U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80–641PDF 2002

MIDDLE EAST PEACE COMMITMENTS ACT AND

THE ARAFAT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST 

AND SOUTH ASIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 1795 and H.R. 4693

JULY 11, 2002

Serial No. 107–104

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

AMO HOUGHTON, New York 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

NICK SMITH, Michigan 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

ERIC CANTOR, Virginia 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

TOM LANTOS, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia 

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel 

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

ERIC CANTOR, Virginia 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

HILLEL WEINBERG, Subcommittee Staff Director & Counsel 

DAVID S. ADAMS, Democratic Professional Staff Member 

DEBORAH BODLANDER, Professional Staff Member 

PAUL BERKOWITZ, Professional Staff Member 

MATTHEW ZWEIG, Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Roy Blunt, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Missouri ................................................................................................................ 16

The Honorable Robert Menendez, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New Jersey ............................................................................................. 19

The Honorable David Satterfield, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near 

Eastern Affairs, U.S. Department of State ........................................................ 22

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Middle East 

and South Asia: Prepared statement ................................................................. 3

The Honorable Roy Blunt: Prepared statement .................................................... 18

The Honorable David Satterfield: Prepared statement ........................................ 24

APPENDIX 

The Honorable Joseph Crowley, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York: Prepared statement ...................................................................... 37

(1)

MIDDLE EAST PEACE COMMITMENTS ACT 

AND THE ARAFAT ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 

THURSDAY, JULY 11, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:15 p.m. in Room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. GILMAN. The Committee will come to order. After many 

months of unremitting violence in the Middle East, the seemingly 

endless deaths of innocents, and the unceasing terrorization of 

Israel’s population, it appears that the foreign policy of our Nation 

regarding Israel-Palestinian violence has, for the first time in 

years, begun to reflect the reality of the conflict, rather than a romantic and always-optimistic approach that perpetuated a failed 

political process. 

I commend President Bush for his visionary address on the Middle East delivered in the Rose Garden on June 24th. His address 

marked a watershed in the development of a U.S.-Middle East policy rooted in the moral clarity that is a hallmark of the doctrine 

so thoughtfully articulated by our President regarding the region. 

States and their leaders are either with us or against us in the war 

on terrorism—there is no room for hesitation and no room for wavering, if a regime is to be truly considered an ally in our war on 

terror. 

Yasser Arafat is a man who has cavorted with terrorists and indeed has spent most of his life sponsoring and supporting terrorism. Credible evidence has been uncovered by the Israelis, and 

the authenticity of this evidence is confirmed by U.S. counterterrorism authorities. This evidence links Arafat and many of his associates directly to the planning and financing of specific terrorist 

acts as well as the illegal importation of 50 tons of heavy weaponry 

into the Palestinian-controlled territories. In calling upon the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, President Bush, without mentioning Arafat by name, foresaw the even of an era. 

Over the course of a 24-year career as the Chairman of the PLO, 

Mr. Arafat has not achieved for his people either his organization’s 

founding goal, namely the destruction of the state of Israel, nor the 

peaceful two-state solution he supposedly endorsed upon signing 

the Declaration of Principles with Israel in September 1993. Mr. 

Arafat has proved that he is not capable of delivering a state to his 

people, nor delivering peace and security to his Israeli peace partVerDate May 01 2002 14:35 Sep 13, 2002 Jkt 080641 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\MESA\071102\80641 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
2

ners. Instead of peace and security, Mr. Arafat, who could have 

been the leader of a Palestinian state had he accepted Israel’s generous offer at Camp David two years ago, has directed against 

Israel a campaign of terror that, to this day, has resulted in the 

deaths of more than 560 Israelis. Similarly, hundreds of Palestinians have been the victims of Arafat’s fateful decision to wage war 

against Israel. 

None of these deaths need to have taken place. Prior to Israel’s 

decision to bring Mr. Arafat back from Tunis in 1993, a terrorist 

campaign of this magnitude would not have been possible. In fact, 

Arafat has demonstrated to the world community that his very 

presence on the ground in the West Bank and Gaza, at the helm 

of the Palestinian Authority, has been the root cause of the current 

violence that terrorizes not only the Israeli public, but freedom-loving Palestinians as well. 

After the historic handshake on the White House lawn in 1993, 

Congress, through the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act, relaxed 

a series of mandatory restrictions on the operations of the PLO. 

The thrust of the pending legislation is to provide a framework to 

restructure some of the concessions that the United States gave the 

Palestinians, essentially a form of recognition, support for a negotiated two-state solution, and aid to the Palestinian people, all in 

exchange for the fulfillment of a series of commitments. 

Congress has an important role to play in helping to transform 

President Bush’s vision of a new Palestinian leadership, a leadership not compromised by terror and committed to governing over 

their own people within a practicing democracy, based on tolerance 

and liberty, into concrete actions that will once again revive the 

hopes of millions of Israelis and Palestinians for a peaceful resolution to their conflict. 

By supporting legislation that takes action against those whom 

the President has referred to as an unaccountable few in whose 

hands power over the Palestinian population is concentrated, Congress can be playing a constructive control not only in combating 

Palestinian terrorism, but in helping a new generation of Palestinian leaders to emerge from under the authoritarian control of 

the present regime, where their voices now are stifled. 

The two pieces of legislation that we will be discussing today are 

H.R. 1795, the Middle East Peace Commitments Act, and H.R. 

4693, the Arafat Accountability Act. 

H.R. 1795, the Middle East Peace Commitments Act, requires 

the President to submit a report to the appropriate congressional 

Committees concurrent with the report submitted under the PLO 

Commitments Compliance Act of 1989 determining whether the 

PLO or the Palestinian authority has complied with its commitments under Oslo. 

The President is to impose one or more sanctions if he determines that the PLO or the Palestinian Authority has not complied 

with its commitments under Oslo, the President must either deny 

visas to PLO and Palestinian Authority officials, downgrade the 

status of the PLO office in the United States, designate the PLO 

or one or more of its constituent group a foreign terrorist organization, or prohibit U.S. assistance to the West Bank and Gaza, except 

for humanitarian assistance. 

3

H.R. 4693, the Arafat Accountability Act, takes this one step further. It requires the Secretary of State to deny visas to and prohibits the Attorney General from admitting to the U.S. any member of the PLO or any official of the Palestinian Authority. It requires the President to terminate the maintenance of a Palestinian 

information officer in the United States, and requires the Secretary 

of State to impose travel restrictions on the senior official of the 

Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine at the United Nations. 

Furthermore, it requires the President to identify and freeze assets of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority in the United States, 

except required to carry out the functions of the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine at the United Nations. 

This measure also requires the President to submit a report to 

Congress detailing acts of terrorism committed by the Palestinian 

Authority, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, or any of their 

constituent elements. Included in the report is a determination of 

whether the Palestinian Authority, the PLO, or any of their constituent elements will be designated as a foreign terrorist organization. 

These two measures, if acted upon, may need amending to reflect 

President Bush’s vision, and I would welcome any thoughts Members might have now or during preparations for a markup. We welcome our two principal witnesses, our colleague from Missouri, 

Representative Roy Blunt, a former Member of our Committee and 

the Chief Deputy Majority Whip, who is the sponsor of H.R. 4693, 

and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, 

David Satterfield, who is certainly one of the most qualified Middle 

East experts we have in the Department of State. 

We are also pleased that Mr. Menendez is with us who will be 

delivering his thoughts with regard to this legislation. 

[The statement of Mr. Gilman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

After many months of unremitting violence in the Middle East, the seemingly 

endless deaths of innocents, and the unceasing terrorization of Israel’s population, 

it appears that the foreign policy of our nation regarding Israeli-Palestinian violence 

has, for the first time in years, begun to reflect the reality of the conflict, rather 

than a romantic and always optimistic approach that perpetuated a failed political 

process. 

I commend President Bush for his visionary address on the Middle East delivered 

in the Rose Garden on June 24. His address marked a watershed in the development of a US Middle East policy rooted in the moral clarity that is a hallmark of 

the doctrine so thoughtfully articulated by our President regarding the region. 

States and their leaders are either with us or against us in the war on terrorism—

there is no room for hesitation, no room for wavering, if a regime is to be truly considered an ally in our war on terror. 

Yasser Arafat is a man who has cavorted with terror, and indeed, has spent most 

of his life sponsoring and supporting terrorism. Credible evidence has been uncovered by the Israelis—and the authenticity of this evidence is confirmed by U.S. 

counter-terrorism authorities. This evidence links Arafat and many of his associates 

directly to the planning and financing of specific terrorist acts, as well as the illegal 

importation of 50 tons of heavy weaponry into the Palestinian-controlled territories. 

In calling upon the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, President Bush, without mentioning Arafat by name, foresaw the end of an era. 

Over the course of a 34-year career as the Chairman of the PLO, Arafat has not 

achieved for his people either his organization’s founding goal, namely the destrucVerDate May 01 2002 14:35 Sep 13, 2002 Jkt 080641 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\MESA\071102\80641 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
4

tion of the State of Israel, nor the peaceful two-state solution he supposedly endorsed upon signing the Declaration of Principles with Israel in September 1993. 

Arafat has proved that he is not capable of delivering a state to his people, nor 

delivering peace and security to his Israeli peace partners. Instead of peace and security, Arafat—who could have been the leader of a Palestinian state had he accepted Israel’s generous offer at Camp David two years ago, has directed against Israel 

a campaign of terror that to this day has resulted in the deaths of more than 560 

Israelis. Similarly, hundreds of Palestinians have been the victims of Arafat’s fateful 

decision to wage war against Israel. 

None of these deaths need to have taken place. Prior to Israel’s decision to bring 

Arafat back from Tunis in 1993, a terrorist campaign of this magnitude would not 

have been possible. In fact, Arafat has demonstrated to the world community that 

his very presence on the ground in the West Bank and Gaza, at the helm of the 

Palestinian Authority, is the root cause of the current violence that terrorizes not 

only the Israeli public, but freedom-loving Palestinians as well. 

After the ‘‘handshake on the lawn’’ in 1993, Congress, through the Middle East 

Peace Facilitation Act, relaxed a series of mandatory restrictions on the operations 

of the PLO. The thrust of the pending legislation is to provide a framework to restructure some of the concessions that the United States gave the Palestinians—essentially a form of recognition, support for a negotiated two-state solution, and aid 

to the Palestinian people, all in exchange for the fulfillment of a series of commitments. 

Congress has an important role to play in helping to transform President Bush’s 

vision of a new Palestinian leadership—a leadership not compromised by terror, and 

committed to governing over their own people within a practicing democracy, based 

on tolerance and liberty—into concrete actions that will once again revive the hopes 

of millions of Israelis and Palestinians for a peaceful resolution to their conflict. By 

supporting legislation that takes action against those whom the President has referred to as an unaccountable few in whose hands power over the Palestinian population is concentrated, Congress can be playing a constructive role not only in combating Palestinian terrorism, but in helping a new generation of Palestinian leaders 

to emerge from under the authoritarian control of the present regime, where their 

voices now are stifled. 

The two pieces of legislation that we will be discussing today are H.R. 1795, the 

Middle East Peace Commitments Act, and H.R. 4693, the Arafat Accountability Act. 

H.R. 1795, the Middle East Peace Commitments Act, requires the President to submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees concurrent with the report 

submitted under the PLO Commitments Compliance Act of 1989, determining 

whether the PLO or the Palestinian Authority has complied with its commitments 

under Oslo. 

If the President to impose one or more sanctions if he determines that the PLO 

or the Palestinian Authority has not complied with its commitments under Oslo, the 

President must either deny visas to PLO and Palestinian Authority officials; downgrade the status of the PLO office in the United States, designate the PLO or one 

or more of its constituent groups a foreign terrorist organization, or prohibit U.S. 

assistance to the West Bank and Gaza, except for humanitarian assistance. 

H.R. 4693, the Arafat Accountability Act, takes this one step further. It requires 

the Secretary of State to deny visas to and prohibits the Attorney General from admitting to the U.S., any member of the PLO or any official of the Palestinian Authority. It requires the President to terminate the maintenance of a Palestinian information office in the United States, and requires the Secretary of State to impose 

travel restrictions on the senior official of the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine at the United Nations. Furthermore, it requires the President to identify and 

freeze assets of the P.L.O. and the Palestinian Authority in the United States, except required to carry out the functions of the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine at the United Nations. 

