Israel Resource Review 18th August, 1998


Does the United States Intend to Pursue Terrorists Who Murder Its Citizens . . . Or Doesn't It?
by David Bedein
Media Research Analyst

Since the terrorist bombings at the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya mad Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania, President Clinton and officials of his administration have been vehemently proclaiming that terrorists who murder U.S. citizens will be pursued to the ends of the earth.

This pledge was similar to the platform Clinton had presented to an anti-terrorism summit meeting of world leaders held at Sharm El-Sheik in March 1996. I covered that conference that was hastily organized after Palestinian bus bombings in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv took the lives of more than seventy people and threatened to scuttle the peace process.

Indeed, rather than in mere rhetoric, what effort did the Clinton administration make to "bring to justice" the terrorist-murders of American citizens who were among those who were murdered in terror attacks that were perpetrated by Palestinians:

Leon Klinghoffer, 76, a U.S. citizen, was a passenger aboard the Italian cruise ship "Achille Lauro" when it was hijacked by Arab terrorists in 1985. Mr Klinghoffer, who had been disabled by a stroke, was in a wheelchair. The terrorists, under the command of Abu Abbas, shot him and threw his body overboard still in the wheelchair. The PLO spokesman at the United Nations suggested that Mrs. Klinghoffer had murdered her crippled husband for the insurance money.

Abu Abbas himself has most recently been awarded asylum under the personal protection of Palestine Authority chairman Yassir Arafat, without the slightest protest from the US, even though he is still wanted for murder by the United States and Italy

Upon his arrival to Gaza, Abbas gave an interview to Reuters in which he explained that he ordered Klinghoffer to be shot because, even confined to a wheelchair, he was "making trouble" for the terrorist-hijackers.

Nachshon Wachsman, 19, a U.S. citizen, was kidnapped by Hamas in 1994, held hostage and finally killed. President Clinton met his parents, U.S. citizens Yehuda and Esther Wachsman, at Nachshon's grave on Mt. Herzl, on the day after the anti-terrorism summit in Sharm El Sheikh. Clinton placed a stone, as is the Jewish custom, at Nachshon's graveside. When the President asked Esther Wachsman what he could do to comfort her at this time of mourning, and she replied that wanted to know about U.S. government pursuit of Muhammad Deif, the Hamas leader who had planned the kidnapping and death of her son.

Clinton replied that the arrest of Deif and his transfer to U.S. custody was the highest priority of the U.S. government, and that Deif was a most-wanted criminal by the U.S. legal authorities.

Deif was also free in Gaza, under the control of the Palestine Authority, and President Clinton stated that Israel should not proceed with the surrender of Hebron to the PA until Arafat surrendered Deif.

Four months later, the head of the PA police force in Gaza informed Yehuda Wachsman that there were strict orders from Arafat not to arrest Deif.

Muhammad Deif is still free in Gaza. There is no record that Clinton or the U.S. State Department has ever called upon Arafat to arrest Deif or to hand him over ro stand trial in Gaza, Israel or the US.

When a journalist asked US Secretary of State Madeline Albright about this, she said that she had never heard of Deif.

Alisa Flatow, 20, a U.S. citizen, was studying in Israel when she was one of seven people murdered in the bombing of a bus by Islamic Jihad terrorists in 1995. President Clinton assured her father, Stephen M. Flatow, that he would fulfill his obligation to the slain American girl by pursuing the arrest and conviction of the murderers.

Today, however, Steve Flatow has trouble getting any information from the Clinton administration concerning the whereabouts of his daughter's killers.

Yet Nabil Sharihi, accused by Israel and even by the Palestine Authority of taking part in this terror attack, was detained only briefly by the PA, not put on trial, not in the Palestine Aurhoity, not in Israel and not in the United States.

Meanwhile, the AP reported that he had been set free by the PA

Joan Davenny, 45, a U.S. citizen, was a school-teacher in Connecticut. She was on a visit to Israel when she was one of six people murdered in the bombing of a bus in Jerusalem by Hamas terrorists in 1995.

