With civilian casualties in Gaza mounting, the role that accelerated military aid to Israel may play in enabling the current military campaign is of growing concern. Providing military equipment that could be used unlawfully against Palestinian civilians has regulatory, legal, and ethical implications that must be weighed carefully. In this context, healthy public oversight and debate on the merits and risks of U.S. security assistance to Israel can act as an important safeguard against excessively harmful policies that the Biden administration should support. Fortunately, the United States can learn from its ongoing military aid effort to Ukraine and replicate good practices to ensure greater transparency, oversight, and risk mitigation in its security assistance relationship with Israel.
Reporting on Arms Transfers
Since the start of the Russia’s full-scale invasion, the Biden administration has regularly reported on its arms transfers to Ukraine, publishing announcements from official accounts and maintaining factsheets on materiel provided to Kyiv on both the Department of State and Department of Defense websites. This level of transparency, while imperfect, has enabled research on risk mitigation approaches, assessments of the efficacy of U.S. aid, and allowed civil society stakeholders to appraise how transfers have shaped civilian protection environments in the country.
That level of transparency is urgently needed for U.S. military aid to Israel, especially as human rights organizations look to assess the conduct of hostilities and recommend civilian protection measures to both the United States and the Israeli government. To date, U.S. government reporting on arms transfers to Israel has been sporadic and without any meaningful detail. Much of what is known is a result of journalistic inquiry, which in some cases has caused confusion or required further clarification. Initial reporting suggesting that the United States was to provide cluster munitions is one such example.
Accordingly, the Department of State should publish regular updates on all military transfers to Israel, including from presidential drawdowns, transfers from war reserve stockpiles, or other U.S. government-led or funded mechanisms. Updates should be compiled on a single factsheet page, as is the case for Ukraine, and include details on the authorities invoked for the provision of assistance as well as the type and quantity of arms provided with enough specificity to enable public research and assessments.
Risk Mitigation Plans
Though it took many months, the Biden administration responded to growing concern about the risk of weapons diversion in Ukraine by publishing a summary of its plan to counter illicit arms diversion stemming from the aid effort. The plan laid out several lines of effort to prevent the misappropriation of defense articles, including a timeframe for implementation.
In Israel’s case, the overriding concern with respect to Gaza is not arms diversion but rather civilian harm. The Biden administration’s new Conventional Arms Transfer (CAT) Policy commits the United States to a more rigorous civilian protection standard and explicitly bars transfers if it assesses that they are more likely than not to enable atrocities. Given these commitments, the administration should urgently develop and publish a plan to mitigate civilian harm resulting from its transfers to Israel and establish how transfers will meet the standards reflected in the revised CAT policy in the context of the ongoing conflict. It should lay out specific commitments for assessing Israel’s ability and willingness to meet CAT policy criteria and how it plans to encourage the highest possible standards for the use of U.S. weapons on the part of its partner.
Given the intensity of the current Israeli campaign and questions about how transfers are meeting CAT policy standards, including transfers that may be imminent, Washington should develop and publish this plan immediately.
Interagency Oversight
In the months after the U.S. escalated its military assistance to Ukraine, it announced the creation of a Joint Strategic Oversight Plan for Ukraine Response, which brought together inspector generals of the Department of State, Department of Defense, U.S. Agency for International Development, and fourteen other agencies to coordinate oversight, encourage interagency communication, and centralize assessments of assistance to Kyiv. Together, the agencies have completed dozens of projects, including at least 17 related to security assistance that focused on issues like accounting for materiel, training and equipping Ukrainian forces, and promoting rule of law programs.
Though the context is very different, the current U.S. assistance effort to Israel would also benefit from a formal and publicly outlined interagency oversight mechanism with a focus on civilian harm. Among the “strategic oversight areas” that such a mechanism should cover include:
- The administration’s compliance with statutory and regulatory conditions and requirements related to the provision of defense articles and services, including with respect to serious violations of international humanitarian law or human rights law;
- Broad interagency compliance with and operationalization of the CAT policy, including the more likely than not standard, with respect to Israel;
- Effectiveness and utilization of reporting processes related to the Civilian Harm Incident Response Guidance cabled to U.S. embassies on August 23;
- Identification of any legal risk that the U.S. government and U.S. government officials may face related to the provision of assistance to Israel amidst the ongoing conflict;
- Sufficient post-conflict planning, including with respect to humanitarian assistance, reconstruction, and demining; and
- Sufficient, effective, and accountable provision of humanitarian assistance.
These issues require both urgent and long-term oversight and consideration. The immediate creation of such a mechanism could help to ensure the highest standard of practice by the administration, while also ensuring that there is enduring accountability for the decisions the U.S. government is making.
Conclusion
Since Hamas’ October 7th attacks, the administration has gone to great lengths to link the crisis in Israel and Gaza to the war in Ukraine. In his Oval Office address, President Biden said “the assault on Israel echoes nearly 20 months of war, tragedy, and brutality inflicted on the people of Ukraine” and that “making sure Israel and Ukraine succeed is vital for America’s national security.”
