A massive financial commitment
For decades, Washington has functioned as Israel’s most powerful military supplier and strongest diplomatic protector, providing extensive aid that shapes the conflict in Gaza. Under a ten-year military assistance agreement initiated in 2018, the United States committed to providing $38 billion in security assistance to its ally.
This substantial package included $33 billion in direct military financing alongside $5 billion allocated specifically for missile-defence programs. American leaders often describe themselves as having limited control over Israeli operations, yet a government supplying billions of dollars in aid is not powerless to influence outcomes.
The United States retains the capacity to suspend specific weapons transfers, impose strict conditions on how American-made arms are utilized, or demand full compliance with international humanitarian law. Instead, the flow of these resources and diplomatic support has persisted despite repeated warnings regarding civilian harm and alleged violations of international law.
When a nation knowingly continues to supply military resources after such explicit warnings, the central question shifts from whether it possesses influence to why it refuses to exercise that leverage. The decision to maintain this aid stream represents a deliberate choice rather than an inability to act.
Veto power shields from consequences
American support for Israel extends far beyond the delivery of weapons and financial aid, reaching into the highest levels of international diplomacy. The United States has repeatedly leveraged its position as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council to block resolutions demanding stronger action over Gaza.
On June 4, 2025, the United States exercised its veto power against a Security Council draft resolution calling for an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire. At that time, the other 14 members of the council supported the resolution, but Washington’s opposition was sufficient to prevent its adoption.
Washington again voted against a Gaza ceasefire resolution in September 2025, utilizing its veto power once more. Because the United States holds this unique authority, its opposition alone prevents the council from adopting such resolutions, effectively shielding Israel from international pressure.
This is not passive support but the active use of American power to protect an ally from binding international measures.
Each veto sends a consistent message: regardless of how severe the allegations become, Israel can continue relying on Washington to block meaningful consequences. This dynamic transforms the US from a bystander into an active enabler of the status quo.
International courts have already acted
In July 2024, the International Court of Justice concluded that Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory was unlawful.
The court stated clearly that Israel was obliged to end that presence as rapidly as possible. Later, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant.
The ICC stated that its judges found reasonable grounds to believe Netanyahu was allegedly responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity. These charges include starvation as a method of warfare, murder, persecution and other inhumane acts.
It is important to note that these are allegations contained in arrest warrants, not final criminal convictions. Despite those extraordinary developments, Israel has continued receiving military and political support from the United States without interruption.
Washington has not treated the court actions as a reason to distance itself from Netanyahu or alter its policy stance. Instead, American political leaders have repeatedly attacked or rejected international efforts to hold Israeli officials accountable for these serious allegations.
This creates a two-tiered international system where America demands that international law be respected when its adversaries are accused of breaking it but challenges, dismisses or obstructs the same institutions when they target a close ally.
The distinction between action and enablement
Israel remains directly responsible for decisions made by its government and military forces.
However, international responsibility can arise when a country knowingly assists another state in committing an internationally wrongful act. Whether that legal threshold has been met in a particular incident depends on the evidence, the nature of the assistance and what American officials knew at the time.
The political and moral question is much clearer than the complex legal nuances. If the United States supplies weapons, continues funding, blocks international action and protects Israeli officials from consequences, it cannot credibly describe itself as an innocent bystander.
Israel makes the operational decisions on the ground, while America supplies much of the equipment and diplomatic cover that allow those decisions to continue without decisive consequences. The United States is not a minor country begging Netanyahu to listen; it is Israel’s most important ally.
That means Washington possesses tools that most other governments do not have access to.
The fact that Washington has largely refused to use those tools is a political choice. American leaders often claim they are privately pressuring Israel, but private expressions of concern mean little when weapons, funding and diplomatic protection continue publicly.
A government should be judged by what it does—not merely by what it claims to say behind closed doors. The reality on the ground shows that support without consequences effectively enables further violations.
The tools to stop a war
The United States holds the greatest ability to impose pressure on the Netanyahu government, yet it has chosen not to use these levers fully.
These are concrete actions available to the US administration.
When a country knowingly keeps supplying military resources after such warnings, the question is no longer whether it has influence.
The question is why it refuses to use that influence to halt the conflict. The tools exist; the capacity to suspend transfers or impose conditions is present. The refusal to deploy them constitutes a policy decision rather than an accident of circumstance.
Support without consequences becomes impunity
No government should be above international law, whether that nation is Russia, Iran, the United States or Israel. When powerful states protect their allies regardless of their conduct, international law becomes something imposed on weaker countries while stronger countries and their partners operate under a different set of rules.
That destroys the credibility of the entire international system and encourages further violations by signaling that consequences are optional for those with powerful patrons. It also encourages further violations by suggesting that legal accountability is merely theoretical rather than practical.
The distinction between action and enablement becomes blurred when a nation actively shields an ally from binding measures.
This dynamic makes America an enabler rather than just a bystander in the conflict. The United States cannot claim innocence while supplying the weapons and diplomatic protection that make Israeli actions possible.
America cannot claim innocence
Washington is not a passive observer on the sidelines of the conflict in Gaza. It is Israel’s most powerful military supplier, its strongest diplomatic protector and the nation with the greatest ability to impose pressure on the Netanyahu government.
This dynamic makes America an enabler rather than just a bystander. A massive financial commitment over decades has created a relationship where American policy directly influences the trajectory of the war in Gaza.
The question is why it refuses to use that influence to enforce accountability.
America enables the continuation of the conflict through its active choices rather than passive inaction.