Abd al-Majid Dudin, accused by Israel of participation in preparing this act of terrorism, is living within the PA.

Israeli requests to the Palestine Authority for his arrest have been ignored.

The US has made no such request.

David Boim, U.S. citizen, was murdered in 1996, shot by two Arab terrorists while he was waiting for a school bus. He was 17 years old.

His parents, Stanley and Joyce Boim, both U.S. citizens, were assured by U.S. ambassador Martin Indyk that Imjad HaNawi, one of the killers, had been arrested by Arafat's police, but the PA would not confirm this.

Indyk also said that the PA police were in pursuit of the second killer.

The PA also denied this.

Imjad HaNawi was not arrested by Arafat's police until February 1998, after Joyce Boim had made four visits to Capitol Hill.

HaNawi was convicted in a Palestinian court of law as a accmplice in the murder of David Boim, and sentenced to ten years of hard labor.

However, the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem cannot confirm whether HaNawi is still in jail or not.

Matthew Eisenfeld, U.S. citizen, was a theology student when he was murdered in a Hamas bombing of a Jerusalem bus in 1996. He was then 25 years old. Sara Duker, U.S. citizen, was murdered in that same terrorist bombing. She was then 22 years old, and engaged to be married to Matthew Eisenfeld.

Nafez Sabih, believed to have taken part in the preparation of this terrorist bomb, has taken refuge within territory controlled by the Palestine Authority. Israeli requests to the Palestine Authority for his arrest have been ignored.

The US has made no such request.

Yael Botwin, U.S. citizen, age 14 was among the four teenagers murdered in an Arab-terrorist attack in Jerusalem in September, 1997. The perpetrator of that attack was the second of the two men who had murdered David Boim.

The question remains: As a matter of policy, is the Clinton Administration really prepared to take action against terrorist-murderers of U.S. citizens, even when the identities and whereabouts of these killers of U.S. citizens are known to the US government.

So far, the Clinton record has registered no official protest against those who have sheltered and harbored those who have murdered American citizens.

It would seem that President Bill Clinton is committed to pursing terrorists to the end of a soundbyte.

Return to Contents

Terrorism, Ngo's, Arafat's New Cabinet

Al-Ahram Weekly, 13th - 19th August, 1998

Fertile Ground
Salama Ahmed Salama


The success of international terrorism in breaking through seemingly impenetrable security barriers and outwitting advanced intelligence techniques in the Nairobi and Dar es Salaam bombings lays bare a new fact. A far more complex form of terrorism has begun to flourish, spurred on to ever more horrifying peaks by US policy.

The task of mapping international terrorism -- its sources of funding, policy and executive branches, international routes and arms suppliers -- has become the major focus of intelligence services, governments and many think-tanks in the West. These institutions have targeted Islamism as their archenemy and braced themselves to destroy it, instead of reconsidering their own policies, which have created the ideal global arena in which terrorism can thrive and attract ever greater numbers of "fanatics" and "extremists" who believe in very different things, and whose only common ground may be their dispossession and desperation.

The gravity of the Middle East crisis, which has exacerbated Arab feelings of incapacity to breaking point, Israeli intransigence, US double standards, the indifference of the international community, and the humiliation of the Palestinians are not the only factors nurturing terrorism. The systematic and organised humiliation and mass murder of the Iraqi people are also unprecedented in the history of modern warfare. The West's attitude toward Iraq is provoking hostility and hatred of the US and the West in general, generating an urge for retaliation among a large and diverse array of factions. Terrorism is feeding off this hostility. The attacks on US troops and US interests in the Gulf were only the most visible expression of a generalised sense of outrage at the US's massive presence there. Arabs and Muslims have had enough.

President Mubarak's repeated warnings that the present state of affairs in the Middle East can be more destructive than an all-out war seem to have been proven accurate.

The environment created by the West is spawning seemingly limitless violence.

US endeavours to assassinate Saddam Hussein, organise acts of sabotage and overthrow the regime in Baghdad violate international law and supply terrorist movements with justification to engage in extreme violence. The events taking place every day in Kosovo constitute systematic and premeditated ethnic cleansing.

