Israel-Palestine & U.S. Policy

U.S. policy should condition military aid to Israel on compliance with international humanitarian law, support Palestinian self-determination, and use American leverage to pursue a just peace.

Last updated: March 12, 2026

Domain

Foreign Policy → Middle East → U.S.-Israel Relations & Palestinian Rights

Position

The United States should use its substantial leverage as Israel’s primary military and diplomatic patron to condition aid on compliance with international humanitarian law, ensure accountability for civilian harm, and pursue a resolution that recognizes both Israeli security and Palestinian self-determination.

The war in Gaza that began after the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack has killed over 72,000 Palestinians as of early 2026, produced ICJ provisional measures ordering prevention of genocide, and sparked the most intense U.S. domestic debate over Israel-Palestine policy in a generation — including unprecedented congressional divisions. The U.S. has provided at least $21.7 billion in military aid to Israel since October 2023 while multiple international courts have issued rulings and orders regarding the conduct of the war.

Key Terms

  • Conditioning Aid: Attaching enforceable requirements — such as compliance with human rights standards or humanitarian law — to the provision of U.S. military assistance. The U.S. already has laws requiring this (Leahy Law, Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act) but enforcement has been inconsistent.

  • International Humanitarian Law (IHL): The body of law governing conduct during armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions. Core principles include distinction (between civilians and combatants), proportionality (civilian harm must not be excessive relative to military advantage), and precaution (feasible steps to minimize civilian harm).

  • Right of Self-Determination: A fundamental principle of international law recognizing that peoples have the right to freely determine their political status. The UN, ICJ, and the majority of nations recognize this right for Palestinians, including through over 140 countries that recognize the State of Palestine.

Scope

  • Focus: U.S. policy toward the conflict — specifically military aid, diplomatic posture, and legal obligations — not adjudicating the conflict itself
  • Timeframe: Emphasis on the post-October 7, 2023 period, with historical context as needed
  • What this is NOT about: Defending Hamas or any armed group’s violence against civilians, questioning Israel’s right to exist as a state, or proposing a specific final-status solution (one state, two states, confederation, etc.)

The Case

1. U.S. Law Already Requires Conditioning Aid — It Just Isn’t Being Enforced

The Point: Existing U.S. laws mandate that military aid be cut off to units credibly implicated in gross human rights violations and to governments blocking humanitarian assistance — yet these laws have effectively never been applied to Israel.

The Evidence:

  • The Leahy Law (22 U.S.C. § 2378d) requires automatic cutoff of security assistance to foreign military units credibly implicated in gross human rights violations. No Israeli unit has ever been sanctioned under this law, despite documented incidents (Arms Control Association, 2025)
  • Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act prohibits aid to countries that restrict delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance. For over 11 weeks between March and May 2025, Israel imposed a total blockade on Gaza allowing in no food, medicine, or other aid (Human Rights Watch World Report, 2026)
  • The Biden administration’s own National Security Memorandum 20 (February 2024) required recipient countries to provide credible assurances of IHL compliance. The State Department’s May 2024 report acknowledged concerns but did not restrict any aid transfers

The Logic: This isn’t about creating new policy — it’s about enforcing existing law. The U.S. conditions military aid for every other country in the world. The blanket exemption for Israel undermines the credibility of the entire human rights framework that the U.S. claims to champion. If the law doesn’t apply to our closest allies, it doesn’t apply to anyone.

Why It Matters: Unenforced laws aren’t just a legal technicality — they signal to the world that the U.S. applies human rights standards selectively. This erodes American credibility on human rights globally and weakens the rules-based international order the U.S. helped build.

2. The Scale of Civilian Harm Demands Accountability and a Changed Approach

The Point: The scale of civilian casualties and humanitarian devastation in Gaza is unprecedented in modern conflict and demands a fundamental reassessment of unconditional U.S. support.

The Evidence:

  • As of February 2026, over 72,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza and 171,000+ injured, with scholars estimating approximately 80% of those killed were civilians (Gaza Ministry of Health/Lancet/UNRWA, 2026)
  • In August 2025, the IPC (the international standard for food crisis classification) declared famine in Gaza City and surrounding areas. By October 2025, at least 463 Palestinians — including 157 children — had died from malnutrition (UNRWA Situation Reports, 2025)
  • The ICJ issued provisional measures in January 2024 ordering Israel to prevent acts of genocide and allow humanitarian access. In May 2024, the court ordered a halt to the Rafah offensive by a 13-2 vote. Multiple countries — including Brazil and Belgium — have joined South Africa’s ICJ case (ICJ, 2024-2025)

The Logic: Regardless of one’s view on the underlying conflict, the sheer scale of civilian death, the declared famine, and the provisional measures from the world’s highest court create a legal and moral obligation to reassess. The U.S. cannot simultaneously claim to champion human rights and provide unconditional military support for operations that international courts have flagged for potential violations of the Genocide Convention.

