Follow us on social

US rifles may go to Israeli settlers, police units accused of rights violations

US rifles may go to Israeli settlers, police units accused of rights violations

The Biden administration will reportedly go through with the sale despite concerns from Congress and the State Department.

Reporting | Middle East

The Biden administration will reportedly approve a $34 million sale of rifles to Israeli police after receiving assurances that the weapons would not end up in the hands of settlers in the West Bank, where violence has surged over the past month.

But experts and officials are raising questions about whether the Ministry of National Security will meaningfully hold to those commitments given Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s long standing support for expanding settlements in the West Bank as well as his recent efforts to stand up “security squads” of armed civilians.

Notably, Ben-Gvir promised last month that he would give weapons to settlers in the West Bank, and an apparently independent group distributed 300 rifles to settlers late last month in a move that it said was coordinated with the Israeli military and police — the latter of which is under Ben-Gvir’s control.

Firearms are a “particularly fungible weapon,” noted Josh Paul, a long-time State Department official who recently resigned in protest of the Biden administration’s approach to the Israel-Gaza war. Even if Ben-Gvir holds to his promise, a large sale of U.S. weapons could free up Israeli guns or American weapons from previous sales to give to settlers, Paul explained.

It is also unclear whether a sale of rifles to Israel’s national police complies with the Biden administration’s own policy around weapons exports, which stipulates that the United States will not sell arms to units involved in gross violations of human rights.

“Within the Israeli National Police, there are a number of units that the Bureau of Democracy, Rights, and Labor at the State Department has identified as being credibly involved in gross violations of human rights, including extrajudicial killings and torture,” Paul told RS.

In a statement to RS, a spokesperson for the State Department did not address Paul’s allegation directly but argued that, under the administration's weapons sale policy, "[a]rms transfers and sales are evaluated holistically on a case-by-case basis based on diplomatic, security, economic, and human rights considerations." The spokesperson added that State officials "continue to stress to our Israeli partners the importance of mitigating civilian harm during operations."

A State Department official has said U.S. rifles will “only go to Israeli national police-controlled units.” Ben-Gvir has framed the “security squads” as a crucial way to protect Israeli citizens in case of a surprise attack like the one that occurred on October 7.

While the Biden administration has yet to publicly approve the sale, Axios reported that the White House and the relevant congressional committees have already signed off on the deal.

The news of the arms sale came shortly before Human Rights Watch issued a blanket call on all weapons suppliers to “suspend the transfer of arms to the warring parties in Israel and Gaza given the real risk that they will be used to commit grave abuses.”

“Providing weapons that knowingly and significantly would contribute to unlawful attacks can make those providing them complicit in war crimes,” Human Rights Watch argued.

The debate over whether to send U.S. weapons to Israeli police reveals the extent to which American officials are worried about violence in the West Bank, where soldiers and settlers have killed at least 130 Palestinians, including 41 children, and displaced more than 1,100 civilians. Settlers, for their part, claim that they are responding to an uptick in Palestinian violence.

While relatively few in Congress have called for a ceasefire in Gaza, a growing number of lawmakers have condemned settler violence. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is reportedly among those who raised questions behind closed doors about the potential firearms sale. (Van Hollen’s office did not respond to a request for comment from RS.)

President Joe Biden has also slammed settler violence as “pouring gasoline on the fire” of the ongoing war. National security adviser Jake Sullivan put a finer point on the issue last week when he told CNN that it is “totally unacceptable to have extremist settler violence against innocent people in the West Bank.”


Photo credit: Knesset members Itamar Ben-Gvir and Avi Maoz in Sheikh Jarrah, Jerusalem. (Shay Kendler via Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 4.0)
Reporting | Middle East
ukraine military
UKRAINE MARCH 22, 2023: Ukrainian military practice assault tactics at the training ground before counteroffensive operation during Russo-Ukrainian War (Shutterstock/Dymtro Larin)
Ukraine War at 3: The victory we demanded and the attrition we got

Ukraine’s battlefield position is deteriorating fast

Europe

The election of U.S. President Donald Trump changed U.S. policy toward Ukraine from “as long as it takes” to seeking a negotiated peace settlement. These negotiations will be driven by the battlefield reality. The side holding the biggest advantage gets to dictate the terms. This gets more complicated if there is no ceasefire during the negotiations and the battlefield remains dynamic. Belligerents may conduct offensive operations while negotiations are progressing to improve their bargaining position. Historically in many conflicts, peace negotiations lasted years, even as the war raged on, such as during the Korean and Vietnam wars. Thus, the balance of power, measured in resources, losses and quality of strategic leadership are critical to the outcome of negotiations.

For Western powers, this carries serious consequences. They have staked their reputation on this conflict and with it, the fate of the rules-based world order. The Global South and the multipolar world order is waiting in the wings to take over. Failure to achieve victory has the potential to fatally undermine that order and remove the West from global leadership, which it has enjoyed for the last several centuries.

keep readingShow less
Russia Navy United Kingdom Putin Starmer
Top Photo: Russian small missile ships Sovetsk and Grad sail along the Neva river during a rehearsal for the Navy Day parade, in Saint Petersburg, Russia July 21, 2024. REUTERS/Anton Vaganov

How Russia’s naval rearmament has gone unnoticed

Europe

Today, there are only three global naval powers: the United States, China, and Russia. The British Royal Navy is, sadly, reduced to a small regional naval power, able occasionally to deploy further afield. If Donald Trump wants European states to look after their own collective security, Britain might be better off keeping its handful of ships in the Atlantic.

European politicians and journalists talk constantly about the huge challenge in countering an apparently imminent Russian invasion, should the U.S. back away from NATO under President Trump. With Russia’s Black Sea fleet largely confined to the eastern Black Sea during the war, although still able to inflict severe damage on Ukraine, few people talk about the real Russian naval capacity to challenge Western dominance. Or, indeed, how this will increasingly come up against U.S. naval interests in the Pacific and, potentially, in the Arctic.

keep readingShow less
Senator Rand Paul
Top photo credit: Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky ( Maxim Elramsisy/Shutterstock)

Rand Paul blasts away at antisemitism speech bill

Washington Politics

In President Donald Trump’s first 100 days, his administration has arrested and detained, without due process, visa holders and other non-citizens in the U.S. for speaking out against Israel’s military actions in Gaza.

That’s not how the administration frames it, but that is the connective tissue in each of the cases.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.