THERE has never been a single instance of the US withholding any sort of assistance from Israel for reasons related to human rights infractions. But if Democrats have their way this could start to change. Some Democrats in Congress have questioned whether Israel’s military — which receives an annual $3.1 billion from the US, more than any other nation — might be guilty of human rights infractions against Palestinians. They want to be sure that the State Department isn’t violating a law barring US security aid to foreign military units that commit serious human rights abuses. If the law is being violated, then atrocities are being committed by foreign units, namely Israel, trained and equipped by the US.
The vetting issue involves US laws authored by Sen. Patrick Leahy. Leahy and other Democrats in Congress have questioned whether US scrutiny as to how American weapons are being used in foreign hands has been sufficient, and whether American embassies in the region have been adequately tracking whether the disbursement of US military aid was meeting the so-called Leahy Laws requirements.
If, for a moment, it is possible to put aside the now 70-year Israeli occupation of Palestinian land — possibly the most serious kind of human rights violation — what about the most recent violation that this occupation has produced: the wanton killing of largely peaceful Palestinian protesters along the Gaza-Israeli border? The fact that live Israeli ammunition was used against unarmed Palestinian protesters wanting to return to their rightful homeland might not only be in violation of international law; it might also have violated US law. US military aid cannot be used by recipient forces to violate human rights but the over 100 Palestinians who were killed and the tens of thousands wounded during the demonstrations clearly had their human rights violated in the deadliest of ways. Leahy himself said in a statement that he wanted to know whether his law applied to the Israeli military units who killed protesters in Gaza. When Human Rights Watch declared that the killings of Palestinians in Gaza by Israeli security forces “may amount to war crimes,” because HRW suggested ‘war crimes’, then there is Leahy’s answer: at the very least the attacks constituted a definite human rights violation.
Laws governing the sale of US-made weapons to foreign countries require that these countries do not misuse this weaponry on civilians. Thus, the US could send a very strong message to the Israelis about the unacceptability of Palestinian human rights abuses by making it clear that there’s no blank check when it comes to military support if they are going to kill Palestinians at random.
In theory, the Israeli army’s extra judicial killings of Palestinians could lead the US to reduce the flow of arms to Israel. The problem is that theory and practice rarely, if ever, meet. There is too little political will to enforce these laws on Israel. American politicians apparently don’t find Israel’s actions worthy of reprimand. Israel justifies the use of lethal force against peaceful protesters — and decades of other illegal or questionable actions – so effectively that American politicians remain unwavering in their loyalty. As long as most US senators refuse to second-guess the Israeli military, treat it as virtually beyond reproach, and have an almost reflexive defense of Israel’s security needs, Israeli recipients of US weapons are highly unlikely to be held accountable for the use of US equipment that results in civilian Palestinian casualties. But compare Israel’s actions next to the Leahy list of violations of human rights, and it becomes clear that it is time for the Leahy Laws to be enforced. Strict enforcement of these laws could deter future Israeli human rights violations. It would send a message that the US-Israel alliance must be predicated on respect of Palestinian human rights.