Why It Matters: The $21.7 billion in military aid since October 2023 makes the U.S. directly implicated in the outcomes of this war. This isn’t just Israel’s moral burden — it’s America’s.

3. Unconditional Support Undermines U.S. Strategic Interests and Regional Stability

The Point: The “blank check” approach to Israel has damaged U.S. credibility, inflamed regional instability, and undermined the diplomatic relationships America needs for its broader strategic goals.

The Evidence:

  • The U.S. vetoed multiple UN Security Council ceasefire resolutions in 2024-2025, isolating itself diplomatically. In key votes, the U.S. stood virtually alone against 13-14 other Security Council members (UN Security Council records, 2024-2025)
  • Brown University’s Costs of War project found the U.S. spent an additional $9.65-$12.07 billion on military operations in Yemen and the wider region since October 7, 2023 — regional spillover directly connected to the Gaza war (Brown University, 2025)
  • Polling across Arab and Muslim-majority nations shows precipitous declines in favorability toward the U.S. since October 2023, reversing years of diplomatic investment including the Abraham Accords normalization framework (Arab Barometer, 2024-2025)

The Logic: U.S. interests in the Middle East include counterterrorism cooperation, energy stability, and trade relationships that depend on credibility across the region. Unconditional support for one party in an asymmetric conflict has made the U.S. a target for regional blowback (as seen in Houthi attacks on shipping) and cost billions in additional military operations. A more balanced approach isn’t just morally right — it’s strategically smarter.

Why It Matters: Every veto at the Security Council, every blocked aid shipment, every unconditioned arms transfer makes it harder for the U.S. to build the coalitions it needs on Iran, climate, trade, and counterterrorism. American leverage is not infinite, and it’s being spent on shielding one ally from accountability.

Counterpoints & Rebuttals

Counterpoint 1: “Israel has the right to defend itself after October 7”

Objection: The October 7 attack was the deadliest day for Jewish people since the Holocaust — approximately 1,200 Israelis killed and over 250 taken hostage. Israel has every right under international law to respond to this attack and neutralize the threat Hamas poses. Conditioning aid mid-conflict would leave an ally vulnerable.

Response: Israel absolutely has the right to self-defense — that right is recognized under Article 51 of the UN Charter. But the right to self-defense is not unlimited. International humanitarian law requires distinction, proportionality, and precaution. A 60-to-1 kill ratio, a declared famine, and ICJ provisional measures suggest the conduct of operations has gone far beyond lawful self-defense. Conditioning aid doesn’t mean abandoning an ally — it means ensuring that American weapons are used in compliance with the laws America helped write.

Follow-up: “Hamas uses human shields — civilian casualties are Hamas’s fault.”

Second Response: Hamas’s violations of IHL — and they are real and serious — do not exempt Israel from its own obligations. The laws of war are not reciprocal: each party is independently bound. The “human shields” framing also doesn’t account for the destruction of entire neighborhoods, the targeting of clearly marked humanitarian facilities, or the total blockade of food and medicine. Both sides can be violating the law simultaneously, and accountability is needed for both.

Counterpoint 2: “Conditioning aid will embolden Israel’s enemies and weaken deterrence”

Objection: Israel faces existential threats from Iran, Hezbollah, and other hostile actors. Any signal that U.S. support is conditional could encourage adversaries to escalate, believing the U.S.-Israel relationship is weakening.

Response: The U.S. conditions military aid to virtually every other ally — including NATO members, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan — without those relationships collapsing. Conditions don’t mean withdrawal; they mean accountability. Moreover, the current approach has already emboldened adversaries: the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Iranian proxies all escalated during 2024-2025 precisely because the unconditional U.S. posture inflamed regional tensions rather than deterring them.

Follow-up: “Israel is our most reliable ally in the Middle East. We can’t treat them like other countries.”

Second Response: Being a close ally should mean more accountability, not less. The U.S.-Israel relationship is strong enough to survive the same conditions we attach to aid for every other partner. Countries like Germany and Japan are close allies with deep security relationships, and they accept human rights conditions on arms transfers as a normal part of the partnership. Treating Israel as above the law doesn’t strengthen the relationship — it enables behavior that damages both countries’ long-term interests.