But if the administration wishes to draw parallels between the two conflicts, it should be bound to a degree of consistency in its response to both crises. Elements of the U.S. assistance effort to Ukraine reflect good practices in oversight and accountability that should be applied to the military aid effort to Israel, albeit tailored to the specific risks and concerns related to that conflict. Doing so is especially important amidst escalating fighting and fears of even greater harm to civilians.
Learning from Ukraine to Strengthen Oversight of US Military Aid to Israel
By Elias Yousif
Conventional Arms
With civilian casualties in Gaza mounting, the role that accelerated military aid to Israel may play in enabling the current military campaign is of growing concern. Providing military equipment that could be used unlawfully against Palestinian civilians has regulatory, legal, and ethical implications that must be weighed carefully. In this context, healthy public oversight and debate on the merits and risks of U.S. security assistance to Israel can act as an important safeguard against excessively harmful policies that the Biden administration should support. Fortunately, the United States can learn from its ongoing military aid effort to Ukraine and replicate good practices to ensure greater transparency, oversight, and risk mitigation in its security assistance relationship with Israel.
Reporting on Arms Transfers
Since the start of the Russia’s full-scale invasion, the Biden administration has regularly reported on its arms transfers to Ukraine, publishing announcements from official accounts and maintaining factsheets on materiel provided to Kyiv on both the Department of State and Department of Defense websites. This level of transparency, while imperfect, has enabled research on risk mitigation approaches, assessments of the efficacy of U.S. aid, and allowed civil society stakeholders to appraise how transfers have shaped civilian protection environments in the country.
That level of transparency is urgently needed for U.S. military aid to Israel, especially as human rights organizations look to assess the conduct of hostilities and recommend civilian protection measures to both the United States and the Israeli government. To date, U.S. government reporting on arms transfers to Israel has been sporadic and without any meaningful detail. Much of what is known is a result of journalistic inquiry, which in some cases has caused confusion or required further clarification. Initial reporting suggesting that the United States was to provide cluster munitions is one such example.
Accordingly, the Department of State should publish regular updates on all military transfers to Israel, including from presidential drawdowns, transfers from war reserve stockpiles, or other U.S. government-led or funded mechanisms. Updates should be compiled on a single factsheet page, as is the case for Ukraine, and include details on the authorities invoked for the provision of assistance as well as the type and quantity of arms provided with enough specificity to enable public research and assessments.
Risk Mitigation Plans
Though it took many months, the Biden administration responded to growing concern about the risk of weapons diversion in Ukraine by publishing a summary of its plan to counter illicit arms diversion stemming from the aid effort. The plan laid out several lines of effort to prevent the misappropriation of defense articles, including a timeframe for implementation.
In Israel’s case, the overriding concern with respect to Gaza is not arms diversion but rather civilian harm. The Biden administration’s new Conventional Arms Transfer (CAT) Policy commits the United States to a more rigorous civilian protection standard and explicitly bars transfers if it assesses that they are more likely than not to enable atrocities. Given these commitments, the administration should urgently develop and publish a plan to mitigate civilian harm resulting from its transfers to Israel and establish how transfers will meet the standards reflected in the revised CAT policy in the context of the ongoing conflict. It should lay out specific commitments for assessing Israel’s ability and willingness to meet CAT policy criteria and how it plans to encourage the highest possible standards for the use of U.S. weapons on the part of its partner.
Given the intensity of the current Israeli campaign and questions about how transfers are meeting CAT policy standards, including transfers that may be imminent, Washington should develop and publish this plan immediately.
Interagency Oversight
In the months after the U.S. escalated its military assistance to Ukraine, it announced the creation of a Joint Strategic Oversight Plan for Ukraine Response, which brought together inspector generals of the Department of State, Department of Defense, U.S. Agency for International Development, and fourteen other agencies to coordinate oversight, encourage interagency communication, and centralize assessments of assistance to Kyiv. Together, the agencies have completed dozens of projects, including at least 17 related to security assistance that focused on issues like accounting for materiel, training and equipping Ukrainian forces, and promoting rule of law programs.
Though the context is very different, the current U.S. assistance effort to Israel would also benefit from a formal and publicly outlined interagency oversight mechanism with a focus on civilian harm. Among the “strategic oversight areas” that such a mechanism should cover include:
These issues require both urgent and long-term oversight and consideration. The immediate creation of such a mechanism could help to ensure the highest standard of practice by the administration, while also ensuring that there is enduring accountability for the decisions the U.S. government is making.
Conclusion
Since Hamas’ October 7th attacks, the administration has gone to great lengths to link the crisis in Israel and Gaza to the war in Ukraine. In his Oval Office address, President Biden said “the assault on Israel echoes nearly 20 months of war, tragedy, and brutality inflicted on the people of Ukraine” and that “making sure Israel and Ukraine succeed is vital for America’s national security.”
But if the administration wishes to draw parallels between the two conflicts, it should be bound to a degree of consistency in its response to both crises. Elements of the U.S. assistance effort to Ukraine reflect good practices in oversight and accountability that should be applied to the military aid effort to Israel, albeit tailored to the specific risks and concerns related to that conflict. Doing so is especially important amidst escalating fighting and fears of even greater harm to civilians.
Recent & Related