Fears of instability chip away at support for US bill cutting PA funding
Lawmakers unanimously support idea behind Taylor Force Act forcing Palestinians to halt incitement, but some say even Israeli officials worry about impact of cutting off money
WASHINGTON — Senators united Wednesday on the need to end the Palestinian Authority’s practice of providing welfare payments to the families of convicted terrorists, but several were not sure whether the Taylor Force Act, which aims to do just that, is acceptable in its current form.
During a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing considering the measure, legislators from both parties unanimously expressed an urge to act on this issue, but wanted to ensure any dramatic US policy shift did not disrupt stability in the West Bank or Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation.
Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker (R), who chairs the panel, indicated that even Israel would not necessarily support cutting money to the PA, even if officials have publicly called for the legislation, fearing it could weaken the Palestinian Authority.
At one point, Corker, who was otherwise enthusiastic about the bill, recalled that when Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) proposed cutting US funding of the Palestinian Authority over this matter in 2016, Israeli government officials contacted him seeking to block the legislation.
The bill was re-introduced by South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham in February. It is likely to make it out of committee in the coming weeks, but it is not yet clear whether it will pass the Senate without revisions.
Former US ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro, speaking at the hearing, also said the move could end up hurting Israel.
“Stability in the West Bank, both economic and political, serves Israel’s security interests by dampening the atmosphere in which more Palestinians might be drawn to extremism,” Shapiro said. “At least that is how the Israeli officials I worked with explained it.”
“They even extended that logic to the solvency of the PA itself,” he added. “So despite years of complaints about Palestinian incitement, the Israeli government has not cut off any of the steps it takes to ensure that the Palestinian economy remains viable and that the Palestinian Authority remains functional.”
Indeed, as of now, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, easily the most powerful and most prominent pro-Israel lobby in Washington, hasn’t endorsed the legislation.
Shapiro, who served in the Obama administration, said he supported the bill’s central objective, but proposed several alterations, including giving the president a waiver if he deems it necessary to fund the PA for security purposes.
The motion is named after former US army officer Taylor Force, who was stabbed to death in March 2016 by a Palestinian terrorist while visiting Tel Aviv.
Force, who was 29 years old at the time and had served in Iraq and Afghanistan, was traveling as a Vanderbilt University graduate student on a program studying global entrepreneurship.
Testifying before the committee, Graham told his colleagues that Force’s death “has to matter,” and that it should galvanize the US to “stop American payments to the Palestinian Authority unless they stop paying their kids to kill other people.” Stuart Force, Taylor’s father, was sitting in attendance.
The United States currently gives the PA nearly $500 million in annual aid. The legislation would allow only the portion designated for security assistance — roughly $60 million — to stay in place.
Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin, the ranking Democrat on the committee, expressed frustration that no officials from the Trump administration were present or that they haven’t taken a firm stance on the bill.
“I do want to express one disappointment, if I might,” he said. “It would have been nice to get an administration official here, so that we could get the views of the administration on this important subject.”
Last month, both he and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer each signaled they could back it at the Orthodox Union’s annual Washington action day last month, but neither has endorsed it in its present form.
The only Democrat to do so thus far is West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin.
On Wednesday, Cardin said he “hopes we can find a way to pass the Taylor Force Act.”
Others in the party have expressed deeper skepticism. New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen asked on Wednesday that a June letter signed by hundreds of high-level Israeli military officials warning the bill would spur a security crisis be included in the record.
The letter, which was orchestrated by Commanders for Israeli Security, said the Taylor Force Act would “undermine PA stability; expand the circle of frustration and hostility; erode the security coordination; and thus hurt Israeli security.”
Israel, which blames the violence on rampant incitement, has publicly backed the measure and introduced its own legislation mirroring the act, but reports indicate that some officials have quietly opposed Washington cutting off money to the PA over the issue.
Elliott Abrams, a longtime figure of the Washington establishment who held multiple high-level positions in the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, testified in support of the measure.
He said he thought considerations about potential ramifications of pulling funding were “reasonable concerns,” but he didn’t think they outweighed the logic of the legislation.
“As long as the Palestinian government is in effect rewarding terror, we need to be sure we make our objections — our condemnation — known, and that cannot be merely in words,” he said. “Our assistance program must reflect our feeling of repugnance.”
President Trump has not spoken on the bill, but he has, however, confronted PA President Mahmoud Abbas on the issue during their meetings in Washington and Bethlehem in May.
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, for his part, told House members last month there was an “active” bilateral discussion ongoing to resolve the matter.
“We will continue this dialogue with them,” he told the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He went on to say that Trump has only a “certain window of patience” and “a certain window which he will remain engaged and be interested.”
“At some point,” the top US diplomat added, “he’s going to become disinterested. And when we become disinterested, that will certainly alter our level of support.”