The Serbs are slowly but surely eliminating the Albanian Muslims. The operations which have been going on for months under the auspices of NATO are yet another episode in the Bosnian tragedy . . . .

The US can indeed track down and punish the men who plan terrorist operations, but flagrantly unjust and biased US policies will continue to provide the ideal environment for terrorism to flourish. As for us, we will pay the price for whatever Bin Laden -- or "Bin Clinton" -- chooses to do.

Book Review
by Mahmoud El-Wardani

Full Text

Qissat Al-Gam'iyat Al-Ghayr Hukoumiya . . . Tamwil wa Tatbi'e (The Story of NGOs: Funding and Normalisation), Sanaa El-Masri. Cairo: Dar Sina Lil-Nashr, 1998

The noble intentions of NGOs aside, their proliferation in Egypt since the early '90s and the plethora of international agencies and organisations funding them give one pause for thought. Delving into the phenomenon, Sanaa El-Masri has conducted interviews, gathered statistics and sifted with a thin comb through reams of leaflets and reports issued by NGOs. Demonstrating that there is no such thing as a free lunch, El-Masri skillfully traces the strings attached to donations and funds in return for which NGOs (the vast majority of whose members come from the opposition) are expected to deliver detailed, extremely revealing reports. Despite its grim conclusions, the book also makes for an entertaining read, thanks to El-Masri's witty accounts of the goings-on in NGO meetings and their no-expense-spared five-star hotel settings.

EDITORIAL: "Cause and Effect"

Full Text

The synchronised bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania last Friday are, in essence, a declaration of war on the primary advocate and executor of the New World Order. The choice of targets, the magnitude of the attacks (which left some 200 dead and 5,000 wounded), the precision of the operation and the solemn vows of retribution by Washington all indicate that the war will be widespread, vicious and protracted.

Nairobi and Dar es Salaam were the last places one would have expected to be the stage of a massive terrorist attack. But then, that is probably the very reason the terrorists targeted them. As the two capitals have never been known to harbour extremist organisations or to suffer from the plague of terrorism, security there was not at its tightest. This must have facilitated the logistics considerably.

In the absence of either a definitive claim of responsibility or official accusations from the US, Kenya or Tanzania, speculation has been rife as to the identity of those who planned and carried out the attacks. Islamist organisations, however -- any or all of over half a dozen groups, acting singly or collectively -- are the prime suspects for the moment.

The suspicion is well-grounded. Six such groups banded together last February and formed the so-called Islamic Front for Jihad (struggle) Against the Jews and the Crusaders -- meaning Israel and, principally, the United States. The front's founding statement included a fatwa (religious opinion) according to which Muslims are duty-bound "to kill Americans and seize their assets wherever they can be found". The front included the Jihad Organisation, which has a record of violent activity inside Egypt, including the 1981 assassination of President Anwar El-Sadat. This group issued a threat against the Americans a few days before the East African bombings.

All of this means that the United States and its allies, notably Israel, are up against an highly professional organisation with a wide sphere of influence. All the Pentagon's power may help in fighting terrorism, but it will never be fully effective as long as discontent and the will to resist persist. A better approach would be policy shifts in favour of the oppressed, such as the Palestinians, and away from Israel.

Rejecting Arafat's "Formula"
Former Minister of Agriculture (PA), interviewed by Sherine Bahaa

Full Text

Why did it take Arafat a whole year to shuffle his cabinet despite repeated demands by the Palestinian Legislative Council?

Palestinians have been waiting this year to find real change whereby officials accused of corruption more than a year ago would be reprimanded and punished. In fact, people really thought that those corrupt officials will be referred to court.

Yet those people were reinstated in their positions. This led to deepening frustration and disappointment among the Palestinians. This was done in a way which would undermine the future of Palestinian democracy.

Do you think that the new cabinet will live up to Palestinian expectations?

If this government can guarantee the salaries of the old and new ministers (a total of 32), this will be an achievement in itself. I cannot understand the absence of a solid council of ministers who are really devoted to their cause, with determination to build their institutions, to build the bases towards sustainable development.

