By Seth Mandel
Wednesday, August 05, 2026
The Palestinian Authority has lost its latest challenge
at the Supreme Court in a sign that the “pay-for-slay” policy of promoting
terrorism may yet have real consequences. Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied
a request by the PA and Palestine Liberation Organization to freeze a $655
million judgment against the PLO for its role in terror attacks against
Americans during the Second Intifada.
The plaintiffs were granted the initial judgment but it
was overturned by an appeals court that argued the civil case wasn’t in the
court’s jurisdiction. Congress then wrote legislation specifically addressing
the jurisdictional question and, according to subsequent court decisions, that
question is now resolved.
But especially relevant is the argument that was used by
the Palestinians to attempt to suppress enforcement of the judgment. Paying out
the judgment could cause the Palestinian Authority to collapse, they
said, quoting comments that then-State Department official Antony Blinken
(who would later become secretary of state under Joe Biden) made in 2015: “The
instability and violence that would result from the loss of the PA’s governing
authority would likely fuel anger and frustration, and could lead to widespread
violence in the West Bank. In such a political environment, it would be
extremely difficult for any Palestinian leader to marshal domestic political
support to enter into and sustain peace negotiations.”
So the Palestinian government’s argument is as follows:
If you hold us accountable for violence we either caused or supported, much
more violence will follow.
I don’t necessarily consider this analysis incorrect, for
the record. If the PA were to collapse, disorder would follow. But that is a
choice the PA made knowingly when it decided to keep rewarding terrorists even
after Congress changed the law that had thus far shielded the Palestinians from
certain penalties.
That bill was put through in 2019. It closed a loophole
that had been protecting Ramallah from civil suits over its pay-for-slay
program, in which the government awards payments to the families of terrorists
who kill Jews. Should the PA keep its policy of rewarding terrorists for
killing or maiming Americans after the passing of this legislation,
Congress said, it would be considered a form of jurisdictional consent in American
courts, and the victims and their estates could be entitled to relief. The PA
continued anyway.
If the Palestinian government needs the money so much, it
probably can’t afford to pay terrorists. Quite aside from the moral problem
with pay-for-slay, it isn’t exactly fiscally responsible. And that was before
it was given formal warning that continuing the policy would make U.S. civil
judgments enforceable against it.
It is also a form of hostage-taking. The only way to
prevent the Palestinian Authority from collapsing entirely, according to the
Palestinian Authority itself, is to give the Palestinian government immunity to
carry out or materially aid terrorism against the United States.
For obvious reasons, the United States simply cannot do
that.
So what can be done instead? Well, the PA could stop
supporting terrorism.
But it clearly doesn’t want to, because it is contesting
jurisdiction entirely rather than, say, trying to settle with the families or
negotiating down the judgment. The latter two options would make sense if the
PA weren’t committed to terrorism forever. A request for blanket immunity, on
the other hand, is a promise and a threat.
The collapse of the Palestinian Authority would be
terrible. But it cannot be allowed to rob the U.S. by holding a gun to its own
head. And any government that does is eventually going to collapse anyway.
No one gets to kill Americans with impunity. The fact
that the PA is even asking for the privilege to do so means the
Washington-Ramallah relationship badly needs a reset. Until that happens, even
entertaining the handing off of parts of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority is
absurd.
No comments:
Post a Comment