U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

20–651PDF 2016

FINANCIALLY REWARDING TERRORISM IN THE

WEST BANK

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 6, 2016

Serial No. 114–201

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

David Pollock, Ph.D., Kaufman fellow, Washington Institute for Near East 

Policy ..................................................................................................................... 5

Mr. Yigal Carmon, president and founder, Middle East Media Research Institute ........................................................................................................................ 14

The Honorable Robert Wexler, president, S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace ...................................................................................................... 25

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

David Pollock, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ............................................................ 8

Mr. Yigal Carmon: Prepared statement ................................................................ 16

The Honorable Robert Wexler: Prepared statement ............................................. 27

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 60

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 61

The Honorable Daniel Donovan, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York: Material submitted for the record ............................................... 63

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York: Material submitted for the record ............................................... 65

The Honorable Lois Frankel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida: Material submitted for the record .................................................... 67

The Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Florida: Prepared statement ................................................................. 69

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 70

(1)

FINANCIALLY REWARDING TERRORISM IN 

THE WEST BANK 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward Royce (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This hearing will come to order. 

The title of this hearing is ‘‘Financially Rewarding Terrorism in 

the West Bank.’’

And as everyone here knows, last week, a 13-year-old IsraeliAmerican girl was stabbed to death by a Palestinian terrorist while 

she slept in her bed. Sadly, Hallel Ariel’s murder is only the latest 

attack in Israel, because since October there have been 250 instances of Israelis being chased down, shot, or stabbed. Forty have 

died, including former U.S. Army Officer Taylor Force, who was 

stabbed in March along an oceanfront boardwalk. 

While this spree of attacks continues, international diplomats 

continue to meet for a probable push at the United Nations this fall 

to impose the ‘‘parameters’’ of peace on Israel and the Palestinian 

Authority. But what on earth suggests that Israel has a willing 

partner in peace at this time? 

Last fall, this committee held a hearing to expose the Palestinian 

Authority’s complicity in inciting violence. Israel is contending with 

a deep-seated hatred, nurtured by Palestinian leaders over many 

years in mosques, in schools, in newspapers, nurtured on television, on radio. As one witness told the committee, ‘‘ ‘Incitement’ 

is the term we usually use, but ’hatred’ is what we mean . . . 

teaching generations of Palestinian children to hate Jews by demonizing and dehumanizing them.’’

Take the funeral for the killer of American Taylor Force, a 

former West Point graduate, U.S. Army officer, and Vanderbilt student. Official PA TV glorified the terrorist, calling him ‘‘a Martyr’’ 

11 times in the broadcast I watched. A reporter explained that his 

funeral was a ‘‘large national wedding befitting of Martyrs.’’

But Palestinians are lured to terrorism with more than just 

words. Since 2003, it has been Palestinian law to reward Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails with a monthly paycheck—legislation which creates jihad. Under this act, the Palestinian Authority 

and the Palestinian Liberation Organization use a so-called ‘‘martyrs’ fund’’ to pay the families of Palestinian prisoners and suicide 

2

bombers. One prominent Palestinian says that these inducements 

have become ‘‘sacred in Palestinian politics.’’

You know, as a member of one concerned family here today reminded me, these terrorists are not, in fact, lone rangers, they are 

not lone wolves acting from their independent hatred. Instead, 

these terrorists are the product of the programming done by the 

PA’s perverted culture that glorifies the willingness to die or to 

spend time in prison in pursuit of killing or maiming Israelis. The 

PA programmed this hate. These financial rewards are the main 

way they accomplish this. 

And, perversely, the PA uses a sliding scale: The more the mayhem, the longer the jail sentence, then the greater the financial reward. The highest payments go to those serving life sentences—to 

those who prove most brutal. And, as we will hear today, the PA 

allots $140 million of its budget for this purpose. The monthly salary ranges from $364 a month for 3 years’ imprisonment to over 

$3,000 a month for 30 years or more. 

And whoever hits the bar, whoever was imprisoned for 5 years 

or more—and we know what kind of attack would create that—that 

individual is entitled to permanent employment in what? In the PA 

institution itself. Again, for those who wage the most brutal attacks. If a Palestinian state was established, it is hard to see how 

this ‘‘pay to slay’’ policy wouldn’t put them on the State Sponsors 

of Terrorism list today. 

With about one-third of the Palestinian Authority’s budget financed through foreign aid, the U.S. and our European allies can—

and must—help stop the bloodshed. So far, the international community has failed to effectively use its leverage. European donors 

admit they provide funding in a way that is impossible to track. 

They have nothing in their laws like the U.S. requirement—which 

the Israeli Government is now starting to embrace—that funding 

of the PA be cut by the amount the PA pays out for acts of terrorism. This must change. And if the PA’s irresponsible behavior 

continues, the whole premise for funding the PA needs to be reconsidered. 

The U.S. needs to do better at bringing the parties together while 

holding the parties responsible for their actions. This has traditionally been our role. Unfortunately, in recent years, the Obama administration has been hesitant to hold the PA accountable—yet has 

consistently pressured Israel. 

It is no wonder the Palestinian Authority believes they can go 

straight to the United Nations this fall, bypassing Israel and bypassing bilateral negotiations. Indeed, the Obama administration 

has pointedly not ruled out allowing the U.N. Security Council to 

dictate the terms of peace negotiations. The United States should 

make it abundantly clear that we oppose such actions which are 

not based on direct negotiations between the parties and will use 

our veto and keep divisive, counterproductive resolutions from 

passing. 

We have to face reality if we are going to move peace forward, 

and we have to be honest about each actor’s readiness to make 

peace. The sad truth is the Palestinian Authority has not prepared 

its citizens for peace with Israel. Quite the opposite. And, tragically, there will be no peace until that changes. 

3

And I now turn to the ranking member for any opening comments Mr. Eliot Engel of New York may have. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this morning’s 

hearing. The threats facing Israel and the challenges to reaching 

a two-state solution are growing every day, and I am glad the committee is focusing on this. 

I want to thank all our witnesses, as well. Welcome to the Foreign Affairs Committee. We are grateful for your time and your expertise. 

I especially want to welcome back former Congressman Robert 

Wexler, who spent many hours on this side of the dais on the Foreign Affairs Committee sitting next to me. It is good to have you 

back, Robert. 

And thanks to our other witnesses, as well. Thank you for joining 

us. 

Before I start with my statement, I want to offer my condolences 

to the family of Hallel Yaffa Ariel. She was the young Israel girl, 

13 years old, who was stabbed to death in her own bedroom by a 

17-year-old Palestinian boy. It is just hard to fathom, but that is 

what we end up with after years and years of incitement to violence. 

The chairman and I have talked about this ad nauseam with the 

Palestinian leadership. Everyone will hear us. You cannot have incitement and expect to have peace. Young people in classrooms 

taught to hate a group of people regarded as less than human, this 

doesn’t solve any problems. It is creates new ones, like this disgrace of this poor girl. 

Of course, when the Palestinian leadership, whether it be the 

PLO or the Palestinian Authority, sends money to convicted terrorists and their families, it is no wonder that individuals are 

incentivized to commit acts of violence. This culture of incitement 

must end. It is absolutely outrageous to pay cold-blooded killers 

and call them martyrs. It is just disgraceful. At a time when U.S. 

money is going to the Palestinian Authority, for them to do this 

just makes you scratch your head. It is not acceptable, and it is not 

tolerable, and it won’t be tolerated. 

Of course, the culture of incitement needs to end because the loss 

of innocent life is unacceptable, and it must end because violence 

and terrorism will never lead to a two-state solution. I have repeatedly said to the Palestinians they will never achieve their state on 

the backs of terrorism—just plain and simple. I believe they are entitled to their state in a two-state solution, but they will never get 

it if they think terrorism is the way to go. 

In my view, a two-state solution is the only way for Israel to remain both a Jewish state and a democracy, but right now a number of roadblocks are keeping that solution out of reach. 

First, Israel faces threats on every border. Some of Israel’s enemies possess incredibly sophisticated missile systems. Others are 

lone-wolf terrorists carrying forward the recent wave of violence we 

have seen. With this feeling of being under siege, the Israeli 

public’s confidence in a peaceful solution continues to erode. What 

else would you expect? The idea of living side-by-side with their 

Arab neighbors seems like a remote possibility, and this is precisely what the violent extremists want. 

4

At the same time, Israel faces mounting threats to its physical 

security. There is a growing effort to undermine Israel’s legitimacy. 

The so-called BDS, Boycott Divestment and Sanctions, movement—

shameful and disgraceful, in my opinion—pushes Israel to make 

unilateral concessions outside direct negotiations with the Palestinians. The BDS movement is totally at odds with a negotiated twostate solution, which, in my opinion, should remain our focus. 

So how do we resume progress toward that goal? Frankly, I think 

gatherings like the Paris peace talks last month are an unhelpful 

distraction because neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians were 

involved. How can powers come together and think they will come 

up with a solution without the two parties at the table? It just 

doesn’t make sense. 

The only way to have peace and settle the Palestinian situation 

is face-to-face talks between Israelis and Palestinians. There can be 

no imposition of a peace plan from the outside. The U.N. is a farce. 

Israel cannot get a fair hearing at the U.N. Why should Israel submit itself to such things? Direct negotiations between the parties. 

And the Palestinians have to understand they have to make concessions. 

I point out to people that, in the past couple of decades, there 

were two times that a two-state solution seemed like a possibility 

in terms of an agreement: Once in 2001 with Yasser Arafat and 

then in 2008 with Mahmoud Abbas. Ehud Barak was Prime Minister of Israel, and then Ehud Olmert was Prime Minister of Israel. 

The Israelis said, yes, they were willing to make painful concessions. And, at the end, ultimately, the Palestinians said no and 

backed out, because they talked about right of return and all kinds 

of other roadblocks. 

If there were two states and there is a two-state solution, Palestinians get the right of return to the Palestinian state, not to the 

Israel state, not to the Jewish state. And if the Palestinians want 

peace, they certainly haven’t demonstrated it, in my opinion, at all. 

We know what the unresolved issues are: Borders, security, refugees, Jerusalem, and a mutual recognition of the end of the conflict. That would require the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a 

state for the Jewish people with equal rights for all its citizens, and 

I believe the Palestinians’ refusal to do this is one of the main reasons there is no Palestinian state today. 

We also know what the pitfalls are of resuming talks. Every time 

there is a new initiative, expectations soar, and each time the talks 

fall apart, things seem to crash a little harder. That outcome leads 

to violence. Extremists find a louder voice, and people on both sides 

suffer. And it is interesting, every time it seems like there might 

be some kind of an agreement, you have violent terrorism to try 

to destroy it, because the terrorists don’t want peace. They want 

to keep the pot stirring. 

Just look in Gaza, where Hamas has tightened its grip over the 

last decade. And let’s remember that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Reconstruction is slowly progressing. Israel has expanded the 

fishing perimeter in the Mediterranean, granted thousands of work 

permits, and improved access to telecom technology. What has 

Hamas done? Rebuilt its terror tunnel network—and the chairman 

and I were there in those tunnels, and so we saw firsthand what 

5

Hamas builds—and periodically fire rockets and missiles into 

Israel, terrorizing innocent people, forcing them to run for their 

lives to the nearest shelter. 

In this context, I want to voice my support for a new long-term 

memorandum of understanding, an MOU, between the U.S. and 

Israel. We want to stop this horrific violence, but as long as Israel 

faces these threats, we need to stand with them and help ensure 

their defense and security. I urge the administration to bend over 

backwards to negotiate an MOU with Israel that will let Israel 

keep its qualitative military edge and strengthen Israel against all 

these threats that it faces from terrorists. 

So I will wrap up by saying there aren’t any easy answers. And, 

to our witnesses, we are glad to have your voices in the mix. I look 

forward to your testimony. And, again, as the chairman said, I 

agree with what he said; it is just outrageous to pay cold-blooded 

killers who murder innocent civilians and call them martyrs. I cannot think of anything more disgusting. 

So I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses, and I yield 

back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

This morning, we are pleased to be joined by a distinguished 

panel. 

We have Dr. David Pollock, Kaufman Fellow at the Washington 

Institute for Near East Policy. And, previously, Dr. Pollock served 

as a senior adviser for the broader Middle East at the State Department. 

Mr. Yigal Carmon is president and founder of the Middle East 

Media Research Institute. Prior to founding this organization, he 

was a counterterrorism adviser to two Israeli Prime Ministers. 

The Honorable Robert Wexler is President of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace. Previously, Congressman 

Wexler served as a member of this committee and served in the 

House of Representatives from 1997 to 2010. He represented Florida’s 19th District. We welcome him back to the committee. 

