U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

99–849PDF 2016

ISRAEL IMPERILED:

THREATS TO THE JEWISH STATE

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, 

NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 19, 2016

Serial No. 114–156

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE

TED POE, Texas, Chairman 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Michael Rubin, Ph.D., resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute ............ 11

Jonathan Schanzer, Ph.D., vice president for research, Foundation for Defense of Democracies ............................................................................................ 20

Mr. David Makovsky, Ziegler distinguished fellow, Irwin Levy Family Program on the U.S.-Israel Strategic Relationship, The Washington Institute 

for Near East Policy ............................................................................................. 35

Tamara Cofman Wittes, Ph.D., director, Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution ..................................................................................................... 43

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Michael Rubin, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ........................................................... 13

Jonathan Schanzer, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ................................................... 22

Mr. David Makovsky: Prepared statement ............................................................ 37

Tamara Cofman Wittes, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ............................................ 46

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 64

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 65

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

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 66

(1)

ISRAEL IMPERILED: THREATS TO THE 

JEWISH STATE 

TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE

AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 o’clock p.m., in 

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

Mr. POE. Subcommittees will come to order. Without objection, 

all members may have 5 days to submit statements, questions and 

extraneous materials for the record subject to the length limitation 

in the rules. 

At this time, I will recognize myself for an opening statement. If 

someone would grab the back door, I would appreciate it. Thank 

you. 

The state of Israel has always been surrounded by threats since 

its existence—threats by nations and terror groups that hate Israel 

because it is a Jewish state. 

The goal of these haters has been to eliminate the state of Israel, 

an aggression started as soon as Israel became an established 

state. Arab armies amassed on its borders to destroy it. But yet, 

Israel has continued to exist in the face of suicide bombers and terrorist onslaughts like no country in history. 

Most recently, 16 people in a bus were wounded yesterday in a 

bus bombing in Jerusalem, reminiscent of the wave of Palestinian 

suicide bombings that claimed so many lives a decade ago. 

In recent years, the threats to Israel have increased and become 

even more dangerous. The volatile situation in Syria and its transformation into a full blown terrorist haven directly threatens 

Israel’s security. 

Al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, the Nusra Front, has at times literally straddled the Syrian-Israeli border. ISIS, which is even more 

brutal than al-Qaeda, controls large parts of Syria. Lebanese 

Hezbollah is heavily involved in the fighting in Syria, securing its 

valuable arms transfer corridor from its sponsors of no other than 

Iran. 

Iran has transferred game-changing weapons systems into Lebanon to arm this terrorist proxy including anti-ship cruise missiles 

2

and air defense systems and precision-guided surface-to-surface 

missiles. 

Hezbollah already has an estimated 150,000 rockets and missiles 

in its stockpile. That’s enough to rain down 1,500 rockets a day in 

Israel for over 2 months. 

All of these weapons systems are aimed for Israel. Hezbollah is 

amassing valuable tactical experience in Syria. It’s mastered the 

use of diverse weapons systems and working in coordination with 

Iran and the Russians. 

Meanwhile, there is Gaza. Israeli officials now believe that 

Hamas has completely replenished its rocket supply that Israel destroyed in 2014. Hamas is building a sophisticated network of tunnels under the Gaza Strip for the purpose of securing arms supply 

lines and using those tunnels to strike at Israel. 

Yesterday, Israeli officials announced the discovery of a Hamas 

tunnel running from Gaza into the Israeli territory fully equipped 

with electricity, communication lines and a rail line. 

All of these actions by all of these groups and states are aggression against Israel. Israel tries to defend its sovereignty the best 

it can. 

There’s also a new kind of terrorism. Since September, Palestinian lone wolf terrorists have carried out hundreds of attacks 

against civilians in Israel. These terrorists will do anything to kill, 

stab, ram their vehicles into civilians and they just shoot indiscriminately. 

They are field directed by the hateful incitement of the Palestinian Authority. Palestinian Authority President Abbas proclaimed, ‘‘We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem. 

This is pure blood—blood on its way to Allah.’’

This latest wave of attacks has killed 34 people, injured over 400. 

Among those killed were two Americans, one of which is from my 

state of Texas, Taylor Force. He was an Eagle Scout, a West Point 

grad, and he served in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Aside from terrorism, Israel also faces a threat that also seeks 

its ultimate destruction. In recent years, the global boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement has led to an onslaught of campaigns targeting Israel. 

This is—this movement, obviously, doesn’t like the settlements in 

the West Bank. Settlements in the West Bank, in my opinion, are 

an internal matter for Israel and it is nobody else’s business what 

a state decides on where people live and don’t live. Out-of-towners, 

including the BDS and our own State Department, need to stay out 

of where people live in Israel. We certainly wouldn’t like someone 

telling us where people should settle in the United States. 

And then, of course, we have the nuclear Iran deal. The deal 

makes it only a matter of time before the mullahs in Tehran develop a nuclear weapon. 

Given their anti-Semitic rhetoric, we all know what they intend 

to with that bomb. The $100 billion signing bonus and the financial 

boon expected with sanctions relief raise serious concern about the 

world’s number-one state sponsor of terrorism. That’s Iran. 

They will funnel more and more cash to their terrorist groups all 

over the world. Reports since the deal went into effect indicate that 

3

both Iran significantly has increased its financial support for both 

terrorist groups, Hezbollah and Hamas. 

In February, Iran announced that it would give $7,000 to families of Palestinians who kill Israelis, an additional $30,000 to every 

family whose home Israel demolished due to the family’s involvement in terrorism. 

Since the nuclear deal was struck, Iran has launched three ballistic missile tests. The most recent one launched missiles marked 

with the words ‘‘Israel must be wiped off the map.’’

The deal will lift the international ban on Iran’s ballistic missiles 

in 8 years. It’s no wonder why Israeli leaders call the joint comprehensive plan of action a bad deal for Israel’s survival. 

Despite these threats, our relationship with Israel has become 

strained under current administration policies. We must do more 

to repair this important relationship and protect our friends and allies. 

We must make it clear that all of these actions against Israel are 

because it is a Jewish state. Israel and the United States share 

common values. We must recognize that the threats that confront 

Israel really affect the United States as well. 

The same terrorist group that wants to destroy Israel first wants 

to destroy the United States. The United States must show that it 

is partnered with Israel in its self-defense, and Israel, in the meantime, better keep its powder dry, and that is just the way it is. 

I will recognize the ranking member on the Terrorism Subcommittee, Mr. Keating from Massachusetts. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Chairman Poe, and thank you for conducting this hearing. I would also like to welcome and thank Chair 

Ros-Lehtinen, Ranking Member Deutch and members of the Middle 

East and North Africa Subcommittee for joining us today. Welcome. 

Lastly, I’d like to thank our panel for being here to discuss the 

various threats to Israel. You’re all experts in your field and I look 

forward to hearing the nuances you bring to this vital topic. 

The United States and Israel have always had a special relationship. The relationship is unlike any other and it is founded on common values and shared interests and certainly all of us keep the 

people that were injured just recently in the bus bombing in our 

thoughts and prayers for their full recovery. 

Our country has defended Israel’s right to exist since the very beginning—a stance we have demonstrated through will and force. 

Historically, Israel is the top recipient of U.S. military aid and administration after administration has worked to ensure that Israel 

maintains its qualitative military edge. 

We have witnessed continued funding for the Iron Dome defense 

system. We’ve doubled the stockpiles of emergency military equipment for Israel and, first, you know, we’ve approved the sale of 

bunker-busting bombs to Israel as well. 

Additionally, we’re in the process of creating a new memorandum 

of understanding which could ultimately increase the security assistance already provided to Israel. 

This support is designed to deter and to mitigate threats to one 

of our closest allies, and as I’m confident my colleagues agree it’s 

the role of the United States as a global leader, an active member 

4

of the United Nations, and as a friend of Israel to promote, encourage regional stability in the Middle East. 

Like many other countries in the region, Israel faces a number 

of challenges to its security both internally and externally. 

Externally, the Islamic State is active in both countries northern 

and southern boundaries, and Israel continues to face a constant 

threat from Hezbollah. 

Internally, violence between Israelis and Palestinians highlights 

this systemic distrust between the two groups. The prospects for 

renewed peace talks are low. 

Going forward, it is imperative we remain an honest and effective broker in assisting Israel in its security needs as well as promoting our own foreign policy goals in the region. This includes at 

times carefully examining Israel’s actions to ensure they remain in 

line and consistent with our own American values and interests. 

As I said at the beginning, there are nuances to these topics and 

areas that need to be objectively examined. I hope we can hear 

today about the various challenges Israel faces not just from terrorist organizations but also economic pressures through the BDS 

movement. 

But most importantly, I would like to hear how the U.S. and 

Israel can cooperate to solve these challenges, and I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. 

