Long Overdue Accountability

In a landmark and unanimous ruling on 20 June 2025, the United States Supreme Court granted American victims of Palestinian terrorism—and their families—the right to sue the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in U.S. courts. This precedent-setting decision marks a long-overdue turning point in the pursuit of justice and accountability after decades of impunity and moral evasion.

At the centre of the case lies the Palestinian Authority’s grotesque “Pay-for-Slay” program—a policy that provides monthly stipends to convicted terrorists and the families of deceased attackers. This is no fringe phenomenon. It is institutionalised, enshrined in Palestinian law, and publicly defended by PA leaders. While the PA claims these payments are a form of social support, they are widely viewed as incentives for violence. And for far too long, the broader Palestinian aid system has been underwritten—albeit indirectly—by Western donor nations, including at times Australia.

The Business of Murder

The Pay-for-Slay scheme allocates payments far exceeding average wages in the West Bank. For example:

– A terrorist sentenced to over 30 years in an Israeli prison receives approximately US$3,500 per month, more than four times the average local salary.
– In 2023, Israel’s Ministry of Defence reported that over US$300 million was earmarked by the PA for prisoner and “martyr” payments—roughly 7% of its annual budget.

This is not welfare. It is incentive. It is blood money—and it has deadly consequences.

Between 2000 and 2020, hundreds of Israeli civilians were murdered in terrorist attacks carried out by individuals or groups later glorified and financially rewarded by the PA. From the 2001 Sbarro pizzeria massacre to the 2016 murder of 13-year-old Hallel Yaffa Ariel in her bed, victims have ranged from Holocaust survivors to toddlers. These atrocities were not condemned by the PA—but celebrated.

Yet Western governments continued to send financial assistance—despite overwhelming evidence that such aid enables the very forces that glorify and reward terrorism. Australia, for example, allocated more than AUD $20 million in 2023–24 to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. A significant portion of this funding was channelled through multilateral intermediaries such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)—an organisation that, in my judgment, ought to be relegated to history. For years, UNRWA has operated with impunity, presiding over a system that fosters antisemitism in schools, employs individuals linked to terrorist groups, and perpetuates the fiction of eternal victimhood.

Legal, Moral, and Strategic Repercussions

The Supreme Court’s decision delivers three crucial outcomes:
First, it restores dignity to victims. Survivors and families of those killed in cold blood now have a legal pathway to seek redress—not from vague ideologies, but from institutions directly complicit in incentivising these crimes.

Second, it imposes consequence. If the PA and PLO are subjected to damages, asset discovery, and the reputational toll of open court proceedings, they may finally be pressured to end these abhorrent policies. The days of unchecked impunity may be nearing an end.

Third, it shifts the strategic calculus. The ruling invites renewed scrutiny of how foreign aid is used—and whether donor nations like Australia are inadvertently enabling violence through poor oversight or political timidity.

A Doctrine for a Different Fight

This ruling aligns with a broader strategic and moral framework. In a 2009 article with the tongue-in-cheek title “When a Cup of Coffee Becomes a Soy Decaf Mint Mocha Chip Frappuccino”, Australian Brigadier Justin Kelly and strategist Ben Fitzgerald critiqued the proliferation of fashionable but ineffective military doctrines in the West.

In their wider body of work, they distilled warfare down to two enduring defeat mechanisms: annihilation and exhaustion. The former—completely destroying an enemy—is often unachievable and incompatible with liberal democratic values. The latter—denying an enemy the legitimacy, resources, and support required to continue fighting—is both feasible and morally sound.

The Supreme Court’s ruling does not annihilate Palestinian terrorism. But it contributes to its exhaustion. By choking the financial lifelines of those who glorify murder and exposing them to international legal scrutiny, it represents a principled step toward lasting peace.

What Took So Long?

The moral asymmetry of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has never been clearer. On one side: a liberal democracy committed to rule of law, pluralism, and restraint in the face of existential threats. On the other: a leadership that glorifies violence, names schools after suicide bombers, and uses public funds to honour perpetrators of terrorism.

Yet for years, parts of the Western world inverted this reality. Terrorists were romanticised as “resistance fighters.” Israeli victims were written off as mere “occupiers.” The murder of Jews was excused—or worse, lionised.
This grotesque double standard has seeped into academia, media, and political discourse. Antisemitism has not only resurfaced—it has become fashionable, repackaged as activism while repeating the world’s oldest hatred.

This ruling strikes at that hypocrisy. It affirms a basic truth: that terror is terror, no matter the flag under which it hides.

The Road Ahead

Expect the PA and its defenders to denounce the ruling as “political.” Expect attempts to hide assets, delay judgments, and reframe themselves as victims. But also expect momentum. Legal teams in Canada, the UK, and perhaps Australia may begin exploring similar avenues. The Overton window is shifting—from appeasement to accountability.

It is now up to lawmakers and diplomats to match legal clarity with policy resolve. Aid to the Palestinian Authority must no longer be unconditional. Any future funds must be strictly contingent on the complete dismantling of the Pay-for-Slay system, and a verifiable end to incitement in schools, media, and public discourse.

Western democracies must no longer tolerate the moral incoherence of funding both the victims and the perpetrators of terror.

Conclusion

Justice is not merely about the courts. It is about the values we choose to uphold.

This Supreme Court decision is a long-overdue affirmation of principle. It tells the world that there will be consequences for those who glorify terrorism. It tells the victims and their families that their pain has not been forgotten. And it reminds the free world that its values—when defended—can still prevail.

In the contest between civilisation and barbarism, between justice and bloodlust, let us be clear about where we stand.

Michael Scott CSC is the CEO and Founder of The 2023 Foundation, a charity focused on combating antisemitism through lived experience. While serving in the Australian Army, he rose to the rank of Colonel. The views expressed are his own and do not reflect the official positions of the Australian Defence Force or the Commonwealth Government of Australia.