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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

86–959PDF 2014

THREATS TO ISRAEL: TERRORIST FUNDING AND

TRADE BOYCOTTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, 

NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 5, 2014

Serial No. 113–128

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE

TED POE, Texas, Chairman 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Edwin Black, author ......................................................................................... 7

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

East Policy ............................................................................................................ 39

Mr. Steven Perles, founder and senior partner, Perles Law Firm, P.C. ............. 46

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Edwin Black: Prepared statement .................................................................. 9

David Pollock, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ............................................................ 41

Mr. Steven Perles: Prepared statement ................................................................. 48

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 82

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 83

(1)

THREATS TO ISRAEL: TERRORIST FUNDING 

AND TRADE BOYCOTTS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2014

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o’clock a.m., in 

room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ted Poe (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. POE. This subcommittee will come to order. Without objection, all members will have 5 days to submit statements, questions, 

extraneous materials for the record subject to the length limitation 

in the rules. 

Israel is our great friend and ally. For over 50 years, the United 

States and Israeli leaders have been close friends. Our common 

values of democracy and liberty unite us, among other things. 

This administration sometimes forgets this. Be it the Iranian nuclear program or pressuring Israel over peace talks with the Palestinians, our recent policies have damaged our relationship. 

I was in Israel not too long ago when I met with Prime Minister 

Netanyahu when Secretary Kerry came down with the deal, the 

bad deal, as Prime Minister Netanyahu referred to. We let Iran 

walk all over us. At the end of the day, we weakened sanctions in 

exchange for allowing Iran to continue to develop nuclear weapons. 

In my opinion, the United States gave away the farm and the 

mineral rights in this bad deal. The threats against our good friend 

Israel are growing. The point of this hearing is to examine three 

issues. 

First, the issue of European countries boycotting Israeli businesses that are in the settlement areas. Make no mistake, this is 

a political move, not an economic move. 

Some European countries don’t like Israeli settlements so they 

are trying to shut them down by not buying any goods from Israel. 

European Union is Israel’s number-one trading partner to the tune 

of about a third in total trade. 

If EU countries turn the heat on boycotts it could have dire con- sequences for the Israeli economy. In January, a $200-billion Dutch 

pension firm divested from five top Israeli banks. 

In January, Germany announced that it would not renew research grants to Israeli companies that do business over the Green 

Line. 

2

I fear this is an intentional move to pressure the Israelis to give 

ground, literally give ground, in peace talks with the Palestinians. 

But boycotting goods is the wrong way to get peace. All issues, including the settlement issue, need to be solved at the negotiating 

table with the Palestinians. 

These boycotts will only strengthen the Palestinian hand and 

make them less likely to agree to peace. The peace talks, in my 

opinion, are useless unless the Palestinians agree at the outset and 

say publicly and believe it that Israel has a right to exist as a nation. 

The second issue on this hearing is the Palestinian Authority giving bags of money to convicted terrorists in Israeli prisons. Right 

now, there are over 4,500 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, 

most of them serving time for terrorism-related crimes. 

Many of these terrorists receive a salary directly from the Pales- tinian Authority. Monthly salaries range from $500 to $3,500. The 

more serious the crime, the more dead Israelis or Americans, the 

more money the Palestinians in jail receive. 

In Palestine, being a terrorist is one of the best paying jobs. Ac- cording to some estimates, the Palestinian Authority spends $4 

million to $7 million per month on this program, which is about 6 

percent of the budget. 

One terrorist, Husni Najjar, explained to Israeli police after his 

capture that he planned a terror attack in order to be captured so 

he could receive money from the Palestinian Authority. Now, isn’t 

that lucky? Here is the real problem. The United States gave $440 million 

in Fiscal Year 2013 to the Palestinian Authority. We all know that 

money is fungible. The more money we give to help them with 

these ‘‘job’’ programs, the more money the Palestinian Authority 

has to pay terrorists. 

U.S. taxpayer money should not be paying and rewarding Palestinian terrorists for doing harm and killing Israelis and Americans. 

I am also, finally, concerned about the lack of justice for American 

victims in terrorist attacks that occur in Israel. 

At least 54 Americans have been killed by Palestinian terror attacks since 1993. Another 83 have been seriously wounded. Some 

perpetrators of these attacks have never been brought to justice. 

Some have served limited sentences and then they were released. 

The FBI could be doing more to track down these killers and 

bring them to the United States to stand trial. I think the United 

States Government owes that to the victims of these deadly attacks. 

Victims of these attacks are also seeking justice through the U.S. 

courts. The defendants are the Palestinian Authority and numerous foreign banks who are accused of funneling money to Palestinian terrorists. 

In one case, which we will hear more about today, a Jordanian 

bank is accused of laundering $90 million to Hamas through over 

200,000 separate transactions. That is a lot of money and it buys 

a lot of terror. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and what they have 

to say today. I now move to our ranking member, Mr. Sherman, 

from California for his remarks. 

3

Mr. SHERMAN. First, as to the Iranian deal, it is, clearly, imperfect. 

But we should remember that from 1998 until 2010 three administrations failed to enforce the sanctions laws we did pass and, 

more importantly, used all their power to go over a decade without 

us passing any additional significant sanctions. 

When we woke up in October of last year, we were in an incredibly weak bargaining position, strengthened only a bit by the sanctions adopted in 2010. 

So it is hard to say that the deal reached in Geneva is the problem. The problem is that for over a decade we did nothing and it 

is hard to win a football game—you can yell at the coach as to 

what play he calls in the fourth quarter. If you don’t put a team 

on the field the first three quarters, you are not going to find a 

great play for the fourth quarter. 

Now, as to these hearings, the effort to boycott and delegitimize 

Israel is anti-Semitism, plain and simple. When the world’s only 

Jewish state is held to standards no other state is held to and then 

is subjected to punishments no other state is subjected to, the motivation becomes clear. 

If the worst human rights abuse in the world is building an 

apartment building in the wrong place, so any mistake—decisions 

made by my own city council may fit into that category—we in this 

room have heard such incredible human rights abuses that those 

who think that the only nation worthy of sanctions is one that 

builds apartment buildings in the wrong place is very—it is antiSemitism, plain and simple. 

In addition, there are those who focus on a particular instance 

and say that a particular Israeli sergeant shouldn’t have fired his 

gun but should have waited longer for the potentially hostile person to approach even closer, even while yelling, ‘‘Stop.’’

Well, none of us are in that position. Who knows how much we 

would risk our lives in order to determine whether the person approaching and ignoring our demands to stop was a civilian or a terrorist. 

But the fault of any incident and hundreds like that take place 

every year is not the sergeant who does or does not risk his life 

to this or that degree. 

The fault are those politicians who seek unreasonable aims 

through violent means. War is not the fault of those who fight it. 

It is the fault of those who wage it. 

As to the particular efforts by some to halt economic activity on 

the West Bank by boycotting products grown or made there, this 

is more than absurd. 

You are going to strangle companies that provide jobs to Palestinians, then put on films about how the Palestinians don’t have 

jobs and then demand that the U.S. taxpayer give a lot of money 

to the PA authority so they can employ people without jobs and 

then, as the chairman points out, have the PA authority give that 

money to terrorists. 

I think the term is chutzpah. It is simply absurd for those who 

claim to be concerned about the Palestinians to oppose investment 

that creates Palestinian jobs and the only bad thing about the location of SodaStream is that they are not located in my district, the 

4

only place I would rather see jobs or one of the places I would rather see jobs than anywhere in the Middle East. 

Finally, as to aid to terrorists, our efforts should begin at home. 

There are those who provided—U.S. citizens who are part of the 

flotilla that provided aid to Hamas, those folks were violating U.S. 

terrorist law. 

We did nothing. Then there is Viva Palestina, which is on tape—

we will show you the YouTube—giving assets to Hamas and soliciting tax deductible contributions from American taxpayers. 

Finally, after considerable prodding, the IRS has begun the effort 

and it is not yet effective to make sure that a particular organization doesn’t advertise that you give money to them and they will 

funnel the money to Viva Palestina which will fund the money to 

Hamas and give you a tax deduction for it. 

We have got to stop terrorist financing. It starts here. I yield 

back. 

Mr. POE. I thank the ranking member for his wise comments. 

The Chair will recognize other members who want to be heard 

for 1 minute. The Chair recognizes the other gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, for 1 minute. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I recently—well, it was recently I’ve been in Israel, it seems to 

be someplace that all Members of Congress have to go and I did 

speak to both sides. 

I spoke to people in the Palestinian Authority as well as the 

Israeli Government and I have come to the conclusion that there 

is only one thing holding up peace right now—a peace agreement 

between Israel and the Palestinian people—and that is that the 

Palestinian people will not forcefully and forthrightly announce 

that they do not have a right to return to the pre-1967 borders of 

Israel. 

And, of course, Israel won’t agree to that because we are talking 

about millions of people’s right to inundate that country, which 

would mean that country wouldn’t exist anymore as the country 

that it is. 

And just like we, for example, couldn’t sign a treaty with Mexico 

saying that anybody who can trace their family roots back to the 

Southwest has a right to emigrate into the United States and then 

we would have 50 million to 75 million new American citizens, all 

of whom are Mexican. 

Now, I would hope that with all the other issues that we are 

talking about that we put that in perspective. I think the other 

issues, the settlements, all these other things are solvable. 

But until the Palestinians step forward and make that agreement, Israel will exist. It will exist and we don’t have a right to 

inundate it with millions of other people, there won’t be peace and 

there won’t be agreements, and I would certainly like the opinion 

of our panelists today as to whether or not my perception of the 

real stumbling block is really what it is all about. 

So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding the hearing 

so that we can enlighten ourselves and get some good information 

to see maybe we can bring peace if we understand exactly what the 

problem is. Thank you. 

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman. 

5

The Chair will also recognize another member from California, 

Mr. Vargas. 

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you very much, your Honor. I appreciate it, 

and I thank you very much again, Mr. Sherman, for bringing this 

issue forward so we can discuss it today. 

I would associate myself with the comments that you made as 

well as our ranking member and I would say this, that Israel is our 

closest and faithful ally and we should act accordingly. 

One of the things that is disturbing is to see some of these European nations acting, as I would say the same as the ranking member, in a very anti-Semitic way. You see all the human rights 

abuses around the world and it is interesting, you only pick on 

Israel. 

Interestingly too I was in Israel recently and virtually every 

Israeli that you talk to wants peace and in fact some of the things 

that the government has been willing to do—release murderers and 

terrorists—just to talk—just to talk about peace, trying to get to a 

settlement. 

And you go to the Palestinian areas as we did and they only 

speak hate and how much they hate the Jews and how much they, 

you know, blame everybody else except for themselves for the situation they are in. 

So, again, I thank you very much for bringing this forward and 

I hope that we can act as a faithful ally as Israel has to us in a 

very difficult part of the world. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 

Mr. Perry. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is an important hearing. You know, we tend to think of the 

fight against terrorism as a burden that falls mainly on the shoulders of government or military, diplomatic, homeland security and 

law enforcement agencies. 

Yet, there is one area where private citizens can play a leading 

role and that is in stopping the flow of funds to terror organizations. 

Beginning in the 1990s, Western countries and especially the 

United States passed laws making it possible for victims of terror 

to sue the regimes that sponsor terror, banks that transfer funds 

to terror groups, front organizations that pretend to serve charitable causes, and even the terrorists themselves. 

It is with this in mind that I would like to show some appreciation for the work of the Perles Law Firm and also the Israel Law 

Center who work together with Western intelligence agencies and 

volunteer lawyers around the world to file legal actions on behalf 

of the victims of terror. 

With that, I really look forward to your testimony here today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. POE. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, for 1 minute. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

6

I want to thank the ranking member as well for calling this important hearing and the witnesses today for making themselves 

available. 

I very much look forward to your testimony and what you could 

do to educate this subcommittee on the threats that an extremely 

important friend and ally to the United States and the state of 

Israel is facing. 

And not just Israel but, really, the—from my vantage point, as 

a pillar of democracy and stability in the Middle East what their 

reach of those that wish to do those forces of democracy and stability harm. 

I, along with Mr. Vargas, had a chance to visit Israel a couple 

of months ago and I was just recently in Asia with Mr. Sherman 

as well, as we explored some of the threats and the complexities 

confronting some of these forces literally around the world. 

And so I want to thank the chairman for calling this hearing and 

look forward to your testimony today. 

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair will now recognize Mr. Lowenthal, also from California, for 1 minute. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member 

Sherman. I want to thank you for putting this hearing together in 

order for our committee to examine some of the strategic issues of 

interest to the United States and to the U.S.-Israel partnership and 

Israel’s relation with the European Union and some of the critical 

issues around that. 

I just want to say, while I proudly consider myself pro-Israel, 

which I am, and certainly anti-terrorist and I am very glad for this 

hearing, I also believe as we listen and we understand that we take 

an unbiased and objective point of view that if we are ever going 

to have peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians that we 

also hear and try to understand as much as possible the Palestinian point of view. 

We may not always agree with it but we have to hear it and understand it and I think that is very important as we move forward. 

Thank you. 

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman. 

Without objection, all of the witnesses’ prepared statements will 

be made a part of the record. I ask that after I introduce each witness that they keep their presentation to no more than 5 minutes 

and I will introduce each witness now and then give them time for 

their statements. 

Mr. Edwin Black is an award-winning New York Times best-selling author with more than 1 million copies in print. His work focuses on genocide and hate, corporate criminality, corruption and 

historical investigation. 

Mr. Black has been interviewed on hundreds of network broadcasts from the ‘‘Today Show,’’ CNN and NBC as well as leading 

networks in Europe and in Latin America. 

Dr. David Pollock is the Kaufman fellow at the Washington Institute where he focuses on the political dynamics of the Middle East. 

He previously served as senior advisor for the Broader Middle 

East at the State Department and in several other advisory posiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:37 Apr 23, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_TNT\030514\86959 SHIRL
7

tions there, including 4 years as regional expert on the Secretary 

of State’s policy planning staff. 

Previously, he was also chief of Near East, South Asia, Africa Research at the U.S. Information Agency. 

Mr. Steven Perles is the senior attorney and founder of the 

Perles Law Firm. He has litigated matters before the Supreme 

Court, courts of appeal, and district courts throughout the country. 

His litigation practice’s focus is primarily on cases involving the 

immunity of foreign sovereigns and has included several 

groundbreaking cases against foreign states for their complicity in 

acts of international terrorism. 

Notable recent decisions include a successful turnover action 

against a $1.9 billion Iranian Central Bank funds in which money 

had been laundered into the United States. 

I thank all three of you for being here. We will start with Mr. 

Black. 

STATEMENT OF MR. EDWIN BLACK, AUTHOR 

Mr. BLACK. I thank this committee for inviting me. I am Edwin 

Black and before I testify before any Parliament I always say I 

come not as a Republican or a Democrat, a conservative or a liberal. I am here for my information. 

I did hear the remarks of Chairman Poe and Member Sherman 

and I found them to be factually accurate and historically incisive. 

So I am here to talk about the Palestinian terrorists’ salaries, 

which I broke in my book on November 1st of last year in canon. 

My book is ‘‘Financing the Flames’’ and it is an inescapable reality 

that American taxpayers are directly funding individual named terrorists for individual named terrorist acts, just as Chairman Poe 

said. Here is how it works. 

An individual in the Palestinian Authority can go from being a 

nobody to a somebody, from rags to riches, just by committing an 

act of terrorism, perhaps blowing up a bus or invading a home and 

slicing the throats of children. 

At that point, he will go on an immediate official Palestinian Authority salary. The more people you kill, the higher is your salary. 

It can range, as you said, from a few hundred dollars a month for 

maybe a 5-year sentence and it actually can go up to $10,000 a 

month for a 25-year sentence. 

The actual law itself which governs this is published in my book 

on Page 184 and this is the actual law and you can see the sliding 

scale. This money also includes a rank in the government. You become a manager, a director, a supervisor. 

You can even become an Assistant Deputy Minister and so you 

have a civil rank as well. This money constitutes about $5 million 

to $7 million a month of PA resources. 

It is prioritized, which means if they only have a million bucks 

in the bank and there is no food or they are lacking medicines and 

they need to pay these salaries, they pay the salaries first. 

The money goes directly to the prisoner by means of a POA—

that is a power of attorney—and he can then turn it over to his 

girlfriend, to his mother, to his family, to his soccer club, to al 

Fatah, whatever it is. It does amount to approximately 6 percent 

of the PA budget. 

8

If there is any lack of alacrity in prioritizing these funds, there 

is an NGO called the Prisoners Club that makes public agitation 

to make sure that these moneys are paid. If you add in the additional emoluments—wedding benefits, scholarships, soccer teams, 

special celebrations—it comes to 16 percent of the Palestinian Authority budget. 

All of this money comes from donor countries such as the United 

States, and in the United States it is strictly against the law. The 

individual that Chairman Poe identified, Husni Najjar, who deliberately committed—initiated a terrorist plot was seeking money for 

wedding expenses. 

So while Americans are choosing between food and fuel, Palestinians have an understanding that there is a bottomless pit of salaries for terrorists. 

Now, there is never going to be peace in the Middle East between 

the parties because the chief export is confrontation, terrorism. 

This is a—this is a business. It is kind of like asking the Saudis 

to stop drilling for oil. This is what they do. 

And the idea that this is not known is incorrect. It is true that 

I broke this in my book here but everybody in this room knows 

about this. Everybody in the Palestinian Authority knows about 

this. The entire Western media knows about this. 

The State Department has always known about this. The Foreign 

Office, the foreign ministries overseas have always known about 

this. The only one who has not been informed about this are the 

members in this institution and the constituents who vote the 

money. 

Now, I have only got 6 seconds left so I won’t go on. But if you 

also wish to ask me any questions about this, the international 

law, SodaStream or any of the—or who is financing among our taxpayers BDS, I will be happy to answer those questions too. 

And thank you very much for having me. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Black follows:]

9


86959a-1.eps

($1000) 

($20QO) , 

($3000) 

($4000) 

($5000) 

($6000) 

($7000) 

($8000) 

($10000) 

<\l 

'.u uY-"':l ("Ie 18 ~J ("Ie 15(,)4 

.u u~ I'k, 21 ~J I'le 18 u--

.u u~ 1'Le. 25 ~J ,1'Le. 21 (,)4.)$1 

;\::)3.l L"J ~ J.l:i t.S.p-\ ~ IJ"J'--:i .wI ~\ J\IJ"J\... 

4.l6JI .~ .) J-""':l ' ~);M)'\ J)\;:1:.')I1 ~ J.§(,)4 .u~\ 

) ~'11 )..::.,l.-yJI .l:>..l .} y:.w, .l.*J :iJ6. .} ~.J IJ"JI..\~l 

·J,.\.Sc,.i.i1~~..J~1~\~ 

• c,.i.i1lI,(,)4%75 ~ '--:i ~ -r-""' .. ..".S"..,,.JJ'" 

%50~ '--:i ~ ~4-Jy... .)#.11 
10


86959a-2.eps

CHAPTER 11 

Direct Taxpayer 

Support for Terrorism 

He was just a clown. Big heart. Loved kids. Evyatar Borovsky, 

age thirty-one, was devoted to helping people across Israel-people 

of any background. His way was psychodrama and other role-playing techniques calculated to coax victims, especially children, out 

of their traumatic fog. Often the children were survivors of terrorism. Evyatar was part of a so-called therapeutic theatrical troupe. 

Now, he was advancing in his skill, studying to become a certified 

medical clown. When dressed in his bright, rainbow-mottled costume, Evyatar could open the padlocked soul of a child struggling 

to rediscover his or her path back. Evyatar was just a big guy with a 

big heart -a very big heart. 

* * * * * 

Terrorism plagues Israel as it does the world. But, whereas the 

United States struggles to keep the threat from crossing our borders, in Israel, the challenge is to keep the peril beyond the next 

hillside. In Israel, terror often lurks just across the street. To reduce 

the risk, the J evv'ish State has learned to build social and economic 

bridges that dilute discontent and promote peaceful coexistence. 

When bridges fail, Israel builds fences. When those fail, taller fences 

185 
11


86959a-3.eps

186 FINANCING HIE FLAMES 

are built. If ordinary fences don't work, barbed wire is added. Not 

enough? Add more barbed wire. If such measures prove insuilicient in certain locations, construct walls. Sometimes the walls must 

be built ever taller to block snipers in elevated perches. Not tall 

enough? Make them taller still. Terror persisting? Add watch towers. Dig trenches. Install electric monitors and cameras. In Israel, 

high-tech and inanimate methods are always preferred to militarihed options. 

