Is the U.S. Fueling War Crimes? $20 Billion Arms Deal to Israel Amidst Gaza’s Humanitarian Crisis 

On August 13, 2024, the United States government approved a $20 billion weapons package to Israel. The move has evoked a number of concerns from international observers, human rights organisations, and policy thinkers. Advanced military equipment slated for transfer under this deal, including F-15 fighter jets, tank munitions, and several types of combat vehicles, could hardly have come at a worse time.

The decision has not only drawn criticism but also put back on the table questions of the ethics and implications of U.S. military aid to Israel, in particular with regard to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the region.

The Arms Package

The United States’ arms package to Israel is among the largest in recent history, underlining deep military and strategic ties between the two nations. The deal comprises:

• • 50 F-15IA and F-15I+ fighter jets, totaling $18.82 billion. These aircraft would enhance Israel’s air superiority in the region immensely.
  • 30 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles, amounting to some $102.5 million. Those missiles would enhance Israel’s defense against possible aerial threats.
  • Also added were 33,000 120mm tank cartridges worth $774.1 million, alongside 50,000 high explosive mortar cartridges worth about $61.1 million. These munitions must be intended for improving Israel’s ground operations.
  • Medium Tactical Vehicles worth $583.1 million that will support Israel’s logistical and transport requirements in a reach of military operations.

The Pentagon stated that the delivery date will be in some years, and that some components, notably all F-15 fighter jets, will not be delivered before 2029. Timing and urgency regarding this arms package put additional pressure and raise questions, especially in light of the continuing conflict in Gaza and the deteriorating humanitarian situation there.

Military aid to Israel is becoming increasingly divided in U.S. public opinion. While many Americans continue to adopt a pro-Israeli stance, asserting its right to self-defense, there is also a surging sentiment in the U.S. that Washington should instead focus more on humanitarian aid to the Palestinians and strike a more even-handed approach to the conflict.

The U.S.-Israel military relationship has been one of the most enduring and strategic alliances in the world. Since 1948, when Israel was founded, the U.S. has provided constant military assistance to the latter in the sphere of the maintenance of security and qualitative military edge within the region. For decades, that relationship has been maturing into the cornerstone of the policy the U.S. pursued in the Middle East, where military aid was the key component for that support.

Over the past years, the U.S. has supplied thousands of highly advanced weapons systems to the country of Israel; this also includes the supply of precision-guided bombs and Hellfire missiles used in various conflicts, notably within Gaza.

The current arms package is the continuum of this policy for decades, underlining the U.S.’s commitment to Israel’s security. However, the timing and extent of this deal against the backdrop of a war that has claimed tens of thousands of lives in Gaza increase scrutiny and criticism.

Gaza Conflict

The latest round in this decades-long violence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was initiated on October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched a surprise attack against Israel, killing some 1,200 Israelis and capturing 250 as hostages. Israel retaliated with a vast military operation against Gaza, killing an estimated 40,000 Palestinians to this day, most of whom were civilians.

The conflict has displaced nearly the entire population of the Gaza Strip, home to around 2.3 million people, unleashing a full-blown humanitarian crisis ridden by rampant hunger, a lack of medical supplies, and continuous accusations of war crimes.

The extent and nature of the violence have provoked outrage worldwide, as many are now accusing Israel of perpetrating atrocities and breaking international humanitarian law.

The United Nations and various human rights organizations have documented numerous such cases of indiscriminate attacks on civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, and residential buildings, which caused calls for investigations into possible war crimes.

International and Domestic Reactions

The $20 billion arms package has set an extremely high stake in debate both internationally and within the United States. As critics have pointed out, the U.S. is culpable of the recent violence that continues to happen in Gaza by empowering Israel with the means to continue its operations.

Human rights organisations blasted the arms deal as a bare-faced disregard for the growing humanitarian crisis and a violation of international law, adding that the US should instead pursue diplomatic efforts to realise a ceasefire and resolve the root causes of the conflict.

On the other side, apologists for arms deals most of them coming from the U.S. government argue that these weapons are needed for the security of Israel and to solve its problems relating to defense against an extrinsic threat to their territories. They underline the point that Israel is an important ally within the Middle East and that it is incumbent upon the United States to support its defense capabilities in such a volatile and unpredictable region.

