The Leahy Law Loophole

How the State Department Sidesteps Israel’s War Crimes

In the grand theater of American politics, there’s always a backdoor exit, a handy escape hatch, or a legal loophole that smooths over even the most egregious contradictions. Enter the Leahy Law, a piece of legislation designed to prevent U.S. military aid from flowing into the hands of foreign forces that violate human rights—on paper. In practice? It’s more like a suggestion.

For years, the Leahy Law has been the fly buzzing around the State Department’s grandiose charcuterie board of foreign policy. And when it comes to Israel, the department wields fly swatters with Olympic precision. Because acknowledging even a whiff of wrongdoing on Israel’s part would mean admitting something truly inconvenient: that America might be violating its own laws by continuing to fund Israel’s military operations.

So, what does the State Department do? It deflects. It defends. It denies. Every time human rights organizations, activists, or journalists point to mounting evidence of war crimes committed against Palestinians, the U.S. government dons its best poker face. The narrative goes: "Oh, war crimes? We haven’t seen any credible evidence of that. But we’re deeply concerned, of course."

The Leahy Law: A Paper Tiger

The Leahy Law was passed with noble intentions. If a foreign military engages in gross human rights abuses, the law mandates that the U.S. should cut off aid until those responsible are held accountable. The idea is straightforward: America doesn’t want its tax dollars funding war crimes, right?

Well, it seems the Leahy Law is only as good as the will to enforce it, and when it comes to Israel, enforcement is perpetually “under review.” By “under review,” I mean the State Department sits on a pile of reports, yawning theatrically while waiting for the news cycle to move on.

Reports of indiscriminate bombings in Gaza? Civilian deaths? Homes leveled? Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International might as well be blowing into the wind. The U.S. government’s response is consistent: “We’ll look into it.” But looking doesn’t mean seeing, and investigating doesn’t mean acting.

The Fine Art of Deflection

The fine art of deflection is a carefully honed skill at the State Department, and it’s particularly evident when it comes to handling accusations of Israeli war crimes. The first step is to redefine the conversation. Whenever allegations are raised, the response immediately shifts to Israel’s “right to defend itself.” This tried-and-true tactic reframes the narrative, focusing on Israel’s security needs rather than civilian casualties, illegal settlements, or ethnic cleansing. By doing so, any discussion of war crimes is swiftly buried, dismissed as exaggerations from “anti-Israel” voices.

Then comes the classic stall. The U.S. government is a master at delaying, often launching investigations that stretch on for months, if not years. Meanwhile, Israeli forces continue their operations unabated, with fresh allegations emerging regularly. By the time an investigation is deemed “inconclusive,” the moment has passed, and there’s already a new crisis to divert attention.

Adding insult to injury, the U.S. often allows Israel to investigate itself. When war crimes are alleged, Washington frequently steps aside, allowing Israeli military courts to handle the matter. Unsurprisingly, these investigations always end with a predictable result—no evidence of wrongdoing. It’s like putting the fox in charge of guarding the henhouse and then acting surprised when all the chickens vanish. The U.S. acknowledges Israel’s so-called “due diligence,” and the whole affair fades into the background.

This tactic of self-investigation creates the illusion of accountability without any real consequences. The U.S. can maintain its moral high ground, insisting that delays are necessary for “proper investigation” and “the rule of law,” all while the violence on the ground continues unabated.

The deflection doesn’t stop there. The State Department also engages in linguistic acrobatics, turning harsh realities into sterile, politically palatable phrases. War crimes are rebranded as “security operations,” civilian deaths become “collateral damage,” and the illegal blockade of Gaza is spun as a “necessary measure.” This verbal sleight of hand ensures that the brutality of the situation is softened for public consumption.

Finally, whenever the U.S. finds itself cornered with tough questions, it hides behind its international allies. The refrain is always the same: “Well, according to our intelligence—and the UK, France, and Germany—Israel isn’t committing war crimes.” By pointing to its friendly nations, the U.S. dodges accusations of hypocrisy and shifts the blame onto human rights activists for stirring the pot, rather than focusing on Israel’s actions.

Leahy Law vs. Israel: Why the Exception?

The real issue isn’t just about the Leahy Law; it’s about Israel’s outsized influence over U.S. foreign policy. The very idea of applying the law to Israel—despite mounting evidence of human rights abuses—runs headfirst into a brick wall constructed by decades of political lobbying, strategic interests, and unwavering support from Washington’s corridors of power.

Israel is not just another foreign ally; it’s arguably the most influential player in shaping America’s Middle East policy. From the halls of Congress to the backrooms of the Pentagon, Israel wields an extraordinary level of influence that few other countries can match. This influence isn’t just about maintaining strong diplomatic ties—it’s about ensuring that U.S. foreign policy aligns with Israel’s security needs, even when it conflicts with American legal obligations or international norms.

For decades, pro-Israel lobbying groups, like AIPAC, have embedded themselves deeply in the American political landscape. They ensure that Israel remains untouchable, no matter how egregious the accusations. Members of Congress know all too well the risks of crossing the Israel lobby—loss of campaign funding, public smear campaigns, and political isolation. So, when the issue of war crimes comes up, politicians fall in line, toeing the narrative that Israel is a “democracy under threat,” deserving unconditional U.S. military aid.

The billions of dollars in aid that flow to Israel each year aren’t just a symbol of friendship—they’re a lifeline that sustains Israel’s military dominance in the region. And this aid isn’t up for debate, even when Israel’s actions clearly violate the human rights standards that the Leahy Law is supposed to protect. Israel has become so deeply enmeshed in U.S. foreign policy calculations that admitting it committed war crimes would set off a political earthquake. The State Department knows this, and it deftly avoids making any admissions that could jeopardize this special relationship.

The result? The Leahy Law becomes irrelevant. Israel’s influence ensures that the law is treated as more of a political inconvenience than a binding legal standard. The U.S. continues to bankroll Israeli military operations, knowing full well that acknowledging any violations would mean cutting off aid—something that is unthinkable given Israel’s entrenched role in U.S. geopolitical strategy.

In short, the Leahy Law stands no chance when it comes to Israel. The country’s influence over U.S. foreign policy guarantees that its actions, no matter how brutal or illegal, will be excused, downplayed, or outright ignored. And as long as Israel remains indispensable to U.S. interests in the region, the Leahy Law will continue to gather dust, a relic of ideals that never quite made it to reality.

Conclusion: Law? What Law?

The Leahy Law is a joke when it comes to Israel. The State Department’s persistent deflection and refusal to acknowledge Israel’s war crimes make it clear: this law only applies when it’s convenient. Israel gets a free pass because it serves U.S. interests, and no amount of human rights violations will change that.

So, the next time you hear a U.S. official express “concern” over the violence in Gaza or talk about an “investigation” into war crimes allegations, just remember: it’s all part of the dance. The Leahy Law remains locked away in the drawer, collecting dust, while Israel continues to operate with impunity—all with Uncle Sam’s signature on the check.

In the end, the Leahy Law serves as a moral balm for the American conscience. We have laws, sure—but enforcing them? That’s another story altogether.