The Israel Security Assistance Support Act that passed the House on Thursday is primarily a messaging and political bill — one aimed at emphasizing Republican support for Israel and dividing Democrats between those who want to support President Joe Biden’s decision to pause the delivery of a shipment of bombs to Israel and those who prefer to maintain Washington’s unconditional support for Tel Aviv’s war.
Despite reports that up to 40 Democrats could go against Biden and support the bill, in the end, only 16 voted for it. Three Republicans — Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) — joined with the rest of the Democratic caucus in opposition.
To be sure, if the legislation — led by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) — were to become law, it would be consequential, as it would restrict the budgets of the State Department, the Pentagon, and the National Security Council if Biden doesn’t deliver the withheld weapons. But after Biden pledged to veto the bill if it ever reaches his desk, senate Democratic leadership said it would not it take up.
There are plenty of policy, political, and legal reasons to oppose the legislation.
“Congressman Calvert’s bill would wipe away decades of US law and policy that set clear human rights and humanitarian standards for all recipients of US weapons. No country — including Israel — should get special exemptions from these standards,” John Ramming Chappel of the Center for Civilians in Conflict said in a press release on Tuesday. “No legislator who cares about human rights or the rule of law should support this proposal.”
“Under this bill, it may not be possible for the U.S. to even debate whether or not arms should be provided to units that have committed gross violations of human rights, and would seem to suggest that the U.S. cannot deny anything Israel might request, however inappropriate, from cluster bombs to ballistic missiles,” added former State Department official Josh Paul.
But some Democrats who oppose passage have instead argued that it would restrict the president’s ability to freely conduct foreign policy.
Hellbound and Down 