Concrete has been known to the Middle East for more than 

a thousand years. But in this century, a rash of suicide bombings 

began to leach into the quality of daily life. Kindergartens, children's buses, teenage nightclubs, popular pizzerias, and other civilian soft spots became the targets for Palestinian mass murderers 

in the 'Vest Bank, in West Jerusalem, or even the west side of a 

beachfront avenue in Tel Aviv. Mass murdering in rebellion-torn 

neighboring Arab realms-north, east, and south-multiplied to 

astronomical levels. The permeable nature of Israel's border membrane was reconsidered and remodeled. The perimeter was made 

taller, sturdier, and smarter. 1 

No society wants to construct a national fence. India erected 

one hundreds of miles long, separating the mainly Hindu nation 

from mainly Muslim Pakistan-it is so brightly floodlit, it can now 

be seen by NASA from outer space as an illuminated gash in the 

subcontinent. Turkey assembled an unbreachable barbed \vire and 

concrete "Green Line" across the island of Cyprus to hermetically 

seal tens of thousands of Greek Orthodox Cypriots away from Muslim Turkish Cypriots-this follovving Turkey's 1974 invasion of the 

island; the wall only came down in 2009. Great Britain established a 

forty-foot-high "Peace Wall," cleaving the Catholic and Protestant 

communities in Northern Ireland to divide the feuding parties. The 

United States is building a multibillion-dollar, 13-foot-high, metal 

protective waH, the "Secure Fence," along the Mexican border; it 

even tries to briefly bifurcate the ocean at Tijuana. Saudi Arabia 

is fast-tracking its horizon-wrapping Yemeni-Saudi Barrier, a barricade of barbed ,vire and concrete-reinforced pipe designed to span 

the length of the Kingdom's 1,100-mile border. The world is filled 
12


86959a-4.eps

Direct Taxpayer Support for Terrorism 187 

with many other tall, obstructive barriers designed to keep warring 

or dangerous parties on the other side.2 

Because of bridges, barriers, and social betterment, many 

potential outbreaks of violence have remained within the fragile 

Palestinian cryptodome. But the Palestinian Authority still lives 

and breathes its legacy as a former Turkish domain bypassed by 

the Industrial Revolution and neglected for centuries into the economic margins. During the .Mandate in Palestine, Arabs were killed 

by their Arab neighbors for just intersecting ,,,ith the Jewish economy; and modernity itself-even electricity-was considered a western infection. Today, Palestinian society fights endemic joblessness 

next door to one the world's fastest grovving and most enterprising 

economies, one that 'Warren Buffett defined as "the leading, largest, 

and most promising investment hub outside the United States."3 

Moreover, "the Arab Street" is still the main thoroughfare of 

every city from Tunis to Amman and from Damascus to Beirut. 

Eventually, that incendiary road courses through Gaza City with an 

off-ramp into the heart of Ramallah. True, in an Arab society stnlggling to get ahead, tens of thousands of Palestinians are gainfully 

employed in Israeli factories, hotels, and other emerging opportunities. But this prosperity is often only accomplished stealthily and 

not pridehllly. This same dynami.c means that the booming Palestinian cash crop is "protest and agitation" -and worse. 

Indeed, terrorism itself is a salient Palestinian industry, boasting 

high salaries and good benefits. For some-the perpetrators-it's 

a living. For others-the victims-it's a dying. Salaries and benefits escalate the more heinous the act of violence. Most surprising, 

this lethal economic mainstay is subsidized by American taxpayers 

and taxpayers of other countries, collectively known as "the donor 

countries. " 

How does this work? Since the Palestinian Authority was created 

in 1993, it has treated terrorists imprisoned in Israel as "employees," regardless of how revolting their crimes. Since the PA has 

no regular army to speak of, terrorists are its main militants-and 

are cherished by Palestinian society. The entire question of prisoners-far from being a source of collective revulsion-is among 
13


86959a-5.eps

188 FINANCING THE FLAMES 

the hottest buttons and most emotional topics in the Palestinian 

ecosystem. 

Depending upon the timeframe, Israeli prisons and jails hold 

four thousand to five thousand security detainees, prisoners awaiting the judicial process, and convicted terrorists. Some are just 

caught up in dragnets, some are suspected of complicity in terrorist plots, and about one thousand carry confirmed blood on their 

hands. Many of the latter group have gleefully boasted of their horrific acts of murder against innocent civilians and are celebrated 

within Palestinian society for their violence against Israelis. Because 

there are so many security prisoners from so many villages, the subject reaches into average Arab households. "Prisoners Day" is April 

17 and regarded as a national Palestinian observance.4 

The prisoners glorified by Palestinian society are not common 

criminals convicted of transgressions as prosaic as theft, as horrific 

as honor killings against female family members, or as corrupt as 

trafficking in drugs or stolen goods. Rather, it is those who have 

perpetrated crimes of terror against Israeli civilians or infrastmcture. Because, in the PA's mindset, terrorists are undertaking a 

national duty, they are considered "employees" worthy of a salary. 

As such, those terrorists receive monthly payments from the Palestinian national treasury, that is, from public governmental hmds 

that are officially and openly allocated by the Palestinian Authority. The monthly payments constitute the highest levels of personal 

compensation and family benefits anywhere in the Palestinian Territory, often dwarfing payments to civil servants. The salary expenditures amount to millions of dollars each month in direct payments 

to the terrorists. 

Two national bodies exist to process those salaries and other 

benefits. The Palestinian Ministry of Prisoners Mfairs, established 

in 1998, is an official bureaucracy of the Palestinian Authority, 

commanding as much priority as the Ministries of Health or Education-but with far more gravitas. The Palestinian Ministry of Prisoners Mfairs works in tandem with the semi-official Prisoners Club, 

established in 1994. The Ministry dispenses the salaries. The Club 

functions as a vituperative advocate for the prisoners, and it is quite 
14


86959a-6.eps

Direct Taxpayer Support for Terrorism 189 

willing to publically needle Palestinian leadership, generally, and the 

Ministry of Prisoners Mfairs, specifically, into providing ever greater 

payments and benefits. The Ministry channels certain payments and 

benefits through the Prisoners Club. 5 

Terrorists' salaries have always totaled millions of dollars per 

month. As far back as 1995, total monthly payments to all security prisoners exceeded $3 million per month. Beginning in 2002, 

the monthly amount swelled to $9.6 million monthly-a 246 percent increase over the prior administration's payouts, according to 

records of the PA Ministry of Finance. The rate of increase in prison 

salaries grew at a far faster rate than the number of prisoners, stated 

the PA Minister of Finance with an element of satisfaction. 6 

Throughout the twenty-first century, the salaries continued to 

consume millions of Palestinian budgetary dollars per month. In 

addition to salaries, between 2002 and 2004, the PA paid more 

than $6 million to the Prisoners Club to cover legal fees, Israeli 

fines, and post-prison pensions. The Prisoners Club distributes its 

cash subventions to Palestinians in Israeli prisons and jails via "canteen accounts" and other modalities. In addition, the PA defrays 

the Prisoners Club's operating budget of more than S40,000 per 

month? 

Like any salary, payments to prisoners follow a sliding scale based 

on "quality." In this world, the more heinous the act of terrorism, 

the greater is the salary. In setting the salary level, the system allows 

the Israelis themselves to judge just how bloodcurdling the crime 

is. The more violent the terrorist act, the longer the Israeli prison 

sentence, and in turn, the higher the monthly compensation. g 

Under the official schedule of payments, detention for up to 

three years fetches a salary of about 1,400 shekels, or almost $400 

per month. Prisoners who have been incarcerated between three 

and five years will be paid 2,000 shekels, or about $560 monthly-a 

compensation level already higher than that for many ordinary West 

Bank jobs. Those who have committed more serious acts and are 

incarcerated for between five and ten years ~Nill be paid 4,000 shekels or more than $1,100 monthly. Sentences of ten to fifteen years 

fetch salaries of 6,000 shekels, about $1,690 a month. Even greater 
15


86959a-7.eps

190 FINANCING THE FLAMES 

acts of terrorism earning sentences between fifteen and twenty years 

earn 7,000 shekels or almost $2,000. 9 

Among the worst cases, where the terrorist receives a prison 

term of between twenty and twenty-five years, the resulting compensation is 8,000 shekels or more than $2,250 monthly. The most 

notorious terrorists imprisoned for between twenty-five and thirty 

years receive 10,000 shekels monthly or more than $2,800 each 

month. In this hierarchy of mass murder, the most bloodstained 

offenders, receiving sentences of thirty years or more, are rewarded 

\vith the top wage, 12,000 shekels per month, or almost $3,400 

monthly-up to ten times the average pay earned by many working 

Palestinians .10 

Prisoner salaries and funding, through both the Ministry and 

through the Prisoners Club, have always been a priority. During 

periodic financial crunches, the PA would advance the Prisoners 

Club funds before it cured the arrears in other social programs. 

Nevertheless, sometimes the Prisoners Club was unsatisfied with the 

pace of payments. On July 10,2004, the Prisoners Club delivered 

two accusatory memos to Salam Fayyad, then the PA Finance Minister, entitled "Exceptional payment of the allotments of April and 

May 2004" and "Exceptional payment of la\\yer fees for April and 

May 2004," demanding additional funding despite what Fayyad 

described as "our lack of resources." The letters accused Fayyad, 

personally, of an "inability or unwillingness ... to understand the 

resistance weight of the issue of prisoners." Fayyad rebuffed both 

letters, sniping back in a speech, "yVe are facing a financial crisis, of 

which everybody is aware, but there are those that choose not to 

listen." Fayyad continued, "The Palestinian AuthOlity has always 

positioned the issue of prisoners on the top of its list of priorities. "ll 

Fayyad found the Prisoners Club attacks so vicious that he publicly declared, "The Ministry of Finance and I personally have been 

subjected lately to a tyrannical and unjust campaign based on the 

accusation by those that try to take advantage of the prisoners issue 

[to claim] that the ministry is neglecting prisoners. "12 

Nonetheless, just four days after the letters, the PA transmitted a special check of $175,000 to cover overdue Prisoners Club 
16


86959a-8.eps

Direct Taxpayer Support for Terrorism 191 

expenses, and did so, "at a time 'when no ministry or PA institution 

received a payment," as Fayyad bitterly complained. 13 

The venomous nature of the public squabble in 2004 and the 

accelerated millions of dollars spent on prisoners' salaries was, on its 

face, just internecine politics. But it is also illustrative of the intense 

public, social, and governmental importance of paying terrorist salaries-and on time. 

Later that year, in December 2004, the PA went further, regularizing into law its custom of paying terrorists. Chapter 1 of the 

Law of Prisoners, also known as Resolution 2004/19, narrowed 

the definition of a salaried prisoner to "Anyone imprisoned in the 

occupation's [Israel's] prisons as a result of his participation in the 

struggle against the occupation."14 This definition separated those 

considered national heroes, by virtue of their attacks, from common criminals. Otherwise, common thieves could earn high public 

wages just for stealing from their neighbors. 

In an interview, Ministry of Prisoners spokesman Amr Nasser 

confirmed as much when he was asked to read aloud the definition 

in English. Reading from the law, Nasser recited: "A detainee is each 

and every person who is in an occupation prison based on his or her 

participation in the resistance to occupation." This means crimes 

against Israel or Israelis. On his own, Nasser added, "It does not 

include common-law thieves and burglars. They are not included 

and are not part of the mandate of the Ministry. "15 

From time to time, special salary supplements have been 

extended to qualified security prisoners. In 2009, a $150-per-prisoner bonus ,vas approved to mark the religious holiday of Eid alAdha. President Mahmoud Abbas also directed that an extra $190 

"be added to the stipends given to Palestinians affiliated with PLO 

factions in Israeli prisons this month." 

Reporting on the additional emolument, the Palestinian news 

service J.1da J

an explained, "Each PLO-affiliated prisoner [already] 

receives [a special allocation of] $238 per month, plus an extra 

$71 if they are married, and an extra $12 for each child. The stipend is paid by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) each 

month."16 
17


86959a-9.eps

192 FINANCING THE FLAMES 

Supplemental to the generous salaries are many other financial, social, and honorary benefits to both the prisoner and his family. For example, in 2011, PA President Abbas bestowed a special 

$2,000 gift on the family of Khaldoun Najib Samoudy, who was 

shot to death by Israeli soldiers before he could detonate two pipe 

bombs. In Palestinian society, special honors and financial tributes 

are extended to the families of suicide bombers or those shot before 

they can kill-that is, "martyrs. "17 

As recently, as July 29,2013, the Palestinian Authority responded 

with anger when an Israeli minister used the term "terrorists" in 

referring to prisoners released as part of a 2013 deal to resume 

face-to-face peace negotiations. "Terrorists are those who occupy 

the lands of another people and displace them by force and settle 

in their place," the PA Ministry of Foreign Affairs railed. "Palestinian prisoners are strugglers for their freedom and not terrorists."18 

Beyond the adage "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," a penetrating reality is delivered to taxpayers in the 

United States of America and Furope. These terrorists' salaries constitute enough monthly millions to consume behveen 4 and 6 percent of the Palestinian Authority'S annual budget, depending upon 

the measuring stick. That money does not come from the Palestinian national economy but from donor countries paying billions in 

financial aid to the Palestinian Authority.19 All money is fungible, 

especially when the percentage of budget that the PA devotes to 

prisoner salaries is often greater than those allotted for key social 

welfare and educational programs and are prioritized as highly-visible, top-line expenditures. 

In other words, taxpayers around the world are providing direct 

financial support for terrorists' salaries. This concept is hardly a surprise to the Palestinian-monitoring community, leading members 

of the media, or those who follow Palestinian diplo-economics. As 

early as 2006, a major New York Times feature story, quoting a 

deputy in the Ministry of Prisoners Affairs, almost casually mentioned that the ministry "normally spends $3 million to $4 million 

a month to support prisoners and their families and to cover some 

legal fees." The New York Times specified that the ministry "distrib-
18


86959a-10.eps

Direct Taxpayer Support for Terrorism 193 

utes allowances averaging $340 a month to families whose breadwinners are in jail. "20 

The Palestinian media has covered the topic routinely from 

time to time. For example, the Palestinian news service Ma'an published at least two articles in 2009 detailing special supplemental 

payments.21 

On February 9,2009, The Jerusalem Post ran a story headlined, 

"PA Paying Salaries to Hamas Men in Israel's Prisons." The article 

led, "The Palestinian Authority revealed on 'Wednesday that it was 

paying monthly salaries to Hamas prisoners held in Israeli jails. Ziad 

Abu Ein, deputy minister for prisoner affairs, said that for years, the 

PA had been dealing with the prisoners 'professionally and ,vithout 

political considerations.' ... According to Abu Ein, the Hamas ministry pays monthly salaries only to prisoners who are affiliated with 

the Islamist movement."22 

However, it was only in 2011 that the question of terrorist salafies leapt onto center stage. The watchdog known as Palestinian 

Media Watch (PMW) began scrutinizing Al-Hayat AI-Jadida, the 

official gazette of the Palestinian Authority, for prisoner salary references. PiVfW digested and translated into English a summary of 

existing government regulations, resolutions, policies, and special 

benefits enacted the previous year, which were summarized in Volume 90 of Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, published April 13, 2011.23 

Among the relevant decrees summarized was Government Resolution #19, issued in 2010, which stated, "A released prisoner will 

be exempt from tuition fees at government schools and universities if he served a period of five years or more in prison. A released 

female prisoner who served at least three years in prison will be 

exempt from tuition fees at government schools and universities. 

These prisoners are entitled to transfer the exemption to one of 

their children, or to their spouse ... The Palestinian Authority is 

committed to providing the opportunity for academic study for 

prisoners in Israeli prisons, by covering all study expenses for all 

stages of university study available to prisoners. A prisoner's children ",iJl be exempt from 80 percent of university tuition fees if 

the prisoner was sentenced to at least nventy years and has been 
19


86959a-11.eps

194 FINANCING THE FLAMES 

in prison for at least five years. Children of female prisoners ",ill be 

exempt from 80 percent of university tuition fees if the prisoner was 

sentenced to at least ten years, and has served at least three years. "24 

Government Resolution #21, issued in 2010, declared, "Every 

prisoner \"ill be paid a uniform sum linked to the cost of living 

index, as a monthly expenditure. Additionally, every prisoner ,,,ill 

be paid a uniform sum of 400 [Israeli] shekels for clothing. The 

sum will be paid twice a year, and will be added to the prisoner's 

salary."25 

Government Resolution #23, issued in 2010, states, "Every 

prisoner will be granted a monthly salary, to be paid to him or to 

his family, on condition that he does not receive a salary from a [ different] governmental or semi-governmental body or official institution ... The salary will be paid to the prisoner from the date of his 

arrest, and a special supplement \\ill be paid to prisoners from J ernsalem and from the Interior [Le., Israeli Arabs]; a spousal supplement will be paid, and a special supplement for children up to the 

age of 18. "26 

All references to terrorist salaries use the ~'\.rabic word "ratib," 

which means only one thing: "salary." The same word, ratib, is 

used to describe the regular compensation granted civil servants 

and other employees when discussed in official Palestinian budget 

documents. 27 

Palestinian ld~edia Watch's revelations triggered uproars in both 

the British Parliament and the Norwegian Parliament. 

The UK operates numerous financial assistance programs 

designed to cover the PA's general budgetary needs. Hundreds of 

millions of pounds have been advanced. Citing PM\V's disclosures, 

British MP Robert Halfon wrote a letter of complaint to Britain's 

Foreign Office and its Department for International Development 

demanding answers to whether or not taxpayer money was being 

utilized for terrorist salaries. International Development Minister 

Alan Duncan denied that British taxpayers were defraying salaries 

to terrOlists, claiming, "The PA operates two social assistance programs to provide welfare payments to households who have lost 

their main bread,:vinner ... dependent spouses or children should 
20


86959a-12.eps

Direct Taxpayer Support for Terrorism 195 

not be held responsible for the crimes of family members, or forced 

to live in poverty as a consequence. "28 

Likewise, in N orway-a leading funder of the Palestinian budget-its Ministry of Foreign Affairs at first denied that terrorists 

were actually getting salaries. 29 

Continued coverage in major international media outlets kept 

the topic alive. The Wall Street Journal and International Business 

Tirnes, as well as London's Daily }Jail and Norway's govemmentowned NRK (also known Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation), 

devoted penetrating coverage. In 2012, Israel's Channel 2 News, 

followed by an article in The Times of Israel) stated that the PA 

was expending 6 percent of its overall annual budget on terrorist 

salaries. 

"Despite the Palestinian Authority's financial hardships," led 

The Times of Israel) "it spends tens of millions of shekels each month 

paying salaries to prisoners held in Israeli jails for security offenses 

and acts of terrorism against Israel-including mass murderers, and 

last year Prime Minister Salam Fayyad tripled their monthly pay. 

The PA also pays monthly stipends to the families of suicide bombers." The Times of Israel recap, September 3, 2012, also detailed 

that, "As of May 2011, the PA spent NIS 18 million ($4.5 million) 

per month on compensating Palestinian inmates in Israeli prisons 

and a further NIS 26 million ($6.5 million) on payments to families of suicide bombers. In all, such payments cost the PA some 6 

percent of its overall budget, Israel's Channel 2 News reported ... 

citing documentation signed by Fayyad."30 

Hence, terrorist salaries-defrayed by US, European, and Asian 

taxpayer monies-have long been no secret at all. 

In the United States, shortly after 9/11, it was becoming clear 

that funding terrorist salaries through the Palestinian Authority was 

a clear violation of American law. On September 23, 2001, President George \v. Bush issued an executive order prohibiting the 

support of any organizations or individuals designated as terrorists. 

