February's State of the Union Address was filled with hope-filled praise for the fledgling democracy in Palestine. "The beginnings of reform and democracy in the Palestinian territories," President Bush said, "are now showing the power of freedom to break old patterns of violence and failure."

I found myself applauding, something I have never been moved to do during any State of the Union Address.

He announced that Secretary of State Rice would depart for the Middle East the very next day and noted "she will discuss with them how we and our friends can help the Palestinian people end terror and build the institutions of a peaceful, independent, democratic state."

Discussion is good, I thought, but show me the money. He did, in the very next sentence: "I will ask Congress for $350 million to support Palestinian political, economic, and security reforms."

I wondered: does this mean giving money directly to the Palestinian National Authority? Sure sounds like it. We've never done that before; we have always channeled aid though the US Agency for International Development.

With one exception: shortly after Yasser Arafat died in November, President Bush directed that $20 million be delivered directly to the Palestinian Authority. Under an agreement with Congress, however, that money was immediately transferred to pay bills owed to Israel's electric company. That doesn't really count in my book.

If the money was going directly to the PNA it would be a much-needed vote of confidence in President Mamoud Abbas.

It would also acknowledge his savvy appointment of Salam Fayad, a respected former International Monetary Fund (IMF) official, as Minster of Finance. Fayad, who earned a Ph.D. in Economics for the University of Texas at Austin in 1986, has been applauded by U.S. officials for instituting financial transparency and independent auditing of Palestinian accounts.

I put a star next to that $350 million in my trusty reporter's notebook and penciled a reminder to myself: keep an eye out for this.

The President asked Congress for $200 million and on May 7 they approved $150 in aid to the Palestinians as part of the $82 billion military emergency appropriations bill.

I held my applause this time. None of the money will go directly to the PNA.

Of the $150 million, $100 million will be channeled through U.S.-based non-governmental organizations and charities. Of that, $5 million is earmarked for an audit of PNA finances.

Edward G. Abington, former U.S. consul general in Jerusalem and current adviser to the Palestine National Authority, described this as a "huge slap in the face" to Abbas. Abington added that the aid restrictions are now more stringent than when Arafat was alive.

So where does the other $50 million go? To Israel, for construction of a crossing facility enabling Palestinians to get from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank and to build terminals for people and goods at Israeli military checkpoints surrounding occupied Palestinian areas.

Let's not fool ourselves by pretending that this is aid to the Palestinians. It is aid to the Israeli military.

The other odd appropriation was $2 million to be given directly to Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America, to support their two excellent hospitals in Jerusalem. Granted, the money is designated for Palestinian patients, but to label a grant to a Zionist organization as aid to Palestinians requires a level of verbal gymnastics that I, for one, am not limber enough to attempt.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan has indicated that the administration is disappointed by the restrictions, engineered by Texas Republican Tom DeLay, who opposes the establishment of a Palestinian State, which is supported by the administration.

In the grand scheme of things, $150 million is not a lot of money. A recent RAND Corporation study, for example, estimated that it would take about $33 billion in capital investments over a period of ten years to ensure that Palestinians have access to jobs, food, water, education, health care, housing and public services.

The importance of the $150 million was that it could have showed optimism and trust in the new Palestinian régime. By failing to give Abbas and his administration control over one cent of the aid, the bill has demonstrated exactly the opposite. It was, indeed, a slap in the face.

Abbas will meet with the President in Washington on May 26, his first trip to the U.S. since his election in January. He's promised to raise the issue of direct aid. There is every indication that the president will listen. Let's hope that they can figure out a way to bypass Tom DeLay.

Susan Ives can be reached at suives@texas.net.