The Chair recognizes the chairman of the Middle East and North 

Africa Subcommittee, Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Judge Poe, and I am so 

glad that both of our subcommittees have called this hearing jointly 

to discuss the many threats that Israel faces. 

Unfortunately, as both of our speakers have pointed out, this 

hearing is quite timely. Israel fell victim to a disgusting terror attack as 21 people were injured in a bus bombing in Jerusalem just 

yesterday. 

Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and the families 

and the people of Israel as they continue to seek peace and security. 

These so-called lone wolf attacks and knife-wielding individuals 

are said to be more difficult to protect against because there is no 

real organization or planning for it—just folks who are being incited to conduct these types of vicious attacks. 

It’s the message they receive from the Palestinian leadership and 

Abu Mazen and this is where the U.S. can do more. We can have 

more of an impact because Israel clearly knows how to best protect 

her citizens. But the Obama administration should be using the leverage we have over the Palestinian Authority to press it to stop 

the incitement and work with Israel to promote peace. 

However, the terrorist threats that Israel faces aren’t just limited 

to these bus bombings or knife attacks. I convened a hearing of our 

subcommittee last month on the growing threat that Hezbollah 

presents for Israel, and thanks to the Iran nuclear deal the Obama 

administration negotiated, Hezbollah stands to get even more financial and material support from Tehran. 

5

Even as Hezbollah fights in Syria, Iran has been transferring advanced weapons and weapons systems to its proxies through Syria 

and to Lebanon. 

Estimates now place Hezbollah’s missile and rocket stockpiles in 

the area of 150,000. That is more than ten times the amount when 

it indiscriminately rained down over 100 rockets a day for 32 days 

at northern Israel in the year 2006 and this number now includes 

more sophisticated missiles with guidance systems, putting Israel 

at even greater risk. 

Hamas remains a constant threat and in fact, as Judge Poe mentioned, Israel recently just discovered the first Hamas tunnel from 

Gaza that reaches into Israel since the 2014 fighting. 

And though Egypt may help destroy some of Hamas’ tunnels, 

much more assistance is needed in the fight in the Sinai against 

terror groups there including ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliates. 

These terror groups are near Israel’s borders in the Golan 

Heights and in Syria and in Sinai and are trying to gain more influence within the Palestinian territories as well. 

If Iran is the number-one threat facing Israel—threat 1A is 

Hezbollah, Hamas and all of the terror groups just on its borders—

then threat 1B has to be the ongoing efforts by Abu Mazen and the 

Palestinian leadership to delegitimize and isolate Israel on the 

international stage at the U.N. and other similar efforts like a boycott, divest, and sanctions—BDS—movement. 

It is no secret that Abu Mazen has been pushing his scheme for 

unilateral statehood at the U.N., trying to circumvent the peace 

process and a direct negotiated settlement with the Israelis. 

This effort saw UNESCO admit the nonexistent state of Palestine to its membership and then shortly after saw the U.N. upgrade the Palestinian status to nonmember observer status. 

Of course, we all know that UNESCO, the U.N. Human Rights 

Council, and the U.N. in general have an anti-Israel agenda. Just 

in the past few weeks, we saw the Human Rights Council vote to 

establish a black list of companies that could be used by those 

seeking to participate in BDS and which gives the impression that 

the U.N. supports BDS. 

UNESCO once again moved to remove any Jewish historical ties 

to Jerusalem and we know that the Palestinians are working to reintroduce resolutions at the U.N. Security Council that would impose a two-state solution on Israel along with artificial time lines 

for negotiations. 

I have asked the administration on several occasions to clarify its 

position on Israel at the U.N. Security Council but we never get a 

straight answer, Mr. Chairman. 

It should be simple. It has been longstanding U.S. policy to veto 

any such resolution as we have in the past and as the Palestinians 

are seeking to support—seeking support for now. Yet, the administration will not reaffirm that policy. 

This is worrisome and we should continue to press the administration to do more to stand by Israel and make it clear in no uncertain terms that we will veto any resolution that imposes a solution 

upon Israel. 

6

We need to also take a closer look at all of those behind the BDS 

movement and work to counter these efforts. Thank you so much, 

Mr. Chairman, for this joint hearing. 

Mr. POE. I thank the gentlelady. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch, 

for his opening statement—the ranking member of the subcommittee. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman Poe 

and Chairman Ros-Lehtinen, for holding today’s hearing, and 

thank you to my fellow ranking member, Ranking Member 

Keating, and thanks to all of you for your strong support of the 

U.S.-Israel relationship. 

I’d like to echo the sentiments of my colleagues in expressing my 

deep sympathy for the individuals injured in the bus bombing on 

Monday and to their families. 

This atrocious attack is unacceptable and unfortunately is emblematic of the constant threats that Israel faces. The hearing 

today gives us the opportunity to assess the very dangers facing 

Israel. 

To fully understand these threats and their effects on the U.S.-

Israel relationship, we have to take a serious look at all of the challenges Israel faces on a daily basis, both strategic and political. 

Our two governments are currently in negotiations over a new 

10-year memorandum of understanding that will serve as the basis 

of our assistance relationship. 

The United States has never wavered on its commitment to ensuring Israel is able to defend herself against any and all threats 

and a new MOU must reflect the current and future security 

threats to Israel for both state and nonstate actors. 

At any given time Israel faces the threat of rocket attacks from 

every single corner of her territory, from Hezbollah missiles shot 

from Lebanon, Syria to the north, Hamas rockets from the south, 

ISIS-affiliated militants Sinai. 

Hezbollah, a terrorist organization founded on the premise of resistance to the Zionist regime and bankrolled by Iran, now has an 

arsenal of over 150,000 rockets, many with advanced capabilities. 

Hezbollah’s 6,000 to 8,000 mercenaries are fighting in the Syrian 

conflict and have been given access to even more advanced weaponry. Weapons flown from Iran to Hezbollah via Syria are being 

placed in precarious locations close to Israel’s border, in the Golan 

Heights, for example. 

And last week, Prime Minister Netanyahu publically acknowledged that Israel has had to strike down dozens of these kind of 

convoys in order to prevent Hezbollah from stockpiling what he referred to as game-changing weapons on Israel’s borders. 

Operating out of Gaza, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic jihad, two 

more of Iran’s beneficiaries, have carried out decades of violent attacks on Israeli civilians. During the 50 days of Operation Protective Edge in 2014, 4,564 rockets and mortars were fired at Israel 

from Gaza. But thanks to the robust cooperative missile defense 

programs between the United States and Israel, Iron Dome was 

able to intercept over 700 rockets that would have landed in populated areas. 

7

Since September 2015, Israelis faced a new wave of violence, this 

time in the form of what have been dubbed lone wolf attacks. 

These deadly stabbings, shootings and car rammings aren’t coming 

from lone terrorists or those affiliated with terror cells. 

Instead, these attackers are using kitchen knives, axes and their 

vehicles to target random Israeli citizens. These lone wolf attacks 

have taken the lives of over 30 people including American students 

Ezra Schwartz and Taylor Force. 

These attacks are the result of, among others, the violent incitement within Palestinian society and I was proud to join Chairman 

Ros-Lehtinen in offering a resolution that passed the House unanimously last fall condemning incitement within the Palestinian Authority. 

The entire world must condemn these indiscriminate attacks. Of 

course, Iran continues to pose an existential threat to Israel despite 

concluding the nuclear agreement. In an outrageous display of defiance, Iran recently test fired a ballistic missile emblazoned with 

the phrase ‘‘Israel must be wiped off the Earth’’ in Hebrew. 

Many of us, both supporters and opponents of the nuclear deal, 

are deeply committed to ensuring that the funds gained from sanctions relief do not go toward supporting terrorism aimed at Israel 

or others in the region. 

This includes funding and exporting weapons to terrorist organizations. It includes the continued development of ballistic missiles 

capable of delivering a nuclear warhead, and it includes attempts 

to stir up trouble in other countries in the Middle East in an attempt to provoke instability across the region. 

And there is nothing in the Iran nuclear deal—there is nothing 

in the deal that prevents additional sanctions from being imposed 

against Iran for those areas outside of the nuclear deal including 

their support for terrorism, nor is there anything in the nuclear 

deal that prevents states like my own state of Florida from continuing to ensure that our state pension money and all those funds 

do not contribute to Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region. 

And not all the threats facing Israel are security related. In the 

past year, the supporters of boycott, divestment and sanctions—the 

economic warfare against Israel—disturbingly gained traction as 

they positioned themselves as a means of nonviolent resistance. 

In reality, what they’re doing is unjustly singling out and demonizing one country—Israel. And I wish the voices of those who support BDS spoke out against the dozens of tyrannical regimes who 

violate the human rights of their people every day. And while it’s 

perfectly acceptable for people to criticize government policies, it is 

unacceptable when that criticism is intended to attack the legitimacy and the very existence of a nation, and that is what the BDS 

movement does. 

