Obama doesn't intend that they should pay.
Siding with terrorists over terror victims is a good summary of Obama's entire foreign policy so this isn't too surprising. FrontPage's Arnold Ahlert discussed this case ealier.
On February 23, 2015, a federal jury in New York sided with 10 American families, finding the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) liable for six terrorist attacks occurring in Israel over a decade ago. The families were awarded $218.5 million for a series of terrorist acts attributed to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Hamas, perpetrated between 2002 and 2004 during the Second Intifada. On Monday, the Obama administration indicated it might intervene in the case—possibly on behalf of the Palestinian terrorists...
In the meantime, Kent Yalowitz, the families’ attorney, requested that the two organizations place $30 million per month in escrow while the process proceeds. U.S. District Judge George Daniels indicated he was inclined to require Palestinians to post some sort of bond, as a means of showing “some meaningful demonstration that the defendant is ready and willing to pay the judgment.”...
Enter the Obama administration’s Department of Justice. Despite having no prior involvement in the 11-year-old case, the DOJ notified the court last month that it was considering filing a “statement of interest” in the case by Aug. 10. A source told FoxNews.com both the DOJ and the State Department were working together on the issue.
And now it's here.
The Obama administration, citing the potential for economic and political harm to the Palestinian Authority and the broader peace process, asked a judge on Monday to “carefully consider” the size of the bond he requires for the authority to appeal a huge damages award for its role in six terrorist attacks in Israel that killed and injured Americans...
The filing also included a declaration by Antony J. Blinken, the deputy secretary of state, elaborating on the government’s concerns about the impact of requiring a high bond. Depriving the Palestinian Authority of “a significant portion of its revenues would likely severely compromise the P.A.’s ability to operate as a governmental authority,” he wrote....
Last month in court, Judge Daniels made it clear he wanted some sort of bond as a “significant demonstration” that the defendants were “willing and able to pay a judgment, if a judgment is entered and is affirmed on appeal.”
Obviously they don't intend to pay. Obama doesn't intend that they should pay.
Meanwhile, while the PLO and its media allies claim that Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade terror had nothing to do with them, they just dedicated a square to its commander.
The Palestinian Authority has dedicated another city square to the memory of a terrorist murderer responsible for the deaths of civilians. The memorial in Nablus shown above is named after terrorist Naif Abu Sharakh who was involved in many terror attacks against Israelis, including a double suicide bombing in Tel Aviv on Jan. 5, 2003 in which 23 people were killed and dozens injured. He was Nablus' commander of Fatah's military wing, the terror organization Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, and was killed by the Israeli army on June 26, 2004.
Text on the monument: "Martyr leader, Naif Abu Sharakh, commander of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, leader of the Martyrdom-seekers"
The PLP/PA is not a government. It's an internationally subsidized terror group which gets paid money, lots of money, not to engage in terrorism, with extremely mixed results. The counter-argument amounts to the tired old claim that if the "moderate" terrorists go under, the "extreme" terrorists will take over.
As this lawsuit reminds us, the PLO is already pretty nasty on its own.
In practice this lawsuit would interfere with Obama's ability to fund PLO terrorists so he's going to find one way or another to shut it down anyway.
Here's a little flashback to how Bill Clinton dealt with a terror victim's lawsuit against Iran.
In early October 1998, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright began calling members of the budget conference committee in Congress, warning them that President Clinton would shut down the government on the eve of the mid-term elections if they included an amendment to help the victims of terrorism.
The amendment, known as Section 117, was part of the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. It compelled the secretary of state and secretary of treasury to assist victims of terrorism in locating assets of terrorist states in the United States, to compensate the families for their losses.
Congress had drafted the legislation at the request of Stephen Flatow, the father of 20-year-old college student Alisa Flatow from New Jersey, who was murdered in April 1995 in Gaza by Iranian-backed terrorists. They were pushing for the law out of frustration, because the Clinton administration had been exploiting a loophole in a 1996 law passed for precisely the same purpose...
In a recent interview, Flatow explained that the reason he was shocked was because President Clinton had just reassured him in person that the U.S. government would help the families seize non-diplomatic assets belonging to the Iranian government in the U.S. to satisfy the $247.5 million in damages awarded them by a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
Why expect anything better from Obama?