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
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

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.