This measure also requires the President to submit a report to Congress detailing 

acts of terrorism committed by the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian Liberation 

Organization, or any of their constituent elements. Included in the report is a determination of whether the Palestinian Authority, the PLO, or any of their constituent 

elements will be designated as a foreign terrorist organization. 

These two measures, if acted upon, may need amending to reflect President 

Bush’s vision, and I would welcome any thoughts Members may have now or during 

preparations for a markup. We welcome our two principal witnesses, our colleague 

from Missouri, Rep. Roy Blunt, a former Member of our Committee and the Chief 

Deputy Majority Whip, who is the sponsor of H.R. 4693, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, David Satterfield, who is certainly one of the 

most qualified Middle East experts we have in the Department of State.

5

Mr. GILMAN. I call on our Ranking Member, Mr. Ackerman, for 

any opening statement. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I would 

like to begin on a personal note. Some days ago you announced 

that you would not be seeking a 16th term in the United States 

Congress. I, and I think every Member of this Committee, are 

deeply saddened by your decision. With your departure, the House 

will lose one of its most honorable, decent, loyal and committed 

Members. 

Our home State of New York will lose one of its most able and 

energetic advocates that the Congress has ever seen, and this Committee will lose one of its preeminent most knowledgeable leaders. 

For me, serving at your side has been an honor and a privilege, 

and, I would like to add, a lot of fun. 

So I want to thank you, Ben, for all of your achievements in law 

and your legacy and policy for your leadership in this Committee 

and the House, and most of all, for your friendship and many wonderful memories that I and all of us will cherish of our service together. I know that the Ranking Member of our Full Committee 

and so many others will have a lot more to say when the Full Committee convenes, but I wanted to take this opportunity as your 

Ranking Member to express to you my thoughts. 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman, for your kind words. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. A long time ago, long before September 11th, 

way before Enron or WorldCom, all the way back to March of 2001, 

189 Members of the House signed a letter to the President calling 

for a reassessment of our relations with the Palestinian leadership. 

The letter, drafted by Mr. Hyde, Mr. Lantos, yourself, Mr. Chairman, and me, expressed our deep sense of frustration and our concern over recent events in the Middle East, we said. We pointed out 

that only 8 months earlier than then, that the Israeli government 

had ‘‘offered a final status proposal to the Palestinians that was extraordinary in the scope of its concessions.’’

The Palestinian response we noted, was not only to reject Israel’s 

offer, but to embark on a deliberate campaign of violence against 

Israelis derailing prospects for a final peace agreement. We continue to say, given the drastic change that have taken place in recent months in Palestinian behavior, we concluded, we believe it is 

time for the United States to reassess our relations with the Palestinians. 

So in the absence of any administrative initiative to impose real 

consequences on the Palestinian Authority for its conscious resort 

to violence in May 2001, you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lantos and I introduced the Middle East Peace Commitments Act, H.R. 1795. That 

bill, which now has 157 co-sponsors, would require the President 

to impose sanctions on the Palestinians if he determined that they 

had violated their commitments to non violence there dealing with 

Israel. When we introduced the bill, Mr. Chairman, we sent out a 

letter to our colleagues stating that:

‘‘We offer this legislation with heavy hearts. Like all Americans, we fervently hope to see peace blossom and we recognize 

that the solution for the conflict must come from the parties 

themselves. But we cannot work during the day with PalesVerDate May 01 2002 14:35 Sep 13, 2002 Jkt 080641 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\MESA\071102\80641 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
6

tinian leaders on the so-called peace of the brave, while in the 

evening they plan bombings and shootings and mayhem.’’

With violence continuing without let-up, the Administration continuing to engage without conditions and without consequences, 

Mr. Chairman, you and I and Mr. Menendez join together with Mr. 

Blunt to introduce the Arafat Accountability Act, H.R. 4693. 

I want to take a moment to recognize the great effort by our first 

two witnesses here today, Mr. Menendez, who is a Member of our 

Committee of long-standing, and to the courageous leadership of 

Congressman Blunt, and to thank him for his continuous and ongoing effort since he began his professional career in government 

service and to thank him for introducing H.R. 4693. 

The premise of this bill, again, was to insist on imposing consequences on the Palestinian leadership for their reprehensible behavior. Just as he did with the Middle East Peace Commitments 

Act, the Secretary of State urged Congress not to adopt what he 

called one-sided legislation. Indeed, in his May letter to Chairman 

Hyde, referring to the Arafat Accountability Act and another bill 

regarding Syria, the Secretary predicted that:

‘‘Consideration of these or similar bills will have a negative effect on our efforts to bring down the violence, avoid the outbreak of regional war and help the parties back to a path to 

comprehensive peace.’’

So said the Secretary. 

Mr. Chairman, let’s be clear, the ideas and principles that 

prompted the introduction of the two bills, which we will discuss 

today, are just as valid this day as they were in the spring of 2001. 

Only today it would seem the Administration has come to recognize 

that a policy of ‘‘all carrot, no stick’’ will not move the existing Palestinian leadership. It will not reduce violence. It will not energize 

our diplomatic partners in Europe or the Middle East, and most of 

all, it will not bring peace. 

As the President forcibly declared in his June 24th address, 

today Palestinian authorities are encouraging, not opposing, terrorism. This is unacceptable. And the United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their 

infrastructure. So said our President. 

In my view, if the Administration is going to continue to oppose 

legislative efforts to insist upon the accountability as the President 

so clearly called for in his speech, at a minimum, they now have 

a clear obligation to prepare for Congress a list of the benchmarks 

the Administration is going to adhere to in judging Palestinian performance. The good cop/bad cop routine will not work in the Middle 

East. 

What is necessary is consistency, consistency, consistency, consistency from us, consistency from our allies and the quartet, and 

consistency from our partners in the Middle East. Some of us have 

sought this consistency in legislation. The State Department, up to 

this point, has opposed our efforts on the grounds that such measures would ‘‘tie the President’s hands.’’

7

Unless I am mistaken, I would say the President agrees with us. 

There have to be consequences for those who use violence and terror to advance their political goals. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to a vigorous debate in our Subcommittee on how the U.S. Government can best address the need 

for reform and transition of the Palestinian Authority, and what 

benchmarks we should insist upon in order to judge future developments in this process. This is a crucial time in the Middle East, 

Mr. Chairman, and I commend and thank you for holding this important hearing on the pending legislation. 

Mr. ISSA [presiding]. The Chair will grant itself 5 minutes at this 

time for a short opening statement. I too would like to associate 

myself with both of the previous speakers the frustration that led 

to these bills, and particularly Mr. Blunt’s bill, which I believe is 

founded on the same frustrations that I have felt in my visits to 

and study of the situation in Gaza and the West Bank. There is 

no doubt that the current situation in the West Bank and Gaza is 

unacceptable and deplorable. 

Innocent Israeli people and innocent Arabs are both dying and 

suffering every day. Much of this as a result of the failure on the 

part of Yasser Arafat of the Palestinian Authority to successfully 

crack down on terrorism. There are even allegations that Yasser 

Arafat himself has been directly involved in some aspects of terror. 

Something needs to be done, and we need to change the current situation. 

We can no longer hope for the best and continue the status quo. 

But we need ask ourselves how we can make a change that is both 

effective and conducive to peace in the region. 

It is my belief that President Bush has gone a long way in establishing, as I would share with my Ranking Member, that we are 

no longer going to have a carrot-only solution. He has called for 

elections and significant change in the leadership of the Palestinian 

Authority. I believe that this legislation, as it is presently written, 

would be premature, that prior to the success of those elections, 

this legislation could only serve to frustrate the State Department. 

Because even after a successful election and the beginning of a 

transition of government, it is unlikely that there will be an overnight success. Only this morning I met with former Secretary of 

State Henry Kissinger, who said that in spite of the darkness, he 

still believes there is a possibility for a provisional Palestinian 

state within a year, so long as the security requirements can be 

significantly changed to where Israel can safely assure that without its further intervention, steps will be taken on an ongoing basis 

to reduce violence. 

And I note that the Secretary said to reduce violence, not to 

eliminate it. It is unlikely that overnight there would be a reduction. As a matter of fact, even within both Jordan and Egypt after 

years of peace and years of joint effort by forces on both sides of 

the border on a daily basis, they are still following up leads about 

terrorist cells attempting to get a foothold or lead to some attack. 

H.R. 1795 does have a provision that would still allow for humanitarian assistance. But I believe that when we look at an exception for humanitarian assistance, we miss the point. One hundred percent of the money that we really give to the Palestinian 

8

people today is all humanitarian assistance of one sort or the other. 

The vast majority of it does not see its way into Yasser Arafat or 

the Palestinian Authority’s hands. 

As a matter of fact, in my last visit to the West Bank, I visited 

YMCAs and other facilities which were stifled by an absence of an 

ability to spend the money that we had appropriated to build these 

facilities so that Arab and Jew, Christian and Muslim could come 

together and enjoy the benefits that peace would bring to the region. 

I look forward to listening to our speakers today. I come with an 

open mind as to how we can change this legislation to make it a 

positive, a carrot, and at the same time, retain a stick that would 

be useful should the prospects for peace once again take a turn for 

the worse. 

With that, I am yielding back the balance of my time. You want 

5 minutes. You got it. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I want to echo Mr. Ackerman’s comments about 

his fellow New Yorker, our Chairman, Ben Gilman. And I want to 

comment that I think the theme here is whether the President’s 

values and rhetoric are going to be translated into policy, particularly at the State Department. And as Chairman Gilman pointed 

out, the theme there among others is that countries are either with 

us or against us in our efforts against terrorism. 

Now, I want to go a little outside the scope of these hearings, because Mr. Satterfield is here, and it is certainly within his bailiwick to focus not only on Israel and the Palestinians, but also on 

Iran and Europe’s involvement with Iran. Europe today can only be 

described as engaged in an effort that will finance, or help finance 

the nuclear weapons program of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

Not only are they doing it with their own trade and their own 

aid, but they stand ready this year to hijack our money along with 

theirs by outvoting us at the World Bank and sending perhaps 

$755 million to terror. I have talked to the President about this. 

I have talked to the Secretary of State about this. And perhaps Mr. 

Satterfield could depart from his prepared remarks and indicate 

whether the plan is simply vote against these loan at the World 

Bank, get outvoted, and then go have tea with our friendly diplomatic colleagues from Europe or whether we plan to take action, 

which the State Department would categorize as extreme, such as 

taking definitive foreign policy moves adverse to the wishes of 

those who would finance the nuclear weapon program of Iran, a 

country that has been identified as the number one sponsor, state 

sponsor of terrorism. 

Focusing on the Middle East more narrowly defined, the President made an outstanding speech. We should commend him for it. 

We should also commend the government of Israel for eliminating 

ten of the outpost settlements for announcing that they plan to 

eliminate another 10. And I look forward to perhaps commending 

the Israeli government in the future for the elimination, or downgrading, or non expansion of other settlements that are outside the 

Barak line, or the Barak nonline, or whatever you want to call it. 

I want to commend Mr. Blunt, our colleague for being the chief 

sponsor of the Arafat Accountability Act. I would hope that Mr. 

Satterfield is here to enforce that Act. Because it reflects the PresiVerDate May 01 2002 14:35 Sep 13, 2002 Jkt 080641 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\MESA\071102\80641 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
9

dent’s values. It reflects the President’s rhetoric. It gives content 

and detail to the President’s speech. Needless to say, I am not certain that that’s what I will hear, but certainly we should, because 

as the President said, you are either for us or against us in the war 

on terror. 

If you listen to his speech about Arafat I don’t think the President categorizes Mr. Arafat as with us in the war against terror. 

So why are his representatives accorded special quasi-diplomatic 

status here in this country? We would think that those who represent organizations which are currently not with us in the war 

against terror should not be accorded immunity from prosecution 

and all the rest that goes with diplomatic status to a degree not 

required by our United Nations commitments. 

So I look forward to a State Department which carries out, 

through its detailed policies, the overall values announced by our 

President, and I know that that will start by an endorsement of 

Mr. Blunt’s legislation when we hear from the State Department 

representative. I yield back. 

Mr. ISSA. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes 

the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, for opening remarks. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Before I mention anything about the legislation, I certainly agree with my friend and colleague from California 

about Iran and although that is not what this hearing is about, we 

should certainly be on the side of the young people of Iran who 

hate their oppressive mullahs and should join them in a mullah removal program as soon as possible. But democratically, if at all feasible. 

