Israel arms shipment on hold as US weighs new accountability

|
Hatem Khaled/Reuters
A Palestinian man inspects a house hit in an Israeli strike amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, May 7, 2024.
  • Quick Read
  • Deep Read ( 3 Min. )

Seven months into the war in Gaza, on the cusp of a possible cease-fire, the United States is taking a more cautionary stance on military aid to Israel. 

Last week, President Joe Biden paused a shipment of 3,500 bombs to Israel out of concern they would be used in a planned invasion of Rafah in southern Gaza, according to administration officials. This is the first time since the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas that the U.S. has put military aid on hold in order to send a message about Israel’s military response.

Why We Wrote This

The role of the United States as a major backer of the Israeli military is coming under rare and rising scrutiny due to the war in Gaza. Our charts put the debate in context.

Overall U.S. political support for Israel remains strong. Yet Israel’s conduct in Gaza has prompted growing concern about the way U.S. funding and arms are being used. 

This week, the Biden administration is expected to inform Congress about whether it believes Israel has broken international or U.S. laws in Gaza. 

This moment may mark a turning point in how U.S. aid to Israel will be administered, says Linda Robinson, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Longtime supporters of Israel,” she says, “have now come to the realization that it does the U.S. and Israel no good to apply this blanket support for Israel, which has really cost Israel in the court of world opinion.”

Seven months into the war in Gaza, on the cusp of a possible cease-fire, the United States is taking a more cautionary stance toward the military aid it provides Israel. 

Last week, President Joe Biden paused a shipment of 3,500 bombs to Israel out of concern that they would be used in a planned invasion of Rafah in southern Gaza, according to administration officials. This is the first time since the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas that the U.S. has put military aid on hold in order to send a message about Israel’s military response.

And President Biden said today in a CNN interview that, while the U.S. is committed to Israel's defense, if Israel goes into Rafah “we’re not going to supply the weapons and artillery shells used,” due to concerns for civilian lives at risk.

Why We Wrote This

The role of the United States as a major backer of the Israeli military is coming under rare and rising scrutiny due to the war in Gaza. Our charts put the debate in context.

The U.S. has long been Israel’s strongest diplomatic and military ally, and overall political support remains strong. At the end of April, President Biden signed an unprecedented $26 billion aid bill destined for Israel.

Yet Israel’s conduct in Gaza, where health authorities are reporting a death toll of over 34,000, has prompted growing concern about the way U.S. funding and arms are being used. Public opposition to Israel’s actions has intensified, especially on university campuses in the U.S. and abroad as students call for divestment from Israel.   

Voices within the Democratic Party have called for Mr. Biden to take into consideration Israel’s conduct as a condition for providing aid. 

At the same time, questions are surfacing about whether aid has already been violating U.S. laws such as the Leahy Act, which prohibits the U.S. from providing military aid if there is credible evidence of gross human rights violations. 

This week, the Biden administration is expected to inform Congress about whether it believes Israel has broken international or U.S. laws in Gaza. 

Some analysts say this moment marks a turning point in how U.S. aid to Israel will be administered going forward. 

“It reflects this sea change,” says Linda Robinson, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Longtime supporters of Israel have now come to the realization that it does the U.S. and Israel no good to apply this blanket support for Israel, which has really cost Israel in the court of world opinion.”

SOURCE:

ForeignAssistance.gov, Congressional Research Service, Nasdaq Global Select Market Composite

|
Jacob Turcotte/Staff

Concern among U.S. lawmakers swelled following an Israeli airstrike that killed seven World Central Kitchen aid workers on April 1. Forty Democratic members of Congress, including longtime Israel supporter Nancy Pelosi, wrote a letter to President Biden urging him to withhold “unjustifiable” arms transfers until an investigation could be conducted into the incident.

Israel receives a standing $3.8 billion each year from the U.S, making it the largest recipient of American military aid. The latest package includes $5.2 billion for Israel’s Iron Dome defense system, $3.5 billion for arms purchases, $4.4 billion for other defense supplies and services, and $1 billion for weapons production. The Biden administration has reportedly authorized over 100 separate military sales to Israel since Oct. 7, though only two have been made public. 

Aaron Stein, president of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, says the latest round of military aid to Israel is needed for “keeping elements of their military whole [for] the defense of the country.”

Proving that Israel has broken international laws of warfare using U.S. supplies is sticky. “Once the weapon leaves the United States, and it’s given to somebody else, the oversight ... is negligible,” he adds. 

While nearly 6 in 10 Americans in a Pew Research Center poll say Israel’s reasons for fighting Hamas are valid, a recent Gallup survey finds that a majority – 55% – now disapprove of Israel’s military action in Gaza. 

Charles Blaha, who oversaw human rights compliance by recipients of U.S. military assistance until last August, recently spoke out about repeated cases of “special treatment” Israel has received in response to allegations of Israeli military abuses of Palestinians. Last October, Josh Paul resigned from his post overseeing arms transfers to foreign militaries in protest of the U.S. “rushing” arms to Israel without sufficient debate. 

“If there’s no accountability [for the Israeli military] and we continue to supply arms, then ultimately our governments are culpable of – at the very least – negligence,” says Iain Overton, executive director of the London-based nonprofit Action on Armed Violence. “But at the very worst, I’d say we’re in step with the same level of abuse.”

The foreign aid bill contains $9 billion in humanitarian relief for war-torn regions, including an expected $2 billion for residents of Gaza.

Editor's note: This article has been updated with a new third paragraph, with President Biden's comment on a possible invasion of Rafah. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Give us your feedback

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

 

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Israel arms shipment on hold as US weighs new accountability
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2024/0508/american-military-aid-accountability-israel-gaza
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe