In 2018, Congress passed the Taylor Force Act—named for an American military veteran who was fatally stabbed by a Palestinian terrorist—which requires the U.S. government to suspend financial assistance to the government of Mahmoud Abbas so long as it continues its policy of providing financial incentives for murdering Israelis. Yet, although Abbas’s Palestinian Authority (PA) still persists with this “pay-for-slay” policy, the American ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, recently called for sending it more aid. Sander Gerber comments:

Among other things, the law urges our UN representative to “use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the United Nations,” and the State Department “to use its bilateral and multilateral engagements,” to highlight the issue of pay for slay and push for governments to stop funding the PA. The Biden administration is violating these requirements.

It has renewed aid to Palestinian and Palestinian-funding entities, like the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), potentially subsidizing the pay-to-slay program. Money is fungible, so if the PA doesn’t need to spend money because of an UNRWA program, it can allocate more funds to pay-for-slay payments.

With her May 24 remarks, Thomas-Greenfield went beyond skirting the Taylor Force Act’s legal restrictions to outright defy the law’s intended purpose. As she condemned Abbas for anti-Semitism, Thomas-Greenfield also promised the United States will “encourage all parties in the region to consider ways to support the Palestinian Authority.”

Instead of highlighting the PA’s pay-for-slay horrors, she called on the international community to provide more PA funding, enabling Abbas to keep making more of those perverse payments. If, as Thomas-Greenfield claims, the PA faces a financial crisis, it should start by cutting its payments to murderers.

Israel’s goals of freeing the hostages and defeating Hamas (the latter necessary to prevent further hostage taking) are to some extent contradictory, since Yahya Sinwar, the ruler of the Gaza Strip, will only turn over hostages in exchange for concessions. But Jacob Nagel remains convinced that Jerusalem should continue to pursue both goals:

Only consistent military pressure on Hamas can lead to the hostages’ release, either through negotiation or military operation. There’s little chance of reaching a deal with Hamas using current approaches, including the latest Egyptian proposal. Israeli concessions would only encourage further pressure from Hamas.

There is no incentive for Hamas to agree to a deal, especially since it believes it can achieve its full objectives without one. Unfortunately, many contribute to this belief, mainly from outside of Israel, but also from within.

Recent months saw Israel mistakenly refraining from entering Rafah for several reasons. Initially, the main [reason was to try] to negotiate a deal with Hamas. However, as it became clear that Hamas was uninterested, and its only goal was to return to its situation before October 7—where Hamas and its leadership control Gaza, Israeli forces are out, and there are no changes in the borders—the deal didn’t mature.