I also agree with my good friend and colleague, Mr. Ackerman, 

and just Ben is not here now, so I am not just kissing up to the 

Chairman by saying this, that Ben is one of the most respected 

Members of the House and I have a deep affection for Ben Gilman, 

because he has a wonderful heart. And all over the world, there are 

people who have benefited from his ideals and his commitment to 

those higher standards that we as Americans are so proud of. 

So I am just sorry that he will be leaving us. But I am sure that 

his skills and talents will be taken advantage of by the Administration once he leaves. But we are going to use them to the maximum 

until the end of this year. So we all love Ben and I certainly echo 

that praise. 

In terms of this legislation today, I think I would be more happy 

with the bill if it was called ‘‘Hold Everybody Accountable Act’’ 

rather than just holding Arafat Accountable Act. 

The Middle East Peace Commitments Act I will have to take a 

look at, but what is most important I believe to achieving peace in 

that region is that we have a single standard. And believe it or not, 

most of the people in the Muslim world believe that the United 

States doesn’t have a single standard. They think that we do not 

hold Israel to the same standards that we hold Mr. Arafat. And I 

would hope as this legislation moves forward if it is only aimed at 

holding Mr. Arafat accountable that we put things in the bill that 

hold all parties accountable to a single standard. I haven’t read the 

bill yet. I will be looking forward to seeing if that is included in 

the bill. 

10

And consistency, you know, that is right single standard is consistency. With most people unfortunately on the other side, our influence wanes because they believe we have been consistently inconsistent. I believe the United States should be a peacemaker in 

the Middle East. I mean, it is a horrible cycle of violence and our 

hearts should be going out, yes, every time there is a bomb that 

is exploded and Israeli children or senior citizens or noncombatants 

of any kind are murdered. We have to care about them and we 

have to express that as adamantly as possible, but let us not ignore 

the dead bodies of the Palestinian children and the Palestinian elderly that are also there. 

We need to reach out to both sides, hold both sides accountable 

and just set a single standard of that it is wrong and it is never 

justified to kill noncombatants in order to achieve a political end. 

And I have no problem in voting for a piece of legislation that condemns anyone, whether it is one side or the other for killing noncombatants. But I would hope we condemn both sides when this 

happens. And I had a letter from a member of the Israeli Embassy 

recently who was very upset when I suggested perhaps the Israelis 

have killed noncombatants as well. 

I took his—he said I was insulting him, et cetera. So I wrote him 

back a very sincere letter. I said look just please correct me if I am 

wrong. Was it Israeli policy? And has been it been Israeli policy to 

if an Israeli had been killed, especially when they were in Lebanon 

but at other times as well that to immediately respond with a bombardment of some kind of a Palestinian refugee settlement or populated area? 

At the end of that exchange, did it not leave Palestinian elderly 

and young people and women and children dead on the ground, 

and at the end of the whole exchange, an Israeli soldier dead and 

you had a bunch of noncombatants dead? That has to be wrong. 

That is wrong if that happened. I said if that is not correct, if I 

have been lied to, that that was Israeli policy, please let me know. 

And you thought what, I have received no response from that letter. And I would plead right now for my colleagues think that I am 

wrong, please show me that and I will quit saying this. But until 

then, I have to assume that the immorality and the cycle of violence that is going on in the Middle East is something that is taking place on both sides, and that we need to reach out to both sides 

in this conflict to try to find an answer so that Israel can live in 

peace and that Palestinians can have some modicum of decency 

and have peace side by side. 

My time is up, but I will end by saying that is what, I hope, I 

know our President is trying to have that policy in the past, and 

maybe Colin Powell, Secretary Powell’s opposition to these bills a 

couple of years ago reflected that. But if these bills will help bring 

about peace, I will support them, especially if they are one standard bill. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ISSA. The Chair would ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds 

for Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I appreciate the gentleman’s concern and his 

passion. But I didn’t want his remarks to go unanswered, lest anybody think that everybody agrees with them. There is a basic difference between people responding to being attacked as we do as 

11

Americans, despite the fact that in Afghanistan when we go after 

the people who committed heinous acts against America that sometimes unfortunately innocent people do get killed. That is the price 

of war. It is regrettable and unfortunate. But there is a difference 

between the perpetrator and the victim. The victim is allowed to 

respond. 

Mr. ISSA. In accordance with the Chairman’s policy, I would now 

recognize the gentlewoman from Nevada, Ms. Berkeley for 5 minutes. Any portion of which you can share with Mr. Sherman. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Yes, I would yield as much time as you may consume, Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I would just point out that it is Israeli policy when 

retaliation for a terrorist act or another act is called for to go after 

military targets, and just as when the United States has gone after 

military targets in Serbia or in Afghanistan, there often is very regrettable collateral damage, but it is never Israeli policy to shell an 

area that—other than aiming at military targets. I yield back to 

Ms. Berkeley. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving us this opportunity to speak. Long before I came 

to Congress, I was consumed with a great passion to have peace 

in the Middle East. And I worked very hard to help with that effort. I was among those millions of Americans who were most supportive of Oslo and longed for the peace plan to have a successful 

conclusion. 

I had a change of heart after Camp David. When Arafat walked 

away from a peace plan that Prime Minister Barak set forth, which 

was far more generous and encompassing than any other Prime 

Minister from the state of Israel had ever set forth, I became convinced that after being offered 97 percent of the West Bank, 100 

percent of the Gaza Strip, control over parts of Jerusalem and billions of dollars in guarantees from the United States and our European allies to build a Palestinian infrastructure—when Arafat 

walked away from that, it was an indication to me that what has 

transpired in the last 24 months since then has nothing whatsoever to do with the Palestinian homeland. 

If, in fact, Arafat wanted a Palestinian homeland, there would be 

one now. What this has to do with, and what the last 24 months 

of the second intifada has to do with the extermination and elimination of the state of Israel. I was extremely pleased with the 

President’s speech on June 24th that laid down clear and unambiguous steps that the Palestinians must take before the establishment of a Palestinian state, not coincidentally, not after but before. 

My view is unequivocal. 

We must first see real and lasting change by the Palestinians a 

new leadership free of corruption, and this new leadership must destroy the terrorist infrastructure, even the terrorist attacks against 

innocent Israelis and finally, finally and truly recognize the right 

of the state of Israel to exist. 

Now, I say it is the height of hypocrisy on this Committee, or in 

the United States Congress to criticize Israel for doing no more 

than the United States is doing to protect and defend its own citizens. The first act of any government is to protect and defend its 

people. The Israelis have the same right. And I have never read 

12

anywhere where it says Israelis have a right to die and the United 

States has a right to self-defense. The Israelis are doing no more 

than the United States is doing. 

I agree with my colleagues when they point out the horrors of 

war and the inadvertent error. We ourselves have made errors in 

Afghanistan as we go after the terrorists who would blow up themselves in order to kill innocent Americans. The Israelis have the 

same right. My vision for a peaceful Middle East is yet to be seen. 

One of the main reasons is Yasser Arafat, a man who lies, who 

cheats, and who distorts the truth. He thrives on terrorism. 

That is why I fully support and I am a proud cosponsor of the 

Arafat Accountability Act. The bill is a good start. It calls for the 

leader of the Palestinian Authority to publicly condemn all acts of 

terror, destroy the infrastructure and tools of terrorism and all financial and rhetorical support of terrorism, and urge all Arab nations who are involved in or support these egregious, despicable, to 

cease their efforts immediately. 

It takes a big step by denying visas to any member of the Palestinian Authority. But the bill doesn’t go far enough because it 

doesn’t call for the immediate removal of Arafat from office. This 

is a necessary step if we are to achieve peace. This man has proven 

he doesn’t want peace, and he will never accept peace with the 

Israelis. And more than that, more than his war against the 

Israelis, he is hurting his own people in a dramatic and painful and 

intergenerational way. 

I also fully support H.R. 1795, the Middle East Peace Commitments Act, which I am also a proud cosponsor of. This bill imposes 

sanctions again the Palestinian Authority if the President determines they are not living up to their commitments. Their connections with all terrorist groups have got to be severed completely 

and immediately and without exception. Earlier this year, the 

United States designated the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade as a terrorist organization. But Arafat lied and he disagreed with the 

President on CNN when he denied that the brigades were involved 

in terrorism. With Arafat it is the same old story, the same old lie 

year after year, month after month, day after day. It is time to 

move on and let’s bring genuine peace to the Middle East. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. The Chair would remind all the Members 

that you can revise and extend your written remarks. So if you 

would like to submit your written remarks and do an abbreviated 

statement, it would be greatly appreciated by all of us, so that we 

can get to asking our questions and hearing the statements. But 

you all certainly have the opportunity to make an opening remark. 

The Chair would recognize Mr. Cantor for his opening remarks 

which he assures me will have the greatest brevity. 

Mr. CANTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like 

to commend the gentleman from Missouri and the gentleman from 

New Jersey on their leadership in bringing this legislation forward. 

I think it is badly needed. I am so glad you are here. And I would 

also like to just respond to the use of the term ‘‘cycle of violence’’ 

as it applies to the situation in Israel. I would have hoped that we 

would no longer have listened and be able to hear that use of that 

term in this discussion, because in my mind, it has been clear for 

some time that there would be no violence in Israel were it not for 

13

the continuous aggression and violent terrorism by the Palestinians, their leadership and their associated terrorist groups. 

But Mr. Chairman, in his speech last month and has been said 

before, President Bush made a very bold statement that the only 

way for the Palestinian people to achieve real peace is to elect new 

leaders who are not compromised by terror. In my humble opinion, 

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is a terrorist who has never demonstrated any intention to be a partner in peace. And so doing, he 

has wiped away the hope to many, many innocent Palestinian citizens. And the resumption of violence and terror came on the part 

of the Palestinian Authority, under Mr. Arafat, came as Israel was 

offering historic compromises to end the conflict. Instead of seizing 

that opportunity, Mr. Arafat released over a hundred known terrorists from prison on permitting them to kill innocent Israelis. In the 

past 19 months, more than 3,600 innocent Israelis have been 

wounded, and more than 420 killed. Israelis face an average of 25 

live fire attacks per day. 

The Palestinian use of violence and terror as a political tool is 

specifically prohibited in every agreement signed with Israel even 

the United States. Documents that have been uncovered in the 

past few months have shown that Arafat was personally involved 

in the authorization of payments for weaponry as well as payments 

to the very people executing the bombing of innocent men, women 

and children. The proposed legislation would require the imposition 

of sanctions unless and until the Palestinians fulfill their commitments to fundamental change, democratic change. I have like my 

friend from Nevada, who I see is no longer here, I have consistently 

advocated the stance to end U.S. taxpayer support, either directly 

or indirectly, to the current Palestinian leadership under Mr. 

Arafat. I wholeheartedly support these bills and their underlying 

message that the U.S. will not deal with terrorists. Mr. Chairman, 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. ISSA. The Chair thanks you very much for yielding back. The 

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Hoeffel. 

Mr. HOEFFEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to echo the kind 

words about our colleague, Ben Gilman. I want to congratulate Mr. 

Blunt and Mr. Menendez and Mr. Ackerman for bringing these two 

bills forward. I have proudly cosponsored both and congratulate all 

of you for your fine work in this area. And one question I would 

like to pose to our two witnesses is the question of the Presidential 

waiver for national security reasons, which both proposals include 

which whether—which is sort of a standard congressional tip of the 

hat, I guess, to the executive branch. 

We always seem to include a Presidential waiver for national security purposes. And I wonder if we should rethink that or modify 

that some or whether it remain absolutely necessary to include a 

pretty broad waiver as we try to frankly limit the Administration’s 

actions somewhat in a particular area in this case in deals with the 

Palestinian Authority. I would be interested if your comments 

about that. 

And for Ambassador Satterfield, I gather that the Administration’s testimony today from the Ambassador will not be supportive 

of these bills. I would ask that he address the notion that if these 

14

bills are unacceptable, what conditions should we place on the behavior of the Palestinian Authority. Now the President has been 

clear in his opposition to Mr. Arafat. 

Of course, the elections the President has called for may result 

in the reelection of Mr. Arafat. And that will surely frustrate the 

White House and its position. Would we not be better in setting 

forth conditions that any Palestinian leader would have to meet. I 

would suggest too that there is a full renouncing of terror, both in 

word and deed, and a full recognition of Israel and her right to 

exist as a Jewish state. 