And so, without objection, the witnesses’ full prepared statements will be made part of the record. 

Members here will have 5 calendar days to submit any statements or any questions of our witnesses or any extraneous material 

for the record. 

And we will start with Dr. David Pollock. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID POLLOCK, PH.D., KAUFMAN FELLOW, 

WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY 

Mr. POLLOCK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member, honorable colleagues, and distinguished fellow speakers, 

for this opportunity to meet with you today. I am truly honored by 

it, and I greatly appreciate both this very prestigious forum and 

the significance of the issue at hand. 

But I believe if there is one thing that most Americans, Israelis, 

and Arabs would agree on today, it is that the Israeli-Palestinian 

conflict right now is not the most important or the most urgent 

conflict in the Middle East or for U.S. foreign policy. 

And, for that reason, I would argue that now is precisely the 

wrong time to put the Israeli-Palestinian issue near the top of our 

6

foreign policy priorities. And, also, I would argue that certain current ideas about doing that, about putting this issue at the top of 

our priorities, carry a very real, albeit unwitting, risk of doing more 

harm than good. 

I agree with the statement of the chairman and of the ranking 

member that multilateral diplomatic maneuvers, whether in Paris 

or at the United Nations, have one central and inescapable flaw. 

By definition, they encourage one or both parties to imagine that 

they can somehow avoid making compromises and, ultimately, 

peace with each other. 

This is not merely a matter of avoiding direct Israeli-Palestinian 

bilateral negotiations. It is also a matter of avoiding responsibility 

for the indispensable compromises that would make real peace possible. And that is why, simply put, the Palestinian Authority has 

become so enamored of this shortcut, or escape hatch, over the past 

several years. 

Doing multilateral initiatives in the absence of direct negotiations is not, as is sometimes said, better than nothing. It is, in fact, 

worse than nothing, because it actually helps prevent rather than 

promote peace. 

Now, what I would like to do in the few minutes that I have left 

is to focus on what I believe would be some more constructive 

steps, to look forward rather than backward. 

First and most urgently, I believe the United States should enhance its support for Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation. Despite all of the incitement coming from the Palestinian Authority, 

security cooperation with Israel continues, and this is the bedrock 

of any work to stabilize the situation and ultimately reconcile the 

parties. The United States supports this effort, and that support, 

I believe, should not only continue but intensify. 

Second, as my colleague Dennis Ross has written recently and as 

I wrote at the Washington Institute as far back as 2008, I think 

the United States should revive a deal with Israel about limiting 

settlement activity, roughly along the lines of the Bush-Sharon letter and related understandings of 2005. Israel could announce that 

it will cease new construction beyond the security barrier, or just 

act in that fashion without a declaration, in return for a U.S. commitment to cease criticizing that settlement construction—that limited settlement construction. 

Third, the U.S. should quietly encourage Israel and the Palestinians to agree on new practical forms of economic cooperation and 

of people-to-people interaction, including interfaith Jewish-Muslim 

dialogue. The more these people-to-people projects can be scaled up, 

the more they are likely to make a positive difference. 

There is currently a bipartisan bill, H.R. 1489, to create an international fund for precisely that purpose. I respectfully urge you to 

give this bill your full support, in the firm conviction that it will 

pay multiple dividends in the coming years. 

Fourth, the United States should actively explore new ideas for 

enlisting Arab backing for Israeli-Palestinian peace. 

Fifth, and finally, the United States should publicly support and 

very vocally encourage others to endorse what we used to call mutual and balanced but, if necessary, unilateral steps toward peaceful coexistence. 

7

Israel, for example, could stop the demolition of Palestinian 

buildings. The Palestinian Authority could stop referring to murderers as ‘‘martyrs.’’ The Palestinian Authority and Israel could endorse new programs of interfaith dialogue to advance tolerance, 

nonviolence, and peaceful coexistence, and so on. I would be happy 

during the question-and-answer period to expand on these and 

other specific, I hope constructive ideas. 

With that, I offer my sincere thanks once again to the committee 

and to you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to share my 

thoughts on this important topic. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pollock follows:]

8


20651a-1.eps
9


20651a-2.eps
10


20651a-3.eps
11


20651a-4.eps
12


20651a-5.eps
13


20651a-6.eps
14

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Carmon. 

STATEMENT OF MR. YIGAL CARMON, PRESIDENT AND 

FOUNDER, MIDDLE EAST MEDIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE 

Mr. CARMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the committee. 

My testimony is dedicated to the financial support given by the 

Palestinian Authority to prisoners and to families of martyrs who 

continued their terrorist activities after the Oslo Accord of 1993, in 

which Arafat committed on behalf of the Palestinian people to end 

all forms of terrorism and, by that commitment, won recognition 

among nations. By providing this support at the amount of $300 million per year, 

the PLO violates Oslo, encourages terrorism. And by using, or misusing, actually, the money of donor countries, including the United 

States, it makes them unwittingly complicit to this act of supporting terrorism. 

Let me deal with the details of this support. The PA distributes 

the money through two bodies of the PLO. One is the Palestinian 

National Fund, which deals with the prisoners and distributes the 

money through another Commission for Detainees, and the other 

is the Institute for the Caring of Families of Martyrs. 

This support for prisoners is anchored in a series of laws but 

chiefly Law No. 14 and Law No. 19 of 2004 and Law No. 1 of 2013. 

The law describes the prisoners as a fighting sector whose rights 

and the rights of their families must be assured without discrimination. 

What do these words mean? They mean that Hamas terrorists 

and Islamic jihad, PFLP, others, like a squad that bombed the cafeteria of the Hebrew U. 9 years after Oslo, in which four Americans 

were killed, will get support, like the killers of Taylor Force and 

their families. I hold in my hand documents which I hope to include in the testimony—we got them this morning—which demonstrate from PA official documents that they get this support. 

What are they entitled to? They get salaries, jobs, exemptions in 

education, health care, and more. Years in jails are calculated as 

years of seniority in government service, and priority in jobs are 

given to those who are personally involved in acts of terrorism. 

The annual amount reaches $140 million. And the implementation of the laws is through a series of decisions by the PA Government, particularly Decision 23 of 2010, which set the levels of salaries. As you had mentioned, Mr. Chairman, it is $364 per month 

to those who were sentenced to 3 years, up to $3,120 to those who 

were sentenced to 30 years for more brutal acts. There is a special 

supplement for Jerusalemites of $78 per month and for Israeli 

Arabs at the level of $130 per month above the regular salary. 

They also get the money for the canteen in jail at the level of no 

less than $780,000 per year. 

At times when there is tension between the PA and the other organizations, President Abbas doesn’t hesitate to cut them down, cut 

the salaries down. More on that you will find in my written testimony. 

Let me move to the issue of the families of martyrs. The general 

amount is $173 million per year. And these are distributed not by 

15

any specific law but by the laws that dominate social affairs, the 

conditions of the family and so on. 

But here again, it is—these two magic words—without discrimination. Namely, President Abbas and the PA claim to follow a 

peaceful political path, different than that of the other Palestinian 

organizations who followed the path of armed struggle and jihad. 

But, at the same time, they fund all those who follow the terrorists’ 

violent path. It is not just about the incitement to violence; it is 

about funding it. It is about guaranteeing an environment supportive of terror. 

In conclusion, one can understand the PLO’s commitment to support families of martyrs in the era before Oslo in the context of an 

overall peaceful reconciliation. But the fact that the PA supports 

those who continue terrorist activity after Oslo for many years now 

using donor countries’ money is a basic violation of the Oslo Accords and a deliberate encouragement of terrorism. This is a situation the donor countries never meant or wanted, and it is in their 

hands to put an end to it. 

Mr. Chairman, much more details are in my written testimony. 

I wish to thank you again for this opportunity to present the facts 

of this report. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carmon follows:]

16


20651b-1.eps
17


20651b-2.eps
18


20651b-3.eps
19


20651b-4.eps
20


20651b-5.eps
21


20651b-6.eps
22


20651b-7.eps
23


20651b-8.eps
24


20651b-9.eps
25

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Carmon. 

Mr. Robert Wexler. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT WEXLER, PRESIDENT, S. DANIEL ABRAHAM CENTER FOR MIDDLE EAST 

PEACE 

Mr. WEXLER. Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, members 

of the committee, thank you very much for your warm welcome. 

Israel is often coined the ‘‘Start-Up Nation,’’ highlighting the 

Jewish State’s economic miracle and technological and scientific 

achievements. Just as remarkable is another defining characteristic: Against all odds, Israeli military forces have successfully 

defended against an onslaught of hostile forces since 1948. 

For those of us who are Zionists, the unprecedented security collaboration between the United States and Israel is a source of tremendous pride. The joint development of missile defense technologies, all-time-high intelligence-sharing, historic military training exercises, and the recent delivery of the F-35 Joint Strike 

Fighter all demonstrate the unbreakable bond between us and 

Israel. 

American administrations and Congress after Congress have ensured Israel’s qualitative military advantage. Israel’s defense and 

intelligence coordination with Egypt and Jordan is unprecedented. 

Despite these positive developments, the Middle East Quartet report that was released last week asserted that the policies of both 

Israelis and Palestinians have distanced a two-state outcome, creating a dynamic in which a one-state reality has taken root. 

The Quartet calls on the Palestinian Authority to stop incitement 

of violence, bolster efforts to prevent terrorism, and, importantly, 

condemn attacks against Israelis. Likewise, the Quartet calls on 

Israel to cease settlement expansion, transfer civilian authority to 

the PA in Area C of the West Bank, and bluntly questions Israel’s 

long-term intentions. 

With this backdrop of despair and lack of trust on both sides, a 

stunning development has occurred. The most compelling group 

now advocating for a two-state solution is the Israel security establishment. 

Two weeks ago, a group of over 200 retired generals or equivalent rank from the Israeli Defense Forces, Mossad, Shin Bet, and 

Israel Police redirected the political discourse. Boldly, Israel’s most 

patriotic soldiers cast aside the question of whether Israel does or 

does not have a genuine partner for peace. Rather, these security 

giants demand that Israel once again determine her own destiny. 

The Israeli plan, labeled ‘‘Security First,’’ assumes a two-state 

final status arrangement is not currently feasible. It is impossible 

to eradicate terrorism through force alone. Continuation of the diplomatic impasse will lead to further violence. And Israel is strong 

enough to offer an independent initiative that combines security, 

civil, economic, and political measures. 

In the security realm, the IDF will remain deployed in the West 

Bank until a final status arrangement is reached, and the security 

fence will be completed, enhancing security within the Green Line 

and for 80 percent of Israelis living in the West Bank. 

26

In the civil-economic realm, the welfare of Palestinians will be 

improved by establishing an international fund to rehabilitate Palestinian communities and increasing work permits. 

Importantly, the Knesset should pass an evacuation compensation law, encouraging settlers now living east of the security fence, 

outside the security fence, to relocate west of the fence. What an 

impactful message that would send about Israel intentions. 

In the political realm, Israel should accept the Arab Peace Initiative with adjustments to accommodate Israel’s security and demographic needs as a basis for negotiations; acknowledge that Palestinian neighborhoods of east Jerusalem will be part of the future 

Palestinian state; and implement a freeze on settlement expansion 

east of the security fence, like Dr. Pollock mentioned. 

In Gaza, reconciliation with Turkey is an important opportunity 

to hold the ceasefire, address humanitarian needs, and promote 

economic development, including a seaport subject to Israeli security and PA control. 

Mr. Chairman, why have Israel’s most decorated security officials 

grown frustrated with their own government’s lack of initiative? 

Israel’s top military minds have come to understand the inescapable truth that the creation of a demilitarized Palestinian state is 

not a gift to the Palestinians; rather, it is the only way Israel will 

remain a Jewish and democratic state. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, demographic trends clarify the 

need for separation. The Jewish population from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River is now 52 percent. In 2020, it will 

be 49 percent; in 2030, only 44 percent Jewish. Separation into two 

states, following the Security First plan, is essential for Israel to 

remain a democratic, Jewish-majority state. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wexler follows:]

27


20651c-1.eps
28


20651c-2.eps
29

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

We are going to go with a question I have to Mr. Carmon. 

The PA has, as you know, long faced a lot of criticism from Western governments for its policy of paying Palestinian prisoners or 

the families of prisoners in Israeli jails. And we here in Congress 

have, you know, consistently passed legislation over the last few 

years that requires restrictions on financial aid to the Palestinian 

Authority based on the amounts spent on these salaries. 

