While the America-Israel relationship began as one of a great power extending a hand to a vulnerable fledgling state, it has grown, in the words of Yoram Ettinger, into “an exceptionally productive, mutually beneficial alliance.” He explains:

Israel has been the most cost-effective, battle-tested laboratory of U.S. defense industries [and] the most reliable and practical beachhead and outpost of the U.S. defense forces, sharing with the U.S. unique intelligence, battle experience, and battle tactics. . . .

The plant manager of Fort Worth-based General Dynamics/Lockheed Martin, which manufactures the F-16, asserted that Israeli lessons have spared the manufacturer ten to twenty years of research and development, leading to over 700 modifications in the current generation of the F-16, “valued at a mega-billion-dollar bonanza to the manufacturer.” . . .

According to George Keegan, a former U.S. Air Force intelligence chief, the value of intelligence shared by Israel with the U.S.—exposing the air capabilities of adversaries, their new military systems, electronics, and jamming devices—“could not be procured with five CIAs.” . . .

Israel [is] a special strategic partner to America—and not a member of the “foreign-aid” club of supplicants—increasingly contributing to mutually beneficial . . . joint ventures.

On Wednesday, Elliott Abrams testified before Congress about the Taylor Force Act, passed in 2018 to withhold U.S. funds from the Palestinian Authority (PA) so long as it continues to reward terrorists and their families with cash. Abrams cites several factors explaining the sharp increase in Palestinian terrorism this year, among them Iran’s attempt to wage proxy war on Israel; another is the “Palestinian Authority’s continuing refusal to fight terrorism.” (Video is available at the link below.)

As long as the “pay for slay” system continues, the message to Palestinians is that terrorists should be honored and rewarded. And indeed year after year, the PA honors individuals who have committed acts of terror by naming plazas or schools after them or announcing what heroes they are or were.

There are clear alternatives to “pay to slay.” It would be reasonable for the PA to say that, whatever the crime committed, the criminal’s family and children should not suffer for it. The PA could have implemented a welfare-based system, a system of family allowances based on the number of children—as one example. It has steadfastly refused to do so, precisely because such a system would no longer honor and reward terrorists based on the seriousness of their crimes.

These efforts, like the act itself, are not at all meant to diminish assistance to the Palestinian people. Rather, they are efforts to direct aid to the Palestinian people rather than to convicted terrorists. . . . [T]he Taylor Force Act does not stop U.S. assistance to Palestinians, but keeps it out of hands in the PA that are channels for paying rewards for terror.

[S]hould the United States continue to aid the Palestinian security forces? My answer is yes, and I note that it is also the answer of Israel and Jordan. As I’ve noted, PA efforts against Hamas or other groups may be self-interested—fights among rivals, not principled fights against terrorism. Yet they can have the same effect of lessening the Iranian-backed terrorism committed by Palestinian groups that Iran supports.