And Arafat would not meet those conditions today and the question is, if we set those conditions, do we encourage some alternative 

leadership within the Palestinian Authority to step up to either 

push Arafat aside, kick him upstairs, challenge him directly, defeat 

him? I was fortunate to travel to Israel briefly just after the House 

passed our resolution of solidarity with Israel in the face of the terror attacks with Congressmen Saxton, Deutsch and Kingston. And 

Minister Uzi Landau of the Internal Security Ministry and General 

Kupervaser of military intelligence both suggested that the setting 

of conditions indicating what we would insist upon in any Palestinian leader, whether it is Arafat, a changed Arafat, or someone 

new, is the best way to go to maintain consistency, and for us, to 

perhaps positively influence the upcoming elections. I would be interested in answers to those comments, and I thank the Chair. 

I am glad to see Mr. Gilman back in the Chair. I want the Chair 

to know I said very nice things about him, only echoing what everybody else said and we salute you, Mr. Gilman, and I yield back. 

Mr. GILMAN [presiding.] Thank you for your kind remarks. 

Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me also echo the 

kind remarks that have been said about you and as I go around 

my new district, parts of which are in your current district, I know 

that if I can work as effectively as you have for the people of Rockland County, everyone I speak with has only the best things to say 

about you. But I already knew that since we have been colleagues 

for 14 years. I want to echo the comments of Ms. Berkley, Mr. Cantor and others who have spoken, Mr. Hoeffel, certainly Mr. Ackerman, who have spoken. 

You know, let me say I am very glad we are having this hearing. 

I have a bill which is the Syria Accountability Act, and I hope before we break for the summer recess that we will also have a hearing for my Syria Accountability Act because I think it is important 

when we are dealing with the Middle East that we have these 

hearings to air the views and to say the things that really need to 

be said. 

Two Israelis that I remember in the 60s had sayings, and I 

would like to repeat them because I think they are very appropriate. Golda Meir, who of course grew up in the United States in 

Milwaukee and became the first woman Prime Minister of Israel, 

had a statement where she said that ‘‘there will be peace in the 

Middle East when the Palestinians decide that they love their own 

children more than they hate Israelis.’’ And I think that is something that we can say again today. And then it was Abba Eban who 

had the phrase that ‘‘the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to 

15

miss an opportunity.’’ And I think that is also very, very appropriate. 

I, too, like Ms. Berkley, was a strong supporter of Oslo. I always 

felt that Arafat’s feet had to be held to the fire, but I felt when it 

comes to making peace there are times you look the other way and 

hope that things will work. When Arafat walked away from the 

peace process after generous offers by the Administration and by 

Prime Minister Barak, it also opened my eyes and I no longer feel 

that Arafat or any of the people that are connected with him—that 

have been in his inner circle—really accept a Jewish state in the 

Middle East. 

And, indeed, walking away from a generous offer, as Ms. Berkley 

pointed out, 100 percent of Gaza, 97 percent of the West Bank, billions of dollars aid, a state of their own, international recognition—

to walk away and unleash the intifada calls into question whether 

the goal is a Palestinian state or to wipe Israel off the face of the 

Earth, out of the Middle East as a Jewish state. And I have not 

come to any other conclusion other than to say that Mr. Arafat remains a terrorist and still does not accept the right of Israel as a 

Jewish state to exist. 

I too, was very pleased when President Bush came out with his 

policy statement several weeks ago. I don’t think we can just plod 

along with the same old tired policies, we can’t look the other way 

every time there is a suicide bombing, we can’t say that America 

should continue to be a neutral partner or should broker the two 

sides as if somehow there is a moral equivalency between suicide 

bombing, murder and homicide, and with self-defense. I reject that 

moral equivalency. 

I reject the so-called cycle of violence that we hear from the State 

Department. The cycle of violence is when innocent Israelis are 

being murdered by fanatics and Israel is retaliating trying to get 

in and destroy the nests of terror. I think it is very interesting that 

Israel in the past several weeks has tightened its grip around the 

nests of terror in the West Bank and you haven’t seen the daily 

suicide bombings. So it is very clear that these suicide bombings 

come from the West Bank and could be controlled. 

And no foolish question that so many people in the State Department ask, well, Arafat has got to show that he can control terror 

and Arafat has got to show that he means it. And can Arafat really 

control it? Well, it is clear to me Arafat is terror. Arafat and terror 

are one. He has been doing the terror. It is not a matter of can he 

control, will he control it. He is doing the terror. He is using terror 

as a negotiating tool, and that is totally unacceptable. 

And President Bush’s statement was a refreshing break from the 

old tired policies of the past, which we had hoped would work but 

didn’t work. So don’t we learn anything from our experiences? 

I read Ambassador Satterfield’s testimony and I have enormous 

respect for him, but I must wholeheartedly disagree. Any administration that comes in, it doesn’t matter which party, always says 

if Congress somehow mandates what it wants to see—I will read 

Mr. Satterfield’s remarks—‘‘both pieces of legislation would eliminate the flexibility we will need to attain these goals.’’ Well, how 

much flexibility do we need? 

16

President Bush said it right. He said you are either with us or 

you are with the terrorists, and it is black and white. And it is very 

clear for anyone to see where the terrorism is coming from. It 

seems to me that we in the United States, in the United States 

Congress and the Administration, needs to say to the Palestinians 

once and for all, yes, we support your aspirations for a state if you 

act like civilized human beings. But if you are going to use terror 

as a negotiating tool, if you are going to think that you can continue to do all these things, we will not be even-handed. We will 

strike terror wherever we see it and we will not stop. 

Mr. GILMAN. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. ENGEL. Can I conclude my sentence, Mr. Chairman, and I 

will stop. 

If we can go halfway around the world, rightfully so, to fight terrorism in Afghanistan, then truly the Israelis can do it in their own 

backyard. We have a stake and just the way 10 years ago, 11 years 

ago, we had Operation Desert Storm with the first President Bush, 

which I supported and voted for, the United States has a moral 

commitment to do what is right in the United States and I don’t 

want to hear any talk of even-handedness. There is right and there 

is wrong, and it is easy to see what side is right and what side is 

terror. 

Mr. GILMAN. Now we are pleased to hear testimony by our Chief 

Deputy Majority Whip, Roy Blunt, sponsor of H.R. 4693, the Arafat 

Accountability Act. 

Mr. Blunt. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROY BLUNT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking you for 

scheduling this important hearing and inviting me to testify regarding our bill, the Arafat Accountability Act. And let me join my 

colleagues in thanking you for your service to our country and your 

leadership of this Committee, this Subcommittee and the Full Committee. It continues to be an honor to serve with you, and all of 

us appreciate the great work you do here and around the world for 

our country. 

As you have seen many times on your visits there, the situation 

in the Middle East is constantly changing, but there are certain 

facts related to the volatile region that we in Congress have a responsibility to address. One of the most critical factors, some would 

say the factor contributing to the volatility to the Middle East, is 

the long time presence of Yasser Arafat as the Palestinian leader. 

I am here today because I want to see peace in the Middle East 

as soon as possible. It is clear, however, that peace is impossible 

without Mr. Arafat’s complete and total abdication of all acts of terror. 

That is why I joined with 64 of my colleagues, originally, Mr. 

Chairman, you, myself, Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Menendez, to introduce a bill that we feel really holds Arafat’s feet to the fire over 

his reign of terror in the Middle East. 

The Arafat Accountability Act condemns in no uncertain terms 

the violence that is supported and funded by Yasser Arafat and the 

PLO. It also sends a strong message that the United States will 

17

neither tolerate nor ignore Arafat’s blatant refusal to work for the 

peace he says he seeks. It would impose sanctions on travel, visa 

restrictions and asset seizure against those members of the Palestinian Authority and the PLO who are in the United States for 

nonofficial purposes. It would also require the President to report 

to Congress every 90 days detailing Palestinian acts of terrorism, 

including actions by the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian Liberation Organization or any of their constituent elements. 

Before June 24, this bill would have gone a long way toward addressing the United States problem with the Palestinian Authority 

by helping establish our position. However, the President’s speech 

on June 24 changed the paradigm of American policy toward the 

Middle East. 

For years under both the Clinton and Bush Administrations, 

American policy was built on the hope that Palestinian leader 

Yasser Arafat would change himself and his regime just enough to 

meet Israeli and American concerns and allow a peace process to 

go forward. The hope was Arafat would eventually see the obvious, 

that peace with Israel was in his people’s own self-interest and it 

was time to stop the violence and accept Israel’s generous offers of 

statehood and virtually complete land withdrawals. 

But 21 months of horrific and inexplicable terror against Israel’s 

civilian population with what evidence now shows is the direct 

complicity of Arafat and his security forces has taught us that 

Yasser Arafat has no intention of working with us and Israel for 

peace. Arafat refused to work with Israel and led his people into 

a self-destructive tirade of homicidal bombings and shooting of innocent Israelis. 

On June 24, the President told the world that peace and stability 

were impossible without a new Palestinian leadership that would 

work to fight against terror rather than engaging in it. Congress 

should help the President by codifying into law the very ideas he 

outlined in his historic June 24 speech. I believe this legislation 

should and can be altered by this Committee to more truly reflect 

the President’s new foreign policy strategy within the spirit of the 

legislation we filed before the President made his June the 24 

speech. 

First, we should make it clear that the United States’ recognition 

will be denied unless there are fundamental changes to Palestinian 

governance. Palestinians must have new leadership that is chosen 

through truly free and competitive elections. Elections alone are 

not enough. If Arafat controls the process, the press, and the police, 

free elections are not really possible. 

Second, future recognition and support for a Palestinian state 

must also depend on those new leaders actively dismantling the 

terrorist infrastructure established in a unified and accountable security force and cooperating with Israel to prevent terrorist attacks 

and to break up any militia or cells. 

I might also say in response to Mr. Hoeffel’s question, I think we 

can change this legislation easily and clearly so that the same 

standards would apply to all, whoever is the leader of the Palestinian organization, the Palestinian state, not as we originally had 

stated a specific reference to Arafat but a reference to this leadership. 

18

Third, the Palestinian Authority must make the necessary legal 

and constitutional changes to institutionalize all of these changes. 

Without an accountable government free of corruption, with legal 

safeguards for its citizens, any hope for future statehood will deteriorate into the chaotic government structure we see today, and 

terror, if temporarily controlled, will soon reappear. 

I look forward working with the Committee to amend this bill as 

necessary to reflect the President’s new foreign policy and encourage lasting peace in the Middle East. Certainly as we would all anticipate those of you who are Members of this Committee and particularly from my enjoyable service on the Committee, no Administration ever steps forward and applauds Congress for helping do 

what they see is their job. I think it is significant that this legislation was out there, was responded to by our colleagues like it was, 

that in many ways if it didn’t provide a foundation, certainly would 

have provided a ready reference to the President as he stepped forward with his remarks to know that those remarks and that attitude and that approach would be heartily supported by this Congress. 

We can with this legislation send a message to the world, send 

a message to our friends in the Middle East and also provide a 

foundation and a monitoring system that will help this Administration, our country and, more importantly, people in Israel and Palestine move toward peace. 

And I am grateful, Mr. Chairman, that you are holding this hearing today. I eagerly look forward to working with you and the Committee as we work to move this piece of legislation, as you have an 

opportunity to modify it, to the Full Committee, to the Floor, and 

hopefully to the President’s desk. 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Blunt, for your extensive 

analysis of the problem. I would hope that you could stay a few moments while Mr. Menendez makes his presentation and we may 

have some questions for both of you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blunt follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROY BLUNT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking you for scheduling this important hearing and for inviting me to testify regarding our bill, the Arafat Accountability Act. 

And let me join my colleagues in thanking you for your service to our country and 

your leadership of this committee. It continues to be an honor to serve with you, 

and all of us appreciate all of the work you do here and around the world. 

As you’ve seen many times in your visits there, the situation in the Middle East 

is constantly changing, but there are certain facts related to that volatile region that 

we in Congress have a responsibility to address. 

One of the most critical factors—some would say the factor—contributing to the 

volatility in the Middle East is the longtime presence of Yasser Arafat as Palestinian leader. 

I’m here today because I want to see peace in the Middle East as soon as possible. 

It is clear, however, that peace is impossible without Mr. Arafat’s complete and total 

abdication of all acts of terror. 

That’s why I’ve joined with 64 of my colleagues, originally that was just you, myself, Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Menendez, to introduce a bill that we feel really holds 

Arafat’s feet to the fire over his reign of terror in the Middle East. 

