Dear Mr. [x]:

I am writing in response to your communication expressing your views on H.R. 4681, the Palestinian Anti-terrorism Act.

To begin, my position is that I believe that we should not only provide no American aid to the Hamas-led government in the Palestinian territories, but should also actively oppose aid coming from anybody else. I am enclosing a copy of a letter I organized and had signed by 40 other Members of the House at a time when we thought the European Union might be prepared to give aid to Hamas. When, as we were about to send this, the EU announced that it would not do so, I sent them a letter thanking them for that.
The point I articulated in that letter is one that I will continue to argue strongly: namely, that giving into the notion that aid should be given to the Hamas government for humanitarian grounds will be, in fact, counterproductive on those very grounds. Perpetuating Hamas in power can only add to the misery of the people in the Middle East, particularly the Palestinians, who will be the major victims of their continuation in office because it will make impossible the achievement of a peace agreement that might otherwise have happened.

I have compared the argument for giving aid to Hamas to the argument we encountered 20 years ago against tough economic sanctions on South Africa. When I and many others supported those sanctions, conservatives, defenders of apartheid, and indeed Ronald Reagan, argued that this was unfair to the black people of South Africa because the sanctions would hurt them more than anyone else. Our answer was that short-term pain for those people was regrettable, but if it hastened the overthrow of apartheid, it would be in their interest. We were of course pleased to hear Nelson Mandela a few years later tell us that it was those sanctions that we voted for over Ronald Reagan's veto that played a major role in ending apartheid.

The relevance to the Hamas situation is clear. Many analysts have argued that Hamas' victory in the election was based only in part on a broad rejection of the notion of coexistence with Israel on the part of the Palestinian people. This is not to say that such attitudes do not exist, and that is a very regrettable fact that has to be taken into account. And it is also the case that Hamas has its dominance in the Palestinian Legislature in part because of the stupidity of Fatah, which split its candidacies in some of those districts where individual constituencies elected members. But it is also the case that a very significant part of Hamas' victory apparently came because of the sheer incompetence of the Arafat-led regime, and its successor, and Hamas' success in getting material assistance to people. That is, in some ways Hamas emulated the success of some of the old urban political machines in America of being the best deliverer of services.

This is exactly why humanitarian aid to Hamas is an enemy of peace. Some who have argued for humanitarian aid have noted that Hamas' victory was not entirely fueled by anti-Israel rejectionism but was in fact partly because of their success in delivering services. But this is precisely why we should oppose any further aid to Hamas, because that will only enhance their ability to deliver those services that they then use to strengthen the rejectionist position.

Hamas uses the provision of material assistance to people in need to strengthen its ability to reject any efforts at peace, and, as we have most recently seen, to cheer-on terrorist murder, as in the recent bombing in Tel Aviv. That is why I will strongly oppose any American effort to aid Hamas, and I will join in efforts to discourage others from doing so.

Thus, if that were all that was in H.R. 4681, I would have been an early cosponsor. Unfortunately, I think the people who drafted H.R. 4681 added additional provisions that dilute its force.
Specifically, there are two conditions that are listed in the bill that must be met before there can be effective American participation in helping achieve a peace agreement. I stress again that this does not in my judgment apply to the situation with Hamas. I am opposed to any recognition of or dealing with Hamas. But part of the reason for withholding aid from Hamas is the hope that this will lead to its loss of power. The question then is what should our posture be if we are able to get to a post-Hamas government?

That is where I have problems with H.R. 4681. Here are the two provisions in question:
Assistance to the Palestinian Authority is conditioned on a Presidential determination that the Palestinian Authority has taken effective steps and made demonstrable progress toward -
(D) ensuring democracy, the rule of law, and an independent judiciary, and adopting other reforms such as ensuring transparent and accountable governance; and
(E) ensuring the financial transparency and accountability of all government ministries and operations.

Before I could wholeheartedly endorse H.R. 4681 as a cosponsor in its current form, someone - AIPAC perhaps - will have to explain to me why I should insist on full democracy in the Palestinian Authority or any other entity with which Israel might negotiate. I also wonder why I should believe we can only have peace if the entity with which Israel negotiates is entirely transparent and honest. In fact, with those two conditions in effect in 1977, Menachem Begin could never have negotiated a deal with Anwar Sadat, whose government certainly did not meet either of them. Nor did Yasser Arafat's government meet either of them when Yitzhak Rabin began negotiations with him. Of course we should be pushing for changes in a post-Hamas Palestinian Authority to prevent it from the kind of corruption that occurred under Arafat, and that Abbas was not able to extirpate. And I do believe we should be pushing for democracy. But I do not agree at all that those should be made conditions before a peace agreement can be reached. And I should have noted that in addition to Egypt, Jordan would have been barred by those requirements, especially the democracy one, from making the agreement with Israel that has been, I think, helpful for Israel on that front.

My position then is that I am going to continue to try to argue that these two provisions be dropped from H.R. 4681. If I am unsuccessful in getting them dropped, I will still vote for the bill because its major impact has to do with the question of whether or not there should be financial aid to Hamas, and on that, as I said, I am very firm. But for those who wonder why I have not cosponsored the bill, the answer is that I do not like the practice - whether it is engaged in by the Republicans who run the House, or AIPAC, or anyone else - of drafting a bill which achieves one important objective, but then adds other factors which are either not necessary to that objective or could in fact detract from it, and then insist that everyone sign onto the bill without any change. I will continue to push for dropping those two provisions, again until someone explains to me why I should be insistent on absolute, honest democracy in the Palestinian Authority before Israel is allowed to make any kind of peace with that entity - or any other Arab state as well.

I was a supporter of the Oslo process and I believe that, especially after the Israeli election results, it is clear that a significant majority of the Israeli people are prepared to work towards a realistic two-state solution if that is achievable. In the absence of a Palestinian partner, Israel may have to move unilaterally, but a longer-term goal should be to try to create a situation in which Hamas' regime is a temporary one, and I do not want to see a law on the books that would make it very difficult for America and Israel to arrive at some kind of understanding with a post-Hamas Palestinian government simply because it fails to meet the high standards of governance called for in these two provisions.

BARNEY FRANK