The problem that I want to raise is one, as you note in your testimony, where you say, bowing to international pressure, the PA 

stopped paying from one PA ministry, only to restart the payment 

through an arm of the PLO. And this duplicity was not explained 

to us by our Government at the time that we did some cross-examination on this. Now it is surfacing. 

Can you help walk us through that change? When was it made? 

How hard is it to track? Give us the details on what happened 

there. 

Mr. CARMON. Yes, sir. 

In May 2014, under the pressure of donor countries, the PA 

made a deliberate move of misleading those countries by transferring the distribution of the money that comes from the PA to a 

body of the PLO. 

It created a virtual body, I should say, called the Commission for 

Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs, which belongs to the PLO, but 

it was virtual in the sense that the offices remained the same offices; the man in charge was the same man, Issa Qaraqe, with a 

different job title; the supervision or oversight of the distribution 

of the money remained the same. 

And it was all in answer to this pressure which was specified by 

the minister at the time of the affairs of the prisoners, Mr. Ziad 

Abu Ein, who said we had to do it because of the pressure of donor 

countries which began different investigations about how we spend 

this money. 

So this was the idea, we pass it to the PLO. And this is the end 

of the story. They will not——

Chairman ROYCE. And, as I recall, in terms of the dollar amount, 

it was precisely the same amount——

Mr. CARMON. Absolutely. 

Chairman ROYCE [continuing]. To the dollar that was transferred. 

Mr. CARMON. Yep. 

Chairman ROYCE. How much of the annual PA budget is taken 

up by these salaries to terrorists? What percentage? 

Mr. CARMON. This is hard to determine because no one knows 

really what is the PA general budget. Much of it is hidden. There 

are different bodies that are dealing with it. But I would say that 

by the——

Chairman ROYCE. Of the known budget. 

Mr. CARMON [continuing]. Online and—right. Maybe it would be 

about 10 percent. 

Chairman ROYCE. About 10 percent——

Mr. CARMON. Yes. 

Chairman ROYCE [continuing]. Goes to reward people——

Mr. CARMON. Right. 

30

Chairman ROYCE [continuing]. To carry out attacks, stabbings, 

and shootings of the Israel population. 

Mr. CARMON. Mr. Chairman, the President of the Palestinian Authority said openly that this is the main concern of the Palestinians, that the prisoners are a fighting sector of our society and 

they——

Chairman ROYCE. But most of these prisoners are young people. 

You know, the targeting goes to children, the targeting goes to 

youth. They are recruiting young people. I saw one of the recordings the other day of a girl who looked no more than 5. Maybe she 

was 4. ‘‘What message would you send to other children?’’ And she 

has a knife in her hand, and she says, ‘‘Stab, stab, stab,’’ is the 

message she sends. That is the kind of programming. 

In Congress here, over and over again, we repeat this theme: If 

you want to make peace, you have to teach peace. This is what we 

keep conveying to the Palestinian Authority. But what we are 

watching on their television is exactly the opposite. 

Maybe you can comment on this messaging and what it constitutes. 

Mr. CARMON. Mr. Chairman, MEMRI has been monitoring the 

Arab and Palestinian media mindset for almost 20 years, and what 

we see in the Palestinian media—and now it is virtual, it is online, 

and it goes all over the world—is a constant legitimatization of the 

armed action, of the killing of Israelis and Jews. And much of the 

terminology refers to Jews, kill the Jews. 

We have so much material online on our Web site, MEMRI.org, 

which shows it in a quite graphic way, pictures of the actual killing, reacting and acting in a kindergarten of the terrorist acts, to 

tell people, this is the model, this is the—tell kids, this is your 

model. 

But there is more than that. There is actual training through the 

Internet of how to do it. 

Chairman ROYCE. On how to do it. 

Mr. CARMON. Not just stab as it comes to you, but where to hit. 

And there are instructions, and there are instructions to use poison, with which knives to deal, and, of course, to use any weapon 

possible, not necessarily weapons but cars and trucks and other 

ways, whatever is in your capability—kill, kill, kill. 

Chairman ROYCE. And these are official Palestinian Authority 

media? 

Mr. CARMON. Much of it is on the Palestinian official media, absolutely. 

Chairman ROYCE. Yeah. 

Well, my time has expired. I will go to Mr. Eliot Engel of New 

York. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We all know that the Palestinian Authority has not lived up to 

its promises, and we are talking about their incitement against 

Israelis and Jews. And we know that the disgusting spectacle of 

paying terrorists for crimes, for murders, calling them martyrs is 

something that really, really irks all of us. 

But, on the other hand, you know, you look at President Abbas; 

he has just completed 11 years of his 4-year term. He threatens to 

quit all the time. I would like to hear anybody’s response about if 

31

should we worry about a PA collapse. They are no prize package, 

but breathing down their neck is Hamas. 

Is that something that we should be worried about, if the PA just 

totally collapsed? Could Hamas take over? Would the Israelis have 

something on their hands, that they really would not want to go 

in and retake the area? Any thoughts on the matter? 

I have no regard for Abbas and what he has done, but what 

about the potential of the collapse of the PA? Anybody who would 

care to answer. 

Mr. Wexler. 

Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Engel raises an important point. President 

Abbas presents a mixed bag at best. And he is responsible, ultimately, for all of the atrocities that have been outlined this morning. But there is also another aspect, which is that the collaboration between the PA and Israel is, in fact, quite substantial. 

Now, Abbas isn’t collaborating with the Israel security forces because he has become a Zionist. Just the opposite. He is collaborating because it is in his best interest to do so. Why? Because if 

he didn’t, the more extreme guys, Hamas—and now there are even 

more extreme guys than Hamas—would threaten the relative stability in the West Bank. 

So, to your point, Congressman Engel, if the PA were to collapse, 

what we are likely to see is not a more democratic regime, unfortunately. The gap is likely to be filled by an even more extreme 

bunch. 

But let’s also be fair, if we may. Condemnations of President 

Abbas are fair, they are legitimate, again, outlined this morning. 

But everyone here needs to understand what it takes in order to 

have an election in the Palestinian Authority. You need three approvals. The PA has to approve. Israel has to approve, because you 

can’t hold an election in Jerusalem without Israeli approval. And 

you have to have Hamas to approve because you can’t have votes 

in Gaza, unfortunately, without them. 

So I am not casting judgment, but we need to be realistic about 

the enormous process that would need to be undertaken in order 

to actually have an election under the current circumstances in the 

Palestinian territories. You need those three actors to agree to 

some type of election administration. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you. 

One of the things that is interesting in terms of the geopolitical 

movement of the Middle East is that, if you talk to heads of state, 

the Sunni Arab states sound very similar in their perspective of the 

Middle East to the Israeli leadership, to Netanyahu. And you will 

talk about Iran and other things, and you talk to the Sunni Arab 

states; it is the same thing. 

When you speak with Israeli leadership, they will say there is no 

conflict with the Arab world. There is a conflict with the Palestinians. But the Arab world, the Sunni world, sees the situation today 

much like the Israeli Government. There is unprecedented cooperation going on behind the scenes between Israel and some of the 

countries that were long regarded as Israel’s enemies. 

So it is interesting, when you look at the Arab League putting 

forth a comprehensive proposal and a peace plan. There have been 

media reports recently that Prime Minister Netanyahu is open to 

32

discussing the Arab Peace Initiative as the basis for an accord. 

Israel rightly takes issue with several parts of the proposal, but 

that could potentially be worked out. 

To what extent should the U.S. encourage this? Anybody else? 

Mr. Pollock? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Thank you very much for the question and the opportunity to reflect on it. 

I believe that the Arab Peace Initiative is a significant step forward, although, as you and others have pointed out, it doesn’t implement itself, and it needs to be negotiated, and it needs to be revised. 

But I would point out that U.S. support for discussions about the 

Arab Peace Initiative could be an important new ingredient in this 

picture going forward. 

Secretary Kerry achieved an important modification of the Arab 

Peace Initiative a few years ago when the Arab foreign ministers 

formally agreed that Israel’s withdrawal from occupied territories 

could be, on the basis of new boundaries, negotiated between the 

parties that would allow for territorial exchanges—land swaps, as 

they are often called—rather than literally on the pre-1967 lines. 

But that achievement, unfortunately, in the last couple of years, 

has been taken back, walked back by Arab governments and by the 

Arab League. It would be useful, I think, for the United States to 

go to them, to the Arab governments, and say: You agreed to this 

a few years ago. Can we assume that you still agree to it today? 

Can we proceed on that basis? 

That would allow for negotiations that would advance this 

emerging consensus between Israel and key Arab governments that 

peace is in their common interest. 

One last point about this. In late 2013, Arab foreign ministers 

were prepared to go even further, at the urging of Secretary Kerry, 

but they were stopped by objections from the Palestinian Authority. 

This is not in the public record, but it is a fact. 

The Palestinian Authority objected, successfully and very sadly, 

in my view, to a willingness on the part of other Arab leaders to 

accept the formulation of recognition of Israel as a Jewish state or 

as a state for the Jewish people. And it would be useful today for 

the United States to encourage those Arab governments to reconsider and to encourage the Palestinian Authority, hard as it would 

be—and it would be very hard—to reconsider its objections to that 

formulation. That could be a new and, I think, very hopeful basis 

for renewed peace negotiations. 

Thank you. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

And, first of all, I would like to thank the chairman, Mr. Royce, 

for conducting this hearing. 

And I would sign on personally to your concept that, if money is 

going to people who have committed acts of terrorism by the Palestinian Authority, that that should be extracted from our commitment to aid the Palestinian Authority. So I think that is a very 

good step, symbolic as well, but needs to be done. 

33

I would also like to especially identify myself with the remarks 

of Ranking Member Engel. His commitment—and as we have 

heard from the witnesses, as well—for a two-state solution has not 

been dimmed by some of the horrendous downsides and setbacks 

that we have seen in the last 20 years. 

And this two-state solution was a solution that was worked out. 

There was a great deal of optimism that it could work. Let me just 

suggest—I just got back from the Middle East, and I was in Egypt, 

Jordan, and Turkey. And the average people in those countries still 

believe in the two-state solution—the average people. They are not 

pro-Israeli, but they understand that, to have peace, they need this 

two-state solution. That was heartening to me. 

What is disheartening to me is that we have the United States 

still acting so foolishly that we end up providing hundreds of millions of dollars to people who then spend tens of millions, if not 

more, building the very tunnels that Ranking Member Engel mentioned. 

And I remember walking with you down into those tunnels. And, 

by the way, these tunnels are not just little holes in the ground. 

These are engineering efforts that are very expensive, engineering 

projects that I am sure cost tens of millions of dollars. And yet we 

continue, to make this consistent with what the chairman is saying, we continue to finance them at the same level. 

I would suggest we make a list and that, when the Palestinians 

are obviously using their resources to conduct war on Israel, we 

should extract that from what we are giving to the Palestinian Authority and et cetera. 

So, with that said—and, also, it is always great to hear former 

Congressman Wexler. He is almost as passionate as I am about 

things, and that is saying a lot. 

Just one question for Mr. Pollock. 

You said that perhaps it would be good for Israel to cease its tactic of tearing down buildings. It is my understanding that the 

Israelis destroy buildings when someone in the family who lived in 

that building has conducted a terrorist attack and murdered some 

kind of an Israeli citizen. 

Don’t you think that unilaterally ceasing that policy would not 

be something that would give them encouragement to stop the type 

of terrorism that this hearing is all about? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Thank you, sir. That is a fair question. 

The reality, as I understand it, actually is that, yes, that is current policy of the Israeli Government. Although they had stopped 

doing that for many years, they resumed it in the last couple of 

years in response to the new wave of stabbings and other killings. 

But the truth is that the Israeli Government demolishes many, 

many other Palestinian buildings for various other reasons—just, 

for example, not having proper building permits, not allowing Palestinian construction in certain areas of the West Bank or of East 

Jerusalem and so on. 

And I believe, applied that way, this is a counterproductive tactic. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, as long as that caveat was put on, in 

terms of we will continue our destruction of those buildings that 

34

have a direct association with people who have committed acts of 

terrorism, well, then I might agree with that. 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And one note. The Palestinians lost their 

land in 1948, all right? We understand that. And the Israelis that 

started their new country in 1948, they are a nation now. And I 

agree with Mr. Wexler’s analysis that, for it to be the Israel that 

is a separate country and will have some hope, that it has to be 

recognized as a Jewish state and the right of return. 

As long as that is a demand and that has not—people keep ignoring that issue. As long as that has not been accepted, that Palestinian refugees from 1948 are not going to be able to go back into 

what is now the state of Israel, there will be no peace, because 

there is no—Israel would never accept that because it would be the 

end of their country. 