The Arafat Accountability Act condemns in no uncertain terms the violence that 

is supported and funded by Yasser Arafat and the PLO. It also sends a strong message that the United States will neither tolerate nor ignore Arafat’s blatant refusal 

to work for the peace he says he seeks. It would impose sanctions on travel, visa 

restrictions and asset seizure against those members of the Palestinian Authority 

19

and the PLO who are in the United States for non-official purposes. It would also 

require the President to report to Congress every 90 days detailing Palestinian acts 

of terrorism, including actions by the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian Liberation Organization or any of their constituent elements. 

Before June 24th, this bill would have gone a long way toward addressing the 

United States’ problems with the Palestinian Authority by helping establish our position. However, President Bush’s speech on June 24th changed the paradigm of 

American policy towards the Middle East. For years, under both the Clinton and 

Bush Administrations, American policy was built on the hope that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat would change himself and his regime just enough to meet Israeli 

and American concerns and allow a peace process to go forward. The hope was that 

Arafat would eventually see the obvious, that peace with Israel was in his people’s 

own self-interest and that it was time to stop the violence and accept Israel’s generous offers of statehood and virtually complete land withdrawals. 

But 21 months of horrific and inexplicable terror against Israel’s civilian population, with what evidence now shows is the direct complicity of Arafat and his security forces, has taught us that Yasser Arafat has no intention of working with us 

and Israel for peace. Arafat refused to work with Israel and led his people into a 

self-destructive tirade of homicidal bombings and shootings of innocent Israelis. On 

June 24th, the President told the world that peace and stability were impossible 

without new Palestinian leadership that would work to fight against terror, rather 

than engaging in it. 

Congress should help the President by codifying into law the very ideas he outlined in his historic June 24th speech. I believe this legislation should and can be 

altered by this committee to more truly reflect the President’s new foreign policy 

strategy within the spirit of the legislation we filed before the President made his 

June 24th speech. 

First, we should make clear that United States recognition will be denied unless 

there are fundamental changes to Palestinian governance. Palestinians must have 

new leadership that is chosen through truly free and competitive elections. Elections 

alone are not enough; if Arafat controls the process, the press, and the police, free 

elections are not possible. 

Second, future recognition and support for a Palestinian state must also depend 

on these new leaders actively dismantling the terrorist infrastructure, establishing 

a unified and accountable security force and cooperating with Israel to prevent terrorist attacks and to break up any militias or cells. 

Third, the Palestinian Authority must make the necessary legal and constitutional changes to institutionalize all of these changes. Without an accountable government free of corruption with legal safeguards for its citizens, any hope for a future statehood will deteriorate into the chaotic governance structure we see today. 

And terror, even if temporarily controlled, will soon reappear. 

I look forward to working with the Committee to amend this bill as necessary to 

reflect President Bush’s new foreign policy and to encourage lasting peace in the 

Middle East.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Menendez, a senior Member of our International Relations Committee and of the Democratic leadership. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT MENENDEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. MENENDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

and the ranking Democrat for holding this hearing and for the opportunity to testify, and I want to join in the chorus of voices in 

commending you for your service in the Congress and certainly on 

this Committee. You have served with great distinction certainly 

over the years that you were Chairman, and I was privileged to 

serve on the Committee during that period of time and your chairmanship of the Subcommittee and in policy in different parts of the 

world, the Middle East and beyond. So we want to join in those 

chorus of voices of our colleagues who are congratulating you, Mr. 

Chairman, on your work, and we look forward for the continued 

work that you will have for the rest of this session of which I hope 

these bills are a part of the hallmark of how you finish your career. 

20

I remember well on the day that we introduced this bill with Mr. 

Ackerman, Mr. Blunt, yourself and myself, the news organizations 

reported that Chairman Arafat had planned a series of reforms of 

the Palestinian Authority. Now that was a coincidence perhaps, but 

it is telling, isn’t it? Coincidence or not, the prospect of penalties 

that include financial measures to prohibit fund-raising here, prevent the travel to the United States of top Palestinian leaders and 

downgrades the status of the PLO offices, seems to have a positive 

effect. 

Apparently, the Palestinian Authority has been proceeding to 

make reforms in the direction of democracy and openness, but nowhere near what we believe needs to be done. 

These are peaceful diplomatic measures. They are tough, but I 

would not view them as hostile. 

Many would say that authoritarian regimes or leaders simply ignore sanctions. I believe the record shows otherwise. Dictators will 

often seek to avoid sanctions to the extent that they can. But often 

they are compelled by the threat of sanctions enforcement to make 

amends. And I believe that clearly that is part of the nature of 

what we are trying to accomplish in this bill. 

Our goal is ultimately to have a different governance of the Palestinian Authority in behalf of its own people. Let me State, Mr. 

Chairman, that these sanctions are not aimed at the Palestinian 

people. We must try to do what we can to help the Palestinian people out of our sense of humanity, our values and our interests. I 

believe that in the hearts of Israelis and the Palestinian people 

they share the same goals of living in freedom, security and prosperity. 

But, unfortunately, at the most critical moments when statesmanship, vision and peace were called for, Mr. Arafat embraced 

rather than renounced—and I don’t mean renounce in word, I 

mean renounce in action, murder as politics. He condoned the suicide bombings and the terrorist groups that promote them. His 

range of positions has comprised an extremely narrow band between active support and passive encouragement of militant extremism. 

At a critical time when the olive branch was extended, he reverted to his terrorist past, which some argued he never really had 

abandoned. When he said he could not accept Barak’s peace plan, 

he confirmed before the whole world that he could not make peace. 

He could have made a counter offer. Instead he chose violence. The 

months since have been a most painful reminder for both sides of 

this consequential choice. 

The document discoveries of a few months ago in his headquarters and elsewhere in the West Bank confirm his active involvement with terrorism. The Karine-A incident showed his contempt for his Oslo obligations—as if the creation of an armed terrorist base in the West Bank did not. 

At the end of the day, and I know that in the Middle East days 

can seem to be an eternity, there must be a peace process that focuses inevitably on the process of democratic change within the 

Palestinian Authority and, in my view, in the Arab and Muslims 

world. 

21

In the last 20 years, every other region of the world has experienced democratic renewal and peaceful regime change, so it should 

be in the Middle East as well. 

As we proceed with our Middle East policy, we must not lose 

focus on our other objective, and that is the fight against terrorism: 

But we must not lose sight either of the importance of backing up 

our words with consequences. That is what this bill is about. This 

bill provides backup to our words with actions—peaceful yet meaningful. Already they have shown, I believe, to some extent of what 

effect they can have. Let us make sure they do by passing it. 

And lastly, to respond to Mr. Hoeffel’s comments and also having 

read the Secretary’s testimony, I have never in my decade on the 

Committee found the State Department ever—regardless of which 

Administration—to echo what Mr. Blunt said, to ever come forth 

and say that they embrace Congress’ role or certainly their desire 

to create some standards under which we as the representatives of 

the American people and of their treasury, from which we are 

spending enormous amounts of money here, have ever embraced 

anything that they consider a restriction. The State Department always has an aversion to any limiting or constraining provision of 

law, and that has been the case certainly for the last decade that 

I have seen. 

That does not mean that the Congress has not seen fit to provide 

for such limitations or such standards in order to pursue the national interest of the United States. And Mr. Hoeffel, I think we 

strengthen the Administration’s hands by expressing Congress’ 

will. So when the President turns to the Palestinian Authority, he 

is not only speaking with the power of the authority of the executive branch but speaking with the voice of the American people in 

this regard through their representatives. 

I do believe, however, that it needs to be tempered by the waiver 

provisions that are here because I think that gives us a legitimate 

basis to say that the President has sufficient flexibility while still 

proposing some very tough standards. 

So I urge my colleagues on the Subcommittee to support the 

Arafat Accountability Act and to support the Middle East Peace 

Commitments Act as well. I look forward to working as a Member 

of the Full Committee to achieve its passage before the Committee 

and ultimately to work with my colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle and in our Democratic Caucus to achieve its passage in the 

House. 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez, and I would like to address both of our panelists. The President has indicated and Colin 

Powell has substantiated that we no longer want to negotiate with 

Mr. Arafat, it is time for new leadership. Do you agree with that 

and, if so, how do we obtain new leadership? 

Mr. BLUNT. I do agree with that. I had an op-ed piece in the 

Washington Times last November, the purpose of which to say that 

I thought it was time to move on to find other leaders to negotiate 

with if we wanted to have peace in this area, that Mr. Arafat has 

proven even at that point that he was not willing to be a partner 

for peace, ready to be a partner for peace or apparently interested. 

So I do think that. 

22

However, this legislation, should Mr. Arafat be chosen in elections or for some reason those elections are postponed beyond the 

90 days, we would have the first chance under this bill to evaluate 

his actions, does provide a way that the Administration can constantly go in and see whoever is the leader of the Palestinian Authority is maintaining the commitments that have been agreed to 

and can report back both to the Congress and the world whether 

or not that is the case. 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Blunt. Mr. Menendez. 

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I agree that Arafat is not capable 

of bringing to the table the opportunities for peace to take place. 

I also, however, believe that we cannot dictate who someone’s leadership is and we have to let the Palestinian people make their own 

choices, which is all the more reason why I think this legislation 

is so important, because we send to the Palestinian people a message of, ‘‘here are our standards. We want to work with you. We 

desire for you to achieve some of your goals, which we believe are 

in common, to live alongside with Israel in peace and security and 

for prosperity in the region,’’ which is certainly something that on 

the Palestinian side has not been achieved. 

By sending this message through our legislation, while the Palestinians would choose their own leadership, we would clearly give 

them choices and they may understand how the United States 

would view any leadership that they would elect and what standards that the United States would apply towards that leadership 

in our bilateral relationship with them. I think that is important. 

In doing so, and in sending such a strong message, I think the Palestinian people will hopefully choose for a new day, a new opportunity, in which their hopes and dreams and aspirations can be 

achieved. 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Menendez, and I want to thank our 

panelists for taking their time to be with us today. Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. I just want to thank our two sponsors of the legislation for their diligence, hard work and determination in helping 

us get this shepherded through the Subcommittee, Full Committee 

and the full House. Good job. 

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Cantor? 

Mr. CANTOR. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Just want to thank the two gentlemen again for their leadership. 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Cantor. Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. I would concur. I think it shows the strong bipartisan feeling that we have in this Congress about combating terrorism and calling it the way we see it, who is doing the terrorism 

and who is the victim of the terrorism. 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you. No further questions again, I want to 

thank our panelists. Mr. Blunt, Mr. Menendez, thank you for taking the time to be with us today. 

We now call on Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Satterfield. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID SATTERFIELD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF NEAR EASTERN 

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today. 

23

If agreeable, I would like to submit the prepared remarks for the 

record and make a few brief opening remarks. 

Mr. GILMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. The President in his June 24 remarks spoke 

quite eloquently on behalf of the government and the people of the 

United States of two fundamental things, the absolute requirement 

for fundamental transformation in the Palestinian leadership, a 

transformation which would produce a leadership for the Palestinian people as they prepare for the goal of statehood, a goal 

elaborated by the President free of connection, free of the taint of 

corruption or terror, committed to the basic principles necessary to 

see the Palestinian people working side by side with the people of 

Israel and move forward into a very different kind of future. 

The President articulated the path to that different future. The 

President articulated the steps that would be necessary to see the 

Palestinians advance, security, institutional reform and transformation, economic reform and development, a political process 

which would move the Palestinians forward through the possibility 

of an early state with provisional borders and attributes of statehood to ultimately, and, as the President stated, within the possibility of a 3-year time line, a final permanent status agreement. 

The Members of the Subcommittee who have spoken today have 

talked about the need for consequences, the need for benchmarks, 

the need for accountability. The Administration certainly agrees 

with these principles. Congressman Ackerman spoke of the need 

for consequences of the Palestinian leadership if they fail to perform, for the need for benchmarks, of consequences of those who 

support rather than oppose terror and violence. We concur. That is 

the thrust of the President’s speech. It is the thrust of the current 

diplomacy in which we are engaged, not just unilaterally but also 

with our allies in the quartet and other parties in the international 

community and around the world. 

We believe holding forward the vision outlined by the President, 

but also maintaining the absolute requirement of transformation in 

Palestinian institutions and Palestinian leadership is the best way 

to advance what I believe is the common goal of the Congress and 

the Administration to see a genuine peace, genuine security prevail 

for all the peoples in the Middle East. 