I am afraid this government is not the right choice for all these challenges.

What were the reasons behind your immediate resignation?

On 26 June, when the budget was submitted to the Legislative Council, I rejected it for a number of reasons. First, the absence of an institution called the cabinet and as such the absence of any institution which could really set priorities and draw conclusions on how we could really challenge and confront the expansionist policies of [Israeli Prime Minister] Mr Netanyahu.

Second, corruption and the formation of Mafia-type pockets within the system, wherein government positions are abused for the sake of personal profit. Third, the lack of respect for human rights. Fourth, the absence of any clear planning and division of responsibilities.

This was my position before knowing whether or not I was going to be included in the new cabinet. To be a minister under these restraints and problems is very difficult.

For the past three years, we have really failed to put an end to corruption or the lack of respect for human rights. I felt that I could not again be a part of this formula.

More of the Same
by Graham Usher and Tarek Hassan


A full year after 18 of the 21 ministers of the Palestinian Authority (PA) tendered their resignations, Yasser Arafat last week got round to presenting his "reshuffled" cabinet to the elected Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC). The unveiling was greeted with relief by a few hounded ministers, outrage by many PLC members and absolute cynicism by the majority of Palestinians.

The call for a new government had followed a special PLC investigation into mismanagement across the PA ministries.

Published in July 1997, the report exposed a misuse of public funds to the tune of $326 million out of the PA's overall budget of $800 million and, in the cases of three ministers, evidence of criminal corruption. It recommended that the three ministers concerned be put on trial. It also called on Arafat to replace his existing executive with a new one made up of "technocrats and experts" authorised not only to clean up the PA's act, but also to ensure respect of the separation of powers required for any genuinely independent legislature and judiciary.

Arafat's response to these demands can only be described as one of contempt. The new executive not only retains the three accused ministers in their posts, but, far from streamlining in the name of efficiency, inflates it from 22 ministries to 30, adding eight new "state" ministers without portfolios.

In his speech commending the new government to the PLC, Arafat said its role would be to "build Palestinian institutions, reinforce law and order and the foundations of an independent judiciary". Many PLC members took this as so much moonshine.

Ashrawi declined Arafat's offer of the Ministry of Tourism. "I cannot be part of this cabinet," she said on 6 August. "It reflects neither the attitudes nor the structural, procedural and personal reforms that are needed." Ashrawi was joined in her resignation by Abdel-Jawad Saleh, former agriculture minister.

Saleh, who was made a state minister without portfolio in the cabinet, accused Arafat of running a "school for corruption" in which "effective ministers are kicked out and corrupt ones are retained".

Nor was the discontent confined to "independents" like Ashrawi and Saleh. In an acrimonious PLC debate on the new government on 8 and 9 August, many members from Arafat's own Fatah movement vented their anger at their leader's new dispensation. Fatah member for Nablus, Hussam Khader, mused that Arafat should no longer be referred to as the PA's "Rais" (president) but rather as "god of the Palestinian people".

Alarmed by the possibility of a split in Fatah's ranks, Arafat was quick to take preventive action. On 6 August, he convened the movement's highest decision-making body, the Central Committee (FCC), and, the next day, followed up with a "special" meeting of PLC members. Sources say that at this session Arafat resorted to a mixture of personal pleading, calls for national unity and implied threats of force to haul his truculent followers into line.

As so often in the past, these methods worked. On 9 August, the PLC approved the new government by 55 votes to 28, a majority ensured by virtue of the fact that affiliates make up 64 of the PLC's 87 members.

The vote certainly marked the temporary end of a struggle between two currents within Palestinian nationalism that has been simmering ever since the PLC was elected in January 1996. This tussle has been less about the merits and demerits of the Oslo process than over the vision and content of any future Palestinian polity.

For Arafat and many of the PLO functionaries who returned with him from Tunis, however, issues like democracy, accountability and law are wholly secondary to the "main" struggle against Israel. For them, the only response to the crisis is the establishment of a "national unity" leadership, with "unity" measured in terms of fidelity to the leader rather than by suitability or competence to do the job.