So I would hope that the Palestinian people decide that they do 

want to live at peace and accept that there is no right of return 

and that there is a two-state solution. So let us be optimistic that 

that someday can be achieved, while understanding that today this 

terrorism that motivated the chairman to call this hearing, that 

that is dealt with. 

So thank you very much to the witnesses. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

We go to Mr. Albio Sires of New Jersey. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here today. 

Congressman Wexler, nice to see you. I see the passion is still 

there, which is great. 

You know, I keep thinking about this money that is paid out. I 

cannot imagine that the donor countries who are trying to help 

make these payments cannot help, cannot be—what is the word I 

want here? What I am trying to say is, will the will be in those 

countries to stop payment? Is there a will to do that? Or will they 

just keep running along with the program? Can anybody answer 

that? 

I mean, I would think it would be very easy, if the will was 

there, to say, well, we are not going to give you any money if you 

are going to pay for these people who—the families of people who 

commit atrocities. Why isn’t the will there to stop that? It seems 

to me, anyway. Maybe I am wrong. 

Mr. CARMON. Well, it is hard to know what are the motives of 

the donor countries. They begin pressuring, and they hope that this 

pressure will help, but, instead of a real change, they got a virtual 

change. 

And, really, the point to raise, as I mentioned, is that Abbas himself is doing it for the wrong reasons, so why wouldn’t they? It is 

not something that is undone. It is something possible, and Abbas 

himself is doing it. 

Mr. SIRES. But I am talking about European countries giving 

money, and people are committing atrocities. They get the money, 

Abbas gets the money and doles it out. But I think it should come 

from the people who give the money to Abbas who have the will 

and say, hey, we are not going to give you a dime if you keep using 

the money for this. 

35

I mean, there is no will there. And then yet, you know, they are 

the first ones who criticize Israel all the time. 

Mr. CARMON. Sir, it is also U.S. money. 

Mr. SIRES. Well, that——

Mr. WEXLER. If I may, directly to the point, but also to the broader, I think, aim of this committee and to each and every member 

of the committee, which is ultimately assist the parties to create 

a dynamic in which a two-state outcome is feasible—a homeland 

for the Palestinian state and a demilitarized Palestinian state, and 

a Jewish homeland in a democratic Israel. 

Now, rightfully, the chairman and this committee is focused on 

terrorism and payments and the like. But I can tell you, this document that was prepared by 200-plus Israeli generals, these guys 

are not doves. And what they will say first is, yes, go after incitement, yes, go after terrorism, yes, do all the things that you are 

talking about today, but you are still not going to resolve or even 

begin to resolve the problem. 

And to resolve this problem, it is going to have to be multifaceted, and it is going to have to address the incitements on all 

side. And I am not creating a relativity between terrorism and 

building houses. I am not doing that. There is no relativity about 

terrorism. But we also need to understand that, from a Palestinian 

perspective, Israel occupies the West Bank. And I don’t say the 

term ‘‘occupation’’ in the politically loaded way. They control it. But 

when that control is exerted, oftentimes for very legitimate reasons, there are counter-reactions. 

And we need to understand that if we want to help the parties 

we need to address all aspects of that conflict—economic, political, 

and also people to people, much of what has been discussed. Should 

security be first? Yes, of course it should. Should terrorism and 

payments to terrorists be completely not tolerated? Of course. But 

just to address that, we shouldn’t be so unrealistic or naive to 

think that terrorism is going to be somehow mitigated. 

Mr. SIRES. We have to start somewhere. 

Dr. Pollock? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes, thanks. 

I think that this should not be viewed as an all-or-nothing proposition in the sense that we either have to cut off the PA completely 

or do nothing. I think that there——

Mr. SIRES. I am more concerned about the European countries. 

Mr. POLLOCK. Okay. 

Mr. SIRES. Because we put stipulations in the money that we 

give. 

Mr. POLLOCK. Well, yes, but the U.S. stipulations, as my fellow 

witness here, Mr. Carmon, has observed, have been evaded by the 

PA through this deceitful technique of funneling money to terrorists and their families under a different name, right? 

So I think that the United States could and other countries 

should—although we can’t control what they do in Europe or other 

places—should reduce the amount or condition the amount of assistance that they provide to the PA without threatening to or 

without actually cutting it off completely. Because there is a real 

danger, as someone else pointed out, of the PA collapsing, which 

36

would be bad for everyone—Palestinians, Israelis, Americans, and 

the region as a whole. 

But I do think that a certain calibrated, limited amount of financial pressure applied, again, by the United States without any loopholes or escape hatches and, if possible, by European and other donors to the PA would be helpful in addressing this immediate 

issue. And I agree strongly with Mr. Wexler that this not the only 

issue on the table, but we do have to start somewhere. 

I want to say one other last point in this regard. I think it is 

quite possible in the real world, unfortunately, that if we and/or 

European donors reduce—not cut off, but reduce—the amount of 

assistance to the PA by the amount, say, with which they subsidize 

terrorists and their families, if we do that, it is quite possible that 

other unfriendly governments or not-so-friendly governments would 

jump in to fill the gap—Arab governments, perhaps others. 

And that may be—I hate to say it, to be so cynical about it, but 

that may be the only way in which any of those governments will 

fulfill their aid pledges to the Palestinians. 

Mr. SIRES. Yeah. I do not think that one issue is going to solve 

everything. It is much more complex than that. 

Chairman ROYCE. Joe Wilson of South Carolina. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Chairman. 

And I appreciate so much Chairman Ed Royce, Ranking Member 

Eliot Engel. This is an extraordinary example of bipartisan concern 

and capable people. And I am grateful to be here with my colleague 

Albio Sires, too, and ask questions which really are quite in line. 

It is just absolutely appalling to me that we have a situation 

with the Palestinian Authority which is providing rewards to murderers’ families. It is pay to slay. And every effort, I think, should 

be made to stop it. Sadly, this follows the dangerous Iranian nuclear deal, where funding is being provided by the Iranians to 

Hamas. 

And we need to remember that just last week there was another 

rocket attack at Sderot. And I personally identify with that. I have 

been to Sderot. I have met a dear lady who was at a park with her 

children when a rocket attack occurred. She grabbed the closest 

child, went to a shelter. But the child that she didn’t pick up was 

permanently traumatized. I never want to see American families 

have to face this. 

But the thought that we would be allowing any type of financing 

for pay to slay or for Hamas and its—by releasing funds to Iran, 

putting American and Israeli families at risk. 

Along with this, the Palestinian Authority is providing financial 

support for pay to slay, for terrorism in the region. 

And, Dr. Pollock, the—and it has been reviewed, but the American people need to know again, so restate. How does the Palestinian Authority provide support of the families of known terrorists? Is it in the form of cash, electronic wire transfers, other 

sources of payment? And what is the total amount that the Palestinian Authority provides in compensation to these families each 

year? Is there any evidence that U.S. dollars are ultimately ending 

up in the pockets of the relatives of terrorists? 

And you have stated it, but state it one more time. 

37

Mr. CARMON. Sir, the documents are there. The information is 

there. We also possess much of it online. I have in my hand documents from the Arab Bank and from the Ministry of Detainees, 

which sets up all the details, everything that—how and where. 

And they are respectable banks. It is an official government operation. It is not some rogue side payment under the table. This is 

what the PA stands for, ideologically and in money. 

So the information is there. It is, again, the will to act upon it. 

And I think that it would be a great educational process if that 

amount of $300 million per year is cut so people understand 

through their lives that this path is not the way to get rid neither 

of the occupation nor of their life conditions. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you again for restating and holding up 

the records. And if that wasn’t clear, of course, the propaganda 

that you have cited, too, and the boasting about the murder of the 

young lady last week, the teenager, stabbing to death, is just incredible. 

Congressman Wexler, welcome back. In your opinion, what is the 

impact of the Palestinian Authority’s financial support to the families of terrorists on future acts of terrorism? Do you believe these 

payments encourage and perpetuate further acts of violence? 

Mr. WEXLER. Of course they do. How could they not? 

And not only are they destructive, as everyone has described, in 

terms of the implications for individuals, but they are also destructive in terms of its implication for the two societies. Why should 

the Israelis ever believe that they have a genuine partner for peace 

when the other side is encouraging the type of behavior that is 

being discussed? And, likewise, if you are a 12-, 13-, 14-year-old 

young Palestinian boy and you see the type of behavior that is encouraged on your side, what disincentive is there to go and repeat 

those kinds of atrocities? 

But, if I may, and not, again, to create any relative type of comparison, but that is why those of us who care so deeply about the 

security and the well-being of Israel need to make certain that 

Israel takes independent initiatives on its own behalf to control its 

own destiny, quite frankly, not wait for the partner to emerge that 

we all hope would emerge. 

And that is the kind of behavior that, ultimately, as it stands, 

will actually create a dynamic that might possibly, if the Palestinian leadership wants to become more reasonable, will be able to 

do so. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, thank you very much. And, again, I look forward to working with my colleagues to ending pay for slay. Thank 

you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

We go to Karen Bass from California. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

First of all, you know, my heart goes out to the family of the 13-

year-old child. I can’t imagine what they must be going through 

right now. But, yeah, I am so concerned about the cycle of violence, 

and I hope that this atrocity doesn’t lead to revenge killings like 

we have seen. 

38

And I think both Mr. Wexler and Dr. Pollock have talked about 

the generals and the desire of the generals to see a different policy. 

And I wanted to know if you could expand on that a little bit. 

A couple of my colleagues have mentioned—and I believe you did 

too, Dr. Pollock—about the policy of destroying homes—and I 

would imagine the home of the 17-year-old might get destroyed—

and then the policy of the PA of giving money to families that have 

committed these acts. 

So when a house is blown up, then where does that family go? 

And is that an example of the money that the PA uses? I mean, 

what happens to—you never hear about that. And you also mentioned other examples of houses being, you know, dismantled because of building codes or whatever. What happens to those families?

Mr. POLLOCK. Okay. Thank you for the question. 

In my own view, blowing up the houses of families of terrorists, 

if that actually deters terrorism——

Ms. BASS. Is there any evidence of this? 

Mr. POLLOCK [continuing]. I don’t know the answer to that, honestly. But if—if—it does deter terrorism, then I think, tragically, it 

would be acceptable, even though, honestly, it is collective punishment. It leaves families who may not actually be responsible for 

the actions of their children or other relatives, it leaves them homeless. 

It is something that is very debatable. And, as I said, the Israeli 

Government itself had long stopped using that practice and only resumed it in recent years, I would say, almost as a matter of desperation, because they were subject to this very deadly wave of 

stabbings and other forms of assault. 

Ms. BASS. Is this a practice that the 200 generals are against? 

Mr. POLLOCK. I don’t know for sure, but——

Mr. WEXLER. No, I—oh, I am sorry. 

Mr. POLLOCK [continuing]. I want to just say in connection with 

that—and allow me to be very frank. With all due respect to any 

group of generals or others who are well-intentioned and smart and 

patriotic, here or anywhere, it is the Government of Israel that has 

to make these decisions. And that government is, like it or not, a 

democratically elected government. And only a democratic election 

will change that government or its policies. 

Ms. BASS. I believe both of you have made reference to settlements and saying that more settlements shouldn’t be approved. 

But weren’t more settlements just approved in the last couple 

days? 

Mr. WEXLER. If I may? 

Obviously, I don’t speak for Dr. Pollock, but, actually, I think we 

have been talking on the same tune. What we have talked about 

is the security fence that Israel, in my humble opinion, rightfully 

built after the last round of intifada. And, unfortunately, for political reasons, they haven’t completed the fence, but that is a whole 

other story. 

What Dr. Pollock and I have said is, beyond that security fence, 

meaning east of the security fence—and the route of the security 

fence was created by the Israeli Government—that the Israelis 

should stop building beyond that fence. Because, for all practical 

39

purposes, based on an Israeli action, the likelihood that that land 

would ever become a part of an Israeli state in a negotiated outcome is probably zero percent. So why exacerbate—why create even 

additional problems? 

Dr. Pollock, I think, talked about a tradeoff. What he said was, 

in return for the Israeli Government saying they would not and, in 

fact, not building beyond the fence—he talked about a tradeoff—

then America shouldn’t criticize settlement building within the 

fence. And I think that is a legitimate point. 

But settlements don’t occur in a vacuum, or building doesn’t 

occur in a vacuum. You have to put all the issues before the people. 