The Administration’s objection to the two pieces of legislation 

currently before the Subcommittee do not have to do with the ultimate purposes of the legislation. The goals are ones upon which we 

all agree. We believe, however, that the specific provisions of these 

two pieces of legislation in fact work against the principles and 

goals outlined by the President, goals which I heard articulated by 

the Members of the Subcommittee here today. 

We do not believe imposing strictures in a blanket fashion, even 

with waiver authority granted, on all of the officials contained in 

these acts is appropriate. The idea of the diplomacy necessary to 

implement the President’s ideas, the President’s goals, is to encourage new leadership to arise to encourage the development of very 

new transformed institutions among the Palestinians. That requires dialogue and it is dialogue which will produce those results, 

not exclusion. 

24

We are absolutely committed as an Administration to avoiding 

the inclusion in any dialogue of those involved in terror and violence. We could not be more clear on this point. You have our assurance that will remain our policy.But we do not believe that the 

sweeping provisions of these pieces of legislation are appropriate or 

useful in advancing those goals. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Satterfield follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAVID SATTERFIELD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY, BUREAU OF NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Thank you, Chairman Gilman. And thank you to all the Members of the Committee for giving me this opportunity to discuss our efforts to promote peace in the 

Middle East and the potential effect on those efforts of HR 1795, the Middle East 

Peace Commitments Act, and HR 4693, the Arafat Accountability Act. Mr. Chairman, we remain committed to helping the Israelis and Palestinians achieve the future they deserve—a future that puts an end to terror and violence, a future that 

removes the daily threats to ordinary Israelis who worry about whether their children will return safely from school or their spouses from the market, a future that 

preserves Israel as a strong and vibrant Jewish state, a future that grants Palestinians the chance for normal, dignified lives in their own state, with responsible and 

responsive governance. Both peoples deserve a future without violence or humiliation. 

We will play our part, and help lead the parties along the path to peace. But the 

parties also must play their separate parts, as the President made clear in his June 

24 speech. In his remarks, the President spoke plainly on the need for new Palestinian leadership and for transparent, accountable Palestinian institutions. The 

President was clear that it is unacceptable for Palestinian authorities to encourage, 

rather than oppose, terrorism and that this must cease. He also underlined the need 

for an externally supervised effort to rebuild and reform the Palestinian security 

services. Finally, the President stated that the United States will not support the 

establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight 

against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure. 

The President also noted the large stake Israel has in the success of a democratic 

Palestine, and challenged Israel to take concrete steps to support the emergence of 

a viable, credible Palestinian state. 

I can report to you, Mr. Chairman, that there is broad international support for 

the president’s vision for two states living side-by-side within secure and recognized 

borders, and recognition of the urgent need for reform of Palestinian institutions 

and its economy, and for free and fair elections. The president also stressed that 

as we make progress toward security, Israeli forces need to withdraw fully to positions they held prior to September 28, 2000, and consistent with the recommendations of the Mitchell committee, Israeli settlement activity must stop. 

We have already begun to see some signs of change in Palestinian governance, 

although these changes will have to become permanent and institutionalized. A 

new, leaner and hopefully more accountable Palestinian cabinet has been sworn in, 

which has endorsed a ‘‘100 day’’ plan detailing reforms to be undertaken in the public security, financial, judicial, and other domains. Presidential and legislative elections are expected early next year to give Palestinians the opportunity to elect leaders committed to peace and who oppose terror. 

We are working intensively with the parties in the region, with our key European, 

UN and Russian colleagues, and with major international donors to encourage these 

and further fundamental reforms in Palestinian governance, without which our goal 

of peace in the Middle East will remain elusive. The President has discussed this 

rebuilding with Prime Minister Sharon, Arab leaders and we have engaged the 

‘‘Quartet’’—a forum composed of the United States, the European Union, the United 

Nations and Russia—which has endorsed this rebuilding. Next week, Secretary 

Powell will chair a meeting of the Quartet to determine the most effective way for 

the international community to encourage reform of Palestinian institutions. 

As the Secretary and other U.S. officials continue to discuss with the parties and 

regional leaders on how we can best move forward with this strategy, it is essential 

that we retain the flexibility needed to encourage the Palestinian Authority to move 

in a new direction. To be successful, it must be the Palestinian people who own this 

reform process, and it is our job to support their desire for real change. We are convinced that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians want real reform, but we 

25

have to recognize that if we want the reform process to succeed, we cannot be seen 

as imposing new structures from outside, or the support that currently exists will 

quickly dissipate. 

We therefore see two objectives that must be attained if we are to achieve our 

goal of fundamentally reforming Palestinian governance. First, we must identify and 

encourage Palestinian leaders and elements receptive to reform. Second, we must 

build support among ordinary Palestinians for reform. 

Mr. Chairman, it is the pursuit of these two objectives that leads to our concerns 

about the proposed legislation that is the topic of today’s hearing. Although we 

agree that the Palestinians must fulfill their peace process commitments, both 

pieces of legislation would eliminate the flexibility we will need to attain these 

goals. 

HR 1795 would do so by imposing sanctions, or waiving such sanctions following 

a determination that would have triggered sanctions, against the PLO and PA officials. Such an imposition would be highly counterproductive to our efforts to focus 

on positive outcomes, fueling instead Palestinian and Arab doubts about our readiness to support an eventual Palestinian state. 

We remain engaged with the Palestinians to ensure that the PLO and PA understand exactly what the Palestinians have to do to meet their commitments. But requiring the President to make formal determinations of the compliance of only one 

of the parties—the Palestinians—would undermine our efforts to build support 

among Palestinians for the institutional reforms advocated by the President. 

Imposing restrictions on the operation of the PLO office in the U.S., or on the 

issuance of visas to Palestinian officials, would send the signal that the U.S. does 

not welcome communication with Palestinians, even those committed to reform and 

peace. 

Additionally, imposing restrictions on U.S. economic assistance to the Palestinians 

would worsen the already dire economic situation of the Palestinian population—

not the Palestinian Authority—and further undermine regional stability. 

Regionally, this legislation would undermine our relations with Arab allies by bolstering segments of Arab public opinion that are already very critical of their regimes’ warm relations with the U.S., their relations with Israel, and their support 

for Middle East peace. 

HR 4693, the Arafat Accountability Act, would also undercut the very goal we 

share of encouraging fundamental, democratic reform of Palestinian governance. We 

certainly share Congress’s concerns about the Palestinian Authority’s failure to end 

violence and terror, and appreciate the support and confidence that has been expressed for Secretary Powell’s efforts. 

While the Act is ostensibly aimed at Chairman Arafat, its extensive requirements 

would significantly complicate our ability to maintain a dialogue with other Palestinians on reform and the need for a new Palestinian leadership. 

For example, PA officials, including those with impeccable reform credentials, will 

be forced to go through a cumbersome waiver process before becoming eligible for 

a visa to visit the United States. By freezing the PA’s assets in the United States 

we will also make it more difficult for these officials to pay their expenses while in 

this country. We need more contact with the reformers, not less. 

In addition, Palestinians will likely perceive the Act as signaling that we oppose 

all Palestinians, not just Arafat. That impression will enhance Arafat’s standing 

among Palestinians and make it more difficult for Palestinians who agree with our 

agenda to be seen as working closely with us. 

The bottom line is that we agree with the need for the Palestinians to comply 

with their commitments and control the violence, and to move toward building the 

institutions necessary for the two-state solution the President envisions as part of 

a comprehensive, negotiated peace between the parties. We do not wish to be seen 

as promoting punitive measures in a lead-up to Palestinian elections from which we 

hope new Palestinian leaders committed to security and peace in the region will 

emerge. 

Thank you very much. I’d be pleased to take your questions.

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Satterfield. Three weeks ago Assistant Secretary Burns was before us testifying with regard to Palestinian progress, and I quote, ‘‘must be performance-driven,’’ he 

said. Your own statement today emphasizes that we agree with the 

need for Palestinians to comply with their commitments, and yet 

you indicate opposition to legislation pending before our SubVerDate May 01 2002 14:35 Sep 13, 2002 Jkt 080641 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\MESA\071102\80641 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
26

committee, which is intended to measure the Palestinian compliance. 

Would you state what measures the Administration will use to 

determine Palestinian progress and what would be the consequences by our government if the Palestinians do not comply 

with their commitments? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, we have outlined again, with 

the support of a broad consensus of key allies and partners who are 

engaged with the Palestinians precisely the benchmarks, the performance standards necessary to judge whether or not institutional 

reform, economic progress, leadership transformation is happening 

in a substantive fashion or is cosmetic only. 

We share the concerns of this Committee and the Congress and 

the American people to hold the Palestinians, indeed to hold this 

entire process to the highest standards, because if there is a cosmetic change only we are not going to advance. Nothing is going 

to be advanced. This is going to be another show. 

We believe that by setting out very clear, very explicit benchmarks, both the leadership transformation and institutional transformation, a process we are now embarked upon, we offer the best 

chance for Palestinians to be able to move forward in reforms, the 

best chance for us to impact those reforms in a positive manner. 

We intend to be involved as the United States, in conjunction 

with others in the region and the international community, in the 

highest degree of scrutiny and engagement with Palestinian interlocutors as these processes move forward. 

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Secretary, the Secretary’s letter to our Committee states,

‘‘We do not encourage or support the introduction of legislation 

during this critical period that appears one-sided to a majority 

of the nations in the Middle East region . . .’’

and then goes on to name some other criteria which would also disqualify legislation. 

My question is, is it proper for the State Department to establish 

as a criterion in support of legislation whether it would get the approval of the Arab League on a one country-one vote basis? The 

suggestion I think by the State Department is somewhat extravagant to say the least. I welcome your comment. 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. That certainly is not our intent and that is not 

our policy. We are concerned, as the Committee is, in seeing meaningful reforms and leadership transformation take place as rapidly 

as possible. Our criteria for that are absolute performance based 

standards laid out in advance, carefully monitored, carefully observed and judgments taken on the basis of those observations. We 

believe to be effective it is very important to be able to sustain the 

flexibility necessary to maintain a dialogue with Palestinian reformers, and I speak of reformers in the sense of those committed 

to opposition to terror and violence, truly committed to a transformation of Palestinian institutions. 

We do not believe the pieces of legislation before the Committee 

now facilitate that goal. 

Mr. GILMAN. Well, let me ask you one more question. What 

would be the problem of our setting forth some of the sanctions or 

27

some of the penalties in the event the Palestinians do not comply 

with the agreements made and with the necessity for bringing 

about peace? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. We think, Mr. Chairman, that the consequences of failure by the Palestinian leadership, any Palestinian 

leadership, current or transformed, to move forward in the direction that we have spoken of, you have spoken of, is self evident. 

The consequences are that we will not as the United States be able 

to participate with or support those leaders or that process if it is 

not a genuine one committed to the types of reforms in the combating of terror that we all believe is essential to this process. That 

I think is a profound consequence, as the President has described 

it in very blunt and very explicit terms. It simply won’t work and 

we won’t work with them. 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Satterfield.

Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I have 

been listening very carefully to what you have had to say. Indeed, 

our intentions are your intentions; what you would like to see is 

what we would like to see. Question is and always has been, however, how do we get there from here? The way that the State Department has always described and the course that we have always 

followed has not gotten us there. As a matter of fact, in the last 

20 or so months has gotten us further from the goal that we have 

all agreed upon. 

I don’t understand, even though you said that you have carefully 

articulated the performance based standards and benchmarks, I 

don’t see a benchmark. I haven’t heard a benchmark. I haven’t 

heard a date. In order for something to be performance-based you 

need to set not just a standard but a timetable. I don’t see a timetable for anything and I don’t hear anything. I am very concerned 

about that. 

What I am hearing is trust me, there will be some. What we are 

doing in this legislation that is before us today is we are laying 

down some lines. We are saying if that doesn’t happen, that will 

happen. If you don’t do this, you get that. To me and I think to 

most people, that is performance-based. If there are no consequences, some people don’t take actions. 

I remember very well growing up and my mother of blessed 

memory would say if you don’t do this by the time I count to 3, 

and then she would start counting, one, two, two and a quarter, 

two and three-eighths, I learned fractions. But if my mother said 

you don’t do this by the time——

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Ackerman, I wonder if you would yield. Do you 

and I have the same mother? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. We do. If my mother would say if you don’t do 

this by the time I count to 3 then you are not going out to play 

with your friends, I knew what the consequences were. I knew 

when she was serious. I knew where the benchmarks were. I knew 

where my trip wires were. I knew what the parameters were. Otherwise it is a big group hug. We would like to see you get to there, 

and maybe you will get there and maybe you won’t, and if you 

don’t it is going to be too bad and you are not going to be happy. 