With the countdown to a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood now only nine months away, Arafat appears to be relying on the leadership methods he forged during earlier national crises such as Black September and the siege of Beirut.

The problem is that such methods ended in defeat in Lebanon and squandered the political opportunities thrown up by the mass, popular and potentially democratic struggle released by Intifada. For many PLC members -- especially those who were formed by the uprising -- the saddest aspect of the cabinet reshuffle was that it proved that, 30 years after he took over the helm of the Palestinian national movement, Arafat has neither forgotten anything nor learned anything.

Underlining that as far as he was concerned the issue of the new cabinet has been closed, Arafat left for South Africa on an official visit.

Return to Contents

Saxton's Amendment On The Flatow Case:
[The Debate] Before The House of Representatives on 5th August, 1998

Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, and Judiciary, and related agencies appropriations act, 1999 (House of Representatives - August 5, 1998)

Mr Saxton: Mr Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr Saxton:

At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following:

Title IX--Additional General Provisions
Sec. 901. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used by the United States to intervene against a claim for attachment in aid of execution, or execution, of property of a foreign state upon a judgment relating to a claim brought under section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, United States Code.

The Chairman: Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr Saxton) and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr Saxton) for 5 minutes.

Mr Saxton: Mr Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment is known as the International Terrorist Must Pay amendment. In 1996, the Congress passed and the President signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This Act allowed victims of State-sponsored terrorism to sue foreign governments in Federal court for damages arising from terrorism.

In 1995, a young New Jersey woman named Alysa Flatow was killed in Israel by a suicide bomber from the Islamic Jihad, a terrorist operation financed by and sponsored by Iran. Her family sued under the aforementioned statutes and proved that Iran had financed the activities of the Islamic Jihad, and received a judgment of $247 million in damages.

Needless to say, Iran did not voluntarily step forward to pay the judgment. As a result, the Flatows sought to locate Iranian-owned property in the United States. Recently they located three properties in Washington, D.C. owned by the Iranian government. They proceeded to go to court to have the court attach the properties for subsequent sale.

The court issued the writs of attachment, and the Federal Marshals were ordered to serve Iran with the papers. The State Department at that time stepped in and raised objections to the sale, in effect taking the side of Iran, and asked the Justice Department to intervene on the side of Iran.

The Justice Department subsequently made an appearance in the trial and argued that the property should not be seized, their argument being that it would allow the seizure of Iranian assets. Of course, if their argument holds, this would defeat the purpose of the bill that Members on both sides of the aisle voted in favor of in 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Iran therefore would be allowed to continue to finance terrorist activity without a price to pay. This amendment finalizes the process and creates a price for international terrorism.

Mr Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr Obey: Mr Chairman, I do not really want to oppose the amendment, but I ask unanimous consent to claim the time so we can explain why we are accepting it.

The Chairman: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?

There was no objection.

The Chairman: The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr Obey) will control the time.

[Time: 21:30]

Mr Obey: Mr Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is my understanding that the committee intends to accept this amendment on both sides. I would simply like to say that, as some Members may remember, this matter was brought up before the House once before several weeks ago on a previous appropriation bill. It was then offered in a form which was technically not germane to the bill and was subject to a point of order.

We felt that the Congress had not had sufficient time to examine the amendment and to understand its implications in terms of the administration's ability to negotiate and to conduct foreign policy. So we were concerned at that time.

We have now learned a bit more about the status of the law. There are still, frankly, some questions about the advisability of going exactly this route, but, frankly, the State Department has not been as clear as we would like in laying out what other options might be available.

So under these circumstances, I think it is advisable for the committee to accept the amendment with the understanding that it will need to be worked on in conference to make certain that it is consistent with U.S. national interests.

Mr Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr Engel).

Mr Engel: Mr Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

I rise in strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey. This will help American victims of terrorism collect on judgments they have been awarded against state sponsors of terrorism.

