PA ‘Trying To Escape American Courts,’ Says Legal Expert As Ramallah Claims To End ‘Pay-for-Slay’
The Palestinian Authority says a new welfare law has abolished payments to imprisoned terrorists, but legal experts claim the reform is aimed at shielding Ramallah from increasing lawsuits in US and Israeli courts
When the Palestinian Authority (PA) announced that it had ended the system of payments to Palestinians imprisoned for attacks against Israelis, the message was deliberately categorical. Officials in Ramallah said the old laws were gone, replaced by a unified welfare system that would base assistance exclusively on social and economic need. From now on, they said, payments would no longer be tied to imprisonment, legal status, or acts of violence.
For years, the “Pay-for-Slay” policy had been among the PA’s most persistent sources of international pressure. Israel accused Ramallah of rewarding terrorism. The United States fixed its objections in legislation. European governments oscillated between criticism and goodwill, periodically suspending aid only to restore it after receiving assurances of reform. Palestinian officials now argue that this chapter has been conclusively closed.
“They are trying to escape American courts,” explained Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, president of Shurat HaDin–Israel Law Center, speaking to The Media Line. In her assessment, the timing of the reform and the legal language chosen point less to a policy transformation than to growing exposure in US and Israeli courtrooms.
Under the new system, administered by the Palestinian National Foundation for Economic Empowerment, Palestinian officials say payments are no longer calculated by prison sentence or the nature of the offense. Eligibility, they argue, is determined through a unified social assessment process based on income, assets, and household circumstances, without reference to political or security background. The reform, they claim, brings Palestinian social policy into line with international standards and removes any incentive linked to violence.
What Darshan-Leitner disputes is not that the law has changed on paper, but that its practical effect will differ in court. For decades, payments to prisoners were governed by statutes that left little room for interpretation. The longer the prison sentence, the higher the monthly pay. Those convicted of lethal attacks received the largest sums, often several times the average Palestinian salary. The structure was public, formalized, and repeatedly defended by Palestinian leaders as a necessary social measure.
The more severe the attack, the higher the salary. That’s not welfare.
In Israeli courts, that defense did not convince. Judges examined payment tables, internal regulations, and sworn testimony, focusing not on rhetoric but on procedure. Repeatedly, rulings concluded that the system increased payments in proportion to the severity of the crime, creating a reward structure rather than a neutral welfare program. The cases “against the PA showed the same thing,” Darshan-Leitner said. “The more severe the attack, the higher the salary. That’s not welfare.”
Give the gift of hope
We practice what we preach:
accurate, fearless journalism. But we can't do it alone.
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
Join us.
Support The Media Line. Save democracy.
The consequences were concrete. Victims of terrorism secured substantial compensation rulings against the PA, in some cases totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. Israel then began deducting those sums from Palestinian tax revenues transferred under existing fiscal arrangements, increasing the financial pressure on Ramallah and reinforcing the courts’ finding that the payment system carried civil liability.
For years, similar cases in the US remained frozen. Jurisdictional obstacles prevented American courts from hearing civil terrorism claims against the PA and the Palestine Liberation Organization. That changed with a recent Supreme Court decision that removed those barriers and reopened the door to US courts.
The ruling allowed American citizens injured in attacks linked to Palestinian factions to pursue claims in US courts, where damages are higher and enforcement mechanisms more robust. For lawyers representing victims of attacks, particularly from the Second Intifada, the decision marked a turning point. Darshan-Leitner described it as a moment when legal risk shifted from theoretical to immediate. “Now the Palestinian Authority can be sued in the United States,” she said. “That changes everything.”
It was against this legal backdrop that Ramallah decided to revise its laws. By abolishing statutes that explicitly tied payments to imprisonment and replacing them with a welfare-based framework, Palestinian officials now hope to argue that the conduct sustaining those lawsuits no longer exists. The implicit message to courts is that the policy that triggered liability has been dismantled and should no longer be grounds for compensation.
Darshan-Leitner doubts that the argument will succeed. Courts, she argues, do not examine laws in isolation or accept legislative declarations at face value. Instead, judges look at patterns of behavior, continuity over time, and institutional determination. “Changing the law doesn’t erase what happened before,” she said. “Judges will look at how the system actually operated, not how it’s described now.”
Now the Palestinian Authority can be sued in the United States. That changes everything.
Under the previous framework, payments were calibrated according to sentence length, with murderers serving life sentences receiving the highest salaries. That fact featured prominently in court proceedings and weakened claims that the system was humanitarian. Judges rejected the argument that ending the payments would deter violence, finding instead that the system functioned as a reward after attacks had already been committed.
The new welfare model claims to rely on income assessments and social criteria. Still, critics argue that such standards are easily manipulated in a system marked by weak transparency and political corruption. Financial records can be incomplete, assets can go unreported, and documentation can be supplied without independent verification, allowing political priorities to shape outcomes behind the scenes. “They will always find a way to pay the ones who committed the worst crimes,” Darshan-Leitner said. “This is not even a question.”
To reinforce the reform’s credibility, the PA has announced that international auditing firms will oversee the new system. Independent monitoring, officials claim, will demonstrate transparency and reassure donor governments that funds are no longer misused. “Audits don’t enforce policy,” Darshan-Leitner said, arguing that oversight has repeatedly failed when political will was absent.
They will always find a way to pay the ones who committed the worst crimes. This is not even a question.
The international response so far has been cautious but largely receptive. Darshan-Leitner noted that several European governments previously suspended or reduced aid over prisoner payments, only to resume funding after receiving assurances of reform. In her view, the pattern has repeated itself: concern, reassurance, and resumption, with legislative adjustments often enough to reset relations with donors even when the underlying practices remained disputed.
In the US, the issue is addressed through legislation. The Taylor Force Act, enacted in 2018, mandates cuts to US assistance as long as payments linked to terrorism continue. Enforcement, however, has varied sharply across administrations, shaping Palestinian expectations about how strictly the law will be applied. Darshan-Leitner pointed to these modifications as evidence that political calculations often outweigh legal consistency.
Beyond past attacks, she sees the reform as an attempt to get ahead of future litigation. Victims of the October 7 massacre have already filed lawsuits in Israel, and US cases are expected to follow. Whether Palestinian institutions will be implicated remains to be seen, but she argues that courts will not be influenced by legislative timing. “October 7 will end up in American courts,” she said. “Changing the law now won’t stop that.”
From the PA’s perspective, the reform is framed as a sovereign policy decision rather than a concession to legal or political pressure. Officials describe it as a professionalization of social policy and reject claims that it was drafted with courtrooms in mind. Critics in Israel see the sequence differently, noting that legal defeats came first, followed by the legislative refurbishment.
Whether judges will ultimately accept the PA’s claim that its conduct has fundamentally changed is still unclear. What has changed is the arena. The debate is no longer confined to diplomatic statements or donor assurances, but is now unfolding in courtrooms, where judges will weigh records, patterns of behavior, and years of documented reward for terrorism.
