The governments of Germany and the United States remain the backbone of international military support for Israel, accounting for 95 percent of major weapons systems sent to Israel, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks the global weapons trade. So far, the pressure has not swayed them or Britain, though President Biden this month went further than he ever had, threatening to condition future support for Israel on how it addresses his concerns about civilian casualties and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
. . .
Nevertheless, as the death toll has risen in Gaza, Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain have all halted arms deals with Israel. The European Union’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell Fontelles, has appeared to discourage sending more weapons, wryly noting in February that “if the international community believes that this is a slaughter, that too many people are being killed, maybe they have to think about the provision of arms.”
The hearings this past week against Germany, at the U.N.’s International Court of Justice, was the most recent chilling factor for Israel’s arms suppliers. And matters could grow even worse if Israel follows through on its plans to invade Rafah, the city in southern Gaza where hundreds of thousands of displaced Gazans are sheltering.
The US’s own Leahy Law prohibits most types of aid or training from going to foreign agents who can credibly be alleged to be committing human rights violations. The US Department of State website says “The U.S. government considers torture, extrajudicial killing, enforced disappearance, and rape under color of law as GVHRs when implementing the Leahy law.” Here’s just one UN report from mid-February about “credible allegations of egregious human rights violations to which Palestinian women and girls continue to be subjected in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.” It specifically mentions extrajudicial killings and rape among other offenses, so…is US human rights law actually meaningful or not?
I suppose we’ve gotten to the level of admission where the media is calling continued illegal support “dicey”. Maybe after another few months of killing and starving civilians with Western weapons and aid we can call it “concerning” or “troubling”.
This article is about global resistance to sending arms to Israel. It’s “dicey” (meaning risky) because, on top of public pressure, governments are now facing potential legal consequences both locally and internationally. Calling it either “concerning” or “troubling” doesn’t make sense in this context. Ironically, if they used that language, the article would be doing the very thing you’re accusing it of doing.
I think we’re on the same side, and I didn’t downvote you but it’s a weak word. It’s like calling arms sales to organized criminal gangs “dicey”. No, it’s not dicey (which necessarily means there’s a chance it’s alright) - it’s definitively unethical and illegal by the US’s own laws.
That’s not what it means. I suspect you’re reacting to the headline without reading the article. It’s not making a moral statement about arms sales. It’s saying that countries are realizing that they face potential legal exposure for continuing those sales/transfers. That’s why it’s risky. No one knows if they’ll actually face those consequences so, in that context, there’s a “chance it’s alright.” Legally – not ethically or morally.
The Leahy Laws are another example of that – they’re frequently criticized for being selectively enforced. The Leahy Laws put Israel aid at risk but it’s not a sure thing, regardless of the moral implications. At the end of the day, if the US believes or chooses to believe that they don’t apply, they probably won’t.