Today, the House International Relations Committee will consider legislation to codify the policy that no American aid funds a Hamas-led Palestinian government. The committee’s action comes not a moment too soon, but it is troubling that representatives are poised to water down the legislation. A substitute amendment will weaken the wall which ought to separate America from the Palestinians’ terrorist-led government.

While President Bush has been firm in stating that America will not aid a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, cracks in that policy are not only imaginable but have been discussed on Capitol Hill. Last month, at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, much was said by senators and by expert witnesses about funding a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority. There was an initial consensus that America should not give funds to a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority until Hamas recognizes Israel’s right to exist, renounces terrorism and accepts all previous agreements entered into by prior Palestinian leaders with Israel. Then came the qualifications.

In his statement opening the hearing, Senator Lugar, chairman of the committee, said that what must be examined is “whether mechanisms can be developed that would provide aid to the Palestinian people without benefiting the Hamas government.” Senator Biden, the committee’s ranking Democrat, stated “we must not punish ordinary Palestinians for the sins of Hamas, I believe we should redouble our commitment to their welfare [and find] new ways of delivering aid.”

While this developing conventional wisdom – distinguishing between “direct aid” to the P.A. government and “humanitarian aid” delivered to Palestinians through non-governmental organizations – is understandable, how these good intentions pave the road to the hell of supporting Hamas was made quite clear toward the Senate hearing’s conclusion.

In a colloquy between the senators and wit nesses Dennis Ross and Rob Malley (each former American officials with Mideast policy roles), the notion of “expanding the definition” of what constitutes “humanitarian aid” was discussed as something to be seriously considered. Specifically, there was discussion of creating a mechanism that would allow foreign governments to ensure that the salaries of teachers in the Palestinian schools would be paid.

Alarmingly, no senator challenged this suggestion. If this view prevails, the benevolent impulse to avert a humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories may easily transition to foreign governments paying part of the P.A. payroll. Why would this be terrible now if such subsidies were de facto provided prior to the recent Hamas victory?

While Hamas did not hide its commitment to violence and the eradication of Israel, Hamas won the election on the promise of delivering better social services to the Palestinian people. Any aid – direct or indirect – that bolsters social services for Palestinians is thus bolstering Hamas on the very terms it needs to make good on this platform and further consolidate its hold on power. What more wrong-headed approach could America undertake than this?

As long as America is engaged in a global war on terror and committed to securing its interests in the Middle East, it cannot also aid, abet, or otherwise subsidize a terrorist group or any of its activities. This is a matter of the coherence of America’s policies and principles, as well as basic prudence and self-preservation. There is a role for continued international assistance to help maintain basic humanitarian needs regarding food, health, water, and environment. But part of the reality of a having a terrorist group like Hamas running the P.A. demands that any such assistance, whether administered through non-governmental organizations or some other mechanisms, must have tight oversight controls to ensure responsible transparent accounting so that none of this well-intentioned assistance can be siphoned off to the general P.A. payroll, or to any social services that would buttress Hamas in its efforts to make good on its election promises. No one wishes the plight of the Palestinians to worsen, but this must not be confused with giving Hamas greater legitimacy and political strength.

As originally introduced, the bill to be considered today by the House Committee, the bipartisan “Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006,” was a sober and intelligent scheme to prevent any aid from being used to support Hamas or a government in which Hamas is a participant.

The bill would cut any aid going to those P.A. ministries, departments or programs that Hamas would control, calls on the president to direct the U.S. officials at international financial institutions (ie: the I.M.F., World Bank, etc.) to use influence to prohibit assistance to the P.A., bans U.S. assistance to any non-governmental organizations servicing the P.A. except for limited humanitarian aid and does not grant the president any leeway to waive these requirements.

Today, the Committee will be presented with a substitute bill which will alter these provisions in ways more to the liking of diplomatic elites and open the door to the suggestions made at last month’s Senate hearing. The substitute narrows the scope of the American aid programs its restrictions apply to, creates exceptions among P.A. government agencies that may receive American aid and gives the president the power to waive any of the law’s restrictions.

In the aftermath of the Hamas election victory, President Bush and congressional leaders articulated a clear policy to isolate the terrorists and deny them legitimacy. The linchpin of this policy is the denial of aid to the Hamas-led government until it fundamentally changes. In this case, well intentioned humanitarianism paves the road to Hamas. Now is not the time to relent.

Mr. Diament is the director of public policy of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America