By 2003, it became dear to more than a few that American taxpayer money was directly supporting Palestinian terrorists. Anumber of "vetting" mandates were initiated to government auditors. 
21


86959a-13.eps

196 FINANCING THE FLAMES 

To many, these vetting mandates were almost cursory, based on a 

mere statistical sample. 31 

By 2005, several "vetting procedures" were written into the US 

laws attached to various farms of budgetary financial assistance to 

the Palestinian Authority and Gaza. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) was charged ,'lith the duty to investigate two key 

avenues of that financial aid, the United States Agency for International Development, which channeled money into a spectrum 

of programs, and also monies going to the UN Relief and 'Narks 

Agency for Palestinian refugees, known as UNRWA. A GAO official explained that his agency "only audited USAID programs in 

the "Vest Bank and Gaza and the State Department funding of 

UNR'NA .. We did not look at any other funding of the US government to Palestinian or U~ entities. But what we looked at represents a large percentage of US monies." The GAO determined 

the scope of the third-party "vetting" on what it examined, and 

it discovered that "vetting involves checking the names of individuals and organizations that implement USAID projects against 

databases and other information sources to determine if they are 

involved with terrorism."32 

A 2006 GAO investigation found that more needed to be done 

to comply with requirements impacting hundreds of millions of 

taxpayer dollars that continued to reach the Palestinian Authority directly through a cornucopia of programs. In the background 

and repeatedly referenced in the 2006 report, were legislation and 

regulations "prohibiting the support of terrorists, and clauses in 

all prime awards prohibiting ... the use of US funds to recognize 

or honor terrorists." Also covered was "the provision of cash to 

the Palestinian Authority." The GAO's 2006 report was itself titled 

"Recent Improvements Made, but USAID Should Do More to 

Help Ensure Aid Is Not Provided for Terrorist Activities in 'Vest 

Bank and Gaza." It called for greater scrutiny and vetting. 33 

Ultimately, an elaborate maze-like organizational chart of vetting offices and procedures was salted across the State Department 

and related offices in both 'Vashington and the Middle East. But 

the GAO concluded, "The timing of the RIG [Regionallnspec-
22


86959a-14.eps

Direct Taxpayer Support for Terrorism 197 

tor General] financial audits and certain other issues limited their 

usefulness to the mission for determining whether awardees had 

complied with the antiterrorism requirements." It added, "Until 

recently, the mission's vetting of individuals associated with awardees was limited by the mission's decision not to collect certain identifYing information for key individuals."34 

A fonow-up May 2009 GAO report was titled, "Measures 

to Prevent Inadvertent Payments to Terrorists under Palestinian 

Aid Programs Have Been Strengthened, but Some Weaknesses 

Remain." The GAO's 2009 report explained, "The U.S. government is one of the largest donors to Palestinians. It provided nearly 

$575 million in assistance in fiscal year 2008." Yet, the GAO found 

incomplete compliance with even the minimal paperwork requirements for vetting procedures-in other words, the inclusion of textual vetting "clauses." In many cases, it seems, federal agencies and 

offices merely went through the motions. "An estimated 17 percent 

of sub-awards had insufficient evidence to assess compliance related 

to mandatory clames," the GAO concluded. "For the remaining 

sub-awards, an estimated 5 percent did not contain the mandatory 

clauses at the time of the award. The GAO also found limitations 

in the agency's monitoring of sub-awards for inclusion of mandatory clauses. "35 

Most tellingly, the GAO confined itself to textual vetting clauses. 

There is no mention in any GAO report of the Ministry of Prisoners 

Affairs or the Prisoners Club, the two prime portals for millions in 

dollars in monthly terrorist salaries. A GAO official explained that 

his agency's inquiry was limited in its scope to monies involving 

USAID and UNRWA-not the PA itself. Moreover, a GAO official 

asserted, "Follmving the 2009 report, we were confident that the 

agencies made the changes we asked them to make. As of2012, we 

dosed our recommendations as implemented."36 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 contains a strict 

anti-terrorist vetting requirement. In Section 7039(b), the law 

states, "The obligation of funds appropriated by this Act under 

the heading 'Economic Support Fund' for assistance for the West 

Bank and Gaza, the Secretary of State shall take all appropriate steps 
23


86959a-15.eps

198 FINANCING THE FLAMES 

to ensure that such assistance is not provided to or through any 

individual, private or government entity, or educational institution 

that the Secretary knows or has reason to believe advocates, plans, 

sponsors, engages in, or has engaged in, terrorist activity nor, with 

respect to private entities or educational institutions, those that 

have as a principal officer of the entity's governing board or governing board of trustees any individual that has been determined to 

be involved in, or advocating terrorist activity or determined to be 

a member of a designated foreign terrorist organization." In Subsection ( c), Prohibition, the act clearly declares, "None of the funds 

appropriated under ... this Act for assistance under the West Bank 

and Gaza Program may be made available for the purpose of recognizing or othenvise honoring individuals who commit, or have 

committed acts of terrorism."37 

* * * * * 

Standing astride the prodigious monies extended by Western 

governments in the form of grants and aid packages are vast pools 

of financing from the Arab world that find their way directly into 

Palestinian Authority coffers, as well as into a spectrum of Palestinian NGOs and Israeli NGOs. A superhighway of money goes 

directly from Israel's greatest adversaries into a vast interchange 

where it comingles with dollars, shekels, Euros, and yen from the 

finest financial nameplates and charitable funds in the world. This 

merged money courses throughout Israel with exit ramps into some 

of the most benevolent Arab programs-as well as those that stoke 

violence and confrontation. 

A central financial crossroads for Arab and Islamic money in 

Israel is the Islamic Development Bank (IDB), headquartered in 

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Established in December 1973, just after the 

Yom Kippur ''Var, the multinational institution was created to foster 

financial projects in accordance ,:vith Sharia Law, according to the 

tenets of Islam. Membership of the bank is comprised of fifty-six 

countries in the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC). 

The driving member, Saudi Arabia, controls 23.61 percent, according to IDB records. The second highest share ownership is Libya's 
24


86959a-16.eps

Direct Taxpayer Support for Terrorism 199 

at 9.47 percent, followed by Iran \vith 8.28 percent. About half the 

other owners hold less than one percent. 38 Most, but not all, of 

the member states are avowed opponents of the Je\\rish State's very 

existence. 

A series of protracted Palestinian riots and related unrest ignited 

in September 2000, collectively referred to as the Second Intifada 

or AI-Aqsa Intifada. Intifada means uprising. In December 2000, 

a few months after the onset of the riots, Arab ministers at a Cairo 

summit agreed to "economic decisions ... to support the Intifada," according to the semi-official Saudi weekly Ain-al-Yaqem. 

Two multimillion-dollar funds were created to support the resistance: the AI-Quds Intifada Fund and Al-Aqsa Fund "to assert 

the comprehensive Arab support for the Palestinian people in face 

of continuous Israeli aggression." Their purpose was to support 

LVujahedcen-"freedom fighters"-and "martyrs," the term commonly given to suicide bombers. Dominant financial support for 

the twin tlmds was advanced by the Saudis, who announced, "The 

Kingdom ofSalldi Arabia [has] always maintained its support to the 

Intifada." Initial contributions amounted to $40 million, chiefly 

emanating from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. 39 

The Islamic Development Bank in J eddah was chosen to 

administer and manage both the Al-Quds Intifada Fund and AlAqsa Fund. The Secretary General of the i\rab League said the total 

amount collected for the two funds had reached $693 million, disclosing that "there were other financial donations from Arab businessmen' and these donations are apart from the tlmds' capitaL" 

Some years later, an internal document from the Islamic Devdopment Bank stated, "Al-Qjtds Int~fada [Fund] aims at providing 

assistance to the families of martyrs and wounded persons and to 

provide health care and education services to their children. The 

objective of [the] AI-Aqsa Fund is to finance projects aimed at preserving the Arab and Islamic identity of the City of Jerusalem and 

to enable the Palestinian economy to build its capacity, stand on 

its own against the Israeli onslaught, and gradually disengage from 

Israeli economy. The capitals of Al-Quds Intifada Fund and Al-Aqsa 

J:iund are $200 million and $800 million respectively."40 
25


86959a-17.eps

200 FINANCING THE FLAMES 

Explaining who the recipients were, a Saudi statement read, 

"Financial assistance was disbursed to 28 families of the martyrs, 

248 injured people," as wen as "232 families whose houses were 

demolished by the Israeli occupying forces and 29 Palestinian charitable societies in charge of distributing food baskets to the needy 

people." Saudi officials added later that the funds had benefited 

"664 martyrs' families and 20 I of the POW's [prisoner] families." 

The Islamic Development Bank reported that "these families receive 

monthly allocations to ensure the minimum of their needs. "41 

An Islamic Development Bank summary asserted that from 

December 2000 to June 2006, "total contributions to the Fund 

amounted to $609.4 million." That enormous sum covers all 

needs, from endowment building to identity-fortifYing resistance 

efforts such as construction to financing a range of confrontations 

that span the gamut from ordinary riots to martyrdom. Monies 

channeled to prisoners and the families of martyrs are disbursed 

through both the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority's ministries, including its Ministry of Prisoners 

Affairs. "Vhile those contributions were clearly Intifada funds, separate tranches of funding from the same Islamic Development Bank 

were funneled into various charitable works via two major top line 

Arab NGOs: The Wdfare Association and the NGO Development 

Center. Both the 'Welfare Association and the NGO Development 

Center also receive money directly and indirectly from the most 

prestigious donors in the world, such as UNESCO', The British 

Lottery, Ford Foundation, and many governmental units, often via 

the 'iVdfare Association of the UK. 42 

'iVelfare Association and NGO Development Center funding 

also finds its way to several Israeli beneficiaries that are also funded 

by the New Israel Fund. These include B'Tselem and Adalah. Ironically, some of the same Israel- based recipients who receive American 

tax-subsidized grants from the New Israel Fund have been selected 

for support by the most influential sovereign Arab and Islamic charitable organizations representing national treasuries committed to 

erasing the existence of IsradY 

* * * * * 
26


86959a-18.eps

Direct Taxpayer Support for Terrorism 20 I 

It is clear that hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars have 

been used both legally and illegally to fund, honor, and salary convicted terrorists. Disgorgement, clawback, and recovery of illegal 

taxpayer expenditures could deprive the Palestinian Authority of 

billions. Moreover, to comply vvith long-standing law and receive 

additional legal funding, the PA would need to de-constitute its 

own l\1inistry of Prisoners and sever all connection to its semi -official Prisoners Club and any substitute, successor, surrogate, standin, shadow, or subvention-direct, indirect, or in effect. The whole 

system from A to Z would have to end to be legitimate under a 

complex of American laws. Then, when the smoke settled, it would 

take years of investigation by the US State Department to unravel 

how so many officials winked, nodded, and slept through so many 

years of this funding. 

To determine just how substantial were the terrorist salaries in 

the bigger picture required an examination of scores of internal 

audit documents, going back years, from the Palestinian Authority's Finance Ministry's monthly reports. Amid the melange of 

shape-shifting numbers and month-to-month tallies that rose and 

fell with various financial crises, shortages, and monetary infusions, 

it was clear that the Ministry of Prisoners is among the PA's most 

salient line items. 

For example, in January 2012 alone, out of a Social Service 

budget of $119 million, more than $8.7 million was allocated to 

the Ministry of Prisoners; of that sum, according to Table 6A of 

the review, $6.56 million was "transferred" to prisoners-hence 

the overwhelming majority of the budgeted funds paid were not 

for bureaucratic office expenditures, but for actual terrorist salaries. 

All told, funding for the Ministry of Prisoners was about ten times 

greater than the allocation for Ministry of Labor, and about half as 

large as that for the Ministry of Social Mfairs.44 \iVith ups and dovvns 

for financial peaks and valleys, those January 2012 numbers were 

indicative. 

A Palestinian Authority Minister of Information spokesperson 

confirmed in a May 2013 interview, speaking English, "There has 

been a great deal of talk about donor money to support terror-
27


86959a-19.eps

202 FINANCING THE FLAMES 

ism by these salaries. The issue has been raised this year and last 

year."45 

Half- hearted investigations have not only percolated through 

the US government. The issue has roiled in London, Oslo, and 

other capitals where media reports and open Palestinian dedarations have some taxpayers beginning to reach an inescapable conclusion: some of their tax dollars at work end up as salaries in the 

pockets of terrorists. 

As a palliative, the Palestinian Authority recently began replacing the term ratib-Arabic for "salary"-vvith other words connoting "social welfare," asserting the recipients were actually prisoners' 

\vives and children-not prisoners themselves. lYlinister of State 

Alan Duncan, in a letter to Britain's Parliament, defended the PA's 

program as just family welfare. Similarly, ~orwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide answered his parliament ",cith the explanation 

that the PA payments were merely family welfare stipends.46 

But further investigation revealed that the monies were in fact 

not paid to t'lmilies but to the terrorists themselves and solely as 

salaries. Nearly two thirds of the existing prisoners are unmarried 

without children and not the head of households, according to a 

Ministry of Prisoners summary reported by al-QJidsnewspaper January 3, 2010. "The Ministry of Prisoners' Affairs in Ramallah said 

that there are 2,805 married prisoners, representing 37.4 percent of 

the total number. There are 4,695 unmarried prisoners, representing 62.6 percent," reported al-Q!tds. Single and married prisoners 

received the identical salary, according to regulationsY Hence, the 

compensation is not based on family need, but strictly on the severity of sentence and the corresponding level of terror. 

It is the prisoner who decides who shall receive and administer the salary on his behalf. The mechanism of payment involves 

a wakil, that is, a power of attorney, aHo\\cing the prisoner complete authority over the salary. Regulation #18 is explicit. Paragraph 1 defines, "Authorized agent: The person who is authorized 

to receive the salary in place of the prisoner. "48 

The regulation adds in paragraph 5, "If the prisoner is married, 

his ",cife \vill be his authorized agent," but the law provides personal-
28


86959a-20.eps

Direct Taxpayer Support for Terrorism 203 

ized exemption language, specitying, "Unless the prisoner appoints 

someone else instead of her." The text goes on, "If the prisoner is 

not married, one of his parents \\rill be the authorized agent. The 

prisoner determines which one of them or any other person [ will be 

the authorized agent], in the event of a dispute. Authorization of an 

agent is done by an authorization of agent [form] issued by the Red 

Cross, that is signed by the prisoner, or by a special authorization of 

agent signed by him and approved by a lawyer of the Ministry [of 

Prisoners Affairs] and by the General Administration for Legal Matters of the Ministry. It will be valid for use by the Ministry only for 

the purpose of the salary." The word ratib was used throughout. 49 

The Palestinian tax code specifies that prisoners will pay "income 

taxes" and typical "income tax \\rithholding" because their PA monies are ordinary salary. June 19, 2011, Al-Hayat AI-]adida, the 

Palestinian Authority's official gazette, reported "A meeting was 

held between the Ministry of Prisoners Affairs and the Ministry 

of Finance [wherein] several [financial] issues were clarified: The 

["rithholding] tax applies to every citizen who receives income from 

PA coffers; it is "rithin the framework of the Income Tax Act; and 

begins with salaries over 2,400 shekels [about $674J per month. 

The beginning rate is 5 percent for salaries over that amount, that 

is, 2,400 shekels. The tax rate is graduated, reaching at most only 

10 percent of prisoners' salaries. The Minister of Prisoners Affairs 

said that the prisoners in the [Israeli] prisons and their families are 

subject to the r "rithholding tax 1 law, and r added that 1 the salary 

raise this year had been welcomed "rith great satisfaction among the 

prisoners and their families." The word ratib was used throughout. 

Most strikingly, Palestinian l1.1edia Watch discovered several 

telling interviews, TV reports, and official statements that undercut 

any attempt to mask the payments as anything but direct salary to 

the terrorists themselves for use as they saw fit. 

The first was a sort of "consumer help" journalistic investigation of the type one might see on television any evening. But this 

one featured a leading Palestinian TV personality investigating the 

case of a prisoner who, because of a personal dispute, had forsaken 

his ".rife and children by not assigning her that highly-sought sal-
29


86959a-21.eps

204 FINANCING THE FLAMES 

ary via a power of attorney. With a tense movie score in the background, and produced in a dramatic "you are there" format, the 

prisoner's vvife is depicted, her face pixilated, complaining of financial abandonment by her husband. He had assigned the power of 

attorney for his salary to others, and she was now left to fend for 

herself. "A year and a half ago, I went to the Ministry of Prisoners 

Mfairs," the ,vife complains in the footage, adding "Their answer 

was, 'Your husband transfers it to the person he wants. It's in his 

power not to transtCr [it to you], and we can't do anything about 

it.'" She added, "It's not just me, this is a problem that many of 

the prisoners' ,vives and children suffer from-from the transfer of 

his salary, the prisoner's salary." The word ratib) spoken by both 

the forlorn v,rife and a senior Ministry of Prisoners official, can be 

distinctly understood in the video, even by non-Arabic speakers.50 

In a second TV interview in March 2012, a Palestinian on-air 

host conducted a telephone interview\\rith a disgruntled ex-prisoner 

shortly after his release as part of the Gilad Shalit prisoner ransom. 

Iyad Abu Khaizaran spent twenty-two years in an Israeli prison after 

stabbing to death a 76-year-old Tel Aviv man. His complaint was 

that his salary dropped by half once he was released. An agitated 

Iyad protested on air on behalf of himself and his cohorts. "Since 

the day we were released from prison," Iyad complains, "we were 

given [only] half a salary ... We killed Jews. I personally killed Jews. 

I killed settlers, and I injured soldiers. My house was destroyed. I 

have eleven bullets in my body. I served twenty-two years in Israeli 

prisons. The PA, which presents itself as responsible for the nation, 

must be faithful to everyone." The TV host sympathetically presses, 

"You, like the other [prisoners], did you receive salaries in the prisons?" Iyad replies, "Yes." After a further exchange to determine the 

terrorist's rightful compensation regardless of organizational affiliation, the host recaps, "In other words, from two thousand, I mean, 

all the organizations, without exception, whether it was Fatah or 

Hamas, supporters of Abbas or not supporters of Abbas, they all 

received salaries-or not?" Iyad answered, "Yes, yes they did."51 

In December 2012, when the Palestinian Authority tried to 

substitute social welfare terms for ratib, the term for salary, both 
30


86959a-22.eps

Direct Taxpayer Support for Terrorism 205 

Minister of Prisoners Mfairs Issa Karake and Prisoners Club chairman Qadura Fares took umbrage. They rebuked the verbal diminution of their constituency-that is, the prisoners. "[Minister of 

Prisoners Affairs Issa] Karake denies rumors about changing salaries [rawatib, the Arabic plural for salaries is used,] into social assistance," reported WAFA, the official Palestinian Authority news 

agency on December 27,2012. Karake added that the PA had recogniz;ed that "the prisoners' cause is central, and has authoriz;ed 

regulations to support and protect them out of esteem for their 

sacrifice and struggle." 

At the same time, Prisoners' Club Chairman Fares, commenting to the al-Quds Internet edition, insisted on using the term 

ratib, when describing a new version of the law "which considers payments made to prisoners as salary to which no other term 

applies. "52 

A few days later, vVattan TV aired another interview with 

Karake. The TV host posited, "You speak of a permanent salary for 

every [released] prisoner who was in prison for more than five years, 

and he gets his salary while he sits at home. Some of them are in the 

prime of their lives and could get a job and work. Why not use him 

in the workforce and give him a salary?" 

Karake replies, "That's right. I presented it to the government 

and we decided to give preference to employ these prisoners ... in 

order to make the prisoner into a productive person." 

The host replied, "Do we have the number of prisoners who 

get full monthly salaries?" 

Karake answered, "About 4,000." 

To this, the host quips, "That's an army." 

Karake conceded, "Yes, that's a big number, and it's grovving." 

Almost incredulous, the host responded, "They don't work. 

They just collect a salary." 

Karake qualified, "Some work." 

But the host retorted, "A small number." 

To this, Karake rejoined, "Some volunteer and work in different institutions. "53 

In an interview, 1 asked Prisoners Club chairman Qares what 
31


86959a-23.eps

206 FINANCING THE FLAMES 

type of employment training was being provided to ex-prisoners 

"beyond salary." 

Qares replied, "Beyond salary? We have a special garage for auto 

repair training, plus a college, Shahid Abu Jihad Martyr College in 

Ramallah, ,vith some branches in Tulkarm, Nablus, and J enin. The 

ex-prisoners learn graphic design, electricity and, as I say, car repair, 

and we help with job placement. \Ve are an NGO-but not really. 

We receive government funding for our Legal Unit-it's twentyeight lawyers in ten West Bank offices. But we need much more 

money to help our prisoners and ex-prisoners. "54 

Eventually, it became clear to some officials in Europe that the 

Palestinian Authority was being disingenuous in its responses and 

denials. They concluded that European tax donars were, in fact, paying terrorist salaries. In March 2013, Norwegian Foreign Minister Eide was compelled to admit to NRK TV that his office was 

misinformed by the Palestinian Authority. Eide stated, "The insufficient information [we] first received [from the PAJ; I think that is 

very unfortunate." NRK was among those that originally demanded 

answers from the Foreign Ministry following the Palestinian Media 

Watch revelations. NRK's March 21, 2013, report stated, "At first, 

the Foreign Ministry denied such a program exists. But after checking with Palestine, it all looks somewhat different." On camera, Eide 

admits, "I certainly have not had documented that it [the money] 

doesn't go to people who have been convicted of terror, and information has been given that those who are rimprisonedl for many 

years receive more money than those [imprisoned forJ less. That is 

precisely why we, along 'N'ith the UK, have asked [the PA] for even 

more detailed information in a letter ,ve recently sent the PA. "55 

On March 19,2103, Eide transmitted an updated statement to 

the Norwegian Parliament: "Norway and the UK agreed on drawing up a joint Norwegian-British letter to the Palestinian Authority (PA) with a series of detailed questions about the [support] 

program [for prisoners]. This letter has been delivered to the PA 

today." He added, "I have brought up the matter directly with 

Prime Minister Fayyad." Eide credited Palestinian Media Watch for 

the information. 56 
32


86959a-24.eps

Direct Taxpayer Support for Terrorism 207 

Palestinian officials reacted \vith defiance to any effort to end 

the salaries. "Deputy Minister of Prisoners Affairs Ziyad Abu Ein 

declared to satellite TV network Hona i\l-Quds: 'If the financial 

assistance and support to the PA are stopped, the [payment] of salaries (Rawatib) and allowances Clvfukhassasat) to Palestinian prisoners will not be stopped, whatever the cost may be. The prisoners are 

our joy. We vvill sacrifice everything for them and continue to provide for their families."57 

The demand by European and other nations to spend their billions on peaceful projects and not terrorist salaries has been derisively dubbed" donor filth" by some in the Palestinian intelligentsia. 

