Näytetään tekstit, joissa on tunniste Pentagon. Näytä kaikki tekstit
Näytetään tekstit, joissa on tunniste Pentagon. Näytä kaikki tekstit

keskiviikko 8. lokakuuta 2025

US gave Israel $21.7 billion in military aid during Gaza conflict

 

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them.
Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” - 1 Samuel 15:3 


__

7 Oct, 2025 13:31

US gave Israel $21.7 billion in military aid during Gaza conflict – report

The Pentagon has also spent more than $10 million on operations across the Middle East since October 7, 2023, according to the document

The US has provided Israel with $21.7 billion in military assistance during the two years of the conflict in Gaza, a new report has said.

The paper by the Costs of War project at Brown University’s Watson School of International and Public Affairs was released on Tuesday, the second anniversary of the October 7, 2023 incursion into Israel by Palestinian armed group Hamas, in which 1,200 people were killed and 250 others taken hostage.

Israeli airstrikes and a ground offensive in Gaza, launched in response to the attack, have left more than 67,000 people dead and almost 170,000 injured, according to the Palestinian health authorities. Last month, a UN commission described West Jerusalem’s actions as “genocide.”

Together with an additional $9.65 to $12.07 billion spent by the Pentagon on military operations in support of Israel in Yemen and elsewhere in the Middle East, the overall US investment in the Gaza conflict amounts to between $31.35 and $33.77 billion, the report stated.

The figure, which was based on open source data, did not include tens of billions of dollars worth of arms to be paid for and delivered in the coming years in line with deals earlier agreed between Washington and West Jerusalem, it added.

The US weapons, including combat aircraft, helicopters, missiles and bombs, “have been central to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israel Police operations in Gaza, the West Bank, and beyond,” the report said.

With their use, Israel “inflicted a devastating humanitarian toll on the people of Gaza,” with more than 10% of the Palestinian enclave’s population being killed or injured and at least 5.27 million displaced in Gaza and the wider region, it stressed.

Last week, US President Donald Trump, who has maintained the policy of arming Israel pursued by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden, proposed a prisoner swap agreement between West Jerusalem and Hamas, which he claimed should pave the way for ending the conflict.

The militant group reacted to the offer by agreeing to release the remaining hostages, but has so far rejected the call to disarm. Despite halting its advance on Gaza City, the IDF has ignored Trump’s demand to immediately end airstrikes across the Palestinian enclave.

https://web.archive.org/web/20251007192745/https://www.rt.com/news/626034-israel-us-weapons-gaza/

__

Gaza devastation/ruins pictured











___


Costs of War

Promoting research and public awareness of the human, economic, social, and environmental costs of U.S. militarism





Summary of Key Findings

  • In the two years since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, the U.S. government has spent $21.7 billion on military aid to Israel.
  • The U.S. has spent an additional $9.65 – $12.07 billion on military operations in Yemen and the wider region since October 7, 2023, for a total of $31.35 – $33.77 billion and counting in U.S. spending on the post-10/7 wars.
  • As of October 3, 2025, 67,075 people in Gaza have been killed and 169,430 people injured according to the Gaza Ministry of Health. These 236,505 casualties constitute more than 10% of the pre-war population in Gaza.
  • At least 5.27 million people have fled or been forced to leave their homes (as of early September 2025) in the post-Oct.7, 2023 wars in Gaza, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, and the West Bank. This total includes an estimated 1.85 million children under 18.
  • Military spending produces an average of 5 jobs per $1 million. The same investment in other sectors creates more employment - nearly 13 jobs in education, 9 in healthcare, and 7-8 in infrastructure and clean energy.
  • From 2020 to 2024, private firms received $2.4 trillion in contracts from the Pentagon, approximately 54% of the department’s discretionary spending of $4.4 trillion.
  • The expanding tools of political influence used by the arms industry include extensive lobbying, millions in campaign donations, the revolving door, funding think tanks, and involvement in government advisory committees.
  • U.S.-backed Israeli military operations since Oct. 7, 2023 will lead to far higher indirect death than direct death rates.
  • Over the course of the war in Afghanistan (2001-2021), 24% of U.S. women service members and 1.9% of men experienced sexual assault.
  • The “Military-Industrial Complex” is enmeshed with Silicon Valley. A growing portion of Pentagon spending goes to large tech firms.
  • War contributes significantly to climate change: The U.S. Defense Department is one of the world’s top greenhouse gas emitters.
  • Americans are inundated with cultural products that promote militarism – many of them influenced by the Pentagon. From movies to sporting events, the entertainment we consume normalizes war, reducing reflection about U.S. policy choices and their consequences.

