Well, in fact, I have talked with officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs about how to use that gavel, and I have raised it in context of this issue. They've historically been reluctant to do so because of the pushback they anticipate from the other side.
In my view—and frankly, I think instruction from this committee might help—raising this issue isn't something that would be harmful in getting to a resolution of the dispute. On the contrary, I think it would be helpful. In his closing remarks, Stan Urman kind of did it in a very rhetorical way—convincing to me—in saying that you can't have peace without understanding, reconciliation, and so on, and that we can't realistically expect to have a lasting peace if we walk away with these competing narratives. We do have to settle them.
The Arab League, I have to say, has not been sympathetic on this issue. In terms of the Jordanian, Israeli, or Palestinian bilateral agreements, that's fine, they've been okay, but the Arab League has not budged on this issue. We just saw them budge this week on land swaps, so there's a lot of potential flexibility, I think, and now is a fluid time. We should take advantage of that fluidity and our leadership in this issue to raise this issue and to push this issue.