Unfortunately, those hurt most by BDS efforts often are Palestinian workers whose jobs are put at risk by those who seek to boycott Israel. We have to work toward the goal of a two-state solution—two states living side by side in peace and security with 

thriving economies—and the BDS movement only pushes the prospects of peace further out of reach by unjustly placing blame on one 

side instead of urging both sides to the negotiating table. 

8

And finally, Mr. Chairman, while efforts—and Madam Chairman—while efforts to delegitimize Israel in the international community are nothing new, Israel and their allies must continue to 

meet them with resolve. 

The United Nations Human Rights Council continues to debate 

and pass anti-Israel resolutions at every one of its meetings while 

ignoring Syria, Iran, and the rest of the world’s human rights abusers. 

These efforts must be condemned and, further, any effort that 

seeks to circumvent direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians must be opposed. The only path to two states for two peoples is through direct negotiations between the two parties. 

This should be encouraged by anyone who considers themselves 

to be a friend of Israel and by anyone who claims to want what’s 

best for the Palestinian people. 

We have to recognize U.S. and Israel stand together not just because we share security concerns but because we share the same 

values of democracy, equality, and freedom; and I look forward to 

discussing the ways in which we can keep Israel vibrant and 

strong, protect the security of our ally, and foster an environment 

that is conducive to peace. 

And I appreciate the time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. POE. Appreciate the comments by the gentleman from Florida. 

The Chair will now recognize other members for a 1-minute 

opening statement if they wish. I’m going to ask the members to 

keep it to 1 minute or less so we can get our witnesses—have them 

testify and try to do all of this before we have to break for votes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. 

Wilson, for 1 minute. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Chairman Ted Poe and Chairwoman 

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, for holding this important joint hearing with 

distinguished witnesses. 

As our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel faces some of the 

greatest threats in its history. Most critically, the bizarre Iran nuclear deal has provided the Iranian regime over $100 billion—enabling them the further promote terrorism, which enhances threats 

to Israel. 

Even more dangerously, the deal provides for Iranian regime to 

provide a path forward to producing nuclear weapons. This fact, 

combined with Iran’s testing of two ballistic missiles, in March reveals a clear picture of damage that the President’s short-sighted 

deal could potentially have on American families. 

To make matters worse, these two ballistic missiles included the 

phrase, ‘‘Israel must be wiped off the map,’’ written in Hebrew as 

a blatant threat. 

Aside from the threat of Iran, Israel has suffered from an increase in lone wolf terrorist attacks. According to Israeli intelligence, there have been more than 230 attacks in the last 7 

months, killing 34 persons, injuring 400. 

I look forward to the bipartisan cooperation that we have already 

heard today, working with our colleagues. I yield back. 

9

Mr. POE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Connolly. The Chair recognizes Mr. Connolly if he wants to give an 

opening statement—from Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I echo the concerns of my colleagues about the security of Israel 

and the lack of balance at international institutions including the 

United Nations when examining human rights violations and policies that subjugate whole parts of a population. 

I also think, candidly, that a threat to Israel is also internal and 

we ought to be examining that as well as a friend to Israel—the 

concern—the long-term concern of the consequences of an endless 

occupation of the West Bank and the demographic imperative of 

the growth of both an Arab and Palestinian population. 

These are our concerns to deep friends of Israel and certainly we 

heard some of those echoed by the Vice President of the United 

States last night. 

In any event, I’m glad we’re having a hearing and I hope we look 

at both and I want to certainly associate myself with the remarks 

of Mr. Deutch. At the end of the day, there could be no substitute 

for the two parties sitting down and having direct talks if we’re 

ever going to have peace in this corner of the world. 

I thank the chair. 

Mr. POE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

DeSantis. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for having 

this hearing. I support Prime Minister Netanyahu’s declaration 

that the Golan Heights should not be given back to Syria. I think 

that would attract terrorists. They’d be launching attacks against 

the Jewish state incessantly. 

We’ve seen the Iran deal has really hastened Iran’s ascent as the 

dominant Islamist power in the region. They are firing missiles. 

They’re exporting terrorism. They have a major cash influx. 

We’re told that Israel needs to make all these concessions for 

peace with the Palestinians but the Palestinians still don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and still incite terrorism and hatred against the Jewish people. 

Our friends in Europe sometimes don’t fare much better. Many 

of those countries are moving in the direction of boycotting Israel, 

the only democracy in the Middle East, and they hold no other 

country to that same standard. 

So I appreciate your holding this hearing. I think we have to 

take these threats to Israel seriously and I look forward to a new 

administration coming in and finally moving our Embassy to Jerusalem where it belongs. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. 

Cicilline, for his 1-minute opening statement. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Chairman Poe, Chairman RosLehtinen, Ranking Members Keating and Deutch for calling this 

hearing on the threats to the Jewish state. 

With the rise of violence within Israel and the growing instability 

in the region at large this hearing is very timely. I’d also like to 

thank our witnesses for being here today. 

10

Like others, I’d like to express my horror and outrage at yesterday’s terrorist attack of Jerusalem that targeted innocent men, 

women and children. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims 

of this horrific attack and their families. 

It is completely unacceptable that the Israeli people continue to 

live under the constant threat of terrorist violence. I know my colleague has joined me in strong support of the people of Israel 

today. 

We will do everything we can to help bring those responsible to 

justice and provide whatever assistance is necessary to combat the 

threat of terrorism. Israel, like every nation, has the right to protect its people against cowardly terrorist attacks. 

The fact that this violence has escalated over the past 2 years 

is especially troubling and the fact that the Palestinian Authority 

has not taken a forceful stance against this terrorism threatens the 

long-term stability of both the Israelis and the Palestinians and 

threatens peace negotiations going forward. 

Both sides must do all they can to foster an environment for 

seeking peace, and the United States must continue to be there to 

encourage both sides to seek peace and to ensure Israel’s security. 

This hearing will help us better understand all the threats facing 

Israel in the rapidly changing and dangerous context of these 

threats. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and I thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, and yield back. 

Mr. POE. The Chair recognizes Mr. Trott for his opening statement. 

Mr. TROTT. I’d like to thank our respective committee chairs and 

ranking members for holding this important hearing. 

As has been mentioned several times already, Israel is under 

constant threat from Iran and their proxies—a threat that’s intensified under the administration’s repeated acquiescence. 

I was an early and often outspoken critic of the nuclear deal with 

Iran, and if you look at their behavior over the past 6 months it’s 

pretty clear that my comments were correct, and I continue to 

maintain you can’t do a good deal with a bad guy. 

Most recently, it was rumored that the administration was looking to do an end around Congress and give Iran access to the U.S. 

dollar—yet another concession. 

In an effort to stop this misguided policy, I recently introduced 

legislation that would block the Department of Treasury from providing Iran access to the U.S. dollar. If the administration is not 

willing to stand with Israel then it’s even more important to show 

the world that the House of Representatives will. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman. 

Now that we have all had our say, you will get your say but not 

so quick. We are now in the middle of votes. We will return after 

votes, and then we will hear from our witnesses. 

Thank you for your patience. So the committees stand adjourned 

until 10 minutes after votes are concluded. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. POE. The subcommittees will come to order. 

11

Without objection, all of the witnesses’ prepared statements will 

be made part of the record. I ask that each witness keep your presentation to no more than 5 minutes. When the red light comes on 

that means stop talking. 

I’ll introduce each witness and then give them time for opening 

statements. Dr. Michael Rubin is currently a resident scholar at 

the American Enterprise Institute where he focuses on terrorism. 

He formally served as a Pentagon official whose major research 

areas were the Middle East, Turkey, Iran and diplomacy. 

Dr. Jonathan Schanzer is the vice president and researcher at 

the Foundation for Defense of Democracies where he focuses on 

Palestinian politics, Iran, and Israeli affairs. He previously served 

as terrorism finance analyst at the U.S. Department of Treasury. 

Mr. David Makovsky is the Ziegler distinguished fellow with the 

Irwin Levy Foundation Program on the U.S.-Israel Strategic Relationship at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. 

He recently served as a senior advisor on Secretary Kerry’s Middle East peace team. 

Dr. Tamara Cofman Wittes is the director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institute. She previously served as 

deputy assistant director of secretary of the state for Near Eastern 

Affairs, coordinating U.S. policy on democracy and human rights in 

the Middle East. 

Dr. Rubin, we’ll start with you. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL RUBIN, PH.D., RESIDENT SCHOLAR, 

AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 

Mr. RUBIN. Chairman Poe, Ranking Member Keating, Chairman 

Ros-Lehtinen, Ranking Member Deutch, distinguished representatives, it is an honor to speak before you today about the growing 

threats Israel faces to its security. 

I have detailed in my written testimony how Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will benefit disproportionately from Iran’s 

reintegration into the world economy. 

