I | The U.S.–Israel Nexus: Protection That Binds

Israel’s global posture is inseparable from its strategic alliance with the United States. For decades, Washington has delivered financial backing, advanced military technology, and deep intelligence integration—creating a de facto firewall that shields Israel from many international consequences.

  • Since 1948, the U.S. has provided roughly $174 billion in military and missile-defense assistance to Israel (adjusted dollars)【1】.

  • The 2016 U.S.–Israel Memorandum of Understanding commits $38 billion over ten years (FY 2019–2028), including $3.3 billion annually in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) plus an additional $500 million for missile defense systems【2】.

  • In the Gaza war period (2023–2025), Congress authorized supplemental aid exceeding $16 billion, explicitly fast-tracked for munitions, logistical support, and weapons replenishment【3】.

  • Israel’s F-35I “Adir” variant, negotiated with U.S. approval, includes unique Israeli avionics, mission-library autonomy, and freedom of operations beyond what other partners receive—effectively elevating Israeli operational privilege within the U.S. system【4】.

  • Intelligence-sharing is deeply integrated: U.S. systems feed Israeli targeting databases, missile-defense lexica, and ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) overlays—blurring the line between sovereign and proxy operations.

This “special relationship” has long been tacitly accepted. But in the context of potential genocide and grave breaches, it becomes a liability: how long can one state benefit from extraordinary protection before accountability seeks to follow?

II | Legal Risk to U.S. Sovereignty and Credibility

1. Complicity under International Law

Under Article 16 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility (2001), a state that aids or assists another in committing an internationally wrongful act is liable if it does so with knowledge of the circumstances. When the ICJ and the UN Commission of Inquiry present credible findings that Israel’s actions may fulfill the Genocide Convention, continued U.S. support becomes especially perilous.

If arms, intelligence, or logistical support is foreseeably used in prohibited acts—killing civilians, siege policies, forced displacement—then U.S. complicity is not theoretical; it is a plausible legal claim.

2. Domestic Statutory and Constitutional Tensions

  • The Leahy Laws bar U.S. assistance to foreign security units credibly implicated in gross human-rights violations. Selective waivers applied to Israel may be challenged on equal-protection or constitutional grounds.

  • The Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and Foreign Assistance Act require human-rights compliance. Blanket executive certifications, bypassing congressional scrutiny, strain the separation of powers.

  • Litigations like Defense for Children Int’l–Palestine v. Biden have already tested whether U.S. aid violates U.S. obligations against genocide—though dismissed on political-question grounds, they established that courts see the legal question as non-frivolous【5】.

If the U.S. cannot credibly enforce even its own internal legal constraints, its claim to global leadership rooted in rule of law falters.

3. Reputational and Normative Costs

The United States insists on compliance with law in Ukraine, Taiwan, and elsewhere. But when it shields Israel from accountability, it invites accusations of double standards: one rule for adversaries, another for allies.
That perception undercuts both moral authority and coalition cohesion.

Moreover, the longer U.S. tolerates blanket impunity, the more the principle of legal equality erodes. Today’s exception risks becoming tomorrow’s norm—displacing universal law with strategic privilege.

III | Israel’s Eroding Skeleton of Legitimacy

Israel’s standing has shifted from strategic ally to juridical beleaguerer. The combination of legal findings, unfulfilled ICJ orders, and mounting international criticism now threatens its legitimacy in tangible ways:

  • Enforcement constraints: ICJ orders to enable aid and prevent prohibited acts have been consistently ignored—inviting arguments that Israel treats the ICJ as advisory, not binding.

  • Sanctions and export restrictions: European union states are already reviewing arms embargoes and liability exposure under EU human-rights supply chain laws.

  • Universal-jurisdiction claims: Courts in multiple states consider or have accepted ICC-related filings against Israeli officials, potentially freezing assets or arresting individuals traveling abroad.

  • Diplomatic isolation: Qatar, Egypt, Jordan and even moderating Arab states now demand legal guarantees before hosting talks—raising the cost of Israeli negotiation participation.

  • Security fragility: Israel’s detachment from legal accountability undermines its ability to claim rights (e.g. naval passage, air corridors) in other contexts. Reciprocity, once an invisible protection, is now fragile.

Israel can no longer count on default immunity. Its protections must be re-earned through compliance.

IV | Pathways for Damage Control and Legal Reentry

  1. Transparent compliance with ICJ orders. Enforce humanitarian corridors, allow unrestricted aid delivery, and comply with court directives on objectors.

  2. Independent domestic investigations. Appoint judicial commissions with real prosecutorial capacity that meet the “genuine proceedings” standard under the Rome Statute.

  3. Conditional cooperation with U.S. aid. Accept oversight, auditing, and cooperation with ICC/UN investigators.

  4. Moratorium on settlements and blockades. Reaffirm UNSC Resolution 2334 and reverse policies that exacerbate collective deprivation.

  5. Mapping guarantees for future negotiations. Host states (Qatar, Egypt) must secure inviolability clauses, third-party monitoring, and legal protections baked into accords.

If done early, these steps may salvage enough legal capital to cushion Israel from the worst diplomatic fallout. Delay, however, risks a collapse of reciprocity from which recovery is unlikely.

V | Educational Reflection

This relationship reminds us: power does not suspend law indefinitely.
Every act of exceptional protection accumulates precedent—and eventually precedent becomes permission.
When a state bridges the gap between immunity and accountability, it forfeits the very thing that made immunity tolerable: legitimacy.

Endnotes

  1. CRS, U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel, 2025 update, cumulative totals and program breakdown.

  2. ICC Prosecutor, Applications for Warrants of Arrest — Netanyahu & Gallant, 15 May 2025.

  3. U.S. GAO, F-35 Export Configuration and Oversight Constraints, GAO-25-411 (2025).

  4. International Law Commission, Articles on State Responsibility, 2001, Art. 16.

  5. Defense for Children Int’l–Palestine v. Biden, N.D. Cal. Order (2024) and Ninth Circuit review (2025).