As the gentleman from New Jersey pointed out, the Flatow family has gotten a judgment against the government of Iran, which sponsors terrorism. It is absolutely obscene that we would be in a position of taking the side of Iran. Iran must understand, as an outlaw nation, that we will never stop in trying to combat terrorism. This is certainly justice for the Flatow family.

By allowing this seizure of Iranian assets, this is something that teaches Iran, hits them where it hurts and let us them understand, again, that we will not accept state-sponsored terrorism.

It is ludicrous that the State Department had opposed this. Iran must pay a price for the continuing support of terrorism. I compliment my friend from New Jersey.

Mr Obey: Mr Chairman, I would simply say that there are some questions, also, the State Department has with respect to who should be ahead of whom in being able to make claims against countries like Iran.

Mr Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr Menendez).

(Mr Menendez asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

[Page: H7268] Mr Menendez: Mr Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of the Saxton amendment.

We clearly gave the right to victims of terrorists to sue foreign entities for compensation as a Congress. That is what the Congress passed in the law. And it is right for us to do so, to give a victim with a court-ordered judgment, to be allowed to enforce that judgment against any and all assets of a country in the United States.

It is offensive, in my view, that any department or entity of the United States Government would actively seek to inhibit such a judgment. This amendment would allow the family of Alysa Flatow, who is someone who in fact died at the age of 20, a resident of the State of New Jersey, a young, vibrant woman who had a lifetime of opportunity ahead of her. Her life was cut short and her family devastated by a bomb which exploded on the bus she was traveling on in Gaza. She was absolutely innocent.

They have a court-ordered judgment. The judge actually gave them a writ to go ahead against property. We should not be interfering. We should be standing up on behalf of the rights of United States citizens to be able to pursue such a judgment.

Mr Saxton: Mr Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr Pascrell) who represents the Flatow family.

Mr Pascrell: Mr Chairman, Alysa Flatow was a student at Brandeis University. She was a woman of great character, both in life and in death. Those who received her organs can attest to the kind of woman she was. Her heart was successfully transplanted to a 56-year-old man who had been waiting for a year. Her liver was donated to a 23-year-old man; her lungs, pancreas and kidneys to four different patients. Her corneas were donated to an eye bank.

New Jersey will not forget Alysa Flatow or the struggle and trauma her family have gone through as a result of this heinous act and this senseless loss of a promising young woman.

Mr Chairman, we have had enough victims. We do not need to victimize the family any longer. Personally, I have had enough of negotiating leverage, quote unquote. It is time that we stood and stood tall for the Flatow family.

Mr Saxton: Mr Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr Fox).

(Mr Fox of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr Fox of Pennsylvania. Mr Chairman, I rise in support of the Saxton amendment.

Mr Saxton: Mr Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr Andrews).

(Mr Andrews asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr Andrews: Mr Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr Saxton). I congratulate him for it.

The life of Alysa Flatow was only 20 years long, and I am sure that her family feels a pain that is beyond description. But I am also sure that we can do something collectively here tonight that will help her life have even more meaning than it has already had.

We can change the law of our country and say to terrorists, whether in Iran or around the world, that in this country you will be held accountable. If you appear before our courts and you are adjudicated guilty, you cannot find a loophole or an escape.

This is a legacy that this young woman's life can leave for generations to come that if, God forbid, if someone else is a victim of terrorism, those terrorists can and will be held accountable in a U.S. court of law.

I urge the amendment's adoption.

Mr Saxton: Mr Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr Rogers).

Mr Rogers: Mr Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment. As the gentleman from Wisconsin indicated, this needs to be discussed at some point before and during conference to be sure we are consistent on our policy. But we have no objection to this amendment and congratulate the gentleman.

Mr Obey: Mr Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr Saxton: Mr Chairman, I thank very much the chairman and the ranking member and all those who have spoken in favor of this amendment tonight.

Mr Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The Chairman: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr Saxton).

The amendment was agreed to.

Return to Contents

The Israel Resource Review is brought to you by the Israel Resource, a media firm based at the Bet Agron Press Center in Jerusalem, and the Gaza Media Center under the juristdiction of the Palestine Authority.
You can contact us on