Press Room

Press Releases

White House & State Agreeing on Israel’s Gaza Attack Enforcement of Arms Export Control Act Should Follow

Posted on Thursday July 25, 2002

Washington—Following Secretary of State Colin Powell’s announcement that the State Department is reviewing Israel’s use of a U.S. supplied F-16 fighter during its attack on Gaza, the Arab American Institute wrote to the Secretary calling on him to enforce the Arms Export Control Act and stem the flow of weaponry to Israel. The letter was signed by AAI Chairman George Salem and President James Zogby.

Complete text of AAI’s letter follows.

Arab Americans were pleased to hear your public acknowledgement today of our government’s review of Israel’s use of U.S. weaponry. Over the years, we have pointed to numerous cases where Israel used U.S. weaponry against Palestinian and Lebanese civilian populations. In each instance, Israel’s use of U.S. provided weapons resulted in civilian deaths.

The Arms Export Control Act (AECA) is unambiguous. In considering whether or not to grant licenses for export, the President “shall take into account [among other things whether] the export will increase the possibility of outbreak or escalation of conflict.” It is clear that Israel’s misuse of U.S. supplied weapons (including F-16 fighter jets, TOW missiles, Apache and Cobra helicopters, and Flechettes) has dangerously escalated the current conflict.

On Tuesday, the White House acknowledged as much stating that Israel’s use of a U.S. supplied F-16 against a densely populated civilian area in Gaza was at odds with the pursuit of peace. “The President views this as a heavy-handed action that is not consistent with dedication to peace in the Middle East,” noted White House Spokesperson Ari Fleischer.

Once more, the AECA provides for the transfer of U.S. weapons for “internal security” and “legitimate self-defense” reasons. Israel’s most recent use of a U.S. F-16 fighter and one ton bomb to carry out the extra judicial killing of an accused militant resulted in the deaths of at least 14 civilians in Gaza. This act certainly seems to exceed the bounds of the AECA. Interestingly, the White House was deliberate in distinguishing this incident from other military actions that may accidentally result in unintended civilian casualties. Speaking on behalf of the White House, Fleischer argued:

It is inaccurate to compare the two [Gaza and Afghanistan]. And the crucial difference here being that in this instance, in Gaza, this was a deliberate attack against a building in which civilians were known to be located. And that does separate it from the activities taken [in Afghanistan]…. What’s always important is in pursuit of the military objectives, as the United States does in Afghanistan, to always exercise every restraint to minimize those losses of life. But in this case, what happened in Gaza was a knowing attack against a building in which innocents were found.

Each time Israel has used a U.S. made weapon to target civilians the State Department acknowledges that these actions have significant consequences and a negative impact on the peace process. Most recently, State Department Spokesperson Richard Boucher noted on Tuesday, “we’ve made repeatedly clear that we oppose targeted killings. We have repeatedly criticized the use of heavy weaponry in densely populated areas because of these kind of dangers of large numbers of innocent civilians being killed.” Speaking about responses to acts of terror, Boucher continued “It’s important, though, I think, to remember that we all need to respond to these attacks in a way that gets at the problem, and that does contribute to ending the violence and not in a way that, as the President’s—as the White House has made clear doesn’t really contribute to peace.”

Given these acknowledgements by your own office, the White House, and Israel’s pattern of inappropriate use, it seems to us that the State Department should act immediately to stem the flow of weaponry to Israel.

AAI has written to the State Department about this matter on several occasions. We believe that enforcing the Act now, at this critical time, will send a message that would serve several important objectives. It would:

*act as a restraint against Israel’s future misuse of U.S. supplied weapons;

*generate a much needed debate within Israel on the wisdom and legality of extra judicial killings and the use of disproportionate force;

*repair our nation’s standing in the broader region which has come to view this conflict as an “Israeli-U.S. war against the Palestinians” because of the role U.S. weapons play.

As you know, President Ronald Reagan twice used the Act to end Israel’s misuse of U.S. supplied weapons that were being used against Lebanon. The message was heard and lives were saved. Israel is once again using U.S. supplied weaponry in densely populated civilian areas. The U.S. has a legal and moral obligation to step forward and send a strong message. We believe that enforcement of the Arms Export Control Act is the right one.