Washington DC – In a report released Friday, the United States concluded that it was “reasonable to assess” that the weapons it supplied to Israel during its war on Gaza were used in violation of international humanitarian law.
However, the same report says that Israel’s assurances that it is not using US weapons to commit abuses are “credible and reliable” – and that the US can therefore continue to supply these weapons.
Defenders say the apparent contradiction shows the United States is willing to go to extraordinary lengths to continue arming Israel, even at the expense of Washington’s own laws.
“What these inconsistencies show you is that the administration knows what’s going on,” said Annie Shiel, U.S. advocacy director at the Center for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC).
“They can clearly see that there is devastating civilian damage, that there are apparent violations, that aid is restricted. And they lack the political will to do what that means: ending U.S. support and U.S. arms transfers to Israel. »
President Joe Biden’s reluctance to do so, advocates say, should instead force Congress to use its oversight and legislative powers to ensure the rules apply to Israel.
“The ball is in Congress’s court,” Shiel said. “It is very clear that the administration will not take the actions that it must take – that American law requires, that American policy requires, that basic humanity requires. So Congress really needs to step up and say, “This report is not honest. U.S. aid and U.S. arms transfers must stop now. »
Origins of the NSM-20
Shiel stressed that even Friday’s report was the result of pressure from Congress. Earlier this year, Senator Chris Van Hollen and 18 of his colleagues pushed the White House to draft a national security memorandum, dubbed NSM-20.
The memorandum required recipients of U.S. weapons to provide written assurances that the weapons were not being used to violate international humanitarian law (IHL) or to restrict Washington-supported humanitarian assistance in areas of armed conflict.
IHL sets out the laws of war. It is a set of rules intended to protect non-combatants during armed conflict, consisting of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and subsequent international treaties aimed at limiting civilian suffering.
Friday’s report, released by the US State Department, assesses assurances provided by several countries receiving US security assistance, including Iraq, Nigeria and Ukraine. But all eyes were on Israel, given the growing death toll, destruction and famine in Gaza.
So what exactly does the report say? Here are some points to remember:
- The US government considered the assurances provided by recipient countries, including Israel, “to be credible and reliable, such that the continued provision of defense items covered by NSM-20 could continue.”
- “Given Israel’s significant reliance on U.S.-manufactured defense articles, it is reasonable to assess that defense articles covered by NSM-20 were used by Israeli security forces since October 7 in cases inconsistent with their IHL obligations or with best practices established to mitigate the effects of civilian attacks. harm.”
- The US intelligence community believes that Israel has “inflicted harm on civilians” in Gaza, but there is “no direct indication that Israel intentionally targets civilians.” However, “Israel could do more to prevent harm to civilians.”
- Israel “has not shared complete information” on whether U.S. weapons were used in abuses.
- Israeli officials have encouraged protests to block aid to Gaza. Israel also implemented “significant bureaucratic delays” in aid delivery and launched military strikes against “coordinated humanitarian movements and deconfined humanitarian sites.”
- The U.S. government “does not currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or restricting in any way the transportation or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance.”
- Israel has its own rules and procedures and says it is investigating alleged abuses, but the United States “is not aware of any Israeli prosecution for IHL violations or civil harm since October 7,” when its current war began. in Gaza.
“Wild” recognition
Amanda Klasing, director of government relations and advocacy at Amnesty International USA, said one of the report’s most important findings is the intelligence community’s assessment that Israel should do more to avoid harming civilians.
“Having all that laid out, the question is how do they reach the conclusion that they came to,” Klasing told Tel Aviv Tribune.
She stressed that the report acknowledges that Israel has not provided complete information on possible violations of IHL.
“You lack evidence to support your case because your security partner is not cooperating with you. The next logical conclusion would be to hold your weapons until you can actually obtain the information necessary to ensure that you are not complicit in violations of international law,” she said.
“Instead, the report acknowledges these major gaps. And then the conclusion is: due to these shortcomings, we cannot draw definitive conclusions and therefore arms transfers will continue.”
Scott Paul, associate director for peace and security at Oxfam America, called the acknowledgment that Israel has not fully cooperated with the U.S. request “savage.”
He also criticized the State Department for relying on Israeli procedures and the military justice system to provide information on possible violations of humanitarian law. Israel rarely prosecutes its own soldiers for misconduct.
“It’s the form that takes precedence over the substance. The fact that a justice system exists does not mean it is credible – does not mean it will operate in a way that holds individuals accountable for their violations of the law,” Paul told Tel Aviv Tribune.
“And all the work done here is based on the fact that the system exists, not on the fact that it works.”
He added that while it is indeed difficult to document IHL violations in war zones, rights groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have done so in Gaza.
Paul also noted that the United States had no such difficulties when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022: the government officially accused Russia of war crimes just weeks after the start of the war.
Some advocates say that by turning a blind eye to Israeli abuses, the United States loses credibility to speak out against violations of international law in other parts of the world.
“How can (the United States) have any responsibility in other cases if it wants international law to be respected in the context of Ukraine, while it is taking all necessary measures to undermine the international law or multilateral approaches aimed at holding Israel accountable? Klasing said.
Biden’s ultimatum
The release of the report on Friday comes two days after Biden himself acknowledged that US bombs had killed civilians in Gaza, while warning Israel against invading the southern city of Rafah.
“Civilians have been killed in Gaza because of these bombs and other ways in which they attack population centers,” the US president told CNN in an interview on Wednesday.
Washington has confirmed that it has suspended a delivery of heavy bombs to Israel. Biden also threatened to suspend further transfers if the Israeli military launched a full assault on Rafah.
Many Palestinian rights advocates have argued that a gradual invasion of Rafah is already underway, in defiance of Biden’s ultimatum.
CIVIC’s Shiel stressed that the administration’s decision to deny Israel some weapons regarding Rafah is separate from the NSM-20 process.
“It is very clear that US weapons have caused catastrophic civilian harm, displacement and apparent violations for many months,” she told Tel Aviv Tribune.
“And for those many months – before the NSM even existed – existing U.S. and international law and other established policies demanded an end to this harm. So no, this is not just a discretionary decision by the president. U.S. law requires that U.S. arms transfers cease for these reasons. »
For his part, Oxfam’s Paul said that while NSM-20 was a welcome step, the Biden administration ultimately “bent over backwards” to avoid definitively answering the question raised by the memorandum: whether American aid is used in accordance with the law.
“He’s carefully trying not to tell us anything,” he said of the report.
