This memo analyzes the United States’ involvement in the displacement, starvation, and indiscriminate bombing and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians which has resulted in the death of upwards 186,000 and 93,000 injured Palestinians., It addresses the long history of colonialism in Palestine and contextualizes the October 7th uprising. This memo analyzes two policy options for U.S. foreign relations in the region: the current policy in place and complete divestment and sanctions on Israel.
On October 7th, the Palestinian resistance unleashed a strategic attack on over 20 communities across the border of Palestine after seventy-six years of brutal occupation. This attack resulted in 1,139 Israeli civilian deaths.In response, the Israeli military has unleashed a violent ground and air invasion of, using indiscriminate "dumb" bombs to target the region and suppress resistance forces. These attacks have led to the merciless deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians with the death toll reaching 186,000 according to a report conducted by The Lancet. Amid the zionist entity’s occupation and attack of Palestine, the United States–including Germany and the United Kingdom, among others–have provided billions of dollars of military aid to Israel in an attempt to fund their expansionist agenda.
The zionist entity dropped more than 75,000 tons of explosives on the Gaza Strip between October 7th 2023 and October of 2024. This is equivalent to the explosive force of two nuclear bombs, specifically the ones dropped on Japan at the end of World War II, which exceeds over 10 kilograms of explosives per individual living in the Gaza Strip., This indiscriminate bombardment on Palestine breaks Article 25 of the Hague Regulations which states, “The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited”. These military strategies also break Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which states “Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.” In order to ensure that civilian deaths are minimized, it is necessary that alternative policies are enacted to ensure the protection of life in Palestine.
The siege on Gaza by the zionist entity of Israel began in 1948 with an event that many Palestinians refer to as the Nakba, or “catastrophe” in Arabic. Just after World War II, Great Britain recommended that all Jewish Europeans that were displaced as a result of the Holocaust migrate to Palestine through a settler colonial project known as “zionism”. Defined as a 19th century nationalist movement to grant Jewish people a state in Palestine, zionism has historically justified the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people from their native lands. The Nakba marked the beginning of a brutal military occupation that led to the displacement of between 750,000 and one million native Palestinians, as their cities were destroyed by British forces. This initial occupation sparked a series of attacks that culminated in the near-total occupation of Palestine by the zionist entity. One of the most devastating events was the 1967 Six-Day War, during which Palestine lost the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
In an escalation of historical violence, more than ten times as many Palestinians have died, with the average victim being only five years old. Some reports estimate that at least 17,400 children have been murdered, more than 10,000 are still stuck under the rubble, and over one million have since been displaced.,, Palestinian health officials have announced that these numbers may not be accurate as they are unable to keep up with the sheer number of deaths each day paired with the fact that it is simply too unsafe to retrieve bodies due to the military occupation. Additionally, hospitals and other healthcare institutions are beginning to crumble. The number of functioning hospitals in Gaza has fallen to 17 from 36 since October as hospitals continue to be targets for Israeli airstrikes. It is important to note that these hospitals are only partially functioning due to the damage caused by U.S.-funded airstrikes. Additionally, all schools in Gaza have been closed since the start of the siege with about 87.7% being damaged and/or destroyed as of April of 2024. Palestinian students in the region now have no formal means of gaining an education, illustrating the ongoing scholasticide being faced by those living in Palestine. This serves true–as well–for places of prayer. According to the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Gaza; 814 mosques have been flattened, another 148 have been damaged, and 3 churches have been destroyed. This totals to about 79% of mosques being destroyed in Gaza, some of which have been around for longer than modern conceptions of Zionism, such as the Great Omari Mosque.
Several international organizations have responded to the attacks on the Palestinian people with the United Nations children’s agency describing Gaza as “a graveyard for thousands of children” and a “living hell for everyone else.” The United States has claimed to send foreign aid abroad in order to mitigate what is incorrectly referred to as a “conflict,” but this funding is going to Israel in the form of military aid in order to further intensify the attacks on Palestine. Alongside the Palestinian genocide, Israel is involved in other genocides in part due to this funding – for example, 70% of Azerbaijan’s military technologies are supplied by Israel, and have been used to kill and ethnically cleanse Armenians from their indigenous lands since 2020.
The United States has historically allied itself with Israel since the state’s creation in 1948, and has advocated for a two-state solution to the military violence in recent years. Since the creation of the colonial state, the United States has provided more funding to Israel than any other country in the world totalling to more than $92.7 billion in aid, which is approximately 29% of its funding from all sources. President Biden and his administration has supported a two-state solution in which both territories return to borders prior to the 1967 crisis in Palestine which would include the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and parts of East Jerusalem. The United States, currently, does not recognize Palestine as its own nation and regards Gaza’s governing body–Hamas–as a terrorist organization and takes excessive measures to keep them from receiving any aid, even in the form of direct humanitarian aid.