But if you did that kind of action, if the Israelis did that kind of 

action, their international legitimacy for those that are at least objective would go sky-high. Because you wouldn’t be able to just 

criticize the Israeli Government in a wholehearted way without 

recognizing the fact that they have taken an important initial step. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Jeff Duncan of South Carolina. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for this 

hearing. 

When I think about the issues of today, I think about the solution. And I think the solution is easy, but the political implementation of that solution seems very, very difficult. When I say ‘‘solution,’’ I mean the beginning of a solution. And that is the recognition by the PA, the Palestinians, of the Jewish state of Israel’s 

right to exist—recognition of that state. 

When I was in Israel in 2011, I talked with Benjamin Netanyahu 

and Shimon Peres and others, who said, you know, if the Palestinians would just recognize our right to exist, it would go a long way 

to getting us all to table to start negotiating the things that the 

gentlemen on the panel are talking about. 

The solution is easy, but the political implementation by the Palestinians is very difficult, and I get that. I get that. But sometimes 

leadership takes making difficult decisions to move the ball forward. So my appeal to the Palestinians today is recognize Israel. 

I am proud to stand as a Member of Congress as someone that 

stands with the state of Israel and support them in any way that 

I can as a Congressman and we as the Foreign Affairs Committee 

and the United States Congress can—financially, security-wise, 

and just verbally of standing firm in our commitment to the state 

of Israel. 

Mr. Chairman, this hearing is important, but it is difficult for me 

today to focus on Israel and the West Bank and the U.N. and recognition and funding after I witnessed yesterday in my own country the FBI Director erode the very fabric of the fabric of the foundations of the institutions of government. 

July 5, 2016, will be a day that we remember, when we saw that 

the blindfold on the arbiter of the scales of justice was ripped away. 

Because the scales of justice are no longer blindfolded. Before yesterday, you were to be judged and weighted based on the evidence. 

But as of yesterday, political influence, party affiliation, race, gender, family ties, you name it, all will factor into justice. 

American needs to realize that the scales of justice wear a blindfold for a reason. It is what sets us apart from other countries 

40

around the world. I travel extensively through Latin America as 

chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee. What sets 

America apart from countries in Latin America is our impartial 

justice system, where the facts are weighed. 

It shouldn’t matter what family you were born into, your wealth, 

your race, your sex. It shouldn’t. And we have had an ongoing conversation in the last few years about race and impartiality with regard to race in the justice system. Now we are going to have an 

ongoing conversation about political aristocracy, political connections, wealth, future aspirations, you name it—will all factor into 

the American judicial system to its detriment, America. 

Regardless of how you feel about individuals and individual candidates, surely you believe in the institutions of government. 

It is a sad day for me. I can’t focus on Israel and the topics that 

the gentlemen on the panel were brought to Washington to discuss. 

My love for Israel is clouded by my love for the United States of 

America. Because without America, without the things that we believe in, we will not have the ability to support our allies in the 

region. And I hope everyone will think about that. 

And, with that, I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Mr. Gerry Connolly of Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Pollock, I am picking up on your last comment about a democratic government in Israel, and until and unless that democratic 

government is changed, they make the decisions. 

Surely, however, you did not mean to suggest that this democratic elected government, as the largest supporter of Israel, 

doesn’t have a right to be critical when it thinks its interests or 

even Israel’s are at risk. 

Mr. POLLOCK. Absolutely not. You are quite right, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. 

Mr. POLLOCK. But——

Mr. CONNOLLY. I just wanted to clarify that. I don’t mean to cut 

you off, but I—because leaving it that way—I mean, we get to be, 

as friends, critical. 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And U.S. policy is longstanding with respect to 

settlement expansion and other aspects of the relationship that 

have critical aspects to them as well as, of course, longstanding 

support. I count myself, certainly, as an unswerving supporter of 

Israel, but that doesn’t mean I can’t be critical as a friend. 

Mr. POLLOCK. Of course. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. 

And you can answer this, too, if you wish, but I will put it to, 

first, Congressman Wexler. 

Congressman Wexler, okay, so there are problems with the Palestinians—leadership, funneling of money, as Dr. Pollock indicated, 

that, clearly, we find abhorrent. 

What happens—let’s defund the PA, let’s close their offices here, 

let’s stop working with them. Would that be welcomed by the 

Israeli Government, in your opinion? And would it help the cause, 

the peace cause? 

Mr. WEXLER. It is not my opinion; it is the policy of the Israel 

Government at successive stages where they were diametrically opVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:05 Sep 08, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\070616\20651 SHIRL
41

posed to certain steps that might have led to a destructive position 

for the PA. 

No one has a greater stake in the success of the Palestinian Authority and, more importantly, a greater stake in the bolstering of 

moderate forces or, at least, of the group, the most moderate forces, 

than Israel. If the Palestinian Authority crashes, one of two things 

is most likely to happen: Hamas or even more extreme elements 

take control, or the Israelis have to step in even with greater 

strength. Either result is a disaster for Israel. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And that is the position of the Israeli Government. 

Mr. WEXLER. Sure. It has been that way through Labor governments, Likud governments, Kadima governments, because it is, 

quite frankly, so obvious. They need the Palestinian moderate 

forces to be successful. 

Now, some could argue, when they had that opportunity under 

Prime Minister Fayyad, who was, you know, in most respects, from 

an American and Israeli perspective, the best thing that came 

along——

Mr. CONNOLLY. A vary able administrator. 

Mr. WEXLER. That is right. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And, as far as we know, incorruptible. 

Mr. WEXLER. Yes. And we didn’t do enough, none of us, to push 

his agenda——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah. 

Mr. WEXLER [continuing]. Quite frankly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Terrible loss, actually, when we lost him. 

Dr. Pollock, do you concur? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes, I do. But, as I said, I don’t believe that this 

is an all-or-nothing——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. 

Mr. POLLOCK [continuing]. Proposition. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Got it. I agree. I think our choices aren’t great, 

and I think that is always hard for Americans. There ought to be 

a very clear white-hatted choice and a——

Mr. POLLOCK. Right. 

Mr. CONNOLLY [continuing]. Bad, black-hatted choice. We are between a rock and a hard place, but, absent the PA, probably either 

the Israelis have to step in and actually run everything in the West 

Bank administratively, in terms of local government services, or 

Hamas gains control of the West Bank, which is not a desirable 

outcome. 

Mr. POLLOCK. What I mean specifically is that a reduction—not 

a cutoff, a reduction——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah. 

Mr. POLLOCK [continuing]. In U.S. and other funding for the 

PA——

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. I didn’t mean to even suggest you were 

saying that. But they have been calls here, even on this committee, 

for a total cutoff and close the——

Mr. POLLOCK. No. I think that would be a mistake. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. 

A final thing, real quickly. Mr. Wexler, you made reference to 

200 generals, Mossad leaders, Shin Bet leaders, who have exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:05 Sep 08, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\070616\20651 SHIRL
42

pressed deep concern about the current government in Israel, 

Netanyahu, and Israel’s security. Do you want to elaborate a little 

bit on that? What is going on? 

Mr. WEXLER. Yeah. I don’t want to politicize this needlessly. 

Their concern is not addressed about the government. Their concern is about the policy. Their concern—these are generals. For the 

most part, almost all of them are not politicians. And what they 

have put forth is a multifaceted set of policies that will help address the security quagmire that Israel finds itself in. 

The first assumption they make, quite frankly, is that the question of whether or not there is a genuine partner for peace for 

Israel, they don’t care about it. Not because they don’t want there 

to be a genuine partner. What they are saying is, if we wait forever 

for Abbas or his successors to do the right thing, in the meantime 

we are going to be compromised; our interests, Israeli interests, are 

going to be compromised. 

So what they are saying to their own government, to their own 

people is: These are the 12, 18 steps we could take on our own, because, thank goodness, we are strong enough, and will enhance our 

position rather than detract from it. That is what they are saying. 

It is not a condemnation or an applause for the government. 

What they are saying is the status quo, the way it remains, if we 

do nothing, we will actually compromise Israel’s Jewishness, its 

Jewish majority; its democratic nature is in question, and its international standing is constantly badgered. 

Now, for a lot of reasons, that badgering and that criticism is totally illegitimate. But what these security commanders are saying 

is, if we are going to be strategic, let’s at least put forth an international position that allows us to enhance our international relationships, as opposed to constantly being on the defensive. 

Chairman ROYCE. We are going to go to Randy Weber of Texas. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Pollock, I have to say, this is the first hearing I have been 

at where the first witness said, as I see it, our primary task here 

is not to debate the underlying issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or U.S. policy in that regard. I thought the hearing was over, 

at that point. That is an interesting thought. 

And then you go on and you say—and that is exactly what we 

have been doing, by the way, in my opinion. We are debating those 

underlying issues and how we got here and how those need to 

change. 

Then you go on and you lay out five proposals. And your fifth 

and final proposal is that the U.S. should publicly support and very 

vocally encourage others to endorse what we call mutual imbalance—I thought that was a news station, i didn’t know; or that is 

‘‘fair and balanced,’’ isn’t it?—but, if necessary, unilateral steps toward peaceful coexistence. 

And then you talk about the Israelis stopping the destruction 

of—destroying buildings of those who perpetrate such violence on 

innocent men, women, and children. 

And you don’t say in your comments—and I followed you fairly 

closely—you don’t say in your comments anything about there 

being unilateral action, perhaps, on the Palestinian side. 

43

And so is it totally out of—I mean, is it just totally out in left 

field and unrealistic to say, how about some unilateral action on 

their side? They stop indoctrinating their children—I will give you 

four examples. Then I will give you a chance to respond. 

Stop indoctrinating their children with the message of hate. Quit 

calling the Jewish people dogs and apes and animals and then trying to kill them as such. Kick out Hamas. Recognize Israel’s right 

to exist, number three. And, fourth and finally, stop funding the 

terrorism and those that are in jail. 

Is there no call for the Palestinians to have any unilateral responsibility, Dr. Pollock? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Thank you for the question. 

I actually think that I made that call, both in my written statement and in my remarks. I said specifically in my remarks—perhaps you weren’t here in the room—that the PA should stop referring to murderers——

Mr. WEBER. Well, I am reading your fifth——

Mr. POLLOCK [continuing]. As martyrs. 

Mr. WEBER [continuing]. Point basically says that about Israel. 

It doesn’t say it in this context. So if I missed it, I apologize. 

Mr. POLLOCK. I think you did miss it, sir, yes. And I accept your 

apology. 

But what I would like to say in response is that, if you look at 

my written statement, you will see a long list of unilateral moves 

that Israel could take and that the Palestinians could and should 

take, including not referring to murderers as martyrs and recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Fair enough. 

Do you agree with that, Mr. Wexler, that the Palestinians should 

be called upon initially to stop the violence from their end? 

Mr. WEXLER. Yeah, 100 percent. You had me totally, Congressman Weber, until you said kick out Hamas. I agreed with every 

word you said. That may trouble you, but I agreed with every word 

you said. 

Mr. WEBER. Your agreeing with me or the not agreeing with kick 

out Hamas? 

Mr. WEXLER. No, I am all——

Mr. WEBER. That is the part that troubles me. 

Mr. WEXLER. I am all for kicking out Hamas, but we need to understand the reality. The reality is the PA doesn’t have an army. 

The reality is the strongest army in the region, thank goodness, is 

the Israeli Army. They haven’t been able to kick out Hamas, unfortunately. 

So when we say kick out Hamas and you say the PA should 

doing that, with what weapons? They don’t have them. Now, I don’t 

want to give them the kind of weapons that would be required to 

kick out Hamas. 

But what we also respectfully need to understand, as much as 

you disdain Hamas, hate Hamas, as much as I disdain them and 

hate them, as much as the Israelis disdain them and hate them, 

Abbas hates them even more than you and me. 

Mr. WEBER. So this is the lesser of two evils? Is that like the 

bumper sticker that says, ‘‘Have you hugged your terrorist today?’’

Mr. WEXLER. No. 

44

Mr. WEBER. I mean——

Mr. WEXLER. No. No. I wouldn’t go that far. Hamas is a despicable terrorist organization that is designed to destroy the state 

of Israel. If I could stamp them out tomorrow, if I had the power 

to do it, I would do it. 

Mr. WEBER. So if it is not destroying the buildings whereby the 

perpetrators live in and people get to understand—if you want the 

force and you don’t have the military weapons, you have to have 

the public understand, number one, you don’t teach hatred; number 

two, those who perpetrate such acts of violence will be dealt with 

immediately and in a very decisive fashion. Is that wrong? 

Mr. WEXLER. No. You are right. But here is the problem. Every 

2 years—I used to do it too—we would run commercials and send 

out leaflets. I imagine in November you will send out—in October, 

you will send out a whole bunch of stuff, what Congressman Weber 

has achieved these last 2 years. 

