Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another


Congress Cuts P.A. Aid; ‘Political Opportunism’

Obama administration fights hard to reinstate funding

Print Email
Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad at the U.N. last month.(Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images)

Yesterday, the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, chaired by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican of Florida and a loudly pro-Israel congressperson, froze roughly $200 million in development aid to the Palestinian Authority. “Members believe that the funding cannot be considered in a vacuum, and that the P.A.’s activities at the United Nations, its arrangement with Hamas, and its failure to recognize Israel’s right to exist as Jewish State must all be taken into consideration,” a statement said. The Obama administration strongly opposes the freeze and is intensively lobbying to reverse it. The Arab League has pledged to fill the funding hole, and the P.A. has promised that it will not be deterred from continuing to seek U.N. membership. It is notable that voices ranging from J Street to the Israel Project to Secretary of Defense to Elliott Abrams also oppose cutting aid.

I chatted with Anthony H. Cordesman, a longtime Pentagon hand now of the Center for Strategic International Studies about the pros and cons of cutting U.S. aid. Except for him—and, he said, for the Israeli security establishment—it’s all cons.

Is it wise to cut or condition U.S. military aid to the Palestinian Authority?
I think that whether it is Prime Minister Netanyahu or virtually all the people in the IDF and Israel, they see it as not. This aid has had two real effects. It has done a far better job of providing security within the Palestinian areas in the West Bank, and it has been a counter to the corrupt and uncertain security situation in the Palestinian security services, which played a serious role in what happened in Gaza. So there is no debate over the value about this type of aid, in serving not only Palestinian but Israeli interests.

What about this other aid? The funds that have been frozen were apparently for development projects.
The problem you really have here is that this kind of symbolism doesn’t do Israel any good. All it does is create more potential for some kind of Palestinian rioting or protest and convince more people in the Arab world that they can’t work with Israel, the United States, and the peace process. It’s one thing to talk about aid in the time of Arafat, where you never quite knew where the money went, but the aid today basically maintains a relatively stable West Bank. And when you cut it, you raise the risk of some kind of protest or violence; you lose leverage; and you undermine the P.A., which has enough problems in dealing with groups like Hamas, which still is a threat politically in the West Bank.

This also isn’t the signal you want to send in the middle of the Arab Spring. It is very difficult to see in what way it could serve Israel’s interests.

The truth is there is a very unfortunate tendency as you head toward an election year to have certain American political figures try to be more Israeli than Israel, and to in the process show no regard for Israel’s really existing interests or even for the cautions that come out of Israeli experts. This is an exercise in political opportunism, in which just appearing to be pro-Israeli, as opposed to the reality, is the goal.

Anyone who’s read Article I of the Constitution knows Congress has the power to apportion money. If it were to continue to freeze this aid or even to move ahead with cutting military aid, would the administration find a way around a Congressional directive?
The practical problem there is, you can find ways to deal with things on a short-term, emergency basis, some of the time, but in this case you end up with a very high-profile action. You need to persuade Congress. You can’t get around Congress’ control over the purse strings. Even if you could find a technical mechanism that was arguably legal, it would be politically messy and they would lose.

U.S. Congress Officially Confirms Blocking Palestinian Aid, Explains Reasons [Haaretz]
Obama Administration Lobbies to Unblock Palestinian Authority Aid [Haaretz]

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

Marc R says:

I’ll agree that it may not be a good idea to cut funding to the PA. (And I’m absolutely delighted that Americans are giving credence to the opinions of Israelis as to what measures best make their country secure, as opposed to encouraging them to look in the mirror.)

But I’m not sure that it’s fair to describe cutting the aid as “political opportunism” considering the aid is expressly actually conditioned on the PA to do certain actions and refrain from others:

Now it may be wise to ignore the law concerning these requirements, but it’s still the law.

Jules says:

I would ask those in the senate who froze those funds to punish the PNA, to actually see what their funds to Israel actually buys them in the occupied territories:

Appeasement didn’t work with the Nazis and it won’t work with the PA whose goals and objectives are the destruction of Israel and genocide. Funding our enemies is suicide. It’s time to confront our enemies, destroy them, and send them back to Muslim Arabia for resettlement.

Salomon Mizrahi says:

The point is that Israel and the US are blackmailed by the PA, and they accept the rules of the game set by Abbas and Fayad.
“We have our own goal to get land without peace, through the UN where we have the support of more than 130 countries. Still, you have to fund us, otherwise we can begin a new intifada. The mob is easily inflammed, it suffices a few words in the mosques: Alla u´Akbar and slaughter the Jews,. The scheme is ready and well prepared”

brynababy says:

It’s disheartening to know that the best thing for Israel is to continue the funding. But to do so does make sense. Marc R. is on the money. And as far as J Street, who cares what they think. Speaking of opportunism….


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Congress Cuts P.A. Aid; ‘Political Opportunism’

Obama administration fights hard to reinstate funding

More on Tablet:

Rediscovering the First Woman Rabbi

By Laura Geller — Ordained in 1935, Regina Jonas died at Auschwitz. Now, she’s being honored.