Chairman Ros-Lehtinen, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Deutch, Ranking Member Bass, and

distinguished members of these subcommittees, on behalf of the Foundation for Defense of

Democracies, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My testimony will address the policy

options for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that former president Barack Obama was considering

at the end of his term. From there, I will discuss the deleterious impact of United Nations

Security Council Resolution 2334. I will also present new FDD research that raises troubling

questions about the role of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian

Authority (PA) in the ongoing campaign to delegitimize Israel. Finally, I present a number of

recommendations for Congress and the new administration to consider.

assumption that US policy was too supportive of Israel. This official noted, “all options [were]

on the table” for the President to either punish Israel for its policies in the disputed territories or

to increase Palestinian leverage in its effort to gain international recognition.

Of course, it is not unheard of for a president to engage in last minute maneuvers to further the

cause of Palestinian-Israeli peace. President Ronald Reagan initiated a dialogue with the PLO in

the waning days of his Administration in an effort to give the Bush Administration cover to

launch a process that brought both sides to the table.

The Clinton Administration fought until its

1. A U.N. Security Council Resolution to guide the final outcome of negotiations. The

Administration was considering a binding measure before the UN Security Council. The

resolution, as envisioned, would lay out new parameters for diplomacy and replace UNSCR

242 in future negotiations. FDD assessed that this was not likely because the administration

had promised publicly that it would not do this. Second, the White House understood that a

process of this magnitude at the United Nations might begin with one set of parameters, but

could become very unwieldy and ultimately yield a very different resolution than the U.S.

had in mind. Third, the President had already stated in 2011, “it is up to Israelis and

Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them.”

file to the U.N., the White House would effectively be ceding its role as primary mediator in

the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the international community.

2. Abstaining or Voting for Recognition of a Palestinian State at the U.N. In 2011, the

Palestinian Authority sought to declare statehood at the UN Security Council.

States declared its intention to veto the move, and the Palestinian Authority ultimately took

the vote the following year to the General Assembly where the vote, even while

overwhelmingly approved, was nonbinding.

intention to declare statehood again at the UN Security Council.

And while Obama might

3. Executive Order Against Settlement Activity. The Administration was apparently briefed on a

possible executive order sanctioning Israeli officials or entities for engaging in further

settlement activity, even natural growth within existing communities in the West Bank. The

executive order could extend to other foreign nationals or even American citizens. One

official ceded to me that such an effort would raise “legal issues.”

order against countries involved in similar territorial disputes in Turkey, Morocco, or China,

for example, the door would be open for legal challenges from Congress. A measure of this

could have disrupted as many as 50 known U.S.-based organizations supporting communities

(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/opinion/17abbas.html)

in Israel.

IRS to issue informal guidance. One official noted in September that this approach would

have been “legally challenging.” In addition to creating an unprecedented backlash from

Congress and the pro-Israel community in America, it would likely have prompted dozens of

lawsuits.

5. A Statement of “Obama Parameters.” Obama was contemplating a public speech outlining

his vision for a peace agreement to form the basis of United States policy, and perhaps

inform new multilateral initiatives.

resolution against settlement activity by Israel. Such a measure would not be described as a

new initiative designed to isolate Israel, but rather as an extension of UNSCR 446 from

March 1979, with updates.

The goal was not to initiate the resolution, but rather abstain or

even vote for a measure that another country introduced. And while it was never articulated,

it was widely understood that the move would energize the Boycott, Divestment and

Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel. Obama understood the damage that such a

resolution could cause. This is why the Administration used its veto power in 2011 when a

resolution on settlements was brought to the Security Council.

But as we now know,

In the end, Kerry’s parameter’s speech had little legal impact. And the Trump Administration

blocked Obama’s furtive transfer of funds to the Palestinians shortly after the news broke.

But

UNSCR 2334 is likely to leave a mark.

First, Resolution 2334 was a dramatic break in U.S. policy. Previous presidents have protected

Israel against a UN system that they all recognized as biased, primarily because it singles out the

Jewish state at every possible opportunity. Obama in 2011 instructed his first US ambassador to

the UN, Susan Rice, to reject a similar resolution because it would not help advance the cause of

peace. Yet he instructed Samantha Power to abstain, implying this time that the measure would

Specifically, it contradicted the Bush-Sharon letter of 2004, which sought to find reasonable new

borders for Israel in light of its departure from Gaza, new facts on the ground in the West Bank,

and Israel’s evolving security needs. Instead, the resolution seeks to enshrine 1949 lines as the

basis for future negotiations, which is a nonstarter for Israel’s defense establishment.