So if you are a Palestinian and you are taking a look as to, well, 

which brand of leadership am I in favor of—Abbas’ leadership? He 

talks about negotiating or—even though he doesn’t do it—he talks 

about a peaceful resistance. And the Palestinian people look at it, 

even if they are inclined to believe, and they say, what has that 

bought me for the last 30 years? They don’t like it. Whether they 

are right or wrong, I don’t know, but they don’t like it. 

They look at Hamas and their absolutely atrocious behavior—

guess who causes the Israeli Government to make a prisoner swap 

where they give up thousands for two? Hamas, not the Palestinian 

Authority. So, unfortunately, what the Palestinian Authority see is 

they see that this terrorist group, in certain ways, from their completely distorted, horrific logic, is more effective in representing 

their interests than the more moderate Palestinian leadership. 

What we have to do, respectfully, is encourage our friends—

Israelis, Arabs, everybody, and Palestinians—to support and bolster the moderate strain so that they have a commercial to run. 

Chairman ROYCE. We will go to——

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We will go to Lois Frankel of Florida. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for this hearing. 

And one of the things I have always been grateful, in terms of 

this Congress, which is often at each other’s throats on both sides, 

is the bipartisan spirit and support of Israel and peace for both 

Israel and the Palestinians, which is what we are here to talk 

about today. 

You know, I wasn’t going to raise this, but one of my colleagues 

made such a dramatic statement about his disappointment about 

something that happened yesterday. I agree, in this regard. There 

was something that happened yesterday that really appalled me, 

but it is not the same thing that appalled him. One of our Presidential candidates—you can just fill in the blank—praised the late 

Iraq dictator, Saddam Hussein. He said, ‘‘You know what he did 

well? He killed terrorists. They didn’t read them their rights. They 

didn’t talk. If they were a terrorist, it was over.’’

Now, as I recall—and, Mr. Chair, I would ask unanimous consent 

to have this article put into the record. 

45

I want to just read from an article dated April 3, 2002, CBS 

News. It says,

‘‘Iraq President Saddam Hussein has raised the amount offered 

to the relatives of suicide bombers from $10,000 per family to 

$25,000, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said 

Wednesday. Since Iraq upped its payments last month, 12 suicide bombers have successfully struck inside Israel, including 

one man who killed 25 Israelis, many of them elderly, as they 

sat down to a meal at a hotel to celebrate the Jewish holiday 

of Passover. The families of three suicide bombers said they recently received payments of $25,000.’’

So, just for the record, yes, something that I think was disgraceful to American values was any Presidential candidate who would 

praise Saddam Hussein. 

Now, with that said, I am going to ask a question, not on that 

subject. 

Mr. Wexler, I have been very long interested in your analysis of 

the demographics in the region. And I am told that you did talk 

about that earlier in your testimony. So my question to you is—and 

maybe you can just repeat some of that for me—is, what is the incentive for the Palestinians really to not just wait? 

Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, Congresswoman Frankel. 

This is part of the problem. Time is arguably on the Palestinian 

side, not on the Israeli side. 

If you boil this conflict down—and I don’t mean to be simplistic, 

but—there are three major components, essentially, at least from 

an Israeli perspective: Land, democracy, and Jewish majority. 

The unfortunate reality is Israel gets to pick two of those three. 

They don’t get to pick three. If they take all the land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, if they take a great bulk of the 

West Bank, they are going to either lose their Jewish majority or 

their democratic nature, which for most of us would be tragic. 

So Israel has to choose between two of those three categories. 

And what the commanders are choosing, what I hope our allies 

would help create a dynamic in which Israel feels secure enough, 

strong enough to choose, is a resolution in which their Jewish nature is assured, their democratic nature is assured, and that they 

get international borders finally. 

Israel does not have internationally recognized borders. They 

need internationally recognized borders that are, in fact, defensible. 

And that is what the Israeli security establishment is so concerned 

about. They want to get about the job of protecting Israel. But 

today that job is so much more difficult because Israel doesn’t have 

internationally recognized borders. And the key component is to 

create them so that Israel can maintain its Jewish majority and its 

democratic nature. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to drag this hearing back to what I thought it was 

about, which is financially rewarding terrorism in the West Bank 

and with an eye toward that. 

46

The U.S. policy toward the Palestinians consists of three end 

goals: To establish a stable—I am just reading them—lasting and 

peaceful end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct bilateral negotiations, that is one; two, to counter Palestinian terrorist 

groups; and, three, to establish norms of democracy, accountability, 

and good governance. 

Now, the U.S. funding of the United Nations Relief and Works 

Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East, or UNRWA, as 

we usually call it, runs counter to every single one of these three 

policy goals. UNRWA’s ties to what I characterize and what many 

of us characterize as a terrorist organization, Hamas, both threaten 

bilateral negotiations and undermine U.S. efforts to counter Palestinian terrorist groups. 

Since 2006, Hamas-affiliated candidates have held all 11 seats on 

the UNRWA teachers’ union executive board. UNRWA schools use 

textbooks and materials that delegitimize Israel, denigrate Jews, 

and venerate martyrdom. These materials work to indoctrinate the 

Palestinian youth, making them susceptible to radical militant 

groups such as Hamas. 

The unfortunate yet foreseeable result of this curriculum can be 

seen in an April 2016 poll that found that 78.6 percent of the youth 

in Gaza and 46.4 percent of the youth in the West Bank support 

the Knife Intifada. Furthermore, 76 percent of the terrorists taking 

part in the Knife Intifada were under the age of 30. Now, 

UNRWA’s education system seems to have created a large pool of 

indoctrinated youth hellbent on attacking Israelis. 

UNRWA’s employees are screened for ties to terrorism, but the 

vetting system, believe it or not, focuses on things like al-Qaeda or 

the Taliban but does not focus on Hamas or Hezbollah. It is crazy. 

Ninety-five-point-five percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and 

Gaza believe the Palestinian Authority is corrupt, and 82 percent 

of Gazans believe Hamas is corrupt. Yet UNRWA effectively works 

as a support service for both of these organizations, taking care of 

basic government services. This, in effect, subsidizes with American 

dollars these groups’ corrupt and oftentimes terroristic activities. 

The total annual budget for the United Nations Relief and Works 

Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East, or UNRWA, for 

Fiscal Year 2015 was $1,246,802,614. And since its inception in 

1950, the United States has contributed more than $5.6 billion to 

the agency, more than any other single nation. And in Fiscal Year 

2015, the United States contributed $390.5 million, making up 31 

percent of the agency’s budget. 

Do any of you fine gentlemen on the panel object to my legislation, which would prevent U.S. taxpayers from continuing to fund 

this agency? 

Mr. WEXLER. I don’t know if I object or I support it. I certainly 

support the intention. But, if I may, let’s say you pass your legislation, let’s say it is implemented and UNRWA and Gaza closes 

up——

Mr. PERRY. It doesn’t close up; we just don’t fund it anymore. 

Mr. WEXLER. Well——

Mr. PERRY. My tax dollars, your tax dollars, their tax dollars 

don’t fund it anymore. 

47

Mr. WEXLER. I get it. And we pay a disproportionate amount of 

UNRWA dollars based on the U.N. formula. So when your legislation is successful and UNRWA no longer can implement the programs it implements in Gaza, the ones you are objecting to, rightfully so, who is going to run the sewer plant, the one that is already pushing sewage into the sea that not only destroys the Palestinian coast but the Israeli coast? What are those children going to 

do——

Mr. PERRY. I guess somebody is going to have to make a decision 

on what their priorities are. 

Mr. WEXLER. Okay. All right. All right. 

Mr. PERRY. I say that a dirty sea and sewage is bad, but it is 

better than people being stabbed, blown up, rocketed, et cetera. 

Mr. WEXLER. Totally agree with you. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay. 

Mr. WEXLER. But let’s also be realistic. The people with the 

knives, thank goodness, are not coming from Gaza. Gaza is essentially walled off to Israel. The people with the knives are coming 

from the West Bank. So what you do in Gaza is not going to prevent the people with the knives. 

If you want to prevent the people with the knives, I would respectfully suggest the Israeli Government should complete the security fence and create borders that——

Mr. PERRY. That is what they can do. But what we can do is stop 

funding the training camps that would be described as our elementary schools, our daycares, our middle schools, right? 

Mr. WEXLER. Yes. 

Mr. PERRY. We are funding that. 

Mr. WEXLER. And I am deeply troubled by it. 

Mr. PERRY. Troubled? 

Mr. WEXLER. Yeah. 

Mr. PERRY. You got to be more than—with all due respect, 

sir——

Mr. WEXLER. Yes. 

Mr. PERRY [continuing]. We are all troubled, right? We are talking about action here. This hearing is about the funding of terrorism——

Mr. WEXLER. Yes. 

Mr. PERRY [continuing]. Taxpayer funding, and that is why I 

asked the question. 

Mr. WEXLER. That is right. Yes. 

Mr. PERRY. So while we talk about platitudes here and we are 

all troubled—and we all are, rightfully so, yourself included—we 

have an opportunity here to do something. 

Mr. WEXLER. And all I would suggest is, if you are going to do 

that—which, obviously, your bill stands for that—then at least 

have round two figured out on how you are going to achieve your 

purpose, which is minimize terrorism, not enhance it. 

So, yes, if you are taking that first step, which may be very legitimate, figure out step two, which is, as the followup, how are 

you actually reducing terrorism as opposed to creating an even 

greater incentive. 

Mr. PERRY. With all due respect, sir, I hear what you are saying, 

but the policy that comes to—and I thank your indulgence, Mr. 

48

Chairman—what I see as appeasement at some point, that it is my 

duty, that it is my duty to figure out how to solve that problem or 

I must pay some blood money, extortion, seems counterintuitive to 

every moral code that I have ever followed in my life. 

Mr. WEXLER. And, if I may, I couldn’t agree with you more. And 

I would just respectfully suggest that, before you reach your ultimate conclusion, you sit down with our Egyptian allies and our 

Israeli allies and our Jordanian allies and ask them what their 

suggestions would be for round two to make sure you don’t make 

the——

Mr. PERRY. Maybe round one can be a forcing function. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Okay. 

Mark Meadows from North Carolina. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

holding this hearing. As you know, this is a passionate area for me, 

having cosponsored legislation that suggests that we should close 

the PLO office here in Washington, DC, as long as they continue 

to fund terrorists who commit these kinds of acts. 

So, Mr. Wexler, you know, you have come up with a lot of suggestions on what the Israelis should do. Do you not think it would 

be a prudent call to close the PLO office here in Washington, DC, 

as long as we are paying terrorists to commit terrorist acts? 

Mr. WEXLER. Principally——

Mr. MEADOWS. Just yes or no. 

Mr. WEXLER. No, it is not that simple. 

Mr. MEADOWS. It is that simple. Let me tell you——

Mr. WEXLER. No, it isn’t. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Let me tell you why the problem is. 

Mr. WEXLER. Yeah. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I have five Jewish young girls over here who don’t 

understand. I don’t understand why we can’t close a PLO office 

when I was told by the Ambassador that they were not going to 

fund terrorist activities anymore. And all they did was moved it 

from the PLA to the PLO. 

And so what we are doing is we are continuing to do it. We need 

to close that office. We need to make sure that what happens is at 

least we send a message. If we can’t close an office, then we certainly cannot be serious about addressing this issue. 

Mr. WEXLER. Then close it. And——

Mr. MEADOWS. Why would you not support that? 

Mr. WEXLER. Because my fear—my fear is that when we take actions like the one you are describing, which are totally justifiable 

based on the facts of what is occurring, that, in effect, we are rewarding the terrorist inclinations amongst their society as opposed 

to the more pragmatic ones. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But based on——

Mr. WEXLER. Remember—hold on. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But based on that, based on that, your whole philosophy is a philosophy of appeasement. 

Mr. WEXLER. No. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Historically, that has never worked. 

Mr. WEXLER. Not fair, sir. My philosophy——

49

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, it is fair, because what you are saying is we 

can’t even close an office. 

Mr. WEXLER. My philosophy is the philosophy of the Mossad. My 

philosophy is the philosophy of the Shin Bet——

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. But——

Mr. WEXLER [continuing]. The roughest Israeli fighters. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Wexler, let me come back. 

Mr. WEXLER. Who is——

Mr. MEADOWS. Hold on. It is my time. 

