Senior director, national security & int’l policy @amprog

Somewhat underreported in yesterday’s coverage of the UNSC ceasefire resolution and ensuing fallout is the State Department’s declaration that it has not found Israel in violation of international humanitarian law – a declaration of compliance with U.S. law and policy.

In February, the White House issued a new policy (NSM-20) requiring “credible” assurances that security partners would not violating international or U.S. law in their use of weapons, and that they would not block U.S. humanitarian aid.

The NSM-20 came about due to Congressional concerns about how U.S. weapons may be contributing to abuses. It essentially laid out a process for adhering to existing law, like 620I of the Arms Export Control Act, which prohibits arms transfers to countries that obstruct U.S. aid.

Should the U.S. assess that the assurances were not credible, the NSM-20 states that within 45 days, the administration should assess how to remediate the situation, including by suspending arms transfers. (If no assurances are provided, then the administration must suspend.)

So the Israelis (and others) had until yesterday to offer assurances that they would abide by U.S. law. State Spox Matthew Miller confirmed yesterday that State had received these assurances from “credible” officials.

Miller also said the administration finds Israel is *not* in violation of international humanitarian law on either the “conduct of war or the delivery of humanitarian assistance.” This is despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, including Israeli officials own statements.

Miller stated that State would review any reports of violations and “make appropriate conclusions” in the report to Congress due May 8 (45 days after yesterday’s deadline). This is in line with previous the administration on how they are assessing violations on an ongoing basis.

Miller’s statements may not represent a significant departure from the administration’s previous assessments of compliance, but the timing and clarity of the declaration that Israel is complying with international law is significant.

Timing: Miller’s assertion comes on the day the NSM-20 outlines for receiving assurances, so it’s impossible not to read it as connected to this policy. (It’s also hours after the U.S. abstains from the UNSC resolution and the Israelis cancel their delegation.)

Clarity: Miller is clear that State sees no violation of international law. He could have said they are reviewing the assurances and assessing against available evidence, but he stated unequivocally that they have not found Israel to be in violation.

In sum, despite having issued a robust policy only six weeks ago that provides pathways to review weapons transfers to Israel in light of rights violations and obstruction of U.S. aid, the administration instead chose to declare Israel is in compliance with international law.

Allison L McManus @AllisonLMcManus

Senior director, national security & int’l policy