Yet another dangerous bill puts weapons for Israel above US law

In a continuation of unprecedented attacks against the Biden administration’s pause of bomb shipments to Israel, the House introduced its second bill in just weeks attempting to punish the executive branch and prioritize reelection over U.S. laws, interests and values. 

The Maintaining Our Ironclad Commitment to Israel’s Security Act, introduced last Friday by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), would prevent the president from pausing or delaying the delivery of weapons to Israel unless Congress is notified 15 days before the pause. After the notification, Congress could introduce a joint resolution of disapproval against the pause.

Joint resolutions of disapproval have historically been a congressional oversight mechanism to block potentially harmful arms sales proposed by the executive branch, although a successful total block has never occurred. Members on both sides of the aisle have used this tool to check U.S. security assistance: Both Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have introduced joint resolutions of disapproval this year due to concerns about human rights abuses by the recipients. 

But the logistical impossibility of pausing a pause on a weapons shipment implies that this bill was introduced with the upcoming November elections in mind. It is part of a continued attempt to score political points, using Israel’s security as a red herring.

The proposed legislation would create an additional exception for Israel in an unprecedented way, by creating a different U.S. arms notification and export process for one country alone. 

Privileging one U.S. security partner when implementing U.S. arms control laws erodes the validity of the law in its entirety and creates a precedent for other exceptions to be codified. Rather than creating further discrepancies in the U.S. arms export process for just one partner, Congress should act to increase transparency of all arms transfers and improve its oversight mechanisms overall.

The typical process of approving and sending an arms shipment from start to finish spans several years and during that time, U.S. national security goals, geopolitical dynamics and challenges, and human rights conditions and leadership in the recipient country can significantly change. 

Both Republican and Democratic presidents have delayed or withheld previously approved military funding or arms transfers when the circumstances on the ground differ from the circumstances during the time of the initial approval. Congress should not undermine the president’s duty to use this leverage with a key security cooperation partner. 

Withholding U.S. security assistance has historically been an important check to ensure that allies comply with U.S. national security objectives and international law. Not only that, the U.S. is obligated by its own laws to withhold military assistance from countries that restrict the delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid and from any unit of a foreign security force that has committed a gross violation of human rights. 

The author of the latter law himself, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), recently argued that Leahy laws should apply to Israel.

The Maintaining Our Ironclad Commitment to Israel’s Security Act creates an unprecedented exception for Israel, undermining U.S. arms control laws and setting a dangerous precedent in the process. Congress should prioritize enhancing transparency and oversight for all arms transfers, ensuring consistency and compliance with U.S. laws and international norms.

Lillian Mauldin and Janet Abou-Elias are co-founders of Women for Weapons Trade Transparency and research fellows at the Center for International Policy.