In late January, as the humanitarian crisis in Gaza deepened and the death toll soared to 25,000, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) made a request to the U.S. government for 3,000 additional bombs. The plea for more military aid came amid widespread destruction across Palestinian cities, as tens of thousands of residents sought refuge from relentless airstrikes.
Despite rising global concerns over civilian casualties, including among U.S. diplomats and humanitarian agencies, the American government continued to facilitate the flow of weapons to Israel. U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Jack Lew, along with senior embassy officials in Jerusalem, sent a formal request to Washington urging approval of the bomb sale, emphasizing that Israel could be trusted not to misuse the weaponry.
Their internal communication did not address the growing civilian toll, nor did it acknowledge mounting evidence that Israel had already used powerful bombs in densely populated Gaza neighborhoods, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of civilians, including children. According to sources, Lew’s team was acutely aware of these atrocities, and many of their own Palestinian employees at the embassy had seen their homes targeted by Israeli airstrikes.
Despite this knowledge, Lew and his senior leadership argued in favor of the new shipment, specifically citing the “decades-long proven track record” of Israel avoiding civilian deaths when deploying American-made weapons. The bombs in question, GBU-39s, are smaller and reputedly more precise, offering what the U.S. diplomats described as a means to limit collateral damage.
However, those claims would be shattered in the weeks that followed. As the IDF continued to bombard Gaza, civilian casualties mounted. In particular, Israeli forces dropped the GBU-39 bombs on multiple shelters and refugee camps, including a devastating strike in early August that hit a mosque and a school, killing at least 93 people. Among the victims were scores of children, many of whom were so badly mutilated their families struggled to identify them.
Within the U.S. State Department, opposition to the continued supply of arms to Israel grew louder. Various officials argued that, under U.S. law, arms sales should be halted or restricted when there is credible evidence that a country is violating international humanitarian law. Yet, the Biden administration and its top diplomats repeatedly rejected these appeals, opting to sustain Israel’s access to American weaponry.
Since January, multiple State Department officials have pressed for more stringent reviews of arms sales to Israel, citing credible reports of human rights abuses. However, political appointees, wary of damaging relations with a key ally in the Middle East, routinely dismissed these concerns. According to internal communications, many within the department felt their mission was to “protect Israel from scrutiny” and ensure a seamless supply of arms, regardless of the human cost.
A former U.S. diplomat stationed in Jerusalem, Mike Casey, noted that the embassy often avoided addressing human rights violations committed by Israel. “In most places, our goal is to address human rights abuses. But we don’t have that in Jerusalem,” he remarked, adding that the embassy had long resisted taking on funding intended to investigate such abuses.
Weapons Contractors and U.S. Policy
The issue extends beyond diplomatic strategy and into the realm of military contractors. The records obtained for this report reveal intense lobbying efforts by American weapons manufacturers, who have a vested interest in maintaining robust arms sales to Israel and other allies in the region. Lobbyists have repeatedly urged lawmakers and State Department officials to expedite weapons transfers, often brushing up against legal boundaries in their aggressive efforts.
One instance involved a weapons contractor attempting to influence a former State Department official to push for a valuable arms deal, despite the official reminding them that such coordination could violate federal lobbying laws. The result of this lobbying, combined with the unwavering support from top diplomats, has allowed Israel to conduct its military campaign in Gaza largely unchecked.
The conflict in Gaza, now approaching its first anniversary, shows no signs of abating. Local estimates place the death toll at over 41,000 Palestinians, with many more injured or displaced. Israeli forces have continued to justify their actions as necessary for national security, citing the brutal attacks carried out by Hamas in October of last year, which left over 1,100 Israelis dead and resulted in the abduction of numerous hostages.
Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, argue that the use of American-supplied weapons is both legal and legitimate under international law. Netanyahu has also called on the U.S. to speed up arms deliveries, stating in June, “Give us the tools, and we’ll finish the job a lot faster.”
Despite the catastrophic civilian toll, there has been little movement within the U.S. government toward reevaluating its arms transfer policies to Israel. Secretary of State Antony Blinken acknowledged the suffering in Gaza, calling it “gut-wrenching,” but reiterated that the U.S. remains committed to Israel’s right to defend itself.
The United States has long been Israel’s most important military ally, supplying the country with advanced weaponry and defense systems like the Iron Dome. Since the 1970s, Israel has received more American military aid than any other country, a policy that successive U.S. administrations have maintained.