Mr. WEXLER. You are correct. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So let me come back. Because I was on the 

ground in Israel when the latest round of stabbings occurred. And 

for you to sit here and suggest that somehow this is a goodwill 

tour, that the Israelis are going to be viewed in a positive light if 

they just give a little bit more—I was there when Western papers 

were talking about how it was the Jewish boy’s fault that he was 

stabbed and not the Palestinian. I was there when he was doing 

the ISIS sign from his hospital bed, when they said that the 

Israelis had killed him, which was not the fact. I was there on the 

ground. 

And so to suggest that somehow building a wall will fix this 

problem? I can tell you, if the Israeli Government felt like building 

a wall will bring peace, it would be built quicker than any wall you 

could ever see. But that will not do it because you and I both know 

that the Palestinians go back and forth between those walls. 

I was in a courtroom——

Mr. WEXLER. Sir——

Mr. MEADOWS. I was in a courtroom where I had a Hamas attorney with Palestinian youth that were prideful of the fact that they 

had committed these atrocities, as if they had won a spelling bee. 

How do we change that? 

Mr. WEXLER. With all due respect, Israel was suffering from suicide bombs every week, blowing themselves up left and right, 

under Prime Minister Sharon. What was his primary response? He 

built the wall that was highly controversial internationally—the 

Palestinians opposed to it, most of the international operators opposed to it. But Sharon went and built the wall. And guess what? 

Israel, to the degree—again, it is relative—defeated the intifada, in 

great part because of that wall. 

So, with all due respect——

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, with all due respect——

Mr. WEXLER [continuing]. You can’t say a wall won’t help. It does 

help——

Mr. MEADOWS. No, no. 

Mr. WEXLER [continuing]. Greatly. In fact——

Mr. MEADOWS. I didn’t say it wouldn’t help. What I said, it would 

not solve the problem. 

Mr. WEXLER. You are correct. It won’t. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Those were my exact words. 

Mr. WEXLER. It won’t solve the problem. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And what I am here today to say is, if we can’t 

take minor steps like closing a PLO office, then what are we supposed to tell the generations to come? That we would not even take 

small, diplomatic—I mean, we are not talking about cutting off 

50

their funds. All we are saying is they can’t have an office here in 

Washington, DC. Does that not seem like a reasonable compromise? 

Mr. WEXLER. It is. It is reasonable. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Then why don’t you support it? 

Mr. WEXLER. Because I would just simply ask the question, the 

day after you close it, have you benefited Hamas and the more extreme elements, or have you changed the behavior and sent a message? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, we know that what we have been doing 

didn’t work. We know that they continue to pay terrorists. At what 

point do we change our philosophy to figure out if some new strategy would work? 

I will yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Okay. We go to Mr. Brad Sherman of California. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Rob, welcome back. You may be having more fun in that seat 

than you had in the seats on this side. 

It has been suggested that maybe we should have a change in 

American policy and we should have an American President who 

declares that we are neutral between Israel and its enemies and 

that the upside of that would be that somehow that neutral President would be able to create peace just by convening a meeting. 

What are the dangers of the United States declaring that we are 

neutral but available to have discussions between Israel and its enemies? 

And if the United States was not a stalwart friend of Israel, 

would Panama be the most powerful nation that Israel could count 

on as a stalwart friend, or would there be some other nation that 

would rise to the top as being on Israel’s side? 

Mr. WEXLER. I think you raise a very valid point. Neutrality by 

the United States with respect to Israel and its neighbors would be 

catastrophic. It would be catastrophic for Israel, it would be catastrophic for America. 

Quite frankly, I have never understood the term ‘‘honest broker.’’ 

I don’t understand why we Americans would ever even suggest 

that Americais an honest broker. We are a strong ally of Israel because of shared values, because of democratic values, because of a 

whole host of moral, ethical, common ties. And the fact that Israel 

is our closest ally in the Middle East, it would be catastrophic if 

the world perceived that we moved even slightly away from that 

very strong position. 

And what is even stronger is events like what occurred 2 weeks 

ago, where the Israeli military establishment—I think they were in 

Texas, or I forget where—where the F-35 Strike Fighter plane was 

delivered effectively to Israel, rightfully so. And they are the only 

country in the region that has that next-generation American technology. 

That sends the right message both to Israel’s opponents and also 

to our other allies in the region, our Arab allies and elsewise, to 

encourage them to engage more substantially with Israel. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I would point out that Israel does not lack for 

honest brokers. Every former Prime Minister of Britain has offered 

51

himself as an honest broker, not to mention everyone who imagines 

themselves winning an Nobel Peace Prize. There is no shortage of 

honest brokers. Israel does have a shortage of stalwart friends, 

which is why if we were not among them I hesitate to think who 

would be at the top of the list. 

The Israeli Ministry of Education and the municipality of Jerusalem now allow new versions of the Palestinian textbooks to be 

used in East Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority has claimed 

that they are taking out of those textbooks incitements to violence. 

Have they achieved this with regard to these new textbooks, both 

for those being used in Jerusalem and those being used in the West 

Bank and Gaza? 

Mr. Wexler? 

Mr. WEXLER. My understanding is that, unfortunately, they have 

not achieved any dramatic reduction in the incitement contained in 

the textbooks. My understanding is there have been certain 

changes made that are moving in the right direction, but I don’t 

think anyone here would categorize those as even nearly sufficient 

enough. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And I would point out that we could reduce the 

amount of money we give the Palestinian Authority and give them 

textbooks, in which case we would make sure that there would be 

no incitement in those textbooks. 

I will ask the other two witnesses, are you familiar with these 

textbooks, the new version, and how would you apprise them? 

Mr. Carmon? 

Mr. CARMON. We are working on this, and we will publish a report about the new textbook. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Can you give us a preview? It will help sales. Go 

on. 

Mr. CARMON. The previous one was simply the textbooks of the 

Palestinian Authority and Jordan, a mixture of both. Unfortunately, the Israeli Government turned a blind eye to all that, and 

now it is changing its position. 

But, you know, when Abbas declares the prisoners are our top 

priority, this is a message. The money is not coming as some social 

welfare. It is ideological money. It conveys a message that the fight 

is the top priority, even though we are not doing it for now. But 

it is in violation of Oslo, and from Oslo they got the recognition 

from all the other nations. So I don’t expect——

Mr. SHERMAN. I will just point out, if you give the PA cash, you 

don’t know how they will spend it. If you give them textbooks, we 

at least know that they can’t be misused. Whether they will be actually used, I don’t know. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I believe my time has expired. 

Chairman ROYCE. Your time has expired, but I must confess that 

is a good idea, to supplant the textbooks with the funding and 

other forms of education. 

Let me go then to Mr. Ted Yoho of Florida. Thank you. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate the panel being here. 

And I think that is good idea, to follow up on textbooks. 

Let’s see. The meeting today was ‘‘Financially Rewarding Terrorism in the West Bank.’’ And that is exactly what we see with 

52

the Palestinian Authority. I have been here for 31⁄2 years, and it 

amazes me—because we talk about this—that we are rewarding 

terrorist activities. 

We put in a resolution a year and a half ago, Resolution 542, 

that would cease and stop all payments to the Palestinian Authority until they stopped doing what they are doing. 

And, you know, I have heard the arguments on both sides of this. 

‘‘If we stop this, it will open up a vacuum; that vacuum will get 

filled by worse players.’’ For 31⁄2 years, I have sat here and watched this discussion, and since 2008 we have given approximately $500 

million a year to the Palestinian Authority in the name of peace. 

The American people are being sold that we are giving this foreign 

aid to the Palestinian Authority in the name of peace—$4 billion, 

$4 billion of my money, of everybody sitting here’s money. Every person in America has paid $4 billion in the name of 

peace, yet the Palestinian Authority, through their own laws, 

which I find—they have a National Palestinian Fund. And it goes 

on to say, ‘‘Financial support for prisoners is anchored in a series 

of laws and government decrees. The prisoners are described as a 

fighting sector. The financial rights’’—the financial rights—‘‘of the 

prisoner and his family must be assured.’’ ‘‘The financial rights of 

the prisoner and his family must be assured.’’

It also stated that the PA will provide allowance to every prisoner without discrimination. Well, I am glad to see they don’t discriminate. According to the law, the PA must—must—provide prisoners with a monthly allowance during their incarceration and salaries or jobs upon release. They are also entitled to exemptions 

from payments for education, health care, and professional training. 

Years of imprisonment are calculated as years of seniority of 

service in PA institutions. Whoever is in prison for 5 years or more 

is entitled to a job in the PA institution. The PA gives priority in 

job placement to people who were involved in terrorist activities. 

Does this sound like a policy to bring peace? Does anybody want 

to just make a quick comment? Because I want to go on. 

Mr. Wexler. 

Mr. WEXLER. The payments to the terrorists and their families 

are indefensible. A policy for peace, though, is also what we have 

done relatively successfully in terms of training Palestinian security forces, which today are the forces that work with the Israeli 

Government to maintain a greater degree of security in the West 

Bank. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. I hear that. And when we put in this resolution, we got some blow-back from the Jewish community saying 

this would be terrible, it would increase more violence. 

And it reminds me of that essay that was written—I am sure you 

guys have heard of it—‘‘The Sheep, the Wolves, and the 

Sheepdogs.’’ It was written by a retired Army lieutenant colonel, 

David Grossman. And they said there is a certain amount of risk 

that people are willing to live with. And when the sheep knows his 

enemy is the wolf, they will huddle to one side of the pasture because they understand there is a certain amount of risk. They are 

not going to get everybody. But they will live with that. But when 

you introduce an unknown, the sheepdog, the sheep don’t underVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:05 Sep 08, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\070616\20651 SHIRL
53

stand that it is there to protect them, so they run over to the wolf, 

their known enemy. 

And I think that we have a situation here that we know that we 

are giving money in the name of peace. We have a history of doing 

that. And it is not working. And the unknown is what happens if 

we remove that. 

And I want to build on what my colleague Mr. Perry said, that 

I think it would change people’s focus and they would have to pivot 

and say, you know what, the Americans are playing hardball—I 

don’t want to say ‘‘hardball,’’ but very discrete, or very direct, and 

say, if these policies continue, we are done. 

You know, the textbooks, as Mr. Sherman brought up, I have 

heard that for 3 years. We are funding hatred. We are funding terrorism. And I think if we, as Americans, as the government, come 

out strongly and say our new policy is this, you need to make adjustments in the Palestinian Authority and in Israel, because we 

are not going to tolerate this anymore. 

You know, I don’t need to remind anybody in here, our Govern- ment is struggling financially. To spend $6 billion in the name of 

peace, when we can’t pay our own veterans and we can’t do things 

here, I think is unconscionable. And I will not support any money 

going to the Palestinian Authority. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

We go now to Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. BOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as I have said previously, the way that you and Mr. Engel lead this committee on 

issues as they relate to Israel’s security is admirable and reflects 

the best spirit of bipartisanship when it comes to foreign affairs for 

the United States. 

Just in reflecting on what has been going on recently, the 300 

or so wounded, the 30 Israelis that have been killed in these 

knifing attacks, what has been going on now is essentially the 

slow-motion intifada that, unfortunately, has not gotten as much 

attention around the world as it should. 

And I think that a real turning point was clearly the—everyone 

talks about Camp David that succeeded in the late seventies. But, 

really, you could say the one that had the more effect was the 

failed Camp David attempt in 2000, which was building up to be 

the culmination of the Oslo process and a two-state solution, recognition on both sides, and resolving most of the outstanding 

issues. 

And when Yasser Arafat walked away from that and went back 

to Ramallah and launched the intifada, it has led exactly to where 

we are today in 2016, 16 years later. And so many people have lost 

their lives and been wounded. 

And so now here we are, in the West and especially the United 

States, trying to get the parties back to an agreement that, if you 

read, say, Dennis Ross’ account of it or even Bill Clinton’s autobiography, it is pretty clear that, whether it be next year or 20 years 

from now, we are probably going to get a final resolution that looks 

a lot more like the 2000 Camp David attempt than not. 

So, in terms of getting back to that and how we get back on track 

and recognizing the current configuration of the Israeli GovernVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:05 Sep 08, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\070616\20651 SHIRL
54

ment and an 85-year-old Mahmoud Abbas who is seemingly not interested in peace at all, I want to return to something that was discussed earlier, and that is the Arab Peace Initiative. Because one 

advantage of the whole—wherever anyone stood on the Iranian 

deal, one unexpected, positive, unintended consequence was greater 

cooperation between Israel and its Arab neighbors. 

Could that be the genesis of a renewed Arab-led peace initiative 

that would put pressure on the Palestinian leadership to finally 

come to the table? For any of you. 

