On Friday, Vice President Joe Biden's administration stated that it is reasonable to assess that Israeli troops in Gaza used weaponry from the United States in ways that are inconsistent with international humanitarian law. However, the administration did not go so far as to publicly declare that Israel had broken the law.
The United States does "not have complete information to verify" whether the United States' weapons "were specifically used" in suspected breaches of international humanitarian law, according to the report that was produced by the Department of State. The study also said that investigations into possible violations are now underway.
"Given the nature of the fighting in Gaza, which includes Hamas's attempt to conceal itself behind civilian populations and infrastructure in order to expose them to Israeli military assault, as well as the absence of United States government officials on the ground in Gaza, it is impossible to evaluate or arrive at definitive conclusions on particular occurrences."Given Israel's significant reliance on defense articles manufactured in the United States, it is reasonable to conclude that Israeli security forces have been using defense articles covered by NSM-20 since October 7 in situations that are inconsistent with Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law (IHL) or with established best practices for mitigating civilian harm, according to the report published by the United Nations Security Council.
According to the findings of the research, which cover the time period beginning on October 7 after the onset of the conflict with Hamas and ending in late April, Israel has not violated the law of the United States by withholding humanitarian supplies to Gaza.
The study is very scathing about the toll that Israel's military campaign has taken, despite the fact that it does not deem Israel to be in breach of any of the agreement's stipulations. During the same week that President Joe Biden warned to halt weapons deliveries in the event that Israel were to proceed with a military assault in Rafah, the results of the study reflect yet another harsh moment in the relationship between the United States and Israel.
Nevertheless, the eventual conclusion that Israel's guarantees given under the national security memoranda are "credible and reliable" has already prompted several parliamentarians to express their scepticism, while human rights and humanitarian organisations have expressed their disbelief.
The study did not prescribe any steps for the Israeli government to adopt, nor did it result in any modifications to the policies that are now in place. However, in a significant shift ahead of the report's release, Vice President Biden declared publicly in an interview with CNN this week that he would restrict the transfer of certain offensive weapons to Israel if Israel proceeds with a major offensive in the Gazan city. This is a significant shift from the administration's previous approach, which has largely avoided restricting military assistance to Israel.
The declassification of the high-stakes report took place on Friday afternoon, following its dispatch to Capitol Hill. Vice President Biden released a national security memorandum in February, prompting the administration to address those two specific issues. It was the first time the United States government was required to make an evaluation of Israel's behavior in the seven months that the war with Hamas in Gaza has been going on. The terrorist group's barbaric assault on October 7 sparked the war, resulting in the deaths of over 34,000 people and the destruction of a significant portion of the coastal enclave.
"I evaded all of the challenging questions."
Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat and the primary force behind the development of the national security memoranda, has voiced his dissatisfaction with the findings.
While speaking to reporters on Friday evening, the Democrat from Maryland said that the administration has avoided answering any of the difficult questions on the real determination. "I believe that what they are attempting to do is make it abundantly clear that they are aware of how dire the situation is, but they do not wish to experience the necessity of taking any action in order to hold the Netanyahu government accountable for what is taking place."
In a statement to CNN, Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley, who is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, expressed his agreement with the sentiments made by Van Hollen. He described the report as "a staggering diplomatic dodge."
During an appearance on "Erin Burnett OutFront," Merkley stated, "On the one hand, it says that it is very reasonable to conclude that there has been restriction of aid, it is very reasonable to conclude that our weapons have been used in violation of international law, and then it proceeds to say that we just don't want to give an answer on that matter yet."
During his visit to Rafah in January, the Democrat from Oregon was one of the few members of Congress to have ever set foot in the region.
"It is frustrating because it is so important at this moment that we use the leverage we have to convince Israel to change its behaviour," he added. "Clearly, politics and strategy come into play in this situation," he said.
Earlier on Friday, Van Hollen said that "the purpose of this report was not to provide a snapshot in time." He also accused the administration of adopting Israel's promises at "face value," despite the fact that investigations conducted by human rights organisations found breaches of the law.
On the other hand, a senior official from the State Department said that it was always meant to be retrospective and that there are mechanisms already underway to examine the action that is currently taking place. Such procedures do not set a time limit for reaching any conclusions.
As stated in the study, "it is often difficult to make swift, definitive assessments or determinations on whether specific U.S. defence articles or services have been used in a manner that is not consistent with international law." This is the case in any war that involves foreign partners.
