Since October 2023, the United States has delivered approximately 90,000 tons of arms to Israel on roughly 800 transport planes and 140 ships, making the US the primary weapons supplier for Israel's military campaign in Gaza. These transfers have continued without interruption despite the International Court of Justice's January 2024 finding that South Africa's genocide claims against Israel were \"plausible\" and its issuance of provisional measures ordering Israel to prevent acts of genocide.
\nThe transfers have accelerated under the Trump administration. In 2026, the administration used emergency authority to approve the transfer of more than 12,000 thousand-pound bombs to Israel, bypassing standard Congressional review. Earlier, the outgoing Biden administration had notified Congress of a planned $8 billion arms sale in January 2025.
\nOn March 12, 2026, the United States took the unprecedented step of filing a formal declaration of intervention at the ICJ in the genocide case brought by South Africa, actively defending Israel against the charges. This was the first time the United States has intervened in a genocide case to defend the accused party.
\nThe arms being transferred have been used in a campaign that has caused extraordinary destruction in Gaza. As of January 2025, publicly available data showed:
\nThe Genocide Convention imposes two distinct obligations on the United States that are directly implicated by the arms transfers:
\nArticle I requires all state parties to \"prevent and punish\" genocide. The ICJ held in Bosnia v. Serbia (2007) that a state violates this obligation when it has the capacity to influence the situation and fails to use that capacity. As Israel's primary arms supplier, the United States possesses significant leverage and has chosen not to exercise it to prevent the conduct the ICJ has found plausibly genocidal.
\nArticle III(e) criminalizes \"complicity in genocide.\" Providing the weapons used to carry out acts that the ICJ has found plausibly genocidal, with full knowledge of how they are being used, creates substantial exposure under this provision. The continued and accelerating nature of the transfers -- including emergency bypasses of Congressional review -- strengthens the inference of knowledge and intent.
\nCommon Article 1 requires all High Contracting Parties to \"ensure respect\" for the Geneva Conventions \"in all circumstances.\" This has been interpreted by the ICRC and the ICJ as imposing an affirmative obligation to use available influence to ensure compliance by other parties. Arms transfers that enable violations of the conventions are inconsistent with this obligation.
\nWhile the US has not ratified the Arms Trade Treaty, it is a signatory and thus obligated not to defeat the treaty's object and purpose. The treaty prohibits transfers where the state has knowledge the arms will be used in genocide or Geneva Convention violations.
\nDomestically, the Leahy Law (22 U.S.C. 2378d) prohibits US assistance to foreign security force units where there is credible information of gross human rights violations. Multiple credible reports document such violations by units receiving US arms.
\nUnder Rome Statute Article 25(3)(c), aiding, abetting, or otherwise assisting in the commission of a crime within ICC jurisdiction constitutes individual criminal responsibility. ICC jurisdiction over the situation in Palestine was established in 2021. US officials who authorized arms transfers with knowledge of their use in potential war crimes or genocide may face individual criminal liability.
\nThe US declaration of intervention filed March 12, 2026 represents a qualitative escalation of complicity beyond the provision of arms. By actively defending Israel against genocide charges at the world's highest court, the United States has moved from passive enabling to active diplomatic protection of conduct the ICJ has found plausibly genocidal. The Center for Constitutional Rights has argued this constitutes a new form of state complicity that goes beyond prior precedent.
\nThis incident receives an extreme severity classification because:
\n| Statute | \nProvision | \nNature of Violation | \n
|---|---|---|
| Genocide Convention Art. I | \nObligation to prevent genocide | \nFailure to use available leverage to prevent acts the ICJ found plausibly genocidal | \n
| Genocide Convention Art. III(e) | \nComplicity in genocide | \nProviding 90,000 tons of arms used in campaign characterized as genocidal | \n
| Geneva Conventions Common Art. 1 | \nDuty to ensure respect | \nArms transfers enabling documented violations of IHL in Gaza | \n
| Arms Trade Treaty Art. 6(3) | \nProhibition on transfers for genocide | \nContinued transfers despite knowledge of end use | \n
| US Leahy Law | \nProhibition on aid to abusive units | \nTransfers to units credibly implicated in gross human rights violations | \n
| Rome Statute Art. 25(3)(c) | \nIndividual criminal responsibility for aiding | \nUS officials authorizing transfers with knowledge of potential war crimes | \n
In 2025, the United States vetoed at least two UN Security Council resolutions demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, bringing the total US vetoes on Gaza ceasefires to six. In each case, the US was the sole dissenting vote — all other 14 members of the Security Council voted in favor.
\nThe draft resolution called for \"an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza.\" It received 14 votes in favor from all ten elected members and four of the five permanent members. The United States was the sole veto.
\nThe US vetoed another ceasefire resolution at the Security Council's historic 10,000th meeting, where famine and the possibility of genocide in Gaza were discussed. Amnesty International called the veto \"a greenlight for Israel's campaign of annihilation in Gaza.\"
\nUS Representative Dorothy Shea called the resolutions \"unacceptable,\" stating the US would not support any measure that fails to condemn Hamas and does not call for Hamas to disarm and leave Gaza.