Dr. Pollock? And then we can go down the table. 

Mr. POLLOCK. All right, thank you. Thank you for the question. 

I would start by saying I hope so but I am skeptical. I think it 

would be in the interest of Arab governments to do exactly what 

you suggest, but I think that they don’t see it that way. They see 

it, unfortunately, as risky, at least in the short term, and——

Mr. BOYLE. Internally risky——

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes. 

Mr. BOYLE [continuing]. With their own domestic political situation? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes, internally risky. And probably they also see 

it as risky internationally, in the sense of they are not sure what 

they would get for pushing the Palestinians back to the table, either from Israel, from the United States, from the international 

community, and so on. 

And so I think that, without getting our hopes up too high, it 

would be worth trying—as I suggested in my written statement 

and briefly in my testimony today, it would be worth it for the 

United States to try to explore with some of our Arab allies under 

what conditions and with what expectations and for what returns 

they would be willing to do exactly what you suggested, put pressure on the Palestinians to go back to the table. 

There was some sense that I had that President Sisi of Egypt, 

for example, about a month or so ago was preparing to do that, and 

then he seemed to stop because his sense of possible changes in the 

Israeli Government did not materialize. 

Today, as I said in my comments earlier, unfortunately, some 

Arab governments that were more flexible about this 2 or 3 years 

ago have walked that back. And you now have, for example, the 

Saudi Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir, stating in Paris, where he 

shouldn’t have been in the first place, for that ill-advised so-called 

peace conference, stating that the Arab Peace Initiative was unchangeable, that they would not negotiate any amendments to it or 

show any flexibility about it. 

That, as I said, is walking back a previous position. But if you 

walk it back in the wrong direction, maybe, just maybe, the United 

States can encourage the Saudis or other Arab governments to 

walk back the walk-back in the right direction, which would mean 

offering Israel a peace initiative to negotiate, not to impose. 

Mr. BOYLE. Mr. Carmon? 

Mr. CARMON. So thank you for this question because it is a crucial one. What holds back the peace process or the chances to move 

ahead? The Arab peace plan, in its original form when the Saudis 

suggested it, did not include the right of return, which is a nonVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:05 Sep 08, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\070616\20651 SHIRL
55

starter. Later, in a meeting of the Arab League, it was included 

and, thus, became the Arab peace plan. 

With the right of return, of course, nothing can happen. And if 

it is unchangeable, then there is no change in the Arab position. 

Only with a change on this point can there be anything moving 

ahead. 

And this is also the position of Abbas. Why everything stopped? 

Because he insists on the right of return. When Prime Minister 

Olmert suggested 100 percent of the territory through swap of 

land, what remained there to be holding it back? Only the demand 

for the right of return. 

So, unfortunately, the Arab peace plan is a non-starter as long 

as it is unchangeable. And the tragedy of it is that the Saudi Foreign Minister said it, while the Saudis, who initiated it—and, in 

their initial suggestion, it did not include the right of return. 

Mr. WEXLER. If I may, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Wexler. 

Mr. WEXLER. I think the proper construct is this. And your point 

is excellent. From 1948 until the Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty, the 

entire focus of the region was regional war against Israel. When 

Israel made peace with Egypt, the prospect of regional war diminished substantially. When Jordan and Israel made peace in 1993-

1994, the likelihood of regional war essentially was extinguished. 

With the Arab Peace Initiative, I think both Dr. Pollock and Mr. 

Carmon are correct, but I don’t think that should be the ultimate 

message. Yes, skepticism; yes, look at the fine print, and it is not 

where it needs to be. But with the advent of the Arab Peace Initiative, we went from the reality of regional war against Israel to the 

prospect—in its infancy, admittedly—the prospect of regional 

peace. 

Now, where I would beg to differ with Mr. Carmon is, in looking 

at the language of the right of return in the Arab Peace Initiative, 

is it where Israel would need it to be to ultimately agree? Of course 

not. But the actual language is ‘‘just and agreed.’’ And the Arab position—and I am not suggesting we accept it, but the Arab position 

is that, by adding the word ‘‘agreed,’’ they were recognizing that 

there would be no right of return unless Israel agreed. And, of 

course, Israel would never agree to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians coming into Israel, so, therefore, they were making a concession. 

Whether it is true or not is not the point. The point is it is an 

opening. It is an opening that should be explored. 

And, with all due respect, saying that we know that the Arab 

Peace Initiative is not amendable or not changeable—well, we 

know it is, because they came a year and a half ago or 2 years ago 

and made a change, in terms of they went from ‘‘1967 lines’’ to 

‘‘1967 lines with limited territorial swaps.’’ Again, not where the 

Israelis need to be, but movement in the correct direction. 

Chairman ROYCE. Okay. Mr. Ron DeSantis of Florida is next. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the witnesses. 

This is really a frustrating issue because we have been raising 

it time and time again, and I really appreciate, Mr. Carmon, your 

testimony laying it out. These are huge payments that are going 

56

to Palestinian terrorists. When you start talking about people who 

have committed really heinous acts and they are raking in $3,100 

a month, for a Palestinian Arab, that has to be better than 99 percent of the people who don’t have access, who don’t own an oil field 

in the whole Middle East. So that is major, major money. 

And what that evidences is an unambiguous policy to promote 

terrorism. It is really no different than what this committee rightfully will criticize the Government of Iran for doing, sponsoring terrorism. And this Congress has responded to that with sanctions in 

a variety of contexts to counteract Iran’s policy of support for terrorism. And we really have something similar here, and I think we 

need to act to try to change the policy. 

Mr. Carmon, you made the point, in 2014 there was the policy 

change, that these payments no longer came from the Palestinian 

Authority and they are done from the PLO. Why did they make 

that change? 

Mr. CARMON. It was under the pressure of donor countries. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Because the donor countries don’t want to be accused of funding the payments to terrorism. 

Mr. CARMON. Absolutely. 

Mr. DESANTIS. However, money is fungible. There is a certain 

amount of things they have to do. So if you then say the terror payments will come out of the PLO, that just means that some of the 

money that the PA is getting will go to other things. If that money 

was removed, because you are still funding terrorists and you are 

still paying them, then they would have to make decisions. 

And so I don’t think that any of these countries can have a clear 

conscience simply because they have kind of shuffled the deck 

chairs around a little bit and are saying, well, no, it is actually not 

from the PA. This is all being worked together. 

And I think that this is one example, but correct me if I’m 

wrong—I think your organization has reported on this. Doesn’t the 

Palestinian Authority lionize terrorists by doing things like naming 

parks and sports stadiums after them? 

Mr. CARMON. Definitely. The message is respect—

legitimatization, respect, and even hero-ization of those who are involved in these acts. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And I also note, I know there are varying views 

of Mr. Abbas on this panel for sure, on the Foreign Affairs Committee, but this is a guy whose dissertation was in Holocaust denial. And you can say that he is not as bad as some of the other 

guys, like Hamas or whatever, but this is not necessarily somebody 

who is a full-fledged supporter of a lasting peace. 

And I think incitement has really become endemic to this culture. You look at not only the textbook, some of the programming, 

and the viciousness with which they attack Jews, particularly 

Israeli Jews, but people that are different from them, I think is just 

absolutely horrifying. 

And I was very, very disgusted to see, after this Tel Aviv attack 

in June, brutal attack at this cafe, you had people in the Gaza 

Strip, Palestinian Arabs, and in the West Bank, they were cheering 

that. Isn’t that correct, Mr. Carmon? That was cause for celebration? 

Mr. CARMON. There was, yes. 

57

Mr. DESANTIS. So I appreciate a lot of the comments that we 

have heard. I know there is this complicated issue, there are a lot 

of things. But, to me, the overriding problem is the behavior of not 

just the Palestinian Authority or Hamas per se, but really the majority impulse in the culture is one that simply does not recognize 

Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and really doesn’t seek a 

two-state solution, to the extent they want that as something for 

a lasting peace, but really as one step in the direction to ultimately 

seek Israel’s destruction. 

And until those underlying dynamics change, I don’t think you 

are going to see a lot of possibility to—because here is the thing. 

There is difference of opinion in Israel, but the Israeli population 

has showed time and time again they are willing to make very significant concessions to achieve a lasting peace. And I have no doubt 

about that. And I know people can criticize this policy or that policy coming out of the government. But that is just, to me, unquestioned. It is not even close that the Palestinian Arabs have demonstrated that in any type of broad sense. 

So here we are with the funding issue. I don’t think we can allow 

tax dollars to be going to this entity knowing that they are working 

in cahoots with the PLO and that these payments are being made. 

Not only is it when you subsidize something, you are going to get 

more of terrorism, but it is also just the moral blot of any entity 

that wants to reward this type of activity, I think, is something 

that we absolutely cannot have anything to do with. 

So I really appreciate the chairman calling the hearing. I have 

enjoyed listening to all the witnesses and their testimony. And I 

yield back. 

Mr. POLLOCK. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ROYCE. Yes, Dr. Pollock. 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes, if I may, I know that we have used up a lot 

of time. I want to just end with this comment on my own behalf. 

I would suggest trying to be constructive. If we can perhaps 

reach a consensus that the money that the PA uses to fund terrorists and terrorism should be deducted from the taxpayer support 

that the United States provides to them, perhaps at the same time 

it could be transferred to the kinds of activities that I suggested 

that would be constructive for both Israel and the PA, for Israelis 

and Palestinians to support—for example, an international fund 

that would enable people-to-people and interfaith dialogue and cooperative activities between Israelis and Palestinians on the 

ground. I think that kind of approach might have the virtue of not 

being purely punitive but also constructive. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Carmon? 

Mr. CARMON. I believe that this money is ideological money. It 

reflects an ideology which we see in the insistence on the right of 

return. 

I would also like to be positive and suggest that the main focus 

of U.S. foreign policy would be in this respect on demanding of the 

PLO to stop with this nonstarter. Mr. Abbas sent his special envoy 

to the Herzliya conference just a few weeks ago, Mr. Ahmad 

Majdalani, who said there all refugees must go back to their 

58

‘‘homes.’’ So this is the position, and the money is just a reflection 

of it. This is what has to be changed, and of course the money too. 

Chairman ROYCE. And Mr. Wexler. 

Mr. WEXLER. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for 

what I think has been a terrific discussion, and thank you for doing 

it. 

On the funding question itself, I think we must reiterate, though, that the State Department did, if I understand it correctly, cut $80 

million in Fiscal Year 2015 to the Palestinian Authority. So 

maybe—not ‘‘maybe’’—if this committee wants to achieve its purpose, then it needs to broaden the universe in which our funding 

is not allowed to go ultimately, one way or another, and maybe 

there is language that can accomplish that purpose. 

There is no representative of the Palestinian Government here, 

and I am surely the furthest thing from it. However—and we rightfully condemn their heinous actions. This is a good example, in 

terms of the funding. 

But on the right of return, this record would be incomplete if it 

did not include the fact that Mr. Abbas, President Abbas, when 

asked—his hometown is Safed, if I understand it correctly. And 

when he was asked on a public show whether his intention was to 

return to his hometown, he said, ‘‘Yes, as a visitor. And I understand I won’t live there forever.’’ And then I understand, afterward, 

he dialed it back and made it in language that might be more 

agreeable to many in his own population. 

I am not trying to color it one way or the other. The point I am 

only trying to make is these are questions of degree. As unsatisfactory as they are, they need to be negotiated at the negotiation 

table. 

And I would close with this. Our ultimate goal should be to create a dynamic in which the Israelis and the Palestinians can agree 

to a two-state outcome. In the interim, we should encourage those 

independent steps that preserve the likelihood or the ability to 

achieve a two-state outcome when the politics of the region allow 

those two groups to get there. 

Chairman ROYCE. Well, we appreciate the time of our witnesses 

today. 

As we have heard, if we are to have a real chance at peace, the 

practice—and this is my focus—this practice of financially rewarding terror in the West Bank must stop. And that includes conversations with Europeans and others. But, internationally, it is a nonstarter to have a circumstance in which this slaughter continues 

and it is aided and abetted by a system that is paying people and 

teaching people how to carry out murder, how to slay others. 

And I again thank our witnesses. 

And, at this point, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(59)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

60

f


20651n.eps
61


20651m-1.eps
62

f


20651m-2.eps
63

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DANIEL DONOVAN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK


20651d-1.eps
64

f


20651d-2.eps
65

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK


20651e-1.eps
66

f


20651e-2.eps
67

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE LOIS FRANKEL, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA


20651f-1.eps
68

f


20651f-2.eps
69

f


20651g.eps
70


20651h-1.eps
71

Æ


20651h-2.eps