The situation surrounding U.S. arms transfers to Israel has become increasingly contentious as the war and humanitarian crisis in Gaza persist, raising significant questions about U.S. foreign policy and international law. The U.S. has recently confirmed it will continue to provide military aid to Israel, reinforcing the long-standing partnership. This decision came even amid reports highlighting severe humanitarian conditions for the population in Gaza, where clean water and food supplies are critically low.
U.S. State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel explained the rationale behind the decision, which was also reflected in communications from Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to their Israeli counterparts. Patel noted the administration's emphasis on continuing discussions with Israel about the measures being taken to address the humanitarian crisis, stating, "We continue to be in discussion with Israel about the steps they took and other steps they need to take." This dialogue is particularly pertinent with reports indicating recent increases, albeit modest, in the amount of aid reaching Gaza, which has averaged just over 30 trucks per day, falling drastically short of the necessary 500 trucks daily pre-war levels.
The timeliness of U.S. arms sales has been spotlighted by lawmakers and activists who are raising alarms about the moral and legal ramifications. U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders has been particularly outspoken, preparing resolutions aimed at blocking over $20 billion earmarked for military support to Israel until significant improvements are made to humanitarian conditions. Sanders' initiative reflects growing discontent within parts of the Democratic party, especially among those who have advocated for reducing the United States' influence over Israeli military actions during this conflict.
Compounding frustrations, recent statements from aid organizations, including the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), have criticized the Israeli government's handling of aid delivery. Philippe Lazzarini, the commissioner-general of UNRWA, emphasized the insufficiency of current aid levels, calling attention to the stark reality where only 6% of the daily humanitarian needs are being met. He asserted, "What is being allowed to Gaza is not enough," leading to dire warnings about the potential for famine.
Following the launch of the Israeli military offensive last October, the humanitarian situation has deteriorated significantly. Among the dwarfed humanitarian responses, the World Health Organization has expressed concerns about famine rising to imminent levels. Reports indicate the war has resulted in the deaths of over 43,700 individuals, many of whom are civilians comprising women and children. The toll has displaced nearly all of Gaza's inhabitants, leaving chronic shortages and increased calls for urgent adjustments to U.S. military assistance to Israel.
The Biden administration's stance, which appears resistant to enacting any significant change, has drawn criticism from former officials and human rights advocates alike. Many question whether U.S. laws, including the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign Assistance Act, are compatible with support for a nation involved in military actions considered by some to amount to war crimes. A coalition of former Biden administration employees publicly called for adherence to those laws, urging President Biden to halt arms transfers to Israel amid mounting evidence of human rights abuses.
Adding to the complexity, Blinken's admission on recent non-compliance by Israel with U.S. demands for humanitarian measures, including pauses in fighting for aid delivery, may be seen as insufficient. On November 13, he called for extended pauses, emphasizing the necessity for improved humanitarian access, as many aid provisions were stymied by looting or unavailable logistical routes.
The geopolitical ramifications of these developments are significant, especially with Donald Trump's return to the political scene following the recent elections. Observations suggest the future of U.S.-Israeli relations may pivot depending on his administration's stance toward military aid and international law surrounding human rights. Currently, there is concern among some politicians and activists about the potential for diminished U.S. leverage over Israel's conduct without conditionality on aid retention based on adherence to humanitarian requirements.
Political responses are equally variable. Some legislators admittedly view Sanders’ resolutions as likely failing on the Senate floor but represent broader sentiment shifts within the political arena, manifesting increasing willingness to question traditional support for Israeli military activity. Recent discussions surrounding humanitarian aid delivery rules have brought attention to the disconnect between U.S. policies and humanitarian imperatives, amplifying calls for reevaluation. Yet, for now, the U.S. remains entrenched in its position, with arms shipments continuing unabated as large-scale hostilities continue unabated.
These tensions highlight the complicated interplay between military, humanitarian, and political obligations, shaping the discourse around support for Israel against the backdrop of such severe humanitarian crises. With increasing scrutiny from Congress and advocacy groups, it remains to be seen how this dynamic will evolve amid calls for more responsible and accountable foreign policy from the U.S. government.
