During the “The United States-Israeli Security Alliance: A Conversation with an Internal Critic” event held Sept. 3, former Director of Bureau on Political Military Affairs at the U.S. State Department Josh Paul highlighted that while Israel’s relationship with the U.S. is described as “ironclad,” Taiwan is considered merely “rock-solid.” The difference speaks volumes about how the U.S. interacts with Israel compared to other nations, particularly regarding military aid. While the U.S. support for Israel aligns with its strategic and moral interest (most of the time), this unconditional backing has increasingly isolated the U.S. on the global stage.
Israel’s relentless war in Gaza has killed more than 40,000 Palestinians, at least 16,456 of them children and over 11,000 women. Despite confirmed reports by the U.S. State Department that Israeli military units have committed human rights violations in contravention of U.S. law, the U.S. government has failed to rebuke Israel by using its leverage and imposing sanctions on arms sales. The reason is simple: when it comes to Israel, U.S. law bends — and justice is left behind.
How is Israel treated differently?
The Leahy Law, which prohibits U.S. security assistance to foreign military units that commit gross violations of human rights, is a critical tool for ensuring that U.S. arms do not contribute to human rights abuses. Typically, the law involves a vetting process where arms transfers are carefully examined to assess the potential for gross violations of human rights and whether the transfer aligns with U.S. interests.
However, the vetting for Israel is not conducted by the usual channels but through a completely separate mechanism known as the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum (ILVF), which operates under different rules. In most cases involving other countries, the determination of whether a foreign military unit is eligible to receive U.S. arms is made by working-level officials based on credible information, usually without requiring input from the foreign government.
In Israel’s case, however, the U.S. must formally request information from the Israeli government regarding potential human rights violations. Additionally, decisions on Israeli units must be personally approved by the Deputy Secretary of State, which is not true for any other country.
Take the case of Myanmar, where following the 2021 military coup and subsequent violence, the U.S. sanctioned individuals and organizations like the Directorate of Defense Industries. These actions were imposed immediately, coordinated with allies such as the U.K. and Canada and aimed at disrupting the military’s access to international arms. In contrast, despite documented human rights abuses by Israeli military units, the U.S.’s process intentionally delays action against such units. The Burmese unit faced immediate suspension of U.S. arms transfers based on external reports, while the Israeli units underwent a prolonged review process.
The ILVF’s burden of proof for the misuse of weapons is so high that, in the four years since its creation, it has not identified a single Israeli unit as ineligible for U.S. assistance, despite credible information suggesting that Israel committed human rights violations well before its campaign in Gaza after the Oct. 7 atrocities.
Implications of Differential Treatment
By allowing Israel to circumvent standard vetting procedures, the U.S. weakens its moral authority and commitment to liberal democratic values. This selective application of human rights principles erodes international trust in the U.S.’s role as a defender of impartiality and justice in global governance.
I want to make clear that support for Israel is generally beneficial for the United States for several key reasons. Israel serves as a strategic ally in a region fraught with instability, acting as a counterbalance to radical forces and violent extremism in the Middle East. Historically, U.S.-Israel cooperation helped curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, exemplified by Israel’s actions against Iraq and Syria’s nuclear ambitions. Israel’s stability and mostly democratic governance provides a reliable partner in the Middle East, where many traditional U.S. allies face internal upheaval. However, unconditional support to Israel, especially in the face of evident violations of human rights, is increasingly detrimental to U.S. hegemony.
The double standards are impossible to ignore. While the U.S. condemns Russia for its actions in Ukraine, it simultaneously defends Israel’s actions in Gaza, revealing a stark hypocrisy that the world finds deeply troubling.
“The Global South is looking very carefully at the progression of this conflict and is making comparisons. And I believe that it is losing confidence in the viability of the values that have been projected by the Global North. This is a very dangerous situation because it can cause the unravelling of the world order,” Egyptian foreign minister Sameh Shoukry said.
Countries that once looked to the U.S. as a beacon of liberal democracy are increasingly skeptical of its commitment to such principles.
This inconsistency also reduces the credibility of the U.S.’s advocacy for a rules-based international order, a system that is supposed to champion human rights and democratic values over might-makes-right approaches. This shift is evident in the decline of U.S. trade relations with developing countries as the developing world looks to partners that don’t impose contradictory moral imperatives. The recent Saudi Arabia-Iran rapprochement, brokered by China, is a testament to this changing dynamic.
While many challenge the benefits of American dominance, and rightfully so, I question if China’s model of governance that marries capitalism with authoritarianism is the model we want. Unfortunately, clear U.S. hypocrisy has led to a growing appeal in China’s model globally while U.S. liberal democracy is waning.
While U.S. support for Israel has historically served strategic interests, the unique legal and policy treatment Israel receives has created a problematic double standard. This unyielding support, particularly in the face of well-documented human rights violations, has not only damaged the U.S.’s global standing, but has also impeded peace efforts in Gaza. To reclaim its credibility on the world stage, the U.S. must reconsider its approach and leverage its influence more effectively.
Contact Tejas Varma at varmat@oxy.edu