28

Where are your benchmarks? What are your benchmarks? Do you 

have them? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Congressman, the President laid out the greatest of those benchmarks and the greatest of the consequences in 

his speech on the 24th. The President said there is a political horizon available for the Palestinian people. It is a horizon which he 

described in quite detailed terms and attached a time line to. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. He gave within 3 years. 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. The President also made clear, Mr. Congressman, that if there was not first a transformation in the Palestinian 

leadership, secondly, a fundamental transformation of Palestinian——

Mr. ACKERMAN. In your mind a transformation in Palestinian 

leadership means the absence of Yasser Arafat from the political—

as the factual political head of the Palestinian Authority? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. The President has made clear the present Palestinian leadership cannot take the Palestinian people forward. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. In your mind does that include Yasser Arafat? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Yes. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. So Yasser Arafat in your view cannot take the 

Palestinian leadership forward? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. The President has said there must be a transformation in the current Palestinian leadership. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. And that, as you have said, includes Yasser 

Arafat? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. That is reflected in our policy towards Chairman Arafat. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. So what is wrong with saying that if Chairman 

Arafat can’t close the deal he can’t come here to visit me? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. If the act were specific to Chairman Arafat, we 

would be speaking to a different set of issues. The act is not. The 

act was aimed——

Mr. ACKERMAN. If I speak to my co-sponsors, the 157 other cosponsors of the legislation, and we made this Arafat specific you 

are saying you could support it? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Mr. Ackerman, I would have to take that issue 

back for consideration. Our concern with the provisions of the act, 

which in a sweeping fashion imposes sanctions on all PLO and Palestinian Authority officials, was a principal source of our concern 

with these restrictions. We believe that impedes dialogue unnecessarily. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Would you get back to me with an answer to my 

question that if we make that Arafat specific rather than others 

that this legislation would enjoy the support of the Administration? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. There were other provisions of the act, Mr. 

Congressman, that we also have concerns about, but I will certainly get you a response on the points that you raised. 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman. 

Mr. Cantor? 

Mr. CANTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ambassador Satterfield, 

thank you very much for being here. I appreciate your testimony. 

We are talking today about accountability, about American support 

for the peace effort, and ultimately we all hope there to be a peace 

and that will most likely involve commitment of U.S. taxpayer dolVerDate May 01 2002 14:35 Sep 13, 2002 Jkt 080641 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\MESA\071102\80641 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
29

lars to facilitate, you know, rebuilding the security of innocent people, et cetera. 

And one of the things that continues to alert me and cause me 

to pause in terms of accountability of the expenditure of U.S. taxpayer dollars is the question of UNRWA, United Nations Relief and 

Works Agency. And I know for 50 years it has been the sole agency 

dedicated to the plight of the Palestinian refugees. In fact, the Palestinian refugees have their own refugee agency while worldwide 

all other refugees come under The High Commission for Refugees. 

And I know that for the first 20 years the United States provided, 

I think, about two-thirds of the budget of UNRWA and the last 20 

years we have been a main donor of that. 

But I also know that one of the provisions of the 1961 Foreign 

Assistance Act says that no expenditure or contribution of the 

United States can be made unless we know that all possible measures to assure that no part of those funds would be used to furnish 

assistance to any refugee that received military training, is a member of at that time so-called Palestinian Liberation Army or another guerilla type organization or who has engaged in any act of 

terrorism. 

There has been a recent spat of reports in the press about Jenin 

and other camps that have been specifically identified even by the 

Palestinian citizens themselves as the suicide capital. To me, the 

U.S. law is very clear in that Foreign Assistance Act. And my question to you is what are we doing? What mechanisms are in place 

to ensure that UNRWA facilities are not being used for terrorist 

purposes and that no individual involved in terror are receiving 

any of the assistance that ultimately comes from the United States 

taxpayers? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Mr. Congressman, we take very seriously the 

issues raised regarding UNRWA’s role with respect to Palestinian 

refugee issues, particularly in the West Bank and Gaza. We have 

made very clear to the United Nations’ leadership and to UNRWA 

specifically the need for the highest possible standards in the Administration of UNRWA’s budget as well as in the conduct of 

UNRWA’s activities on the ground. 

Challenges faced on the issues that you raised are quite extraordinary given the circumstances on the ground. UNRWA is responsible for the status of its own facilities. It is not responsible for the 

security of the Palestinian refugee camps. That is the responsibility 

of host government or governments. 

In the case of West Bank that is split between areas A, B and 

C, Palestinian Authority, Israeli and split between Israel and the 

Palestinian Authority. But with respect to UNRWA’s facilities and 

those programs that UNRWA directly administers, yes, they are responsible and accountable for that. 

Mr. CANTOR. How is it that we are holding them accountable? 

How are we ensuring the U.S. taxpayers that we are not spending 

their hard earned dollars in support of terrorist activity? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. We have pursued with the government of 

Israel as well as with UNRWA very closely and very carefully and 

on an ongoing basis, this is a process which literally this week we 

have been engaged in with representatives of Israel, any and all allegations that UNRWA facilities or individuals associated with 

30

UNRWA may have been involved in terrorist activities. There has 

been no definitive information on either of those allegations available to us as yet, but we continue to be in touch with both the government of Israel and UNRWA on this issue. 

Mr. CANTOR. As a follow up, Mr. Ambassador, I would ask about 

the efforts that we intend—and I know in your written testimony 

you talk about the meeting of the quartet that is going to be next 

week, that is going to be held by Secretary Powell and the discussions that might ensue there about the situation of the incitement 

of the population at the schools. How is it we are going to hold the 

Palestinian schools accountable if what they are doing is teaching 

incitement? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Congressman, you raise here one of the most 

important issues I think that underlies the real peace process as 

opposed to peace processes that occur on paper. Signatures are 

fine. Treaty ceremonies are fine and they have their place. But 

there needs to be for genuine peace to prevail between peoples a 

fundamental transformation in the psychology of peoples and that 

means an end to incitement. And an end to incitement to start requires a change in the school systems at the youngest levels moving forward through society. It is going to take time, but it has to 

begin. 

That process is one on which we have focused in the years since 

Oslo. We have not been successful as much as we would have 

hoped in this process. Clearly much, much more needs to be done. 

Some positive progress at least in textbook replacement has begun, 

but a lot more needs to be done. 

We take this issue very seriously. You are correct to single it out 

as an important issue both for now and for the future. 

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, before I yield back, I thank the Ambassador and I would be very interested in your office if they would 

contact me about the information that we are receiving in 

UNRWA——

Mr. SATTERFIELD [continuing]. And the assessment. 

Mr. CANTOR [continuing]. As the United Nations then begins to 

review UNRWA’s budget. 

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Cantor. 

Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have many questions 

about UNRWA. In the past, the executive branch has withheld U.S. 

funding for UNRWA because of the legal activity going on in those 

camps. The UNRWA facilities we think have been used in terror, 

inciting terror. Nearly half or almost half of the homicide bombers 

have come from Jenin and we are told that Hamas and Tanzim activists have used UNRWA schools and ambulances to train and 

mount terrorist attacks. And there was a piece last week in the 

Boston Globe which talked about incitement in UNRWA schools 

which ties into the question that Mr. Cantor mentioned. 

So U.S. law is clear. I hope, and you said that we were but I 

wanted to reiterate it, that we have mechanisms in place to ensure 

that UNRWA facilities are not being used for terrorist purposes 

and that no individuals involved in terror are receiving UNRWA 

assistance, and I would like you to get back to my office with that 

because I need that. 

31

In response to what Mr. Ackerman said, does the State Department support the policy of no meetings with Yasser Arafat? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Yes. 

Mr. ENGEL. I am happy to hear that because it broke my heart 

when Secretary Powell met with Yasser Arafat and Arafat and his 

people were rude and just broke my heart that the Secretary of 

State seemed to be going hat-in-hand to this terrorist, and I commend President Bush for not meeting with Yasser Arafat during 

his tenure. I want to talk a bit about even-handedness. 

We hear this all the time and it really, really irritates me. The 

State Department and the Administrations have always resented, 

as was mentioned before, Congress imposing its views and law in 

terms of what should we be doing. I mentioned before that in your 

written testimony, that by passing these laws we would be undermining the flexibility. Flexibility sort of encourages I think or implies even-handedness. 

Now I want to discuss Secretary Powell’s letter to Chairman 

Hyde of May 11 regarding this act, the Arafat Accountability Act 

and the Syrian Accountability Act, which I am the lead sponsor 

along with Majority Leader Armey. Secretary Powell urged Congress not to act on either piece of legislation. But I was very 

shocked by some of his reasons. In one point of the letter, I am 

going to read it, he stated he didn’t support legislation because the 

legislation, ‘‘appears one-sided to the majority of the nations in the 

Middle East region.’’

I feel very strongly that what the United States does, we ought 

to do what we feel serves our interest and the interest of peace in 

the region and not what the majority of non-democratic States in 

the Middle East might feel, and I think that is very, very important and I would like you to comment on that. 

Later in the letter the Secretary states, and again I am quoting, 

‘‘We must be perceived as evenhanded in our approach.’’ Again I 

must strongly disagree. Our goal is not to act evenhanded when it 

comes to terrorism, homicide bombings, incitement and corruption. 

I don’t think we can be evenhanded and I believe we play an important role in the Middle East. We play an important role because 

we have stated very clearly, as has President Bush, that you are 

either with us or with the terrorists, that we are committed to 

Israel’s existence and security as a Jewish state and that therefore 

we have the ability to facilitate a peace process between Israel and 

the Palestinians as a result. 

So I would like you to comment on do you believe that a majority 

of states in the Middle East should be the criteria by which we 

build our foreign policy and should evenhandedness be the basis of 

our policy in the Middle East? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. We certainly believe that U.S. policy should be 

just, fair and effective. We believe the President’s vision and the 

President’s requirements as articulated in his June 24 statement 

meet that criteria. That is the policy of the United States. It is a 

policy that we believe enjoys broad support not just in the international community but in the region, and it is support for that 

policy and its implementation that we are now actively engaged in 

mobilizing and putting into place on the ground. 

32

Mr. ENGEL. I don’t disagree with any of your statements, but I 

do think again that what we are trying to do here is set benchmarks. We cannot keep saying to the Palestinians, we want you to 

reform and we want you to reform, and it is the same old tired 

statement and yet around and around and around we go, and that 

is why I think we need this legislation. 

I would like to ask you a question. News reports are indicating 

that al-Qaeda is increasing its presence in Palestinian refugee 

camps, particularly the Ein al-Hilweh refugee camp. Have you 

heard these reports and are they true? 

I want to ask you if the Lebanese government is properly policing these camps, and I believe that it is true and the Lebanese government is not properly policing the camps because of pressure 

from Syria, and that is another reason why we need the Syria Accountability Act, but I would like your answer. 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Without going into information in open session, which would be inappropriate, I can say we are quite concerned at any indication that elements of al-Qaeda might be moving to any other countries in the region, including Lebanon. It is 

particularly dangerous if such elements move to camps where the 

enforcement of law and order is beyond problematic. This is an 

issue which we have raised and continue to raise in an operational 

sense with all of the governments concerned. It is a very important 

one to us. 

Mr. ENGEL. I would like the ability to see if we could have a private session where you could go into some of these details. I am 

very concerned about Lebanon and the integrity of Lebanon and of 

course terrorism coming down from the border into Israel. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ISSA [presiding.] And I would like to note for the record the 

presence of a full house of mostly students and I think it bodes well 

for the region to have so many young people, many of whom obviously come from areas of the Middle East or have an interest in 

it, to attend and to stay throughout this entire meeting. So although that is not the most formal part of this, Ambassador 

Satterfield, you realize there is the youth of America and the youth 

of the region are both holding out a lot of hope of what we do here, 

not just today but every day. 

Ambassador, in the years since I first met you when you were 

Ambassador in Lebanon when a series of armored cars had to drive 

you through the city and we were all too close to remembering a 

series of bombings that killed so many Americans and so many 

Embassy personnel, we have in some ways come a long way in the 

region and some ways we have gone the other way. And so as much 

as I think we have asked a great deal of what can be asked of this 

particular legislation, I would like to get your input for us and for 

the record on a couple of areas, first on the Palestinian one. 