In a telling March 7, 2013, Palestinian TV interview about cultural 

matters, Abd l\l-Fattah Abu Srour, N-Rovvwad Theater Director 

and Head of the Palestinian Actors' Union, stated, "The theater's 

purpose is not to be diplomatic and not to make peace between 

the nations ... And not to accept donors' dictates for projects and 

programs that have nothing to do with us or with our Palestinian 

nation's priorities." 

The TV host responded, "I ask you: 'The donor's filth'-in 

quotation marks or without quotation marks-how has it affected 

our theater and culture in Palestine?" 

Abu Srour answered, "Unfortunately it has affected many institutions, not only the theater. It has affected many cultural institutions-with agendas and projects that have nothing to do with us. 

The EU works a lot on normalization projects," adding, "under the 

name of 'peace."'58 

The culture that lionizes terrorists w'ith substantial public 

salaries, pensions, public-square and baby namings, and triumphant receptions upon their release is fortified by the expectation 

that eventually their men will come home-to a hero's welcome. 

Indeed, prisoners are diplo-economic currency. J\lany PalestinianIsraeli diplomatic efforts include a release of prisoners as a bargaining chip. For example, the 1994 Agreement on Gaza Strip and 

Jericho Area included, in Article 10, this stipulation: "Upon the 

signing of this Agreement, Israel w-ill release, or turn over, to the 

Palestinian Authority vvithin a period of 5 weeks, about 5,000 Pal-
33


86959a-25.eps

208 FINANCING THE FLAMES 

estinian detainees and prisoners, residents of the "Vest Bank and 

the Gaza Strip. Those released will be free to return to their homes 

anywhere in the "Vest Bank or the Gaza Strip. Prisoners turned over 

to the Palestinian Authority shall be obliged to remain in the Gaza 

Strip or the Jericho Area for the remainder of their sentence. "39 

The 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum stated, "The Government of Israel shall release Palestinian and other prisoners who 

committed their offences prior to September 13, 1993, and were 

arrested prior to May 4,1994. The Joint Committee shall agree on 

the names of those who will be released in the first two stages ... 

The first stage of release of prisoners shall ... consist of200 prisoners. The second stage ... shall consist of 150 prisoners."60 

In 2011, the ransom for kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit 

required the release of 1,027 terrorists, including numerous murderers of innocent civilians. In 2013, Israel agreed to Palestinian 

demands to release 104 security prisoners, many with "blood on 

their hands," in exchange for a resumption of peace talks. The 

credentials of the released killers ran the dreadful gamut: an axe 

to the head; a knife in the back; an lED by the road; a Molotov 

cocktail into a bus; a rope around the neck; a beating with a hoe; a 

stabbing with pruning shears-mostly civilians, many children or 

elderly. For victim families, this periodic political reward heightens their grief forever. Disconsolate family protests are held in 

Israel's public squares and posted to the Internet-but to no avail 

in the face of a cabinet decision, albeit a painful one, that comes 

with regularity.61 

The Israeli government and society are left ,vith the stark, visceral reality that the Palestinians seem to value prisoners as much if 

not more than peace and ,vill only negotiate the latter in exchange 

for the former. AU this means that becoming a terrorist offers a 

good wage sponsored by foreign-country taxes, plus a nice pension, 

good family benefits, local celebrity, and the seemingly sure prospect of early release to a local fireworks reception as soon as politics 

make it "their turn." In this way, every new terrorist act disrupts the 

peace and, therefore, makes it more likely that a political release is 

in the offing-like a down payment on release for the previous man. 
34


86959a-26.eps

Direct Taxpayer Support for Terrorism 209 

Paying it forward or paying it backward, the system depends upon 

ample outside funding from Western governments. 

Every assassination, ambush, arson, or attack is a national tragedy for Israel. The news of each incident noisily topples through 

Israeli society like so many precarious, protective dominoes thudding. In bad times, terrorist acts can happen daily. In less bad times, 

they blister through the backdrop only occasionally. During 2013, 

a series of bridges and blockades, well-built high walls and wellconstructed good wills, economic success and technologic security 

have all combined to make the random killings much less frequent. 

Easy to believe it doesn't happen much. When I was in Jerusalem 

in spring 2013, such an incident had not happened for almost eighteen months. To the casual observer, it can seem like just a litany of 

honible headlines from the awful distant past. 

* * * * * 

Evyatar Borovsky, 31, was a clown at heart. Big heart. In his 

pocket, he always carried two puppet eyes. Just slip them on the 

fingers, and make a child laugh. Especially a child too hurt to smile 

and too traumatized to see the sun through his or her own darkness. Nicknamed Napo, Evyatar was a therapeutic clown. His mission was to inject careful syringes of humor and comic diversion 

into those who needed it most-the children. He was known everywhere for the lustrous smile he always brought into the room. His 

five kids adored him. How about a funny daddy? Evyatar's face 

would burst into a goofY grimace. Evyatar's father always expected 

the joke from his 50n. 62 

Tulkarm is a Palestinian city of an estimated 60,000 residents 

nestled in the hills not far from the Mediterranean, about an hour 

northwest of Jerusalem. The town traces its history to the Canaanite period and also enjoys Roman, Crusader, and Ottoman traditions. Today, the city-which hosts the 'Vest Bank's second-largest 

refugee camp-is considered a flashpoint.63 Many residents are 

eager to work in the robust Israeli economy. But others are devoted 

to intense militancy. 

Shuka is a village near Tulkarm. The Zaghal family, an impov-
35


86959a-27.eps

210 FINANCING THE FLAMES 

erished Arab family in Shuka, had been "shamed" because a son, 

Abdulfattah, had been convicted by Palestinians of spying for Israel 

and jailed. Among Palestinians, "collaboration" with the Zionists 

is considered the lowest of crimes. After a year in jail, Palestinian 

authorities, as a humanitarian gesture, paroled Abdul£'lttah back to 

his poverty-gripped family so he could help the household. But the 

stigma of being an Israeli spy came ,vith him. Abdulfattah's twentyone-year-old brother, Salam, would make a very different mark for 

the family. Once, he tried to plant a bomb. That landed Salam in 

an Israeli prison for more than three years. Salam had been released 

just a few months earlier. But now he had no job and no economic 

prospects. Abdulfattah remembered that his brother increasingly 

began "talking more and more about the martyrdom of the prisoners in Israeli jails."64 

April 30, 2013, shortly after dawn, Salam Zaghal jumped onto 

a bus for the long drive to Tapuach Junction. He carried a blue 

plastic bag. Two items were secreted inside the bag. 65 

Tapuach Junction is a major highway crossroads about twentyseven miles, or about an hour by car, from Jerusalem. The Book 

of Joshua in 12:17 cites Tapuach and its King as among the first 

encountered by the ancient Israelites. More than just a crossroads, 

Tapuach is an important hitchhiking nexus for Arabs and Jews, 

Israelis and Palestinians, those from the settlements and those from 

the Arab villages. As such, this simple stretch of nondescript roadway is ordinarily a perfect corridor of coexistence. It is a place where 

Palestinian day laborers and ordinary employees from the 'Vest 

Bank, high tech Israeli technocrats and office workers, all gather 

to grab a ride. 66 The junction is also good for a medical clown who 

needs to catch a lift. 

On April 30, 2013, the man ,vith a big heart, Evyatar, was waiting like many others for a ride. As usual, the Palestinians assembled in one spot, and the Israelis assembled in another, all trying to 

thumb their rides. Recently, the security checkpoint, about thirty 

paces from where Evyatar was standing, had been removed in an 

effort to normalize life. It was shortly after eight in the morning. 67 

Neither Evyatar nor Salam had ever met. But soon they would. 
36


86959a-28.eps

Direct Taxpayer Support for Terrorism 211 

Zaghal asked to be dropped about sixty meters down the way 

from the intersection. '-"'hen he stepped off the bus, he lit a cigarette. Then Zaghal texted his brother Abdulfattah. "My dear 

brother, take care of dad, mom and my sister, and keep your head 

up." Zaghal sent a second text to his family: "Forgive me in life, in 

death, and in the end of days." Then he broke his phone so no one 

would call back and dissuade him.68 

lviorning was now everywhere. It was 8:15 a.m., and the sun had 

emerged over the hills. Evyatar was standing about, looking somewhere over there, oblivious to the nearby Arab hitchhikers congregated about in gaggles. Zaghal approached, carrying his blue plastic 

bag, which contained novo items: a piece of paper-a prosecution 

notice from a previous run-in "vith Israeli security, and the other 

thing. Zaghal reached in for the other thing. It was a kitchen knife 

almost eight inches long. Suddenly, he screamed, "Allahu Akbar!" 

and "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger." 

Salam positioned himself directly in front of Evyatar and plunged 

the metal blade directly into Evyatar's stomach and then again deep 

into his chest. A moment later, the clown with a big heart lay on 

the ground, his life leaking quiddy onto the asphalt. Salam then 

grabbed Evyatar's gun, but before he could inflict more carnage, 

nearby Border Guards shot him. The killer was not shot in the head 

or upper body, but in the leg. In an instant, Evyatar-the down 

with the big heart-was gone, stabbed to death. As for Salam, he 

was rushed to an Israeli hospital with a non-life-threatening leg 

wound. There, Salam received Israel's world-renowned medical 

attention. 69 

Some moments later, in Jerusalem, I received a text on my 

Israeli phone. I ignored it. But I noticed several others in the hotel 

lobby suddenly look down at their phones. So I also glanced at my 

text. Then, I received a phone call as did others throughout Israel. 

People I was meeting "vith that very hour knew Evyatar's family; 

their kids played together. In Israel, everyone seems to know everyone or someone dose to someone until it becomes cperyone. 

Quickly, the Zaghal family expressed joy at their son's act. Surrounded by a circle of comforting Shuka villagers, Salam's elderly 
37


86959a-29.eps

212 FINANCING THE FLAMES 

father Assad, declared, "It was destiny, and we take plide in him as a 

family. ~'hat he [Salam] did is a duty for all Palestinians living "ith 

the aggression of the army and settlers. "70 

Responsibility was immediately broadcast by the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the militant "ring of President Abbas's Fatah party. 

"VVith dignity, honor, and profound respect," the statement proclaimed, "the al-Aqsa Brigades in Palestine declares its full responsibility for the killing of the settler in the heroic operation ... this 

morning carried out by the liberated prisoner-the hero, Salam 

Assad Zaghal." The proclamation added that such "quality operations" were "a gift to all prisoners in the occupation prisons." \Vhen 

the Palestinian news media carried news of the killing, Palestinian readers rejoiced, regaling the comment section 'Arith such snippets as, "May each illegal settler thief meet his end this way. FREE 

PALESTINE!"71 

Salam was also promptly exalted on Fatah's Facebook page. 

"The youth Salam al-Zaghal, who stabbed the settler at the alZa'atara [Tapuach] military checkpoint, comes from the village of 

Shuka, located in the Tulkarm District. He is a released prisoner 

who sat in the occupation's prisons for four years. Peace be upon 

you, on the day of your birth, and upon the day of your arrest and 

on the day you 'Arill go free."72 

Meanwhile, the Borovsky family raced the sunset, as J e"ish 

law requires. Evyatar's body was rushed back to his village near 

Haifa in the north for the emotional burial. Hundreds of Israelis 

crowded the graveside. Wrapped in a shroud, surrounded by family and friends, and many who probably did not even know him, 

Evyatar with the big heart- stabbed to death-was carried to his 

final resting place. A friend haplessly brought the extra finger eyes 

which had just arrived from America; Evyatar had been planning to 

do more finger puppetry. Evyatar's father spoke with incredulity, 

"I can't believe that I'm here. Surely tonight you'll get up-you'll 

laugh and say, 'I fooled you.' That's what you always did, made 

everyone happy." n 

Evyatar's 'Aridow, Tzovia, bent over her husband in lamentation waving five fingers. "}'ive orphans he left behind: Eve orphans! 
38


86959a-30.eps

Direct Taxpayer Support for Terrorism 213 

Five orphans!" she cried, as wailing from other women fortified her 

anguish, and the men's bleak faces tried to remain tough and taut. 

A woman gripped her face with her left hand as the pain reached 

the surface. One of Evyatar's five young boys rested his head upon 

his father's enshrouded chest. His ear was down on the chest, but 

no sound came?4 

Later, in a court hearing, Tzovia said of her husband's killer, 

"It is really useless to put him in jail, when one takes into account 

that he 'NiH be released in one swap or another, and will use his 

time there for academic studies free of charge, and the high standard of living that the state ofIsrael gives the murderers of its citizens. The continued court proceedings and jailing of the murderer 

until the next release of murderers, which will take place sooner or 

later, creates a false impression of justice, when the reality is that of 

a circus. "75 

One man with a big heart is gone. One man \vith a big knife is 

in prison. For the medical clown, writers will write, children and the 

'widow will remember, engraved plaques will be laid. For the killer, 

his-and his family's-money problems are over. One moment he 

was penniless \vithout a job. Now he enjoys one of the best salaries 

in the land. His salary is assured, based on a seemingly endless supply of cash. Those who fund his salary are not nearby-they are in 

the United States, Great Britain, Norway, and other nations. 

"\Then one asks who is financing the flames, the stunning answer 

can be seen with crystal clarity. It is us. 
39

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Black. You got a lot in in 5 minutes. 

Dr. Pollock. 

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

THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY 

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

members, for inviting me to testify to you today. It is an honor for 

me to be here and I think important to discuss the timely and important topic of European attempts to boycott Israel. 

Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke just yesterday at AIPAC at 

length about the BDS movement and I would like to begin with 

some facts and figures. 

The boycott threat against Israel right now is much more potential than real. Israel’s economy continues to thrive, estimated to be 

growing in the range of 3 percent annually, in large part because 

of its continuing ability to export and to attract foreign investment. 

This includes trade and investment to and from the European 

Union, which remains Israel’s single largest trading partner, with 

the U.S. close behind. 

Just to put this Israeli economy in global and U.S. perspective, 

it is worth noting that despite its relatively small size the health 

of Israel’s economy is also in our own economic interest. 

The high-tech partnerships between Israel and the United States 

are well known. But it may surprise you to hear that over the last 

decade Israel has been a larger market for U.S. exports than oilrich Saudi Arabia. 

Or that at times during this past decade Israel was one of the 

top 20 foreign direct investors in the American economy or that 

Israeli companies, products and licensed technologies are directly 

responsible for tens of thousands of decent jobs for American workers right here at home. 

As for current European policies, it is important to note that no 

European government supports any type of boycott against Israel 

today. When it comes to Israeli settlements or economic or other 

institutions beyond Israel’s 1967 de facto borders, however, official 

European practice diverges. 

For example, the Horizon 2020 agreement between the EU and 

Israel signed late last year predicates that the EU will not fund research or related activities in Israeli settlements, and at the level 

of EU governments the EU has advised its members that they may 

require, and several of the major European countries do require, 

special labels for Israeli products manufactured in the settlements 

across the 1967 de facto borders. 

At the level of the private sector or quasi government economic 

entities, some European institutions have announced divestment or 

selective boycotts of Israel and some of those were mentioned by 

some of you in your remarks just a few minutes ago. 

But on closer examination, most of these moves turn out to be 

either restatements of previous positions or very minor in economic 

impact. Moreover, these steps have been offset by other more positive new decisions by European governments and by European 

companies. 

A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of testifying about this issue 

in Europe to the Senate Foreign Relations and National Defense 

40

Committee of the French Parliament and I would like very briefly 

to mention a few points that came up in that discussion. 

First of all, I noted that the Palestinian President himself, 

Mahmoud Abbas, when asked recently about boycotts against 

Israel, said publicly in Arabic that the PA opposes boycotts against 

Israel. 

Unfortunately, however, as is the case with many issues, other 

official Palestinian spokesmen have refuted that very statement. 

For example, Hanan Ashrawi, recently in an op-ed in an Israeli 

newspaper, wrote that boycotts against Israel are, as she put it, 

‘‘the Palestinian nonviolent resistance.’’

But when I told the French Senate that President Abbas of Palestine opposes boycotts against Israel and I asked him why then 

do you in Europe in some cases support boycotts against Israel, 

they had no good answer. 

I believe that this is the kind of approach that the United States 

can also take, raising this issue very publicly as you are doing 

today, considering whether there might be legislative or other legal 

remedies against boycotts against Israel, as we do, for example, in 

refusing to allow American companies to enforce the Arab boycott 

against Israel. These are measures that could very well we considered and that could nip this problem in the bud. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to address you and I look 

forward to your questions and discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pollock follows:]

41


86959b-1.eps

Prepared Statement of Dr. David Pollock 

Kaufman Fellow, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy 

House Committee of Foreign Affairs 

Hearing on 'Threats to Israel: Terrorist Funding and Trade Boycotts" 

March 5, 2014 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor for me to be here with you today, and I 

thank you for the opportunity to testify about this important and timely topic. 

The issue of European trade and other boycotts against Israel has been much in the 

news lately - and only partly because of the recent controversy over the British 

charity Oxfam, the Israeli company Soda Stream, and the American actress and 

Super Bowl ad star Scarlett Johansson. Today, of course, that episode, and the larger 

issue it symbolizes, is entirely eclipsed by the tragic reports from Ukraine, and from 

other hotspots around the globe. Yet anyone who cares about the U.S. national 

interest in the Middle East, and about the future of the U.S. alliance with Israel, 

should not lose sight of ongoing trends that could potentially threaten the economic 

underpinning of Israel's security - and with it the possibility of a stable and secure 

peace between Israel and its neighbors. 

Allow me to begin this discussion with some facts and figures. The boycott threat 

against Israel right now is much more potential than real. Israel's economy 

continues to thrive, estimated to grow in the range of 3 percent annually this year 

and last, in large part because of its continuing ability to export and to attract 

foreign investment. This includes trade and investment to and from the European 

Union, which remains Israel's single largest trading partner, with the U.S. close 

behind. 

Israel's total trade with each of those major partners is on the order of almost 40 

billion dollars every year, equivalent in each instance to just over one-third of 

Israel's total exports. Overall, Israel's exports account for nearly 40 percent of its 

GOP. This is in the context of an Israeli economy with total annual GOP of nearly 

300 billion dollars, and a population of just over 8 million citizens. 

Just to put this Israeli economy in global and U.S. perspective, it is worth noting that 

despite its relatively small size, the health of Israel's economy is also in our own 

economic interest. The hi-tech partnerships between leading Israeli and American 

companies in IT, telecom, cybersecurity, medicine, green tech, and other fields are 

increasingly well known. But it may surprise you to hear that over the last decade, 

Israel has been a larger market for U.S. exports than oil-rich Saudi Arabia. Or that at 

times during this decade, Israel was one of the top twenty foreign direct investors in 

the United States. Or that Israeli companies, products, and licensed technologies are 

directly responsible for tens ofthousands of decent jobs for American workers right 

here at home. 
42


86959b-2.eps

As for current European policies, it is important to note that no European 

government supports any type of boycott against Israel. The EU continues to grant 

Israel "privileged neighbor" status, which confers certain economic, regulatory, and 

other benefits. Talks about a further upgrade have been delayed; but the EU has 

proposed that ifthe Israeli-Palestinian peace talks succeed, it will offer both sides 

significant economic advantages, including "special privileged partner" status for 

Israel. As the French ambassador to Israel recently wrote, this offer "still stands, 

despite the Israeli government's resounding silence." 

When it comes to Israeli settlements or economic and other institutions beyond 

Israel's 1967 de facto borders, however, official European practice diverges, at least 

to some extent. The EU has advised members that they may require labels to 

identify products from those areas, which may then not be eligible for certain trade 

preferences (and may also be subject to voluntary consumer boycotts). The British 

government officially notifies its companies that they may face "reputational 

damage" from dealings with the Occupied Territories, though it opposes boycotts 

against Israel as a whole. Or, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel put it on her visit 

to Israel last week: "We do not support the demands for a boycott. This is not an 

option for Germany. We have certain rules for labeling and we have to adhere to 

those rules, but we do not believe in boycotts." 