However, the study stated that a significant number of documented occurrences raise serious concerns.
"While Israel possesses the knowledge, experience, and tools necessary to implement best practices for mitigating civilian harm in its military operations, the results on the ground, including high levels of civilian casualties, raise substantial questions as to whether the Israeli Defence Forces are using them effectively in all cases," the report stated.
As stated by a senior official from the Department of State, the creation of the report has proven to be an effective instrument for the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to employ when addressing the government of Israel in order to insist on receiving information and making adjustments in behaviour. The individual stated that they would forward the study to the Israeli government.
For many months, officials from the Biden administration have been urging Israel to take more measures to reduce the number of civilian deaths and to allow more supplies into Gaza. As far as humanitarian aid is concerned, the report states that the United States government "has had deep concerns during the period since October 7 about action and inaction by Israel that contributed significantly to a lack of sustained and predictable delivery of needed assistance at scale, and the overall level reaching Palestinian civilians—while improved—remains insufficient."
However, it states that they "do not currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance within the meaning of Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act." The act's provision forbids providing assistance to governments that deliberately limit aid.
The study identifies "the impact of Israel's military operations on humanitarian actors" as a particular area of concern, noting a number of cases, one of which was the attack that resulted in the death of a World Central Kitchen relief convoy.
Following the attack that took place a month ago, Vice President Biden made a call to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, warning him that Israel needed to take further steps to solve the humanitarian crisis or else the United States would alter its policy. In recent weeks, officials from the United States have said that Israel has taken significant actions in response to that talk, but they have indicated that other actions are still required. However, as a result of the commencement of "limited" Israeli military operations in Rafah, which is the location where millions of Palestinians have fled, access to humanitarian supplies has once again decreased.
A heated discussion
Over the course of many months, the study was the focus of heated discussion across the government. Human rights organisations have assessed the Israeli military operation as a violation of humanitarian law.
Amnesty International concluded at the end of the previous month that Israel had used US-provided weapons "in serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law and in a manner that is inconsistent with US law and policy."
An official from Amnesty World stated in a statement on Friday that "this report seems like the international version of 'thoughts and prayers': admitting that there is a problem but not doing anything meaningful to prevent the further loss of lives."
Amanda Klasing, National Director of Government Relations and Advocacy at Amnesty International USA, stated that "despite President Biden's vague comments earlier this week, his administration today made its position loud and clear: it points fingers and takes swift action when an actor the US government considers an adversary violates international law, but treats the government of Israel as above the law." This is despite the fact that the administration acknowledges the overwhelming evidence that Israeli forces are violating international law and killing Palestinian civilians with US weapons on the dime of United States taxpayers.
On Friday, Van Hollen said that "it is not credible that the United States government has less information than organisations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Oxfam compared to other organisations."
A senior official from the State Department stated that the United States government's process was thorough and considered any accountability measures implemented by the Israeli government, despite their inability to comment on the evaluation criteria used by those organizations.
The president acknowledged to CNN that bombs delivered by US authorities have resulted in the deaths of "civilians". On Thursday, a spokeswoman for the State Department named Matthew Miller said that Vice President Biden was referring to "the tragic loss of civilian life throughout this conflict" and that he was not really making a legal conclusion in accordance with international humanitarian law.
Organizations that provide humanitarian relief also questioned the study's findings.
Kate Phillips-Barrasso, vice president of global policy and advocacy at Mercy Corps, issued the following statement: "We are confused and dismayed by the report that the Biden administration presented to Congress, and in particular, its findings that Israel is not impeding the provision of aid to Gaza."
"Over the course of the past seven months, humanitarian organisations have publicly and repeatedly detailed a litany of obstructions by Israel that have made it impossible to deliver humanitarian assistance to the 2.2 million people in Gaza whose lives depend on it," she said. "These obstructions have made it impossible to deliver aid to their families."
"The horrifying situation of the population of Gaza, trapped in a conflict zone and facing starvation, is even more compelling than the testimony of aid organisations," she added. "They are facing starvation." The National Sustainability Movement (NSM) advocates for efficient facilitation of humanitarian relief, which would prevent 1.1 million people from facing devastating starvation only a few kilometers away from accessible food. It is clear that authorities had already come to the conclusion that aid distribution was being "directly or indirectly" hampered, as demonstrated by the fact that the United States government has airdropped goods and spent a large amount of labor and money creating a floating dock for marine deliveries.