\nSince October 2023, the Israeli military has deployed white phosphorus munitions extensively across southern Lebanon, with attacks continuing through March 2026. The munitions include US-supplied white phosphorus shells, creating direct US complicity in attacks that Human Rights Watch has classified as unlawfully indiscriminate under international humanitarian law.
\nA comprehensive investigation by France 24's Observers team documented 191 white phosphorus attacks across southern Lebanon, striking over 918 hectares (2,268 acres). The geographic distribution reveals the indiscriminate nature of the campaign:
\nHuman Rights Watch verified white phosphorus use in at least 17 municipalities across southern Lebanon, including five where airburst munitions were deployed directly over populated residential areas.
\nOn March 3, 2026, the Israeli military fired airburst white phosphorus munitions over residential homes in the southern Lebanese town of Yohmor. HRW verified and geolocated eight images showing the attack, documenting fires in at least two homes and one car caused by the burning phosphorus. The organization classified this as unlawfully indiscriminate — airburst white phosphorus in populated areas cannot meet the legal requirement to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm.
\nThe Washington Post and multiple human rights organizations have confirmed that US-supplied white phosphorus munitions were used in attacks on Lebanese border villages including Dhayra, Aita al-Chaab, and al-Mari. The United States continues to supply arms to Israel despite repeated documentation of unlawful use.
\nWhite phosphorus leaves persistent chemical contamination. A December 2025 study documented ongoing danger from white phosphorus residue in southern Lebanese communities, posing risks to returning civilians, agricultural workers, and children.
\nThe use of airburst white phosphorus over populated residential areas violates:
\nThe United States bears responsibility as an arms supplier:
\nOn March 2, 2026, Israel launched a renewed large-scale military offensive across Lebanon in the context of the broader regional war triggered by the US-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28. The offensive has killed over 1,072 people including at least 121 children, wounded nearly 3,000, and displaced nearly 700,000 — approximately 20% of Lebanon's entire population. An additional 85,000 to 90,000 people have fled across the border into Syria.
\nThe offensive is being conducted with US-supplied weapons. Human Rights Watch has documented the use of US-made JDAM guidance kits in unlawful strikes, and the use of white phosphorus munitions deployed as airburst weapons over residential areas — a use that HRW has classified as unlawfully indiscriminate.
\nOn March 9, 2026, Human Rights Watch published a detailed report documenting Israel's unlawful use of white phosphorus in Lebanon. Airburst white phosphorus was deployed over residential homes, a delivery method that scatters burning particles across a wide area and is inherently indiscriminate in populated environments. White phosphorus burns at approximately 800 degrees Celsius and causes deep, severe burns on contact with skin.
\nThe use of airburst white phosphorus over populated areas does not meet the requirement under international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm. HRW classified the attacks as unlawfully indiscriminate.
\nIsrael used a US-made JDAM guidance kit in a strike on a relief center in southern Lebanon that killed seven emergency and relief volunteers. The targeting of humanitarian workers with US-supplied precision munitions is a direct manifestation of the complicity that arises from continued arms transfers.
\nThe UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that nearly 700,000 people have been displaced within Lebanon, including approximately 200,000 children. The displacement represents 20% of Lebanon's population. Spain's Prime Minister warned that Israel intends to inflict on Lebanon the same destruction it has carried out in Gaza.
\nThe question of US complicity is central to this incident. The United States has continued arms transfers to Israel despite:
\nUnder the Arms Trade Treaty and under the Leahy Law, the United States has obligations to halt arms transfers when there is knowledge that weapons will be used in violations of international humanitarian law.
\nThe Trump administration has used emergency authority to push through over $23 billion in arms sales to Gulf states — principally the UAE, Kuwait, and Jordan — while simultaneously dismantling every human rights safeguard governing American weapons exports. The combination of emergency congressional bypass, rescission of human rights conditions, and sales to a country documented as arming genocidal forces in Sudan represents a systematic removal of the legal guardrails designed to prevent US complicity in atrocities.
\nIn March 2026, Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued an emergency waiver under the Arms Export Control Act to bypass the mandatory 30-day congressional review period for arms sales exceeding specified dollar thresholds. The administration cited the ongoing war with Iran as justification for the emergency.
\nThe approved packages include $2.1 billion worth of 10 FS-LIDS counter-drone interception systems and 240 Coyote drone interceptor systems for the UAE, approximately $8 billion in air and missile defense radar systems for Kuwait, and additional packages for Jordan. While some reports cite a $16.5 billion total, other reporting places the combined value at over $23 billion when all packages are included.
\nThe emergency waiver mechanism is legally available under the Arms Export Control Act but has historically been used sparingly. Its use here bypasses the congressional review process that serves as the primary democratic check on arms transfers.
\nThe arms sales occurred against the backdrop of the administration's systematic removal of human rights conditions from weapons exports:
\nOn February 21, 2025, National Security Adviser Michael Waltz relayed Trump's decision to immediately rescind NSM-20, the Biden-era National Security Memorandum requiring recipients of US weapons to provide \"credible and reliable written assurances\" of compliance with international humanitarian law and facilitation of humanitarian aid delivery. NSM-20 had been issued on February 8, 2024, specifically in response to concerns about US weapons being used in violations of international law.