Because the IRGC cares far less about bolstering the prosperity 

of Iranian citizenry versus resourcing its ideological desire to undermine, delegitimize, and attack Israel, Israel faces enhanced 

enemy capabilities on almost all fronts. 

I do not want to repeat the threats described by my fellow panelists in their written testimony. All these are relevant and true. 

Rather, I would like to draw attention to two looming problems 

that are not receiving adequate attention. 

In recent years, Iran has developed a number of different surveillance and attack drones. While its claims to have reverse engineered a downed CIA drone are risible, U.S. military pilots flying 

over the Persian Gulf regularly describe seeing Iranian UAVs. 

Iran has openly deployed its indigenous UAV technology into 

Syria and Iraq and perhaps Lebanon as well. Iranian UAVs fly 

over Syria’s largest city in Aleppo and so could just as easily fly 

over the Golan Heights, the Galilee, or into international air paths 

over Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion International Airport, or Israel’s smaller 

regional airports. 

12

That Iranian sources openly brag about their development to 

both suicide drones and new satellite-guided drone navigation capabilities augments concern. 

Neither Iran nor its proxies need to be able to strike an aircraft 

or an airport to be successful. Simply interfering with civilian air 

traffic will likely augment Israel’s isolation as airlines suspend 

service into Tel Aviv. 

Nor is the UAV threat the only one looming for Israel. With the 

discovery of gas fields in eastern Mediterranean, Lebanese authorities have asserted a claim to 300 square miles of Israeli waters. 

Therefore, even though the United Nations formally certified 

Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon complete, the dispute over 

Shebaa Farms notwithstanding, Lebanon has resurrected a new 

claim that provides Hezbollah cover to pursue its rearmament and 

terrorism. 

Indeed, Hezbollah has bragged that it has been training 

operatives in underwater sabotage. This not only suggests a new 

terror capability that could be utilized against Israel but is also a 

direct threat to many American engineers and oil workers involved 

in the region. 

As we consider the threats not only to Israel but the United 

States and our moderate Arab allies as well, it is essential to consider not only the enhancement of terrorist missile threats Israel 

has long faced but also the new platforms which will be used to attack the Jewish state. 

Since Israel’s enemies make no secret of their desire also to target and defeat the United States, it is time to begin a serious discussion about how to reformulate Israel’s qualitative military edge 

for the next generation. 

I also want to just add one separate point with regard to the demographic imperative and the demographic challenges which Israel 

faced. 

We should not be distracted by notions of the demographic imperative as oftentimes we are now. The Palestinian Statistics Agency’s statistics cannot be taken at face value. 

They double count Jerusalem, they refuse to count emigration, 

and if you compare multiple censes you notice that the predications 

are off by several percentage points and are, frankly, readjusted 

with magic numbers. 

Bad data, even if diplomatically convenient, oftentimes leads to 

bad policy, and with that, I conclude. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rubin follows:]

13


99849a-1.eps
14


99849a-2.eps
15


99849a-3.eps
16


99849a-4.eps
17


99849a-5.eps
18


99849a-6.eps
19


99849a-7.eps
20

Mr. POE. Thank you, Dr. Rubin. 

Mr. Schanzer. 

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

Mr. SCHANZER. Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman, on behalf of 

the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, thank you for inviting 

me to testify. 

I was asked today to talk about the boycott, divestment, and 

sanctions movement, also known as BDS. This campaign claims to 

pursue justice for the Palestinians. In truth, many of these groups 

seek to wage an economic war against Israel. 

Members of the committee, I worked as a terrorism finance analyst at the U.S. Treasury from 2004 to 2007. My job was to help 

freeze the assets of terrorist financiers. 

I am out of government now but I continue to monitor trends in 

the field. FDD recently completed research that tracked employees 

from organizations implicated by the Federal Government for terrorism finance. 

Our research yielded a troubling outcome in the case of three 

U.S.-based organizations involving the financing of Hamas—a designated terrorist group with a grisly track record of suicide bombings and firing rockets at civilian populations and whose charter 

openly calls for the annihilation of Israel. 

The three now-defunct organizations are Holy Land Foundation 

for Relief and Development, Kind Hearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development, and the Islamic Association for Palestine. 

As it turns out, many individuals who previously worked for or 

on behalf of these groups now work or fundraise for an Illinoisbased organization called American Muslims for Palestine, otherwise known as AMP. 

AMP is arguably the leading BDS organization in the U.S. It is 

a key sponsor of the anti-Israel campus network known as Students for Justice in Palestine, or SJP. 

AMP provides money, speakers, training, printed materials and 

so-called apartheid walls to SJP activists. AMP even has a campus 

coordinator who orchestrates the BDS activities of SJP and other 

campus groups nationwide. 

The overlap between AMP, Holy Land, Kind Hearts and the Islamic Association for Palestine is striking. For example, Salah 

Sarsour, a former fundraiser for the Holy Land Foundation, is now 

an AMP board member and he has twice served as AMP’s national 

conference chairman. 

There is also Jamal Said, who is director of the Mosque Foundation, which prosecutors identified as the key funder for the Holy 

Land Foundation. And as a reminder, a Federal court found that 

Holy Land sent $12 million to Hamas over 10 years. 

Today, the Mosque Foundation donates to AMP, and Mr. Said 

has been a keynote speaker at AMP’s annual fundraising dinner 

for 3 years running. 

Then there is Abdelbasset Hamayel, who is officially the registered agent for AMP. He is occasionally identified as AMP’s director. Several sources point to Hamayel as the Wisconsin and Illinois 

21

representative for Kind Hearts, a group the Treasury called the 

progeny of the Holy Land Foundation. Treasury blocked the assets 

of Kind Hearts and it was ultimately dissolved. 

Hamayel, I should note, was also the secretary general of the Islamic Association for Palestinian, or IAP, a group found civilly liable in a Federal court for financing Hamas, and there are many 

other IAP-AMP connections. 

For example, the former president of IAP, Rafeeq Jaber, is one 

prominent AMP figure. He has also been listed as the tax preparer 

for AMP’s 501(c)(3) fiscal sponsor since 2010. I am referring here 

to Americans for Justice in Palestine educational foundation, also 

known as AJP. 

There is also Osama Abuirshaid, who ran IAP’s newspaper. He 

is currently the national coordinator and policy director for AMP. 

Mr. Abuirshaid also runs a pro-Hamas newspaper in Virginia. 

Incidentally, we discovered that a major donor to AMP’s conferences, the Zakat Foundation, is run by Khalil Demir. Demir 

signed the IRS 990 form for Benevolence International Foundation, 

which Treasury shut down for funding al-Qaeda. 

There is also an unregistered BDS group that works with AMP 

whose leader was reportedly a fighter for the popular front for the 

liberation of Palestine, also a designated terrorist group. 

There is more and so please read my testimony for the full picture. I should note here that our open source research did not indicate that AMP or any of these individuals are currently involved 

in illegal activity. 

But I should also note that AMP, at their 2014 annual conference, held a panel inviting guests to ‘‘come navigate the fine line 

between legal activism and material support for terrorism.’’

It is also noteworthy that a recent photo from AMP suburban 

Chicago headquarters features a poster with the phrase, ‘‘No Jew 

will live among them in Jerusalem.’’

This sounds a lot like promoting Hamas’ agenda here in the 

United States, if you ask me. 

In short, the BDS campaign may pose a threat to Israel but the 

network I describe here is decidedly an American problem. 

There appear to be flaws in the Federal and state oversight of 

nonprofit and charities. In my written testimony, I suggest ways to 

increase transparency. 

Let me conclude with this. BDS activists are free to say what 

they want, whether true or false. But tax-advantaged organizations 

are obliged to be transparent. Americans have a right to know who 

is leading the BDS campaign and so do the students who may not 

be aware of AMP’s leaders or their goals. 

One again, thank you for inviting me to testify and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schanzer follows:]

22


99849b-1.eps
23


99849b-2.eps
24


99849b-3.eps
25


99849b-4.eps
26


99849b-5.eps
27


99849b-6.eps
28


99849b-7.eps
29


99849b-8.eps
30


99849b-9.eps
31


99849b-10.eps
32


99849b-11.eps
33


99849b-12.eps
34


99849b-13.eps
35

Mr. POE. Mr. Makovsky. 

STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID MAKOVSKY, ZIEGLER DISTINGUISHED FELLOW, IRWIN LEVY FAMILY PROGRAM ON THE 

U.S.-ISRAEL STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIP, THE WASHINGTON 

INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY 

Mr. MAKOVSKY. Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairwoman, ranking 

members, of course, thank you for the opportunity to speak before 

these two distinguished subcommittees. 

In keeping with the questions you asked us about challenges, I 

would like to first focus on security in the evolving threat environment. 

Israel is largely encircled by nonstate actors today. They have no 

problem to embed themselves in the heart of urban areas, fire rockets into Israeli cities and in so doing, challenge Israel to retaliate 

which leads to greater Palestinian casualties. 

