Congress must reject the bill and reassess its approach to military support for Israel in order to ensure that U.S. actions align with our values and legal obligations.
On Saturday, in response to President Biden’s long overdue pause on a shipment of some of the weapons used in civilian harm cases to Israel, the House introduced the Israel Security Assistance Support Act. This bill is an unprecedented attack on the administration's legal obligation to conduct arms transfers in line with U.S. and international law.
While the bill’s proponents tout it as a means to bolster U.S.-Israel security cooperation, a closer examination reveals the legislation disregards fundamental principles of U.S. law that allow for congressional review, balance of powers and checks on arms exports and security assistance, while making Joseph McCarthy-style attacks on U.S. government personnel.
This bill, which mandates the obligation of any unspent security assistance to Israel within 30 days of enactment, demonstrates the troubling trend of Israeli exceptionalism in U.S. law and policy. Under section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act, the United States is barred from providing military assistance to states that restrict the delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid.
Led by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), the Israel Security Assistance Support Act seeks to withhold salaries from government employees if its timetable and reporting requirements are not met, overlooking the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza amid Israel’s ongoing invasion of Rafah.
On Monday, the Biden administration rightfully voiced its opposition to this bill.
Josh Paul, former director of congressional and public affairs for the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, told one of us the act “essentially outsources a key tool of U.S. foreign policy — the decisions on whether or not to approve or deliver defense articles and services to a partner — to Israel.”
“Under this bill, it may not be possible for the U.S. to even debate whether or not arms should be provided to units that have committed gross violations of human rights, and would seem to suggest that the U.S. cannot deny anything Israel might request, however inappropriate, from cluster bombs to ballistic missiles," he continued.
Paul resigned in protest in October against the administration’s plans to rush weapons to Israel.
By prioritizing expediency of arms shipments over risk assessment, the bill punishes administration officials for simply doing their jobs and abiding by U.S. arms transfers and human rights vetting policies. This sense of urgency detrimental to a careful review of U.S. arms sales was also exemplified by a congressional notification waiver in the supplemental national security funding bill.
Combined, these assaults on oversight of U.S. assistance to Israel present a worrying direction and uncertain future for U.S. credibility on the global stage.
The bill’s requirement for an inspector general (IG) report on actions taken by administration officials to withhold security assistance to Israel is a direct attack on the rule of law and officials’ obligations to conduct transfers in line with U.S. law and policy.
While IG reporting can be a crucial oversight mechanism, the bill’s punitive measures use McCarthyist tactics of intimidation and suppression of dissent and threaten administrative officials simply for upholding their commitments to ensure that U.S. law is implemented.
“The administration's recent pledge to pause certain transfers to Israel if it carries out a full-scale attack on Gaza is small, and an inadequate step towards reining in the Netanyahu government's criminal conduct in Gaza,” Bill Hartung, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told one of us.
“But even this small step is too much for the authors of the Israeli Security Support Act apparently believe that Israel should be allowed to kill civilians in Gaza with impunity even as they block the delivery of life-saving humanitarian supplies.”
In the face of political pressure, President Biden has finally signaled a commitment to upholding some of the laws and policies governing U.S. arms transfers. The Israel Security Assistance Support Act represents a dangerous departure from those democratic values by disregarding U.S. laws and resorting to unprecedented, intimidating misuse of the power of the purse.
Congress must reject the bill and reassess its approach to military support for Israel in order to ensure that U.S. actions align with our values and legal obligations.
Janet Abou-Elias is a research fellow at the Center for International Policy and co-founder of Women for Weapons Trade Transparency. Lillian Mauldin is a founding board member of Women for Weapons Trade Transparency and a research fellow at the Center for International Policy.
