A decree signed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on February 10, 2025, marked what appeared to be a significant policy shift in one of the most controversial issues surrounding the Palestinian leadership. The order declared that financial support for Palestinians imprisoned in Israel and the families of those described by the Palestinian Authority as “martyrs” would no longer be determined by the length of imprisonment or other status-related criteria. Instead, assistance would be distributed according to welfare standards based on financial need. The announcement suggested the end of a system that had drawn years of international criticism and become a central point of contention in discussions over the Palestinian Authority’s credibility and future role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
As reported by Die Zeit, the reform has since evolved into a broader test of whether the Palestinian Authority is capable of implementing meaningful institutional change while maintaining the confidence of international partners. At the same time, it has fueled an ongoing dispute over whether the controversial payment system has genuinely been abolished or continues to operate through less visible channels.
For many years, the Palestinian Authority provided financial assistance to Palestinians imprisoned by Israel for what it described as participation in the struggle against the Israeli occupation. The payments also extended to the families of Palestinians killed during attacks on Israelis or in confrontations with Israeli security forces. Critics argued that the structure of the payments effectively rewarded more serious offenses because prisoners serving longer sentences received greater financial support. The system became internationally known by critics as “pay for slay,” reflecting allegations that it created financial incentives for acts of violence, including attacks on civilians.
The issue carried consequences well beyond the Palestinian territories. Israel consistently condemned the payment program as institutional encouragement for terrorism, while the United States incorporated the issue into its foreign policy. In 2018, the U.S. Congress passed the Taylor Force Act, named after an American killed in a stabbing attack in Tel Aviv, restricting most direct U.S. economic assistance to the Palestinian Authority as long as the payment system remained in place. According to the report, pressure from successive American administrations, including both President Joe Biden’s administration and later efforts to improve relations with President Donald Trump’s administration, contributed to Abbas’s decision to announce the reforms.
Palestinian officials now maintain that the previous arrangements have been completely dismantled. They say all financial assistance is administered through a unified welfare mechanism known as Tamkin, under which applicants—including former prisoner households and families previously receiving benefits—must meet standardized eligibility requirements based solely on financial need. Officials state that applicants who fail to satisfy those criteria no longer receive payments and argue that the former system criticized by Israel has been eliminated. They also point to an assessment by an international management consulting firm, which reportedly concluded that the new mechanism operates with professionalism and integrity.
Israeli officials, however, dispute that conclusion. According to statements cited by Die Zeit, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar has argued that the Palestinian Authority continues to pay salaries to individuals convicted of terrorism despite the announced reforms. Israeli officials further contend that while the formal payment mechanism has changed, alternative channels continue to provide financial support. They allege that former prisoners and their families receive cash payments or other benefits through separate structures funded by the Palestinian Authority or the ruling Fatah movement, with welfare payments from Tamkin supplemented through additional sources. In this account, the previous system has not disappeared but has instead been reorganized beyond the official welfare framework.
The report notes that these competing claims cannot be independently verified. The Israeli allegations are said to rely on intelligence information that is not publicly available, while a positive assessment of the Tamkin system does not necessarily address whether unofficial channels exist alongside it. As a result, the central question remains unresolved despite extensive public debate.
Independent analysts interviewed by Die Zeit describe a more nuanced picture. Gabriel Epstein of the Israel Policy Forum agrees that the formal system of stipend-style payments linked to imprisonment or the deaths of attackers has been discontinued. At the same time, he cautions that former beneficiaries could potentially receive compensation through other means, including appointments within the public sector. He also points to previous public remarks by President Abbas emphasizing continued concern for prisoners as a factor that has fueled doubts among observers about whether the reforms represent a complete break from past practices.
Epstein also identifies developments that, in his view, suggest the reforms are more than symbolic. According to the report, the restructuring has generated visible opposition within Palestinian society, including criticism on social media, demonstrations outside the presidential headquarters, and public protests. Those reactions, he argues, indicate that substantial changes have taken place rather than purely cosmetic adjustments.
European diplomats cited in the report offer similar observations. One diplomat based in Ramallah points to the level of domestic resistance facing the reforms, including reported security concerns surrounding the Palestinian Authority’s finance minister and contentious debate within Fatah’s party structures. Those developments are presented as indications that implementing the new payment system has carried genuine political costs for the Palestinian leadership.
The controversy reflects broader tensions within Palestinian politics. The Palestine Liberation Organization formally renounced armed struggle against Israel during the early 1990s, yet prisoners held by Israel for security-related offenses continue to occupy a prominent place in Palestinian public life. The report notes that the range of offenses leading to imprisonment is broad and that not all detainees fall within universally accepted definitions of terrorism, further complicating the political sensitivity surrounding any effort to alter long-standing financial support arrangements.
Palestinian officials acknowledge that the reforms have social consequences but insist they are necessary. According to a senior Palestinian official quoted in the report, the responsibility of the authorities is to ensure that public assistance reaches individuals who satisfy legal eligibility requirements and demonstrate financial need under the new welfare framework.
Die Zeit concludes that the available evidence points neither to a complete vindication nor a definitive refutation of either side’s position. The report suggests that meaningful reforms appear to have been implemented while leaving open the possibility that some forms of support may continue outside the official welfare mechanism. Analysts interviewed for the article argue that assessments of the reforms are shaped not only by the available evidence but also by broader views regarding the Palestinian Authority’s role in future diplomacy. Whether the changes are regarded as sufficient progress or insufficient reform remains closely tied to wider political judgments about the prospects for renewed Israeli-Palestinian engagement.