In Lebanon, the dominant nonstate actor is Hezbollah, which, as 

you have pointed out, is believed to have 150,000 rockets. Then 

there is Hamas in Gaza. While there is relative quiet along this 

front, it’s only a matter of time before a fourth war begins in Gaza. 

Needless to say, without U.S. military assistance writ large and 

without Iron Dome specifically, Israel’s security predicament would 

be far worse. 

Of course, beyond the challenge of its immediate neighbors there 

is also Iran and its regional proxies. Israel may not like the Iran 

deal, as we all know, but understands it must now turn toward enhancing the U.S.-Israel bilateral security relationship, as should 

the United States as well. 

This rather sober assessment has been punctuated by relative 

success in the Israel-Palestinian security cooperation in the West 

Bank. Of course, we don’t know who did this attack yesterday on 

the bus. It has the markings of a homemade and not organizational 

type, which would be consistent. But I would say that Israeli officials say that the PA security cooperation with Israel has been essential in reducing this fact—in reducing the recent wave of violence. 

Just last week, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon held a 

press conference and he said, ‘‘The PA has worked tirelessly recently to stop terror.’’

In return, Israel’s security services has served as an important 

stabilizing role within the Israeli structure and promoted further 

economic and security cooperation with the Palestinians. However, 

it may still be too soon to pronounce that the wave of stabbing is 

over, as there could be an upsurge with the upcoming holiday season which begins in the next few days. 

So what can the U.S. do to tackle these threats and seize the opportunities? When it comes to Iran, the U.S. and Israel need to 

strictly enforce Iranian compliance of the nuclear deal and push 

back against malign Iranian behavior in the region. 

The U.S. and Israel should form a joint committee which would 

deal with the implementation of JCPOA, address the potential violations, and maintain and strengthen nonnuclear sanctions. 

The U.S. and Israel should also swiftly conclude negations for a 

10-year MOU. Israel’s deterrent power, as you know, is in large 

36

part a reflection of how its adversaries view the strength of its 

strategic relationship with Washington. 

In a broad sense, Israel views the strength of the U.S.-Israel relationship as a function of how the U.S. is perceived in the region 

by friend and foe alike. 

If the U.S. is viewed as the center of the pragmatic camp in the 

Middle East, this will bolster the position of this critical bilateral 

relationship beyond all its other obvious benefits. 

On the Palestinian issue, there remain several challenges. The 

U.S. has engaged in three noble efforts in 2000, 2007, 2014 to solve 

the entire conflict. For a variety of reasons these efforts didn’t succeed. 

Under the current leadership, I don’t see succeeding in the near 

future. I’m rather skeptical about efforts to put forward parameters 

at the U.N. Security Council, which would be interpreted by both 

sides as an imposed solution and could serve as a baseline for defiance rather than bringing the parties closer. 

Indeed, we need to find a way to maintain the viability of a twostate outcome. Even if we can’t implement a two-state solution 

today, I have some ideas which I can discuss when we have more 

time in the Q and A. 

There are also moves the Palestinians could take to prove their 

commitment to two states as well including jettisoning its anti-normalization policy and stop incentivizing terror by paying money to 

Palestinian prisoners and relatives of suicide bombers. 

U.S. needs to sensitize our European allies to these issue. Given 

the closeness between the Europeans and the Palestinians, it 

would carry weight if the Europeans practiced the same tough love 

they have urged the United States to administer when it comes to 

Israel. But they don’t seem to do it to our Palestinian friends. 

The issue of boycott, divestment, and sanctions—BDS—is important to me. I have visited over—made 121 campus visits, mostly to 

discuss this issue. And if the BDS movement isn’t blunted and 

there is no movement on the ground toward peace, I fear that the 

movement could metastasize beyond college campuses. 

In conclusion, there are definite challenges. But there are also 

opportunities amid the crises. The dynamism of the U.S.-Israel relationship will be tested by how our two countries work together 

to meet these new challenges and in so doing take our relationship 

to the next level. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Makovsky follows:]

37


99849c-1.eps
38


99849c-2.eps
39


99849c-3.eps
40


99849c-4.eps
41


99849c-5.eps
42


99849c-6.eps
43

Mr. POE. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Wittes. 

STATEMENT OF TAMARA COFMAN WITTES, PH.D., DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR MIDDLE EAST POLICY, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION 

Ms. WITTES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman, Mr. 

Keating and Mr. Deutch, members of the committee. 

I appreciate the invitation to appear before you and I must emphasize, as always, that I represent only myself before you because 

the Brookings Institution does not take any positions on policy 

issues. 

On the afternoon following a day Israelis began with the discovery of yet another Hamas tunnel from Gaza into Israel, and that 

ended with the bombing of a bus, it seems like a very apt and sobering opportunity to give you some thoughts on the threats facing 

Israel from terrorism and from the impact of regional disorder. 

I’ve had the chance to discuss these concerns with a range of 

Israeli officials and experts in the last several months, and I’ll 

share my impressions with you. 

Let me begin with Iran. When I appeared before you just about 

a year ago, I said that whether or not there was a nuclear deal, 

I thought we would see a more aggressive approach by Iran in a 

host of arenas around the region, where the upheaval has given 

them greater opportunities than before, and indeed, that’s what 

we’ve seen. 

Iran, helped in Syria by Russia, has pushed forward assertively 

to advance its influence and strengthen its allies around the region. 

In my view, this escalation of Iran’s attempts at subversion was inevitable with or without a nuclear agreement. 

Iran never lacked motivation for its assertions of power. Iran’s 

sanctions-induced economic hardship did not prevent the country 

from spending billions supporting Assad and Hezbollah. 

The fact is that the Arab uprisings of 2011, the civil wars that 

emerged in their wake and the sectarian narratives employed by 

Iran and its Arab adversaries have all given the Islamic Republic 

unprecedented opportunity to expand its activities and it has exploited these opportunities very successfully. 

The main driver of instability and threat in the Middle East 

today is the civil violence that we see in Syria, Yemen, Libya and, 

increasingly, Iraq. 

Ending those civil wars and the opportunities they create for bad 

actors should be a top priority for the United States and others 

concerned with regional stability. 

The nuclear agreement with Iran is a concrete rollback of Iranian capability and IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eizenkot noted in January that it abates for a period of time what had been Israel’s 

greatest and most urgent security threat, and this gives the IDF 

important breathing space in which to focus on building its capabilities to address other threats and opportunities. 

In Syria, the scenario that most concerns Israel is one in which 

Assad remains in power in Damascus and dependent on Iran for 

survival. Israeli officials also worry that continued chaos in Syria 

44

could allow jihadi groups like Jabhat al-Nusra or the Islamic State 

to launch attacks into Israel from the Golan. 

But Israel’s greatest concern is the impact of the Syrian war on 

Hezbollah for three reasons. First: Hezbollah’s investment in saving Assad has altered the political equation in Lebanon in ways 

that could destabilize that country and motivate Hezbollah to try 

and win political points domestically by attacking Israel. 

Second: The prospect of an outcome from the Syrian war that 

leaves Assad in power and Iran in effective control presages further 

transfers of weapons and technology from Iran to Hezbollah 

through Damascus. That is why the possibility of a negotiated settlement leaving Assad in power is such a concerning outcome for 

Israel. 

Third: The Syrian war has given Hezbollah fighters extensive experience in conventional warfare, increasing their battle hardiness 

and capabilities in the event of another conflict with Israel. 

A few comments on Hamas and Gaza—while Hamas has rebuilt, 

apparently, some of its tunnel and rocket capabilities since the 

2014 conflict, current events suggest that it’s still more interested 

right now in survival than in confrontation. 

But should Hamas provoke another round with Israel, there’s no 

question that the IDF would face many of the same military challenges that it faced in 2014. 

Indeed, fighting terrorism in a heavily populated environment is 

a long-term challenge for the IDF whether in Gaza or, potentially, 

southern Lebanon or even, potentially, the West Bank. So building 

up new tactics and new capabilities against this challenge is a key 

task for Israel’s military. 

The situation in the West Bank is in many ways more volatile. 

My colleague has addressed it. What I will say is that the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian politics are not immune from the 

governance challenges faced by other Arab states. 

There’s a wide and growing gap between the Palestinian leadership and the public, particularly young people who see little prospect for economic, diplomatic or political progress in their current 

circumstances. 

This points to the fact that the stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict carries a continuing cost for both sides. The status 

quo is deteriorating, not static, and reminds us that a negotiated 

resolution of this conflict remains Israel’s best option for long-term 

security. 

Finally, a word about ISIS in Sinai. The most recent statistics 

from the Taqrir Institute recorded 74 attacks against Egyptian targets in just the last quarter of 2015. That’s nearly one every day. 