Counterpoint 3: “This is really about delegitimizing Israel / antisemitism”

Objection: Conditioning aid singles out Israel in a region of brutal authoritarian regimes. The disproportionate focus on Israel — the only democracy and the only Jewish state in the Middle East — reflects antisemitic double standards, not genuine concern for human rights.

Response: This argument deserves serious engagement because antisemitism is real and dangerous. But criticizing specific policies of the Israeli government is not antisemitic — Jewish Americans, Israeli citizens, and Holocaust scholars have been among the loudest voices calling for a change in U.S. policy. The reason Israel receives disproportionate attention in U.S. politics is straightforward: it receives disproportionate U.S. support — more cumulative military aid than any other country since World War II. Scrutiny follows money, as it should in a democracy.

Follow-up: “But other countries do worse things and nobody cares.”

Second Response: Two things can be true: other countries commit terrible abuses that deserve more attention, and the U.S. has a special obligation to scrutinize where its own tax dollars and weapons go. Americans have more standing — and more leverage — to influence Israeli policy than Saudi or Chinese policy precisely because of the depth of the relationship. That’s not a double standard; it’s democratic accountability.

Common Misconceptions

Misconception 1: “Conditioning aid means cutting off Israel entirely.”

Reality: Conditioning means attaching enforceable standards — the same approach the U.S. uses with every other aid recipient. It could mean requiring independent investigations of incidents involving U.S. weapons, pausing specific categories of offensive weapons during humanitarian emergencies, or requiring compliance with ICJ provisional measures. The vast majority of the security relationship — including Iron Dome and intelligence sharing — would be unaffected.

Misconception 2: “The conflict started on October 7, 2023.”

Reality: October 7 was a horrific attack that must be condemned without qualification. But the conflict has roots stretching back decades — including a 57-year military occupation of the West Bank, a 16-year blockade of Gaza prior to October 7, ongoing settlement expansion, and generations of displacement. Understanding context doesn’t justify any act of violence; it explains why purely military solutions have consistently failed.

Misconception 3: “The U.S. is an honest broker in the conflict.”

Reality: The U.S. has provided over $300 billion in cumulative aid to Israel (inflation-adjusted) since 1948, currently guarantees $3.8 billion annually under a 10-year MOU, and has used its Security Council veto to shield Israel from international censure dozens of times. This isn’t a neutral posture — it’s deep alignment with one party. Acknowledging this isn’t anti-American; it’s necessary for understanding why Palestinian negotiators and the broader region view U.S. mediation with skepticism.

Rhetorical Tips

Do Say

“I believe in Israel’s right to exist and to security — and I believe Palestinians deserve the same. That’s why I want the U.S. to use its influence to protect civilians on all sides.” Lead with shared values.

Don’t Say

“Israel is committing genocide” in casual conversation — this immediately polarizes and shuts down dialogue, regardless of what international courts may ultimately rule. Stick to specific, documented facts about civilian harm and U.S. legal obligations.

When the Conversation Goes Off the Rails

Come back to U.S. law. “Regardless of who’s right in the underlying conflict, can we agree that American weapons should be used in compliance with American law? That’s all conditioning means.”

Know Your Audience

For moderates, emphasize existing U.S. law (Leahy Law) and the principle that no country should be above the rules. For security-focused audiences, emphasize the strategic costs of unconditional support — regional blowback, billions in additional military operations, diplomatic isolation. For progressive audiences, the humanitarian case is strongest, but ground it in specific data rather than slogans.

Key Quotes & Soundbites

“The test of a country’s commitment to human rights is whether it applies those standards to its friends, not just its adversaries.” — Senator Patrick Leahy (author of the Leahy Law)

“The United States has provided at least $21.7 billion in military aid to Israel since October 7, 2023 — making this as much an American policy question as an Israeli one.” — Brown University Costs of War Project, 2025

“Supporting Israel’s security and demanding accountability for civilian lives aren’t contradictory — they’re complementary.”

  • Military Spending & Pentagon Budget — Israel aid is a significant component of foreign military assistance within the broader defense budget (see Military Spending & Pentagon Budget)
  • NATO & International Alliances — The rules-based international order that the U.S. claims to defend is tested by selective enforcement of international law (see NATO & International Alliances)
  • Gun Violence as Public Health Crisis — The domestic debate over weapons manufacturers’ accountability parallels questions about arms transfer accountability (see Gun Violence as Public Health Crisis)

Sources & Further Reading