Moreover, Resolution 2334 characterizes Israelis that build in neighborhoods and territory that

have been long administered by Israel as in violation of international law. According to the

resolution, Israel cannot build or grow the area around the plaza at the Western Wall. This was

(ICC) to open a formal investigation of individuals linked to building homes in the West Bank

and Jerusalem. The Security Council did not formally refer an investigation to the ICC, but the

language used in the resolution mirrors that of the Rome Statute, which lays out criteria for

charging individuals with war crimes.

crimes, it can charge political leaders who have implemented state policy.

Finally, the resolution provided momentum to the international movements that seek to

delegitimize Israel, including the global BDS campaign. While Resolution 2334 itself was

brought under Chapter VI at the UN, which does not formally call for sanctions against Israel,

the BDS movement has been invigorated on the international scale and the resolution may

provide the impetus for countries, sovereign wealth funds, financial institutions, NGOs, and

businesses to boycott or divest their assets from Israel. In other words, the resolution helped spur

on an anti-Israel economic warfare campaign, an extension of the Arab League boycott. The goal

of this extended campaign is not only Israel’s ouster from the disputed territories, but every

square inch of Israel.

suggested that the Palestinian delegation to the United Nations was disseminating a draft

resolution condemning Israeli settlements.

Surprisingly, after the resolution was ratified at the UN, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin

Netanyahu accused the Obama administration of secretly colluding with the Palestinians on the

text.

The Israelis pointed to leaked transcripts from an Egyptian newspaper claiming there was

a meeting between senior American and Palestinian officials with the purpose of coordinating

the UN action.

The document suggests that there may have been more than one meeting.

confident of our evidence of the [Obama administration] arranging the language of 2334. They

coordinated and guided the text.”

The possible involvement of the Obama administration in coordinating and guiding the text of

Resolution 2334 is troubling on several levels. For one, the White House insisted that it would

not do so. But it also would seem to echo reports that FDD received in November from sources

in the West Bank that the US and the Palestinian UN delegation coordinated their messages

ahead of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ September 22 speech at Turtle Bay.

In that

speech, Abbas slammed Israeli settlement construction and called for international action.

Indeed, that speech could be seen as the predicate for Resolution 2334 only three months later.

Congress until just hours before he left office.

Whether or not the Obama administration colluded with the PLO over Resolution 2334, it is

clear that the PLO was a driving force. The PLO’s goal was to delegitimize Israel, not merely for

building in the West Bank, but as a nation-state with a right to exist. As I noted above,

Resolution 2334 will almost certainly supercharge the economic warfare campaign known as

1. The Palestinian National Fund (PNF) is likely a key source of funding for the BDS

movement. The PNF is the PLO’s powerful treasury.

Headquartered in Amman, it

manages the majority of the organization’s assets worldwide. It reportedly pays the

salaries of the group’s members, as well as students, who received tens of millions of

dollars in support of BDS activities each year. The PLO has an obvious interest in

strengthening the BDS movement, given that the target is Israel.

2. The PLO mission in Belgium appears to be sponsoring an “operations room” to

coordinate the activities of BDS activists in Europe. The operatives involved in this

effort, almost entirely embassy personnel, reportedly receive directives from Ramallah.

The “operations room” is believed to be funded through an account at Allied Irish Bank,

and could cost the PLO mission as much as one million euro per month to run. FDD is

currently working to confirm the names of the individuals reportedly involved in the

activities of the “operation room.”

3. The PLO embassy in Washington is said to be actively promoting campus BDS activity in

they will take some time to assess. I hope to be able to return to share that information.

The Trump Administration recently indicated that it was prepared to significantly reduce US

contributions to the United Nations.

has backfired. It has only served to sharpen the focus of Congress and the Administration on the

need for UN reform. I fully support that initiative and I provide specific suggestions on the UN

the PLO and its leaders. I provide some suggestions on that, as well.

Finally, I provide a few legislative and bureaucratic suggestions that Congress and the executive

branch might consider. I believe these steps could help strengthen the relationship between Israel

and the United States after eight years of strain.