The National Border Act of 2024 allocates $4,000,000,000 to the maintenance of Israel's Iron Dome, an advanced missile defense system, from the U.S. Secretary of Defense. In the same bill, the Department of State and Related Agency and the Agency of State Administration of Foreign Affairs Diplomatic Programs dedicated $100,000,000 to Israel. The Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Defense dedicated $1,200,000,000 to go to the maintenance of Israel's Iron Beam, their High Energy Laser offensive system. Conversely, only $25,000,000 is dedicated to reconciliation efforts between both the zionist state of Israel and Palestine, further illustrating the United States’ commitment to the sovereignty of the zionist entity. The United States has not only funded the Israeli occupation through financial aid packages, but has additionally sent advanced military weaponry since October 7th. As of August 2024, the U.S. has sent over 50,000 tons of military weaponry including over 15,000 bombs and over 57,000 artillery shells for the maintenance of the military occupation.,
Shortly after in May of 2024, a new bill was introduced and passed in the U.S. House of Representatives titled “H.R.8369 - Israel Security Assistance Support Act”. The language in this bill re-affirms U.S. allegiance to Israel condemning the supposed “Biden Administration’s decision to pause certain arms transfers to Israel” while committing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. H.R. 8369 also uplifts the zionist entity’s right to self defense with no mention of the current state of Palestine, resulting from American-made weapons being sent to Israel.
In November of 2024–more than one year after the start of the siege on Gaza–Bernie Sanders introduced legislation into the U.S. Senate which would block a $20 billion arms deal to Israel. While unpopular in the U.S. Senate chambers, this idea is not unpopular globally nor among the people of the United States. Various countries across the globe have been pushing for an Arms Embargo of Israel such as Italy, France, Brazil, Algeria, and Japan among other countries., While no two forms of legislation among these countries are the same, they each have similar calls to action: a full arms embargo of weapons to the zionist entity.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, an arms embargo is a strategic policy tool which can be utilized to “coerce states and non-governmental actors to improve their behaviour in the interests of international peace and security.” They have been historically utilized to protest regimes that are considered violent, one such example being apartheid South Africa in 1977. Now that the world is finally recognizing the historical violence committed against the people of Palestine, countries are utilizing this strategic policy avenue to directly protest and remove military support for the zionist entity, with organizations across the world pressuring regions to follow suit. One such organization being the Palestinian Youth Movement(PYM). Through their recent campaign #MaskofMaersk, the PYM has been pushing Maersk–a shipping and logistics company–to divest from the zionist entity, and has also pushed all countries in its route to deny it the ability to dock in their ports. One of the countries it is currently targeting is Spain, a country that Maersk often docks at when shipping arms and weapons to Israel.
While seemingly extreme, the complete severance of diplomatic ties with the state of Israel has already been done. Bolivia has cut diplomatic ties with the state of Israel, announcing that the nation condemns “aggressive and disproportionate Israeli military offensive at Gaza, as well as the threat to international peace and security.” Similarly; Jordan, Bahrain, Turkey, Colombia, Honduras, Chile, Belize, South Africa and Chad have either recalled their diplomatic ambassador from the zionist entity or have also cut diplomatic ties all together.,
Additionally, many cities and locales in the United States have begun the process of boycotting from the military industrial complex, specifically in regards to Israel. Most recently being the divestment of Alameda County from Caterpillar, a company which is heavily involved in the ongoing ethnic cleansing in Palestine. Spearheaded by various organizations in the Bay Area, such as Bay Area Divest, organizers and legislators were able to get Alameda to Divest from Caterpillar in mid-December of 2024.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, there was global uproar. With many countries showing their allegiance to Ukraine through the cutting of diplomatic ties, putting sanctions on Russian goods, and divesting from Russian banks and companies. Given the extent of the damages in Palestine, complete divestment and sanctions would illustrate the United States’ commitment to human rights abroad.
Such divestments and sanctions would include:
Effectiveness: Does the policy effectively abstain from supporting the destabilization of Palestine?
Efficiency: Does the policy achieve the end goal of reducing support to ethnic cleansing while minimizing damage to Palestinian civilians?
Political Feasibility: Is the policy likely to gain bipartisan support?
1- The policy actively leads to the destabilization of Palestine.
2- The policy moderately leads to the destabilization of Palestine.
3- The policy does not destabilize Palestine nor does it abstain from supporting its destabilization.
4-The policy attempts to abstain from supporting the destabilization of Palestine.
5-The policy actively and effectively abstains from supporting the destabilization of Palestine.
