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

FILE PHOTO: A US-made F-35 fighter jet of the Israeli Air Force. © Getty Images / Michael Jacobs

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.

Read more

 ‘She’s just a troublemaker’ – Trump on Thunberg’s arrest by Israel

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.

READ MORE: Pro-Palestine protests are ‘carnivals of hatred’ – UK Conservative leader

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

More: 
https://yandex.ru/images/search?from=tabbar&text=gaza%20devastation%20ruins

___

eof

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/

___

I am very concerned by last night’s strike by U.S. forces in Syria. The president has the responsibility to keep Americans safe, but for too long administrations of both parties have interpreted their authorities in an extremely expansive way to continue war. This must end. pic.twitter.com/AnU2On6QC1

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) February 26, 2021

___ 

 

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