Issues

Palestine

Talking Points on HR 4681

Posted on Wednesday May 31, 2006

• Remaining positively engaged in Palestinian society is in the national security interest of the United States. US involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a main factor in determining our image throughout the Arab and Muslim world. The establishment of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is in the best interest of our country as well as Palestinians and Israelis. This bill does nothing to contribute to that goal and could harm US efforts towards peace.

• In an attempt to alienate Hamas, Congress is missing the mark. This legislation, introduced in the wake of Hamas’ election victory, includes provisions that have nothing to do with Hamas’ role in the Palestinian legislature. For example, the bill attacks UN programs that benefit Palestinian civilians and seeks to restrict PLO representation in Washington and New York. Hamas is not and has never been a member of the PLO—an organization which has renounced violence and entered into peace negotiations with Israel. Sanctioning the UN and the PLO sends the message that the United States’ aim is to punish the Palestinian people rather than Hamas.

• Current US law provides for direct aid to the Palestinian Authority only if the President certifies that it is in the national security interest of the United States. This legislation would do away with the President’s ability to provide direct assistance if deemed in the national security interest of the United States, curtailing the President’s ability to conduct foreign policy and react to quickly changing political realities or a worsening humanitarian crisis.

• Congress must work with the Administration to avoid a looming humanitarian crisis in the West Bank and Gaza. According to the World Bank, the Palestinian economy has shrunk 27%, unemployment has doubled, and poverty has increased by 50%. The United States has a long and well-regarded record of humanitarian assistance and Congress must work with the Administration to maintain US support for Palestinian civil society. The Administration, however, has called the bill’s definition of “basic human heath needs” too narrow and, has asked for a broader definition to “cover essential aid and services for the Palestinian people.” It has also warned that the bill could “unduly hamper the President and the Secretary of State in formulating and executing policy with respect to the PA versus the Palestinian people.” To read more about the Administration’s concerns, click here.

• It is in our nation’s interest to support President Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian moderates. Abbas has reiterated his commitment to a negotiated two-state solution and, as President of the Palestinian Authority (PA), retains veto power over any legislation that comes out of the Palestinian Legislative Council. Rather than support President Abbas, however, this legislation includes a visa ban on all PA members, including the President. Members of Hamas are already prohibited from getting visas to the US, so this provision weakens Palestinian moderates without affecting Hamas at all.

• This all-sticks, no-carrots approach offers no incentive for political change. Sanctions are traditionally used as a “soft weapon” with the aim of changing the target’s behavior. This legislation, however, refuses to differentiate between groups which have renounced violence and entered into peace negotiations from those who have not. Further, the sanctions outlined in the bill do not include a sunset clause or any other mechanism to react to changing political realities. If, as demanded by the Quartet, Hamas were to renounce violence, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements, nothing would change with regard to US assistance.