Public opinion in the United States on the subject of military aid to Israel is increasingly split. Whereas a large percentage of people still favored the right of self-defense by Israel, a growing body of opinion relieves that the U.S. needs shifting its support to humanitarian aid for Palestinians and carrying out a more evenhanded approach to the conflict.

Recent polls suggest that the majority of Americans agree to facilitate humanitarian assistance in Gaza—a shift in opinion toward the conflict and the U.S. role.

U.S. Responsibility and International Law

There are profound questions about the role the United States is taking in facilitating a package of arms this large to Israel, raising serious ethical considerations about the role of the United States in the conflict and the responsibilities under international law.

Critics note that the apparent blanket manner of giving military aid to Israel, with no conditions or safeguards, tends to connive at and support action that might eventually turn out to be war crimes. They add that the United States should use the military aid it gives to the nation to force more accountability and respect for international humanitarian standards from Israel.

In addition, the fact that no such military assistance was conditional on compliance with international law takes away credibility from the United States as a world leader in regard to human rights. The United States has projected itself so far as a champion of democracy and human rights, but in this case, the very actions seem to be violative of those principles, consequently attracting charges of hypocrisy and double standards.

The ethical dimensions of the arms deal do not have any bearing on the immediate conflict in the Gaza Strip. They reflect broader implications in the setting of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and its relations within that region. The United States, by placing precedence upon military support of Israel over the diplomatic efforts aimed at resolving the conflict, risks the further destabilization of an already unstable region and alienates many allies who have been critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Past Instances of U.S. Military Aid and Controversy

It is definitely not the first time that U.S. military aid to Israel has been in the news for controversy. History has seen many instances when U.S.-supplied weapons have been used in ways which aroused international condemnation and naturally put a question mark on the legality and morality of such aid.

One of the most famous cases is the 2006 Lebanon War, in which Israel used U.S.-supplied cluster munitions against Hezbollah. Because of the very high dispersion rate of these weapons, being of indiscriminate effect and continuing to kill civilians for years, the incident became a point for heavy criticism by human rights groups and a call for the U.S. to stop its military aid to Israel. Even with these concerns, U.S. military support continued unabated with the argument that it was needed for Israel’s defence.

Similarly, during the 2014 Gaza War, Israel used U.S.-supplied precision-guided bombs against populated civilian areas, causing enormous destruction and large civilian losses. Again, the finger was pointed at human rights organizations, accusing Israel of breaking international law, while the U.S. suffered accusations of complicity through the supply of weapons used in such attacks.

These past instances underline the recurrent ethical dilemmas and controversies clouding U.S. military aid to Israel. They also put a rein on the need for a more discerning and responsible approach to U.S. foreign policy in the region, one that balances security concerns with respect for human rights and international law.

The approval of the $20 billion arms package for Israel has far-reaching implications not only in the region but also globally, in relation to U.S. foreign policy. In the Middle East, this deal will only increase tension and result in further bloodshed by strengthening the Israeli military at a time when the conflict in Gaza, by the same token, does not seem to abate.

The arms package also risks undermining efforts to secure lasting peace in the region by signalling that the U.S. is committed to military solutions as opposed to finding diplomatic ones. Concerning the international community, the arms deal has attracted criticism from countries and international bodies who see it as likely to destabilise an already volatile part of the world.

The decision by the U.S. to favour military aid to Israel over humanitarian concerns may compromise its relations with other countries, especially in the Arab world, many of whom have been quite vocal in their opposition to Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Furthermore, this deal raises a question about the role of the U.S. in global leadership by its commitment to the maintenance of international norms and standards. The uninterrupted flow of military aid to Israel with absolutely no move toward the solution of the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza puts into international question the entire credibility and moral authority of the U.S.

The implications of this decision at the height of the conflict will echo not only in the region but across the global stage, bracing principles of justice, accountability, and human rights in international relations. It is incumbent upon the U.S. government to reassess its approach to military aid provided to Israel and further consider broader ethical and humanitarian implications that arise as a consequence of its actions.