Acknowledging that his push to broker peace in the Middle East has stalled, U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday appeared to threaten to cut off U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority, asking why the U.S. should make "any of these massive future payments" when the Palestinians are "no longer willing to talk peace."
In a pair of tweets, Trump said the U.S. pays the Palestinians "hundreds of millions of dollars a year and get no appreciation or respect."
"They don't even want to negotiate a long overdue peace treaty with Israel. With the Palestinians no longer willing to talk peace, why should we make any of these massive future payments to them?" Trump tweeted.
Trump infuriated Palestinians and Muslims across the Middle East when he announced last month that the U.S. recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and plans to relocate its embassy there, upending decades of U.S. policy and igniting protests.
The Palestinians envision east Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, and have likened Trump's Jerusalem decision to a declaration of war.
While the Palestinians have not closed the door to a potential deal with Israel, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said the announcement had destroyed U.S. credibility as a Middle East peace broker, calling the decision a "withdrawal from the role it has played in the peace process."
Tuesday's tweets mark a tacit admission by Trump that his decision to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem has thrown a wrench into his administration's plans to restart the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians, which he has dubbed "the ultimate deal."
Trump tasked son-in-law Jared Kushner with restarting the effort, and brought his former attorney, Jason Greenblatt, into the White House to lead the negotiations. Trump's Middle East peace team held meetings with Israeli, Palestinian and Arab leaders for nearly a year, ahead of an expected peace proposal.
Trump said his Dec. 6 decision merely recognizes the reality that Jerusalem already serves as Israel's capital and is not meant to prejudge the final borders of the city.
In his tweets, Trump wrote that his decision had taken "Jerusalem, the toughest part of the negotiation, off the table, but Israel, for that, would have had to pay more."
When Trump declared Jerusalem to be Israel's capital, he insisted the move would improve, not hurt, prospects for clinching a peace deal.
In the days after the decision, Trump administration officials said the strategy was based on the notion that Israel had lost faith in the U.S. as a committed partner during the Obama administration.
With trust in Washington restored, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government would be more inclined to make tough concessions that would ultimately be needed for a peace deal, the U.S. officials argued, and Israeli officials quietly indicated that they might do so. There was no specific mention, however, of what the Palestinians would receive in return.
Earlier Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley foreshadowed Trump's warning, announcing at the U.N. Security Council that the U.S. does not plan to continue funding the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East unless the Palestinians make efforts to move forward on peace talks.
Haley said the president does not want to give more funds "until the Palestinians are willing to come back to the negotiation table."
"We still very much want to have a peace process," she continued.
"Nothing changes with that. The Palestinians now have to show they want to come to the table. As of now, they're not coming to the table, but they ask for aid. We're not giving the aid. We're going to make sure that they come to the table."
Since the Dec. 21 U.N. vote condemning Trump's Jerusalem decision, U.S. officials have been weighing options for retaliating against the Palestinians for pushing the resolution, which passed with a 128-9 majority.
Those options, set to be discussed by Trump's top national security aides at a meeting next week, include several involving cutting off some or all aid to the Palestinian Authority. Another option is to cut funding to UNRWA, which provides services to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Jordan and Lebanon.
The talks are in early stages, with no decision yet on the amount or percentage of assistance to be cut, according to officials familiar with the discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
However, the officials said only a relatively small amount from the more than $220 million that the U.S. was planning on sending to the Palestinians in the current budget year actually goes to the Palestinian Authority. Most of the assistance flows to nongovernmental groups involved in building civic organizations that promote good governance, anti-corruption efforts, and health and education projects.
The officials said one possibility would be to redirect aid from the Palestinian Authority to those groups. They said similar proposals are envisioned for UNRWA, and Palestinian children in Gaza, Jordan and Lebanon would be disproportionally affected by an immediate and complete cut-off.
UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness said the agency had not been informed of any changes to U.S. funding at this time.
The U.S. is the largest donor to the agency, pledging nearly $370 million in 2016, according to UNRWA's website.
One basket of money that is unlikely to be affected is security assistance to help the Palestinian Authority coordinate police cooperation with Israel, the officials said.
Also on Tuesday, Trump issued a threat to cut off foreign aid dollars to an unspecified list of countries that do not reciprocate to American demands.
"It's not only Pakistan that we pay billions of dollars to for nothing, but also many other countries, and others," Trump wrote, apparently referring to his Jan. 1 tweet lambasting Pakistan for failing to do enough to combat terror groups while taking U.S. aid. On Monday, Trump had tweeted: "No more!"
Trump's language marks a striking departure from decades of bipartisan American practice and reflects his transactional view of global affairs. Leaders of both parties have long utilized foreign assistance dollars – a minor percentage of the overall budget – to promote American interests abroad, alleviate humanitarian crises, and support oppressed peoples.