This flow of arms has come with legal stipulations designed to prevent the misuse of American-supplied weapons. Under U.S. law, the State Department is required to cut off military aid to any country that uses American weapons in ways that violate international law, including by targeting civilians or obstructing humanitarian aid. Yet, as this investigation reveals, these laws have been inconsistently applied when it comes to Israel.
In the wake of Israel’s repeated bombings of civilian areas, some within the U.S. government argue that the Biden administration is failing to uphold its legal obligations. Even senior officials at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department’s own refugees bureau have concluded that Israel deliberately blocked the delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza, which they said should prompt an immediate suspension of weapons sales.
Blinken, however, overruled these findings, telling Congress that there was no evidence of intentional obstruction by Israel, a position at odds with the assessments of multiple U.S. agencies. As the war continues and the civilian death toll rises, critics of U.S. policy towards Israel are calling for a reassessment of the long-standing military partnership. Daniel Levy, a former Israeli government official and one of the founders of J Street, argues that the lack of accountability is emboldening Israel. “The reaffirmation of impunity has come swiftly and unequivocally,” Levy says, adding that Israel is operating with “a certainty of carte blanche.”
Despite growing calls from human rights groups and even some U.S. lawmakers for a pause in weapons sales, both Democrats and Republicans remain largely aligned in their support for Israel’s military efforts.
Vice President Kamala Harris, while expressing concern over the humanitarian crisis, has continued to emphasize Israel’s right to self-defense. Former President Donald Trump, who is campaigning for reelection, has also voiced staunch support for Israel, promising to be the country’s “best friend” in Washington.
The ongoing war in Gaza raises uncomfortable questions about the role of U.S. arms in one of the most protracted and devastating conflicts in recent memory. As more evidence of civilian casualties comes to light, the Biden administration finds itself under growing pressure to reconsider its policies. But for now, the arms shipments continue, and the death toll rises. Whether the U.S. government will change course remains to be seen, but for the people of Gaza, time is running out.
The process of arms transfers from the United States to foreign nations is a complex and multifaceted operation, especially for countries with longstanding military partnerships like Israel. Over the years, the intricate nature of these transfers has raised concerns within the US government, with internal memos and resignations from key officials shedding light on the pressures and ethical dilemmas involved.
At the heart of any arms deal between the US and a foreign government lies a formal request. When a country seeks US military hardware, the process kicks off with a critical assessment conducted by the local US embassy. Known as a “country team assessment,” this report draws upon the embassy’s unique understanding of local conditions, politics, and military needs. The State Department has jurisdiction over these embassies, and their expertise plays a crucial role in evaluating the fitness of the requesting nation to receive weapons. For Israel, a staunch US ally, this step is only the beginning of a much more complicated series of evaluations.
The State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, along with input from other bureaus, shoulders the bulk of the review process. When dealing with Israel and other NATO allies, any sale valued at over $100 million for weapons or $25 million for equipment must also pass through Congress for final approval. While it is rare for lawmakers to block a sale, the President retains the authority to veto any congressional opposition, underscoring the executive branch’s substantial influence over arms deals.
Josh Paul, a career official in the State Department’s arms transfers bureau, played a pivotal role in reviewing and approving these arms sales for many years. With vast expertise in the Middle East, Paul often found himself conflicted, particularly regarding arms transfers to Israel.
Before Israel’s military response to the October 7 Hamas attack, Paul had voiced concerns about Israel’s military conduct. On several occasions, he believed that US law necessitated withholding certain weapon transfers, citing Israel’s actions in Gaza. In May 2021, for example, he objected to approving the sale of fighter jets to the Israeli Air Force amid airstrikes on civilian apartment buildings. His opposition was overruled by superiors, and similar events occurred over the following months.
Paul’s opposition intensified after Amnesty International released a report accusing Israeli authorities of apartheid in February 2022. He refused to endorse another arms deal, again finding his concerns brushed aside by senior officials. Despite Paul’s efforts, the sales proceeded, reflecting a broader trend within the State Department to prioritize political alliances over concerns related to human rights and legal responsibilities.
By October 2023, after the outbreak of war between Israel and Hamas, Paul could no longer reconcile his personal values with his professional responsibilities. He resigned in protest, becoming the first major public departure from the Biden administration related to the conflict. By that time, Israeli airstrikes had reportedly killed over 3,300 Palestinians in Gaza, adding further fuel to the internal debate within the US government.
Paul was not the only State Department official to raise alarms over the ongoing arms transfers. Several experts within the department circulated dissent memos critiquing the Biden administration’s handling of arms sales to Israel, particularly in light of civilian casualties. According to sources, at least six such memos were sent to senior leaders, with many suggesting that the State Department had failed to adequately consult relevant experts before approving arms transfers after the October 7 attack.