Egypt’s counter terrorism campaign in Sinai has been of limited 

impact. One Israeli source told me that the Egyptian campaign was 

mostly good at making the sand jump. 

The Obama administration, as you know, is redirecting U.S. military assistance to Egypt away from long-term commitments to 

major weapons systems toward a focus on effective counter terror 

and border security. This is an effort that deserves the robust support of Congress. 

Changes in the region have shifted the nature of the threats facing Israel, and from a broader perspective the decline for now of 

45

traditional state-based threats offers two opportunities for Israel—

first, time and space to undertake longer-term planning for the 

structure, size, and capabilities of the IDF to meet the challenges 

ahead, and second, and perhaps more importantly, to seize the moment to determine what Israel wants in its future relationship with 

the Palestinians and push forward with steps to achieve a twostate solution that is in Israel’s interest. 

As the U.S. and Israel continue their discussions on a new 10-

year MOU, it’s important to evaluate the shift in Israel’s threat environment and help Israel prepare accordingly. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cofman Wittes follows:]

46


99849d-1.eps
47


99849d-2.eps
48


99849d-3.eps
49


99849d-4.eps
50


99849d-5.eps
51


99849d-6.eps
52

Mr. POE. Thank you, Dr. Wittes. I will recognize myself for questions. 

These entities have been mentioned by the four of you all that 

are hostile toward Israel—Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, Nusra Front, 

the Palestinians, ISIS and Iran, including the three organizations 

that are defunct—the Holy Land Foundation, the Kind Hearts—interesting name—Islamic Association for Palestine. 

All of these groups do not like Israel. Some of them have publicly 

proclaimed ‘‘Death to the Israelis.’’ But they have one thing in common—none of them like Israel. 

What is one—what is the basis of that? Why are they hating on 

Israel for so many years, if I can use the phrase my grandkids use? 

One of you want to try to address that? 

Dr. Rubin. 

Mr. RUBIN. If I may, very briefly. 

Mr. POE. Please. 

Mr. RUBIN. It’s possible to think about terrorism and the motivations for terrorism on a spectrum ranging from grievance on one 

side to ideology on the other. Our State Department across administrations tends to be addicted to the notion that terrorism is motivated by grievance and that can be very comforting because that 

means you can come up with some magic formula of incentives to 

make that terrorism go away. 

We need to recognize much more directly the ideological basis of 

most terrorism that there is no magic formula, there is no concession—that ultimately what you have to do is delegitimize that ideology. We have done it before with the Baader-Meinhof Gang. We 

can do it now. 

Mr. POE. Okay. Let’s be a little more specific. You got Iran testing ballistic missiles and they put on the side in Hebrew ‘‘Death 

to Jerusalem’’ or ‘‘Death to Israel.’’ Is this a religious phenomena 

philosophy that is uniting these organizations or is it not? What is 

the basis of the philosophy? Forget about the grievances. Center on 

the philosophy. What is the philosophy they all have in common, 

if they do have one in common? 

Mr. SCHANZER. Mr. Chairman, I think it’s safe to say that we’re 

talking about militant Islam—radical Islam, whatever you’d like to 

call it. I know it’s not a very popular term these days in Washington but it is a radical ideology that empowers both this—what 

we call the Sunni and Shi’a sides of the street. 

You got the Islamic State. You’ve got the Islamic Republic. Their 

hatred for Israel, their Islamist ideology is what—is what really 

motivates the terrorism that they carry out. 

This has been our battle since 9/11. We continue to battle it. It’s 

taken on different forms in this town. But I think that the challenge still remains. 

Mr. POE. So if we recognize it as for what it is—radical Islam opposed to Israel based on a philosophy—as opposed to a grievance, 

it’s more difficult to deal with. Would you agree or not? 

Mr. SCHANZER. Absolutely. 

Mr. POE. All right. The IRGC, do you think that that should be 

labelled as a terrorist organization? Any of you think that it 

should? 

53

Mr. MAKOVSKY. Yes, I absolutely do. Now, in Iran’s both—in both 

Iran’s constitution and in the founding statute of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, it defines the purpose of both the Islamic 

Republic and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as an export 

of revolution. 

In 2008, in an internal Iranian debate this was defined exclusively as hard power in terms of sabotaging other countries basically with bombs and bullets. 

Now, we oftentimes talk about the Iranian political spectrum 

from hardliner to reformist. You will note that American policy 

makers don’t talk about the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps 

and the factual divisions therein in the same way, number one, because we don’t have adequate intelligence on that, and number 

two, no matter what the Iranian people might think it’s ultimately 

the guys with the guns that matter and the most ideologically pure 

members of these units are the ones that have the capabilities to 

attack Israel and the will to do so. 

Mr. POE. The groups the Holy Land Foundation, the Kind 

Hearts, Islamic Association for Palestine—those were tax-exempt 

organizations that are now defunct, and there’s a new organization 

in Chicago, the American Muslims for Palestine. Are some of the 

folks that were working with those groups that have been put out 

of business by the Treasury Department—have they moved over to 

this new organization and still doing the same thing? 

Mr. SCHANZER. Mr. Chairman, we’ve identified in this testimony 

that we’ve got three individuals from Holy Land that have moved 

over to AMP. 

Mr. POE. Let me interrupt because I just got a few minutes left—

seconds left. 

Is this a—this new organization is it a tax-exempt organization 

as well? 

Mr. SCHANZER. So three from Holy Land, three from Islamic Association for Palestine, one from Kind Hearts all now working for 

AMP, which is pretty significant, we think, when we look at the 

leadership. When you——

Mr. POE. Are they raising money for any organization—terrorist 

organizations or do you know? 

Mr. SCHANZER. Not that we know of. What we can tell you is 

that AMP is a corporate nonprofit. It has a 501(c)(3) that is its fiscal sponsor. So it raises tax deductible donations, passes them 

through what’s known as AJP, Americans for Justice in Palestine. 

It passes through to AMP and then AMP then passes it on to campus. It’s quite a structure. 

Mr. POE. Thank you. 

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Keating, the 

ranking member. 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was intrigued with Dr. Wittes’ comments about Egypt and advanced weaponry. But I want to take that on a different tack if I 

can. 

Last week, the Prime Minister—Prime Minister Netanyahu—announced that Israel launched a number of strikes inside Syria, targeting suspected arms transfers to Hezbollah fighters. 

54

When I talked to the Prime Minister last year, he said—it’s not 

surprising that he did that because he said unless something affects his borders he had no intention of doing that. 

At the same time, Israel diplomatically reached out to Russia 

and wanted assurances that their weaponry, since they are departing the area without announcement, not fall into the hands of Iranians or, particularly, Hezbollah. 

So there’s a concern there. How much of a threat is that, is the 

weaponry falling into the hands of groups like Hezbollah. Mr. 

Makovsky. 

Mr. MAKOVSKY. As far as I know, things like the SA-300, the SA400 remain under Russian command and control. The Russians 

have not been sharing this weaponry with their—with the Syrian 

Government or anything. They insist on operating it themselves. 

But I think what the Prime Minister, by the way, told you I 

think is accurate. I think that is—Israel has learned from 1982 it’s 

very difficult to social engineer an Arab state, and they are more 

humble about the limits of their use of force than others may be 

about them and I think that they have limited their engagement 

in the Syria conflict to defense. 

You know, if you fire and hit Israel, Israel will hit back. But if 

they also see advanced weaponry, and Netanyahu has now said 

publicly these have been dozens of times that they’ve detected advanced weaponry going from Hezbollah in Syria to Hezbollah in 

Lebanon, they’re going to hit them. But it’s pure defense at this 

point and I think they do not think they will be decisive in any 

way, shape, or form given the myriad of militias inside Syria and 

have taken in that sense a very low profile and very limited objectives. 

Mr. KEATING. You also mentioned, though, at the same time, I 

believe, that Israel may enter the battlefield. Will those be instances where that weaponry is getting transferred? Is that your 

suggestion? 

Mr. MAKOVSKY. As far as I know, those has been—and I’ve asked 

this to IDF and other security people when I was over there and 

they have a very limited kind of objective, which is advanced weaponry that’s being transferred to Hezbollah in Lebanon. 

Mr. KEATING. I think that’s a real concern to be watchful from 

the U.S. standpoint. You know, the lone wolf attacks—that’s something that represent the greatest risk to us here in the U.S. as 

well. 

How much is that—could you comment on how social media is 

being used in those areas and what Israel might be doing to try 

and counter that, since it remains our greatest threat here at home 

as well? 

Mr. MAKOVSKY. I’ll just throw in—maybe my colleagues have 

thoughts. I talked to the premier Palestinian poster, Khalil 

Shikari—maybe known to some of you—based in Ramallah. 

He told me 86 percent of Palestinian teenagers—probably no different than in this country, I should say—get their news from social media. 