See more


Costs



__

In the News


See All

Reckless Peacemaker’: US Opinions of Trump’s Foreign Policy
A piece in Inkstick cited Costs of War research on U.S. military aid to Israel since Oct. 7, 2023.
November 17, 2025 Common Dreams

At Least 12 Somali Civilians—Including 8 Children—Killed in Suspected US Airstrikes
Costs of War research on the human costs of the post-9/11 wars was cited in Common Dreams.

November 16, 2025 Pacific Daily News
Talks on militarization in the Marianas with author David Vine on Tuesday
An event with Costs of War contributor David Vine was reported in the Pacific Daily News.

November 16, 2025 MENA FM
Israel seeks to make twenty-year security deal with US
MENA FM cited Costs of War research on U.S. spending in the post-10/7 wars.

November 14, 2025 The Harvard Press
Veterans Day: Remembering those who served
The Harvard Press cited Costs of War research on servicemember deaths in the post-9/11 wars.

November 14, 2025 New Arab
Israel feels 'America First' heat, floats reducing dependence on US aid
New Arab cited Costs of War research on U.S. military aid to Israel since Oct. 7, 2023.


Watch / Listen / Read More



SOURCE:
https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/



__
eof


maanantai 1. maaliskuuta 2021

Biden’s First Strike and the International Law of Self-Defense


The U.S. airstrikes almost certainly violated international law, for two basic reasons.


Image: A picture taken on November 12, 2018 from al-Qaim in Iraq’s border al-Anbar province shows the Syrian border city of Albu Kamal in the Deir Ezzor region. Photo credit should read AHMAD AL-RUBAYE/AFP via Getty Images

 

Biden’s First Strike and the International Law of Self-Defense

The United States carried out airstrikes in Syria early Friday morning, killing several people and destroying several buildings. The Pentagon says that the airstrikes were a response to a rocket attack that occurred on Feb. 15, some 10 days earlier, at Erbil airport in northern Iraq, some 400 km away. That rocket attack killed a Filipino contractor, wounded four American contractors, and wounded a U.S. soldier.

It’s not clear whether the U.S. airstrikes targeted the group responsible for the rocket attack, or other groups affiliated with it. The Pentagon says “the strikes destroyed multiple facilities located at a border control point used by a number of Iranian backed militant groups including Kait’ib Hezbollah and Kait’ib Sayyid al Shuhada.” It did not mention Awliya al Dam, the group that claimed responsibility for the rocket attack in Erbil.

The U.S. airstrikes almost certainly violated international law, for two basic reasons. The airstrikes did not repel an ongoing armed attack, halt an imminent one, or immediately respond to an armed attack that was in fact over but may have appeared ongoing at the time (see here and here). And the airstrikes were carried out on the territory of another State, without its consent, against a non-State actor (or two, or more) (see here). These two reasons, combined, are decisive. It cannot be lawful to use armed force on the territory of another State when it is clear that no armed attack by a non-State actor is ongoing or even imminent.

The Pentagon says that the attacks were launched “in response to recent attacks against American and coalition personnel in Iraq, and to ongoing threats to those personnel.” The Feb. 15 attack was clearly over and not ongoing. And ongoing threats are not imminent attacks. The United States is free to take lawful action in Iraq to improve the long-term security of its forces and contractors in Iraq. It may not legally take military action in Syria to improve the long-term security of its forces and contractors in Iraq.

The U.S. government has not yet explained its decision to strike inside Syria rather than take lawful action inside Iraq. According to one former official, “[t]he decision to strike in Syria instead of Iraq was likely to avoid causing issues for the Iraqi government.” Needless to say, it is unlawful to bomb one country to avoid “causing issues” with another.

A few days ago, the State Department said about the rocket attack in Erbil that “we will respond in a way that’s calculated within our own timetable and using a mix of tools at a time and place of our choosing.” That is not how international law works. The use of armed force is lawful only if, when, and where it is necessary. The U.S. government appears to concede that it was not necessary to strike inside Syria. It was merely convenient.

The Pentagon says the airstrikes were a “proportionate military response” to the rocket attack in Erbil. International law permits a proportionate military response to an ongoing armed attack, or perhaps an imminent one. A proportionate military response to a previous armed attack, that is clearly over, is not proportionate self-defense. That is an armed reprisal. And even proportionate armed reprisals are illegal (see here and here).

The U.S. airstrikes were not defensive. They were expressive. The Pentagon says that the operation “sends an unambiguous message: President Biden will act to protect American and coalition personnel.” The operation sends another message: President Biden will violate international law, much like his predecessors.

https://www.justsecurity.org/75010/bidens-first-strike-and-the-international-law-of-self-defense/

___

___ 

 

Tensions rising. #Warcriminal #Israeli warplanes carry airstrikes in Syria And Burn Iran positions in Deir al-Zour | 17.2.2021

https://youtu.be/lXsE-lgG7gI 

https://youtu.be/lXsE-lgG7gI 
__

eof