U.S. Weapons Pipeline to Israel Highlighted Amid Gaza Conflict
TL/DR –
The Obama administration in 2016 committed $38 billion over 10 years in arms to Israel, a move that is causing controversy in the Biden administration. A vocal minority of lawmakers, backed by liberal activists, are calling for a halt or restriction on arms shipments to Israel due to its military campaign in Gaza. Despite some criticism of Israel’s actions, President Biden has resisted limits on U.S. military aid and is pushing for an additional $14 billion in arms aid to Israel and U.S. military operations in the Middle East.
US-Israel Military Agreement Becomes a Contention Point for Biden Administration
The Obama administration committed to providing Israel with $38 billion in arms over 10 years in 2016. The continued supply of the world’s most advanced weapons technology will ensure that Israel has the ability to defend itself, said President Barack Obama. This military aid package, now guarantees Israel $3.3 billion annually for weapons, and $500 million for missile defense. It has become a flashpoint for the Biden administration as some lawmakers, backed by liberal activists, demand restrictions or a halt to arms shipments to Israel due to its military campaign in Gaza.
In response to what he called “indiscriminate bombing” in Israel’s war campaign, Mr. Biden has been vocal but has resisted placing limits on U.S. military aid. The United States and Israel have long-standing military relations, with Israel purchasing critical equipment including unguided and guided bombs from the U.S.
Delivery of Arms to Israel Under Scrutiny
The procedure of arms delivery to Israel is opaque, with tens of thousands of weapons being sent to the country since October 7. Dana Stroul, the Pentagon’s top official for Middle East affairs, states that delivery on these sales constantly takes place. Moreover, Biden holds the power to limit any foreign arms deliveries, even those pre-approved by Congress.
Possible Shift in U.S. Policy on Arms Supply
During a recent phone call with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Mr. Biden hinted at a potential shift in U.S. policy if Israel did not increase efforts to protect civilians and aid workers in Gaza. This follows the increasing scrutiny of direct commercial orders between Israel and American weapons manufacturers, such as Israel’s request for 24,000 assault rifles.
Pressure to Expedite Arms Deliveries
Since October 7, Israel has asked the United States to expedite filling existing orders, a request to which U.S. officials have complied. Only a change in policy from Mr. Biden could alter the current situation. According to a U.S. official, recent fulfillments for Israel have consisted predominantly of 500-pound bombs.
Complexity of Arms Sales and Calls for Transparency
The Biden administration has been criticized by congressional officials over the secrecy of some new arms orders placed by Israel since October 7 due to a legal loophole. This secrecy contrasts with the public display of arms deliveries to Ukraine. In response, congressional officials are pushing the State Department for more transparency on orders below the price tag threshold.
While the State Department requires only to notify Congress when an order crosses a certain price threshold, at least three new Israeli orders have crossed this threshold. However, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken bypassed legislative review twice last December to push through two orders worth $253 million for tank ammunition and artillery shells.
Israel’s Dependence on U.S. Military Aid
According to Martin Indyk, a special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations during the Obama administration, Israel’s dependence on the United States has grown exponentially since October 7. He argues that the Biden administration should use this as leverage to shape the Israeli government’s behavior.
However, critics question the value of Biden’s national security memorandum issued in February, which requires all recipients of U.S. military aid to provide written promises to comply with international law. These critics argue that it adds little to existing U.S. requirements and that Mr. Blinken has too readily accepted Israel’s assurances.
—
Read More US Political News