More concretely, in the Horizon 2020 agreement between the EU and Israel signed 

late last year, the two sides reached a compromise deal that the EU would not fund 

research or related activities in Israeli settlements. This agreement has provided 

Israeli institutions with around one billion dollars in such funding over the past 

decade. Depending upon the exact interpretation and application ofthe new 

wording, it is expected to have very little practical effect in restricting any planned 

projects. Nevertheless, it represents official EU - and also Israeli governmentrecognition of a distinction between economic cooperation inside vs. outside the old 

1967 "Green Line" de facto border. 

At the level of the private sector or of certain quasi-government economic entities, 

however, some institutions in several European countries have recently moved to 

limit their dealings with selected Israeli business partners -- not just with Israeli 

settlements. This is particularly evident in some ofthe smaller European countries, 

in Scandinavia or the Netherlands. For example, in January, the large Norwegian 

sovereign wealth fund announced a blacklist of two Israeli firms because of their 

alleged involvement in "the construction of settlements in East Jerusalem." A major 

Dutch pension fund, PGGM, divested from five leading Israeli banks on similar 

grounds, shortly after the Dutch water mogul Vitens stopped dealing with Israel's 

national water company Mekorot. 

But on closer examination, most of these moves turn out to be either mere 

restatements oflongstanding practices, or steps with very minor real-world impact 
43


86959b-3.eps

-- and usually both. Other cases follow this pattern. Germany's Deutsche Bank, 

Sweden's Nordea Bank, and Denmark's Danske Bank have each put certain Israeli 

financial holdings under review or restriction lately; but only in the most narrowly 

limited sense, for specific small clients or for prospective accounts. 

Moreover, these steps have been offset by other, more positive new decisions. For 

example, the largest Dutch pension fund, ABP, decided after review to maintain its 

exposure in Israel. A high British court decided that a boycott of Israel's "Aha va" 

["Love"] beauty products is not supported by international law, whether or not they 

are produced in the West Bank. Tourism from northern Europe to Israel is down 

significantly, but increased tourism from other countries more than makes up the 

difference. And while Irish diplomats privately rail against Israeli occupation, the 

Irish firm Covidien recently paid nearly a billion dollars to acquire the Israeli 

cutting-edge medical innovator, Given Imaging. 

Alongside such still minor economic fluctuations are some even more minor 

symbolic measures. Some British unions, academic institutes, or individual 

celebrities like the scientist Stephen Hawking or the rock star Roger Waters have 

declared boycotts against various Israeli institutions or events. Some organizations 

in other European countries have followed suit. The latest announcement, just last 

weekend, came from the Norwegian YMCA, which proclaimed its own boycott 

against Israel. 

These gestures often rate front-page coverage in the Israeli press, as do countermoves by other celebrities or pro-Israel organizations. Their economic or even 

psychological impact, however, is very limited. Nevertheless, if such symbolic 

sanctions gain momentum, especially in the absence of a countervailing campaign, 

they could conceivably do real economic damage, while increasing Israel's sense of 

isolation. 

In that case, I believe, based on Israeli reactions to date, that the policy implications 

for the Israeli government would be very mixed. Those Israeli Cabinet ministers 

who advocate a more flexible policy on the peace process, such as Yair Lapid and 

Tzipi Livni, have recently pointed to the threat of boycotts, and the economic 

benefits of peace, as extra incentives for Israel to push that process forward. Others, 

such as Naftali Benett and Moshe Ya'alon, say that Israel must resist boycotts or 

even talk about boycotts, and focus on security or national rights instead. 

Prime Minister Netanyahu appears to be taking a middle ground, most recently 

asserting, I believe with some reason, that Israel's intrinsic hi-tech economic 

prowess and global value-added would insulate it against politically motivated 

boycotts. His visit to Silicon Valley this week is in line with this overall approach. 

This will probably play well here in the U.S., but I have my doubts about future 

European reactions. 
44


86959b-4.eps

Allow me therefore to conclude with some personal observations from two weeks of 

recent discussions with European officials and experts about this issue. A few 

weeks ago, I had the privilege of testifying about these issues to the full French 

Senate Foreign Relations and National Defense Committee, in Paris. I was asked 

many questions about boycotts and sanctions against Israel, in the context of Israeli 

settlement activity in the West Bank. 

I will take the liberty of referencing a few points from those exchanges that are 

directly relevant to today's hearing, and then note the reactions I encountered --

which were fairly typical of those in other European capitals. 

On the issue of boycotts, I pointed out that PA President Abbas himself said, on the 

occasion of the Nelson Mandela memorial service in South Africa - and in Arabic, to 

the TV channel al-Arabiyya - that he does not support a boycott against Israel. 

Rather, he asserted, he is seeking to negotiate with Israel. I observed that this is 

both remarkable and paradoxical to witness, even as in Europe one finds 

movements promoting just such a boycott. 

Asked about the precise Palestinian position, I explained that while the Palestinians 

do not officially support boycotts against Israel, they do support boycotts against 

products from the Israeli settlements. This may be understandable, yet in a certain 

sense it does not promote peace. In a state of peace, it will be necessary to live 

together. Instead, this tactic could lead to a condition of fear, of anxiety, and of 

resistance to compromise. That does not serve the interests of the Palestinians 

themselves. 

So in Europe, I argued, the movement that supports a boycott against Israel is 

illogical and absurd. One should rather encourage the two parties to reach out to 

each other. Unfortunately, some Palestinian officials are exploiting this issue with 

the same kind of double-talk some use about other aspects of the peace process. 

While Abbas says he opposes anti-Israel boycotts, Hanan Ashrawi, a prominent 

member ofthe PLO Executive Committee, published an op-ed an Israeli newspaper 

just a few weeks ago with this headline: "The boycott is our Palestinian non-violent 

resistance. " 

What was the French Senate committee's reaction to this message? I believe their 

reactions differed. Among the most vocal participants in this exchange, for example, 

was one Senator who identified himself as the president of the Franco-Palestinian 

Friendship Society. But he was quite cordial and thoughtful in discussing the 

problem; and many of his colleagues voiced interest and appreciation for a different 

and more balanced perspective on this issue. 

In practice, French government policy clearly opposes trade or other boycotts 

against Israel. And in my subsequent conversation with one of President Hollande's 

senior advisors, I found much common ground on the general principle that 

pressure on just one side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be counter-
45


86959b-5.eps

productive. The Palestinian Authority has much room for improvement in its own 

positions and behavior. It should not be encouraged to think that outside pressure 

on Israel would relieve it of the need to compromise, for the sake both of peace and 

of its own political aspirations. 

At the same time, one should note an obscure recent statement by the EU 

Ambassador to Israel, Lars Faaborg-Andersen, which is worth quoting in some 

detail: 

"If the talks are wrecked as a result of an Israeli settlement announcement, then the 

blame will be put squarely on Israel's doorstep .... Israel will find itself increasingly 

isolated, nor necessarily because of any decisions taken at a government level, but 

because of decisions taken by a myriad of private economic actor, be it companies, 

be it pension funds, be it consumers who will be choosing other product on the 

supermarket shelves." 

I believe this is a roughly accurate reflection of prevailing European policy and 

sentiment, especially in the speaker's Nordic home environment. The economic 

implications would be quite serious, though still probably manageable, if official 

sanctions were applied. That appears highly unlikely, the more so since an EU 

consensus would be required. Yet the prospect of growing unofficial economic 

reprisals against Israel, in case of a breakdown in the peace process, is a real one. 

What can the u.s. do to address this problem, and nip it in the bud? First of all, I 

greatly appreciate the contribution of today's hearing in raising awareness about 

the problem. Second, there is probably much that could be done in the realm of 

reasoned discussion with our European allies and counterparts, in both public 

diplomacy and private persuasion. The State Department has tried to clarify 

Secretary Kerry's earlier comments by noting that the u.S. opposes boycotts against 

Israel, and further such statements would be very welcome. Third, legislative or 

legal remedies may be available as well. As a possible analogy, I believe u.S. law 

penalizes attempts to comply with the nominal Arab boycott against Israel -- which 

is by now largely ineffective as a result. And U.S. law and policy impose costs on 

third parties who may attempt to evade sanctions against Iran, or to violate other 

international commercial codes or agreements. 

In sum, so far, the issue of European trade or other boycotts against Israel is a threat 

much more potential than real. But as an unofficial movement, and even as an 

official response limited to Israeli settlements, it is gradually gaining strength in 

some quarters - and could surge in the event that the current peace talks deadlock 

or disband. That is why this hearing today, and your continuing attention to the 

issue, are of so much value to the U.S. national interest in Israel's security, in 

economic partnership with Israel, and ultimately in Israeli-Palestinian peace. 
46

Mr. POE. Thank you, Dr. Pollock. 

Mr. Perles. 

STATEMENT OF MR. STEVEN PERLES, FOUNDER AND SENIOR 

PARTNER, PERLES LAW FIRM, P.C. 

Mr. PERLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sherman. You know, 

before I begin my comments this morning, I will say that I do think 

senior members of the Bar have an obligation to help launch the 

careers of younger generation of lawyers. 

It is why I teach, and in that spirit I would like to introduce Ms. 

Kristin Stitchers to the committee. Ms. Stitchers is my clerk and 

she is a law student at the George Mason University in northern 

Virginia. Thank you. 

We have been studying the material support of terrorist attacks 

around the globe, particularly Palestinian terrorist attacks that result in the death or personal injury of United States nationals since 

1995. 

And I would break that material support into two tiers because 

it has been our observation over the last almost 20 years that there 

really are two tiers of Palestinian terrorists. 

At the—you have an upper level, terrorists like Hassan Salameh 

whose activities killed Matthew Eisenfeld and Sara Duker. Matthew was from Connecticut. Sara was from New Jersey. 

Now, Hassan Salameh was recruited by Iran in Gaza. He was 

smuggled through Egypt into the Sudan, flown on an Iranian military aircraft to Iran. He was trained in Iran and then he was returned through the Sudan and Egypt back into Gaza. 

One of the more perplexing things about that attack is when we 

looked at the forensics of the bomb, the energetic was a plastic explosive that had been made in the United States for which there 

is only one customer and that is the United States Department of 

Defense. 

And, candidly, I could not figure out how a plastic explosive 

made for the Defense Department wound up in a Hamas terrorist’s 

gym bag. 

As it turned out, Hassan Salameh was trained—and we learned 

a great deal about his training curriculum in Iran—he was trained 

by the Iranians not only to recruit suicide bombers but to recruit 

suicide land mine defusers and he was taught how to defuse U.S.-

manufactured land mines. 

In fact, we determined that the land mine—that what had happened was when Hassan Salameh was coming back through Egypt 

he recruited suicide land mine defusers, went into mine fields that 

the Egyptian Government had set up under the provisions of the 

Camp David Peace Accords—and, of course, mine fields are not 

guarded, they are simply posted—and they went in until they were 

able to salvage an American-made mine that was designed to destroy a Soviet T–54 tank, and I believe Hassan—I believe that energetic killed two U.S. nationals and 25 or 27 Israelis inside a bus. 

The terrorist, and that is the suicide bomber, essentially was vaporized by the energetic inside of the bus. The lower-level terrorists 

are people like the suicide bomber on the bus. Those are the kinds 

of people that are getting martyr support. 

47

Now, we have what I consider to be probably the most important 

case in the country right now on martyr payments and that is what 

is referred to as Litle versus the Arab Bank or the Arab Bank series of cases. 

Abigail Litle was the daughter of a professional administrator in 

the Baptist Church. He was posted in Haifa. He took his daughter—he took his family with him to Israel. She did what all 13-, 

14-year-old girls do. 

She made friends with all the 13-, 14-year-old girls in her neighborhood. They all got on a bus together one morning to go to school. 

They all died together on that bus. That terrorist receives martyr 

payments that were—and this currency is not Iranian. 

This currency is Saudi, and it was funneled through the Arab 

Bank’s branch in Brooklyn, New York, which is why we brought 

the action in New York. The Eisenfeld and Duker action was 

brought under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act against Iran. 

That was successfully prosecuted. This action was brought under 

the Anti-Terror Act because the Arab Bank of Jordan is a private 

actor. The remedy against private actors is under the ATA rather 

than the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. 

I am running out of time but I will say and I would emphasize 

that to the best of our knowledge this is private Saudi money. 

There is no Saudi Government involvement in that activity. 

In my written statement, which has been filed for the record, we 

do describe the fact that we are at something of a critical juncture 

in that case now. 

We are getting a great deal of push back from the Department 

of State. That case is scheduled to go to trial in August. We hope 

to keep it on schedule and we hope the committee will assist us in 

doing that. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Perles follows:]

48


86959c-1.eps

STATEMENT OF 

STEVEN R. PERLES 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORTSM, NONPROLTFERA nON, AND TRADE 

MARCH 5, 2014 

Chairman Poe, Ranking Member Sherman, and members of the Subcommittee, my name is 

Steven R. Pedes, founder and senior partner in the Pedes Law Firm, PC, and I appreciate the 

opportunity to appear before you to discuss civil litigation on behalf of U.S. citizens killed or 

injured as a result of acts of Palestinian terrorism. I have represented significant numbers of 

Americans who were tragically murdered or injured in acts of Palestinian terrorism. What I 

would like to speak about today is a public-private partnership and the proper role of the US. 

government in these cases. Tn my experience, since 1995, these cases achieve their greatest 

success when the US. government empowers the Americans victims by assisting with evidence, 

identifying assets of the terrorists or their sponsors and by staying neutral when the sponsors of 

terrorism attempt to leverage ongoing negotiations with the US. government for aid and support 

in the court cases against them. 

Tn 1996, my firm was one of the first to file lawsuits on behalf of American victims of terrorism. 

We have seen the field of anti-terrorism litigation grow in cases against sovereign states and 

foundations and corporations that allegedly aided and abetted acts of terrorism. Anti-terrorism 

civil litigation has always been about deterring those who would materially support terrorism, as 

terrorists from Abu Nidal to Bin Laden have all relied on someone else to provide their support. 

Some of these sponsors are states like the Islamic Republic of Iran and some are private actors, 

including the international financial institutions that facilitate the movement offunds destined for 

terrorist entities. 

The first successes in anti-terrorism litigation were scored against Iran, but only after I brought 

an ultimately successful case called Princz v. Federal Republic afGermany against the Federal 

Republic of Germany on behalf of all survivors of the Nazi concentration camp system who held 

US. passports or were US. servicemen at the time of their incarceration. Tn 1996, using thenD.C. Circuit Judge Patricia Wald's dissenting opinion in Princz for guidance, Congress passed a 

new exception to the FSTA, 28 USc. § 1605(a)(7), for lawsuits "against a foreign state for 

personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft 

sabotage, hostage taking" This exception denied sovereign immunity to any foreign state that 

sponsored a terrorist attack upon US. citizens, as long as the state had already been officially 

recognized as a state sponsor of terrorism by the US. Department of State. 

Thus the Princz case led to my first case against Iran. In 1995, the Shaqaqi faction of the 

Palestine Islamic Jihad detonated a bomb that destroyed an Israeli bus and killed twenty year old 

Alisa Flatow. I represented this family in Flatuw v. Islamic Republic of Iran, the first case 

against Iran for state sponsorship of terrorism under the FSIA The piatow case documented the 

links between the terrorist group that carried out the attack and Iran, which acted as a sponsor for 

the group through the provision of support and training. In Flatow, 1 for the first time, a court 

I 999 F. Supp. 1 (DD.C 1998) 
49


86959c-2.eps

found a foreign state liable for its sponsorship of a terrorist group that killed a US citizen and 

awarded damages of roughly $229 million. As enforcement of Platow was winding down in the 

United States, together with my co-counsel Thomas Fay, T brought a case in the United States 

District Court for the District of Columbia against Iran for its complicity in the 1983 marine 

barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon that caused the death of over 240 servicemen, captioned 

Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran. Judge Royce C. Lamberth authored a May 30, 2003 

opinion that adjudged Iran liable based upon the clear and convincing evidence linking Iran to 

the 1983 attack2 Subsequently, Judge Lamberth entered judgment against Iran for the 1983 

bombing in excess of $4 billion3 We are enforcing this judgment on behalf of over 1200 

plaintiffs against Iranian assets worth $1.9 billion in the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York4 It should be noted that we were greatly aided in this effort by 

the provision of information under seal by the Department of Treasury, which is an appropriate 

role of government in these cases. 

Currently, the most important case in the US. courts involving US. citizens injured in acts of 

Palestinian terrorism is a case against a Middle Eastern bank for its conduct during the Second 

Intifada. This is not a FSIA case but a case brought under 18 US.c. § 2333, the Anti-Terrorism 

Act or AT A, allowing a person "injured in his or her person, property, or business by reason of 

an act of international terrorism" to sue to recover damages against non-state actors. The current 

status of the case illustrates the need for cooperation between the US. government and the 

attorneys who are bringing these cases on behalf of Americans against those terrorist and their 

supporters who injured them. T along with my co-counsel represent 54 Americans who were 

murdered or physically injured, along with their families, during the Second Intifada. In total, 

110 Americans in related cases are suing Arab Bank, a Jordanian international bank with 

branches in the Palestinian Territories and, during the relevant time period, in New York City, in 

by far the largest litigation on behalf of US. citizens injured by Palestinian terrorism. My simple 

plea to the Committee is that the courts should be allowed to do their j ob in handling a civil 

lawsuit involving a statute that is crucial in the fight against terrorism, and that various 

governments should not be allowed to impose their political agenda on the outcome of these 

cases. Let justice take its course. 

These 110 US families filed civil actions beginning in 2004 under the US Anti-Terrorism Act 

against Arab Bank. We allege and intend to prove the Bank knowingly provided direct material 

support by laundering tens of millions of dollars through its New York branch to US 

government-designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) such as RAMAS and their 

agents, including Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs) and including via "insurance" 

payments made by Saudi militants to imprisoned and martyred terrorists and their families This 

includes individual terrorists (including particular terrorists who committed attacks on the 

plaintifIs), senior Ramas operatives (including the Ramas "prime minister" in Gaza and the 

leader of Ram as' military wing), charitable committees designated as SDGTs for their affiliation 

with Ramas, and even what the trial judge delineated as evidence of wire transfers to a senior 

US-designated Ramas leader identifying "Ramas" as the beneficiary, and evidence of multiple 

, Peterson v. islamic Republic ol1ran, 264 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2003). 

3 Pelerson v. Islamic Republic of1ral1. 515 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.DC. 2007) 

4 Pelerson v. Islamic Republic of1ral1. CA 10-4518 (KBF), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40470 (S.D.NY Feb. 

28,2013) 

2 
50


86959c-3.eps

payments for families of suicide terrorists (identifying "martyr operations," ie, suicide attacks, 

as the causes of death). But most of the evidence, at present, is hidden behind a wall of bank 

secrecy laws, primarily those of the Palestinian Authority, in addition to Lebanon and Jordan' 

The U.S. government has agreed with our concerns, and the filing of these cases led to the US. 

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) investigating the Bank in 2004, which resulted 

in a $24 million monetary penalty against the Bank, the requirement of establishing a $420 

million reserve, and the shutting down of its US. banking business by restricting the New York 

branch from any banking activities. The OCC stated in an August 17, 2005 press release: 

the agencies determined that the New York Branch of Arab Bank failed to 

implement an adequate anti-money laundering program to comply with the Bank 

Secrecy Act and manage the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing in 

connection with United States dollar clearing transactions. The New York Branch 

also violated the suspicious activity reporting requirements of the Bank Secrecy 

Act6 

The OCC's Acting Comptroller later told Congress that its "review disclosed that the branch had 

handled hundreds of suspicious wire transfers involving individuals and entities with the same or 

similar names as suspected terrorists and terrorist organizations and that many of these individual 

and entities were customers of Arab Bank or its affiliates." As a result of this review, the OCC 

issued a cease and desist order, emphasizing "[tJhe inadequacy of the Branch's Bank Secrecy 

Act controls over its funds transfer operations is especially serious in light of the high risk 

characteristics of many of the transactions" and ordering conversion of the Bank's NY branch 

into an agency with limited banking powers. 

It has been close to a decade since the lead case, T.il1de v. Arab Rank, was filed and our clients' 

day in court has been delayed for years by Arab Bank's refusal to produce the banking records at 

the heart of the case based on so-called foreign banking secrecy laws. The trial court ruled in 

2005 that foreign banking secrecy laws do not apply, but the Bank deliberately ignored multiple 

production orders. Arab Bank's refusal to produce these records in violation of US law resulted 

in the trial court issuing sanctions in 2010 designed to restore a level playing field and allow the 

jury to draw certain inferences about the Arab Bank's conduct, based upon its calculated 

withholding. Any defendant in a US. civil case must produce the records under its control that 

go to the heart of a case, and the resulting sanction from the Bank's refusal to produce was 

proper. Five US. judges at the trial court and Second Circuit have now ruled that the case 

should go forward to trial. These families have waited almost ten years for their day in court; 

there should be no further delay of the August trial setting. 