One dissent memo from November 2023 argued that there was no effective vetting process in place to assess the long-term consequences of these sales. Despite these protests, it appeared little was done to change course, with State Department staff working overtime to expedite Israeli requests for more weapons.
These internal concerns were not only ethical but also strategic. Some experts within the State Department believed that the ongoing conflict, and the US’s role in arming Israel, was severely damaging American credibility in the Middle East. Daily reports from diplomats stationed in the region highlighted the anger and frustration brewing in Arab media, with graphic images of Palestinian civilian casualties dominating coverage.
Hala Rharrit, a Middle East-based diplomat, was one of those who raised red flags. In her daily reports, she documented the extensive collateral damage from Israeli airstrikes, urging senior leaders to reconsider the arms transfers. Rharrit, who also resigned in protest, stated that the State Department was fully aware of the consequences but chose to ignore them. “They can’t say they didn’t know,” she said, accusing the administration of willfully violating US laws governing arms sales and human rights.
Congress, Veto Power, and Industry Influence
The approval process for arms sales is meant to be rigorous, especially for high-value deals. When selling military hardware to NATO allies or close partners like Israel, Congress must be informed of any sale over $100 million. However, even when Congress expresses reservations, the President can override their objections through a veto, rendering congressional checks largely symbolic in some cases.
The arms industry also plays a significant role in these transactions. Behind the scenes, major defense contractors and lobbyists apply pressure to ensure that arms deals move forward smoothly. ProPublica reported that, over the years, at least six high-ranking officials from the State Department’s arms transfers bureau had left their government posts to join lobbying firms or defense contractors. These firms represent some of the most powerful players in the defense industry, including major contractors that supply weapons to Israel and other Middle Eastern nations.
The revolving door between government service and the private sector complicates the integrity of the arms review process. Paul Kelly, a former top congressional affairs official at the State Department, recalled frequently being “leaned on” by lobbyists to push arms deals through Congress. While outright bribery was not involved, the influence of private industry was pervasive, and similar tactics continue to be used today.
The use of American weapons by Israel during its military campaigns, particularly in Gaza, has raised serious legal and ethical questions. In the early stages of the war following the October 7 Hamas attack, Israel used a combination of “dumb” bombs and precision-guided munitions (GBU-39 bombs) manufactured by Boeing. The latter were designed to minimize collateral damage, but reports from Amnesty International and other watchdog groups documented their use in strikes that resulted in significant civilian casualties.
The US government has a responsibility under international law to ensure that the weapons it supplies are not used to commit war crimes. Critics argue that the Biden administration’s continued arms sales to Israel, despite mounting evidence of civilian casualties, may constitute a violation of the laws of war. According to Lieutenant Colonel Rachel E. VanLandingham, a retired officer in the Air Force’s Judge Advocate General’s Corps, the size of the bomb does not absolve the user from responsibility. “It raises serious concerns and indicators of violating the law of war,” VanLandingham noted, particularly when strikes occur in densely populated areas like refugee camps.
Enduring US-Israel Alliance
Despite these concerns, high-ranking officials in the US government continue to stand by Israel as a key defense partner. In January 2024, US Ambassador to Israel Jack Lew reaffirmed Israel’s status as a “trustworthy defense articles recipient,” defending the IDF’s conduct in the war. His cables emphasized the Israeli military’s sophistication and adherence to the laws of war, although these assertions have been contested by human rights advocates and some within the State Department.
The military and diplomatic relationship between the US and Israel is underpinned by deep strategic ties. Israel regularly trains its air crews in the US, and its military uses American-made software to plan missions and assess collateral damage. These close ties have, in many ways, cemented Israel’s position as one of the most reliable US allies in the region, but they have also made it difficult for the US government to hold Israel accountable for actions that might violate international humanitarian law.
The US’s arms transfers to Israel have long been a source of controversy, and the October 2023 war with Hamas has only intensified the scrutiny. Within the State Department, voices of dissent have emerged, warning that the arms deals may be contributing to civilian casualties and undermining US credibility abroad. Despite these warnings, the Biden administration has continued to approve weapons sales to Israel, navigating the delicate balance between maintaining a critical strategic alliance and addressing the ethical ramifications of military support.
As the conflict persists, the debate over US arms transfers to Israel is unlikely to subside. With internal divisions, mounting casualties, and growing public scrutiny, the future of US policy in the Middle East may well hinge on how this debate unfolds.