I see this as a huge issue, which is Arab social—Palestinian social media. We know a lot of 15-year-olds refer to their going on 

55

social media as—it might be the final trigger for them in terms of 

doing their lone wolf attacks. 

Of course, there are deeper reasons, I’m sure. But I think it’s 

very serious. I mean, it just—it’s striking to me that the start-up 

nation of Israel that knows during the Gaza war if someone’s on 

a fourth floor walk-up in Gaza and Israel has this knock on the 

roof program, which is you’re on the fourth floor walk-up but Israel 

is going to tell you they’re about to hit this building—go a few 

blocks away. 

First of all, I don’t know too many armies that would give such 

advance notice but Israel does it. But if they could find the kid on 

the fourth floor walk-up and send him a text message in Arabic 

during a war there’s got to be a way to use this start-up nation to 

reach more conciliatory messages on—in Arabic media. 

I think this is a real challenge and I think you’re very correct 

in putting your finger on, I think, a key venue of this issue—effort 

against stabbings, which is need to work on the Arabic social 

media. 

Mr. KEATING. Do you see anything with BDS and networking 

that surrounds that that could be also something of a threat to 

Israel in terms of beyond just their divesture attempts but other 

means of expanding that, that being a threat for itself? 

I know in 16 states and localities there’s already anti-BDS legislation but how effective has it been to date in terms of hurting 

Israel as well as do you see any way of collaboration with that effort and incorporating social media? I’ve left you 1 second. I’m 

sorry. Anything you could add. 

Mr. MAKOVSKY. It should be said that BDS and with all these 

campus resolutions not a single American university has divested 

from Israel. 

So sometimes we need to remember that as well, that it has not 

yet happened. But it’s a question of a certain mood that’s set, an 

effort to try to compare Israel to an old South Africa, to invoke 

some of these old campus battles, and I think the only way to compete with this——

I was just at Ohio State the night before a big BDS vote, meeting 

with Ohio State student senators and my approach, and people on 

this panel know me, is that the only way to, you know—the important thing is to do practical co-existence and there are a lot of organizations out there that does people to people. 

I know there’s a group here in Washington with an umbrella of, 

like, 90 different people-to-people groups. There’s a need—students 

want to do practical co-existence. 

I think you need to look for ways that bring campuses, student 

groups together and do not rip the community apart over something that is divisive, counter productive and just wrong. 

And so I think we should be accentuating the positive rather 

than focusing, I mean, on the negative. You should warn against 

the negative but, you know, you should focus on things that could 

be effective in building bridges of co-existence. 

There are a lot of groups out there that are doing that practical 

work and I think students that go on alternative spring breaks and 

other sorts of activities to do this can do it in this Israeli-Palestinian sector as well. 

56

Mr. KEATING. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman for his questions. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, the chairman 

of the Middle East Subcommittee, for her comments, questions and 

answers. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Judge Poe. 

Last week, our Middle East Subcommittee had Assistant Secretary Patterson and we asked her about the status of the MOU 

negotiations. She said this administration might not secure an 

agreement before the term is up and we’re seeing reports just today 

that the administration is about to approve sales of fighter jets to 

Qatar and Kuwait which will, of course, worry the Israelis, as this 

is set to erode its qualitative military edge, and continued U.S. assistance to Israel is so critical to ensuring that the Jewish state can 

protect herself against the threats that we’re talking about today, 

and I’m sure that many of you would agree that this sends a troubling signal to Israel and to those who seek to do her harm. 

Those are the ones who really receive these signals and for us 

to preclude the MOU and have a strong MOU that would send a 

very strong message of support to Israel. So I hope that this administration does that, and maybe we’ll talk about it if we have time. 

But Dr. Schanzer, I wanted to give you an opportunity to elaborate on the great research that you have done. You mention in your 

testimony that Treasury has not made a domestic designation of a 

charity for supporting terrorism since 2009. 

And we have all of these terror threats in our homeland and I 

find that surprising. You’re looking into the financial networks of 

some domestic entities that operate in support of the BDS campaign, and I thank you for that. 

What can you tell us about their donor networks and their corporate structure and what does it—what does it say to you about 

no new designations? 

Do you think that Treasury has been successful in stopping illegal fundraising in the U.S. and that’s why there have been no new 

designations? 

Would you say that there seems to be a shift in U.S. policy from 

this administration in recent years and that makes it more difficult 

for our agencies to pursue domestic terrorism financing. And I’d 

like to give you the remaining time. 

Mr. SCHANZER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

On the question of Treasury designations, all I can tell you is 

anecdotally when I speak to former Treasury colleagues my understanding is that they don’t look at these issues any longer. This 

may be something that is linked to this administration. It also 

could just be a shifting of the mission of Treasury. 

So I think I would be careful to say that this is politically motivated. My understanding is that the FBI should and is still looking 

at domestic terror finance. 

And so whenever we look at these illicit finance questions I think 

there’s probably a team of people who should be looking at it. But 

I think it might be an interesting question to ask the Treasury 

whether this is still their mission or not. 

57

As for the corporate structure of the groups that I talked about 

today, it’s a very interesting structure in that there is a 501(c)(3) 

which is transparent. That’s the Americans for Justice in Palestine. 

They file 990s. They are the fiscal sponsor for this group AMP, 

which I described in detail today. AMP is a corporate nonprofit 

which it’s my understanding that this is supposed to be a temporary status for an organization on its way to being a full 

501(c)(3). They have not made that jump, and so I’m curious as to 

why they have not done so. And as I mentioned, AMP appears to 

be the organization that’s giving a lot of the assistance to Students 

for Justice in Palestine, the campus-based groups. 

They’re the ones who hand the apartheid walls and they provide 

the speakers and printed material. They give a lot of guidance. 

They have a campus coordinator that works with SJP. So it’s a 

very interesting corporate structure. I encourage you to take a look 

into that. 

And then as for donor network, I can tell you that we have 

looked into it. I deliberately chose not to include it in our discussion today. As you know, the environment for Islamic charities has 

not been an easy one. 

I think there are a lot of Muslim Americans out there who are 

very scared of contributing to charities that may be involved in terrorism. I didn’t want to list them. I’m happy to provide them to you 

offline. 

But the bottom line here, from my perspective, is is that when 

you look at an organization like AMP and they have individuals 

who have previously worked for charities that have either been 

designated by the U.S. Government, that they have been dissolved 

by the U.S. Government or found civilly liable in a Federal court, 

you would think that this would be something that they disclosed 

to their donors and I am not sure that they have done so. I think 

that that is a matter of significant concern. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. That they’re mandated to do or should they 

be mandated to do? 

Mr. SCHANZER. It’s my understanding that there is no watch list, 

so to speak, and I’m not suggesting that we have one. But I do 

think that disclosure of that past activity would be incredibly important to donors who are contributing to these charities so that 

they know what they’re getting into. 

They know that they could be running into problems later on 

down the line based on the past experiences of these individuals. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much for such great research. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. POE. The Chair recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Deutch 

from Florida. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Wittes, you spoke about—you referenced the attacks against 

Egypt in your testimony and it’s clear that Israel finds herself 

sharing many of the same security concerns as many of the Arab 

states in the neighborhood. 

Are there ways—and the idea comes up from time to time—but 

are there tangible ways that these countries can work together to 

counter mutual threats, both Israel with those countries that—

where there are peace agreements in place and perhaps even those 

58

countries where there are shared interests but not formal peace 

agreements? 

Ms. WITTES. Absolutely, Congressman Deutch. I think that there 

are two key avenues and we see some activity along both these 

lines already underway. 

The first is countering Iran and Iran’s destabilizing activities 

around the region. This is the interest that has drawn Israel and 

a number of Arab states closer together over the past year than I 

think they have ever been before, and it’s an interest that I think 

will be sustained into the future. It’s not a short-term problem. 

So there is a lot of quiet conversation and information sharing. 

What there is not is kind of overt cooperation along these lines. 

But since a lot of this Iranian activity is below the radar, that kind 

of information sharing can be absolutely crucial. 

The second avenue is stabilizing key front line states and those 

include states that have peace treaties with Israel, most particularly Jordan but Egypt as well. We know, of course, the Gulf States 

have been important supporters financially and diplomatically and 

politically of both Jordan and Egypt and that is absolutely crucial 

for both of those governments. I think Israel continues to keep an 

eye on Jordanian stability. And then additionally, there is the 

question of diplomatic negotiations ending the civil war in Syria. 

Israel is not at the table. It’s not in the room. But many of the 

Sunni Arab states are, and that’s an additional opportunity for cooperation. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Makovsky, I want to return to your topic of tough love. There 

are some who might suggest that the Vice President’s expression 

of overwhelming frustration with Israel might constitute tough love 

from the United States. Do you agree? 

Secondly, if that is so, what is the kind of tough love that you 

would like to see by our European friends with respect to the Palestinians and, frankly, the kind of tough love that perhaps we 

should expect and administer her as well? 

