330 members of the US House of Representatives signed a petition late last month in which they insist that $ 3.8 billion of annual military aid from the United States to Israel remains unconditional, in a clear response to the growing calls for making This aid to the Netanyahu government is conditional on its commitment to human rights law.
According to the Truthedge website, the message - signed by nearly all Republicans and more than half of Democrats - was a slap in the face to those who argued that military aid to Israel, like all recipients of taxpayer-funded weapons, should be at least conditional. With a certain level of compliance with human rights and international law.
Experts acknowledge that the overwhelming opposition from lawmakers from both parties to adapting aid to serve Israel´s aggressive policies is not a result of political pressures coming from their constituents and is not consistent with their aspirations, as opinion polls show that a third of American voters in general, and one-tenth of Democrats, hardly oppose such conditions. "Instead, it appears to be part of a decades-long tradition of Congress rejecting the will of the electorate in favor of the interests of arms exporters and the Pentagon," according to the site.
Given that the Biden administration is already firmly committed to continuing unconditional military assistance to the right-wing government of Israel, the message appears to have come in response to Representative Betty McCollum´s recent introduction of a bill banning the use of weapons and security assistance by the United States in some violations of international humanitarian law. Such as military detention, child abuse, home demolition, unlawful confiscation of Palestinian property, or annexation of occupied lands.
It also comes as a rebuke to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and a wide range of other peace groups that have called for making military assistance to Israel conditional on an end to the continuing gross violations of international humanitarian law - a condition these groups defend to other countries as well.
The lawmakers ’letter stressed that“ adding conditions ”such as these“ would in some way harm Israel´s ability to defend itself, ”indicating the perception that such illegal activities constitute legitimate self-defense.
Some experts believe that the timing of the letter gives an indication of support for the beleaguered Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been indicted on multiple corruption charges while trying to form a new government after inconclusive elections.
It is noteworthy that there is a broad consensus among Middle East experts in the United States, that the US´s unconditional military, economic and diplomatic support for Israel has made the occupation authorities more strict with regard to the occupation of Palestinian lands and its ongoing violations of human rights and its hostile policies towards Iran. Despite this, the letter insists that “security assistance to Israel is a specific investment in peace and prosperity in the entire Middle East” and prints the odd claim that it “makes the region safer,” and strengthens diplomatic efforts aimed at achieving a negotiated two-state solution, leading to peace. And prosperity for both Israelis and Palestinians. "
It is noteworthy that since the collapse of the peace initiative led by then-US Secretary of State John Kerry in 2014, there have been no significant Israeli-Palestinian talks. Most analysts noted that the Israelis were primarily responsible for their failure due to Netanyahu´s refusal to end Israeli colonization of the West Bank, withdraw from most of the occupied territories, and allow the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, even with Palestinian offers with strict and enforceable security guarantees. And almost all the other conditions put forward by the Obama administration. Given Obama, Trump and Biden´s insistence now that aid continues to flow regardless of anything, Netanyahu realizes that he can evade his hardening stance knowing that there will be no concrete pressure on him to make concessions.
Some Democrats who signed the letter claim that while they oppose a reduction in aid, they do not necessarily oppose some restrictions on its use. Julie Albertson, a spokeswoman for Congressman Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, defended Khanna’s signature of the letter on the grounds that the congressman supports the “strict enforcement of the Leahy Act” (attributed to Senator from Vermont, Patrick Leahy), and other existing legislation that Restricting the use of US weapons for serious human rights. And offenses. However, neither the law nor any other human rights provisions have been applied to Israel, despite repeated calls to do so over the years, and there are no indications that it will be so in the foreseeable future.
These justifications go back to the 1980s, when pro-Reagan Democrats defended their support for military aid to the Salvadoran government in the face of large-scale civilian gun killings by the United States by saying they supported the human rights provisions associated with this aid. However, these human rights provisions - such as the Leahy Amendment in the case of Israel - were never enforced.
In contrast, ending US military aid to Indonesia´s occupation of East Timor in the 1990s contributed directly to allowing that government to finally hold a referendum on the fate of the territory and the country´s eventual independence.
"Nothing is less than the credible threat of a substantial reduction in military aid to Israel, which might limit its ongoing violations of humanitarian law or end its occupation and colonization of Arab lands captured in the 1967 war. Without the conditional aid, there would be no," says Trinity. Peace".
The congressional message indicates that any reduction in aid for human rights reasons would expose Israel to attack, "even portraying Israel as a victim of Iranian aggression," without mentioning the successive Israeli attacks against Iran and Syria.
