UK-based newspaper The Guardian published an article on Thursday exposing, according to its claim, internal documents from the U.S. State Department that reveal methods used by U.S. administrations to protect Israel from U.S. human rights laws, allowing it to continue supplying Israel with weapons despite allegations of violations of such rights.
More stories:
According to the report, U.S. officials have examined more than 12 cases since 2020 in which serious human rights violations were alleged to have been committed by Israeli security forces, during which substantial efforts have been made to allow the allegedly responsible units to continue receiving access to American weapons despite the accusations made against them.
The article added that former U.S. officials said that, in doing so, the officials contributed to the feeling of strength Israel has allegedly confessed to during its ongoing war in Gaza.
The Guardian, a newspaper associated with the far-left that often criticizes Israel, reported that based on an investigation relying on internal documents of the U.S. State Department and interviews with sources knowledgeable about sensitive internal discussions, special policies have been used in recent years to shield Israel from U.S. human rights laws.
According to the reports, this was done even though military units of other U.S. allies, including Ukraine, that receive American assistance have faced sanctions or consequences due to any human rights violations.
According to The Guardian, officials in the U.S. State Department have essentially circumvented the U.S. law designed to prevent a case in which the U.S. becomes complicit in human rights violations committed by foreign military units – the 1990s Leahy Law, named after then-Sen. Patrick Leahy. The Guardian alleges that no other U.S. ally receives a similar arrangement.
In a conversation with Leahy himself, the bill's initiator said the law is not consistently enforced. "What we have seen in the West Bank and Gaza is a stark example of that. Over many years I urged successive U.S. administrations to apply the law there, but it has not happened," he told The Guardian.
The article notes that, among the cases examined since 2020, are the alleged killing of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh; the death of 78-year-old Palestinian-American national Omar Asad; and the death of 25-year-old Ahmad Abdu, whom Palestinians claimed was executed while sitting in his car.
In the report on Abdu's death, which, according to some sources, may have been caused by identification errors, officials from the U.S. Department of State wrote that Israel refused to answer questions posed by the American administration regarding the shooting.
In Asad's case, Israel claimed the Palestinian-American national died from a heart attack, and since the cause of death couldn’t be linked to the actions of the troops who removed him from his car and covered his eyes after being stopped at a checkpoint, no charges were filed against them.
According to The Guardian, the documents reveal that the events were probed by the State Department
as part of a process known only to a few that the department established in 2020 called the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum (ILVF). In this process, representatives from relevant areas of the State Department examine reports of apparent human rights violations made by Israeli forces.
The Guardian emphasized that the Leahy Law prohibits the U.S. State Department and U.S. Defense Department from providing funds, assistance or training to foreign units when there is "credible information" accusing their forces of committing serious human rights violations.
The newspaper notes that in the case of three countries – Israel, Ukraine, and Egypt – the volume of aid is so big that it’s difficult to track all the assistance given by the U.S. Therefore, the United States is often unaware of where specific weapons go or how they’re used.
An amendment to the law passed in 2019 is designed to patch this loophole and improve tracking of aid destinations, but sources described as "familiar with the process" told The Guardian that Israel enjoys extraordinary policies within the ILVF.
"Nobody said it but everyone knew the rules were different for Israel,” a former State Department official told The Guardian. The article notes, for example, that there must be a general consensus among the relevant parties regarding an incident of an actual violation, and the U.S. deputy secretary of state must approve it.
In the cases of other countries, however, no general agreement of all relevant parties is required, and there’s no need for approval from the U.S. secretary of state or his deputy, according to the report.
Furthermore, within this process, there’s an obligation to discuss the claim of human rights violation with Israel and allocate 90 days for it to respond to the allegations, causing significant delays.
The Guardian notes that this case is unique and in cases involving other countries there’s no obligation to consult with them. A spokesperson for the State Department attempted to dismiss the accusations, arguing that there’s no requirement for consensus regarding Israel, as claimed in the article.
He added that the U.S. State Department "routinely consults foreign governments on Leahy vetting matters, not just Israel.”