we wanted.
        I do think though out of this hearing is coming some real
    ideas. I mean, you know, I think you have heard from the three
    of us. You know, John and Elliott have been talking about
    closing the PLO offices, which I think could be a signal.
        I think the idea of blacklisting who we know are involved
    in incitement, earmarking funds for things we believe in, the
    issue of trying to get European awareness so we are not on this
    incitement focus by ourselves. We need to--these are four
    different things that are not being done now.
        Mr. Yoho. All right. I will tell you what we will do. Our
    office, and I know the chairmen they will go ahead and probably
    go along with us. Our resolution to defund the $500 million
    until Palestine got rid of Resolution 21 and 23, we did that.
        They got rid of those resolutions but we know that money is
    fungible and is still being sent over there, still being used
    somewhere that is aiding them to be able to pay the stipends to
    people in prison. So I like those recommendations and I am sure
    you will see those come out soon and I appreciate your time,
    Madam Chair.
        Thank you for----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Dr. Yoho.
        And as we recess our hearing I want to notify our members
    that we will commence our markup of House Resolution 293 at
    approximately noon. Without objection, we are in recess.
        [Recess.]
        Chairman Royce. This committee will come to order.
        Pursuant to notice and with concurrence of the ranking
    member, we meet today to markup House Resolution 293 on
    incitement, and without objection all members may have 5 days
    to submit statements and related materials for the record.
        I now call up H. Res. 293 and without objection it is
    considered read and open for amendment at any point.
        Before moving to statements, I call up Royce Amendment 204,
    the bipartisan amendment in the nature of a substitute that was
    circulated to all offices previously, which I am offering on
    behalf of myself, Ranking Member Engel, subcommittee chair Ros-
    Lehtinen and Ranking Member Deutch.
        Without objection, that amendment, which members have in
    their packets, is considered read and is base text for purposes
    of amendment.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Chairman Royce. After recognizing myself and the ranking
    member, I will be pleased to recognize any members seeking
    recognition who wants to then speak on the resolution.
        House Res. 293 reflects many of the concerns we have
    discussed this morning, an escalation of violence against
    Israelis and the way in which that escalation of violence is
    praised and encouraged and even fueled by Palestinian Authority
    officials.
        This resolution rightly condemns this incitement and the
    outbreak of violence and expresses support for those who are
    working to encourage peace and cooperation between Israelis and
    Palestinians.
        And I want to thank our chairman emeritus and Middle East
    subcommittee chair, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen--you are very welcome--
    and Middle East Subcommittee Ranking Member Ted Deutch for
    authorizing this important measure.
        And I would also note that many members beyond the
    committee have been focused on combating incitement and
    terrorism against Israel including Congresswoman Martha McSally
    of Arizona, who introduced an important incitement resolution
    earlier this week and worked with us on this draft resolution.
        Martha McSally is right. It is critical that we stand by
    our good ally, Israel, at this challenging time. And I now
    recognize the ranking member for his remarks.
        Mr. Engel. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to associate myself with your statement that you
    just made. I thank you for bringing this resolution forward.
        I want to thank our colleagues, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Ted
    Deutch, for working so long and hard on this. This is a very
    important and timely resolution, and as we just heard at our
    hearing, the Palestinian violence against Israeli citizens is
    getting out of hand.
        We need to dial up pressure on Palestinian leaders to
    repudiate this violence, bring those who are responsible to
    justice and put a stop once and for all to the ugly anti-Israel
    anti-Jewish incitement that has permeated Palestinian culture.
        So this resolution sends a clear message that the violence
    must stop. It must stop to protect the lives of the innocent.
    It must stop if there is any hope of working toward a two-state
    solution.
        Again, I think our hearing that we just had showed us
    loudly and clearly that this cannot continue. I want to
    reiterate everything I said in my earlier statement in our
    hearing and I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and I
    yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Royce. Do any other members seek recognition?
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Royce. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and
    Ranking Member Engel, for bringing up House Resolution 293 to
    markup today.
        This resolution, which I introduced alongside my friend and
    south Florida colleague, Congressman Ted Deutch, condemns anti-
    Israel and anti-Semitic incitement within the Palestinian
    Authority and the timing of this markup and today's hearing--
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this--could not be any more
    appropriate.
        Last week, committee staffers traveled to Jerusalem and
    they visited the holy sites and were constantly in earshot of
    the ambulances attending to the victims of these horrific
    attacks.
        Over the past month and a half, we have seen a new wave of
    terror and violence that has spread across Israel, spurred on
    in large part by incitement by Abu Mazen and the Palestinian
    Authority officials.
        This latest round of terror and violence is just that, only
    the latest round. It may take a new form with knife attacks
    being the preferred method of terror this time around.
        But the reality is that what we have come to expect when
    the Palestinian people have been indoctrinated and incited to
    violence for years and years by their supposed leaders we need
    to hold Abu Mazen and the PA accountable for their actions to
    date and let the PA know in no uncertain terms that it needs to
    stop fueling the violence and start working toward peace. We
    need the parties involved to reconcile their differences, come
    together, de-escalate the tensions.
