Excerpts of TESTIMONY BY RAND H. FISHBEIN before the HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE

In the twenty-four months since the Declaration of
Principles was signed on the White House lawn,
approximately $100 million in U.S. assistance has gone to
support PLO activities in the administered territories of
Gaza and Jericho. This has occurred without the usual
accountability demanded of other recipients of U.S.
foreign assistance and without the usual scrutiny of
Congress.

Instead, we have been witness to a grand public
relations campaign designed to convince even the most
skeptical observers that one of the most notorious
terrorist organizations of the twentieth century has
mutated into a democratic entity respectful of law and
order and fundamental human rights. This, of course,
could not be further from the truth.

Even you, Mr. Chairman, referred to a recent State
Department report on PLO compliance as nothing more than
a “whitewash.” A growing segment of the
American public, if not a majority, is inclined to agree
with you. As hours of recently recorded speeches of Yasir
Arafat clearly demonstrate, he has no intention of
abiding by a peace with Israel or any of the commitments
he has make to our Government. He and his followers are
bent upon using the Oslo Accords, brokered with U.S.
assistance, as a vehicle for waging a gradual war of
annihilation against the State of Israel.

Incredibly, the President and many Members of
Congress are prepared to underwrite this baffling policy
by supporting an extension of the current law, the Middle
East Peace Facilitation Act (MEPFA), which would place
virtually no conditionality on U.S. assistance to the
PLO. Under MEPFA, the PLO is held to no clear standard of
performance. Instead it relies on the “good
faith” intentions of the PLO. The strongest
compliance provisions of MEPFA are in a “Sense of
Congress” section that has no enforcement authority.
Moreover, MEPFA permits U.S. funds to be channeled
through international organizations such as the United
Nations and the World Bank.

For years the Congress has received harsh reports
critical of the poor financial controls and widespread
project mismanagement which often have plagued these
organizations. To make matters worse, Yasir Arafat has
shown no inclination to modify the standard PLO practice
of having all PLO assets secretly controlled and
disbursed by him.

Still, the United States is prepared to support an
approach that reduces, rather than enhances,
congressional oversight of funds to the Palestinians.

The issue here is not one of opposition to the peace
process or dissatisfaction with Israeli Government
efforts to find a new method of coexistence with the
Palestinians. Rather, the question is whether the United
States will insist upon its own standards of conduct when
it is called upon to render assistance to both parties.

I believe that it is imperative that the U.S. not
lose sight of the need to hold the Palestinians to a
strict level of both political and financial
accountability, just as it does Israel, if the United
States is to remain a credible player in the resolution
of this and other conflicts.

However, time and again, this Administration is
prepared to overlook the PLO’s wholesale violations of
the Declaration of Principles in a headlong rush to float
the current peace process on a bubble of cash. Already,
this bubble is on the verge of bursting as the PLO
flagrantly violates most of the solemn commitments it has
made not only to Israel, but to our President and the
Vice-President as well. In a recent Luntz poll, 78
percent of all Americans surveyed stated that the PLO
should be “held accountable to its commitments and
comply with the peace accords as a precondition for
receiving the rest of the (U.S.) funds.”

Simply put, should the United States buy peace at any
price? Should we continue to pay for the privilege of
Yasir Arafat remaining at the peace table, or should we
insist that he make good on his obligations to halt
terrorism and to apprehend and extradite PLO members who
have harmed Americans and should he now account for the
funds now streaming into his coffers?

We are all for peace. But without compliance there
can be no peace.

In another context, Arafat’s conduct would be seen as
simple extortion. Yet when it comes to the politics of
the Middle East, it is viewed as the cost of doing
business.

It was not too long ago that members of this very
committee would have bristled at the thought of funneling
U.S. subsidies to the Palestine Liberation Organization.
If Republicans and Democrats could find common ground on
any subject, it was the dastardly nature of Arafat
himself.

In the past, many of you would have paid a king’s
ransom to put Arafat on trial. Now, you are prepared to
pay a king’s ransom to keep him from trial. Today, the
world has been turned on its head to the point where even
asking fundamental questions about PLO compliance is
taboo.

Has our view of responsible congressional oversight
changed so profoundly that we can no longer openly and
candidly debate an issue of paramount American
interest?

Why has it taken two years for this committee to take
public testimony on the abysmal record of the PLO in
living up to its commitments? History will only judge our
collective silence as acquiescence to the tyranny of a
process that we all hoped would bring us peace.

Mr. Chairman, this committee now has before it the
opportunity to right some of the wrongs of the past.
Pending before both houses of Congress is the Middle East
Peace Compliance Act of 1995, known as H.R. 1960 in the
House and S. 915 in the Senate.

H.R. 1960, also known as the DeLay-Forbes-Saxton
bill, would deny funds to the PLO and the Palestinian
Authority (PA) while permitting aid to go to Palestinian
humanitarian projects once “substantial, material
and timely” compliance has been achieved by the PLO.
It recognizes that there is no real distinction between
the PLO and the PA, both of which are controlled by
Arafat. H.R. 1960 requires that all funds be channeled
through U.S. Government agencies and entities or American
registered private voluntary organizations (PVOs).

H.R. 1960 is a prudent, reasonable and tightly
crafted bill. Its provisions are grounded in precedents
currently governing the allocation of U.S. foreign
assistance. The bill strengthens the peace process and
ensures comprehensive financial and administrative
accountability over all U.S. funds flowing to territories
under Palestinian control.

The only foundation upon which a true and lasting
peace can be built is one in which the negotiating
partners comply with the letter and spirit of their
commitments. The DeLay-Forbes-Saxton bill promotes peace
by providing a strong monetary incentive for compliance.
Without compliance, there can be no peace and certainly
no U.S. funding.

If the U.S. is to maintain its credibility in
fighting terrorism world-wide, it cannot be seen to
reward individuals who have American blood on their
hands. Despite its alluring rhetoric, the PLO has proven
with its deeds over the last twenty-four months that they
are unreformed terrorists and continue to be a menace to
civil society. Arafat, himself, continues to praise the
suicide bombers of Islamic Jihad as “martyrs”
and celebrates the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheik
Yasin, as a “prince.”