Arab Bank has sought to delay trial at any cost Since 2010, the Bank through the Kingdom of 

Jordan has been trying to enlist the US. State Department to enter a Statement ofInterest in the 

case seeking to modify the scope of the trial court's discovery sanction. The Bank's argument, 

which lacks any evidentiary support, is that civil liability for the damages its behavior caused the 

110 American families will bankrupt the Bank and threaten the stability ofJordan and by 

extension the entire Middle East Considering the size and profitability of the Bank, that 

'Linde v. Arab Bank. PLC, 269 F.R.O. 186 (EON.Y. 2010). 

6 http://www.fincen.gov/newsJoom/nr/pd£l20050817.pdf (last visited February 28, 2014). 

3 
51


86959c-4.eps

argument is ridiculous. The Bank's profits for 2013 rose 43% to $501.9 million. Its net 

operating income exceeded $1 billion. Its deposits were $34.4 billion in 2013. It has a $45.6 

billion balance sheet spread across 30 countries and five continents. On April 21,2011, 

Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Howard Berman, the then-Chairwoman and Ranking 

Member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, Steve Chabot and Brad Sherman wrote a 

letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton which urged the State Department not to intervene in 

the case, stating: 

[I]ntervention by the State Department on Arab Bank's behalf, sua sponte, would 

undermine the policies underlying the AT A that support the rights of victims of 

international terrorism to seek recovery due to the damages they suffered .... In 

conclusion, permitting foreign governments to elevate bank secrecy laws over the 

interests of justice and, indirectly, extend a veil of secrecy in U.S. courts for 

designated foreign terrorist organizations, would subvert U.S. policy goals 

providing for the fair and open adjudication of claims brought under the AT A 

Accordingly, we ask that the Department of State refrain from intervening in this 

matter on behalf of Jordan or any foreign interests absent a formal judicial 

request. 

The State Department turned down the Jordanian government and refused to enter a Statement of 

Interest and lend its weight to this argument even though, at that time, the Bank also faced the 

pending claims of thousands of non-Americans who were murdered or injured during the Second 

Intifada. Because the Second Circuit subsequently ruled in a different case 7 that certain Alien 

Tort Statute claims could not go forward against corporations, the trial judge in our cases 

dismissed the non-Americans' claims, and though they are on appeal, only the claims by the 110 

American families are now pending in the trial court. Thus the Bank's argument regarding the 

destabilization of the Middle East resulting from a civil damages award has lost considerable 

merit from 2011, when even then it was not taken seriously. We applauded the State Department 

for its principled stand in 2011. 

Notwithstanding the trial court and Second Circuit rulings, last summer the Bank filed a petition 

for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, and the Kingdom of Jordan submitted an amicus brief 

in support of the Bank. On October 21, faced with Jordan's misrepresentation that the Kingdom 

would be destabilized by the failure of the Bank, the Supreme Court had no choice but to invite 

the U.S. Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States. Review of the 

discovery sanction by the Supreme Court would be an extraordinarily unusual circumstance. In 

the normal course of civil litigation, litigants would rarely be able to contest such a ruling in the 

Supreme Court. As the trial court stated on February 12, 2014: 

[T]he petition is still nearly twice as likely to be denied as granted. Add to that the 

fact that Judge Gershon's Order is an interlocutory discovery order for which 

defendant seeks mandamus relief, and the likelihood of the Supreme Court 

granting certiorari seems smaller still. In considering that, this Court is also noting 

the Second Circuit panel unanimously determined that mandamus relief was 

7 Kwhel v. Royal Dutch retroleum Co., 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cif. 2010), gffji., 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013). 

4 
52


86959c-5.eps

inappropriate. This Court thus believes that there is a very good chance that the 

Supreme Court will deny certiorari, allowing this trial to go forward in August. 

The mundane legal issues at the center of the petition to the Supreme Court are not worthy of 

Supreme Court review. The US. government is currently undergoing an interagency review 

process to detennine whether to submit a brief and what position to take. We understand the 

State Department now supports the US. government submitting a brief that would support the 

Bank's request for review ofthe discovery order. We also understand that the U.S. government 

agencies concerned with the role played by international banks in tax evasion, money laundering 

and terrorism financing are opposed to the Bank's petition for Supreme Court review. Terror 

victims share a commonality of concern and principle with such agencies. 

Nor should the foreign banking laws raised by the Bank give the Committee any pause. 

Congress has already decided between the competing policy goals behind banking secrecy laws 

and laws enabling US. victims of terrorism to sue those who injured them through acts of 

international terrorism. Congress passed the AT A, 18 US.c. sec. 2331, et seq., to enable US. 

citizens to sue those who financially support acts of international terrorism. The ATA's civil 

remedy plainly contemplates extraterritorial application. Acts of "international terrorism" are 

defined by the ATA in relevant part as acts that "occur primarily outside the territorial 

jurisdiction of the United States," 18 US.c. § 2331 (1 )(C). Senator Grassley, who sponsored the 

original ATA act, explained that it "empowers victims with all the weapons available in civil 

litigation, including: Subpoenas for financial records, banking infonnation, and shipping 

receipts- this bill provides victims with the tools necessary to find terrorists' assets and seize 

them." Given that the law explicitly empowers US. citizens to sue those who lend support to 

acts of international terrorism, the ATA was implicitly crafted to combat the financing of 

terrorism. The Executive Branch has agreed. Specifically, in Boim 1'. Holy hmd Foundationjor 

Relief & Develop., the Justice Department advised the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that 

"[t]he provision at issue -- 18 USc. § 2333(a) -- was supported by the Executive Branch as an 

effective weapon in the battle against international terrorism; when correctly applied, it 

discourages those who would provide financing that is later used for terrorist attacks'" Thus, the 

Bank is precisely the type of defendant Congress had in mind when it passed the ATA Allowing 

a foreign bank to raise a foreign banking secrecy law, over the denial of the trial court and 

appellate court, would nullify the ATA and deny Congress's intent in passing it 

The bank secrecy defense is a final, desperate roll of the dice by the Bank - especially 

considering it is undisputed that Arab Bank did disclose secret customer infonnation to US. 

authorities without even notifying, let alone seeking authorization irom, the relevant foreign 

states. Arab Bank produced internal banking records to the OCC during the OCC's 2004 

investigation of the Bank that followed the filing of the Linde lawsuit Arab Bank was never 

prosecuted for those disclosures. Jordan and Lebanon are signatories of the Middle East and 

North Africa Financial Action Task Force, and have expressly adopted a policy not to rely on 

bank secrecy laws as a basis for protecting information related to money laundering and terrorist 

iinancing. 

8 Briefforthe United States as Amicus Curiae at * 1, Boirn v. Holy Land Foltndarioi1. 2008 WL 3993242. 

(7th Cir Aug. 21. 2008). 

5 
53


86959c-6.eps

Finally, it is relevant that the Bank invokes bank secrecy to protect the privacy interests often 

customers the Bank has admitted are Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as well as dozens 

of customers identifiable as the senior leadership of a Foreign Terrorist Organization, Hamas, 

and its military brigades, persons wounded or imprisoned in terrorist operations, and families of 

"martyrs" killed in "martyrdom operations" (including specifically-identified terror attacks that 

killed and injured plaintiffs in this lawsuit). 

At times, the U.S. Government has been a strong supporter of anti-terrorism litigation, and the 

State Department has been able to playa constructive role in the past. In 2008, there were a 

number of cases in U.S. courts progressing against Libya to provide compensation for its 

sensational acts of terrorism against US. citizens in 1980s and 1990s, including the survivors of 

the 1986 LaBelle Discotheque. Libya, anxious to reestablish relations with the United States, 

was unable to make much progress as State Department officials and members of Congress 

blocked rapprochement until the claims were satisfied. The primary cases that drove the 

agreement with Libya forward were the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 bombing and the LaBelle 

discotheque bombing case. In August 2008, the governments of Libya and the US. reached an 

agreement where Libya agreed to pay the US $1.5 billion in settlement of all outstanding 

c1aims9 Though many victims were dissatisfied with this result and felt the US. government 

made a politically expedient settlement at the expense of fair compensation of all victims and 

survivors of Libyan terrorism, the level of US. government participation in the vindication of 

private causes of action was unique. While it may have been preferable to see more done on 

behalf of victims, US. government support for the Libyan cases was vital to their eventual 

settlement. The resolution of the Libya cases in 2008-10 for Libya's past acts of state 

sponsorship of terrorism illustrates how advocates for victims of state sponsorship of terrorism 

can provide ammunition to the State Department in its advancement of U S. policy and how the 

two can work together to achieve their goals. Such a public-private partnership does not happen 

often because of the absence of an institutional voice for victims of terrorism at the State 

Department. 

One way to fix this is to statutorily create an office for terror victims' assistance ("L TVA"), 

based upon The Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for International Claims and Investment 

Disputes LlCID la-which would deal with providing assistance for US victims of terrorism as 

LCID provides assistance to US. companies with foreign investment disputes. What is referred 

to as the "Libya model" worked well because both the State Department and the lawyers 

representing US. victims of Libyan terrorism worked toward the ultimate goal of victim 

compensation, even in difficult times when the partnership was strained by inherently divergent 

interests. The creation of the LTV A oflice would lay the groundwork for the tuture replication 

of the successful results of the Libya model. The Libya model worked because of a temporary 

and quasi-institutional voice for victims of Libyan terrorism at the State Department. 

9 Libyan Claims Resolution Act. Pub. L. No. 110-30 I, 122 Stat. 2999 (2008) 

10 "The Office oftbe Assistant Legal Adviser for International Claims and Investment Disputes (LlClD) is 

tbe largest office in the Department of State's Office ofthe Legal Ad,iser. It represents the United States 

and coordinates activities witbin and outside the Department with respect to all aspects of international 

claims and investment disputes." http://www.state.gov/s/llc3433.htm (last visited February 28, 2014). 

6 
54


86959c-7.eps

Indeed the Executive Branch has played an instrumental role in several Foreign Sovereign 

Immunities Act (FSIA) cases against the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Syrian Arab Republic. 

Under subpoena, the Department of Treasury has provided information regarding the location of 

frozen assets of Iran or Syria to U.S. victims of terrorism as judgment creditors. In the 650 5th 

Avenue case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York", several 

groups of terrorism victims have worked hand-in-hand with U.S. federal prosecutors for years in 

a civil forfeiture case against the office tower at 650 Fifth Avenue, which belongs to groups 

which have allegedly money laundered for Iran and violated US-Iran sanctions. As a result of 

this cooperation, the US. government plans to sell the building and turn over the proceeds to the 

families of those victims of Iranian terrorism who have worked with the government. There 

currently exist several types of US. federal rewards programs for cooperation and assistance 

leading to convictions and asset seizures. The Rewards for Justice program, 22 U.S.c. § 

2708(b )(7), rewards the provision of information provided to the US government assisting in 

"the disruption offinancial mechanisms" of terrorist organizations. Whenever legally 

permissible, I have provided information to US. government agencies to assist in their legal 

efforts against terrorists and their supporters. This type of cooperation has furthered the 

Congressional policies behind the enactment of anti-terrorism legislation. The State Department 

should either act as a proponent of such policies, as it did with the Libya model, or neutrally, as it 

did in 2011 in the Arab Bank case when it refused the Jordanian government's request to enter 

this case and file a Statement ofTnterest in favor of modifying the scope of the trial court's 

discovery sanction. We have asked the State Department to playa productive role as an 

interlocutor with the Jordan and the Bank to bring the matter to a conclusion acceptable to all 

parties. That would be the proper role of the US government. 

The key to a successful public-private partnership is cooperation. The prosecution of these cases 

fulfills important Congressional policies such as victim compensation, the deterrence of 

terrorism with financial penalties and the production of intelligence for US. agencies, when 

legally permissible. But these goals can be not reached unless the courts are allowed to do their 

job. It is our opinion, and the courts have agreed, that the policy goals of compensating 

American victims of international terrorism and deterring financiers of international terrorism 

should be favored over foreign bank secrecy laws. And Congress expressly empowered the 

courts to make these decisions when it passed the AT A. The State Department should make the 

same decision now that it made in 2011, which is to deny the request to interfere in the progress 

of this lawsuit and allow no further delay in the American victims' quest for justice. 

II In re: 650 Fifth Aven1le and Related Properties, CA 08-10934 (KBF). 

7 
55


86959d-1.eps

Perles Law Firm, PC representative cases 

SYRIA 

1. Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, CA 06-1500 (D.D.C.) (RMC) 

CASE SUMMARY 

Two wrongful deaths from Syrian sponsored beheadings by Al Qaeda in Iraq in 2004, 

with 4 family members as plaintiffs. Final judgment awarded for $412,909,857.00. 

**See Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, 580 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. 2008). 

PROCEDURAL STATUS 

Syria took an appeal to contest the court's jurisdictional basis, which was rejected by the 

court of appeal s. Judgment enforcement underway. 

2. Foley v. Syriau Arab Republic, CA 11-699 (D.D.C.) (CKK) 

CASE SUMMARY 

Three wrongful deaths from Syrian sponsored beheadings of U.S. serviceman and the 

assassination of American diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan by Al Qaeda in 

Iraq in 2002, 2004 and 2006, with family members as plaintiffs. 

PROCEDURAL STATUS 

The complaint has been filed and is being served on defendants. 

3. Baker v. Syrian Arab Republic, CA 03-749 (D.D.C.) (GK) 

CASE SlJMMARY 

Complaint filed with I wrongful death and two injured plaintitl's from a Syrian and 

Libyan sponsored 1985 hijacking of an airplane and its ultimate destruction, with 18 

family members as plaintiffs. 
56


86959d-2.eps

Perles Law Firm, PC representative cases 

PROCEDURAL STATUS 

The case against Syria went to trial in March, 2010 resulting in an award of 

$510,560,000.00. Judgment enforcement underway. 

The claims against Libya did not go to trial because the Libyan defendants settled the 

claims for approximately $18,000,000. The Libyan Claims Resolution Act ("LCRA"), 

passed on July 31,2008 and signed by President Bush on August 4,2008, dismissed all 

litigation against Libya. The Libya claims were, alternatively, successfully processed by 

the Department of State or the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. 

4. Buonocore v. Syrian Arab Republic, CA 06-727 (D.D.C.) (GK)/(JMF) 

CASE SUMMARY 

Complaint filed with 5 wrongful deaths and six injured plaintiffs from Syrian and Libyan 

sponsored airport shooting in Rome and Vienna during the Christmas holidays in 1985, 

with 11 family members as plaintiffs. 

PROCEDURAL STATUS 

The case against Syria went to trial in February, 2011. Preliminary determination by the 

magistrate judge finding Syria liable on April 10,2013. 

The claims against Libya did not go to trial because the Libyan defendants settled the 

claims for roughly $43,000,000. The Libyan Claims Resolution Act ("LCRA"), passed 

on July 31, 2008 and signed by President Bush on August 4,2008, dismissed all litigation 

against Libya. Most of the Libya claims were, alternatively, successfully processed by 

2 
57


86959d-3.eps

Perles Law Firm, PC representative cases 

the Department of State or the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. One claim 

remains in litigation with the Department of State. 

5. Certain Underwriters v. Syrian Arab Republic, CA 06-731 (D.D.C.) 

(GK)/(JMF) 

CASE SlJMMARY 

12 alien and 1 US insurance companies suing for damages for a destroyed airplane hull as 

a result of a Syrian and Libyan sponsored terrorist hij acking in 1985. 

PROCEDURAL STATUS 

The case against Syria went to trial in March, 2010. Damages of $51 ,574,997.89 

awarded by magistrate judge on April 18,2012. 

The claims against Libya did not go to trial because the Libyan defendants settled the 

claims as a part of the Libyan Claims Resolution Act ("LCRA"), passed on July 31, 2008 

and signed by President Bush on August 4, 2008, which dismissed all litigation against 

Libya. The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission denied all claims on a jurisdictional 

basis. As all Libya claims were dismissed pursuant to the LCRA and were also denied by 

the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission on a jurisdictional basis, alternative remedies 

are being studied. 

6. Peterson, et al. v. Islamic Republic ofIran, CA 01-2094 (D.D.C.)(RCL) 

and follow-on cases 

CASE SUMMARY 

3 
58


86959d-4.eps

Perles Law Firm, PC representative cases 

Plaintiffs are over 1200 widows, orphans, siblings and survivors of the Islamic Republic 

of Iran's bombing of the Beirut Marine Corps Barracks in 1983, resulting in the murder 

of241 US servicemen, who were in Lebanon as United Nations peacekeepers. This case 

required the development of evidence regarding Iran's material support of Hezbollah and 

Iran's direct role in the Marine Corp barracks bombing. 

PROCEDURAL STATUS 

Final judgment for approximately $4.2 billion in compensatory damages. Enforcement 

actions have been filed in several judicial districts against Iranian assets. On Feb. 28, 

2013 the United States Court for the Southern Di strict of New York ordered the turnover 

of$1.9 billion in Iranian assets to the Marine families, and other terrorism victim 

judgment creditors. A further enforcement action against Iran is proceeding under seal. 

7. Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, CA 97-396 (D.D.C.) (RCL) 

CASE SUMMARY 

Counsel for plaintiff in the first successful action against a foreign state for the death of a 

United States national as a result of an Iranian-sponsored bus bombing. $247,513,220.00 

final judgment - $225,000,000 punitive damage award remains unsatisfied. 

"See Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 999 F. Supp. 1 (DDC. 1998) 

PROCEDURAL STATUS 

Compensatory judgment has been collected and ongoing collection effort in the European 

Union for the punitive portion of the judgment. Italian enforcement proceedings under 

way at the Italian Supreme Court. It is anticipated that ultimately the claims in the Italian 

court system will be decided by the European Court of Human Rights. 

4 
59


86959d-5.eps

Perles Law Firm, PC representative cases 

8. EisenfeldlDuker v. Islamic Republic of Iran, CA 98-1945 (D.D.C.) (RCL) 

CASE SUMMARY 

Counsel for plaintiff in a successful action against a foreign state for the death of two 

United States nationals as a result of an Iranian-sponsored bus bombing. $327,161,002.00 

final judgment - $300,000,000 punitive damage award remains unsatisfied. 

**See Eisenfeld v. Islamic Republic ofIran, 172 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C 2000). 

PROCEDURAL STATUS 

Compensatory judgment has been collected and ongoing collection effort in the European 

Union for the punitive portion of the judgment. Italian enforcement proceedings under 

way at the Italian Supreme Court. It is anticipated that ultimately the claims in the Italian 

court system will be decided by the European Court of Human Rights. 

9. Ellis v. Islamic Republic of Iran, CA 05-220 (D.D.C.)(RMU) 

CASE SUMMARY 

Lawsuit against the Islamic Republic ofIran for its support of the terrorist who caused a 

triple suicide bombing on Ben Yuhada Mall 

PROCEDURAL STATUS 

Damages of $1,704,457 awarded on July 3, 2012. Enforcement proceedings underway. 

10. Jenco v. Islamic Republic ofIran, CA 00-549 (D.D.C.) (RCL) 

CASE SlJMMARY 

Counsel for plaintiiIs in a successful action against the Islamic Republic ofIran for the 

hostage taking and torture of a Catholic priest from the United States as a result of an act 

of state-sponsored terrorism in Beirut, Lebanon. 

5 
60


86959d-6.eps

Perles Law Firm, PC representative cases 

$314,640,000.00 final judgment - $300,000,000 punitive damage award remains 

unsatisfied. 

"See Jenco v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 154 F. Supp. 2d 27 (DD.C 2001). 

PROCEDURAL STATUS 

Final judgment issued and compensatory damages collected. There is no current active 

enforcement program for the unsatisiied punitive damages. 

11. Beecham v. Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, CA 01-

2243 (RWR) 

CASE SUMMARY 

Action on behalf of 93 off-duty U. S. service personnel who were killed or injured by the 

Libyan terrorist bombing of the LaBelle discotheque in Berlin, Germany in 1986. 

Defendants agreed to settle the case for $276,000,000.00 including the 38 plaintiffs who 

were our clients for the sum of $3,000,000.00 each. 

PROCEDURAL STATUS 

The Libyan Claims Resolution Act ("LCRA"), passed on July 31, 2008 and signed by 

President Bush on August 4, 2008, dismissed all litigation against Libya. All claimants 

have been awarded compensation in the settlement achieved by the LCRA. 

6 
61


86959d-7.eps

Perles Law Firm, PC representative cases 

12. Clay v. Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, CA 06-707 

(RWR) 

CASE SlJMMARY 

Two U.S. servicemen were injured by the Libyan terrorist bombing while relaxing offduty at the LaBelle discotheque in Berlin, Germany in 1986. 

