Ukraine, Israel And The West: A Dangerous Double Standard On Weapons Supplies

-Analysis-

BERLIN — The wars in Gaza and Ukraine are interconnected like communicating pipes.

In both cases, the West supports one side with military equipment — with the U.S. and Germany as the two largest arms suppliers for both Ukraine and Israel. At the beginning of the Gaza war, ideological similarities between the two wars were also regularly highlighted. Both Ukraine and Israel, U.S. President Joe Biden declared, are defending themselves against totalitarian powers and enemies of freedom, who deny their adversaries’ very right to exist.

And yet the longer these wars last, the more a crucial difference becomes apparent: significant restrictions have been imposed on Ukraine for how it can use its imported weapons. Most significantly, Kyiv’s troops are not allowed to use U.S. and German weapons to launch attacks on Russian soil.

In contrast, despite criticism and repeated warnings from Washington and Berlin, Israel continues to use heavy bombs in Gaza without interference. Ukraine is prevented from attacking Russian positions just across the border, whereas Israel has been bombarding Gaza for more than seven months.

Double standards

The result of this double standard was evident in the two catastrophic airstrikes over the past weekend. One being unimpeded Russian forces launching a bomb attack on a supermarket in Ukraine’s second-largest city Kharkiv, that killed at least 16. The cynical justification given was that it was mistaken for a weapons depot.

The second attack that took place last weekend saw the Israeli air force attack an encampment in Rafah, killing at least 45 people and injuring more than 200. The justification given was that they had killed two high-ranking Hamas terrorists, with the deadly fire in the camp being a “tragic accident,” according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

This Western policy – restraining Ukraine while giving Israel free rein – is not only immoral. It is also strategically foolish and self-destructive, playing straight into the hands of both of the West’s adversaries, Moscow and Hamas.

Ukraine’s right to protection

Still, a debate has begun within the coalition of Kyiv’s Western supporters as to whether Ukraine should be allowed to launch attacks in the Russian border region near Kharkiv. French President Emmanuel Macron spoke out clearly in favor of this during his visit to Germany.

More freedom of action for Ukraine, less for Israel.

Olaf Scholz, on the other hand, chose to make an abstract reference to international law giving Ukraine the right to self-defense. The German Chancellor then added that the respective agreements with Ukraine apply and that, as is well known, different weapons have been made available. Scholz can still see himself in line with the U.S. position, which National Security Council spokesman John Kirby reiterated earlier this week: that Washington “does not encourage nor do we enable attacks using U.S.-supplied weapons systems inside Russian territory. That’s the policy.”

At this point, a different comparison would be helpful: more freedom of action for Ukraine, less for Israel. Ukraine must be allowed to attack Russian troops where they are preparing for an offensive. Artillery positions, airfields, and weapon depots near the Ukrainian border are legitimate targets of Ukrainian self-defense under international law. Ukraine has so far adhered to both the agreements with its Western supporters and humanitarian international law.

Ground Zero

This can no longer be said about Israel. Netanyahu’s government has spent months ignoring its allies’ calls to significantly improve the humanitarian situation. While it’s true that Israel is in a very difficult situation because Hamas terrorists hide among the civilian population, this does not justify collective punishment (by withholding food and aid and willfully destroying of infrastructure) or systematically causing enormous civilian casualties.

The Israeli Prime Minister has made a point of disregarding the demands of Joe Biden and his Secretary of State, Antony Blinken. The Rafah offensive is just the latest instance. Biden rightly fears that he may lose the election due to his pro-Israel stance if the suffering of civilians in Gaza continues for much longer.

For Netanyahu, however, Biden’s downfall and the return of Trump, a kindred anti-democratic spirit, would be a clear plus. This current U.S. administration remains loyal to a man actively undermining its policy, refusing to consider any political perspective for the Palestinians after the war, even if the U.S. gives him the establishment of diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia as an incentive.

This is ground zero of Washington’s Middle East policy as well as Berlin’s, as the German government also has begun to challenge Netanyahu. However, Germany has quietly taken action without consequences. Since the beginning of the year, hardly any export licenses for German weapons to Israel have been granted. (Last year, under the impact of the Hamas attack, the volume was ten times higher than usual on average.)

The Biden administration has tools to bring about a change in Israeli behavior. National Security Memorandum 20 (NSM-20), for example, requires all recipients of U.S. weapons to provide written “credible assurances” that these weapons will be used in accordance with international humanitarian law and to protect civilians as much as possible. Two months ago, Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant gave this assurance. The attack in Rafah would be an occasion to test its credibility—and temporarily prohibit the use of heavy U.S. bombs in Gaza due to violations of NSM-20 provisions.

The dilemma and what it may cost

Escalation is happening in both wars. In light of this, the rules of engagement for Ukraine must finally be changed. The Gaza war and the war against Russia’s aggression in Ukraine are also interconnected in this respect: Israel’s excessive warfare also undermines Western supporters who have been watching for too long. And simultaneously restraining the Ukrainians shows that the West is losing its moral standards — and even any sense of its own interests.

The caution underlying these restrictions is not inherently irrational. It is correct to weigh every potential target of Western weapons that could be used against Russia. However, the outcome of the restraint imposed on Ukraine should prompt a reevaluation — since escalation of the war is already happening.

Hesitation and ambivalence can also have an escalating effect

A bitter realization: hesitation and ambivalence can also have an escalating effect because it’s interpreted by Russia as a signal that it can increase the intensity of its attacks without consequences. The Ukrainians are paying the price right now, but they will certainly not be the last if Russia prevails.