The current programs and policies in place do not abstain from supporting destabilization in Palestine, in fact, they fund them. Just under 70% percent of all of the state of Israel’s foreign military funding and imports are from the United States, illustrating the country's dependency on U.S. military aid. Without this funding, some Israeli diplomats have mentioned that they would not have the capacity to continue the bombardment on Palestine. If the U.S. continues to unconditionally fund the Israeli military, more Palestinians will die and more of their buildings will crumble.
Withdrawing military support from the zionist entity would likely end the current genocide in Israel, considering that the U.S. supplies Israel with 69% of its foreign military aid. However, while this would end the current and ongoing genocide in Gaza, it would not guarantee that illegal settlements would not continue to manifest in the West Bank or in parts of the Gaza Strip. In order to ensure that all Palestinian people are protected and empowered, more would need to be done than just an arms embargo.
Much like the political response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, to completely divest and put sanctions on a nation illustrates the magnitude of their error. It makes a statement. Given the U.S.’s involvement in the Israeli economy, complete divestment and sanctions would effectively ensure that no military spending is going to fund the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians while economically destabilizing an apartheid state. This would effectively illustrate foreign policy which reflects the current administration’s supposed commitment to equity and could potentially end the bombardment of Palestine overnight. The zionist entity requires continuous supply of military funding and technology from the United States to fund their occupation; they would not be able to continue their aggressive campaign without this international support.
1- The policy actively contributes to the loss of Palestinian life and ethnic cleansing.
2- The policy moderately contributes to the loss of Palestinian life and ethnic cleansing.
3- The policy neither contributes nor avoids the loss of Palestinian life and ethnic cleansing.
4-The policy attempts to reduce support to the loss of Palestinian life and ethnic cleansing.
5- The policy actively and entirely removes support for ethnic cleansing and the loss of Palestinian life.
Currently, the United States is sending money to fund the Israeli military occupation at the cost of thousands of Palestinian lives. The continuation of this funding will lead to a growing number in Palestinian casualties and a greater amount of infrastructural damage to the area. There is minimal funding being sent to Palestine in any form from the United States, and it is abysmal in comparison to the money that is being sent to the Israeli military. The current policy offers no form of mitigation or damage control, and is one of the few funding sources in which the Israeli military is dependent on in order to maintain its presence in Palestine.
An arms embargo on Israel would minimize–and theoretically end–the current ethnic cleansing in Gaza. It would end all U.S. support for the current crisis in Gaza, however, much like Alternative 2: Complete Divestment and Sanctions, it would allocate no money to humanitarian aid in the region which would lead to long-term harm for the Palestinian people. The people of Gaza are already facing starvation, illness, and other medical emergencies that would be left untreated without humanitarian support, which is currently being blocked by the Israeli military and Israeli settlers in the region.
In order to fully divest from the Israeli military occupation, the United States must not only divest from their war, they must also divest from the country itself. Israel’s biggest global ally–both ideologically and financially–is the United States. It would not be able to continue with its brutal occupation without the support of the U.S.. However, to fully divest from the war and implement sanctions on Israel would not necessarily provide humanitarian aid being sent to Palestine. This divestment would also destabilize the Israeli economy, making it impossible for them to continue th ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian population.
1-This policy will gain no support from Democrats, Republicans, and/or Independents.
2-This policy will gain minimal support from Democrats, Republicans, and/or Independents.
3-This policy will gain some support from Democrats, Republicans, and/or Independents.
4-This policy will gain majority support from Democrats, Republicans, and/or Independents.
5-This policy will gain full support from Democrats, Republicans, and/or Independents.
While the current political stance on the Israeli occupation has historical roots, we have seen an increase in cities across the country demanding a ceasefire. With cities such as Oakland and Richmond passing ceasefire resolutions and millions of people across the nation protesting the siege on Gaza, alternatives to the status quo are gaining political legitimacy. While there is a strong zionist presence in both the House and Senate, more than 60% of American voters support a ceasefire and humanitarian aid packages being sent to Palestine. The currency policy is under significant political scrutiny, both in the U.S. and from our international allies.
As previously mentioned, recent legislation was voted on in the U.S. Senate in an attempt to block more military weaponry being sent to Israel for the purpose of eradicating Palestinians in Gaza. This legislation, while widely supported by the American people, was shot down by the U.S. Senate and was not passed into law. Though it did gain support from some Democrats, the bill was not favorable amongst Republicans, thus making this policy alternative possible but not popular amongst elected officials, making it less politically feasible than the status quo.
While many organizers and politicians across the country have been advocating to reduce all funding being sent to Israel, given the United States’ long standing allegiance with the country this policy alternative is essentially impossible to pass. This is further exemplified by the success of H.R. 8369 in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Upon reviewing each policy alternative through the lens of these three criteria, this analysis concludes that pursuing Policy Alternative: Arms Embargo is likely to best align with the needs of the Palestinian people.
Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest news, exclusive insights.
Find us or Socials or Contact us and we’ll get back to you as soon as possible.