PROCEDlJRAL STATlJS 

The Libyan Claims Resolution Act ("LCRA"), passed on July 31, 2008 and signed by 

President Bush on August 4, 2008, dismissed all litigation against Libya. One claim 

compensated for $3 million at Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. 

13. Harris v. Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, CA 06-732 

(RWR) 

CASE SUMMARY 

Represent a family whose husband and father died from injuries he received in the La 

Belle Discotheque bombing in Berlin on April 5, 1986. 

PROCEDlJRAL STATlJS 

The Libyan Claims Resolution Act ("LCRA"), passed on July 31, 2008 and signed by 

President Bush on August 4, 2008, dismissed all litigation against Libya. The family's 

claim was compensated by the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission. 

7 
62


86959d-8.eps

Perles Law Firm, PC representative cases 

14. Pan Am liability carriers v. Libya - settlement activities 

CASE SUMMARY 

Consulting role for several participating underwriters of Pan Am from the 1986 

Lockerbie bombing. Their damage claims consist of the value ofliability claims paid by 

Pan Am liability insurers to the Pan Am families. 

PROCEDURAL STATUS 

The Libyan Claims Resolution Act CLCRA"), passed on July 31, 2008 and signed by 

President Bush on August 4,2008, dismissed all litigation against Libya. The Foreign 

Claims Settlement Commission denied the Libya claims on ajurisdictional basis. As all 

Libya claims were dismissed pursuant to the LCRA and were also denied by the Foreign 

Claims Settlement Commission on a jurisdictional basis, alternative remedies are being 

studied. 

BANK MONEY LAUNDERING AND TERRORIST FINANCING 

15. Litle v, Arab Bank, CA 04-5449 (E.D,N,Y.)(NG)/(VVP) 

CASE SUMMARY 

41 families sued the Arab Bank, PLC for its direct participation in funding and 

facilitating Palestinian terrorists during the Second Intifada under the AT A. 

PROCEDURAL STATUS 

Arab Bank's motion dismiss has been denied and the court awarded considerable 

discovery sanctions against the Arab Bank for its refusal to produce volumes of key 

8 
63


86959d-9.eps

Perles Law Firm, PC representative cases 

evidence. Absent a Statement of Interest by the Solicitor General on behalf of the 

Department of State, trial is expected in August of 2014. 

16. Weiss v. National Westminster Bank, CA 05-4622 

(E.D.N.Y.)(CPS)/(MDG), Wolfv. Credit Lyonnais, CA 07-914 

(E.D.N.Y.)(CPS)/(MDG) 

CASE SlJMMARY 

Plaintiffs include 14 families who sued both the Credit Lyonnais and National 

Westminster Bank, PLC under the ATA for their participation in the funding and 

facilitating Palestinian terrorists during the Second Intifada. 

PROCEDURAL STATUS 

Motions to dismiss by the banks denied. The cases are at the motion for summary 

judgment stage. 

17. Amduso v. Republic of Sudan, CA 08-1361 (D.D.C.)(JDB) 

CASE SUMMARY 

Complaint filed with 2 US citizens and over 400 Kenyan and Tanzanian citizens, who 

were either working as U.S. employees at the embassies or are their family members, 

injured as a result of the Iranian and Sudanese supported AI Qaeda twin embassy 

bombings in 1998. 

PROCEDURAL STATUS 

Trial on liability took place in October, 2010 and the court found that Iran and Sudan 

materially supported Al Qaeda when it destroyed the embassies. Damages proceedings 

underway. 

9 
64


86959d-10.eps

Perles Law Firm, PC representative cases 

PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY 

18. Klieman v. Palestinian Authority, CA 04-1173 (D.D.C.) (PLF/JMF) 

CASE SUMMARY 

Complaint filed with 1 wrongful death from PA supported Hamas shooting and 5 family 

members as plaintiffs. 

PROCEDURAL STATUS 

The PA's two motions to dismiss were denied and the case is in the discovery phase. 

10 
65

Mr. POE. I want to thank all three of you for your superb testimony. 

I will now recognize myself for some questions. Mr. Black, I want 

you to be a little more specific, and I know that is hard for you to 

do because you were very blunt and candid and specific. 

Is U.S. money going to pay prisoners in Israeli jails that we 

would consider terrorists? 

Mr. BLACK. The answer is yes. It is illegal. Our Government, at 

the highest level, knows it is illegal. Every hour of every day that 

this money continues to go to the PA you risk the chance that another bus of more Americans will be blown up, and they will receive an official salary from the PA. 

The PA is continually in debt and it relies upon donor countries 

for this money. Now, when you ask the PA are you going to stop 

using our money to pay these terrorists’ salaries, they have a term 

for this and the term is called donor filth. 

It is all over the media. It is all over the newspapers. It is in 

public remarks, and approximately 40 percent of the entire PA 

budget comes from donor countries and much of the rest comes 

from remittances. 

There is no question that this country is supporting terrorism. 

Not because somebody is publishing a Web site but because somebody committed a specific act of terrorism and was paid on a sliding scale for the number of people that he killed. You are doing this 

now. 

Mr. POE. I am going to ask some more questions. Try to be a little shorter, if you can. Briefer, I guess, is the answer—a little more 

specific. You know, I was a former judge and so I sent—I mean, 

people went to prison because they should have gone. 

But the idea that we pay people to go to prison and the more serious the crime against society they get more money, that is ludicrous. It would be ludicrous in this country but now we are paying 

people overseas. 

The prisoners that are in these Palestinian jails, have they committed crimes against American citizens that are directly or indirectly receiving money from American taxpayers? 

Mr. BLACK. Short answer, absolutely yes. 

Mr. POE. How many people are in Israeli jails? 

Mr. BLACK. Under this law, which only covers to terrorists and 

does not cover shoplifters or burglars or any other types of prisoners that are not national security offenses, it is about 4,000. You 

said about 4,500. 

That would cover everybody. It is about 4,000 and none of them 

think they are going to serve the sentence that they are given—

5, 10, 20 years—because they all believe they are going to get out 

in the next prisoner swap or the next prisoner swap to discuss the 

next prisoner swap. 

Mr. POE. All right. There was a prisoner swap in October where 

1,000 or so got out of Israeli jails. How many of those were terrorists? 

Mr. BLACK. They were all terrorists and——

Mr. POE. Okay. Thank you. Are any of those—are any of those 

people that are in Israeli jails—you know, terrorist means different 

66

things to different folks. But are they members of foreign terrorist 

organizations like Hamas? 

Mr. BLACK. Many are not. Many are individual Palestinians who 

have been impoverished by their own lack of enterprise in the Palestinian Authority and see American and EU tax money as a way 

to become wealthy in their own land, and they are just individualized and incentivized by taxpayer money. 

Mr. POE. Dr. Pollock, Mr. Black testified earlier that some of 

these prisoners are getting up to $10,000 a month. So what is—you 

know, as we now understand, these are killers who killed somebody. 

The more serious the crime, the more you get from the Palestinian Authority. So what does a Palestinian that is not a criminal 

making out there a month in—somewhere in Israel? Just the average salary—monthly salary. Are they getting $10,000 a month? 

Mr. POLLOCK. No, sir. 

Mr. POE. What are they making? Do you know? 

Mr. POLLOCK. The per capita income in the West Bank is—which 

is under Palestinian Authority rule, is estimated right now to be 

approximately $4,000. 

Mr. POE. A month? 

Mr. POLLOCK. No. 

Mr. POE. A year? 

Mr. POLLOCK. A year, yes. 

Mr. POE. So you get $4,000 a year per——

Mr. POLLOCK. Per capita income. Right. Right. 

Mr. POE. Per capita. 

Mr. POLLOCK. So, clearly, this——

Mr. POE. Crime pays. Pays very well. The more serious you commit the crime against Israelis, Americans, Western Europeans, 

whoever, the more they are paid. 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. POE. And they can give this—understand, Mr. Black, they 

control—the prisoner controls where the money goes. They can give 

it back to a terrorist organization. They can give it to their motherin-law, their girlfriend. 

Mr. BLACK. That is right. It is the POA and the POA changes 

anytime they want it to change, and when I was in the British Parliament a couple of weeks ago I—one of the parliamentarians said 

this is welfare to the families. It is not welfare to the families. It 

can go to anyone the guy designates, including his own terror cell. 

Mr. POE. Two quick questions. Explain what the Prisoners Club 

is and explain what happens when these terrorists who are getting 

money to go to prison to kill people get out. What happens when 

they get out? Quickly, briefly. 

Mr. BLACK. When they get out they get a pension and the pension—this is money for life. So while we don’t have any money here 

to pay our own pensions they are getting the pension and the Prisoners Club——

Mr. POE. Because they went to prison as a terrorist act they are 

getting a pension. 

Mr. BLACK. That is right. 

Mr. POE. Because they are part of the government now. 

67

Mr. BLACK. And the Prisoners Club advocates to make sure they 

get more money, more benefits, more bonuses, more prioritization 

and job training. 

Mr. POE. Thank you. 

I will yield to the ranking member from California, Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Dr. Pollock, thank you for your focus on the economic vibrancy 

in Israel, and the judge and I have a bill to make Israel a visa 

waiver country. 

If that bill succeeds, we will see a lot more investment in the 

United States because business people can’t wait 3 or 4 weeks to 

go make a business decision. I have never seen a deal that was 

worth doing that would wait 3 weeks. 

And it would also be the answer to those who try to make 

Israelis feel like pariahs we ought to put out the welcome mat in 

the most important country in the world. 

You have described enterprises on the West Bank. Do these provide jobs for Palestinians? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes, sir. They do. Most of Israel’s economic activity 

on the West Bank including settlement construction provides jobs 

for Palestinians. 

It is actually mostly Palestinian workers who are physically 

building the new housing that the Israelis are constructing in some 

of these settlements and being paid decent salaries for that work. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And the most recent controversies involved 

Oxfam, an organization funded in part by the work of this committee, criticizing one of its board members for being a spokesperson for SodaStream. 

Doesn’t SodaStream—great soda, I might add—aren’t most of the 

employees Arab Palestinians? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes, sir. Most of them are. It is a mix of employees. You have Palestinians and Israelis working together in the 

SodaStream manufacturing facility in the West Bank. 

I might just add parenthetically that Prime Minister Netanyahu, 

in his speech to AIPAC yesterday, specifically referred to this issue 

and had what I guess you would call colloquially a shout out to 

Scarlett Johansson and ended his speech by saying, ‘‘Frankly, my 

dear Scarlett, I do give a damn.’’

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Black, among those getting these payments 

from the PA for their terrorism, are there those who have killed or 

injured American citizens? 

Mr. BLACK. Yes. There are scores of American citizens who have 

been killed or injured and many of the Palestinians who are receiving these American-funded salaries are perpetrators of those acts. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I want to comment on some of the comments 

made by my fellow Californians. I was with President Clinton 

when we saw the PA charter changed and supposedly that was the 

recognition of the Palestinians that Israel had a right to exist. 

They then retreated through an artifice to well, Israel has a right 

to exist but only as a second Palestinian state, by declaring that 

any Arab person who claims that any member of their extended 

family ever lived in Israel, and just this is a claim because there 

are no records from the Ottoman Empire. 

68

It is not like you carried around a little ID from 1898. So any 

Arabic-speaking person who makes that claim has a right to go and 

live in Israel with their entire extended family. So we saw that position. 

Now, my colleague from southern California also points out we 

have got to listen to the Palestinians and their leaders. He is absolutely right. I have done a lot of that over the last 18 years. 

Privately, they know that Israel—that peace is—with Israel as a 

homeland for the Jewish people, that the right of return unless it 

is symbolic and of no practical importance has to be swept away 

if there is peace. 

The problem is they enjoy the political advantages of fanning the 

flames loudly and then quietly tell Members of Congress they know 

they have got to go in the other direction. 

The problem is that they have boxed themselves in. I am going 

to astound my colleagues and yield back with 24 seconds. 

Mr. POE. I thank the ranking member. 

Before I yield to the other—one gentleman from California I 

want to put in the record that while the EU boycotts Israel, Iran 

is shipping arms to terrorists in Gaza. Earlier today, the Israeli 

navy raided a ship in the Red Sea and seized dozens of advanced 

rockets from Iran for the Palestinian terrorists in Gaza. 

These rockets had a range that could hit anywhere in Israel. So 

we can’t forget about the Iranians in all of this. 

I will yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking member of Europe, Eurasia and Emerging Threats—Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess what I am getting out of this is that the old expression 

‘‘follow the money’’ is very applicable here, and I thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, and I thank the panelists today for shining some light 

on where the money is coming from and surprise, surprise, it is 

coming from us. 

I mean, holy cow. So, I mean, one would think that you follow 

the money you are going to end up in, you know, some Damascus 

or Tehran and instead it is right here in Washington, DC, and 

right here in some of the money that we are allocating. 

That needs to be corrected and thank you for pointing that out 

to us. Over the years, I have been in many hearings like this where 

we discuss terrorism and we discuss attacks, and terrorism is an 

attack on a civilian and the Palestinians in this case have targeted 

civilians in order to terrorize a population to achieve an objective. 

And I—it seems to me that we have been listening to the Palestinians and before, 20 years ago when I first came here it seemed 

to me that Israel wasn’t listening. It seemed to me that Israel did 

not have a plan of how to deal with the Palestinians and they 

weren’t willing to. 

They thought they should just disappear, become part of some 

other country. Well, since that time I think Israel has made tremendous concessions to the Palestinians. 

They have given them territory and land and a sample government that they could have once a full agreement is reached and 

they have also recognized that the Palestinians will have a right 

to a country as well. 

69

And it seems to me we have seen lots of concessions from the 

Israelis but I—as time has gone on, I haven’t seen the concessions 

from the Palestinians. 

And as I say, I think all the Israelis that I have talked to and 

all the Palestinians I have talked to have led me to conclude that 

the only thing the Israelis really are looking for is an actual guarantee that the Palestinians believe they have a right to exist as a 

country. 

One of these things that separated us, as I say, is the right of 

return that the Palestinians keep claiming, which is really a right 

to eliminate Israel as a country because it would inundate what is 

Israel with a foreign population. 

Is there a possibility that we could change this to a right of compensation? Because the Palestinian argument is that in 1948 so 

much land was confiscated from Palestinians and these people have 

not been compensated for that land, thus they own it and thus they 

should have a right to return. 

I will get to my point and that is should we, number one, accept 

right of compensation as something that perhaps could be an alternative to the right of return, and number two, where would you get 

that money and just—I want to throw this out to the panel as 

well—when people talk about compensating people for those—that 

property that they lost—the Palestinians lost, at the same time, in 

the 1940s Jews left lots of land behind and lots of property behind 

in countries—Middle East countries. 

Whether it was Egypt or whether it was Syria or whether it was 

Iraq or whether it was Iran, there were many Jews that were 

forced out of their homes and property and I don’t believe they 

were ever compensated either. 

Perhaps we could tell the governments that now have that valuable property that the Jews left in 1948 that that property should 

be used as a means of compensating the Palestinians for the property that they lost. What do you think about that idea? 

Mr. BLACK. Well, I wrote a book about that called ‘‘The Farhud’’ 

about that very point. Approximately 790,000 Jews were expelled 

from Arab countries. Shortly after the state of Israel began they 

were made stateless. All of their property had been seized. 

They had dwelled in peace in the Middle East for 1,000 years before Mohammed. They were sent to expulsion camps. The earrings 

were pulled from their lobes. 

The bracelets were yanked from their wrists and they were 

forced into Israel by these Arab countries to create a demographic 

time bomb. There was a small airline that was invented——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. To get right to the point is that was a lot of 

valuable property. 

Mr. BLACK. That was millions. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. And so that valuable property, just a 

thought, Mr. Chairman, that——

Mr. BLACK. And it was registered, by the way. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That could be—that might be able to be used 

as a source of money by those countries to compensate the Palestinians for the property they lost when Israel became a country. 

Just a thought. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

70

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

I do want to correct something for the record. I called you the 

ranking member of your subcommittee, much to the delight of my 

friends to the left. But you are the chairman and you will stay the 

chairman, I suspect, a long time. 

But anyway, I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Vargas, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you very much, your Honor. I do call you 

your Honor because I know you were a judge, too. 

Mr. POE. And you need to call me that. 

Mr. VARGAS. Yes, sir, and I always do. 

First of all, I have to say it almost seems impossible to believe 

that our Government is indirectly funding terrorists in prisons in 

Israel and—I mean, we certainly have the witnesses here testifying. 

I think we need to bring the—some representative from the government forward, Mr. Chairman, at some point to either refute it 

or to say that is the case because this is outrageous if it is the case. 

Again, I had not heard about it previously. It hasn’t been reported on any of the news stations that I watch. But it is outrageous and not a penny should go, of course, to any terrorist and 

we need to get to the bottom of this. That is why I thank you for 

bringing this forward. 

I do want to ask some questions. The question was asked of us 

and we could ask you by yourselves about BDS—boycott, divest 

and sanctions—where the money is coming from. So I would ask 

you where is this money coming from. 

It seems, unfortunately, that they are picking up some steam 

throughout the world and it is very unfortunate because I don’t see 

it anything less than just anti-Semitism—a little bit shielded but 

not much. 

Could you tell us where the money is coming from for this movement? Dr. Pollock, you look like you are able to answer that. 

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

You mean money to fund the BDS movement? 

Mr. VARGAS. Yes. Yes, sir. 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes. Well, I think not enough—at least to my 

knowledge, not enough solid research has been done on exactly that 

question so far and my—so I am going to give you my judgement 

and impression. 

And that is that the money comes from a variety of sources all 

over the world and there are some governments including, for example, the South African Government that is——

Mr. VARGAS. Not our Government, though. Please tell me it is 

not our Government at least. 

Mr. POLLOCK. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. VARGAS. Okay. Good. 

Mr. POLLOCK. That are active in funding chapters that are—of 

different organizations that are engaged in promoting boycotts 

against Israel. 

There are some academic institutions and societies, student organizations, for example, on various universities including some here 

in the United States, that are very active in promoting this. 

71

I think their funding comes from a variety of individual donations and foundations. I am not personally aware of any government money that supports it. 

Mr. VARGAS. Okay. Mr. Black, I saw that you were anxious to answer the question. Do you know, sir? 

Mr. BLACK. Yes. The number-one source of BDS funding is taxpayers. Here is how it works. 501(c)(3) organizations—you all remember the investigation I did on the Ford Foundation in which 

they were funding all these anti-Semitic groups—501(c)(3) groups 

raise money and donate it to organizations involved in the BDS. 

For each million dollars of tax exempt money, American taxpayers have to pony up $440,000. The number-one organization 

which has been associated with this process has been the New 

Israel Fund which gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Coalition of Women for Peace so that they could create a global infrastructure of boycotts including a database called Who Profits. 

They stopped giving this money in 2011 but now they continue 

to give hundreds of thousands of dollars to organizations like 

Breaking the Silence, Adalah and Bisallam, which are absolutely 

essential to keep the BDS alive. New Israel Fund. 

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you. 

Mr. Perles, do you have an answer to that, too? 

Mr. PERLES. I do not, sir. 

Mr. VARGAS. Okay. I think that that is something that we need 

to act on also then. I see this movement. Of course, it has become 

somewhat worldwide now and it seems to have a lot of money and 

it seems that someone is orchestrating. 

Again, it is nothing less than veiled anti-Semitism. I guess my 

last question would be, you know, how do we then—how do we 

move forward then to make sure that these groups don’t get the 

money—that our Government is not involved or implicated? 

What would you do, Dr. Pollock? What would your solution be? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Thank you, again, for the question. 

I think there could be, as my fellow witness just noted, there 

could be an opportunity to investigate the tax exempt status of organizations that might be knowingly or unknowingly funding activities that are either illegal or improper or not eligible for tax exempt status because they are political advocacy. 

That is one possibility. But I do think that the most significant 

way of addressing this issue is by raising public awareness about 

it and I don’t think that this is a lost cause even in Europe, if I 

may say so with all due respect, to any Europeans who might be 

here. 

I do think that there are organizations in Europe who are certainly advocating BDS but there are also organizations, very good 

ones, in Europe that are actively opposing it and fighting against 

it and they deserve——

Mr. VARGAS. My time has expired so I am going to thank you. 

Mr. POLLOCK. Thank you. 

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Perry, for 5 minutes. 

72

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen. 

So this policy, this official policy, how long—how long has this 

been in force? Mr. Black, anybody? 

Mr. BLACK. Are you talking about the Law of the Prisoner? 

Mr. PERRY. Yes. 

