The Oct. 7, 2023 attacks on Israel and the subsequent war have thrust the relationship between Israel and the United States back into the spotlight. A key facet in this relationship is America’s unwavering military support. Throughout their 76 year history, Israel has collectively received $130 billion in military support from the U.S. in the most recent memorandum of understanding between the two countries, the U.S. agreed to provide 3.3 billion dollars in military aid until 2028. 

That support makes up roughly one fifth of Israel’s annual defense budget. Given the volume and consistency of support, it can be guaranteed that whenever Israel engages in combat, U.S. weapons (or U.S. funded weapons) will be utilized.

However, this unwavering support presents a question of legality for the U.S.. Within the American legal system, there are two laws that challenge the current status quo of U.S. military support to Israel; these include the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961 and Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (AECA). The language within these acts challenges Israeli support and underlines how the U.S. is willing to neglect their own laws in order to push their foreign policy goals. The way we deal arms to Israel is in violation of established laws set by our own government. 

Within these two laws, there is critical language that challenges the U.S.’ unwavering support to Israel. In the Foreign Assistance Act, the language states that no assistance can be provided to a country, “which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” In the Arms Export Control Act, the language states that America is only allowed to distribute weapons to countries “solely for internal security, for legitimate self-defense,” and for a few other limited purposes. No credits, guarantees, sales or deliveries of weapons can be given to a country if it is “in substantial violation” of these purposes. 

In addressing the FAA, Israel has a dismal human record. Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 attack is just the tip of the iceberg when looking at its track record. When looking at rankings on the Political Terror Scale, (based on Amnesty International data and data from the U.S. State Department) Israel has been ranked consistently with a score of 3.5 or higher over the past 20 plus years (5 indicating the worst score). This shows that Israel has consistently failed to meet the criteria for the FAA, thus indicating that Israel does not qualify for military aid.

 The question of justifying military aid to Israel becomes more complex when looking at the AECA. This is because of the use of “self defense” language within the act. Much of the military engagements Israel involves itself in are claimed with the objective of self defense. Examples of this can be seen in Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 attacks but also in earlier examples, such as Israel’s attack on Gaza following Hamas winning elections in 2006. 

To counter this, while the arguments of self defense can be debated on whether their application is appropriate, the U.S. should look more closely at whether their continuation of aid will help in their foreign policy goals for Israel. The U.S. has long been a supporter of a two state solution for this conflict. However, with such consistent and reliable aid, Israel has become emboldened to act more aggressively by way of expanding settlements in the West Bank as well as military provocations in Palestine and neighboring nations. These provocations are making it harder for U.S. policy goals in this region to come to fruition. 

There are two solutions that could address this ongoing problem. First, would be to enforce current U.S. law and to ensure that a culture be developed where laws of military aid be upheld under any circumstance. Second, would be to restrict military aid to Israel until they would be willing to comply with established U.S. law. These solutions that have been laid out are meant to ensure legality of military aid to Israel, but also to help in accomplishing American foreign policy goals in the region. 

What is clear is the current status quo is unsustainable and will lead to more violence and more destabilization. America must act on its established laws to ultimately secure peace and security for both Palestinians and Israelis. 

 

Liam Minielly is a senior history and education double major from Kingston Ontario, Canada. In his free time he enjoys running, cycling and hanging out with his roommates.