The Unusual Move: US Halts Arms Shipment
The first senior administration figure to officially announce that the US government has, in an unusual move, halted a weapons shipment to Israel was US Defense Secretary Lioyd Austin on May 8, 2004. With strong US support, the Israeli force has killed almost 35,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip over the last seven months.
Secretary Austin stated during a Senate subcommittee hearing that the suspension is being implemented “in the context of unfolding events in Rafah,” the southern Gaza metropolis where over 600,000 children and an estimated 1.4 million Palestinians are currently seeking sanctuary. As part of Israel’s repeated policy of forcing Palestinians into exile, the bulk of these individuals were compelled to flee to Rafah from other areas of Gaza.
Context of the Decision: Carnage in Gaza’s Rafah
Although Rafah has not been spared from the terror and carnage that have typified the previous seven months of Israeli operations in the coastal enclave overall, even the world’s most powerful nation, Israel’s loyal best friend, is becoming a little queasy at the prospect of a full-scale attack on a large number of trapped civilians in the city.
Given this, over the weekend, news broke that the Joe Biden administration had decided to halt the delivery of weapons to Israel that could be used in a strike on Rafah. 3,500 bombs were believed to be in the cargo, 1800 of which were 2,000 pounds (907 lb) and 1,700 of which were 500 pounds (227 kg).
It was also said that some additional arms exports to Israel were being examined. Of course, it’s unclear why the Rafah case should suddenly inspire such imperial concern, given that the US has been actively aiding and abetting genocide and famine in Gaza for well over half a year with all kinds of weapons and money. Yes, it might even be good PR.
With the claims of a halted arms shipment, US officials had remained silent until Secretary Austin’s remarks on Wednesday. During a news briefing on May 6, for instance, National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby stated, “All I can tell you is that our support for Israel’s security remains ironclad,” blatantly declining to clarify whether or not the rumors were accurate. I won’t get into the particulars of one shipment over another here.
US-Israel Relationship Dynamics: Ironclad Support or Symbolic Gesture?
It seems that the US political establishment now favors the term “ironclad” to characterize will always take a backseat to Israel’s practice of massacring them.
In the meantime, Kirby’s remark on “one shipment over another” is, to put it mildly, telling. As some more dramatic elements of the US right-wing have chosen to portray it, there are a lot of US weapons shipments to Israel, so delaying the delivery of 3,500 bombs hardly amounts to a betrayal of Israel, so delaying the delivery of 3,500 bombs hardly amounts to a betrayal of the Israel killing machine.
First off, Secretary Austin made it clear during his testimony before a Senate subcommittee that the $26 billion in additional funding to Israel that the US Congress approved in April will remain unaffected by the stopped arms shipment. Add this to the several billions of dollars that the US already gives Israel every year.
The Council on Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program, funds that Israel must use to purchase U.S. military equipment and services.”
Furthermore, the embargo has no bearing on the $827 million in military supplies that the Biden administration recently approved for Israel. Put another way, it’s essentially business as usual, which is analogous to handing someone hundreds of dollars every day and then acting as though you’re withholding five cents.
US Foreign Policy Dilemma: Balancing Humanitarian Concerns and Strategic Alliances
The US government is required to “prevent…arms transfer that risk facilitating or otherwise contributing to violations of human rights or international humanitarian law,” as stated in the US Conventional Arms Transfer Policy. But if US foreign policy isn’t an open disregard for all of that, then what is it?
The US had already spent decades letting mass killings from Latin America to the Middle East and beyond, even before the massive global violation known as the “War on Terror” began in 2001. In the specific case of Israel, the US’s consistent support for the willful flouting of international humanitarian law and human rights in Palestine and Lebanon begs the question of why anyone ever bothered to draft a Conventional Arms Transfer Policy in the first place.
The fact that Secretary Austin has now reiterated the US’s “ironclad” commitment to Israel despite the suspension of the armaments shipment just serves to highlight how purely symbolic the action was and how important it was to appear to be showing some humanitarian concern.
Biden’s Warning: Consequences of Civilian Casualties
In addition, Biden himself weighed in on Wednesday, stating that “civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs” and threatening to withhold offensive weaponry from Israel should an all-out attack on Rafah occur.
Genocide is what it is. And the US’s indisputable culpability in that massacre, give or take a few thousand bombs.