Mr. MAKOVSKY. Thank you, Congressman. 

I want to be clear. By the way, on the last point about Ohio 

State, the BDS advocates lost the vote. So the anti-BDS forces won, 

if I didn’t make that clear. 

When I spoke about tough love, I was not talking as an advocate 

of it. I’m saying the same Europeans who call for tough love of the 

U.S. toward Israel are not willing to administer that when it comes 

to their own relations with the Palestinians. That was the context 

of my remarks. 

For example, when the President of the United States delivered 

two speeches in May 2011 where he talked about returning to the 

’67 borders plus swaps land exchanges, there is no—there has not 

been an Obama speech equivalent out of Brussels or London or 

Berlin or Paris saying, and you Palestinians, when it comes to refugees you return to the state of Palestine, not to Israel. That would 

be very important if the Europeans would do that. Or if they would 

say that, you know, that the aid to families of suicide bombers is 

reprehensible or saying anti-normalization runs against the very 

spirit of peace—we want you to encourage more people-to-people 

exchanges. 

59

These are things the Europeans can do that would make the difference, and whatever is not said publicly I am concerned will not 

be heard on the Palestinian side. I think the Europeans can—could 

say it but they’ve never been really prodded to do so. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Is there—is there an opportunity to prod—I 

throw this out to Dr. Rubin and Dr. Schanzer—is there an opportunity—wouldn’t it be appropriate to prod the Europeans to do exactly that now, even as we work under the Iran nuclear deal to 

make it easier for them to develop additional business in Iran? 

Not that—not that they’re linked but given the successes that 

they’re seeing under the nuclear deal the ability to make further 

investment in Iran and the way in which the deal—nuclear deal—

encourages that, shouldn’t we also be in a position to remind them 

that at the same time the threats that Iran poses in the region get 

in the way of peace, and also standing in the way of peace are the 

kinds of things that Mr. Makovsky just spoke about and it would 

be helpful for them to say that clearly? 

Mr. SCHANZER. Congressman Deutch, I think there—that we 

have some frank discussions that we need to be having with the 

Europeans right now. 

They’re obviously very eager to reignite the financial relationships with Iranian businesses. First of all, and I think we’ve made 

this clear at FDD, that we are very concerned about the United 

States facilitating those through dollar transactions. 

We have said time and again that this is not a good idea to allow 

Iran access to our financial system in any way despite the European request to do so and we think that it should be—we should 

continue to hold the line on that. 

More broadly, I think the Europeans have not exactly played the 

role that we’ve looked for on the Iran deal or with regard to the 

Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Europeans right now are mulling a 

resolution to pressure the Israelis through a multilateral decisionmaking process for how to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. 

I can’t think of anything that would be more detrimental to 

Israel’s long-term survivability than to have something akin to the 

P5+1 make a decision on how Israel should cede territory in the future to a state that is possibly not viable. 

So I think these are the sorts of discussions that we need to be 

having with the Europeans both about Iran transactions as well as 

what they’re doing at the U.N. Neither have been terribly productive. 

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

Mr. POE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr.—is it Schanzer? Is that how you say that? Earlier in your 

comments you said, I think, we’ve been battling with radical Islam 

since 9/11. What do you think about the prior attacks starting in 

’79, Yemen, the bombing of the Cole, the U.S. Marine barracks and 

I can go—the prior—I mean, what about those? 

Mr. SCHANZER. You’re absolutely right, Congressman Weber. I 

meant that we were—we’ve been battling over it in this country the 

debate over what to call it since 9/11. But in fact——

60

Well, some of us haven’t been. 

Mr. SCHANZER. Fair enough. But to your point, absolutely we’ve 

been dealing with radical Islam from the Islamic Republic since 

1979——

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Okay. 

Mr. SCHANZER [continuing]. The Muslim Brotherhood since the 

1920s. 

Mr. WEBER. I just want to make that point, and you can even 

go back further than that. 

But Mr. Makovsky—is that how you say that? You also said that 

Israel learned, in your exchange with Bill Keating, in 1982 that 

they can’t socially engineer an Arab state. Would you explain that? 

Mr. MAKOVSKY. What I meant is 1982 Israel thought that it 

could decide who was going to be the next leader of Lebanon, a guy 

by the name of Bachir Gemayel, and that whole experience ended 

in calamity. 

So I think they very—you know, in terms of their interest they 

are very keen in terms of where they could succeed and where they 

cannot succeed. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. I just—I’m sorry, I just wasn’t familiar with 

that date. Didn’t know what you were referring to. And then you 

also said Israel knocks on a roof in the social media battle. 

You indicated that if they can find that 12-year-old kid on the 

fourth floor they should be able to—but I would offer that social 

media is a relatively new phenomenon in that—at that level—Twitter and all that stuff the last, I don’t know, 2 or 3 years—I’m dating myself—maybe longer than that. But some of these kids get indoctrinated to hate Jews since the time they’re two or three or 

younger. Is that accurate? 

Mr. SCHANZER. Yes, that is accurate. 

Mr. WEBER. So how do you combat that? 

Mr. SCHANZER. That’s why you—the focus on the Palestinian incitement piece of this is important. I mentioned about, you know, 

this idea of removing—fighting against—once the United States 

law kicked in I think in 2014 saying that the U.S. will not give 

money to entities that give money to relatives of suicide bombers. 

Some of this money was moved offline through the PLO as opposed to the Palestinian Authority—the Palestinian Liberation Organization, whose income is murky but Abbas is the head of both. 

And so there needs to be sure that the signalling is that there’s 

no money to suicide bombers and we’re promoting normalization 

between peoples. The signalling has got to come from the top. I 

agree with—I think it was Congressman Ros-Lehtinen on that—

that there has to be clear signalling. 

Now, Abbas has gone on Israeli television in the last couple 

weeks and said that he’s against these knives—these stabbings and 

it’s true that the PA—and this was reported in Defense News—I 

happened to be sitting with a senior Israeli security official who 

says it’s true—quoting the head of Palestinian intelligence saying 

that they have disrupted 200 attacks. 

They have confiscated knives from the school. They have 

plainclothesman now at border crossings, you know, to confiscate 

knives. 

61

So there’s a multi-pronged effort here that’s needed. There’s no 

silver bullet. 

Mr. WEBER. Right. I get that. I just want to make that point, 

then I want to move on. 

I think—back to you, Dr. Schanzer, you also said that the secretary—the Treasury no longer looks at designations for those who 

are supporting terrorism—that Americans—some of the Muslim 

are afraid to give to charities because they might—it might be a 

terroristic charity and some of those charities are civilly liable. 

You said something—are there no criminal sanctions in place, 

laws that say if you give to a terrorist organization contra U.S. 

laws that you are criminal—you can be charged with a crime? 

Mr. SCHANZER. No, sir. We do have an executive order. It’s Executive Order 13224. This was the authority that I worked under at 

the Treasury when I was a terrorism finance analyst and the distinction that I was drawing was that back when I was at Treasury 

and before we had quite a track record of going after domestic entities that were involved in financing terrorism—so-called charities 

that were involved in that activity. 

Mr. WEBER. But that’s criminal, is it not? 

Mr. SCHANZER. Well, it’s actually under a different order. It’s beyond criminal. I mean, it’s considered—you know, it’s a terrorist 

act. 

Mr. WEBER. And let me just note for the record the judge laid 

out a whole bunch of organizations that were pretty much antiIsrael but he left out the U.N. I just want to make that distinction. 

Let me move on. Dr. Wittes—is that how you say that—you said 

to stabilize the front line states that have peace treaties with 

Israel. Who are they and rank them in order. 

Ms. WITTES. Rank them in importance? 

Mr. WEBER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. WITTES. I think the most important front line state for Israel 

is Jordan. It is the bulwark for Israel against the Islamist radicalism of ISIS and other groups to the east, and for a long time 

it was Israel’s land bulwark against an army invasion. 

I think that the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty and the EgyptianIsraeli peace treaty are strong. They are maintained by both sides 

because they are in both sides——

Mr. WEBER. Okay. I’m out of time, technically. Who are the next 

ones? Just give me three or four of them. 

Ms. WITTES. Well, the only treaties that Israel has with its 

neighbors are with Jordan and Egypt. 

Mr. WEBER. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman. 

I thank all of you all for being here. Without objection, the map 

that was furnished to you and all the Members of Congress be 

made a part of the record. 

Dr. Schanzer, you made some comments about you would give us 

information in a different setting. The good lady from Florida made 

a comment about we will follow up in that because we want that 

information as well, and Members of Congress may have written 

questions they will submit to you. We would expect them answered 

and returned to the Chair. 

62

Thank you all for being here. The subcommittees are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:13 p.m., the hearing was concluded.] 

(63)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

64

f


99849n.eps
65

f


99849m.eps
66


99849e-1.eps
67

Æ


99849e-2.eps