US Arms to Israel and Accusations of Collusion in Genocide
Previous articles have discussed some of the ethical and legal concepts that were circulated during the Israeli war on Gaza. These discussions are part of the war discourse, which attempts to invent political and ethical justifications for the ongoing war, despite its immense and painful humanitarian cost, which has led to the level of genocide, as per the recent ruling of the International Court of Justice, although the court did not have enough courage to declare it explicitly.
The ruling of the International Court of Justice was the result of a lawsuit filed by South Africa against Israeli military actions. Another legal action has now been initiated against the US President, Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights in the United States. A federal court in California is reviewing this case, which claims that the three accused colluded in the genocidal acts committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip. In fact, this complicity is based on strong legal and ethical grounds, which I will explain through three matters:
Political Action, Military Action, and Legal and Ethical Responsibility for the Previous Actions
Firstly: Regarding the Political Action
The Biden administration provided unconditional political support to Israel, whether in its occupation and blockade of Gaza or in the ongoing war on Gaza. This created conducive conditions for the occurrence of the genocide committed by Israel. In terms of military action, the Biden administration also provided generous and unconditional military support to Israel during the war on Gaza, in an urgent and uncontrolled manner, without any oversight or restriction.
In terms of legal and ethical responsibility, the previous armament, during the time of war and in support of it, constitutes a violation of the Genocide Convention, which was signed in 1948. Despite the United States’ responsibility to prevent genocide under international laws and customs, the act of arming itself during the time of war is a complicit act, as it was done to support a specific party without any conditions or restrictions. From these previous actions (political action and military action), it is evident that the three officials implicated in the case not only failed to fulfill their legal and ethical obligations but also facilitated and contributed to the occurrence of the war crimes.
Officials from the US have stated that Israel has been provided with various types of weapons, including bombs with bunker-busting warheads (known as the “BLU-109”), designed to penetrate concrete before exploding, demonstrating their immense destructive capabilities.
Secondly: The Military Aspect
This aspect is highly important from both legal and ethical perspectives, as it is a confirmed, verifiable, and explicit act that reveals the intentions and purposes to an extent that replaces the need to investigate the justifications and intentions of the actors. These combined characteristics elucidate the weakness of the US political statements that attempted to evade legal accountability and political criticisms during the ongoing war. The military action is more significant in legal and ethical responsibility:
- It can be regulated and measured.
- It explicitly translates the intentions and purposes of the political actors.
- Its impact is direct and decisive.
These three characteristics assist in evaluating the US arming of Israel in general and during the ongoing war on Gaza. We can conduct this ethical and legal assessment through three aspects:
The First Aspect: The Act of Arming Itself
The arming is within a specific context, i.e., the “time of war,” with a specific purpose, i.e., “achieve the political and military objectives of the war.” Therefore, we are not dealing with a business transaction aimed at profit, although that would also be ethically condemned, but rather we are facing an action intended to provide military support for the war. It is noteworthy that historically, Muslim scholars have discussed two issues related to the act of arming:
- The ruling on selling weapons in times of war (and also in times of discord and aggression).
- The ruling on selling items used to make weapons, such as iron and similar materials.
The majority of scholars concluded that it is prohibited to sell weapons or items used to make weapons to certain categories of people, including combatants, aggressors, and those involved in discord. This means that the prohibition of this act applies universally, whether selling arms to Muslims or non-Muslims, as the rationale for the prohibition is to prevent killing. Weapons are instruments of killing, and selling them in times of war or discord reinforces their use for the purpose of killing, making this act forbidden. Any act leading to the forbidden is itself forbidden.
There is a distinction to be made here between two different levels. The classical jurists’ discussion revolved around the trade of weapons for commerce, while the sale of weapons to support an unjust war is at a higher level of prohibition, as in the case of the war on Gaza. It is indisputable that arming in both levels is prohibited, as the seller’s intent does not justify the intention for trade or military support for the war. Since arming enhances the act of killing, the prohibition links to selling lethal weapons during a war.
The Second Aspect: The Type of Weapons Sold and Utilized
The consistent US commitment to arming Israel since 1948 has been intensified, ensuring its qualitative military superiority over potential adversaries in the region. Within the time frame from 1948 to the beginning of 2023, the United States has provided Israel with aid totaling $158.66 billion. Considering inflation, this figure would double to $260 billion, as per a study from the Congressional Research Service. However, a closer look at the arms supply during the ongoing war on Gaza reveals that the Biden administration provided emergency weapons to Israel twice within just one month (in December 2023), exceeding the Congress’s approval. This was on the pretext of a “state of emergency requiring immediate approval for weapons transfer,” as stated in the US State Department’s announcement in December last year.
In this US military arming during the ongoing war on Gaza, there is a distinction between precise guided weapons and unguided ones lacking precise guidance systems. Regarding the guided weapons, American officials clarified to some US newspapers that a variety of weapons were provided to Israel, detailed in various reports, including bunker-busting bombs (referred to as the “BLU-109”). These are designed to penetrate concrete before exploding, demonstrating their immense destructive capabilities. As for the unguided weapons, the US restocked some of these to Israel for use in Gaza, after having withdrawn them to support Ukraine. These weapons are originally part of the US military reserve, including 57,000 shells (155mm), as per American officials quoted by Bloomberg.
Despite both types of weapons being highly destructive, the unguided weapons pose a greater threat as they demonstrate the concept of “indiscriminate bombing,” which led to a surge in civilian casualties. Indeed, Biden acknowledged that Israel carried out “indiscriminate bombing” in Gaza. Almost 30 relief organizations sent a letter to US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, urging him not to send 155mm shells to Israel, especially due to their significant danger as they are “unguided”, and their margin of error is large.
This evidence reinforces the scale of US responsibility (both legal and ethical) for the genocide. Moreover, it undermines the claim that Israel is attempting to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza. What is happening in Gaza serves as a factual translation of Israeli statements (whether official political, religious, or media) that talk about the genocide of the people of Gaza in different forms, beginning with the revival of the “Amalekite” discourse in the Old Testament – which advocates for the actual extermination of humans and animals, through to the call to drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza, the refusal to distinguish between civilian and military targets, and various humanitarian violations, such as shelling civilian and international facilities and the siege and starvation. However, the US has not condemed any of these acts, despite claiming since the September 11, 2001 attacks to fight terrorism and extremism. In reality, it only fights the extremism that threatens its interests. This demonstrates a political concept of terrorism rather than a legal or ethical concept.