        Abu Mazen needs to put aside his self-interest and finally
    do what is right for the good of the Palestinian people instead
    of inciting violence and promoting hatred. Abu Mazen needs to
    call for calm and work with the Israelis to restore the peace.
        The King of Jordan also has an important role to play as
    the guardian of Jerusalem's Islamic holy sites. Everyone
    involved has an interest in seeing the incitement and violence
    stop.
        Jerusalem is home of the holiest sites for Jews, for
    Christians, for Muslims, and it is time for Abu Mazen to
    renounce the violence and stop the incitement for his
    government.
        So I urge my colleagues to support this measure and I urge
    the international community to impress upon on Abu Mazen how
    vital it is that the incitement stop immediately.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Ileana.
        We now go to Ted Deutch of Florida.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to extend my thanks to you and to Ranking Member
    Engel and your staff for working diligently to move this timely
    resolution forward, and I want to thank my friend and my
    partner, Chairman Ros-Lehtinen, for her bipartisan efforts on
    today's measure.
        We have just spent the last 2 hours discussing how
    incitement within official channels of the Palestinian
    Authority breeds violence.
        And by passing today's resolution, this committee sends a
    message to the world that Congress is watching and that violent
    hateful rhetoric will not be tolerated. We won't tolerate
    officials using religion as a means to spur violence.
        We won't tolerate actions like we saw this week as a
    Palestinian-backed resolution at UNESCO attempted to rewrite
    history and inflame tensions on the ground by challenging
    history.
        President Abbas is supposed to be a partner for peace. It
    is time he stands on the world stage and loudly condemns
    violent attacks against innocent citizens.
        It is time that he speaks truthfully about two states
    living side by side in peace and security. It is time that he
    returns to direct negations and works to truly fulfill the
    goals of creating a brighter future for his people.
        There has to be an end to this vicious violence. The only
    way to do it is by courageous leaders stopping the spread of
    false, inflammatory, accusatory rhetoric and promoting a
    culture of nonviolence and a culture of cooperation.
        I appreciate the support of my colleagues today and I
    encourage the passage of this resolution.
        Chairman Royce. Thank you, Ted.
        Any other members want to speak? Mr. Boyle.
        Mr. Boyle. I just want to briefly say I am proud to
    cosponsor this resolution and thank the author as well and the
    chair and ranking member for having this hearing and passing
    it.
        It is important to remember specifically what started this
    latest round and that was that false rumor that Israel was
    going to cut off access to the Temple Mount, the al-Aqsa
    Mosque.
        Completely untrue, completely false, and yet there have
    been attack after attack, killing innocent people in Jerusalem
    and, of course, the people perpetrating those attacks as well.
        It is important that all of us who are fortunate to have
    elected positions exercise them with responsibility and I hope
    that those within the Palestinian Authority recognize just how
    much damage and destruction has been caused to both Israelis
    and Palestinians because of their own words.
        I also want to thank and associate myself with the efforts
    of Jordan to attempt to bring a resolution to this latest
    effort and stop this absolute madness that will lead to nothing
    except for more bloodshed.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Royce. All right. Hearing no further request for
    recognition on the base text, are there any additional
    amendments?
        Mr. Salmon.
        Mr. Salmon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have an amendment
    at the desk.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Mr. Salmon. I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
    bringing up this timely measure. It is critical that Congress
    go on the record to oppose the PA's blatant incitement of
    violence in Israel and it is unacceptable and we can't remain
    silent.
        My Arizona colleague, as you mentioned in your opening
    statement, Congresswoman Martha McSally, who cares deeply about
    this issue, has worked on a similar resolution of condemnation
    of the Palestinian Authority.
        I am proud to be an original cosponsor of her resolution.
    My amendment would add a small but important provision from
    Congresswoman McSally's resolution to the one before us today.
        The amendment, very simply, expresses the U.S. Congress'
    support for the Government of Israel's fight against terrorism.
        After Palestinian President Abbas encouraged protestors to
    protect Jerusalem and blessed every drop of blood that has been
    spilled for Jerusalem as blood spilled for Allah, it is
    critical that Congress speaks with a firm voice to acknowledge
    the challenges the Israeli Government is confronting and offer
    our support for this struggle with eyes on a goal of peace for
    both Palestinians and the Israelis.
        I commend Congressman Ros-Lehtinen and Congresswoman
    McSally for their efforts on this important issue and I urge my
    colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment.
        Chairman Royce. Any other members seek recognition to speak
    on the amendment?
        Hearing none, the question occurs on the amendment. All
    those in favor say aye. All those opposed no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. The
    amendment is agreed to and hearing no further amendments the
    question occurs on approving the resolution as amendment.
        All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. House
    Resolution 293 is agreed to as amended and without objection it
    I ordered it is ordered favorably reported as amended and staff
    is directed to make any technical and conforming changes.
        And also without objection the Chair is authorized to seek
    House consideration under suspension of the rules for this bill
    and that concludes all the business today, and I want to thank
    our ranking member, Mr. Engel, and all of the committee members
    for their contribution, their assistance with our markup here
    today.
        The committee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                       Material Submitted for the Record

     Material submitted for the record by the Honorable David Cicilline, a
           Representative in Congress from the State of Rhode Island

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]