Do you have an estimate of how much nonmilitary—in any way 

usable for any purpose other than for education and training and 

normal meeting rooms, assets have been damaged within the Palestinian areas of the West Bank and Gaza as a result of this 2-

year-old intifada? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. A number of institutions have done studies on 

that issue and we can provide that information to you. 

33

Mr. ISSA. Would it be fair to say that most of the studies come 

up to a couple hundred million at least? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. I would have to refer to the studies to quantify. 

Mr. ISSA. And if we were to cut back on aid to USAID programs 

in the West Bank and Gaza, do you believe it would provide pressure on militant groups to cease their actions? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Congressman, the assistance that the U.S. provides is directed to two fundamentally different sets of issues. One 

is straightforward urgent humanitarian aid, restoration of basic 

service. The other large basket of aid is directed at medium and 

longer term infrastructure development. 

It is the view of the Administration that curtailing, reducing either these two baskets of assistance would have the contrary effect. 

It would only accelerate the type of disaffection, and extremism 

that has been—which has been all too prevalent over the course of 

the violence of the last 20 months. We do not believe it would have 

a positive impact. This aid does not go and has never gone since 

October of 1993 to the Palestinian Authority, to the PLO. 

Mr. ISSA. Ambassador, when I am in the region and people there, 

leaders, heads of states or even private citizens talk about America’s role in funding Israel and that Israel then uses that funding 

and/or weapons to attack Palestinians, I often point to the fact that 

we are one of the two large funders of humanitarian aid, nations 

building, and so on, and we have people on the ground, both Embassy people and NGOs, every single day helping build the West 

Bank. And to be honest, it goes a long way toward their understanding that we don’t just support Israel, that in fact we support 

the process that can lead to progress and we simply look for opportunities on both sides to make those investments. It is not always 

received well, but at least it is understood that it is not all onesided and we have always been at the table to try to help in this 

region. 

But I would like to have your insight because you represent the 

whole theater today, but as Ambassador you have been posted in 

many of these areas. What do you think, if this bill became law 

today and the President did not assert any of the out clauses, 

would be the effect on his coalition that he is putting together on 

the war on terrorism and, separately, any future initiatives he 

might introduce in regard to peace within the Palestinian area. 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, the impact of the scenario you 

described would be most profound with respect to the implementation of the goals and objectives that the President articulated in his 

June 24 statement that have to do squarely with the possibility, 

the hope of a lasting, genuine peace with true security between 

Israel and the Palestinians. It would be extremely difficult to see 

that process advanced in the scenario that you described, and that 

would be the most immediate consequence. 

It is the fundamental reason why the Administration has stated 

its opposition to those two pieces of legislation as they are drawn. 

Mr. ISSA. Eliot, do you want another round? I will finish up with 

one question and go to Mr. Engel for another round. 

The security cooperation that goes on in the other two, or two of 

the other three nations that surround Israel, Egypt and Jordan, 

34

could you characterize the quality, the effectiveness, the cooperation that exists between the Israeli Defense Forces and these two 

other countries’ forces so we have an understanding, since we all 

understand the Palestinian Authority has failed in its war on terrorism in the West Bank and Gaza. But I would like to have a better understanding for the record of the other two nations, the only 

two Arab nations that have made full and lasting peace with 

Israel. 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Jordan has a close relationship in terms of security and counterterrorism efforts both for its own merits, with respect to Jordanian security fundamentally, but also in cooperation 

with its neighbors, including Israel, to address the common threats 

posed by terror, whether the terror comes from al-Qaeda or other 

sources. Each has been engaged over these years, having been one 

of the major victims of internal terror and externally funded and 

supported terror. They paid a terrible price inside for this in their 

society. They have also been active with regard—with respect to 

the military security dialogue between Egypt and Israel, there is 

such a dialogue that is carried on at the highest levels and it is 

ongoing. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you very much. Mr. Engel, if you would like to 

ask some follow-up questions. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad you mentioned 

security because I would like to ask the Ambassador questions on 

the security front. The President said that we want a new Palestinian leadership free of corruption and one willing to destroy the 

terrorist infrastructure. What we have seen so far, a few of the 

players moved around. A few of the portfolios remained. We 

haven’t seen reform and it is particularly the case on the security 

front. If there have been any changes related to security, it seems 

to me that Arafat has solidified his control of the security services. 

And we also haven’t seen any concerted effort by the Palestinians 

to destroy the terrorist infrastructure or to stop incitement or curtail any kind of terrorist organizations. 

So if we are going to talk about a reshuffling of security organizations, we can write it off I think as changing names or just a reshuffling, but not really anything concrete. So I have a bunch of 

questions that I would like you to comment on if you would. 

What steps in your opinion must the Palestinian leadership take 

on the security front? When will they streamline security forces 

and install transparency and accountability? I can go on and on. 

When will they cease to allow terrorist organizations such as 

Hamas and Jihad to operate and Tanzim, which are organizations 

under Arafat’s Fatah leadership? When will they be shut down? 

And I can go on and on. 

You mentioned before about the incitement and the still spinning, revolving doors on PA prisons. When will that stop? And I am 

wondering if you could just tell us your vision of what you see as 

to what the Palestinians need to do in order to have a real restructuring on the security front. 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Congressman, the government has provided 

Palestinian security interlocutors, quite detailed. It includes both 

the structural changes which you alluded, setting up very different, 

very much streamlined and effective institutions which can do the 

35

job of combating terror and enforcing law and order, not another 

job of encouraging, supporting, tolerating terror and violence. 

There are clear performance goals which those new structures and 

institutions will have to achieve. Those goals are fundamentally 

what you have described. They are the bringing back under control 

of all armed elements, whatever the name, whatever the organization, whatever the membership may be. It is the act of combating 

of those groups that are outside the PLO and outside the Palestinian Authority and ceasing their engagement in terror or confronting them to the point that they are no longer able to be a 

source of terror and violence. 

We are in the process of conducting a dialogue. Our close partners in the region are engaged in a dialogue to support this process. 

Mr. ENGEL. When the State of Israel was founded in 1948, there 

was an important decision made that would be not to allow any 

private militias, and I believe that that obviously would go a long 

way if the Palestinians were to make such proclamations as well. 

I agree with you when you talk about getting rid of the terrorist 

organizations and going after the terrorist organizations. 

What it appears to me, however, it is really a two-track thing. 

The terrorist organizations have to be gone after. But Yasser 

Arafat, if you look at the suicide bombings in Israel during the past 

2 years, three-quarters of them have been conducted by the al-Aqsa 

Brigades and Tanzim and Force 17 and all these groups that are 

Arafat’s groups. They are under the Fatah umbrella. He is not only 

not going after terrorists, his own group is perpetuating the terrorism. 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Which is why we placed the emphasis on the 

multiple tracks that have to be advanced here, Institutional and 

leadership information, security transformation, all of it performance based in all of these elements, and a political process. 

Mr. ENGEL. What assistance are we providing to Palestinian security services? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Congressman, that is an issue I would have to 

address with you in other fora. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. I probably just have one closing question, 

and it goes back to a basic concern that I have with, as a followup to your earlier comments, on both Jordan and Egypt’s ability 

and history of improving their ability to enforce terrorist attacks 

not only internally but externally against Israel. It is my understanding that there has always been, and particularly after 1994 

when originally there were going to be direct Jordanian involvement in security and then Chairman Arafat and others said they 

didn’t want to have that, that they would develop their own, there 

has always been a push-back on these two moderate Arab states 

having a more direct involvement in the nation building with the 

Palestinians. 

Both from a security standpoint and from, if you will, nations 

building, how would you envision if there were no push-back, if we 

were defining the most effective case, how would you envision the 

cooperation of these two countries with their contiguous neighbors? 

36

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I will expand a bit on my response on the question you posed. 

Mr. ISSA. You can go as long and as expanded as you want. 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. You touched upon a very important issue, 

what is the role and responsibilities and obligations of the states 

in the region, and I would expand it beyond Egypt and Jordan but 

other states, including in the Gulf, to help support a process which 

leads to a region at peace, a more stable region which we believe 

is in the interest of all of our friends and partners. 

What is needed and what we have been encouraged to see in the 

past months is a much more active engagement based upon a much 

clear recognition that the basic interests at home of all states in 

the region are tied up in a resolution to this terrible conflict, this 

terrible crisis, that an end to the violence between Israelis and Palestinians is key to robbing, taking away from extremists, whether 

secular or religious, the ability to spread their message of hate, 

their message of violence, their message of instability. 

We have seen states in the region which played a very low key, 

quiet role through the years of the peace process whether Oslo or 

before, that are now taking responsibility for the broadest regional 

issues, Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Abdullah’s Initiative, the Arab 

League’s endorsement of that Initiative, these are enormously positive steps. They very much need to be sustained. Egypt and Jordan 

clearly have a stake in achieving resolution of this conflict, and 

they are playing a very direct role with us, with the parties concerned. We need to see this continued. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Ambassador. If I can paraphrase your expanded remarks because I think it sums up a lot of what we are 

trying to discover here today. If I heard you correctly and I think 

you made it very clear, although this is a terrible time in Israel 

and there is bloodshed and hopelessness, in fact there are key elements that were not in place in the past that are now being 

brought to bear, including, as you said, Crown Prince Abdullah, the 

Arab League and a focus by Arab nations, both moderate and not 

so moderate, in trying to bring about a solution. Would that be a 

fair summing up? 

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, that is a very fair summing up, 

but I would add to it that we are also seeing real welling up of Palestinian interest and activity towards the type of institutional reform that we have spoken of, and this is very important because 

at the end of the day this is a Palestinian process and it is the future and fate of Palestinians as well as Israelis which is at stake 

here. And the Palestinians themselves must take ownership and 

hold of this process. We in the collective can help and assist. We 

can watch and monitor, and we can help guide, and that is fully 

appropriate and indeed it is necessary. But at its fundamental level 

this must be a Palestinian process and we are encouraged by steps 

we have seen there. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, and on behalf of the 

International Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East I would 

like to thank you for coming before us again and leaving us with 

hope at the end of this hearing. Thank you, and we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(37)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH CROWLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my strong support for H.R. 1795, The Middle 

East Peace Commitments Act and H.R. 4693, The Arafat Accountability Act. 

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) 

had been, for a time, partners of the Israeli government in implementing an unprecedented series of agreements that were on track to create a Palestinian state. All 

the Palestinian leadership had to provide in exchange was peace and security for 

the State of Israel. 

It is not accurate to say that Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian leadership failed 

to live up to their commitments. They have refused to meet their commitments.

• Instead of cracking down on Islamic militants, Arafat releases them from jail.

• Instead of putting a stop to terrorist operations, Arafat funds them.

• And instead of working to create an atmosphere of peace and cooperation that 

would enable his people to live side by side with the Israelis, Arafat continues 

to foment hatred and intolerance.

The United States should no longer tolerate Yasser Arafat’s reliance on violence 

to achieve political objectives. 

Whereas the Palestinian leadership was once a partner for peace and accorded the 

status of a responsible international actor by the United States, Israel, and others, 

it has returned to its original roots. The Palestinian Authority, just like the PLO 

of old, is a terrorist organization responsible for the murder of innocent Israeli civilians. The United States should no longer treat it as a legitimate international entity, nor should it accord any privileges to its leadership. 

Yasser Arafat does not represent his people. Growing discontent in the Palestinian territories demonstrates that Palestinians have grown tired of the corruption, 

mismanagement, and greed of the Palestinian leadership. 

We must give the Palestinian Authority no choice but to destroy the infrastructures of terrorism and end financial support for terrorism. Arafat is an opportunist, 

motivated solely by self-interest. Applying sanctions to the PA would hit Yasser 

Arafat and his cronies personally and hopefully motivate them to engage in a peaceful political negotiation over the future of the Palestinian territories. 

Applying sanctions on the Palestinian leadership would also tell the world that 

the United States considers Yasser Arafat and his corrupt administration as pariahs. Such a statement should help persuade the European Union and other interested states to echo our message that Arafat must renounce violence. Most importantly, it would show the Palestinians that they have no hope of improving their 

lot as long as Arafat and his gang of murderers are in charge, thereby encouraging 

them to vote for a change in leadership when elections are held by early 2003. 

Mr. Chairman, these two bills send a clear signal that the United States stands 

strongly behind Israel as it defends itself from terrorism and that the Palestinian 

leadership must leave the scene if peace is to come to the region. 

I would like to thank my distinguished colleagues Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Blunt 

for introducing these important pieces of legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues 

to vote in favor. 

Thank you.

Æ