\nOn March 14, 2025, the administration rescinded NSM-18, the conventional arms transfer policy itself. This left the United States — the world's largest arms exporter — without a conventional arms transfer policy for the first time since 1977.
\nThe sales to the UAE are particularly significant because of the UAE's documented role in arming the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Sudan. In January 2025, the US State Department concluded that members of the RSF and allied militias had committed genocide in Sudan. A UN panel monitoring compliance with the Darfur arms embargo identified an RSF supply route running from Abu Dhabi International Airport through eastern Chad into western Sudan. A September 2024 New York Times investigation concluded the UAE was secretly \"expanding its covert campaign to back a winner in Sudan, funneling money, weapons and, now, powerful drones.\"
\nSenator Chris Van Hollen and Representative Sara Jacobs, after reviewing classified intelligence, publicly confirmed the UAE was providing weapons to the RSF in contradiction to its assurances to the United States. Congressional efforts to block arms sales to the UAE pending cessation of RSF support were defeated along party lines.
\nThe Arms Trade Treaty — which the United States has signed but not ratified — prohibits the authorization of arms transfers where the exporting state \"has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes.\" While the US is not bound by the treaty as a non-ratifying signatory, the treaty reflects the international legal consensus on responsible arms transfers.
\nMore directly applicable is Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, which the United States has ratified. Common Article 1 requires High Contracting Parties \"to respect and to ensure respect for\" the conventions \"in all circumstances.\" The International Court of Justice and the ICRC have interpreted this as imposing a positive obligation on states not to facilitate violations of international humanitarian law by third parties. Selling arms to the UAE without conditions — while possessing documented evidence of UAE arms flowing to genocidal forces in Sudan — is difficult to reconcile with this obligation.
\nThe Genocide Convention's Article III(e) makes complicity in genocide punishable. Providing arms to a state known to be arming a force committing genocide raises serious questions of complicity, particularly when the human rights conditions that might have mitigated this risk have been deliberately removed.
\nThe Leahy Law, a US domestic statute, prohibits the furnishing of assistance to foreign security forces where there is credible information that the unit has committed gross violations of human rights. The rescission of NSM-20 does not repeal the Leahy Law, but the removal of the associated vetting and assurance framework undermines its practical enforcement.
\nThis incident receives a severe severity classification because:
\nThe following international law provisions are implicated:
\nOn February 6, 2026, President Trump signed Executive Order 14383, \"Establishing an America First Arms Transfer Strategy,\" which fundamentally restructured the framework governing US weapons exports — the largest in the world. The order elevated commercial and economic objectives to the top of the priority hierarchy for arms transfer decisions, displacing the strategic, human rights, and humanitarian considerations that had occupied that position under all previous administrations of both parties.
\nThe executive order makes no mention of human rights, international humanitarian law, or civilian protection. This is unprecedented. Even Trump's own 2018 Conventional Arms Transfer Policy retained language about foreign policy considerations, including human rights. Biden's 2023 policy had gone further, committing the US to refrain from transferring arms that were \"more likely than not\" to contribute to genocide, crimes against humanity, or serious violations of international humanitarian law.
\nThe Stimson Center, a nonpartisan security think tank, analyzed the order and found that it \"fundamentally reordered CAT policy priorities, giving primacy to domestic economic and industrial objectives at the expense of the strategic focus that had been at the center of all past directives.\" In practice, this means arms sales will be evaluated primarily on their economic benefit to the US, with little or no weight given to whether the recipient is likely to use the weapons to commit atrocities.
\nThe consequences of the new framework were demonstrated almost immediately. On March 19, 2026, Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked emergency powers under Section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act to force through more than $23 billion in weapons sales to Gulf states — bypassing the congressional review process that exists specifically to scrutinize whether proposed arms sales comply with human rights standards and serve US strategic interests.
\nThe packages included:
\nThe use of emergency powers to bypass congressional review for $23+ billion in arms sales — combined with $7 billion routed through non-public channels — represents a fundamental erosion of democratic oversight over US weapons exports.
\nArms Trade Treaty: While the US signed but did not ratify the ATT, Article 7 requires exporting states to assess the potential that arms could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law or human rights law. The removal of human rights considerations from the US transfer framework contradicts the treaty's core purpose.
\nGeneva Conventions Common Article 1: All High Contracting Parties — including the US — undertake to \"respect and to ensure respect\" for the Conventions. This has been interpreted to include a duty of due diligence in arms transfers — ensuring that weapons are not provided to forces likely to violate IHL. The elimination of human rights safeguards undermines this obligation.
\nState responsibility for aiding violations: Under the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility, a state that aids or assists another state in the commission of an internationally wrongful act is internationally responsible if it does so with knowledge of the circumstances. Removing the mechanisms designed to assess these risks does not eliminate responsibility — it may actually increase it, by demonstrating deliberate indifference.
\nThis incident receives a severe severity classification because:
\nThe following international law provisions are implicated:
\n