By Mark Goldfeder

In early June, Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin wrote a letter to Sen. Jim Risch, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, asking him to remove a temporary hold on restoring Palestinian aid. That hold was put in place only until the United States can verify, with any sense of certainty, that the recipients will not directly or indirectly funnel the money to terrorists. Releasing it before that happens would be a terrible mistake.

The letter, which was signed by a group of Raskin’s Democratic colleagues, was misleading and generally reflective of a failed Middle East approach that they desperately need to abandon.

The letter was misleading because it is full of partial omissions and false promises. For example, it notes that this “humanitarian and development aid was passed in FY20 with bipartisan support and signed by the former President,” but completely fails to mention that there was also overwhelming bipartisan and executive support for the very limitations that Risch is trying to uphold.

Raskin claims that the money “is to be provided in full accordance with U.S. law. It is administered and overseen by our government and by trusted and vetted partners …. Hamas and other terrorist groups will not benefit from our humanitarian assistance.” The truth, however, is that during a May 24 special briefing, a senior State Department official publicly admitted that while the U.S. would be “working in partnership with the United Nations and the Palestinian Authority (PA) to try and channel aid there,” at the end of the day “there are no guarantees” it would not end up with Hamas.

It is also problematic and unlawful even to pretend (while noticeably declining to mention them by name) that the PA has suddenly become a “trusted and vetted partner” that the U.S. can work with on distributing aid in the region.

Setting aside the fact that as recently as May 19, during the conflict in Israel, the PA released a public statement calling for a unity government with none other than Hamas, the PA itself consistently calls for violent uprisings and intifada. The PA also doesn’t stop at merely glorifying violence; it literally pays for it by guaranteeing convicted murderers a monthly salary for life, with amounts increased according to the number of victims and the severity of the harm. It spends hundreds of millions annually incentivizing terror, much of it from international aid.

That is why the U.S. decided to stop sending the PA money in the first place — and in that regard, absolutely nothing has changed. In March, the State Department confirmed that “the PA has not revoked any law, decree, regulation, or document authorizing or implementing” the system of payments to terrorists. Raskin’s “trusted and vetted partner” remains forbidden by law even to benefit from American assistance, let alone help make decisions about where the money should be spent.

Raskin’s letter is so harmful because it removes the incentive to improve. Up until now, the hold on aid appears to have actually been working; only a few months back, the Palestinians were reportedly considering finally abolishing their pay-for-slay policy in order to get back in U.S. favor. But a principle-less shift that demonstrates a willingness to accept recalcitrant noncompliance instead of insisting on real progress sets that entire process back.

Yes, it is true that Hamas is even worse than the PA, but that is a very low bar to cross. And the United States should not use differences in degree of support for terror as a barometer to determine foreign policy shifts or to gloss over the PA’s own despicable and unlawful actions against both Israeli and American citizens. And yes, the PA could theoretically still develop into a government willing to distance itself from terror. But in the meantime, it has not changed and does not deserve this positive recognition and designation as a “trusted” partner, let alone any monetary aid.

On a broader level, Raskin’s letter reflects a desire to return to the paradigm of rewarding Palestinian intransigence, a strategy that has never actually brought anyone closer to peace. It is the PA, not Hamas, that has turned down multiple generous peace offers from Israel over the decades, and it is the PA, not Hamas, that has continued to pay terrorists, all for the same reason: because it knows that if it just waits long enough, and remains nominally better than the next guy, then the U.S. will eventually lower the bar for what constitutes a legitimate partner and redefine as “trustworthy” the guy who only pays assassins instead of actually pulling the trigger.

It is letters like this that have kept the peace process from ever moving forward. Instead of lowering our standards, the U.S. should keep its long-standing congressional commitments, which require Palestinian leaders to do better and hold them accountable when they don’t.

Rabbi Dr. Mark Goldfeder, Esq. has served as the founding Editor of the Cambridge University Press Series on Law and Judaism, a Trustee of the Center for Israel Education, and as an adviser to the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations. Read full bio here.