Mr. BLACK. The Law of the Prisoner goes back years. It was an 

unofficial policy before it was regularized into Palestinian law. The 

actual law itself was—and its qualifications were read to me over 

the phone by the Minister of the Ministry of Prisoners. 

They have an entire ministry devoted to this. So it is years. And 

may I also say that while——

Mr. PERRY. Ten years or more? 

Mr. BLACK. Or at least 10 to——

Mr. PERRY. Okay. So it is nothing new, and to be clear, just to 

make sure I understand this, there is no direct State Department 

money that we can tell going to the—going to this program or 

is——

Mr. BLACK. I didn’t say that. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay. You suggest——

Mr. BLACK. I believe the money is going directly. Of course it is. 

It is fungible. You can’t give money to an al-Qaeda soup kitchen 

and then say oh, and but this soup kitchen money is not going to 

go to feed the troops. 

Mr. PERRY. So if I can just give you a scenario and you can validate it for me. So State Department funds some USAID project in 

the—in the area and then that money is misappropriated and—at 

least portions of, and then put toward this project? 

Mr. BLACK. The money goes into the PA. The PA doesn’t have 

its own currency. We are now investigating the routes by and the 

foreign accounts that the PA uses and then the PA divvies up the 

money and they borrow from various accounts including the army 

account, the military account, the police account and——

Mr. PERRY. Okay. So does the—does the State Department just 

wholesale give an appropriation to the PA? 

Mr. BLACK. In some cases, yes. 

Mr. PERRY. What is the level of funding, do you know? Do you 

have any idea what kind of money? 

Mr. BLACK. Well, I know what it is in England and hear a number of $440 million. I am not sure if it is block grants or if it is 

targeted money. But all of this money goes into one pot, fungible. 

It comes from the—a Latin word that means mushroom. 

Mr. PERRY. Is there no—is there no accounting on the—on State 

Department’s side for exactly how each dime is spent? 

Mr. BLACK. They don’t want to account for it. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay. So who would be—is there—is there a person 

at State? Is there an agency—is there a person at State that we 

can turn to, bring in here and have a discussion with that would 

be responsible for the accounting? 

Mr. BLACK. He is currently in Europe. 

Mr. PERRY. Who is that person? 

Mr. BLACK. Secretary Kerry. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you. 

73

So there has been a law on the books, in my understanding, since 

1990 regarding victims of terrorism that has been where the 

United States could extradite these individuals that have perpetrated the alleged crime. 

To your knowledge, how many—how many folks since that 

time—I think there have been, according to what I am reading 54 

U.S. citizens killed in Palestine terror attacks. 

How many of those perpetrators that are alive—not, obviously, 

the ones that have blown themselves up, you can’t do much with 

them—but the ones that have lived through their attacks have 

been extradited back to the United States for prosecution? 

Mr. BLACK. That is a legitimate question. I am going to pass it 

to this gentleman here. 

Mr. PERLES. Mr. Perry, first, let me thank you for the compliment in your opening remarks. It is very much appreciated. I 

think you need to divide the world of Palestinian terrorist attacks 

into two different categories. 

If you are talking about Palestinian terrorist attacks that occur 

outside of Israel such as aircraft hijackers—for example, we represented three U.S. nationals who were shot in the head execution 

style and tossed out of an aircraft in Malta—the surviving Palestinian terrorist in that attack served 6 years in Malta and then 

was freed without notice to the United States. 

The U.S.—the FBI chased that man to the end of the earth, 

dragged him back out of Africa. He was prosecuted here in the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Columbia and is currently serving 

a life sentence. 

We do a very good job—the Justice Department, we as a nation, 

the Justice Department does a very good job for attacks that occur 

outside of Israel. With respect to attacks that occur inside of Israel, 

to the best of my knowledge no one has ever——

Mr. PERRY. Why is that? 

Mr. PERLES. I think that is a—that is a——

Mr. PERRY. What is—what is your opinion? 

Mr. PERLES. My opinion? 

Mr. PERRY. Yes. This is what you do. This is what you study, correct? 

Mr. PERLES. This is what I do. We have had a lot of discussions 

with the Department of Justice over the years. One of my clients, 

Steve Flatow, who lost a daughter, Lisa, in a terrorist attack remains quite active in this area. 

I think it is the view of the Department of State that were the 

United States to prosecute a Palestinian terrorist for acts of terror 

committed in Israel that it would somehow interfere with the ability of the Department of State to stand as a neutral or the 

onus——

Mr. PERRY. So my time has expired. I appreciate your answer. 

Mr. Chairman, just let me—does that—does that policy cut 

across the political grain in the United States, both Republican and 

Democrat administrations, or is there a difference? With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PERLES. No, no. There is no difference. 

Mr. PERRY. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate your input. 

74

Mr. POE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, 

Mr. Lowenthal, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. I want to follow up with the same 

line of questioning the first, I think, Congressman Vargas raised 

and then Congressman Perry about. It is so shocking for us to hear 

about how U.S. funds are directly or indirectly supporting salaries 

for convicted terrorists. 

I think our assumption has always been that much of those 

funds really are—you know, we promote through USAID toward 

local economic growth or the well being and creation of stability 

which will lead—economic stability which will lead toward political 

stability. 

So the question I am raising is if these funds, as Mr. Black has—

are co-mingled, they are then—whatever funds go in to this big pot 

and then out of that pot, what are you suggesting that we do right 

now? 

Mr. BLACK. Okay. Peace is possible in the Middle East. Some 

35,000 Palestinians a day make a 1-hour to 2-hour ride to work in 

equality in Israeli jobs. 

But peace doesn’t have a chance when you are paying people to 

commit murder. What I would do if I were you, and I am not—I 

have no standing here. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Absolutely, but we are just asking what you 

would do. 

Mr. BLACK. I would immediately by sunset stop all money to the 

PA until this one program, this one law, is rescinded, then claw 

back all of these moneys that have been paid over the years to kill 

innocent civilians, and then resume the process along the lines that 

Kerry and others have suggested, which is pay for peaceful coexistence and do not pay for murder. This House must stop paying for 

murderers. Stop it today. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. 

Dr. Pollock, do you have any response to that? How are we—

where do we go from here? 

Mr. POLLOCK. I do agree that this PA policy is abhorrent and 

that the United States should play no part, if we are, in supporting 

it. 

At the same time, I think that the peace process as it is currently underway, as I understand it from press reports because 

many of the details are—have not been released officially—as I understand it, the peace process that is currently underway is indeed 

addressing many of these issues about coexistence, about settlements, about refugees both Jewish and Arab, about compensation 

for past losses, about all of the other issues that are standing in 

the way of peace. 

And so I think it is important whatever we do—in my own personal view, whatever we do about terrorist funding or other issues 

to maintain a peace process and peace negotiations between Israel 

and the Palestinian Authority. 

That is also an important and essential part of the way forward, 

in my view. I would point out one other aspect of this, which is 

very closely related to it, and that is incitement to violence and to 

terrorism on the part of the PA—officially Palestinian Authority in 

Ramallah. 

75

I am not speaking here of Hamas, which we know incites to terrorism and violence against Israelis and Jews. But the PA itself 

under Mahmoud Abbas and sometimes, I am sorry to say, 

Mahmoud Abbas himself are also guilty of incitement to violence 

and terrorism by glorifying terrorists. 

Not just paying salaries for them but by calling them heroes and 

role models for future generations. This is something that I personally have spent the last couple of years analyzing and documenting 

and speaking to both Israelis and Palestinians about in great detail. 

And I published on the Washington Institute Web site, if you will 

permit me just sort of an unpaid commercial here, a very long report about this called ‘‘Beyond Words: Causes, Consequences and 

Cures for Palestinian Authority Hate Speech’’ where I document 

and analyze the reasons for and also the remedies for this kind of 

rhetorical official glorification of terrorism on the part of the Palestinian Authority. This too is an issue that I think needs to be addressed in the context of the current peace talks. 

Just as seriously as we talk about Jerusalem or refugees or 

Israeli security or any other issue, the issue of incitement and hate 

speech needs to be part of these diplomatic——

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. Mr. Perles, do you have anything 

to add? 

Mr. PERLES. I would. You know, I must say I apologize. I am not 

as colorful as my colleagues are here. Maybe I am more of a technocrat. 

But speaking as the—speaking as the technocrat, what we found 

in the Arab Bank case and in order to meet our burdens of proof 

in this kind of litigation we really need to track this money and tie 

particular payments to particular acts of violence. 

What we find is what I could best describe is an abuse of bank 

secrecy—that is Palestinian bank—Palestinian Authority bank secrecy laws, Jordanian bank secrecy laws, Lebanese bank secrecy 

laws. 

The problem really is very much akin to Credit Suisse using 

Swiss bank secrecy laws to hide, if I read the newspapers correctly 

recently, the economic accounts of some 22,000 Americans who 

were engaged in income tax evasion. 

In the Arab bank case, I believe a total of five Federal judges—

two district court judges, three Federal appellate judges—have now 

accrued discovery sanctions against the Arab bank for its failure to 

turn over discovery. The bank is relying inappropriately in the U.S. 

court system on Palestinian, Jordanian and Lebanese bank secrecy 

laws. That, by the way, is the nub of our current dispute with the 

Department of State. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. POE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

Yoho, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Gentleman, I appreciate you being here and I find it unacceptable that 

since mid-1990s we have given $5 billion to the Palestinian Authority in aid is what I have come up with and there is no accountability. 

76

And I see it over and over again that we give foreign aid for 

these countries and, like you said, it is under a mushroom and we 

know what that means—the growing environment of a mushroom—and that is what I feel like a lot of the time. 

You said that you would cut it off by tonight. What would be the 

ramifications if we were to do that, Mr. Black? 

Mr. BLACK. You are being extorted right now. You are giving in 

to it. Basically, the idea is if we stand up to terrorism they are not 

going to sign a peace deal. They are never going to sign a peace 

deal as long as they are being paid for terrorism. 

Mr. YOHO. Right. 

Mr. BLACK. Stop this funding today, and if it is that important 

to them as they say it is, that they would rather starve than stop 

this program, then they have spoken for themselves. 

I believe that people in this neck of the woods want peace, Arab 

and Jew. But you must give peace a chance and you can’t keep rewarding this bad behavior. 

If this—if this program is stopped forcibly by U.S. cessation of 

funding, there will be a lot of noise and that would just typify what 

the Arab street is like. But it will take leadership. 

We just can’t put people on salary for killing Americans, Israelis 

and Europeans——

Mr. YOHO. I agree. 

Mr. BLACK [continuing]. In the most uncivilized fashion. Stop it 

tonight if possible. 

Mr. YOHO. Dr. Pollock, you were talking about the boycott. If the 

PA and Israel, if an agreement does not work in the peace process, 

do you see the boycott getting worse and increasing or do you think 

it is going to be a nonissue? 

Mr. POLLOCK. I think in Europe it will increase and I would like 

to quote for the record a statement by the EU Ambassador to Israel 

who said recently, and this is—this is a quote of what he said, not 

my opinion. 

He said,

‘‘If the talks are wrecked as a result of an Israeli settlement 

announcement then the blame will be put squarely on Israel’s 

doorstep. Israel will find itself increasingly isolated not necessarily because of any decisions taken at a government level 

but because of decisions taken by a myriad of private economic 

actors, be it companies, be it pension funds, be it consumers.’’

This is the EU Ambassador to Israel. 

Mr. YOHO. Are you saying—are you finding that—is there antiIsraeli sentiment about the acquisition of land over the years? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes. 

Mr. YOHO. Is that why they are doing this? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. YOHO. They are just getting to a point to where they are saying they are not going to tolerate this anymore? Is that the sentiment you are seeing? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes. That is correct. 

Mr. YOHO. I guess I want to ask all of you this. Do you feel the 

release of the PA prisoners in Israel was a wise move with SecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:37 Apr 23, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_TNT\030514\86959 SHIRL
77

retary Kerry going over there and demanding that? Mr. Perles, if 

you want to start. 

Mr. PERLES. I can answer in a very succinct fashion. No. 

Mr. YOHO. Dr. Pollock. 

Mr. POLLOCK. I think that this was an Israeli Government decision, not an American demand, and the Israeli Government had a 

choice of whether or not to prefer a settlement freeze or a prisoner 

release and they chose a prisoner release. 

Mr. YOHO. Mr. Black. 

Mr. BLACK. Well, you have to ask yourself why was it so imperative that the killers be released, and that is because the PA places 

a high premium on those among its citizens that kill civilians. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. And then—let us see—would you say the U.S. 

Government, particularly the State Department, is helpful in assisting the victims in these cases, Mr. Perles, in your experience? 

Mr. PERLES. You know, that is a—that is a difficult question for 

me to ask in a—or a difficult question for me to answer in a public 

forum. 

Mr. YOHO. Do you want to submit your answer? 

Mr. PERLES. Let me—let me say that it takes a lot to get the 

State Department motivated to help people. They are not culturally, as an institution, helpful. When they decide that they’re 

going to help people, they are tremendously effective. 

So that what I have could best be described as a relationship in 

constant tension with the State Department. Most of the time we 

are in an adversarial posture. In the Arab bank case, for example, 

we are currently in an adversarial posture. 

When Libya claims the reconciliation process was going forward, 

the Department of State determined that the interested victims 

and the Department’s interests were synonymous with one another 

and the department was tremendously effective in assisting victims 

and creating a settlement with the Libyan Government. 

In fact, at the request of the Department of State’s legal advisor’s 

office I went with then legal advisor John Bellenger to a DC bar 

lunch honoring him and spoke his praises through the work his office had done in support of terror victims in that settlement. 

So the answer is we have a very complicated relationship that is 

always a tension. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. I am out of time and I appreciate all three of 

you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman. The Chair will recognize for 5 

minutes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is interesting. This is a very interesting subject and, you know, 

if we look at the wider Middle East and we look at what I would 

call negotiations in Iran, you know, I think it is important. 

Even though that is not the actual issue we are here to talk 

about it is important to stress that I don’t see any way that with 

the interim agreement with Iran that we end up seeing an Iran 

without the capability to enrich Uranium. 

And so you see what is happening in those negotiations. You see 

what is happening with the issues we talk about and there is a lot 

to be very concerned with. And so I appreciate the three of you 

coming here. 

78

I am probably not going to take all 5 minutes and as—I had another hearing and so I came a little late so if these questions have 

been asked I apologize. 

But Mr. Pollock, what can Israel do to diversify its trade beyond 

Europe so that this doesn’t have quite the impact and Israel can 

be strong without these boycotts? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes, that is an excellent question. Thank you. 

I think that the Israelis, both the private sector and the Israeli 

Government, are already trying to move in that direction as a kind 

of fail safe, just in case. 

But the reality is that for the foreseeable future it is my professional judgment that the EU and other European countries who 

may not be in the EU will remain very, very important trade and 

investment partners for the Israeli economy. 

And so the Israeli Government is currently engaged in trying to 

estimate in a, I think, straightforward factual way what the consequences for the Israeli economy would be in the case of—in case 

this boycott, divestment and sanctions movement does gather 

strength in Europe. 

But I want to emphasize that this is a potential threat. At the 

moment, it is not a real threat to the Israeli economy. European 

countries and European companies continue to trade on an increasing scale with Israel and to invest on an increasing scale with 

Israel and to send tourists at increasing volumes to Israel. 

This is not true of every single European country. You do see a 

pattern in which some of the Scandinavian countries and Holland 

in particular and Ireland in particular are pulling back to some extent from those economic relationships with Israel. 

But that is more than offset by increasing economic relationships 

with the other larger European economies. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Yes. I mean, I think, obviously, it is in Europe’s 

interest to have these great relationships and if you are going to 

push any of your power anywhere maybe it ought to be somewhere 

like Russia right now, something like that, with what is going on. 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes. I would agree with you, sir. If Europe is going 

to impose sanctions it should be against Russia, not against Israel. 

Mr. KINZINGER. It might make sense. It has been said that the 

official Palestinian position is against boycotts. Can you elaborate 

on that? 

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes. Thank you. 

Again, President Abbas was asked about this question on the occasion of the Nelson Mandela memorial service in South Africa not 

long ago and he said quite publicly, and I want to emphasize this 

was in Arabic to an Arab audience so it counts for more. 

He said that the PA officially opposes boycotts against Israel. He 

said we, Palestinians, are negotiating with Israel. Therefore, how 

can we ask other people to boycott Israel if we are not boycotting 

Israel. 

Now, subsequently, unfortunately, and this is a pattern in Palestinian official messaging—subsequently, that statement was 

walked back and watered down and I would say almost contradicted in statements by other senior Palestinian officials—not 

Abbas himself but some of his more senior colleagues in the PA 

79

Government who said, for example, that we don’t advocate boycotts 

against Israel but we do advocate boycotts against settlements. 

Or that we don’t advocate boycotts against Israel at a government level but we do advocate private boycotts against Israel. Or 

who simply said, as Hanan Ashrawi did very publicly—she is a 

member of the PLO executive committee and an important spokeswoman for the PA Government—who said that boycotts against 

Israel should be supported and that BDS should be supported because it is, again, as she put it, ‘‘the Palestinian nonviolent resistance’’ against Israeli occupation. 

So what you have is a mixed message from the Palestinians. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. Mr. Black, just quickly—when these 

folks receive this money that you are talking about is there anything that restricts them from giving that money to further terror 

causes? 

Mr. BLACK. None at all. They have a POA, a power of attorney. 

It can change from time to time and they designate who the recipient is. 

If the recipient is their girlfriend or their terrorist cell or their 

attorney or their mother it can go any—to any destination that 

they choose. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the witnesses for 

your excellent insightful testimony. Mr. Perles, especially on a personal note, thank you for the work you do for victims. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. PERLES. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, gentlemen. Oh, you have another question? 

Mr. SHERMAN. No, not a—just a——

Mr. POE. Comment? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I also want to commend Mr. Perles for his record, 

and as an old tax lawyer a couple of things for the record. 

You just talked here that if you get a 44 percent Federal tax subsidy for these charitable contributions I think that is an insult to 

my former colleagues and tax lawyers who wouldn’t settle for less 

than 60, 65 percent subsidy when you can make gifts of appreciated capital gain property reduce state as well as Federal income 

taxes. 

Also as to tax administration, a big chunk of the PA’s revenue 

is remitted to them by Israel, which collects for the PA their tariffs 

and value added taxes. 

The decision as to whether money, which is fungible, should be 

turned over to an organization that does some good things and does 

some absolutely terrible things is one we will wrestle with in the 

future. 

I yield back. 

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman. I thank the gentlemen once 

again for their testimony. 

This committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(81)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

82

f


86959n.eps

SlJBCOMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

W ASHTNGTON, DC 20515-6128 

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade 

Ted Poe (R-TX), Chairman 

TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

You are respectfully requested to attend an OPEN hearing of the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs, to be held by the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade in Room 

2172 of the Rayburn House Oflice Building (and available live via the Committee website at 

http:!;\vviw.foreignAffairshouscgov): 

DATE: 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESSES: 

Wednesday, March 5, 2014 

10:00 a.m. 

Threats to Israel: Terrori st Funding and Trade Boycotts 

Mr. Edwin Black 

Author 

David Pollock, Ph.D. 

Kaufman Fellow 

The Washil1b>ton Institute for Near East Policy 

Mr. Steven Perles 

Founder and Senior Partner 

Perles Law Firm, PC 

By Direction of the Chairman 
83

Æ


86959m.eps

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

MINUTES OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON _____ 1:_er_ro_r'--is'~IJ,'__N._o~IJP'_r_ol~iji_er"_aticc·o_n_a_"d_1:_r_",_Ie _____ HEARING 

Day Wednesday Datc, __ ",U",a",r""c"h""5",,, ""2"'Ol"'4'----_Room ___ "'2"'J"'72"---__ _ 

Starting Time 10·00 a m Ending Time 11:29 a.m. 

Recesses bI L-t0-J L-to __ l L-to __ l L-to __ l L-t0-J L-to __ ) 

Presiding Member(s) 

Chairman Poe 

Check all ofillefollowing Illal "pp(v: 

Open Session [Z] 

Executivc (closed) Session CJ Televiscd [Z] 

TITLE OF HEARING: 

Electronically Recorded (taped) [Z] 

Stenographic Record [Z] 

Threats 10 Israel: Terrorist Funding and Trade Boycotts 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

Reps. Poe, Kinzinger, Vargas, Kennedy, Lowenthal, Perry, Sherman, Yoho, Cotton 

NON-SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: (Mark with an * if they are not members ~ffull committee,) 

Rohrabacher 

HEARING WITNESSES: Same as meeting notice attached? Yes rn No 0 

(If "no ", please list below and include title, agency, department, or organization,) 

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD: (List any statements submittedfor the record,) 

TIME SCHEDULED TO RECONVENE ___ _ 

or 

TIME ADJOURNED 11:29 a.m.